[sokinwet]

This board used to be a place where you could state your case and maybe post a link to support your position and hope to open someones eyes to your position on a subject. I've learned a few things and hope that someone might have learned something from my posts. Not any more! Seems we've degraded into..insult, cut and paste the latest BS and insult some more.. many times without the slightest notion about the actual subject underdiscussion.
VYB..don't like to single you out because people on both sides of these discussions have been losing it but...you don't know the difference between Fannie Mae and AIG??..yet you paste this BS from Michael Graham like it was an objective discussion of a complicated problem. Now I'm no Barney Frank fan but to lay the blame for this mess on Barney Frank exclusively is pure political BS. Frank certainly had his head in the sand when he stated he felt GSE's portfolio's were in fine shape but there's plenty of blame to spread around on this one. Try reviewing the role of T.Sec. Snow, question why Mike Oxley (R), who preceded Frank as chair (Frank took over in 07) was ignored by the Bush admin. when he proposed regulation, and see when any regulation was actually proposed. As I said it's a complicated problem that didn't come about through the actions of one man.
Graham (and all the others jumping on this story) comparing EBS with a portfolio of prob. 200 million with any of the players in this crisis is laughable. Because I work in the housing industry I have been requested to comment on the CRA performance of a couple of the larger local savings banks. Performance evaluations can credit things like, servicing non profit group loans, participating in State initiatives, making SB loans, community education, etc. A couple of points about CRA. 1. CRA only comes into play for "depository institutions" not for most of the major mortgage finance agencys or banking houses that we're all hearing about. 2. CRA DOES NOT require the making of sub-prime or risky loans. 3. CRA does grade lenders on their performance in serving their lending and "depositor" area. Think of it in simple terms. Lender X takes deposits from people who live in community X..then they decide they're only going to lend that $ to people who live community Y...it used to be called redlining and was a serious problem. How about that small business loan to promote economic growth in "X"..no thanks ?? The people are putting their money in your bank and you're making $$ off their deposits but your bank doesn't serve X's credit needs? Does anyone think that really right? EBS is lending .28 of every dollar in deposits..that means .72 is going into their investments to make more money for them. I know one thing..if I had a buck to put in my savings account, it wouldn't be in EBS!