Then once again you're full of shit Ricky. How many independents/libertarian/third party candidates did you vote for in 2010?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because the big player banks finance to the mortgage originators. This originators go get all the loans with this money (and they do not care if the bad credit or not, is about volume) Then they bundle this mortgages and sell back to the big banks. Ok, originators make their big money y transfer risk back to the big bank. No risk for them, is done deal, money made. Now the big banks have this bundles they pay for to the origintors. Now this big banks sell this bundles (with AAA rating for some) to institutional investors. See? The bank is taking this bad loans off the books, and make money. The big money is not from the interest of the loan for them.
I understand how it worked when they bundled them and sold them, but once they sold them and they no longer had the risk, they also werent the ones who were able take someones home, any proceeds made from the sale of the home had to go to the people who owned the securities, at that point. So making the claim that the entire thing was a plot by banksto steal peoples homes when they lent someone 500k for a home, so that they could foreclose on it when it was worth half as much is assinine. Indeed they were trying to make money off the transaction but it wasnt a ploy to steal someones house, as that doesnt even make any sense,all of the homes that the banks were on the hook for the mortgage where they actually ended up foreclosing on them, ended up being a loss to the banks.
Who cares about the bank when you can pocket the bonus and walk away? The bank is stuck with the problem, not the banker who got the pay. The guys left can go to Unca Sam for help when their counterparties go bust and can't pay the CDS, because the bank is too big to fail. That's a pretty good formula if you run a big bank.
This is the problem with the whole system, RCG trader made a good post the other day where they should be forced to have their employment terms based on stock price, with no golden parachutes unless the company is better off when they leave then when the CEO began. (I may not have properly articulated RCG's point, he can clear it up.) The system is not going to change until this whole game of "heads i win, tails you lose" changes, where CEO's can just take on exorbitant risk and if the company makes money off of the excessive gamble the CEO wins, and if the company goes bust they win with the golden parachute. Maybe we should change the order in which people can claim money in a bankruptcy so that a CEO is behind the common share holders, so he is last in line for a claim to his money.
That ain't happening. If I was running a big bank, I'd tell you there was no way the company could attract the best talent with that approach. And I definitely wouldn't be volunteering to give up my perks. I'd say something like, "Stop complaining and suck it up."
Again, that ain't happening. Not with International competition for talent. By ALL companies, do you mean more regulation?