Well, hey, never blame your industry when you can attempt to tar the government that just bailed your sorry selves out. (and yes, that includes you, even if your bank was not directly involved).
Nice chart. I went to college with Shiller's kid, believe it or not. Anyways, it looks like things pick up more in the early 2000s than 97 to me.
My explanation? Super low federal interest rates that were kept way too low for way too long (for political reasons), and an unappetizing stock market in the early 2000s. Money seeking a return had to go somewhere, and that's where it went.
If you were in the field at the time, you'd probably have a similar memory. It's what my friends in the industry were saying circa 2003. None of them were talking about Fannie and Freddie -- they only adopted that when it became a convienent excuse 5 years later.
Since you're an expert, I'd love to see a citation regarding that "remarkable expansion of govt sponsored lending" by Freddie and Fannie at the time? Specifically, was it driven by an act of government or was it market-driven?
It's pretty nice that you know enough about banking to provide us with an explanation of the financial crisis, yet you think a derivatives exchange is a "bank" and that the crisis somehow put us in danger. 30 seconds on Google Finance would have shown our balance sheet is rock solid and our operating margin is about the same as it was before.
I wouldn't call myself an expert, either. I don't think what I'm saying is obscure or expert knowledge--just paying attention to the facts.
I'm getting tired of responding to so many attacks, so I'm going to leave this in a DH5 on the PG disagree-o-meter.
Your assertion that the housing bubble was quote "government fuelled" is not obscure or expert knowledge -- and it's certainly not a fact, it's an opinion propagated primarily by those with material or ideological incentive to blame the crisis on quote "government".
A systemwide financial meltdown of the sort that we avoided would most likely have put your employer in danger. I don't know your business well enough to say for sure, but I think most people would agree that it's a reasonable assumption.
Nice chart. I went to college with Shiller's kid, believe it or not. Anyways, it looks like things pick up more in the early 2000s than 97 to me.
My explanation? Super low federal interest rates that were kept way too low for way too long (for political reasons), and an unappetizing stock market in the early 2000s. Money seeking a return had to go somewhere, and that's where it went.
If you were in the field at the time, you'd probably have a similar memory. It's what my friends in the industry were saying circa 2003. None of them were talking about Fannie and Freddie -- they only adopted that when it became a convienent excuse 5 years later.
Since you're an expert, I'd love to see a citation regarding that "remarkable expansion of govt sponsored lending" by Freddie and Fannie at the time? Specifically, was it driven by an act of government or was it market-driven?