PDA

View Full Version : The truth about Enron and the market



Chopstick
10-14-2009, 08:05 PM
I'm out in Vegas this week at a training class. I met one of the modern day stock trading legends. pooltchr, that comment you made about the jobs that disappeared not coming back, this guy just said the same thing to me about three hours ago. Those people may get jobs doing something else but the jobs they had are gone.

Something else he said that shocked everyone. Everything Enron was doing was published in their financial statements in the footnotes. Anyone who read them would see what they did and had an opportunity to short the stock. I am going to try and find those financial statements. This is something I have to see for myself.

His brother was in there later and was telling us how to tell if a buyer was real or someone was just jacking around with the price of a stock. He goes, OK watch this. He wants to unload a bunch of shares so he enters his sell orders above the current price. Then he places a bid with a huge size to buy a few notches below the current bid price so he doesn't get filled. Goldman Sachs is doing the clearing so everyone sees GS as the one who just put in a bid. Then he says, so now everyone who learned at the internet stock trading academy has alarms going off on their systems saying that GS just put in a huge bid to buy and they are all jumping in trying to buy ahead of it. They bid the price up, he sells off to all of them, cancels his bid and the price goes right back to where it was. They all just got fleeced and will never know why. Somewhere they are in their blogs talking about it trying to design a new chart of some kind of gizmo to explain it. Someone will probably write an article about it. It was just this guy screwing around in a class showing us how things really work.

All the stuff they are talking about on CNBC and all these certified financial professionals is all crap designed to make you feel better about them taking your money.

"You want to be a certified financial planner. Why don't you just get a gun and go to 7/11. It is a more honorable profession."

This has been a real eye opening experience.

wolfdancer
10-14-2009, 11:55 PM
my favorite was Tokyo Joe, who not only recommended a stock that he already owned and would then sell shortly after his pick got posted....but...............he charged his subscribers $299 a year for this "service" Sort of like paying to have your cow serviced, only you is the cow.
Jim Cramer has also been investigated, but cleared....still, I think he's a fraud.
Krispy Kreme stock hit $49 in 2003, on the strength of inflated earnings....recently dropped to $1, then rebounded now trading at just under $4....must be on news of their great new product....
a bacon, cheeseburger, sandwiched between two of their glazed donuts( seriously)...about 1500 calories. If this catches on...it should solve the future SS, $$ problems, as it should shorten the life span by at least 10 years.
I bought some stock once that was going to be the "Yahoo" for business/ commerce. They even had Cris Noth as their spokesman, and if you can't trust a cop from "Law and Order", who can you trust? The stock went belly up, before it ever got a web site going, or soon after.

LWW
10-15-2009, 04:08 AM
If the average American realized how they have been played the streets would flow with blood.

LWW

Qtec
10-15-2009, 04:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm out in Vegas this week at a training class. I met one of the modern day stock trading legends. pooltchr, that comment you made about the jobs that disappeared not coming back, this guy just said the same thing to me about three hours ago. Those people may get jobs doing something else but the jobs they had are gone.

Something else he said that shocked everyone. Everything Enron was doing was published in their financial statements in the footnotes. Anyone who read them would see what they did and had an opportunity to short the stock. I am going to try and find those financial statements. This is something I have to see for myself.

</div></div>

Oh yeah. Enron was crystal clear!........Do you know what fraud means?
conspiracy=smoke and mirrors (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020513/greider)


Be objective.
Q

Gayle in MD
10-15-2009, 09:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm out in Vegas this week at a training class. I met one of the modern day stock trading legends. pooltchr, that comment you made about the jobs that disappeared not coming back, this guy just said the same thing to me about three hours ago. Those people may get jobs doing something else but the jobs they had are gone.

Something else he said that shocked everyone. Everything Enron was doing was published in their financial statements in the footnotes. Anyone who read them would see what they did and had an opportunity to short the stock. I am going to try and find those financial statements. This is something I have to see for myself.

</div></div>

Oh yeah. Enron was crystal clear!........Do you know what fraud means?
conspiracy=smoke and mirrors (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020513/greider)


Be objective.
Q </div></div>

Great link, Q., thanks.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For those already exhausted by the torrent of Enron disclosures, I would not recommend reading the "Consolidated Complaint" filed by defrauded investors for a literary experience. The class-action lawsuit is 500 pages long, not counting appendixes, and dense with tedious legal repetitions and the mind-numbing complexities of Enron's financial transactions, most already known. On the other hand, this document tells an eye-popping story of how the Wall Street system really works, and it resonates with political significance because the plaintiffs' lawyers are redirecting public outrage--and multibillion-dollar damage claims--at the best and most powerful names in American finance. Nine leading banks and financial houses have been added as defendants and depicted as intimate insiders in what the lawsuit calls the "Enron Ponzi scheme." They were the engineers, it is asserted, who devised manipulative deals concealing the truth. They were also principal beneficiaries of this massive scam.

</div></div>


<span style='font-size: 11pt'>'who devised manipulative deals concealing the truth. ' </span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'> 'dense with tedious legal repetitions and the mind-numbing complexities' </span>


<span style="color: #000066">Good Description of the new capitalism. Sounds just like our latest Wall Street Scam, and the same methods used by predatory lenders in the housing market.

I've seen as many as five respected, knowledgeable economic experts in a panel, all of them admitting that they could not figure out exactly how the latest Wall Street red tape worked, couldn't understand the terms or meanings in the paperwork.Even Greenspan, no lightweight in economics, I'd say, admitted to the same.</span>


<span style="color: #000066">Clap, Clap, Clap: Step right up, lemme show ya what I'm gonna do! </span>

Chopstick
10-15-2009, 12:42 PM
If you read the book Reminiscences of a Stock Operator, it is about these guys. The stuff in that book is still going on today. What a racket. This crowd makes pool players look like Catholic school boys.

Chopstick
10-15-2009, 12:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh yeah. Enron was crystal clear!........Do you know what fraud means?
conspiracy=smoke and mirrors (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020513/greider)


Be objective.
Q </div></div>

Well gee Q, let's see here. Who am I going to believe? The billionaire who is universally recognized as one of the best stock traders in the world or Q's internet link? I'm gonna have to go with selection A here.

wolfdancer
10-15-2009, 12:56 PM
I didn't read, nor know about that book, but look forward to reading it. Last one I read along those lines was "Liar's Poker"

LWW
10-15-2009, 01:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh yeah. Enron was crystal clear!........Do you know what fraud means?
conspiracy=smoke and mirrors (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020513/greider)


Be objective.
Q </div></div>

OOOH! OOH! I DO!

It means to forget that the crimes took place while Clinton was in office and to blame the Bush admin for being complicit in the scandal because they refused to be complicit in the scandal.

What did I win?

LWW

Chopstick
10-15-2009, 01:34 PM
Here's something on it right here.

"By law, publicly traded companies like Enron must mail all shareholders an annual report disclosing all relevant financial information and business happenings. Public companies also send their investors proxy statements seeking shareholder approval for certain business activities.

Yet the Enron debacle demonstrates that most shareholders aren't reading the annual reports. Even the SEC, which oversees 12,000 registered companies, recently admitted not having read Enron's annual reports for the last three years.

A review of Enron annual reports and proxy statements for the last three years (found on the company's own Web site) shows signs of trouble."

How can investors spot an Enron? (http://accounting.smartpros.com/x32702.xml)

<span style="color: #000099">There is a big conspiracy theory about this because there has to be one. Do you think that all of those investors are going to stand up and admit that they were so incompetent that they dumped billions into a company without even reading the financial statements. Of course not. There will be a big dog and pony show about how they were "deceived" by the evil rich predators.

All human beings are predators. It is everyone's personal responsibility to deal with it. The current housing thing is no different. How did they think they were going to pay for a half a million dollar house on a fifty thousand a year income? Were they stupid? Hell no, they were deceived by the evil predatory lenders. Did they forget how to read? Did they forget what arithmetic was? If you were about to spend a half a million dollars, do you think you should spend ten bucks on a friggin calculator and run the numbers?
</span>

LWW
10-15-2009, 03:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's something on it right here.

"By law, publicly traded companies like Enron must mail all shareholders an annual report disclosing all relevant financial information and business happenings. Public companies also send their investors proxy statements seeking shareholder approval for certain business activities.

Yet the Enron debacle demonstrates that most shareholders aren't reading the annual reports. Even the SEC, which oversees 12,000 registered companies, recently admitted not having read Enron's annual reports for the last three years.

A review of Enron annual reports and proxy statements for the last three years (found on the company's own Web site) shows signs of trouble."

How can investors spot an Enron? (http://accounting.smartpros.com/x32702.xml)

<span style="color: #000099">There is a big conspiracy theory about this because there has to be one. Do you think that all of those investors are going to stand up and admit that they were so incompetent that they dumped billions into a company without even reading the financial statements. Of course not. There will be a big dog and pony show about how they were "deceived" by the evil rich predators.

All human beings are predators. It is everyone's personal responsibility to deal with it. The current housing thing is no different. How did they think they were going to pay for a half a million dollar house on a fifty thousand a year income? Were they stupid? Hell no, they were deceived by the evil predatory lenders. Did they forget how to read? Did they forget what arithmetic was? If you were about to spend a half a million dollars, do you think you should spend ten bucks on a friggin calculator and run the numbers?
</span> </div></div>

It's deeper than that.

Here's a thought from someone who was in consumer credit for a couple decades.

There is a class of people who will buy anything they can get financed on with full knowledge they will never pay for it ... and they do it on the assumption that they can enjoy it until the "TAKE BACK MAN" comes around.

Although there were people who bought homes on "STATED INCOME" loans ... they did it with full knowledge that they didn't make the stated amount. That being said, the majority of these bad loans were made to people who COULD pay, they just won't.

Bankruptcy and bad credit no longer carry a stigma in this country, and certain parts of the population brag about it.

To shorten the gory truth up ... the amount of the payment is only important to those who intend to pay it.

LWW

Chopstick
10-15-2009, 08:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It's deeper than that.

Here's a thought from someone who was in consumer credit for a couple decades.

There is a class of people who will buy anything they can get financed on with full knowledge they will never pay for it ... and they do it on the assumption that they can enjoy it until the "TAKE BACK MAN" comes around.

Although there were people who bought homes on "STATED INCOME" loans ... they did it with full knowledge that they didn't make the stated amount. That being said, the majority of these bad loans were made to people who COULD pay, they just won't.

Bankruptcy and bad credit no longer carry a stigma in this country, and certain parts of the population brag about it.

To shorten the gory truth up ... the amount of the payment is only important to those who intend to pay it.

LWW </div></div>

Valid points. I agree.

Consumer credit huh. No wonder you have such a bad attitude. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Qtec
10-16-2009, 07:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Beck reiterates what is now <u>right-wing legend</u>:

Beck: You may remember -- or not -- the CRA, the Community Reinvestment Act, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>is the thing that makes banks makes banks lend money to people they don't want to loan money to because they have very low income and they're very likely to go under. It's often cited as one of the chief causes of the subprime mortgage meltdown.</span>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'><u>This is, of course, a flat-out lie.</u> </span>In fact, as the Wikipedia entry explains, the CRA only forces banks to lend to people they don't want to because they're the wrong race:

Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining. The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation.

... <span style='font-size: 20pt'>The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution.</span> An institution's CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. The law does not mandate any other penalties for non-compliance with the CRA.

Bachmann repeats Beck's lie and expands on it:

Bachmann: Well, it's stunning, Glenn. Just as you said, the Community Reinvestment Act is a creation of the federal government forcing private banks to make home mortgages to people who are very poor credit risks. No banks wants to do that. So the federal government in effect threatens banks and says, we're going to close down your interstate bank or we won't let you expand unless you make these bad loans to people or make loans that are unlikely to be repaid. Well, why would a bank want to do that?

Bachmann is outraged, outraged we tell you, that banks have been able to partner with ACORN in making loans to minority families (ACORN plays the role of guarantor, which actually means the loans aren't high-risk). But as Mary Kane at the Windy notes, the entire objection rests entirely on the grounds that ACORN is supposedly a proven evil and corrupt organization -- which has hardly, in fact, been proven. Unless by "evil" you mean "highly effective at getting minority voters to the polls." Which is clearly the case for Bachmann and the Turnip.

Moreover, the claim that the CRA caused the subprime meltdown is pure right-wing garbage. As FDIC chairman Sheila Bair explained:

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.</span>

<u>You've heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people.</u>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'><u>Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can't afford to repay? No-where!</u> And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth ... pure and simple. </span>

And as Aaron Pressman at BusinessWeek pointed out, the independent mortgage companies who were the chief offenders in the subprime meltdown were in fact never subject to the CRA.

University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations.

Well, facts and reality have never made much of an impression on the Planet Wingnuttia domiciles of Bachmann and Beck. But isn't it funny how they focus so much energy on attacking programs that benefit minorities? Hmmmmmm.</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All human beings are predators. </div></div> but there was no predatory lending? Ever read Spitzer's op-ed? Here is a FACT for you.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers. </div></div> etc etc need a linkl?
read it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html)

Oh, BTW. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Causes and Effects of the Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy” Before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform United States House of Representatives
October 6, 2008


" While commercial banks cannot leverage their equity more than 15 to 1, Lehman had a leverage of more than 30 to 1. With this leverage, a mere 3.3% drop in the value of assets wipes out the entire value of equity and makes the company insolvent. " </div></div> .and you want to blame ' Joe the Plummer ' for the crash!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Q

LWW
10-16-2009, 09:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Beck reiterates what is now <u>right-wing legend</u>:

Beck: You may remember -- or not -- the CRA, the Community Reinvestment Act, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>is the thing that makes banks makes banks lend money to people they don't want to loan money to because they have very low income and they're very likely to go under. It's often cited as one of the chief causes of the subprime mortgage meltdown.</span>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'><u>This is, of course, a flat-out lie.</u> </span>In fact, as the Wikipedia entry explains, the CRA only forces banks to lend to people they don't want to because they're the wrong race:

Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining. The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation.

... <span style='font-size: 20pt'>The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution.</span> An institution's CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. The law does not mandate any other penalties for non-compliance with the CRA.

Bachmann repeats Beck's lie and expands on it:

Bachmann: Well, it's stunning, Glenn. Just as you said, the Community Reinvestment Act is a creation of the federal government forcing private banks to make home mortgages to people who are very poor credit risks. No banks wants to do that. So the federal government in effect threatens banks and says, we're going to close down your interstate bank or we won't let you expand unless you make these bad loans to people or make loans that are unlikely to be repaid. Well, why would a bank want to do that?

Bachmann is outraged, outraged we tell you, that banks have been able to partner with ACORN in making loans to minority families (ACORN plays the role of guarantor, which actually means the loans aren't high-risk). But as Mary Kane at the Windy notes, the entire objection rests entirely on the grounds that ACORN is supposedly a proven evil and corrupt organization -- which has hardly, in fact, been proven. Unless by "evil" you mean "highly effective at getting minority voters to the polls." Which is clearly the case for Bachmann and the Turnip.

Moreover, the claim that the CRA caused the subprime meltdown is pure right-wing garbage. As FDIC chairman Sheila Bair explained:

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.</span>

<u>You've heard the line of attack: The government told banks they had to make loans to people who were bad credit risks, and who could not afford to repay, just to prove that they were making loans to low- and moderate-income people.</u>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'><u>Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can't afford to repay? No-where!</u> And the fact is, the lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for market share and revenue growth ... pure and simple. </span>

And as Aaron Pressman at BusinessWeek pointed out, the independent mortgage companies who were the chief offenders in the subprime meltdown were in fact never subject to the CRA.

University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations.

Well, facts and reality have never made much of an impression on the Planet Wingnuttia domiciles of Bachmann and Beck. But isn't it funny how they focus so much energy on attacking programs that benefit minorities? Hmmmmmm.</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All human beings are predators. </div></div> but there was no predatory lending? Ever read Spitzer's op-ed? Here is a FACT for you.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks. These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating effect on home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if left unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the Bush administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect American homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with the banks that were victimizing consumers. </div></div> etc etc need a linkl?
read it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html)

Oh, BTW. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Causes and Effects of the Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy” Before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform United States House of Representatives
October 6, 2008


" While commercial banks cannot leverage their equity more than 15 to 1, Lehman had a leverage of more than 30 to 1. With this leverage, a mere 3.3% drop in the value of assets wipes out the entire value of equity and makes the company insolvent. " </div></div> .and you want to blame ' Joe the Plummer ' for the crash!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Q

</div></div>

That did hold some weight ... until 1998.

What you fail to always add into your lame defense of the party is that once FANNIE and FREDDIE took to buying up and insuring this junk paper NOBODY had any reason to care any longer whether the people would pay or not.

Your naivete is appalling.

Let me give you an example ... Bill Gates best friend with a 400 cresit score and no job wants to buy a new Corvette.

Well, he has no chance at getting approved.

Now, Gates comes back with him and says "I will sign first on the note and pledge the full faith and credit of Microsoft Corporation to guarantee this loan."

Well ... the guy leaves in a new Vette and the lender KNOWS they will never be able to collect from the borrower. But, they know they CAN collect from Bill ... so, who cares.

That's what FANNIE and FREDDIE were doing. They were doing it to earn bonuses for Johnson, Raines, and Gorelich. They were also using funds from FANNIE/FREDDIE to line the campaign coffers of key dems such as Obama, Dodd, Frank, and others so these key congressvolk would keep the federal regulators off their backs.

The evidence is overwhelming and compelling to the point that a caveman can follow ... but you can't. Actually, you can ... you just won't because it would mean you would have to admit you had been punked.

LWW

Chopstick
10-16-2009, 12:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That did hold some weight ... until 1998.

What you fail to always add into your lame defense of the party is that once FANNIE and FREDDIE took to buying up and insuring this junk paper NOBODY had any reason to care any longer whether the people would pay or not.

Your naivete is appalling.

Let me give you an example ... Bill Gates best friend with a 400 cresit score and no job wants to buy a new Corvette.

Well, he has no chance at getting approved.

Now, Gates comes back with him and says "I will sign first on the note and pledge the full faith and credit of Microsoft Corporation to guarantee this loan."

Well ... the guy leaves in a new Vette and the lender KNOWS they will never be able to collect from the borrower. But, they know they CAN collect from Bill ... so, who cares.

That's what FANNIE and FREDDIE were doing. They were doing it to earn bonuses for Johnson, Raines, and Gorelich. They were also using funds from FANNIE/FREDDIE to line the campaign coffers of key dems such as Obama, Dodd, Frank, and others so these key congressvolk would keep the federal regulators off their backs.

The evidence is overwhelming and compelling to the point that a caveman can follow ... but you can't. Actually, you can ... you just won't because it would mean you would have to admit you had been punked.

LWW </div></div>

Close but not exactly. Only Ginnie Mae is backed by the "full faith and credit" of the federal government. Fannie and Freddy are implicitly backed by the federal government. The difference is when an agency issue is backed with "full faith and credit" The government must pay it. When it is implicitly backed it can only be paid by legislative apportionment and that is at the discretion of the congress. They are not legally bound to pay it.

Here's something I got in email today that relates to this thread.

************************************************** *****************************

Capitalism and Cows

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM -- You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION -- You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when the cow drops dead.

FRENCH CORPORATION -- You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION -- You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create clever cow cartoon images called Cowkimon(tm) and market them world-wide.

A GERMAN CORPORATION -- You have two cows. You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

A BRITISH CORPORATION -- You have two cows. Both are mad.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION -- You have two cows, but you don't know where they are. You break for lunch.

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION -- You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 12 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

A SWISS CORPORATION -- You have 5000 cows, none of which belong to you. You charge others for storing them.

A HINDU CORPORATION -- You have two cows. You worship them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION -- You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim full employment, high bovine productivity, and arrest the newsman who reported the numbers.

AN ARKANSAS CORPORATION -- You have two cows. That one on the left is kinda cute.

ENRON CORPORATION -- You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public buys your bull.

ARTHUR ANDERSON, LLC -- You have 2 cows. You shred all documents that Enron has any cows, take 2 cows from Enron for payment for consulting the cows, and attest that Enron has 9 cows.

LWW
10-16-2009, 12:37 PM
I understand what you are saying ... but we did pay off for the fraud.

LWW

Qtec
10-18-2009, 10:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What you fail to always add into your lame defense of the party is that once FANNIE and FREDDIE took to buying up and insuring this junk paper <span style='font-size: 20pt'>NOBODY had any reason to care any longer whether the people would pay or not.</span> </div></div>

Do you ever read your own posts? <u>You just made my point.</u>
<u>YOU are right! THEY didn't care if the loans could be paid back!</u>
The banks etc gave money to any one they could ,ONLY because they could make an instant profit by taking their cut and passing most of the risk on to other unsuspecting investors.

Iceland- the country- didn't go bankrupt because Joe the Plummer couldn't make his mortgage payments.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> No Income No Job no Assets

A Ninja Loan is a type of subprime loan issued to borrowers with No Income, No Job, (and) no Assets. The phrase was coined by HCL Finance as a name for one of their finance products. They were especially prominent during the United States housing bubble of the 2000s but have gained wider notoriety due to the subprime mortgage crisis in July/August 2007 as a prime example of poor lending practices[1]. The term grew in usage during the 2008 financial crisis as the sub prime mortgage crisis was blamed on such loans. It works on two levels - as an acronym; and allusion to the fact that ninja loans are often defaulted on, with the borrower disappearing like a ninja.</div></div>

In my book, if a bank loans money [ that belongs to investors, etc] to some one they think won't be able to pay it back then THE BANK is to blame.

Q

wolfdancer
10-18-2009, 09:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In my book, if a bank loans money [ that belongs to investors, etc] to some one they think won't be able to pay it back then THE BANK is to blame.
</div></div>
You mean like Neil Bush and the Silverado savings and Loan mess?

LWW
10-19-2009, 07:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What you fail to always add into your lame defense of the party is that once FANNIE and FREDDIE took to buying up and insuring this junk paper <span style='font-size: 20pt'>NOBODY had any reason to care any longer whether the people would pay or not.</span> </div></div>

Do you ever read your own posts? <u>You just made my point.</u>
<u>YOU are right! THEY didn't care if the loans could be paid back!</u>
The banks etc gave money to any one they could ,ONLY because they could make an instant profit by taking their cut and passing most of the risk on to other unsuspecting investors.

Iceland- the country- didn't go bankrupt because Joe the Plummer couldn't make his mortgage payments.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> No Income No Job no Assets

A Ninja Loan is a type of subprime loan issued to borrowers with No Income, No Job, (and) no Assets. The phrase was coined by HCL Finance as a name for one of their finance products. They were especially prominent during the United States housing bubble of the 2000s but have gained wider notoriety due to the subprime mortgage crisis in July/August 2007 as a prime example of poor lending practices[1]. The term grew in usage during the 2008 financial crisis as the sub prime mortgage crisis was blamed on such loans. It works on two levels - as an acronym; and allusion to the fact that ninja loans are often defaulted on, with the borrower disappearing like a ninja.</div></div>

In my book, if a bank loans money [ that belongs to investors, etc] to some one they think won't be able to pay it back then THE BANK is to blame.

Q
</div></div>

Which demonstrates either your total naivete or willful ignorance of the reality.

Wrap your head around this ... the US gubmint guaranteed the paper, hence they believed they WOULD get paid as only the gubmint can print money.

It's very simple to follow once you use your brain for cognitive reasoning and not a spittoon for the state to fill with the pap they want you to believe.

BTW ... did the gubmint make good on the debt? Yes. Did they print fiat money to do it? Yes.

LWW

Qtec
10-19-2009, 10:14 AM
Pathetic. EVERY ONE can see that you are changing the subject.


By your own words,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">NOBODY had any reason to care any longer whether the people would pay or not. </div></div>
.....you are excusing the illegal behaviour of the Banks.
Q

LWW
10-19-2009, 10:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pathetic. EVERY ONE can see that you are changing the subject.


By your own words,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">NOBODY had any reason to care any longer whether the people would pay or not. </div></div>
.....you are excusing the illegal behaviour of the Banks.
Q </div></div>

How can it be illegal when the state required it?

Who do you think set FNMA/FHLMC guidelines?

What you are exposing is that you are a spoon fed parrot with no interest in the truth.

LWW

Gayle in MD
10-19-2009, 11:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pathetic. EVERY ONE can see that you are changing the subject.


By your own words,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">NOBODY had any reason to care any longer whether the people would pay or not. </div></div>
.....you are excusing the illegal behaviour of the Banks.
Q </div></div>

Typical. They also overlook the entire energy industry's ridiculous efforts to maintain the status quo, and their beloved politicians who work tirelessly to continue on an energy policy, dependence on foreign oil, which can only lead to complete disaster for our country.

Including the link to the treasonist lies told to our country, by neocons, Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice, heavily invested in foreign oil, and in bed with Saudi Arabia for decades, in order to go into the Middle East on yet another quest for foreign oil, regardless of how many people, Americans, and M.E. innocents, would surely die becaue of it, or how many more radical elements they would continue to arm, and piss off in the process.

I find it interesting how the right seems so interested in how such insane policies impact the market, but never mention all the blood that is lost in the American quest for foreign oil, and hence, more cancer causing pollution, more radical terrorists, more quagmires in the Middle East, and more deficits and plunging American power, becaue of it all.

Carter was right! Eisenhower, was right. We should have all remembered their prophetic warnings.

Pure insanity!

G.

Deeman3
10-19-2009, 12:30 PM
It may, in fact, be pure insanity to continue to use oil but I find it difficult to beleive we will be replacing the needs with wind mills and solar panels any time soon. The addition of more taxes to stifle any chance of our ecconomic recovery seems also at odds with reason. Perhaps taking down the health care system will save some money as long as the old die quickly and the young don't ever really get sick. Now that Obama has been exposed in his deception on the coverage of illegals, it seems that whatever bill comes out of congress will probably be watered down to where it will only destroy private insurance and not address the outrageous legal bills doctors face or the protection rackets of the drug companies.

Of course, the only way for this to all work, after free enterprise has been disabled is for the government to hire everyone (Something they appear to be trying to do now) so that there is no unemployment problem. The evil companies that took so much advantage of the working man will be replaced by a benevolent government and we cal all become ACORN types, setting up housing, arranging for unage prostitution and giving tax evasion advice as that Hope and Change we were promised.

At first I was too blind to see how turning Bush's 423 million deficit into 1.6 trillion was actually a good idea with all the job creation the pork package has produced at what? $450K a job.

How dare any news outlet to question Obama's intentions or his methods? I mean, they were never questioned during the campaign and, aside from contributors to his party, who has the right to slop at the trough?

Enron was proably a bad time for some but seems to pale in comparison to the Ponzi Program the government has going on now.

Obama is now more distracted by Fox than HCR or Afghanistan? If he can focus enough attention away from the detractors in his own party, will we buy into the fact that all he has to do is defeat the insurance companies and a cable new outlet to get his mojo back?

eg8r
10-19-2009, 03:59 PM
Yes, we know, you don't think the borrower should have any responsibility.

eg8r

eg8r
10-19-2009, 04:01 PM
Isn't this classic. First we have qtip blaming LWW for changing the subject and then gayle opens her whole and her first sentence talks about the energy industry. Hilarious.

Hey qtip call her out. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

LWW
10-19-2009, 07:02 PM
And typical.

They have nothing.

They know it.

They were duped by the clothes with no emperor.

They know it.

They are desperately trying to get people to not notice.

They have failed.

They know it.

Desperation is setting in.

LWW