quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

there was no such requirement. you are debunked. nutsuckerism pure and simple.
95% or more of the failed loans were not CRA.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_and_the_Financial_Crisis:_Anatomy_of_a_Financial_Collapse

The democrats had total control of the Senate in 2011. Architects of the disaster, they wanted the report to absolve them of any role in the debacle. So it did.
Your contention that the CRA had nothing to do with it is laughable.

Unsustainable subprime lending jumped to $350 billion a year after doing so was FORCED by the CRA. Those mortgages had triple the default rate of conventional mortgages.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

A party that is out-of-power does not have the ability to force hearings, nor to pass legislation.

I see, and the Republicans have never been in power since 1977?
They had plenty of opportunities to change things, yet they did not. Why do you suppose that was? Could it be because the banks were making money hand over fist and didn't actually want anything changed?

quote:

What responsibility do you assign to the democrats for the debacle, hmm?

Equal responsibility.

quote:

Where is your criticism to them?

You have, once again, entirely missed the point due to your inane Rep/Dem world view. The point is that both parties are to blame for pretty much all the shit that is wrong with your country, because in the end, both parties serve the interests of the same segment of the population, the donor class, the corporate class.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_and_the_Financial_Crisis:_Anatomy_of_a_Financial_Collapse

The democrats had total control of the Senate in 2011. Architects of the disaster, they wanted the report to absolve them of any role in the debacle. So it did.
Your contention that the CRA had nothing to do with it is laughable.

Unsustainable subprime lending jumped to $350 billion a year after doing so was FORCED by the CRA. Those mortgages had triple the default rate of conventional mortgages.

Look, once and for all, if one takes the entire CRA portfolio and adds it up, study after study after study has shown that [they] represented less than 3% of ALL bad loans and fewer than that, that were legally described as loans that did fall well withing Freddie and Fannie mortgage warehouse guidelines...that were actually being paid back. So NO, CRA loans and in particular BAD CRA loans...had absolutely nothing to do with the MBS meltdown.

Also as we have discussed and you seem to want to continue to ignore and yes, for seemingly continued partisan reasons, there simply is no and was no and there still is NO enforcement mechanism for again...NOT MAKING A SINGLE CRA loan.

The only banks that may have if you really played your cards wrong, was that geee, your big bank, couldn't merge with another big bank. Research that one will you ?

So NO. NO loans were ever FORCED by the CRA. I was in real estate at the time and not single mortgage co., mortgage bank or mortgage financier was ever audited, received any communication from or any enforcement action ever taken and with NO...Repeat NO CRA loans ever on their books. Give...It...Up.

quote:

But that doesn't mean the blame is equal here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I've addressed all of mnotter's points previously. He's merely repeating crap at this point. But this article at business insider does a pretty good job at recapping, including the fact that clinton force the non-cra lenders to comply voluntarily with cra standards.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_and_the_Financial_Crisis:_Anatomy_of_a_Financial_Collapse

The democrats had total control of the Senate in 2011. Architects of the disaster, they wanted the report to absolve them of any role in the debacle. So it did.
Your contention that the CRA had nothing to do with it is laughable.

Unsustainable subprime lending jumped to $350 billion a year after doing so was FORCED by the CRA. Those mortgages had triple the default rate of conventional mortgages.

Look, once and for all, if one takes the entire CRA portfolio and adds it up, study after study after study has shown that [they] represented less than 3% of ALL bad loans and fewer than that, that were legally described as loans that did fall well withing Freddie and Fannie mortgage warehouse guidelines...that were actually being paid back. So NO, CRA loans and in particular BAD CRA loans...had absolutely nothing to do with the MBS meltdown.

Also as we have discussed and you seem to want to continue to ignore and yes, for seemingly continued partisan reasons, there simply is no and was no and there still is NO enforcement mechanism for again...NOT MAKING A SINGLE CRA loan.

The only banks that may have if you really played your cards wrong, was that geee, your big bank, couldn't merge with another big bank. Research that one will you ?

So NO. NO loans were ever FORCED by the CRA. I was in real estate at the time and not single mortgage co., mortgage bank or mortgage financier was ever audited, received any communication from or any enforcement action ever taken and with NO...Repeat NO CRA loans ever on their books. Give...It...Up.

Not factual. I've provided cites. Why don't you provide some.

Including the fact that it wasn't the loans, per se that are the defining issue.

The CRA ***required*** lax lending standards. Since the banks were required to lend at these rates, other institutions were forced to follow suit ( or go bankrupt).

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I've addressed all of mnotter's points previously. He's merely repeating crap at this point. But this article at business insider does a pretty good job at recapping, including the fact that clinton force the non-cra lenders to comply voluntarily with cra standards.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6

Look, I don't care about any of the politics involved or the push or talk. The entire CRA portfolio wasn't a hill-of-beans compared to the Countrywide portfolio of shit paper alone, they themselves either held on their own books voluntarily or couldn't sell because of the smell. not to mention the countless billion$ in other shit paperboys, who gladly joined the party.

Plus, we are forced to use the English language and nobody 'forces' anyone to 'voluntarily do something. Furthermore, the failure of the entire CRA portfolio wouldn't come close to causing Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Lehman bros. Citi, BaC to go bankrupt as they surely did technically and would have vanished if it were not for Bush, Paulsen & Co. and TARP.

They just had a guy this AM on C-Span named Dennis Kelleher Pres. & CEO pf from Better Markets Inc. listen to the whole think...great insight. HERE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I've addressed all of mnotter's points previously. He's merely repeating crap at this point. But this article at business insider does a pretty good job at recapping, including the fact that clinton force the non-cra lenders to comply voluntarily with cra standards.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6

Look, I don't care about any of the politics involved or the push or talk. The entire CRA portfolio wasn't a hill-of-beans compared to the Countrywide portfolio of shit paper alone, they themselves either held on their own books voluntarily or couldn't sell because of the smell. not to mention the countless billion$ in other shit paperboys, who gladly joined the party.

Plus, we are forced to use the English language and nobody 'forces' anyone to 'voluntarily do something. Furthermore, the failure of the entire CRA portfolio wouldn't come close to causing Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Lehman bros. Citi, BaC to go bankrupt as they surely did technically and would have vanished if it were not for Bush, Paulsen & Co. and TARP.

They just had a guy this AM on C-Span named Dennis Kelleher Pres. & CEO pf from Better Markets Inc. listen to the whole think...great insight. HERE

Right. So the guy that was Senator Kennedy's General counsel is a non biased source. The same person who served for Barbar McCulski - one of the most liberal members of the Senate. And this is a creditable, non biased source for you. Despite the fact that Kennedy's staff drafted one of the changes to the CRA hmm?

http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/groups/finance/CRA_version27_final.pdf

The evidence therefore
shows that around CRA examinations, when incentives to conform to CRA standards are
particularly high, banks not only increase lending rates but appear to originate loans that are
markedly riskier.

we find that large lending institutions drive our main findings on the impact of
CRA exams on the quantity and quality of extended loans. This is to be expected: federal
regulatory agencies consider depository institutions’ CRA scores when considering applications
for deposit facilities, including branch openings as well as mergers and acquisitions. To the
extent that larger banks are more heavily engaged in mergers and acquisitions activity and
expansion through branch openings, they will have a greater incentive to maintain a high CRA
score and thus to adjust their lending behavior to satisfy CRA exams.


we find that the reduction in loan standards associated with elevated lending
around CRA exams is based primarily on unobservable characteristics. In other words, there is
no meaningful change in the observable characteristics of loans made by treatment group banks
relative to the control group banks around the CRA exam. This, again, is to be expected under
our interpretation of the results, since banks have an incentive to convince regulators that loans
extended to meet CRA criteria are not overly risky.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

I've addressed all of mnotter's points previously. He's merely repeating crap at this point. But this article at business insider does a pretty good job at recapping, including the fact that clinton force the non-cra lenders to comply voluntarily with cra standards.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6