Stupid World

[blue rider]

this
must
be
good
for
us


some where, surely, it is.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-mil122214.php

[blue rider]

nothing to see here, move along

"I went two years without selling to a black family, and that wasn't for lack of trying," says Alston, whose business is concentrated in inner-city neighborhoods where the majority of residents are African American and Hispanic. Instead, all his buyers—every last one of them—were besuited businessmen. And weirder yet, they were all paying in cash.

Between 2005 and 2009, the mortgage crisis, fueled by racially discriminatory lending practices, destroyed 53% of African American wealth and 66% of Hispanic wealth, figures that stagger the imagination. As a result, it's safe to say that few blacks or Hispanics today are buying homes outright, in cash. Blackstone, on the other hand, doesn't have a problem fronting the money, given its $3.6 billion credit line arranged by Deutsche Bank. This money has allowed it to outbid families who have to secure traditional financing. It's also paved the way for the company to purchase a lot of homes very quickly, shocking local markets and driving prices up in a way that pushes even more families out of the game.

snip

"It's just like a residential mortgage-backed security," said one hedge-fund investor whose company does business with Blackstone. When asked why the public should expect these securities to be safe, given the fact that risky mortgage-backed securities caused the 2008 collapse, he responded, "Trust me."

For Blackstone, at least, the logic is simple. The company wants money upfront to purchase more cheap, foreclosed homes before prices rise. So it's joined forces with JP Morgan, Credit Suisse, and Deutsche Bank to bundle the rental payments of 3,207 single-family houses and sell this bond to investors with mortgages on the underlying houses offered as collateral. This is, of course, just a test case for what could become a whole new industry of rental-backed securities.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...reclosed-homes

[Brian d marge]

wealth transfer i told u so . .same happened in that sausage loving country back in the day

[Ocean1]

Between 2005 and 2009, the mortgage crisis, fueled by racially discriminatory lending practices, destroyed 53% of African American wealth and 66% of Hispanic wealth, figures that stagger the imagination.

Staggers belief actually. Probably because it's utter crap. In fact the discrimination had nothing to do with race, did it? The discrimination was against those who didn't pay their mortgage instalments, wasn't it? The same group govt policy changes insisted banks lent money to in the first place, regardless of the risk such loans represented, wasn't it?

As a result, it's safe to say that few blacks or Hispanics today are buying homes outright, in cash. Blackstone, on the other hand, doesn't have a problem fronting the money

Of course not, there's fuck all risk of them failing to repay the loan. Which, for rational people is in fact the lesson from the US mortgage crisis: lend money to those not likely to pay it back and you'll completely fuck the whole market, and the one's that will hurt the most are those geared highest.

You can blame people who do repay loans if it makes you feel better. But you're going to get laughed at a lot.

[Ocean1]

wealth transfer

[Brian d marge]

i dont care
just dont cry me a river when it all goes pear shaped
lets see have some saving in the bank
bail in will deal to that
have a private pension
sure hope its inflation adjusted
not relying on a state pension??? oh no

oh and try not to get sick . .thats becoming a tad dear

[husaberg]

Staggers belief actually. Probably because it's utter crap. In fact the discrimination had nothing to do with race, did it? The discrimination was against those who didn't pay their mortgage instalments, wasn't it? The same group govt policy changes insisted banks lent money to in the first place, regardless of the risk such loans represented, wasn't it?



Of course not, there's fuck all risk of them failing to repay the loan. Which, for rational people is in fact the lesson from the US mortgage crisis: lend money to those not likely to pay it back and you'll completely fuck the whole market, and the one's that will hurt the most are those geared highest.

You can blame people who do repay loans if it makes you feel better. But you're going to get laughed at a lot.

The blame lies with the lenders that lent far to much money (that was created out of thin air) to those that could not afford to pay it back. (With real money.)
The money lenders then said the finance markets and becomes were bailed out by the many(Ie taxpayers) likely with a loan made by the same money lenders.
Why because the world was convinced (by the same money lenders) that the world end with out then.
The same financial institutions them rewarded themselves with huge bonuses...........
while the tax payers were left to pick up the cheque and will be bursened witht he debt that they will never escape.
As was mentioned "Wealth Transfer"

[mashman]

WTF? Reckon the vote is representative of the u.s. or australian people? I'm betting it isn't.

UN security council rejects Palestinian statehood bid

[Ocean1]

The blame lies with the lenders that lent far to much money (that was created out of thin air) to those that could not afford to pay it back. (With real money.)
The money lenders then said the finance markets and becomes were bailed out by the many(Ie taxpayers) likely with a loan made by the same money lenders.
Why because the world was convinced (by the same money lenders) that the world end with out then.
The same financial institutions them rewarded themselves with huge bonuses...........
while the tax payers were left to pick up the cheque and will be bursened witht he debt that they will never escape.
As was mentioned "Wealth Transfer"

We've done it before, dude. The money "pulled out of thin air" paid for the house, didn't it? It represented the ability of the borrower to buy the house first and earn it afterwards. Who's fault is it if the second part of that agreement fails?

The banks were trundling along perfectly happy to not lend money to borrowers that weren't likely to pay it back. Until the US govt of the day became convinced such behaviour was discriminatory against poor people, and introduced policy that essentially made them mend their evel ways.

Threatened with a suddenly toxic and ultimately un-survivable environment are you surprised they sought guarantees from govt that would spread those risks as far and as much as possible?

So rather than blame the banks for behaving prudently let's put the blame where it really lies: Governments driven by populist pressure for votes that fuck with markets for short term political gain. And those that vote themselves tidy wee hand-outs from other taxpayers in exchange for promises they never keep.

So, fuck all to do with "wealth transfer" and a lot to do with incompetence and greed.

[mashman]

We've done it before, dude. The money "pulled out of thin air" paid for the house, didn't it? It represented the ability of the borrower to buy the house first and earn it afterwards. Who's fault is it if the second part of that agreement fails?

The banks were trundling along perfectly happy to not lend money to borrowers that weren't likely to pay it back. Until the US govt of the day became convinced such behaviour was discriminatory against poor people, and introduced policy that essentially made them mend their evel ways.

Threatened with a suddenly toxic and ultimately un-survivable environment are you surprised they sought guarantees from govt that would spread those risks as far and as much as possible?

So rather than blame the banks for behaving prudently let's put the blame where it really lies: Governments driven by populist pressure for votes that fuck with markets for short term political gain. And those that vote themselves tidy wee hand-outs from other taxpayers in exchange for promises they never keep.

So, fuck all to do with "wealth transfer" and a lot to do with incompetence and greed.

You sound like an advert for the banks that lobby govts to change rules and then you blame it on the govts ... pass the delusional bias on the left hand side.

Happy new year to you und family.

[husaberg]

We've done it before, dude. The money "pulled out of thin air" paid for the house, didn't it? It represented the ability of the borrower to buy the house first and earn it afterwards. Who's fault is it if the second part of that agreement fails?

The banks were trundling along perfectly happy to not lend money to borrowers that weren't likely to pay it back. Until the US govt of the day became convinced such behaviour was discriminatory against poor people, and introduced policy that essentially made them mend their evel ways.

Threatened with a suddenly toxic and ultimately un-survivable environment are you surprised they sought guarantees from govt that would spread those risks as far and as much as possible?

So rather than blame the banks for behaving prudently let's put the blame where it really lies: Governments driven by populist pressure for votes that fuck with markets for short term political gain. And those that vote themselves tidy wee hand-outs from other taxpayers in exchange for promises they never keep.

So, fuck all to do with "wealth transfer" and a lot to do with incompetence and greed.

We have done it before that part is correct. The rest is not...........other than the greed. My post was in response to your assertion.

Staggers belief actually. Probably because it's utter crap. In fact the discrimination had nothing to do with race, did it? The discrimination was against those who didn't pay their mortgage instalments, wasn't it? The same group govt policy changes insisted banks lent money to in the first place, regardless of the risk such loans represented, wasn't it?



Of course not, there's fuck all risk of them failing to repay the loan. Which, for rational people is in fact the lesson from the US mortgage crisis: lend money to those not likely to pay it back and you'll completely fuck the whole market, and the one's that will hurt the most are those geared highest.

You can blame people who do repay loans if it makes you feel better. But you're going to get laughed at a lot.

[Ocean1]

You sound like an advert for the banks that lobby govts to change rules and then you blame it on the govts ... pass the delusional bias on the left hand side.

Happy new year to you und family.

I hate the whole concept of "lobby groups". To start with if they've got time to try to convince govt to bend rules in their favour they're certainly not providing their clients with as much value as those that just get on with their job.

And secondly, any activity that attempts to interfere with what should be a freely negotiated deal between a provider and a client is essentially theft. And if you look around you'll find that most such interference stems from government.

[mashman]

I hate the whole concept of "lobby groups". To start with if they've got time to try to convince govt to bend rules in their favour they're certainly not providing their clients with as much value as those that just get on with their job.

And secondly, any activity that attempts to interfere with what should be a freely negotiated deal between a provider and a client is essentially theft. And if you look around you'll find that most such interference stems from government.

lol, client value.

What, the govt isn't the most diverse organisation in the country? It's to be expected that they interfere on behalf of those who have voted them in surely... and given the want for right whinge centralisation it's an absolute necessity. Aaaaaaaand given that you voted for it, assuming you voted, you have sanctioned those practices.

[Ocean1]

lol, client value.

Work twice as long as you should for anything and then see how hard you laugh.

What, the govt isn't the most diverse organisation in the country?

What's that got to do with anything?

It's to be expected that they interfere on behalf of those who have voted them in surely...

Exactly. Which is why votes should be restricted to those who positively contribute. Why should parasites get to sell their vote to anyone promising them a larger share of the results of someone else's effort?

... and given the want for right whinge centralisation it's an absolute necessity.

Centralisation is a socialist wet dream, dude, not something most capitalists would want.

Aaaaaaaand given that you voted for it, assuming you voted, you have sanctioned those practices.

Wrong. Like most of the country I voted for whatever was required to prevent socialists damaging the country any more than they already have. Quite frankly that could have involved far more sacrifices than it has and have still been well worth the trouble.

[mashman]

Work twice as long as you should for anything and then see how hard you laugh. (I have. I'm still laughing.)

What's that got to do with anything? (More likely to be vilified by whining business. Theft indeed.)

Exactly. Which is why votes should be restricted to those who positively contribute. Why should parasites get to sell their vote to anyone promising them a larger share of the results of someone else's effort? (bwaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaa... so lobby groups are ok so long as they're doing your bidding eh... ironing)

Centralisation is a socialist wet dream, dude, not something most capitalists would want. (Yup, both fucked in the heed.)

Wrong. Like most of the country I voted for whatever was required to prevent socialists damaging the country any more than they already have. Quite frankly that could have involved far more sacrifices than it has and have still been well worth the trouble. ( You gave your consent to maintain the current practice.)

Answers in green as there just ain't been a lot of green around lately.