Garden of Eden Escorts

Bernanke says he erred in gauging mortgage fallout

Berlin

New member
Jan 31, 2003
11,410
5
0
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke acknowledges he was wrong in believing that there would be limited fallout to financial markets from risky mortgages that soured after the housing market's collapse.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081123/bernanke_meltdown.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - "I and others were mistaken early on in saying that the subprime crisis would be contained," Bernanke said in an article in the Dec. 1 issue of The New Yorker magazine.

"The causal relationship between the housing problem and the broad financial system was very complex and difficult to predict," he said in the piece titled "Anatomy of a Meltdown."

Subprime mortgages made to people with tarnished credit or low incomes were especially hard hit once the housing boom went bust. Foreclosures spiked and financial companies wracked up huge losses as these investments turned bad.

The mortgage meltdown started in the United States in the summer of 2007 and rapidly spread to other countries, as well as to other types of lending, affecting even more creditworthy customers. The problems with risky, subprime mortgages touched off what many call the worst financial crisis to hit the world since the 1930s.

To protect the economy from damage and help ease Wall Street turmoil, Bernanke and his colleagues cut a key interest rate in September 2007 -- the first reduction in four years. Some critics at the time thought the Fed should have acted sooner.

Now more than a year into the crisis, Bernanke has taken a flurry of unprecedented -- and some controversial -- steps to help bolster the banking system and to get banks to lend money more freely again.

The Fed is providing short-term cash loans to banks, is letting financial companies swap shunned mortgage securities for super-safe Treasury securities and is buying mounds of short-term debt from a host of companies. It also expanded its emergency lending facilities to investment firms, provided financial backing in JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s buyout of Bear Stearns and threw a financial lifeline to insurer American International Group.

Critics worry the Fed's actions could put billions of taxpayers' dollars in jeopardy and encourage financial companies to take excessive risk on the belief that the Fed will bail them out.

The Fed halted its rate-cutting campaign in late June out of fears it would worsen inflation. But it was forced to do an about-face in early October as economic and financial conditions deteriorated sharply, lessening the threat of inflation. The Fed joined with other central banks on Oct. 8 to slash rates, the first coordinated action of its kind in the Fed's history. It lowered rates again on Oct. 29 and is expected to cut rates yet again on Dec. 16.
 

landscaper

New member
Feb 28, 2007
5,752
0
0
If that was actually his assesment of the situation the guy is to stupid to live. All I have been hearing for the last couple of years is how big a disaster the mortgage problem was going to be, and his crystal ball says not a real big problem?

This guy was in charge of something bigger than a lemonaide stand in anchorage in January. MAybe Bush actually is a stupid as some of the posters here have stated
 

FOOTSNIFFER

New member
Jan 23, 2004
1,505
0
0
It's scary to think that a guy who got a near perfect score on his SATs could be so stupid. There were a number of solid analyses of the potential collapse of the housing markets from reputable people like Jeremy Grantham, that Grant Interest Rate Observer guy, etc...and they all made their case exceptionally well. Even Fed chairmen have to drink their own Kool Aid, I guess.
 

Berlin

New member
Jan 31, 2003
11,410
5
0
FDIC's list of 'problem' banks swells to 171

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081125/ap_on_bi_ge/problem_banks

NEW YORK – The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said Tuesday the list of banks it considers to be in trouble shot up nearly 50 percent to 171 during the third quarter — yet another sign of escalating problems among the institutions controlling Americans' deposits.

The 171 banks on the FDIC's "problem list" encompass only about 2 percent of the nearly 8,500 FDIC-insured institutions. Still, the increase from 117 in the second quarter is sharp, and the current tally is the highest since late 1995.
"We've had profound problems in our financial markets that are taking a rising toll on the real economy," said FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair in a statement, adding that Tuesday's report "reflects these challenges."

Banks across the country have been hurt — and in some cases, devastated — by the collapse of the subprime mortgage market and subsequent problems across the lending spectrum. As the FDIC report shows, the number of hobbled institutions is rising at a quickening pace, a trend that has already begun to reshape the banking industry.

The FDIC said total assets held by troubled institutions climbed from $78.3 billion to $115.6 billion — a figure that suggests that the nation's top 20 banks aren't on the list, even though they are getting slammed, too, by the growing credit crisis. The FDIC does not reveal the names of the institutions it deems troubled.

Bert Ely, a banking consultant based in Alexandria, Va., pointed out that the assets held by problem banks represent less than 1 percent of those held by all U.S. banks. "We're still talking about a fairly small portion of the industry," he said.

And on average, only about 13 percent of institutions on the FDIC's list end up failing.

Still, banks that don't make the list can end up collapsing anyway — the two biggest bank failures over the past year, Washington Mutual Inc. and IndyMac Bancorp, had not been on the FDIC's list of troubled banks. Wachovia Corp., which nearly failed before it got bought by Wells Fargo & Co. in October, had not been on the list, either.

Nine banks failed in the third quarter, decreasing the FDIC's deposit insurance fund to $34.6 billion from $45.2 billion in the second quarter. This quarter, the pace appears to be picking up — nine banks have already failed since Sept. 30, including Downey Savings and Loan Association, based in Newport Beach, Calif.

"To some extent, a bank failure is a regulatory failure," Ely said. Regulators, if they address bank problems early on, can convince a troubled bank to sell off assets, raise capital or find a buyer, he said. "My hope is they're moving faster on these problems."

The FDIC said Tuesday that commercial banks and savings institutions suffered a 94 percent drop in third-quarter profits to $1.7 billion from $27 billion in the same period last year. Except for the fourth quarter of 2007, it was the lowest quarterly profit since the fourth quarter of 1990.

Those institutions wrote off $27.9 billion in loans as uncollectible during the quarter.

Recently, community banks — defined as those with assets under $1 billion — have started to show similar stresses as their larger counterparts, the FDIC said.

James Chessen, chief economist at the American Bankers Association, said in a statement that the banking industry as whole, however, "remains well-positioned to meet the credit needs of local communities." Since last year, bank lending to businesses has risen by more than 8 percent, while bank lending to individuals has risen by nearly 7 percent, he said.
The U.S. government has been guaranteeing and buying more and more types of debt in an effort to keep the financial system functional.

Late Sunday, Citigroup Inc. got a government backstop for $306 billion worth of mortgages and other assets. On Tuesday, the Federal Reserve agreed to buy up to $600 billion in mortgage-backed assets.
... whether Bernanke and 3 page Paulson know WTF they are doing is anyone's guess. Another 800 billion...
 

tboy

resident smartass
Aug 18, 2001
15,966
2
0
64
way out in left field
Let's not forget that it was the lender's greed that created this whole fiasco. It was nothing more than that.

The REAL reason this whole situation occured was because instead of negoiating a repayment plan that would allow the borrowers to stay in their homes, and the lenders to make money, they chose to evict the borrowers and foreclose on the property. Only problem was they did this so much they drove the value of property down and made their investment worthless.

The lenders (who supposedly are losing the most out of this) cut off their nose to spite their face and are now paying the price.

Don't let our banking system fool you: they are NO better and would not hesitate for a second to put themselves into the same predicament.
 

dcbogey

New member
Sep 29, 2004
3,169
0
0
tboy said:
Let's not forget that it was the lender's greed that created this whole fiasco. It was nothing more than that.

So the borrowers who hugely over-extended themselves bear no responsibility?

tboy said:
Don't let our banking system fool you: they are NO better and would not hesitate for a second to put themselves into the same predicament.
I disagree. High ratio mortgages are much more difficult to get here than apparently in the US. As well, the banks will get their money if a high ratio mortgage goes into default. I have seen more than a few mortgages that have been in default for more than a year that haven't been foreclosed. In my experience the banks here do not want to take ownership and sell the house at a loss if there is any hope the borrower will be able to get caught up.
 

tboy

resident smartass
Aug 18, 2001
15,966
2
0
64
way out in left field
Not to argue DC but you indicated the answer in your second part to your statement in the first part:

Yes, banks here will allow some extension in order to get their investment back but what happened in the US is they didn't.....they foreclosed with visions of massive profits in their heads and instead fucked themselves up the ass royally.

No, overextended homeowners bear NO or little responsibility for the current situation. Here's why:
1) They are promised a home at a low interest rate/low payments
2) Not everyone is as savvy in real estate/financial matters as others. Lenders glossed over the hazards of the deals that were being signed in hopes of making huge profits via unreasonable interest rates.

Take a look at the vast majority of the situations:
You are a poor, or reasonably poor low income renter. You're promised a nice new home, at the same rate or only slightly higher than you're paying in rent (sound like something that has been promoted here?). So the lawyers involved, the lenders involved, the real estate agents involved, gloss over the fact that in their second year, their payments will be 2 - 3 times what they can actually afford.

Sorry, a reasonable, and respectable business person would explain exactly what would happen with these mortgages and NOT enter into the deal.

For eg: When I bought my first property (condo) I went to my bank and got a mortgage. I signed all the papers, it was finalized, paid the seller, etc. Done deal. Then the prime onsite lender contacted me and said they could beat my rate by 1%. So I called my lawyer (the first time I dealt with him was for the initial mortgage) and asked him: what would the total cost be to change lenders and discharge my mortgage, this includes his fees, registration fees, etc etc, everything. He said about $1200.00. So I did my calculations and figured I'd save about $2500.00 by doing the deal. I gave him the go ahead.

So he calls me in to sign the papers and everything and whoop, the fees DON'T total $1200.00, they total $2500.00. I ask him (Literally) WTF? You told me the total costs to do this would be $1200.00. Oh, that didn't include MY fees? Why the fuck would you EXCLUDE your fees? Why would any reasonable person spend $2500.00 to save $2500.00? If I had known that I wouldn't have bothered.......I don't have the additional $1200.00. He said, you can pay me next month.

So, when next month rolls around he calls asking for his money: I said to him: YOU told me the costs would be $1200.00 in total. I PAID $1200.00 in total. If you want your $1200.00, sue me......

Now take that situation and apply it to the mortgage fiasco, and you see my point. How much of the downside of the high ratio mortgages were hidden or not disclosed to the borrowers?

As for Canadian Banks not doing the same, glad the ones you know of are being looked after by the banks but I personally know of someone who was 3 months in default and the bank went into Power of Sale immediately. (even after the borrower negotiated a catch up plan).
 

landscaper

New member
Feb 28, 2007
5,752
0
0
Under teh canadian system the home owner can stop power of sale by bringing the account up to date, if there was a plan in place the power sale is fishy to the point of what else was going on?

Canadian banks are regulated much more closely than the American ones, witness the govt ordering the end to 40 year and 0% mortgages, they also ordered one of the big 5 ( reported as Commerce) to straighten up its balance sheets. None of that happened in the states due to a variety of reasons from shere greed to regulators not doing their jobs.

The number of banks going under is not really a surprise, they thought it was raining soup and everybody ran outside with a pail.

To whats left of my mind, if you have a bunch of problem mortgages and you are going into a reccession, I really don't want all those houses on my books, I would renegotiate the mortgages to the point that the home owners could stay there. Some money is better than a stripped house that needs a lot of work before it can be made habitable.
 

tboy

resident smartass
Aug 18, 2001
15,966
2
0
64
way out in left field
To whats left of my mind, if you have a bunch of problem mortgages and you are going into a reccession, I really don't want all those houses on my books, I would renegotiate the mortgages to the point that the home owners could stay there. Some money is better than a stripped house that needs a lot of work before it can be made habitable.
We are SO on the same page here: In my mind it is always better to MAKE even a small amount of money as opposed to losing my shirt.

As for the example I gave of a bank reneging on a catch up payment schedule. I saw the regestered letter notifying the borrower of power of sale proceedings. It was delievered the day the catchup payments were to begin and dated after the argeement was reached by the person who made the agreement. When contacted, the writer of the letter simply stated: talk to our lawyers and hung up. BTW: if anyone is interested it was RBC.....
 

landscaper

New member
Feb 28, 2007
5,752
0
0
tboy said:
We are SO on the same page here: In my mind it is always better to MAKE even a small amount of money as opposed to losing my shirt.

As for the example I gave of a bank reneging on a catch up payment schedule. I saw the regestered letter notifying the borrower of power of sale proceedings. It was delievered the day the catchup payments were to begin and dated after the argeement was reached by the person who made the agreement. When contacted, the writer of the letter simply stated: talk to our lawyers and hung up. BTW: if anyone is interested it was RBC.....
The Bank in question was not a surprise, I expect the lawyers will make some money but the law is clear onthat one.

We used to have a Royal mortgage, after a couple of months of trying to get their attention that ours was running out we went down the street to where I had my current account, it took 2 days including the inspection and the rate was lower, the royal just renewed the mortgage and were really surprised when they were informed by the new bank .
 

Gyaos

BOBA FETT
Aug 17, 2001
6,172
0
0
Heaven, definately Heaven
Bernanke did not make a mistake, he purposely ruined the market under orders from the Administration machine, or he would have been water boarded.

Gyaos.
 

Big Sleazy

Active member
Sep 13, 2004
3,533
8
38
FOOTSNIFFER said:
It's scary to think that a guy who got a near perfect score on his SATs could be so stupid. There were a number of solid analyses of the potential collapse of the housing markets from reputable people like Jeremy Grantham, that Grant Interest Rate Observer guy, etc...and they all made their case exceptionally well. Even Fed chairmen have to drink their own Kool Aid, I guess.
I didn't get a perfect score on my SAT's ( never wrote them ) but when I heard a couple of years ago you could get a motgage over the phone at dinner time I knew something was up. This whole situation smells bad. I don't follow things closely enough to comment to any great degree but it sure sounds like the old Savings n' Loan scenario from back in the 90's. US taxpayer gets boned again !!!

BS
 

landscaper

New member
Feb 28, 2007
5,752
0
0
Big Sleazy said:
I didn't get a perfect score on my SAT's ( never wrote them ) but when I heard a couple of years ago you could get a motgage over the phone at dinner time I knew something was up. This whole situation smells bad. I don't follow things closely enough to comment to any great degree but it sure sounds like the old Savings n' Loan scenario from back in the 90's. US taxpayer gets boned again !!!

BS
Its not just the U.S> taxpayer catching it this time its pretty much planet wide. I am thinking it might be time to try and insulate the rest of teh world from american bankers for our own safety
 
Toronto Escorts