Comments for Job Related

Comment on Marketing Obligations by Gary M

Gary M — Sat, 18 Dec 2010 01:09:59 +0000

Well say a bank loans you $500,000.00 for a home that is now worth $250,000.00. Say that same bank made thousands of loans just like it. Now you and hundreds of others loose their jobs, or decide to default on these loans. Now the bank is stuck with assets that are worth less than what they paid for them. The bank now is not as strong as once thought, so the stock holders of the bank decide to sell their shares so they will not lose all their investment which causes that bank stock to tank. A lot of these loans were insured against such losses causing stress on the insurance companies. (AIG ring a bell?) Now multiply these losses system wide and you can see why we have a market downturn.
References :

Comment on Marketing Obligations by muncie birder

muncie birder — Sat, 18 Dec 2010 01:07:59 +0000

If someone were to tell you the debt is rate AAA but in fact were better rated D and over 5 trillion worth were sold, that should do it. Thank you Moodys and S&P. You did a great job.
References :

Comment on Marketing Obligations by Uncle Fester

Uncle Fester — Sat, 18 Dec 2010 01:05:59 +0000

Loans were advertised and given to those that could not pay them. Over several years banks have been pressured by certain private organizations to take on loans that were not sound. Realestate companies were making money hand over fist by selling houses to people that couldn't afford them. Eventually those people stopped paying their mortgages and the banks would be left holding the bag. They weren't able to sell the houses to re-coup the lost money. Over time it worse and worse until the banks started failing. Finally one bank would go down, then another and before you know it, other companies that depended on loans from those banks would go down. There was a cascading effect that occurred around the world.
References :

Comment on Marketing Obligations by tantechrissie

tantechrissie — Sat, 18 Dec 2010 01:03:59 +0000

The banks thought it was safe to lend people a sum of money to buy a house. (That was their assessment of risk.) As it turned out the values of the houses dropped and the payments went up. (Dropping values also not expected and therefore not included in risk assessment.) People found they couldn't afford the payments because the banks had allowed them to borrow too much, then they owed more than their houses were worth so they just walked out on the house and the loan and left the banks with property which owed them more than it was worth. Even if the banks were able to sell all the houses they were left with (because they had allowed loans which borrowers were unable to service as soon as the pinch came) it wouldn't cover the money owed. Once upon a time banks were more cautious and expected buyers to have a good deposit and also they valued the houses to make sure that the negative equity situation could not happen. When they became "gung ho" with their lending they caused this huge meltdown. This is an over-simplification but the banks turned their backs on tried and true ways of judging the viability of a loan (deposit and sufficient income for repayments) and seemed to think that risk no longer existed. They were wrong. The consequences of the housing lending caused the banks value to plummet and that flowed on to other companies and ultimately just about every company you could think of.
References :

Comment on Marketing Obligations by SteveM

SteveM — Sat, 18 Dec 2010 01:01:59 +0000

corporate greed.
References :

Comment on Marketing Obligations by imtonyparker

imtonyparker — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:59:23 +0000

How did a miscalculation of risk when acquiring “debt obligations” lead to a stock market downturn?

Comment on Donate Car Toronto by dic

dic — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 04:40:10 +0000

support this.
support this.

Comment on Donate Car Toronto by FundRaisingWidget

FundRaisingWidget — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 04:40:09 +0000

Great video!

…
Great video!

Collect and display donations online using our free hosted donation widget.

Original FundRaising Widget

Comment on 2007 Wedding Trends by smt

smt — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 01:32:59 +0000

monique lhuillier has been doing wedding dresses for the more liberal bride where she combines classic styles with todays trends. here are some of her designs, and she also incorporates colors that dont look tacky. LOVE her shes amazing…click for yourself…

http://www.moniquelhuillier.com/index2.html

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ultimatebride.com/images/gowns/photo/photo_monique_lhuillier_0.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ultimatebride.com/html/gowns/monique_lhuillier.php&h=364&w=241&sz=12&hl=en&start=0&um=1&tbnid=EkV1-6wo-BUwgM:&tbnh=121&tbnw=80&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmonique%2Blhuillier%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

http://www.moniquelhuillier.com/index2.html

good luck.
References :

Comment on 2007 Wedding Trends by riley

riley — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 20:30:48 +0000

What is everyone seeing for trends in destination wedding dresses for this season 2007?