financial crisis investigation

I've been saying that this Frank-Dodd act is bad since day 1.

I will also repeat that history will show this administration and all its cronies, to be the worst and most corrupt in history

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...crisis.htm?p=2

Dodd-Frank act was passed on July 10, 2010. The financial crisis happened in 2007 and it can be directly linked to the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act which lifted banking regulations. That repeal was passed by a Republican congress and wasn't vetoed by a Democrat president in tandem. The banking industry can't wait to repeat the same mistakes again so they are trying desperately to use a propaganda campaign to convince you that regulations are bad. It's very similar to the anti Title II propaganda campaign that the ISP's are using to make you think that net neutrality is bad. If you want to blame somebody for something, you should at least know a little bit about it first. I believe that conservative voters from this era will go down in history as the most uneducated and easily duped group of people in history. Never has any group of people voted against their own best interests so often.

The only thing DF has done is bury community banks in tough to navigate regulations(huge increase in compliance expenses) while allowing the banks it should be taking its largest toll on, go relatively unscathed(large, economy crushing banks). It has increased some capital requirements for larger banks and made them recognize more risk in investment portfolios(mainly holding unrecognized losses against tier one capital((Basel III)), which is good, but as mentioned in the article, Fannie and Freddie are right back at it, while community banks have been regulated out(qualified vs. unqualified mortgage loans).

So it sounds like the answer is to amend DF to include Fannie and Freddie. Your trying to tell me that because Fannie isn't regulated that the rest of the banks shouldn't be either. That equates to throwing the baby out with the bath water. If anyone was actually looking out for us they would suggest adding regulations to Fannie and Freddie as opposed to getting rid of all regulations all together.
There is a similar argument that says that because unions donate to political campaigns, that we should just let everyone bribe the government with unlimited campaign contributions which assures that there will be no government for the people no matter which political party you buy into. I don't have a problem with including unions in a contribution ban but if you are paying attention then you know that political campaign contributions are out of control.
These petty political arguments only serve to pit us against each other while the richest of the rich (way richer than anybody who wakeboards or wakesurfs) continue to pillage our country and the world for their own twisted benefit. The government isn't your enemy. Those who have purchased the puppets in government are your enemy.

to say that I am uneducated and easily duped is funny

This article can somewhat explain my exception to this legislation.

No regulation isn't the answer, but neither is crap legislation

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-frank-editors

Is anyone proposing a modification to Dodd Frank or is the predictable solution to just dump it and leave no regulation at all in its place? The articles you linked to contains no solutions. Only reasons to eliminate regulation all together. This proves my point. You have read the article as reasons to change Dodd Frank to something that works because you are too uneducated and easily duped to see that the article is nothing more than propaganda showing that ALL regulation should be eliminated. Link us to something that proposes a better version of regulation. Show me that conservatives have solutions to problems that extend beyond simply saying NO to the Democrat plan. I'd LOVE to see GOP legislators come in and force some honesty from Democrats. Unfortunately the only thing I see is a choice between the corrupt and the even more corrupt.

Here's a plan: No bailouts. Problem solved.

I agree with James Angel Professor at Georgetown University, "Some parts should be repealed. As enacted, the "Volcker rule" that prohibits banks from engaging in certain types of "proprietary trading" will not substantially reduce risk in the banking system, but will substantially drive up costs that ultimately get passed on to consumers. The government estimates that it will consume over six million (!) person hours for banks to comply with that provision alone. The well meaning but deeply flawed provision on conflict minerals should also be repealed. That section will impose huge costs on public companies that have nothing to do with the appalling human rights abuses in the Congo, while doing nothing about the non-public companies that do contribute to the problem."

When I read it , I didn't get that ALL regulation should be dumped. Some regulation is necessary. The list does provide several points that should be considered if and when this legislation is revisited.
It's you who are reaching to far and assuming.
and thanks for the name calling

"Your trying to tell me that because Fannie isn't regulated that the rest of the banks shouldn't be either"

No. That's isn't what I was saying at all. There has always been regulation, some of it just needed to be enforced instead of letting big banks play on a different playing field. Not much has come out of DF that will help protect anyone. It was a steaming pile of **** on arrival, that burdens small banks(that had nothing to do with the economic collapse) more than it reins in the big boys(what it should do).

Then get the GOP to fix it Paul!!! Those are your reps and senators, not mine. They don't care what I say because I don't vote for or donate to them. YOU have to convince them to fix it Paul. You know they won't though because they have already been well paid by the banks to do what they can to just throw all regulation in the garbage. That money is worth way more than your vote. Especially when they know they're going to get your vote anyway. Now go back to believing this beautiful propaganda piece that Cliff posted for his Wall Street masters.

lol.

If you haven't figured it out by now... you never will. Neither party works for you. They are whores to big donations.

Here is what needs changing IMHO. With little to no money down, it's easy to leave the bank "hanging," which--more than likely--the taxpayer has to absorb when the loan is defaulted. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dow...dist=afterbell

^^^ That's what's hilarious about all this "regulation." The problem isn't that complicated. Those that think everybody in the country deserves their own home are bending over backwards to not blame the whole mess on the fact that we continue to create programs to put people in houses that shouldn't be in houses. Period. Let the banks take on whatever loans they think are a good risk. Stop coming up with incentives to get them to take on bad loans. Problem solved.

I'm amazed to see that after a very brief period (since the housing market crash) of making people work for loans, they are actually starting to come up with new programs to help people get into homes. Yup, it took about five years for history to be forgotten and we're right back on the Barney Frank horse. Maybe I'm not amazed.

Originally Posted by allzway

If you haven't figured it out by now... you never will. Neither party works for you. They are whores to big donations.

Exactly,

Politicians only lie when their lips move.

From that article. How stupid can our government be????

"The trend has picked up since mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae FNMA, -0.92% and Freddie Mac FMCC, -1.40% which buy most mortgages from lenders, recently lowered the minimum down payments they will accept to 3% from 5%. The changes are driven by an Obama administration effort to make homeownership affordable to a wider group of buyers."

Originally Posted by wakeworld

From that article. How stupid can our government be????

"The trend has picked up since mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae FNMA, -0.92% and Freddie Mac FMCC, -1.40% which buy most mortgages from lenders, recently lowered the minimum down payments they will accept to 3% from 5%. The changes are driven by an Obama administration effort to make homeownership affordable to a wider group of buyers."

The everyone gets a trophy generation is ready for everyone gets a house.

Originally Posted by wakeworld

From that article. How stupid can our government be????

"The trend has picked up since mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae FNMA, -0.92% and Freddie Mac FMCC, -1.40% which buy most mortgages from lenders, recently lowered the minimum down payments they will accept to 3% from 5%. The changes are driven by an Obama administration effort to make homeownership affordable to a wider group of buyers."

The thing that they don't note is it was 3% up until about a year ago. Then they bumped it to 5%. Now it's back down to 3% for certain home buyers. This isn't a change more of a reversal back to what was standard for years..........................

Actually, FHA has always done 3% down payments, and the 5% down has been the standard for conventional for ever. The standards to get approved have changed(better credit, actually have to prove income!) and there are not many 100% options anymore(USDA rural development are still out there).

No, Fannie Mae has been 3% for many years (since they did away with 0% down). Most lenders just had an overlay to 5%. We are direct lender and I did quite a few 97% LTV conforming loans until they changed it to 5% last year. I could pull the Selling Guide Announcements but it's too much hassle and I doubt anyone cares..........

We sell our loans to FHLB, so that is probably why we had a 5% minimum on conventional.

Gotcha, I am spoiled that we mainly sell to Fannie but can go to Freddie if needed for a specific product. Plus we have almost no overlays...............