POWIP Piece of Work In Progress – Former Abode of Dan Collins

1. 

   Bob Reed
   October 16th, 2009 - 11:18

   Nothing letting the Fox keep watch over the henhouse…

   These people will never learn from what they caused already. And before thor starts in about GREEDHEADS ON WALL STREET!!!, If there were never any GSE tranches tainted by bad paper to sell, how can you still guarantee all of the derivatives would have still been developed?

   Kind of like wondering if cars were never invented, would gasoline have still been developed? Based on the scale of trains and the eergy density of coal, I think not…

   And the same is probably true for all of the exotic derivatives.

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   ( REPLY )
2. 

   Hugh Parsons
   October 16th, 2009 - 16:01

   I read the same FHA story about two-three months back. Glad to see you’re still pretending to care, pimping the liar’s meme, etc…

   The CRA has nothing to do with it. Period. Per the usual, Sir, You Lie!

   Poor people, like Dan Collins, did not cause the housing bubble nor the implosion of mortgage-backed securities pricing.

   Oh wait, but you’re not talking about poor white people when you CRA code-speak, you’re talking about poor other-colored peoples, hmm?

   And yes, Econo Bobbo, it all began with greed on Wall Street, Duuuuuuuuuuh. The CRA began back in 1977, and the doom began! Duuuuuuuuuh, not, more like 30-years later it began with financial institutions that were not regulated by rules of the CRA and/or only laughably regulated by the Fed, such as Bear Stearns, Lehman Bro.s and American Home Mortgage expanded their role in the mortgage market. Wall Street funded the unregulated originators, which were the ones offering the no-money down and stated income loans. Nor did the CRA force the credit-rating agencies to give high credit ratings on subprime debt pools.

   Duuuuuuuuh, cackle, cluck, cluck, Jackie Robinson is bad for the game of baseball, look at him!

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   ( REPLY )
3. 

   Dan Collins
   October 16th, 2009 - 16:03

   Sorry, the market was created. Black, white, doesn’t matter. Greenbacks are greenbacks. And the one place that the MSM haven’t bothered to cover is the place most responsible: Congress.

   And that’s what I’ve been saying all along.

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   ( REPLY )
4. 

   Hugh Parsons
   October 16th, 2009 - 16:12

   That’s because you don’t know who else to blame, Dan. You don’t know what a CMO is, would rather not know, frankly, because your target is strictly political, as usual. CMOs have been trading for 30-years back when Solomon Bro.s first made a market for them.

   Neither the CRA nor CMOs were not the problem, in reality. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people, much the same way a market for a security doesn’t implode by itself, it takes greedy people manipulating the market to destroy the market.

   You’ve obviously been to Florida. How many over-priced condos in Florida were sold to minorities under pressure by the CRA?

   I’m certain you actually do get it, on a certain level at least. But if rolling with the right-wingy know-nothing say-anything crowd fattens your wallet a little, I understand. A man’s got a pimp what sells.

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   ( REPLY )
5. 

   Hugh Parsons
   October 16th, 2009 - 16:13

   not

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   ( REPLY )
6. 

   Hugh Parsons
   October 16th, 2009 - 16:29

   Chirp, chirp.

   That’s what I thought.

   Maybe a tad more research, Dan, you poor person who has been under-served by the banks and for who the CRA tries to protect from getting red-lined out of getting a mortgage, you-you who blew up the entire of the American economy, and you-you-you ironic target of your own silly blame-the-poor meme!

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   ( REPLY )
7. 

   Hugh Parsons
   October 16th, 2009 - 16:37

   Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, there’s a list of Presidents who supported expanded home ownership and the CRA.

   But it’s Congress, huh?

   Maybe it was many political persons with the best of intentions and for who, like Greenspan stated, never believed Wall Street and the banks would so openly violate their responsibility to their shareholders’ interests and instead incorporate corporate business models solely to generating quick commissions and annual bonuses for themselves.

   Hmm? Think deep.

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   ( REPLY )
8. 

   Hugh Parsons
   October 16th, 2009 - 16:46

   The CRA is un-necessary regulation. Regulations stymie innovation. Fucking the American people so hard that most Americans can’t even figure out who fucked ‘em, that sort’a innovative process is what makes America a special place for business.

   Quite innovative, that.

   Wall Street bonuses are at record highs this year. Surely they’re hiring.

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   ( REPLY )
9. 

   Hugh Parsons
   October 16th, 2009 - 17:02

   You and No-Balls McCain should apply, Dan.

   BTIBG bonuses are the purest form of capitalism an American patriot can earn, you know, By Then I’ll Be Gone when the shit blows up.

   Think of it, Italian alligator-skin loafers, Ike Behar cuffed and starched shirt, diamond crusted American flag cuff links, a dark Hugo Boss suit. If you look worth some bonus money then it becomes reality, it’s how it works at the corner of Broad and Wall, You can do it. I did. Bernie Madoff did. Get some.

   Like or Dislike: 0  0

   ( REPLY )
10. 

    Hugh Parsons
    October 16th, 2009 - 17:04

    What’s that?

    Was that your head exploding?

    Like or Dislike: 0  0

    ( REPLY )
11. 

    Hugh Parsons
    October 16th, 2009 - 17:37

    Strange how many right-wingy tea-baggy Constititititutionalists clam up when nasty specifics of what caused our capital markets to lock up are discussed.

    It’s as if they have no clue.

    Start a thread concerning birthering, ghostering, Bwaney Fwanking, Marxist takoverings, Ayers, Whitey Tapers, backwards B’s carved into the face of a white girl, Death Panelering, Rino hunting, Czaristos, Chavesistos, Hondurianitos, Castro lobos, Wush Wimbuagh victmhoodings, etc.., and then they chirp up.

    Crazy spins, crazy spins, until you all fall down.

    Like or Dislike: 0  0

    ( REPLY )
12. 

    SDN
    October 16th, 2009 - 20:23

    Moron, does Congress write the budgets and the laws or not?

    And which party do Dodd, Frank, etc. belong to?

    The record clearly shows who pushed this crap, and who filibustered to prevent anything from being done about it, and they ALL have a D after their names.

    FOAD, buttmunch.

    Like or Dislike: 0  0

    ( REPLY )
    • 

      Hugh Parsons
      October 16th, 2009 - 20:36

      Nah, how about you fuck off and take in the ass right before you die, huh?

      Yeah, queer boy, talkin’ to you.

      Which party does George Boooooosh belong to, hick? Did rethuglidums pass the budget and them laws when they were the majority, think hard, hick.

      You’re dumber that pile a shit, and that’s why you’re a rethuglidum.

      Like or Dislike: 0  0

      ( REPLY )
13. 

    Hugh Parsons
    October 16th, 2009 - 20:29

    Ah yes, I’m back.

    Dan, was I wrong? Were you, in reality, the pivotal poor person who caused the housing boom casino to break water?

    Just admit it if you were. Second chances, I believe in second chances.

    So, Dan, I have a question for you: How is FHA capitalized. Would they need more capital in a down market or less capital? Remember when I was telling you about the credit spread, you know, when a institution borrows and rate X% and then loans money at a higher Y%?

    What happens when mortgage rates go down? Is the credit spread as wide? No. What happens when the economy is in a recession, do defaults go up? Mmm, yes.

    This scenario isn’t a good one for FHA.

    Do you chew tobacco? I’d like to think you do, matter of fact, I’d like to imagine you spit a huge gob of tobacco spit before sneering and declaring “and if they’re defaulting, fuck ‘em, loanin’ ‘em more money is teh ‘tooopid!” Spit again, for effect.

    Well Dan, this is what they call a downward spiral scenario. If you don’t loan ‘em poor folks – and that’s what we’re talking about, eh Dan, firefighters, school teachers, writers and poets, ha! FHA mostly funds the smaller loans – any FHA money then they can’t buy no homes, you know, those homes the banks are auctioning off, homes that have already been defaulted on.

    Without any buyers, what happens to the price of homes when those who are selling must sell? Mmmm! Yes, yes, bells are going off, no?

    And if those home prices keep going down in hopes of attracting a buyer then what happens to the capital requirements needed for FHA books? MMMM! MMMM! MMMM!

    Under Pressure, David Bowie and Freddie Mercury once sang of this.

    Who built America, Dan? Middle class, no? Isn’t America’s large middle class the economic engine that separates us economically from many other countries?

    Pretty basic questions.

    Destroy the middle class, not good, not good.

    Whenever you want to talk rationally about the economic problems that face this great country I’m here for you. No scape-goating the middle class and ‘em po’folk though!

    Ain’t it America, little pink houses for you and me!

    Like or Dislike: 0  0

    ( REPLY )
14. 

    Hugh Parsons
    October 16th, 2009 - 21:43

    So, like, what are you going to do, Dan? Gonna let me undress your bastard’s folly and remain silent?

    Know how a corporation in America is formed. There’s some necessary paperwork. Ever read those? Ever sat in on a board meeting?

    FNMA is a quasi government agency. The qausi part comes from the shareholders’ stake.

    Why didn’t they sell more stock, raise more capital?

    Yeah.

    A victim of their own success, no? Yes, yes they were, to an extent. FNMA did/does make getting a home loan a faster and more efficient process and they did add standardization and liquidity to the mortgage finance market. We were the envy of many other capitalist nations due to FNMA, no?

    Does it make more sense to try and understand and tackle the problems and the flaws in FNMA’s financing structure, and yes, even the loan qualification requirements versus pointing the finger while doing the crazy spins in a fit of bullshit political partisanship?

    No, you tell me, hack blogger guy, what moves this country forward, your method or mine?

    Obviously FNMA’s conduit and package structure works well, shit, FNMA’s stock was the best performing blue chip some years back. The market didn’t like it because of Barney Frank, they liked the money FNMA made, that’s called the bottom line, and it’s growth potential.

    Want gov’t out of it? It won’t work as well without a implied government backstop. You do get that, no?

    Our banks work real well because accounts there are insured by the FDIC, which uses a combination of our taxpayer dollars and fees charged to banks for its capital. People really like that full faith and credit of the U.S. Government guarantee. Same with FNMA.

    State one coherent fuckin’ thought concerning how to better manage FNMA and our banking system and I’ll pipe down.

    I don’t think you can. Nor your brother. Nor Bob.

    Surprise me. I dare ya.

    Like or Dislike: 0  0

    ( REPLY )
15. 

    deddy kennedy
    October 16th, 2009 - 22:14

    Very well then Mister Downs.

    Vodka Giml*urrrrrp*

    Like or Dislike: 0  0

    ( REPLY )
16. 

    Pablo
    October 17th, 2009 - 06:46

    Ferchrissakes, would somebody put the gimp back in his box?

    Like or Dislike: 0  0

    ( REPLY )
17. 

    Moe Mullins
    October 17th, 2009 - 07:36

    Hey look, it’s Pablo the fibtard from PW. What’s up bean dawg?

    Like or Dislike: 0  0

    ( REPLY )
18. 

    Bob Reed
    October 17th, 2009 - 11:44

    thor, I’ll answer all your questions over the next few hours…

    Sorry I didn’t get right on them yersterday, old man, but I had a bit of a situation going on here ay my palatial Long Island estate-something that required my hands on attention and finely honed engineering skills…

    And you need to take a little less ascerbic and accusatory tone with those of us that are but dilletantes in a field you worked in professionally. Recall that humility is an important virtue too…

    And while I recall that you worked as a bond trader as well as amassing a fortune in FOREX, did you actually work at any banks in the banking side of the business? No accusations old bean, just curiosity…

    By the by old chap, Egg Harbor society still looks down on those who must actually work, *shudder*, for their means. If trading and investment isn’t simply a hobby, that is if you can’t be classically disinterested, than you may be too close to the process to make objective suggestions…

    You know, too much ugly partisanship and all that. Your man Obama professes to be post-partisan I believe, perhaps you should consider adopting a similar outlook…

    Do what is good for the nation as a whole; and considering the fall in the dollars value of late, it would seem that reigning in spending would be top, TOP!/b> priority.

    And considering last year’s was nearly a trillion and a half in the red, well that probably means this whole silly subsidization of the economy will have to go by the by. It’s a shame that Baruch’s health care bonanza couldn’t come in 44% below the CBO estimates, like that fellow Double-Yoo’s medicare reform did, isn’t it?

    I say, a trillion and a half in the red…Why that a large summ, even for the denizens of Egg Harbor!

    Like or Dislike: 0  0

    ( REPLY )
19. 

    Moe Mullins
    October 17th, 2009 - 15:31

    I ended up working for a bank because a bank bought the brokerage firm I was working for. It was a foreign bank, and when they bought us it was sweet for they actually gave us an extra retention bonus, you know, so we wouldn’t quit shortly after they bought us even thought I was never considering moving firms at the time, but I took that money, oh fuck yeah, of course. If you don’t believe money falls from the sky, you’ve never worked on Wall Street.

    I’ve never made large profits FOREX trading, I’m not even short the dollar now. I have traded the EUR/USD in a pip account but that’s about it. Currency trading isn’t my game.

    It’s not important for you, Bob, to answer my questions. It’s important for Dan to either offer up some further explanations or for him to admit for all to see that when he gets cornered he doesn’t really care about the truth-value of what he posts. If Dan Collins is solely about petty politics and nothing more the let’s put that on the table, let’s clear that up, let’s make that known to the public.

    What caused Wall Street to implode started with the pricing – the market pricing, if you will – of CDOs and CMOs. Let’s get right down to it, for America and Americans need to know what happened, how it happened and what caused this happening. The Dan Collins’s of the world do no service to themselves or to other Americans or to America by engaging in cover-up and falsified folly, no matter their motivation, whether it be sheer naivete, or their simple choosing to believe the falsehoods stated by some other person doesn’t know what they’re talking about – it matters not.

    This was American business not American politics that imploded.

    I know the specifics of this business. I know how it happened, the reality. If my terse tone is off-putting, if my calling Dan a “liar” or making light of the fact he’s self-admittedly and temporarily at the lower end of economic stratus seems coarse, fuck all, that’s great. It’s a reflection of my sincerity that I actually care enough of the man to attempt to wake his ass up to reality.

    Who would have ever thought the day would come when America would be broken financially and Americans wouldn’t be able to figure out why or how it happened.

    Maybe we don’t belong on top of the world’s economic ladder, not because we don’t have the economic muscle but because we’re a nation too stupid to figure out the economic games we play, too stupid a nation to govern ourselves, too stupid to discern truth from fiction.

    As to the dollar falling, remember when I told you about the Fed’s strong dollar policy. We’re not on a strong dollar policy. The Fed has to increase the Fed funds rate to stop the dollar decline. They’ve not indicated their willingness to do that just yet.

    Like or Dislike: 0  0

    ( REPLY )
20. 

    Bob Reed
    October 17th, 2009 - 18:37

    You are correct about the dollar policy, I’ll second what you are saying. And I also think that we need to bite the bullet and reduce spending across the board; we have to stop spending more than we take in…

    And you are also right to point fingers at all the Presidents of the last 50 years, and more! While some may have better explanations than others, the bottom line is none of them have worried about balancing the federal budget, and neither has congress been particularly diligent; because people didn’t see the harm in individually and as a nation we accumulated a staggering amount of debt collectively.

    There was a false bill of goods sold as part of the idea of globalization. In the effort to spread the astounding amount of accumulated consumer, corporate, and governmental debt all over the globe, the tsunami of incoming cash may have actually fueled more debt-by seeming to be an everlasting money machine. And the transnational corporations relied on that debt fueled consumer spending for their revenues, profits and management bonuses. And since they gave a ton of cash to politicians of all flavors, it’s easy to see why no one has ever had a problem with this…

    I know that you believe that for many criticism of CRA is simply a cover for racist sentiments; at least you’ve accused me of such intent. For the politicians, CRA seemed like a no-brainer. It was a popular populist type of measure, and had the additional benefit of stimulating the home builders; creating both jobs as well as new “units” of financial product to be sold domestically and abroad.

    But the problem is that it contributed to individuals assuming too much debt and the added consequence of artificially raising home values. One doesn’t need a diagram to realize that the total value of all the assets in America is actually lower by an appreciable fashion; it may be that 12-13 trillion in bad paper that’s on the Fed’s balance sheet! That artificial value having been lost is part of what leads me to wonder why Bernanke would be worried about that “deflation”, or more to the point expanding the money supply to fill in the “hole” that deflation caiused. I mean, I realize that somebody has already been paid, bonuses, wages, and commissions on the inflated values, but if is artificial instead of replacing it it should be allowed to return to a more realistic value.

    Many of the investment banks that were backing the mortgage being written had to be aware of the overheated nature of the market; but I guess they should have also recognized other warning signs that they didn’t. Still, that’s why I have no problem with them taking the haircut, and was fundamentally against the TARP. It’s a tough problem that may never be completely figures out; to blame are real estate agents, bankers, builders, and yes, unjudicious buyers.

    But CRA has been around in one form or another for close to 100 years-since the 1920′s! It only got overheated since the mid 90′s, and contributed significantly to the position we’re in today, along with the dot-com and housing bubbles…

    It’s really a luxury we can no longer afford, at least until we get our spending under control and pay the debt down…

    We’ll discuss this more after I do some more research…

    Like or Dislike: 0  0

    ( REPLY )
21. 

    President Mop
    October 17th, 2009 - 19:13

    F the banks. How dare they try to spread the risk of their sub prime mortgages. They should have just sucked up the defaults, cause that’s the cost of doing bidnez. Shoulda left it for Fannie and Freddie. Just imagine how many “lovers” bawney fwank coulda teabagged!
    Now I’m left to clean up the mess. Did I mention I inherited this disaster?

    Like or Dislike: 0  0

    ( REPLY )
22. 

    Moe Mullins
    October 17th, 2009 - 23:36

    Think how many toe-tapping Repubs Bwarney could a teabagged at Reagan Int’l!

    Like or Dislike: 0  0

    ( REPLY )
23. 

    Moe Mullins
    October 17th, 2009 - 23:46

    No, Bob, the CRA hasn’t been around for a hundred years.

    Bagging on the CRA as a remote cause of the most recent economic meltdown is… I don’t know, stupid by any measure. How else to put it and be accurate?

    Hey, but congrats on getting some things right in your post, as in the promotion and pumping of the construction boom that began in 2002 as a way to punch the gas peddle on a economy that just went through the dot.com bust and then 9/11. You’re right, that’s what happened. And every Repub was on board with expanding domestic housing construction, as was Bush and Greenspan and the Dems. Everyone! And it worked! Housing is a helluva engine.

    Problem was, as was with the dot.com bubble, Greenspan and the Fed didn’t put the breaks on the housing expansion until there was a bubble, actually they never did; the market popped the bubble, it self-corrected, and when the air exits a bubble it’s never pretty.

    I’m brazenly flipping off anyone who mentions the CRA. Rules and guidelines for fair lending practices caused the housing bubble? That’s bloody stupid. Speed limits don’t cause accidents on the freeway, drivers do.

    You weren’t fundamentally against the TARP. You may have been against certain aspects of the TARP, but no sane person could possibly be against the TARP, and that’s coming from someone whose initial reaction at 6:00 am when they announced that AIG was getting – what was it initially, $8-bill, if I recall – bail out money was to scream and curse at the TV.

    There were no good options at that point. This I soon learned, as did every economically versed adult. If AIG blew, Goldman and Morgan would blow, if Bear blew JPMorgan would blow, shit, letting Lehman blow looks to be the biggest of all their mistakes.

    What would unemployment be right now if the Fed let our whole financial system blow up? 20% to 30%, maybe more. It’s what happened after the 1929 market crash, they let the banks fall, remember? I thought your read history books full of only facts, haha, and not Flaubert.

    None of the cracking of the debt markets has to do with the freakin’ CRA, assholes. It has to do with systematic failure of our accounting procedures within the banking industry, the credit-rating agencies falsifying ratings, too much leverage in the system and derivatives securities that added systemic risk, and the too-big-to-fail institutions that got too big from unquenchable appetites for mergers and acquisitions that ended up consolidating our entire system into just a few fuckin’ banks, too few, obviously. In the end it was because we had no thoughtful regulations that lead us into this whole mess, no backstops to stop a perfect storm.

    Like or Dislike: 0  0

    ( REPLY )
24. 

    Moe Mullins
    October 19th, 2009 - 00:08

    Chirp, chirp…

    Yeah, I hear it all the time from Fortune 500 companies who go belly up, like Enron for example.

    It was because of affirmative action!

    Punked and splayed, don’t fuckin’ play your audience for fools, Dan.

    Ain’t one bank claiming the CRA flipped their balance sheet from bad to good.

    Get effen real.

    Like or Dislike: 0  0

    ( REPLY )
25. 

    Moe Mullins
    October 19th, 2009 - 00:16

    Oooops, from good to bad.

    Hahaha.

    Romero!!!!!!

    But it’s on the table,

    The fires cookin’,

    And they’re farmin’ babies,

    While the slaves are all workin’,

    And blood is on the table,

    And the mouths are chokin’,

    But I’m going hungey, yeah,

    Idon’t mind stealin’ bread

    From the mouths of decadence!

    Like or Dislike: 0  0

    ( REPLY )

Leave a comment Cancel reply