Talk:Subprime crisis impact timeline

NetBank

A prior version of this article claimed NetBank was the first FDIC-insured bank to fail since the S&L crisis, but that is clearly false. Actual figures from the FDIC (all failures since 10/1/2000 and historical report of all failures since FDIC began in 1934) show that the only years EVER with zero FDIC failures were 2005 and 2006; the streak was broken earlier in 2007 before NetBank's failure. 2008 has had one bank failure already. --RBBrittain (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Netbank loss" :
  • {{cite news | title=NetBank Files for Bankruptcy After Regulators Take Over Unit | date=30 September [[2007]] | publisher=[[Bloomberg L.P.|Bloomberg]] | url=http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ajOPHuXaoV3c&refer=home }}
  • {{cite news | title=NetBank Files for Bankruptcy After Regulators Take Over Unit | date=30 September [[2007]] | publisher=[[Bloomerberg]] | url=http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ajOPHuXaoV3c&refer=home }}

DumZiBoT (talk) 08:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Keeping this in Timeline Only format

The two sections and chart below the timeline should be integrated into it since its confusing as to why they are not if this is supposed to be a timeline. Since most of the companies mentioned have their own wiki articles, a mere note about changes in their status should be sufficient. A few of the less significant events probably could be deleted, while other info, like the Fannie/Freddie/CRA info I added, necessary. And here and there with more controversial claims we need refs. (Once we know if one of the duplicate refs above completely eliminated we can fix the second one if it remains.) Carol Moore 16:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I am getting close to doing this. Also I think I will format entries to clearly separate govt actions from various market events by putting two asterisks per each market event like the below (ignore extra asterisks which should disappear in final). If there's a strong objection, tell me now before I do it :-)

• • • August 6: American Home Mortgage files for chapter 11 bankruptcy.
  • August 7: Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton proposes a $1 billion bailout fund to help homeowners at risk for foreclosure [1].
    • August 16: Countrywide Financial Corporation, the biggest U.S. mortgage lender, narrowly avoids bankruptcy by taking out an emergency loan of $11 billion from a group of banks.
  • August 17: Federal Reserve lowers the discount rate by 50 basis points to 5.75% from 6.25%.

Carol Moore 18:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I like your idea to distinguish the entries but your example is confusing. Your explanation makes sense though. --Gogino (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The other possibility is to put the effects in italics, since I only see a newspaper title in italics and I thought only books belong in them. However, this maybe less relevant per the below. ~Carolmooredc

Timeline Bias

The timeline excludes several important actions such as the encouragement by the clinton administration to make mortgage loans based upon race or neighborhood. In addition it excludes the numerous attempts that were made to try to circumvent the problem. As usual wikipedia shows its bias. 17:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.109.174 (talk)

Wikipedia is whatever its editors make it. It's a lot of work for free, for most of us anyway. Feel free to find WP:reliable sources and contribute. Carol Moore 21:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Reality and reliable sources have a liberal bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.18.170.151 (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Putting an ending date on this?

It seems to me that this time line should end sometime soon, after the crisis peaks and things start to normalize, even if at a new low with various fixes still in progress. After that it seems new entries should be directly tied to subprime mortgage issues and cleaning up those issues, and not go into every detail of every govt move all over the world that is a ramification of the US subprime mortgage crisis, as some of the more recent entries have. There are two good articles for that sort of thing: Global financial crisis of September–October 2008 and Global financial crisis of September–October 2008. Anyway, at some point I was going to shorten or clean out least relevant things, but many of these new entries perhaps sooner. Carol Moore 22:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Did you want to mention also Economic_crisis_of_2008?

Yes, this crisis spilled over to the global crisis. --Gogino (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If I missed Economic_crisis_of_2008; stick it in where you think it goes. Also, looking at Timeline of the United States housing bubble I realized a lot of the more detailed earler info about govt laws and regulations belonged there and copied it there. But since articles should not be exactly the same, at some point soon I'll pare down those earlier entries a bit and refer people to the housing bubble article. I don't know how much that might effect/affect ;-) the need to italicize or whatever private moves. Also, some of the less important bankruptcies and crashes might be removed or consolidated. After it's cleaned up, the formatting issue probably will become clearer. Carol Moore 13:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

You wrote Global financial crisis of September–October 2008 twice. What did you want the other link to be? -- Gogino (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of the main page is disputed

Please make it clear what you are discussing. --Gogino (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of the main page is disputed here

How is the neutrality disputed besides ECOA below? --Gogino (talk) 05:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

POV Fork related to Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA).

This 'timeline' is filled with events who's relationship to the mortgage crisis is disputed, making it read like a POV fork from the main article. For example, what does the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) that "imposes heavy sanctions for financial institutions found guilty of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age" have to do with a mortgage crisis in 2008? This timeline is filled with anti-poor/racist innuendo like that. This timeline should only mention events that are mentioned in the main article about the main article about the Subprime mortgage crisis otherwise it is just a POV fork. LK (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. More needs to be said about interest rate preemption and relevant bankruptcy law changes that have contributed mightily to the crisis. Also more on spread of financial derivatives.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If financial institutions are forced to make bad mortgage loans it is obviously related to this crisis. I am not agaist reformulating it though. I also don't know how strong influence it had but presently there is no consensus about that and that is why that fact should be there for now. POV is erasing it. There might be, however, other statements that are POV. Could you copy here the other statements you had in mind? --Gogino (talk) 04:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Changing my mind: I agree. I didn't find any source that would claim that ECOA influenced banks to make bad decisions. What else do you have? --Gogino (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

An internet search for unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction, on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age comes up with so many entries from governmental - especially Federal Reserve -- sources that the only question is which one is the best. Feel free to recommend the one you like best. (The original article needs updated ref too.) This insulting section header is an incredible WP:attack on other editors and really should be removed. Carol Moore 01:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I changed the section title. --Gogino (talk) 05:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

---

• Moved from another page where not relevant

POV fork at Subprime crisis impact timeline

I want to point out that there appears to be a POV fork of this page at Subprime crisis impact timeline. That timeline is filled events not mentioned on this page, who's relationship to the mortgage crisis is marginal and disputed, making it read like a POV fork of this article. For example, it prominently features events like the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Community Reinvestment Act in the 1970's. What do those things have to do with a mortgage crisis in 2008? IMO the timeline there needs to be brought into agreement with this article, otherwise it is just a POV fork of this article. LK (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "POV fork" is supposed to mean but that timeline needs to be shortened considerably and perhaps stripped of things that are tangential, like ECOA. I think one can make a case for the CRA, but there's no need to reach back that far or that tangentially. If "POV fork" means "mess" than I agree, as most finance stories on this website are a mess to some degree.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the jargon. Here's a wiki link to the internal Wikipedia article about point of view based content forking. LK (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I need to educate myself about these things.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I examined the timeline and the relevant policy statement and I agree that the timeline is a POV fork and should deleted. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This discussion must be done on the talk page for the timeline. --Gogino (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone mind if I move it there?? Carol Moore 01:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

---

First, this page was created by Farcaster, who creates a lot of pages which some consider POV forks, so please be consistent and look at all the other "forks" he's created.

Second, a lot of articles have timelines, including on this topic. I would have a very good argument which I won't reveal at this time why it is far more POV to delete the article.

Third, while it does need some work to delete extraneous or overly explained info, most of the stuff in it is relevant.

Fourth, I have 4 WP:RS showing how ECOA is used to enforce CRA and just haven't gotten around to putting them in CRA or Timeline or Subprime article. Because of danged sinus condition behind on a lot of things but starting to catchup.Carol Moore 21:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What's needed

What's needed for this article is to detail the omitted elephant in the room: the Wall Street banks, derivatives, and their investments in subprime. I think that this timeline goes into excessive details into every hiss and pop in the regulatory sphere, while omitting sufficient details on the factors that brought this country and the world to its knees. My ability to contribute to Wiki is limited but I hope that the many who have the time can work on this timeline.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article is becoming too detailed especially starting with October 10, 2008. It makes sense to list first events worldwide but not for each country since there are hundreds of countries out there. However, if somebody wants to start a page for a specific country that is okay I think. The most important events that should not be erased are those that possibly deepened, accelerated, or caused this crisis. Unfortunately, there is currently no consensus on this and it is better being listed until there is a sourced consensus. --Gogino (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's start the cleaning of what we all can agree on. Then we can discuss the rest.
I would erase October 14 all except "The US taps ..."; October 13 all except "The UK government ..." and except "The European Central Bank ...";
October 10 all; October 7: "Bank of America ..."; October 6: "Iceland ..."; October 6: "The Danish government ..."; October 6: "Bank of America agrees ...";
--Gogino (talk) 05:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC

I hate to be a killjoy, but there are some good reasons to worry that, unfortunately, we may not actually be in a 'normalization' stage as suggested in the section above "Putting an ending date on this?". We have yet to see any firm signs that policy tools will or are actually working, and there are reasons to believe housing prices could continue to fall. Let me be clear, I am hopeful, and to some degree even optimistic that a fresh look from new blood at Treasury, and better global central bank coordination, might at least be able to break the downward cycle. If that's the case I would be thrilled to see that, in fact, the timeline should end. We just may not be quite there yet...99.163.42.132 (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)