Momma, let your babies grow up be executive management

You would say that, but it doesn't make it true. It's in the MBA textbooks I threw away after I finished, backed up by academic research. Obtaining a lot of wealth does not diminish the desire to get more if it is available.

 

They're ALL subprime now. Do a little more reading on the current events in the following topics:

Margin Calls
Default notices
Cross Defaults
Housing prices
Material default
fire sales

Thornberg Mortgage, up until two days ago, was one of the "good ones", with no subprime. Until they failed to meet a $28 million margin call.

Also, take a guess, fdp, what the #1 reason for foreclosures is.

 

Subprime refers to loans made to high-risk or marginal borrowers, not loans that have gone bad. I won't argue that a lot of banks aren't in bad shape. I'm just saying that mine is still strong because of disciplined (read: tight) lending practices.

 

I know exactly what I wrote.

"They're all subprime now" was a figure of speech reflecting the state of banking right now, way past subprime lending.

Unless your bank is immune to credit illiquidity, falling home prices, auction failures, widening spreads, etc, they are all subprime now.

 

My mistake, I was not familiar with the vulgar use of "subprime." I am not sure if you're trying to tell me that it isn't true that my company's earnings have continued to increase and we haven't changed our lending standards, but other than to say it's true I don't know what else I can do. I will concede that our stock price has been dragged down along with everyone else's.

 

What's your bank?

 

I feel bad for those of you who can't differentiate between the public and private sector. It's a basic concept that should be taught and learned at an early age. If you want to argue that a firm isn't completely private, i'd agree with you in spirit--nothing is completely private in today's semi-nanny, tax and spend, the state is holier-than-thou world. We all exist at the behest of big-brother, even if in small proportion. That said, the spirit of a corporation is that it is independent of political interference. Yes, shareholders own the company (sometimes), but just because there are many shareholders doesn't mean the company is owned by the public. "Public" connotes government, or at least it does in my hair-splitters encyclopedia. "Public" connotes anyone in a given geographic area. Maybe we are just having difficulty with our definitions of words, but, I feel like some of you are missing the concept too--that just because you can buy shares of a "publically traded company" doesn't make it the same as "public ownership" of said company.

I'm as anti-bailout as anyone could be. If a business screws up, they should go bankrupt. It provides the proper incentives to not screw people over when you know that you could be costing yourself your livlihood if you make unwise decisions. It allows for better businesses with better products to compete fairly in the marketplace. Bailing out any private company is a horrible abuse of power in government. It is essentially stealing money from individuals who are responsible and giving it to those who aren't, and it fosters a market place where businesses account for possible bail-outs if a whole industry tanks, which leads to the reckless loaning like we saw recently.

Lastly, to reiterate, the largest amount of blame goes squarely on individuals who can't repay the loans. Unless there was some sort of fraud perpetrated at the time the loan was made, it is entirely the fault of the borrower for not repaying. Which leads to the other reason why there shouldn't be a bail-out. You are rewarding dumb people, bad decisions, and most importantly *stealing* from those who made good decisions.

 

I'll rest easier tonight knowing I have your pity. : I really can't even take the rest of the post seriously because that first paragraph is soooo condescending.

 

*deep breath* Getting past that incredibly smug introductory paragraph, you make some viable points as to who is to blame. Sure, plenty of blame goes to those signing the loan. But because you <i>can</i> exploit someone, does that mean you should? I could go sell my broken Super NES I have in storage to a kid for $20, but I'm not going to because it's not the right thing to do. You can't tell me these lenders don't go in knowing full well these people aren't going to meet their payments. The original plan was surely to soak what they could from them before flipping the loan on some other poor sap.

 

The Last American Hero is Angelo Mozilo...Yes!

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/07/news/newsmakers/ceo_pay/index.htm?cnn=yes

 

But for rewarding executives who fuck up, and then feed at the public trough.

Makes perfect sense. Gotcha.

 

I know. I do get preachy and condescending with my arguments sometimes, especially if I'm rushing through it on emotion. It's a flaw. The whole first paragraph i could ditch and rewrite because it still doesn't explain things well, even after getting preachy about it. I'm frustrated with myself for not being able to explain it as clearly as I see it in my mind, so I revert to "talking down" to those who "just don't get it".

That said, it is an honest emotion of frustration and disappointment with others who hold certain positions. It's just a matter of realizing that emotion doesn't get you anywhere in a discussion/debate, no matter how valid it might be.