Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Full Version: Stock Market Crash of 2008
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
So what happened, in your opinion?  Was it Wall Street Bankers?  Was it Government?  Was it sub-prime lenders?  Was it the general population?

 

What caused the mess that happened with the eventual failure of some banks and the loss of many people's retirement savings?  Where did things go wrong?

 

I've been studying the crisis and have my own conclusions, but I am interested to see and hear other people's take on the mess.

 

My initial conclusions - some people got greedy, some people got rich and some people saw it coming.  What is your perspective?

Government said we will guarantee subprime loans. As always when you remove risk the market becomes aggressive and over loaded the system with these gaurnted subprime loans. When the loans defaulted once again big government shifted the burden on the entire population cause you know fairness.


Government creates conditions for big banks to abuse and we get the screw job. So screw the banks screw the government.
And the whole stockbmarket is rigged. They run it up enough to cushion the losses tank the system average people lose out they buy up more of the fictious market. It's all done with supercomputers manipulating numbers. The whole damn house of cards will crumble in my lifetime j have no doubt about it.
I'm up 13% in the last 6 months, only buying good dividend yielding companies...
well the other part of the story is inflated home values...It's so mind boggling how a home built on one side of town will cost $325k, to build, but the same house, same builder, same blueprints, same materials, same labor, built on the other side of town is only $185k to build...

 

The other thing that just boggles my mind is how developers buy say a parcel of land that is 100 acres and subdivide it down to where each home site lot is like .08 acres ( just for example, some are more but .08 is not uncommon) and then charge $200k for the .08 acre lot and then you have to build a $300K house on it due to deed restrictions and the HOA only allows certain builders and certain home plans and designs...

 

That .08 acre is worth nowhere near $200k...In reality, it's only worth a few grand...Plus the homeowner has to pay to have utilities connected from the street to the home...The fact that a subdivision is being built IMO doesn't increase the value of the land that much...

 

Most developers build a certain amount of homes in the new subdivisions and then wait until someone buys another lot before they build another home, assuming that they don't want one already sitting there on the market for sale...It only takes ONE idiot to buy one of those $500k (lot plus home) homes and someone will say OHHHHH Frankie and Janie had a house built out in Po Dunk Holler, we better do that too and the race is on...

 

Then after a few years when the builder stops building with exception to newly bought lots, the county tax appraiser comes around and says....Ohhhh this subdivision didn't bring the expected amount of sales, so now your $500K home is only worth $XXX,XXX k and now the owners are upside down in their mortgage and stuck with zero equity and owe more on the home than they can ever get out of it... 
Debt was the reason, and the rules to "prevent" redlining.

 

People were spending money they didn't have, borrowing against equity they didn't have.

 

And unfortunately for some, buying homes they never could afford.

 

It was all falsely inflated.

 

I believe not much has changed.  At the turn of the 90s, economic conditions began to slow their pace.  New markets emerged in services, particularly the IT sector, but the American GDP had begun to turn down permanently.

 

Bulletproof companies who offered pensions could no longer afford to do so, as the number of paid non-workers started to get out of control.  Something that never was a problem when more were putting in than taking out.  (Reflective of the welfare system, which carries on unsustainably as well.)  So, the smart companies went to matching retirement plans rather than fully funded ones.

 

Those companies who survived, did so because they made smart fiscal decisions.  Now, nearly everyone's retirement is tied, at least partly, to the stock market where their retirement accounts are invested.

 

Coupled with the anti-corporate goons who attacked CEOs and executives, forcing companies to cap salaries... their interests are also in keeping stocks and dividends high, since a large portion of their compensation packages were forced to be placed in non-salary devices.

 

Given all this meddling, it's really no surprise there was Enron and that there's irrational behavior in the stock market.

 

The most basic tenet of Economic theory is that all models are based on rational behavior in the market.

 

Not only is now the market unrealistically loaded with non-typical investors, there's ridiculous pressure to keep values and dividends high (perhaps even in artificial ways.)  There's so much bot trading now that there's no such thing anymore as "rational" behavior in the stock market.  Downturns are amplified as auto-trades panic and rock the market.  Upturns cause a simlar stir.  And there's still pressure on stocks to perform, even when the GDP is not.

 

Be cautious.  Deal only in funds that could weather volatility.  Seek those who are not too far leveraged, earn strong, and still have growth potential in their market.

 

I don't see things as much different at all than the overstated 90s.  Only, there are those who have weathered the storm once that are likely to do it again, and there are always those who are up and coming in new markets.

Quote:well the other part of the story is inflated home values...It's so mind boggling how a home built on one side of town will cost $325k, to build, but the same house, same builder, same blueprints, same materials, same labor, built on the other side of town is only $185k to build...

 

The other thing that just boggles my mind is how developers buy say a parcel of land that is 100 acres and subdivide it down to where each home site lot is like .08 acres ( just for example, some are more but .08 is not uncommon) and then charge $200k for the .08 acre lot and then you have to build a $300K house on it due to deed restrictions and the HOA only allows certain builders and certain home plans and designs...

 

That .08 acre is worth nowhere near $200k...In reality, it's only worth a few grand...Plus the homeowner has to pay to have utilities connected from the street to the home...The fact that a subdivision is being built IMO doesn't increase the value of the land that much...

 

Most developers build a certain amount of homes in the new subdivisions and then wait until someone buys another lot before they build another home, assuming that they don't want one already sitting there on the market for sale...It only takes ONE idiot to buy one of those $500k (lot plus home) homes and someone will say OHHHHH Frankie and Janie had a house built out in Po Dunk Holler, we better do that too and the race is on...

 

Then after a few years when the builder stops building with exception to newly bought lots, the county tax appraiser comes around and says....Ohhhh this subdivision didn't bring the expected amount of sales, so now your $500K home is only worth $XXX,XXX k and now the owners are upside down in their mortgage and stuck with zero equity and owe more on the home than they can ever get out of it... 
 

Agree.

 

Sites got ridiculously small.

 

As long as the dollar signs grew, so did buyer's eyes.

 

There were so many people selling homes for more than they were worth, then, not rolling the equity... but just buying more and more stuff.

 

Fewer down meant more "in the pocket," so they put a new car in that new garage, or added a new pool.  And on and on.
I think the biggest problem is people treating their personal economy like the overall economy.  Buying houses they could barely afford then losing their jobs and property values decreasing.  I always tell first time home buyers to avoid buying their dream home as their first home and instead to buy something they could easily pay off ahead of schedule.  The trick is having equity instead of debt, which is the opposite of the overall system we have now.

Quote:Agree.

 

Sites got ridiculously small.

 

As long as the dollar signs grew, so did buyer's eyes.

 

There were so many people selling homes for more than they were worth, then, not rolling the equity... but just buying more and more stuff.

 

Fewer down meant more "in the pocket," so they put a new car in that new garage, or added a new pool.  And on and on.
My question to this even though I agree with you, is whos fault is this? I would think that the county tax appraiser should have stepped in when ridiculous prices were advertised and said, "HEY!!! These properties are not worth that much, DO NOT PAY THAT MUCH!" But the tax appraiser is looking for money for the county and so he turns a blind eye to the gouging of the buyers...
That's a good point, I could stretch in my current suburb to a house but would be a big mortgage, so bought an apartment in same suburb and on pace to pay the whole thing off in about 7 years total. Will use that equity to buy the house I wanted with a much smaller mortgage in a couple of years.
Credit default swaps (uncovered insurance instruments) collateralized debt obligations mortgage backed securities and a whole long list of products the average person never heard of.


The adjustable rate mortgage was invented for qualified buyers in the inordinate rate environment of the 80s that had no choice but to have rates come down over time. It was never intended for no doc no incone loans in a rate environment that had no choice but to go up over time.


The government decided that housing shouldnt be subject to market forces. Math will out.


In order to increase leverage and fund the more COMPASSIONATE view of housing wall st invented all the cool economic wmd listed above.
Quote:Then after a few years when the builder stops building with exception to newly bought lots, the county tax appraiser comes around and says....Ohhhh this subdivision didn't bring the expected amount of sales, so now your $500K home is only worth $XXX,XXX k and now the owners are upside down in their mortgage and stuck with zero equity and owe more on the home than they can ever get out of it... 
 

And this is very much the same problem we've created with college tuition. Government subsidy inflates price above value and most people are getting 30 years for financial slavery out of the bargain. 
There's plenty of blame to go around to the government, wall street, and general population.

Quote:There's plenty of blame to go around to the government, wall street, and general population.


Its unpopular and unreported but the first last and best line of defense is an informed consumer.


If every borrower asked for an amortization scheduel as part of a long term budget then they would have started walking away from over inflated prices that carried 30 year commitments before the bubble got as big as it did.


Also, this had nothing to do with capitalism. Wht you say? Because at the heart of the mbs credit swap merry ho round were two massive government sponsored entities. The conductor in this fiasco was the community reinvestment act forcing banks to making loans that defied common sense and creating the need for extra actuarial risk displacement that defied sanity.


The greatest political mistake in the history of presidential politics occured in 2008. Mccains team didnt ask the country one simple question, what did the community organizer organize?


Its unconscionable that barrack obama was allowed to run AGAINST a financial crisis caused by the very housing policy most of his legal career was spent promoting and propping up.
Quote:Its unpopular and unreported but the first last and best line of defense is an informed consumer.


If every borrower asked for an amortization scheduel as part of a long term budget then they would have started walking away from over inflated prices that carried 30 year commitments before the bubble got as big as it did.


Also, this had nothing to do with capitalism. Wht you say? Because at the heart of the mbs credit swap merry ho round were two massive government sponsored entities. The conductor in this fiasco was the community reinvestment act forcing banks to making loans that defied common sense and creating the need for extra actuarial risk displacement that defied sanity.


The greatest political mistake in the history of presidential politics occured in 2008. Mccains team didnt ask the country one simple question, what did the community organizer organize?


Its unconscionable that barrack obama was allowed to run AGAINST a financial crisis caused by the very housing policy most of his legal career was spent promoting and propping up.
 

You can't sell complicated explanations to the general population.

 

[Image: moronsfj0.jpg]
Quote:And this is very much the same problem we've created with college tuition. Government subsidy inflates price above value and most people are getting 30 years for financial slavery out of the bargain. 
100% agree...I'm 48 and still have almost 10 years left on my student loans
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...02783.html


Mr. Spitzer's scandal broke less than a month after that article.
Quote:<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html</a>


Mr. Spitzer's scandal broke less than a month after that article.


So cute. I remember when i was that age.
Quote:100% agree...I'm 48 and still have almost 10 years left on my student loans
 

I'm taking the other route. I'm going to enroll for another Masters degree. I'm too old to ever reach the lifetime borrowing limits and I get the full time student forbearance. If each degree takes 3 years to earn then, with a 2 year break in between I should be able to earn 3 more degrees before I drop dead. Then it gets written off and my kids don't have to deal with the lingering debt.
Quote:Credit default swaps (uncovered insurance instruments) collateralized debt obligations mortgage backed securities and a whole long list of products the average person never heard of.


The adjustable rate mortgage was invented for qualified buyers in the inordinate rate environment of the 80s that had no choice but to have rates come down over time. It was never intended for no doc no incone loans in a rate environment that had no choice but to go up over time.


The government decided that housing shouldnt be subject to market forces. Math will out.


In order to increase leverage and fund the more COMPASSIONATE view of housing wall st invented all the cool economic wmd listed above.
 

This is definitely part of the story.  This is part of the Wall Street greed.  However, this also created several other layers that added to the problem (predatory lending, bad loans, etc.).

 

 

Quote:There's plenty of blame to go around to the government, wall street, and general population.
 

Absolutely.  I was just curious to see where the blame is placed from ordinary people.

 

Here is my TL/DR view of what happened.  There are actually more details, but this is the biggest reason for the whole mess (in my opinion).  People and companies were taking on more debt than they could afford.  Much of that debt wasn't backed by any tangible collateral.  No one party can take the sole blame for the mess... both had their hands in it.

 

Part of the story begins in the 1990's with the run up and boom of the "dot com bubble".  People were making money on "virtual product" that had no tangible value.  It was also the time when the so-called payday lenders, check cashers and auto title loan business started popping up.  Government stepped in and tried to regulate the industry as well as convince banks to make loans to people with "less than ideal" credit, and was the birth of the sub-prime loan.

 

Also during that time frame, Bill Clinton signed into law the Financial Services Modernization Act.  In essence, this bill allowed investment banks, traditional banks and insurance companies to merge (this was originally prohibited by the Glass-Steagall Act which was repealed).

 

2000 - 2008

A lot happened during this time frame.  The first thing to note is the Commodity Futures Modernization Act signed into law by Bill Clinton.  In a nutshell, what this law does is enable the creation of certain "securities" by the investment banks, notably Credit Default Swaps (CDS) and Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO's).  Essentially what these are.  A CDO  could be a bundle of mortgage loans put together to form a sort-of "bond" on the stock market backed by the property of these loans.  Property values at the time were increasing, so these were determined to be "safe" investments by the rating agencies (Standard & Poor, Moody's, etc.).  Credit Default Swaps on the other hand are basically "insurance" against a loan, or group of loans.  As a simple example, say a loan is made to purchase a $100,000 home.  A CDS would basically be "insurance" on the loan, and would cost a premium of say 10% per year for 5 years.  So if you bought a CDS on the loan it would cost $10,000 per year for 5 years.  If during that time frame the loan defaults, you get $100,000.  If it doesn't default, then you lose $50,000 after 5 years.  This comes into play later on.

 

After the attacks on 9/11/2001 Alan Greenspan started lowering interest rates to the point where it was down to 1% in 2004.  What this meant was saving cash in the bank yielded very little interest, and it also meant that loans were dirt cheap.  That meant anything from financing a car, home or anything else was very easy.  It also meant that people started getting loans worth far more than their ability to repay those loans.  Home prices started to sky rocket and some people decided to get into real estate, thus the birth of the "home flipper".  Buy a home with an adjustable interest rate, often a "teaser" rate of 1 or 2% or maybe no interest for the first 3-5 years on a mortgage, then turn around and sell the house after 2 years after it (artificially) appreciated and make a profit.  Rinse and repeat.

 

What also happened was that Wall Street was eager to buy mortgages in order to package them up into CDO's because it was a hot commodity.  That encouraged many mortgage brokers that had sprung up that would "loan" money to anyone with a pulse.  The ink wouldn't even by dry on the contract when they sold the mortgage to a Wall Street brokerage that would turn around, package a group of mortgages into a CDO then sell them to investment banks worldwide.

 

With that kind of action, it drove real estate prices higher at a much faster rate that wasn't sustainable.   However, people were making money "flipping" homes and investment banks were making money selling CDO's.  At that point a few people saw what was happening and asked for a CDS against some of these CDO's that were selling on Wall Street world-wide.  Many investment banks were oh-so-willing to create and sell these CDS's thinking that it was a "fool's bet".  One investment bank in particular, Lehman Brothers (along with many others) were dealing in both and would eventually collapse.

 

Once real estate sales slowed down and people stuck in adjustable rate mortgages had to pay the higher rate couldn't afford the payments, the defaults on loans started rolling in.
Pages: 1 2