Click to enlarge:

>Source: Bianco Research

>

Happy Anniversary! Here we are, exactly 5 years to the day from the beginning of the credit crisis.

Jim Bianco dates the crisis as formerly beginning on February 8, 2007 when HSBC’s Household International announced huge losses due to subprime lending. HSBC had to restate its 2006 earnings significantly lower. Bianco adds that while most people were asking what a subprime loan was, HSBC was “patient zero” of the crisis.

To underscore this was indeed the start, HSBC ended this lending unit March 2009, literally hours before the stock market bottomed.

Category: Bailouts, Markets

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

10 Responses to “5th Anniversary of the Sub-Prime Crisis”

  1. flocktard says:

    Ah, yes! Remember the old days of sitting in front of the black and white Philco and watching those commercials for HFC- the Household Finance Company.

  2. AHodge says:

    cant quarrel w date that was a big one
    the subprime Implode-O-Meter which a friend sent me in July 07
    started tracking subprime broker or lender implosions starting late 2006
    http://ml-implode.com/

  3. AHodge says:

    but my big date Aug 8 2007 for the global bank panic–have a big 5 year celebration for that one Before that it was claimed it was all subprime and :\”contained”

    there are still losers out there who say subprime was only real loss and rest was liquidity?

  4. The Window Washer says:

    Oh yeah memories. I was watching the ABX index and I sent a email to my realtor friend that day.

    “The horse is out of the barn. Here we go.”

  5. The Window Washer says:

    Wasn’t it late summer early fall 06 when one of HSBC’s MBS hedge funds blew up and they made the investors whole? That was the warning this event was the bomb.

  6. BennyProfane says:

    Real Estate never goes down, son.

  7. Robespierre says:

    So the curb flattens from around 1950 to around 1974. This is segment is when baby boomers were growing up at their parents home. From late 70′s boomers go into to the labor market and into household formation frenzy driving house prices to new highs (till around early 90s last wave of boomers to past their 20s?). When this demographic demand fuel evaporated we see the new “affordable” mortgages to come in as second fuel. When the boomers and the credit fuels was totally exhausted we get the fail. So my question is who is left to lift the housing market demand organically?

  8. ashpelham2 says:

    Robespierre: answer to your question is “no one”, or “immigrants”.

    That’s just great. During my lifetime, as a homeowner, my home ownership coincided with the single largest drop in home values in this nations’ history, possibly the world’s. That’s just fucking great.

  9. mathman says:

    We’ll mostly be living in ol’ shipping containers and under bridges or “rough” before long if they go through with the “gift” to the banks, where the AG’s get bought off and Just Us calmly looks away . . .

    They keep this shit up long enough we may see some backlash come warm weather season. i wonder how many official homeless we got runnin’ aroun’ (tryna keep warm, not starve, and find a place ta take a dump) at this point? Between the mortgage mess and on-going layoffs (downsizing, off-shoring, shifting down to low pay jobs) it’s gonna get ‘significant’ eventually.

  10. MondaFL says:

    What is the explanation for the change in the increments since 2004 along the x-axis? Looking at this graph for over 100 years of data (1890 to 2004; the increment is 6 years). Then the increment from 2004 to 2008 is only 4 years; the next increment to 2009 is only one year; then the last increment shown to 2011 is 2 years. What does the red line portion of this graph look like if the increment is maintained a consistent 6 year interval along the x-axis?