Hint at What Caused the Financial Meltdown

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Messages
4,375
Location
Camas, WA
One technique that is used for problem solving is called 'is - is not', where one starts by listing what the problem is and what it is not. One can then use the list to sort thru different ideas on what caused the problem, discrading as many as possible. The article below is a good example of a large bank in one the ground zero subprime areas of the country, a bank that has evidently weathered the mess better than most. Why is that ?

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/business/1223709907259580.xml&coll=7

Sticking to basics pays off for Wells Fargo
Banks - As rivals gambled, the lender avoided risks, helping it acquire WachoviaMonday, October 13, 2008 MICHAEL LIEDTKE

"Wells Fargo knows how to gather deposits, sell additional products and not make loans to people who can't afford to pay them back," Celent analyst Bart Narter said last week.

It sounds simple, but sticking to the banking basics wasn't standard operating procedure while home prices were soaring in a four-year stretch that ended in 2006. The real estate boom emboldened lenders to lower their standards and offer mortgages that began with abnormally low interest rates before shifting upward to saddle borrowers with monthly payments they couldn't afford to make.

Although Wells Fargo consistently ranked among the largest U.S. mortgage lenders during this frothy period, the bank mostly avoided the crazy stuff that ultimately destroyed Countrywide Financial, Washington Mutual, Wachovia and a long list of other lenders.

The aversion to risky loans was instilled by Wells Fargo's leader for the past decade, Richard Kovacevich, who handed the chief executive reins over to John Stumpf last year. Kovacevich, though, remains Wells Fargo's chairman and is planning to postpone his retirement plans to help complete the Wachovia merger.

Wells Fargo's lending discipline is even more impressive, given its prominence in California -- an epicenter of the real estate boom and bust.

Not that Wells Fargo has remained completely pristine. The bank has taken a $1.4 billion loss on ill-advised home equity loans and delved into the dicey subprime market through an arm that caters to consumers with shabby credit records.

Wells Fargo still hasn't posted a quarterly loss during the past year of upheaval, though its profits have been shrinking during the past nine months.

"They aren't perfect, but they have done enough things right where they look like they are going to be among the chosen ones in this period of banking consolidation," said analyst Frederick Cannon of Keefe, Bruyette & Woods Inc.
 
There is a simple answer: Greed

The lending institutions were greedy and lended to people they shouldn't have.

The borrowers were not content to buy what they could really afford and instead wanted more and took chances to get it.

If we worried more about others instead of ourselves this would not happen. Our society has become a "society" of one. Me and what I want.
 
Don't forget the government was encouraging banks to make the risky loans.Putting the tax payer on the hook when people defaulted. There were several bills in Congress to put an end to it. None succeeded.
 
There is an eye opening front page article in today's USA Today on how the government was complicit in the financial meltdown.
 
I'm proud to say that we have had our mortgage with Wells Fargo for around 10 years. They are a first class operation all the way around.
thumbsup2.gif
 
You know, I have to comment on this "being greedy" and "living outside their means" talk. This whole thing dang near came close to affecting me and I'd like to think I am not a complete moron. Though maybe more so than I thought. But we were convinced by in and everyone around us that a good house was a great investment and the market would never go south. We didn't fill our house up with flatscreens and stainless steel appliances but it was still a lot harder to get by paying a payment we "could easily afford" than we were led to believe. Now, we knew our income was going to increase substantially and we're fat and happy now. But I can't fault a lot of people who didn't learn as much about the details of home ownership as they should have b/c the siren song of realtors and mortage companies was awfully loud and hard to ignore.
 
I like to bash capitalist bankers as being greedy just as much as the next guy, but the fact is that they are simply playing by the rules needed to succeed in a system completely agreed to and encouraged by the American public.

The American public believes at least two things about economics - that economic growth is absolutely essential, that credit is absolutely necessary to fuel growth. It also believes that corporate stock prices are on indication of corporate (and by extension the complete economy's) financial health, and that corporate self-regulation is the most effective and efficient way to control the boundaries.

We don't complain when the corporate gambling pays off with increases in our retirement accounts, only when the bets go wrong, or the betting system collapses. When a financial institution has a down quarter we don't say "Thank Goodness they were being conservative with our money, I'll increase my investment with them". We punish those institutions that do not perform to our expectations for continued growth and we implicitly expect them to push the limits, cook the books, whatever it takes for continued earnings expansion.

We have, through what we believe and who we elect, been complicit, if not instrumental in the establishment and continuation of the gambling system. The financial chaos we are seeing is a perfect reflection of the philosophies we the people have implemented.

If we want a better economy, we need to realize that real economic growth is dependent on providing more of what people really need (tangible goods and services), in ever more efficient ways. Unfortunately, I don't believe we have the knowledge base such that that path will provide the earnings growth we expect for a comfortable retirement. We are probably in for some real suprises in our standards of living, especially in retirement.
 
Just some extra background on the size of the topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8634

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/10/AR2008101003050.html

Some quickie definitions:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/creditdefaultswap.asp

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/credit_default_insurance.asp


There are some other excellent articles in IBD and WSJ but they are subscription only. But SOMEBODY had to choke up only 350+ Billion dollars on Friday. I mentioned fire sales on liquidatable securities last week. We aren't exactly done with this.

My summary/opinion: Why a reputable insurance company or any company or investment group would provide totally unsecured "insurance" on anything, let alone a barely secured loan is…...the financial version of hide the sausage. It went off in someone's……….portfolio……hence the choking……up of a lot of money. Nobody seems to want to know what this baby will look like!
 
Credit default swaps are worthless because they aren't regulated. Therefor, there is no capital reserve requirements behind them like insurance. All these dumb [censored] investment banks sold them to customers who bought CDOs to blow sunshine up their butts that the CDOs weren't in fact worthless as well.

$43 trillion bucks of more debt in credit default swaps that are not on any "official" accounting records.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
.

The American public believes at least two things about economics - that economic growth is absolutely essential, that credit is absolutely necessary to fuel growth. .


Both of which have a questionable future.
 
You have to be greedy in order to survive in businesses, otherwise you are just a non profit organization who needs bail out every other week.

The point is, you have to be DISCIPLINE while being greedy. WaMu was not discipline, Wells Fargo was.

I knew a friend back in 2003 who works for WaMu in the risk analysis division for home mortgage. She said her department already gave warning to the HQ to stop the loans that allow payment below interest, and those with a debit/credit card that will add to your principle and could be used as ATM/Credit card. She said the bomb would blow anytime soon.

I was surprised it took 4 years, and due to her advise I kept all my 401k in cash.
 
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
You have to be greedy in order to survive in businesses, otherwise you are just a non profit organization who needs bail out every other week.


This is a big misconception about not-for-profits. Not-for-profit is a tax designation; they do make profits. One major difference for them is that they do not operate to maximize profits for the owners but maximize the profits for the community.
 
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
You have to be greedy in order to survive in businesses


If you base your desire to be successful and to achieve on greed, a vice, I pity you. A business based on moral bankruptcy will always self-destruct. A greedy person is also always unhappy, never content, always insatiable, and he is a divider -- just like Gollum, preccciousssss!

I have made a habit of not doing business with people whose business practices I find objectionable or reprehensible. I would say greed is bad for business.
 
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
You have to be greedy in order to survive in businesses


If you base your desire to be successful and to achieve on greed, a vice, I pity you. A business based on moral bankruptcy will always self-destruct. A greedy person is also always unhappy, never content, always insatiable, and he is a divider -- just like Gollum, preccciousssss!

I have made a habit of not doing business with people whose business practices I find objectionable or reprehensible. I would say greed is bad for business.


Absolutely. I would go a bit further and say
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
You have to be greedy in order to survive in businesses
= very bizarre and twisted world view. Too much TV???
 
The politically correct phrase is enlightened self interest, rather than greed. Greed implies short sighted selfishness leading to failure. The interesting thing is that short term selfishness is sometimes the right thing to do in order to best survive in the face of competition. If you eat up all the resources first, you get more than your share, but you also deprive the competition of their share, making your position more favourable.
 
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
The politically correct phrase is enlightened self interest, rather than greed. Greed implies short sighted selfishness leading to failure. The interesting thing is that short term selfishness is sometimes the right thing to do in order to best survive in the face of competition. If you eat up all the resources first, you get more than your share, but you also deprive the competition of their share, making your position more favourable.


The definition of greed, however you choose to paraphrase it, is ones desire to accumulate that what is wanted beyond one's needs. Nothing's implied, it's implicit. It also has nothing to do with political correctness. We have a lexicon, presuming our vocabulary exceeds 300 words, that allows for differentiation between exact meanings and nuances through proper word choice. To say greed is the foundation of a successful business is akin to saying jealousy is the foundation of love.
 
Let's make it clear on the definition of greedy.

Do you want a car? You could just live at work instead of driving.
Do you want an education? You could get by without one.
Do you want a family? Why do you need one?
All you NEED to live is just some calories, water, air, and shelter, beyond that you don't need anything.


Now why are every one having what they are having right now? Because of greed. It is not a line in the sand that say, "You want $50M a year in profit? You are greedy." It is a relative term on what you want and how are you approaching it.

Is asking for a return when you lend someone money greedy? Well you just did so with your bank savings. Is buying oil on bargain greedy? We all do that in BITOG. Is not donating more than your share to the society's truly needed one (handicap, mentally ill, crime victim, etc) when you have money to buy a luxury car greedy? MBZ and BMW are still selling well all over the world.


The point is how do we satisfy our greed that makes the difference. Are you making the money in an honest way? Do you pay your fair share of tax? your fair share of expense in the family? invest for the future to hedge a risk (college education, buying a home rather than renting, pay off debt)?

It is ok to have long term greed and take good risk, calculated risk that you can afford to lose, but will reward you in the long run.


Most importantly everything must be ethical and legal. Greed and moral are mutually exclusive. Radical fundamentalist are not greedy, but not moral. Warren Buffet is greedy, but ethical/moral (why else would he donate 80%+ of his wealth in his will). Those CEOs on Wall Street are both greedy and unethical.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: PandaBear


Most importantly everything must be ethical and legal. Greed and moral are mutually exclusive. .. Warren Buffet is greedy, but ethical/moral .


You are trying to redefine the word greed from the way it is commonly accepted, and contradicting yourself even within your own quote. Perhaps greed is not really the word you mean.
 
Princeton defines it nicely. Buffet is not Greedy.

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=greedy

Adjective

* S: (adj) avaricious, covetous, grabby, grasping, greedy, prehensile (immoderately desirous of acquiring e.g. wealth) "they are avaricious and will do anything for money"; "casting covetous eyes on his neighbor's fields"; "a grasping old miser"; "grasping commercialism"; "greedy for money and power"; "grew richer and greedier"; "prehensile employers stingy with raises for their employees"
* S: (adj) avid, devouring, esurient, greedy ((often followed by `for') ardently or excessively desirous) "avid for adventure"; "an avid ambition to succeed"; "fierce devouring affection"; "the esurient eyes of an avid curiosity"; "greedy for fame"
* S: (adj) greedy (wanting to eat or drink more than one can reasonably consume) "don't be greedy with the cookies"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top