lose 40% of my saving, and I am out

Its a mixture of blame.

When the Tech bubble burst; Greenspan took rates to 1%, yes?
He was just preventing 'this' from happening. Greenspan is a smart guy, why do you think he stepped down in '06? He saw this shit coming and didn't want to be a part of it.

The government shouldn't be involved in shit like this. Banks care about ONE color....GREEN. The fact the government wanted banks right loans in under low income neighborhoods, is just poor decision making.

I really don't have time to battle this out right this second but I will come back to this. The wife is home, she ACTUALLY wants me to spend time with her! WTF
 
Quote from liulala:

don't hurt more people, wall street get big fat check

lured away my hard collected saving for retirment

gov must do sth

ban shorting
ban sell stock unless it up
ban hedge

do sth useful Bush, pls!!!
More...

what about

"regulate discipine and education people must have to even enter the market in the first place and make them pass tests before they do. Make them take responsibility for losses like they take credit do for profits" !
 
Quote from iceman1:

what about

"regulate discipine and education people must have to even enter the market in the first place and make them pass tests before they do. Make them take responsibility for losses like they take credit do for profits" !
More...

Go Chuck Liddell!:D
 
Quote from liulala:

my 23 years saving lose 40% in such a short time, i am out now.

byebye wallstreet, never trust a dime with this animal
More...

Ahem, i think you have it backwards, aren't you supposed to be buying now? The only thing that selling now will do is guarantee a 40% loss. :D
 
Quote from ByLoSellHi:

This is unfortunate.

However, one person losing money? Marking the bottom?

I hardly think so.
More...

Lol I agree I lost money Wednesday and that certainly wasn't a bottom!

OP, i am sorry you took the loss, people just don't realize that when they play with the markets they are playing with fire, a long bull run lulls so many in to a false sense of security. The old adage of never playing with money you can't afford to lose has never been more true.
 
Quote from liulala:

my 23 years saving lose 40% in such a short time, i am out now.

byebye wallstreet, never trust a dime with this animal
More...

Must be another hershey trader :D
 
Hey trader, i could be wrong, but i think Greenspan actually took the discount rate as low as 0.87 % in Nov. of 2003. If you check out the SPX during that period it is very clear that we were coming out of the recession by November. Since we were already at a very low rate, as the Fed had been easing for months, you have to think that the right move in Nov of 2003 was either to hold steady or start tightening. So why on earth did Greenspan take the discount rate still lower that late in the cycle?? That's a question i have asked myself many times. Unfortunately the only answer i've come up with that makes any sense to me is that he wanted to give the economy a super goose to help get Bush "re-elected" in the upcoming 2004 election, and making this move one year out from election day would give time for the rate drop to really kick in. Greenspan is a Republican and an acknowledged Zionist and he must have believed that Bush would be more likely to give Isreal a blank check than Kerry. It pains me to say this, but it does appear that Greenspan let political partisanship interfere with sound monetary policy. His unwise support of still lower rates in late 2003 exacerbated the already existing problem of too much money chasing too few qualified borrowers, and we all know were that eventually led. We had previously done away with Glas-Steagal, and that turned out to be a bad thing. That again can largely be blamed on Republican initiatives, as they were champions of the idea of letting banks compete in all sorts of areas they had been barred from after the depression. I don't know this to be true, but i'd be shocked if Phil Gramm did not play a role in doing in Glas-Steagal.

An interesting side note to this business of letting banks sell insurance is that at some point FEMA regs were written to require that if any part of a home lot is in a flood plain then, regardless of the elevation of any improvements, flood insurance must be purchased. Flood insurance only covers improvements of course, not land. The procedure for exempting improvements not in the flood plain, called a LOMA, is expensive and complex and it is my understanding that the way the FEMA directives read a property owner has something like a 45 day window from loan closing to apply for a LOMA, or the owner is for ever barred from getting an exemption! Talk about corruption and insurance company lobbyists! What this means of course is that there are billions of dollars of flood insurance in force in the US covering improvements that are not at risk! What a sweet spot for an insurer to be in! A mountain top property with a deed that includes a valley stream requires flood insurance! Of course the cheap way around this problem is to break the deed up into parts so the section the improvements are on does not include that portion of the land that falls in a flood zone. But many unsophisticated buyers don't realize this and get hoodwinked into paying for flood insurance on property not at risk!
Its a mixture of blame.

When the Tech bubble burst; Greenspan took rates to 1%, yes?
He was just preventing 'this' from happening. Greenspan is a smart guy, why do you think he stepped down in '06? He saw this shit coming and didn't want to be a part of it.

The government shouldn't be involved in shit like this. Banks care about ONE color....GREEN. The fact the government wanted banks right loans in under low income neighborhoods, is just poor decision making.

I really don't have time to battle this out right this second but I will come back to this. The wife is home, she ACTUALLY wants me to spend time with her! WTF
More...
 
Quote from poyayan:

If 1995 started this, how come it only blow up after the internet bubble right now?

CRA encourage loan offered to low income people but not fake/liar loans. Also, it doesn't encourage fireman flipper who can hold 1 mil+ properties.

In addition to that, when did the leverage ratio got raised to 40:1?

How come CDS can be exempted from being regulated as an insurance policy?

If the 1995 CRA is SOOOO bad, how come Bush didn't stop it for the WHOLE 6 years when he has both house and senate?

I am not saying this is all Bush fault, but it is only "Kettle calling the pot black" if anyone trying to blame this on Clinton.
More...

that might be the dumbest argument I've ever heard. You must be a democrat to somehow think like that.

It blew up after the internet bubble b/c housing prices reached their peak and began their fall down, u twat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top