A Government-Mandated Housing Bubble

[First]

Er, eskimospy already listed the numbers, which look right. So nevermind.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Gosh.

A ""consultant to the mortgage finance industry"" blames the CRA in a commentary published on Forbes online.

A Fee Pig rolling in the slop with the other swine of the ""mortgage finance industry"" perhaps ??

 

[Vic]

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.

Where did I say they played a trivial part? And it was President Bush who was pushing subprime though his America's Homeownership Challenge program. This subprime, however, was unrelated to the CRA and Fannie/Freddie (who, once again, were private entities during the boom, government-sponsored only means that they were subject to oversight and that the govt would step in and nationalize them if they failed, which did happen). Stop using straw men, educate yourself on the facts instead of the rhetoric, and get a clue. :roll:

And eleison should know that Occam's razor requires the use of proper logic deduction before it can be implemented. And there is nothing to hide. Last fall, I posted more than one thread on this subject with all the figures, and that was after discussing it in probably dozens of other threads. Pretending such threads and such discussions don't exist when they could be found with an easy search is just pure trollery.

 

[BigDH01]

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.

Actually, you've misapplied it. Occam's razor states that the most simple hypothesis will likely be correct as long as they do an equal job at explaining the phenomenon. You'd want to pick the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions.

In this case, the evidence is actually the lack of evidence. Your hypothesis explains this as some sort of conspiracy to hide the truth. I retort with a separate hypothesis simply stating the information is difficult to get and people are unmotivated.
Your hypothesis: The government is hiding the truth about the loans going into default.
Assumptions -
1) Gov't programs account for a large amount of bad mortgages
2) Knowing this, some government entity/entities is undertaking massive amounts of subterfuge
3) Although the government is terrible at keeping secrets, neither reporters nor common citizens have uncovered this program through research or freedom of information act requests

My hypothesis: We don't know the specific types of loans going into default because the information is difficult to find and no one has been motivated enough to research.
Assumptions -
1) Specific information regarding the types of loans going into default would involve contacting many large banking organizations who have proven to be highly disorganized (they don't really have a handle on what loans are in what securities) which has proven difficult
2) No one really has the motivation to do this right now as stimulating the economy is more important than pointing a finger


Given that they equally explain this lack of information, I would think my hypothesis would be chosen given an Occam's Razor scenario.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: 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.

or for a quick summary, you can browse through this stick figure power point presentation

Text

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

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.

Actually, you've misapplied it. Occam's razor states that the most simple hypothesis will likely be correct as long as they do an equal job at explaining the phenomenon. You'd want to pick the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions.

In this case, the evidence is actually the lack of evidence. Your hypothesis explains this as some sort of conspiracy to hide the truth. I retort with a separate hypothesis simply stating the information is difficult to get and people are unmotivated.
Your hypothesis: The government is hiding the truth about the loans going into default.
Assumptions -
1) Gov't programs account for a large amount of bad mortgages
2) Knowing this, some government entity/entities is undertaking massive amounts of subterfuge
3) Although the government is terrible at keeping secrets, neither reporters nor common citizens have uncovered this program through research or freedom of information act requests

My hypothesis: We don't know the specific types of loans going into default because the information is difficult to find and no one has been motivated enough to research.
Assumptions -
1) Specific information regarding the types of loans going into default would involve contacting many large banking organizations who have proven to be highly disorganized (they don't really have a handle on what loans are in what securities) which has proven difficult
2) No one really has the motivation to do this right now as stimulating the economy is more important than pointing a finger


Given that they equally explain this lack of information, I would think my hypothesis would be chosen given an Occam's Razor scenario.

The vast majority of securitizations have good information about ownership. Anecdotal evidence and hyperbole aside, your assertion is BS.

The vast majority of mortgages currently in default aren't CRA mortgages. That information is easily found.

 

[dphantom]

Let's just cut to the chase. Dems blame reps and vice versa.

Here's the dem's position:

I put this together after I heard a number of comments from friends and family about Dems CRA policy causing the issue. From my point of view the Republican claim that this is a Dem only problem is false. Reguardless of how we got here I believe we can overcome this crisis. It may take time, but the markets, house prices, and credit will recover as long as we learn from our mistakes.

1977 - Origination of Community Reinvestment Act(CRA)
Nov 1992 - Clinton Elected as President
Nov 1994 - Republicans win house and senate
1999 - CRA changes to include Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
Nov/Dec 2000 - Bush wins Presidency / Senate Split Dems - Rep Cheny deciding vote/House retains Rep
2001-2003 - Housing Bubbles Start in USA
Dec 2001 - Enron Files for Bankrupcy
June 2002 - Investigations into WorldCom
June 2002 - President Bush announcs "America's Homeownership Challenge"
Oct 2002 - President Bush Hosts Conference on Minority Homeownership
Nov 2002 - Republican Regain Control Of Senate
Dec 2003 - American Dream Downpayment Initiative
March 2004 - Congress Introduces Zero Down Payment Plan Act of 2004
2005 - Office of Thrift Supervision introduced regulator changes to CRA
May 2006 - Fortune Magazine Announces House Market Bubble Declining
Nov 2006 - Democrats Gain Majority in House and Senate
Sept - Oct 2008 Morgage Crisis / Credit Crisis
Republicans blame crisis on CRA
Dems blame crisis on Republican Policies


Source, well it's pretty easy to fined. Just go to Obama's website.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

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.

There you go again. I asked a simple and basic question: How many foreclosures are related to CRA compared to other foreclosures.. If its high.. or even high enough to cause the banks to fail, then obviously, the current housing problem is caused by it.

All the other stat (while useful) doesn't really answer this basic question. Surprisingly, such an easy stat, it would seem easy to find. However, nobody wants to answer it esp. the pro-CRA people. I think its pretty high. I bet the number of foreclosures that are CRA related are pretty high. Anecdotal story. One of my friends is a Realtor in Chicago. I was playing with the idea of buying "bargain properties" in the better neighborhoods and asked him for advice. No luck. He told me most of the foreclosures in Chicago are in the "bad" or "rundown" neighborhoods where most of the CRA would apply. All the other properties, esp where I wanted to live (the preppier neighborhoods) ... there were very few if any foreclosures.. just anecdotal of course. He is a Realtor specializing in foreclosed homes in Chicago..

So yea, until evidence points otherwise, CRA was one of the main causes of the housing problem.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: BigDH01

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.

Actually, you've misapplied it. Occam's razor states that the most simple hypothesis will likely be correct as long as they do an equal job at explaining the phenomenon. You'd want to pick the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions.

In this case, the evidence is actually the lack of evidence. Your hypothesis explains this as some sort of conspiracy to hide the truth. I retort with a separate hypothesis simply stating the information is difficult to get and people are unmotivated.
Your hypothesis: The government is hiding the truth about the loans going into default.
Assumptions -
1) Gov't programs account for a large amount of bad mortgages
2) Knowing this, some government entity/entities is undertaking massive amounts of subterfuge
3) Although the government is terrible at keeping secrets, neither reporters nor common citizens have uncovered this program through research or freedom of information act requests

My hypothesis: We don't know the specific types of loans going into default because the information is difficult to find and no one has been motivated enough to research.
Assumptions -
1) Specific information regarding the types of loans going into default would involve contacting many large banking organizations who have proven to be highly disorganized (they don't really have a handle on what loans are in what securities) which has proven difficult
2) No one really has the motivation to do this right now as stimulating the economy is more important than pointing a finger


Given that they equally explain this lack of information, I would think my hypothesis would be chosen given an Occam's Razor scenario.

The vast majority of securitizations have good information about ownership. Anecdotal evidence and hyperbole aside, your assertion is BS.

The vast majority of mortgages currently in default aren't CRA mortgages. That information is easily found.

I'm not asserting anything (besides that this isn't some massive government conspiracy). I just presented a different hypothesis that would be chosen in an Occam's Razor situation. I personally have no idea how difficult it is to find this information.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: eleison

There you go again. I asked a simple and basic question: How many foreclosures are related to CRA compared to other foreclosures.. If its high.. or even high enough to cause the banks to fail, then obviously, the current housing problem is caused by it.

All the other stat (while useful) doesn't really answer this basic question. Surprisingly, such an easy stat, it would seem easy to find. However, nobody wants to answer it esp. the pro-CRA people. I think its pretty high. I bet the number of foreclosures that are CRA related are pretty high. Anecdotal story. One of my friends is a Realtor in Chicago. I was playing with the idea of buying "bargain properties" in the better neighborhoods and asked him for advice. No luck. He told me most of the foreclosures in Chicago are in the "bad" or "rundown" neighborhoods where most of the CRA would apply. All the other properties, esp where I wanted to live (the preppier neighborhoods) ... there were very few if any foreclosures.. just anecdotal of course. He is a Realtor specializing in foreclosed homes in Chicago..

So yea, until evidence points otherwise, CRA was one of the main causes of the housing problem.

And here you go again. Looks like you didn't read my other link from the federal reserve or you wouldn't be writing this. Your last statement of 'guilty until proven innocent' in regards to CRA should have told you right off the bat that your reasoning was flawed anyway.

My post was a multi-pronged attack on your idea both in that the federal reserve's statistical analysis found no meaningful difference between the foreclosure rates of CRA covered areas and non-CRA covered areas. Then I showed you what a small percentage of mortgages were CRA mortgages. This should show you that you have a group of loans that A.) comprised a triflingly small percentage of all home loans and B.) performed similarly to other loans.

My assertions were backed up by publicly available data and the analysis of the federal reserve. Your assertions are backed up by anecdotal evidence from your friend. Are you trying to say the federal reserve is now biased too?

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: eleison

There you go again. I asked a simple and basic question: How many foreclosures are related to CRA compared to other foreclosures.. If its high.. or even high enough to cause the banks to fail, then obviously, the current housing problem is caused by it.

All the other stat (while useful) doesn't really answer this basic question. Surprisingly, such an easy stat, it would seem easy to find. However, nobody wants to answer it esp. the pro-CRA people. I think its pretty high. I bet the number of foreclosures that are CRA related are pretty high. Anecdotal story. One of my friends is a Realtor in Chicago. I was playing with the idea of buying "bargain properties" in the better neighborhoods and asked him for advice. No luck. He told me most of the foreclosures in Chicago are in the "bad" or "rundown" neighborhoods where most of the CRA would apply. All the other properties, esp where I wanted to live (the preppier neighborhoods) ... there were very few if any foreclosures.. just anecdotal of course. He is a Realtor specializing in foreclosed homes in Chicago..

So yea, until evidence points otherwise, CRA was one of the main causes of the housing problem.

And here you go again. Looks like you didn't read my other link from the federal reserve or you wouldn't be writing this. Your last statement of 'guilty until proven innocent' in regards to CRA should have told you right off the bat that your reasoning was flawed anyway.

My post was a multi-pronged attack on your idea both in that the federal reserve's statistical analysis found no meaningful difference between the foreclosure rates of CRA covered areas and non-CRA covered areas. Then I showed you what a small percentage of mortgages were CRA mortgages. This should show you that you have a group of loans that A.) comprised a triflingly small percentage of all home loans and B.) performed similarly to other loans.

My assertions were backed up by publicly available data and the analysis of the federal reserve. Your assertions are backed up by anecdotal evidence from your friend. Are you trying to say the federal reserve is now biased too?

SoooOoo how many foreclosed homes were CRA related and how many weren't when Fannie and Freddie "died"? Simple isn't it? But yet, people refuse to answer this. It only takes one sentence... actually, probably one word.. but no reply... only the run around.

This is like the height of the internet bubble when no one would answer directly why certain internet stocks was worth a few hundred dollars when it was quite obvious it didn't produce anything. Some people would ask the basic and simple question: "why are these stocks worth anything when they don't produce anything".. All you had were men in slick suits producing "this study".. or "that study".. or saying "there are 'public available data'", just go look it up.. All those people were saying it and that's what we have now. People who have a stake in making sure the CRA look good and they want to obfuscate.

CRA was a major cause of the housing bubble.

http://vdare.com/sailer/090201_meltdown.htm
(from another thread I read today)

edit: more info (finally some quasai-concrete numbers..)

http://vdare.com/sailer/090215_cra.htm

"...And those kind of numbers put a lot of upward pressure on home prices as they got incorporated into expectations. Not surprisingly, the subsequent mortgage defaults that plunged the world into economic crisis are disproportionately concentrated in CRA-covered minority and lower income communities."

http://blog.vdare.com/archives...lt-rates-by-ethnicity/

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: BigDH01
I'm not asserting anything (besides that this isn't some massive government conspiracy). I just presented a different hypothesis that would be chosen in an Occam's Razor situation. I personally have no idea how difficult it is to find this information.

It can be difficult if you don't have the tools to look, or just the contacts in the industry. CRA was a very small portion of the loans written and an even smaller portion of the troubled loans now. Overall, static pool information has shown that CRA loans, despite being to less credit worthy people than typical prime borrowers, perform more or less on-par with prime borrowers.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: eleison

SoooOoo how many foreclosed homes were CRA related and how many weren't when Fannie and Freddie "died"? Simple isn't it? But yet, people refuse to answer this. It only takes one sentence... actually, probably one word.. but no reply... only the run around.

This is like the height of the internet bubble when no one would answer directly why certain internet stocks was worth a few hundred dollars when it was quite obvious it didn't produce anything. Some people would ask the basic and simple question: "why are these stocks worth anything when they don't produce anything".. All you had were men in slick suits producing "this study".. or "that study".. or saying "there are 'public available data'", just go look it up.. All those people were saying it and that's what we have now. People who have a stake in making sure the CRA look good and they want to obfuscate.

CRA was a major cause of the housing bubble.

http://vdare.com/sailer/090201_meltdown.htm
(from another thread I read today)

edit: more info (finally some quasai-concrete numbers..)

http://vdare.com/sailer/090215_cra.htm

"...And those kind of numbers put a lot of upward pressure on home prices as they got incorporated into expectations. Not surprisingly, the subsequent mortgage defaults that plunged the world into economic crisis are disproportionately concentrated in CRA-covered minority and lower income communities."

http://blog.vdare.com/archives...lt-rates-by-ethnicity/

I don't know what else to tell you other than that you can't read, or are choosing to ignore what you read. You even admitted the basis for your opinion was anecdotal evidence from a friend... ideological blindness at its worst.

EDIT: To make myself more clear, the federal reserve's analysis directly covered your quoted blog post. All you have done is make an unfounded assumption (CRA was at fault) and declared until you are given some mortgage numbers that you must be right. Even when confronted with analysis by the FEDERAL RESERVE, you have decided that because you haven't been given these numbers that people have something to hide. This is classic conspiracy theory reasoning.

The links you are providing are from some guy's poorly sourced blog. Since it tells you what you ideologically already wanted to hear, it's the proof you've been searching for. When the fed tells you otherwise, you ignore them.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: eleison

There you go again. I asked a simple and basic question: How many foreclosures are related to CRA compared to other foreclosures.. If its high.. or even high enough to cause the banks to fail, then obviously, the current housing problem is caused by it.

All the other stat (while useful) doesn't really answer this basic question. Surprisingly, such an easy stat, it would seem easy to find. However, nobody wants to answer it esp. the pro-CRA people. I think its pretty high. I bet the number of foreclosures that are CRA related are pretty high. Anecdotal story. One of my friends is a Realtor in Chicago. I was playing with the idea of buying "bargain properties" in the better neighborhoods and asked him for advice. No luck. He told me most of the foreclosures in Chicago are in the "bad" or "rundown" neighborhoods where most of the CRA would apply. All the other properties, esp where I wanted to live (the preppier neighborhoods) ... there were very few if any foreclosures.. just anecdotal of course. He is a Realtor specializing in foreclosed homes in Chicago..

So yea, until evidence points otherwise, CRA was one of the main causes of the housing problem.

And here you go again. Looks like you didn't read my other link from the federal reserve or you wouldn't be writing this. Your last statement of 'guilty until proven innocent' in regards to CRA should have told you right off the bat that your reasoning was flawed anyway.

My post was a multi-pronged attack on your idea both in that the federal reserve's statistical analysis found no meaningful difference between the foreclosure rates of CRA covered areas and non-CRA covered areas. Then I showed you what a small percentage of mortgages were CRA mortgages. This should show you that you have a group of loans that A.) comprised a triflingly small percentage of all home loans and B.) performed similarly to other loans.

My assertions were backed up by publicly available data and the analysis of the federal reserve. Your assertions are backed up by anecdotal evidence from your friend. Are you trying to say the federal reserve is now biased too?

SoooOoo how many foreclosed homes were CRA related and how many weren't when Fannie and Freddie "died"? Simple isn't it? But yet, people refuse to answer this. It only takes one sentence... actually, probably one word.. but no reply... only the run around.

This is like the height of the internet bubble when no one would answer directly why certain internet stocks was worth a few hundred dollars when it was quite obvious it didn't produce anything. Some people would ask the basic and simple question: "why are these stocks worth anything when they don't produce anything".. All you had were men in slick suits producing "this study".. or "that study".. or saying "there are 'public available data'", just go look it up.. All those people were saying it and that's what we have now. People who have a stake in making sure the CRA look good and they want to obfuscate.

CRA was a major cause of the housing bubble.

http://vdare.com/sailer/090201_meltdown.htm
(from another thread I read today)

edit: more info (finally some quasai-concrete numbers..)

http://vdare.com/sailer/090215_cra.htm

"...And those kind of numbers put a lot of upward pressure on home prices as they got incorporated into expectations. Not surprisingly, the subsequent mortgage defaults that plunged the world into economic crisis are disproportionately concentrated in CRA-covered minority and lower income communities."

http://blog.vdare.com/archives...lt-rates-by-ethnicity/

I don't know what else to tell you other than that you can't read, or are choosing to ignore what you read. You even admitted the basis for your opinion was anecdotal evidence from a friend... ideological blindness at its worst.

How about this: If every single CRA Loan failed, they would still only be a tiny fraction of current failed Mortgages. Now extrapolate the fact that the failure rate is far from 100% and draw a conclusion.

 

[Atreus21]

Wait a second.

Wasn't it the subprime mortgage crisis that triggered this mess?

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: eleison

There you go again. I asked a simple and basic question: How many foreclosures are related to CRA compared to other foreclosures.. If its high.. or even high enough to cause the banks to fail, then obviously, the current housing problem is caused by it.

All the other stat (while useful) doesn't really answer this basic question. Surprisingly, such an easy stat, it would seem easy to find. However, nobody wants to answer it esp. the pro-CRA people. I think its pretty high. I bet the number of foreclosures that are CRA related are pretty high. Anecdotal story. One of my friends is a Realtor in Chicago. I was playing with the idea of buying "bargain properties" in the better neighborhoods and asked him for advice. No luck. He told me most of the foreclosures in Chicago are in the "bad" or "rundown" neighborhoods where most of the CRA would apply. All the other properties, esp where I wanted to live (the preppier neighborhoods) ... there were very few if any foreclosures.. just anecdotal of course. He is a Realtor specializing in foreclosed homes in Chicago..

So yea, until evidence points otherwise, CRA was one of the main causes of the housing problem.

And here you go again. Looks like you didn't read my other link from the federal reserve or you wouldn't be writing this. Your last statement of 'guilty until proven innocent' in regards to CRA should have told you right off the bat that your reasoning was flawed anyway.

My post was a multi-pronged attack on your idea both in that the federal reserve's statistical analysis found no meaningful difference between the foreclosure rates of CRA covered areas and non-CRA covered areas. Then I showed you what a small percentage of mortgages were CRA mortgages. This should show you that you have a group of loans that A.) comprised a triflingly small percentage of all home loans and B.) performed similarly to other loans.

My assertions were backed up by publicly available data and the analysis of the federal reserve. Your assertions are backed up by anecdotal evidence from your friend. Are you trying to say the federal reserve is now biased too?

SoooOoo how many foreclosed homes were CRA related and how many weren't when Fannie and Freddie "died"? Simple isn't it? But yet, people refuse to answer this. It only takes one sentence... actually, probably one word.. but no reply... only the run around.

This is like the height of the internet bubble when no one would answer directly why certain internet stocks was worth a few hundred dollars when it was quite obvious it didn't produce anything. Some people would ask the basic and simple question: "why are these stocks worth anything when they don't produce anything".. All you had were men in slick suits producing "this study".. or "that study".. or saying "there are 'public available data'", just go look it up.. All those people were saying it and that's what we have now. People who have a stake in making sure the CRA look good and they want to obfuscate.

CRA was a major cause of the housing bubble.

http://vdare.com/sailer/090201_meltdown.htm
(from another thread I read today)

edit: more info (finally some quasai-concrete numbers..)

http://vdare.com/sailer/090215_cra.htm

"...And those kind of numbers put a lot of upward pressure on home prices as they got incorporated into expectations. Not surprisingly, the subsequent mortgage defaults that plunged the world into economic crisis are disproportionately concentrated in CRA-covered minority and lower income communities."

http://blog.vdare.com/archives...lt-rates-by-ethnicity/

I don't know what else to tell you other than that you can't read, or are choosing to ignore what you read. You even admitted the basis for your opinion was anecdotal evidence from a friend... ideological blindness at its worst.

Just tell me the ratio.. show me some evidence instead of going on faith that CRA foreclosures are a small percentage of the total. The links I have provided to you, (one was even based on HUD) contradicts your "small percentage" theory.

Stop calling people "blind" and provide some light by providing direct facts. Don't be the guy in the slick suit telling people the information is "out there" and we just have to find it ourselves. This just puts you in the same league as those internet hustlers who were extolling the virtues of 100 dollar stocks of companies that did nothing.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Wait a second.

Wasn't it the subprime mortgage crisis that triggered this mess?

Yes, and eleison is saying something to the effect that the CRA forced banks to make more risky subprime loans than they wanted to, and when people defaulted on these forced risky loans that this helped trigger the subprime mess/etc...etc. Pretty much, it's the government's fault.

This has been shown to be false over and over and over again by an array of authoritative sources, but you have to remember eleison is starting from the position that the CRA is at fault until proven otherwise. It's not exactly rational, and so it's extremely difficult to argue against.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: 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.

Vic is "non-partisan" and we know this because he just said it, he is bitter about Bush because his spending, Obama not so much because he is "non-partisan".

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Vic is "non-partisan" and we know this because he just said it, he is bitter about Bush because his spending, Obama not so much because he is "non-partisan".

I don't always agree with Vic, but I frequently do, and he is one of the least partisan people you'll find in this forum, especially compared to the usual level of hackery in this forum.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: eleison

Just tell me the ratio.. show me some evidence instead of going on faith that CRA foreclosures are a small percentage of the total. The links I have provided to you, (one was even based on HUD) contradicts your "small percentage" theory.

Stop calling people "blind" and provide some light by providing direct facts. Don't be the guy in the slick suit telling people the information is "out there" and we just have to find it ourselves. This just puts you in the same league as those internet hustlers who were extolling the virtues of 100 dollar stocks of companies that did nothing.

How is it faith? It's on the word of the federal reserve for christ's sake. If we're not taking their word for it, then why are we relying on figures from HUD? Or anyone else? Everyone must be lying! But no, instead you find a BLOG POST that tells you what you want to hear.

Some interesting quotes for you, since I'm guessing you never read the federal reserve report that I linked:

Retort to the argument that banks were forced into poor performance loans:

These studies found that lending to lower-income individuals and communities has been nearly as profitable and performed similarly to other types of lending done by CRA-covered institutions. Thus, the long-term evidence shows that the CRA has not pushed banks into extending loans that perform out of line with their traditional businesses.

If the CRA loans were a big sector of the subprime market:

We found that the loans that are the focus of the CRA represent a very small portion of the subprime lending market, casting considerable doubt on the potential contribution that the law could have made to the subprime mortgage crisis.

If CRA loans defaulted at a higher rate than other subprime loans:

We found that delinquency rates were high in all neighborhood income groups, and that CRA-related subprime loans performed in a comparable manner to other subprime loans; as such, differences in performance between CRA-related subprime lending and other subprime lending cannot lie at the root of recent market turmoil.

Conclusion:

Contrary to the assertions of critics, the evidence does not support the view that the CRA contributed in any substantial way to the crisis in the subprime mortgage market.

Finally, if you are interested in more information most of the assertions in there link to footnotes where the actual studies by... you know...competent authority have been done. (ie: not bloggers) You should peruse those to your heart's content.

I can't help you any more than this. You should never be saying something like "the CRA is at fault until proven otherwise", it's ideological blindness. Just because someone is telling you what you want to hear doesn't mean they are right.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Vic is "non-partisan" and we know this because he just said it, he is bitter about Bush because his spending, Obama not so much because he is "non-partisan".

I don't always agree with Vic, but I frequently do, and he is one of the least partisan people you'll find in this forum, especially compared to the usual level of hackery in this forum.

"The only thing I'm bitter about Bush is his spending"


I guess he's about to get a bit more bitter with another president.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dphantom


Source, well it's pretty easy to fined. Just go to Obama's website.

i blame the NAR and HGTV. beyond that, i blame people in california, las vegas, and south floriduh, for taking crazy loans, and banks in manhattan for offering them. given the political makeup of the counties with the worst foreclosure rates, you can make a guesstimate as to which party's voter base is to blame.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Vic is "non-partisan" and we know this because he just said it, he is bitter about Bush because his spending, Obama not so much because he is "non-partisan".

I don't always agree with Vic, but I frequently do, and he is one of the least partisan people you'll find in this forum, especially compared to the usual level of hackery in this forum.

"The only thing I'm bitter about Bush is his spending"


I guess he's about to get a bit more bitter with another president.

You left out the part where Bush spent it all... on virtually nothing but corruption and war profiteering.

And like I said, if Obama fscks up, that's to be judged by the future. Bush did fsck up, and that's being judged now.

As for the housing boom-and-bust, the only thing to blame is the stupid shortsightedness of everyone involved, from homeowners who bought homes they couldn't afford with dreams of building equity at ~20% per year (or those who ran up credit card debt and refi'ed it every year out of the equity), to the developers who overbuilt the market, to the investors who jumped in on every flipping opportunity they could (these were probably the worst of all) to the slimy realtors and brokers who told them that homes never depreciate in value, to the banks and mortgage lenders who cashed in on that myth and built all their risk models around it (underwriting as though foreclosure lead to profit), to the Fed who printed the cheap money to lend, and to the government that pushed an agenda of homeownership for everyone for political purposes.

Amidst all that, blaming the minimal involvement the CRA had in it is for partisan hacks and fools who believe every word the talk radio blowhards tell them. As a loan originator in the boom, I did countless subprime loans. Not one -- not one -- was CRA. My wife was an underwriter for a major subprime lender (now imploded). God knows how many loans crossed her desk, yet she told me she's never seen a CRA loan in her whole life. You idiots don't know what the f you're talking about. Period.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: eleison

Just tell me the ratio.. show me some evidence instead of going on faith that CRA foreclosures are a small percentage of the total. The links I have provided to you, (one was even based on HUD) contradicts your "small percentage" theory.

Stop calling people "blind" and provide some light by providing direct facts. Don't be the guy in the slick suit telling people the information is "out there" and we just have to find it ourselves. This just puts you in the same league as those internet hustlers who were extolling the virtues of 100 dollar stocks of companies that did nothing.

How is it faith? It's on the word of the federal reserve for christ's sake. If we're not taking their word for it, then why are we relying on figures from HUD? Or anyone else? Everyone must be lying! But no, instead you find a BLOG POST that tells you what you want to hear.

Some interesting quotes for you, since I'm guessing you never read the federal reserve report that I linked:

Retort to the argument that banks were forced into poor performance loans:

These studies found that lending to lower-income individuals and communities has been nearly as profitable and performed similarly to other types of lending done by CRA-covered institutions. Thus, the long-term evidence shows that the CRA has not pushed banks into extending loans that perform out of line with their traditional businesses.

If the CRA loans were a big sector of the subprime market:

We found that the loans that are the focus of the CRA represent a very small portion of the subprime lending market, casting considerable doubt on the potential contribution that the law could have made to the subprime mortgage crisis.

If CRA loans defaulted at a higher rate than other subprime loans:

We found that delinquency rates were high in all neighborhood income groups, and that CRA-related subprime loans performed in a comparable manner to other subprime loans; as such, differences in performance between CRA-related subprime lending and other subprime lending cannot lie at the root of recent market turmoil.

Conclusion:

Contrary to the assertions of critics, the evidence does not support the view that the CRA contributed in any substantial way to the crisis in the subprime mortgage market.

Finally, if you are interested in more information most of the assertions in there link to footnotes where the actual studies by... you know...competent authority have been done. (ie: not bloggers) You should peruse those to your heart's content.

I can't help you any more than this. You should never be saying something like "the CRA is at fault until proven otherwise", it's ideological blindness. Just because someone is telling you what you want to hear doesn't mean they are right.

Lets agree to disagree. I only ask for the number of foreclosures that CRA related compared to the total number of foreclosures during Freddie and Fannies collapse. You have not provided me with this info. Even in your much vaulted webpage, it even fails to establish this number (the closes it gets is by stating: "available data on loan performance do not let us distinguish which specific loans in lower-income areas were related to the CRA". How convenient).

Everything that you stated above.. total number of subprimes.. percent of subprime to CRA are interesting, but doesn't get to the point.

We found that delinquency rates were high in all neighborhood income groups, and that CRA-related subprime loans performed in a comparable manner to other subprime loans; as such, differences in performance between CRA-related subprime lending and other subprime lending cannot lie at the root of recent market turmoil.

I found the above quote to be interesting. However, unlike other "facts" stated in your much vaulted webpage, for this quote there are no foot notes. Why are there no foot notes for this very important fact, but so many for other much more extraneous ones?

The wording of the website is also very "slippery". For instance, take this fact: "An overall comparison revealed that the rates for all subprime and alt-A loans delinquent 90 days or more is high regardless of neighborhood income". What is "high"? If subprime had 80% delinquent and alt-A loans had 25%. Are both considered high when the historical data suggest that subprime should be at 50% and alt-A loans should be at 4%? However, as stated originally, it would seem that both were equally high and at the same level -- this may not even be the case. After all, 80% is a lot higher than 25%. Yes, higher in a historical case, but not in terms of magnitude which is the more important criteria in dealing with what is at fault.

To cut through all the bollux: just give me the number of CRA related foreclosures compared to all foreclosures. Nobody seems to want to answer this.

Oh, another thing about the man who wrote your much vaulted webpage. He was involved with President?s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) from 2001 to 2003. "While at the CEA, he was heavily involved in formulating the policy response to corporate governance scandals, as well as in advising on a wide range of domestic and international issues, including banking and financial regulation, government-sponsored enterprises, pension reform, corporate governance reform, terrorism risk insurance, tax reform, currency crisis management, sovereign debt restructuring, the role of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), international trade, and economic development."

Wow.. lookie here, according to his own bio, during arguably the height of the housing bubble, he was one of its "leaders". Goosh, obviously, if he said CRA was a bad idea and did contribute to the crisis. Wouldn't that make him look bad? After all, he was heavily involved with formulating policy at the time... Like I said. A lot of this looks like "cover your buttt" and obfuscate because if CRA is the problem, it will make people look bad.. If CRA is the problem, this guy was part of it. And if the economy continues to go into the shitter caused partly or directly by this is housing crisis causing millions of layoffs and one of the worst recession/depression in a lifetime; he could be partly responsible. This sure will make him look bad. I can understand why he would "say" that it wasn't CRA.

It just comes down to a simple question: How many foreclosure were CRA related compared to the total. Nobody wants to answer this. Your much vaulted sources does not want to either. Actually, he also seems to have a reason not to.

 

[Vic]

Almost none. CRA's perform better than average, even better than Fannie/Freddie prime in many cases, mostly because of the strict underwriting criteria and oversight around them. For example, there were NO stated income (aka liar loan) CRA loans.

I doubt, eleison, that you even know what a CRA mortgage really is, or why the program exists in the first place.