ATG
Banned
+5,233|6821|Global Command
A closure like TBW, combined with the potential precedent set not only by HUD’s actions, but also their aggressive verbiage, adds to the already sizeable concern that the wholesale channels will continue to get pushed out of the picture in favor of the largest retail banks.


With the lending market still very tight, the shut down of a company of this size could prove costly. "It just means there's one less bank out there that's doing loans, so there's less and less competition," he said.

The company sent out an e-mail to it's employees saying they did everything possible to try to save the company, but in the end they just couldn't.
So, did these guys not give a sweetheart mortgage deal to a senator?
Forget to give a campaign contribution to a democrat?
Is this more evidence of government goons forcing another private business to close its doors?
Or are they just frauds?


http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/080520 … s_down.asp
http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=10863025
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5877

Nothing of value was lost.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6821|Global Command
Can you try, for once, to not fling shit at a DST thread mac?

What about the people who now don't know who holds their papers?

What about those in the middle of a loan modification?

Do you have any idea the stress it causes when you get your deal handed to another servicer and you are in trouble financially?

How about the lack of competition in the banks that's coming down the pike?

How about a giant mortgage company being insolvent and fucking over investors?



Jesus Mac, I swear to God, you need to keep that shit in EE.
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5877

ATG wrote:

Can you try, for once, to not fling shit at a DST thread mac?

What about the people who now don't know who holds their papers?

What about those in the middle of a loan modification?

Do you have any idea the stress it causes when you get your deal handed to another servicer and you are in trouble financially?

How about the lack of competition in the banks that's coming down the pike?

How about a giant mortgage company being insolvent and fucking over investors?



Jesus Mac, I swear to God, you need to keep that shit in EE.
Really now?

This mortgage company which sold home loans to people who couldn't pay it back unless they sold their soul to the devil closes and I'm supposed to care?

Their accounts are just goi8ng to be transferred over to a larger company which has more assets and could probably get you a better deal on your loan modification.
Red Forman
Banned
+402|5692
I am willing to bet we are working our way to one or two banks.
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5877

Red Forman wrote:

I am willing to bet we are working our way to one or two banks.
Banking singularity doesn't sound so bad.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6821|Global Command

Macbeth wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

I am willing to bet we are working our way to one or two banks.
Banking singularity doesn't sound so bad.
Sure, if the tax payer was getting part of the profits.

Why not have the fed itself be the bank?

They loan money to banks at next to nothing who loan it back to us at between 4-10%.

Why not just have one central bank loan money at 3% to all of us and have all the profits go to paying down the national debt?



Because it makes too much sense and the bankers can't continue to suck the lifeblood out of each and every one of us, juts like the politicians like it.


Wamu is one of the biggest prick banks of foreclosures. They are also one of the biggest failures and receivers of tarp funds.

Fucking bastards need to be out picking strawberries but no, instead they get millions in bonuses and we all get fucked.



gg America!
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6847

Macbeth wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

I am willing to bet we are working our way to one or two banks.
Banking singularity doesn't sound so bad.
Yeah, lack of competition is what free market capitalism is all about....
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7008

CameronPoe wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

I am willing to bet we are working our way to one or two banks.
Banking singularity doesn't sound so bad.
Yeah, lack of competition is what free market capitalism is all about....
In his defense... He was recently traumatized at a local Burger King restaurant....

Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2009-08-08 16:40:05)

Love is the answer
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6873|the dank(super) side of Oregon
Wamu doesn't exist anymore.  they're owned by Chase.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6821|Global Command
Same whores, different twat.
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5877

CameronPoe wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Red Forman wrote:

I am willing to bet we are working our way to one or two banks.
Banking singularity doesn't sound so bad.
Yeah, lack of competition is what free market capitalism is all about....
Eh because all this rampant competition in regards to banking really worked out of us. I think that one huge bank with a shit load of assets who could provide loans at an interest rate that they could turn a reasonable profit while at the same time not putting themselves at risk would be better then a bunch of smaller banks lowering their rates and raising them whenever they need to because they are trying to fight the other banks for a profit.

More stable of a system.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6697|North Carolina
12th largest isn't large enough to get a bailout, apparently.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6847

Macbeth wrote:

Eh because all this rampant competition in regards to banking really worked out of us. I think that one huge bank with a shit load of assets who could provide loans at an interest rate that they could turn a reasonable profit while at the same time not putting themselves at risk would be better then a bunch of smaller banks lowering their rates and raising them whenever they need to because they are trying to fight the other banks for a profit.

More stable of a system.
You think concentrating the responsibility for not making a colossal fuckup again into fewer hands is a good idea? All it would take then is for one of the two banks to fail and your nation tanks because the government can't possibly afford to bail it out. Logic man. Wiki Iceland if you would like an interesting read.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-08-08 20:00:40)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6697|North Carolina

CameronPoe wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Eh because all this rampant competition in regards to banking really worked out of us. I think that one huge bank with a shit load of assets who could provide loans at an interest rate that they could turn a reasonable profit while at the same time not putting themselves at risk would be better then a bunch of smaller banks lowering their rates and raising them whenever they need to because they are trying to fight the other banks for a profit.

More stable of a system.
You think concentrating the responsibility for not making a colossal fuckup again into fewer hands is a good idea? All it would take then is for one of the two banks to fail and your nation tanks because the government can't possibly afford to bail it out. Logic man. Wiki Iceland if you would like an interesting read.
Personally, I believe banking (other than high risk investment banking) and insurance should be solely governmental.

American currency was much more stable with a public central bank.  In fact, currency for most countries was more stable with a public central bank.

The problem is that banking nowadays has become such a profit driven industry that you have extremely risky practices like mortgage derivatives taking place.  As long as shareholders push for ever increasing profit margins, the riskiness will continue.

If banking became more like a basic governmental service, then most investment and lending would be very conservative but very stable.
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6672|MN
Will it be a Federal Reserve type entity that isn't held responsible for much of anything, or would it be one that is controlled by the sitting administration that can change the lending policies to suit their needs.  Something in-between perhaps?

Better idea, why don't people take more responsibility for the loans they get, and make sure they make sense?  Maybe, people could actually wait to buy some things until they have the money in hand.  Oh my gosh, wait for something I can have now?  Non-sense, I know.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6821|Global Command
That concept worked a lot better when our country was a little more honest.

There is nothing honest about the prices of homes, many of the contracts or the regulation of the banks writing the loans.

Face it; people got fucked in the ass. The banks are consuming massive amounts of wealth and all the normal rules of a lawful society have been tossed out into the gutter. The people are getting fucked now. We don't have a strong banking system, we have a collection of well dressed criminals who are in cahoots with the bastards in political power.


But, I feel for ya, I know it is much harder to accept that our whole system is broken and based on fraud, than it is to blame individual homeowners.

Example, well before the oil, tech and gas bubbles; we had NAFTA. NAFTA promised " high tech jobs of the future ".

Mexican farmers got cast into poverty, American factory jobs went overseas and the so called  high tech jobs of the future are largely those of soldiers getting killed and maimed on the battlefield.

All the promises about NAFTA were lies. Just like the bailouts now.
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6672|MN

ATG wrote:

That concept worked a lot better when our country was a little more honest.

There is nothing honest about the prices of homes, many of the contracts or the regulation of the banks writing the loans.

Face it; people got fucked in the ass. The banks are consuming massive amounts of wealth and all the normal rules of a lawful society have been tossed out into the gutter. The people are getting fucked now. We don't have a strong banking system, we have a collection of well dressed criminals who are in cahoots with the bastards in political power.


But, I feel for ya, I know it is much harder to accept that our whole system is broken and based on fraud, than it is to blame individual homeowners.

Example, well before the oil, tech and gas bubbles; we had NAFTA. NAFTA promised " high tech jobs of the future ".

Mexican farmers got cast into poverty, American factory jobs went overseas and the so called  high tech jobs of the future are largely those of soldiers getting killed and maimed on the battlefield.

All the promises about NAFTA were lies. Just like the bailouts now.
Banks only have money if someone gives it to them.  No one is being taken at gunpoint to the banks to ask for loans.  I never said I thought the system was sound.  I am not naive.  I am just spreading blame to all the applicable areas.  Those that don't accept their fair share are ignorant.

Greed is the reason behind all our ills, banks, government, and the general public are guilty of it.  The difference is the banks can't come to your house and take your money unless you give them a reason the government can.  Simple really.  And no, we are not beyond that point yet.  We can still be a sensible society, we just have to expect it out of each other and live up to it.  We can also elect officials that are willing to change the status quo.  Idealistic, maybe, but you got any better ideas.  We can all just sit back and bitch about what is going on.  I am sure everything will turn out well.  Or we can challenge those around us to do something.  I have spoken my mind plenty, to the point where many people I know are careful about what conversation they have with me.

I am fortunate to live in an area where the economy has been relatively untouched.  I also work for a food company that filled orders 21% above budget for July.  These things may affect how I see things.  If I was in a situation where I was on the brink of losing my shirt I might be looking to blame someone for it.  Or maybe not.

Society in general has allowed this to happen.  We traded away liberties to gain supposed security and are now realizing that those we entrusted with our liberty and security had no intention of giving us anything.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6821|Global Command
" There are no Shiites and Sunnis, no republicans or democrats. That' all a lie. There are the haves and have nots. "
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6847

Turquoise wrote:

Personally, I believe banking (other than high risk investment banking) and insurance should be solely governmental.

American currency was much more stable with a public central bank.  In fact, currency for most countries was more stable with a public central bank.

The problem is that banking nowadays has become such a profit driven industry that you have extremely risky practices like mortgage derivatives taking place.  As long as shareholders push for ever increasing profit margins, the riskiness will continue.

If banking became more like a basic governmental service, then most investment and lending would be very conservative but very stable.
Most countries in Europe have central banks and we have the ECB too and on top of that a massive private banking sector - is the Federal Reserve not the US equivalent of the central bank? I don't think it would be too wise to restrict individuals choices in the banking sector to government bank accounts only. If it becomes government only then bank policy will eventually take a populist direction, which will benefit no one in the long run. People will call for interest rate reductions and lobby for this, that and the other. I think bad banking practice must be dealt with through strong regulation not direct running of their business. Balancing acts are generally better than one way streets, especially now that we hopefully have learned our lesson.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-08-09 11:41:41)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6697|North Carolina

CameronPoe wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Personally, I believe banking (other than high risk investment banking) and insurance should be solely governmental.

American currency was much more stable with a public central bank.  In fact, currency for most countries was more stable with a public central bank.

The problem is that banking nowadays has become such a profit driven industry that you have extremely risky practices like mortgage derivatives taking place.  As long as shareholders push for ever increasing profit margins, the riskiness will continue.

If banking became more like a basic governmental service, then most investment and lending would be very conservative but very stable.
Most countries in Europe have central banks and we have the ECB too and on top of that a massive private banking sector - is the Federal Reserve not the US equivalent of the central bank? I don't think it would be too wise to restrict individuals choices in the banking sector to government bank accounts only. If it becomes government only then bank policy will eventually take a populist direction, which will benefit no one in the long run. People will call for interest rate reductions and lobby for this, that and the other. I think bad banking practice must be dealt with through strong regulation not direct running of their business. Balancing acts are generally better than one way streets, especially now that we hopefully have learned our lesson.
The Fed Reserve is a corporate consortium with governmental powers.  It basically molds interest rates for the sake of big business, but its corporate favoritism is detrimental to the stability of the economy.

Still, I can see how strong regulation would be a better route than the current one.  We just need to disband the Fed Reserve.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6697|North Carolina

LividBovine wrote:

Will it be a Federal Reserve type entity that isn't held responsible for much of anything, or would it be one that is controlled by the sitting administration that can change the lending policies to suit their needs.  Something in-between perhaps?

Better idea, why don't people take more responsibility for the loans they get, and make sure they make sense?  Maybe, people could actually wait to buy some things until they have the money in hand.  Oh my gosh, wait for something I can have now?  Non-sense, I know.
The Fed Reserve definitely needs to be eliminated.  I agree with your last few sentences for sure though.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6893|132 and Bush

An October 2006 investigative report by the Tampa Tribune found that at least four of 36 suspicious loans involving a Tampa real estate agent and mortgage broker had been funded by the lender.

The story found that the homes sold, on average, for $60,000 above the asking price. At least $2 million collectively was paid to third parties, and in some cases, two sets of documents were used to secure the loan.

At the time, Lee Farkas, chairman of Taylor, Bean & Whitaker, said his institution did not realize the property had sold for more than originally listed. “There’s no way we would do a loan structured like that,” he said. Farkas said his company had policies against such loans and said he would investigate the deals.
http://www.floridarealtors.org/NewsAndE … ?id=221156
I'm pretty sure there is some deeper stuff going on..
Xbone Stormsurgezz
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6672|MN

ATG wrote:

" There are no Shiites and Sunnis, no republicans or democrats. That' all a lie. There are the haves and have nots. "
Perception is everything.  As long as people continue to believe in their chosen party, it will exist as such. You are able to choose who you give your money to, and for what purpose (never mind taxes).  You are able to choose to buy that new truck or the old beater that isn't as pretty.  You are allowed to choose the house you live in.  You can buy that big LCD or stick with the old 25" trinitron.  By choosing to fill our lives with things we want, and financing those purchases with loans or credit, we are enabling the greed and control the government and big business have.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard