invite response« First « Previous Comments 81 - 93 of 93 Search these comments
tatupu70
2013 Apr 12, 9:31am
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 (“CRAâ€) 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.
Homeboy
2013 Apr 12, 12:25pm
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....
Vicente
2013 Apr 12, 12:35pm
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.
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.
He seems genuinely convinced that the entire housing crash was countrywide loans. His arguments would be more convincing if he could come up with a simple chart showing the percentage of CRA loans that defaulted.
Oh I forgot the THREAT of CRA caused everyone to rush out and give loans to everyone with bad credit so there is no actual evidence only supposition. I don't suppose the banks would have had any interest at all in writing any and all loans they could knowing they could turn them over to be securitized therefor getting a nice fee for turning and burning without the THREAT of CRA. Na, never happened.
CRA is hole in the dam that caused it to burst.
yea, 11 lengthy posts spouting off the same nonsense that's been disproved time and time again.
But you go girl, double-down and hold your line in the sand. I know, you're just "taking your country back".
Bellingham Bill
2013 Apr 12, 3:45pm
Gold has industrial and jewelry applications -- actual real-world utility -- aside from its traditional monetary uses.
Supply isn't terribly limited but as of now we can't create new supply without expending a lot of labor and energy (somewhere around $1200, perhaps more)
If you don't want your cash wealth to stay in cash, you've got to buy something or let someone borrow it from you.
Gold bullion is easy to store, which means all the speculators and savers are essentially locking up current supply away from the market, making the price higher than it needs to be.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=hum
compares houses to gold, from 1990 (1990 = 100)
Picking up an ounce a month 1990-now would have been a good idea, LOL
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=hun
key thing about investments is to get in early, and get out before the rush
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=hup
compares the S&P 500 vs gold, 1990 to now (1990 = 100)
which I guess shows how the dotcom mania took investor interest away from boring gold, LOL
Request to show amount of CRA loans.
Pretty sure that none of these defaulted.
Request to show amount of CRA loans.
Pretty sure that none of these defaulted.
"To satisfy CRA examiners, "flexible" lending by large banks rose an average 5% and those loans defaulted about 15% more often, the 43-page study found."
So "flexible" lending for CRA rose an almost unbelievable whole 5% and defaulted 15% more often That caused the housing bubble and crash? Is this a joke? You not serious with this stuff are you? It's got to be a goof. Are we on candid camera?
« First « Previous Comments 81 - 93 of 93 Search these comments
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-03/david-stockman-keynesian-endgame