New Proof That Wall Street Knew Its Sold Lead for Gold

[TampaYankee]

New Proof Wall Street Knew Its Mortgage Securities Were Subpar: Clayton Execs Testify

First Posted: 09-25-10 06:56 PM | Updated: 09-25-10 09:46 PM

Shahien Nasiripour

shahien@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting

During a little-noticed hearing this week in Sacramento, Calif., a firm hired by Wall Street to analyze mortgages given to borrowers with poor credit, which were then packaged and sold to investors during the boom years, revealed that as much as 28 percent of those loans failed to meet basic underwriting standards -- and Wall Street knew all along.

...

The full article is found in Lucky's Place, thus not reproduced here.

http://www.maleescortreview.com/forum/index.php?/topic/5204-new-proof-that-wall-street-knew-its-sold-lead-for-gold/

This incarnation of the topic is for those wishing to express opinationed responses while keeping the forum Lucky's Place from hosting any potential extended political discussions. I was moved to offer an opinionated response below.

[TampaYankee]

And we are told that we must leave Wall St Banks unregulated so that they can restore the economy they knowingly abused and ultimately crippled like we haven't seen since the Great Depression. What are those people thinking? What are they smoking? Or do they feel that Wall St and its investors have not yet raped and stolen enough to satisfy their greed? I'd just like to know.

This was no unintentional accident or an Act of God. It was an intentional act of man, many men - a defacto conspriacy. People ought to go to jail for grand larceny for serious time. This was a massive con, plain and simple. Yet the monied influential always manage to buy themselves out. It is simple institutional corruption with Wall St at the heart of it and Congress a willing accomplice -- pick your party.

[lookin]

New Proof Wall Street Knew Its Mortgage Securities Were Subpar: Clayton Execs Testify

First Posted: 09-25-10 06:56 PM | Updated: 09-25-10 09:46 PM

Shahien Nasiripour

shahien@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting

During a little-noticed hearing this week in Sacramento, Calif., a firm hired by Wall Street to analyze mortgages given to borrowers with poor credit, which were then packaged and sold to investors during the boom years, revealed that as much as 28 percent of those loans failed to meet basic underwriting standards -- and Wall Street knew all along.

...

The full article is found in Lucky's Place, thus not reproduced here.

http://www.maleescor...-lead-for-gold/

This incarnation of the topic is for those wishing to express opinationed responses while keeping the forum Lucky's Place from hosting any potential extended political discussions. I was so moved to offer an opinionated response below.

From the article:

"Keep in mind that investors ultimately bought a deal almost exclusively based on the rating, and not the issuer's decision [regarding] what loans to put in or what loans not to put in," Cecala said. "Historically there's been very little recourse back to the issuer for problems with securities down the road and the bottom line is if you can get it past the ratings services you're more or less home free."

The three big credit rating agencies that dominate the market -- Standard and Poor's, Moody's Investors Service and Fitch Ratings -- had a chance to use Clayton's information during this time, but declined, Johnson testified.

Not yet taking their share of the responsibility, in my opinion, the credit rating agencies put the lipstick on these pigs and provided cover for the issuers.

They then proceed to duck responsibilty by saying they relied on information provided by the issuer, who paid them for the rating.

I think the whole cockamamie system is due for another refresh.

[BiBottomBoy]

Tyler Durden was right.

[MsGuy]

[Have] Wall St and its investors have not yet raped and stolen enough to satisfy their greed?

ha ha ha ha ha ha

This was no accident or Act of God. It was an intentional act of man, many men - a defacto conspiracy. People ought to go to jail for grand larceny for serious time.

HA HA HA HA HA HA

Yet the monied influential always manage to buy themselves out. and Congress a willing accomplice.

whoo, stop, my sides are aching.

[BiBottomBoy]

Meanwhile congress is probably going to extend the bush tax cuts on these wealthy bastards.

[TampaYankee]

Meanwhile congress is probably going to extend the bush tax cuts on these wealthy bastards.

Sadly, I am coming to the conclusion that the Democrats really cannot govern nor do they deserve to. They are weak on commitment and unified vision, discipline and fortitude. The GOP is none of those. That is why they always eat the Dems lunch.

The reason not to extend the Bush Tax cuts beyond income beyond the first $250K is the massive hole it puts in the deficit estimated at $700,000. This for people who hardly need the money to live and who economists tell us will make little difference on what they choose to spend and who will invest less in the present conditions.

The middle class tax cuts, for those lucky enough to have a job, will also hurt the deficit. However, without the middle class having some purchasing power, the recovery of the economy is a moot point, unless we become an export heavy trade partner overnight. So much for wishes.

Given the present circumstances and the long term deficit problem, I advocate extending the tax cuts only on the first $250K income for five years and then revisiting down the road under then current economic conditions.

[JKane]

Sadly, I am coming to the conclusion that the Democrats really cannot govern nor do they deserve to. They are weak on commitment and unified vision, discipline and fortitude. The GOP is none of those. That is why they always eat the Dems lunch.

The reason not to extend the Bush Tax cuts beyond income beyond the first $250K is the massive hole it puts in the deficit estimated at $700,000. This for people who hardly need the money to live and who economists tell us will make little difference on what they choose to spend and who will invest less in the present conditions.

It seems to me the true core of the Republican belief system is that those with the most money get what they want. As such it's extremely easy to organize them, even at the local level. They all submit to whomever has the fattest wallet / is already in power, and then work tirelessly (even against their own interests) for his betterment, I guess hoping to one day be that person.

Democrats, on the other hand, are inherently un-directable. They each have differing views/priorities and the only thing they may all agree on is that everybody's views are important.

Luckily the tea parties may be bringing much of this chaos into the Republican circles. But without the good aspects such as intellectual debate/honesty and with a core of personal power at any cost it can't lead anywhere good. They're doing a great job of getting the meme out there that the *other side* are the fascists, which immunizes them against the truth for a while.

And I think you left a crapload of zeors off the deficit there...

[BiBottomBoy]

As far as I can tell you become a democrat if you admit that you suck cock, but become a republican if you pretend you don't suck cock.

[MsGuy]

And if you're pretending to yourself you don't want to suck cock, you become an asst. AG in Michigan and stalk cute gay student body presidents.

[BiBottomBoy]

Or an evangelical preacher.

And if you're pretending to yourself you don't want to suck cock, you become an asst. AG in Michigan and stalk cute gay student body presidents.