worldrunover
Member
GenericPseudonym said:
How is railing against homeowners justified when the banks just got bailed out?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Jon Stewart is destroying Jim Cramer
- Thread starter koam
- Start date
- Status
How is railing against homeowners justified when the banks just got bailed out?
Odious Tea
Member
Damnit. Missed it. Links?
SouthernDragon
Member
oh god, I missed it, but I don't want to wait till tomorrow.
GenericPseudonym
Banned
worldrunover said:
Banks don't deserve to get bailed out, but they need to as a matter of necessity. If a major one fails, you get runs on the other ones leading to more failures, actual savings will disappear and the credit market will freeze up even more.
Homeowners on the other hand aren't such a monolithic entity, so its easier to justify not wanting to subsidize the losers' mortgages. Also as a Canadian, I find American homebuyers and their financing almost disgusting, we atleast demand 10% down.
Shiggie said:
Yes, I'm serious.
The real problem is that we haven't been regulating walstreet like we used to, the SEC isn't doing it's job. This isn't CNBC's job. If it is, then why the fuck isn't everyone on Fox News in jail yet?
Stocks are going to go back to averaging 9% average annualized interest like they have for the past several centuries. And right now, most of them are extremely cheap. Right now is a great time to buy.
To those that used CNBC as their financial planner rather than hiring a professional or better yet studying up themselves, I'm sorry. But you don't have the right to push the blame on a pundit network. If you're younger than 50 years old, hold. Stocks have never taken more 10 years to rebound. You'll get your money back as long as you don't sell and lock in your losses.
Hopefully he doesn't.worldrunover said:
CNBC's a dangerous joke. That clip TDS showed off them interviewing that Stanford guy was just beyond egregious and disgusting. CNBC obviously isn't calling the shots in the market, but they're standing there cheerleading the fraud, greed and irresponsibility the whole way.
KHarvey16 said:
And as long as that's profitable to the bank, why wouldn't they want to do this? The burden is on the person asking for the loan or credit and agreeing to the terms. No one made them go to the bank and ask for money.
I suppose ultimately we've seen the net result, but this post and others like it seem to be indicating something rather odd.
MorisUkunRasik
Member
JayDubya said:
Because it was a house of cards bound to fall and very irresponsible.
DeathbyVolcano
Banned
...seriously, JayDubya?
Steve Youngblood
Member
I think you've missed the point of Jon's war cry here. The point isn't that some people took some gambles and those gambles didn't pan out THIS time. The point is that CNBC is SUPPOSED to be a news network first and foremost -- one dedicated to covering the markets. These guys were supposed to be the experts. In hindsight, the collapse -- one that is affecting EVERYONE and not just risk-taking investors -- makes perfect sense even to a layman like me. Obviously, I sure as hell didn't see it coming, but nobody comes to me for financial advice. I don't study the markets. Nobody goes to Jon Stewart either.GenericPseudonym said:
These guys -- at least in the financial culture -- are SUPERSTARS. They SHOULD have seen this coming. So, you can only conclude one of two things:
1. They're naive twits who are unqualified to anchor and report on the news that they do.
2. They were complicit in the environment existing in the investment culture that only cared about short term wins while saying fuck all to any caution as to whether or not it was sustainable.
Either way, CNBC, along with all other financial 'experts' who didn't express concern about the bubble, deserve to be roasted for their incompetency. Jim Cramer probably doesn't personally deserve everything that has been dished at him, but unfortunately for him, he was the only one with the balls to step up and try to defend himself.
GenericPseudonym
Banned
Kipe said:
The Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation (our government-run version of Fannie Mae requires 10% down, so all the banks in the country have that as the minimum downpayment.
Secondly, as much as the bankers are wrong for giving losers a loan, we should never look at the distressed borrowers as anything more than morons with no sense of responsibility, they are not victims, they are the cause.
BrandNew said:
It's clear that this behavior is not a prudent longterm business model - we've seen that play out.
I'm just seeing an implication I don't favor running through several preceding posts.
You bear the responsibility for the deals you make; the bank isn't going to give you money you're not asking for. It was dumb of them to, as a matter of policy, give out high-risk loans at the rate they were doing - no shit. I just don't want to see people passing that buck entirely.
Phoenix
Member
JayDubya said:
So you're suggesting that we should support the prey tactics that the banks used in approaching people in apartments via advertisements convincing them that it would be a smarter investment to move into a house and offering them attractive loans which they knew would only work for short periods of time? Is this what you're indicating is the move of a responsible profit seeking enterprise? While it is true that a business has a profit motive, it is NOT a short term profit motive if you intend to be a going concern. The problem is that profit-taking has become such a quarterly earnings bitch fest that incompetent CEOs and the executive counterparts looked to short term returns at the sacrifice of long term stability of the company. I mean after all, if the CEO met his bonus targets he was doing the right thing as well, right? Just ignore the fact that the NPV of those future profits was a big-ass negative number - I'll be gone before then and then its someone elses problem to fix.
GenericPseudonym
Banned
Steve Youngblood said:
There is a difference between investing and trading. Trading is only about stringing together lots of various short-term, low-margin but profitable transactions. In that sense CNBC is helpful.
Secondly, everyone got caught by this. Warren Buffett lost billions and he's an icon of "responsible investment". I can't fault Cramer for being unable to predict something that no one predicted. I can't praise Stewart for having 20/20 hindsight.
Shiggie said:
Anything which you are predicting something that is based on a number of factors, "Experts" generally means just you study something. Being right is not much more likely than randomly liking.
Kind of like sports betting, when the line is set where its meant to be as close to an even bet as possible with tons of different factors playing for it, an "expert" generally only knows what to look for and many times that doesnt work.
Are they asses? Yes, but thats the market they are playing. Im not going to blame talking heads for this.
Especially, when there was many Economists on record saying that what was happening with the housing market was a bubble and what the financial institutions were doing was very wrong. Just no one payed attention. Why would you? Everyone was making money.
SouthernDragon
Member
I was hoping there was a web solution. I can't use the TV.
Phoenix said:
"Prey tactics" in general? They are what they are, caveat emptor, a sucker is born every minute, etc, etc.
In practice here? I wouldn't want my money in a financial institution that would loan it out irresponsibly to people who won't pay it back.
It's a nuanced point, it's barely worth making, and I doubt anyone will even get what I'm saying. The blame game doesn't need to be an either / or thing, though; again, people have to choose to take out these stupid loans and it's not in their own best interest to do so but they do it anyway.
Phoenix
Member
JayDubya said:
Consumers want things, that is the nature of consumer behavior. They generally want things in excess of their means - otherwise we wouldn't have credit cards in our culture or stupidly high consumer debt. There are many people out there who want new 90k cars and if you give them the opportunity to take on the debt to get in one - they will regardless of the consequences. That is fairly universally known. You can't fault consumers for wanting - that is their way, it is what drives economies the world over. The day consumers stop wanting, economies collapse.
When you facilitate those wants knowing that they aren't supportable, you create the problem. The problem isn't the want - it is the facilitation of it. My kids want candy all day and would happily eat candy all day if I let them. It is up to me to facilitate that want or regulate it as I have a deeper understanding of the consequences of allowing them to have what they want.
In a normal economic setting that consumer want would not be facilitated because of the high risk. But high risk -> high return. So the banks went and worked/ramrodded their way past the constraints that prevented them from taking that higher risk. In doing so they made a lot of money - but it wasn't a sustainable model. If it was sustainable, they'd still be doing it.
phalestine
aka iby.h
this is not a link to the video, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29666141/ but its the closest thing we will come too until a few hours.
Steve Youngblood
Member
Warren Buffet doesn't have a news network dedicated to informing people of the financial markets. He's not a journalist. I'm not faulting any investor who was blinded by the allure of money.GenericPseudonym said:
CNBC is supposed to be a NEWS network first and foremost. Again, it's not about praising Stewart for his hindsight in recognizing the factors that caused the collapse after the fact; it's about praising Stewart for having the ability to eloquently explain how CNBC failed in its role. Also, it's worth stating that Stewart's motivation wasn't initially just to throw egg in their faces in as much as it was to call out hypocrisy from people like Santelli and Co. for having the audacity to come out and criticize Obama's policies in the arrogant fashion they did after they completely burned through their credibility capital during the tremendous fuckup that was this past year in the financial sector.
Shiggie said:
And Fox News calls themselves fair and balanced. Of course they will call themselves financial experts. They're trying to sell you bullshit. Many of them sound like Billy Mays salesmen.
Anyone that's read up on financial history knew that CNBC was bullshit years ago. We had pundits during the .com bubble, and in the 1980s. They get all hyped up and popular during bull markets, and when the bubble bursts, the stock market is "evil" or "gambling" to most people, things get better and we have new pundits and new bubble. History repeats itself.
The truth is abundant. Everyone can make a few million. It just isn't as sexy to diversify index funds and apply modern portfolio theory and make ~12% average annualized interest. It takes 30 years. But with the short attention span of most people, they go for the bubbles.
And another truth is well known in economic academia: Most fund managers, including Jim Cramer, match the market long term. The implications of that is that you can buy unmanaged index funds and beat managed mutual funds. It also means that Jim Cramer is WRONG half of the time.
The implications of this truth is that the concept of CNBC long term helping you beat the market is a fantasy. It is impossible. Mad money isn't news. It's punditry. The money is made in the illusion of beating the market.
Think about it for a little bit. Just how the hell can you beat the market taking advice that's broadcasted to millions of people? That is the market. They're all doing the same "tricks" and investing in the same stuff you are. It's an end sum game.
Just buy diversified index funds and rebalance anually. Stocks will continue their predictable long term performance:
http://people.few.eur.nl/smant/images/longrunreturns.bmp
GenericPseudonym
Banned
KHarvey16 said:
No, I've seen all the preceding garbage thrown by both Cramer and Stewart. Again, I think Cramer is an idiot but CNBC is not Cramer and Kudlow. There are a number of quality people there who provide meaningful interviews and financial data. CNBC has a use, ultimately you don't always follow the pundits' words as gospel, because they're just people. The stock market is inherently chaotic, especially in the day and age of black boxes. Secondly, Cramer has a disclaimer both before and after his show, claiming that his advice is no guarantee of return on investment.
NewLib said:
The point he was making throughout the interview was the same one leading up to the Iraq War, that the media(in this case CNBC) didn't actually question anything they were told by CEOs, they just took whatever they said at face value. in the pundit's case, fine, that's what pundits do. But in the case of the actual reporters, it's just horrible journalistic ethics.
GenericPseudonym
Banned
Shiggie said:
A news organization doesn't play with someone's life. If you aren't willing to do your own research, you should just get a mutual fund or invest in bonds/ GICs.
Shiggie said:
I mean that was the market that they were playing to. Meaning thats what the viewership wanted to see.
The Stock Exchange is Legalized Gambling. You are betting on a companies fortunes. Its as simple as that. It might be safer than normal gambling but its still gambling. Im not going to yell at the Sports Analysts because the Government, the Bookies, and the Casinos fucked it up where everyone lost in the long run. I think CNBC is an easy target but taking them down a notch solves no problems except giving Jon Stewart ratings and making people feel better.
Also there isnt any such thing as a "news" organization.
Arrowgigantic
Member
The people who accepted the sub-prime loans were merely a fuze. The banks are the ones who attached that fuze to a daisy-cutter bomb instead of a firecracker by over-leveraging the mortgage as an asset. If we're going to assign blame, it goes to both parties, but the share claimed by the banks dwarfs that of the people who didn't understand their mortgages. Like 90%-10%, at least. All this wealth disappeared because the banks invented it out of whole cloth, not because a few million people had to give the keys to their houses back to the real owners.
MorisUkunRasik
Member
JayDubya said:
buyer beware doesn't really stand when the sellers take ethics courses and real estate agents/brokers are in between both the seller and buyers to ensure you're not getting in over your head.
And some other thoughts: Don't look at Dow Jones long term as general market indicator. They're just 30 companies, they aren't capital weighted, and they have a lot of financials. With these new regulations, banks are going to have to hold more cash, which means they are going to be less profitable long term.
S&P 500, NASAQ, Russell and others are better indicators know.
And another reason why CNBC should have been seen as bullshit long ago: They frequently compared long prices of DJI over a span of 50 years. They ignore that it isn't capital weighted, that it changes it's arbitrary divisor and companies, and most of all they ignore the impact of reinvesting dividends.
S&P 500, NASAQ, Russell and others are better indicators know.
And another reason why CNBC should have been seen as bullshit long ago: They frequently compared long prices of DJI over a span of 50 years. They ignore that it isn't capital weighted, that it changes it's arbitrary divisor and companies, and most of all they ignore the impact of reinvesting dividends.
Steve Youngblood
Member
Again, this whole outrage is not JUST about the markets. It's not about CNBC calling one stock (say Bear Sterns) wrong. It's about the fact that they missed a collapse in our entire financial system.GenericPseudonym said:
Phoenix
Member
GenericPseudonym said:
If I understand his argument correctly, its not that they were playing with people's lives - but more that they failed in their (assumed) responsibility to be critical of the markets, investigate and inform people as opposed to being Who Want's to be a Market Millionaire as many of the CNBC spots often are.
While I understand his point, he does make a fundamental error in assuming that the media role is to investigate and inform - they're a business just like everybody else and they saw an opportunity to increase their viewership (and profitability) and took it.
- Status