quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Sure...I said patrician liar and you're going to cite that for me. Sure...you've picked a source. Other "sources" have been cited. I suppose since you've picked the terms patrician liar, that's how you see them..

Actually, the federal reserve has no partisan incentive on this long answered question. The terms of any debate without the rancor is to be as objective as possible.

The federal reserve study quite objectively researched every possible aspect of just where CRA loans ranked in the over all financial meltdown and came to the conclusion I cited...[it] and those loans were in no way responsible for and in no way had any substantial effect on, bringing wall street to it knees and begging to the taxpayers. Oh and the banking rules didn't change and there was no legally enforceable requirements upon anyone to make subprime mortgage loans.

Oh and just for the fun of it.....

Not being a person of noble or high rank or otherwise an aristocrat, even though I am a person of decently good background, education, and refinement, I am not and never was, a member of the original senatorial aristocracy in ancient Rome or have I even spoken to the emperor in many, many years.

Therefore I am not a patrician.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

is this revisionist history part 2 after being taunted about bush in the other thread??????? or to get away from having to defend the teflon don., LMFAO

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Sure...I said patrician liar and you're going to cite that for me. Sure...you've picked a source. Other "sources" have been cited. I suppose since you've picked the terms patrician liar, that's how you see them..

Actually, the federal reserve has no partisan incentive on this long answered question. The terms of any debate without the rancor is to be as objective as possible.

The federal reserve study quite objectively researched every possible aspect of just where CRA loans ranked in the over all financial meltdown and came to the conclusion I cited...[it] and those loans were in no way responsible for and in no way had any substantial effect on, bringing wall street to it knees and begging to the taxpayers. Oh and the banking rules didn't change and there was no legally enforceable requirements upon anyone to make subprime mortgage loans.

Oh and just for the fun of it.....

Not being a person of noble or high rank or otherwise an aristocrat, even though I am a person of decently good background, education, and refinement, I am not and never was, a member of the original senatorial aristocracy in ancient Rome or have I even spoken to the emperor in many, many years.

Therefore I am not a patrician.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

All during nutsucker administrations and legislatures. Wilbur, thats why liberals don't need to read this shit, we know what happened, nutsucker free-market communism, catamitism, de-regulation, and fiscal irresponsibility.

Nothing to do with CRA, they didnt default on the order of the nutsuckers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Sure...I said patrician liar and you're going to cite that for me. Sure...you've picked a source. Other "sources" have been cited. I suppose since you've picked the terms patrician liar, that's how you see them..

Actually, the federal reserve has no partisan incentive on this long answered question. The terms of any debate without the rancor is to be as objective as possible.

The federal reserve study quite objectively researched every possible aspect of just where CRA loans ranked in the over all financial meltdown and came to the conclusion I cited...[it] and those loans were in no way responsible for and in no way had any substantial effect on, bringing wall street to it knees and begging to the taxpayers. Oh and the banking rules didn't change and there was no legally enforceable requirements upon anyone to make subprime mortgage loans.

Oh and just for the fun of it.....

Not being a person of noble or high rank or otherwise an aristocrat, even though I am a person of decently good background, education, and refinement, I am not and never was, a member of the original senatorial aristocracy in ancient Rome or have I even spoken to the emperor in many, many years.

Therefore I am not a patrician.

Here ya go, rebuttal to you fed reserve report. (Which I'll admit I didn't read).

http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/16/milton-friedman-meltdown-oped-cx_pr_1017robinson.html
Milton would have blamed Congress for making it much, much worse. Congress, after all, created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac , institutions that spent tens of billions of dollars on subprime instruments. “Congress told Fannie and Freddie to subsidize bad loans for the purposes of social engineering,” says Jay. “It was terrible, just terrible.”[/I]

https://mises.org/library/subprime-crisis

ABSTRACT: This article offers an analysis of the causes of the subprime crisis, explaining that it is not an isolated incident and that we should concentrate our attention on the Fed’s monetary policy and pressures on the banking system received from the U.S. government for flexible lending. It also critically examines the Fed’s exit strategy and fiscal policies that the government is taking to create jobs and stimulate the economy. We conclude that it should be no surprise if the U.S. economy should fall into a new cycle in the coming years, even though economics does not provides the tools to predict the precise timing of it.1

Now you tell me, in what form was congress pressuring banks to make subprime loans...loans to people who could not otherwise meet sound banking criteria to obtain a loan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

LOL.

And your posts, your ideology, your point of view looks like a will ful denial of reality. Indoctrinated in the fnest liberal circles you can blame bush for anything and everything without having even the slightest pinprick by reality.

I suspect you do it in your sleep - your wife elbows you for snoring - its bushes fault.

I've given you multiple academic studies that say the CRA had a huge impact on the sub-prime meltdown. You haven't defeated their points - hell, you haven't even discussed them.

quote:

A. Slackened underwriting standards—manifested most dramatically by lenders allowing
borrowers to forego down payments entirely—combined with stagnant to falling house prices in
many parts of the country appear to be the most immediate contributors to the rise in mortgage
defaults

quote:


Throughout the nineties banks, as banks lowered their mortgage standards, mortgage rates remained high. The laxity was spreading but the incentives for borrowers to re-finance even under relaxed standards remained low. New buyers often still didn’t know that some of the loosey-goosey mortgages existed. Speculators had an internet bubble, so they weren’t yet attracted to real-estate. Treasury rates were not yet so low that investors seeking yield would pour into mortgage backed securities. Securitization levels were low enough that banks weren’t yet willing to fully embrace the loose standards. The historical data on default and loss rates from the lax lending were not yet available, so they weren’t embraced by banks or the broader market.

But as the years went by, these factors changed. The Fed pushed interest rates down. This made refinancing more attractive, and created an investor demand for yield. Fannie and Freddie popularized low-income securitization. Low defaults and loss rates from lax loans made them seem not as risky as previously expected. A shrinking consumer asset base thanks to the dot com bust created a demand for home-equity loans and high loan-to-value loans, as consumers exchanged high-interest credit card debt for low interest home debt. Speculators seeking higher returns and ordinary home buyers became aware that lax lending standards would allow them to buy bigger homes with little or no money down.

In short, the lax lending standards created in response to the CRA had dug a pit that was waiting to get filled when the circumstances were right.

What about "No Money Down" Mortgages? Were they required by the CRA?
Actually, yes they were. The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.
Explain the shift in loan to value away from the traditional lending requirement of 80%.
Again, the regulators told banks that much higher LTVs was an appropriate way to meet the CRA obligations.

What about the elimination of payment history? How about income requirements?
Regulators instructed banks to consider alternatives to traditional credit histories because CRA targeted borrowers often lacked traditional credit histories. The banks were expected to become creative, to consider other indicators of reliability.

Similarly, banks were expected by regulators to relax income requirements. Day labors and others often lack reportable income. Stated-income was a way of resolving the gap between actual income of borrowers and reported income. The problem, of course, comes when the con-artists and liars come into the game.

Did the CRA require banks to develop automated underwriting systems that emphasized speed rather than accuracy in order to process the greatest number of mortgage apps as quickly as possible?
This was another lending innovation praised by regulators to the point that it became mandatory for banks. Those who were not employing automated underwriting would be putting their CRA ratings at risk. Automated underwriting was seen as a way of eliminating bias in lending.

Point out to me where in the CRA or any regulation that any of this is required.
I cannot. But this kind of legislative fundamentalism misconstrues the way laws constrain business activity. An unenforced law exercises little constraint, regardless of how onerous it is worded. Think of the way anti-trust enforcement changes from presidential administration to presidential administration.

In the case of the CRA, it was the activity of the regulators that matters. And each of these credit innovations described above was put into place to satisfy the CRA regulators.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

A. The citation I gave you said that banks made riskier loans when they were up for CRA renewal.
A1. The FCIC was a partisan whitewash. It has no significant inquirty into CRA - and I've quoted the FCIC member who said that this study was entirely designed to shift blame away from democrats. It is exactly like the benghazi review organized by hillary. Ie. Not creditable.
B. The fact that the vast majority of sub-prime loans were not CRA loans has already been discussed. You're repeating yourself. I showed.
B1. Loan standards were degraded over a period froom 2003 - 2007.
B2 I and Nnaji showed how federal regulators required banks to degrade the loan standards.
B3. I showed how the CRA loan standards degraded the loan standards of the entire mortgage industry.
C. It is not at all true that we spent 5 times the value of subprime loans. That statement is simply false. US lenders made 1.3 trillion dollars in subprime loans in 2007 alone. Fact.
D. Fanny/ Freddy are always followers. This is playing games with words. They are the people that purchase subprime loans, after someone else originates them. If Fanny/Freddie don't buy the loans - there is no market for them. I've showed you where 70% of all subprime loans were bought by fanny / freddy during the period just before the crash.
E. The entire question of timing has been answered three times in this thread. Quit repeating yourself - address my response. Federal Reserve

quote:

A. Slackened underwriting standards—manifested most dramatically by lenders allowing
borrowers to forego down payments entirely—combined with stagnant to falling house prices in
many parts of the country appear to be the most immediate contributors to the rise in mortgage
defaults

BI:

quote:


Throughout the nineties banks, as banks lowered their mortgage standards, mortgage rates remained high. The laxity was spreading but the incentives for borrowers to re-finance even under relaxed standards remained low. New buyers often still didn’t know that some of the loosey-goosey mortgages existed. Speculators had an internet bubble, so they weren’t yet attracted to real-estate. Treasury rates were not yet so low that investors seeking yield would pour into mortgage backed securities. Securitization levels were low enough that banks weren’t yet willing to fully embrace the loose standards. The historical data on default and loss rates from the lax lending were not yet available, so they weren’t embraced by banks or the broader market.

But as the years went by, these factors changed. The Fed pushed interest rates down. This made refinancing more attractive, and created an investor demand for yield. Fannie and Freddie popularized low-income securitization. Low defaults and loss rates from lax loans made them seem not as risky as previously expected. A shrinking consumer asset base thanks to the dot com bust created a demand for home-equity loans and high loan-to-value loans, as consumers exchanged high-interest credit card debt for low interest home debt. Speculators seeking higher returns and ordinary home buyers became aware that lax lending standards would allow them to buy bigger homes with little or no money down.

In short, the lax lending standards created in response to the CRA had dug a pit that was waiting to get filled when the circumstances were right.

What about "No Money Down" Mortgages? Were they required by the CRA?
Actually, yes they were. The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.
Explain the shift in loan to value away from the traditional lending requirement of 80%.
Again, the regulators told banks that much higher LTVs was an appropriate way to meet the CRA obligations.

What about the elimination of payment history? How about income requirements?
Regulators instructed banks to consider alternatives to traditional credit histories because CRA targeted borrowers often lacked traditional credit histories. The banks were expected to become creative, to consider other indicators of reliability.

Similarly, banks were expected by regulators to relax income requirements. Day labors and others often lack reportable income. Stated-income was a way of resolving the gap between actual income of borrowers and reported income. The problem, of course, comes when the con-artists and liars come into the game.

Did the CRA require banks to develop automated underwriting systems that emphasized speed rather than accuracy in order to process the greatest number of mortgage apps as quickly as possible?
This was another lending innovation praised by regulators to the point that it became mandatory for banks. Those who were not employing automated underwriting would be putting their CRA ratings at risk. Automated underwriting was seen as a way of eliminating bias in lending.

Point out to me where in the CRA or any regulation that any of this is required.
I cannot. But this kind of legislative fundamentalism misconstrues the way laws constrain business activity. An unenforced law exercises little constraint, regardless of how onerous it is worded. Think of the way anti-trust enforcement changes from presidential administration to presidential administration.

In the case of the CRA, it was the activity of the regulators that matters. And each of these credit innovations described above was put into place to satisfy the CRA regulators.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I pretty much have pointed out you have at the minimum a 4 year problem with the scenario, as well at the whole it was a nutsuckers thing anyhow.

Good to be back Wilbur.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Yes, I did, several times. Years, dates, happenstance, facts, investigations, and so on. I didnt call names. You called names you said CRA. (but you were wrong as usual).

No down payment? W. Relaxed lending standards? W.
Unless you are saying I pointed out that it was purely a nutsucker epic fail, but pointing out facts will sometimes name names.

Who is buried in Grant's tomb? (we are going to have to name names here).