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.

(Reuters)   Wells Fargo, duly chastised and sincerely remorseful for its part in the housing and banking debacle, loosens its standards on jumbo mortgages   (reuters.com) divider line 30
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

654 clicks; posted to Business » on 06 Aug 2014 at 11:57 AM (16 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



30 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-08-06 10:19:03 AM  
Seize the money.
 
2014-08-06 11:59:51 AM  
It's almost as if bailing out institutions creates a moral hazard.


I wish this was brought up a few years ago...
 
2014-08-06 12:09:32 PM  
But remember, vote Republican...they'll fix this sort of thing by letting the market speak!
 
2014-08-06 12:14:30 PM  
This is in part to appease the liberal, racist black caucus.
 
2014-08-06 12:15:12 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: But remember, vote Republican...they'll fix this sort of thing by letting the market speak!


The market did speak, the gov't put a gag in then
 
2014-08-06 12:58:20 PM  

Nemo's Brother: This is in part to appease the liberal, racist black caucus.


2.5/10. You're better than this.
 
2014-08-06 01:16:06 PM  
Banking needs to be a nationally regulated utility.
 
2014-08-06 02:17:36 PM  
This should enable and encourage more lending to prospective minority homeowners.  This is a good thing.
 
2014-08-06 02:25:56 PM  

MugzyBrown: It's almost as if bailing out institutions creates a moral hazard.


I wish this was brought up a few years ago...


inorite!?

/It pisses me off that people can't see the obvious and mock others for it.
 
2014-08-06 02:28:10 PM  
FICO score lowered from 720 to 700 to qualify.

Obviously it's the End Of The World.
 
2014-08-06 02:44:15 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: FICO score lowered from 720 to 700 to qualify.

Obviously it's the End Of The World.


"The lower requirements for jumbo loans are the latest effort by Wells and other banks to loosen mortgage criteria that are still tight by historical standards"

Indeed.
 
2014-08-06 03:18:11 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: But remember, vote Republican...they'll fix this sort of thing by letting the market speak!


So vote Democrat.

www.tomheneghanbriefings.com
 
2014-08-06 04:04:55 PM  

AngryDragon: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: But remember, vote Republican...they'll fix this sort of thing by letting the market speak!

So vote Democrat.

[www.tomheneghanbriefings.com image 640x444]


You are aware the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Republican, Republican, Republican) had veto-proof support, right?
 
2014-08-06 04:10:30 PM  

impaler: AngryDragon: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: But remember, vote Republican...they'll fix this sort of thing by letting the market speak!

So vote Democrat.

[www.tomheneghanbriefings.com image 640x444]

You are aware the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Republican, Republican, Republican) had veto-proof support, right?


Then why not veto it?
 
2014-08-06 04:15:55 PM  

AngryDragon: Then why not veto it?


The point was that the Republican bill had enough Republican support, that a veto couldn't have stopped it.

To blame it on the Democrats means you're at least either an idiot or a liar, or maybe both.
 
2014-08-06 04:17:09 PM  

impaler: You are aware the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Republican, Republican, Republican) had veto-proof support, right?


Yeah it did, partly because over 3/4 of all democrats voted for it.

I'm sure whenever you begrudgingly sign a veto-proof bill, you have a big public spectacle for the event, like pictured above.

"Today I am pleased to sign into law S. 900, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This historic legislation will modernize our financial services laws, stimulating greater innovation and competition in the financial services industry."  I'm this was taken out of context or something.
 
2014-08-06 04:21:03 PM  

MugzyBrown: Yeah it did, partly because over 3/4 of all democrats voted for it.


And 98% of the Republicans. But it's the Democrats fault, amirite?
 
2014-08-06 04:27:05 PM  

MugzyBrown: impaler: You are aware the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Republican, Republican, Republican) had veto-proof support, right?

Yeah it did, partly because over 3/4 of all democrats voted for it.

I'm sure whenever you begrudgingly sign a veto-proof bill, you have a big public spectacle for the event, like pictured above.

"Today I am pleased to sign into law S. 900, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This historic legislation will modernize our financial services laws, stimulating greater innovation and competition in the financial services industry."  I'm this was taken out of context or something.


Thank you for saving me the trouble.
 
2014-08-06 05:48:30 PM  

impaler: AngryDragon: Then why not veto it?

The point was that the Republican bill had enough Republican support, that a veto couldn't have stopped it.

To blame it on the Democrats means you're at least either an idiot or a liar, or maybe both.


Only Republican Presidents are responsible for their actions while in office.
 
2014-08-06 07:42:11 PM  
Suckers... Housing is never going to soar when boomers have farked over millenials getting jobs and saddled every college graduate within the last 10 yrs with a lifetime of debt. The only way to pay jumbo loans back is with a govt bailout once the 700 score crowd strikes out in a couple years.
 
2014-08-06 07:57:30 PM  

Nemo's Brother: impaler: AngryDragon: Then why not veto it?

The point was that the Republican bill had enough Republican support, that a veto couldn't have stopped it.

To blame it on the Democrats means you're at least either an idiot or a liar, or maybe both.

Only Republican Presidents are responsible for their actions while in office.


Fine. Democrats fault it happened.

Now in all honesty - which party is more likely to reinstate it?
 
2014-08-06 08:32:36 PM  
Wells Fargo?  Silly Subs, I think you meant Golden West, which Wachovia bought, then given to Wells Fargo by the Feds.
 
2014-08-06 09:24:01 PM  

StrikitRich: Wells Fargo?  Silly Subs, I think you meant Golden West, which Wachovia bought, then given to Wells Fargo by the Feds.


Not quite.  Wells Fargo paid $7 a share.  The feds were willing to give Wachovia to CitiBank for $1/share plus guarantees.
 
2014-08-06 09:59:19 PM  

clkeagle: Nemo's Brother: impaler: AngryDragon: Then why not veto it?

The point was that the Republican bill had enough Republican support, that a veto couldn't have stopped it.

To blame it on the Democrats means you're at least either an idiot or a liar, or maybe both.

Only Republican Presidents are responsible for their actions while in office.

Fine. Democrats fault it happened.

Now in all honesty - which party is more likely to reinstate it?


It's going on five years.  What's the hold up?  You would think this would be pretty easy with a blueprint that was in place for 60 years to model after.
 
2014-08-06 10:30:53 PM  

MugzyBrown: impaler: You are aware the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Republican, Republican, Republican) had veto-proof support, right?

Yeah it did, partly because over 3/4 of all democrats voted for it.

I'm sure whenever you begrudgingly sign a veto-proof bill, you have a big public spectacle for the event, like pictured above.

"Today I am pleased to sign into law S. 900, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This historic legislation will modernize our financial services laws, stimulating greater innovation and competition in the financial services industry."  I'm this was taken out of context or something.


The republicans had veto proof support forcing Clinton to smile while signing.

/just kidding, the repeal of Glass Steagall had absolutely zero to do with the financial crisis. Clinton (and the repuclicans) have nothing to apologize for on that issue.
 
2014-08-06 11:15:35 PM  

AngryDragon: clkeagle: Nemo's Brother: impaler: AngryDragon: Then why not veto it?

The point was that the Republican bill had enough Republican support, that a veto couldn't have stopped it.

To blame it on the Democrats means you're at least either an idiot or a liar, or maybe both.

Only Republican Presidents are responsible for their actions while in office.

Fine. Democrats fault it happened.

Now in all honesty - which party is more likely to reinstate it?

It's going on five years.  What's the hold up?  You would think this would be pretty easy with a blueprint that was in place for 60 years to model after.


That is my contention. Neither party will appeal it.  Both are in the sack with Wall Street. Do you believe Hillary will if president? Honestly?
 
2014-08-07 06:50:10 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The republicans had veto proof support forcing Clinton to smile while signing.

/just kidding, the repeal of Glass Steagall had absolutely zero to do with the financial crisis. Clinton (and the repuclicans) have nothing to apologize for on that issue


Actually, it's pretty commonly accepted that the repeal of Glass Steagall was the final catalyst that unshackled the banks' shiatty business practices and triggered the crisis.

Nemo's Brother: That is my contention. Neither party will appeal it. Both are in the sack with Wall Street. Do you believe Hillary will if president? Honestly?


Not in a million years.  I wonder how many bank executives would be on her cabinet and among her advisors.  If she get elected, god save us, we should have a pool to see if it's more ofr less than Bush and Obama.  I'm guessing more.
 
2014-08-07 07:51:03 AM  

impaler: And 98% of the Republicans. But it's the Democrats fault, amirite?


I'm sorry, where did I defend republicans anywhere?
 
2014-08-07 09:58:50 AM  
To be fair, the prior 100%-down-payment requirement was a bit onerous.
 
2014-08-07 06:45:06 PM  
It's sad that elephants have gotten so expensive that you need a mortgage to buy one.
 
Displayed 30 of 30 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report