patrick.net

tatupu70 says

Bap33 says

@tatopu,
WOuld you agree that this is another case of “great intentions” gone bad? And in that doc the verbage suggests that banking is “local”, IE - local communities — that is not realistic. Also, why were banks taken to court, or threatened with action by folks like Barry and B.Frank and ACORN?? Was it not to force (bad) loans? If you say no, I’ll be forced to go gather those dang links, so please just agree. lol

No, I wouldn’t agree. Please post some links. I’m anxiously awaiting them!
The reports I’ve seen suggest that CRA had very little effect on anything, but any affect it did have was likely positive.

Here is the proof of Barry and Barney and ACRON forcing banks to do bad loans:

search #1: "fannie mae and freddie mac barney frank"
result #1: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBF_en&q=fannie+mae+and+freddie+mac+barney+frank&revid=2032497490&ei=d23fSqKqD5LqsQPc6a3mDw&sa=X&oi=revisions_inline&resnum=0&ct=broad-revision&cd=1&ved=0CCAQ1QIoAA

search #2: "acorn sues bank"
result #2: http://www.google.com/search?q=acorn+sues+bank&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADBF_en

I did it that way to avoid the "you pick and choose" arguement that follows. Happy reading.

one more .. for the CRA defenders : http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-did-bank-of-america-pay-acorn/

total time spend researching, 2 minutes. I had to answer the phone between posts. lol

Bap33 says

Here is the proof of Barry and Barney and ACRON forcing banks to do bad loans:
search #1: “fannie mae and freddie mac barney frank”
result #1: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBF_en&q=fannie+mae+and+freddie+mac+barney+frank&revid=2032497490&ei=d23fSqKqD5LqsQPc6a3mDw&sa=X&oi=revisions_inline&resnum=0&ct=broad-revision&cd=1&ved=0CCAQ1QIoAA
search #2: “acorn sues bank”
result #2: http://www.google.com/search?q=acorn+sues+bank&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADBF_en
I did it that way to avoid the “you pick and choose” arguement that follows. Happy reading.

Bap--

A google search doesn't really prove anything. If you want to prove something, please post a link to a reputable article showing instances of banks being forced to make bad loans against their will.

By your logic, the following is proof that the world will end in 2012:

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu6v_b99KIFABFF1XNyoA?p=ending+of+world+2012&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701&sao=1

Or that George W. Bush is actually a monkey:

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu5MOcN9Kn8wA5atXNyoA?p=George+Bush+is+monkey&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701&sao=1

Or that Israel caused 9/11:

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geutgycN9K_z0A1NpXNyoA?p=Israel+caused+9%2F11&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701&sao=2

Obviously, none of that is true, but you can get a google or yahoo search to tell you whatever you want it to. There are enough nutjobs out there with blogs...

And pajamas TV doesn't count as a reputable source..

@BAP33

You cant even remember your own ignorant statements, I quote you as a racist stating "“crack addicted single mother of 5 (each with a different daddy) that is a 6th generations-removed slave ” So we are to believe a "6th generations-removed slave" was not meant to refer to a Black American?

I get it...you were referring to Chinese slaves or Anglo-Germanic slaves that were brought to this country on slave ships in the 1600's?

@tatupu70

BAP33 doesnt use logic, only rhetoric to prove herself right. She is a Black American Princess that is 33 years old and likes to refer to other African Americans as "Slaves" and "Crack Moms".

the search option was so you could choose any one of many examples and avoid doing EXACTLY what you did with the pajama story.. see how that worked? Now go back and read a few of the hits on each search.

4X, please leave me out of your racist attacks.

"Congress then passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) in 1999, forbidding the CFTC from regulating OTC financial swaps (spare me the crap about Clinton being president at the time, please)."

OTC financial swaps in what? in what 'assets' did the OTC swaps invest in ... was it highly graded S&P mortgages back securities ?

Ask Barney Franks if there is a Real Estate bubble which will implode like the Tech Bubble and he answers back ...
Barney Frank in 2005: What Housing Bubble?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE

Clearly Franks thinks prices were sustainable, if not fundamental justified , and therefore any OTC swaps were clearly not a concern because a housing bubble did not exist and any implosion in prices just wasn't going to happen.

Certainly in 2001-03 the warning of systemic risk to economy was openly discussed but it was stone walled by Congress!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1

Anyone catch this one... Seems no one was interested in the Accounting Fraud, over paid CEOs, and risks to economy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related

Overall, Franks still talks about the credit crunch and wall street as the cause of home price drops.

No doubt, Franks must believe once you provide more funding, prices can go up. Would anyone be surprised about that?

Sure Franks and Company like to regulate the evil banks and wall street, but hell over high water do they want to regulate risky government backed entities. The CRA was just another Government backed program for social engineering.

Bap33 says

the search option was so you could choose any one of many examples and avoid doing EXACTLY what you did with the pajama story.. see how that worked? Now go back and read a few of the hits on each search.

So, what you're saying is that you couldn't find any reputable links for me, so instead you posted a link to a google search with 10 crappy links. In your mind, if there are 10 wackos out there writing it, then it must be true?

Still waiting...

@tatupu,
welp .... you are the suggesting I pin-point a "reputable source". You are the only one that knows what sources you find reputable. Please name me your top three "reputable sources", and I'll see if they even covered any part of these stories, and if they did I'll get you the exact link vs. you having to read anything or click a "next page" arrow.

Your next step is to list your three top reputable choices.

How about something without the word pajamas in the title? We can start there. I'm really not that picky--just something from an actual news organization and not a blogger. I'll give you an example here:

http://www.bis.org/publ/work259.pdf?noframes=1

I'll encourage you to read this. It's very interesting.

Vicente says

Yes indeed as “justme” posted, watch this:
Frontline: The Warning
Wall Street & toady nutjobs like Greenspan, were the NAVIGATORS, giving the directions that drove us off the cliff. Politicians are just the idiot driver following bad directions. It should be obvious to anyone after GM got a drubbing by Congress when they came hat in hand, yet when banks held a gun to all our heads, they meekly handed over a blank check.

Justme and Vincente, I watched the tail end of this Frontline report last night. Really eye-opening stuff. I had a good idea already that Greenspan et al were 'free marketers' who navigated the Pols off the cliff, i.e. their guidance was a big reason for the bubbles (including Internet bubble) and subsequent crash(es). The specifics of Ms. Born and her warning was news to me however. A true American Patriot.

elvis says

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) is a US Federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of low income borrowers. In other words bank were, in essence, forced to make loans to non-qualified borrowers. The benevolent US government pushed the risk of doing so onto unsuspecting taxpayers (Thanks Uncle Sam). Very few positive things in life are derived through force or forcing risk onto others.

Ummmm, not exactly. I'll post it again to refresh your memory.

tatupu70 says

“The Community Reinvestment Act is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound operations. It was enacted by the Congress in 1977 (12 U.S.C. 2901) and is implemented by Regulation BB (12 CFR 228). The regulation was substantially revised in May 1995, and was most recently amended in August 2005.
Evaluation of CRA Performance
The CRA requires that each depository institution’s record in helping meet the credit needs of its entire community be evaluated periodically. That record is taken into account in considering an institution’s application for deposit facilities.
Neither the CRA nor its implementing regulation gives specific criteria for rating the performance of depository institutions. Rather, the law indicates that the evaluation process should accommodate an institution’s individual circumstances. Nor does the law require institutions to make high-risk loans that jeopardize their safety. To the contrary, the law makes it clear that an institution’s CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner.
CRA examinations are conducted by the federal agencies that are responsible for supervising depository institutions. Information on this page is related to depository institutions that are examined by the Federal Reserve, mainly state-chartered banks that are members of the Federal Reserve. CRA information on other depository institutions is available from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS). Interagency information about the CRA is available from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC).”

Nice try though--I like the theory that it's the smart people that are ruining the country. I know I'd feel better with Homer Simpson in charge. Oh wait, we just voted him out of office, didn't we?

Tatupu - I'd like to say my description of CRA is 'close enough' for Government work - haha.

And right on - you'd LIKE to think smart people are running the country...but as you say, its a "theory". Yes, Homer is gone but so many more need replacing. RE-ELECT NO ONE. :)

Honest Abe says

Yes, Homer is gone but so many more need replacing. RE-ELECT NO ONE

I don't necessarily disagree with that one... If only I thought there was anyone better waiting in the wings...

Just for you tatupu:
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/06/the-true-origins-of-this-finan
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080924145932.aspx
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212948811465427.html

we pause for some excellant quotes contained in and properly accredited in these links:

"An additional 4.5 million were guaranteed by the FHA and sold through Ginnie Mae before 2008, and a further 2.5 million loans were made under the rubric of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which required insured banks to provide mortgage credit to home buyers who were at or below 80% of median income. Thus, almost two-thirds of all the bad mortgages in our financial system, many of which are now defaulting at unprecedented rates, were bought by government agencies or required by government regulations. "

"In analyzing the mortgage crisis, economist Walter E. Williams has written: “Starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, that was given more teeth during the Clinton administration, Congress started intimidating banks and other financial institutions into making loans, so-called sub-prime loans, to high-risk homebuyers and businesses."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574475110152189446.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/49791
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

ok, last one: "The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued." -- Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/franks_fingerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/

Welp, happy spinning. lol

Bap--

Very good. I would consider those reputable sources. I think that they are wrong, but none of the links have sleepwear in their name.

Here's some others for you to read:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20081203a.htm

With an interesting section I copied below:

"Putting together these facts provides a striking result: Only 6 percent of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantial role for the CRA in the subprime crisis. In other words, the very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis"

"...Putting together these facts provides a striking result: Only 6 percent of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. This result undermines the assertion by critics of the potential for a substantial role for the CRA in the subprime crisis. In other words, the very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis"

"...When we conducted this analysis, we found essentially no difference in the performance of subprime loans in Zip codes that were just below or just above the income threshold for the CRA.9 The results of this analysis are not consistent with the contention that the CRA is at the root of the subprime crisis, because delinquency rates for subprime and alt-A loans in neighborhoods just below the CRA-eligibility threshold are very similar to delinquency rates on loans just above the threshold, hence not the subject of CRA lending"

"The final analysis we undertook to investigate the likely effects of the CRA on the subprime crisis was to examine foreclosure activity across neighborhoods grouped by income. We found that most foreclosure filings have taken place in middle- or higher-income neighborhoods; in fact, foreclosure filings have increased at a faster pace in middle- or higher-income areas than in lower-income areas that are the focus of the CRA."

Or another one

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html

"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"

"It’s telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That’s because CRA didn’t bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA — or any federal regulator. Law didn’t make them lend. The profit motive did. And that is not political correctness. It is correctness"

Y'all are still in here grasping at straws?

Spin me a story where some banker is being audited. Supposedly it "empowered regulators to punish bankers" and the logical extension of that there must have been some punishing. A gun to the head.

The regulator comes in and gives him a written report:

The banker is thoroughly cowed by this near-miss with the vicious regulator and meekly complies.

If CRA were the key element y'all think it is, then there will be plenty of stories like that and banking being what it is there will be plentiful paper trails and official letters. There'd have to be a metric ton of cowing going on, to force all these righteous bankers to abandon decades of sensible risk management practices and drive straight off the cliff. Given how video cameras are everywhere in banks there'd probably be some footage somewhere too of these meetings with the regulators they could publish, where the bankers get browbeat over their CRA non-compliance.

I can pass a law the Bap33 Emperor Act. If nobody takes it seriously and Bap33 is not treated as the emperor complete with all the cowtowing and executions of the unrighteous and such, well then it's not been an act with any teeth has it.

tatupu,
why would you counter with a speech (opinion) and a blog? You specified reputable sources. I gave you reputable sources. Use one in-kind with mine or conceede. Thank you.

Vincente,
In my post above the answer to your post sits unread. Klinton added teeth.

@BAP

Finally, some articles worth reading...yes, Bush Sr. wanted to reverse the S&L Crisis of 89 and yes, Clinton wanted to target minorities with home loans.

elvis says

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) is a US Federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of low income borrowers. In other words bank were, in essence, forced to make loans to non-qualified borrowers. The benevolent US government pushed the risk of doing so onto unsuspecting taxpayers (Thanks Uncle Sam). Very few positive things in life are derived through force or forcing risk onto others.

I know a lot of you “intellectuals” out there are just going nuts. So be it, if so you are part of the problem here in America. You may be part of the “entitlement” crowd, or those who say “give-me, give-me, give-me,” those who want something for nothing. Those who think its okay to FORCE others to act in a way that pleases YOU. Those are the “takers” of the world. The rights haters and freedom destroyers, the big government proponents. Those out there that think government safety nets should not be limited, but in UN-LIMITED.The liberal thinkers who want to constantly experiment with the economy, with no money of their own at risk - but putting others at financial risk. NO THANK YOU.

Whats far better than “fuzzy thinking” is freedom and liberty for all. Things that drive liberals crazy; like facts, the rule of law, The Constitution, etc. Why is it I never hear a liberal quote the Constitution????

We do need government, but that government needs to be limited in size and scope. Government is the institutionalization of force…that’s one main reason government needs to be limited…not to run every one’s life.

Thank you, thank you very much.

I am continually amazed at how stupid people are often so proud of it.

@Elvis.

Conservatives mainly cite the consitution when they think your right to bear arms are being encroached upon. Liberals also cite the constitution, just when they want gay marriage. Lets move past that, you say you want smaller government, free enterprise and no public services in the form of Socialism right? Explain to me what a conservative government would look like so that i can better understand your rant?....Explain what a conservative goverment would look like with no Socialism or point me to a link?

Bap33 says

tatupu,
why would you counter with a speech (opinion) and a blog? You specified reputable sources. I gave you reputable sources. Use one in-kind with mine or conceede. Thank you

Beacause those sources had FACTS. A study was done disproving your hypothesis that the CRA had an effect on the housing crisis. Not sure if you noticed, but your sources were opinions. Opinions without facts. No studies. No data.

tatupu70 says

In your mind, if there are 10 wackos out there writing it, then it must be true?

...... lmao ...... irony is great humor. If you find all facts that support my view to be opinions, and all opinions that support your view to be facts, then I guess we need to dial back and agree on what the definition of "is" is. lol

In closing, you refused to pick three sources for me to use because you would then have to use them and knew that would end your debate. See how that works?

Bap33 says

lmao …… irony is great humor. If you find all facts that support my view to be opinions, and all opinions that support your view to be facts, then I guess we need to dial back and agree on what the definition of “is” is. lol

OK--I'm tiring of this inane argument. Generally, facts have numbers with them. Like--

tatupu70 says

Only 6 percent of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas,

or

tatupu70 says

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

whereas opinions don't. such as:

Bap33 says

Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this “subprime” lending by authorizing ever more “flexible” criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

or:

Bap33 says

Starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, that was given more teeth during the Clinton administration, Congress started intimidating banks and other financial institutions into making loans, so-called sub-prime loans, to high-risk homebuyers and businesses

See the difference?

In your very post is an obvious pile of crap ... higher priced loans .... and percentages of the whole ... is not the point made by ANYTHING I have shared ... the point made (to any fair minded reader) is that the liberal pukes in gov forced social engineering tactics onto banks and THAT started the insane bubble. And B Frank, Barry, and ACORN were accomplices.

And the last quote you put up, from Walter Williams, you dispute? Really? That's absurd.

But, the FACT that you REFUSE to pick some sources for us BOTH to use shows that you have BIAS. I have openly been willing to use credable sources that you pick ... and you refuse. Explain that please. Wouldn't that help find common ground and proof of FACT vs OPINION?

If you want to read numbers, graphs, and have words like "a study says", "an expert said", or some other crap like that, I'm sure I can find that too. But, instead, howabout you simply pick the top three sources that you feel are credable, and deal in 100% un-biased facts with a complete lack of opinions. Ready? Go!! I'm waiting.

BY the way ... do you get tired from skipping all around and avoiding any question answering? Wait, skip that, it was a question. lmao. Please do not start all over at this point again:
tatupu70 says

You haven’t really discussed anything. You’ve posted a bunch of your opinoins and passed them off as if they are fact. Which they are not. The US is not on the verge of collapse. The CRA did not cuase the housing bubble. Liberal experiments did not cause the problems we are now experiencing. If you’d like to explain WHY you think the way you do, then I’ll be happy to refute your theories one by one. I have tried to explain why it is obvious that the CRA didn’t cause the housing crash in previous posts, but you are unwilling to listen to any point of view other than your own. So, I’m not sure how else to convince you… If/when you’d like to rationally discuss it, let me know.

an opinion about opinions ... now that IS funny. lmao.

Ok, what is the CRA? I didn't see any explanation for this abbreviation.

Bap33 says

In my post above the answer to your post sits unread. Klinton added teeth.

Your linked articles PROVE nothing of the sort. A lot of supposition and "obviously" but no proof of teeth. Show me one bank that got punished by it's regulators under CRA for not giving out enough risky loans. No teeth marks are evident.

Bap33 says

In your very post is an obvious pile of crap … higher priced loans …. and percentages of the whole … is not the point made by ANYTHING I have shared … the point made (to any fair minded reader) is that the liberal pukes in gov forced social engineering tactics onto banks and THAT started the insane bubble. And B Frank, Barry, and ACORN were accomplices.
And the last quote you put up, from Walter Williams, you dispute? Really? That’s absurd

Yes, I dispute that quote as well as your premise above. It's ridiculous. If I'm following your theory, what you're saying is that the "pukes" pressured a bank in Compton to make a loan to an underprivilaged applicant. OK, I don't really think this happened, but we'll assume for the sake of argument that it did. How again did that have any relevance to Countrywide making a loan to someone in Granite Bay, CA? The guys up at Countrywide said--Oh, crap, banks in Compton are making bad loans! We need to get in on this!! Let's start doing it too!!!

And, I haven't answered your question about 3 sources because I don't understand why you'd want to limit your research? I can easily pick three that would back me, but why? I just wanted to eliminate the use of crazy bloggers that have an obvious political bent to them.

Thanks Elvis, but my private business doesn't do anything we are not FORCED to do. If some government agency sent me a letter saying "we'd really like you to do X & Y" but never came down and did anything about it I'd toss the paper in the trash. I find it hard to believe y'all actually buy that the MORTGAGE LENDERS who are tossing out loans right & left and make tons of commission, give a rat's behind about some meaningless toothless thing like CRA. You think the folks at CountryWide were quaking in their boots they might get shutdown by CRA any second? Heck no, if it did anything at all it gave them the green light to do more of what they were already doing. The very idea that Angelo Mozilo was being beat behind the woodshed and FORCED to cut his risk management and FORCED to make more money in the short term is ludicrous. You guys have the cart before the horse.

elvis--

Actually, Countrywide was exempt from the CRA

Elvis--

Further, your theory doesn't bear out with the facts. Foreclosure rates in Compton are in line with what would be expected during a downturn in the economy, whereas foreclosure rates in Granite Bay and other non-CRA areas were and are much, much higher than would be expected. If Countrywide just bought the loans from CRA areas, then all the foreclosures would be in CRA areas. Which they aren't.

The CRA "regulators", bullying bankers around and creating this mess is not just ludicrous it's laughable. FedGov may not be YOUR friend or mine, but it's BFF with the BANKSTERS Elvis. Thanks for confirming you do have a reading comprehension issue I am in engaged in a partnership in a small business. Evidence demonstrates FedGov does whatever the bankers want, and any pretense at regulation is just that.

elvis says

Government has no business being in the housing business, or in the lending business, nor should the government enable the Fed to engage in price fixing and interest rate manipulation. The result is the catastrophe in which the country is experiencing. Defend the putrid pile of slop all you want. Go ahead, make my day

That's a different argument altogether. You're wrong about that too, but I think we'd need to start a new post to have that discussion. This post is just showing that the CRA had very little to no affect on the housing bubble.

I'm coming late to this so excuse me if its been mentioned already but it seems to me that a simple way to begin to evaluate the impact of the CRA is to examine the timeline and compare it to the mortgage defaults.

The CRA was enacted in 1995 and its regulations broke down home-loan data by neighborhood, income, and race; it encouraged community groups to complain to banks and regulators by allowing community groups that marketed loans to collect a brokers fee. Fannie Mae was allowed to receive affordable housing credit for buying subprime securities. Then in Sept 1999 Fannie Mae eased the credit requirements to encourage banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, and in November the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act "Financial Services Modernization Act" repealed Glass-Steagall Act which deregulated banking, insurance and securities. This deregualtion of the banks allowed them to split up and package & repackage the loans and to maintain balances based on these poorly made loans of a far far thinner margin than what had been generally percieved to be safe. It was the regulation that had up to that point required banks to maintain a balance of reserves in case their loans went bad and required higher percentages of down payments.

I don't believe there was a huge default issue from the years 1996 to 2002 or so, and as the loans didn't begin to default en masse really until a couple of years ago its the loans issued from 2000 or so on - under the rules set out by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act - in conjunction with the lack of back-up in the banks that would seem to be the base of the problem, not the early loans made under the CRA rules.

And this next part is not going to be seen as entirely constructive, but anyway - I wonder when will people like you stop trying to blame the poor and the minorities for all the problems in our culture. This housing bubble has been shown over and over again on these forum pages and in book after book after article after article to have been caused by deregualtion of the banks and simple greed on the part of the banks and insurance companies. Stop wasting our time and stop trying to justify your racism and ignorance with false and misleading facts.

Vincente and tatupu,

This link was in my link post and if you would be so kind as to read it I think you will find what you say I have not shared. If you read it close it even says "proving cause and effect is hard to do" concerning CRA. Cmon guys, read the link so I don't have to fill the blog with loads of crap that you will ignore anyways. lol

@tatupu,
Walter Williams .... you really just posted that he is wrong. Do you know who he is?

attention race-baitors ... Mr. Williams is a person of color. Irony rocks!!

Bap33 says

attention race-baitors … Mr. Williams is a person of color. Irony rocks!!

Your point is?

Bap33 says

This link was in my link post and if you would be so kind as to read it I think you will find what you say I have not shared. If you read it close it even says “proving cause and effect is hard to do” concerning CRA. Cmon guys, read the link so I don’t have to fill the blog with loads of crap that you will ignore anyways. lol

So, what you're saying is that your theory doesn't hold water then? Because I reread your links and the majority deal with Barney Frank, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I thought we were discussing the CRA? And none of the links contain any theories as to why the CRA would cause a non-regulated mortgage broker to make a bad loan to an applicant in a non-CRA area. And these loans are the ones that caused the housing bubble.