You thought banks were responsible?

I have to admit I was pretty shocked when I saw this, I gueass I just never thought these guys would be so deeply responsible for the financial meltdown of late. Seems an investigation has uncovered some pretty incriminating emails and such.

"Lord help our fucking scam?.?.?.?this has to be the stupidest place I have worked at," writes one Standard & Poor's executive. "As you know, I had difficulties explaining 'HOW' we got to those numbers since there is no science behind it," confesses a high-ranking S&P analyst. "If we are just going to make it up in order to rate deals, then quants [quantitative analysts] are of precious little value," complains another senior S&P man. "Let's hope we are all wealthy and retired by the time this house of card[s] falters," ruminates one more.

WOW!

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-last-mystery-of-the-financial-crisis-154447818.html

From some guy named forkush on December 14, 2008:

"The mortgage backed securities that were vouched for by the rating agencies, guaranteed by AIG, and touted by Lehmann and Merril Lynch were NEVER worth anything close to their selling price."

You know jatki, if you could just get past my obnoxious personality, you really should start listening to me.

There's plenty of scum to go around. Skank of AMerica is currently being sued in Massachusetts for a compensation system that awarded bonuses to bankers to foreclose on properties eligible for refinance.

But dont dare regulate these upstanding citizens and their Dudley Dooright operations. That would be unjust.

Hmm, . . . DonDiego has an idea: if the banks and their evil accomplices persist in such behavior, the US Government [i.e. The Taxpayers] should bail them out, . . . again. And again, as necessary.



[n.b.Note to the unwary reader: The above is sarcasm, "a form of irony in which apparent praise conceals another, scornful meaning."
In fact DonDiego opposes Government bailouts. They inevitably lead to moral hazard, "a situation where a party will have a tendency to take risks because the costs that could incur will not be felt by the party taking the risk."]

I cant think of much "risk" regarding taking money in exchange for better ratings...(or for foreclosing on homes that shouldn't be). In fact, it seems to be leading to record profits for these entities. Maybe its possible - just maybe - that a free market company might do something unethical without the government somehow putting them up to it. Food for thought.

There is no innate incompatibility between appropriate regulation of banks against the practices which pjstroh cites - and to which DonDiego has not expressed opposition - and not bailing the banks out when as a result of their legal and illegal behavior, they find themselves in financial difficulty.

Of course the banks are making record profits.

The "TA" in TARP bailout stands for troubled assets - like crappy mortgage bonds and, in fact, crappy mortgages themselves which Government Sponsored Enterprises (e.g. FNMA and FHLMC) and later-and-now the Federal Reserve bought from the banks to save the banks from, in some cases certain and in other cases possible, failure.

The banks in the previous decade and now are permitted to conduct themselves unscrupulously with the assurance that a bailout will be forthcoming, if necessary. This is the moral hazard to which DonDiego referred previously. The Government is not "putting them up to [unethical behavior]", but it is facilitating it.
[Actually, DonDiego just assumed that the Government is not putting the banks up to unethical behavior; if the Government were to do so, it would not be incompatible with eventual taxpayer financed bailouts, . . . again.
Is it not interesting how frequently higher-ups in the banking industry become Government officials and vice versa?]

Oh, . . . and none of this is new. The Savings and Loan bailout some decades ago followed a similar pattern. It's almost as if Big Banking Officers and Big Savings and Loan Officers and Big Politicians in Big Government figured out that they could all benefit at the expense of the taxpayers.
In good times the finance guys make money and the politicians get big contributions. In bad times the finance guys get bailed out and the politicians get credit for saving the country.
It's serendipity.
And, . . . it's for the children.

Free enterprise and appropriate regulation is not incompatible. Unfortunately crooked banking and Government bank-bailouts are not incompatible either, but they should be.

I don't listen to you forkie because you have ZERO credibility in part because of your obnoxious personality. Putting aside the fake charts, forensic net evidence and all the other BS, it's the fact that you NEVER..SHUT..THE FUCK..UP!. It doesn't matter if someone says blue, you'll say yellow..up? sure enogh you'll argue down. I have no idea why you do it other than to garner attention on a message bd. which leads to why I don't think anyone listens to you, you speak incessantly, your mouth runneth over etc. etc.. You try to be funny and mostly fail, you'll argue until you're so far into a hole people have begged you to stop because you're looking foolish. However, I do think you have a brain and show some intelligence on occasion and even are funny sometimes, not often, but sometimes.

I hate to admit it but I actually like you. You remind of the kid in the neighborhood who's always getting grounded but yet always finds a way to sneak back out. Your shoes are usually on the wrong feet and are often seen walking into the sliding glass doors, but all the neighborhood has a soft spot for ya. Most everyone hopes that one day you'll grow up and then you'll be listened to.

Respectfully, J

You say that like it's a bad thing.