Top 0.1% to pass bottom 90% of Americans in combined wealth

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Top 0.1% to pass bottom 90% of Americans in combined wea

Postby sardia » Fri Dec 26, 2014 4:22 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
sardia wrote:Just to be clear, I'm referring to the investment rating companies, sp Moody's and Fitch.


Just to be clear, so am I.

Is an unsolicited rating a bad thing? Or is it the vindictive nature of it in context? There's not enough information here. The argument Moody's gave was the other two agencies were rate shopping, and it was the honest one. Did they call in a third party to see who was more correct?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Top 0.1% to pass bottom 90% of Americans in combined wea

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Dec 26, 2014 4:40 pm UTC

You really think that Moody's was doing that out of integrity? In spite of them giving AAA ratings to all the CDO's?

On an unrelated matter, I can get you a great deal on a bridge...

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Top 0.1% to pass bottom 90% of Americans in combined wea

Postby sardia » Tue Jan 06, 2015 1:44 am UTC

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/upsho ... iness&_r=0
Businesses are forever insisting that a little less competition won’t lead to higher prices. What’s one more merger? What’s one more barrier to entry?

A new study of the mortgage market nicely highlights just how little it can take to undermine competition to the point that it starts costing customers.Other lenders are still free to compete, but they don’t. The study quotes research finding that 90 percent of loans refinanced under HARP were handled by the original lender, compared with 60 percent of refinances outside HARP.And here is the key discovery: Not surprisingly, Mr. Amromin and Ms. Kearns find incumbents have taken advantage of this absence of competition to impose above-market interest rates on borrowers — of about 15 to 20 basis points on average. he toll on each borrower was relatively modest. For every $100,000 borrowed at an interest rate of 4 percent, the borrower would pay an extra $139 in interest each year. But when all those extra payments were totaled, the windfall for the lenders was enormous. The transfer of wealth from borrowers to lenders as a consequence of the government’s rules is at least $1 billion a year, according to the paper.


Yet another example of big business robbing consumers, micropayment style. Turns out robbing people is perfectly legal as long as you do it to millions at a time. This one doesn't even have an excuse about arbitrage, it's just the lender realizing he can raise interest rates because a small rules change made competition slightly harder. Less competition means higher prices. Think you can sue to right this wrong? Not according to the supreme court, you have to have each borrower sue individually instead of as a class. Good luck getting people to sue over $139 in lost interest.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Top 0.1% to pass bottom 90% of Americans in combined wea

Postby leady » Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:26 am UTC

Or alternatively the idea of comparing the mortgage market to 2009 vs the market now is completely daft on several obvious points that hardly require evil profit taking market failure.

a comparison of pre and post market correction isn't a sensible one
comparing absolute basis points on a market at 2-3 % vs an effective 0% isn't a sensible one

The reality is that when there appears to be free money that no one is taking - its because its not normally there. Its rare that an obvious gap is due to a barrier, those generally aren't that clear because well obvious barriers are removed.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Top 0.1% to pass bottom 90% of Americans in combined wea

Postby sardia » Wed Jan 07, 2015 1:11 am UTC

leady wrote:Or alternatively the idea of comparing the mortgage market to 2009 vs the market now is completely daft on several obvious points that hardly require evil profit taking market failure.

a comparison of pre and post market correction isn't a sensible one
comparing absolute basis points on a market at 2-3 % vs an effective 0% isn't a sensible one

The reality is that when there appears to be free money that no one is taking - its because its not normally there. Its rare that an obvious gap is due to a barrier, those generally aren't that clear because well obvious barriers are removed.

Show me a rebuttal. I don't suppose you have found a respectable publication that explains in detail the failings of this study? The paper is available on pdf https://www.chicagofed.org/publications ... /wp2014-25
Show me where in the methodology has flaws.


In other news, the GOP has voted; it's now ok to fudge on congressional budgets and proposals. Dynamic scoring is the fancy label, debt from tax cuts is what lies between the lines.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/busin ... bills.html

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Top 0.1% to pass bottom 90% of Americans in combined wea

Postby leady » Wed Jan 07, 2015 3:46 pm UTC

man thats a dull paper

Anyhow the way you reflect it is pretty disengenuous. Basically it shows that for TARP covered loans there is a discontinuity in the interest charge, then asserts this is a cost of lack of competition based on a comparison to pure private mortages in the same loan to value area

putting aside the recursive insanity of using "we need government to solve this goverment caused market failure", the very glaring absence in the study is any normalisation to actual loan value, which itself will tightly match ability to pay risk. The TARP data is pretty much looking a subset of lower absolute value loans to much more expensive consumers even with the govermental backing, which I'd suggest explains the suspicious uniformity in the interest premium far better.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Top 0.1% to pass bottom 90% of Americans in combined wea

Postby sardia » Sun Jan 11, 2015 4:12 pm UTC

The government is heavily involved in all market operations. Being disgusted that government can affect the market doesn't mean you should ignore the effects of government on how the market operates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/11/busin ... f=business
Want a tax exemption on your precious art, but don't actually want to donate to charity? Why not set up a charity in your backyard, and then only open it to the public twice a year? By appointment only, and please no casual wear. How would you even find a museum like this? Well you have to know somebody, rich somebodies.

Fuck charity exemptions. I gave plenty of money to charities last year and I was perfectly ok not claiming that deduction. If you need to be paid before you donate to charity, you aren't donating for the charity's benefit.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests