patrick.net

Is Obama proposing any legislation to reverse the GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY act or increase regulation on the CRA?

ok Tatupu, I agree .. this gets redundant.
You contend that the CRA was wrote with some special loan rules created for helping specific areas, and without regard to those people that actually took the loan .. right?
And it did not work as intended, so Clinton "gave it teeth", and it still has not done anything you can point to and give the CRA credit for. Is that right?

So, is it safe to say that you feel the CRA is all about locations of property and has nothing to do with the standards required for buyers to buy those properties? Is that safe to say?

All of the links I shared a while ago showed my view pretty well. Your position of the CRA not being buyer specific, but instead being property specific is interesting. That just don't match any of the stuff I read in your links or mine, so we may as well just move along. No need to wade through the same poop. I'll watch from the side for a while. lol

The fair lending laws would dictate that all loan qualification standards be known and applied evenly without regard to race, sex, ect ect. Whatever force that made the standards change and a bad loan to be wrote by National Credit will MANDATE a bad loan be wrote at County Bank. Period. If you say that loan changes under CRA are property specific, well then I see why you do not give CRA any credit for the bubble. And once again, I would really like you to share what CRA has 100% made happen since Clinton's changes. Yes, it does matter, that;s why I keep trying to get you to commit on something ... lol. Gnite.

@BAP--

No special loan rules. No loan rules peiriod. It says the government will check the percentage of loans made to red-lined areas versus the total loans originated.

Nope--nothing that I can point to.

CRA *is* all about location of property. That is a fact--not my opinion. Read the actual Act if you want verification--Ryan posted a portion of it earlier. I really encourage you to read it, because it is location specific--that's a very basic part of the Act.

And your interpretation of the fair lending laws is a little off. No judge would rule based on one loan. They'd look at the indrustry standards for loan approvals.

ok, thanks.

4X says

Is Obama proposing any legislation to reverse the GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY act or increase regulation on the CRA?

Obama isn't supposed to propose legislation. That job belongs to the Congressman or Senator you voted for. You would be better taking it up with them.

While we are at it, lets vote out those legislators who:

1. Voted to reverse GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY in the first place
2. Voted for the bail outs
3. Voted to abdicate Congressional responsibility to declare war by passing it off to the President

Nope--doesn't help.

GOD

From what I read on the housing crash homepage the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act created the avenues how is it the fault of the CRA?

Nomo,

Well put.

Nomograph says

It’s AM talk radio nonsense and a complete waste of time.

unbiased views abound

tatupu70 says

You’re right about one thing–banks and loan companies saw a way to make a fast buck. But it had nothing to do with the CRA. And everything to do with their greed and poor understanding of the risks of the loans

Under fixed rate 30 year loan, the banks would recognize greater interest revenue from payment than the other flavors of ARM loans, which had lower payments.

thomas.wong87 says

Under fixed rate 30 year loan, the banks would recognize greater interest revenue from payment than the other flavors of ARM loans, which had lower payments.

Of course. But I think we all agree that most of the bad loans were to people who wouldn't qualify for a 30 year fixed rate loan.

@tatupu,
well, one thing is fur sure, we agree on the "what" portion of the bubble cause.

The CRA was an anit-discrimination law intended to "encourage" lending to minorities. (Since I'm married to a "minority" don't play the race card with me). Okay, if a minority, or anyone else for that matter, doesn't qualify for a loan...exactly what does it mean lenders were "encouraged" to make loans??? Could that possibly be newspeak for "lower the lending standards to make loans to people who don't qualify" ???

Further, banks would not be able to move into new lines of business unless they had "satisfactory" CRA lending practices. Okay, what does "satisfactory" lending practices mean??? Could that mean making loans to people who where unqualified but were "minorities"???

Many on this site refuse to acknowledge cause and effect. Irresponsisble government mandated regulations were the cause and economic disaster is the effect. Something we are ALL paying the price for (except the good news is that house prices are declining)

Many of you are probably foaming at the mouth, right about... now - haha. For a look into the future read George Orwell's 1984.

President Obama ... the agent for " change " has just signed into law the extension until June, 2010 of the First Time Homebuyer's Tax Credit. Being that he is an agent of " change ", he also signed the bill that now EXTENDS the tax credit for those that want to upgrade their home by purchasing another. Wisely, you mean & nasty capitalists are limited to a purchase price of $800,000 in order to qualify for the $6,500 tax credit.

Off the subject, but, doesn't it make you wonder why Obama kept Bush's Secretary of Defense Gates? I could go on, but won't because it's off the subject.

Honest Abe ... " encouraged " in real, practical terms in this case means "pressured" by the Feds. Keep in mind that the Federal Government became the lender of last resort for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which naturally encouraged sloppy processing of loans that were then sold to unsuspecting investors on the secondary market. In economic terms it's known as "moral hazzard", i.e, once lenders know the Federal Government will back them, they will not hold to strict standards on underwriting. That's what really happened. The lowered underwriting standards of the CRA spread like a cancer throughout the entire system. Fannie & Freddie processed an amazing 85% of all loans packaged and sold on the secondary market, with the Federal Government behind the scenes there to back them up. Political friends of both parties were put into postions at Fannie & Freddie that walked away with HUNDREDS of millions .... of this Obama says and does NOTHING. But of course, he's too busy limiting the salaries of those rotten capitalists on Wall Street.

Honest Abe says

The CRA was an anit-discrimination law intended to “encourage” lending to minorities.

Wrong.
Honest Abe says

Many on this site refuse to acknowledge cause and effect.

That's because it's been proven on this board that there was no cause and effect.

It's absurd to assert that govt forced lowering of lending standards had no effect on the housing bubble/crash. The CRA morphed into government actions like this: http://ur.lc/5vf .

NY Times, Sept. 30, 1999:

"In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. "

RayAmerica - THANK YOU. ZippyDDoodah - THANK YOU. I was beginning to think no one at Patrick.net had any logic or common sense...other than BAP33, elvis, Clarance and a few others.

For those who like to read, may I suggest LIBERTY AND TRYANNY by Mark Levin. Or log onto
Strike the Root.com

Hahaha. Victim? You make me laugh - that's a liberal's persona. Well then, it appears that you prefer tyranny over liberty. From Liberty and Tyranny: "The industrious, ernest and successful are demonized as perpetrators of various offenses against the public good, which justifies governmental intervention on behalf of an endless parade of "victims." In this way, the perpetrator and the victim are both subordinated to the government's authority - the former by out-right theft, the latter by a dependent existence."

You should read it. Chapters include topics such as Liberty, the Constitution, the Welfare State, the Free Market and more. But then again none of those topics are probably of much interest to you.

"WE ARE ALL SELF MADE MEN, BUT ONLY THE SUCCESSFUL ONES ADMIT IT." Learn from Clarance, if life's not treating you fair - do something about it. By the way, isn't there any liberal talk radio???

Honest Abe says

By the way, isn’t there any liberal talk radio???

Actually, liberals don't need a demagogue telling them how to think. They can actually form their own opinions...

tatupu70 says

Once more, greatly simplified–Once mortgages were bundled and sold as securities with AAA ratings, there was a huge demand for them because their risk was understated. This demand created an environment where lending standards were slowly eroded creating the housing bubble.

tatupu70 says

That’s because it’s been proven on this board that there was no cause and effect.

tatupu70 says

Actually, liberals don’t need a demagogue telling them how to think. They can actually form their own opinions…

... cmon, now .... don't get angry ... I'm just helping everyone lighten up.

tatupu70 says

Honest Abe says

The CRA was an anit-discrimination law intended to “encourage” lending to minorities.

Wrong.
Honest Abe says

Many on this site refuse to acknowledge cause and effect.

That’s because it’s been proven on this board that there was no cause and effect.

It was actually to extend funds to areas that had been red lined, regardless of the demographic that lived there. Here is an example of redlining in Philadelphia.

Obviously some of you are not capable of discussing ideas yet are quick to hurl insults (tatpu & nomo). Clarance, this a quote from Wikipedia: "Congress passed the (CRA) Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low income neighborhoods". So is that an anti-discrimination law? Your call.

For some, the founding principals of our ounce great country mean nothing. Free market capitalism which created the highest standard of living in the world is now "evil." We are on a steady march to socialism partly due to a stiff progressive income tax (one of the 10 planks of the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO). Countless "feel-good" social programs hurt our countries GDP, penalize all tax payers and often hurt the very people the government claims to be helping. We have a government endorsed fiat currency which steals from all workers, savers and people on fixed incomes via a hidden tax called inflation.

Some have not noticed that America is on the brink of financial collapse. We borrow to pay our bills and run the country. A growing number of countries are starting to refuse to even accept our currency. We have a non-compassionate abortion policy that kills as many PER WEEK as those who died in 9-11. Why would we want to kill off the very people needed to pay off the massive debt burden created by Obama and passed on to future generations?

The books I read and the thoughts I surround myself are for awareness and solution. The first step in the solution of any problem is awareness (that a problem even exists). Have any of you read the Constitution lately? The Bill of Rights? I, for one, am concerned that we are on THE ROAD TO SERFDOM (a good book), that socialsim began to raise its ugly head long before "1984" (thats a good book) partially because liberal politicans created for all of us a WEB OF DEBT (yet another good book).

Call me stupid but I favor the rule of law, private property rights, limited government, economic opportunity without excessive government intervention, a sound currancy and life, liberty & freedom for all.

It appears some of you feel otherwise.

@ Abe

Nomo is right--turn off the AM radio for awhile and learn to think for yourself.

In his first of six volumes of World War II, Winston Churchill described the age he observed during Germany's armament and his country's denial of the coming danger: " The simple fed on the simple news provided to them and deluded themselves into a false state of security". The looming danger of an all intrusive Federal Government is obvious to all but the simple. The simple of today believe, amazingly to me, that the very government that has caused so much havoc in our lives, as it has in the housing bubble, is the very entity that will solve all of our problems. Once freedom is relinquished, it is near impossible to ever retreive it. Wake up people .... the government doesn't solve problems, it IS the problem.

tatupo, because AM radio taught me to think for myself ;), I noted that in the context of your CRA comment, your posted map of Philadelphia redlining is dated 1937, whereas the CRA was passed 40 years later in 1977. Just so you know, demographics and neighborhoods in Philadelphia changed significantly between 1937 and 1977.

CRA was govt interference to address ALLEGED discrimination in lending practices. Low income neighborhood residents often do not have the resources or earnings to qualify for home loans, so govt interfered to lower lending standards and intimidate banks into making loans to uncreditworthy individuals or individuals who could not otherwise qualify. That philosophy was a driving force behind this government mandate too in 1999 --> http://ur.lc/5vf which drove the housing bubble/crash.

tatupu70 says

@ Abe
Nomo is right–turn off the AM radio for awhile and learn to think for yourself.

Churchill was scoffed at by the media and elite of his time too.

Abe is correct, as is Rush, as am I .... liberalism is a cancer to freedom, to America, and to Christianity .... we must move away from liberal/socialist/leftist actions and activities, or Free American Christians shall be no more (look at how we are targeted today). Both private and public, the souls of America need to heal.

AM Radio is just the latest boogieman talking point for the left to target .... about ten years ago it was "the radical Christian Right" .... lets see, before that is was the "just say no anti-drug crazies" .... hmmm and there was the whole "homo-phobe bigots" thing ..... the list goes on and on from the freak-o lefty media and those blind few that are desperatly clinging to the God-less drivel being spewed out daily. In my humble opinion, that is.

We either get right, and go RIGHT, or we stop being America, the defender of freedom. There is no more promise land or new world for free people to move to. It's now, or never - period.

ZippyDDoodah says

tatupo, because AM radio taught me to think for myself ;), I noted that in the context of your CRA comment, your posted map of Philadelphia redlining is dated 1937, whereas the CRA was passed 40 years later in 1977. Just so you know, demographics and neighborhoods in Philadelphia changed significantly between 1937 and 1977.
CRA was govt interference to address ALLEGED discrimination in lending practices. Low income neighborhood residents often do not have the resources or earnings to qualify for home loans, so govt interfered to lower lending standards and intimidate banks into making loans to uncreditworthy individuals or individuals who could not otherwise qualify. That philosophy was a driving force behind this government mandate too in 1999 –> http://ur.lc/5vf which drove the housing bubble/crash.

This was posted to clarify how and what redlining involved, It clearly stated "Regardless of the demographics.." For all we know, in 1937 there could have been a group of Pilgrim settlers in the area.

ZippyDDoodah says

tatupo, because AM radio taught me to think for myself ;), I noted that in the context of your CRA comment, your posted map of Philadelphia redlining is dated 1937, whereas the CRA was passed 40 years later in 1977. Just so you know, demographics and neighborhoods in Philadelphia changed significantly between 1937 and 1977.

No offense--but I didn't post that.

Bap33 says

Churchill was scoffed at by the media and elite of his time too

Wow--you're comparing Rush Limbaugh to Winston Churchill?? OK, now I'm really laughing...

ZippyDDoodah says

CRA was govt interference to address ALLEGED discrimination in lending practices. Low income neighborhood residents often do not have the resources or earnings to qualify for home loans, so govt interfered to lower lending standards and intimidate banks into making loans to uncreditworthy individuals or individuals who could not otherwise qualify. That philosophy was a driving force behind this government mandate too in 1999 –> http://ur.lc/5vf which drove the housing bubble/crash.

Wrong again--show me any evidence of government interfrence to lower lending standards or intimidate banks. Surely there must be many bank executives crying to the media about how the government forced them to lower their lending standards, right?

@BAP

You're the victim now? You're being targeted? How exactly is that?

TATUPU-banks could not move into new lines of business unless they had a "satisfactory" CRA score. That is the government interference you seem to be ignoring. BTW, another good site to log on is www.dollarcollapse.com. Try it, you might like it. Love, Abe

tatupu70 says

Bap33 says

Churchill was scoffed at by the media and elite of his time too

Wow–you’re comparing Rush Limbaugh to Winston Churchill?? OK, now I’m really laughing…

Only in the areas they share. Being right is one of those areas. Being unpopular with the Nazi's and their sheeple being another. But, other than a few other areas I dont really equate Churchill w/ Rush .... or vise versa.

tatupu70 says

@BAP
You’re the victim now? You’re being targeted? How exactly is that?

ummm ... hmmm .... I wrote "target", and you wrote "victim"...... see the differences between consevative and liberal views now? But, ya, I have been victimized by liberal activist judges in mexifornia ... but I choose to stay and keep in the struggle ... and complain about it on here. lol.
Cheers.

Honest Abe says

That is the government interference you seem to be ignoring.

I'm not ignoring it. On the contrary, it's been examined and disproven as a cause of the housing bubble and crash.

Wrong again–show me any evidence of government interfrence to lower lending standards

Yet in the very post you are responding to is a link to a NY Times article on govt forced lowering of lending standards. Let me highlight it since you seem to be willfully ignorant: "In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders."

Can you read English? Govt. mandated lowering of credit standards. CRA scored banks who had FDIC insurance (which is a requirement if they want to attract depositors) on the basis of their loans into low income communities, and that is clear intimidation. The ENTIRE IDEA behind the CRA was to lower credit requirements for lending to selected communities. Lowering of credit standards and intimidation of banks is the entire basis for the CRA, and subsequent legislation which evolved from the philosophy behind the CRA

On the contrary, it’s been examined and disproven as a cause of the housing bubble and crash

Show us where it was "disproven". You're simply making things up, repeating false statements hoping no one notices

ZippyDDoodah says

Yet in the very post you are responding to is a link to a NY Times article on govt forced lowering of lending standards. Let me highlight it since you seem to be willfully ignorant: “In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.”

I'm sorry. I read the article and I saw exactly zero mentions of the CRA. Not sure how it's relevant at all. Look--we can go back and forth on this all day. The idea of the CRA wasn't to lower credit requirements. There is no evidence of any intimidation. Again--if bankers were being intimidated by the government, don't you think a few of them would have come forward saying that they didn't want to make these bad loans but the big bad government forced them to?

If you'll read the entire thread, you'll see that there have been several posts explaining why the CRA cannot be the cause...

There is no evidence of any intimidation. Again–if bankers were being intimidated by the government, don’t you think a few of them would have come forward saying that they didn’t want to make these bad loans but the big bad government forced them to?

Can you imagine what would have happened if the leader of large bank came out publicly against civil rights legislation like the CRA? Banks were already being smeared by leftists as being racist in their lending practices. Their competitors would have seized upon that and chewed them to pieces. Much easier to go along with the regulators, especially when all the other banks had to play under the same rules. 'Redlining' is an unproven allegation of racist lending practices used to justify CRA intimidation. If bankers wanted to remain in good standing with the Feds, they had to go along to maintain a good CRA score. Regulators directly instructed banks to consider alternatives to using traditional credit histories because CRA targeted borrowers who often lacked any credit histories. Read for yourself: http://ur.lc/dub. Here is a Fed governor at a CRA conference in 1998 telling banks they better start making no-money down loans http://ur.lc/duf . Search the document for the phrase "100 percent loan-to-value ratios". And please stop pretending that the CRA was some sort of static legislation that wasn't evolving significantly over time

A banker who refused to relax lending standards risked being in noncompliance with the CRA. More lax lending standards were the only way of satisfying the CRA regulators. Making matters worse, the govt. pushed for greater mortgage securitization in an effort to increase CRA lending. Google HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo's promise of $2 trillion in Fannie and Freddie backed “affordable” mortgages. CRA is the genesis and driving force of this disaster backed by liberals who believed it was unfair not provide loans to "underpriveleged" individuals who otherwise would not have qualified for a loan

ZippyDDoodah - I couldn't have said it better myself. It seems you can't reason with unreasonable people (who refuse to acknowledge the obvious).

Tatupu, show me evidence of government intimidation that forces people to pay "voluntary" taxes. You can't, but most pay taxes anyway (out of fear). That same method worked with banks too. Besides if banks didn't comply with CRA, they couldn't grow and expand into other profitable businesses. That was enough intimidation for the government to get what it wanted. By the way, now I'm curious...what principals do you endorse??? What books are you reading??

CRA Troofers are like Moon Landing conspiracy fanatics, you will NEVER get them to admit they are wrong.

@Zippy

You crack me up. I read your articles and I'm not sure where you are coming from. Nowhere in either paper does it ever mention anything about undo pressure on banks. Bankers were encouraged to do extra research to find QUALIFIED applicants. It may be hard for you to believe, but they were out there... End of story. And guess what--all these loans that were the result of "lax lending standards" as you put it actually performed much better than the rest of the mortgage industry. Yes, that's right. CRA loans defaulted at a rate that would be expected during a recession--not at the bubble bursting rate of the market in general.

@Abe

You're comparing paying taxes to the CRA regulation? You go to jail if you don't pay taxes. Not quite the same thing. But in any event--you still didn't answer my question. After this whole mess unraveled and bankers became public enemy #1, don't you think a few of them would have said--"we didn't want to make these loans, but the Gov't told us we had to in order to be in compliance with the CRA" We wouldn't be watching it on 60 minutes? But we aren't. Because it's a fairy tale.

Oh-the last book I read was A B C by Dr. Seuss. My 2 yr old loves it. He knows all the letters except for Q...