PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues I'm a dumbass. Help me out.


Der Flöprer
09-16-2008, 07:21 PM
So, if the housing market has exploded, and all of these people are going into foreclosure and the banks are losing billions of dollars because of it, why not just lock consumers into their interest rates and keep the mortgage payments affordable? Is it fair? No. Does it matter? What do you think?

This makes so much sense to me that I must be a dumbass because if it was that easy it would've already been done. Why is this such a bad idea?

Friendo
09-16-2008, 07:23 PM
I've wondered the same thing

Donger
09-16-2008, 07:23 PM
"I don't want no commies in my car! No Christians either!"

Der Flöprer
09-16-2008, 07:27 PM
I've wondered the same thing

Thanks for being a dumbass with me. :D

Friendo
09-16-2008, 07:28 PM
Thanks for being a dumbass with me. :D

in for a penny, in for a pound

Der Flöprer
09-16-2008, 07:37 PM
Seriously? Anybody? Anything? I really don't get it. It seems so ****ing obvious.

***SPRAYER
09-16-2008, 07:39 PM
"I don't want no commies in my car! No Christians either!"


USING MY HAND FOR AN ASHTRAY

RJ
09-16-2008, 07:49 PM
By my understanding, the problem isn't the folks who can't afford their increased payments so much as the folks who just can't afford their mortgage at all. I think the banks are trying to work with the ones who are salvageable. But a lot of them really couldn't afford the mortgage at all or just barely could and there's nothing to be done to save them.

Also, I have to wonder how much money home builders are into the banks for right now? I see a lot of brand new homes sitting empty and a lot of paid for dirt with no homes on it.

Disclaimer - I am also a dumbass.

***SPRAYER
09-16-2008, 07:56 PM
"I don't want no commies in my car! No Christians either!"


"John Wayne was a fayg. Was too, you boys!"

J Diddy
09-16-2008, 07:59 PM
By my understanding, the problem isn't the folks who can't afford their increased payments so much as the folks who just can't afford their mortgage at all. I think the banks are trying to work with the ones who are salvageable. But a lot of them really couldn't afford the mortgage at all or just barely could and there's nothing to be done to save them.

Also, I have to wonder how much money home builders are into the banks for right now? I see a lot of brand new homes sitting empty and a lot of paid for dirt with no homes on it.

Disclaimer - I am also a dumbass.

I know where i'm at there are whole housing developments started and left midstream

RJ
09-16-2008, 08:04 PM
I know where i'm at there are whole housing developments started and left midstream


Yep, and those builders borrowed that money so you gotta wonder if they were able to pay it back. The community where I live has hundreds of acres of land cleared for development but I haven't seen a new home built in over a year. That's some very expensive land just sitting there costing someone money.

Programmer
09-16-2008, 09:16 PM
So, if the housing market has exploded, and all of these people are going into foreclosure and the banks are losing billions of dollars because of it, why not just lock consumers into their interest rates and keep the mortgage payments affordable? Is it fair? No. Does it matter? What do you think?

This makes so much sense to me that I must be a dumbass because if it was that easy it would've already been done. Why is this such a bad idea?

The answer why they won't to it boils down to a single word .................. GREED.

Der Flöprer
09-17-2008, 12:11 AM
By my understanding, the problem isn't the folks who can't afford their increased payments so much as the folks who just can't afford their mortgage at all. I think the banks are trying to work with the ones who are salvageable. But a lot of them really couldn't afford the mortgage at all or just barely could and there's nothing to be done to save them.

Also, I have to wonder how much money home builders are into the banks for right now? I see a lot of brand new homes sitting empty and a lot of paid for dirt with no homes on it.

Disclaimer - I am also a dumbass.



I won't even pretend like I know the answer to this, but it seems to me that the problem really started when all of those ARM mortgages started coming due. For those who don't know ARM stands for Adjustable Rate Mortgage. What this did is allow lenders to throw credit law out the window and finance at a low rate that would be reevaluated at a later time. 18 months, 24 months, 36 months I believe they varied.

What happened is people with bad credit didn't fix it over that time frame like they were supposed to and started getting slammed around October of last year with double the interest rate and therefore double the mortgage. In the pacific northwest home prices had skyrocketed to the point where you couldn't find a house in the suburbs of Seattle for less than 300k. That's a hefty mortgage even at 5%. Make it 8-10% and suddenly mortgages for people started hitting 3k a month and even north of that. It became totally unattainable and foreclosures hit.

You didn't hear about this major crunch until the end of last year. Right as these rates started hitting, and it's only gotten worse since then. ARM mortgages were prohibited but the damage was already done. This is my understanding of it anyway.

All that said, why the **** are we spending our tax dollars to help out a bunch of banks and insurance companies? Why not just lock those low rates in for people who didn't deserve them in the first place? I mean, after all, ARM mortgages now are looked at as predatory. You're in essence paying rent on a house that you can't afford until the rug is pulled out from underneath you. It's not fair to people who didn't get to take advantage of it, but for ****'s sake who gives a shit? We're all in trouble because of this, and I for one would rather bail out my fellow fiscally irresponsible Americans rather than the dickwads who've been patting me on the shoulder with one hand and stealing my wallet with the other.


The answer why they won't to it boils down to a single word .................. GREED.

See, that's my natural thought since I don't trust politicians of any kind anyways. Who's their biggest contributors? Banks and insurance companies? Coincidence?

Der Flöprer
09-17-2008, 02:04 PM
I talked to my boss who is the former CEO of a major credit union in the Seattle area. I guess mortgages are futured the same way gasoline is. Therein lies the evil. (Just like gasoline) The banks KNEW that this was going to happen and sold them ahead of time for what was coming due. Should we assume they didn't know this entire mess was going to happen? Who knows. But that from my understanding is my why I'm a dumbass.

HC_Chief
09-17-2008, 02:06 PM
"I don't want no commies in my car! No Christians either!"

Massive rep for Repo Man reference :thumb:

HC_Chief
09-17-2008, 02:07 PM
"John Wayne was a fayg. Was too, you boys!"

More Repo Man rep :thumb:

Fat Elvis
09-17-2008, 02:08 PM
"John Wayne was a fayg. Was too, you boys!"

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

tiptap
09-17-2008, 02:09 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/17/stiglitz.crisis/

Commentary: How to prevent the next Wall Street crisis

* Story Highlights
* Joseph Stiglitz: Fed pumped too much money, aiding housing bubble
* New-fangled instruments hid overuse of borrowing, Stiglitz says
* Executives followed short-term interests and magnified risks, he says
* Stiglitz: Widespread changes needed to prevent future crises

By Joseph Stiglitz
Special to CNN

Editor's note: Joseph E. Stiglitz, professor at Columbia University, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 for his work on the economics of information and was on the climate change panel that shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2008. Stiglitz, a supporter of Barack Obama, was a member and later chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton administration before joining the World Bank as chief economist and senior vice president. He is the co-author with Linda Bilmes of the "Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Costs of the Iraq Conflict."

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Many seem taken aback by the depth and severity of the current financial turmoil. I was among several economists who saw it coming and warned about the risks.

There is ample blame to be shared; but the purpose of parsing out blame is to figure out how to make a recurrence less likely.

President Bush famously said, a little while ago, that the problem is simple: Too many houses were built. Yes, but the answer is too simplistic: Why did that happen?

One can say the Fed failed twice, both as a regulator and in the conduct of monetary policy. Its flood of liquidity (money made available to borrow at low interest rates) and lax regulations led to a housing bubble. When the bubble broke, the excessively leveraged loans made on the basis of overvalued assets went sour.

For all the new-fangled financial instruments, this was just another one of those financial crises based on excess leverage, or borrowing, and a pyramid scheme.

The new "innovations" simply hid the extent of systemic leverage and made the risks less transparent; it is these innovations that have made this collapse so much more dramatic than earlier financial crises. But one needs to push further: Why did the Fed fail?

First, key regulators like Alan Greenspan didn't really believe in regulation; when the excesses of the financial system were noted, they called for self-regulation -- an oxymoron.

Second, the macro-economy was in bad shape with the collapse of the tech bubble. The tax cut of 2001 was not designed to stimulate the economy but to give a largesse to the wealthy -- the group that had been doing so well over the last quarter-century.

The coup d'grace was the Iraq War, which contributed to soaring oil prices. Money that used to be spent on American goods now got diverted abroad. The Fed took seriously its responsibility to keep the economy going.

It did this by replacing the tech bubble with a new bubble, a housing bubble. Household savings plummeted to zero, to the lowest level since the Great Depression. It managed to sustain the economy, but the way it did it was shortsighted: America was living on borrowed money and borrowed time.

Finally, at the center of blame must be the financial institutions themselves. They -- and even more their executives -- had incentives that were not well aligned with the needs of our economy and our society.

They were amply rewarded, presumably for managing risk and allocating capital, which was supposed to improve the efficiency of the economy so much that it justified their generous compensation. But they misallocated capital; they mismanaged risk -- they created risk.

They did what their incentive structures were designed to do: focusing on short-term profits and encouraging excessive risk-taking.

This is not the first crisis in our financial system, not the first time that those who believe in free and unregulated markets have come running to the government for bail-outs. There is a pattern here, one that suggests deep systemic problems -- and a variety of solutions:

1. We need first to correct incentives for executives, reducing the scope for conflicts of interest and improving shareholder information about dilution in share value as a result of stock options. We should mitigate the incentives for excessive risk-taking and the short-term focus that has so long prevailed, for instance, by requiring bonuses to be paid on the basis of, say, five-year returns, rather than annual returns.

2. Secondly, we need to create a financial product safety commission, to make sure that products bought and sold by banks, pension funds, etc. are safe for "human consumption." Consenting adults should be given great freedom to do whatever they want, but that does not mean they should gamble with other people's money. Some may worry that this may stifle innovation. But that may be a good thing considering the kind of innovation we had -- attempting to subvert accounting and regulations. What we need is more innovation addressing the needs of ordinary Americans, so they can stay in their homes when economic conditions change.

3. We need to create a financial systems stability commission to take an overview of the entire financial system, recognizing the interrelations among the various parts, and to prevent the excessive systemic leveraging that we have just experienced.

4. We need to impose other regulations to improve the safety and soundness of our financial system, such as "speed bumps" to limit borrowing. Historically, rapid expansion of lending has been responsible for a large fraction of crises and this crisis is no exception.

5. We need better consumer protection laws, including laws that prevent predatory lending.

6. We need better competition laws. The financial institutions have been able to prey on consumers through credit cards partly because of the absence of competition. But even more importantly, we should not be in situations where a firm is "too big to fail." If it is that big, it should be broken up.

These reforms will not guarantee that we will not have another crisis. The ingenuity of those in the financial markets is impressive. Eventually, they will figure out how to circumvent whatever regulations are imposed. But these reforms will make another crisis of this kind less likely, and, should it occur, make it less severe than it otherwise would be.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.

Amnorix
09-17-2008, 02:10 PM
Yep, and those builders borrowed that money so you gotta wonder if they were able to pay it back. The community where I live has hundreds of acres of land cleared for development but I haven't seen a new home built in over a year. That's some very expensive land just sitting there costing someone money.

Probably a bank which may have foreclosed on the builder, or else isn't foreclosing because there's no poitn and it doesn't want to be stuck with the real estate tax bill.

A fine example of the problems banks are having.

Stewie
09-17-2008, 02:17 PM
My understanding of these exotic mortgages is that they have huge prepayment penalties. Not only has the loan become unaffordable due to hefty adjustments in their ARM rates, but they can't afford to get out of the loan. That's why so many people are just walking away,

HC_Chief
09-17-2008, 02:19 PM
1. We need first to correct incentives for executives, reducing the scope for conflicts of interest and improving shareholder information about dilution in share value as a result of stock options. We should mitigate the incentives for excessive risk-taking and the short-term focus that has so long prevailed, for instance, by requiring bonuses to be paid on the basis of, say, five-year returns, rather than annual returns.

That, right there, is pure socialism. The STATE will define COMPENSATION boundaries for PRIVATE SECTOR executives?

I think not.

tiptap
09-17-2008, 02:23 PM
And I vote othewise. Democracy rules.

Amnorix
09-17-2008, 02:26 PM
That, right there, is pure socialism. The STATE will define COMPENSATION boundaries for PRIVATE SECTOR executives?

I think not.

While distasteful, ultimately it might be necessary to reduce the focus on short term economic performance because when executives start acting solely to affect short term performance, the entire economy pays the price when the bill comes due.

EDIT: I also note that these rules would likely only apply to public companeis, so a very small segment of corporate America (granted, the biggest companies) would be affected.

Cave Johnson
09-17-2008, 02:28 PM
That, right there, is pure socialism. The STATE will define COMPENSATION boundaries for PRIVATE SECTOR executives?

I think not.

Along with shareholder voting/corporate control reform, I don't have a problem with using, say, taxation policy to expand the time horizons for executive compensation. 5 years seems too long, though.

HC_Chief
09-17-2008, 02:31 PM
While distasteful, ultimately it might be necessary to reduce the focus on short term economic performance because when executives start acting solely to affect short term performance, the entire economy pays the price when the bill comes due.

EDIT: I also note that these rules would likely only apply to public companeis, so a very small segment of corporate America (granted, the biggest companies) would be affected.

Publicly held companies does NOT equate to state-run. That is one slippery slope I do not wish upon any private sector industry. When the state starts implementing pay grades in the private sector, I'm moving the #*&% out.

tiptap
09-17-2008, 02:35 PM
Hurry, I will pack your lunch

Garcia Bronco
09-17-2008, 02:37 PM
So, if the housing market has exploded, and all of these people are going into foreclosure and the banks are losing billions of dollars because of it, why not just lock consumers into their interest rates and keep the mortgage payments affordable? Is it fair? No. Does it matter? What do you think?

This makes so much sense to me that I must be a dumbass because if it was that easy it would've already been done. Why is this such a bad idea?


I agree. It's a contract, and the dumbass banks should alter it.

Amnorix
09-17-2008, 02:38 PM
Publicly held companies does NOT equate to state-run. That is one slippery slope I do not wish upon any private sector industry. When the state starts implementing pay grades in the private sector, I'm moving the #*&% out.


I don't think it would be quite that direct. Rather, it would be more of a tax or accounting change that would make it economically advantageous to have a longer range outlook when determining incentive compensation.

I don't foresee a law that just says "thou shalt not pay bonuses based on one year of results."

Keep in mind that corporations are creatures of state statute, and their very existence is at the sufferance of the state.

HC_Chief
09-17-2008, 02:38 PM
Hurry, I will pack your lunch

You want to live in a country where the state determines how much/little you can earn for your chosen profession?

I suppose you'd prefer the state choose your profession for you, eh? :rolleyes:

Amnorix
09-17-2008, 02:40 PM
I agree. It's a contract, and the dumbass banks should alter it.

I may be wrong, but I think where the borrower has any hope of keeping current, they try to work with them. It's not as if banks are going "ha, ha, your interest rate has now doubled due to the ARM adjustment, and you can't pay, so get the ****** out becuase we're foreclosing!"

Banks are getting KILLED here.

Amnorix
09-17-2008, 02:41 PM
You want to live in a country where the state determines how much/little you can earn for your chosen profession?

I suppose you'd prefer the state choose your profession for you, eh? :rolleyes:


You, umm, realize that we're only talking about incentive compensation (not base pay) for the very highly compensated executives of the wealthiest companies we have?

We're not talking about Joe Line Worker, or Wilma Waitress, or Bob the Builder. We're talking about how the free market has moved in a STOOPID direction, and the possibility of using regulations to get it to where the broader economy needs it to be.

HC_Chief
09-17-2008, 02:42 PM
You, umm, realize that we're only talking about incentive compensation (not base pay) for the very highly compensated executives of the wealthiest companies we have?

We're not talking about Joe Line Worker, or Wilma Waitress, or Bob the Builder. We're talking about how the free market has moved in a STOOPID direction, and the possibility of using regulations to get it to where the broader economy needs it to be.

Oh, I realize that's how it starts.

Amnorix
09-17-2008, 02:45 PM
Oh, I realize that's how it starts.

:rolleyes:

tiptap
09-17-2008, 02:46 PM
You want to live in a country where the state determines how much/little you can earn for your chosen profession?

I suppose you'd prefer the state choose your profession for you, eh? :rolleyes:

I concur that the corporate entity is a product of the Governmental process. It serves at the government's granting. Now I do understand that we have democratic input and that can be leveraged to support a more libertarian take on executive pay. But at the same time if the majority have not been served or not served justly, they can vote their representatives to proceed othewise to the extent of taxing or restricting (more by taxing) income achieved by participating in the present economy.

HC_Chief
09-17-2008, 02:54 PM
I concur that the corporate entity is a product of the Governmental process. It serves at the government's granting. Now I do understand that we have democratic input and that can be leveraged to support a more libertarian take on executive pay. But at the same time if the majority have not been served or not served justly, they can vote their representatives to proceed othewise to the extent of taxing or restricting (more by taxing) income achieved by participating in the present economy.

Horseshit. A corporation is a legal entity with rights, same as an individual. They do not SERVE at anyone's granting outside of their shareholders. Do you SERVE at the government's granting because you have an SSN or state-issued driver's license? Of course not.

To have the STATE go cherry-picking positions and pay scales in the PRIVATE SECTOR is SOCIALISM. Hell, why not go a step further and implement Karl Marx's grand scheme?

Hog Farmer
09-17-2008, 02:56 PM
Hell, I walked in to my bank and asked about refinancing my mortgages that had risen to over 7 %. The president of the bank told me he'd take care of it. 30 days later he had moved 7 of my mortgages back to 6.25%. I asked him why everybody was being foreclosed on if this was all you had to do. He said something to the effect of these big lending institutions sell their mortgages and therefore don't have the room to do it. My bank is just a local bank. They fully check out who they loan to and he said they currently do not have even one customer late on payment.

Amnorix
09-17-2008, 03:06 PM
Horseshit. A corporation is a legal entity with rights, same as an individual. They do not SERVE at anyone's granting outside of their shareholders. Do you SERVE at the government's granting because you have an SSN or state-issued driver's license? Of course not.


Yeah, I hate to break it to you, but a corporation has NO rights under the Constitution. None whatsoever. That's been the law basically forever. It's a construct of statute. For example -- right against self-incrimination? Nope, none.

Sorry, try again.

To have the STATE go cherry-picking positions and pay scales in the PRIVATE SECTOR is SOCIALISM. Hell, why not go a step further and implement Karl Marx's grand scheme?

You're overreacting, but I agree that treading too heavily in this area would get socialistic in a hurry. But we're talking about a very limited set of limits.

HC_Chief
09-17-2008, 03:38 PM
Yeah, I hate to break it to you, but a corporation has NO rights under the Constitution. None whatsoever. That's been the law basically forever. It's a construct of statute. For example -- right against self-incrimination? Nope, none.

Sorry, try again.

You're overreacting, but I agree that treading too heavily in this area would get socialistic in a hurry. But we're talking about a very limited set of limits.

Corporations have rights under statutes of corporate law. A corporation may own property, sign binding contracts, etc. Corporations have rights. We certainly don't want the government violating our personal rights, why should it be okay to violate the rights of a corporation? You do know that a corporation does NOT necessarily equate to a large business, right? Hell, I own a corporation and it sure as hell isn't big business.

HC_Chief
09-17-2008, 03:45 PM
Hell.

I don't think I had enough "hell's" in the last sentence of my previous post, so "hell" again! :D

FTR what I would like to see are independent investigations into the recent debacle; including investigation of the Fed and SEC.

A new law I would like to see implemented is for the seizure and liquidation of assets, with redistribution of funds to shareholders/"victims" in cases of fraud, embezzlement and malfeasance.

Amnorix
09-17-2008, 03:52 PM
Corporations have rights under statutes of corporate law. A corporation may own property, sign binding contracts, etc. Corporations have rights. We certainly don't want the government violating our personal rights, why should it be okay to violate the rights of a corporation? You do know that a corporation does NOT necessarily equate to a large business, right? Hell, I own a corporation and it sure as hell isn't big business.

Corporations do not have "Rights" the way people have rights. People have rights under the Constitution that CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY BY ANYONE. Corporations do not have any such rights. In fact, what they have are powers, duties and obligations that are specifically GIVEN to them by law. Laws that can be changed.

I'm a corporate lawyer and we never, ever talk about "corporate rights" or a "corporation's right". We talk about powers. The standard representaiton and warranty given in a very significant corporate transaction is along these lines "The Company has full power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement and the other Transaction Documents and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby."

You can ask a criminal lawyer about a corporation's rights in terms of a criminal investigation, and though it is outside my bailiwick I can tell you that they are extremely limited/non-existent.

underEJ
09-17-2008, 03:54 PM
I think you are right on this one. The problem loans are ones that never should have been approved in the first place. It's not just the ARM adjustment killing the buyer or the bank would have some power to correct that and preserve their investment, but also the fact that much of the sub-prime market was buyers with little to no down payment taking 98 to 110 percent loans on bubble inflated home values.

Now that the market corrects and still is going down in some places, the plan to refi before the adjustments start isn't an option, because no bank will write a loan on the old property value, and the new property value won't get anywhere near the amount owed by the buyer.

Buyers also got loans for interest only payments up to the end of the locked period of the ARM, so even if the bank locks at the original rate, when you add that principle in to the payment, the buyer can't afford it anymore either.

Out here in California, it took me forever to find a house, because I was being realistic about what I could pay. I would be bidding against people who made half or even less than half what I do, but they somehow kept outbidding me. Now those houses are all forclosing, and I'm not because I set old school banking rules for myself. Believe me they were out there trying to tell me to buy twice as much house with a "creative financing" package, but I chose a responsible bank with a good loan product.


I may be wrong, but I think where the borrower has any hope of keeping current, they try to work with them. It's not as if banks are going "ha, ha, your interest rate has now doubled due to the ARM adjustment, and you can't pay, so get the ****** out becuase we're foreclosing!"

Banks are getting KILLED here.

HC_Chief
09-17-2008, 03:55 PM
Corporations do not have "Rights" the way people have rights. People have rights under the Constitution that CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY BY ANYONE. Corporations do not have any such rights. In fact, what they have are powers, duties and obligations that are specifically GIVEN to them by law. Laws that can be changed.

I'm a corporate lawyer and we never, ever talk about "corporate rights" or a "corporation's right". We talk about powers. The standard representaiton and warranty given in a very significant corporate transaction is along these lines "The Company has full power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement and the other Transaction Documents and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby."

You can ask a criminal lawyer about a corporation's rights in terms of a criminal investigation, and though it is outside my bailiwick I can tell you that they are extremely limited/non-existent.

Fair enough; semantics, and as you are a corporate lawyer I will defer to your definition.

Nice usage of bailiwick :D

Amnorix
09-17-2008, 03:55 PM
Corporations have rights under statutes of corporate law. A corporation may own property, sign binding contracts, etc. Corporations have rights. We certainly don't want the government violating our personal rights, why should it be okay to violate the rights of a corporation? You do know that a corporation does NOT necessarily equate to a large business, right? Hell, I own a corporation and it sure as hell isn't big business.


Missed your last sentence.

It would make no sense to regulate the pay of small corporate executives. It doesn't achieve any objective at all.

We're talking about how public companies maximize short-term profits to get bigger bonuses under contracts that they have signed. For large financial companies, what is in the best interests of a few key executives is often not in the best interests of either the company or the economy as a whole, and as a result systemic damage is done to the economy.

None of those factors apply to a non-public corporation. They do not need to meet shareholder demands or expectations, and do not have contracts tied into short-term performance.

J Diddy
09-17-2008, 03:55 PM
Hell.

I don't think I had enough "hell's" in the last sentence of my previous post, so "hell" again! :D

FTR what I would like to see are independent investigations into the recent debacle; including investigation of the Fed and SEC.

A new law I would like to see implemented is for the seizure and liquidation of assets, with redistribution of funds to shareholders/"victims" in cases of fraud, embezzlement and malfeasance.

I was with you until the end and then I realized there were no mention of nuthooks

I think your plan may go too easy on them.

Amnorix
09-17-2008, 03:56 PM
Hell.

I don't think I had enough "hell's" in the last sentence of my previous post, so "hell" again! :D

FTR what I would like to see are independent investigations into the recent debacle; including investigation of the Fed and SEC.

A new law I would like to see implemented is for the seizure and liquidation of assets, with redistribution of funds to shareholders/"victims" in cases of fraud, embezzlement and malfeasance.


The threshold to prove fraud, embezzlement and malfeasance is VERY high. I find it doubtful it could be established for AIG. It doesn't seem like a WorldCom, Enron situation.

J Diddy
09-17-2008, 03:58 PM
The threshold to prove fraud, embezzlement and malfeasance is VERY high. I find it doubtful it could be established for AIG. It doesn't seem like a WorldCom, Enron situation.


Ah Bullshit, we just need to get the guy who caught belichek.

HC_Chief
09-17-2008, 04:02 PM
The threshold to prove fraud, embezzlement and malfeasance is VERY high. I find it doubtful it could be established for AIG. It doesn't seem like a WorldCom, Enron situation.

I wasn't referring to AIG specifically, just the current mess we are in. The deregulation of 2004 was a catalyst IMO. The Fed, SEC, and several lending boards need to be investigated. There were natural corrections to be made due to the lending & monetization blunders made over the past several years, but there is also an air of manipulation.

Amnorix
09-17-2008, 04:30 PM
I wasn't referring to AIG specifically, just the current mess we are in. The deregulation of 2004 was a catalyst IMO. The Fed, SEC, and several lending boards need to be investigated. There were natural corrections to be made due to the lending & monetization blunders made over the past several years, but there is also an air of manipulation.


I guess. I'm not sure what "lending boards" even exist. The Fed and SEC -- you're not going to prove malfeasance. Even if you did, you're not goign to get any money out of them.

I agree that Congressional investigation is warranted to try to prevent a repeat of these events from happening again, and tha tnew regulations may be in order, and maybe a restoration of the old Glass-Steagall provisions that were repealed by Gramm-Leach-Bliley.