Page 27 of 34 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 337

Thread: Job growth cools slightly, recovery grinds on [W:225]

  1. #261
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

    Re: Job growth cools slightly, recovery grinds on [W:225]

    What CRA gave rise to was extending credit to borrowers in low- and moderate-income communities. That's because the portfolio of CRA loans built up in the 1990's turned out to be quite profitable. It was like finding gold at Sutter's Mill. The conventional mortgage market was already booked for the weekend, and here was this new pool of potential profit just waiting to be tapped. The problem was some of the people who ultimately did the tapping and the products that they pushed in doing so.

    This is a graph of secondary mortgage market share. The blue line is the GSE's as they were more and more pushed out of the picture. The red line is the profit-at-any-cost private label securitization shops built by Wall Street that enforced no underwriting standards and pushed anything with a signature on it out the back door. Strip off the profit, sell of the risk. I'll be gone, you'll be gone. The problems will all belong to somebody else. That's what the red line measures.

    gse_market_share.jpg
    Last edited by Cardinal Fang; 01-13-13 at 05:57 PM.

  2. #262
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,221

    Re: Job growth cools slightly, recovery grinds on [W:225]

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    A rather small subset of all subprime loans were CRA related (not to
    mention the default rate for CRA loans was lower than other non-CRA loans of similar risk). I notice you failed to mention the commercial housing bubble.

    Fail!
    Your brain and your incompentent liberal President is a " FAIL"


    AGAIN, it was regulatory pressure given to CRA and HUD to force private banks to lower the underwriting standards for loans.

    Its all and continues to be, as things grow worse the fault of your principles.

    Imagine, your ideology could cause so much suffering.

    But again, it is as you and your ilk ignore the link to mass suffering in the past and currently.

    Liberalism.

  3. #263
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Job growth cools slightly, recovery grinds on [W:225]

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    AGAIN, it was regulatory pressure given to CRA and HUD to force private banks to lower the underwriting standards for loans.
    CRA is not about lowering underwriting standards. This is a either a lie, or you simply do not understand what you are talking about....

    Its all and continues to be, as things grow worse the fault of your principles.
    This is not about me or ideology. It is about representing the truth.

    Imagine, your ideology could cause so much suffering.
    This is not about me or ideology. It is about representing the truth.

    But again, it is as you and your ilk ignore the link to mass suffering in the past and currently.
    This is not about me or my ilk. It is about representing the truth.

    Liberalism.
    This is not about liberalism. It is about representing the truth.

    Now either present valid evidence that CRA loans came into existence via of lower underwriting standards.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  4. #264
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,719

    Re: Job growth cools slightly, recovery grinds on [W:225]

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    CRA is not about lowering underwriting standards. This is a either a lie, or you simply do not understand what you are talking about....

    Now either present valid evidence that CRA loans came into existence via of lower underwriting standards.
    Kush cmon. You know as well as I do that the primary targets of CRA loans were those that were not financially viable for mortgage loans before CRA regulation.
    Im not sure how you ignore the primary purpose of the CRA program, but you seem to be doing so.

    CRA loosened mortgage regulations across the board because those lower income mortgage were bundled and sold off with implied government backing or partial direct government underwriting. You know this, Im pretty sure. They allowed for lower standards because they were still selling off the mortgage bundles at the same rate.

    GSEs gave the release valve for the risk, the regulation itself was not the problem but the semblence of coverage from government and opening of markets was responsible. There was a whole gamut of blame, valuation issues, credit default swap derivatives having bad valuation, optimistic default rates, belief that the housing market could never go down, pure greed, political gimmes, on and on.

  5. #265
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,221

    Re: Job growth cools slightly, recovery grinds on [W:225]

    Quote Originally Posted by Kushinator View Post
    CRA is not about lowering underwriting standards. This is a either a lie, or you simply do not understand what you are talking about....



    This is not about me or ideology. It is about representing the truth.



    This is not about me or ideology. It is about representing the truth.



    This is not about me or my ilk. It is about representing the truth.



    This is not about liberalism. It is about representing the truth.

    Now either present valid evidence that CRA loans came into existence via of lower underwriting standards.
    I understand completely what the CRA regulations were for.

    It was to fight redlining and redlining is basically proving someone can pay back aa loan.

    Its what they did to me when I bought my last home. You know, check my credit, insist on 20% down, make sure Im employed.

    Its about liberalism and your twisted world beliefs because you fail to look sny further back than 2002 and insist its Bushs fault when in fact Bush warned the Congress in 2000 and tried to regulate the GSEs in 2005 to no avail.

    Hell even the NYT in 1999 warned of the ever increasing size of the GSEs.

    Being stupid is one thing, but being selectively ignorant to defend a corrupt position is much worse and you and Cardinal do that on a daily basis.

    Then again maybe you two just dont possess the cognitive abilities to understand the SubPrime issue in totality.

    Thats not my problem, and no amount of your isolated diversions are going to wipe the slate clean of all of the damage the democrats under Clinton did to our long term economy.

  6. #266
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,221

    Re: Job growth cools slightly, recovery grinds on [W:225]

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Kush cmon. You know as well as I do that the primary targets of CRA loans
    were those that were not financially viable for mortgage loans before CRA regulation.
    Im not sure how you ignore the primary purpose of the CRA program, but you seem to be doing so.

    CRA loosened mortgage regulations across the board because those lower income mortgage were bundled and sold off with implied government backing or partial direct government underwriting. You know this, Im pretty sure. They allowed for lower standards because they were still selling off the mortgage bundles at the same rate.

    GSEs gave the release valve for the risk, the regulation itself was not the problem but the semblence of coverage from government and opening of markets was responsible. There was a whole gamut of blame, valuation issues, credit default swap derivatives having bad valuation, optimistic default rates, belief that the housing market could never go down, pure greed, political gimmes, on and on.
    Credit default swaps and derivitives are two seperate things and are nothing new. You cant blame this on derivitives if the GSEs themselves relied on bundling and selling those MBSs to fund the secondary market.

    Credit Default Swaps HAD to be purchased by investment banks as collateral for those derivitives.

    That was per Govt regulations that existed prior to the sub prime debacle.

    You wont get Kushinator to agree to any of the facts surrounding the collapse because he doesn't possess the integrity to be objective.

  7. #267
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: Job growth cools slightly, recovery grinds on [W:225]

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Kush cmon. You know as well as I do that the primary targets of CRA loans were those that were not financially viable for mortgage loans before CRA regulation.
    Im not sure how you ignore the primary purpose of the CRA program, but you seem to be doing so.

    CRA loosened mortgage regulations across the board because those lower income mortgage were bundled and sold off with implied government backing or partial direct government underwriting. You know this, Im pretty sure. They allowed for lower standards because they were still selling off the mortgage bundles at the same rate.

    GSEs gave the release valve for the risk, the regulation itself was not the problem but the semblence of coverage from government and opening of markets was responsible. There was a whole gamut of blame, valuation issues, credit default swap derivatives having bad valuation, optimistic default rates, belief that the housing market could never go down, pure greed, political gimmes, on and on.
    The government does not set standards for lending in the mortgage market. It only provides standards for mortgages bought by GSE's. In a lot of the sub-prime mortgages they did NOT! meet GSE standards. They also had nothing to do with GSE's. The secondary mortgage market was essentially taken over as in Cardinal's post by private entities.

    The loosening of lending standards was entirely the choice of lenders because no matter how far they delved into unsafe practices there was a secondary market for them. If the demand for sub-prime mortgages did not exist in the private markets there would of been no bubble...the sub-prime market would of continued on with GSE standards and liar loans and other fraudulant practices would not of been bought by the GSE's.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  8. #268
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,719

    Re: Job growth cools slightly, recovery grinds on [W:225]

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    The government does not set standards for lending in the mortgage market. It only provides standards for mortgages bought by GSE's. In a lot of the sub-prime mortgages they did NOT! meet GSE standards. They also had nothing to do with GSE's. The secondary mortgage market was essentially taken over as in Cardinal's post by private entities.

    The loosening of lending standards was entirely the choice of lenders because no matter how far they delved into unsafe practices there was a secondary market for them. If the demand for sub-prime mortgages did not exist in the private markets there would of been no bubble...the sub-prime market would of continued on with GSE standards and liar loans and other fraudulant practices would not of been bought by the GSE's.
    13 trillion dollar mortgage lending market since 2000 and GSEs held 7.5 trillion of it and they had nothing to do with it? How are we supposed to begin to buy that? Lenders changed practices to meet GSE standards to resell or bundle those mortgages---or banks would not be making them because they would have to endure the risk. On the one hand you want to say banks took on these loans and government regs had nothing to do with it. On the other hand, Im saying banks would never had made the loans to comply if they didnt have a risk dump via GSEs and to have that valve they needed to meet regs on lending practices.

  9. #269
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,158

    Re: Job growth cools slightly, recovery grinds on [W:225]

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    13 trillion dollar mortgage lending market since 2000 and GSEs held 7.5 trillion of it and they had nothing to do with it? How are we supposed to begin to buy that?
    Sure...I don't think their size in the market implies guilt. Let's say hypothetically ....that half the market had standards imposed on what was bought and sold in the secondary market and half the market had very low or nearly non-existent standards. Then yes....it's enitrely possible that entities that historically make up a larger share of the market had nothing to do with the mortgage bubble.

    Lenders changed practices to meet GSE standards to resell or bundle those mortgages---or banks would not be making them because they would have to endure the risk.
    You just pointed out that a little under half the market had nothing to do with GSEs....

    GSEs were not the only institutions bundling mortgages. As your stat shows GSEs made up a little over half of the secondary mortgage market. The rest were financial institutions such as investment banks. Nearly half of all mortgages bundled did NOT have to meet GSE standards because they were never sold to a GSE.


    On the one hand you want to say banks took on these loans and government regs had nothing to do with it. On the other hand, Im saying banks would never had made the loans to comply if they didnt have a risk dump via GSEs and to have that valve they needed to meet regs on lending practices.
    I'm saying they had a risk dump. Firms like Goldman Sachs were making tons of money off the bundling of mortgages and providing the same role GSEs generally do. GSEs were not the only game in time...in fact they were making up an increasingly shrinking part of the game.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  10. #270
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,221

    Re: Job growth cools slightly, recovery grinds on [W:225]

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    Sure...I don't think their size in the market implies guilt. Let's say
    hypothetically ....that half the market had standards imposed on what was bought and sold in the secondary market and half the market had very low or nearly non-existent standards. Then yes....it's enitrely possible that entities that historically make up a larger share of the market had nothing to do with the mortgage bubble.


    You just pointed out that a little under half the market had nothing to do with GSEs....

    GSEs were not the only institutions bundling mortgages. As your stat shows GSEs made up a little over half of the secondary mortgage market. The rest were financial institutions such as investment banks. Nearly half of all mortgages bundled did NOT have to meet GSE standards because they were never sold to a GSE.




    I'm saying they had a risk dump. Firms like Goldman Sachs were making tons of money off the bundling of mortgages and providing the same role GSEs generally do. GSEs were not the only game in time...in fact they were making up an increasingly shrinking part of the game.
    The GSE's bought, bundled and sold to investment banks to fund the secondary markets.

    You think Goldman Sachs and other investment banks wanted to get stuck with massive amounts of junk securities ?

    Investment banks earn money on throughput and because of the way those MBS were bundled there was no way to value them.

    The GSEs in 2000 were compelled by HUD to increase their sub-prime originations and by no means were a shrinking part of the game.

    In 1992 Fannie commited 1 trillion toward the sub-prime fiasco and by the time 2008 rolled around had a total of 40% sub-prime orginations and that was up from the under 10% that they averaged since their begginings in the 30s.

    CRA was given regulatory power in the early 90s to lower underwriting standards for low income lendees.

    That was the true impetus that perpetuated the massive growth of sub-prime mortgages.

Page 27 of 34 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •