UncleNasty -> RE: Warren Buffet on the current economic situation (5/3/2009 8:31:02 AM)
|
How about no public bailouts of private business at all. Isn't private business, well, um, private? And regulation? Had the statutes, regs and laws we had/have been properly heeded and utilized the mess either would not have happened, or on a greatly reduced scale. As a for instance, this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/business/06gret.html?scp=19&sq=Gretchen%20Morgenson&st=cse) by Gretchen Morgenson in April of last year is indicative of lenders unwillingness to do the "due diligence" in re a borrowers income. In some instances it is required that lenders do this, and even in those cases they frequently did not. Included among the required instances are the majority of the sub-prime and Alt-A loans that got the ball rolling Truth in Lending, Regulation Z, at 226.34(a)(4)(ii)(A) states: (A) A creditor must verify amounts of income or assets that it relies on to determine repayment ability, including expected income or assets, by the consumer's Internal Revenue Service Form W--2, tax returns, payroll receipts, financial institution records, or other third-party documents that provide reasonably reliable evidence of the consumer's income or assets. Section 226.34 is titled "Prohibited acts or practices in connection with credit subject to § 226.32." If anyone is interested here is a link to Part 226 - Truth in Lending (Regulation Z), which is found in the Consumer Protection Act: http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-1400.html Consumer protection - what a wild idea. And whooda thunk there was already something in place to do that. Pity more folks don't use it. Uncle Nasty
|
|
|
|