Downvoted it for the reference to bankruptcy which is the classic attack against Trump the businessman ...
Trump's business success is what it is and speaks for itself ...
People that don't think that even the most successful of business people fail from time to time are FS ... the difference is that their successes are way more prevalent and as a result their losses are nothing more than a blip on the radar.
Trump would have been more successful investing his money in the S&P500.
HTH
Care to show the math and your assumptions on his net worth?
Actually I did it for you. If you make the ridiculously generous assumption that Trump had $40 million of cash at his disposal upon graduating from college in 1974, and that he is now worth a wikipedia reported $4.5 billion, the S&P 500 would have needed to generate an annual return of 12.5%, which it of course did not.
However, the above assumptions are also insane. The $40 million was the estimated value of Trump's share of his dad's company and was of course about as illiquid of an asset you could have. It's impossible to know just how much available cash Trump had to invest at the time, but it was almost certainly way below $40 million.
There is nothing particularly impressive about Trump's business resume; he was a rich child who inherited a company from his rich father, and learned the ropes of the real estate business from him. But quit making shit up, because he still generated a return much higher than the S&P 500.
Downvoted it for the reference to bankruptcy which is the classic attack against Trump the businessman ...
Trump's business success is what it is and speaks for itself ...
People that don't think that even the most successful of business people fail from time to time are FS ... the difference is that their successes are way more prevalent and as a result their losses are nothing more than a blip on the radar.
Trump would have been more successful investing his money in the S&P500.
HTH
Care to show the math and your assumptions on his net worth?
Actually I did it for you. If you make the ridiculously generous assumption that Trump had $40 million of cash at his disposal upon graduating from college in 1974, and that he is now worth a wikipedia reported $4.5 billion, the S&P 500 would have needed to generate an annual return of 12.5%, which it of course did not.
However, the above assumptions are also insane. The $40 million was the estimated value of Trump's share of his dad's company and was of course about as illiquid of an asset you could have. It's impossible to know just how much available cash Trump had to invest at the time, but it was almost certainly way below $40 million.
There is nothing particularly impressive about Trump's business resume; he was a rich child who inherited a company from his rich father, and learned the ropes of the real estate business from him. But quit making shit up, because he still generated a return much higher than the S&P 500.
Who passed the regulations that ended up leading to the housing bubble? What's worse, causing the bubble burst or being smart enough to take advantage of it?
Now I'm curious as to what exactly you think caused the housing bubble.
Big banks buying up the risky home loans of subprime borrowers, which consisted primarily of loans of people who lacked verified incomes and had poor credit. Then repackaging them as highly rated mortgage securities.
The Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act passed by Bill Clinton in 1993 created these loans, which the big banks backing Hillary Clinton profited off of until the bubble burst.
What kept the bubble going for so long was newly invested money into these "highly rated" securities. It was pretty much a banking Ponzi Scheme.
Downvoted it for the reference to bankruptcy which is the classic attack against Trump the businessman ...
Trump's business success is what it is and speaks for itself ...
People that don't think that even the most successful of business people fail from time to time are FS ... the difference is that their successes are way more prevalent and as a result their losses are nothing more than a blip on the radar.
Trump would have been more successful investing his money in the S&P500.
HTH
Christ. Which PBS or NPR review of Freakonomics are you plagiarizing, Hondo?
Forget it. Don't answer.
Clearly the time value of money is lost on you.
I'm sure Suzie Orman has taught you all about it, from 3 to 6 on Sunday afternoons.
Who passed the regulations that ended up leading to the housing bubble? What's worse, causing the bubble burst or being smart enough to take advantage of it?
Now I'm curious as to what exactly you think caused the housing bubble.
Big banks buying up the risky home loans of subprime borrowers, which consisted primarily of loans of people who lacked verified incomes and had poor credit. Then repackaging them as highly rated mortgage securities.
The Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act passed by Bill Clinton in 1993 created these loans, which the big banks backing Hillary Clinton profited off of until the bubble burst.
What kept the bubble going for so long was newly invested money into these "highly rated" securities. It was pretty much a banking Ponzi Scheme.
Spot on, just missing Clinton's involvement in repealing Glass-Steagall and implementing the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. This allowed the merger of deposit and investment banks, which led to packaging and selling bad mortgages in the form of mortgage backed securities, as you pointed out.
Downvoted it for the reference to bankruptcy which is the classic attack against Trump the businessman ...
Trump's business success is what it is and speaks for itself ...
People that don't think that even the most successful of business people fail from time to time are FS ... the difference is that their successes are way more prevalent and as a result their losses are nothing more than a blip on the radar.
Trump would have been more successful investing his money in the S&P500.
HTH
Care to show the math and your assumptions on his net worth?
Actually I did it for you. If you make the ridiculously generous assumption that Trump had $40 million of cash at his disposal upon graduating from college in 1974, and that he is now worth a wikipedia reported $4.5 billion, the S&P 500 would have needed to generate an annual return of 12.5%, which it of course did not.
However, the above assumptions are also insane. The $40 million was the estimated value of Trump's share of his dad's company and was of course about as illiquid of an asset you could have. It's impossible to know just how much available cash Trump had to invest at the time, but it was almost certainly way below $40 million.
There is nothing particularly impressive about Trump's business resume; he was a rich child who inherited a company from his rich father, and learned the ropes of the real estate business from him. But quit making shit up, because he still generated a return much higher than the S&P 500.
Read my other post. It's called a wwooosssshhhh.
nice more cock "I'm whooshing you" desperate Hail Mary jump ball chuck to the end zone
Who passed the regulations that ended up leading to the housing bubble? What's worse, causing the bubble burst or being smart enough to take advantage of it?
Now I'm curious as to what exactly you think caused the housing bubble.
Big banks buying up the risky home loans of subprime borrowers, which consisted primarily of loans of people who lacked verified incomes and had poor credit. Then repackaging them as highly rated mortgage securities.
The Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act passed by Bill Clinton in 1993 created these loans, which the big banks backing Hillary Clinton profited off of until the bubble burst.
What kept the bubble going for so long was newly invested money into these "highly rated" securities. It was pretty much a banking Ponzi Scheme.
Spot on, just missing Clinton's involvement in repealing Glass-Steagall and implementing the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. This allowed the merger of deposit and investment banks, which led to packaging and selling bad mortgages in the form of mortgage backed securities, as you pointed out.
This is kind of why I'm intrigued with Trump. Hillary is the bar which is lying on the floor. I don't think you can get worse, so I'm up for taking a flyer at someone with no political track record. No political track record > Hillary's political track record.
Hondo can try and separate bill and Hillary all he wants, but when hillary puts bill in charge of the economy it kind of wipes that out.
What kept the bubble going for so long was newly invested money into these "highly rated" securities. It was pretty much a banking Ponzi Scheme.
And during the Bush administration, when most of this Ponzi scheme was in high gear, regulators tried to end it, with guess what... regulation. Bush had his economic advisors squash the attempt to regulate the derivatives on mortgages.
But yeah, keep trying to blame Clinton for a collapse that happened 6-7 years into Bush's term.
I'm not going to click on any click bait site. Have anything from a reputable source?
And you are welcome that I didn't even get into the cost of the 2 wars Bush had us in, on borrowed money, and what that borrowed war debt was doing to our financial markets.
----- edit ---------------------------
Okay... I was wrong. The act I was thinking of is was passed in 2000, I was thinking it was 2004.
But Bush still had 6+ years to fix Clinton's fuckup. But he was too busy borrowing money from China to fund 2 wars that did little more than create more terrorists in the middle east.
Who passed the regulations that ended up leading to the housing bubble? What's worse, causing the bubble burst or being smart enough to take advantage of it?
Now I'm curious as to what exactly you think caused the housing bubble.
Big banks buying up the risky home loans of subprime borrowers, which consisted primarily of loans of people who lacked verified incomes and had poor credit. Then repackaging them as highly rated mortgage securities.
The Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act passed by Bill Clinton in 1993 created these loans, which the big banks backing Hillary Clinton profited off of until the bubble burst.
What kept the bubble going for so long was newly invested money into these "highly rated" securities. It was pretty much a banking Ponzi Scheme.
Spot on, just missing Clinton's involvement in repealing Glass-Steagall and implementing the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. This allowed the merger of deposit and investment banks, which led to packaging and selling bad mortgages in the form of mortgage backed securities, as you pointed out.
This is kind of why I'm intrigued with Trump. Hillary is the bar which is lying on the floor. I don't think you can get worse, so I'm up for taking a flyer at someone with no political track record. No political track record > Hillary's political track record.
Hondo can try and separate bill and Hillary all he wants, but when hillary puts bill in charge of the economy it kind of wipes that out.
I think a lot of people are in the same boat regarding Trump. They're fed up with establishment politicians on both sides and are willing to take a chance on him in lieu of the same old tired bullshit. Hillary represents the worst of the worst, establishment royalty, corrupt to her core, entitled, and incompetent. For many, she is very easy to vote against.
Hondo was a Zika baby. In her lust for power Hillary has been riding Bill's coat tails for decades, and cleaning up his messes along the way to make sure her path to power has been unabated. Now she is campaigning on a de facto joint ticket with him as a way to pander to any who might be swayed by that prospect. There is no separating the two.
Downvoted it for the reference to bankruptcy which is the classic attack against Trump the businessman ...
Trump's business success is what it is and speaks for itself ...
People that don't think that even the most successful of business people fail from time to time are FS ... the difference is that their successes are way more prevalent and as a result their losses are nothing more than a blip on the radar.
Trump would have been more successful investing his money in the S&P500.
HTH
Care to show the math and your assumptions on his net worth?
Actually I did it for you. If you make the ridiculously generous assumption that Trump had $40 million of cash at his disposal upon graduating from college in 1974, and that he is now worth a wikipedia reported $4.5 billion, the S&P 500 would have needed to generate an annual return of 12.5%, which it of course did not.
However, the above assumptions are also insane. The $40 million was the estimated value of Trump's share of his dad's company and was of course about as illiquid of an asset you could have. It's impossible to know just how much available cash Trump had to invest at the time, but it was almost certainly way below $40 million.
There is nothing particularly impressive about Trump's business resume; he was a rich child who inherited a company from his rich father, and learned the ropes of the real estate business from him. But quit making shit up, because he still generated a return much higher than the S&P 500.
Who passed the regulations that ended up leading to the housing bubble? What's worse, causing the bubble burst or being smart enough to take advantage of it?
Now I'm curious as to what exactly you think caused the housing bubble.
Big banks buying up the risky home loans of subprime borrowers, which consisted primarily of loans of people who lacked verified incomes and had poor credit. Then repackaging them as highly rated mortgage securities.
The Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act passed by Bill Clinton in 1993 created these loans, which the big banks backing Hillary Clinton profited off of until the bubble burst.
What kept the bubble going for so long was newly invested money into these "highly rated" securities. It was pretty much a banking Ponzi Scheme.
Spot on, just missing Clinton's involvement in repealing Glass-Steagall and implementing the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. This allowed the merger of deposit and investment banks, which led to packaging and selling bad mortgages in the form of mortgage backed securities, as you pointed out.
Not really. The repeal of Glass-Steagall was bullshit, and certainly played a role in the "too big to fail" aftermath of the crisis, but it had a pretty negligible impact on the financial crisis itself. Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch (before BOA bought it), Goldman Sachs, etc. were the major players responsible for selling the junk assets. None of those investment banks had anything to do with Glass Steagall.
The commercial banks like Chase, BOA, and Wells Fargo certainly played their own role in the crisis by lending to extremely unqualified homeowners, but their investment banking divisions owned a very small percentage of the bad assets that created the bubble in the first place.
Who passed the regulations that ended up leading to the housing bubble? What's worse, causing the bubble burst or being smart enough to take advantage of it?
Now I'm curious as to what exactly you think caused the housing bubble.
Big banks buying up the risky home loans of subprime borrowers, which consisted primarily of loans of people who lacked verified incomes and had poor credit. Then repackaging them as highly rated mortgage securities.
The Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act passed by Bill Clinton in 1993 created these loans, which the big banks backing Hillary Clinton profited off of until the bubble burst.
What kept the bubble going for so long was newly invested money into these "highly rated" securities. It was pretty much a banking Ponzi Scheme.
Spot on, just missing Clinton's involvement in repealing Glass-Steagall and implementing the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. This allowed the merger of deposit and investment banks, which led to packaging and selling bad mortgages in the form of mortgage backed securities, as you pointed out.
Not really. The repeal of Glass-Steagall was bullshit, and certainly played a role in the "too big to fail" aftermath of the crisis, but it had a pretty negligible impact on the financial crisis itself. Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch (before BOA bought it), Goldman Sachs, etc. were the major players responsible for selling the junk assets. None of those investment banks had anything to do with Glass Steagall.
The commercial banks like Chase, BOA, and Wells Fargo certainly played their own role in the crisis by lending to extremely unqualified homeowners, but their investment banking divisions owned a very small percentage of the bad assets that created the bubble in the first place.
Who passed the regulations that ended up leading to the housing bubble? What's worse, causing the bubble burst or being smart enough to take advantage of it?
Now I'm curious as to what exactly you think caused the housing bubble.
Big banks buying up the risky home loans of subprime borrowers, which consisted primarily of loans of people who lacked verified incomes and had poor credit. Then repackaging them as highly rated mortgage securities.
The Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act passed by Bill Clinton in 1993 created these loans, which the big banks backing Hillary Clinton profited off of until the bubble burst.
What kept the bubble going for so long was newly invested money into these "highly rated" securities. It was pretty much a banking Ponzi Scheme.
Spot on, just missing Clinton's involvement in repealing Glass-Steagall and implementing the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. This allowed the merger of deposit and investment banks, which led to packaging and selling bad mortgages in the form of mortgage backed securities, as you pointed out.
Not really. The repeal of Glass-Steagall was bullshit, and certainly played a role in the "too big to fail" aftermath of the crisis, but it had a pretty negligible impact on the financial crisis itself. Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch (before BOA bought it), Goldman Sachs, etc. were the major players responsible for selling the junk assets. None of those investment banks had anything to do with Glass Steagall.
The commercial banks like Chase, BOA, and Wells Fargo certainly played their own role in the crisis by lending to extremely unqualified homeowners, but their investment banking divisions owned a very small percentage of the bad assets that created the bubble in the first place.
I don't disagree with much of what you're saying, but IMO these two actions, coupled with the CRA, are key in understanding what led to the financial crisis and its severity.
What's important in my opinion is to recognize how government regulation ultimately directed this, from forcing banks to make bad loans via the Community Reinvestment Act, to making that palatable by sheltering their risk with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to relaxing regulations that allowed them to divest themselves of bad assets in the form of financial derivatives.
Random opinion piece on the impact of repealing Glass-Stegall
There are many opinions on the subject, and there is a fuck ton of politically motivated finger pointing, most of which is propped up with revisionist history having the singular goal of directing blame and deflecting responsibility, repeated over and over again until it becomes "truth". The truth is there is more than enough blame to go around, ultimately grounded in bad behavior by all parties involved, including irresponsible consumers.
Comments
However, the above assumptions are also insane. The $40 million was the estimated value of Trump's share of his dad's company and was of course about as illiquid of an asset you could have. It's impossible to know just how much available cash Trump had to invest at the time, but it was almost certainly way below $40 million.
There is nothing particularly impressive about Trump's business resume; he was a rich child who inherited a company from his rich father, and learned the ropes of the real estate business from him. But quit making shit up, because he still generated a return much higher than the S&P 500.
The Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act passed by Bill Clinton in 1993 created these loans, which the big banks backing Hillary Clinton profited off of until the bubble burst.
What kept the bubble going for so long was newly invested money into these "highly rated" securities. It was pretty much a banking Ponzi Scheme.
It's not a whoosh... You are just a fucking idiot
HTH but it wont
Hondo can try and separate bill and Hillary all he wants, but when hillary puts bill in charge of the economy it kind of wipes that out.
But yeah, keep trying to blame Clinton for a collapse that happened 6-7 years into Bush's term.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/12/dont_blame_bush_for_subprime_m.html
And you are welcome that I didn't even get into the cost of the 2 wars Bush had us in, on borrowed money, and what that borrowed war debt was doing to our financial markets.
----- edit ---------------------------
Okay... I was wrong. The act I was thinking of is was passed in 2000, I was thinking it was 2004.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000
But Bush still had 6+ years to fix Clinton's fuckup. But he was too busy borrowing money from China to fund 2 wars that did little more than create more terrorists in the middle east.
Hondo was a Zika baby. In her lust for power Hillary has been riding Bill's coat tails for decades, and cleaning up his messes along the way to make sure her path to power has been unabated. Now she is campaigning on a de facto joint ticket with him as a way to pander to any who might be swayed by that prospect. There is no separating the two.
Solid.
The commercial banks like Chase, BOA, and Wells Fargo certainly played their own role in the crisis by lending to extremely unqualified homeowners, but their investment banking divisions owned a very small percentage of the bad assets that created the bubble in the first place.
What's important in my opinion is to recognize how government regulation ultimately directed this, from forcing banks to make bad loans via the Community Reinvestment Act, to making that palatable by sheltering their risk with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to relaxing regulations that allowed them to divest themselves of bad assets in the form of financial derivatives.
Random opinion piece on the impact of repealing Glass-Stegall
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/08/27/repeal-of-glass-steagall-caused-the-financial-crisis
There are many opinions on the subject, and there is a fuck ton of politically motivated finger pointing, most of which is propped up with revisionist history having the singular goal of directing blame and deflecting responsibility, repeated over and over again until it becomes "truth". The truth is there is more than enough blame to go around, ultimately grounded in bad behavior by all parties involved, including irresponsible consumers.