Talk:Angelo Mozilo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cut the jokes[edit]

Please read wp:blp before adding unsourced material--Work permit (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Does that mean not sourcing SEC filings? These have been jokes for the last few years now. If you were going to do an in-depth but no original-research article on CFC management and attempt to chronicle the events, the most direct citations would presumably be statements made by Mozillo et al in things such as SEC filings but I'm not sure what the "OR" criteria would be. Consider this which someone just cited to me recently, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." [1] It was obvious based on simple laws and statements made by the companies what would eventually happen in the industry, and while I'm sure there are secondary sources that made these observations, it would take a while to try to hunt them all down and put them into a NPOV. By now, many of the POV's "collapsed" as guesses and attitudes about the future turned into realities of the present and that may help make certain statements about primary sources "obvious" given the 20-20 nature of hindsight... Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created this section and made this comment a year ago, after I removed this content. I'm not sure what you're talking about or asking here--Work permit (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify  : OK, I wasn't sure what you meant but certainly the material you deleted is trivial. My point of course is that first, there is an issue of doing OR or adding personal opinion/theses and second that "reliable sources" in this case tend to be biased industry sources. So, you have a real issue in here in how to make a useful article that doesn't make anyone mad. This may seem like it is less controversial than the pseudo-science pages, but there is a lot of money and politics on the line. I'm not entirely sure that a "good" article can be made if you take OR and "reliable sources" the way they are normally construed. The majority of news sources seem to parrot the real estate trade groups, and the related securities are a bit hyped too. For example, most of these are DOA now, http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=971&mn=288825&pt=msg&mid=7557821 or http://app.businessweek.com/UserComments/combo_review?action=getComment&productId=18883&reviewId=236587 or google my alias along with "Toxic." If you want to give more weight to views propogated by "reliable sources" you probably end up with more hype than utility. It would be impossible to document private views but look at some of the things now attributed to industry insiders. The quote I provided was a hint that they couldn't get informed people to buy their mortgages so they had to sell them to retail investors. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipepdia is just an encyclopedia. 2000 years ago, wp:rs would have all matter made of Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Aether. 500 years ago, wp:rs would have the sun revolve around the earth. Three years ago, lending poor people money to buy homes in a rising real estate market seemed like a good business model to most concerned. That's about all I have to say to help you think through what Wikipedia is and is not. Good luck--Work permit (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Know the Laws : "lending poor people money" , everyone seemed to think this was going to help someone, paying huge commissions to the industries and using the easy money to keep prices up. This flunks the obvious test- why not just lend even MORE money so people can pay even MORE MONEY for homes that haven't changed in economic value? It would have been obvious to anyone not getting commission or seeking to make money under the pretext of helping others that this was a sham and as such contributed no net value to anyone. The power of positive thinking and avoiding rational, scientific, and discerning thought was going to save everyone. This whole industry shows the "power of positive thinking" when not backed by sound analysis but anyone "reliable" has strong financial incentives to keep people happy and optimistic. You wouldn't publish religious hopes of life-after-death as fact even if billions of people claimed to believe them, why seriously consider that you could talk lasting value into any physical terrestrial asset? The crisis is the natural, logical, obvious result of attempting to believe a lie, everything else is a joke. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum  : I can't find a citation but IIRC, the action that you are implying to be a "good" was considered abusive or even predatory prior to this crisis. That is, you suggest that rising home prices made a great chance for "poor people" to make money if they could flip homes with easy credit. In fact, extending credit to people who could only pay it back if the price of the asset went up, used to be considered predatory and prudent lending designed to help people, not "sell their soul to the company store" , is based on them having income from an economically valuable activity with a loan secured by a properly valued home. Does this sound like the definition of home flipping? LOL

http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/buying/glossary.cfm "Predatory Lending: abusive lending practices that include a mortgage loan to someone who does not have the ability to repay. It also pertains to repeated refinancing of a loan charging high interest and fees each time."

This whole crisis is the result of a skewed perspective on "helping people" because help was confused with abuse. All these people could have joined habit for humanity, not collected commissions for originating loans that could not be paid back by anyone who wanted to live in the home ( economic value of home differed from market value due to abuse disguised as help). This whole crisis is a result of confusing serious with joke... Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean they are selling MBS junk to mom and pa? I have to admit ignorance here but that is what it sounds like.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070724/latu044.html?.v=101

"Subprime gain on sale margin improved substantially from the first quarter and year over year as a result of improved secondary market execution during the quarter and reduced price competition, especially in the wholesale channel. In addition, the Company experienced a channel mix shift toward the retail channel, which has traditionally carried greater margins. "

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indymac[edit]

"IndyMac was started in 1985 by Angelo R. Mozilo and David Loeb, who together had founded Countrywide Financial Corp., and grew to be the second-largest independent mortgage lender after Calabasas-based Countrywide, which was acquired by Bank of America last week." found here: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fi-indymac8-2008jul08,0,954496.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.146.244 (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning that he sold his companies stock seems unnecessary. Every CEO in history has sold his companies stock, why is this noteworthy? That is how they are compensated- they aren't expected to just keep the paper stock certificates, it is only common sense to sell and diversify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.94.214 (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's think this argument through. If he's selling the stock to get to a diversified position, then he's going to end up with the same return as an index fund. The stockholders who bought the company's stock (except for those holding it as part of an index strategy) buy it because they believe it will outperform an index fund. If the CEO himself doesn't believe the company under his management will beat the return on an index fund, why does he continue to be CEO in the first place? The stock options aren't given to him for his retirement (which would require diversification) - it's an incentive to get him to perform. And if he really believed in the company, namely that its return would beat an index fund, he should want to hold as much stock as possible.Jmkleeberg (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medical condition[edit]

Under "Life and Career", can somebody who knows please note what medical condition Mozilo has that makes his face look like that? Or maybe it is cosmetic surgery, or maybe getting burned under sun lamps - I don't know. I mean, Michael Jackson apparently had some sort of medical condition that was turning him into an albino (that is what he claimed - others said it was because he was putting acid on his skin. Mozilo seems to have the opposite condition - he's got an undeniable leathery, almost lizard face. Can somebody please add that, what it is?, if it is a medical condition, or something he has done. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.27.14 (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+1 46.65.110.155 (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Worst CEOs list[edit]

While Mozilo was no doubt a terrible CEO, quoting a random list (from Conde Nast) in the lead is cherrypicking quotes. I'm deleting it. ask123 (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Mozilo on hit list ?[edit]

I've heard rumours that this man is on the hit list of some mafia group connected to the US and Central America. Is there any truth in this? Is he still alive? BTW what follow has there been to his criminal activity in the events prior to the collapse. It seems like this page needs much more to it. Any updates? 183.89.93.143 (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Email incident[edit]

Does the email incident at Angelo Mozilo § Other controversies really notable, or more WP:NOTDIARY. Is this being mentioned in obits? The title of the section is also an NPOV issue per WP:CSECTION.—Bagumba (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look and the WaPo obit, the NYT obit, the Bloomberg obit and the WSJ obit don’t mention it. The only coverage of this incident that I can find is from 2008 such as this CNBC article and of course the LA times article that is cited in this article. You can find this event if you Google “Angelo Mozilo email” but it doesn’t seem to appear significantly covered outside of when it happened. Hope this helps! I’m not really overly familiar with the relevant policies so I’ll let other editors decide if this event is worth keeping in the article. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 14:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this isn’t being mentioned in obits, it seems like this can be deleted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Angelo_Mozilo&oldid=1207770479"