Author Topic: Bank Fails. Is this a single case or the first trickle of a tide.  (Read 4960 times)

yesitsloaded

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 690
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/11/news/companies/indymac_fdic/index.htm?postversion=2008071120

Regulators seize troubled IndyMac
Feds take over mortgage lender IndyMac. FDIC will seek buyer. May become most expensive bank collapse ever.


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- In what could turn out to be the most expensive bank failure ever, troubled mortgage lender IndyMac Bank was taken over by federal regulators on Friday.

The operations of the Pasadena, Calif.-based bank - once one of the nation's largest home lenders - were shut down at 3 p.m. by the Office of Thrift Supervision and transferred to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

According to the FDIC, 10,000 IndyMac customers could lose as much as $500 million in uninsured deposits. The agency says the failure will cost the Deposit Insurance Fund between $4 billion and $8 billion, based on preliminary estimates.

"It's possible this will be the most costly bank failure in history, but it's too soon to say," FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said in a conference call late Friday night. The failure could also affect premiums paid by all banks for deposit insurance, she added.

IndyMac, with assets of $32.01 billion and deposits of $19.06 billion, is the fifth bank to fail this year. Between 2005 and 2007, only three banks failed. And in the past 15 years, the FDIC has taken over 127 banks with combined assets of $22 billion, according to FDIC records.

"There will be increased failures, but it will be within range of what we can handle," Bair said. "People should not worry."

IndyMac marks the largest bank collapse since 1984, when Continental Illinois, which had $40 billion in assets, failed, according to FDIC records. The two most expensive failures were in 1988: American Savings and Loan Association in California ($5.4 billion) and involved First Republic Bank in Texas ($4 billion).

What now for IndyMac customers?

Bair said that the FDIC will try to sell IndyMac as a complete entity within 90 days.

When a bank shuts down, traditional bank accounts are insured to at least $100,000. Some accounts such as annuities and mutual funds are not insured at all. Individual Retirement Account funds are insured to $250,000.

Customers with uninsured deposits will get at least half that money back, and they could get more back, depending on what the FDIC gets when it sells the bank, said Bair.

IndyMac customers will have their funds transferred to a new entity - IndyMac Federal FSB - controlled by the FDIC. They will have uninterrupted customer service and access to their funds by ATM, debit cards and checks.

However, customers will have no access to online and phone banking services this weekend, according to the FDIC. Service will resume on Monday. Loan customers were advised to continue making loan payments as usual.

For additional information, the FDIC has established a toll-free number for customers of IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB. The toll-free number is 1-866-806-5919 and will operate today from 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. (PDT), and then daily from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. thereafter, except Sunday, July 13, when the hours will be 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Customers also may visit the FDIC's Web site at http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/IndyMac.html for further information.

How it got to this point

IndyMac specialized in loans it had long argued were of minimal risk: low documentation loans to residential mortgage borrowers.

On Tuesday, IndyMac - which had 33 branches - announced that it was firing 53% of its workforce and exiting its retail and wholesale lending units. Last year, the lender was ranked 11th in residential mortgage origination, according to trade publication Inside Mortgage Finance.

More importantly, IndyMac also disclosed that regulators no longer considered it "well capitalized." As a result, since Tuesday, the bank wasn't able to accept brokered deposits, or short-term investments in large dollar amounts from brokers seeking the highest return on certificates of deposit.

Over the past two years, IndyMac dropped over 95% in stock price, or about $3.5 billion in market capitalization. Shares traded down nearly 10% on Friday to close at 28 cents.

IndyMac lost $184.2 million in the first quarter and announced on Monday that it was expecting a wider loss for the second quarter. It lost $614 million last year stemming from its focus on the Alt-A mortgage sector, where it originates loans to borrowers who fall between prime (or conforming) and sub-prime on the credit spectrum. The lender's chief executive, Michael Perry, had long argued that it was being unfairly punished given its relatively paltry exposure to sub-prime mortgages.

Rising Alt-A and prime mortgage delinquencies likely were enough indication for investors that the housing crisis had moved beyond the weakest borrowers. Even worse, with the securitization markets in collapse, IndyMac had no way to get new loans off its books. As it turned out, IndyMac was a leader in loans requiring little income and asset documentation, a category that has had disastrous levels of delinquencies at other troubled lenders. What loans the bank had made recently were to borrowers with well-documented assets and income, but those are sharply less profitable with respect to fees and interest income.

IndyMac, in its filing on Monday, said it would focus on its reverse mortgage business, retail branch network and mortgage servicing operations. But the growth restrictions placed on IndyMac by regulators and the banks and brokerages it did business with, as well as the sharply higher borrowing costs, placed the profitability of even its non-mortgage-related banking efforts in doubt.

Even efforts to prop up the bank hurt it. Last month, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote a series of letters to regulators in Washington and California asking them to take steps to prevent the bank's "likely collapse." In response, about $100 million in customer deposits has been withdrawn from the bank, according to one of its filings.


I think the stuff I bolded kinda tells the story. Just surprised at the reach of this sub-prime crap.
I can haz nukular banstiks ? Say no to furries, yes to people.

Unisaw

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,417
Re: Bank Fails. Is this a single case or the first trickle of a tide.
« Reply #1 on: July 11, 2008, 07:04:48 PM »
The FDIC has been staffing up in preparation for a flood of bank failures.  Any financial institution that has substantial net exposure to 2005-2007 vintage mortgages, even prime conforming mortgages, is having a tough time.  To date, most of the stuff that the large financial institutions have written down has been exotic structured credit.  The losses on plain vanilla mortgages, and business and auto loans that will go bad due to the slowing economy, have yet to be recognized.
Well, if you have the sudden urge to lick your balls you'll know you got the veterinary version... K Frame

yesitsloaded

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 690
Re: Bank Fails. Is this a single case or the first trickle of a tide.
« Reply #2 on: July 11, 2008, 07:14:06 PM »
Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it the advantage of a sub-prime mortgage was that you could buy something that you couldn't afford at a rate you could, and then sell it for a profit before the rate went up or improve your situation before the rate went up (such as getting a degree and a better job). The housing market tanked and all of the people that either couldn't really afford it or were out to make a quick buck ended up in foreclosure or selling the house for dirt cheap thus making the market worse. The downside on the corporate side was that mortgage companies bundled the owed debt and sold said debt to usually stable investment companies and banks. When the foreclosures started there was no way the companies could collect on the debt and their value tanked along with the market. So this is a completely different issue than the current economy according to what you say?
I can haz nukular banstiks ? Say no to furries, yes to people.

RocketMan

  • Mad Rocket Scientist
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,689
  • Semper Fidelis
Re: Bank Fails. Is this a single case or the first trickle of a tide.
« Reply #3 on: July 11, 2008, 09:25:09 PM »
This is just the beginning, folks.  It's going to be a rough ride, methinks.
If there really was intelligent life on other planets, we'd be sending them foreign aid.

Conservatives see George Orwell's "1984" as a cautionary tale.  Progressives view it as a "how to" manual.

My wife often says to me, "You are evil and must be destroyed." She may be right.

Liberals believe one should never let reason, logic and facts get in the way of a good emotional argument.

Marvin Dao

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 128
Re: Bank Fails. Is this a single case or the first trickle of a tide.
« Reply #4 on: July 11, 2008, 09:27:19 PM »
Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it the advantage of a sub-prime mortgage was that you could buy something that you couldn't afford at a rate you could, and then sell it for a profit before the rate went up or improve your situation before the rate went up (such as getting a degree and a better job). The housing market tanked and all of the people that either couldn't really afford it or were out to make a quick buck ended up in foreclosure or selling the house for dirt cheap thus making the market worse. The downside on the corporate side was that mortgage companies bundled the owed debt and sold said debt to usually stable investment companies and banks. When the foreclosures started there was no way the companies could collect on the debt and their value tanked along with the market. So this is a completely different issue than the current economy according to what you say?

Quick primer:

Sub-prime loans are loans to people with less than stellar credit. Usually they have much higher interest rates than normal loans due to their propensity to default. The issue in the housing market here is that the lending rules for sub-prime mortgages was significantly relaxed to the point where a lot of people who had no business getting sub-prime mortgages got them and just couldn't pay off their loans.

Exotic loans are loans with weird terms. The big effect ones here were low/no documentation, zero down, zero interest, and ARMs (adjustable rate mortgages). All of them have legitimate uses, but were often misused during lead up to the mortgage crisis. Low/no documentation loans are useful to those with a lot of undeclared income/assets, but were used to qualify people were unable to afford the loan. Zero down loans were useful for selling primary residences to people with insufficient savings for a down payment, but were used to obtain multiple properties for speculation purposes without a large initial cash outlay. Zero interest loans are useful if the user makes most of their money in spurts and needs payment flexibility. These were also often used by speculators looking to flip a house for a quick buck.

ARMs were created to reduce the risk of an interest rate hike on the back in exchange for a lower initial interest rate. They're the biggie here so they get their own paragraph. There are lots of types, but the most popular was the hybrid ARM. In this type of loan, there's a fixed period of years where the interest rate is fixed to slightly lower than the standard, then a year where it adjusts up to the interest rate of that time, then it's fixed for the rest of the loan term. The 7/1 (7 years fixed, 1 year floating adjust) is popular as many home owners stay for an average of 5-7 years and would rather have a lower rate for those years than for the part of the loan they're not going to stay for. Think starter homes. The assumption is that the house's value would at least be equal to the initial loan amount and the sale of the house would pay off the loan. What did happen was that most of these loans were made at historically low interest rates and the reset pushed the payments well out of the home buyer's ability to pay. When they tried to sell, the market had tanked and they couldn't even cover the remaining cost of the loan even if they did sell the house. So, off to foreclosure with them.

These loans are responsible for what the media is calling the "sub-prime" foreclosure crisis. As you noted, most of these loans were high risk loans repackaged and disguised as low risk investments to other investors.

What Unisaw seems to be talking about in the latter part of his post has to deal with defaults due to a tanking economy. Most of these loans were low risk unlike the loans mentioned above. But, now that the economy is doing poorly, a higher percentage of people and businesses who would otherwise be able to keep up will start defaulting and create another mess.

LAK

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 915
Re: Bank Fails. Is this a single case or the first trickle of a tide.
« Reply #5 on: July 12, 2008, 03:53:48 AM »
Don't panic, it's just a business cycle.

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: Bank Fails. Is this a single case or the first trickle of a tide.
« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2008, 05:22:24 AM »
Don't panic, it's just a business cycle.

Actually, you're correct. IndyMac was in trouble quite a long time ago, this is hardly surprising to anyone who has been following banks. Anyone who had more than $100,000 in the bank wasn't paying attention to their own money. The bank got into the business of making loans to people without documentation, and they got burned. It's called the free market.

The only bad part is that the officers aren't going to be thrown into federal prison or at least lose their assets while the taxpayers bail it out.

Although, if the Paulians had their way, there would be no FDIC to insure those accounts up to $100,000, it would all be private banking, and the only recourse for the account holders would be...absolutely nothing. They'd lose all their money.

mfree

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,637
Re: Bank Fails. Is this a single case or the first trickle of a tide.
« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2008, 09:16:50 AM »
As it turns out, apparently Chuck Schumer made public a letter questioning the solidity of that institution and caused a 1.3 Billion dollar bank run.

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Bank Fails. Is this a single case or the first trickle of a tide.
« Reply #8 on: July 12, 2008, 09:40:45 AM »
Some banks are going to fail.  Some investment houses are going to fail.  So be it.

Some banks and investment houses made risky loans, bad investments, and took on far, far more leverage than was prudent.  Many didn't.  Those that did are now feeling the pain, and the worst of them are going to follow in Bear Sterns' footsteps.  Those that didn't are going to be in a stronger position when all of this is over.

There's nothing wrong or bad or unusual about this.  This is the way things should be.  If you take risks, you stand to enjoy or suffer the results.  Individual citizens' money will be protected, investors will suffer or enjoy the consequences of their decisions

Bigjake

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,024
Re: Bank Fails. Is this a single case or the first trickle of a tide.
« Reply #9 on: July 12, 2008, 09:42:22 AM »
As it turns out, apparently Chuck Schumer made public a letter questioning the solidity of that institution and caused a 1.3 Billion dollar bank run.

If thats true, I'm seeing read curtains of blood. 

I'll bet that schmuck NEVER even cracked a basic econ book.

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Re: Bank Fails. Is this a single case or the first trickle of a tide.
« Reply #10 on: July 12, 2008, 09:44:59 AM »
As it turns out, apparently Chuck Schumer made public a letter questioning the solidity of that institution and caused a 1.3 Billion dollar bank run.

And the NYT just scuttled Fannie and Freddie by citing an unnamed source who supposedly had access to an unnamed government report that they might be taken over.

What, you want politicians and media to actually be responsible for their words and the actions they cause? Silly person, that only applies to the masses.

French G.

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,204
  • ohhh sparkles!
Re: Bank Fails. Is this a single case or the first trickle of a tide.
« Reply #11 on: July 12, 2008, 05:10:31 PM »
Quote
"There will be increased failures, but it will be within range of what we can handle," Bair said. "People should not worry."

I wouldn't normally worry, but when someone from the gov't is that reassuring you should run. I'm sure some local gov't schmuck told everyone that the dam above Johnstown was fine too.
AKA Navy Joe   

I'm so contrarian that I didn't respond to the thread.

seeker_two

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,922
  • In short, most intelligence is false.
Re: Bank Fails. Is this a single case or the first trickle of a tide.
« Reply #12 on: July 12, 2008, 05:21:28 PM »
Quote
"There will be increased failures, but it will be within range of what we can handle," Bair said. "People should not worry."

I wouldn't normally worry, but when someone from the gov't is that reassuring you should run. I'm sure some local gov't schmuck told everyone that the dam above Johnstown was fine too.

Didn't the head of FEMA say something similar just before Katrina hit?.......  undecided
Impressed yet befogged, they grasped at his vivid leading phrases, seeing only their surface meaning, and missing the deeper current of his thought.

thebaldguy

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
Re: Bank Fails. Is this a single case or the first trickle of a tide.
« Reply #13 on: July 12, 2008, 07:24:05 PM »
I think this is bank number five to fail this year. I think there will be more to come.

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,846
Re: Bank Fails. Is this a single case or the first trickle of a tide.
« Reply #14 on: July 12, 2008, 07:37:10 PM »
Some banks are going to fail.  Some investment houses are going to fail.  So be it.

Some banks and investment houses made risky loans, bad investments, and took on far, far more leverage than was prudent.  Many didn't.  Those that did are now feeling the pain, and the worst of them are going to follow in Bear Sterns' footsteps.  Those that didn't are going to be in a stronger position when all of this is over.

There's nothing wrong or bad or unusual about this.  This is the way things should be.  If you take risks, you stand to enjoy or suffer the results.  Individual citizens' money will be protected, investors will suffer or enjoy the consequences of their decisions

What about the folks who had more than the federally insured minimum in the bank?

I'm sorry, but I don't see it as "eh, no biggie" when an entity makes outrageously bad financial decisions with other people's money.  If this money belonged to the decision makers at IndyMac only, that would be not so bad.   But they were making these investments with money that wasn't theirs...and now it's all gone.

Ripping off investors and individual depositors by making ridiculously bad financial decisions is inexcusable, imho.  Roll the dice with your own personal money; do it with money you solicited in your capacity as a financial institution, and it's near criminal.
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

drewtam

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,985
Re: Bank Fails. Is this a single case or the first trickle of a tide.
« Reply #15 on: July 13, 2008, 10:20:06 AM »
What about the folks who had more than the federally insured minimum in the bank?

You mean more that $100k in the account? I thought you were the "screw the rich" type. At any rate, there is no good reason to have more that 100k in one bank. There are other banks to split into, and there is insurance to buy. Or the money could be put into a secure treasury, etc.





I'm sorry, but I don't see it as "eh, no biggie" when an entity makes outrageously bad financial decisions with other people's money.  If this money belonged to the decision makers at IndyMac only, that would be not so bad.   But they were making these investments with money that wasn't theirs...and now it's all gone.

Ripping off investors and individual depositors by making ridiculously bad financial decisions is inexcusable, imho.  Roll the dice with your own personal money; do it with money you solicited in your capacity as a financial institution, and it's near criminal.

Its only criminal if the institution lied about how it was using the capital. Otherwise, who gets to be the arbiter of what is good financial decisions and bad financial decisions? People have to be free to make that choice on their own. I might think oil is going to fall in price, you might think it will double. I might think housing prices are going to fall in price, you might think it will double. I might think sub-prime mortgages are a bad idea, you might think they are great for the poor. I get to chose how to invest my money, you get to chose how to invest yours.

As long as everyone is open and honest in their dealings, this is the most free and fair way to apportion capital for investment.
I’m not saying I invented the turtleneck. But I was the first person to realize its potential as a tactical garment. The tactical turtleneck! The… tactleneck!

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,846
Re: Bank Fails. Is this a single case or the first trickle of a tide.
« Reply #16 on: July 13, 2008, 12:02:16 PM »
Quote
You mean more that $100k in the account? I thought you were the "screw the rich" type. At any rate, there is no good reason to have more that 100k in one bank. There are other banks to split into, and there is insurance to buy. Or the money could be put into a secure treasury, etc

And there are safes you can buy for your guns at home, locks you can put on the front door, and measures you can take to figure out if someone who is selling you investment products is actually a scamming thief.  But failure to take those measures does not make it any less theft when someone walks into your house and steals, and it's also not any less fraud when that scammer gets your paycheck.

Quote
Its only criminal if the institution lied about how it was using the capital. Otherwise, who gets to be the arbiter of what is good financial decisions and bad financial decisions? People have to be free to make that choice on their own. I might think oil is going to fall in price, you might think it will double. I might think housing prices are going to fall in price, you might think it will double. I might think sub-prime mortgages are a bad idea, you might think they are great for the poor. I get to chose how to invest my money, you get to chose how to invest yours.

The point is that some financial decisions are so bad that no reasonably sophisticated investor could fall for them-and when you hand your money over to a financial institution to invest, they are certainly supposed to act with at least a minimum of skill appropriate to the profession.

And then there're the people who just deposited money...that's not an investment in the Bank's scams; it's supposed to be a service where they hold your money. 

The Bank has a fiduciary relationship to the people whose money it holds-it should be held accountable for this sort of clearly foreseeable disaster.
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

The Annoyed Man

  • New Member
  • Posts: 1
Re: Bank Fails. Is this a single case or the first trickle of a tide.
« Reply #17 on: July 13, 2008, 02:57:09 PM »
266 from 2006 till today.

As of July:
    * Lehman Brothers SBF
    * IndyMac Bancorp
    * Mortgages Ltd.
    * Wilmington Finance - Wholesale
    * Accredited Home Lenders, Home Funds Direct


Jim

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Bank Fails. Is this a single case or the first trickle of a tide.
« Reply #18 on: July 13, 2008, 03:30:03 PM »
Some banks are going to fail.  Some investment houses are going to fail.  So be it.

Some banks and investment houses made risky loans, bad investments, and took on far, far more leverage than was prudent.  Many didn't.  Those that did are now feeling the pain, and the worst of them are going to follow in Bear Sterns' footsteps.  Those that didn't are going to be in a stronger position when all of this is over.

There's nothing wrong or bad or unusual about this.  This is the way things should be.  If you take risks, you stand to enjoy or suffer the results.  Individual citizens' money will be protected, investors will suffer or enjoy the consequences of their decisions

What about the folks who had more than the federally insured minimum in the bank?

I'm sorry, but I don't see it as "eh, no biggie" when an entity makes outrageously bad financial decisions with other people's money.  If this money belonged to the decision makers at IndyMac only, that would be not so bad.   But they were making these investments with money that wasn't theirs...and now it's all gone.

Ripping off investors and individual depositors by making ridiculously bad financial decisions is inexcusable, imho.  Roll the dice with your own personal money; do it with money you solicited in your capacity as a financial institution, and it's near criminal.
Anyone researching IndyMac would have easily seen that IndyMac was one of the worst possible choices for holding large sums of cash.  Depositing more than $100k in IndyMac would fall under the category of "fools and their money are easily separated".

If you don't want other people to roll the dice with your own money, then don't give your money to the dice rollers.  Everyone knows (or should know) that banks make investments with the money they receive in deposits.  That's what they do, that's why they exist, and there's nothing improper about it.  Obviously some do this better than others.  That IndyMac made especially bad investments doesn't imply that they were ripping people off, or that they're a bunch of criminals.  It just means that they sucked at their job.  It means they need to go out of business, and the sooner the better. 

It's a Very Good Thing that IndyMac failed.  There are lots of other banks and investment houses that need to fail, too.  There are lots of bad investments on the books at banks everywhere.  The sooner these bad loans are written off, defaulted on, or otherwise destroyed, the better off we'll all be. 

The problems with the economy right now are directly attributable to two things: the bad investments clogging up all of the financial institutions, and way too much debt in circulation.  The solution to both problems is to let banks that made bad loans eat it in the shorts.  It may not be pleasant, but it's exactly the medicine we need to take right now to cure our current problems.

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,846
Re: Bank Fails. Is this a single case or the first trickle of a tide.
« Reply #19 on: July 13, 2008, 03:38:29 PM »
Headless,

The problem is that these folks were in the business of selling their products as investments.  Supposedly they're financial experts who will take care with your money....that's what they tell the people whose money they solicit.

When that's not actually true, and they are not making even remotely justifiable financial decisions with your money, how is it any different from a straight-up scammer telling you that he wants your money for an investment portfolio, when in fact he's just buying stock in his brother-in-law's company and using it to pay himself a salary?  Or when he's actually just paying the proceeds out to his other "clients"?
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

ilbob

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,546
    • Bob's blog
Re: Bank Fails. Is this a single case or the first trickle of a tide.
« Reply #20 on: July 13, 2008, 04:18:27 PM »
First off, the reason these banks made these stupid loans was becasue the government pushed them to do so. Home building is a big business and it helped make the economy look a lot better. Part of the cycle of stupidity is the pain that happens when the stupid stuff comes home to roost.

No one had to have more than $100,000 of their assets in demand accounts at this bank, and in fact no one should ever have money in banks that exceeds the FDIC insurance limit.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,846
Re: Bank Fails. Is this a single case or the first trickle of a tide.
« Reply #21 on: July 13, 2008, 04:25:54 PM »
First off, the reason these banks made these stupid loans was becasue the government pushed them to do so. Home building is a big business and it helped make the economy look a lot better. Part of the cycle of stupidity is the pain that happens when the stupid stuff comes home to roost.

No one had to have more than $100,000 of their assets in demand accounts at this bank, and in fact no one should ever have money in banks that exceeds the FDIC insurance limit.

I see what you're saying, but it's also true that no one ever has to give money to a scam artist-it's still a scam, imho.
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

thebaldguy

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
Re: Bank Fails. Is this a single case or the first trickle of a tide.
« Reply #22 on: July 13, 2008, 04:26:08 PM »
Banks lobbied for the 2006 bankruptcy changes that made it more difficult to declare bankruptcy and walk away from all debts. This gave them a false sense of security to give more loans since now it was more difficult to walk away. They evidently forgot that more and more people are now so broke they qualify for the walk away bankruptcy.

You can't get blood from a turnip.

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46,376
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: Bank Fails. Is this a single case or the first trickle of a tide.
« Reply #23 on: July 13, 2008, 04:30:40 PM »
Quote
The Bank has a fiduciary relationship to the people whose money it holds-it should be held accountable for this sort of clearly foreseeable disaster.

The problem with this particular incident is that when someone "in power" makes a widely disseminated public statement that a bank is going under, even institutions like Bank of America or Washington Mutual couldn't handle all their depositors making a run on them demanding all their money in a matter of days. Banks don't just keep all that money sitting around in a vault.

That being said, as ilbob mentioned, don't keep more money in a bank than it has FDIC insurance to cover.
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

drewtam

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,985
Re: Bank Fails. Is this a single case or the first trickle of a tide.
« Reply #24 on: July 13, 2008, 04:33:03 PM »
Because a scam artist is straight out lying to you about what he's buying with your money. This is different than an institution that makes high risk investments, with full knowledge of all the participants. If I get a bunch of investors together and tell plainly that I intend to sell mortgages to bad credit and no credit buyers, but I will charge high rates to recoup expected losses. Its perfectly reasonable to do so. Thats part of what researching a company you invest in is all about. Its the "investor beware", to research what kind of strategy they are buying in.

But I still don't get it. Aren't you the token socialist on this board with the "screw the rich" attitude. Why do you care about protecting the rich all of a sudden?
I’m not saying I invented the turtleneck. But I was the first person to realize its potential as a tactical garment. The tactical turtleneck! The… tactleneck!