marks2065 0 #26 October 31, 2011 QuoteQuote this has been going on for a long time by bookies to cover bets, wall street just used the same idea. I think we should hold financial institutions to higher standards than bookies, but that's just me. Me too, but the issue is that they had to cover the bets made because of policy, not because they wanted to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #27 October 31, 2011 QuoteThe article concludes QuoteThe fair-lending task force's original policy paper undercuts the notion the financial crisis was all about banker "greed," though it certainly played a role after the fact. Rather, it offers compelling evidence that the crisis evolved chiefly from government mandates and threats to increase lending to applicants who could not afford them. Hardly. CRA mortgage pool returns have been higher than on similar conventional pools. The mess resulted because the banking and real-estate industries could profit more from unsustainable loans (they got paid when properties sold and loans originated + serviced with government sponsored enterprises and private investors assuming the risks) than with traditional products + underwriting standards, enough people in the housing market could be talked into buying property with unsustainable price tags, and enough investors could be talked into picking up what the GSEs wouldn't. This was aided and abetted by the government acting (through things like conforming loan limit increases of over 75%) on behalf of powerful lobbies (the National Association of Realtors and National Association of Home Builders were the first and fourth highest spending PACs in the 2006 elections). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #28 October 31, 2011 QuoteIn 1992 I moved from Georgia to Los Angeles. Once there my wife and I went to get "pre-qualified" for a loan. We knew we'd be good for a certain amount with our existing assets, job/income and pain threshold. Countrywide said we were good for at least twice that amount. We borrowed half of what they said we could and paid it off over the next 15 years always wondering "Why did they say we could borrow so much???" Now we know and pity the fools who believed the lenders who told them they were good for twice the amount they probably knew in their hearts they should borrow. jon Did the government FORCE Countrywide to make you an offer like that?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #29 October 31, 2011 QuoteQuoteIn 1992 I moved from Georgia to Los Angeles. Once there my wife and I went to get "pre-qualified" for a loan. We knew we'd be good for a certain amount with our existing assets, job/income and pain threshold. Countrywide said we were good for at least twice that amount. We borrowed half of what they said we could and paid it off over the next 15 years always wondering "Why did they say we could borrow so much???" Now we know and pity the fools who believed the lenders who told them they were good for twice the amount they probably knew in their hearts they should borrow. jon Did the government FORCE Countrywide to make you an offer like that? Did Countywide FORCE him to sign it?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #30 October 31, 2011 QuoteHardly. CRA mortgage pool returns have been higher than on similar conventional pools. The mess resulted because the banking and real-estate industries could profit more from unsustainable loans (they got paid when properties sold and loans originated + serviced with government sponsored enterprises and private investors assuming the risks) than with traditional products + underwriting standards, enough people in the housing market could be talked into buying property with unsustainable price tags, and enough investors could be talked into picking up what the GSEs wouldn't. This was aided and abetted by the government acting (through things like conforming loan limit increases of over 75%) on behalf of powerful lobbies (the National Association of Realtors and National Association of Home Builders were the first and third highest spending PACs in the 2006 elections). Yep. But some people have decided that it must, simply must, be the cause of those damn liberals. Any evidence to the contrary is ignored. It's usually pretty simple: follow the money. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #31 October 31, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteIn 1992 I moved from Georgia to Los Angeles. Once there my wife and I went to get "pre-qualified" for a loan. We knew we'd be good for a certain amount with our existing assets, job/income and pain threshold. Countrywide said we were good for at least twice that amount. We borrowed half of what they said we could and paid it off over the next 15 years always wondering "Why did they say we could borrow so much???" Now we know and pity the fools who believed the lenders who told them they were good for twice the amount they probably knew in their hearts they should borrow. jon Did the government FORCE Countrywide to make you an offer like that? Did Countywide FORCE him to sign it? Irrelevant. He said "We borrowed half of what they said we could". The question is, was Countywide forced by the government to make a stupid offer, which seems to be rushmc's contention. Why don't YOU tell us what % of bad loans were made on account of CRA mandates?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #32 October 31, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote this has been going on for a long time by bookies to cover bets, wall street just used the same idea. I think we should hold financial institutions to higher standards than bookies, but that's just me. Me too, but the issue is that they had to cover the bets made because of policy, not because they wanted to. The error in your argument is that CRA loans actually had a lower default rate than loans made by institutions not covered at all by the CRA.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #33 October 31, 2011 Quote Unfortunately "Netflix" Netflix doesn't have in for instant viewing. I just went and bought it from Amazon.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #34 October 31, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote this has been going on for a long time by bookies to cover bets, wall street just used the same idea. I think we should hold financial institutions to higher standards than bookies, but that's just me. Me too, but the issue is that they had to cover the bets made because of policy, not because they wanted to. Nope. Under CRA banks are required to "help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions." Lenders were allowed to meet those requirements with arguably reasonable + sustainable loan programs like the Fannie Mae Community Home Buyer's program requiring a 38% debt to income ratio, 5% down payment, 95% loan to value, fixed interest rate, fully amortized loan over 15 to 30 years, and no more than one late payment in the preceding two years. The were no longer permitted to "redline" neighborhoods which were primarily lower class where they previously refuse to write loans which otherwise met the underwriting criteria. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #35 October 31, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote this has been going on for a long time by bookies to cover bets, wall street just used the same idea. I think we should hold financial institutions to higher standards than bookies, but that's just me. Me too, but the issue is that they had to cover the bets made because of policy, not because they wanted to. The error in your argument is that CRA loans actually had a lower default rate than loans made by institutions not covered at all by the CRA. the error in your argument is cra caused ALL loan qualifications to be reduced so as to not discriminate. Time to start looking at the cause and effect of the lefts feel good policies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #36 October 31, 2011 QuoteYep. But some people have decided that it must, simply must, be the cause of those damn liberals. Any evidence to the contrary is ignored. And some people have decided that it must, simply must, be the cause of those damn conservatives. Any evidence to the contrary is ignored. QuoteIt's usually pretty simple: follow the money. Let's do that... QuoteAs of June 30, 2008 over 70% of the 26.7 million NTMs with weak or high risk characteristics53—19.25 million loans--were owned or guaranteed by (a) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (11.9 million), (b) the Federal Housing Administration and other federal agencies (4.8 million); (c) Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) investments in Alt-A and Subprime Private MBS (0.3 million) or (d) banks and other lenders originating loans pursuant to CRA requirements and HUD‘s Best Practices program (2.2 million, net of CRA loans already accounted for in (a) and (b). Looks like the GSEs got the lion's share of the benefits, then.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #37 October 31, 2011 Quote It would not have happened if the left didn't start the issue. Capitalism will check itself until the left and the government involved. All so a few thousand could buy a house that couldn't afford a house, see the mess people like you started. Based on the percentages of who lost their homes.... I would say.. its NOT the group you want to bag on did the most damage.. but you go right on ahead believing the way you do... The numbers paint a far different picture than those of you wishing it is just all those silly negroes that the government forced the banks to make loans to.Lets do some numbers just for grins http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/us/13homeowner.html After peaking at 69 percent in 2004, the rate of homeownership for all American households declined to 67.8 percent in 2008. For African-American households, it fell to 47.5 percent in 2008 from 49.4 percent in 2004. SO there are about 39 million afro-american/blacks and the decline was 1.9% at about what 4 people per houshold for about 185250 homes gone poof. Latinos, native and foreign-born together, had a longer period of growth, with homeownership rising until 2006, to 49.8 percent, before falling to 48.9 percent last year. Homeownership for native-born Latinos fell to 53.6 percent from a high of 56.2 percent in 2005. The decline among whites was more modest, to 74.9 percent last year from 76.1 percent in 2004. SO.. there are about 200 MILLION Whites... and the decline was 1.2% or about 2.4 million people at say 4 people per houshold or 600 THOUSAND homes lost ) Darn those silly whites who were forced into buying all those homes by Countrywide...Those numbers seems to get lost in the fringe right telling of this story on places like FAUX Spews. A whole lot of people made a whole lot of money off of the people who should never have been told that yes indeed they could afford those loans. The bottom line. is WHO benefited the most from it. But we know you and your fellow travellers are not willing to ask THOSE questions. DEMOGRAPHICS data from WIKI Race Number Percentage White alone (of which 26.7 million are White Hispanic and Latino Americans, see table below. Excluding these, this category comprises 63.7% or 196.8 million) 223,553,265 72.4% Black or African American alone 38,929,319 12.6% Some other race alone (Mestizo, Mulatto...) 19,107,368 6.2% Asian alone 14,674,252 4.8% Two or more races 9,009,073 2.9% American Indian or Alaska Native alone 2,932,248 0.9% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander alone 540,013 0.2% Total 308,745,538 100.0% Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #38 October 31, 2011 Source, please. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #39 October 31, 2011 Link. Bottom of page 23.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dks13827 3 #40 October 31, 2011 Let me explain this in simple terms for feeble minded folk: a. 2 + 2 = ( fill in the blank ) b. If you can't afford a house.... ( fill it in !!! ) from a speech by Newt !!! word for word. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #41 October 31, 2011 >the government was the institution that forced the banks to reduce qualifications >under presure from the left to give everybody a house. Agreed. >Once again the left and their entitlement attitude cause the financial mess. No, facts indicate that loans made under Fannie and Freddie were LESS likely to default than their non-subsidized counterparts. Indeed, had more Fannie and Freddie loans been made, we would now not be in the mess we are in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #42 October 31, 2011 >>But some people have decided that it must, simply must, be the cause of those >>damn liberals. Any evidence to the contrary is ignored. >And some people have decided that it must, simply must, be the cause of those damn >conservatives. Yep. Both groups are idiots, classic cases of the new american "victim mentality." "I'm not an idiot who took out a loan that I couldn't pay back, I am a VICTIM of the evil liberal banking laws!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #43 October 31, 2011 Quote A whole lot of people made a whole lot of money off of the people who should never have been told that yes indeed they could afford those loans. Yep. Including the homeowners. I don’t know the statistics everywhere, but here in the Central Valley (soon-to-be Central Bay), roughly 6/10 of the defaults were from refinances. So when property values doubled in places like Reedley from 2003-2006, there were people who owed $50k on a $100k house in 2003 who owed $45k on a $200k house in 2006 and refinanced, taking out $100k. This was going on ALL OVER. It’s not just Countrywide and Fox News. People were treating their home equity like an ATM, withdrawing vast sums of money to splurge on home improvements, vacations, etc. A whole lot of people made a whole lot of money. And those that sold made a whole lot of money off a whole lot of people that should NEVER have been told that yes, they could afford those loans. A whole lot of people evaporated that wealth. I think Billvon is 100% correct on this. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #44 October 31, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote this has been going on for a long time by bookies to cover bets, wall street just used the same idea. I think we should hold financial institutions to higher standards than bookies, but that's just me. Me too, but the issue is that they had to cover the bets made because of policy, not because they wanted to. The error in your argument is that CRA loans actually had a lower default rate than loans made by institutions not covered at all by the CRA. the error in your argument is cra caused ALL loan qualifications to be reduced so as to not discriminate. Time to start looking at the cause and effect of the lefts feel good policies. The gist of your argument is that because banks made some loans they **thought** might go bad (but in fact didn't perform any worse than traditional mortgages), they covered them by making REALLY bad loan decisions that had nothing whatever to do with government mandates. Sorry, it's a silly argument. Banks made the **really** bad loans entirely on their own initiative, aided and abetted by Wall Street greed that allowed the crap to be leveraged over and over and over.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #45 October 31, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote this has been going on for a long time by bookies to cover bets, wall street just used the same idea. I think we should hold financial institutions to higher standards than bookies, but that's just me. Me too, but the issue is that they had to cover the bets made because of policy, not because they wanted to. The error in your argument is that CRA loans actually had a lower default rate than loans made by institutions not covered at all by the CRA. the error in your argument is cra caused ALL loan qualifications to be reduced so as to not discriminate. Time to start looking at the cause and effect of the lefts feel good policies. The gist of your argument is that because banks made some loans they **thought** might go bad (but in fact didn't perform any worse than traditional mortgages), they covered them by making REALLY bad loan decisions that had nothing whatever to do with government mandates. Sorry, it's a silly argument. Banks made the **really** bad loans entirely on their own initiative, aided and abetted by Wall Street greed that allowed the crap to be leveraged over and over and over. no that is not what I said read again Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #46 October 31, 2011 QuoteQuote A whole lot of people made a whole lot of money off of the people who should never have been told that yes indeed they could afford those loans. Yep. Including the homeowners. I don’t know the statistics everywhere, but here in the Central Valley (soon-to-be Central Bay), roughly 6/10 of the defaults were from refinances. So when property values doubled in places like Reedley from 2003-2006, there were people who owed $50k on a $100k house in 2003 who owed $45k on a $200k house in 2006 and refinanced, taking out $100k. This was going on ALL OVER. . How many of those refinanced mortgages were forced on the banks by the government?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #47 October 31, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote this has been going on for a long time by bookies to cover bets, wall street just used the same idea. I think we should hold financial institutions to higher standards than bookies, but that's just me. Me too, but the issue is that they had to cover the bets made because of policy, not because they wanted to. The error in your argument is that CRA loans actually had a lower default rate than loans made by institutions not covered at all by the CRA. the error in your argument is cra caused ALL loan qualifications to be reduced so as to not discriminate. Time to start looking at the cause and effect of the lefts feel good policies. The gist of your argument is that because banks made some loans they **thought** might go bad (but in fact didn't perform any worse than traditional mortgages), they covered them by making REALLY bad loan decisions that had nothing whatever to do with government mandates. Sorry, it's a silly argument. Banks made the **really** bad loans entirely on their own initiative, aided and abetted by Wall Street greed that allowed the crap to be leveraged over and over and over. no that is not what I said read again You are wrong because the majority by far of bad loans were nothing whatever to do with government mandates. Just plain old greed by (mostly middle class) homebuyers who thought the tree would grow to the sky, banks, and investors.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #48 October 31, 2011 Quote Quote It would not have happened if the left didn't start the issue. Capitalism will check itself until the left and the government involved. All so a few thousand could buy a house that couldn't afford a house, see the mess people like you started. Based on the percentages of who lost their homes.... I would say.. its NOT the group you want to bag on did the most damage.. but you go right on ahead believing the way you do... The numbers paint a far different picture than those of you wishing it is just all those silly negroes that the government forced the banks to make loans to.Lets do some numbers just for grins http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/us/13homeowner.html After peaking at 69 percent in 2004, the rate of homeownership for all American households declined to 67.8 percent in 2008. For African-American households, it fell to 47.5 percent in 2008 from 49.4 percent in 2004. SO there are about 39 million afro-american/blacks and the decline was 1.9% at about what 4 people per houshold for about 185250 homes gone poof. Latinos, native and foreign-born together, had a longer period of growth, with homeownership rising until 2006, to 49.8 percent, before falling to 48.9 percent last year. Homeownership for native-born Latinos fell to 53.6 percent from a high of 56.2 percent in 2005. The decline among whites was more modest, to 74.9 percent last year from 76.1 percent in 2004. SO.. there are about 200 MILLION Whites... and the decline was 1.2% or about 2.4 million people at say 4 people per houshold or 600 THOUSAND homes lost ) Darn those silly whites who were forced into buying all those homes by Countrywide...Those numbers seems to get lost in the fringe right telling of this story on places like FAUX Spews. A whole lot of people made a whole lot of money off of the people who should never have been told that yes indeed they could afford those loans. The bottom line. is WHO benefited the most from it. But we know you and your fellow travellers are not willing to ask THOSE questions. DEMOGRAPHICS data from WIKI Race Number Percentage White alone (of which 26.7 million are White Hispanic and Latino Americans, see table below. Excluding these, this category comprises 63.7% or 196.8 million) 223,553,265 72.4% Black or African American alone 38,929,319 12.6% Some other race alone (Mestizo, Mulatto...) 19,107,368 6.2% Asian alone 14,674,252 4.8% Two or more races 9,009,073 2.9% American Indian or Alaska Native alone 2,932,248 0.9% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander alone 540,013 0.2% Total 308,745,538 100.0% why do you keep bringing race into things? who cares what color the people are? The bottom line is the lending qualifications were lowered for all and many people and banks took out loans they should not have qualified for to the detrement of the country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #49 October 31, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote this has been going on for a long time by bookies to cover bets, wall street just used the same idea. I think we should hold financial institutions to higher standards than bookies, but that's just me. Me too, but the issue is that they had to cover the bets made because of policy, not because they wanted to. The error in your argument is that CRA loans actually had a lower default rate than loans made by institutions not covered at all by the CRA. the error in your argument is cra caused ALL loan qualifications to be reduced so as to not discriminate. Time to start looking at the cause and effect of the lefts feel good policies. The gist of your argument is that because banks made some loans they **thought** might go bad (but in fact didn't perform any worse than traditional mortgages), they covered them by making REALLY bad loan decisions that had nothing whatever to do with government mandates. Sorry, it's a silly argument. Banks made the **really** bad loans entirely on their own initiative, aided and abetted by Wall Street greed that allowed the crap to be leveraged over and over and over. no that is not what I said read again You are wrong because the majority by far of bad loans were nothing whatever to do with government mandates. Just plain old greed by (mostly middle class) homebuyers who thought the tree would grow to the sky, banks, and investors. They got approved for loans they should not have qualified for because of the lowered standards. period. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #50 October 31, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote this has been going on for a long time by bookies to cover bets, wall street just used the same idea. I think we should hold financial institutions to higher standards than bookies, but that's just me. Me too, but the issue is that they had to cover the bets made because of policy, not because they wanted to. The error in your argument is that CRA loans actually had a lower default rate than loans made by institutions not covered at all by the CRA. the error in your argument is cra caused ALL loan qualifications to be reduced so as to not discriminate. Time to start looking at the cause and effect of the lefts feel good policies. The gist of your argument is that because banks made some loans they **thought** might go bad (but in fact didn't perform any worse than traditional mortgages), they covered them by making REALLY bad loan decisions that had nothing whatever to do with government mandates. Sorry, it's a silly argument. Banks made the **really** bad loans entirely on their own initiative, aided and abetted by Wall Street greed that allowed the crap to be leveraged over and over and over. no that is not what I said read again You are wrong because the majority by far of bad loans were nothing whatever to do with government mandates. Just plain old greed by (mostly middle class) homebuyers who thought the tree would grow to the sky, banks, and investors. They got approved for loans they should not have qualified for because of the lowered standards. period. Nope - the mortgage companies invented NINJA loans all by themselves. And a lot of the mortgage companies weren't covered by govt. mandates anyway. And some of the enablers, like Citi, CSAM and JPMC have already been fined $hundreds of millions for what is, in essence, fraud. You've been drinking the Kool Aid.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
