Markets

15 Things You Need to Know About the Panic of 2008

A crash course in why it happened, how it's strangling the nation's finances and how it might work itself out.

By Fred W. Frailey, Editor, Kiplinger's Personal Finance

September 19, 2008
Text Size T T

Advertisement

1. It all began with cheap money. To prop up ailing economies early in this decade, central banks in the U.S. and Japan kept interest rates unusually low, which encouraged speculation. In the U.S., the Federal Reserve lowered the federal funds rate -- the rate that banks charge each other for overnight loans and a barometer for the cost of borrowing money on a short-term basis -- from 6.5% in 2000 to 1% by mid 2003. Cheap money quickly ignited a sharp rise in home values in virtually every corner of the country.

2. Financial magicians made subprime loans golden. Banks and mortgage companies fed speculation in home prices by offering cheap credit to all comers, including those who would not normally qualify. What to do with these subprime loans? Package them with thousands of high-grade loans to sell to investors. To make the subprime loans attractive, underwriters bought insurance policies guaranteeing that the loans would be repaid. With insurance on the loans, credit-rating agencies stamped such paper as triple-A-rated debt.

3. The global economy became infected with poisoned debt. The loans came to investors as collateralized-debt obligations, or CDOs. A CDO is a huge package of loans sold in assorted segments -- known as tranches -- with varying interest rates and levels of risk. Buried inside the least-risky tranches were those subprime mortgages masquerading as triple-A-rated debt because of their insurance policies. Companies that wrote the insurance policies on these mortgages assumed that default levels would be minuscule.

4. So much for those assumptions. Home prices tipped downward, setting off a chain reaction. All bubbles eventually burst. The Fed began raising short-term interest rates in 2003, eventually boosting the federal funds rate to 5.25% by the summer of 2006. As a result, adjustable-rate mortgages (particularly the subprime variety) began to reset at far higher interest rates, and in July 2006 the rise in home prices abruptly stopped. In fact, home values began a descent that continues to this day, in many communities averaging a loss of 15% to 30%. As borrowers realized their homes were worth less than the amount they owed on their mortgages, the default rate shot up.

5. Rating agencies lowered their assessment of those supposedly triple-A subprime loans to junk levels. The investment and commercial banks, pension funds, and other institutions that had bought the supposedly safe, triple-A-rated CDO tranches woke up to find their investments tainted by those poisonous subprime loans, which began to default at alarming rates. Holders of these CDOs found it all but impossible to know what they were really worth. And when they tried to sell them, there were few buyers -- the beginning of a seize-up of U.S. debt markets.

6. A wave of write-downs on the value of those loan packages commenced. Financial accounting standards require banks and investment companies to "mark to market" the value of their assets each day. If it's impossible to value a security because there is no market for it, too bad -- make a smart guess. Starting in 2007, one financial institution after another announced a series of quarterly write-downs of hard-to-value and unsalable CDOs that turned into a financial tidal wave.

7. Financial institutions were revealed as vastly undercapitalized. As the quality of their debt portfolios deteriorated, investment banks wrote off billions of dollars of bad assets each quarter, causing their reserves to shrivel. Commercial banks are leveraged with perhaps ten times as much in assets as capital. But some investment banks leveraged themselves more than 30 to 1, to the point that should anything go seriously wrong with those assets, their businesses could fail. The same held true of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which own or guarantee more than $5 trillion in mortgage debt.

Topics:

Discuss

Reader Comments (106)

Posted by: Elizabeth at 09/20/2008 04:48:05 AM

Exceptionally good summary of the causes of troubles in the financial markets. The best I read so far. Thank you for the explanation.

Posted by: SS at 09/20/2008 10:41:51 AM

This is by far the best summary of our current economic situation I have read to date.

Posted by: EH Lau at 09/21/2008 03:17:28 AM

One crucial phrase left out in No. 1: 1. It all began with cheap money. To prop up THE US'S AND JAPAN'S ailing economies early in this decade, central banks in the U.S. and Japan kept interest rates unusually low, which encouraged speculation.

Posted by: Jason at 09/21/2008 10:46:57 AM

...There is no hope for the financial system...it will collapse regardless of what the gov't is doing. And, the cost of this is NOT to the gov't, but to the taxpayers. There is nothing now that can be done to avoid the collapse of the US dollar and the US economy. This is only the tip of the iceberg, not the other way around. Completely misguided and standard (article), no admission of what is really happening.

Posted by: Greg at 09/21/2008 11:31:22 AM

More of the same fantasy voodoo economic news produced by our totally corrupt media. "Stay the course" "The worst is over" "The housing market has stabilized" Well ,Virgina, the sky is falling and it will take the dollar ( and anything related to the welfare of the working class) with it!

Posted by: George Shaw at 09/21/2008 12:38:58 PM

This is a typical "Oh, it isn't as bad as it looks." article. With all of the ARM mortgages still out there that will reset in the next year, I find it hard to believe that anyone would guess that "the housing slump may be coming to and end." As the Irish say, "Pigs may fly."

Posted by: Virginia Davis at 09/21/2008 12:53:58 PM

I agree, Elizabeth and SS. I've been reading widely and this is the best so far! I'm sending it on to others.

Posted by: Aide4kids at 09/21/2008 05:03:42 PM

The only question I still have after reading this excellent piece is how much the de-regulation of the banking industry has contributed to this problem. Weren't there rules prohibiting sub-prime lending in the past that don't exist anymore?

Posted by: Grant Rostig at 09/22/2008 01:08:13 AM

Stop the Banker's Bailout - this weekend! Spread the Word! Here's why: * Poor and Elderly - are hurt most by these bailouts! Due to the new bailout inflation. * Weaken/Ignore those that caused this, Strengthen/Listen to those that warned us! * Mortage Lenders - no more bailouts for Mortgage pushers! * Prior Banking Executives - No guarantees for their personal accounts except existing FDIC. * No Bailouts for 'Money Markets', or at least not more the $50,000 total per family. * Assign some blame now! We never did, and never will for the 9-11 attacks. * Prison for Fraud! At least 3,000 Bankers and Government Officials first! * Fire Bernanke! - no more Inflation-ists. * Fire Paulson! - no more revolving door with Wall Street & Goldman Sachs. * USA already more socialist than China! - re: Jim Rogers, before these new bailouts. * USA a Banana Republic - if we keep bailing out! * Free Market Cleansing Needed - not more Government patch-up cash for cheating bankers and their fool clients. * Stand up to Chinese and International Banking debt holders! * Business is business; you snooze, you loose. * 10X Bigger than they claim! - they always underestimate! Fannie/Freddie is $2 trillion+, not 200 billion likely loss. * Coffee Shops - Who will we bail out next! ...State Warning: Get ready for bailouts at the state level! Insurance company annuities may be next.

Posted by: C. Fuechsel at 09/22/2008 08:12:55 AM

Excellent article. Chalk this debacle up to the republican theology that any & all government regulation is bad. Engineers know that you do not build a diesel engine without a governor - it would run away and self destruct.

Posted by: Joe. E. at 09/22/2008 08:40:54 AM

You left out how it all really began. Perhaps we can call this i)The CRA was passed in 1977 and forced banks to give loans to those who could not afford them. The CRA was strengthened in the 1990s with subprime loans to make even more people qualify for loans that should not have qualified. If banks did not loan money to those that did not qualify they faced problems/delays in mergers, new branches, etc. Thus overregulation not deregulation set the the wheels in motion for this whole mess. Don't get me wrong, there were a lot of other issues and I agree with this article especially with the low interest rates point #1, but this over regulation in the form of the CRA is what started it all. We are being led to believe by some in the media that it was deregulation that was the main problem here so that the solution is more regulation. But that is not the case.

Posted by: Dave in Raleigh at 09/22/2008 09:08:10 AM

This just illustrates what happens when the government messes with capitalism to foster social programs. Deregulating that started in the Clinton administration to enable "the American dream" for people who could in no way afford it, by lowering credit standards, has hurt everyone, including those who were supposed to benefit from the scheme.

Posted by: Buckminster at 09/22/2008 09:20:06 AM

We are owned. Where's my chip? Then we can literally have our debt attached to us. Only took 'em one century.

Posted by: ellen at 09/22/2008 10:54:29 AM

DAVE...this crisis is not caused social programs. Greed, faith in big money men (deregulation)and people poorly paid trying to reach too high and get part of the American dream (and egged on by loan sharks). Seems a closer reason.

Posted by: tiredofspam at 09/22/2008 11:53:10 AM

Joe E hit the nail right on the head....the Clinton administration forced the banking/mortgage industry to give loans to people who couldn't afford them and couldn't pay them back (under threat of discrimination lawsuits). Why is it that this is almost never mentioned (along with Greenspan's economic voodoo "theories") as starting this boulder on its downhill run? Cheap money coupled with BS inflated home values (that benefited the tax man and not the long-term homeowner) along with stupid homeowners using their "investments" (the houses that they live in) as frigging ATMs to buy cars, vacations, etc. are more than footnotes in this mess. Homes are stabilizing at their true values. Stupid people view their homes as investments - you LIVE in it, you don't use it as a retirement fund or a piggy bank.

Posted by: Bob at 09/22/2008 11:57:38 AM

This is a great article and I am sharing it with friends & associates. I'm certain that blame will be assigned to many. The sad thing now is that our Congress looks like they will try to make political gain within the needed legislation. Personally I'm sick of both political parties refusing to work together.

Posted by: jeb at 09/22/2008 12:51:14 PM

Dare we trust the regulators? Congress appears to be inept at handling the financial crises of this country once they create it. This recent crises and Bernake's subsequent "fix" should scare all of us.

Posted by: Tom at 09/22/2008 01:20:39 PM

To Joe. E. and Dave in Raleigh: Please spare us the revisionist spin and blame game propaganda. The reason for the meltdown is unrestrained greed and underregulation. Wall Street saw a vehicle for even more profits and they created new instruments to capitalize on the gaping holes in regulations created by Congress (Phil Gramm for example). The entire mess was a Ponzi scheme relying on 1) unsophisticated consumers and 2) real estate speculators, both relying on an unsustainable bubble in housing prices. If indeed the problem started in the Carter(!) or Clinton administrations, why didn't the two Reagan, one Bush, or two bush administrations (19.75 years, mostly with Republican Congresses)do anything to remedy the situation?

Posted by: Shel at 09/22/2008 03:33:45 PM

I'd like to know how we taxpayers are assured the resale of assumed mortgages will go to pay down the federal debt extension. Or, will greedy politicians see an opportunity to spend more?

Posted by: Nick at 09/22/2008 03:51:19 PM

Wall Street and our Government did what the terrorists tried to do 7 years ago, collapse the US economy. They should be labeled enemy combatants and sent to Gitmo. When will we see someone being prosecuted for ripping off our country? Paulson made $700 million being Sachs CEO, now he's in charge of the Treasury!! Odd way of being patriotic, during a war(s).

Posted by: Wikkle at 09/22/2008 04:18:23 PM

Please Tom. I see no revisionism in this article. Freddie and Fannie were under suspicion for years. Unfortunately, since they were permitted to lobby Congress and support campaigns nobody (mostly Dems) wanted to regulate them. Your answer? Outlaw greed? Or over-regulate? Now there's a logical one.

Posted by: LEO at 09/22/2008 07:20:20 PM

Ah, the short memories of the body politic. This situation is almost identical to the Savings and Loan debacle of the late 80's. The regulatory laws that were and are, in place were simply ignored and, as usual, free enterprise turned out to be very expensive. This Govt bailout will end as the last one did with the taxpayers holding the bag, the investment bankers transferring their assets to family members (hiding them) and the supposed government watchdogs bemoaning the situation but holding that we must solve the problem with no recriminations because they are not productive. Fact of the matter, all investors are greedy, all banks are ini business to make money and homeowners would like a million dollar home with a miniscule mortgage.

Posted by: Chistabelle at 09/22/2008 09:00:19 PM

Good work on that explanation. Truly though...didn't we all see this coming? I knew when they deregulated years ago that they'd be problems. They knew it too but the chance to make big fast bucks was just too tempting. It amazed me it took so long for the bubble to burst. Also, getting a new home with no money down means no money lost for the homeowner, does it not? Hiding the scam by hiding good loans with the bad is like the bills they pass or don't pass in Congress. A good bill can fail just because it is tied to a pork barrell Bill. Nobody was alseep at this wheel of unfortune...they all knew. THEY KNEW! We will all suffer for many years...but suffer we must if we are to undo this financial terror...

Posted by: George Glassman at 09/23/2008 06:01:21 AM

Too bad the Kiplinger Letter never warned their subscribers about all this. Hindsight is 20/20, isn't it?

Posted by: Coops200ad at 09/23/2008 07:38:32 AM

This is the best, most easily understood, and concise summary of late stock market behavior I have come across. Thank you for the research and effort you have put into this.

Posted by: Curtis at 09/23/2008 11:49:56 AM

The one area you failed to mention, and this is probably the single biggest contributor to the fiasco, was government policy. In 1977, The Community Reinvestment Act, requiring banks and saving institutions to make loans in lower income areas where they resided, was signed into law by Jimmy Carter. Then in the early 90's Clinton (that's Bill, not Hillary) pushed through laws requiring banks to make questionable loans. This law was backed up by creating a "CRA rating” that graded how diverse their lending portfolio was. If a bank portfolio did not meet standards, the government could restrict that bank's growth opportunity. The 1992 Republican congress warned against this rule. Since that time, many republicans have warned of a meltdown (Bush and McCain to name two) only to be met with Democrat opposition....

Posted by: Vicki at 09/23/2008 12:54:58 PM

So what happend to the subprime mortgages with insurance policies? Did the insurance companies default or go bankrupt? Seems to me that the insurance companies should be the ones going bankrupt instead of the mortgage companies. Just trying to understand.

Posted by: Kathryn at 09/23/2008 01:01:01 PM

I'd need a lot more evidence to convince me that 1977 The Community Reinvestment Act (and subsequent extensions in the 90s) to help fight discrimination in lending practices is the cause of this mess. Sounds like grasping at straws for a way to blame the Democrats. The increase in sub-prime lending over the past 5 years was driven by normal everyday greed combined with loopholes that made it possible. Brokers made these loans because they made money by making the loans--not because they were forced to. The system was skewed to reward those who wrote bad loans and to push the risks onto gullible (and greedy) investors who bought investments without fully understanding what they were buying.

Posted by: Newt at 09/23/2008 01:41:09 PM

I must just say that the Community Reinvestment Act of 77' isnt entirely to blame but obviously it did in fact play a hand. I still do believe though that since this is a capitalist society those who took the mass profits for years in stride should have to take the losses in stride as well. When a mom and pop business cant pay their bills they go out of business, it should be the same for corporate giants....

Posted by: .0. at 09/23/2008 02:04:37 PM

Blaming the CRA would make sense if the data supported it - in other words, if high-rate lending practices were largely limited to low-income, underserved, communities. But the last analysis of HMDA data I saw shows that high-rate lending skyrocketed among middle and upper class communities as well. That can hardly be attributed to the CRA.

Posted by: Jim Knock at 09/23/2008 02:22:19 PM

So why did the FED raise interest rates in the first place? Didn't they know about the risk of ARM defaults?

Posted by: John at 09/23/2008 02:52:38 PM

That is fine that "corporate giants" take their lumps, but remember that these same "corporate giants" employ a lot of people like you and me, and those "corporate giants'" assets are in a lot of retirement accounts that people like you and me have been sacrificing money to for 30 years and more.

Posted by: sloan robbins at 09/23/2008 03:04:25 PM

Can't the mortgages be extended to 40 or 50 year loans, keeping interest money coming in, letting people stay in their homes? Forclosures seem to be the problem, adding to the decline in home values which add up to large losses for the lender forclosing. Or is this too much simplicity? Doesn't Japan have 40-100 year loans?

Posted by: Sandy at 09/23/2008 03:36:47 PM

Geez people, it's only money - get over it already. People dying from cancer, AIDS and other TRUE sufferers wish they had problems that more $20 dollar bills could cure. If the economy collapses, so be it. You learn from adversity.

Posted by: Josh at 09/23/2008 03:38:10 PM

Seems like step 2 left out some detail - like how the banks would willingly participate in, aid and abet mortgage fraud, knowing that there was a market waiting to buy any loan regardless of the ability of the borrower to repay. Now the same banks would please like all of us, the taxpayers, to cover their losses.

Posted by: Knute at 09/23/2008 04:49:07 PM

But prior to the 2000 and low interest rates, what about the deregulation of the financial industry that allowed this free-form speculation in "dark markets?" Seems like that is missing from the timeline.

Posted by: Phil at 09/23/2008 05:46:09 PM

I say let them fail. Gov. involvement is just prolonging the hardship and making it worse in the process.

Posted by: steve har at 09/23/2008 05:51:13 PM

Here is the point and only point: this is about privatizing profits and socializing losses.

Posted by: Anonymous at 09/23/2008 06:00:10 PM

Notice it all started with #1. This is the key point. Everyone wants to look at #2 - evil banks, mortgage brokers, speculators and wall street on down the line. This wouldn't have been possible w/o the fed and their monopoly (on) money. #15 seems to suggest the solution is to print even more monopoly money. #16 will be hyperinflation and $10 gas and $2000 gold. Ask yourselves, did the intrinsic value of gas and and gold triple in the last 8 years, or did the fed lighten your wallet by devaluing the dollar?

Posted by: J.B. at 09/23/2008 07:01:17 PM

I agree, Sandy! That's right on.

Posted by: Drex at 09/23/2008 07:11:42 PM

Frailey trots out all the stuff the talking heads on CNBC have regurgitated over the last few weeks. Where is a comment on the repeal of the Glass-Steagall/Stiegel Act which was Senator Phil Gramm's contribution to the current mess? The Glass-Steagall/Stiegel Act had protected investors for 33 years until Senator Gramm (later to become a banking lobbyist and now financial adviser to McCain) walked the repeal through Congress and it was signed into law by Bill Clinton-atta boy Phil, atta boy Bill, job well done! As a p.s., I say to you who like to lay this mess at the feet of one political party or the other, "this is a bipartisan disaster"...

Posted by: LC at 09/23/2008 08:30:20 PM

All those claiming this was a problem of OVER Regulation and the CRA or community redevelopment act are absolutely insane. I was a mortgage broker in one of the hottest sectors and i can tell you that CRA Loans accounted for less than 1% of the total loan volume my private brokerage did, additionally because I was doing loans at the time i can tell you that most colleagues had no IDEA what the CRA was or even that local banks or lenders had CRA programs. It was only towards the end of the hot market when all the subprime loan products were being removed from the top lenders product offerings that people scrambled to find any product even remotely resembling those products so that we could continue making money. The DEREGULATION of free markets by Bush and his CRONIES allowed these companies to get AWAY WITH MURDER, now there are a FEW WHO HAVE ALREADY POCKETED MILLIONS AND WALKED AWAY UNSCATHED, leaving these companies to fall and crumble and now the government (read we) have to step in with our tax dollars to correct the problem that our leaders enabled conspiratorially in back room good old boy deals. Like...Tom said above, the entire mess was a ponzi scheme and the corruption goes all the way to the top. I can tell you that they did indeed create new instruments to capitalize on the gaping holes that the regulations created. "The silliness is over on Wall Street." Perhaps some of you should read Schillers book, Irrational Exuberance....

Posted by: misanthropope at 09/24/2008 02:03:16 AM

too many people developing blanket positions on deregulation. deregulation is good *if and only if* it is accompanied by transparency and the people at risk of fraud are adequately represented by law enforcement. free markets are a stool with 3 legs.

Posted by: Timothy at 09/24/2008 11:23:56 AM

...please let me thank Mr. Frailey for this excellent article. I have two follow-up questions: First: in point 2, Mr. Frailey notes that underwriters bought insurance policies guaranteeing that the (subprime) loans would be repaid. -- Are these insurance policies now presumed to be worthless? If so, I'm a bit confused as to why. I understand that AIG tanked, but also know that the government bought it. If the insurance policies eventually will be honored, then aren't the loan guarantees still in effect? -- Second: in point 3, Mr. Frailey notes that the submprime loans were packaged and sold to investors in huge CDOs, and that 'buried inside the least risky tranches were those subprime mortgages.' -- If a 100 million CDO contains 1 million of risky paper, can't the 1 million of risky paper be excised, like cutting a bad spot off a banana? Must the entire CDO be re-assessed as junk? -- I'm a layperson, as these questions undoubtedly reveal ... but I'll bet I'm not alone in having them. Thanks again for the great article.

Posted by: VC at 09/24/2008 04:38:51 PM

I have yet to hear Allan Greenspan appologize for his inept handling of the Fed and letting loose billions of dollars in cheap money--why would people NOT want to invest in real estate or anything else that promised them more than a 2% return... Phil Gramm had Congress under lock and key--there was no budget without making the changes that he wanted to set up this fiasco--and Clinton had no choice but to sign the bill--Republicans were the majority party and they would have held the government in a strangle-hold and allowed it to shut down if Clinton vetoed the bill... Can't help but think that Paul O'Neill saw part of this coming when he resigned as Treasury head... Why has no one asked him to be on camera and give his insight....Maybe he should be the guy running the cleanup? Or the hedge fund manager who revealsed the Emperor was naked when he shorted Lehman Bros.

Posted by: Fred Frailey at 09/24/2008 06:20:49 PM

Timothy, this is Fred Frailey, author this article. G questions. Let me try to answer them. AIG insured repayment of a lot of debt -- but did not, to my knowledge, write guarantees of repayment of subprime loans that were bundled inside CDOs. That was done primarily by two companies, Ambac Financial Group and MGIC Investment Corp. So far, neither of those companies has defaulted on those guarantees, despite huge writeoffs. So those guarantees are not worthless. But they don't have to be worthless to cause the whole market for these CDOs to freeze up. You can revalue a CDO if you know where the rotten fruit is. But the ratings agencies keep finding more of it and issuing new downgrades. So a potential buyer says whoa there! How many MORE downgrades await me? There's no answer to that question, so the market for this stuff disappears. With almost no trading taking place, putting a daily price on this paper becomes a nightmare. If there are no buyers at all, in theory the paper is worthless! Of course it is not. Ultimately, the vast majority of mortgages in these CDOs will be paid off, including most of the subprime paper. But fear rules right now. This is what the legislation being debated this last week in September is trying to head off. You ask, why not just cut out the rotten fruit? In effect, this is what is taking place. To the extent you know the subprime exposure inside a CDO, you can arrive at a theoretical value. This is exceedingly hard to do because as I said, more of this stuff keeps getting downgraded to junk status by the ratings agencies. I should add that an underlying assumption of the "rescue" legislation is that the government will buy $700 billion worth of mortgage paper the banks want rid of, and end up selling it for somewhat more than it paid. The reason you can't do this now (repeating myself once again) is that fear is in charge today. Hope this helps.

Posted by: Chad at 09/24/2008 08:52:22 PM

Fantastic article, this was very helpful to read.

Posted by: Mark at 09/25/2008 12:18:12 PM

Can we dispense with the Fox News propaganda that this is all about forcing banks to loan money to poor people? I personally know 6 people who are in trouble with mortgages and they are not "minorities" nor are they poor. They simply bought more house than they could afford. The problem is systemic greed on everyone's part; especially bankers who were looking for more and more ways to pump up profits and their obscene bonuses. Please, let's not try to put this off on poor working slobs. The repeal of parts of the Glass-Steagall Act was also a major culprit. I guess we forgot the lesson learned in 1929 that, left to their own devices, bankers will become excessively greedy and do really stupid things with depositors' money. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it, are they not?

Posted by: Timothy at 09/25/2008 01:05:29 PM

Mr. Frailey, you're a gentleman .. thanks very much for taking the time to answer a reader's questions. I'm grateful, and impressed with your thoughtfulness. I will forward your article to others, as it is the best layperson's guide to this crisis that I have read.

Posted by: Harvey at 09/25/2008 09:58:57 PM

Great synopsis, Fred, thanks for an excellent step-by-step of how we got to where we are. One nit, though - in #13, I don't know where you got the statistic that months of unsold inventory is down to one-third of what it was at the start of 2008. The last I've seen, we're still around 10-11 months of supply, and I thought that's pretty close to where we started 2008.

Posted by: Tim at 09/26/2008 06:06:54 AM

Everyone seems to have forgotten the taxpayer already got $300b in homeowner bailout. What for? To keep hard working taxpayers in their homes they couldn't afford in the first place, who made a conscious decisions to sign the dotted line on a mortgage they couldn't afford. Now everyone wants to protect the poor, idiotic homeowner as part of the $700b bailout. I'm rather angry that those of us who did the right things, like save money and live within our means, are having to bailout all of our neighbors, the hard working homeowner, who did not, who have negative savings rate, who have big screen tv's, went to Starbucks every day, who leased SUVs, etc. It's an election year, so no one is going to blame the idiot homeowners who got themselves into an unaffordable loan. Lenders didn't force anyone to take on a subprime, alt-a, interest only, or ARMs mortgages...

Posted by: Michael.K at 09/26/2008 06:52:45 AM

Suggested reading: A Short History Of Financial Euphoria, by John Kenneth Galbraith. Also recommended: Extraordinary Popular Delusions And The Madness Of Crowds, by Charles MacKay.

Posted by: Roger Bailey at 09/26/2008 08:19:46 AM

Mark need(s) to ask himself the question: How did Fannie and Freddie end up with 5 trillion in mortgage debt? (a large % of which is subprime) He may find that this answer has something to do with congress and their cronies in these two institutions.

Posted by: brooks at 09/26/2008 08:59:48 AM

I'm reminded of a quote by Ayn Rand: "Money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver."

Posted by: Almost Retired at 09/27/2008 04:38:10 PM

Things may be worse than paragraph 4 suggests. In Salinas, CA, and Henderson, NV, home depreciation is closer to 50% already. I believe that the only thing between highly leveraged financial institutions and bankruptcy is fraudulent bookkeeping.

Posted by: clayman at 09/28/2008 09:43:58 AM

What I can't seem to find ANYWHERE is how I will be affected by this bailout agreement; directly, meaningfully, in the next 6 months. Yeah, I know about higher interest rates and higher taxes. But, I have a fixed rate mortgage of 6.5%, no credit card balances, and 2 cars dependable later model used cars. I have always thought I pay too much in taxes and just lump that into the, "Oh well, it's not going to change anyway" category. So again, without a need to buy a house or car in the forseeable future, with the parameters given, can I be so selfish to ask the community, "How am I going to be direcly impacted?"

Posted by: Brian at 09/28/2008 11:33:45 AM

I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG. Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend. To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+. Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up. So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00. My plan is to give $425,0 00 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend. Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So let's assume a tax rate of 30%. Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes. That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam. But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket. A husband and wife has $595,000.00. What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family? Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved. Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads...If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 economic incentive that is being proposed by one of our candidates for President. If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+! As for AIG - liquidate it...Let American General go back to being American General...

Posted by: Ralph at 09/28/2008 11:44:51 AM

Ok...your article is a good start...but will any heads roll? If this is systemic, then prob not...there's a cancer in our society. What happened to ethics? Why lend a loan to someone with little or no income/credit worthiness? Why accept or attempt to take out a loan (except maybe a 'payday' loan) when you know you cant possibly pay it back? I can see the little guy trying to get a leg up...

Posted by: John at 09/29/2008 01:14:22 PM

Brian, 85,000 billion divided by 200 million is 85000/200 = 425. Give me $425,000 if you like but just make sure everyone else only gets $425.

Posted by: Mike at 09/29/2008 03:25:51 PM

Brian: I think your math is a little TOO simple. Dividing $85 billion among $200 million nets $425 per person, not $425,000. Nice try, though!

Posted by: elizabeth at 09/30/2008 09:16:15 AM

I believe that taxpayers will accept a bailout plan only when the obscene "golden parachutes" of the CEO's of the affected institutions are declared null and void. It appears to the public that they are getting off scottfree.

Posted by: Invictus Maneo at 09/30/2008 10:36:31 AM

This is a systemic problem dating back 3 decades. You're right when you attribute it to 'easy money' but the root cause lies back in 1977 when the Carter administration enacted the Community Reinveatment Act...It was politicized as helping the "poor people achieve the American dream of home ownership". The easy money began to flow. Under the Clinton adminstration in the 1990's, our lawmakers again saw fit to ease lending requirements and packaged the increasingly risky loans in groups for resale. This allowed the banks that were assessing the risk of each loan they were writing to sell the loans in bundles. The banks writing the loans were no longer responsible and culpable if the new borrowers couldn't meet the monthly mortgage payment. Risk was decoupled from responsiblity. The flow of easy money accelerated. Enter the new decade and century. Alan Greenspan, John McCain, and others express concern with the increasing risk to the nations financial health posed by Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, and the subprime mortgage market. The Bush administration pushes for tighter lending requirements and greater constraints on Fannie and FreddY. Legislation to do that is brought before Congress. A Democrat controlled Congress denies there are any financial risks and refuses to support the needed legislation. Our last opportunity to staunch the impending financial tsunami is demagogued and thrown away. Today we deal with the wreckage as the Democrats in House and Senate berate conservatives for their "free market, unfettered capitalism debacle". A lie oft repeated.......

Posted by: Sandra at 09/30/2008 02:46:53 PM

I find it interesting that everyone seems to be able to point blame for something that started in the 80's and everyone, Republicans and Democrats, that have been in office has added to the existing crisis. It is clear that we the people have shown over the last week that we hold the power to shut things down. Congress is finally worried about keeping their jobs. Welcome to my world! Where were they, until it hit them in the pocket, they were all perfectly happy leaving things the way they were despite all the warnings. We are a nation based on a credit economy, no actual assests, everything on paper, now it is just in our computers. I was a member of the real estate communities in the 80's and at the beginning of ARM's. Greed in the industry was rampant even then. We were encouraged to make the deal and package the loan. Borrowers were encouraged to "come up with paperwork" needed to get the loan through and some even made up the paperwork back then. The lending companies have pushed people out of fixed rate loans because there were bigger commissions given for other loans. The greed just escalated to a point that everyone had to notice. ARM's should have been outlawed years ago and the lending companies and brokers should have been monitored more closely. We have single family homes in our area that are occupied by 2, 3, and 4 families because that was the only way the broker could qualify them on income....I am living in a home that if I were to purchase it today I would pay $195,000 max. 1 and a half years ago it had a price tag of 425,000 what did they think would happen when they made those loans? The ones that made the most money, realtors and lending companies, are crying the loudest....I am really tired of carrying the government on my back, my tax rate is already 30%. Maybe it is time for people that make bad business decisions and do bad business (to) take the hit. Let's get back to buying only what we can actually pay for and take down the credit industry who have been preying on main street for years.

Posted by: Tom at 09/30/2008 07:14:24 PM

All Hail Invictus (above)...Talk about "hitting the nail on the head." The sad part is that less than 5% of Americans understand what's going on...

Posted by: Linda at 10/01/2008 11:36:33 AM

I would like to know how does the working person who earns everything and takes nothing for free prevent the liberal government from giving politically correct handouts to takers who are not qualified and don't care to be contributing members of society.Easy come,easy go...for them.If you can't earn it,you shouldn't have it because you can't carry it....The Democrats will destroy us yet.

Posted by: Lisa at 10/01/2008 01:57:31 PM

Wow! Lets go "Main Street America"! Lets make people responsible for their actions. Why should we all pay a price for those who are greedy! Any person who feels it due them, is wrong. Hard work is what made the USA ,but greed is what the USA is today! GOD BLESS THOSE WHO SHOW HONESTY & RESPONBILITY FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS!

Posted by: Shyam at 10/01/2008 05:14:45 PM

Great article and many follow up comments. Assuming the bailout does what it supposed to and all the financial institutions recover relatively quickly. What prevents the same scenario which was, I believe, greed of many involved including the recipient of the sub-prime mortgages to continue the same?

Posted by: Eric Krumdick at 10/02/2008 09:17:52 AM

people forget the populist mentality of the government back when this all started: To get people into homes who could not otherwise afford to do so. There's a reason why many of these people were not, should not have been, homeowners.

Posted by: Rose at 10/02/2008 01:04:53 PM

...Yes, while I have asked I've never yet seen it answered....my question.How does one transfer an "existing" Roth IRA over to a better company;when is a good time and who's a GOOD company that has no excess fees to do so. My present one charges $35 a year..and I am on a fixed income and new in an area/state so can't yet find the right job...and am disabled to boot.It's just a small amount in the IRA.

Posted by: David at 10/02/2008 03:18:56 PM

Mark to Market is a large part of the problem and a stupid idea. If anyone wants to give me an asset at zero cost just because there is no market today then bring it on!

Posted by: John at 10/02/2008 05:18:09 PM

Linda, Wake up and smell the roses. The Republican Administration has been in office for the last 8 years, and they also controlled the Congress for 6 years. How can you blame the Democrats???

Posted by: Joe at 10/02/2008 09:11:56 PM

John, Linda is right on-YOU'RE the one that has your head in the sand. From the NY Times Business Section September 30, 1999 "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."

Posted by: Patrick at 10/04/2008 02:25:21 AM

...The problem began with cheap money pumped into the economy sometime between 2000 and 2003. The Democrats -- for all their faults -- weren't in charge then. It was the neoconservative cabal with their visions of endless religious war and the need to keep the populace happy with the bread and circuses of easy money while they hatched their plans. "It all began with cheap money. To prop up ailing economies early in this decade . . . the Federal Reserve lowered the federal funds rate . . . from 6.5% in 2000 to 1% by mid 2003. Cheap money quickly ignited a sharp rise in home values in virtually every corner of the country."

Posted by: Peter Fithian at 10/06/2008 10:45:06 PM

Both parties are to blame but Democrats more so - it is their altruist anti-reality philosophy that leads to things like this. The money spent on the war (which was authorized by UN resolution 1441, by the way) is trivial compared to what liberals have spent (and are still spending) transferring wealth from people who EARNED it to people who squander it.

Posted by: J P Frogbottom at 10/08/2008 02:12:00 PM

Where IS the bottom?? No one knows due to the unregulated instruments that are causing destruction of capital. This will be a long, ugly episode, wake me when it's over. Debt Free & loving it!!

Posted by: Bill at 10/08/2008 05:23:05 PM

Patrick, you need to do your homework. Watch the You Tube Video, entitled "Democrats in their own words...". Check out F D Raines history at Fannie Mae with Flexible '97, American Dream Commitment and the Six Point Plan. That wasn't Wall Street nor the Republicans. That was all Democrats.

Posted by: RachaelinTN at 10/09/2008 10:00:49 AM

...Tiedofspam hit(s) it right on the head. People are impulsive with their financial decisions and then don't want to have to pay the consequences. And all of you complaining that Wall St is greedy?...Its capitalism. Thats how it works. Read about Adam Smith and the "invisible hand" theory and you will see that looking out for your best interest usually helps others. Democrats blow my mind. They want to keep religion out of everything, but they want our government to be the poor's savior. It's not their job. Look at what a horrible job FEMA did with Katrina! You know who rebuilt LA and MS when the hurricane hit? Churches. Let them take care of the poor and needy and let the government do its job...And if you want to start punishing people...my vote is that (former Fannie Mae chairman and CEO Franklin) Raines be the first...Note to democrats, he ccoked the books at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and now he is "unofficiall"y advising Obama....Its our own stupid fault if we put (Obama) in office...

Posted by: PhilUSAFRet at 10/09/2008 04:30:51 PM

I have to keep reminding myself that my account balance when the market went above 14,000 wasn't my money if I didn't sell at that level and that, based on my current account value, I didn't lose it if I don't sell at the bottom. The "self-fulling prophec"y is what ends up killing most folks. I feel bad for the folks who have to liquidate at the bottom for living expenses. As people in AA might say, "this too shall pass." I am also angry that I have to suffer because of those who do panic. Get a grip people. Calm down and read the story of "chicken little."

Posted by: Mimi S. at 10/09/2008 05:33:38 PM

What is Mr. Fithian talking about? Democrats have not been running this country for the past 8 years. The Republicans have been spending like drunken sailors. Liberals have not been doing the spending in Washington, D.C.; it has been those supposedly conservative Republicans.

Posted by: al at 10/10/2008 12:38:30 AM

for your information RachaelinTN - Mr Raines is not the only one who pushed Fannie Mae over the Cliff. How about one Mr Daniel Mudd, Contrywide Mortgage and Congress. Oh and BTW, if you want to accuse Raines of misdeeds then you are probably aware that Fannie Mae did not seriously begin participating the risky loans until 2004. The year mr Raines resigned. Until that year Fannie Mae models could predict who qualified and who did not. But once Mr Mudd began guiding the sinking ship, the high risk loans became the norm. So please get your facts straight...

Posted by: Joyce Abraham at 10/10/2008 11:36:35 AM

After the week global banking just went through, no scenario is unthinkable. Banks are in trouble throughout Europe and Iceland's all went broke. Britain is buying shares from its biggest banks for hundreds of billions of dollars, essentially part-nationalizing the sector. And Thursday the American treasury secretary hinted that the U.S. might follow in the U.K.'s footsteps. If banks in the U.S., Britain and Europe are nationalized what does that mean for the layman? What does it really mean... ??? I am a member of Myinvestorsplace.com and we are looking fir any and all suggestions to help us. Thanks

Posted by: Bruce at 10/10/2008 11:59:47 AM

I am very disappointed in the turn of mutual funds and stocks in the market. I have lost confidence in investing in it anymore. I expect that I will pull out the few remaining dollars since I will not invest again until there is an investigation and new laws for accountablilty. I would like to see lawsuits, jail time, and confiscation of past bonuses and salaries for these investment firms and advisors.

Posted by: HM at 10/10/2008 12:53:16 PM

Joyce, it means that the government will force the banks to lend money in the short term, and, if FIM (financial institution micromanagement) becomes the new MBA, then we should be keeping an eye on Iceland's recovery, because we will be soon to follow. The market is just about bottoming out - you and your investor group members should continue to study your favorite stocks and get ready to jump back into the market. Yes, stocks lost heavily, but they will eventially come back. It's too late to get your money out, so you might as well sit tight and let the correction take us to the floor. We'll get back up.

Posted by: Alex Roetger at 10/10/2008 08:43:40 PM

Upward mobility is an American birth right, and business...will - for a price - do anything in support. Occasionally providers and clients overshoot and warnings are sounded but are ignored. So it was with the dot-com crash and with Enron, and so it is today, but this time with more serious consequences. I did not get involved in any of this - where can I now go and get my money back? How much faith and trust is left in Business and in Authority? I'll have to think about this, while I wait for the bleeding to stop.

Posted by: Susan at 10/13/2008 08:58:31 PM

I totally agree with Bruce. I lost about 20% of my stock portfolio, but was heavily into cash by that time. So, I felt comfortable pulling everything out of the market until there are more transparent accounting practices, and better regulations. At this point, I feel, it is like you are in a casino and the odds are against you. Should those saving up for retirement have to deal with these mutual funds riddled with bad securities, where risk can't even be quantified?

Posted by: Dale at 10/15/2008 11:29:18 AM

You missed the 2 Foundational principles on which the whole mess was built. Capitalism is the perfect economic system....(It was corrupted by) socialists in government who mandated that Banks offer loans to unqualified customers!!! If all loans still required 20% down payment, we wouldn't be in this mess! The second false principle was a fiat money system. The Federal Reserve continues to create money out of thin air, every dollar in circulation has decreased purchase power as every new dollar is miraculously invented by the...Fed! Keep the stinking Government out of the market. Return to pure principles... That is the source... your acticle mentioned all of the resulting factors in our crashing equation.

Posted by: Brian at 10/18/2008 02:25:01 PM

When will we learn, that capitalism, particularly this free market mumbo jumbo is flawed. It is driven by greed as is communism. They say they want no government interference until everything collapses and then they have to have big bad government bail them out. These collapses are a normal reoccurring phenomenon in free markets. If we don't have the stomach for it, then we shouldn't play. I'm hoping that we are done with this era of Reagan Voo Doo Economics. You know the one that never trickled down; on the contrary everything trickled up.

Posted by: Joe at 10/21/2008 12:34:48 PM

Dale's comment hits the nail right on the head...

Posted by: Jason at 10/27/2008 06:40:38 AM

(This is to) Dale...There is no way we can run our country on "pure principles". The system is too complex to say hey if we do this one thing (follow pure free market principles)everything will be fine. Way too many variables.

Posted by: tom at 10/27/2008 06:56:06 AM

Dale is absolutely right and Brian dosn't have a clue. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, institutions set up by the Congress created the entire problem when our Congress decided to let everyone have a chance at the "American Dream" of home ownership, by underwriting mortgages without putting money down and without verifying individuals income. When economists testified before the congressional Banking comittee (years ago!!) telling our officials that Fannie and Freddie were in trouble, they were ridiculed and the heads of both Fannie and Freddie left with huge bonuses. Government is the root cause of the problem, not the free markets!!

Posted by: Kelly at 10/27/2008 09:37:12 AM

Brian, The "trickle down" years may not have been a panacea for everyone, but it sure got us out of a mess from the Carter years. Be careful not to vote for Obama as we may see "Trickle Up Povert"y. Also keep in mind that now all self-interest is bad. Working to better your situation is a beautiful thing that capitalism ca afford us. It is a risk though. Greed is a part of our humaness, and can lead you into trouble when left unchecked. What we seek will be our treasure. Those that seek a humble life, may find their own reward. Some find reward in working and using their gifts. Some are risk takers that enjoy more financial freedom (or loss) than the rest of us. Some are just plain greedy little buggers and will live and die a little more empty than the rest of us. Thank God we live in America and can make our choices. We do make our bed and lie in it. It is easy to blame the system for our own screwy choices. I just know that in our family, had we lived under socialism or capitalism, we never would have been able to make the income we made.

Posted by: vera salmons at 10/27/2008 11:28:57 AM

I am disapointed in the way the US GOVERMENT has handeled this money baulout. By giving this money to the banks to help the people keep there homes, what a joke, the banks will in no way do that. THEY WIIL KEEP IT (and) GIVE THEMSELVES & CEOs more raises. We are 77 years old...& are facing forclousure, It is not possible for anyone to get a lower mtg because the banks are not giving out any loans unless you have a perfect score. So it is a win for the banks and a loss for the people who want to remain in there home. Thank you,Sincerely, Vera from New Jersey

Posted by: Rod at 10/27/2008 11:57:08 AM

I agree with Dale. This mandate to lower qualifications for loans came during the Clinton administration. No money down, bad credit, NO PROBLEM! This is what happens when the government interferes in the free market system. Brian you don't get it! It is not a free market system, when you have the government setting the standards on who gets a loan!

Posted by: Betty at 10/27/2008 12:49:50 PM

Excuse me, but the years 2000 to 2003 was Bush, not Clinton. Be careful not to vote for McCain, who has promised to follow in Bush's footsteps. Betty, California

Posted by: MEME at 10/27/2008 01:57:07 PM

We can point fingers all day. Let's be real!! Bush didn't destroy nothing and neither did Clinton. Although neither helped it. It started many years ago by trying to HELP someone who thought this country OWES them something. Stop living outside your means, people. I...have to buy my clothes at goodwill to to be able to pay my mortgage and put back money for my kids to be able to go to school, because the govt. takes my hard earned money and gives it to someone too lazy to go to work so they can buy steaks and have free med/dent and a good education. This bailout is another example of just that.

Posted by: Brian at 10/27/2008 09:06:22 PM

This is to Tom from he who is "without a clue"....This theory, that the bad mortgages sold by Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac to stupid moneyless people that should have known better, is a false premise....It is so much more complicated than that....Back in the early nineties the total amount of money that was available for investment in the world (called savings) was about 35 trillion dollars. In six short years it grew to about 70 trillion. Please remember that this was at a time when wages of working people was flat or decreasing. Question: Who held this money? Answer: The nouveau riche; the benefactors of the “trickle up” theory....This money was so great that finding places to invest it became somewhat of a problem for those who had it... Someone from the investment banking community thought that mortgages might be the answer. They knew that these investors would not be interested in holding Joe the Plummer’s mortgage. That would be too much like work. So they devised a scheme with mortgage bankers to package mortgages into investment instruments. That took care of the messy landlord end. Then they got insurance companies to back them (AAA). This took care of the need for security. The end result was that they were selling like hot cakes. Rich greedy investors couldn’t get enough...There was so much demand for these products that greedy bankers and mortgage brokers started making mortgages more available to more and more people. This created a sellers market which drove up the value of homes across the country. The bubble got so big that, like all bubbles, it eventually burst. At this point insurance companies backed out, leaving the investors holding the bag....Let there be no mistake, this problem was caused by greedy bankers and investors and had nothing to do with liberals, socialists, commies, tree huggers, gays, pro- abortionists, anti-gun people, peaceniks, less fortunates, minorities or the poor sap trying for the American Dream. It had all to do with Reaganomics, deregulation, free market capitalism, and smaller government.

Posted by: Coop at 11/08/2008 08:48:02 AM

A problem over looked is not government but the leaders in goverment. We have elected irresponsible leaders due to the fact that we Americans are irresposible when it comes to personal finaces.

Posted by: mike at 11/18/2008 07:49:12 AM

Brian - Although many factors contributed to this Perfect Storm of Financial Chaos, the spark that started all of this was the Community Development Act that good ole Janet Reno and Bill Clinton imposed upon lenders across the country, forcing them to make sub-prime loans to people who in the end could not afford them. With backing from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the lenders went hog wild and and the rest is history. Corruption, lies, and greed in the private sector, you bet, but let's not forget the root cause of all of this: "Social Engineering," which was the brainchild of the Democrats.

Posted by: Brian at 11/21/2008 02:11:31 PM

Mike, I think that trying to blame Democrats for their attempts to help the less fortunate is a stretch. This is a weak attempt by free marketeers to hide the fact that free markets cannot sustain themselves. Recent history has proven this time and time again. Yes many poor people were given the opportunity for the American dream. But they account for a small part of this problem. This problem is due to the bankers and lenders who devised these instruments which created enormous opportunity for wealth....If you purchased a home two years ago for a half a million and now it’s worth three hundred thousand what would do? This is what we are facing. People walking away from mortgages on property worth much less than what is owed. And the problem is spreading all over. This is a typical bubble burst that is inevitable in free markets. If you want to lay blame, then blame Ronald Reagan. In the eighties and nineties people got used to making huge sums of money by creating new wealth from nothing. The Reagan administration went on record for smaller government and less regulation of business. A myriad of scandals in the stock market and in business followed. There was no one watching. This is just more of the same...We need a total change of attitude. One that looks to the common good over the good of individuals. We are all in this together.

Posted by: Larry at 11/22/2008 12:38:36 AM

This is to Brian; Hey the election is over you...By the way if you believe what you wrote, I have a bridge in New York I'll sell you without a credit check!!

Posted by: Sam at 11/22/2008 01:24:47 AM

Very nicely laid out. Panicky investors who have already sold assets at absurd prices have probably already paid a good part of the cost of the excesses. The only good advice is to "ride it out". As in housing, so long as a forced sale can be avoided, things will probably auto-correct in a few years....This is not Angola! The US economy is well established...traffic is still heavy, unemployment is under 10%, we have a large older population on stable income, and we have a social safety net for our unemployed. Americans are retiring in large numbers, opening new spots in the job market continuously. The sky is not falling. Panic is still panic...irrational and destructive....the price of all this foolish greed is unfortunately being paid...mostly by fearful investors, who have "made a run" on the American economy!

Posted by: hivoltage at 11/23/2008 04:02:34 AM

Storyline 1-11 is Great and lucid, which builds confidence and trust in the author BUT 12-14 is propaganda that bamboozles the reader into beleiving that the only way to save the economy is to hand out money to the very banks that screwed up, as if credit cannot be created by bypassing exactly these very...banks.

Posted by: Natalie at 11/23/2008 08:42:29 PM

We can always go back and point fingers at the former leaders of our time. Blame the rich? Why not? We've have been doing that since the creation of the social ladder. The evolution of man and money has not really changed at all trough out history. Until we decide to step off the hamster wheel, it will always be so. Oh, and to those who would rather point fingers instead of finding a solution, please, just stay on the hamster wheel. Human nature doesn't evolve with people like you.

Posted by: J Sponcerino at 11/25/2008 10:21:01 PM

Economics 101 my friends.... The biggest giveaway... The artificial increase of house prices...sometimes triple. It was vapor value.

Posted by: Jenny Lea at 02/01/2009 11:12:53 AM

#1. "Cheap Money" how do we get the govt. to increase the interest rates. Seniors, like me, have low incomes and when they took away the interest rate it left me with zero income from my savings. It was not a large income, but it helped pay the bills.

Posted by: Marie at 02/08/2009 08:43:12 AM

US Gov wanted homes available to the poor, that translated to profits to companies without scruples. Not all banks joined in the "creative financing". There were others involved, such as real estate people, yes housing became inflated beyond what any average person could afford. Due to out sourcing - jobs going out of the country, factories built in foreign lands, our wages have been flat for about 10 yrs or more. Due to inflation that means making less every year on top of the bigger issue. Bail out should address the problems not grant monies to Acorn (being Investigated for wrong doing), Endowment for the Arts (why spend on art when we are broke?), etc. this is gov as usual, no change.

Today's Video More Videos >>

Save Money in February

E-mail Alerts: Select the Kiplinger columns and topics to be delivered to your inbox:

Advertisement