That was pretty entertaining.
Santelli is a personal hero of mine. He always looks at things from a common sense-everyman perspective. The other guys in the pit are always fun as well.
He’s a tool.
A mortgage is a contract between two parties, a lender and a borrower, and in this current crisis the lenders are much more at fault than the borrowers in general. Where is his funny video on the $700BN bailout of the lenders? where were the booing stockbrokers when the banks got bailed out?
Populist drivel.
So are you going to take a mortgage bailout, Matt?
Where is his funny video on the $700BN bailout of the lenders?
HERE ya go.
Not quite as harsh on that idea but doesn’t sound like he had glowing praise for it either.
~Matt
Not quite “They know NOTHING!!!” but I like it. Santelli’s funny, watch sometime when he and Liesman are going at it. Pretty good entertainment, I had to chuckle earlier this week when they agreed on a couple of things and the host (Bill Griffith maybe) even commented about how near we must be to the apocolypse.
A mortgage is a contract between two parties, a lender and a borrower, and in this current crisis the lenders are much more at fault than the borrowers in general.
How so, Matt? I mean, how are borrowers in general not at fault here. What, Barney Frank and Chris Todd visited every one of them and held a Community Reinvestment Act gun to each of their heads, forcing them to take on a loan they were neither qualified for nor able to afford?
BK
did you see the ticker at the bottom of that video??? crude at 105, SPY at 118, apple at 124, MSFTat 26… , those were the days.
A mortgage is a contract between two parties, a lender and a borrower, and in this current crisis the lenders are much more at fault than the borrowers in general.
How so, Matt? I mean, how are borrowers in general not at fault here. What, Barney Frank and Chris Todd visited every one of them and held a Community Reinvestment Act gun to each of their heads, forcing them to take on a loan they were neither qualified for nor able to afford?
BK
Lenders dictate the terms of the loan and they do all the due dilligence…credit checks etc. When a loan goes bad the lion’s share of the blame has to go to them. I’ve said it here many times before, in an effort to shovel as much money out the door as possible to try and cash in on the real estate boom, banks allwed people to play roulette with house money…zero down loans that can only be repaid if the house value goes up forever…well, home values have stopped going up and the chickens are coming home to roost. Banks took those risks and cannot blame anyone for their losses, least of all the people they gave the money to.
And check your stats, CRA loans have defaulted at a lower rate than the market as a whole so you can put that Fox News soundbite back in the garbage can of propaganda from whence it came.
Where is his funny video on the $700BN bailout of the lenders?
HERE ya go.
Not quite as harsh on that idea but doesn’t sound like he had glowing praise for it either.
~Matt
thats all you have?
He said he is not going to pass judgement on the bank bailout, that its impossible to tell if it will work or not, that there’s good and bad coming from both sides. A far cry from his foaming mouth rant against the bailout of borrowers.
So are you going to take a mortgage bailout, Matt?
I wish! it pretty much carves out most of California because it only applies to the old conforming loan limit of $417,000.
Really Matt, that’s pretty weak. Your arguments and rants have taken a decidedly delusional and incoherent turn in recent weeks. Too bad, really.
Don’t worry, though. Your government will take care of you and pay for your mortgage, healthcare, education, welfare et al when you finally succumb to the leftist gremlins buzzing around inside your head.
Your tax dollars at work for you. Don’t worry about taking care of yourself or taking responsiblilty for you own actions, it’s OK.
Weak how?, care to try and form an actual point instead of just hurling insults?
Not insulting, Matt, just making an observation. Your posts used to be based in some reality but now they seem fractured.
Maybe you just miss a familiar foil like Art.
not insulting??? really?
weak and fractured how?
Do banks not dictate loan terms…when I got my mortgage I don’t remember being allowed to see how over leveraged the lender was in lousy securities and derivatives? I don’t remember telling them that I wanted to see their loan portfolio, their risk management practices, their lending criteria, credit score, or their tax returns for the last 5 years. I don’t remember dictating the interest rate or the loan repayment schedule. I don’t remember the loan being predicated upon me being allowed to send an inspector over to WAMU and pour over their books.
Banks decide who they lend money to and what the terms of the loan should be…and please spare me the CRA red herring…banks made bad loans to a lot of people in an effort to cash in on a real estate bonanza…a fake bonanza that they helped fuel…and now the populist barking heads are whining that borrowers are being bailed out to the tune of $75 BN and they were silent when banks were handed $750 BN no strings attached.
Sorry if that is too fractured for you.
A mortgage is a contract between two parties, a lender and a borrower
You’re right…and the contract outlines the responsibilities of each party. The lender agrees to give the borrower a certain sum of money. In return, the borrower agrees to repay it in specified installments for a designated period of time.
Once the lender writes the check to the borrower, they’ve fulfilled their portion of that contract. Now it’s up to the borrower to fulfill theirs.
Pretty simple actually.
So lenders bear no responsibilty for a loan going bad if they lend money to someone who has lets say defaulted on the last 50 loans they have taken out?
You ever heard of “underwriting”? It is the lenders reponsibility to ensure that they are lending to someone who can and will repay. For FDIC insured banks they owe that duty of care to both their shareholders and the taxpayer.
So lenders bear no responsibilty for a loan going bad if they lend money to someone who has lets say defaulted on the last 50 loans they have taken out?
You ever heard of “underwriting”? It is the lenders reponsibility to ensure that they are lending to someone who can and will repay. For FDIC insured banks they owe that duty of care to both their shareholders and the taxpayer.
The lenders have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to exercise prudent care in making loans so as to provide the shareholders value in exchange for their investment. As far as the FDIC goes, the FDIC is an independent corporation and functions much as any other insurer. They charge a premium to member financial institutions in exchange for providing coverage within specified limits. The taxpayer has nothing to do with it.
The only responsibility the lender has with respect to the borrower is to meet the terms laid out in the* contract to *which, as you so correctly remind us, they both agreed.
And if the terms of that contract to which they both agreed and which the bank wrote, include stuff like the borrower puts zero down, the lenders ability to repay is 100% predicated on the value of the secured asset (the home) going up forever, and the bank does not have to verify the borrowers income, do you call that prudent care?
And if the taxpayer has nothing to do with it why did we taxpaeyers just give the banks $750 billion to help cover all the bad loans they made? The banks are holding a gun to our heads, give us your money or we crash the whole system!