tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6341193636996474879.post8664845207534089259..comments2009-07-25T20:36:35.233-04:00Comments on If this be Treason...: Mark-to-Market ExplainedDon Publiushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05071729459203462576noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6341193636996474879.post-57021428753321949382009-03-21T13:20:00.000-04:002009-03-21T13:20:00.000-04:00[cont'd]They could have fought harder, but my unde...[cont'd]<BR/><BR/>They could have fought harder, but my understanding is that the banks who originated the loans were actually counting on selling the loans very quickly, so as long as they met the standards for bundling, there wasn't much risk for the originating lender.Steve Schulinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02918382403455590715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6341193636996474879.post-68923886463124022312009-03-21T05:11:00.000-04:002009-03-21T05:11:00.000-04:00Hi - I understand the clearly explained concepts, ...Hi - I understand the clearly explained concepts, but it seems that there's a big part of the story missing. Say a fellow bought a house for nothing down a few years ago, and he can't make the payments any more. Are you saying that whoever holds the mortgage ought to be able to pretend, accounting-wise, that the loan will eventually be paid? <BR/><BR/>My understanding is that big government, with its laudable goal of increasing the ranks of those with "a stake in the game", rigged the rules so that banks made loans that, absent the government, would not have been made. The bank management had to know that the rules for qualifying borrowers were inadequate. They could have fought harder for sustainable economic policies,Steve Schulinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02918382403455590715noreply@blogger.com