Is the FHFA going to cause a new Banking crisis?

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Is RBS actually solvent? Perhaps the UK government as principle shareholder should declare it bankrupt now and create a new bank from the remains. Presumably free from liabilities of its predecessor.

You still prefer a close relationship to the US rather than the EU? Obama is the good guy!

I think you are right on the sort of direction of a UK solution, at least if a modest cash payment soon cannot resolve it. But I don't think through the bankruptcy route.

It would need a lot of talking about but I'm guessing that the thrust would be that the sort of protection from international prosecution that is given the Bank of England would also be extended to UK state-owned banks. In effect RBS (and others) would be part of the UK state, and just as the US courts have no jurisdiction over the UK nation state so they would have no jurisdiction over RBS. The US process could only affect RBS operations within the USA, and possibly not even these.

So leaving aside the senselessness of creating an international banking crisis through the FHFA process, I don't think the USA will achieve a great deal against UK banks, but will create a lot of bad feeling with the UK. Right now the UK is recording growth (I know it is tiny, but it IS growth). This one issue could be enough to tip us into recession. Yes there are lots of other problems, but this is one manufactured by our closest ally.

Actually Dandelion I would prefer a closer relationship with the nations of Europe. But right now I don't think this is possible. IMO both the euro and the EU are failing, and the UK has to deal more with other nations, including the USA. The USA's debt crisis means that the USA is forced to deal more with a group of nations including the UK, so it is mutual need. This is the reality of economics, and many in the UK and USA can live with this comfortably. The pity is that Obama is pursuing what seems to be a personal anti-UK crusade. We've had BP. Now we have RBS. Once is forgivable - twice and the UK government will be looking to see how we can support the not-Obama candidate. Republicans tend either to like the UK or be ambivalent - either would be an improvement. If a Republican president has two brain cells that would probably be an advantage, but from a UK perspective is not essential. We're actually at the stage where there is a UK national interest in seeing that Obama is not re-elected.
 

atlclgurl

Just Browsing
Joined
May 20, 2011
Posts
271
Media
1
Likes
0
Points
101
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
just as the US courts have no jurisdiction over the UK nation state so they would have no jurisdiction over RBS. The US process could only affect RBS operations within the USA, and possibly not even these.

Seriously? Can you be that stupid? We CAN punish those who commit crimes in our country.

Now, whether we WILL or not, sadly, remains to be seen.

The pity is that Obama is pursuing what seems to be a personal anti-UK crusade. We've had BP. Now we have RBS. Once is forgivable - twice and the UK government will be looking to see how we can support the not-Obama candidate. Republicans tend either to like the UK or be ambivalent - either would be an improvement. If a Republican president has two brain cells that would probably be an advantage, but from a UK perspective is not essential. We're actually at the stage where there is a UK national interest in seeing that Obama is not re-elected.

Pray enlighten us as to how making BP shoulder responsibility for its own negligence is a "personal crusade" against all of the UK. Same request goes for RBS.

Keep yammering on about BP and how they've been so fucking abused and most of us will assume you're Tony Hayward.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I heard Hayward is now doing something with oil in Iraq? I still do not believe this has anything to do with who is president. The beaurocracy will grind on regardless, frankly ineffectually at the real aim of preventing a recurrence. Given the comments I have heard of what bad news the end of the euro would be directly for every european country and indirectly for the rest of the world I suggest you start praying it survives. We are in a situation where the only proposed solution to overborrowing is more borrowing. We play out a losing hand hoping a good card will appear in the pack. All the picture cards are already played.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
12% of all UK private pensions are invested in BP. Obama's rhetoric came very close to causing the collapse of BP. That would have been a terrible knock to British pensions.

RBS is traditionally the second largest UK company (recent fluctuations). The UK government owns 84%. Selling this stake is a major plank in dealing with the UK's deficit - it really is a sum that can dent it.

In both these cases Obama has acted contrary to British interests (and the US economy is also hit by damage to these enormous companies).

In a world where the euro is on the brink of collapse, the US is drowning in debt, Japan is mired in tsunami-costs, BRICs have lost their shine - in this world no politician should be acting to damage the world economy. We know that Obama hates Britain, but he should put the USA and the world economy before his personal hatred of Britain.
 
Last edited:

atlclgurl

Just Browsing
Joined
May 20, 2011
Posts
271
Media
1
Likes
0
Points
101
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
1. The US economy was not damaged by insisting BP clean up its own mess, it was damaged by BP's neglect of their oil well in US TERRITORY! We were damaged not only economically, but also ecologically, due to BP's disregard of the safe operation of their well.

2. It is not the US government's duty or responsiblity to assure and protect BRITISH pensions.

3. If BP's disregard of their responsibility to explore for oil in a safe manner damaged British pensions then it is up to the BRITISH government to make BP compensate the pensions funds. This has nothing to do with the US!

4. Obama would have been hung out to dry had he been "soft" on BP. It's not personal, it's just business.

5. Tony Hayward acted like a royal ass and got called on it, that is not "rhetoric", that is telling a jackass that he's being a jackass.

6. If RBS cheated Americans out of money, it was their choice to conduct themselves in that manner and they need to compensate those it has cheated, it has nothing at all to do with any American (Obama included) "hating" the UK.

7. Where British "interests" clash with American interests, we Americans expect and demand that OUR President puts OUR interest in front of British interest, EVERY SINGLE TIME. Brits expect the same from their government.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
It is a primary responsibility of every government to look after the security and well-being of their own people. But governments - presidents, prime ministers - also have international responsibilities. This is enshrined in the UDHR to which the USA is a signatory. The idea that any nation need only think about it's own benefit is repugnant.

Both the BP issue and this new RBS issue share the characteristic of being of doubtful benefit to the USA - indeed going after RBS will almost certainly damage the USA. Both are deeply damaging to the UK. What we are starting to see is a repositioning of the UK-US relationship. Just after the BP mess the UK concluded a 50 year defence alliance not with our closest ally, the USA (as was expected) but with France. The mutual investment is on the Anglo-French axis, not the Anglo-American. America didn't want this outcome. The economic cost is huge. I suspect the RBS issue will have a similar outcome.

The UK desperately needs a US president we can work with more closely. If the USA doesn't want to be governed from Beijing the USA needs to work more closely with a set of nations including the UK. Obama is standing in the way of this necessary deepening of the trans-Atlantic relationship.

Please Republicans come up with someone halfway decent as candidate.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
The Uk started negotiations to ally with France in about 1895. Admittedly negotiations have been slow.

As Hayward seems to have been given a lucrative job in Iraq, perhaps he considers he has been recompensed for his difficulties as fall guy for BP. If memory serves, Britain was also negotiating oil rights there in about 1895. Nothing changes.
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
Actually, at least one person saw it coming. I remember my dad announcing things will become very crazy when Clinton signed into law in 1999 the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which repealed the Glass Steagall act of 1933. He was right.

Is RBS actually solvent? Perhaps the UK government as principle shareholder should declare it bankrupt now and create a new bank from the remains. Presumably free from liabilities of its predecessor.

You still prefer a close relationship to the US rather than the EU? Obama is the good guy!

LOL!

I had a dalliance with RBS just before everything went tits up - I declined their kind offer, simply because I knew lots of people involved in their SECURITIZATION operations - sorry for the caps, but this is basically the issue - & had worked out how totally screwed they were.

I actually told them that they were in serious trouble - none of them believed it - & this was winter/spring 2008.

The FHFA are idiots. They allowed this. What the hell were Fanny & Freddie doing buying security parcels that they hadn't even investigated or analysed? Some of these debt parcelsincluded a helluva lot of their own mortgages!!!:wink::wink::rolleyes:

The FMs engaged in ludicrous mortgage lending - which was more of a Democrat policy. The FHFA did nothing no regulate its own market.

One should also remember that RBS BOUGHT the sub prime securities from AMERICAN companies!

Whilst I'm all for the pursuit of all those involved in criminal actions, the FHFA should also charge itself with criminal negligence - it's perfectly logical & fair, plus it might make future regulators a bit tougher, or less bribeable!

The truth is:

Fraudulent & Criminal Americans applied for mortgages.
Fraudulent & Criminal American mortgage companies sold them mortgages.
Fraudulent & Criminal American mortgage companies sold those dodgy mortgages on.
RBS said oh shit & sold them back.

That's basically what happened. I really can't put it any simpler.:biggrin1:

The USA wants other countries to pay for the frauds initiated by itself.

NB- The UK et al, had its own problems with exactly the same thing. The place was chock full of them - there's no moral superiority either side of the pond.

I just wonder if the FHFA really wants all this to be unwound. I think a lot of lawyers do!

I've always said we should let all the banks fail - not one is viable if a couple of big ones go down.
 
Last edited:

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
The USA wants other countries to pay for the frauds initiated by itself.

NB- The UK et al, had its own problems with exactly the same thing. The place was chock full of them - there's no moral superiority either side of the pond.

Completely in agreement, you crackers whore fool :biggrin1:

What I would ask my US mates to consider is the reaction when you wish to punish people for doing something in your country when you expect to do similar and worse things with impunity in other people's countries.
 

atlclgurl

Just Browsing
Joined
May 20, 2011
Posts
271
Media
1
Likes
0
Points
101
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
Completely in agreement, you crackers whore fool :biggrin1:

What I would ask my US mates to consider is the reaction when you wish to punish people for doing something in your country when you expect to do similar and worse things with impunity in other people's countries.


You and Crackhead know nothing of how the securitziation process works. Fannie and Freddie (the agency's Crackhead cites) did not EVER package the pools of "mortgage backed securities", with loans that it made. Primarily because NEITHER AGENCY MAKES A SINGLE LOAN! Fannie's entire raison' d'etre was to buy loans from bankers, thus creating a certain liquidity for local banks making the fucking loans!

THUS, they could not have "bought their own loans".

Here for those who are wont to swallow specious claims whole is the history of the Federal National Mortgage Association (which is the older of the two agencies, and could be considered the "parent" of the Federal Home Mortgage Association).

"The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), colloquially known as Fannie Mae, was established in 1938 by amendments to the National Housing Act after the Great Depression as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. Fannie Mae was established to provide local banks with federal money to finance home mortgages in an attempt to raise levels of home ownership and the availability of affordable housing. Fannie Mae created a liquid secondary mortgage market and thereby made it possible for banks and other loan originators to issue more housing loans, primarily by buying Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insured mortgages. For the first thirty years following its inception, Fannie Mae held a monopoly over the secondary mortgage market. In 1954, an amendment known as the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act made Fannie Mae into "mixed-ownership corporation" meaning that federal government held the preferred stock while private investors held the common stock; in 1968 it converted to a publicly held corporation, to remove its activity and debt from the federal budget.

In the 1968 change, Fannie Mae's predecessor (also called Fannie Mae) was split into the current Fannie Mae and the Government National Mortgage Association ("Ginnie Mae"). Ginnie Mae, which remained a government organization, supports FHA-insured mortgages as well as Veterans Administration (VA) and Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) insured mortgages, with the full faith and credit of the United States government. In 1970, the federal government authorized Fannie Mae to purchase private mortgages, i.e. those not insured by the FHA, VA, or FmHA, and created the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), colloquially known as Freddie Mac, to compete with Fannie Mae and thus facilitate a more robust and efficient secondary mortgage market.


In 1981, Fannie Mae issued its first mortgage passthrough and called it a mortgage-backed security. The Fannie Mae laws did not require the Banks to hand out subprime loans in any way. Ginnie Mae had guaranteed the first mortgage passthrough security of an approved lender in 1968 and in 1971 Freddie Mac issued its first mortgage passthrough, called a participation certificate, composed primarily of private mortgages."


Fannie Mae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As for that ludicrious "RBS did nothing wrong" statement, that is a load of crap. RBS is being sued because it packaged loans into subprime pools that it KNEW had been rejected by its own damn risk analysts!

RBS and HSBC package bad loans, sued in US

You know, you just embarrass yourself when you act as if you know something and you so obviously don't.

Were there frauds committed by US banks? Yes, absolutely. If any other country wanted to bring the US banks to trial, we would not be simpering and whining about how it affects our poor old pensioners. We would most likely, simply shrug and say "Well, if they did the crime, they should do the time." We're cold like that.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
I'll let the Crackerwhorefool reply to that. Regarding the other issue raised, why don't you answer the question rather than resorting to the dreary whine that the world is against you.
 

atlclgurl

Just Browsing
Joined
May 20, 2011
Posts
271
Media
1
Likes
0
Points
101
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
dreary whine that the world is against you.

Not whining, reiterating how tiresome and annoying your continued whining about how the big bad US is a tyrant and cares not a jot for the rest of the world. It's not true, you know it's not true and yet, you, Jason and Crackhead continue to attack America at every opportunity.

Stop it, enough already, we know how you feel. We don't agree, but we are aware.

As for your "question", why don't you read the last paragraph of my last post... if you wanna take a US company to trial, feel free.

WE won't whine about it.
 

Drifterwood

Superior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Posts
18,677
Media
0
Likes
2,811
Points
333
Location
Greece
Not whining, reiterating how tiresome and annoying your continued whining about how the big bad US is a tyrant and cares not a jot for the rest of the world. It's not true, you know it's not true and yet, you, Jason and Crackhead continue to attack America at every opportunity.

Stop it, enough already, we know how you feel. We don't agree, but we are aware.

As for your "question", why don't you read the last paragraph of my last post... if you wanna take a US company to trial, feel free.

WE won't whine about it.

Read some Chomsky and admit your civil religion. Your government perpetrates double standards around the world in your name. I accept that the vast majority of your citizens are great people, but they don't present the truth that others see to you.

The British Empire was the same and you are nothing new, anyone who tries to communicate a different truth to you is a hater, so it's fine to ignore them and label them.

You're a racist by the way.
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Of course you agree, bashing the US all of you's favorite pastime.

ROFL

The USA is one of the great nations of the world, one of the few that puts forward inspirational ideas and acts as a beacon of hope in a troubled world.

The few crazy individuals on this board who read what I write will know I would like far closer co-operation between the UK and USA (and a few others.)
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
Not whining, reiterating how tiresome and annoying your continued whining about how the big bad US is a tyrant and cares not a jot for the rest of the world. It's not true, you know it's not true and yet, you, Jason and Crackhead continue to attack America at every opportunity.

Stop it, enough already, we know how you feel. We don't agree, but we are aware.

As for your "question", why don't you read the last paragraph of my last post... if you wanna take a US company to trial, feel free.

WE won't whine about it.

You use wikipedia to explain debt refinance schemes! Exactly what is your speciality. Dum,dum,dum,dum,dum,dumb, dumb, dumb!

Tell me, have you possibly read about their various accounting controversies?!

Do you know that FMs sell securities? And have mortgage loans held for sale. I think that's FASB 134. My US GAAP's a little rusty.:biggrin1: Like I've never done investment annual accounts for USA companies LOFUCKINGL.

I don't think you fucking understand. This shit got traded by EVERYONE involved in mortgages in a major way. The FMs are privately owned. The fact that the FMs sold off some securities, then bought a mixed bag with some of them back is pretty fricking clear.

WTF does actually making the initial loan have to do with it!:confused::tongue::tongue::tongue:

FFS don't comment on other's expertise - this is pretty solid territory for me.
:smile:
If you used a source other than WIKI - like um, their accounts, you'd gain a useful frickin insight.

To help the financially challenged - read this:

Fannie Mae packages mortgages into mortgage-backed securities, which they then resell to investors.


Mortgage-backed Securities - Definition of Mortgage-backed Securities and How Mortgage-backed Securities Affect the Economy

Is that simple enough? It really should be. They sold off their own bundled up shit, some of which which got rebundled & sent back! Shocker! I know that it's complicated to see how - but that's how they make it look deliberately.

There's nothing here anti-American-we all made it clear that this was an international problem, & as for trying to get court cases of US companies,or extraditions of US executives- just ask the people of Bhopal. It doesn't work - the US doesn't like it back!

So ta ta for now, fuck off & annoy someone else, or go & get a decade's worth of international investments, banking, hedge funds & insurance under your belt, & make a decent comment.

No one cheated anyone in this - each of the multiple counterparties just saw dollar signs & repeatedly passed the parcel, just adding another layer to it. None of them gave a shit what was in it, especially Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac - or they would have looked at them! It's not like RBS isn't still in deep shit with all the American/British/Row crap it got left holding when the music stopped too.
 
Last edited:

atlclgurl

Just Browsing
Joined
May 20, 2011
Posts
271
Media
1
Likes
0
Points
101
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
Read some Chomsky and admit your civil religion. Your government perpetrates double standards around the world in your name. I accept that the vast majority of your citizens are great people, but they don't present the truth that others see to you.

I am a proud and unrepentant supporter of my country. We are not perfect (I never said we were)... that does not blunt my love of my country nor does it temper my disdain for those who insutl us at every possible turn.

You're a racist by the way.

Racist? WTF? How did race get into this discussion on economics? I won't bother to reply to your absurd and incorrect and libelous defamation.