> Right, the problem wasn't as much the home loans as all of the side-wagering.
Not so fast. US banks were basically required to own Fannie and Freddie stock plus if they didn't make "enough" loans to people who realistically couldn't pay them back, they got dinged by regulators. (Wells Fargo was getting hammered over this.)
The stock holding is what pushed many of them into technical insolvency when Fannie and Freddie cratered. Combine that with regulators pushing mortgage-backed securities and you've covered the bulk of the problem.
Throw in some govt officials who decided to pay off Goldman et al with taxpayer money instead of letting them rely on the "insurance" and collateral that they'd arranged, and the rest is a minor blip.
Not so fast. US banks were basically required to own Fannie and Freddie stock plus if they didn't make "enough" loans to people who realistically couldn't pay them back, they got dinged by regulators. (Wells Fargo was getting hammered over this.)
The stock holding is what pushed many of them into technical insolvency when Fannie and Freddie cratered. Combine that with regulators pushing mortgage-backed securities and you've covered the bulk of the problem.
Throw in some govt officials who decided to pay off Goldman et al with taxpayer money instead of letting them rely on the "insurance" and collateral that they'd arranged, and the rest is a minor blip.