sub-prime mortgages

Financial Planning - Financial planning in general. (Moderated) 

get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content  add this group's latest topics to your Google content  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
sub-prime mortgages beliavsky 07-08-2008
  |--> Re: sub-prime mortgages Elizabeth Richa...07-09-2008
  ---> Re: sub-prime mortgages Elizabeth Richa...07-09-2008
  |--> Re: sub-prime mortgages Elizabeth Richa...07-10-2008
  ---> Re: sub-prime mortgages Coffee's For Cl...07-14-2008
Posted by joetaxpayer on July 9, 2008, 3:31 pm


Dave Dodson wrote:

> The subprime problem occurred because neither the mortgage brokers nor
> the bankers had any "skin" in the game. The brokers were lending money
> supplied by the bankers, securitized by investment bankers, and rated
> by securities rating companies.

Securitizing itself became part of the problem. In the 'old' days, even
a 90% loan to value mortgage was something one could understand. If the
house dropped 20%, the mortgage holder stood to lose 1/9 of their funds
(plus costs, of course). Securitization brought in more liquidity, of
course, but also created instruments that were incomprehensible, slicing
and dicing pools of loans so some pieces had no underlying value from
day one. Even in normal times, one can slice up the expected payment
streams to create tranches which would be impacted by even a low default
rate. This time, those tranches all bubbled up too soon and too many at
once as rates rose.
Joe
www.blog.joetaxpayer.com

--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.


Posted by Augustine on July 14, 2008, 1:23 pm
I finally understand how banks made risk short of "disappearing" when
lending to sub-prime borrowers. Of course, the massive defaults were
written on the wall when many of such contracts were ARMs at all-time
low interest rates.

Thanks for the explanation.

--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.


Posted by Chip on July 9, 2008, 4:06 pm
Dave Dodson wrote:

>> There is no "magic" ratio of mortgage, home insurance, and property
>> tax payments to income above which a delinquency is impossible -- the
>> lower the better. In a free country, lenders ought to be able to make
>> riskier loans at higher interest rates and absorb the occasional
>> losses, as in the credit card industry. But why wouldn't lenders
>> gather information before handing over hundreds of thousands of
>> dollars?
>
>
> The subprime problem occurred because neither the mortgage brokers nor
> the bankers had any "skin" in the game. The brokers were lending money
> supplied by the bankers, securitized by investment bankers, and rated
> by securities rating companies. The brokers made money on every loan,
> but had no risk of loss if the loan failed. The bankers were selling
> the mortgages as soon as they were written to replenish their money
> supply. They were making money every loan they made, but were taking
> no risk, either. The investment bankers packaged the loans, obtained
> favorable ratings, and sold them to investors. They made money on
> every loan, but also had no risk of loss. The rating companies were
> paid by the investment bankers, who wanted high ratings to ease sales
> to investors, and satisfied their customers. They made money on every
> loan, but they also took no risk by overrating the packaged loans.
>
> Loan qualification rules merely were impediments to the brokers,
> bankers, investment bankers, and rating companies making more money,
> so they found ways to relax the rules and finally to eliminate them
> completely.

Thank you, that is the clearest explanation of this mess I've heard yet.
The greedheads keep pointing at each other so you can't figure out who
to blame. Greed is good until you bring the whole house down on everybody.

I wonder if this is going to end like the Savings and Loan scandal of
the Keating era (John McCain was one of his Five). Massive gov
bail-outs for the greedheads and screw the middle guy.

That affects financial planning, brother!

Chip

--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.


Posted by Elle on July 9, 2008, 8:23 pm
> The subprime problem occurred because neither the mortgage
> brokers nor
> the bankers had any "skin" in the game. The brokers were
> lending money
> supplied by the bankers, securitized by investment
> bankers, and rated
> by securities rating companies. The brokers made money on
> every loan,
> but had no risk of loss if the loan failed. The bankers
> were selling
> the mortgages as soon as they were written to replenish
> their money
> supply. They were making money every loan they made, but
> were taking
> no risk, either. The investment bankers packaged the
> loans, obtained
> favorable ratings, and sold them to investors. They made
> money on
> every loan, but also had no risk of loss.

Don't the many bank writedowns of recent months show that
the banks gambled, took risks, and lost? Also, when a bank
requires minimal-to-no downpayment on a home mortgage, and
then the house price goes upside-down and many folks
default, the risk is clear.

I agree there were underlings who made money on transaction
costs of home sales, but this money was relatively meager.
Also, these underlings do not control things like the
integrity of re-packaged mortgages and how much downpayment
is required.

Aside: I think this does go towards financial planning for
ordinary folks. We are seeing history here, insofar as
another bubble has burst. Noting what caused the bubble is
important. Ordinary folks must never look at an investment
such as a house, stock, or mutual fund as an ATM machine.

--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.


Posted by Elizabeth Richardson on July 9, 2008, 9:30 pm


> Ordinary folks must never look at an investment such as a house, stock,
> or mutual fund as an ATM machine.

Ordinary folks ought not to look at their house as an investment.

Elizabeth Richardson

--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.


Similar ThreadsPosted
causes of subprime crisis October 30, 2007, 9:26 am
what's the fuss about subprime crisis? August 11, 2007, 3:59 am
A Good Look at the Subprime Mess October 27, 2007, 1:52 pm
Re: conforming mortgages August 16, 2007, 9:54 am
Finding info on bank's subprime exposure? January 9, 2008, 3:04 pm
Escrow account rules with mortgages February 8, 2007, 2:18 pm
Study defends option ARM mortgages September 24, 2007, 10:36 am

other essential online resources:
United States Treasury
US Securities and Exchange Commission
New York Stock Exchange
Tokyo Stock Exchange
Accounting and Tax Software Forums

Contact Us | Privacy Policy   XML SitemapXML Sitemap