3...2...1... and go::
Like they are EVER going to win this case. Oh boy. This was a good one. Lawls.
Tough luck. They should get Holder to manage this case at least that way, when they lose, they will have a convenient person to blame.
All instances of aquisition, merger or tapping into federal loans at prime have a requirement of satisfactory CRA rating.2013 Reporting Criteria
■All institutions regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Reserve System, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation that meet the asset size threshold are subject to data collection and reporting requirements. The asset size threshold that triggers data collection and reporting for all agencies is $1.186 billion as of December 31 of each of the prior two calendar years.
■All institutions that are subject to the data collection and reporting requirements must report the data for a calendar year by March 1 of the subsequent year.
CAMELS ratings are how banks rate their own liquidity and worth. CAMELS ratings went down as their CRA rating went up.
Im not sure how you dont understand that.
If I was S&P I would respond by lowering their rating again. Sorry, but the government has no business doing this.
Bottom line when it was all said and done the GSEs wound up with close to 70% of all sub-prime debt.
More than 80% of the subprime debt wound up on Gov Financial Institutions books.
Quotas spekled out under Clinton forced the GSEs to acquire over 50% of sub prime loans.
Under Clinton that debt was allowed to be securitized.
All that is easy to look up. The lone disenter in the Govts own study of the financial crisis ( Peter Wallison) had access to all the pertinent data.
Just Google him. The fact is there was a concerted effort by the Democrats, the media and Holly Wood to put a the blame on banks and gullible people fell for it.
Watch the movie (fiction) to big to fail or the Movie (fiction) Margin Call.
The truth is the banks had no power to force mass Govt backed sub-prime lending. Only Washington has that power.
As a bank to be told you had to make risky loans to people just because community activist groups and Liberals in Congress ( Barney Frank ) accused you of racism is akin to being told your'e being forced into bankruptcy.
Banks dont make risky loans, its bad for bussiness. But Congress allocated regulatory control to HUD and the CRA and not only forced private banks to loan but worse forced massive Government entities like Fannie Mae who had bern around for 70 years to start offering up these mortgages, sometimes 105% financed.
THIS is what nearly cratered our economy and is still threatening our economy.
Sure we might have rebounded but idiot voters elected a nobody. A media creation. A empty suite.
I have no idea what else you could possibly need to form an opinion of what happened but you should have some knowledge of the history of the CRA before you even get involved in the discussion.
And if you understand how the government mismanaged the CRA and the mortgage industry, wait until they get their hands on Obamacare.
Wikipedia? You know that anyone can go in to that to put information in, right?
And the pdf file. Can you break those 20 pages down please.
Note in the YouTube video that Clinton didn't say "force them", so what's your point?
And "Let Freedom Ring"? Are you serious?
I'm sorry to tell you that a courtroom doesn't play that kind of malarkey from either party; they want backed-up facts.
"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." `Thomas Jefferson