patrick.net

mell says

I mean he was an Obama supporter, uh oh, oh well

That obviously isn't the key:

Where is Phil Gramm hiding? The former Republican senator from Texas, who wrote the radical banking deregulation of the 1990s and was rewarded for his efforts to enrich the banks with a plum job at Switzerland-based UBS, has not been heard from since his bank got nailed by the G-men. Or, as The New York Times put it, UBS now has the distinction of being “the first big global bank in more than two decades to have a subsidiary plead guilty to fraud.”

Surely Gramm, who retired from the bank last year, must know something about the nefarious activities conducted over a time span when he was helping to manage the firm. This latest scandal, involving the rigging of a major trusted banking interest rate, might finally test the theories that he has long written into law that assume banks are best when regulated by themselves—a now obviously dumb idea.

As The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday: “U.S., U.K. and Swiss authorities alleged a vast conspiracy led by UBS AG to rig interest rates tied to trillions of dollars in loans and other financial products, indicating the practice was far more pervasive than previously known.” But what did Gramm know about this criminal behavior at a bank he helped govern, and when did he know it?

In a deal brokered with the criminal division of the U.S. Justice Department, UBS was also fined $1.5 billion in the massive Libor interest-rate-fixing scam that evidenced a pattern of deep corruption across a score of top banks. But Gramm, the man most responsible for the repeal in 1999 of 60 years of sensible banking regulation that enabled the financial industry to run wild, has not responded to a single question from the mainstream media concerning UBS’ criminal behavior. I assume he has been queried, given his important prior contribution to the sorry state of banking.

When Gramm was still at the bank, his bio page on the UBS website paid tribute to his prior achievements in government: “As chairman of the Banking Committee, Sen. Gramm steered through legislation modernizing the nation’s banking, insurance and securities laws.”

That “modernization” in 2000 made legal the mergers that created the too-big-to-fail banks that had to be bailed out by taxpayers, as well as ensuring that the burgeoning markets in toxic derivatives and credit default swaps were summarily freed from all government regulation. Bill Clinton signed off on the new laws, and his successor, George W. Bush, enthusiastically enforced them.

How fitting then to find the two presidents united again on several occasions documented on the UBS website participating in bank-sponsored panels on “Revitalizing America.” Clinton’s foundation has partnered with UBS in mentoring small businesses in poorer communities, the very areas hit hardest by the banking shenanigans of the past decade. Ever the optimist, Clinton promised that “Our partnership with UBS Wealth Management Americas will give these businesses essential new opportunities to expand and to make a positive difference in underserved communities.” With friends like these ...

The cozy bipartisan reunion of Gramm with the two presidents under the auspices of UBS goes a long way toward explaining the source of our economic misery. It would be instructive to now ask all three whether the crimes of UBS had been enabled by their own actions while they were still running the U.S. government.

That is why I assume the normally loquacious Gramm is on the lam, or surely we would have heard from him by now, at least on the Fox News Channel that has been so solicitous of his wisdom in the past. But not just on Fox. Gramm and his wife Wendy, who was rewarded with a position on Enron’s board of directors after her own stint in government undermining consumer protections, were the high priest and priestess of the religion of radical deregulation that captivated U.S. presidents from Ronald Reagan through Bill Clinton and on to George W. Bush.

Or does Gramm still blame the economic crash on those of us he condemned as “a nation of whiners,” a statement that caused his ejection from a leading role in the 2008 presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain?

If Phil Gramm were to feign ignorance in response to that line of questioning, the way Wendy did after the caper at Enron, where she was a member of the audit committee, it would certainly make the case for ever more government supervision of corporate accountability.

This was, after all, one of the most powerful couples to ever swirl through the platinum revolving door between the highest level of government and corporate power, an exhibit of crony capitalism performed with such exquisite finesse, and yet wild abandonment, that it can almost be considered kinky in its indifference to real world outcomes.

http://www.civilcrime.net/2012/12/why-hasnt-former-senator-phil-gramm.html

finehoe says

That obviously isn't the key:

Obviously not, but an interesting side note ;)

One thing I've learned from this thread.

People use the word Keynesian like they used to use the word Communist.

It's mostly to smear anyone allegedly associated with it, as automatically an enemy. Frequently used by people who described themselves as "Austrian" school of thought.

Very few would describe themselves as Keynesians, so it's not a particularly useful tool.

Keynesian is like saying antibioticist. Some people say you should never use antibiotics, or use them as little as possible, by staying healthy with a good diet plenty of rest, not too much stress etc.

But are the people who for a variety of reasons are prone to infections, and use antibiotics, antibioticists ?

If using antibiotics too often or for every little viral infection that they can't even help is bad, and will cause antibiotic resistant infections, does that mean that using antibiotics is never good ? Even when there is a bad infection that is so bad that it could be fatal without antibiotics?

I guess if someone never took care of themselves in the good times, and when the opportunities were there to be healthy and get strong, the person didn't seize those opportunities, and they were chronically ill and getting infections, maybe you could call the person an antibioticist.

Translation: when we had a chance to pay down debt, or at least continue with surpluses and to not put wars and so much else on the federal credit card we should have seized them. Now we are sicker than we have been in the last 60 years, and the plutocrats say look, its all because of the antibiotics.

finehoe says

mell says

I mean he was an Obama supporter, uh oh, oh well

That obviously isn't the key:

Yeah, my new passionate pursuit is convincing people of the bi-partisan nature of the corporate coup d'etat.
It certainly hasn't made me popular at parties.
In 2010 Democrat funding from Corporate PACs achieved parity with Republicans.
Change can't come from within this system any longer.
The next revolution has to be a debt jubilee and freedom from the bankers.

I am not a Keynesian, I think what we're doing now is avoiding the politically (both domestic politics and geopolitically) impossible with short-term measures.

The Democrat Congress raised taxes in 1993 and what thanks did the electorate give them in 1994?

The door, that's what.

Our tax to GDP is around 26%, and the core problem is our entire asset structure -- debt, savings, investments, it's all the same thing -- is predicated on these low taxes. (Countries with AAA credit ratings have ratios in the 40-50% range)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP

We could double taxes on corporations, picking up $300B/yr, but since corporations own our media and also the overall message and policy machinery (think tanks, Federalist Society, ALEC), not to mention campaign financing, that's a tough row to hoe politically.

We could raise taxes a lot on the top 1-5%, but they're the 'job creators' and all that, LOL (obviously the 1% have got the same power corporations do, not surprising since the 1% own so much of the equity in this country already).

I also think we need to raise taxes across the board -- the Bush tax cuts were a stupid idea that just resulted in higher home prices and housing rents in the end.

But see 1994 for how that idea works.

Then there's the problem of China and our $300B/yr trade deficit with them.

That's $300B/yr flowing out of our paycheck economy and not returning as wages, $3000 per household per year!

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MANEMP

6 million jobs gone already.

Gasoline cost $4000/household now. Little of that cycles back into the paycheck economy:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CES1021100001

The big rent is of course health care, at $8000+/yr per capita that's around $5000/yr per household in economic rents being pocketed by someone

http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/200908050002

But the core problem is all the red team / blue team conservative vs. liberal bullshit stays away from these actual problems.

The Republicans try to keep the tens of millions of religious nutters on their side, since it's golden to have single issue voters pull the lever (to save babies, protect Israel, keep Christ in Christmas, stop the Gay Agenda, whatever) even as you fuck them over financially via the above wealth transfer mechanisms

The critical thing is education. People got to see and agree on the actual problems, not be diverted and blinded by all the bullshit.

Republicans lost HALF their House seats in 1932, and TWO THIRDS of their Senate seats up that year.

THAT was the people speaking a language the politicians understood.

indigenous says

My question is what percentage of the Tiffany denizens are public employees?

Federal employees are paid more than their private-sector counterparts, but it's still completely dwarfed by the obscene amount of money the Wall Street fatcats are making. (Actually, "making" isn't a good word for it. It's more like stealing.)

Homeboy says

Federal employees are paid more than their private-sector counterparts, but
it's still completely dwarfed by the obscene amount of money the Wall Street
fatcats are making. (Actually, "making" isn't a good word for it. It's more like
stealing.)

You look at this completely wrong. You think it is coincidence that "Wall Street fatcats" make obscene amounts of money while public employees make more than private employees?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=CP#

Even after adjusting for inflation, corporate profits are 6 times what they were in 1970, more than tripled since 1980, up 5 times since 1990, slightly less than tripled since 2000.

At the bottom of the recession, corporate profits were (adjusted for inflation) roughly equal to what they were at the height of the dot com bubble and roughly twice what they were at any time in the go-go 80s.

The problem isn't that federal employees make too much, it is the Republican anti-labor policies have forced private sector employees to make TOO LITTLE.

Now the Republicans are going after public sector unions too...

Sectors that have strong labor representation have strong wages. Why do doctors make so much? They don't - they make a fair amount - it just seems like alot because non-doctors make shit. Their wages haven't been outsourced to cheaper alternatives because their union (the AMA) hasn't allowed it. The barrier to entry into the field remains high. Foreign Doctors can't come to the US and start seeing patients.

You have a choice: Stop bitching about stagnant incomes and income inequality, or stop voting for assholes that enact policies that favor capital over labor.

Homeboy says

Federal employees are paid more than their private-sector counterparts

Only in CATO studies, and even they hedge.

"Various studies have used different methods and data in reaching opposing conclusions about how federal and non-federal pay compare, but no one approach is definitive."

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-07-23/politics/35487789_1_federal-workers-federal-employees-studies

Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, a conservative think thank, and author of several papers concluding that federal workers are overpaid, acknowledged Monday that “it’s hard to make an overall sweeping assessment” of whether private- or public-sector employees make more.

Income has always been unequal and it always will be.

The graph does mean a whole lot to me because I don't see the context.

Automation has a lot to do with corporate profits as does off-shoring. But keep in mind that off-shoring creates jobs as the pie gets bigger it is not a zero sum game. The other benefit of off shoring is that people can buy goods at lower cost which in effect raises their standard of living.

But the shift of wealth to the government workers is substantial. The consensus is that the average worker makes double his private sector counterpart. This has a lot to do with public sector collective bargaining.

So you can get a job from a rich guy or a government. It is not Tweedledee and Tweedledum. The difference being that the government does not create any value the rich guy does.

indigenous says

The graph does mean a whole lot to me because I don't see the context.

You don't see the context of someone complaining about what "Wall Street fatcats" make and being shown a chart about corporate profits?

I can't help you then.

indigenous says

The consensus is that the average worker makes double his private sector counterpart.

This is a complete lie. Please post the research that you base this statement on.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-07-23/politics/35487789_1_federal-workers-federal-employees-studies

david1 says

The problem isn't that federal employees make too much, it is the Republican anti-labor policies have forced private sector employees to make TOO LITTLE.

When did I say otherwise? I think you are railing at the wrong person. Indigenous was the one who made the comment about public employees shopping at Tiffany. I was actually disagreeing with the notion that public employees are the problem. I don't believe I have ever voted for a republican.

finehoe says

Only in CATO studies, and even they hedge.

Why the fuck is everyone quoting ME, when I only offered that as partial concession in my disagreement with Indigenous? It was a dependent clause, followed by the word "but", and then THE POINT I WAS ACTUALLY MAKING, WHICH WAS THE OPPOSITE.

Look, if I said, "Women may be messy sometimes, but men are the real slobs." would the main thing to take away from that sentence be that women are slobs? C'mon, folks.

david1 says

You don't see the context of someone complaining about what "Wall Street fatcats" make and being shown a chart about corporate profits?

What chart? Did some idiot I'm ignoring post a chart?

People still think that Gramm wanted to repeal Glass Steagall. He did not. Gramm wanted to kill the bill. However, Chris Dodd, and several other Democrats went into Gramm Capitol Hill Office and stayed there and bullied him until at 2 AM in the morning he Relented:

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/24/us/deal-on-bank-bill-was-helped-along-by-midnight-talks.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

The CRA, the repeal of Glass Steagall, Subprime Loans, No Down Loans, MERS, CDOs were all Democrat designed and forced through.

But articles that showing how Gramm was bullied because he was head of the committee was overlooked by most Media, so sucessfull were they that the US population in general believes that it was the Republicans idea. Shame on the Republicans for not fighting back these democrats. How did they talk Gramm into this - what did Dodd offer him in exchange?

Entitlemented says

People still think that Gramm wanted to repeal Glass Steagall. He did not. Gramm wanted to kill the bill

You are very confused. Phil Gramm wrote the bill. That's why it's called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act. Reread your own article. It says Gramm was going to pull the bill from being voted on if he didn't get changes in the CRA included. Nowhere does it say anything about Gramm not wanting to repeal Glass Steagall.

Entitlemented says

The CRA, the repeal of Glass Steagall, Subprime Loans, No Down Loans, MERS, CDOs were all Democrat designed and forced through.

The democrats designed and forced through subprime loans, no down loans, mers and cdo's? I was under the impression all these things came from the banking industry.

bob2356 says

Entitlemented says

People still think that Gramm wanted to repeal Glass Steagall. He did not. Gramm wanted to kill the bill

You are very confused. Phil Gramm wrote the bill. That's why it's called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act. Reread your own article. It says Gramm was going to pull the bill from being voted on if he didn't get changes in the CRA included. Nowhere does it say anything about Gramm not wanting to repeal Glass Steagall.

Thank you. I was thinking the same thing. The article doesn't say he WANTED to kill the bill, it says he THREATENED to pull it because he didn't want banks to have to lend money to minorities.

bob2356 says

Entitlemented says

The CRA, the repeal of Glass Steagall, Subprime Loans, No Down Loans, MERS, CDOs were all Democrat designed and forced through.

The democrats designed and forced through subprime loans, no down loans, mers and cdo's? I was under the impression all these things came from the banking industry.

Yeah, I think the only thing there that the democrats should actually get credit for is CRA.

A common lie republicans tell is that CRA caused the housing bubble, which is utter nonsense.

Please read the entire article fo example:

"The final agreement gave Mr. Gramm what he had ultimately sought -- a statement in the legislation that the community groups would have to be more accountable by requiring that they had to disclose their arrangements with banks. Earlier, Mr. Gramm had acquiesced to the Administration's request that no banks with bad community lending records be allowed to enter into the securities or insurance businesses. The two sides also agreed to split the difference on exempting small banks from the Community Reinvestment Act. Small banks with the best lending records would get fewer reviews for compliance with the act by Federal auditors."

So Mr. Gramm really wanted to exclude banks that had the worst rate of loans going bad, because of the worry that Bankers had that the many more loans would go bad. To alleviate this concern, as the acticle says, the financial lobbyists were ready to roll these loans into different securities so the banks themselve would not hold the risk. This brilliant move that removed the bank bad loan risks, rolled it into a CDO security, allowed community banks to make more creative loans, now known as NINJA and other loans.

This is what Citi wanted, what Rubin wanted, because of the CDO business and profits for the banks, after the Repeal of GS now they can mix mortgages with securities.

By

Bank Lobbyists were all over this: Apparently seeking to please the lobbyists, Larry Summers was coaching them. This is the very reason why Gramm wanted to kill this bill and exclude this funny finance to risky clients. Gramm did not want Financial and Community activist groups pressure bank to create a flurry of bad loans - He was right, but he caved:

"Only last week, as the bill was being pushed through a congressional conference committee, Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers rushed back from a trip to China to huddle with lobbyists representing Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and other financial giants. The meeting was closed to the media and public, but one participant told the New York Times that Summers lectured the lobbyists on how to spin this bill so it appears to be in the public interest. "He said it would be very unfortunate if any financial institution were to suggest that they do not see the broad public purpose of this legislation," the lobbyist reported."

Entitlemented says

Please read the entire article fo example:

"The final agreement gave Mr. Gramm what he had ultimately sought -- a statement in the legislation that the community groups would have to be more accountable by requiring that they had to disclose their arrangements with banks. Earlier, Mr. Gramm had acquiesced to the Administration's request that no banks with bad community lending records be allowed to enter into the securities or insurance businesses. The two sides also agreed to split the difference on exempting small banks from the Community Reinvestment Act. Small banks with the best lending records would get fewer reviews for compliance with the act by Federal auditors."

So Mr. Gramm really wanted to exclude banks that had the worst rate of loans going bad, because of the worry that Bankers had that the many more loans would go bad.

Bullshit! That says nothing about "rate of loans going bad". The democrats wanted to exclude banks that refused to lend to minorities, and that chapped Gramm's ass, so he threatened to kill his own bill. Read the whole damn article yourself. And this time pay attention.

Entitlemented says

This is the very reason why Gramm wanted to kill this bill and exclude this funny finance to risky clients. Gramm did not want Financial and Community activist groups pressure bank to create a flurry of bad loans - He was right, but he caved:

No he wasn't right. CRA wasn't a problem. Those loans were faring just fine. It was when the banks let their underwriting standards go to shit and then bundled all the crap into securities and sold it off, that we started to have a problem. CRA had nothing to do with that. It was pure greed by the banksters.

The point here is that Gramm wrote the bill. Repealing Glass-Steagal was HIS doing. He threatened to kill his own bill because he hated CRA, but he DIDN'T KILL IT. That doesn't change the fact that he wrote the bill that repealed Glass-Steagal. Glass-Steagal said that commercial banks couldn't also be investment banks. CRA discouraged discrimination against minorities in lending. Those are two separate issues. You are conflating them.

Entitlemented says

So Mr. Gramm really wanted to exclude banks that had the worst rate of loans going bad, because of the worry that Bankers had that the many more loans would go bad. To alleviate this concern, as the acticle says, the financial lobbyists were ready to roll these loans into different securities so the banks themselve would not hold the risk. This brilliant move that removed the bank bad loan risks, rolled it into a CDO security, allowed community banks to make more creative loans, now known as NINJA and other loans.

That's the best piece of fiction since Mcbeth. What does Gramm Leach have to do with CDO's? CDO's were around 15 years before the bill passed. Where does it say anywhere in the article financial lobbyists were ready to roll loans into securities? Are we reading the same article? Please show the part of Gramm Leach that deals with securitization of debt? There isn't any.

It's worth pointing out that it's been proven many times the the CRA had nothing to do with the housing bubble and crash. I guess you didn't get the memo.

indigenous says

But keep in mind that off-shoring creates jobs as the pie gets bigger it is not a zero sum game. The other benefit of off shoring is that people can buy goods at lower cost which in effect raises their standard of living.

not when there's a trade deficit going along with the offshoring

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/top/dst/current/deficit.html

Plus if all the money consumers save buying cheaper imports just ends up in higher housing costs -- and it has -- this dogma that free trade is unalloyed good is just more bullshit selling us down the river (sending us up the river, really)

Please see that the Freddie and Fannie were mandated to have > 40% of their loans be CRA loans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble#Risky_mortgage_products_and_lax_lending_standards

Further correlation is that many of the refi's and homes made newly rich owners not need CRA on the Refi because of the increased home valuation. Its been establish that many people used homes as ATMS, and at low incomes and high.

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 established an affordable housing loan purchase mandate for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and that mandate was to be regulated by HUD. Initially, the 1992 legislation required that 30 percent or more of Fannie’s and Freddie’s loan purchases be related to affordable housing. However, HUD was given the power to set future requirements. In 1995 HUD mandated that 40 percent of Fannie and Freddie’s loan purchases would have to support affordable housing. In 1996, HUD directed Freddie and Fannie to provide at least 42% of their mortgage financing to borrowers with income below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. Under the Bush Administration HUD continued to pressure Fannie and Freddie to increase affordable housing purchases – to as high as 56 percent by the year 2008.[22] To satisfy these mandates, Fannie and Freddie eventually announced low-income and minority loan commitments totaling $5 trillion.[23] Critics argue that, to meet these commitments, Fannie and Freddie promoted a loosening of lending standards - industry-wide.[24]

Regarding the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charged the Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA.[25] American Enterprise Institute Scholar Edward Pinto noted that, in 2008, Bank of America reported that its CRA portfolio, which constituted only 7 percent of its owned residential mortgages, was responsible for 29 percent of its losses.[26] A Cleveland Plain Dealer investigation found that "The City of Cleveland has aggravated its vexing foreclosure problems and has lost millions in tax dollars by helping people buy homes they could not afford." The newspaper added that these problem mortgages "typically came from local banks fulfilling federal requirements to lend money in poorer neighborhoods."[27][28]

Others argue that "pretty much all the evidence on the housing crisis shows" that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the (CRA) and their affordability goals were not a major reason for the bubble and crash.[18][20][29]

Note I put the others argue. You must argue that less and less people were using CRA as the year went by, (this is the opposite of what happened)

You must argue that the various type of "innovate" loans decreased from the inception of the CRA rules change to 2007 (this is the opposite of what actually happened)

You must argue that the private mortgage firms did not want the loose standards that were being done with Freddie and Fannie (this is opposite, as the goal was to sell more and more bad loans without regard to risk)

You must argue that since people of lower salaries recieved innovative loans, that other middle class must not get the same type of loans (this is the opposite of what happened, do you expect to give easy loans to people with low salaries and then deny it to people who are more qualified)

You must argue that MERS was created in order to insure due diligence with regards to loan qualification, and maintains home title standards (this is opposite of what happened, Countrywide was huge proponent of MERS so that they could refinance Loans more speedily, subverting good faith in title/lending and the home buying process)

CRA is hole in the dam that caused it to burst. That Freddie and Fannie upped the percentage of CRA affordable loans to > 50% means that the cause of this portion of the bad loans is deterministic, you cannot argue this its a documented fact. Its a documented fact that the banks did not hold many of the CRA or non CRA loans that these were in the "Tranches" at different rating levels which were not fully disclosed.

Entitlemented says

CRA is hole in the dam that caused it to burst.

Vast majority of loans that went bad were NOT subprime, were not of the type that would have originated due to any CRA requirement. Almost all of them, were originated by mortgage companies or other thrifts that were not subject to Federal requirements in this regime. It is a FICTION (useful lie) of the GOP & finance apologists, to envision bankers with a gun to their head FORCED to make bad loans. Because in their narrative, the Federales MUST always be the ultimate bad guy and everyone else a dupe. No, Angelo Mozillo and friends WANTED to make bad loans to pump up their bonus and to hell with consequences.

I can't believe there are still folks making the argument that the CRA even contributed to the bubble much less was a major cause.

Congrats to Entitlemented for going down with the ship.

Fucking republicans still trying to rewrite history.

Gold I see is at $1,487/oz.

Seems like nobody is buying Stockman's doom & gloom.

I sold my Gold Buffalo coins back in 2011. Made some money. I just wanted the cash.

I don't really understand Gold and why it's worth so much.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/three-ways-the-cra-pushed-countrywide-to-lower-lending-standards-2009-6#ixzz2QIA41Q8N

More concretely, there are three very specific ways in which the CRA nudged Countrywide and other mortgage companies to adopt lax lending standards.

1. The Creation Of Artificial Demand For Low-Income Mortgages. Banks that were regulated by the CRA often found it difficult to meet their obligations under the CRA directly. Long standing lending practices by local loan officers were a big problem. But as banks expanded their deposit bases and other businesses, they often found that they were at risk of regulators discovering they had fallen behind in making CRA loans.

One way of addressing this problem was buying the loans in the secondary market. Mortgage companies like Countrywide began to serve this entirely artificial demand for CRA loans. Countrywide marketed its loans directly to banks as a way for them to meet CRA obligations. "The result of these efforts is an enormous pipeline of mortgages to low- and moderate-income buyers. With this pipeline, Countrywide Securities Corporation (CSC) can potentially help you meet your Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) goals by offering both whole loan and mortgage-backed securities that are eligible for CRA credit,” a Countrywide advertisement on its website read.

2. The Threat Of Regulation Is Often As Good As Regulation. It is highly misleading to claim that just because mortgage companies were not technically under the CRA that they were not required by regulators to meet similar tests. In fact, regulators threatened that if the mortgage companies didn’t step up to the plate by relaxing lending standards they would be brought under the CRA umbrella and required to do so.

Here’s how City Journal explains the dynamic:
To meet their goals, the two mortgage giants enlisted large lenders—including nonbanks, which weren’t covered by the CRA—into the effort. Freddie Mac began an “alternative qualifying” program with the Sears Mortgage Corporation that let a borrower qualify for a loan with a monthly payment as high as 50 percent of his income, at a time when most private mortgage companies wouldn’t exceed 33 percent. The program also allowed borrowers with bad credit to get mortgages if they took credit-counseling classes administered by Acorn and other nonprofits. Subsequent research would show that such classes have little impact on default rates.

Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn’t stop with Sears. If it didn’t happen, Clinton officials warned, they’d seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers. In Congress, Representative Maxine Waters called financial firms not covered by the CRA “among the most egregious redliners.” To rebuff the criticism, the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) shocked the financial world by signing a 1994 agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), pledging to increase lending to minorities and join in new efforts to rewrite lending standards. The first MBA member to sign up: Countrywide Financial, the mortgage firm that would be at the core of the subprime meltdown.
3. The CRA Distorted the Mortgage Market. With banks offering mortgages with high loan to value, delayed payment schedules and other enticing features, the mortgage companies would have quickly found themselves unable to compete if they didn’t offer similar loans. The requirement to offer risky loans from banks created a situation where other lenders found they had to offer similar products if they wanted to expand their business.
Of course, Angelo Mozillo didn't need very much prompting on this score. He believed exactly what the CRA regulators believed: that these lax lending practices were the wave of the future, democratizing the glories of home ownership

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/three-ways-the-cra-pushed-countrywide-to-lower-lending-standards-2009-6#ixzz2QIA41Q8N

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

A mortgage-backed security (MBS) is an asset-backed security or debt obligation that represents a claim on the cash flows from mortgage loans, most commonly on residential property.
First, mortgage loans are purchased from banks, mortgage companies, and other originators. Then, these loans are assembled into pools.

This is done by government agencies, government-sponsored enterprises, and private entities, which may guarantee (securitize) them against risk of default associated with these mortgages.

Mortgage-backed securities represent claims on the principal and payments on the loans in the pool, through a process known as Securitization.

These securities are usually sold as bonds, but financial innovation has created a variety of securities that derive their ultimate value from mortgage pools.

__________

It has been said that over 55% of the GSE loans securitized were CRA loans (meeting criterian set forth for lending to lower income individuals). But given the small amount of Jumbo and the propensity for the bad loans and HELOC to recure on mostly the loans gone bad, is not the CRA segment larger? (People who did not take out multiple cash out refi's would be less likely to foreclose)

Entitlemented says

It has been said that over 55% of the GSE loans securitized were CRA loans (meeting criterian set forth for lending to lower income individuals). But given the small amount of Jumbo and the propensity for the bad loans and HELOC to recure on mostly the loans gone bad, is not the CRA segment larger? (People who did not take out multiple cash out refi's would be less likely to foreclose)

I think you're confusing CRA with subprime. They are not the same thing. In order to qualify for CRA, there were specific geographic guidelines.

The fact is that CRA loans defaulted at rates LOWER than non-CRA loans. That pretty much ends the discussion.

Its not that simple. Its the fact that it was not this simple that let this thing go on so long:

Quote: Countrywide marketed its loans directly to banks as a way for them to meet CRA obligations.

"The result of these efforts is an enormous pipeline of mortgages to low- and moderate-income buyers.

Now the question is was the help meeting CRA goals Countrywides idea or Barney Franks (google B. Frank, there is no housing/mortgage crisis)

So again, those of you who dont believe that lobbyist got the largest private bank to sell Mortgages that meet CRA goals, - Again, there is not an argument here. How can you say that private lenders had specific geographic locations, when you read Countrywide quote.

How does it matter than CDO's were around 15 years beforehand when Countrywide helped Freddie meet its CRA requirements.

Those of you who skipped over the Countrywide statement read it again, until you see.

Do you think that Countrywide was going to say "no we wont do loans that meet CRA lending criteria".

Did you folks not see that loans that Countrywide made to the Banking committee members?

If you still think that there is no relation of the mortgage crisis to the CRA, read this 3 times: With this pipeline, Countrywide Securities Corporation (CSC) can potentially help you meet your Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) goals by offering both whole loan and mortgage-backed securities that are eligible for CRA credit,” a Countrywide advertisement on its website read."

Yep, Countrywide was not subject to the CRA regulations:

http://www.secinfo.com/dsvRu.z2cf.htm

Community Reinvestment Act

The Bank (Countrywide) is subject to the Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) and implementing regulations. CRA regulations establish the framework and criteria by which the bank regulatory agencies assess an institution’s record of helping to meet the credit needs of its community, including low- and moderate- income neighborhoods. CRA ratings are taken into account by regulators in reviewing certain applications made by the Company and its banking subsidiaries.

Waiting for the next arguement: > Even with Countrywide subject to the CRA regulations, Countrywide was a minor player in the various subprime, NINJA, .... loans..................

The fact is as the article showing the immense lobbying pressure to repeal Glass Steagall, the pressure to meet CRA lending criteria came from Congress.

The CRA did not spout on its own, and Freddie and Fannie securitized loans that into MBS, and forced, worked with, and coached private banks to outsource the CRA regulations.

Its a multi-tiered ponzi scheme, and its easy to be fooled. The congress and President Clinton worked with ACORN and the other community groups to basically threaten the states and banks into compliance. No CRA loans no backing by GSEs.

If we would have kept 20% down, and banks keep their loans, most of this would never have happened.

Better to have spent the vanished $4-7 Trillion on educating and spending money on manufacturing than giving someone a house on NINJA terms.

tatupu70 says

The fact is that CRA loans defaulted at rates LOWER than non-CRA loans. That pretty much ends the discussion.

Or so you would think....

tatupu70 says

The fact is that CRA loans defaulted at rates LOWER than non-CRA loans. That pretty much ends the discussion.

Not for wingnuts it doesn't.