Yeah I read it, and unlike you I understood it. At best it was one just one of the factors. It had nothing to do with the mortgage meltdown which was your claim dipshit.
Now answer the fucking question you're dodging Hondo:
if Glass-Stegall would have never been repealed, what aspect of the mortgage meltdown would have been prevented?
Yeah I read it, and unlike you I understood it. At best it was one just one of the factors. It had nothing to do with the mortgage meltdown which was your claim dipshit.
Now answer the fucking question you're dodging Hondo:
if Glass-Stegall would have never been repealed, what aspect of the mortgage meltdown would have been prevented?
Dance my stupid little Kunt.
I'll answer that when you answer exactly what expansion of the community reinvestment act Clinton put into place that you blamed, minus the changes created in the GS repeal.
Arguing with you is like arguing with a wet paper bag.
I've seen you get your ass kicked by a wet paper bag Hondo. Btw, i'm arguing exactly the way you do Hondo. The entire "I knew you couldn't answer" and "Google it" I got from you Kunt.
You're the dipshit who claimed Glass Stegall was responsible for the housing meltdown. Why should I have to chase after your off topic diversion all because you were caught talking out your ass?
Arguing with you is like arguing with a wet paper bag.
I've seen you get your ass kicked by a wet paper bag Hondo. Btw, i'm arguing exactly the way you do Hondo. The entire "I knew you couldn't answer" and "Google it" I got from you Kunt.
You're the dipshit who claimed Glass Stegall was responsible for the housing meltdown. Why should I have to chase after your off topic diversion all because you were caught talking out your ass?
Like I said. I never said it was responsible. I said the repeal was a contributing factor. You said the repeal had nothing to do with it and ran when I mentioned the changes to the community reinvestment act.
You read like shit. When I said the rising interested rates were a catalyst and even gave an example, using a flame to the dry wood pile. You started screaming that I said the rising interest rates were the cause.
Read what I write. Comprehend it then come back with an argument.
Of course you're still dodging the question I asked because you're a stupid Kunt and you have no answer.
From 1993, six years prior to the repeal of Glass Stegall. Go fuck yourself Hondo. It's not as if you're going to read it anyway. You're entire Kunt act is based upon asking for link you won't read.
Arguing with you is like arguing with a wet paper bag.
I've seen you get your ass kicked by a wet paper bag Hondo. Btw, i'm arguing exactly the way you do Hondo. The entire "I knew you couldn't answer" and "Google it" I got from you Kunt.
You're the dipshit who claimed Glass Stegall was responsible for the housing meltdown. Why should I have to chase after your off topic diversion all because you were caught talking out your ass?
Like I said. I never said it was responsible. I said the repeal was a contributing factor. You said the repeal had nothing to do with it and ran when I mentioned the changes to the community reinvestment act.
You read like shit. When I said the rising interested rates were a catalyst and even gave an example, using a flame to the dry wood pile. You started screaming that I said the rising interest rates were the cause.
Read what I write. Comprehend it then come back with an argument.
Btw, that's actually a lie. When I was talking about how Fannie and Freddie created the secondary mortgage market that allowed banks and lending institutions to make loans to people that they knew weren't going to be repaid:
Why were lenders still able to give loans to people who didn't have the income to make the payments on those loans? Surely a bank wouldn't loan to someone if they thought they weren't going to get repaid. That is unless the lender knew that he was never going to have to keep that loan on his books. Now, what was it that allowed the lender to move all of those questionable loans off of their books?
You put your head up your ass and posted the House vote totals on the repeal of Glass-Stegall. That's all you said. You never claimed it was "partly" or partially to blame. You were all in on how that caused the mortgage market meltdown. You then lied and tried to blame Sledog for making that claim.
You then quoted me:
Now, what was it that allowed the lender to move all of those questionable loans off of their books?
And then put your head further up your ass:
You don't think the glass steagal repeal had anything to do with it?
No, Glass-Steagal had nothing to do with it and you're a fucking liar and a moron Hondo.
Of course you're still dodging the question I asked because you're a stupid Kunt and you have no answer.
From 1993, six years prior to the repeal of Glass Stegall. Go fuck yourself Hondo. It's not as if you're going to read it anyway. You're entire Kunt act is based upon asking for link you won't read.
Arguing with you is like arguing with a wet paper bag.
I've seen you get your ass kicked by a wet paper bag Hondo. Btw, i'm arguing exactly the way you do Hondo. The entire "I knew you couldn't answer" and "Google it" I got from you Kunt.
You're the dipshit who claimed Glass Stegall was responsible for the housing meltdown. Why should I have to chase after your off topic diversion all because you were caught talking out your ass?
Like I said. I never said it was responsible. I said the repeal was a contributing factor. You said the repeal had nothing to do with it and ran when I mentioned the changes to the community reinvestment act.
You read like shit. When I said the rising interested rates were a catalyst and even gave an example, using a flame to the dry wood pile. You started screaming that I said the rising interest rates were the cause.
Read what I write. Comprehend it then come back with an argument.
Btw, that's actually a lie. When I was talking about how Fannie and Freddie created the secondary mortgage market that allowed banks and lending institutions to make loans to people that they knew weren't going to be repaid:
Why were lenders still able to give loans to people who didn't have the income to make the payments on those loans? Surely a bank wouldn't loan to someone if they thought they weren't going to get repaid. That is unless the lender knew that he was never going to have to keep that loan on his books. Now, what was it that allowed the lender to move all of those questionable loans off of their books?
You put your head up your ass and posted the House vote totals on the repeal of Glass-Stegall. That's all you said. You never claimed it was "partly" or partially to blame. You were all in on how that caused the mortgage market meltdown. You then lied and tried to blame Sledog for making that claim.
You then quoted me:
Now, what was it that allowed the lender to move all of those questionable loans off of their books?
And then put your head further up your ass:
You don't think the glass steagal repeal had anything to do with it?
No, Glass-Steagal had nothing to do with it and you're a fucking liar and a moron Hondo.
The npr article you linked to disagrees with this post. And read above. You asked what allowed lenders to move those loans off their books. I pointed at the glass steagal repeal. I never once said glass steagal repeal was the cause.
BTW. Fannie and Freddie contributed as well. But they collateralized the loans. They are not what allowed banks to package and resell them and rating agencies to rate those securities too high.
Arguing with you is like arguing with a wet paper bag.
I've seen you get your ass kicked by a wet paper bag Hondo. Btw, i'm arguing exactly the way you do Hondo. The entire "I knew you couldn't answer" and "Google it" I got from you Kunt.
You're the dipshit who claimed Glass Stegall was responsible for the housing meltdown. Why should I have to chase after your off topic diversion all because you were caught talking out your ass?
Like I said. I never said it was responsible. I said the repeal was a contributing factor. You said the repeal had nothing to do with it and ran when I mentioned the changes to the community reinvestment act.
You read like shit. When I said the rising interested rates were a catalyst and even gave an example, using a flame to the dry wood pile. You started screaming that I said the rising interest rates were the cause.
Read what I write. Comprehend it then come back with an argument.
Btw, that's actually a lie. When I was talking about how Fannie and Freddie created the secondary mortgage market that allowed banks and lending institutions to make loans to people that they knew weren't going to be repaid:
Why were lenders still able to give loans to people who didn't have the income to make the payments on those loans? Surely a bank wouldn't loan to someone if they thought they weren't going to get repaid. That is unless the lender knew that he was never going to have to keep that loan on his books. Now, what was it that allowed the lender to move all of those questionable loans off of their books?
You put your head up your ass and posted the House vote totals on the repeal of Glass-Stegall. That's all you said. You never claimed it was "partly" or partially to blame. You were all in on how that caused the mortgage market meltdown. You then lied and tried to blame Sledog for making that claim.
You then quoted me:
Now, what was it that allowed the lender to move all of those questionable loans off of their books?
And then put your head further up your ass:
You don't think the glass steagal repeal had anything to do with it?
No, Glass-Steagal had nothing to do with it and you're a fucking liar and a moron Hondo.
The npr article you linked to disagrees with this post. And read above. You asked what allowed lenders to move those loans off their books. I pointed at the glass steagal repeal. I never once said glass steagal repeal was the cause.
BTW. Fannie and Freddie contributed as well. But they collateralized the loans. They are not what allowed banks to package and resell them and rating agencies to rate those securities too high.
Glass-Stegal isn't what created the secondary mortgage market you fucking moron. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about Hondo.
The fact that you can't answer the simple question I asked shows you're talking straight out of your ass.
The repeal of Glass Steagal didn't happen until 1999. Subprime lending, the CRA, Fannie and Freddie and the securatization of mortgages were all happening long before the repeal. There's not a single thing regarding the mortgage meltdown that you can cite that wouldn't of happened if GS had never been repealed.
First of all. Your question is regurgitated from your npr article. But the answer is a couple things. 1) by bringing commercial and investment brokerages together, it helped banks be able to package loans and sell them. All the work was done in house which resulted in cheaper investment. 2) when the top 6 banks go from small to huge, the need for making money goes up and the risk goes down. So those banks ignore many risks and just kept buying and selling loans and derivatives of loans.
Like I said, it wasn't the cause (as any smart person realizes there wasn't one cause or one party responsible). But it's there as another piece of dry wood.
Since non-bank lenders originated the overwhelming majority of subprime mortgages, and the buyers of over half of them in the 10 years leading up to the 2008 crisis were not banks – commercial or investment – but Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, pointing the finger at this particular banking regulation is not warranted.
Some argue that the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 caused the financial crisis because banks were no longer prevented from operating as both commercial and investment banks, and repeal allowed banks to become substantially larger, or "too big to fail." However, the crisis would likely have happened even without the Glass-Steagall repeal.
Glass-Steagall applied to banks, and although many of mortgage-backed derivatives were created and sold by banks, subprime mortgages — the underlying assets of the derivatives — were originally issued by non-bank lenders, and these initial loans would not have been prevented by Glass-Steagall. In addition, investment banks such as Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Goldman Sachs — all major players in the subprime mortgage meltdown — never ventured into commercial banking. They were investment banks, just as they had been before Glass-Steagall was repealed.
The root cause of the financial crisis was the subprime mortgage meltdown. At the heart of that problem lies the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase more "affordable" mortgages to encourage lenders to make loans to low-income and minority borrowers. In order to meet HUD's goals, lenders began to institute policies such as foregoing any requirement for a down payment and accepting unemployment benefits as a qualifying source of income. (Again, the majority of these lenders were private mortgage lenders, not banks, so the Glass-Steagall Act didn't apply to them.) This lead to a lot of people getting mortgages they couldn't afford, making defaults inevitable.
There were a number of contributing factors to the financial crisis, and partial blame can be assigned to deregulation. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, however, played at most a minor role in the crisis.
The housing meltdown would have happened even if nothing had been done to Glass-Steagall, there never would have been any housing meltdown if Frannie and Freddie had never been created.
Since non-bank lenders originated the overwhelming majority of subprime mortgages, and the buyers of over half of them in the 10 years leading up to the 2008 crisis were not banks – commercial or investment – but Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, pointing the finger at this particular banking regulation is not warranted.
Some argue that the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 caused the financial crisis because banks were no longer prevented from operating as both commercial and investment banks, and repeal allowed banks to become substantially larger, or "too big to fail." However, the crisis would likely have happened even without the Glass-Steagall repeal.
Glass-Steagall applied to banks, and although many of mortgage-backed derivatives were created and sold by banks, subprime mortgages — the underlying assets of the derivatives — were originally issued by non-bank lenders, and these initial loans would not have been prevented by Glass-Steagall. In addition, investment banks such as Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Goldman Sachs — all major players in the subprime mortgage meltdown — never ventured into commercial banking. They were investment banks, just as they had been before Glass-Steagall was repealed.
The root cause of the financial crisis was the subprime mortgage meltdown. At the heart of that problem lies the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase more "affordable" mortgages to encourage lenders to make loans to low-income and minority borrowers. In order to meet HUD's goals, lenders began to institute policies such as foregoing any requirement for a down payment and accepting unemployment benefits as a qualifying source of income. (Again, the majority of these lenders were private mortgage lenders, not banks, so the Glass-Steagall Act didn't apply to them.) This lead to a lot of people getting mortgages they couldn't afford, making defaults inevitable.
There were a number of contributing factors to the financial crisis, and partial blame can be assigned to deregulation. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, however, played at most a minor role in the crisis.
Read the last sentence. Sounds pretty much like what it said. It was another dry log.
Comments
The Short Answer:
The 1999 changes to Glass-Steagall led to much bigger banks, but that was, at best, just one factor in the 2008 financial crisis.
Now answer the fucking question you're dodging Hondo:
if Glass-Stegall would have never been repealed, what aspect of the mortgage meltdown would have been prevented?
Dance my stupid little Kunt.
You're the dipshit who claimed Glass Stegall was responsible for the housing meltdown. Why should I have to chase after your off topic diversion all because you were caught talking out your ass?
You read like shit. When I said the rising interested rates were a catalyst and even gave an example, using a flame to the dry wood pile. You started screaming that I said the rising interest rates were the cause.
Read what I write. Comprehend it then come back with an argument.
Of course you're still dodging the question I asked because you're a stupid Kunt and you have no answer.
From 1993, six years prior to the repeal of Glass Stegall. Go fuck yourself Hondo. It's not as if you're going to read it anyway. You're entire Kunt act is based upon asking for link you won't read.
https://nytimes.com/1993/12/09/business/clinton-proposes-tough-new-rules-on-bias-by-banks.html
Why were lenders still able to give loans to people who didn't have the income to make the payments on those loans? Surely a bank wouldn't loan to someone if they thought they weren't going to get repaid. That is unless the lender knew that he was never going to have to keep that loan on his books. Now, what was it that allowed the lender to move all of those questionable loans off of their books?
You put your head up your ass and posted the House vote totals on the repeal of Glass-Stegall. That's all you said. You never claimed it was "partly" or partially to blame. You were all in on how that caused the mortgage market meltdown. You then lied and tried to blame Sledog for making that claim.
You then quoted me:
Now, what was it that allowed the lender to move all of those questionable loans off of their books?
And then put your head further up your ass:
You don't think the glass steagal repeal had anything to do with it?
No, Glass-Steagal had nothing to do with it and you're a fucking liar and a moron Hondo.
BTW. Fannie and Freddie contributed as well. But they collateralized the loans. They are not what allowed banks to package and resell them and rating agencies to rate those securities too high.
The fact that you can't answer the simple question I asked shows you're talking straight out of your ass.
Like I said, it wasn't the cause (as any smart person realizes there wasn't one cause or one party responsible). But it's there as another piece of dry wood.
Since non-bank lenders originated the overwhelming majority of subprime mortgages, and the buyers of over half of them in the 10 years leading up to the 2008 crisis were not banks – commercial or investment – but Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, pointing the finger at this particular banking regulation is not warranted.
Some argue that the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 caused the financial crisis because banks were no longer prevented from operating as both commercial and investment banks, and repeal allowed banks to become substantially larger, or "too big to fail." However, the crisis would likely have happened even without the Glass-Steagall repeal.
Glass-Steagall applied to banks, and although many of mortgage-backed derivatives were created and sold by banks, subprime mortgages — the underlying assets of the derivatives — were originally issued by non-bank lenders, and these initial loans would not have been prevented by Glass-Steagall. In addition, investment banks such as Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Goldman Sachs — all major players in the subprime mortgage meltdown — never ventured into commercial banking. They were investment banks, just as they had been before Glass-Steagall was repealed.
The root cause of the financial crisis was the subprime mortgage meltdown. At the heart of that problem lies the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase more "affordable" mortgages to encourage lenders to make loans to low-income and minority borrowers. In order to meet HUD's goals, lenders began to institute policies such as foregoing any requirement for a down payment and accepting unemployment benefits as a qualifying source of income. (Again, the majority of these lenders were private mortgage lenders, not banks, so the Glass-Steagall Act didn't apply to them.) This lead to a lot of people getting mortgages they couldn't afford, making defaults inevitable.
There were a number of contributing factors to the financial crisis, and partial blame can be assigned to deregulation. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, however, played at most a minor role in the crisis.