Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Economist)   The Economist asks who should be assigned blame for the financial crisis. Hint: It's the people who want a good return on investment   (economist.com ) divider line 56
    More: Obvious, crisis, broker-dealers, John Paulson, accounting fraud, expected returns, Athenians, residential mortgage-backed security, toxic assets  
•       •       •

2201 clicks; posted to Business » on 28 Jan 2013 at 12:17 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-28 10:32:32 AM  
So, everyone?
 
2013-01-28 10:32:42 AM  
People who lied to the American people about what they were getting into in order to profit off their ignorance.

like this motherfarker right here:
thecasualtruth.com
 
2013-01-28 10:48:44 AM  
A nice buried paragraph, that I'm sure will be ignored by many of the people coming to this thread to vent their perpetual outrage:

It is worth pointing out that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, America's government-sponsored enterprises, were buying more than one-third of the toxic "private-label" mortgage securities issued in the mid-2000s. This was not because of any law requiring the agencies lend to the poor or to minorities, but because it was insanely profitable for them. Their executives earned fortunes during the good years as they arbitraged the difference between their funding costs and the yield on subprime CDOs with 50:1 leverage. When it blew up in their faces, taxpayers had to foot the bill. It seems like an under-explored area for prosecutors to investigate.
 
2013-01-28 11:18:04 AM  
WHY have so few gone to jail for the financial crisis? The boom and bust in S&L lending in the 1980s ended with nearly one thousand people sent to jail for financial fraud

Because they removed the laws that made what they were doing illegal?
 
2013-01-28 11:18:50 AM  

BKITU: A nice buried paragraph, that I'm sure will be ignored by many of the people coming to this thread to vent their perpetual outrage:

It is worth pointing out that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, America's government-sponsored enterprises, were buying more than one-third of the toxic "private-label" mortgage securities issued in the mid-2000s. This was not because of any law requiring the agencies lend to the poor or to minorities, but because it was insanely profitable for them. Their executives earned fortunes during the good years as they arbitraged the difference between their funding costs and the yield on subprime CDOs with 50:1 leverage. When it blew up in their faces, taxpayers had to foot the bill. It seems like an under-explored area for prosecutors to investigate.


A billionaire if you do, sued out of existence if you don't. I know what I would do, and I bet you'd do the same.
 
2013-01-28 11:27:41 AM  

BKITU: A nice buried paragraph, that I'm sure will be ignored by many of the people coming to this thread to vent their perpetual outrage:

It is worth pointing out that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, America's government-sponsored enterprises, were buying more than one-third of the toxic "private-label" mortgage securities issued in the mid-2000s. This was not because of any law requiring the agencies lend to the poor or to minorities, but because it was insanely profitable for them. Their executives earned fortunes during the good years as they arbitraged the difference between their funding costs and the yield on subprime CDOs with 50:1 leverage. When it blew up in their faces, taxpayers had to foot the bill. It seems like an under-explored area for prosecutors to investigate.


It was more than that.  Wall Street saw the subprime market as a way to do an end-around on the GSE's and cut them out of the business entirely.  As profitable as subprime turned out to be for the GSE's, their involvement was as much a matter of survival as anything.  It became a classic race to the bottom.
 
2013-01-28 12:26:53 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: So, everyone?


Maybe that should say, people who want a good return on investment, and are willing to screw over others to do so.
 
2013-01-28 12:27:32 PM  

Arkanaut: The Stealth Hippopotamus: So, everyone?

Maybe that should say, people who want a good return on investment, and are willing to screw over others to do so.


Additional edit: Willing AND able (i.e. have the money to pull it off).
 
2013-01-28 12:31:18 PM  
FTA: <i>One explanation for the confusion is that many things that are considered normal in finance look like fraud to almost everyone else. </i>

That's because a good chunk of it probably is fraud.
 
2013-01-28 12:47:49 PM  
The Economist asks who should be assigned blame for the financial crisis. Hint: It's the people who want a good return on investment

This is the distal cause. Proximally, and most culpable, are the bankers who contrived absurd finance entities to obfuscate the enormously risky gambles they were taking. And since Wall St. is both gambler and bookie, they made out like bandits despite ruining the finances and lives of millions.
 
2013-01-28 12:57:54 PM  

BKITU: A nice buried paragraph, that I'm sure will be ignored by many of the people coming to this thread to vent their perpetual outrage:

It is worth pointing out that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, America's government-sponsored enterprises, were buying more than one-third of the toxic "private-label" mortgage securities issued in the mid-2000s. This was not because of any law requiring the agencies lend to the poor or to minorities, but because it was insanely profitable for them. Their executives earned fortunes during the good years as they arbitraged the difference between their funding costs and the yield on subprime CDOs with 50:1 leverage. When it blew up in their faces, taxpayers had to foot the bill. It seems like an under-explored area for prosecutors to investigate.


I'm well aware of what Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and even Ginnie Mae were doing. It doesn't excuse the grifting that went on. Just because the government was on the take doesn't mean there isn't a racket going on. That's precisely the problem: there is a racket going on. It's just when you point that out, you get knee-jerk "OMFG SOCIALIST!" responses.
 
2013-01-28 01:04:02 PM  
Why are we still talking about the financial crisis when a recovery is underway?
 
2013-01-28 01:04:24 PM  

verbaltoxin: BKITU: A nice buried paragraph, that I'm sure will be ignored by many of the people coming to this thread to vent their perpetual outrage:

It is worth pointing out that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, America's government-sponsored enterprises, were buying more than one-third of the toxic "private-label" mortgage securities issued in the mid-2000s. This was not because of any law requiring the agencies lend to the poor or to minorities, but because it was insanely profitable for them. Their executives earned fortunes during the good years as they arbitraged the difference between their funding costs and the yield on subprime CDOs with 50:1 leverage. When it blew up in their faces, taxpayers had to foot the bill. It seems like an under-explored area for prosecutors to investigate.

I'm well aware of what Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and even Ginnie Mae were doing. It doesn't excuse the grifting that went on. Just because the government was on the take doesn't mean there isn't a racket going on. That's precisely the problem: there is a racket going on. It's just when you point that out, you get knee-jerk "OMFG SOCIALIST!" responses.


Those were quasi-private companies that had publicly traded stock and whose mgmt recieved bonuses like the Wall Street geniuses.
 
2013-01-28 01:04:56 PM  
Quick to way to do it? Just find everyone who didn't lose their shirts, so to speak, and toss them in prison.
 
2013-01-28 01:07:51 PM  

mcreadyblue: verbaltoxin: BKITU: A nice buried paragraph, that I'm sure will be ignored by many of the people coming to this thread to vent their perpetual outrage:

It is worth pointing out that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, America's government-sponsored enterprises, were buying more than one-third of the toxic "private-label" mortgage securities issued in the mid-2000s. This was not because of any law requiring the agencies lend to the poor or to minorities, but because it was insanely profitable for them. Their executives earned fortunes during the good years as they arbitraged the difference between their funding costs and the yield on subprime CDOs with 50:1 leverage. When it blew up in their faces, taxpayers had to foot the bill. It seems like an under-explored area for prosecutors to investigate.

I'm well aware of what Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and even Ginnie Mae were doing. It doesn't excuse the grifting that went on. Just because the government was on the take doesn't mean there isn't a racket going on. That's precisely the problem: there is a racket going on. It's just when you point that out, you get knee-jerk "OMFG SOCIALIST!" responses.

Those were quasi-private companies that had publicly traded stock and whose mgmt recieved bonuses like the Wall Street geniuses.


Yes, and?
 
2013-01-28 01:25:03 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: A billionaire if you do, sued out of existence if you don't. I know what I would do, and I bet you'd do the same.


No. but I have some integrity.
 
2013-01-28 01:28:41 PM  
One term I have come to despise -- "Financial Instrument"
 
2013-01-28 01:30:50 PM  
FTA:  Those hilarious investment bankers. Then they gave it its real name and sold it to a Chinese bank.

Was it shiatti Bank?

(runs away giggling like a little girl)
 
2013-01-28 01:32:49 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: So, everyone?


not me
1) my house has never been underwater
2) I never took 6 2nd mortgages and bought crap with the proceeds
3) my 401k is a nice mid-cap stock index fund
(yes it probably contains some bank stock, but as an index fund, crap is averaged in with gold)

so no, I was not part of the feeding frenzy
 
2013-01-28 01:33:33 PM  
A short time ago, after ranting and raving about banks and other financial institutions jacking interest rates up above the Federal Limitations imposed in the early 1900's, I discovered that a judge, several years back, had, with pressure from the banks, voided them.

Pretty much giving them the means and ways to thoroughly screw everyone who borrowed money or used a charge card. Within 5 years, I watched a court trial where a lady was being charged 500% interest on a loan from one of these small check cashing places and the judge said it was acceptable. The lady had missed some payments, accumulated late payment fees and all in all wound up with that enormous balance.

In 2010, credit card companies started arbitrarily increasing the interest rates of their long term customers, which offering much lower rates to new ones. Their excuse? They needed the money. If you had a 19% rating, you wound up with 29%. Capitol One seemed to lead the charge.

While everyone was pushing the limits to maximize profits, taking advantage of gaps in laws not yet created, our technology allowed an unprecedented amount of folks to play the market from home, without needing a seasoned investment company as a middle man.

Meaning companies that knew the market in and out.

This first resulted in a market meltdown because everyone used automatic computer programs to handle their investments -- not realizing that there was an inherent flaw built in. The things, programmed to sell at a certain point, did so, and kept on selling as the market nose dived. A seasoned investor would have known when to stop to help stabilize the crash.

In the 1980's, Yuppies, using the new technology, decided to get rich quick, so they invested mainly in companies which produced major returns in a short time. Established companies which had steadily produced moderate returns over decades, produced reliable products and kept their employees on valuing their skills, were no longer considered good enough.

During this same time period, it was found that brand names could be bought and sold, especially those which had produced quality products for generations. So, you might buy a General Electric washing machine actually made in China, from a company in Germany which had bought the rights to the name, outsourced the production and cheapened the product.

Then you wondered why it broke down as soon as the warranty expired. Yet your Mom's old General Electric washing machine, complete with wringer bars, had lasted her decades.

The desire to get rich quick by investors forced a change in how companies do business. That, and the big gas crunch. Companies downsized. Hundreds of thousands of long time employees were laid off, many cheated out of their retirement packages. Hostile takeovers appeared along with the business of buying out a company, simply to gut it and sell off the property and equipment for a profit.

The Yuppies got their major profits in a short term -- at the expense of hundreds of thousands of folks. Outsourcing took off as companies worked to drop their operating costs. China eventually became a major player in the global market, which enabled it to start flexing it's political muscles.

As we discovered with the Internet, that gaps in the laws allowed for exploitation, people were quick to take advantage of gaps in financial laws.

Later we would discover that major financial institutions had major investments in crude oil, a very profitable enterprise since the barrel price had tripled. So as people struggled to pay for gas and anything gas helped produce, the institutions raked in the dough and found it against their interest to let the barrel prices drop too low.

I guess you never wondered why diesel fuel, the cheapest fuel produced from crude, jumped overnight to one of the most expensive. The majority of our infrastructure is powered by diesel. Especially the trucking and rail road industries. Major profits came from raising the cost of diesel, especially since the consumer had begun to switch over to it for their cars as it was cheaper than gas.

Just good business -- even though you screwed a couple of million folks.

Yuppies started investing in luxury businesses, creating a secondary and profitable market, including taking over old warehouses and apartment complexes, fixing them up and turning them into high end apartments and shops.

Sounds good -- until you realize that most such places were in low income sections of cities. The end result was higher rents and property taxes for those who could least afford them and a displacement of thousands of families. They, in turn, relied more heavily on the Social Services systems, which were funded by local and federal taxes.

Don't forget now, that the Great, Late President Reagan slashed the budget to the mental health care system and closed most of the major, big residential mental institutions. This released a few hundred thousand mentally ill folks into the already growing homeless population with few resources to assist them.

The cost in resulting damages and care far surpassed the original savings. It would have been cheaper to leave the Mental health System alone.

It was also in the 80's that everyone started suing everyone else and we became the most litigious nation in history. Never before had so many stupid lawsuits made it to court and gained enormous sums.

It became cheaper to settle out of court -- even if the defendant was actually innocent. Legal expenses could rise to the millions. Cities started denying public projects if there was the slightest reason they might get sued. The old waivers of responsibility, mean you ride something at your own risk, were defeated, opening up a whole new source of income for lawyers.

Businesses were hard hit. The medical field got hit so hard that medical care stumbled and folks discovered that unless they had plenty of money, it was more cost effective to let them die.

HMO's popped up, meaning they made profits by limiting your medical care.

In the meantime, TV filled itself with reality shows based on capitalizing off the hardships of others. (House flippers.) Little payroll loan companies popped up. Banks started charging for everything except walking in the door.

What was once considered bad form became 'good business'.

You already know about the disastrous fiasco of the Housing Boom. What you might not know is that, a few hundred years ago, a fellow in France did the same thing with 'junk' securities, bundling and selling them to investors.

He's pretty well credited with starting the meltdown which ended in the French Revolution.
Obviously, CEO's don't study history very well.

But, you can see the snowball effect. Especially when you combine it with the information in the article.
 
2013-01-28 01:35:11 PM  
the most important part of the article?

*One of the most interesting moments was when Lanny Breuer, the head of the Criminal Division of America's Justice Department, he did not believe in prosecuting any firm if he thought that doing so might endanger the stability of the financial system. It may not appear unreasonable at first glance, but taken seriously, this legal theory seems to encourage banks and other intermediaries to become "too big to jail." Once large enough, they could effectively get away with money laundering, tax evasion, bid-rigging, bribery, and accounting fraud. On Wednesday, the  Washington Post that Mr Breuer will soon be leaving his job.
 
2013-01-28 01:35:21 PM  
The problem isn't wanting good ROI it's wanting good ROI....TOMORROW!!!!!

Remember when buying stocks was about infusing good businesses with capital in return for a nice profit in the future? Now the future is end of month or end of quarter not, sometime in the next 10-20 years.

That's the problem. Oh no we're not going to make more PROFIT than last quarter? Fire staff and stop buying TP!

They still made money, just not as much as last quarter and the investors will shiat bricks if their dividend payouts don't continually increase!

THAT is what has us all farked.
 
2013-01-28 01:45:40 PM  
I recently learned something about the village of Sh-tlington, from which a couple of my ancestors hail. One, its name was changed to Shillington in the Victorian period so that Good Queen Vic's ears or eyes would not be soiled by the naughty syllable if she should run across it in statistics, and two, one of the main local industries was the mining of coprolites.

Apparently the village was at the edge of a coastal river system during the age of the dinosaurs and the animal waste which the river(s) dumped into sea sank and was buried by sediment where Shillington now stands. Coprolites, like the waste of dogs, is very high in valuable minerals, notably phosphorus, and like the waste of dogs, it was a very profitable business to collect and process it for fertilizer and industrial raw materials.

At its peak, the village had a couple of thousand coprolite miners and 15 pubs. Since the coprolite miners were well paid (15 shillings a week versus 9 shillings a week for agricultural labourers) and had a bit of spare time, they dominated the pubs and this greatly incensed the locals.

I guess I should have made a joke about Shilling Bank, but I couldn't resist the South Park reference.
 
2013-01-28 02:08:33 PM  
There is a difference between a 'good' return and a 'unreasonable immediate double digit return'.
 
2013-01-28 02:29:41 PM  
The Economist asks who should be assigned blame for the financial crisis. Hint: It's the people who want a good return on investment and who do not want any risk of losing their initial investment.
 
2013-01-28 02:32:39 PM  
Why have so few people gone to jail? Because we cannot retroactively make up new crimes from whole cloth just to send people we don't like to prison. Very few of the people involved in this crisis were doing anything illegal; some did, and they're being dealt with, but we're running out of people to legitimately jail. However much the popular wrath might call out for the blood of people who committed no crime, we must as a society be better than that.
 
2013-01-28 02:33:00 PM  

Cinaed: There is a difference between a 'good' return and a 'unreasonable immediate double digit return'.


It's like the airlines or Walmart...

People will complain about the poor service or the poor quality or question the long-term economic effects in a hypothetical situation. But when it really comes down to it, when they book their flight they'll take the cheapest one. When Walmart opens in a town that tried to keep it out....people shop their.

When it comes to investing, it's the exact same thing. All people REALLY care about is their return on investment.
 
2013-01-28 02:44:15 PM  

Millennium: Why have so few people gone to jail? Because we cannot retroactively make up new crimes from whole cloth just to send people we don't like to prison. Very few of the people involved in this crisis were doing anything illegal; some did, and they're being dealt with, but we're running out of people to legitimately jail. However much the popular wrath might call out for the blood of people who committed no crime, we must as a society be better than that.


Well said.

TFA was very interesting and insightful, too.

The fact is it was just a big bubble that many many parties bought into. And despite the incessant whining of the ignorant masses who don't have the slightest understanding of the financial markets, there just wasn't any pervasive fraud to prosecute. I know that is unsatisfying to the torch bearing lynch mob types, but it's a fact.
 
2013-01-28 02:45:13 PM  

Ishkur: People who lied to the American people about what they were getting into in order to profit off their ignorance.

like this motherfarker right here:


Actually, of there were more people like him, and sooner, the bubble wouldn't have gotten so big, and neither would have the ensuing recession.
 
2013-01-28 02:53:18 PM  
Ergo, if you walk through a dark street known for violent crime and someone attempts to murder you, you ought to be charged with attempted murder.
 
2013-01-28 02:59:42 PM  

wombatsrus: Why are we still talking about the financial crisis when a recovery is underway?


Aside from the blame of the financial crisis being the topic of the linked article, there is the social aspect of Farkers sharing their POV in this fine public forum. You know. The reason we're all here and what-not.

One can look at things from a why bother philosophical standpoint but that is as fun and similar to cows chewing their cud in a field. But at the end of the day at least the cows had a good nosh. Things only have the value you assign them. You can choose to sit and scowl at everyone or you can get up, get retarded and have fun on the dance floor. Life is too short, mate. Pull down your pants and do the Funky Chicken!
 
2013-01-28 03:18:22 PM  

Millennium: Why have so few people gone to jail? Because we cannot retroactively make up new crimes from whole cloth just to send people we don't like to prison. Very few of the people involved in this crisis were doing anything illegal; some did, and they're being dealt with, but we're running out of people to legitimately jail. However much the popular wrath might call out for the blood of people who committed no crime, we must as a society be better than that.


Paaaaleeesssseeee.

They were breaking the law and they knew it.
 
2013-01-28 03:18:36 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Actually, of there were more people like him, and sooner, the bubble wouldn't have gotten so big, and neither would have the ensuing recession.


How so?
 
2013-01-28 03:30:18 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: And despite the incessant whining of the ignorant masses who don't have the slightest understanding of the financial markets, there just wasn't any pervasive fraud to prosecute.


Actually, if a lot of the laws we had in the 70s existed today, most of them would be behind bars.

But it is true that what they did -- especially since the mid 90s -- was invent new, completely illusory and mindbogglingly abstract financial instruments that were so arcane and convoluted that it might not even be possible to write laws for them. But when you strip away all the byzantine paperwork, at its core they were all just another form of the bait & switch con, which we do have laws for.

The masterminds of the financial crisis are simply car salesmen, dealing in money instead of automobiles.
 
2013-01-28 03:39:08 PM  

impaler: WHY have so few gone to jail for the financial crisis? The boom and bust in S&L lending in the 1980s ended with nearly one thousand people sent to jail for financial fraud

Because they removed the laws that made what they were doing illegal?


Or prevented them from creating the laws in the first place.
 
2013-01-28 04:25:17 PM  

Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: Actually, of there were more people like him, and sooner, the bubble wouldn't have gotten so big, and neither would have the ensuing recession.

How so?


He was a short seller. He sold mortgage debt and mortgage related assets, betting on a downturn. He didn't have an inside information other than the same skepticism about the reality of house prices, and an incredulity of how willing investors were to buy mortgage related debt.

If there were more people who were skeptical about the housing market, and put their money on it in 2004 and 2005, it would have placed downward pressure on prices, preventing the bubble from getting as large as it did.

There were a few more like him (Eisman, Ackman, Einhorn, Burry, read The Big Short), but if there were more the bubble would have been popped sooner, reducing eventual damage. Conversely, if not for them, the bubble would have gotten even more inflated in all likelihood and caused even more damage IMO.
 
2013-01-28 04:55:40 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: He was a short seller. He sold mortgage debt and mortgage related assets, betting on a downturn.


You know how he made his money betting on a downturn? BY TELLING PEOPLE THE HOUSING MARKET WAS STRONG AND THEY SHOULD BUY IN!!!

That's how he cleared $3.9billion while over a million people lost their homes. He LIED to them... he SWINDLED them into putting money into the system so he could puff up the derivatives. These people trusted him and relied on his expertise and knowledge and they did exactly what he said because he was their financial confidant, and he turned around and sold them all down the farking river. It's the old stock market scam of telling a million people to buy a certain stock so you can dump it.

He didn't try to deflate the market at all, he was one of the biggest instigators of its bubble and pop... the bigger the bubble, the better his return, so it was in his best interests to pump that thing as high as possible.

He is a peddler of suffering, misery, confusion and death.
 
2013-01-28 05:09:24 PM  

Ishkur: You know how he made his money betting on a downturn? BY TELLING PEOPLE THE HOUSING MARKET WAS STRONG AND THEY SHOULD BUY IN!!!



When? And whom did he tell?

Do you have an article with examples, or are you just grasping at straws?
 
2013-01-28 05:10:46 PM  
It's not that they wanted a good return. It's that they wanted the government to guarantee a good return.

Privatized gains, socialized losses.
 
2013-01-28 05:13:37 PM  

Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: He was a short seller. He sold mortgage debt and mortgage related assets, betting on a downturn.

You know how he made his money betting on a downturn? BY TELLING PEOPLE THE HOUSING MARKET WAS STRONG AND THEY SHOULD BUY IN!!!

That's how he cleared $3.9billion while over a million people lost their homes. He LIED to them... he SWINDLED them into putting money into the system so he could puff up the derivatives. These people trusted him and relied on his expertise and knowledge and they did exactly what he said because he was their financial confidant, and he turned around and sold them all down the farking river. It's the old stock market scam of telling a million people to buy a certain stock so you can dump it.

He didn't try to deflate the market at all, he was one of the biggest instigators of its bubble and pop... the bigger the bubble, the better his return, so it was in his best interests to pump that thing as high as possible.

He is a peddler of suffering, misery, confusion and death.


DSC does not see that as a problem, just FYI.
 
2013-01-28 05:32:44 PM  

Hydra: When? And whom did he tell?


2007 and Goldman farking Sachs, dumbass. And together they swindled AIG... and well, due to financial netting, everything else came after. I'll be happy to explain it in full, but I don't have time for a long post right now.

Hydra: Do you have an article with examples, or are you just grasping at straws?


Yup: Read these two books.

This one portrays him as a hero.
This one portrays him as a villain.

That way you can make up your own mind.


(I don't think you have EVER been right in ANY economics argument on Fark ever)
 
2013-01-28 05:40:10 PM  

Cinaed: There is a difference between a 'good' return and a 'unreasonable immediate double digit return'.


When I was a kid you could walk into a bank, open a CD, and get an 'unreasonable immediate double digit return' with essentially zero risk.

But then the government decided it was better to lower interest rates and encourage your average Joe to make risky investments. And look how that turned out.
 
2013-01-28 06:00:00 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: BKITU: A nice buried paragraph, that I'm sure will be ignored by many of the people coming to this thread to vent their perpetual outrage:

It is worth pointing out that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, America's government-sponsored enterprises, were buying more than one-third of the toxic "private-label" mortgage securities issued in the mid-2000s. This was not because of any law requiring the agencies lend to the poor or to minorities, but because it was insanely profitable for them. Their executives earned fortunes during the good years as they arbitraged the difference between their funding costs and the yield on subprime CDOs with 50:1 leverage. When it blew up in their faces, taxpayers had to foot the bill. It seems like an under-explored area for prosecutors to investigate.

A billionaire if you do, sued out of existence if you don't. I know what I would do, and I bet you'd do the same.


Comments like this come around every so often and give us some keen insight about the conservative mind.
 
2013-01-28 08:24:15 PM  

Ishkur: Debeo Summa Credo: He was a short seller. He sold mortgage debt and mortgage related assets, betting on a downturn.

You know how he made his money betting on a downturn? BY TELLING PEOPLE THE HOUSING MARKET WAS STRONG AND THEY SHOULD BUY IN!!!

That's how he cleared $3.9billion while over a million people lost their homes. He LIED to them... he SWINDLED them into putting money into the system so he could puff up the derivatives. These people trusted him and relied on his expertise and knowledge and they did exactly what he said because he was their financial confidant, and he turned around and sold them all down the farking river. It's the old stock market scam of telling a million people to buy a certain stock so you can dump it.

He didn't try to deflate the market at all, he was one of the biggest instigators of its bubble and pop... the bigger the bubble, the better his return, so it was in his best interests to pump that thing as high as possible.

He is a peddler of suffering, misery, confusion and death.


Good lord. He was short the housing market. How in the world could he be pumping it up, while actively betting against it?
 
2013-01-28 08:27:26 PM  

Ishkur: Hydra: When? And whom did he tell?

2007 and Goldman farking Sachs, dumbass. And together they swindled AIG... and well, due to financial netting, everything else came after. I'll be happy to explain it in full, but I don't have time for a long post right now.

Hydra: Do you have an article with examples, or are you just grasping at straws?

Yup: Read these two books.

This one portrays him as a hero.
This one portrays him as a villain.

That way you can make up your own mind.


(I don't think you have EVER been right in ANY economics argument on Fark ever)


He's right in this one, if he's arguing against your point.

You are grossly misinformed regarding Paulson's impact on the housing bubble and recession.
 
2013-01-28 11:53:00 PM  
Well, just look at the way they were dressed. They were asking for it.
 
2013-01-29 12:40:48 AM  
Now that we're talking about how crooked the financial industry was, and how it swindled innocent parties, is anyone thinking about addressing the student loan program, where youngsters are gulled into taking out loans for degrees that will never ever allow them to earn enough to pay the loans off? And to really chain them to the oars permanently, barring them from discharging those debts in bankruptcy?
 
2013-01-29 03:59:22 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Good lord. He was short the housing market. How in the world could he be pumping it up, while actively betting against it?


He didn't pump it up, he told everyone else to.
 
2013-01-29 04:00:04 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: You are grossly misinformed regarding Paulson's impact on the housing bubble and recession.


So both books are wrong?

Can you please show me some literature that is right?
 
2013-01-29 04:08:56 AM  
(btw, that comment was meant for you, not him. I misread the header. YOU'VE never been right about anything ever, DSC. I can't speak for Hydra)
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report