Talk:Subprime mortgage crisis: Difference between revisions
imported>Nick Gardner |
imported>Larry Sanger |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
:: Should the article be named [[Subprime mortgage crisis]] (singular) rather than [[Subprime mortgages crisis]] (plural)? Most news coverage I have seen uses the former (singular). [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 16:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | :: Should the article be named [[Subprime mortgage crisis]] (singular) rather than [[Subprime mortgages crisis]] (plural)? Most news coverage I have seen uses the former (singular). [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 16:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
I agree with Noel. This article should be written in U.S. English and in U.S. English "subprime mortgage crisis" is correct. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
==Text clarification== | ==Text clarification== |
Revision as of 06:48, 26 October 2008
Useful article
This press report from 1999 may be of help: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1 Martin Baldwin-Edwards 08:52, 6 October 2008 (CDT)
- I also found this (pdf download) a good source too. The growth of the mortgage bond market in the 80s is described in Michael Lewis' "Liar's Poker" (Chapter 5 et seq). J. Noel Chiappa 13:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Article title
Most coverage I have seen uses the term Subprime mortgage crisis (i.e. singular) - should this be there? J. Noel Chiappa 13:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't understand this question. Nick Gardner 15:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Should the article be named Subprime mortgage crisis (singular) rather than Subprime mortgages crisis (plural)? Most news coverage I have seen uses the former (singular). J. Noel Chiappa 16:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Noel. This article should be written in U.S. English and in U.S. English "subprime mortgage crisis" is correct. --Larry Sanger 12:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Text clarification
At one the article says:
- Bank mortgages came to account for a substantial proportion of a market that had previously been dominated by the government-sponsored agencies (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac)
But I'm a little unclear on exactly what's meant here. Does it mean that banks were turning mortgages they held into securities without going through FNMA/FHLMC (either directly themselves, or by selling them to investment banks which did the repackaging), whereas prior to that most such securitization had been performed by FNMA/FHLMC? J. Noel Chiappa 13:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that I know no more than is contained in the references. Nick Gardner 14:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- What I was saying was that I didn't understand what you meant by the sentence fragment I quoted. Could you rephrase it to make it a little clearer? J. Noel Chiappa 16:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Confession and invitation
I have been mainly preccupied with the "Crash of 2008" etc, and I may not have consulted some ot the important sources of material for this article. I will try to get round to doing another search, but in the meantime I should welcome a contribution from someone else Nick Gardner 14:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you consider the New York Times a good source, but I've found a number of their articles to be pretty enlightening. If you'd like, I can look some up and list them here. J. Noel Chiappa 16:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes please! Nick Gardner 18:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Article with Definition
- Developed Articles
- Advanced Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Economics Developed Articles
- Economics Advanced Articles
- Economics Nonstub Articles
- Economics Internal Articles
- Politics Developed Articles
- Politics Advanced Articles
- Politics Nonstub Articles
- Politics Internal Articles