Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on December 28, 2011, 09:49:24 AM
-
6:23 on.
Read it and weep you idiots.
-
Yeah......why is it that nobody believed anything said about him during the election. Its like its a shock that he's worthless.
-
Yeah......why is it that nobody believed anything said about him during the election. Its like its a shock that he's worthless.
I did a ton of research on Obama before the election and knew from Day 1 he would be a catastrophe for this nation. If people wanted a black president so badly - there were plenty of far more qualified, non-communist, choices to pick from which would have been fine by me.
But no - the obamabots had to go find the most radical, most economically illiterate, empty suit, pofs they could find and annoint him their king.
-
Yep.....nobody listened...we were racist..we hated black people...blah blah blah...no douchbags I hate liberal commie nuts with zero experience, sit in white hate churches...pal around with domestic terrorists etc etc etc...
-
Yep.....nobody listened...we were racist..we hated black people...blah blah blah...no douchbags I hate liberal commie nuts with zero experience, sit in white hate churches...pal around with domestic terrorists etc etc etc...
The worst part in retrospect is that if Rand Paul or Rubio ran for president that leftist communists who supported obama would be screaming about lack of experience, no qualifications, etc.
They don't see the irony of selecting who was perhaps the most economically illiterate, empty suit, record of failure, pofsa on the radar as their king.
-
At the very least...Obama had a record of NOTHING when he did have a job. Doesn't that tell you something...kinda like RP....he's actually done nothing as regards legislation.
-
At the very least...Obama had a record of NOTHING when he did have a job. Doesn't that tell you something...kinda like RP....he's actually done nothing as regards legislation.
At least with Ron Paul there are endless youtube clips from the 1980's on knowing where he stands.
with obama - we got a few clips which in of itself were instructive as to his beliefs.
1. Wanted to skyrocket energy prices.
2. Thought he US const was fatally flawed
3. Wanted to bankrupt the coal companies
4. Wanted a national police force
5. Praised Rev, Wright
6. Thought the Warren Court was not radical enough.
Yeah - real presidential material right there!!!!
-
I agree..which is sort of RP's problem currently..Barry on the other hand, all you had to do is see who his pals where.
-
-
-
subprime and Alt A loans served and when they first came out they required a large down payment 30-40%. That worked fine for years. It was the fraudulent collateralization of these loans that caused them to explode
the whole thing is explained very well here: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/355/the-giant-pool-of-money
if you want to continue to believe that the government forced banks to make CRA loans made to unqualified minorities and that caused the asset bubble and subsequent meltdown then feel free
-
subprime and Alt A loans served and when they first came out they required a large down payment 30-40%. That worked fine for years. It was the fraudulent collateralization of these loans that caused them to explode
the whole thing is explained very well here: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/355/the-giant-pool-of-money
if you want to continue to believe that the government forced banks to make CRA loans made to unqualified minorities and that caused the asset bubble and subsequent meltdown then feel free
::)
And why did anny and Freddy but them up knowing that?
-
::)
And why did anny and Freddy but them up knowing that?
I assume you mean "buy"
everyone drank the Kool Aid
many of the investment banks who created this shit also bought and sold it back and forth.
They all thought their magic formula had some how eliminated the risk
-
subprime and Alt A loans served and when they first came out they required a large down payment 30-40%. That worked fine for years. It was the fraudulent collateralization of these loans that caused them to explode
the whole thing is explained very well here: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/355/the-giant-pool-of-money
if you want to continue to believe that the government forced banks to make CRA loans made to unqualified minorities and that caused the asset bubble and subsequent meltdown then feel free
There wouldn't have been a bubble either way had the market not been flooded by cheap credit created by the Fed. Had demand for housing risen like it did then interest rates would have risen consequently due to higher demand for loanable funds. The higher interest rates would have nipped any bubble in the bud before it got out of hand. So really, blaming the CRA or "collateralization" (which is actually a very sound financial innovation) or Fannie/Freddie is all extremely misplaced. Don't get me wrong, Fannie/Freddie and the CRA ought to be opposed for other reasons but they did not create the bubble. That said, you can blame those government programs for channeling the bubble into the housing sector.
-
There wouldn't have been a bubble either way had the market not been flooded by cheap credit created by the Fed. Had demand for housing risen like it did then interest rates would have risen consequently due to higher demand for loanable funds. The higher interest rates would have nipped any bubble in the bud before it got out of hand. So really, blaming the CRA or "collateralization" (which is actually a very sound financial innovation) or Fannie/Freddie is all extremely misplaced. Don't get me wrong, Fannie/Freddie and the CRA ought to be opposed for other reasons but they did not create the bubble. That said, you can blame those government programs for channeling the bubble into the housing sector.
The Fed kept rates low but which certainly exacerbated the bubble but I don't think it created it.
Even after they raised rates (after keeping them low way too long) there was still a market for the CDO's
The Fed also didn't regulate CDO's and CDS's without which most of these pools could also not have been created because in the end these pools were designed to fail in order to get a payoff from the Credit Default Swaps
If the rating agencies hadn't given these securitized pools of debt Triple A rating there would have been no way to sell them to governments, pensions, etc.. (though it's likely the investment banks would have continued to buy and sell them among themselves)
-
The Fed kept rates low but which certainly exacerbated the bubble but I don't think it created it.
Even after they raised rates (after keeping them low way too long) there was still a market for the CDO's
The Fed also didn't regulate CDO's and CDS's without which most of these pools could also not have been created because in the end these pools were designed to fail in order to get a payoff from the Credit Default Swaps
If the rating agencies hadn't given these securitized pools of debt Triple A rating there would have been no way to sell them to governments, pensions, etc.. (though it's likely the investment banks would have continued to buy and sell them among themselves)
Even with CDO's and the whole shabang, if there were no credit creation by the Fed there would not have been any bubble. The fact of the matter is that even after the Fed raised interest rates it was still injecting the economy with credit. The interest rates were still far too low.
In a free market, such bubbles cannot occur. As soon as people start borrowing in order to feed any potential bubble, interest rates must rise in order to reflect higher demand and limited supply, thereby choking off the bubble before it ever starts. However, in this case the Fed kept interest rates low and printed the difference, thereby feeding the bubble when an otherwise free market would not have done so.
-
Even with CDO's and the whole shabang, if there were no credit creation by the Fed there would not have been any bubble. The fact of the matter is that even after the Fed raised interest rates it was still injecting the economy with credit. The interest rates were still far too low.
In a free market, such bubbles cannot occur. As soon as people start borrowing in order to feed any potential bubble, interest rates must rise in order to reflect higher demand and limited supply, thereby choking off the bubble before it ever starts. However, in this case the Fed kept interest rates low and printed the difference, thereby feeding the bubble when an otherwise free market would not have done so.
The Govt wanted the bubble. Both parties loved the Re bubble and make cazillions off of it from the Fed govt to the local city govts who jacked spending and taxes to boot.
-
Even with CDO's and the whole shabang, if there were no credit creation by the Fed there would not have been any bubble. The fact of the matter is that even after the Fed raised interest rates it was still injecting the economy with credit. The interest rates were still far too low.
In a free market, such bubbles cannot occur. As soon as people start borrowing in order to feed any potential bubble, interest rates must rise in order to reflect higher demand and limited supply, thereby choking off the bubble before it ever starts. However, in this case the Fed kept interest rates low and printed the difference, thereby feeding the bubble when an otherwise free market would not have done so.
credit extension from the Fed via.....discount window?
I don't believe the Fed was purchasing assets at that time other than tweaking reserve requirements and keeping the discount rate low how were they injecting the economy with credit?
Do you agree that without CDO's and CDS's these subprime loans could not have been packaged and sold or the market for them would have been much much smaller ?
-
The Govt wanted the bubble. Both parties loved the Re bubble and make cazillions off of it from the Fed govt to the local city govts who jacked spending and taxes to boot.
I've seen nothing to support that claim
-
I've seen nothing to support that claim
LOL. Are you kidding? The local govts used the bubble to jack up spending and taxes to oblivion. Most of these cities gave away massive amounts to the public sector unions during this time and killed the homeowner w property tax increases based on higher appraisals.
Now that the appraisals and values are crashing - these pofs thugs you love so much refusae to cut taxes or spending, hence the battles we see in Ohio, Wis, NJ, etc.
-
credit extension from the Fed via.....discount window?
I don't believe the Fed was purchasing assets at that time other than tweaking reserve requirements and keeping the discount rate low how were they injecting the economy with credit?
Do you agree that without CDO's and CDS's these subprime loans could not have been packaged and sold or the market for them would have been much much smaller ?
Credit expansion was alive and well:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3660/3402732082_8bb877f5bf.jpg)
AFAIK, the discount window was more or less obsolete in the 2000's till the financial crisis hit.
Sure, the market would have been smaller without CDO's and all of the other financial instruments that arose in the 2000's and before. But that isn't a bad thing. You want an efficient financial system that gets credit to where it's most direly wanted. The problem was that there was an oversupply of credit fueling an unsustainable expansion in the housing market.
-
The Govt wanted the bubble. Both parties loved the Re bubble and make cazillions off of it from the Fed govt to the local city govts who jacked spending and taxes to boot.
That assumes that the people in government are intelligent. They most certainly are not.
-
That assumes that the people in government are intelligent. They most certainly are not.
Most of these cities saw revenues skyrocket from mortgage fees, transfer taxes, recording fees, etc and spent the money and made promised based upon those revenues to the public sector madoffs.
Very few of them saved the money and most pissed it away on the public sector goons.
-
Credit expansion was alive and well:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3660/3402732082_8bb877f5bf.jpg)
AFAIK, the discount window was more or less obsolete in the 2000's till the financial crisis hit.
Sure, the market would have been smaller without CDO's and all of the other financial instruments that arose in the 2000's and before. But that isn't a bad thing. You want an efficient financial system that gets credit to where it's most direly wanted. The problem was that there was an oversupply of credit fueling an unsustainable expansion in the housing market.
ok but based on M2 doesn't explain why investment banks suddenly started to fund risky loans
M2 will grow as there is more money in the economy. As RE prices rose it the asset bubble grew it drives up M2
investment banks were not regulated by the Federal Reserve at that time ( to the best of my knowledge)
Lehman, Bear Stearns etc.. could never have created and sold these risky loans without having the triple A bond rate or the CDO's (collateralization) or CDS (insurance against default)
AIG was of course a big part of this too as they were selling insurance without having the necessary reserves (which I why they became insolvent in one day as soon as their rating was downgraded which immediately required more reserves which they did not have)
I certainly believe the Fed played a role but I don't think they were the cause
-
They funded them because they never had any intention of holding them!
-
They funded them because they never had any intention of holding them!
actually they often held the worst tranches
also, without the triple A ratings they never would have been able to sell them
and without the Credit Default Swaps they wouldn't have been able to game the system and create pools that were designed to fail (and trigger the CDS)
It's possible that one hedge fund called Magnetar was the straw that broke the camels back
Around 2005 they figured out they could design pools of loans to fail by becoming the buyer of the worst tranches. without which the pool never could have been created, and then bough credit default swaps on the entire pool.
There should have been a law against this but it was perfectlyh legal
Lots of good info about this here: http://www.propublica.org/series/the-wall-street-money-machine
direct link to Magnetar story: http://www.propublica.org/article/all-the-magnetar-trade-how-one-hedge-fund-helped-keep-the-housing-bubble
-
ok but based on M2 doesn't explain why investment banks suddenly started to fund risky loans
Yes it does. If you're a bank and you're flooded with credit, you have to lend that money to someone. If you have too much to loan at a reasonable interest rate to "safe" investments, then you'll start doling out money to riskier investments in order to seek a higher return. This especially holds true in a bubble economy where even "risky" investments become "safe" due to certain uneconomic circumstances (e.g. constantly rising housing prices making refinancing a breeze).
M2 will grow as there is more money in the economy. As RE prices rose it the asset bubble grew it drives up M2
You got the cause and effect wrong. Growing real estate prices didn't increase M2. Growing M2 increased real estate prices. More money in banks = more loans = higher demand for real estate.
investment banks were not regulated by the Federal Reserve at that time ( to the best of my knowledge)
The financial industry is one of the most regulated industries in the United States and across the world. Moreover, the financial crisis wasn't a problem unique to the American financial industry, but to banks in every developed economy in the world. The one commonality between all of these developed countries is that central banks around the world engaged in a concerted effort to lower interest rates in the early 2000s.
Lehman, Bear Stearns etc.. could never have created and sold these risky loans without having the triple A bond rate or the CDO's (collateralization) or CDS (insurance against default)
Notice that the loans they sold weren't risky because ever rising real estate prices basically guaranteed a return. Even in the case of a bankruptcy, the bank could have taken the real estate and sold it at a profit.
They were only risky with hindsight, when people finally realized that there was a massive bubble that was fueling the whole gig.
AIG was of course a big part of this too as they were selling insurance without having the necessary reserves (which I why they became insolvent in one day as soon as their rating was downgraded which immediately required more reserves which they did not have)
And again, you reverse cause-and-effect. AIG would not have been able to do that if we weren't in a bubble-economy. They would have gone bankrupt looooong before 2008/2009. It is the bubble that fueled risky behavior and not vice versa.
I certainly believe the Fed played a role but I don't think they were the cause
You can believe what you want but logic is not on your side. Even with CDO's, CDS's, and all the other innovative financial instruments, no bubble could have formed. The more people would have bought houses, the higher interest rates would have gone. The higher interest rates, in turn, would have reduced demand for housing. It's as simple as that. But because the Fed follows an interest rate policy, it in effect fueled a bubble.
-
Yes it does. If you're a bank and you're flooded with credit, you have to lend that money to someone. If you have too much to loan at a reasonable interest rate to "safe" investments, then you'll start doling out money to riskier investments in order to seek a higher return. This especially holds true in a bubble economy where even "risky" investments become "safe" due to certain uneconomic circumstances (e.g. constantly rising housing prices making refinancing a breeze).
You got the cause and effect wrong. Growing real estate prices didn't increase M2. Growing M2 increased real estate prices. More money in banks = more loans = higher demand for real estate.
The financial industry is one of the most regulated industries in the United States and across the world. Moreover, the financial crisis wasn't a problem unique to the American financial industry, but to banks in every developed economy in the world. The one commonality between all of these developed countries is that central banks around the world engaged in a concerted effort to lower interest rates in the early 2000s.
Notice that the loans they sold weren't risky because ever rising real estate prices basically guaranteed a return. Even in the case of a bankruptcy, the bank could have taken the real estate and sold it at a profit.
They were only risky with hindsight, when people finally realized that there was a massive bubble that was fueling the whole gig.
And again, you reverse cause-and-effect. AIG would not have been able to do that if we weren't in a bubble-economy. They would have gone bankrupt looooong before 2008/2009. It is the bubble that fueled risky behavior and not vice versa.
You can believe what you want but logic is not on your side. Even with CDO's, CDS's, and all the other innovative financial instruments, no bubble could have formed. The more people would have bought houses, the higher interest rates would have gone. The higher interest rates, in turn, would have reduced demand for housing. It's as simple as that. But because the Fed follows an interest rate policy, it in effect fueled a bubble.
I have to run so I'll respond back later but I don't agree with this statement
You got the cause and effect wrong. Growing real estate prices didn't increase M2. Growing M2 increased real estate prices. More money in banks = more loans = higher demand for real estate.
growing RE prices created income (borrowed equity, inocme from sales) which definitley increases M2
Investment banks did not get any money from the Fed and banks don't lending more because they have more money.
The problem right now is that banks have plenty of money but lending is tight because they've tightened up credit guidelines (Bernake has even talked about this)
The RE Boom could not have gotten sparked without the subprime lenders regardless of how much money the commercial banks had
sorry I have to run but I will respond back in more detail later
-
growing RE prices created income (borrowed equity, inocme from sales) which definitley increases M2
Wrong. Rising prices don't create money. How can you possible even link a causal relationship between the two?
Investment banks did not get any money from the Fed and banks don't lending more because they have more money.
You don't have to get money directly from the Fed in order to benefit from credit expansion. Money is fungible - increased credit easily spreads throughout the entire financial system.
The problem right now is that banks have plenty of money but lending is tight because they've tightened up credit guidelines (Bernake has even talked about this)
Yes - they've tightened up credit because the economy is weak. We are no longer in a bubble economy, Bernanke has been running deflationary policies concurrently to his inflationary ones, and there is a lot of political uncertainty coming down from DC.
The RE Boom could not have gotten sparked without the subprime lenders regardless of how much money the commercial banks had
And what if we had the subprime lenders but no credit expansion? What would have happened? People would have borrowed more to purchase more housing and interest rates would have risen in order to reflect a limited supply of loanable funds. Housing prices would not have risen enough to create a bubble, regardless of subprime lending.
-
Wrong. Rising prices don't create money. How can you possible even link a causal relationship between the two?
rising home equity creates wealth (due to sale or borrowing against equity) some of which get's deposited into savings, money market etc.. which is part of M2. The same is true of rising stock market
BTW - M2 is higher than ever and so why don't we still have a growin asset bubble and the bank are flush with cash and won't lend. What is the missing element? Why aren't there are abundance of subprime and alt A loans if it was all created due to rising M2 rates (the answer is below although I've mentioned it before)
You don't have to get money directly from the Fed in order to benefit from credit expansion. Money is fungible - increased credit easily spreads throughout the entire financial system.
sure but that doesn't explain the mechanics of how investment banks were able to create altA and subprime loans and being able to package up the good with the bad and sell the whole bundle as top rated securities
Yes - they've tightened up credit because the economy is weak. We are no longer in a bubble economy, Bernanke has been running deflationary policies concurrently to his inflationary ones, and there is a lot of political uncertainty coming down from DC.
They've tightened up credit because they can't sell the debt....period
a weak economy would actually be a time to loosen credit whichi is what Bernake has said in many of his recent statements before Congress but the banks aren't doing it because there is no one to sell the debt to (other than Fannie and Freddie who are making banks buy back loans whenver possible)
And what if we had the subprime lenders but no credit expansion? What would have happened? People would have borrowed more to purchase more housing and interest rates would have risen in order to reflect a limited supply of loanable funds. Housing prices would not have risen enough to create a bubble, regardless of subprime lending.
by defintion - subprime lenders existed long before AltA products showed up in the late 1990's
Subprime loans had required large down payments (usually 30% or more) and we not utitlized to a great extent by the average borrower. Although these loans might have been "stated income" that often required bank statements to prove cash flow and still have debt to income requirements
It was the introduction of AltA and the gradual (and then fast) deterioration of standard underwriting guidelines that changed the entire landscape and in the end the Alt A lenders were doing 100% financing on non-owner properties with no income or asset verification. These become the loans of choice for people who could not qualify and had no hope of repayment. Their sole purpose was to hold the property for 12 months or less and sell if for 100k or more than they paid for it.
None of this could have happened without the combination of fraud by bond rating companies and the use of credit default swaps in order to create pools of loans that werer created for the sole purpose of failing and thereby triggering the CDS's
If you need one definining moment that created the asset bubble we saw in Real Estate is was the deregulation of the commodities market in the late 1990's
-
rising home equity creates wealth (due to sale or borrowing against equity) some of which get's deposited into savings, money market etc.. which is part of M2. The same is true of rising stock market
M2 is a measure of the stock of money - not of wealth. Money isn't created by someone having equity in their home - it's created by government and their proxies.
BTW - M2 is higher than ever and so why don't we still have a growin asset bubble and the bank are flush with cash and won't lend. What is the missing element? Why aren't there are abundance of subprime and alt A loans if it was all created due to rising M2 rates (the answer is below although I've mentioned it before)
Because when a bubble crashes, the market needs to clear before another bubble can form. The policies coming down from D.C. have prevented the market from clearing, which is why the recovery has been so lackluster.
sure but that doesn't explain the mechanics of how investment banks were able to create altA and subprime loans and being able to package up the good with the bad and sell the whole bundle as top rated securities
But what does? The bubble economy. Those securities were top-rated for a reason: housing prices were constantly rising, so in the event someone didn't have enough money to pay their mortgage, they could simply refinance; or if they couldn't refinance, the bank could take it over and sell it with a profit to boot.
They've tightened up credit because they can't sell the debt....period
Do you believe the people who head banks are stupid? Would YOU lend in an environment where unemployment is high, the economy is weak, inflation is on the horizon, and government debt is soon approaching a precipice?
a weak economy would actually be a time to loosen credit whichi is what Bernake has said in many of his recent statements before Congress but the banks aren't doing it because there is no one to sell the debt to (other than Fannie and Freddie who are making banks buy back loans whenver possible)
A weak economy is when certain economists believe that the CENTRAL BANK should loosen up credit. It is not a time for private banks to loosen up credit - if they did so, they'd most certainly lose money.
by defintion - subprime lenders existed long before AltA products showed up in the late 1990's
Of course they did. You're not proving a thing with that statement.
Subprime loans had required large down payments (usually 30% or more) and we not utitlized to a great extent by the average borrower. Although these loans might have been "stated income" that often required bank statements to prove cash flow and still have debt to income requirements
It was the introduction of AltA and the gradual (and then fast) deterioration of standard underwriting guidelines that changed the entire landscape and in the end the Alt A lenders were doing 100% financing on non-owner properties with no income or asset verification. These become the loans of choice for people who could not qualify and had no hope of repayment. Their sole purpose was to hold the property for 12 months or less and sell if for 100k or more than they paid for it.
None of this could have happened without the combination of fraud by bond rating companies and the use of credit default swaps in order to create pools of loans that werer created for the sole purpose of failing and thereby triggering the CDS's
If you need one definining moment that created the asset bubble we saw in Real Estate is was the deregulation of the commodities market in the late 1990's
Fact: If housing prices didn't continually rise, this bubble would have never occurred. And the only thing that can explain the continual rise in housing prices and the start of the bubble is Fed intervention with the money supply and interest rates. Had demand for housing increased in the natural course of things, the demand for loanable funds would have increased, thereby increasing interest rates and thus choking off any incipient housing bubble. There's not a single deregulation that could have accomplished that.
-
The very notion that housing prices could rise with no end in sight without the government pumping in money like there was no tomorrow is simply laughable. It's basic supply-and-demand.
-
Definition M2 from Saint Louis Fed:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M2
M2 includes a broader set of financial assets held principally by households. M2 consists of M1 plus: (1) savings deposits (which include money market deposit accounts, or MMDAs); (2) small-denomination time deposits (time deposits in amounts of less than $100,000); and (3) balances in retail money market mutual funds (MMMFs). Seasonally adjusted M2 is computed by summing savings deposits, small-denomination time deposits, and retail MMMFs, each seasonally adjusted separately, and adding this result to seasonally adjusted M1.
As home values rise, home equity is cashed out (via borrowing of equity or sale of the asset) and if that money is deposited in any of the categories listed above then it is included in M2
The notion that rising M2 caused the asset bubble is absurd and has not foundation at all in fact.
We know exactly what caused the asset bubble and like you said it was a factor of "supply and demand"
Subprime lenders offered a supply of very easy credit to unqualified borrowers which created a surge is sales (and resulting surge in building of new units). Greenspan said this excess is supply was due to great demand by "securitizers" for more product. ProPublica did an investigation of one such hedge fund (Magnatar) who was part of this demand" and how their objective seems to have been to create pools of loans designed to fail.
you can read about Magnatar here:
http://www.propublica.org/article/all-the-magnetar-trade-how-one-hedge-fund-helped-keep-the-housing-bubble/single
This increase in sales is what created the risings "values" and the cause was a direct result of Lack of Regulation.
Ayn Rands disciple Alan Greenspan admitted this and it's not really a debatable fact among anyone who knows the industry or even just understands the credit markets
If you need to find one specific cause for the RE Bubble it was deregulation of the commodity and banking industries in the late 1990's
Again, not Fannie or Freddie, not M2, not too much regulation etc...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html
Critics, including many economists, now blame the former Fed chairman for the financial crisis that is tipping the economy into a potentially deep recession. Mr. Greenspan’s critics say that he encouraged the bubble in housing prices by keeping interest rates too low for too long and that he failed to rein in the explosive growth of risky and often fraudulent mortgage lending.
“This crisis,” he told lawmakers, “has turned out to be much broader than anything I could have imagined. It has morphed from one gripped by liquidity restraints to one in which fears of insolvency are now paramount.”
Many Republican lawmakers on the oversight committee tried to blame the mortgage meltdown on the unchecked growth of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government-sponsored mortgage-finance companies that were placed in a government conservatorship last month. Republicans have argued that Democratic lawmakers blocked measures to reform the companies.
But Mr. Greenspan, who was first appointed by President Ronald Reagan, placed far more blame on the Wall Street companies that bundled subprime mortgages into pools and sold them as mortgage-backed securities. Global demand for the securities was so high, he said, that Wall Street companies pressured lenders to lower their standards and produce more “paper.”
“The evidence strongly suggests that without the excess demand from securitizers, subprime mortgage originations (undeniably the original source of the crisis) would have been far smaller and defaults accordingly far lower,” he said.
-
BUMP for Whork to delete his account