UKBouldering.com

Soros is betting against the outcome of Bush's recovery plan (Read 6458 times)

Bonjoy

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Leafy gent
  • Posts: 9934
  • Karma: +561/-8
I agree the original plan was not a great deal for the taxpayer, but the negotiated version sounded much improved. I dare say a lot of those who voted against it hoped that it would go ahead but without their vote so that they could claim moral victory for not supporting it.

Jaspersharpe

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • 1B punter
  • Posts: 12344
  • Karma: +600/-20
  • Allez Oleeeve!
By the sound of things that's right. It's not exactly the time for political posturing but they just can't help themselves.

Sloper

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • fat and weak but with good footwork.
  • Posts: 5199
  • Karma: +130/-78
The plan was fataly flawed in political terms as the US election cycle would have made in impossible for people to support a plan that would not bail out their consituents but rather the amorphous institutions while at the same time allowing the small fry to go to the wall.

Most US mortgages are 'non recourse' loans and as such theloses in value of the asset security cannot be reduced by claims against the debtor, there are plenty of defaulters who remain in well paid employment and have simply handed back the keys to their property and shifted to rented accommodation.  Property prices in the US have fallen around 45% in some areas and are predicted with oversupply to fall some 60+% in many areas.  This doesn't even begin to factor in the NINJA mortgages and massive amounts of fraud.

I'm actually sceptical as to whether the bail out is necessary and whether a Fed backed buy back scheme, where the asset is of value and the debtor has means, re-structures the loan to a realistic size and the remainder is marked off by the creditor with a partial contra by the FED in exchange for equity int he business might be the way forward.

This would provide meaningful support to mainstreet and the big hit would be felt by the investors but over a more sustained period.

What must not happen is for the governments to keep trying to inflate a leaking balloon that is sure to go pop in the short to medium term.

The market is working effectively and needs conservative management (note that''s a small C, I'm not trying to make any political points) rather than the approach of us all holding hands and leaping off the cliff together.


marty

Offline
  • **
  • menacing presence
  • Posts: 166
  • Karma: +5/-0
www.ft.com

As Wall Street and Washington come to terms with the torpedoed Tarp and the great Joe Six-Pack backlash gathers pace, it might be worth a reminder as to why sub-prime lending became so popular in the first place.

To the annals of the New York Times, to this day in nineteen ninety-nine:

"Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders…"


Earlier that summer, in July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 per cent of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers - up from 44 per cent at the time. The department was also investigating allegations of racism in the underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine applicants’ credit-worthiness.

Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates — anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.


But even back then there was an understanding in some quarters that this politically-inspired plan could well end in disaster. The NYT quoted one Peter Wallison, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who last year also became an adviser to the SEC.

‘From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us… If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.’

andy popp

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5539
  • Karma: +347/-5
The market is working effectively

WTF, which market is that then? Efficient market achieve equilibrium through matching supply and demand. They do this through the price mechanism - i.e. markets are very good at pricing. Credit and many other financial markets are now utterly frozen - not my definition of working effectively - precisely because they are utterly unable to price these 'products' (e.g. sub-prime mortgages) due largely to information asymmetries and bounded rationality (perfect information is another supposed property of 'the market'). There is no significant problem in terms of demand or even of supply in the financial system currently - its matching that's proving hard.
 
Marty, the plan maybe politically motivated but so is the judgement on it that you quote. The American Enterprise Institute is ultra neo-liberal. That guy wants it to fail just as did many republicans who view it as little more than socialism

Obi-Wan is lost...

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 3164
  • Karma: +138/-3
Something my bro sent me this week which made me smile...

(possibly NSFW hence the non-embed)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3153/2921748420_85709973b3_o.jpg

Another website that seems to be getting a lot of hits currently...

http://www.sadtrombone.com/

Jaspersharpe

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • 1B punter
  • Posts: 12344
  • Karma: +600/-20
  • Allez Oleeeve!
2: Are they seriously considering allowing the taxpayer to "buy" just the worthless crap that the banks have amassed (and got themselves in trouble with) and then just let them carry on as normal?! Surely the better plan would be to systematically nationalise the failing banks, taking their "good" assets too?


Well, well, well.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3187946/Financial-crisis-Banks-nationalised-by-Government.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3184842/Bank-nationalisation-How-a-bail-out-became-a-buy-out.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/14/ftse-market-turmoil

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a8217a90-9980-11dd-9d48-000077b07658.html

I hope all of this works. I certainly have more confidence in this plan than any other previously proposed (and I like the idea of government finally taking a bit of power back from the banks). We'll see.

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal