(02-04-2017 11:49 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  The saddest part is that Obama told the justice department not to throw any of his wall st friends who were responsible for the illegal actions that took place in jail.

What were these illegal actions that Wall street was responsible for?

(02-04-2017 11:49 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 10:24 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Mistake.

This is going to end in more people losing everything trading sub-prime mortgages. The banks don't care if they fail since they'll be getting bailed out anyway. The saddest part about it is that we're all so stupid that we'll buy what we can't afford anyway - just 10 years after the last collapse.

I'm in architecture. I hope that I don't have to move after this next bubble bursts just to find work. I don't want to leave.

The saddest part is that Obama told the justice department not to throw any of his wall st friends who were responsible for the illegal actions that took place in jail. If you give a damned about anything of what you just said, you would call Obama out here and now. In fact you shoul dhave called him out on it a year or so ago when he made up his mind to protect his wall st friends.

Mnuchin is one of them if you believe in that? If we throw those guys in jail? Mnuchin would be one of them which Trump is filling his cabinet up with swamp rats.

(02-04-2017 06:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 10:35 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 10:24 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Mistake.

This is going to end in more people losing everything trading sub-prime mortgages. The banks don't care if they fail since they'll be getting bailed out anyway. The saddest part about it is that we're all so stupid that we'll buy what we can't afford anyway - just 10 years after the last collapse.

I'm in architecture. I hope that I don't have to move after this next bubble bursts just to find work. I don't want to leave.

People make their own decisions. Anyone stupid enough not to learn from history and trade in subprime mortgages deserve what they get. Personally, Id love another bubble. I bought at the peak in 07 (big rookie mistake) and have paid my mortgage for 10 years, but still underwater. Luckily I got a conventional mortgage. Id love to get out of this hellhole. I am responsible and have top credit and make pretty good money, but being stuck suks.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

And if banks fail all the executives' stock options become worthless. Saying they don't care if they fail is just demonstrating you have no understanding of corporations and business.

The problem is one of asymmetrical risks/rewards. For the bankers the risk reward payoff is like this

If you go super risky and win, YOU personally get millions. If the super risky bet fails,YOU don't lose your bonus from last year and the taxpayers/shareholders take the loss

For the banker/trader, the expected personal value of going 'risky' is positive unless there are constraints.

(02-05-2017 11:27 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 06:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 10:35 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 10:24 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Mistake.

This is going to end in more people losing everything trading sub-prime mortgages. The banks don't care if they fail since they'll be getting bailed out anyway. The saddest part about it is that we're all so stupid that we'll buy what we can't afford anyway - just 10 years after the last collapse.

I'm in architecture. I hope that I don't have to move after this next bubble bursts just to find work. I don't want to leave.

People make their own decisions. Anyone stupid enough not to learn from history and trade in subprime mortgages deserve what they get. Personally, Id love another bubble. I bought at the peak in 07 (big rookie mistake) and have paid my mortgage for 10 years, but still underwater. Luckily I got a conventional mortgage. Id love to get out of this hellhole. I am responsible and have top credit and make pretty good money, but being stuck suks.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

And if banks fail all the executives' stock options become worthless. Saying they don't care if they fail is just demonstrating you have no understanding of corporations and business.

The problem is one of asymmetrical risks/rewards. For the bankers the risk reward payoff is like this

If you go super risky and win, YOU personally get millions. If the super risky bet fails,YOU don't lose your bonus from last year and the taxpayers/shareholders take the loss

For the banker/trader, the expected personal value of going 'risky' is positive unless there are constraints.

Take away the TARP bailouts and suddenly your consequences make you think about the risks a little harder.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(02-05-2017 11:42 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 11:27 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 06:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 10:35 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 10:24 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Mistake.

This is going to end in more people losing everything trading sub-prime mortgages. The banks don't care if they fail since they'll be getting bailed out anyway. The saddest part about it is that we're all so stupid that we'll buy what we can't afford anyway - just 10 years after the last collapse.

I'm in architecture. I hope that I don't have to move after this next bubble bursts just to find work. I don't want to leave.

People make their own decisions. Anyone stupid enough not to learn from history and trade in subprime mortgages deserve what they get. Personally, Id love another bubble. I bought at the peak in 07 (big rookie mistake) and have paid my mortgage for 10 years, but still underwater. Luckily I got a conventional mortgage. Id love to get out of this hellhole. I am responsible and have top credit and make pretty good money, but being stuck suks.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

And if banks fail all the executives' stock options become worthless. Saying they don't care if they fail is just demonstrating you have no understanding of corporations and business.

The problem is one of asymmetrical risks/rewards. For the bankers the risk reward payoff is like this

If you go super risky and win, YOU personally get millions. If the super risky bet fails,YOU don't lose your bonus from last year and the taxpayers/shareholders take the loss

For the banker/trader, the expected personal value of going 'risky' is positive unless there are constraints.

Take away the TARP bailouts and suddenly your consequences make you think about the risks a little harder.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Why is that? They already have the cash.

(02-05-2017 12:35 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 11:42 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 11:27 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 06:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 10:35 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  People make their own decisions. Anyone stupid enough not to learn from history and trade in subprime mortgages deserve what they get. Personally, Id love another bubble. I bought at the peak in 07 (big rookie mistake) and have paid my mortgage for 10 years, but still underwater. Luckily I got a conventional mortgage. Id love to get out of this hellhole. I am responsible and have top credit and make pretty good money, but being stuck suks.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

And if banks fail all the executives' stock options become worthless. Saying they don't care if they fail is just demonstrating you have no understanding of corporations and business.

The problem is one of asymmetrical risks/rewards. For the bankers the risk reward payoff is like this

If you go super risky and win, YOU personally get millions. If the super risky bet fails,YOU don't lose your bonus from last year and the taxpayers/shareholders take the loss

For the banker/trader, the expected personal value of going 'risky' is positive unless there are constraints.

Take away the TARP bailouts and suddenly your consequences make you think about the risks a little harder.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Why is that? They already have the cash.

Because they want, ie. need, those bonuses to continue.

(02-05-2017 12:39 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 12:35 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 11:42 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-05-2017 11:27 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 06:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  And if banks fail all the executives' stock options become worthless. Saying they don't care if they fail is just demonstrating you have no understanding of corporations and business.

The problem is one of asymmetrical risks/rewards. For the bankers the risk reward payoff is like this

If you go super risky and win, YOU personally get millions. If the super risky bet fails,YOU don't lose your bonus from last year and the taxpayers/shareholders take the loss

For the banker/trader, the expected personal value of going 'risky' is positive unless there are constraints.

Take away the TARP bailouts and suddenly your consequences make you think about the risks a little harder.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Why is that? They already have the cash.

Because they want, ie. need, those bonuses to continue.

Not if they can get a huge payday and cash out, vs. doing the right thing and never getting that bonus.

I don't disagree with cutting back DoddFrank. IMO, smaller banks should not be held to the same standards as huge megabanks, etc. Doddrank is ok for the large banks, but some modifying could be done to help out community banks.

Explain something to me. How is it that we should assume on one hand that all bankers are greedy bastards trying to screw us, but on the other hand that government regulators are angels and paragons of virtue with only the public good in mind? I've spent lots of time in both places, and both assumptions are dead wrong.

(02-06-2017 09:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Explain something to me. How is it that we should assume on one hand that all bankers are greedy bastards trying to screw us, but on the other hand that government regulators are angels and paragons of virtue with only the public good in mind? I've spent lots of time in both places, and both assumptions are dead wrong.

Like they say, never good to assume anything and that goes to both sides. I don't think all bankers are the devil at all. As far as DF, I think its good legislation but also think it is crazy to hold community banks to the same standards as say a BofA or JPMorgan, etc. That's why I don't have a problem with DF being tweaked. With regards to regulators, there are always bad apples and some regulatory capture, but there are bad apples in every profession, banking being an example.

(02-06-2017 09:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Explain something to me. How is it that we should assume on one hand that all bankers are greedy bastards trying to screw us, but on the other hand that government regulators are angels and paragons of virtue with only the public good in mind? I've spent lots of time in both places, and both assumptions are dead wrong.

Because all the lawmakers got an earful from the people who wanted no bailouts, and wanted those bankers locked up including Mnuchin.

This is related to the transportation bill mentioned above. Banks have now sued the Fed. Not sure why though, as this is Congress' doing. I guess the bank's can't sue Congress though so this is the next best thing.

Bankers sue over Fed dividend diversions to highway fund


This a scary precedent by Congress. I actually hope the banks win this one and help put Congress back in its place. I mean, Congress lacked funding for the bill due to other mismanagement and just took it from the Fed.

snippit:

Quote:WASHINGTON – A group of banks filed a class action lawsuit Thursday against the federal government over a congressionally mandated Federal Reserve rule reducing their dividend payments and diverting the funds to the highway trust fund.

The suit, filed by the American Bankers Association and Washington Federal – a Fed member bank with assets of $14.8 billion – was widely telegraphed last year when the ABA filed its comments to the Federal Reserve concerning its proposal to cut the dividend.

ABA President Rob Nichols said that when Congress passed the 2015 Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (known as the FAST Act), it violated not only the terms of Fed membership, but the trust between the business community and the federal government.