Elizabeth Warren

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

What do you think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxhyUAWPmGw

[HALLGATOR]

"Too big for trial?" Good question.

[oaklandroadie]

We don't have to take her seriously until she shows up in war paint.

[hbgator]

She is just showing her minority roots!

To listen to her run for office, You would think she was born on an Indian Reservation.

[diehardgator1]

just another ding bat

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

"Too big for trial?" Good question.

I agree this is a good question...more important than her minority roots.

[brainstorm]

I really liked her approach. Simple. Direct. She was very clear with her question and insisted on a direct answer. I use this method at work all the time. It cuts (or exposes) the BS.

[northgagator]

I really liked her approach. Simple. Direct. She was very clear with her question and insisted on a direct answer. I use this method at work all the time. It cuts (or exposes) the BS.

Agree with you Brain. I used that approach a lot at work too. It knocks people off balance and exposes people.

The only problem is that you can be accused of using intimidation.

[g8trjax]

She is grandstanding. The notion that our govt has any moral high ground was erased long ago.

[gatorman_07732]

Color me impressed.....seriously......really......honestly
She is 100% spot on when she said they are unmanageable, not that that's rocket science

[Juggernautz]

I really liked her approach. Simple. Direct. She was very clear with her question and insisted on a direct answer. I use this method at work all the time. It cuts (or exposes) the BS.

Will have to agree with you on this one.

[GatorAbe7]

As a Conservative, color me impressed with this Dem. You go Warren, it's about time some of these banking untouchables were cornered.

[busigator96]

She was exposing lenders well before running for office. I first learned about her in the movie "Maxed Out".

[GatorAbe7]

She was exposing lenders well before running for office. I first learned about her in the movie "Maxed Out".

Same here.

Does anyone else here know more about Warren? In other words, does her functionality as a Democrat go very far beyond her regulatory plans for the banks?

[chemgator]

Same here.

Does anyone else here know more about Warren? In other words, does her functionality as a Democrat go very far beyond her regulatory plans for the banks?
She is out to protect the consumer against the big bad corporations. So much so that she is willing to double the size of gov't, if need be, to protect the dumbest of consumers from anything that could be described as "predatory ______ practices" (insert "lending" or "credit card"). Example: adjustable rate mortgages are predatory lending practices, if some idiot decides to get one and can't pay it back.

[fredsanford]

She is out to protect the consumer against the big bad corporations. So much so that she is willing to double the size of gov't, if need be, to protect the dumbest of consumers from anything that could be described as "predatory ______ practices" (insert "lending" or "credit card"). Example: adjustable rate mortgages are predatory lending practices, if some idiot decides to get one and can't pay it back.

Yes, lenders have no obligations to be responsible. Only applicants.

[MichiGator2002]

Taking out a mortgage for which you have no means and possibly only wild optimism rather than an actual intention of paying it back... why isn't that called "predatory borrowing"?

The only thing I have experienced or witnessed I could conceive of as "predatory lending" was the practice of sending preapproved signature cards to 18 year old credit ghosts.

[fredsanford]

Taking out a mortgage for which you have no means and possibly only wild optimism rather than an actual intention of paying it back... why isn't that called "predatory borrowing"?

The only thing I have experienced or witnessed I could conceive of as "predatory lending" was the practice of sending preapproved signature cards to 18 year old credit ghosts.

So the mortgage lenders who told people to leave their income levels blank or to inflate them bear no responsibility? Or the banks that rubber stamped them?

[HALLGATOR]

She is out to protect the consumer against the big bad corporations. So much so that she is willing to double the size of gov't, if need be, to protect the dumbest of consumers from anything that could be described as "predatory ______ practices" (insert "lending" or "credit card"). Example: adjustable rate mortgages are predatory lending practices, if some idiot decides to get one and can't pay it back.

I don't think they are predatory by nature but the can be made that way when glossed over by unscrupulous people whose only intent is to close a deal. I know from experience how the insurance companies taught agents to gloss over guaranteed rates in favor of current rates when the Universal Life policies come out and they were pushing people to convert their old whole life policies. These practices led to people losing their coverage later on due a drastic increase in premiums needed to keep them going which came about when interest rates started falling. Companies are not any more above board than the people running them and when driven by profits nefarious dealings are far from uncommon practices.

[gatorman_07732]

So the mortgage lenders who told people to leave their income levels blank or to inflate them bear no responsibility? Or the banks that rubber stamped them?

What banks specifically did that? I've taken out numerous mortgages (10+) from 1997 - 2008 and have never once witnessed that.

[fredsanford]

What banks specifically did that? I've taken out numerous mortgages (10+) from 1997 - 2008 and have never once witnessed that.

Anecdotal knowledge is awesome.

[gatorman_07732]

Anecdotal knowledge is awesome.

I asked you a question. Thanks for your nonanswer. I did not say you were wrong, but rather asked you to qualify what you posted by asking specifics.

[busigator96]

What banks specifically did that? I've taken out numerous mortgages (10+) from 1997 - 2008 and have never once witnessed that.

Countrywide did

[chemgator]

So the mortgage lenders who told people to leave their income levels blank or to inflate them bear no responsibility? Or the banks that rubber stamped them?
If your democrat president would re-enact Glass-Steagal, this would not be a problem. If the banks had to keep the mortgages that they wrote, or sell them individually to other banks, they would make sure they only wrote good mortgages. The bank typically loses a lot of money when the homeowner stops paying the mortgage. Even if they foreclose on the house in good condition, the homeowner didn't have much equity in the house, and the bank has limited ability to maintain the house and fix it up for sale. The only one who normally does well is the person who buys the foreclosed house from the bank.

The primary responsibility is with the person who accepted the loan, assuming the lender did not commit fraud or forgery.

[fredsanford]

If your democrat president would re-enact Glass-Steagal, this would not be a problem. If the banks had to keep the mortgages that they wrote, or sell them individually to other banks, they would make sure they only wrote good mortgages. The bank typically loses a lot of money when the homeowner stops paying the mortgage. Even if they foreclose on the house in good condition, the homeowner didn't have much equity in the house, and the bank has limited ability to maintain the house and fix it up for sale. The only one who normally does well is the person who buys the foreclosed house from the bank.

The primary responsibility is with the person who accepted the loan, assuming the lender did not commit fraud or forgery.

So Obama can enact legislation without congress now? Cool!

[MichiGator2002]

So the mortgage lenders who told people to leave their income levels blank or to inflate them bear no responsibility? Or the banks that rubber stamped them?

Under threatened lawsuit for discrimination by HUD, but still bound to a fiduciary duty to shareholders, between that rock and hard place, plausible deniability is a sympathetic approach to take.

[MichiGator2002]

So Obama can enact legislation without congress now? Cool!

Well, he did it with the Dream Act.

[gatorman_07732]

Countrywide did

I'm assume you went through a mortgage process with them? The only parameter I'm familier with is putting down over 30% and not having to provide proof of income.

[Gatormb]

I'm assume you went through a mortgage process with them? The only parameter I'm familier with is putting down over 30% and not having to provide proof of income.

In an effort to be "fair" to those who had no business buying a home the government expanded the CRA under Clinton mandating equal opportunity for all to participate in the American Dream of home ownership .

Banks were forced to alter prudent lending practices or be penalized, thus creating the subprime market. No income loans were made to those with little or no down with marginal credit under the auspicious that it was only "fair". These loans carried a heavy "premium" and were abused by borrowers, Realtors, lenders and Wall Street alike. Of course the industry was blamed even though government was the underlying cause.

For the record, yours truly did not participate in that market. 30% down, excellent credit makes sense for a no doc. No money down with assets not supportive of stated income does not, however, if at the time institutions did not offer these loans they were considered to be discriminating and would pay the penalty.

[108]

just another ding bat

just wow

my guess is you like when our Senators (R's) suck up to the likes of Jamie Dimon, even apologizing to him for even having him be there

[108]

If your democrat president would re-enact Glass-Steagal, this would not be a problem. If the banks had to keep the mortgages that they wrote, or sell them individually to other banks, they would make sure they only wrote good mortgages. The bank typically loses a lot of money when the homeowner stops paying the mortgage. Even if they foreclose on the house in good condition, the homeowner didn't have much equity in the house, and the bank has limited ability to maintain the house and fix it up for sale. The only one who normally does well is the person who buys the foreclosed house from the bank.

The primary responsibility is with the person who accepted the loan, assuming the lender did not commit fraud or forgery.

i'd love for any president to re-enact Glass-Steagal, but I imagine the $$$ won't let that happen

[gator996]

What banks specifically did that? I've taken out numerous mortgages (10+) from 1997 - 2008 and have never once witnessed that.


Many banks & mortgage companies did exactly that....


Are you stating that fraud & lax credit standards didn't occur in the last mortgage bubble"
:huh:

[gator996]

I'm assume you went through a mortgage process with them? The only parameter I'm familier with is putting down over 30% and not having to provide proof of income.


Do you have any clue how many lending programs exist?


Plenty of ninja loans did not require any down at all...

What you're describing are "low-doc" loans (high down payment) not "no-doc" loans

[MichiGator2002]

Many banks & mortgage companies did exactly that....

Are you stating that fraud & lax credit standards didn't occur in the last mortgage bubble"
:huh:

Lax credit standards, in compliance with government mandate. Fraud, because like most sane people, they didn't want to be holding the bag when the stupidity underlying those mandates blew up. But who is at fault, the guy that said "here, hold this old, wet dynamite", or the guy who just got all this dynamite shoved on him and said screw that and got rid of it?

[gatorman_07732]

Do you have any clue how many lending programs exist?


Plenty of ninja loans did not require any down at all...

What you're describing are "low-doc" loans (high down payment) not "no-doc" loans

Never said it nor implied it, but rather was asking the question which of the major banks were not requiring salary confirmation for loans with under 30% down with excellent credit ratings. It's just a question and no need to get riled up. I understand that there was a lot of shady dealings going on, just saying I was required to disclose all salary information for three years. Granted I only used two banks which were Wells Fargo and Chase and took out 12 mortgages from 97 - 08.

[G8trGr8t]

just wow

my guess is you like when our Senators (R's) suck up to the likes of Jamie Dimon, even apologizing to him for even having him be there

No it is much more entertaining listening to bawney defend Franklin Rained and Fannie Mae and listen to pelousy attack regulators who were trying to pull her head out of the sand

[gator996]

Lax credit standards, in compliance with government mandate. Fraud, because like most sane people, they didn't want to be holding the bag when the stupidity underlying those mandates blew up. But who is at fault, the guy that said "here, hold this old, wet dynamite", or the guy who just got all this dynamite shoved on him and said screw that and got rid of it?


As a former treasurer of a very large national mortgage company...

...that's BS.


No mandate to misprice loans my friend.... or to ignore credit standards.

As a matter of fact, the majority of CRA loans were not originated by banks regulated by the standard but from independent mortgage companies.

Data aslo supports the notion that CRA loans were not the subprime loans that caused the crisis...


...it makes for an easy scapegoat but is far from the truth.

:whoa:

[MichiGator2002]

As a former treasurer of a very large national mortgage company...

...that's BS.

No mandate to misprice loans my friend.... or to ignore credit standards.

As a matter of fact, the majority of CRA loans were not originated by banks regulated by the standard but from independent mortgage companies.

Data aslo supports the notion that CRA loans were not the subprime loans that caused the crisis...

...it makes for an easy scapegoat but is far from the truth.

:whoa:

Um, point of interest... per most of your own liberal airing of grievances, aren't you one of the ones who should be against the wall when the revolution comes, so to speak in leftist revolutionary terms? Treasurer of a major mortgage company? Or were you just the one decent one in an indecent world?

[gator996]

Boy, talk about simplistic....


Is every lawyer responsible for the actions of the ambulance chaser?
Every cop responsible for the actions of the bad cop?
Every doctor responsible for the ones who commit medicare fraud?


I speak very critically about the problems in the financial sector all the time...

...so, in your simple model ...yes I was one of the decent ones in a indecent world.

[MichiGator2002]

Boy, talk about simplistic....

Is every lawyer responsible for the actions of the ambulance chaser?
Every cop responsible for the actions of the bad cop?
Every doctor responsible for the ones who commit medicare fraud?

I speak very critically about the problems in the financial sector all the time...

...so, in your simple model ...yes I was one of the decent ones in a indecent world.

So you were a senior executive at a major mortgage company... exactly the generic class that liberals have been blaming for all economic problems for the better part of five years, uh, yourself included... but you should just be presumed to have been screaming into the wind?

If anyone wants to measure the credibility of accusations about the housing bubble collapse, it is worth noticing that conservatives aren't shy about naming names. Franks, Dodd, Raines, etc. Usually all you get out of liberals is "them", "they", "banks", "corporations".

[gator996]

If you ask me if I spoke out before and I answer....you're now unhappy with my answer because it doesn't "fit" for you?

:laugh:

Whatever...


In all seriousness, your generalization is a correct description of liberal outrage but the idea that naming names means anything materially about responsibility is wrong.

Naming names doesn't mean squat...besides an attempt to score political points.


Anyone who is involved in the industry can make a list in 10 minutes of worthy suspects


I'd start with Alan Greenspan, the CEO's of S&P, Moody's, & Fitch, Andrew Mozillo, Blankfein, the heads of the financial regulatory bodies, Tim Geithner...


Naming names proves what?


Holding them accountable is more important...who's doing that?

[dudehead]

... Banks were forced to alter prudent lending practices or be penalized, thus creating the subprime market...

There were no penalties or fines under the CRA. The only enforcement mechanism was that non-compliant financial institutions had a more difficult time getting their mergers and acquisitions approved through their governing agency.

The mortgage crisis was born of a perfect storm:

Wall Street making a killing wrapping and re-wrapping (to smoke the really bad tranches by the rating agencies) high return, high risk mortgages and selling them in CDS pools to investors both institutional and retail, hungry for good returns (secured to boot!),

combined with

Mortgage brokers making $10,000 a pop loaning someone else's money selling anyone who could breathe and write their name,

and

"What's my monthly payment" Americans whose earnings were flat and had been flat for a decade being attracted to buying the McMansion they always dreamed of having (super size me baby) or who wanted to HELOC their home and buy a boat, build a pool, or get a condo at Disney World.

That was the gogo juice that blew up the mortgage crisis balloon - not the CRA.

[CHFG8R]

So Obama can enact legislation without congress now? Cool!

Yeah, but putting it forth would be even more awesome. Talk about ferreting out the weasels? This would make a lot of people on both sides very uncomfortable. I like that.

[CHFG8R]

In an effort to be "fair" to those who had no business buying a home the government expanded the CRA under Clinton mandating equal opportunity for all to participate in the American Dream of home ownership .

Banks were forced to alter prudent lending practices or be penalized, thus creating the subprime market. No income loans were made to those with little or no down with marginal credit under the auspicious that it was only "fair". These loans carried a heavy "premium" and were abused by borrowers, Realtors, lenders and Wall Street alike. Of course the industry was blamed even though government was the underlying cause.

For the record, yours truly did not participate in that market. 30% down, excellent credit makes sense for a no doc. No money down with assets not supportive of stated income does not, however, if at the time institutions did not offer these loans they were considered to be discriminating and would pay the penalty.

Given the Banks power over both parties - and all those former employees working as advisors to everybody - is it not reasonable to think that the Banks, in fact, were the ones pushing for it (or at least tacit approval) knowing all along that they were going to open up the subprime/MBS markets?

I don't know. I haven't seen the numbers. But I'd be curious where the bank's lobbying efforts were going on all of these things. It's not even a conspiracy theory, just the way these organizations (are allowed to) operate.

[108]

Lax credit standards, in compliance with government mandate. Fraud, because like most sane people, they didn't want to be holding the bag when the stupidity underlying those mandates blew up. But who is at fault, the guy that said "here, hold this old, wet dynamite", or the guy who just got all this dynamite shoved on him and said screw that and got rid of it?

this is absolutely false

quite a few studies were done since the crash, and none of them showed this to be the cause, and had little effect on perpetuating it.....the only ones pointing the finger to Gov standards lowering are the ones looking to deflect responsibility

the Gov did not put a gun to the head of private institutions to make bad and many times fraudulent deals........they were egged on by the fact that these mortgages could be repackaged with erroneous AAA ratings, and sold off to buyers who were being misled

[oragator1]

There were no penalties or fines under the CRA. The only enforcement mechanism was that non-compliant financial institutions had a more difficult time getting their mergers and acquisitions approved through their governing agency.

The mortgage crisis was born of a perfect storm:

Wall Street making a killing wrapping and re-wrapping (to smoke the really bad tranches by the rating agencies) high return, high risk mortgages and selling them in CDS pools to investors both institutional and retail, hungry for good returns (secured to boot!),

combined with

Mortgage brokers making $10,000 a pop loaning someone else's money selling anyone who could breathe and write their name,

and

"What's my monthly payment" Americans whose earnings were flat and had been flat for a decade being attracted to buying the McMansion they always dreamed of having (super size me baby) or who wanted to HELOC their home and buy a boat, build a pool, or get a condo at Disney World.

That was the gogo juice that blew up the mortgage crisis balloon - not the CRA.

Combined with artificially low rates thanks to the Fed, ratings agencies afraid to do their job, insurers like AIG blindly insuring everything they could see, federal laws like the repealing of Glass Steagall that changed the nature of the market, housing goal rules on Fannie and Freddie that helped keep the private pipeline liquid, and of course lax oversight of all of it by the Feds.
Truly the perfect storm.

[gatorman_07732]

Combined with artificially low rates thanks to the Fed, ratings agencies afraid to do their job, insurers like AIG blindly insuring everything they could see, federal laws like the repealing of Glass Steagall that changed the nature of the market, housing goal rules on Fannie and Freddie that helped keep the private pipeline liquid, and of course lax oversight of all of it by the Feds.
Truly the perfect storm.

And those rates are still artificially too low

[dudehead]

And those rates are still artificially too low

Agreed. And in so doing they are financing the balance sheet scrubbing of the TBTF banks for free whilst destroying the value of millions of your "average joe" US savers/taxpayers.

It has stunned me how they have pulled this off and avoided the outrage of middle class America. I guess when you have bought and own both the Rs and the Ds you can tamp it down through Fox News and MSNB.

Truly stunning.

Bread and Circus. Baby. Bread and Circus.

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

I could care less about whether Warren is a 'Pub or a Dem. This crap has to stop.

http://www.erikjheels.com/Images/articles/2011-11-20-venn-diagram-federal-government-vs-goldman-sachs-800x600.jpg

[gatorpa]

What banks specifically did that? I've taken out numerous mortgages (10+) from 1997 - 2008 and have never once witnessed that.

Here, here to that. I've gotten multiple mortgages and always had piles of income verification. BTW I'm a w-2 employee, yet the processors made it a pain in the $#%.

[gatorpa]

So Obama can enact legislation without congress now? Cool!

He does it with ex order, but I guess that's only when he plays to his base.

[tegator80]

Didn't watch the video (wrong place to) and the responses sound as if she was playing the Bad Cop role.

We can argue all week what was the real root causes of the real estate/banking bubble. But unless you have a rooting interest in seeing one side win or lose, I don't really see anything of real value that has transpired since, elections included. If things transpired because corporations were too big to fail or the money trail was too convoluted to track to the real culprits then fine, but what exactly has been done to prevent it from occurring in the future? Absolutely nothing.

All that comes out of Washington is a bunch of staged drama for our viewing (and rooting) interests. Nothing more.

[CHFG8R]

I could care less about whether Warren is a 'Pub or a Dem. This crap has to stop.

http://www.erikjheels.com/Images/articles/2011-11-20-venn-diagram-federal-government-vs-goldman-sachs-800x600.jpg

Not sure if you saw my earlier post, but this kinda backs up my theory does it not?

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

Not sure if you saw my earlier post, but this kinda backs up my theory does it not?

Yep. Dems and 'Pubs are essentially bought and paid for. So...

Is Warren one of the rare exceptions?

Or does she have an angle where she is basically just putting on a show?

[gatorpa]

Yep. Dems and 'Pubs are essentially bought and paid for. So...

Is Warren one of the rare exceptions?

Or does she have an angle where she is basically just putting on a show?

Look and see where her big money support came from- that's who she owes.

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

Look and see where her big money support came from- that's who she owes.

Emily's List? (http://www.opensecrets.org/races/contrib.php?id=MAS1&cycle=2012)

Harvard, MIT, Moveon.org?

[lacuna]

Emily's List? (http://www.opensecrets.org/races/contrib.php?id=MAS1&cycle=2012)

Harvard, MIT, Moveon.org?

Nice find. Some heavy hitters contributed to Brown.

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

Nice find. Some heavy hitters contributed to Brown.

Surprising to see so many financial institutions donating to Brown.

[lacuna]

Surprising to see so many financial institutions donating to Brown.

Sadly, I was not surprised. I've been following Warren with interest since I first saw this video a few years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A

[CHFG8R]

Pretty much explains why we're having less children today.

Much less the "decline of morality and religion" than just pure cost.