Self Delete

[Mike 03]

NT

[Romulox]

1. Turn it around: Why should the taxpayers bail out the institutions that caused a collapse?

And with no new regulations whatever, too.

Oh, and unrec!

[Mike 03]

2. But we do need new regulations, I totally agree.

I couldn't agree more with you about the need for regulatory reform.

[Romulox]

3. We already gave out the TRILLIONS. There are no new regulations. We've been had. nt

[devilgrrl]

4. If bankers are so smart, then why did they give money to people who can't pay it back?

eom

[Electric Monk]

5. It wasn't risky loans, it was derivatives trading and credit default swaps. nt

[aquart]

9. Which they still fail to understand.

[RKP5637]

6. Banks should not be making risky loans and we need strong regulations back in

place. And I'm tired of bailing these guys out.

[Mike 03]

7. The U.S. economy is in a death spiral.

Our major banks and financial institutions are the problem, not our community banks, I would argue.

Citi, BoA, AIG, Fannie and Freddie, Bear, Leahman. I agree. They SUCK.

All I am saying, is I don't like this pressure on small community banks who did not take these RIDICULOUS risks with depositors money to be penalized for it.

[notadmblnd]

8. So they can bet against them and cash in when they fail

have you been living in a cave the past 10 years or so?

[valerief]

10. Congress removing Glass-Steagall is what got us into trouble.

If you give the baby the lighter, you may as well be starting the fire yourself.

[southernyankeebelle]

11. I agree with you.

[kctim]

12. Come on Mike

You are supposed to leave commonsense along the side of the road. Risky people borrowing money isn't the problem, those lending and trying to help them are.

And you worked in finance and probably know a little something about this? Ha! The armchair finance generals know more than you ever will, just ask them.

Good post man.

[aquart]

13. WAMU would not hire anyone unwilling to proffer risky loans.

They had a test form that asked the same question a dozen different ways: are you willing to push loans on people whose credit sucks? If you said no, you didn't go further on hiring.

NOBODY WAS FORCING THEM TO PUSH LOANS ON PEOPLE WHO COULDN'T AFFORD THEM. They did it by their own choice. It was deliberate policy.

Remember, once the loan was made on fudged data, it could be bundled and sold for enormous profit. All they needed to do was have a loan on record. Then they piled it on top of other loans made the same way, and sold them all over the world to idiots who thought they understood the stock market.

You are pitying greedy criminals who CHOSE to do this.

[Taitertots]

14. The problem is not "risky loans"

The problem is the securitization of mortgage debt, selling it for more than the realistic value of the asset, and using it as collateral at a more than the realistic value.

Why should they lend to me?
Because allowing a credit crunch will only worsen the economic crisis.
Because if they don't sell my debt for more than they I can get if I default than it is a sound investment.

[mwooldri]

15. The criteria for making loans need to be changed entirely.

A simple credit "score" should not be the overall deciding factor on whether to issue credit or not. Even for personal loans the person's income, outgoings etc need to be scrutinized much more closely if they are going to get a chance at credit. A credit score may give a figure that might indicate that person has had debt in the past and is paying it back now OK... but sometimes the score is way off kilter and good people are denied credit because that magic number is too low - whereas people who should not be getting credit are because their credit score is high enough.

I see more room for "hire purchase" deals - where the goods you purchase remain the title of the company you purchased them from until you make your final payment, otherwise they'd be entitled to repossess the item in question. But places like Rent-A-Center are way overpriced anyway.

Banks lending to riskier businesses could demand an interest in the company, or some more collateral.

If an individual (or a family) want to purchase a home and are already paying $X amount in rent, the landlord can provide X years of timely payment receipts then certainly the bank should be able to make a mortgage for that family so that the payments work out to be $X a month, though I'd outlaw balloon mortgages, ARM mortgages, anything other than a straight fixed APR mortgage - and definitely steer towards anything FHA, VA or USDA insured.

Payday loans need to be outlawed, or the fees they charge be capped to more reasonable levels... they are a RIP OFF.

In these days of online banking, ATMS, etc, banking we have gotten rid of the personal out of personal banking. We *need* to get to know our banking staff - from the tellers to the branch managers (or owners). We need to be involved with our Credit Unions - and get to know the people who work there - and they work for themselves and for us too... Sure access to your account 24 hours a day, 7 days a week is nice, especially with that piece of plastic with a fancy logo on it... but in ye olden days we had a more personal relationship with our bankers and they knew us, and we knew them. Today, we barely know the name of one teller in any of the branches of the banks we bank at.

[upi402]

16. deleted by self

eom