Who says the government doesn't want control



HEARD ON THE STREET: Don't Bank On Lloyds Deal

By Simon Nixon
A DOW JONES COLUMN


There's no doubting Lloyds Banking Group's determination to escape from the clutches of the U.K. government's Asset Protection Scheme. But reports that the U.K. banking giant is touting a new plan that would see it increase its capital base by as much as GBP25 billion through a variety of measures, including a possible GBP15 billion rights issue, should be treated with caution. There are still plenty of obstacles to getting a deal done.


Taking a step back, doesn't it seem strange a bank has to go to these extremes to remove itself from governmental control? It should be something the government endorses and assists in instead of putting up obstacles to. No different than the dodge and sway our own banks do in response to the constant hunt for power from D.C. Either way, it's still greed. One is for money, the other for power. Neither are to the benefit of observers. At least with the one there is the opportunity to join in.

The cause and blame for the problem is shared amongst nearly everyone. Anyone who got an adjustable rate mortgage. Anyone who didn't pay off their credit card balances. Anyone who had more debt than income. All of these people are to blame.

What it boiled down to was all the buying had to end once the credit was maxed out. Buying stopped, production stopped, people lost jobs, bills stopped being paid, and homes got foreclosed. Pretty much in that order.

The tell was the government response. Instead of regulating a smooth comeback they took ownership. Why does Geithner need to own $45 billion worth of Citi? Wouldn't regulatory processes be just as effective in controlling the banks business? Even if the prior regs were flawed it would merely require amending law to control the problem.

Lastly, what happened to the profits when they converted the preferred to common stock? They made some money on the deal. Shouldn't have been doing it in the first place since it diluted everyone else's position making all those retirement funds worth that much less than before. I didn't get a dividend check, did you?

How, LOL.

Not sure what you're holding your nose to but I invite you to check out the facts on what I said. Most of it is common sense. People did get in way over their heads with debt. At some point their credit lines dried up. Once that happens they stop shopping. The people making stuff stop getting orders. They let people go along with the stores who used to sell it. The cycle repeats itself throughout the economy. Without buying, it all stops.

Granted, the government had somewhat a permissive nature when it came to allowing people to be moronic in their own financial decisions. However, that is the price of freedom. You have to be responsible for it. It is clear many can not be accountable and would prefer to live in a nanny state where someone else decides what's good or not.

For myself, I don't want that. Unfortunately, I'm in the minority.

quote:

The cause and blame for the problem is shared amongst nearly everyone. Anyone who got an adjustable rate mortgage. Anyone who didn't pay off their credit card balances. Anyone who had more debt than income. All of these people are to blame.

Yeah yeah and those nice kind banks, mortgage companies and Big Business had nothing to do with it eh davdah? Oh yeah silly me...the nearly you mention means everybody except the above I mentioned!

Nope, the 'nearly' I mentioned excludes those of us who didn't bite off more than we knew we could afford. I learned my lesson in my early 20's. From that point forward, if I couldn't pay it off by the end of the month, I didn't need it.

I don't look to the banks or business to watch out for me. That's my job. Just as it isn't my place to be their security guard. Business is in business to make money. They aren't going to give stuff away for free. You don't have to buy it unless you want to. A little self control is what was lacking.

We all have different opinions as to what caused it. At this stage, does it matter? I'm of the mind we should look to doing what we can for our own situation in the present.

We have somewhat done this issue to death on here before. It took both individuals AND the financial industry to cause last year's collapse davdah, not just individuals. It's ALL of it, not just one area. I hope we ALL learn from it and can move forward as you say otherwise we'll be back in the same situation in the future.

Seems some lenders haven't got it and have gone back to their old tricks:

Abuses Appear In Reverse Mortgage Market

Abuses and abusers from the subprime mortgage market have begun showing up in the reverse mortgage market, putting at risk the equity and savings of millions of seniors, according to a report issued by the National Consumer Law Center.

"In the reverse mortgage market, seniors face some of the same aggressive lending practices that were common in the subprime lending boom," said Tara Twomey, an NCLC attorney and author of the report. "Well-funded marketing campaigns and perverse incentives to brokers are targeting seniors' home equity and using reverse mortgages as their tools."

Annual reverse mortgage volume has topped 110,000 units and $17 billion, with top banks like Wells Fargo and Bank of America and large insurance companies like Genworth and MetLife leading the way. Despite a slowdown in originations due to the recession, reverse mortgage originations in 2009 continue at a record pace.

consumeraffairs.com

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Brit4064,

Hee hee heee



White House: Obama Has 'Tremendous Confidence' In Geithner

Oct 8, 2009 13:46:01 (ET)

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--President Barack Obama has "tremendous confidence" in Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the White House said Thursday, following reports that Geithner has had frequent contact with a small group of high-powered Wall Street executives.



I told you people don't learn.....

If I understand this right, you hold harmless Mr. lucky little guy taking out the loan?

Who would better know his financial position than himself? The banker? How would he know the stability of the guys job? Or the other factors that determine ability to pay. He doesn't. Maybe Mr. lucky didn't know he would lose his job. Not many do unless they quit.

Even with assumed job security he would still know and understand the risks with an adjustable rate mortgage. If he didn't, he shouldn't have signed for the thing. It is common sense how that works. If Mr. Lucky is void of common sense there is always Mr. Google who knows all. He would be more than happy to explain it to the average nitwit. The rate and payments go up if interest rates rise. Down if they drop. It's a risky mortgage, plain and simple.

Mr. Lucky should have said no and opted for a smaller house where he could get a smaller fixed rate loan. That's what I, Mr. Neanderthal did. The last time I financed a property was in 2003. I went through the same grind as anyone else. The realtor, banker, etc, all push to get you into the biggest home that will sooth your ego. The adjustable mortgage is part of it. Tempting, very tempting. But I told them no. I kept a margin of safety and insisted it be a fixed rate and within a more reasonable price range than where they wanted me to go. It's a matter of self control and understanding your dealing with sales people. Common sense or in legal terms, being a reasonably prudent person.

What the banks did know is those loans they made were risky. Hence, the birth of the CDS contracts. If they would have told Mr. Lucky no, your an imbicile and don't understand the inherent danger with an adjustable rate mortgage. What would have happened next? Mr. Lucky would have run into Mr. bloodsuc.king lawyers office because he was offended. Just like a bunch of people did with Citi bank, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and others.

With Barney frank and Acorn telling people they had a right to a house, who were these bankers to tell them no? Kind of like the right to free medical. It ain't free and someone is going to pay for it. We're all getting bent over now in the form of gigantic taxes looming on the horizon. That's the other boogie man waiting for us. We haven't gotten the bill yet, and it's a whopper. Mr. Lucky rolled snake eyes and Mr. Money banker has been fired for losing so much money. Bush and Obama both made the mistake of bailing them out. Now we have to pay for both of their indiscretions.

I haven't watched Fox news in at least 10 months. That's how long it's been since I've disconnected the cable from the back of the TV. If that is part of their talking points, then at least that part might be true.

I have yet to hear a better explanation. If you got one, with some amount of evidence to back it up, let's hear it.

Hehehe, no, not that again, no amount of evidence matters where emotions dictate what conclusions are reached


Seeing housing market collapse wasn't all that difficult, IP, especially at the time of it's peak.
Only nobody would give it a second thought because all were too excited.

I guess person with zero income was buying $500K house planning to refinance it the next year when value was expected to reach $1 mil (based on past pattern) and they thought it would keep happening indefinitely and work like Perpetuum Mobile, only problem they didn't know it can't exist.
And how many people lost on those mortgage securities (as mortgages themselves were sold to a lot of miserable idiots who invested their money on those loans thinking of high returns in future).


But that's all just a part of human nature.
Some are very smart others are too stupid.
It happened countless times in past and is inevitably going to happen for as many times in future, as long as human beings walk the surface of the planet.

Will we learn not to covet, no. Can someone learn to take advantage, yes.

There needs to be ethics on one side of the desk and restraint on the other. Neither fully measured up to the challenge.

Up until last year there sure wasn't much in the way of ethics going on one side of the table. The next lot of greed-driven ethically-challenged lenders are out there already sizing up the landscape for new victims (see reverse mortgages). Don't worry though, no new rules or regulations are needed as the market will put itself right according to davdah If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you in AZ

Well, regulations do eventually come after years of de-regulation, just as de-regulation comes after long years of regulation. The cycle goes on.

NOTHING is out of pattern.

True but davdah doesn't think they are needed when they clearly are.

quote:

It IS out of pattern.

I disagree. Nothing is out of pattern.

quote:

Are you saying that sometimes the law should be enforced and sometimes it's okay if it is not?

I am not in position to say what should be done. I can merely say how things done.

quote:

What if we suspend certain constitutional amendments for a while and come back to them later when we're ready.

Historically, that too happened a lot.

quote:

Or maybe we should let some criminals go and prosecute some others.
Wait. This is already happening!

I don't know what relevance of all this to financial news, but in general there is huge mechanism and it follows it's own rules.

quote:

If the US continues on its path, this is the beginning of the end of the Great Empire. But maybe that's just the way things are, even great empires decline, and end.

No, in fact I don't think US will decline. Not yet, not in your lifetime and perhaps not anytime soon thereafter.
The thing about US (which is very different from many other countries) is that if you concentrate and try to really comprehend it fully you will find it to be shapeless.
By that I mean it's not a hard substance of given dimension that could be broken by any force.
Instead, it fits the circumstances as they unfold and thus, while always unpredictable to those who can't fathom the way it works, in practice leads it to recover from almost any occurence as the sole and decisive winner.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: OldE,

Ipers, in simple terms it's like this. You can't change human nature. Not by regulation or any other means. Come up with a rule and our first instinct is to find a way around it. Even here. Every person subject to deportation is looking for a way around it. Nobody wants to be accountable for what they do.

We're flawed creatures and is one reason why God is there to save us from our own stupidity and self inflicted demise. By wisdon we're willing to grasp or forgivness when we're not. Read Proverbs. There is a lot of good advice in there.

A little bit of both. Although the country is dynamic our control beyond the border is limited.

quote:

Talking about fluff...
But you're wrong. Empires like states, societies and all other natural systems have their peak and decline. Some already think about secession... See what happened to the Roman Empire. It broke into thousand pieces. And Egypt is one of the poorest countries the world.

If you wish to set up a straw man argument, that's your choice. I see this frequently done on all public boards. Someone has to do it, I guess.
But I am not interested in assisting you with it.
Have a good one.