Questions for lawyer re: subprime, econ crisis, discriminatory lending?

[dpakman91]

He's coming on tonight...

[HughRuss]

Who's coming on tonight?

[dpakman91]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

Who's coming on tonight?

A lawyer who specializes in issue related to subprime lending, the econ crisis, and discriminatory lending, and has given several papers on the topic.

[Ardentfrost]

We don't know his position, how can we offer questions?

Can you come up with a question about how much the government has subsidized risk via special treatment to Fannie/Freddie?

Maybe a question about the ways in which congress has forced banks to make riskier loans?

[WickedLou9]

Ask him how some banks seemingly avoided the crisis and others did not if they all had to abide by the same lending rules?

[dpakman91]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

We don't know his position, how can we offer questions?

Can you come up with a question about how much the government has subsidized risk via special treatment to Fannie/Freddie?

Maybe a question about the ways in which congress has forced banks to make riskier loans?

not really a position interview, more of an "expert" interview

[dpakman91]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Ask him how some banks seemingly avoided the crisis and others did not if they all had to abide by the same lending rules?

ok good one

[dpakman91]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

We don't know his position, how can we offer questions?

Can you come up with a question about how much the government has subsidized risk via special treatment to Fannie/Freddie?

Maybe a question about the ways in which congress has forced banks to make riskier loans?

yes indeed, i basically have that in my list so far

[WickedLou9]

I might ask something along the lines of how much of a role he thinks fear is playing vs. how much of this is actually due to substantive problems with the economy.

[dpakman91]

the interview went off and is available now, he was quite knowledgeable

[goldenponderbob]

I'm disappointed to have missed it.

Among questions I would have asked is how many euphamisms have been used to describe the "troubled assets" that lie at the heart of the matter.

Back when Paulson was supposed to purchase these "derivatives", thus making U.S. taxpayers the owners these worthless "financial instruments", it made sense to confuse the buyers by assigning a different term each time the need arose. Is that still the case?

Did the recent revelations regarding Mr. Madoff's business troubles have anything to do with Paulson's faillure to spend the initial three and a half billion as Nancy and Barney intended?