PDA

View Full Version : Bankers in the West versus Iran



rumple_stilskin
12-11-2014, 13:53
Here is an article on banker criminals.
Paid $9 billion of other peoples money to avoid criminal proceedings.

http://rt.com/usa/204603-matt-taibbi-us-taxpayers/

Meanwhile in Iran they hang the bankers convicted of Billion dollar frauds, see in this article:
http://news.sky.com/story/1268233/iran-hangs-billionaire-over-2-6bn-bank-fraud

Which is best?

annasophia
12-11-2014, 14:30
Naturally I'm totally in favor of hanging swindling bankers. :thumbsup:

But doesn't Sharia law have very strict constraints on credit, debt, and lending? I just spent a couple of hours reading about Sharia on another website. In Iran, they should have known the possible dire consequences of financial fraud. They took their chances and lost.

On the other hand given a choice, I'm not sure if I'd rather live in a country run by financial swindlers, or religious zealots?

Neither seems very appealing.

MickeyTong
12-11-2014, 15:07
Naturally I'm totally in favor of hanging swindling bankers. :thumbsup:

But doesn't Sharia law have very strict constraints on credit, debt, and lending? I just spent a couple of hours reading about Sharia on another website. In Iran, they should have known the possible dire consequences of financial fraud. They took their chances and lost.

On the other hand given a choice, I'm not sure if I'd rather live in a country run by financial swindlers, or religious zealots?

Neither seems very appealing.

Swindlers or zealots? A hard call, Anna, but personally I'd rather avoid the zealots: you can complain and protest about swindlers but if you challenge the zealots they'll string you up. But in either case they call the shots and the rest of us endure the consequences.

With regard to Sharia: interest is haraam, totally forbidden, illegal and an offence against decency - it leads to social decadence and oppression. Money may not be "rented" or "borrowed" like any other property.

Armoured
12-11-2014, 15:18
With regard to Sharia: interest is haraam, totally forbidden, illegal and an offence against decency - it leads to social decadence and oppression. Money may not be "rented" or "borrowed" like any other property.

I've spent a fair amount of time on Islamic finance, and sorry, but it's a sham - documentation dressed up to hide the fact that interest is being charged. Simplified, I charge you an annual fee instead of interest. And we have some documentation to make it look like the lender 'shares the risk', but in almost all other respects is just like a loan.

The only part of it that I see as meaningfully different is forbidden sectors, like tobacco, alcohol, etc.

MickeyTong
12-11-2014, 17:48
I've spent a fair amount of time on Islamic finance, and sorry, but it's a sham - documentation dressed up to hide the fact that interest is being charged. Simplified, I charge you an annual fee instead of interest. And we have some documentation to make it look like the lender 'shares the risk', but in almost all other respects is just like a loan.

The only part of it that I see as meaningfully different is forbidden sectors, like tobacco, alcohol, etc.

No need to apologise, Arm. Indeed, yes, there are fudges and accountancy/terminology sleights of hand, and clever Muslims are capable of the sophistry which legitimises actions and beliefs which are makruh (of questionable morality) or haraam (absolutely criminal). But no authentic Islamic qadi with an accurate understanding of fiqh would accept that an "annual fee" is not an interest charge.

But I don't want to do a rusmeister on this topic.

Armoured
12-11-2014, 18:04
qadi[/I] with an accurate understanding of fiqh would accept that an "annual fee" is not an interest charge.

Sounds like the 'none true Scots' argument )

And, I did say that was a _simplified_ version...

Fantastika
12-11-2014, 18:26
Here is an article on banker criminals.
Paid $9 billion of other peoples money to avoid criminal proceedings.

http://rt.com/usa/204603-matt-taibbi-us-taxpayers/


You're not getting the whole picture about the root causes of the housing crisis and bank meltdown in 2008, and you *never* will from the American media, which protects Democrats. And RT writes a lot of shallow articles, similar to CNN's coverage of the "news."

US Subprime (http://russp.us/subprime.htm)

In short, Big Banks were *forced* to make loans to unqualified, minority, loan applicants. When the race-based scheme blew up, the government then turned around and blamed the Banks for the problems, and now levies $billions in fines on them for doing what the government forced them to do.

Guess what? The bureaucrats at Fannie and Freddie have just re-authorized these "Equal Opportunity" programs. Get ready for Housing Crisis, Part 2.

rumple_stilskin
12-11-2014, 19:26
root causes of the housing crisis and bank meltdown in 2008

In short, Big Banks were *forced* to make loans to unqualified, minority, loan applicants. When the race-based scheme blew up........

I am sure that was a factor, but the root causes of the banking shambles goes back way before this policy. Also, there would have been many people default that were not at the bottom of the income ladder, that would have had a loan approved anyway in a reckless manner.(whites and middle/high income blacks). That is that low income blacks weren't the only ones defaulting, high income whites that were given a loan too high in value as well. That is a bust was coming anyway......

Also, the same reckless lending exists in places like Australia where there are no such government policies. But in Australia there is massive migration right now to prop up the real estate loan ponzi scheme.

In the USA, I really doubt the Republicans are any better than the Democrats. You have both political parties funding dominated by the same group of people...the bankers and corporates. Essentially a fascist state, where the 'front men' toggle every 4 or 8 years.

Armoured
12-11-2014, 19:56
In short, Big Banks were *forced* to make loans to unqualified, minority, loan applicants.

This has been debunked so many times that it should be embarrassing to just repeat the same old lies. Basically, loans covered by the CRA were a small percentage of the total problem. And (as others noted above), lots of countries had similar issues/crises, and they had no CRA.

Too boring to pick this apart. It's just another non-fact fact.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/banking_12625.htm

Fantastika
12-11-2014, 20:12
I am sure that was a factor, but the root causes of the banking shambles goes back way before this policy. Also, there would have been many people default that were not at the bottom of the income ladder, that would have had a loan approved anyway in a reckless manner.(whites and middle/high income blacks). That is that low income blacks weren't the only ones defaulting, high income whites that were given a loan too high in value as well. That is a bust was coming anyway......


Yes, given that Fannie and Freddie guaranteed to assume responsibility for all the bad loans the Big Banks were threatened into issuing, why shouldn't the banks loan to anyone? My next door neighbor, the Hispanic cleaning lady, making $200/week, qualifies for $400,000 house...

It's the old "carrot and stick" - the "stick" is to force banks to make loans under threat of lawsuits alleging "racial and gender discrimination" and the carrot is to promise the banks that they can get rid of these bad loans by loans by selling them to Fannie and Freddie (government entities). And Fannie and Freddie were "cooking the books" - making false accounting records, to hide the $trillions in losses they were taking on. This prevented public knowledge and repair of this government-sanctioned and government-initiated disastrous programs. Not a single person at Fannie or Freddie was ever prosecuted for this, the most massive fraud in world history. One Democrat, Franklin Raines, appointed by Clinton, walked away with $135 Million in salary from Fannie, even though he was director when the fraud was ongoing and most likely knew all about it. The banks are the big boys on the financial block, compared to home buyers, but the biggest baddest boy on the block, by far, is the federal government. Saying the "banks are at fault," that's ignoring the rest of the gang, and its ringleader. US government is now using Big banks as "cash cows," there have been many and more upcoming lawsuits where the government sues for $billions to collect from the banks simply following policies which the government forced them to follow. Maybe they are receiving back the $billions the Fed is printing, which they give to the big banks, now they get it back via lawsuits.

NY Post Hush-Money-Lawsuit-Fannie-boards-silence-bought for $12m Franklin Raines (http://nypost.com/2006/03/02/its-hush-money-suit-fannie-boards-silence-bought-for-12m/)

Fantastika
12-11-2014, 20:23
This has been debunked so many times that it should be embarrassing to just repeat the same old lies. Basically, loans covered by the CRA were a small percentage of the total problem. And (as others noted above), lots of countries had similar issues/crises, and they had no CRA.

Too boring to pick this apart. It's just another non-fact fact.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/banking_12625.htm

Are you for real? And you post some URL-denial crap from the same bureaucrats responsible for the mess. Like we are suppose to rely exclusively on testimony by criminals when the criminals say they are innocent?

Try to come back to reality, or at least do a smidgen of research before you post about stuff you know absolutely nothing about. Anyone with Google and a keyboard can find out the facts, despite what BBC or CNN opinionates.

The Great American Bank Robbery: The Unauthorized Report About What Really Caused the Great Recession: Paul Sperry: 9781595552709: Amazon.com: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51PlZCT6QLL.@@AMEPARAM@@51PlZCT6QLL

The Housing Boom and Bust: Thomas Sowell: Amazon.com: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41kTV3Fcx9L.@@AMEPARAM@@41kTV3Fcx9L

Thomas Sowell is an especially distinguished fellow.

OMG, I just read your Federal Reserve FAQ URL. There's not even an author. It's laughable. :rofl:

Armoured
12-11-2014, 20:31
Are you for real? And you post some URL-denial crap from the same bureaucrats responsible for the mess. Like we are suppose to rely exclusively on testimony by criminals when the criminals say they are innocent?

Frankly there's plenty more out there, and this is just too boring a claim to bother.


Try to come back to reality, or at least do a smidgen of research before you post about stuff you know absolutely nothing about. Anyone with Google and a keyboard can find out the facts, despite what BBC or CNN opinionates.

Which contradicts your claim that there is some great media conspiracy. There's lots of people out writing about and claiming this, including in the business press - it just isn't borne out by the facts.

Fantastika
12-11-2014, 20:51
Frankly there's plenty more out there, and this is just too boring a claim to bother.

So your entire "proof" consists of some PR bulletin by the criminals who committed the crimes.


Which contradicts your claim that there is some great media conspiracy. There's lots of people out writing about and claiming this, including in the business press - it just isn't borne out by the facts.

What "facts"?

I didn't say there was a media conspiracy. I said media supports Democrats. You throw up some media drive-by shouts to make your Democrat talking points, I offer full length books by leading intellectuals. Your cartoon length newspaper propaganda "The business press" is not comparable to serious works of research.

You don't know anything about this stuff. You didn't live through it, and your opinions are garbage scanned from BBC and CNN or your "business press".

Barney Frank, the first self-proclaimed homosexual in the US Congress, wrote the original legislation forcing banks to lend money to unqualified applicants.

If you don't have anything else but innuendo and your personal opinions, then you're a fool compared to Thomas Sowell, who wrote a detailed 400-page book about this, not a half-page denial.

Armoured
12-11-2014, 21:09
So your entire "proof" consists of some PR bulletin by the criminals who committed the crimes.

No, you're too boring to bother. You've undermined your credibility every time you've posted more of your Fantastischite!. This is just reposting stuff that's ages old and well-long debunked. Just like all of your other nonsense.


What "facts"?

Wildly debunked year after year after year. I'm just here to remind: "hey folks! Fantastischite! Established track record of nonsense! Check for a minute and you'll find out it's lies."


You don't know anything about this stuff. You didn't live through it, and your opinions are garbage scanned from BBC and CNN or your "business press".

Barney Frank, the first self-proclaimed homosexual in the US Congress, wrote the original legislation forcing banks to lend money to unqualified applicants.

If you don't have anything else but innuendo and your personal opinions, then you're a fool compared to Thomas Sowell, who wrote a detailed 400-page book about this, not a half-page denial.

Ah great - personal attacks, homophobia, you're letting it _all_ hang out today.

Remember folks: Fantastischite! You heard it here - well, not first, after all, it's just regurgitated garbage from the same old deranged conspiracy sites - but you did hear it regurgitated here!

Fantastischite! (TM)

Fantastika
12-11-2014, 21:27
No, you're too boring to bother. You've undermined your credibility every time you've posted more of your Fantastischite!. This is just reposting stuff that's ages old and well-long debunked. Just like all of your other nonsense.

If I'm sooooo boring, like you've posted 3x already, why are you so obsessed in replying?

Can the moderator please remove Armoured's troll-post? It is nothing but personal attack, it's offensive, there is no factual reply to anything, and it has nothing to do with thread topic.

A-Troll, thanks for using personal smears to kill the thread.

Armoured
12-11-2014, 21:35
Can the moderator please remove Armoured's troll-post? It is nothing but personal attack, it's offensive, there is no factual reply to anything, and it has nothing to do with thread topic.

I assume they will once again check where the personal attacks started.

Fantastika
12-11-2014, 22:08
I assume they will once again check where the personal attacks started.

Look in a mirror, troll. You haven't posted a single fact relevant to this thread. All you posted was "everyone knows' sort of horse manure and combined with Fantastika name-calling. Compared to towering intellectual Thomas Sowell, you are backyard fence-gossip. If you don't have anything factual, anything intelligent to say, anything whatsoever, why are you wasting your time on assassinating my character?

Uncle Wally
12-11-2014, 23:03
Frankly there's plenty more out there, and this is just too boring a claim to bother.



Which contradicts your claim that there is some great media conspiracy. There's lots of people out writing about and claiming this, including in the business press - it just isn't borne out by the facts.




And so why is nobody in jail? 700 billion dollars!

Yaks
13-11-2014, 00:27
hispanic cleaner on 200 a week qualifying for 400,000 loan? BS factor 10

Their very first mortgage payment(assuming all their pay went to the loan which of course it wouldn't) they would be short $1300.

Even in a rising market a bank is not going to lend to someone that they know they will foreclose on in the first few months.

Fantastika
13-11-2014, 00:43
And so why is nobody in jail? 700 billion dollars!

Precisely!

rumple_stilskin
13-11-2014, 01:09
hispanic cleaner on 200 a week qualifying for 400,000 loan? BS factor 10

Their very first mortgage payment(assuming all their pay went to the loan which of course it wouldn't) they would be short $1300

I can remember in 2007 when I joined a new bank they rang me up offering a credit card. I had just started a business adventure, told them I had no proof income. The girl giggled, said didn't matter. It was just for me to say verbally over the phone what I thought I would make. I didn't pursue it as I thought it would get declined, but now know it would have been approved. Wasn't the only occasion.

Wouldn't suprise me at all someone getting a massive loan and just lying about income. Rising house market, so what if foreclosed in 3 months the house would have increased in value. This was the mentality.

Fantastika
13-11-2014, 01:24
hispanic cleaner on 200 a week qualifying for 400,000 loan? BS factor 10
Their very first mortgage payment(assuming all their pay went to the loan which of course it wouldn't) they would be short $1300.


No no no no. The bank could offer ARM for the first, say, 5 years. An ARM at 2% for the first year (doesn't even cover the interest, the loan amount increases). Then in the 6th year you get slammed with huge increase in monthly payment. The Banks and Mortgage Companies used all sorts of tricks to get over the qualification hurdles, in order to pass the government requirements for certain % of blacks, women and Hispanics getting mortgages. And if (when) the mortgage went bad, Fannie and Freddie were there to back it up.

In this case, my neighbor sold his house for $460,000 (he asked $400k and got an offer the next day for $460k, that's how the market was going crazy). The new neighbors moved in. There were a lot of them. About a year later, the cleaning lady knocks on my door and asks if I want to rent my house. They knew I was going to Russia for a year and getting $1500/month rent appealed to me. I asked what happened, they said they had to get out of the house, because they couldn't meet the mortgage payment. I told her I wanted to meet the new tenants. They came over, all 13 of them - 3 families + another single male. I asked who has a social security card? No one could produce one. So I told them sorry, I can't rent to you guys unless someone has a Social Security card (and I didn't want 3 families living in my small single-family house). So what was going on in that house? There were 4 males working in underground economy + the cleaning lady, altogether they probably pulled in 3k-4k a month, enough to cover mortgage.

How did she get a mortgage in the first place? Either she lied, or the Mortgage company encouraged her to stretch the truth. She signed document saying she had enough income, or she and her "husband" had enough income, or altogether there was enough income to qualify. At first it worked out and they made the first few payments, but then they got into payment difficulties anyway. Maybe the ARM was good for one year only, or maybe some of the people moved out, or they got into arguments about who pays what share, and she couldn't make the payment.

With the ARM, the first year payment might be $800 month, but then would increase the next year to $1200, the next year to $1600. Or there could be 7 years of low payments, then a huge "balloon" payment, which, if you couldn't meet, you lost your house.

You are "qualified" by the bank based only on what your *first* year payment would be. So if the first year payment worked out to $800, hey, you qualify! Nobody was concerned about how you were going to pay in the 2nd year and so on. A lot of people qualified who shouldn't have been qualified.

So yes, there was a lot of "BS" but the biggest load came from the government which allowed Big Banks and Mortgage companies to do these types of "creative financing" so they wouldn't get sued by the government for discrimination.


Even in a rising market a bank is not going to lend to someone that they know they will foreclose on in the first few months.

No, they only cared about the getting the contract signed. After that, if there was any problem, it was Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae's problem. The bank may even prefer to foreclose, because their losses were insured by Freddie and Fannie.

There are these new Latin American immigrants to America, perhaps they are thinking, "I am here in America, now I can live like a prince or princess, just like I have seen in the Hollywood movies." Then they go to the Bank, and the bank tells them, "Yes, you too, can have your piece of the American pie!" And they fudge a little, lie about income, whatever, the bank bends the rules, and viola, they have their palace, and they're living the American dream!

Fantastika
13-11-2014, 01:31
Wouldn't suprise me at all someone getting a massive loan and just lying about income.

No!! You mean some people are liars? No way! :)

There are these new immigrants to America, perhaps they are thinking, "I am here in America, now I can live like a prince or princess, just like I have seen in the Hollywood movies." Then they go to the Bank, and the bank tells them, "Yes, you too, can have your piece of the American pie!" And they fudge a little, lie about income, whatever, the bank bends the rules, and viola, they have their palace, and they're living the American dream! For a while, anyway...

Yaks
13-11-2014, 06:11
2% interest even interest only still wouldn't cover that amount-but adding more people to the story makes it not "the cleaning lady on 200 a week gets a 400,000 mortgage"

Armoured
13-11-2014, 08:27
... but the biggest load came from the government which allowed Big Banks and Mortgage companies to do these types of "creative financing" so they wouldn't get sued by the government for discrimination.

Mortgage companies don't fall under the CRA, most of these types of loans were made by non-CRA companies, and CRA-covered loans were (on average) better quality than others.

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html

The law existed for more than 30 years, and was weakened in application before the crisis.

There was plenty of fraud, criminality that should be prosecuted, naked greed, stupidity - but blaming the crisis on anti-discrimination policies ... nonsense.

Fantastika
13-11-2014, 09:16
There was plenty of fraud, criminality that should be prosecuted, naked greed, stupidity - but blaming the crisis on anti-discrimination policies ... nonsense.

I see you are still "bored" (or obsessed) by this, and dismissing any counter as "nonsense." Like I said before, you don't know anything at all about housing crisis in US, except from biased, shallow media. You weren't there, and you didn't live through it. I would be so arrogant as to lecture you about England in 2006?

Nobody made loans "under the CRA program" CRA is not a loan program. It sets numerical targets for lending by location, race, and ethnicity. CRA often required lending to uncreditworthy persons to get a satisfactory CRA rating, and it did indeed cause Freddie and Fannie to take on huge amounts of dreck. "The chief executive of Countrywide Financial, the nation's largest mortgage lender, is said to have 'bragged' that in order to approve minority applications, 'lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit.'"

Even the politically-cleansed Wikipedia article has some factual data about this, even if you choose to ignore 1000's of other googled articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Criticism

Fantastika
13-11-2014, 09:26
2% interest even interest only still wouldn't cover that amount-but adding more people to the story makes it not "the cleaning lady on 200 a week gets a 400,000 mortgage"

All I know is I was happy as a hog in slop to see these people go away. They had a continual garage repair business going in this residential neighborhood, and one time I noticed two cars with the same back license plate (in Virginia you have two plates, front and rear). I would call the cops, and they would be happy to come cover and paste tickets on all the cars that had no registration, no plates, illegally parked, etc.

Armoured
13-11-2014, 09:30
Nobody made loans "under the CRA program" CRA is not a loan program. It sets numerical targets for lending by location, race, and ethnicity.

Read again. My point is, as above, that many lenders were not subject to CRA. Even lenders that were subject to CRA could lend through subsidiaries and affiliates that were not. CRA was and is linked to where banks _take deposits_. So loans made for private securitization (for example) were not subject to it.


"The chief executive of Countrywide Financial, the nation's largest mortgage lender, is said to have 'bragged' that in order to approve minority applications, 'lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit.'"

Countrywide and other similar mortgage lenders that didn't take deposits weren't subject to CRA. Since Countrywide was a major source of the worst loans (and failed massively), blaming something other than there own crooked procedures and incentives and incompetence might be self-interested.

Fantastika
13-11-2014, 09:59
Read again. My point is, as above, that many lenders were not subject to CRA.

You read again. Yes, they were. These were "guidelines" and violating the guidelines got the banks threatened with legal action by civil rights groups, backed up by the government.

This is not about the CRA. It is about the government mandating racial quotas in mortgages.

It's absurd for anyone to maintain that racial quotas, in general, in all areas of US government regulation, are not practiced by the government, let alone that these policies have disastrous consequences. *Totally absurd.*

For example, Mayor Coleman Young's racist policies led ultimately to today's situation in Detroit - a city more dangerous than Baghdad, a city we taxpayers have to bail out to the tune of $Billions.

And to look at a list of contracts offered by the federal government from any agency, offered to the public, and see that ALL of them are Section 8(a) "preferred for minorities" and you probably claim that this also is "nonsense."

And you maintain that racial quotas had nothing to do with housing crisis. OK, whatever.

Yaks
13-11-2014, 15:07
hell, the whole US is probably more dangerous than Baghdad but people yell out the solution is " We need more guns!" Apparently 300 million guns(about one per man, woman and child- isn't enough. Couldn't pay me enough money to live in the place.

Uncle Wally
13-11-2014, 22:28
Words to live by.


The bigger the crime

The less the time!

TolkoRaz
13-11-2014, 22:31
What has any of these recent posts got to do with Iran? :confused:

Where is FatAndy when he is needed to delete / relocate unrelated off-topic posts? :farout:

Judge
13-11-2014, 23:42
What has any of these recent posts got to do with Iran? :confused:

Where is FatAndy when he is needed to delete / relocate unrelated off-topic posts? :farout:

The thread is also about banking and fraud, to make life easier for us you can always click on report.

Uncle Wally
14-11-2014, 00:34
What has any of these recent posts got to do with Iran? :confused:

Where is FatAndy when he is needed to delete / relocate unrelated off-topic posts? :farout:


My guess is he's 400 grams under. So me and him are equal.


Fraud is a crime but not when you are a bankster and it's billions you are stealing. Is this love that I'm feeling? No it's your wallet.


What's Love Got To Do With It (Black & White Version) - YouTube

Fantastika
17-11-2014, 16:21
So your entire "proof" consists of some PR bulletin by the criminals who committed the crimes.

Barney Frank, who describes himself as a 'gay, Left-wing Jew' wrote the original legislation forcing banks to lend money to unqualified applicants, which was a catalyst for the housing crisis and 2008 banking meltdown.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5NrqqK60OI

FatAndy
17-11-2014, 16:26
Where is FatAndy when he is needed to delete / relocate unrelated off-topic posts? :farout:
At 22:something I usually have another activities...:brush: