Inside the Meltdown

Pay options were also available allowing the borrowers to choose lower payments and the balance of what you should pay and what you actually paid was added to the loan to have a negative amortization. The introductory low rates were called Teaser Rates. The goal was to make home ownership more affordable for more people. Michael Francis and other brokers in Wall Street knew that some of these loans are bad loans but they didn’t cared because they transferred all these loans to whoever wanted to buy them such as pension funds. They are just the intermediary or the pipeline. These pension funds could only buy AAA mortgage loan. The investors wanted to sell their loans to the pension funds but they needed to be rated AAA by these agencies. Their job was to evaluate the risk of the securities. What was the ethical issue here with the agencies? The riskier BBB looked as good as the triple AAA and they looked much safer than they used to be and they started to look more like a AAA security. So AAA requirement got lower as the market got smart. Moodies, S&P, and Fitch are the three rating agencies. They didn’t give price but based on their ratings they got priced. The suggestion is that these agencies would come with the investment bankers. The business was getting more competitive so you just wanted to get more business or more business than the other agencies. When Anne Arundel was asked if standards lower she

The new lackadaisical lending requirements and low interest rates drove housing prices higher, which only made the mortgage backed securities and CDOs seem like an even better investment. Now consider the housing market which had become a housing bubble, which had now burst, and now people could not pay for their incredibly expensive houses or keep up with their ballooning mortgage payments. Borrowers started defaulting, which put more houses back on the market for sale. But there were not any buyers. Supply was up, demand was down, and home prices started collapsing. As prices fell, some borrowers suddenly had a mortgage for way more than their home was currently worth and some stopped paying. That led to more defaults, pushing prices down further. As this was happening, the big financial institutions stopped buying sub-prime mortgages and sub-prime lenders were getting stuck with bad loans. By 2007, some big lenders had declared bankruptcy. The problems spread to the big investors, who had poured money into the mortgage backed securities and CDOs. They started losing money on their investments. All these of these financial instruments resulted in an incredibly complicated web of assets, liabilities, and risks. So that when things went bad, they went bad for the entire financial system. Some major financial players declared bankruptcy and others were forced into mergers, or needed

The responsibilities of the mortgage brokers to the borrowers, lenders, and investors were to promote the subprime mortgages to these groups of people in order for them to take out a loan. Although they did fulfill their responsibilities of promoting and having people sign up for it, they mishandled on how people should be granted for a mortgage loan. These brokers were to desperate about earning huge amount of money due to the expanding market that they ignored the proper precaution that they should have taken when they

After the optimistic forecast from the realstate that the houses value were going to increase, many institutions started to make adjustments to take profit from this trend. In some cases, prime mortgages were allowed for subprime borrowers to take. This might look like a great idea to financial institutions because the house values were rising: if a people (who in the first place couldn’t afford a house) stop paying their mortgages then the bank could sell the house for a value greater than the one at the moment of default. Everything was going well, so how is it that the crisis unfolded? Well, these institutions wanted to make more profit

The Federal Government needs to make sure to enforce strict guidelines on who can and cannot be accepted for a home loan, and not allow big investors to borrow excessive money at low interest rates to inflate the investor’s financial advantage. If the government starts allowing lower standards on mortgages, we are going to end up in the same catastrophe once again. In an article written by U.S. News and World Reports entitled Should the Federal Government Provide Support to the Mortgage Market?, the Federal government and the President attempted to get involved with the housing market. The passage implicated that Obama wanted to do away with federally funded conglomerates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and implement another type of government assisted program ("Should the Federal Government"). The program would prevent the mistakes made by Fannie and Freddie which created the original “housing bubble burst” ("Should the Federal Government"). One of the Senate bills suggests the government create “a new agency, the Federal Mortgage Insurance Corporation to replace Fannie and Freddie” ("Should the Federal

We now know to pay attention to the red flags. We collectively shrugged off signs and signals in the years leading to 2008. The disaster was foreseeable. The extreme increase in subprime lending, the seemingly infinite increase in housing prices, and the increase in national household mortgage debt should have been alarm enough. These passed by either unnoticed, or ignored. Because of our ignorance, we were not prepared to handle the inevitable crisis.

So what exactly happened to the subprime mortgage market that caused all of this? It actually goes back to 1998 with the Glass-Steagall legislation, which separated regular banks and investment banks was repealed in 1998. This allowed banks, whose deposits were guaranteed by the FDIC to engage in highly risky business because they were guaranteed their deposits up to $250,000 per depositor. Following the dot-com bust in 2000, the Federal Reserve dropped rates to 1 percent and kept them there for an extended period. This drop in rates caused bank managers to have to go after higher-yielding bonds because they could no longer make decent yields off of municipal bonds or treasury bonds. They, like Wall Street, got creative with lending, and went after high-yield mortgage-backed securities like subprime mortgages which were mostly dominated by non-bank originators but because of the demand, many banks and private sector lenders jumped on board to increase profits.

On June 27, 1934, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the National Housing Act, with the goal to improve the housing standards and conditions, as well as provide a mutual mortgage insurance system. It came at a time when at least half of the nation’s home mortgages were in default, millions of people were losing their homes, and the construction industry was halted. This law in turn created the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). The FHA set standards for construction and underwriting, and it provided mortgage issuers, such as banks and private lenders, a federal guarantee of repayment. The purpose of this was to revive mortgage lending for house construction, home improvement projects, and home purchases. Not only did the FHA’s program

In the midst of the current economic downturn, dubbed the “Great Recession”, it is natural to look for one, singular entity or person to blame. Managers of large banks, professional investors and federal regulators have all been named as potential creators of the recession, with varying degrees of guilt. No matter who is to blame, the fallout from the mistakes that were made that led to the current crisis is clear. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the current unemployment rate is 9.7%, with 9.3 million Americans out of work (Bureau of Labor Statistics). Compared to a normal economic rate of two or three percent, it is clear that the decisions of one group of people have had a profound affect on the lives of millions of

The Courage to Act memoir is essential reading for people who wants to know what happened at Federal Open Market Committee meeting on Aug. 5, 2008. It invokes comparisons to the Great Depression and at the same time suggests that Shucks, it was not all that great, was not a depression or anything (Bernanke). But Bernanke is persuasive in arguing that it was pretty damned high i.e. terrible and he and his members at the Fed deserve credit for the fact that it wasn 't a heck of a lot greater. Bernanke pulls back the curtain ornament on his endeavors to keep a mass commercial disappointment, working with two U.S. presidents and utilizing each Fed ability, regardless of how arcane, to keep the U.S. economy above water. His encounters amid the underlying emergency and the Great Recession that took after giving audience members a unique point of view on the American economy since 2006 and his story will uncover surprisingly how the inventiveness and definitiveness of a couple of famous pioneers kept a financial fall of unimaginable scale. The Act provide a means of different points in the banking factor by a central banking system. The Courage to Act explains the worst financial crisis and economic recession in America since the Great Recession, providing an insider 's account of the policy response.

The Great Recession inflicted abundant harm in the U.S. and global economy; 8.7 million jobs vanished (Center on Budget), 9.3 million Americans lost their homes (Kusisto), and the U.S. GDP fell below what the economy was capable to produce (Center on Budget). The financial crisis was unforeseen by millions and few predicted that the market would enter a recession. Due to the impact that the recession had, several studies have been conducted in order to determine what caused the recession and if it could have been prevented. Government intervention played a key role in the crisis by providing the bailout money that saved those “Too Big to Fail” institutions. Due to the amount of money invested in the bailout and the damage that the financial crisis had on the U.S. population, “Too Big to Fail Banks”, and financial regulation are two of the biggest focuses of the presidential candidates. Politicians might assure voters that change will occur, but is it to late for change to be efficient, are the financial institutions making the same mistakes that led to the financial crisis?

The banking crisis of the late 2000s, often called the Great Recession, is labelled by many economists as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Its effect on the markets around the world can still be felt. Many countries suffered a drop in GDP, small or even negative growth, bankrupting businesses and rise in unemployment. The welfare cost that society had to paid lead to an obvious question: ‘Who’s to blame?’ The fingers are pointed to the United States of America, as it is obvious that this is where the crisis began, but who exactly is responsible? Many people believe that the banks are the only ones that are guilty, but this is just not true. The crisis was really a systematic failure, in which many problems in the

The Meltdown is a PBS special on the events of the financial crisis of 2008, in a timeline format, revealing the thinking behind decisions made during the fateful months before the stock market crash in August of that year. Some financial gurus on Wall Street devised a plan to bundle several mortgages together into a group, and then selling that bundle to another group of investors looking to invest in securities. The lender did not need to earn money from the loans he was giving out, he merely gained enough of a profit from the bundling operation that billions were being made on Wall Street from 2005-2008. The problem is that these bundles were risky, and as credit unworthy individuals defaulted on their mortgages, the entire system crumbled into what is now known as the Stock Market Crash of 2008, and have subsequently lived during the Great Recession.

The problem was everyone who qualified for a mortgage already had one. Lenders knew if they sold a mortgage to a person that defaults the lender gets the house, and houses were always increasing in value in that market, that would be a valuable asset to sell. To keep up with the demand from investors, lenders started selling mortgages to borrowers who wouldn’t have qualified before because of the risk for default. These mortgages are called sub-prime mortgages and lenders started creating tons of them. In the unregulated market, lenders employed predatory tactics to get more borrowers with attractive offers such as no money down, no credit history required, even no proof of income. People never would have qualified before were now buying large houses, and the lenders sold their mortgages to Investment bankers. The investors packed subprime mortgages in with prime mortgages so credit agencies would still give a AAA rating. The rating Agencies who had a conflict of interest by receiving payments from the investment banks, had no liability if their credit ratings were correct or not. They turned a blind eye to the risky CDOs and kept giving AAA ratings. This worked for a while and everyone was happy including the new homeowners. The housing market became hyper inflated with more homeowners than ever. Wall Street continued to sell their CDO’s which were ticking time bombs. The subprime mortgages began

Executives and those responsible for misdeeds should have been subject to significant clawbacks of compensation. If the reason they misbehaved and took inappropriate risks was to raise compensation, losing that compensation would be an appropriate punishment.