"The bailout came after the thrift suffered deposit outflows of $16.7 billion since September 15, the [Office of Thrift Supervision] said."
Holy fuck.
I worked for Washington mutual for 5 years, after they acquired my previous employer, Fleet Mortgage. They shut their Milwaukee site down last year after they dumped their entire government-backed mortgage portfolio on Wells Fargo. They kept the ARMs and other weird loan products.
Oops.
In the past couple of weeks, I've fielded several calls from my old employers, who were feeling me out to see if I'd be willing to come back on. Apparently, the people they hired to replace me at the new site weren't exactly working out as planned (not my fault: I trained them as well as I could in the time I was given). I told them I'd be happy to help out, but only if I could work from Milwaukee: I wasn't going to move to Florence, SC to work for a struggling company in a struggling industry, with no job security, for the same money I could make by staying where I am. It also only made sense for them: they'd save money by having me telecommute.
They were curiously reluctant to agree to my suggestion. I wonder if this didn't have something to do with that.
Showing posts with label Banking Crisis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Banking Crisis. Show all posts
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The Federal Bailout Plan: You think I Should Respond?
Just got this email out of the blue:
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR URGENT BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP
DEAR AMERICAN:
I NEED TO ASK YOU TO SUPPORT AN URGENT SECRET BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH A TRANSFER OF FUNDS OF GREAT MAGNITUDE.
I AM MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY OF THE REPUBLIC OF AMERICA. MY COUNTRY HAS HAD CRISIS THAT HAS CAUSED THE NEED FOR LARGE TRANSFER OF FUNDS OF 800 BILLION DOLLARS US. IF YOU WOULD ASSIST ME IN THIS TRANSFER, IT WOULD BE MOST PROFITABLE TO YOU.
I AM WORKING WITH MR. PHIL GRAM, LOBBYIST FOR UBS, WHO WILL BE MY REPLACEMENT AS MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY IN JANUARY. AS A SENATOR, YOU MAY KNOW HIM AS THE LEADER OF THE AMERICAN BANKING DEREGULATION MOVEMENT IN THE 1990S. THIS TRANSACTIN IS 100% SAFE.
THIS IS A MATTER OF GREAT URGENCY. WE NEED A BLANK CHECK. WE NEED THE FUNDS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. WE CANNOT DIRECTLY TRANSFER THESE FUNDS IN THE NAMES OF OUR CLOSE FRIENDS BECAUSE WE ARE CONSTANTLY UNDER SURVEILLANCE. MY FAMILY LAWYER ADVISED ME THAT I SHOULD LOOK FOR A RELIABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY PERSON WHO WILL ACT AS A NEXT OF KIN SO THE FUNDS CAN BE TRANSFERRED.
PLEASE REPLY WITH ALL OF YOUR BANK ACCOUNT, IRA AND COLLEGE FUND ACCOUNT NUMBERS AND THOSE OF YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN TO WALLSTREETBAILOUT@TREASURY.GOV SO THAT WE MAY TRANSFER YOUR COMMISSION FOR THIS TRANSACTION. AFTER I RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION, I WILL RESPOND WITH DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT SAFEGUARDS THAT WILL BE USED TO PROTECT THE FUNDS.
YOURS FAITHFULLY MINISTER OF TREASURY PAULSON
Dunno, this sounds sort of familliar...
HT: Unqualified Offerings
Update: the original source is actually Angry Bear.
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR URGENT BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP
DEAR AMERICAN:
I NEED TO ASK YOU TO SUPPORT AN URGENT SECRET BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH A TRANSFER OF FUNDS OF GREAT MAGNITUDE.
I AM MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY OF THE REPUBLIC OF AMERICA. MY COUNTRY HAS HAD CRISIS THAT HAS CAUSED THE NEED FOR LARGE TRANSFER OF FUNDS OF 800 BILLION DOLLARS US. IF YOU WOULD ASSIST ME IN THIS TRANSFER, IT WOULD BE MOST PROFITABLE TO YOU.
I AM WORKING WITH MR. PHIL GRAM, LOBBYIST FOR UBS, WHO WILL BE MY REPLACEMENT AS MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY IN JANUARY. AS A SENATOR, YOU MAY KNOW HIM AS THE LEADER OF THE AMERICAN BANKING DEREGULATION MOVEMENT IN THE 1990S. THIS TRANSACTIN IS 100% SAFE.
THIS IS A MATTER OF GREAT URGENCY. WE NEED A BLANK CHECK. WE NEED THE FUNDS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. WE CANNOT DIRECTLY TRANSFER THESE FUNDS IN THE NAMES OF OUR CLOSE FRIENDS BECAUSE WE ARE CONSTANTLY UNDER SURVEILLANCE. MY FAMILY LAWYER ADVISED ME THAT I SHOULD LOOK FOR A RELIABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY PERSON WHO WILL ACT AS A NEXT OF KIN SO THE FUNDS CAN BE TRANSFERRED.
PLEASE REPLY WITH ALL OF YOUR BANK ACCOUNT, IRA AND COLLEGE FUND ACCOUNT NUMBERS AND THOSE OF YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN TO WALLSTREETBAILOUT@TREASURY.GOV SO THAT WE MAY TRANSFER YOUR COMMISSION FOR THIS TRANSACTION. AFTER I RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION, I WILL RESPOND WITH DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT SAFEGUARDS THAT WILL BE USED TO PROTECT THE FUNDS.
YOURS FAITHFULLY MINISTER OF TREASURY PAULSON
Dunno, this sounds sort of familliar...
HT: Unqualified Offerings
Update: the original source is actually Angry Bear.
Monday, September 22, 2008
A GOP Bailout Copout?
Via Andrew Sullivan, some republican voices are of the opinion that Republican legislators should oppose the bailout plan being put together by the Bush administration and Democratic congressional leaders. Their reasoning is so profoundly cynical, I scarcely believe it's sincere. They don't oppose a bailout because it's unwise (which could be argued, if one is a hardcore free-market capitalist), or that the proposal as it stands is unwise (which could definitely be argued regardless of your views). They think GOPhers should oppose it simply to have their opposition on record: so they can come back and claim that they were championing fiscal conservatism.
Now, being of a generally libertarian/free market bent, I'm ambivalent about the proposal: I don't think that it has been considered carefully by people who can understand it and either support or oppose it on an informed basis (I certainly wouldn't trust much of our Congress to understand its potential impact). I don't know that a bailout is necessary, period: long term economic health may be better if we just let this house of cards fall (disclosure: I have worked in the mortgage servicing industry for 15 years, and as such would see my employment prospects damaged as a result of allowing the mortgage industry to founder).
And I simply don't like the idea of passing legislation that has this much impact on us in an environment of panic. That's how we wound up with the USA PATRIOT Act. So I'm not exactly enthusiastic about the plan.
But to simply oppose it as campaign fodder is petty and irresponsible. The bailout, if one must occur, should be carefully considered by all legislators. If one sees an area of weakness that can be improved, it is the responsibility of every legislator to get involved and create the best possible outcome. These people are proposing that sitting legislators with obligations to this nation absent themselves from the process of governing in order to create a talking point.
So much for putting the nation first.
Now, being of a generally libertarian/free market bent, I'm ambivalent about the proposal: I don't think that it has been considered carefully by people who can understand it and either support or oppose it on an informed basis (I certainly wouldn't trust much of our Congress to understand its potential impact). I don't know that a bailout is necessary, period: long term economic health may be better if we just let this house of cards fall (disclosure: I have worked in the mortgage servicing industry for 15 years, and as such would see my employment prospects damaged as a result of allowing the mortgage industry to founder).
And I simply don't like the idea of passing legislation that has this much impact on us in an environment of panic. That's how we wound up with the USA PATRIOT Act. So I'm not exactly enthusiastic about the plan.
But to simply oppose it as campaign fodder is petty and irresponsible. The bailout, if one must occur, should be carefully considered by all legislators. If one sees an area of weakness that can be improved, it is the responsibility of every legislator to get involved and create the best possible outcome. These people are proposing that sitting legislators with obligations to this nation absent themselves from the process of governing in order to create a talking point.
So much for putting the nation first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
