Page 24 of 29 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 289

Thread: U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

  1. #231
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    10-30-14 @ 12:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,908

    Re: U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    I was not able to get the link to post, so I am forced to excerpt.

    New Study Finds CRA 'Clearly' Did Lead To Risky Lending

    By Paul Sperry
    Posted 12/20/2012 06:56 PM ET

    Democrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession.

    But a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research finds, "Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks."

    Added NBER: "There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts," or predominantly low-income and minority areas.

    To satisfy CRA examiners, "flexible" lending by large banks rose an average 5% and those loans defaulted about 15% more often, the 43-page study found.

    The strongest link between CRA lending and defaults took place in the runup to the crisis — 2004 to 2006 — when banks rapidly sold CRA mortgages for securitization by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Wall Street.


    Read More At IBD: New Study Blames Community Reinvestment Act For Mortgage Defaults - Investors.com
    Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
    I was the one who brought that to their attention......... They figured it out after I just about posted it everywhere and confirmed my thesis/theory as fact....

    It's amazing - no one saw it and then I started bitching about the CRA and its relationship to our present economy.... It took my quite a while to actually "reverse research" but I read the news, and have done such for a decade or longer....

    I suppose the point is that no one would have ever imagined the impact the CRA had if it wasn't for me.......I think its funny that I had such an impact....

    Yeah it sound ridiculous but it's true.

  2. #232
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,387

    Re: U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    I was not able to get the link to post, so I am forced to excerpt.

    New Study Finds CRA 'Clearly' Did Lead To Risky Lending

    By Paul Sperry
    Posted 12/20/2012 06:56 PM ET

    Democrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession.

    But a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research finds, "Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks."

    Added NBER: "There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts," or predominantly low-income and minority areas.

    To satisfy CRA examiners, "flexible" lending by large banks rose an average 5% and those loans defaulted about 15% more often, the 43-page study found.

    The strongest link between CRA lending and defaults took place in the runup to the crisis — 2004 to 2006 — when banks rapidly sold CRA mortgages for securitization by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Wall Street.


    Read More At IBD: New Study Blames Community Reinvestment Act For Mortgage Defaults - Investors.com
    Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
    LOL IBD is not a viable source. They are obviously shilling for the banks. This whole myth was debunked years ago. I can't believe you still aren't in on the joke. Hint: No actual numbers were revealed in that "study" only %. That's because the joke is that CRA loans made up less than 20% of subprime loans. 80% were not subject to CRA (or any other) regulations AT ALL. and that 80% contained the very worst of the predatory loans. CRA loans were much less likely to default because of better terms and income verification.

    Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we’re hearing the know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act — a 30-year-old law that was actually weakened by the Bush administration just as the worst lending wave began. This is even more ridiculous than blaming Freddie and Fannie.

    The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”

    Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley (PDF file here).
    Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis - BusinessWeek
    Last edited by iguanaman; 02-12-13 at 12:04 AM.

  3. #233
    Professor
    finebead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 12:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,558

    Re: U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

    This is clearly a major factor in the financial crisis, HUD goals for loans to low income. I don't agree with everything in the article, but I agree with this fact cited in the article. It mirrors what I have read elsewhere.

    The 1992 affordable housing goals required that, of all mortgages Fannie and Freddie bought in any year, at least 30 percent had to be loans made to borrowers who were at or below the median income in the places where they lived. Over succeeding years, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) increased this requirement, first to 42 percent in 1995, to 50 percent in 2000, and finally to 55 percent in 2007. It is important to note, accordingly, that this occurred during both Democratic and Republican administrations.
    The American Spectator : The True Story of the Financial Crisis

    If HUD could raise the goal, then HUD could have lowered the goal. During the Bush administration, they kept the Clinton 50% level, then kicked it up to 55% in 2007, probably in an effort to keep the housing bubble pumped up until it could explode on the next admin. But, they didn't make it.

  4. #234
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,092

    Re: U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    LOL !!!

    They were mandated, put under a quota system to buy the "crap" in the early 90s, forced to increase the share of the crap in the mid ninetess.

    They owned 66% of the "crap" by the end of 2008 and 80 % of the "crap" was on the books of Govt Financial entities when it all fell apart.
    Horse****. 80+% of the "crap" that caused the crash was not held by Fannie and Freddie. And that "crap" is most likely your mortgage ... you do realize that right?

    Hillarious. How could anyone be so ignorant.
    Yes you are.

    Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

    It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.
    Do you understand... PRIVATE SECTOR..

    By the mid 2000s the GSEs were offering no money down ARMS for people with no credit and questionable work history.

    Buzz off dude. Grown-ups are discussing inportant issues.
    No you are pushing lies and propaganda from the GOP.. nothing more nothing less.
    PeteEU

  5. #235
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,092

    Re: U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    FNF owned half the mortgage paper at the end of 2007. Youre going to tell me they had no bad loans? Even you cant be that gullible.
    Come on... do you even understand what FnF is? They have ALWAYS owned most the mortgage paper in the US for **** sake. But they never issued those mortgages... Even today they own most mortgages out there.

    They were set up to help American's like you and every other right winger (and left winger) on these boards to get their own homes. If it was not for them, then most American's would not own their own homes because they would not be able to meet basic lending rules at the banks.

    Banks sell their mortgages to FnF all the time.. and FnF cant say no if the mortgages meet the rules set out by FnF. Most bad subprime mortgages that caused the crisis, never met those rules and hence were never in the FnF system. FnF does not issue mortgages.. banks do. FnF is nothing but a subsidy for American banks... tanking loans of the American banks balance sheets and pumping taxpayer money into the banks.

    Now saying that FnF were forced to accept bad subprime mortgages by Congress after the crisis started as part of saving the American banking sector.

    Fool Me Twice: Bank of America Plays Hide And Seek Using Fannie Mae - Forbes

    Nice deal for Bank of America... gets 73 billion of bad loans off its books and pushes it on the taxpayer..

    Add to that, that FnF primary market is the lower and middle class mortgage market, and that it is always these classes that get hit the hardest by an economic crisis, then it is no wonder that FnF were hit by a rising number of bad loans. It is economics 101.

    Not my fault that most conservatives live in a parallel universe where the private sector can do no wrong and everything is the fault of the public sector, the poor, blacks, non-Christians, socialists, left wingers and women.. oh and I almost forgot the gays..
    PeteEU

  6. #236
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,810

    Re: U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Come on... do you even understand what FnF is? They have ALWAYS owned most the mortgage paper in the US for **** sake. But they never issued those mortgages... Even today they own most mortgages out there.

    They were set up to help American's like you and every other right winger (and left winger) on these boards to get their own homes. If it was not for them, then most American's would not own their own homes because they would not be able to meet basic lending rules at the banks.

    Banks sell their mortgages to FnF all the time.. and FnF cant say no if the mortgages meet the rules set out by FnF. Most bad subprime mortgages that caused the crisis, never met those rules and hence were never in the FnF system. FnF does not issue mortgages.. banks do. FnF is nothing but a subsidy for American banks... tanking loans of the American banks balance sheets and pumping taxpayer money into the banks.

    Now saying that FnF were forced to accept bad subprime mortgages by Congress after the crisis started as part of saving the American banking sector.

    Fool Me Twice: Bank of America Plays Hide And Seek Using Fannie Mae - Forbes

    Nice deal for Bank of America... gets 73 billion of bad loans off its books and pushes it on the taxpayer..

    Add to that, that FnF primary market is the lower and middle class mortgage market, and that it is always these classes that get hit the hardest by an economic crisis, then it is no wonder that FnF were hit by a rising number of bad loans. It is economics 101.

    Not my fault that most conservatives live in a parallel universe where the private sector can do no wrong and everything is the fault of the public sector, the poor, blacks, non-Christians, socialists, left wingers and women.. oh and I almost forgot the gays..
    Bolded is logically contradictory. Thye wouldnt have needed a bailout if that werent the case. They wouldnt still be hemorhaging bad paper still if that were the case. And no, FnF hasnt owned most of the mortgage paper in the US in their history.

    Time to Reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

    Fannie Mae was created in 1936 during the Great Depression to provide a secondary market to encourage greater use of the innovative long-term, fixed-rate, level-payment, fully amortized mortgages that the newly created Federal housing Administration (FHA) was insuring against loss of principal and interest. The exercise was a success, and this type of innovative mortgage became the standard means of financing the postwar housing boom that raised the homeownership rate from 44 percent in 1940 to 69 percent by 2004.[3]

    By the 1970s, the basic purpose of the GSEs had shifted to the role of adding more funds to the housing market by connecting prospective homebuyers with major capital markets. To accomplish this goal, the GSEs use their preferred credit rating to borrow in major financial markets and use the funds raised to acquire residential mortgages from brokers and other mortgage originators, earning profits and covering expenses on the difference in the interest rates earned and paid. The GSEs also package mortgages acquired from originators into "pass through" securities that are collateralized with qualified residential mortgages. Payments of principal and interest made by the homeowners are then "passed through" to the investors holding the securities.

    Over much of this period, Fannie Mae and the federal government were minor players in the process. By 1965, the homeownership rate had risen to 63 percent, but Fannie Mae and the other sources of federal mortgage credit support accounted for only 6 percent of outstanding residential mortgages.[4] Savings and loan associations, savings and commercial banks, and life insurance companies accounted for most of the rest.[5]

    Fannie Mae was restructured as a federally chartered corporation in 1968, and its shares were sold to the public a year later. Initially, Fannie Mae was limited to investing in residential mortgages insured by the FHA or guaranteed by the Veterans Administration so as to maintain its public purpose of assisting entry-level homebuyers.

    A few years after Fannie Mae's "privatization," Congress authorized the creation of another government-sponsored mortgage credit facility, Freddie Mac, as a federally chartered corporation to provide a secondary market for the conventional mortgages written by savings and loans and other lenders and brokers. Over time, the mandates guiding the FNMA and FHLMC were liberalized, and the scope of their activity was expanded substantially to the point that they and the other federal housing finance programs now account for more than half the residential mortgage market in the United States.

    Although structured as private companies, both the FNMA and the FHLMC operate with valuable federal privileges that give them a significant competitive advantage over other participants in the housing finance market. In particular, they are exempt from state and local income taxes; more important, they have exclusive access to lines of credit from the U.S. Treasury and the U.S. Federal Reserve System. Under current law, each is permitted to borrow up to $2.25 billion from the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve is authorized to purchase their debt as part of any "open market operation." Although neither of these privileges has ever been requested, the fact that the federal government is authorized to assist these GSEs is interpreted by investors as an implied federal guarantee of their debt, and this interpretation allows them to borrow at interest rates well below those paid by private companies with the best credit ratings and only slightly higher than what the Treasury pays on its own full faith and credit debt.

    As quasi-private companies obligated to enrich their shareholders with ever-increasing earnings and dividends, and operating with an implicit federal interest rate subsidy as well as a federal mandate to promote homeownership, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had every reason and opportunity to grow rapidly. By the 1980s and early 1990s, they dominated the housing finance market. By parlaying their subsidized borrowing advantage into lower-rate mortgage lending, they gradually pushed life insurance companies and commercial banks out of the less profitable residential mortgage market and squeezed the earnings of the already wobbly savings and loans, which by law could invest only in residential mortgages. While homebuyers benefited from slightly lower borrowing costs, financial markets were put at greater risk as more and more of the housing finance system was concentrated in the hands of two highly leveraged, unsupervised, federally chartered financial institutions.
    Sources and footnotes linked into the page source. Pete, youre wrong. Bow out gracefully for once.

  7. #237
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,321

    Re: U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Horse****. 80+% of the "crap" that caused the crash was not held by Fannie and
    Freddie. And that "crap" is most likely your mortgage ... you do realize that right?



    Yes you are.

    Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes



    Do you understand... PRIVATE SECTOR..



    No you are pushing lies and propaganda from the GOP.. nothing more nothing less.
    He's gotten up from the childrens table ...

    I sighted facts, others have sighted studies, you sighted the year 2006, and those loans were purchased, bundled up and sold as derivitives by the GSEs.

    Do some research, grow the hell up and understand this happened way before Bush's term.

    That Clinton pushed for higher quotas and enforced, doubled down on the CRA regulations. HUD pushed the GSEs to offer lower quality loans at a climbimg percentage to their total originations.

    The bulk of sub-prime debt was held by the GSEs. You can retrieve that information anywhere...(watch him quote WIKI..)

    Where do you get your facts from, a Dr Suess Book ? And what does you not understanding the private sector have anything to do with the Democrat mandated bubble ?

    Its not my fault you are without the cognizant means to understand the Sub-prime collapse.

    Its not my fault you are part of and beholden to a empty and destructive ideology.

    Its not my fault that the truth exposes your agendas lies and misinformation.

    Offer up real evidence from an objective source. What were the GSEs and other Govt Financial Agencies total originations of sub-prime debt by the end of 2008?

  8. #238
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,321

    Re: U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Come on... do you even understand what
    FnF is? They have ALWAYS owned
    most the mortgage paper in the US for **** sake. But they never issued those mortgages... Even today they own most mortgages out there.

    They were set up to help American's like you and every other right winger (and left winger) on these boards to get their own homes. If it was not for them, then most American's would not own their own homes because they would not be able to meet basic lending rules at the banks.

    Banks sell their mortgages to FnF all the time.. and FnF cant say no if the mortgages meet the rules set out by FnF. Most bad subprime mortgages that caused the crisis, never met those rules and hence were never in the FnF system. FnF does not issue mortgages.. banks do. FnF is nothing but a subsidy for American banks... tanking loans of the American banks balance sheets and pumping taxpayer money into the banks.

    Now saying that FnF were forced to accept bad subprime mortgages by Congress after the crisis started as part of saving the American banking sector.

    Fool Me Twice: Bank of America Plays Hide And Seek Using Fannie Mae - Forbes

    Nice deal for Bank of America... gets 73 billion of bad loans off its books and pushes it on the taxpayer..

    Add to that, that FnF primary market is the lower and middle class mortgage market, and that it is always these classes that get hit the hardest by an economic crisis, then it is no wonder that FnF were hit by a rising number of bad loans. It is economics 101.

    Not my fault that most conservatives live in a parallel universe where the private sector can do no wrong and everything is the fault of the public sector, the poor, blacks, non-Christians, socialists, left wingers and women.. oh and I almost forgot the gays..
    lol...73 billion. Thats nothing compared to what the GSEs hid in bundled derivitives and then sold out to investment banks.

    That we are now responsible for.

    Your wrong.....again about the GSEs owning most of the mortgage paper throughout their history. Pick up a book once in a while. They DID own a majority of the sub-prime debt.

    But even if they did a very small percentage prior to 1990 was Alt-A.

    The GSEs were not hit with a rising number of bad loans because of "economy 101".....the class you apparently slept through. They were mandated under HUD regulations to increase their bad debt in the 90s.

    Ive already posted the title of the law once. Go back and re-read to get it.

    Its interesting you'll feign concern over 73 billion but will ignore the GSEs losses and the Govt programs that mandated total losses that make that 73billion look like dryer change.

  9. #239
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,387

    Re: U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    He's gotten up from the childrens table ...

    I sighted facts, others have sighted studies, you sighted the year 2006, and those loans were purchased, bundled up and sold as derivitives by the GSEs.

    Do some research, grow the hell up and understand this happened way before Bush's term.

    That Clinton pushed for higher quotas and enforced, doubled down on the CRA regulations. HUD pushed the GSEs to offer lower quality loans at a climbimg percentage to their total originations.

    The bulk of sub-prime debt was held by the GSEs. You can retrieve that information anywhere...(watch him quote WIKI..)

    Where do you get your facts from, a Dr Suess Book ? And what does you not understanding the private sector have anything to do with the Democrat mandated bubble ?

    Its not my fault you are without the cognizant means to understand the Sub-prime collapse.

    Its not my fault you are part of and beholden to a empty and destructive ideology.

    Its not my fault that the truth exposes your agendas lies and misinformation.

    Offer up real evidence from an objective source. What were the GSEs and other Govt Financial Agencies total originations of sub-prime debt by the end of 2008?
    What happened "way before Bush's term"? Certainly not a housing bubble, that happened on Bushs watch while a GOP majority in Congress twiddled their thumbs. Blaming Clinton for something the Congress could have ended in a heartbeat is ludicrous. The fact is that there was no problem until Bush was in office, he did nothing about it and so it is his baby, just like the "Minority Housing Initiative" and the $440 billion in bad loans he sold to Fannie Mae was his baby too.

  10. #240
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,092

    Re: U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    He's gotten up from the childrens table ...

    I sighted facts, others have sighted studies, you sighted the year 2006, and those loans were purchased, bundled up and sold as derivitives by the GSEs.
    You have sighted right wing think tanks who are so deep into to hating Fannie and Freddie that their findings are at best laughable. Funny thing, it was these very same experts that pushed for a deregulation of the banking sector that directly lead to the crisis in the first place.. running from responsibility again I see ..

    Do some research, grow the hell up and understand this happened way before Bush's term.
    Oh I know... had Clinton not signed the 96 law, pushed by the GOP and written by the GOP... then the financial crisis would never have been as bad as it has been or maybe even happened. The fact that the barrier between banks and investment banks was shattered and the two allowed to mix drove the whole crisis.

    That Clinton pushed for higher quotas and enforced, doubled down on the CRA regulations. HUD pushed the GSEs to offer lower quality loans at a climbimg percentage to their total originations.
    How on earth could Clinton do anything.. the GOP had congress. Running from responsibility again I see.

    The bulk of sub-prime debt was held by the GSEs. You can retrieve that information anywhere...(watch him quote WIKI..)
    Again wrong. While GSE's do hold and held sub-prime mortgages... it was kind of why they were formed in the first place, but they did not hold the crap that caused the crisis because this crap would not meet their regulatory standards... go read up on it, you might learn something. Why else did Washington Mutal go belly up... oh yea the sold crap that was so bad that not even Fannie and Freddie were allowed to buy it up.

    Where do you get your facts from, a Dr Suess Book ? And what does you not understanding the private sector have anything to do with the Democrat mandated bubble ?
    Attempting to insult me only shows how little you actually have to back up your claims.

    Its not my fault you are without the cognizant means to understand the Sub-prime collapse.

    Its not my fault you are part of and beholden to a empty and destructive ideology.

    Its not my fault that the truth exposes your agendas lies and misinformation.

    Offer up real evidence from an objective source. What were the GSEs and other Govt Financial Agencies total originations of sub-prime debt by the end of 2008?
    Again with the personal insults, and why did you say end of 2008.... odd date since the **** hit the fan in 2007 and bailouts happened in 2007 and early 2008.. and one of the ways to bail out the private sector was to move the crap onto GSE's books.
    PeteEU

Page 24 of 29 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... 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
  •