Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 86

Thread: Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and now Merrill Lynch

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    9,157
    Post Thanks / Like

    Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and now Merrill Lynch

    The economy is going great. Am looking forward to 4 more years of recession, job-loss, inflation, skyrocketing gas prices and mortgage flops thanks to Bush and McCain.

    McCain/Palin '08 - because they hate fags.

  2. #2
    Practice Squad
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    488
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=VincenzoTestaverde;2752293]The economy is going great. Am looking forward to 4 more years of recession, job-loss, inflation, skyrocketing gas prices and mortgage flops thanks to Bush and McCain.

    McCain/Palin '08 - because they hate fags.[/QUOTE]

    I'm not too sure on the economy yet. My opinion will depend on the size of the retention bonus BOA pays to keep me here.

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=VincenzoTestaverde;2752293]The economy is going great. Am looking forward to 4 more years of recession, job-loss, inflation, skyrocketing gas prices and mortgage flops thanks to Bush and McCain.

    McCain/Palin '08 - because they hate fags.[/QUOTE]

    Didn't this recession happen after the Democrats secured the Congress?

  4. #4
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,773
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=VincenzoTestaverde;2752293]4 more years of recession[/QUOTE]

    I certainly agree that the Economy appears to be headed in a rather negative direction.

    However, when using terminology we should at least use the commonly held deifinitions:

    [QUOTE]a recession is a decline in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for two or more consecutive quarters.[/QUOTE]

    We have most certainly not had "4 years" of that, so we cannot have "4 MORE years" of it regardless of whom we elect.

    Call it whatever you like of course, but people look ill informed when they use terms that are inaccurate for the problems at hand.

  5. #5
    Waterboy
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    First of all, Obama already said he would keep the Bush tax cuts for at least until they expire. He admitted that immediately rescinding them would be terrible for the economy.

    Second of all, isn't this whole mess due to the sub-prime mortgage crisis? Because people who had no business buying houses in the first place (because they couldn't afford them) wanted the American dream and snake-oil lenders gave them adjustable rates? To the best of my understanding (which, admittedly, isn't much) they got bamboozled not because of the Bush admin., but because of these bull**** companies.

    And then we look to the government to bail these rotten companies out. Why? And where does it stop? You're right, Bush has been bad, real bad, because what he's practicing [B]is not conservatism[/B]. But neither has Pelosi's embarrassing Congress. And Obama certainly won't either.

    What do you think universal healthcare is going to do to this country? Insurance companies will go out of business because there will be no competition. Not to much the quality of healthcare. Yeah, great, everyone will have healthcare but you'll need to wait a year and a half to see a doctor.

    Oh, and btw:

    "McCain/Palin '08 - because they hate fags."

    Don't be a moron all your life. It's not very becoming.

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Manhattan, NY
    Posts
    9,555
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2752311]I certainly agree that the Economy appears to be headed in a rather negative direction.

    However, when using terminology we should at least use the commonly held deifinitions:



    We have most certainly not had "4 years" of that, so we cannot have "4 MORE years" of it regardless of whom we elect.

    Call it whatever you like of course, but people look ill informed when they use terms that are inaccurate for the problems at hand.[/QUOTE]

    Whether or not we aren't technically in a book defined "recession" does not change the fact that we are in an economic downturn.

    Of course, I'm inside the Lehman complex... I can't imagine a more depressing corporate environment than inside Lehman today.

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Wildcat Country
    Posts
    4,892
    Post Thanks / Like
    Lehman shares are down 95% today to 19 cents.

  8. #8
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    astoria
    Posts
    5,326
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=VincenzoTestaverde;2752293]The economy is going great. Am looking forward to 4 more years of recession, job-loss, inflation, skyrocketing gas prices and mortgage flops thanks to Bush and McCain.

    McCain/Palin '08 - because they hate fags.[/QUOTE]i just got a raise...well last week.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    14,483
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote=VincenzoTestaverde;2752293]The economy is going great. Am looking forward to 4 more years of recession, job-loss, inflation, skyrocketing gas prices and mortgage flops thanks to Bush and McCain.

    [B]McCain/Palin '08 - because they hate fags.[/B][/quote]

    Um . . . yeah :rolleyes:

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    astoria
    Posts
    5,326
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=BushyTheBeaver;2752565]Lehman shares are down 95% today to 19 cents.[/QUOTE]buy buy buy

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,794
    Post Thanks / Like
    Glad to see they finally moved you to fries!!!!


    [IMG]http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Burger-King-Jump-C.article.jpg[/IMG]

    [QUOTE=2foolish197;2752587]i just got a raise...well last week.[/QUOTE]

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,296
    Post Thanks / Like
    If companies weren't forced to lend to sub-prime borrowers (ie, people who bought more house than they could afford), they wouldn't have been in this mess. Universal home ownership is a nice idea, but in practice....

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,794
    Post Thanks / Like
    How were they being "forced"?

    [QUOTE=quantum;2752675]If companies weren't forced to lend to sub-prime borrowers (ie, people who bought more house than they could afford), they wouldn't have been in this mess. Universal home ownership is a nice idea, but in practice....[/QUOTE]

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    this is all Bill Clinton's fault... or Jimmy Carter

    certainly not W. Bush. It's anyone's fault than the guy who has been in charge for the last 8 years. duh!

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,296
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;2752677]How were they being "forced"?[/QUOTE]

    Maybe I should have said "pressured"...? Either way, this was an outgrowth of the "disriminatory lending practices" of the last 10 years. Mortgage companies were being called racist because they wouldn't loan to sub-prime lenders.

  16. #16
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [quote=cr726;2752677]How were they being "forced"?[/quote]

    The federal govt - HUD via FHA - "forces" lenders to lend to high risk (ie sub-prime) home buyers - look up the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA)

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,794
    Post Thanks / Like
    Aren't FHA loans backed by the gov't.

    [QUOTE=flushingjet;2752697]The federal govt - HUD via FHA - "forces" lenders to lend to high risk (ie sub-prime) home buyers - look up the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA)[/QUOTE]

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,794
    Post Thanks / Like
    It has nothing to do with trying to make as much money as possible and ignoring their own rules?


    [QUOTE=quantum;2752696]Maybe I should have said "pressured"...? Either way, this was an outgrowth of the "disriminatory lending practices" of the last 10 years. Mortgage companies were being called racist because they wouldn't loan to sub-prime lenders.[/QUOTE]

  19. #19
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,638
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=flushingjet;2752697]The federal govt - HUD via FHA - "forces" lenders to lend to high risk (ie sub-prime) home buyers - look up the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA)[/QUOTE]

    I thought that the risk lied with the gov't on those loans, where fed money is the collateral. SO the lender isn't truly forced, right?

    I mean, the gov't pays them the losses, if there are any...right?

    serious question

  20. #20
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,296
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;2752705]It has nothing to do with trying to make as much money as possible and ignoring their own rules?[/QUOTE]

    Nope. From what I've read, the mortgage companies would have continued denying mortgages to people who were poor credit risks, or were buying too much house compared to their income/resources. Politicians and community activists pressured them and told them that the equity would cover potential losses. Then everything hit the fan at once...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us