Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
this is for all the Bush blamimg boobs
Page <<first <prev 4 of 4
Sep 3, 2012 19:17:16   #
Wendy2 Loc: California
 
Commission is not a driving factor. I have never pushed harder because the commission was greater. I don't care if they are a first time buyer or a multimillion dollar buyer. It is my job to do it right, regardless of the commission.

Reply
Sep 3, 2012 19:25:55   #
kjfishman Loc: Fulton MO
 
As in most professions there are good people and bad people, you sound like one of the honest ones.

Reply
Sep 3, 2012 19:36:10   #
Wendy2 Loc: California
 
kjfishman wrote:
As in most professions there are good people and bad people, you sound like one of the honest ones.


Thank you!

I genuinely care about doing the right thing, in business and in life. I go above and beyond what is expected because that is what I would want someone to do for me. I know that I will often be disappointed with the way people treat me and others but I can't let that stop me from being a good, concerned human being. Thanks for recognizing that in me :)

Reply
 
 
Sep 3, 2012 19:40:55   #
eskiles Loc: Palmer Alaska
 
I have been in the building industry a long time and have seen personally and by word of mouth the actions of unscrupulous people. My son and ex wife were title examiners and some of the shenanigans the realtors and bankers pulled were awfull. I don't say all realtors are "bad apples" but where money is concerned there is an incentive to push the limits of legality.

Wendy2 wrote:
eskiles wrote:
Yes the sellers list high, It is hard to get more for your property after the fact, That is what negotiation is for. The rule of capitalism is buy low and sell high! You obviously lost money by not being competitive. Do you refuse to help a young couple that really likes a house but the price will push their budget to the max? Or did you tell them that their income will probably increase and the house value will also increase?

Wendy2 wrote:
Quote... Isn't it up to Realtors to say, "This property is not worth its asking price" or "No, you can't afford the mortgage" and refuse the sale?

Should we blame financial institutions that threw away proven, time honored, means tests; encouraged people to commit to debts they couldn't possibly support and repackaged the results for investors who didn't understand what they were buying?... end of Quote

I am honest with sellers and tell them what their property is likely worth. Often they will refuse to accept that and list with someone else, only to sell it for less than what I suggested. The reason it sells for much less is because they chased the market down and by the time they realized it, they were on the losing side. I am a relocation agent as well and compete for listings when 2-3 Realtors are asked to complete a BPO (Brokers Price Opinion). I often do not get the listing because my suggested list price is "too Low". Again, the sellers list high and the truth becomes apparent after about 2-3 months of lost time.

As far as buyers, why would I write an offer for a buyer that can't afford the property? I don't tell them to look at houses above their means, nor do I know what they are qualified for. I ask the buyers to talk with a lender, the expert in determining what someone is qualified for. Then the buyers and I proceed to find a home in their price range.

Fannie Mae was very responsible in trying to open up the doors to more people for home ownership and loosened the "proven, time honored means test". Yes, the buyers could afford it immediately, but when the rates went up on their variable loans, all hell broke lose.
Quote... Isn't it up to Realtors to say, "Th... (show quote)
Yes the sellers list high, It is hard to get more ... (show quote)


Certainly negotiation is part of the process. But what you don't seem to understand is that if a home is priced much too high, buyers don't want to tackle the seller's attitude. These sellers generally don't get offers. Without offers there is no negotiating. I am plenty competitive but not stupid. I have enough repeat business, referrals etc. to have the luxury of picking and choosing my clients. One bad apple can poison my attitude and I would not take on someone that is not willing to listen and take advice. Sellers did it to themselves and I was not going to be part of the anger and frustration they would feel wondering why their house would not sell. Often it is the second listing agent that sells the house. I could have said, yes your house is worth that ridiculous price, but I would not have sold it. Then the seller would have blamed me for it not selling. I have seen some sellers go through 2-5 Realtors, all the while blaming them for their house not selling. And as I mentioned earlier, they lost a lot of money because they were being greedy.

As far as buyers, why would I push anyone to buy? The young couple is fully aware, or should be, about what they can afford now and in the future. I and many Realtors do a fine job of protecting the buyers and sellers. One of the many examples of my ethics is that I had a young first time buyer, frightened to death with the whole idea of buying. He did not know the first thing about buying a home. I take my job seriously and take them gently through the process, provide them with an overview of what to expect in the process and keep them calm and informed. It is up to the Realtor to help a buyer through this overwhelming experience. He talked with a lender at my suggestion, got a great loan, bought a great condo and was very happy. A year and half later he called me and said he had to sell because he had lost his job. Now I could have been an unethical person, as you say Realtors are, and listed his home and sold it but I didn't. Instead I talked with him and knew he had other options. I told him I know you have a close family and you could live with one of them, rent your place out to someone, get another job and eventually move back into your place. He really appreciated that advice and decided not to sell, Fortunately for him, he got another job rather quickly. This story is not an exception to the rule, not in my case or most Realtors I know.

It seems from your comments that you must have had a very bad experience.
quote=eskiles Yes the sellers list high, It is ha... (show quote)

Reply
Sep 3, 2012 19:42:07   #
Wendy2 Loc: California
 
I am pleased with the way this conversation has unfolded in that there has been no attacking others that don't share your opinions. There is nothing wrong with discussion and expressing oneself. What I have seen too much on many forums, including this one, is that people lower themselves to attacking others personally, instead of discussing their views in an intelligent, calm way.

Reply
Sep 3, 2012 19:44:57   #
Wendy2 Loc: California
 
eskiles wrote:
I have been in the building industry a long time and have seen personally and by word of mouth the actions of unscrupulous people. My son and ex wife were title examiners and some of the shenanigans the realtors and bankers pulled were awfull. I don't say all realtors are "bad apples" but where money is concerned there is an incentive to push the limits of legality.

Wendy2 wrote:
eskiles wrote:
Yes the sellers list high, It is hard to get more for your property after the fact, That is what negotiation is for. The rule of capitalism is buy low and sell high! You obviously lost money by not being competitive. Do you refuse to help a young couple that really likes a house but the price will push their budget to the max? Or did you tell them that their income will probably increase and the house value will also increase?

Wendy2 wrote:
Quote... Isn't it up to Realtors to say, "This property is not worth its asking price" or "No, you can't afford the mortgage" and refuse the sale?

Should we blame financial institutions that threw away proven, time honored, means tests; encouraged people to commit to debts they couldn't possibly support and repackaged the results for investors who didn't understand what they were buying?... end of Quote

I am honest with sellers and tell them what their property is likely worth. Often they will refuse to accept that and list with someone else, only to sell it for less than what I suggested. The reason it sells for much less is because they chased the market down and by the time they realized it, they were on the losing side. I am a relocation agent as well and compete for listings when 2-3 Realtors are asked to complete a BPO (Brokers Price Opinion). I often do not get the listing because my suggested list price is "too Low". Again, the sellers list high and the truth becomes apparent after about 2-3 months of lost time.

As far as buyers, why would I write an offer for a buyer that can't afford the property? I don't tell them to look at houses above their means, nor do I know what they are qualified for. I ask the buyers to talk with a lender, the expert in determining what someone is qualified for. Then the buyers and I proceed to find a home in their price range.

Fannie Mae was very responsible in trying to open up the doors to more people for home ownership and loosened the "proven, time honored means test". Yes, the buyers could afford it immediately, but when the rates went up on their variable loans, all hell broke lose.
Quote... Isn't it up to Realtors to say, "Th... (show quote)
Yes the sellers list high, It is hard to get more ... (show quote)


Certainly negotiation is part of the process. But what you don't seem to understand is that if a home is priced much too high, buyers don't want to tackle the seller's attitude. These sellers generally don't get offers. Without offers there is no negotiating. I am plenty competitive but not stupid. I have enough repeat business, referrals etc. to have the luxury of picking and choosing my clients. One bad apple can poison my attitude and I would not take on someone that is not willing to listen and take advice. Sellers did it to themselves and I was not going to be part of the anger and frustration they would feel wondering why their house would not sell. Often it is the second listing agent that sells the house. I could have said, yes your house is worth that ridiculous price, but I would not have sold it. Then the seller would have blamed me for it not selling. I have seen some sellers go through 2-5 Realtors, all the while blaming them for their house not selling. And as I mentioned earlier, they lost a lot of money because they were being greedy.

As far as buyers, why would I push anyone to buy? The young couple is fully aware, or should be, about what they can afford now and in the future. I and many Realtors do a fine job of protecting the buyers and sellers. One of the many examples of my ethics is that I had a young first time buyer, frightened to death with the whole idea of buying. He did not know the first thing about buying a home. I take my job seriously and take them gently through the process, provide them with an overview of what to expect in the process and keep them calm and informed. It is up to the Realtor to help a buyer through this overwhelming experience. He talked with a lender at my suggestion, got a great loan, bought a great condo and was very happy. A year and half later he called me and said he had to sell because he had lost his job. Now I could have been an unethical person, as you say Realtors are, and listed his home and sold it but I didn't. Instead I talked with him and knew he had other options. I told him I know you have a close family and you could live with one of them, rent your place out to someone, get another job and eventually move back into your place. He really appreciated that advice and decided not to sell, Fortunately for him, he got another job rather quickly. This story is not an exception to the rule, not in my case or most Realtors I know.

It seems from your comments that you must have had a very bad experience.
quote=eskiles Yes the sellers list high, It is ha... (show quote)
I have been in the building industry a long time a... (show quote)


And that is true of any walk of life and I am afraid it is getting worse. I personally am horrified at some of the crap that I read and hear about; the abuse of the weak, the elderly, children, helpless people, desperate people. Where a scam is possible it will be done.

Reply
Sep 3, 2012 19:48:05   #
eskiles Loc: Palmer Alaska
 
By the way I like your photos. The one of the pelican swallowing the fish , I liked the shadow of the fishes tail in his pouch!

Wendy2 wrote:
eskiles wrote:
I have been in the building industry a long time and have seen personally and by word of mouth the actions of unscrupulous people. My son and ex wife were title examiners and some of the shenanigans the realtors and bankers pulled were awfull. I don't say all realtors are "bad apples" but where money is concerned there is an incentive to push the limits of legality.

Wendy2 wrote:
eskiles wrote:
Yes the sellers list high, It is hard to get more for your property after the fact, That is what negotiation is for. The rule of capitalism is buy low and sell high! You obviously lost money by not being competitive. Do you refuse to help a young couple that really likes a house but the price will push their budget to the max? Or did you tell them that their income will probably increase and the house value will also increase?

Wendy2 wrote:
Quote... Isn't it up to Realtors to say, "This property is not worth its asking price" or "No, you can't afford the mortgage" and refuse the sale?

Should we blame financial institutions that threw away proven, time honored, means tests; encouraged people to commit to debts they couldn't possibly support and repackaged the results for investors who didn't understand what they were buying?... end of Quote

I am honest with sellers and tell them what their property is likely worth. Often they will refuse to accept that and list with someone else, only to sell it for less than what I suggested. The reason it sells for much less is because they chased the market down and by the time they realized it, they were on the losing side. I am a relocation agent as well and compete for listings when 2-3 Realtors are asked to complete a BPO (Brokers Price Opinion). I often do not get the listing because my suggested list price is "too Low". Again, the sellers list high and the truth becomes apparent after about 2-3 months of lost time.

As far as buyers, why would I write an offer for a buyer that can't afford the property? I don't tell them to look at houses above their means, nor do I know what they are qualified for. I ask the buyers to talk with a lender, the expert in determining what someone is qualified for. Then the buyers and I proceed to find a home in their price range.

Fannie Mae was very responsible in trying to open up the doors to more people for home ownership and loosened the "proven, time honored means test". Yes, the buyers could afford it immediately, but when the rates went up on their variable loans, all hell broke lose.
Quote... Isn't it up to Realtors to say, "Th... (show quote)
Yes the sellers list high, It is hard to get more ... (show quote)


Certainly negotiation is part of the process. But what you don't seem to understand is that if a home is priced much too high, buyers don't want to tackle the seller's attitude. These sellers generally don't get offers. Without offers there is no negotiating. I am plenty competitive but not stupid. I have enough repeat business, referrals etc. to have the luxury of picking and choosing my clients. One bad apple can poison my attitude and I would not take on someone that is not willing to listen and take advice. Sellers did it to themselves and I was not going to be part of the anger and frustration they would feel wondering why their house would not sell. Often it is the second listing agent that sells the house. I could have said, yes your house is worth that ridiculous price, but I would not have sold it. Then the seller would have blamed me for it not selling. I have seen some sellers go through 2-5 Realtors, all the while blaming them for their house not selling. And as I mentioned earlier, they lost a lot of money because they were being greedy.

As far as buyers, why would I push anyone to buy? The young couple is fully aware, or should be, about what they can afford now and in the future. I and many Realtors do a fine job of protecting the buyers and sellers. One of the many examples of my ethics is that I had a young first time buyer, frightened to death with the whole idea of buying. He did not know the first thing about buying a home. I take my job seriously and take them gently through the process, provide them with an overview of what to expect in the process and keep them calm and informed. It is up to the Realtor to help a buyer through this overwhelming experience. He talked with a lender at my suggestion, got a great loan, bought a great condo and was very happy. A year and half later he called me and said he had to sell because he had lost his job. Now I could have been an unethical person, as you say Realtors are, and listed his home and sold it but I didn't. Instead I talked with him and knew he had other options. I told him I know you have a close family and you could live with one of them, rent your place out to someone, get another job and eventually move back into your place. He really appreciated that advice and decided not to sell, Fortunately for him, he got another job rather quickly. This story is not an exception to the rule, not in my case or most Realtors I know.

It seems from your comments that you must have had a very bad experience.
quote=eskiles Yes the sellers list high, It is ha... (show quote)
I have been in the building industry a long time a... (show quote)


And that is true of any walk of life and I am afraid it is getting worse. I personally am horrified at some of the crap that I read and hear about; the abuse of the weak, the elderly, children, helpless people, desperate people. Where a scam is possible it will be done.
quote=eskiles I have been in the building industr... (show quote)

Reply
 
 
Sep 3, 2012 19:55:44   #
Wendy2 Loc: California
 
eskiles wrote:
By the way I like your photos. The one of the pelican swallowing the fish , I liked the shadow of the fishes tail in his pouch!

Wendy2 wrote:
eskiles wrote:
I have been in the building industry a long time and have seen personally and by word of mouth the actions of unscrupulous people. My son and ex wife were title examiners and some of the shenanigans the realtors and bankers pulled were awfull. I don't say all realtors are "bad apples" but where money is concerned there is an incentive to push the limits of legality.

Wendy2 wrote:
eskiles wrote:
Yes the sellers list high, It is hard to get more for your property after the fact, That is what negotiation is for. The rule of capitalism is buy low and sell high! You obviously lost money by not being competitive. Do you refuse to help a young couple that really likes a house but the price will push their budget to the max? Or did you tell them that their income will probably increase and the house value will also increase?

Wendy2 wrote:
Quote... Isn't it up to Realtors to say, "This property is not worth its asking price" or "No, you can't afford the mortgage" and refuse the sale?

Should we blame financial institutions that threw away proven, time honored, means tests; encouraged people to commit to debts they couldn't possibly support and repackaged the results for investors who didn't understand what they were buying?... end of Quote

I am honest with sellers and tell them what their property is likely worth. Often they will refuse to accept that and list with someone else, only to sell it for less than what I suggested. The reason it sells for much less is because they chased the market down and by the time they realized it, they were on the losing side. I am a relocation agent as well and compete for listings when 2-3 Realtors are asked to complete a BPO (Brokers Price Opinion). I often do not get the listing because my suggested list price is "too Low". Again, the sellers list high and the truth becomes apparent after about 2-3 months of lost time.

As far as buyers, why would I write an offer for a buyer that can't afford the property? I don't tell them to look at houses above their means, nor do I know what they are qualified for. I ask the buyers to talk with a lender, the expert in determining what someone is qualified for. Then the buyers and I proceed to find a home in their price range.

Fannie Mae was very responsible in trying to open up the doors to more people for home ownership and loosened the "proven, time honored means test". Yes, the buyers could afford it immediately, but when the rates went up on their variable loans, all hell broke lose.
Quote... Isn't it up to Realtors to say, "Th... (show quote)
Yes the sellers list high, It is hard to get more ... (show quote)


Certainly negotiation is part of the process. But what you don't seem to understand is that if a home is priced much too high, buyers don't want to tackle the seller's attitude. These sellers generally don't get offers. Without offers there is no negotiating. I am plenty competitive but not stupid. I have enough repeat business, referrals etc. to have the luxury of picking and choosing my clients. One bad apple can poison my attitude and I would not take on someone that is not willing to listen and take advice. Sellers did it to themselves and I was not going to be part of the anger and frustration they would feel wondering why their house would not sell. Often it is the second listing agent that sells the house. I could have said, yes your house is worth that ridiculous price, but I would not have sold it. Then the seller would have blamed me for it not selling. I have seen some sellers go through 2-5 Realtors, all the while blaming them for their house not selling. And as I mentioned earlier, they lost a lot of money because they were being greedy.

As far as buyers, why would I push anyone to buy? The young couple is fully aware, or should be, about what they can afford now and in the future. I and many Realtors do a fine job of protecting the buyers and sellers. One of the many examples of my ethics is that I had a young first time buyer, frightened to death with the whole idea of buying. He did not know the first thing about buying a home. I take my job seriously and take them gently through the process, provide them with an overview of what to expect in the process and keep them calm and informed. It is up to the Realtor to help a buyer through this overwhelming experience. He talked with a lender at my suggestion, got a great loan, bought a great condo and was very happy. A year and half later he called me and said he had to sell because he had lost his job. Now I could have been an unethical person, as you say Realtors are, and listed his home and sold it but I didn't. Instead I talked with him and knew he had other options. I told him I know you have a close family and you could live with one of them, rent your place out to someone, get another job and eventually move back into your place. He really appreciated that advice and decided not to sell, Fortunately for him, he got another job rather quickly. This story is not an exception to the rule, not in my case or most Realtors I know.

It seems from your comments that you must have had a very bad experience.
quote=eskiles Yes the sellers list high, It is ha... (show quote)
I have been in the building industry a long time a... (show quote)


And that is true of any walk of life and I am afraid it is getting worse. I personally am horrified at some of the crap that I read and hear about; the abuse of the weak, the elderly, children, helpless people, desperate people. Where a scam is possible it will be done.
quote=eskiles I have been in the building industr... (show quote)
By the way I like your photos. The one of the peli... (show quote)


Thanks! That was a perfect day and a rare opportunity for sure. The sun was behind the bird for perfect back lighting. Couldn't have planned it better. I haven't posted many pictures on line yet. Just been watching, learning and enjoying the forum. I have so many areas of photography I love; macro, head shots, landscape, architecture and on and on.

Reply
Sep 3, 2012 22:53:52   #
ole sarg Loc: south florida
 
What I find interesting is the discussion and the ignorance of what happened. It was not that houses went into foreclosure it was that the credit swap market was not understood by the investment bankers. The mortgages were bundled and sold at a price that reflected future value. These bundles were theoretically insured but since insurance requires money set aside to cover the projected payouts they did not use insurance they used credit swap. Swaps were not and still are not regulated. The largest Insurance company in the world AIG was the issuer of the swaps. When the bundlers went to AIG to recover the money lost because the bundles were worth less than they paid, AIG did not have any reserves to cover the swaps and the entire system collapsed. The banks could have handled the foreclosures but the investment banks could not handle the loss of value in the bundles or derivatives.

For some reason, in the blame game it is easy to blame the weakest the buyer and not the biggest the investment bankers. Same with cities going belly up. Who's to fault the school teacher, cop and fireman who is making 25-75K a year. When the real culprit is the city managers, mayors and councilmen who did not set aside money for pension funds, refuse to build parks, sponsor sports teams, etc.

Read up on what happened. Realize that the GOP is pushing the same policies that got us into this mess by demanding dodd/frank be repealed. It is in their platform.

Reply
Sep 3, 2012 23:02:38   #
ole sarg Loc: south florida
 
This is the Dodd/Frank act and we should all know it. It directly effects each of us.

The GOP Platform calls for its repeal.

Summary of Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act:

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act was the most comprehensive financial reform since the Glass-Steagall Act. Like Glass-Steagall, it sought to regulate the financial markets and make another economic crisis less likely. Banks were deregulated in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed Glass-Steagall. Dodd-Frank proposed eight areas of regulation. Here are the major parts of the Act.
Regulate Credit Cards, Loans and Mortgages:

The Consumer Financial Protection Agency consolidated protection from many different agencies. It oversees credit reporting agencies, credit and debit cards, payday and consumer loans (but not auto loans from dealers). The CFPA regulated credit fees, including credit, debit, mortgage underwriting and bank fees. It protects homeowners in real estate transactions by requiring they understand risky mortgage loans. It also requires banks to verify borrower's income, credit history and job status. The CFPA is under the U.S. Treasury Department.
Oversee Wall Street:

The Financial Stability Oversight Council looks out for risks that affect the entire financial industry. It also oversees non-bank financial firms like hedge funds. If any of these companies get too big, it can recommend they be regulated by the Federal Reserve, which can ask it to increase its reserve requirement. This prevents another AIG from becoming too big to fail. The Council is chaired by the Treasury Secretary, and has nine members: the Fed, SEC, CFTC, OCC, FDIC, FHFA and the new CFPA.
Stop Banks from Gambling with Depositors' Money:

The Volcker Rule bans banks from using or owning hedge funds for the banks' own profit. That's because they'd often use their depositors' funds to do so. Banks can use hedge funds for their customers only. Determining which funds are for the banks' profits and which funds are for customers has been difficult. Therefore, Dodd-Frank gave banks seven years to divest the funds. They can keep any funds if that are less than 3% of revenue.
Regulate Risky Derivatives:

Dodd-Frank required that the riskiest derivatives, like credit default swaps, be regulated by the (SEC) or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). In this way, excessive risk-taking can be identified and brought to policy-makers' attention before a major crisis occurs. A clearinghouse, similar to the stock exchange, must be set up so these derivative trades can be transacted in public. However, Dodd-Frank left it up to the regulators to determine exactly the best way to put this into place, which has led to a series of studies.
Bring Hedge Funds Trades Into the Light:

One of the causes of the 2008 financial crisis was that, since hedge funds and other financial advisers weren't regulated, no one knew what they were investing in or how much was at stake. That's why the Fed and other agencies thought the mortgage crisis would be confined to the housing industry. To correct for that, Dodd-Frank says that hedge funds must register with the SEC and provide date about their trades and portfolios so the SEC can assess overall market risk. States are given more power to regulate investment advisers, since Dodd-Frank raises the asset threshold limit from $30 million to $100 million.
Oversee Credit Rating Agencies:

Dodd-Frank created an Office of Credit Rating at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to regulate credit ratings agencies like Moody's and Standard & Poor's. Many blame the agencies for over-rating some bundles of derivatives and mortgage-backed securities. This mislead investors who didn't realize the debt was in danger of not being repaid. The SEC can require agencies to submit their methodologies for review, and can deregister an agency that gives faulty ratings.
Increase Supervision of Insurance Companies:

It created a new Federal Insurance Office under the Treasury Department, which identifies insurance companies like AIG that create risk to the entire system. It will also gather information about the insurance industry and make sure affordable insurance is available to minorities and other underserved communities. It will represent the U.S. on insurance policies in international affairs. The new office will also work with the states to streamline regulation of surplus lines insurance and reinsurance.
Reform the Federal Reserve:

The Government Accountability Office(GAO) was allowed to audit the Fed's emergency loans during the financial crisis. It can review future emergency loans, when needed. The Fed cannot make an emergency loan to a single entity, like Bear Stearns or AIG, without Treasury Department approval. (Although the Fed did work closely with Treasury during the crisis.) The Fed must make public the names of banks that received these loans or TARP funds.
The Dodd-Frank Act was named after the two legislators who created it. It was introduced by Senator Chris Dodd on March 15, 2010 and passed by the Senate on May 20. The bill was revised by Congressman Barney Frank and approved by the House on June 30. On July 21 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act into law. (Source: U.S. Senate, Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, Morrison & Forster, Summary of Dodd-Frank Reform Act) (Article updated January 14, 2012)

http://useconomy.about.com/od/criticalssues/p/Dodd-Frank-Wall-Street-Reform-Act.htm

Reply
Sep 3, 2012 23:28:04   #
Wendy2 Loc: California
 
ole sarg wrote:
What I find interesting is the discussion and the ignorance of what happened. It was not that houses went into foreclosure it was that the credit swap market was not understood by the investment bankers. The mortgages were bundled and sold at a price that reflected future value. These bundles were theoretically insured but since insurance requires money set aside to cover the projected payouts they did not use insurance they used credit swap. Swaps were not and still are not regulated. The largest Insurance company in the world AIG was the issuer of the swaps. When the bundlers went to AIG to recover the money lost because the bundles were worth less than they paid, AIG did not have any reserves to cover the swaps and the entire system collapsed. The banks could have handled the foreclosures but the investment banks could not handle the loss of value in the bundles or derivatives.

For some reason, in the blame game it is easy to blame the weakest the buyer and not the biggest the investment bankers. Same with cities going belly up. Who's to fault the school teacher, cop and fireman who is making 25-75K a year. When the real culprit is the city managers, mayors and councilmen who did not set aside money for pension funds, refuse to build parks, sponsor sports teams, etc.

Read up on what happened. Realize that the GOP is pushing the same policies that got us into this mess by demanding dodd/frank be repealed. It is in their platform.
What I find interesting is the discussion and the ... (show quote)


Thanks ole sarg for putting things in better perspective. It is true and you put it rather succinctly.

Reply
 
 
Sep 3, 2012 23:42:47   #
eskiles Loc: Palmer Alaska
 
You are a wealth of knowledge. Thanks.
ole sarg wrote:
This is the Dodd/Frank act and we should all know it. It directly effects each of us.

The GOP Platform calls for its repeal.

Summary of Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act:

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act was the most comprehensive financial reform since the Glass-Steagall Act. Like Glass-Steagall, it sought to regulate the financial markets and make another economic crisis less likely. Banks were deregulated in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed Glass-Steagall. Dodd-Frank proposed eight areas of regulation. Here are the major parts of the Act.
Regulate Credit Cards, Loans and Mortgages:

The Consumer Financial Protection Agency consolidated protection from many different agencies. It oversees credit reporting agencies, credit and debit cards, payday and consumer loans (but not auto loans from dealers). The CFPA regulated credit fees, including credit, debit, mortgage underwriting and bank fees. It protects homeowners in real estate transactions by requiring they understand risky mortgage loans. It also requires banks to verify borrower's income, credit history and job status. The CFPA is under the U.S. Treasury Department.
Oversee Wall Street:

The Financial Stability Oversight Council looks out for risks that affect the entire financial industry. It also oversees non-bank financial firms like hedge funds. If any of these companies get too big, it can recommend they be regulated by the Federal Reserve, which can ask it to increase its reserve requirement. This prevents another AIG from becoming too big to fail. The Council is chaired by the Treasury Secretary, and has nine members: the Fed, SEC, CFTC, OCC, FDIC, FHFA and the new CFPA.
Stop Banks from Gambling with Depositors' Money:

The Volcker Rule bans banks from using or owning hedge funds for the banks' own profit. That's because they'd often use their depositors' funds to do so. Banks can use hedge funds for their customers only. Determining which funds are for the banks' profits and which funds are for customers has been difficult. Therefore, Dodd-Frank gave banks seven years to divest the funds. They can keep any funds if that are less than 3% of revenue.
Regulate Risky Derivatives:

Dodd-Frank required that the riskiest derivatives, like credit default swaps, be regulated by the (SEC) or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). In this way, excessive risk-taking can be identified and brought to policy-makers' attention before a major crisis occurs. A clearinghouse, similar to the stock exchange, must be set up so these derivative trades can be transacted in public. However, Dodd-Frank left it up to the regulators to determine exactly the best way to put this into place, which has led to a series of studies.
Bring Hedge Funds Trades Into the Light:

One of the causes of the 2008 financial crisis was that, since hedge funds and other financial advisers weren't regulated, no one knew what they were investing in or how much was at stake. That's why the Fed and other agencies thought the mortgage crisis would be confined to the housing industry. To correct for that, Dodd-Frank says that hedge funds must register with the SEC and provide date about their trades and portfolios so the SEC can assess overall market risk. States are given more power to regulate investment advisers, since Dodd-Frank raises the asset threshold limit from $30 million to $100 million.
Oversee Credit Rating Agencies:

Dodd-Frank created an Office of Credit Rating at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to regulate credit ratings agencies like Moody's and Standard & Poor's. Many blame the agencies for over-rating some bundles of derivatives and mortgage-backed securities. This mislead investors who didn't realize the debt was in danger of not being repaid. The SEC can require agencies to submit their methodologies for review, and can deregister an agency that gives faulty ratings.
Increase Supervision of Insurance Companies:

It created a new Federal Insurance Office under the Treasury Department, which identifies insurance companies like AIG that create risk to the entire system. It will also gather information about the insurance industry and make sure affordable insurance is available to minorities and other underserved communities. It will represent the U.S. on insurance policies in international affairs. The new office will also work with the states to streamline regulation of surplus lines insurance and reinsurance.
Reform the Federal Reserve:

The Government Accountability Office(GAO) was allowed to audit the Fed's emergency loans during the financial crisis. It can review future emergency loans, when needed. The Fed cannot make an emergency loan to a single entity, like Bear Stearns or AIG, without Treasury Department approval. (Although the Fed did work closely with Treasury during the crisis.) The Fed must make public the names of banks that received these loans or TARP funds.
The Dodd-Frank Act was named after the two legislators who created it. It was introduced by Senator Chris Dodd on March 15, 2010 and passed by the Senate on May 20. The bill was revised by Congressman Barney Frank and approved by the House on June 30. On July 21 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act into law. (Source: U.S. Senate, Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, Morrison & Forster, Summary of Dodd-Frank Reform Act) (Article updated January 14, 2012)

http://useconomy.about.com/od/criticalssues/p/Dodd-Frank-Wall-Street-Reform-Act.htm
This is the Dodd/Frank act and we should all know ... (show quote)

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 4
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.