LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 289
0 members and 289 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 07:55 AM.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-22-2020, 04:04 PM   #136
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 20,182
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
When shit was collapsing I actually found this Board of value for once. Some socks here seemed to actually work in the area. Like T seemed to know stuff? Do/did anyone here actually have real world knowledge?
I didn't work on any of them but had a relative who was at Bear Stearns. But, yes, in general, better to assume on MBS that amount of bullshitting directly relates to distance from Wall Street, and the relationship is algorithmic.
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline  
Old 01-22-2020, 05:04 PM   #137
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,041
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy View Post
I didn't work on any of them but had a relative who was at Bear Stearns. But, yes, in general, better to assume on MBS that amount of bullshitting directly relates to distance from Wall Street, and the relationship is algorithmic.
I ask because it is always amusing>irritating to see otherwise intelligent talking about IP issues they think they understand (Trump bribed China to get Ivanka trademarks!). I assume they is a parallel with this stuff.
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski is offline  
Old 01-22-2020, 06:09 PM   #138
ThurgreedMarshall
[intentionally omitted]
 
ThurgreedMarshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 18,595
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
When shit was collapsing I actually found this Board of value for once. Some socks here seemed to actually work in the area. Like T seemed to know stuff? Do/did anyone here actually have real world knowledge?
I work(ed) in lending. I discussed the situation at length with superiors and clients. I attended numerous talks about what happened. I had to revise credit agreements to fix the issue that arose because LIBOR was completely fucking fraudulent. I discussed mark-to-market valuation vs income stream on this board ad nauseum. We talked about capital requirements and what would happen if another bank failed. We talked about the Chicago School and how bonus culture renders it dead fucking wrong. I could go on and on.

Sebby's recollection of anything that happened at the time is so fucking off that it makes me think he was in a coma at the time.

But why do you ask?

TM
ThurgreedMarshall is offline  
Old 01-22-2020, 06:46 PM   #139
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,041
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall View Post
I work(ed) in lending. I discussed the situation at length with superiors and clients. I attended numerous talks about what happened. I had to revise credit agreements to fix the issue that arose because LIBOR was completely fucking fraudulent. I discussed mark-to-market valuation vs income stream on this board ad nauseum. We talked about capital requirements and what would happen if another bank failed. We talked about the Chicago School and how bonus culture renders it dead fucking wrong. I could go on and on.

Sebby's recollection of anything that happened at the time is so fucking off that it makes me think he was in a coma at the time.

But why do you ask?

TM
just wanted to refresh my memory of whose posts I should give more weight.
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts

Last edited by Hank Chinaski; 01-22-2020 at 06:49 PM..
Hank Chinaski is offline  
Old 01-22-2020, 08:08 PM   #140
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 32,939
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
Do/did anyone here actually have real world knowledge?
About the financial sector during 2007-8? Why yes, yes I do. What would you like to know about derivatives?
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is offline  
Old 01-22-2020, 08:31 PM   #141
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,041
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
About the financial sector during 2007-8? Why yes, yes I do. What would you like to know about derivatives?
You represented companies then? Not my recollection, but okay.
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski is offline  
Old 01-22-2020, 08:33 PM   #142
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 32,939
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
You represented companies then? Not my recollection, but okay.
No, I did not represent companies in that space. But you asked about real world knowledge.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is offline  
Old 01-22-2020, 10:15 PM   #143
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 20,182
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
I ask because it is always amusing>irritating to see otherwise intelligent talking about IP issues they think they understand (Trump bribed China to get Ivanka trademarks!). I assume they is a parallel with this stuff.
The thing about being a corporate attorney is I can bullshit a very wide range of issues pretty effectively, and even seem to have learned a fair bit about whole industries and businesses broadly, but when you really get to details, I always have to find subject matter experts (and then, omg, get them to listen to each other).
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline  
Old 01-22-2020, 10:24 PM   #144
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,041
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
No, I did not represent companies in that space. But you asked about real world knowledge.
You were not representing companies of any sort then, were you?
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts

Last edited by Hank Chinaski; 01-22-2020 at 10:37 PM..
Hank Chinaski is offline  
Old 01-23-2020, 01:40 AM   #145
LessinSF
Wearing the cranky pants
 
LessinSF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Pulling your finger
Posts: 7,100
Debate Revisited.

GGG previously lost his challenge that there were no reasonably defensible Trump policies. I give you another. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/imm...women-n1120706
__________________
Boogers!
LessinSF is offline  
Old 01-23-2020, 09:55 AM   #146
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,077
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy View Post
The thing about being a corporate attorney is I can bullshit a very wide range of issues pretty effectively, and even seem to have learned a fair bit about whole industries and businesses broadly, but when you really get to details, I always have to find subject matter experts (and then, omg, get them to listen to each other).
That's true. There's also the issue that you only learn what you learn for a limited time. IP? I can learn enough to get an injunction. One year later? Don't recall shit of it. Fed sentencing guidelines? Knew them inside out for three years. Couldn't hope to recall them now. Public finance? The only details kept are those which I can use as a consultant. Tax, bankruptcy, and execution laws and might be the only area I recall stuff quickly because in debt workouts it's often an issue. Insurance I intentionally refuse to keep in my head because it bores me to tears.

Two things are at work here. One, one can't really care much about most of the stuff. It's a way to get paid, so people recall it only long enough to get paid for it and then fill their heads with other things they find interesting, which pushes the boring stuff out. Second, one only has so much storage. The more subjects you hit, the more you crowd out other info.

So I agree, experts are of value. But it bears noting that people within an industry - and experts expose this more than anyone else - can develop an exclusively industry-centric view of things. The result is not always aligned with objective reality viewed from the outside.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Old 01-23-2020, 10:25 AM   #147
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,077
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
I work(ed) in lending. I discussed the situation at length with superiors and clients. I attended numerous talks about what happened. I had to revise credit agreements to fix the issue that arose because LIBOR was completely fucking fraudulent. I discussed mark-to-market valuation vs income stream on this board ad nauseum. We talked about capital requirements and what would happen if another bank failed. We talked about the Chicago School and how bonus culture renders it dead fucking wrong. I could go on and on.
I don't know why you insist that I disagree with your argument that letting another bank fall could have lead to dire circumstances. I've not said that. I've said most of the big banks deserved to fall. And they did. And part of me would like to see whether the doomsday scenario projected would actually occur if another bank fell. But I agree with you that the risk of catastrophe was too high. But did many - most - of the banks who did not fail deserve to fail? I think absolutely.

Quote:
Sebby's recollection of anything that happened at the time is so fucking off that it makes me think he was in a coma at the time.
My view on housing being a house of cards the fallout from which no MBS could be structured to avoid accrues initially from representing a subprime lender in the early 2000s. The model was utterly predatory (regulatory nightmare) and I was astounded it could be used to purchase cars, let alone homes. I was obviously quite unlearned.

Fast forward to just before the crisis. I was involved in purchasing and collecting debt. We did well on the refi boom before the crisis, and took the chips and left. The data we had been getting on borrowers was ominous and the price of debt was getting way too high.

Once that entity went into run-off, I went back into practicing part time (while doing a few other things). By happenstance, I handled a few foreclosures, then a few more, and then I had a mill running (they were cookie cutter, took no thinking, and referrals were swift... whole neighborhoods were going under at a time). The easiest way to hold up a case was to request all kinds of obscure shit from servicers (pooling agreements, servicing agreements, etc.). Doing that lead me to people looking at bringing class actions against servicers. I burned a bunch of time researching the stuff and reading white papers and talking to people at numerous levels. The picture one acquired from having read white papers on this shit was that, yes, you are correct - a lot of people in the big banks were clueless. But a lot of them were not. The loans underpinning a lot of the MBS at the frothiest point of the housing run-up were so bad, underwriting so lax, that no one couldn't see a problem coming. Did they think it was "contained" in subprime as Greenspan said? Maybe.

I think one had to have a more generalist view to actually understand what happened in 2008, because there are a lot of moving pieces. And one has to keep his eye focused exclusively on the cash flow from start to finish. If you knew a lot of loans were shit, jobs growth was anemic, and housing was turning into a bubble, which we knew as early as 2005, you then needed only run the numbers forward a bit. Ask yourself, "What happens when all this shit is packaged?"* Is it structured in such a way that it can withstand a number of loans defaulting? And what's the impact of an increase in defaults in a market unaccustomed to them? If the broader r/e market falters, what impact will that have on the economy (the r/e market at the time being one of the only bright spots in the economy). Will a correction in housing cause broader economic problems?

I don't know. I'm not "in the industry." But the friends and family I had on Wall Street all said the same thing. "These people are either incompetent or fraudulent, and I don't think they've been paying attention to shit." Almost none of them worked in MBS, or went near lending, so they tended to sound really annoyed about what they saw as some really dumb or craven fucks fucking a lot of shit up. (One I know did work near the MBS mess... he was part of the group that Baum bet against within his own firm.) But I do know this: Very few - a number so small it hardly bears discussing - of the people involved in packaging, selling, and rating MBS, or brokering loans, or buying houses they couldn't afford - can call themselves true "victims" of unforeseen circumstances in 2008.

But again - none of this is an argument against your point that allowing another bank to fail appeared to carry way too much risk. Though many more deserved to fail, we couldn't allow it.
_________
* I wonder how much MBS was impacted from the refi boom in 2007. When rates are cut and loans paid off early, this impacts value, no?
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; 01-23-2020 at 12:24 PM..
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Old 01-23-2020, 10:39 AM   #148
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,077
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder View Post
At this point, I'm just going to assume you're illiterate.
Well then tell a poor illiterate, what is your point when you say, "the MBS did have value"? No shit it had a value. Did you hear me say it had no value?
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Old 01-23-2020, 11:52 AM   #149
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 32,939
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
You were not representing companies of any sort then, were you?
If you were talking to prosecutor, and she said something to you about what criminals do, I'm sure you'd say, you don't have any real world experience -- you don't represent criminals. And that would go over well.

Also, as a lawyer who has worked inside different companies for many years, it's pretty rich to hear an outside lawyer suggest that working in a law firm gives you some special insight into its clients' business. I wish.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar

Last edited by Tyrone Slothrop; 01-23-2020 at 11:59 AM..
Tyrone Slothrop is offline  
Old 01-23-2020, 11:55 AM   #150
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 32,939
Re: Debate Revisited.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LessinSF View Post
GGG previously lost his challenge that there were no reasonably defensible Trump policies. I give you another. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/imm...women-n1120706
Also, soy milk and oat milk aren't milk. And, we should acquire Greenland.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:42 AM.