Occupy Needs a Spokesman

[kalm]

I don’t know why you seem to be having trouble with the concept on this, but the OWS crowd does indeed have a spokesperson, Barack Obama! It seems pretty clear to me that this is a Democratic Party operation to energize the base for the coming elections. The unions are leading the effort, setting up kitchens to feed them, storing supplies in their offices, setting up websites, opening bank accounts, collecting donations and you can’t figure out who is behind it! Huh!!!!

You probably think Obama is a progressive too. Good one.

[AZGrizFan]

I don’t know why you seem to be having trouble with the concept on this, but the OWS crowd does indeed have a spokesperson, Barack Obama! It seems pretty clear to me that this is a Democratic Party operation to energize the base for the coming elections. The unions are leading the effort, setting up kitchens to feed them, storing supplies in their offices, setting up websites, opening bank accounts, collecting donations and you can’t figure out who is behind it! Huh!!!!

You probably think Obama is a progressive too. Good one.

HE doesn't need to think Obama is a progressive for Obama to get reelected. But, Obama DOES need the OWS folks to think he's a progressive. See the difference?

[kalm]

You probably think Obama is a progressive too. Good one.

OWS started very small and was initially organized by a progressive canadian magazine called Ad Busters. I guarantee you that those folks are not Obushma supporters. As the movement gains momentum it certainly can be co-opted by establishment Dems, but it's origins and core members are much more grass roots. It does seem that Obama may attempt to rhetorically run with their message until the election is over and he can pat them on the head and say'good boy' now run along home.

[AZGrizFan]

OWS started very small and was initially organized by a progressive canadian magazine called Ad Busters. I guarantee you that those folks are not Obushma supporters. As the movement gains momentum it certainly can be co-opted by establishment Dems, but it's origins and core members are much more grass roots. It does seem that Obama may attempt to rhetorically run with their message until the election is over and he can pat them on the head and say'good boy' now run along home.

Ya think? He's ALREADY doing that....at least the first part.

[TheDancinMonarch]

I've always considered them as apolitical and as UIOWS likes to portray itself as nonpartisan I think the boys would be perfect spokesmen.

[oldsloguy]

OWS started very small and was initially organized by a progressive canadian magazine called Ad Busters. I guarantee you that those folks are not Obushma supporters. As the movement gains momentum it certainly can be co-opted by establishment Dems, but it's origins and core members are much more grass roots. It does seem that Obama may attempt to rhetorically run with their message until the election is over and he can pat them on the head and say'good boy' now run along home.

And of course, they are not Obushma supporters; in the trade they are what is known as “useful idiots”. Their function and actions have been used and documented for centuries.

Can be co-opted you say!!! As I said before, “The unions are leading the effort, setting up kitchens to feed them, storing supplies in their offices, setting up websites, opening bank accounts, collecting donations”. Do you deny that? Can you tell us in a direct answer who is feeding them? Or is it your opinion that they are just all deep philosophical thinkers waxing poetically on their own?

[JohnStOnge]

Sorry JSO, but you really need to take the blinders off. I had a family member who was a mortgage underwriter at WaMu who saw this coming and was sickened by what they were doing.

Not that it would be necessary for me to understand this but my wife is a Realtor and I'm very aware of what happens in foreclosure situations. The house goes for cheap. It's a bargin hunter thing. The bank loses money on it because the bank paid for the house at a higher cost.

No way banks WANT to end up with foreclosure. I can't believe you would even attempt to argue that they do. The default rate would be nowhere near as high as it is without the previous government involvement. No way. Banks would've been much more conservative in issuing loans.

And then there would've been a big public outcry about how they wouldn't give loans to certain people.

Which brings up a more general point. If banks had been more conservative about issuing loans in order to reduce risk liberals would've been all over them for that. But since they were less conservative and there were a bunch of defaults liberals are all over them for THAT. And, really, they were more in line with what liberals like by being less conservatives. Liberals kind of got what they wanted then it didn't turn out well so liberals blame the banks.

[JohnStOnge]

What the heck I went and got an article that agrees with what I'm saying. I think you can find articles to contend that banks make more money on foreclosures than on short sales and loan modifications but not ones that say that, on average, banks have a net profit on average on foreclosures. Here is the web page I'll use:

http://www.ehow.com/info_7746035_do-ban ... sures.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

First paragraph, to me, summarizes the situation. I also think it's common sense:

"While it is technically possible for a bank to make a profit from a foreclosure, foreclosures generally appear as net losses on bank balance sheets. When banks foreclose on a house and then sell it, the bank receives the money from the sale but the amount is usually less than what the bank originally loaned to the homeowner."

Now, if someone has paid off enough of the loan then they lose the house then I can see the bank making money because they got a lot of the money they loaned paid back then they got the house. But when the loan decision is being made the probability is that if they give a mortgage then the borrowers default they're going to lose money. Otherwise they wouldn't even worry about checking credit. They'd just give mortgage loans upon request because they'd make more money by doing that. Or I guess you could say they could make a model to try to identify people who are likely to pay off pretty much of the loan THEN default so they could make money. But c'mon.

[kalm]

What the heck I went and got an article that agrees with what I'm saying. I think you can find articles to contend that banks make more money on foreclosures than on short sales and loan modifications but not ones that say that, on average, banks have a net profit on average on foreclosures. Here is the web page I'll use:

http://www.ehow.com/info_7746035_do-ban ... sures.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

First paragraph, to me, summarizes the situation. I also think it's common sense:

"While it is technically possible for a bank to make a profit from a foreclosure, foreclosures generally appear as net losses on bank balance sheets. When banks foreclose on a house and then sell it, the bank receives the money from the sale but the amount is usually less than what the bank originally loaned to the homeowner."

Now, if someone has paid off enough of the loan then they lose the house then I can see the bank making money because they got a lot of the money they loaned paid back then they got the house. But when the loan decision is being made the probability is that if they give a mortgage then the borrowers default they're going to lose money. Otherwise they wouldn't even worry about checking credit. They'd just give mortgage loans upon request because they'd make more money by doing that. Or I guess you could say they could make a model to try to identify people who are likely to pay off pretty much of the loan THEN default so they could make money. But c'mon.

You're argument would make sense if the loans stayed with the originator and weren't securitized, and if firms like Goldman Sachs weren't making a grip of money by betting against the very bundles they were trying to sell to others. And referring back to the Taibbi piece, the enforcement of the CRA was toothless with only .5% of lenders receiving a negative report card. You're simply wrong here.

On the other hand, the government didn’t want CRA exams to be such a huge burden. So in 1999, as part of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, they mandated that CRA exams would only take place once every four or five years for all banks that were deemed “Satisfactory” or better in their exams.

In the period 2002-2008, state member banks evaluated by the Fed scored the following: 15.8% were “outstanding,” 83.7% were “satisfactory,” and only .5% had a “needs to improve” or worse rating.

So the housing bubble was caused by half of one percent of all banks being so embarrassed by public disclosure of their CRA rating that they went bonkers and started forking over million-dollar mortgages to every crackhead in sight?

[kalm]

Sorry JSO, but you really need to take the blinders off. I had a family member who was a mortgage underwriter at WaMu who saw this coming and was sickened by what they were doing.

Not that it would be necessary for me to understand this but my wife is a Realtor and I'm very aware of what happens in foreclosure situations. The house goes for cheap. It's a bargin hunter thing. The bank loses money on it because the bank paid for the house at a higher cost.

No way banks WANT to end up with foreclosure. I can't believe you would even attempt to argue that they do. The default rate would be nowhere near as high as it is without the previous government involvement. No way. Banks would've been much more conservative in issuing loans.

And then there would've been a big public outcry about how they wouldn't give loans to certain people.

Which brings up a more general point. If banks had been more conservative about issuing loans in order to reduce risk liberals would've been all over them for that. But since they were less conservative and there were a bunch of defaults liberals are all over them for THAT. And, really, they were more in line with what liberals like by being less conservatives. Liberals kind of got what they wanted then it didn't turn out well so liberals blame the banks.

Oh, btw, i know you want blame everything on the evil liberals, but this mess transcends partisanship.

[youtube][/youtube]

[CID1990]

I think i am going to go join up with OWS. I have seen some prime naive white pu$$y at those protests, and they have money, too. Daddy trained em right, financed em with those Wall Street trust funds. Now all they need to be complete is a c0cksuck1ng tutor, and i work for fellatio only. Sign me up.

[JohnStOnge]

You're argument would make sense if the loans stayed with the originator and weren't securitized,

I actually came back to this discussion because I found something by a "Certified Distressed Property Expert" who takes that point of view:

http://www.michelashomes.com/blog/real- ... estors-do/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, that begs the question: If banks profit from issuing risky loans, why is it so hard to get a home loan right now? And it is; at least in my area. That is one of the biggest incumberments to my wife's business. Just asked my wife while she's standing in the next room, "Is it true to say that one of the biggest problems you've had is banks being slow and/or reluctant to issue mortgages?"

Her answer was, "Yes. Very, very, very much."

So why is that if they have nothing to lose by issuing high risk mortgages?

[JohnStOnge]

Another thing I've noticed in watching what goes on in my wife's world is the hurdle presented by the appraisal process. After everything gets set the property is appraised. If it doesn't appraise for at least as much as the homeowner has agreed to pay for it the bank's not issuing the mortgage. The price is going to have to come down.

So why is that? Is it just so they can assure the investors who are going to hold interest in mortgages that there's an appraisal process? For sure, if the bank is just going to sell the mortgage to somebody else and not lose money regardless of what happens, there is no direct finanical reason for the bank to CARE about whether the property appraises for at least the agreed upon price.

[houndawg]

Those poor bankers, what a miserable existence......after reading your apology John, I am filled with sympathy.

I found that sympathy in the dictionary between "shiit" and "syphillis".

[JohnStOnge]

Those poor bankers, what a miserable existence......after reading your apology John, I am filled with sympathy.

I found that sympathy in the dictionary between "shiit" and "syphillis".

I am not a big fan of banks. I especailly don't like the way they operate with credit cards with the super high revolving interest rates. But I just don't believe that there was some kind of conscious strategy on the part of banks to "trick" high risk borrowers into taking loans. And I DO believe that government both encouraged and pressured banks to issue loans they would not have issued if government would not have done that.

In a related matter: Now it's not uncommon to hear complaints that the government bailed the banks out but the banks are being very tight in issuing loans. So, essentially, they're being pressured to issue loans they're not comfortable in issuing. And before this happened, had they been less "liberal" in issuing loans, there would've been massive criticism and pressure about that.

People want to have it both ways. They want the banks to avoid loans characerized by unacceptable default risk but at the same time they want banks to be "liberal" in issuing loans.

[kalm]

Those poor bankers, what a miserable existence......after reading your apology John, I am filled with sympathy.

I found that sympathy in the dictionary between "shiit" and "syphillis".

I am not a big fan of banks. I especailly don't like the way they operate with credit cards with the super high revolving interest rates. But I just don't believe that there was some kind of conscious strategy on the part of banks to "trick" high risk borrowers into taking loans. And I DO believe that government both encouraged and pressured banks to issue loans they would not have issued if government would not have done that.

In a related matter: Now it's not uncommon to hear complaints that the government bailed the banks out but the banks are being very tight in issuing loans. So, essentially, they're being pressured to issue loans they're not comfortable in issuing. And before this happened, had they been less "liberal" in issuing loans, there would've been massive criticism and pressure about that.

People want to have it both ways. They want the banks to avoid loans characerized by unacceptable default risk but at the same time they want banks to be "liberal" in issuing loans.

Again, this would make sense if the banks had been truly pressured to make these loans and if the likes of Goldman Sachs had not then bet against them. Can you provide evidence beyond your own belief that neither of those things is true?

As for banks currently not making loans and the liberal nature of it - on the contrary, when it comes to finances almost all of the fast money/perpetual growth/supply side guys I've met are staunch conservatives. And if banks are willing to take trillions in near interest free loans and accept tax payer bailouts they better be willing to provide more lending. Otherwise, they are useless to society. They are truly zombies and need to be dismantled.

For Z's sake however, it's important here to recognize the difference between the too big to fail monopolies and credit unions and smaller regional or community banks. We need to go back to that system.

[GannonFan]

I am not a big fan of banks. I especailly don't like the way they operate with credit cards with the super high revolving interest rates. But I just don't believe that there was some kind of conscious strategy on the part of banks to "trick" high risk borrowers into taking loans. And I DO believe that government both encouraged and pressured banks to issue loans they would not have issued if government would not have done that.

In a related matter: Now it's not uncommon to hear complaints that the government bailed the banks out but the banks are being very tight in issuing loans. So, essentially, they're being pressured to issue loans they're not comfortable in issuing. And before this happened, had they been less "liberal" in issuing loans, there would've been massive criticism and pressure about that.

People want to have it both ways. They want the banks to avoid loans characerized by unacceptable default risk but at the same time they want banks to be "liberal" in issuing loans.

Again, this would make sense if the banks had been truly pressured to make these loans and if the likes of Goldman Sachs had not then bet against them. Can you provide evidence beyond your own belief that neither of those things is true?

As for banks currently not making loans and the liberal nature of it - on the contrary, when it comes to finances almost all of the fast money/perpetual growth/supply side guys I've met are staunch conservatives. And if banks are willing to take trillions in near interest free loans and accept tax payer bailouts they better be willing to provide more lending. Otherwise, they are useless to society. They are truly zombies and need to be dismantled.

For Z's sake however, it's important here to recognize the difference between the too big to fail monopolies and credit unions and smaller regional or community banks. We need to go back to that system.

The catch is, now of course, is that we want these banks to lend money but we also don't want them to take risks. It's a catch-22 and we are three years into this adminstration and we still haven't come up with a plan on how to guard against risks while still loaning money on relatively risky things. We've taken the approach of "maybe if we don't pay attention to it it will go away" but that's clearly not working.

[JohnStOnge]

Again, this would make sense if the banks had been truly pressured to make these loans

In one of your earlier posts you yourself posted a reference indicating that banks were pressured to make those loans It's the one to which I responded by saying there was a contradiction within a single paragraph. The author started off by saying banks weren't pressured then proceeded to describe how banks were pressured.

[AZGrizFan]

Another thing I've noticed in watching what goes on in my wife's world is the hurdle presented by the appraisal process. After everything gets set the property is appraised. If it doesn't appraise for at least as much as the homeowner has agreed to pay for it the bank's not issuing the mortgage. The price is going to have to come down.

So why is that? Is it just so they can assure the investors who are going to hold interest in mortgages that there's an appraisal process? For sure, if the bank is just going to sell the mortgage to somebody else and not lose money regardless of what happens, there is no direct finanical reason for the bank to CARE about whether the property appraises for at least the agreed upon price.

There's this little thing called "secondary market guidelines" that might interfere with your theory. But other than that, carry on.

[AZGrizFan]

Again, this would make sense if the banks had been truly pressured to make these loans and if the likes of Goldman Sachs had not then bet against them. Can you provide evidence beyond your own belief that neither of those things is true?

As for banks currently not making loans and the liberal nature of it - on the contrary, when it comes to finances almost all of the fast money/perpetual growth/supply side guys I've met are staunch conservatives. And if banks are willing to take trillions in near interest free loans and accept tax payer bailouts they better be willing to provide more lending. Otherwise, they are useless to society. They are truly zombies and need to be dismantled.

For Z's sake however, it's important here to recognize the difference between the too big to fail monopolies and credit unions and smaller regional or community banks. We need to go back to that system.

Kalm...you keep referencing CRA stats and claiming that banks were making loans to these people ANYWAYS, based on the .5% negative CRA exam ratings. Now, I've been in credit unions for 16 years, but back when I was an underwriter at B of A I can tell you my experience with CRA was this: The LAST thing the bank wanted was to be accused of red-lining a district. About the worst possible thing that could happen to a bank was to fail a CRA exam. So banks bent over backwards to ENSURE they didn't fail and as you can see by your numbers the vast majority of them were successful. Probably TOO successful....there was huge pressure to make loans the bank wouldn't ordinarily make.

Regarding bank bailouts (hell ANY bailouts): I was firmly against all of them. Let them fail and pick up the pieces. Then again, I believe voluntary foreclosure should be illegal....

[kalm]

Again, this would make sense if the banks had been truly pressured to make these loans and if the likes of Goldman Sachs had not then bet against them. Can you provide evidence beyond your own belief that neither of those things is true?

As for banks currently not making loans and the liberal nature of it - on the contrary, when it comes to finances almost all of the fast money/perpetual growth/supply side guys I've met are staunch conservatives. And if banks are willing to take trillions in near interest free loans and accept tax payer bailouts they better be willing to provide more lending. Otherwise, they are useless to society. They are truly zombies and need to be dismantled.

For Z's sake however, it's important here to recognize the difference between the too big to fail monopolies and credit unions and smaller regional or community banks. We need to go back to that system.

Kalm...you keep referencing CRA stats and claiming that banks were making loans to these people ANYWAYS, based on the .5% negative CRA exam ratings. Now, I've been in credit unions for 16 years, but back when I was an underwriter at B of A I can tell you my experience with CRA was this: The LAST thing the bank wanted was to be accused of red-lining a district. About the worst possible thing that could happen to a bank was to fail a CRA exam. So banks bent over backwards to ENSURE they didn't fail and as you can see by your numbers the vast majority of them were successful. Probably TOO successful....there was huge pressure to make loans the bank wouldn't ordinarily make.

Regarding bank bailouts (hell ANY bailouts): I was firmly against all of them. Let them fail and pick up the pieces. Then again, I believe voluntary foreclosure should be illegal....

So again, as Taibbi states, we somehow made it all of those years suffering under the yoke of CRA oppression but then wam bam boom, everything suddenly changed in 2006-07 and it all came crashing down.

[kalm]

Again, this would make sense if the banks had been truly pressured to make these loans

In one of your earlier posts you yourself posted a reference indicating that banks were pressured to make those loans It's the one to which I responded by saying there was a contradiction within a single paragraph. The author started off by saying banks weren't pressured then proceeded to describe how banks were pressured.

You can lead a horse to water...

[GannonFan]

Kalm...you keep referencing CRA stats and claiming that banks were making loans to these people ANYWAYS, based on the .5% negative CRA exam ratings. Now, I've been in credit unions for 16 years, but back when I was an underwriter at B of A I can tell you my experience with CRA was this: The LAST thing the bank wanted was to be accused of red-lining a district. About the worst possible thing that could happen to a bank was to fail a CRA exam. So banks bent over backwards to ENSURE they didn't fail and as you can see by your numbers the vast majority of them were successful. Probably TOO successful....there was huge pressure to make loans the bank wouldn't ordinarily make.

Regarding bank bailouts (hell ANY bailouts): I was firmly against all of them. Let them fail and pick up the pieces. Then again, I believe voluntary foreclosure should be illegal....

So again, as Taibbi states, we somehow made it all of those years suffering under the yoke of CRA oppression but then wam bam boom, everything suddenly changed in 2006-07 and it all came crashing down.

Why would that be hard to imagine? We had never gone so far in that direction so we never had the scope of loans that were as risky as they were. It took us years and years, through multiple administrations of both GOP and Dems to get where we got to. By '06-'07, we had more risky loans than ever before - that's what changed. When we ran into a downturn in the economy, as it apt to happen, this time we got caught with more risk on the books than we had for quite some time. You stick your neck out far enough and eventually the damage can become quite severe.

[AZGrizFan]

So again, as Taibbi states, we somehow made it all of those years suffering under the yoke of CRA oppression but then wam bam boom, everything suddenly changed in 2006-07 and it all came crashing down.

Why would that be hard to imagine? We had never gone so far in that direction so we never had the scope of loans that were as risky as they were. It took us years and years, through multiple administrations of both GOP and Dems to get where we got to. By '06-'07, we had more risky loans than ever before - that's what changed. When we ran into a downturn in the economy, as it apt to happen, this time we got caught with more risk on the books than we had for quite some time. You stick your neck out far enough and eventually the damage can become quite severe.

And then a bad housing problem was exacerbated 10x worse by the 60% of people who voluntarily walked away from their mortgages, driving prices down further and causing thousands more people to ultimately be forced out of work.

Couple a down economy with no moral backbone and THIS is what you get.

[kalm]

Why would that be hard to imagine? We had never gone so far in that direction so we never had the scope of loans that were as risky as they were. It took us years and years, through multiple administrations of both GOP and Dems to get where we got to. By '06-'07, we had more risky loans than ever before - that's what changed. When we ran into a downturn in the economy, as it apt to happen, this time we got caught with more risk on the books than we had for quite some time. You stick your neck out far enough and eventually the damage can become quite severe.

And then a bad housing problem was exacerbated 10x worse by the 60% of people who voluntarily walked away from their mortgages, driving prices down further and causing thousands more people to ultimately be forced out of work.

Couple a down economy with no moral backbone and THIS is what you get.

Yes, bubbles happen from time to time. A derivatives market with more money on the table than the GDP of the entire planet does not.

And Z where's the moral backbone of a GS that knowingly bundles crappy mortgages and sells them to pension funds while simultaneously betting against them?