Democracy In Albany - New York Politics ||

Albany and the Subprime Market

By DIA, Section News
Posted on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 11:57:44 AM EST

Not sure this is of interest to most readers but it should be. Pretty much everyone agrees that having more homeowners in Albany is a good thing. In the past few years many people got into homes with loans they were quite simply not qualified to get if any sort of common sense financial analysis was used. The bulk of these are known as subprime and are currently wreaking havoc on the housing industry. The NY Times has a fascinating map of the whole state that breaks out the percentage of mortgages that are subprime. You can scroll on the map and zoom in on Albany. It breaks down the city by neighborhoods and there is some scary info in there. There are two neighborhoods where 75% of the mortgages are subprime. Most are around 50%. The chart also includes median income numbers which are not very encouraging. We may be looking at a wave of foreclosures in the next two years. Not exactly the thing we need to deal with our housing issues. A review of Schenectady and Troy shows that they also have issues but it appears Albany has a pretty strong lead in the percentage of subprime loans.

The other chart to consider is this one. Most subprime mortgages have low intro teaser rates. After a few years those reset to higher rates, often much higher. As you can see in the chart the majority reset in the second half of 07 and then 2008. It will take a while for this to impact all the loans. Many markets are experiencing record foreclosures already. I predict we will see a big upswing here in Albany in 08 and 09.

I'm glad we had all those bankers on the Recapitalize Albany team. They obviously were the right people to give us advice on how to fix our blighted neighborhoods.

< Hillary W Clinton | Albany's Management Problem >

Menu

+ create account
+ faq
+ search

Login

Make a new account

Related Links

+ a fascinating map
+ is this one.
+ Also by DIA

Albany and the Subprime Market | 33 comments (33 topical, 0 hidden)

DIA beat me to my email (none / 0) (#1)
by albarbor on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 06:15:38 PM EST

I am very much interested in the Sub prime problem in America. As our dollars are further appreciated all Americans better be interested too. I am asking for assistance from DIA or DIA viewers. About one month before the first Sub prime shock I was on DIA screaming about corruption in Albany. I was attack for my global economic comments. I agree that some regulatory agency should have been H.U.D. should have oversight over adjustable rate mortgages or ARMS. If you are low income whether you have good credit or not ARMS, should be off limits to you. Governor Spitzer said on Bloomberg "I do not think the mortgage lenders did anything wrong".

I think H.U.D and the Housing Authorities nationwide are failed systems that someone either Governor Spitzer or President Bush needs to abolish. What is amazing to me is that we have people living in Public Housing in Albany and people who are homeless in Albany County, but we have Albany Housing Authority listed as owners of property on the City's abandoned building report.

Lower Taxes... (none / 0) (#2)
by Uncle Sam on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 06:23:04 PM EST

...would ease the subprime burden...may also cause housing prices to go up if the overhead costs of owning property goes down which would help refi.

With one caveat...I wonder how many of those mortgages are held by slum lords...or other absentee homeowner.

I haven't been able to reconcile in my mind where we draw the line on "helping" people...help the poor owner who was suckered into a raw deal...but the guy who speculates on a condo in Miami who should know better?

: true believers (none / 0) (#3)
by DIA on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 06:55:53 PM EST

your reponse is to lower taxes so that real estate prices will go up?
When i think about the odds of that guy being named Laffer I think there just might "intelligent design".
Maybe we could just raise the debt ceiling and everything would be ok? Or lower interest rates. Never met a Republican who didnt' think we could borrow our way out of trouble.
The majority of republicans don't understand economics. The majority of democrats currently support Hillary Clinton and probably know less than the Republicans. They all are leveraged to a point they can't afford. they deserve each other. they all will blame someone else for their inability to pay for their flat screens and burgerkindoms.
Wasn't there a time when Americans were leaders?

[ Parent ]

Yeah, you're right... (none / 0) (#4)
by Uncle Sam on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 07:08:05 PM EST

...let's raise taxes instead...so not only will people have to pay more on their variable rate, but have to pay more to the government. Way to screw over the common man.

Taxes have gone up in this city. Let's say they go up another 100%, will prop values go up or down?

Will lower prop values help the owner who wants to fix the rate on his variable loan?

Will lower prop values encourage people to invest in upkeep of their homes?

Should we help the guy who was trying to flip a condo in Vegas? Should we help the granny trying to flip a home on New Scotland to get a little bit more out of retirement savings?

did i say we should raise taxes (none / 0) (#5)
by DIA on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 07:20:05 PM EST

i've never met a republican who cared about the "common man". You are a first.

if we look at the economy in a vacuum, like idiots do, of course lowering taxes would help developers.

the people who got these loans have no money to fix their houses. they are fucked. They gambled. They lost. Their bankers never should've loaned them the money. but their bankers don't live in West Hill. Their bankers profited. Bankers usually are the souless fucks you knew in highschool who no one liked because of their personality. They will fuck over whole community for commission. Its what they do.

We've had low property values in Albany for the first 12-13 years of Jerry's reign. Did i miss the homeowner investment boom that spurred?

We should help no one trying to flip properties. Fuck them. Next you'll be advocating for helping people who buy scratch offs and don't win.

Republican Problem Solving 101:

Hey, that building is on fire!!!

Republican Cheerleader: Lower the taxes on the building and the fire will go out!!!!!!!

[ Parent ]

: right on (none / 0) (#22)
by chuckles on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 01:51:59 PM EST

Right on, DIA.

[ Parent ]

Geezus (none / 0) (#6)
by Uncle Sam on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 07:32:01 PM EST

I didn't say bail out the flippers...my point is, where do you draw the line on helping the people who gambled? Whether you take out a 30 year fixed with 20% down or an interest only with 450% HELOC (i'm exagerrating), it's all a gamble.

What's gone terribly wrong in this situation is that those who prey on the losers are getting bailed out. Any good Republican will tell you that businesses should manage their risk and have reserves to offset it...not count on a bailout or artificial rate cut that sends the dollar into the toilet.

we agree (none / 0) (#7)
by DIA on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 07:45:29 PM EST

see, i call myself a non republican but perhaps i am really a true conservative.

I draw the line on helping no one who gambled.

I'm still waiting to meet "any good republican". If you can point me to any elected Republicans who adhere to the Republican values you espouse i'd be all ears. Never seen it. Talk a good game. But its all lies.

I think the mortgage brokers and bankers should be in jail for fraud. Everyone who can't pay for their homes should lose them. And they can take their 52 inch flat screens back to rent a center. I think i may have to start a new party that represents my values. Perhaps iti will be called the Work party. People like George W Bush or Rudy Giuliani won't even understand the concept. It may have some legs. Maybe we'll also have an Honesty wing. Oops...no Clintons allowed there.

The good news for my party members is if you are honest and work hard America is a great fucking place. Too bad Clintons and Bushes are ruining it.

[ Parent ]

DIA - gambling? (none / 0) (#9)
by makome on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 07:57:30 PM EST

I know you are all anti-gambling, but come on. Most people who got roped into these bad ARMs probably don't know how to balance their checkbooks much less understand the intricacies of a variable rate mortgage. I would think that most were suckered by shady mortgage outfits taking advantage of lax lending rules. These people were probably given the hard sell and told that they could live like kings in their own castle.

I am not excusing those that legitimately took the risk that their rates would not jump or that they thought they would have the income to deal with it. They gambled and lost. But it appears that there may be many who were swindled by the smooth-talking suburban bankers you love to rant about. No??

[ Parent ]

i agree completely (none / 0) (#10)
by DIA on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 08:09:09 PM EST

that most americans have no idea about money.

I don't think we should bail them out.

If we bail them out, we bail out the banks.

No one got roped into the bad arms. They agreed to them.

"those people" were most definitely given the "hard sell" by their criminal mortgage broker/banker. But they all wanted something for nothing.

Time to pay the piper.

I think the bankers and brokers should be in jail. I think the suckers should just be broke. It ain't a crime to be stupid. The bankers and brokers knew what they were doing. But they are all free and clear.

in 2006 mortgage rates were at historic lows. If you had a job and wanted to buy a house there was never a better time. Did you get a fixed rate 30 yr? If not, why?

americans are proving to be really stupid. Expect more confirmation soon.

I was really lucky. I had two parents. Some other kids in the crib. they rented a lot of places before buying their first house. Remember a time when you only bought what you could afford?

[ Parent ]

How is this different? (none / 0) (#14)
by makome on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 08:57:24 PM EST

How are these bankers any different from the Insurance Churning scams of the late 80's early 90's in which unsophisticated investors/customers were scammed out of money? They were promised "something" for "nothing" and yet these security/insurance firms were hammered by the government for their negligent actions. http://www.lawsuitsearch.com/news/insurance/prudential_deceptive_life_insurance_sc.aspx

How are these ARM's any different? Perhaps prosecution is in order? Government intervention needed? Why not? Perhaps the customer base is different and happens to vote Democratic and therefore if you are stupid and broke who cares? If the Country-club set was getting ripped-off don't you think that the regulators would viewing these transactions under a electron microscope?? AND looking to bail out the duped customers??

[ Parent ]

here is the thing (none / 0) (#17)
by DIA on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 04:57:22 AM EST

the people buying these homes might not have known they couldn't afford them. People buy a lot of shit they can't afford. These people will "lose" homes they were essentialy just renting (i'm sure you've heard of interest only loans). then they will go rent someplace else.

I think the banks should be prosecuted as well. I've read of many instances with these loans where their behavior is certainly dishonest. Some good people are getting screwed over in this and that is a problem. When people deal with banks, they get screwed.

[ Parent ]

here is an extreme example (none / 0) (#20)
by DIA on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 06:44:01 AM EST

http://hollisterfreelance.com/news/contentview.asp?c=213141

A guy making $14K a year "bought" a house for $720,000. He is now going to lose his home. But he never really owned it. I see no way to help out these people because the finances are so out of whack.

There is no way this could ever work. The real estate agent and the bank are criminals. I hope they lose their jobs. But you can't buy a house if you make $14K a year.

[ Parent ]

Wow (none / 0) (#32)
by ObnoxioTheClown on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 09:27:36 PM EST

Are you hitting the hash tonight too? Maybe you should stick to gin.

Here's a great quote from that article:

With their combined incomes, the Ramirezes and the Martinezes estimated that they could afford monthly payments of $3,000 - around 50 percent of their income. However, the Ramirezes said Rancho Grande real estate agent Maria Avila promised they could refinance their home in three to six months to an affordable rate; until then, Rosa Ramirez said, Avila said she would pay for whatever they couldn't afford.
Avila did supplement the mortgage payments on the Hollister home, paying about $2,200 per month for nine months.

Ok, you're a fruit picker who makes $14,000/year. You buy a house for 52x your annual income. You can't even afford the interest-only payments, so you lie about your income and can only afford the house because YOUR MORTGAGE BROKER gives you $2,200/mo.

Maybe you're enough of a bleeding heart sucker to believe that horseshit, but it's pretty clear that this guy was hoping to flip the house to some other schmuck.

[ Parent ]

: actually (none / 0) (#33)
by DIA on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 05:29:15 AM EST

the real estate agent was the one fronting the cash for the mortgage. Agents sometimes offer incentives like that. Say she made a 3% commission on the sale. That would be $21K. So she gives back some of that money. She comes out ahead.
The mortgage broker also made a nice fee too, right?
You may have not noticed that I said there is no way this loan should've been made. In your strange world, somehow mortgage brokers and bankers making these loans are not to blame at all. Somehow they got suckered in by a lying non english speaking berry picker.
I think all parties are too blame. I think the real estate agent and mortgage broker have a responsibility to be involved in deals that won't immediately blow up. Apparently my views are "non traditional".

[ Parent ]

disagree here (none / 0) (#23)
by chuckles on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 01:57:42 PM EST

Most of the people who get sub-prime loans don't understand the terms or are suckered by the salespeople into signing agreements that say different things than the salespeople did. In other words, the banks and shady sub-prime loan outfits lie.

The reason the government bails them out is because the government cannot risk an economic meltdown. Just like the way the Feds bailed out the Savings and Loans in the 80's. The answer is to not allow these loans to take place in the first place.

[ Parent ]

Countrywide seems to be making a good move (none / 0) (#8)
by makome on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 07:51:33 PM EST

I believe Countrywide Mortgage is going to offer deals to a large group of it sub-prime customers by allowing them to change the terms of their mortgages. Moving folks from soon-to-be-devastating ARMs, terms that are going to cause delinquency and default, to fixed mortgages (at a about 8%- I think). This is win-win for both (I think Atrios posted on this earlier today). Perhaps a little arm twisting (Pun intended!!) by NYS Legislature and Spitzer or US Congress to make other sub-prime lenders offer similar programs would be good for all. Little or no cost to taxpayer and both lenders and home owners benefit.

[ Parent ]

Blame the banker... what a joke (none / 0) (#11)
by ObnoxioTheClown on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 08:14:47 PM EST

Real estate often follows a boom bust cycle... easy money leads to high prices and ultimately money becomes more expensive and foolish people lose everything.

If you read into the history of the loans, subprime mortgages initially were targetted at small businessowners, who are often subject to wide income swings, often personally guarantee business debt and lack documentation.

Many banks began extending the loans to their "community" banking subsidiaries before the bubble, as their clients didn't meet the underwriting criteria for traditional conforming mortgages. As the housing market heated up, the intense pressure to write more loans led to more mortgage brokers hawking loans who has less experience and no vested interest in the loans beyond their commission.

The other factor is that the working and middle class in poor communities are usually the product of piss-poor schools and come from broken homes that aren't very sophisticated when it comes to money, borrowing and investing. Predatory lenders flock to single moms and low-income neighborhoods just like H&R Block because ignorant people are easy to rip off.

At the end of the day, you're responsible when you sign a contract. If some salesman tells you that you can own a $150,000 house for $300/month, which is less than taxes & insurance, you need to ask some questions. If a regular bank won't give you a loan because you pay you're bills 60 days late, maybe you should pay your fucking bills on time. And if your financial situation doesn't allow you to pay your bills on time, you probably should re-think the home purchase.

blame the banker what a fuck (none / 0) (#12)
by DIA on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 08:23:05 PM EST

here's the deal clown boy. back it up

If you read into the history of the loans, subprime mortgages initially were targetted at small businessowners, who are often subject to wide income swings, often personally guarantee business debt and lack documentation

Let us all read into the loans. Clown links forthcoming.

But they won't be, wlll they? And aren't you breaking from the Republican camp? Small biz owners are our saviours. Are you saying they are dragging us down?

Stick to what you're good at. (none / 0) (#15)
by ObnoxioTheClown on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 09:58:49 PM EST

Keep poking at Jennings, you're obviously over your head with this stuff. It isn't rocket science - even for dumb white folk and clowns like me.

Why don't you head over to Amazon.com or Mary Jane's and pick up "Residential Mortgage Lending: Principles and Practices". It describes how mortgages work and goes into the origins of various types of loans, and how lenders and the secondary markets valuate those loans.

The issue It has nothing to do with democrat vs. republican or suburbs vs. city. The evil bankers aren't in some grand conspiracy to take over shitty residential property in places like Albany. They want to make money -- and bad loans aren't a good way of making money. Witness the collapse of the mortage banks.

The origin of all of this is that there is alot of cash out there, mostly with foreign investors who are getting rich peddling consumer products to the US and Europe. They need to put the money someplace, and US real estate is considered a good investment.

All of that money looking for a home drove down conventional mortgages to low rates, and there was still plenty of capital looking for a home. The US was pretty much tapped out of traditional borrowers, so banks started expanding no-doc loan programs and inventing exotic loans to attract more homebuyers.

Nobody had a mortgage forced upon them. If you took a risk and bought a house in 2001, and sold it for $150,000 in 2006, you did well -- just like all of the folks who invested in Plug Power early on. If you took the same risk in 2006, betting that the house would double in value in two years, or that Aaron Dare would take care of you, you lost. Simple as that.

It's pretty well established that industries like real estate follow a boom-bust cycle. That's the nature of an open market.

[ Parent ]

this stuff is complicated (none / 0) (#18)
by DIA on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:05:42 AM EST

perhaps I'll stick to what i know. Can you tell me something?

As the housing market heated up, the intense pressure to write more loans led to more mortgage brokers hawking loans who has less experience and no vested interest in the loans beyond their commission.

the "intense pressure" that bankers felt to write all these bad loans. Where did that come from? Its not in the book i read about mortgages to try to be smart like you.

I didn't say this was a plan to take over sections of Albany. Somehow you assumed that.

Bad loans were a fantastic way of making money for the big boys. And will continue to be. Perhaps you should buy some new books. But you do have the lingo down. "The US was pretty much tapped out of traditional borrowers"

Traditional borrowers - my book says those are people who actually had the financial resources to pay back their loans. What does your book say?

Funny stuff. But what would we expect from a clown.

[ Parent ]

Only when you start at the minutae (none / 0) (#24)
by ObnoxioTheClown on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 01:58:03 PM EST

I can take off the clown suit, your swarmyness steals the show.

the "intense pressure" that bankers felt to write all these bad loans. Where did that come from? Its not in the book i read about mortgages to try to be smart like you.

Demand.

People want to buy homes, and want to live in places like California, New York, Miami, Boston. Problem is, so does everyone else -- so prices soar.
Investors want realatively secure, high-yielding investment options.

Then a few lenders go to far, and because big pension plans and hedge funds use mortgage-backed securities as collatoral for loans, they're forced to sell off assets to cover their margins. That leads to a mini-financial panic and the situation we're faced with today.

[ Parent ]

demand (none / 0) (#26)
by DIA on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 02:13:05 PM EST

so you are saying that poor people with no assets demanded to be given these loans and the bankers had no choice but to cave in the pressure? Who knew the poor and economical unsavvy were what drove the creation of "exotic financial instruments".

Want to try again with a bit of honesty?

You do take your own advice and stick to what you are good at. You are good at covering for the bankers, I'll give you that. "a few lenders go too far". How many billion did that little outfit Merrill Lynch write off today? I've heard a "few" other banks might've gone too far as well. Actually, all of them.

[ Parent ]

Blah, blah, blah (none / 0) (#27)
by ObnoxioTheClown on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:20:07 PM EST

so you are saying that poor people with no assets demanded to be given these loans and the bankers had no choice but to cave in the pressure? Who knew the poor and economical unsavvy were what drove the creation of "exotic financial instruments".

No.

Do you own a home? If so, did you put 20% down? If you didn't, you have a mortgage that was considered exotic 30 years ago.

Times change... it is easy to access credit, and people don't save anything. Changing behaviors mean that banks need to change their products.

You are good at covering for the bankers, I'll give you that. "a few lenders go too far".

Don't make it too easy. The subprime market was dominated by specialty mortgage banks, subject to minimal regulation and the loans peddled by brokers, some of which were real scum. Traditional banks wrote the loans too, but it represented a far lower volume.

How many billion did that little outfit Merrill Lynch write off today?

Go read a book and stop getting your information from blowhard bloggers like yourself. Merrill Lynch doesn't write loans, they buy bonds and derivatives made up of hundreds of mortgages. So did your pension fund and many balanced mutual funds.

[ Parent ]

: do you have a recommended reading list? (none / 0) (#29)
by DIA on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:46:12 PM EST

So the bankers were pressured into loaning this money due to demand according to you. What was the demand for? Could it be that the investment banks couldn't get enough of this stuff? If that isn't the source of the demand, I'd love to hear what you think the demand came from. You say the consumers weren't the cause of it? Can sellers create demand by offering products for sale that are too good to be true and that they know are complete junk?
The real scum are at the top of the food chain. They knew what those mortgage brokers were doing. They needed them for this all to work.
"don't make it too easy". This is a very funny statement coming from the clown who wrote this earlier

People want to buy homes, and want to live in places like California, New York, Miami, Boston. Problem is, so does everyone else -- so prices soar.
Investors want realatively secure, high-yielding investment options.

So that is why there are a bunch of subprimes mortgages in West Hill? Because people want to live in NYC? Now i understand.
I'm a fiscal conservative. I practice what i preach. I've got a very low fixed rate mortgage and I put down my 20%. As I've often said, America is an easy place to make money if you are willing to do a little work and not borrow and spend. I'm worried that if i read the books you recommend my net worth would go down.
Another classic. "Changing behaviors mean that banks need to change their products." Translation: No one fucking saves any money any more, their credit is shit, their wages are stagnant and my salary is fee based... so I'm going to loan to them anyway because if i don't loan to them, there are not fees to be had because all the smart people got into fixed rate deals at historic low interest rates and it doesn't matter if they never pay because i will immediately sell the loan to someone on wall street who will bundle it and sell it to someone else who will then lever up and buy lots more of them and then they will be good investments.
One of my favorite terms is the term "bankers hours". Cracks me up every time.
Or, we could blame blowhard bloggers. They did this!

[ Parent ]
: riddle me this (none / 0) (#34)
by DIA on Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 05:49:42 AM EST

you claim to be an expert on the industry and say i'm in over my head. You made this claim "Merril Lynch doesn't write loans". How would you respond to the fact that merrill lynch owns several companies that did just that and thus you appear to be either wrong or lying.

Officials from New Century and Merrill declined to comment on the potential deal. But Merrill Lynch made no secret it was shopping last year for subprime lenders.
On Sept. 5, Merrill announced a $1.3 billion agreement with National City Corp. to buy three subsidiaries: First Franklin, a subprime lender headquartered in San Jose, National Home Loan Services in Pittsburgh and NationPoint, an online mortgage lender in Lake Forest.

Or how about this

Several investment banks invested in subprime loan originators. Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Goldman Sachs all bought shares of lenders to increase their pipeline of securities. Not all of the deals worked out. Merrill held a 25 percent share in Agoura Hills-based Ownit Mortgage Solutions, which filed for bankruptcy protection in December when investment banks froze its loans.

Hmmm. And I thought it was just a few rogue mortgage brokers who caused ths.

[ Parent ]

home improvement loans. (none / 0) (#25)
by chuckles on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 02:07:05 PM EST

Actually, bad loans can be a great way to make money. Many of these sub-prime loans were for much less than the value of the buildings--they might be home improvement loans that allow for the repossession of a building if the loan is foreclosed. The bank or lender can then turn around and potentially sell the building for a profit.

Go stick that in your book.

[ Parent ]

Don't like books, eh? (none / 0) (#28)
by ObnoxioTheClown on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:31:29 PM EST

I thought progressives were all about education?

I find it amusing that people like you and DIA resent referencing a book that is one of the authorities on the topic of discussion.

[ Parent ]

: did they read that one (none / 0) (#30)
by DIA on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 06:39:46 PM EST

at merrill lynch? Perhaps they just looked at the pictures?

[ Parent ]

Equal justice for all... (none / 0) (#13)
by Uncle Sam on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 08:28:36 PM EST

Homeowners don't pay their bills...they lose their home.

Bankers don't manage their risk, they are out of business.

What else is there to say?

: send that note (none / 0) (#19)
by DIA on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 05:27:58 AM EST

to henry paulson.
He'll agree with the first part. Not the second.

[ Parent ]

Class exploitation (none / 0) (#21)
by chuckles on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 01:50:41 PM EST

It's not surprising that banks are preying on poor people who may not understand their rights or other financial stuff.

It's all about the Benjamins!

The Wizards of Money has two audio episodes on the Subprime loan markets. They are fascinating. You should all listen to them so you know what you're talking about.

notes on smarmy (none / 0) (#31)
by DIA on Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 07:37:12 PM EST

85% of mutual funds don't beat the market.

80% of hedge funds don't either if you count in their fees.

All of these funds are run by "really smart" people who went to harvard and yale. You know, like George W Bush (Yale undergrad, Harvard MBA).

If you think I should respect people who can't beat an index fund, you have misread me. And those are the high paid folks. The mortgage brokers working as their lap dogs were well paid but are not considered the "talent". They go to different parties.

But you can blame "progressives" if you like for being anti book. I've got a strong hunch that if all your banker buddies read your book on residential lending that we wouldnt' be in this mess.

I've got a theory. And it makes me a lot of money. Don't do what the "smart kids" do. 85% of professional money managers are less effective than doing nothing. Anyway, have fun at the bank tomorrow. At least you don't work for BoA. Did they read the book?

Albany and the Subprime Market | 33 comments (33 topical, 0 hidden)

create account | faq | search