W:1083,1531:2983:3137]******Bush Mortgage Bubble FAQs

OpportunityCost said:

And since we have evidence of it being the basis for denying applications, despite it being a narrow decision, what do you suppose that means?

Banks will at least attempt to comply to avoid negative decisions regarding their institutions, that looks like compliance is mandatory.

Click to expand...

Vern said:

Look, more questions. and bonus, more delusions. And your question is especially funny. Your "evidence" only proves it "maybe be the basis for denying" a merger or acquisition. Nobody denies that. Its what the law clearly says. And when CRA non-compliance did not prevent a merger or acquisition, it was proof that CRA compliance is not a requirement. It just boggles the mind that you cant grasp that. OC, do yourself a favor and say this out loud "Aha, some bank's CRA non compliance did not stop their merger or acquisition so that proves CRA compliance is required for mergers or acquisitions".

Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:

Have a nice life.

Click to expand...

OpportunityCost said:

I always ask questions because you cannot seem to learn, Vern. This entire thread is a case study in that.

Aha, some did, why do you think that is? Try actually answering a question for once, maybe you could learn something.

Click to expand...

Vern said:

Eorhn, I need your help. Remember how you believed bush was president in 2000. You believed it so much you mocked me telling you he wasn’t. You believed it so much you couldn’t even read the wiki link you posted and created a narrative that "bush didn't fire Cuomo soon enough". You simply couldn’t be reasoned with until Polgara told you were wrong. OC is locked in a similar delusional bubble with “CRA compliance”. Can you “return the favor” for OC?

Just scroll through the recent posts. OC posts the actual law concerning the CRA. He sees the law literally says “may be the basis” for blocking mergers/acquisitions. He even acknowledges that some mergers/acquisitions happened in spite of non-compliance but still insists CRA compliance is required for mergers/acquisitions. Maybe hearing it from your will help him out of the bubble he’s in.

Click to expand...

OpportunityCost said:

You still can't answer direct questions. Oh well, its tough for the truth challenged.

Click to expand...

OpportunityCost said:

Since the debacle happened in 2008, why were Democrats sitting on their hands for 2 years? Since you say they knew something was wrong and were blocked by mean ole Republicans, why didn't they do something once they were in control in 2005 to 2007?

You ought to try to quit arguing out of both sides of your mouth, pick whichever bull**** narrative you want to go with and stick with it.

Click to expand...

Vern said:

OC, I've answered your silly question "what does it mean?" question a dozen times. It means CRA compliance is not a requirement. Now that you think I should answer all your questions about your imaginary narratives, shouldn't you answer my questions about your imaginary narratives? My questions are directly related to what you posted. Here's the perfect example of you asking questions based on your delusions



did you ever acknowledge that republicans controlled congresss 2005-2007? (OC, see how that question is directly related to the falsehood you posted and obediently believed).

Click to expand...

OpportunityCost said:

Banks that were denied found it to be a requirement didn't they? How do we know? Because they were denied on that basis.

Click to expand...

OpportunityCost said:

You still can't answer direct questions. Oh well, its tough for the truth challenged.

Click to expand...

OpportunityCost said:

Banks that were denied found it to be a requirement didn't they? How do we know? Because they were denied on that basis.

Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:

Vern gets cornered and he diverts, trolling others.

OC, I do believe he's beyond salvage, hence my refusal to respond to him.

A troll cut off from responses soon tires and gets bored, hopefully to simply leave.

Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:

Ahem, the date on the letter is May 5, 2000.
Letter from John D. Hawke, Jr., Comptroller of the Currency - May 5, 2000

Last I recall, Bush was in office as of Jan 2000.
In office January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009 George W. Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bzzzz. Try again..

Click to expand...

Vern said:

poor OC, I cant help you. I asked eohrn to help you but I knew it was a longshot because it would have required him to show some integrity. Hey, I know, why dont you ask eohrn what he thinks. You like asking questions so ask eorhn>

Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:

So let's understand this. DOJ under Clinton sued a bank because they didn't lend enough times and enough money to minorities. CRA pressure, and Reno was Clinton's AG, if I'm not mistaken. So, OK Vern. Wave your hand and call this inconsequential. Call this as an example of CRA and the administration didn't force banks into lending to unqualified borrowers.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

First, mortgage lending wasn't aimed mainly at the poor. Earlier research studied lending by ZIP codes and found sharp growth in poorer neighborhoods. Borrowers were assumed to reflect the average characteristics of residents in these neighborhoods. But the new study examined the actual borrowers and found this wasn't true. They were much richer than average residents. In 2002, homebuyers in these poor neighborhoods had average incomes of $63,000, double the neighborhoods' average of $31,000.

Second, borrowers were not saddled with progressively larger mortgage debt burdens. One way of measuring this is the debt-to-income ratio: Someone with a $100,000 mortgage and $50,000 of income has a debt-to-income ratio of 2. In 2002, the mortgage-debt-to income ratio of the poorest borrowers was 2; in 2006, it was still 2. Ratios for wealthier borrowers also remained stable during the housing boom. The essence of the boom was not that typical debt burdens shot through the roof; it was that more and more people were borrowing.

Third, the bulk of mortgage lending and losses -- measured by dollar volume -- occurred among middle-class and high-income borrowers. In 2006, the wealthiest 40 percent of borrowers represented 55 percent of new loans and nearly 60 percent of delinquencies (defined as payments at least 90 days overdue) in the next three years.
If these findings hold up to scrutiny by other scholars, they alter our picture of the housing bubble. Specifically, they question the notion that the main engine of the bubble was the abusive peddling of mortgages to the uninformed poor. In 2006, the poorest 30 percent of borrowers accounted for only 17 percent of new mortgage debt. This seems too small to explain the financial crisis that actually happened. . . . "

[h=3]Loan Originations and Defaults in the Mortgage Crisis: The Role of the ...[/h]www.nber.org/papers/w20848

Click to expand...

Vern said:

Eohrn remember when you tried to equate enforcing discrimination laws to forcing banks to loan to unqualified buyers?

I didn’t wave my hand. I simply pointed out that the bank wouldn’t lend to qualified minorities because of their location. Classic redlining. Not one to let a narrative go, you modified your message to “qualified or unqualified, loans to minorities lead to toxic mortgages.”
Yep, you said it: “qualified or unqualified, loans to minorities lead to toxic mortgages”. You never explained the connection to enforcing discrimination laws (and such blatant examples of discrimination) to dramatically lower lending standards in late 2004. I was just supposed to accept it as fact. Well, you’ll be interested to know that jack posted a study that disproves your narrative.



Here's the key takeaway

"Delinquency patterns also shed doubt on the interpretation that credit to low-income borrowers caused the crisis"

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

Thank you for making my point.

Click to expand...

Vern said:

Oh jack, your "point" required one of those special definitions that cons rely on. Your special definition of "predatory" was basically "only loans to poor people can be predatory". I showed you the OCC's definition clearly defining the Bush Loans as predatory. Income is simply not a factor in determining "predatory".

Click to expand...

WCH said:

Under Clinton's Housing and Urban Development (HUD) secretary, Andrew Cuomo, Community Reinvestment Act regulators gave banks higher ratings for home loans made in "credit-deprived" areas. Banks were effectively rewarded for throwing out sound underwriting standards and writing loans to those who were at high risk of defaulting. If banks didn't comply with these rules, regulators reined in their ability to expand lending and deposits.

Are the Clintons the real housing crash villains?

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

First, mortgage lending wasn't aimed mainly at the poor. Earlier research studied lending by ZIP codes and found sharp growth in poorer neighborhoods. Borrowers were assumed to reflect the average characteristics of residents in these neighborhoods. But the new study examined the actual borrowers and found this wasn't true. They were much richer than average residents. In 2002, homebuyers in these poor neighborhoods had average incomes of $63,000, double the neighborhoods' average of $31,000.
…...
Third, the bulk of mortgage lending and losses -- measured by dollar volume -- occurred among middle-class and high-income borrowers. In 2006, the wealthiest 40 percent of borrowers represented 55 percent of new loans and nearly 60 percent of delinquencies (defined as payments at least 90 days overdue) in the next three years.
…..
If these findings hold up to scrutiny by other scholars, they alter our picture of the housing bubble. Specifically, they question the notion that the main engine of the bubble was the abusive peddling of mortgages to the uninformed poor. In 2006, the poorest 30 percent of borrowers accounted for only 17 percent of new mortgage debt. This seems too small to explain the financial crisis that actually happened. . . . "

​[h=3]Loan Originations and Defaults in the Mortgage Crisis: The Role of the ...[/h]

Click to expand...

Vern said:

Here's the key takeaway: "Delinquency patterns also shed doubt on the interpretation that credit to low-income borrowers caused the crisis." So combine that with what Bush and the Fed told you and now even you cant deny the "editorial" is lying.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

Thank you, again, for making my point. There's no "editorial." You lost. Move on.

Here's the bullet point you forgot to include.

Second, borrowers were not saddled with progressively larger mortgage debt burdens. One way of measuring this is the debt-to-income ratio: Someone with a $100,000 mortgage and $50,000 of income has a debt-to-income ratio of 2. In 2002, the mortgage-debt-to income ratio of the poorest borrowers was 2; in 2006, it was still 2. Ratios for wealthier borrowers also remained stable during the housing boom. The essence of the boom was not that typical debt burdens shot through the roof; it was that more and more people were borrowing.

Click to expand...

Vern said:

Jack nobody was calling your post an “editorial”. I was once again using the study you posted (that doesn’t say what you think it says) to discredit another lying conservative “editorial”. This one blamed “mean ole CRA regulators for forcing banks to give loans to unworthy borrowers.” The first post in this thread disproves WCH’s silly “editorial” but we all know how conservatives try not to see the facts. Look how you think I’m calling your study an editorial.

Anyhoo, I left out the 2nd bullet point on purpose. It did not directly address WCH’s lying “editorial”. We all know how hard it is to get conservatives to read. Look how they cant even get trump to read the intel briefings. So I figured why post any more than necessary.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

Please see your #3032.

Click to expand...

Vern said:

Jack, post 3032 leads to you posting a politico article. You later posted a study I've more than happy to reference. I called your study a study. I called your link to an "editorial" an "editorial". to prove my point, you simply need to scroll up to post 3142 to see me referencing your study:" Jack Hayes was nice enough to post a study that addresses the conservative lies about the CRA"

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

Your #3032 erroneously identifies scholarly research as an editorial.

Click to expand...

Fledermaus said:

All the better to ignore the content.

Click to expand...

Vern said:

Its kinda funny you post that fled because I'm not ignoring the content of the study he posted. It actually backs up everything I've posted the last 5 years. I'm even cutting and pasting parts of the study to show eohrn and WCH that they've posted false conservative narratives. And that's probably why Jack didn't post the study until post 3036. 2888 was an editorial that touched on the study but didn't link it then concluded "something something bubble psychology."

Click to expand...