Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NRA-4-EVER t1_je03u1g wrote

So the lenders were "shitty" because they gave loans to poor people? Why are the poor people not "shitty" for entering into a contract they couldn't fulfill? Are you saying the poor people are stupid? Are you aware the banks used to NEVER give loans to poor people until the 90s when political action groups like ACORN started harassing the executives at big banks to force them to. They had even broken into boardroom meetings with illegal protests just to force the banks to relax their standards, calling them racist.

0

codingrocks t1_je056vn wrote

Because the lenders are responsible for screening each individual to ensure they are solvent and have means of generating income to meet all their financial responsibilities

1

NRA-4-EVER t1_je05qdu wrote

So there's no responsibility by the person signing a contract? And was anyone defending the lenders when they didn't relax their policies and were being called racist? No, the lenders exist in the same world we do, with the same pressures to conform to society even if society is insane.

0

nova_demosthenes t1_je06zag wrote

Sub prime mortgages didn't cause economic catastrophe in 08. The deliberate falsification of the rating of bundled mortgages in CDOs, which was done by the banks and ratings industries, did. This was further compounded by the derivatives market - all overwhelmingly at the institutional level.

The mortgage signers had nothing to do with that.

Then rather than being unwound, those institutions that realized this dumped their toxic assets onto other institutions, which then failed. Those failed institutions were then sold off to the larger institutions.

So no, this isn't the fault of lendees with bad money sense.

0

NRA-4-EVER t1_je0908w wrote

Why were the assets toxic??? If the "lendees" didn't sign up there wouldn't have been toxic assets.

0

nova_demosthenes t1_je09fep wrote

Because they were bundled and given falsely inflated ratings. Have you even looked into this issue?

0

NRA-4-EVER t1_je0bhe3 wrote

I don't care what rating you give them, once interest rates went up they were destined to default. Whomever was holding them would get hosed. The loss would have fallen on the banks the wrote them if they hadn't sold them, the massive loss would still have occurred, just affecting the original lenders. You obviously looked into it as far as the final reports written by biased observers that want to blame specific people. It's an agenda based conclusion.

Bottom line is there would not have been an issue if the loans never occurred. It took two parties to create the loans. Both are guilty, but you can actually trace the original cause of why the banks pushed to get more minority loans, and it too goes back to political agenda.

0

nova_demosthenes t1_je0eqod wrote

You can't be this regarded.

If I convinced someone to pull the pin on a grenade, hid the grenade in a box with 5 pinned grenades, then sold the box to someone after telling them "these are all safe," the person who pulled the pin is not the most culpable.

Of course bad loans were being written because the people writing them knew they wouldn't default under their ownership.

You are one dim witted, gullible person and you deserve to have your country's economic future robbed from you.

2

NRA-4-EVER t1_je0l4i0 wrote

You basically just called the "lendees" too stupid so they're not responsible for their actions. BRILLIANT!

Then you attack me personally. SMART!

Personal attacks are the sign of a winning argument. PATHETIC!

1

nova_demosthenes t1_je0llga wrote

Look, you're going to be angry. It's a common defensive mechanism to perceived embarrassment. I'm only trying to teach you.

Think it over for a few days. Only one group of people lost in 08.

0

NRA-4-EVER t1_je0o6m4 wrote

Angry? You're the one throwing insults instead of facts. It's a technique used by people that have no real facts to buttress their insipid arguments. I mean calling poor people too stupid to understand their actions just to ignore their own personal greed and desire for instant gratification.

You're clearly frustrated with your life to try and insult strangers on the internet, what a sad world you must live in. Lolz

Feel free to reply with more personal attacks, I'll just let you go. šŸ¤£

1

Challenge4Ufloyd OP t1_je05a5s wrote

Thatā€™s exactly what Iā€™m saying NRA Forever šŸ«”šŸ‡ŗšŸ‡øšŸ†. Subprime mortgages created an illusion of affordability, but they often contained hidden fees. In addition to the adjustable rate, subprime borrowers had other added costsā€”sometimes even the principal increased over time.

Subprime loans were three times more common in low-income neighborhoods. Predatory lenders used unfair or discriminatory practices to convince borrowers to take on mortgages they couldnā€™t afford. Often, minorities were targeted: According to data from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, Latinos, and African Americans were 2.8 times more likely to be offered a subprime loan than were whites. Ohioā€™s Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey Loeser, described how predatory lenders would even go door to door selling subprime loans to consumers who didnā€™t understand them.

Lenders used this easy opportunity to secure a bag and then were shocked that the people they approved (who shouldnā€™t have been approved) couldnā€™t pay it back.

1

NRA-4-EVER t1_je08jgs wrote

Look, I understand the sub prime packages were less then desirable, but so were high yield bonds (junk bonds) in the 80s which caused a bit of trouble too... The problem is with the comments of people after the crash attacking the lenders without examining WHY they changed course.

The fact is, the banks were attacked for years for being so called racists for not giving more loans to minorities. However, the obvious reason they didn't was because they statistically had less money as a community. The banks are like most people and don't like being called racist or have people screaming in their faces in board meetings.

If you follow the rise of the worst lending practices you will see the rise of political activists pushing them. Personally I wouldn't have cared if they bothered me, but corporations are weak and callow. I mean look at how they dance for the twitter mobs insane whims today.

Should the loans have been given? Probably not, but I will never excuse people that sign a contract. Just like the people that purchased high yield bonds, they were looking for a great deal.

Btw, to answer your original post question, there isn't anything out there like the sub prime mortgages to cause that problem. These bank failures have been about the interest rate hikes which affected the bond market, causing the banks to lose money selling the worthless bonds. The market could crash (more) but it's not like 08.

2

nova_demosthenes t1_je0663c wrote

Bro, there's totally economic disparity in the US, but of course the poors predominantly received the SUB PRIME mortgages.

1