KD in CA Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Let's keep pretending more money being funneled to the top is a good thing... Let's keep pretending that government funneling money in ANY direction has a 100% chance of resulting in enormous waste and corruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 (edited) Who do think was one of the CRA's "enforcers"? Banks issuing credit to people who deserve it? On what basis? So let me get this straight. The community organizer somehow works as an "enforcer" for the CRA and forces banks to make risky bets on the sub-prime market with his "love juice"? And you think I'm the one that's delusional? Edited December 30, 2011 by Bigfatbillsfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 30, 2011 Author Share Posted December 30, 2011 So let me get this straight. The community organizer somehow works worked as an "enforcer" for the CRA and forces forced banks to make risky bets on the sub-prime market. with his "love juice"? Fixed And you think I'm the one that's delusional? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 (edited) So let me get this straight. The community organizer somehow works as an "enforcer" for the CRA and forces banks to make risky bets on the sub-prime market with his "love juice"? And you think I'm the one that's delusional? I'm fairly certain he wasn't referring specifically to "THE" community organizer so much as to community organizations (i.e. ACORN) and their role in the CRA. I'd have thought a really smart guy like you would have been aware of that relationship. It's really not hard to find any articles on the subject, though I suspect you will somehow re-invent your interpretation of the conversation so as to ensure you aren't as stupid as you make yourself out to be. Here's one to get you started. In one particularly lucrative deal, 14 major banks eager to put CRA protests behind them in 1993 signed an agreement to have Acorn administer a $55 million, 11-city lending program. It was precisely such agreements that helped turn Acorn from a network of small local groups into a national player. And Acorn hasn't been alone. A U.S. senate subcommittee once estimated that CRA-related deals between banks and community groups have pumped nearly $10 billion into the nonprofit sector. Edited December 31, 2011 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I'm fairly certain he wasn't referring specifically to "THE" community organizer so much as to community organizations (i.e. ACORN) and their role in the CRA. I'd have thought a really smart guy like you would have been aware of that relationship. It's really not hard to find any articles on the subject, though I suspect you will somehow re-invent your interpretation of the conversation so as to ensure you aren't as stupid as you make yourself out to be. Here's one to get you started. There you go again, projecting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 There you go again, projecting. The circle jerk continues... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 31, 2011 Author Share Posted December 31, 2011 The circle jerk continues... Gee, no comments on LA's link? Maybe you haven't atained the article yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 I'm fairly certain he wasn't referring specifically to "THE" community organizer so much as to community organizations (i.e. ACORN) and their role in the CRA. I'd have thought a really smart guy like you would have been aware of that relationship. It's really not hard to find any articles on the subject, though I suspect you will somehow re-invent your interpretation of the conversation so as to ensure you aren't as stupid as you make yourself out to be. Here's one to get you started. Considering that the vast majority of sub-prime loans were handed out by lending institutions that were not even subject to CRA regulation I don't think the CRA and their "enforcers" are responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 31, 2011 Author Share Posted December 31, 2011 (edited) Considering that the vast majority of sub-prime loans were handed out by lending institutions that were not even subject to CRA regulation I don't think the CRA and their "enforcers" are responsible. Link? Edited December 31, 2011 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Considering that the vast majority of sub-prime loans were handed out by lending institutions that were not even subject to CRA regulation I don't think the CRA and their "enforcers" are responsible. Good luck trying to convince any of the righty loons that the sub-prime loan fiasco was caused by anything but liberal government do-gooderism. WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Wednesday announced the largest residential fair-lending settlement in history, saying that Bank of America had agreed to pay $335 million to settle allegations that its Countrywide Financial unit discriminated against black and Hispanic borrowers during the housing boom. A department investigation concluded that Countrywide loan officers and brokers charged higher fees and rates to more than 200,000 minority borrowers across the country than to white borrowers who posed the same credit risk. Countrywide also steered more than 10,000 minority borrowers into costly subprime mortgages when white borrowers with similar credit profiles received regular loans, it found. My link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 31, 2011 Author Share Posted December 31, 2011 Good luck trying to convince any of the righty loons that the sub-prime loan fiasco was caused by anything but liberal government do-gooderism. My link Nice canard. You've got cousin Fatty lyrbob's back I see. So Countrywide, the largest mortgage lender at the time settled because they supposedly discriminated against 10,000 minorities? So, that (their discrimination) is what caused the housing collapse? Every time you libs are confronted with facts you twist and turn the subject or run and hide. What is your expertise in the mortgage and real estate industries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Nice canard. You've got cousin Fatty lyrbob's back I see. So Countrywide, the largest mortgage lender at the time settled because they supposedly discriminated against 10,000 minorities? So, that (their discrimination) is what caused the housing collapse? Every time you libs are confronted with facts you twist and turn the subject or run and hide. What is your expertise in the mortgage and real estate industries? So you don't see that as a contributing factor? Or do you deny it happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Good luck trying to convince any of the righty loons that the sub-prime loan fiasco was caused by anything but liberal government do-gooderism. Actually, many of the "righty loons" know much of it was also caused by people too unbelievably stupid to either (1) recognize they were buying something they could never afford and/or (2) were somehow the only people in the world able to go through escrow and sign six-figure loan documents without having any knowledge of what just happened. There is plenty of blame to go around, but only in liberal la-la land are the evil banks the only ones at fault while people borrowing money they couldn't afford to pay back are the" victims." Not that I would ever, in this lifetime, expect a liberal to understand what is meant by the term "personal accountability." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Actually, many of the "righty loons" know much of it was also caused by people too unbelievably stupid to either (1) recognize they were buying something they could never afford and/or (2) were somehow the only people in the world able to go through escrow and sign six-figure loan documents without having any knowledge of what just happened. There is plenty of blame to go around, but only in liberal la-la land are the evil banks the only ones at fault while people borrowing money they couldn't afford to pay back are the" victims." Not that I would ever, in this lifetime, expect a liberal to understand what is meant by the term "personal accountability." So the total percentage of defaults was what? I am genuinely curious. One would suspect they would need to be fairly high in the US market to trigger a global collapse. These debtors that lacked personal responsibility, how many of them did it take (%wise) to crash the global economy all by themselves? Look, I freely grant that the idiots should have never bought the houses. I admit that democratic policies lead to this fiasco to some degree. The banks were still the the major players. They led to the uncertainty IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 31, 2011 Author Share Posted December 31, 2011 So you don't see that as a contributing factor? Or do you deny it happened? Booster, you are smarter than this. How big was the problem? Do the math and don't be so partisan. LA posts a link to a very good article (one of many that are out there), I've posted youtube videos of ridiculous democrat reps making even more ridiculous statements on the House floor and you libs go into the Witness Protection Program for a while. The few of you that might stay around to respond throw out canards, not really responding to the question at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Booster, you are smarter than this. How big was the problem? Do the math and don't be so partisan. LA posts a link to a very good article (one of many that are out there), I've posted youtube videos of ridiculous democrat reps making even more ridiculous statements on the House floor and you libs go into the Witness Protection Program for a while. The few of you that might stay around to respond throw out canards, not really responding to the question at hand. What does that have to do with the NYT article or Countrywides' behavior? I asked you a specific question, So you don't see that as a contributing factor? Or do you deny it happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 31, 2011 Author Share Posted December 31, 2011 What does that have to do with the NYT article or Countrywides' behavior? I asked you a specific question, You were getting off point. Obviously 10,000 loans made under circumstances that made minorities pay more than others equally !@#$ed up isn't good. Is that going to bring down the U.S. housing industry? The policy originally set by Carter and extended by Clinton led to the housing crisis. Other screwups helped it. Booster, even though I think you are an idiot at times, I don't disrespect you. Every once in a while you surprise me and see the fallacies of the liberal program. Set the Kool Aid aside and dig a little deeper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 You were getting off point. Obviously 10,000 loans made under circumstances that made minorities pay more than others equally !@#$ed up isn't good. Is that going to bring down the U.S. housing industry? The policy originally set by Carter and extended by Clinton led to the housing crisis. Other screwups helped it. Booster, even though I think you are an idiot at times, I don't disrespect you. Every once in a while you surprise me and see the fallacies of the liberal program. Set the Kool Aid aside and dig a little deeper. I blame the liberal's as well as the bank's policies. With the CDS stuff, I tend to blame the banks more. The loss in faith in the real estate industry had a ton of contributing factors, liberal policies among them, but the banks played a bigger role IMO. Someone prove me wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 (edited) Volume and Speed. When lenders kept on their books the loans they issued, the creditworthiness of those loans determined whether the lender would turn a profit. Once lenders began to sell or securitize most of their loans, volume and speed, as opposed to creditworthiness, became the keys to a profitable securitization business. In addition, in the years leading up to the financial crisis, investors that might normally insist on purchasing only high quality securities, purchased billions of dollars in RMBS securities containing poor quality, high risk loans, in part because those securities bore AAA ratings from the credit rating agencies, and in part because the securities offered higher returns compared to other AAA rated investments. Banks also bought investment grade RMBS securities to take advantage of their lower capital requirements. Increasingly, the buyers of RMBS securities began to forego detailed due diligence of the RMBS securities they purchased. Instead, they, like the lenders issuing the mortgages, operated in a mortgage market that came to be dominated by volume and speed, as opposed to credit risk. Lenders that produced a high volume of loans could sell pools of the loans to Wall Street or to government sponsored entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Likewise, they could securitize the loans and work with Wall Street investment banks to sell the securities to investors. These lenders passed on the risk of nonpayment to third parties, and so lost interest in whether the sold loans would, in fact, be repaid. Investment banks that securitized the loans garnered fees for their services and also typically passed on the risk of nonpayment to the investors who bought the mortgage backed securities. The investment banks were typically interested in loan repayment rates only to the extent needed to ensure defaulting loans did not cause losses to the mortgage backed securities they sold. Even some of the investors who purchased the mortgage backed securities lost interest in their creditworthiness, so long as they could buy “insurance” in the form of credit default swaps that paid off if a mortgage backed security defaulted My link From the FBI's 2009 Mortgage Fraud Report “Year in Review” I'm going to assume you righty loons know the difference between fraud for property and fraud for profit. The schemes most directly associated with the escalating mortgage fraud problem continue to be those defined as fraud for profit. Prominent schemes include loan origination, foreclosure rescue, builder bailout, short sale, credit enhancement, loan modification, illegal property flipping, seller assistance, bust-out, debt elimination, mortgage backed securities, real estate investment, multiple loan, assignment fee, air loan, asset rental, backwards application, reverse mortgage fraud, and equity skimming. Many of these schemes employ various techniques such as the use of straw buyers, identity theft, silent seconds, quit claims, land trusts, shell companies, fraudulent loan documents (including forged applications, settlement statements, and verification of employment, rental, occupancy, income, and deposit), double sold loans to secondary investors, leasebacks, and inflated appraisals. Mortgage Fraud Perpetrators Mortgage fraud perpetrators are industry insiders, including mortgage brokers, lenders, appraisers, underwriters, accountants, real estate agents, settlement attorneys, land developers, investors, builders, and bank and trust account representatives. Perpetrators are also known to recruit ethnic community members as victims and co-conspirators. FBI reporting indicates numerous ethnic groups are involved in mortgage fraud either as perpetrators or victims. This type of mortgage fraud is known as affinity fraud. Ethnic groups involved in mortgage loan origination fraud include North Korean, Russian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Lithuanian, Mexican, Polish, Middle Eastern, Chinese, and those from the former Republic of Yugoslavian States. Street gangs such as the Conservative Vice Lords, Black P. Stone Nation, New Breeds, Four Corner Hustlers, Bloods, and Outlaw Motorcycle Gang are also involved in various forms of mortgage loan origination fraud as a means to launder money from illicit drug proceeds. Additionally, African, Asian, Balkan, and Eurasian organized crime groups have also been linked to various mortgage fraud schemes. Edited December 31, 2011 by ....lybob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Call this ..booby's blind squirrel moment. The CRA was a footnote in the real estate bubble & collapse. Fannie & Freddie on the other hand ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts