Comments on: A Carney-Ritholtz CRA debate? http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/29/a-carney-ritholtz-cra-debate/ A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: yo http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/29/a-carney-ritholtz-cra-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-3483 Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:10:33 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/29/a-carney-ritholtz-cra-debate/#comment-3483 barry says if cra was the problem, then cra banks should be first and most in the bad loan dept.
this requires one to believe that mortgage brokers don’t know what’s going on in the market and aren’t interested in getting a piece of the no doc loan action until the cra banks have had a nice long non-competitive crack at it.
only idiots that don’t know how markets work believe that.

]]>
By: Ken Houghton http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/29/a-carney-ritholtz-cra-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-3414 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:56:38 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/29/a-carney-ritholtz-cra-debate/#comment-3414 Let’s see: Carney admits that the CRA loans aren’t; in fact, they outperform the generic 30-year-Fixeds. And he concedes that they aren’t either (a) a large part of the market or (b) of large notional values.

So the “significance” test isn’t going to pass any reasonable threshold even in normal times–and is likely even lower for the 2004-2007 range.

Meanwhile, the optimistic version in the market is that MBSes are trading ca. 30-50 cents on the dollar. You don’t get there with a ca. 1% default rate.

Does Carney play poker? And does he have backers for that?

]]>
By: Joseph Weisenthal http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/29/a-carney-ritholtz-cra-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-3402 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:50:20 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/29/a-carney-ritholtz-cra-debate/#comment-3402 @Jon h

What does that even mean?

]]>
By: Jon H http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/29/a-carney-ritholtz-cra-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-3401 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:43:22 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/29/a-carney-ritholtz-cra-debate/#comment-3401 “It’s funny that anyone could read Barry’s post and Carney’s post and think Carney’s the one arguing on bluster, handwaving and emotion.”

Numbers, Joe. How about some numbers?

]]>
By: Joseph Weisenthal http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/29/a-carney-ritholtz-cra-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-3394 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:32:11 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/29/a-carney-ritholtz-cra-debate/#comment-3394 @Jon H

It’s funny that anyone could read Barry’s post and Carney’s post and think Carney’s the one arguing on bluster, handwaving and emotion.

]]>
By: Paul http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/29/a-carney-ritholtz-cra-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-3380 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:46:59 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/29/a-carney-ritholtz-cra-debate/#comment-3380 Carney’s “takedown” of the arguments is pitiful.

But what’s most hilarious is how Carney wants to structure his bet – he doesn’t want to put up much money himself (although he is generous enough to offer the “bulk of the upside” to his sponsor). In short, he wants to play by Financial Sector circa-2005 rules – lots of leverage, very limited downside.

And yet he claims not to have “anything like” $10,000.

Not a lot of conviction there.

]]>
By: Jon H http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/29/a-carney-ritholtz-cra-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-3379 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:31:03 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/29/a-carney-ritholtz-cra-debate/#comment-3379 I dunno.

A traditional debate favors Carney, because Carney would be able to get by on rhetoric and handwaving, which is all he has to go on. Barry has the numbers to back himself up, but oral debate is a poor venue for putting forward numeric data. The audience’s eyes glaze over and they side with the guy making the emotional appeal.

]]>
By: otto http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/29/a-carney-ritholtz-cra-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-3376 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:55:17 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/29/a-carney-ritholtz-cra-debate/#comment-3376 Well I’ve been practising for years and just know I can urinate further than either of them.

]]>
By: James Cullen http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/29/a-carney-ritholtz-cra-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-3371 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:32:03 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/29/a-carney-ritholtz-cra-debate/#comment-3371 As Jonathan says, how you define blame will be key to the debate. Will it be preponderance of evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt? And how do I volunteer for jury duty?

]]>
By: Jonathan Lundell http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/29/a-carney-ritholtz-cra-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-3368 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:22:33 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/06/29/a-carney-ritholtz-cra-debate/#comment-3368 The other tough thing will be agreeing in advance to a definition of “significantly to blame”, which could range all the way from “primarily to blame” to “having any statistical significance at all”.

]]>