A Government-Mandated Housing Bubble

[charrison]

There is very little doubt that the underlying cause of the current credit crisis was a housing bubble. But the collapse of the bubble would not have led to a worldwide recession and credit crisis if almost 40% of all U.S. mortgages--25 million loans--were not of the low quality known as subprime or Alt-A.

linkage

Good article on how we got here. Government pushed for more affordable mortgages. Fannie and freddie was there to back up these risky loans. And now the government is telling us they can fix the problem.

 

[IronWing]

Hmm, I bet if you search the forum on this subject you'd find more than one thread.

 

[sandorski]

Uhh, for the Nth time: No.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: charrison

There is very little doubt that the underlying cause of the current credit crisis was a housing bubble. But the collapse of the bubble would not have led to a worldwide recession and credit crisis if almost 40% of all U.S. mortgages--25 million loans--were not of the low quality known as subprime or Alt-A.

linkage

Good article on how we got here. Government pushed for more affordable mortgages. Fannie and freddie was there to back up these risky loans. And now the government is telling us they can fix the problem.

/facepalm

 

[Fear No Evil]

And Obama's answer to this is a 75 billion dollar bailout to help 9 million people. Thats $8333.33 per bailoutee. The #'s don't add up. This is going to cost us way more than this. Either Obama is lying about the cost, or he can't add.

 

[Vic]

Nothing like an article that contradicts itself for the purpose of pushing partisan BS. I've read more accurate tabloids.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
And Obama's answer to this is a 75 billion dollar bailout to help 9 million people. Thats $8333.33 per bailoutee. The #'s don't add up. This is going to cost us way more than this. Either Obama is lying about the cost, or he can't add.

You have nothing to stand on when your own precious leaders failed. All you do is look like a bitter moron -- an idiot with no solutions for anything, just ideological huffing-puffing blunder and criticism.

 

[brandonbull]

How many of those bad loans were used as a basis for other financial instruments? It wasn't a few risky loans that caused a global recession. It was the ponzi scheme stock exchanges/financial investments.

 

[Bitek]

Great analysis there genius. Way to dig deep into the problem. You really wore down the crayon on that one.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Vic
Nothing like an article that contradicts itself for the purpose of pushing partisan BS. I've read more accurate tabloids.

ANd you still believe the government played no role in this mess.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Bitek
Great analysis there genius. Way to dig deep into the problem. You really wore down the crayon on that one.

ok, that made me lawl! :laugh:

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
And Obama's answer to this is a 75 billion dollar bailout to help 9 million people. Thats $8333.33 per bailoutee. The #'s don't add up. This is going to cost us way more than this. Either Obama is lying about the cost, or he can't add.

You have nothing to stand on when your own precious leaders failed. All you do is look like a bitter moron -- an idiot with no solutions for anything, just ideological huffing-puffing blunder and criticism.

I didn't support Bush's excessive spending and I don't support Obama's. YOU are so blinded by your bitterness against Bush that you will accept ANYTHING that Obama says because you are too in love with him to think that he could also be screwing up. Because Bush screwed up doesn't mean that Obama can't as well... especially when he's just taking orders from President Pelosi.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic
Nothing like an article that contradicts itself for the purpose of pushing partisan BS. I've read more accurate tabloids.

ANd you still believe the government played no role in this mess.

Nice straw man :roll:

The govt plays a role in every aspect of the economy. They print the money FFS. What I said is that your article is contradictory and inaccurate. For example, by repeating the term GSE's when referring to Fannie and Freddie, it tries to imply that they were govt funded into of merely sponsored, which distorts from the reality that they were funded entirely by private monies and were Fortune 25 companies at their height (Fannie peaked at 6 or 7 IIRC).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
And Obama's answer to this is a 75 billion dollar bailout to help 9 million people. Thats $8333.33 per bailoutee. The #'s don't add up. This is going to cost us way more than this. Either Obama is lying about the cost, or he can't add.

You have nothing to stand on when your own precious leaders failed. All you do is look like a bitter moron -- an idiot with no solutions for anything, just ideological huffing-puffing blunder and criticism.

I didn't support Bush's excessive spending and I don't support Obama's. YOU are so blinded by your bitterness against Bush that you will accept ANYTHING that Obama says because you are too in love with him to think that he could also be screwing up. Because Bush screwed up doesn't mean that Obama can't as well... especially when he's just taking orders from President Pelosi.

Quit trolling. The only thing I'm bitter about Bush is his spending, and the ignorant hacks who defend his party despite its lies and corruption. Otherwise, I'm non-partisan, ideology being antithetical to reality. If Obama fscks up, that's to be judged by the future. Bush did fsck up, and that's being judged now.

 

[Zebo]

half assed & bias. There was a pretty good program on CNBC that went into some serious detail called House of Cards DL it if you can. Covered everything.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic
Nothing like an article that contradicts itself for the purpose of pushing partisan BS. I've read more accurate tabloids.

ANd you still believe the government played no role in this mess.

Nice straw man :roll:

The govt plays a role in every aspect of the economy. They print the money FFS. What I said is that your article is contradictory and inaccurate. For example, by repeating the term GSE's when referring to Fannie and Freddie, it tries to imply that they were govt funded into of merely sponsored, which distorts from the reality that they were funded entirely by private monies and were Fortune 25 companies at their height (Fannie peaked at 6 or 7 IIRC).

I think everyone knows they are a government/private enterprise, hence the name government sponsored enterprise. Yes they are regulated by congress and congress was wanting them to make more sum prime loans. The government played a not so trivial part in housing market.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic
Nothing like an article that contradicts itself for the purpose of pushing partisan BS. I've read more accurate tabloids.

ANd you still believe the government played no role in this mess.

Nice straw man :roll:

The govt plays a role in every aspect of the economy. They print the money FFS. What I said is that your article is contradictory and inaccurate. For example, by repeating the term GSE's when referring to Fannie and Freddie, it tries to imply that they were govt funded into of merely sponsored, which distorts from the reality that they were funded entirely by private monies and were Fortune 25 companies at their height (Fannie peaked at 6 or 7 IIRC).

I think everyone knows they are a government/private enterprise, hence the name government sponsored enterprise. Yes they are regulated by congress and congress was wanting them to make more sum prime loans. The government played a not so trivial part in housing market.

has nothing to do with the crisis.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic
Nothing like an article that contradicts itself for the purpose of pushing partisan BS. I've read more accurate tabloids.

ANd you still believe the government played no role in this mess.

Nice straw man :roll:

The govt plays a role in every aspect of the economy. They print the money FFS. What I said is that your article is contradictory and inaccurate. For example, by repeating the term GSE's when referring to Fannie and Freddie, it tries to imply that they were govt funded into of merely sponsored, which distorts from the reality that they were funded entirely by private monies and were Fortune 25 companies at their height (Fannie peaked at 6 or 7 IIRC).

I think everyone knows they are a government/private enterprise, hence the name government sponsored enterprise. Yes they are regulated by congress and congress was wanting them to make more sum prime loans. The government played a not so trivial part in housing market.

has nothing to do with the crisis.

I have tried to research this... It comes down to this:

How many foreclosures were CRA mortages ? How many were not? This is very simple, but doing a google search has turned up nothing... I don't care what percentages of subprime loans were governed by CRA banks and which weren't.. or what banks had the most subprime loans..

All I care for is this: How many foreclosures were mortages that were being pushed by the CRA.

Because I cannot find this answer easily, seems like people have something to hide. I can only conclude that CRA was a big part. Prove me wrong... Find a stat like the following (if one does exist): only 2% of all foreclosures where government pushed CRA loans. Sadly, I bet it was higher 45-50% of all foreclosures were CRA related. Occam's razor: CRA did contribute a big part to the problem and there are people trying to hide and obscure this fact because it will make them look bad.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic
Nothing like an article that contradicts itself for the purpose of pushing partisan BS. I've read more accurate tabloids.

ANd you still believe the government played no role in this mess.

Nice straw man :roll:

The govt plays a role in every aspect of the economy. They print the money FFS. What I said is that your article is contradictory and inaccurate. For example, by repeating the term GSE's when referring to Fannie and Freddie, it tries to imply that they were govt funded into of merely sponsored, which distorts from the reality that they were funded entirely by private monies and were Fortune 25 companies at their height (Fannie peaked at 6 or 7 IIRC).

I think everyone knows they are a government/private enterprise, hence the name government sponsored enterprise. Yes they are regulated by congress and congress was wanting them to make more sum prime loans. The government played a not so trivial part in housing market.

has nothing to do with the crisis.

I have tried to research this... It comes down to this:

How many foreclosures were CRA mortages ? How many were not? This is very simple, but doing a google search has turned up nothing... I don't care what percentages of subprime loans were governed by CRA banks and which weren't.. or what banks had the most subprime loans..

All I care for is this: How many foreclosures were mortages that were being pushed by the CRA.

Because I cannot find this answer easily, seems like people have something to hide. I can only conclude that CRA was a big part. Prove me wrong... Find a stat like the following (if one does exist): only 2% of all foreclosures where government pushed CRA loans. Sadly, I bet it was higher 45-50% of all foreclosures were CRA related. Occam's razor: CRA did contribute a big part to the problem and there are people trying to hide and obscure this fact because it will make them look bad.

Many threads have the answer to that question. It is very low.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic
Nothing like an article that contradicts itself for the purpose of pushing partisan BS. I've read more accurate tabloids.

ANd you still believe the government played no role in this mess.

Nice straw man :roll:

The govt plays a role in every aspect of the economy. They print the money FFS. What I said is that your article is contradictory and inaccurate. For example, by repeating the term GSE's when referring to Fannie and Freddie, it tries to imply that they were govt funded into of merely sponsored, which distorts from the reality that they were funded entirely by private monies and were Fortune 25 companies at their height (Fannie peaked at 6 or 7 IIRC).

I think everyone knows they are a government/private enterprise, hence the name government sponsored enterprise. Yes they are regulated by congress and congress was wanting them to make more sum prime loans. The government played a not so trivial part in housing market.

has nothing to do with the crisis.

I have tried to research this... It comes down to this:

How many foreclosures were CRA mortages ? How many were not? This is very simple, but doing a google search has turned up nothing... I don't care what percentages of subprime loans were governed by CRA banks and which weren't.. or what banks had the most subprime loans..

All I care for is this: How many foreclosures were mortages that were being pushed by the CRA.

Because I cannot find this answer easily, seems like people have something to hide. I can only conclude that CRA was a big part. Prove me wrong... Find a stat like the following (if one does exist): only 2% of all foreclosures where government pushed CRA loans. Sadly, I bet it was higher 45-50% of all foreclosures were CRA related. Occam's razor: CRA did contribute a big part to the problem and there are people trying to hide and obscure this fact because it will make them look bad.

Many threads have the answer to that question. It is very low.

There are no threads. There are some sources that mention the "Traiger & Hinckley" report which many pro-CRA proponents use, but it is a flawed study. While it does mention many facts about the CRA (including that most CRA loans had lower interest rate), it does not answer the most important and basic question:

How many CRA loans are in or have been in foreclosure and how many are not... Simple question, but the "extensive" study fails to answer this most basic of questions.

After thinking about it, the firm has something to gain. This often quoted resource is also in the business of certifying banks to make sure they are CRA compliant. In an way if "Traiger & Hinckley" were to make CRA look bad, it could be repealed and they would be out of a job.. This does IMHO provide enough motivation for them to make the CRA look good.. does it not?

Occam's razor: CRA did contribute a big part to the problem and there are people trying to hide and obscure this fact because it will make them look bad... or in this case, lose money.. Find proof otherwise..

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic
Nothing like an article that contradicts itself for the purpose of pushing partisan BS. I've read more accurate tabloids.

ANd you still believe the government played no role in this mess.

Nice straw man :roll:

The govt plays a role in every aspect of the economy. They print the money FFS. What I said is that your article is contradictory and inaccurate. For example, by repeating the term GSE's when referring to Fannie and Freddie, it tries to imply that they were govt funded into of merely sponsored, which distorts from the reality that they were funded entirely by private monies and were Fortune 25 companies at their height (Fannie peaked at 6 or 7 IIRC).

I think everyone knows they are a government/private enterprise, hence the name government sponsored enterprise. Yes they are regulated by congress and congress was wanting them to make more sum prime loans. The government played a not so trivial part in housing market.

has nothing to do with the crisis.

I have tried to research this... It comes down to this:

How many foreclosures were CRA mortages ? How many were not? This is very simple, but doing a google search has turned up nothing... I don't care what percentages of subprime loans were governed by CRA banks and which weren't.. or what banks had the most subprime loans..

All I care for is this: How many foreclosures were mortages that were being pushed by the CRA.

Because I cannot find this answer easily, seems like people have something to hide. I can only conclude that CRA was a big part. Prove me wrong... Find a stat like the following (if one does exist): only 2% of all foreclosures where government pushed CRA loans. Sadly, I bet it was higher 45-50% of all foreclosures were CRA related. Occam's razor: CRA did contribute a big part to the problem and there are people trying to hide and obscure this fact because it will make them look bad.

Many threads have the answer to that question. It is very low.

There are no threads. There are some sources that mention the "Traiger & Hinckley" report which many pro-CRA proponents use, but it is a flawed study. While it does mention many facts about the CRA (including that most CRA loans had lower interest rate), it does not answer the most important and basic question:

How many CRA loans are in or have been in foreclosure and how many are not... Simple question, but the "extensive" study fails to answer this most basic of questions.

After thinking about it, the firm has something to gain. This often quoted resource is also in the business of certifying banks to make sure they are CRA compliant. In an way if "Traiger & Hinckley" were to make CRA look bad, it could be repealed and they would be out of a job.. This does IMHO provide enough motivation for them to make the CRA look good.. does it not?

Occam's razor: CRA did contribute a big part to the problem and there are people trying to hide and obscure this fact because it will make them look bad... or in this case, lose money.. Find proof otherwise..

Truth: No. Proof is in the other threads, dismiss it if you want, but you'll still be wrong.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic
Nothing like an article that contradicts itself for the purpose of pushing partisan BS. I've read more accurate tabloids.

ANd you still believe the government played no role in this mess.

Nice straw man :roll:

The govt plays a role in every aspect of the economy. They print the money FFS. What I said is that your article is contradictory and inaccurate. For example, by repeating the term GSE's when referring to Fannie and Freddie, it tries to imply that they were govt funded into of merely sponsored, which distorts from the reality that they were funded entirely by private monies and were Fortune 25 companies at their height (Fannie peaked at 6 or 7 IIRC).

I think everyone knows they are a government/private enterprise, hence the name government sponsored enterprise. Yes they are regulated by congress and congress was wanting them to make more sum prime loans. The government played a not so trivial part in housing market.

has nothing to do with the crisis.

I have tried to research this... It comes down to this:

How many foreclosures were CRA mortages ? How many were not? This is very simple, but doing a google search has turned up nothing... I don't care what percentages of subprime loans were governed by CRA banks and which weren't.. or what banks had the most subprime loans..

All I care for is this: How many foreclosures were mortages that were being pushed by the CRA.

Because I cannot find this answer easily, seems like people have something to hide. I can only conclude that CRA was a big part. Prove me wrong... Find a stat like the following (if one does exist): only 2% of all foreclosures where government pushed CRA loans. Sadly, I bet it was higher 45-50% of all foreclosures were CRA related. Occam's razor: CRA did contribute a big part to the problem and there are people trying to hide and obscure this fact because it will make them look bad.

Many threads have the answer to that question. It is very low.

There are no threads. There are some sources that mention the "Traiger & Hinckley" report which many pro-CRA proponents use, but it is a flawed study. While it does mention many facts about the CRA (including that most CRA loans had lower interest rate), it does not answer the most important and basic question:

How many CRA loans are in or have been in foreclosure and how many are not... Simple question, but the "extensive" study fails to answer this most basic of questions.

After thinking about it, the firm has something to gain. This often quoted resource is also in the business of certifying banks to make sure they are CRA compliant. In an way if "Traiger & Hinckley" were to make CRA look bad, it could be repealed and they would be out of a job.. This does IMHO provide enough motivation for them to make the CRA look good.. does it not?

Occam's razor: CRA did contribute a big part to the problem and there are people trying to hide and obscure this fact because it will make them look bad... or in this case, lose money.. Find proof otherwise..

Truth: No. Proof is in the other threads, dismiss it if you want, but you'll still be wrong.

Thanks for playing. I still stand by Occam's theory. I cannot take the its "in the other threads" as conclusive evidence. Some people might, but not me. Nobody has yet to answer this simple question. Its all a lie. Until there is proof, CRA from the looks of it was one of the biggest things to contribute to this mess.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Vic
Nothing like an article that contradicts itself for the purpose of pushing partisan BS. I've read more accurate tabloids.

ANd you still believe the government played no role in this mess.

Nice straw man :roll:

The govt plays a role in every aspect of the economy. They print the money FFS. What I said is that your article is contradictory and inaccurate. For example, by repeating the term GSE's when referring to Fannie and Freddie, it tries to imply that they were govt funded into of merely sponsored, which distorts from the reality that they were funded entirely by private monies and were Fortune 25 companies at their height (Fannie peaked at 6 or 7 IIRC).

I think everyone knows they are a government/private enterprise, hence the name government sponsored enterprise. Yes they are regulated by congress and congress was wanting them to make more sum prime loans. The government played a not so trivial part in housing market.

has nothing to do with the crisis.

I have tried to research this... It comes down to this:

How many foreclosures were CRA mortages ? How many were not? This is very simple, but doing a google search has turned up nothing... I don't care what percentages of subprime loans were governed by CRA banks and which weren't.. or what banks had the most subprime loans..

All I care for is this: How many foreclosures were mortages that were being pushed by the CRA.

Because I cannot find this answer easily, seems like people have something to hide. I can only conclude that CRA was a big part. Prove me wrong... Find a stat like the following (if one does exist): only 2% of all foreclosures where government pushed CRA loans. Sadly, I bet it was higher 45-50% of all foreclosures were CRA related. Occam's razor: CRA did contribute a big part to the problem and there are people trying to hide and obscure this fact because it will make them look bad.

Many threads have the answer to that question. It is very low.

There are no threads. There are some sources that mention the "Traiger & Hinckley" report which many pro-CRA proponents use, but it is a flawed study. While it does mention many facts about the CRA (including that most CRA loans had lower interest rate), it does not answer the most important and basic question:

How many CRA loans are in or have been in foreclosure and how many are not... Simple question, but the "extensive" study fails to answer this most basic of questions.

After thinking about it, the firm has something to gain. This often quoted resource is also in the business of certifying banks to make sure they are CRA compliant. In an way if "Traiger & Hinckley" were to make CRA look bad, it could be repealed and they would be out of a job.. This does IMHO provide enough motivation for them to make the CRA look good.. does it not?

Occam's razor: CRA did contribute a big part to the problem and there are people trying to hide and obscure this fact because it will make them look bad... or in this case, lose money.. Find proof otherwise..

Truth: No. Proof is in the other threads, dismiss it if you want, but you'll still be wrong.

Thanks for playing. I still stand by Occam's theory. I cannot take the its "in the other threads" as conclusive evidence. Some people might, but not me. Nobody has yet to answer this simple question. Its all a lie. Until there is proof, CRA from the looks of it was one of the biggest things to contribute to this mess.

If you can Search Google, you can Search P&N. Justify your error anyway you want. Just makes you look bad.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: eleison

Thanks for playing. I still stand by Occam's theory. I cannot take the its "in the other threads" as conclusive evidence. Some people might, but not me. Nobody has yet to answer this simple question. Its all a lie. Until there is proof, CRA from the looks of it was one of the biggest things to contribute to this mess.

Occam's Razor states that with all other things being equal the simplest solution is the most likely one. In this case all things are not equal. There is meaningful analysis that states the CRA had a very limited role in this crisis, not only this study but an analysis by the federal reserve itself I have not seen a similar analysis stating the CRA was in fact 'one of the biggest things to contribute to this crisis'. Therefore, Occam's Razor does not apply.

Your basic argument is "I don't trust these studies and my gut says the CRA was the cause". That's not really an effective argument. Subprime loans comprised about 20% of all loans at their peak, CRA covered banks issued only about 25% of the subprime loan dollars that came out. Furthermore, CRA loans were about 6% of the subprime loans offered by the banks it covered. So you have 6% of 25% of 20%, or 0.3% of all home loans. Your gut still telling you this was 'one of the biggest things'?

This CRA nonsense has been disproven on here time and time again. It is a myth being peddled by right wing talk radio and pundits who are banking on their audience not knowing any better.

 

[First]

Seriously, fucking CRA again? Follow the dollars; CRA brought more affordable mortgages to lower income persons. Lower income persons, including those getting sub-prime loans, were a very small/nominal part of the housing bubble of the last year based on default %'s. Therefore, CRA had little to no impact on the deflated housing bubble.