Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Noodle

"it Started In America"

Recommended Posts

Guest P-Diddly
It were that there London. and didn't we have a blast.

Very possibly. But it would be interesting to see what some of the bankers on this forum genuinely think.

Could it have been both? Where was the seed planted that caused this? Was Brown's fuddling about with UK banking regulation (that tripartite thing I don't really understand) the hand that sowed the seed?

I don't know.

But let's ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very possibly. But it would be interesting to see what some of the bankers on this forum genuinely think.

Could it have been both? Where was the seed planted that caused this? Was Brown's fuddling about with UK banking regulation (that tripartite thing I don't really understand) the hand that sowed the seed?

I don't know.

But let's ask.

I should look for a link, but I read that AIG were based in London because US regulation would not have let them fanny about with financial products the way they could here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest P-Diddly

You're all familiar with this one.

So, did it start in America?

Or were the financial instruments of doom invented in say . . . Hong Kong or Shanghai . . . or London?

I remember a few years ago the media reporting that London was the financial capital of the world, having overtaken New York. Also that the AIG debacle came out of AIG's London office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're all familiar with this one.

So, did it start in America?

Or were the financial instruments of doom invented in say . . . Hong Kong or Shanghai . . . or London?

I remember a few years ago the media reporting that London was the financial capital of the world, having overtaken New York. Also that the AIG debacle came out of AIG's London office.

It were that there London. and didn't we have a blast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest P-Diddly
I should look for a link, but I read that AIG were based in London because US regulation would not have let them fanny about with financial products the way they could here.

This is what I suspect. But the US has the 'Credit Default Swap Prohibition Act' now, I think. So not outlawed there previously.

Dunno?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It started in America = the subprime mortgage crisis.

I think there's a little truth in this, as credit was flowing on a ridiculous level in the US.

Corporations don't have a meaningful nationality now, so saying it started somewhere is a little meaningless, and depends on what "starting" you're talking about. It could be argued it "started" in France, since theirs was the first bank to topple.

Edited by the_duke_of_hazzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest P-Diddly
It started in America = the subprime mortgage crisis.

I think there's a little truth in this, as credit was flowing on a ridiculous level in the US.

Corporations don't have a meaningful nationality now, so saying it started somewhere is a little meaningless, and depends on what "starting" you're talking about. It could be argued it "started" in France, since theirs was the first bank to topple.

I'll go with that. But where were the seeds planted? Which countries lax regulation made this possible? Was it both?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if some of these toxic financial products were dreamt up in London, which is eminently possible, it was down the the yanks and everyone else to see them for the mischief they were.

Hopefully it's only,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw54-rCIrPs

And as the other ancient proverb goes,

"Why the fack did you only send one blinking horse?!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the impression that the initial sub-prime selling took place on a much larger scale in the US than anywhere else, but once those dodgy mortgages were neatly packaged up into SIVs then banks all over the world were sticking their fingers into the pie. So I'd mainly blame the US for selling triple A rated crap, and the ratings agencies for giving such crap a triple A rating, but some of the blame must also go to the banks from other countries that bought it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read a book on the collapse of Lehman Brothers (A Collosal Failure of Common Sense) and the author says that the Clinton administration was pushing the banks to lend to the sub prime candidates - so the sub-prime probably did start there in the terms of how ballistic it went.

(the book is badly written and quite tabloid but some good stuff in there)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest P-Diddly
I get the impression that the initial sub-prime selling took place on a much larger scale in the US than anywhere else, but once those dodgy mortgages were neatly packaged up into SIVs then banks all over the world were sticking their fingers into the pie. So I'd mainly blame the US for selling triple A rated crap, and the ratings agencies for giving such crap a triple A rating, but some of the blame must also go to the banks from other countries that bought it.

Okay, agreed. But where did the idea and the first roll of the dice originate to create the situation in the first place?

I think likely both sides of the Atlantic, but dunno really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I just read a book on the collapse of Lehman Brothers."

I first heard this drum being beaten some time ago when Carl Rove no less was addressing the North American Association of Realtors (or whatever they're called). Don't worry, I wasn't attending, I read an article about it.

Rove told the US EAs this cluster fack wasn't their fault it was Clinton's.

Nice one Carl.

There may well have been some political message from the Clinton administration to the lenders to be less exclusive in their practice but I doubt it was,

"You guys get out their and lend billions of toxic crap that will never be repaid to the feckless and useless in this here great nation."

I reckon the neo-cons, neo-libs or whatever they're called are just trying to bounce the blame down the line.

You can't trust 'em .... whatever they're called.

Edited by indirectapproach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest P-Diddly
Don´t forget the fraudulent ratings analysis from Moodys et al.

I work in credit risk and while I´ll admit this eventuality was obvious from quite a long way off (to us little and skeptical guys) the serious issues were stoked by governments here and in the US in the way they diluted the regulations. If you want to blame a country I´d agree this was spawned in the US and the British government, blindly accepting that all things American are wonderful followed with their tail wagging furiously, without a care in the world.

Don't tell anyone, but I consider you one of the best posters on financial and other stuff. So I'll settle with that. Love the hint of poodle analogy! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don´t forget the fraudulent ratings analysis from Moodys et al.

I work in credit risk and while I´ll admit this eventuality was obvious from quite a long way off (to us little and skeptical guys) the serious issues were stoked by governments here and in the US in the way they diluted the regulations. If you want to blame a country I´d agree this was spawned in the US and the British government, blindly accepting that all things American are wonderful followed with their tail wagging furiously, without a care in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

surely Subprime started in the UK in the 80s with Council stock being sold, the buyers must have been subprime or they wouldnt have needed the Govt discount. The americans probably watched this and thought theyd try the same thing without giving the discount and forcing the banks to take the additional risk, the banks thought fair enough and promptly offloaded to whoever which has led it going full circle and being given back to Govt. The result has only ended differently due to being in different parts of the economic cycle. When they did it in the UK houses were relatively cheap as chips and the credit boom cycle was in its infancy, when they did it in the US they were already expensive and well into a the latter stages of the credit cycle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on guys if Gordon Brown said it started in America, then of course it started here.

If Gordon Brown sells gold you buy gold.

If Gordon Brown says we must invest more in the public sector then we should cut the public sector.

If Grodon Brown says Iraq had WMD then it doesn't.

If Gordon Brown says we must do more to help teenage mothers then we must do less.

If Gordon Brown says....................................................feel free to add more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest P-Diddly

Thanks Huw,

Lewis S. Ranieri, the father of securitization, never imagined his brainchild would cause so much trouble. The Brooklyn-born innovator, who started his career in the Salomon Brothers mail room and worked his way up to the investment bank's mortgage trading desk, crafted in 1977 the first private pool of home loans sold on Wall Street. His creation is now at the center of the credit crisis—an outcome he predicted in early 2005 when he warned that the mortgage market's excesses would "blow up in our faces."

It appears it did start in the US then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   285 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.