patrick.net

tatupu70 says

terriDeaner says

Isn’t this the basic strategy for all the bulls on this website? Poo-poo good reasoning, selectively misuse data to support faith-based arguments, bully, dither, dodge and cry when confronted with better evidence/arguments, then go and hide when their crap is demonstrated to be just that.

Really? Roberto posts completely erroneous statements that he is called on twice. SF Ace posts the actual numbers on pending and I post the actual numbers on existing home sales but yet you think we are misusing data?
How do you figure?

yawn...

You posted a 'study' on pending home sales that ran from '05 to mid '08 upon which you base your faith/extrapolation/speculation that the same relationship (pending as predictor) will hold for current trends. You also incorrectly assume this data is correct, which it is not:

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/01/lawler-downward-revisions-coming-to.html

My reasoning for calling your reasoning crap was simple - you do not account for the effects of cancelled contracts on actual sales when using pending sales as a predictor. This holds whether the NAR data is accurate or not.

Further, you and SF are posting garbage from the NAR for current pending/sale data SINCE JULY 2010. Again, NAR is not a reliable data source.

And I don't see how your collective, selective use of these timecourse datasets refutes Roberto's assertion - pending sales are simply not always good predictor of final sales - take another look at the chart he posted over the much longer time period.

So this is how I figure you are misusing data. Don't feel bad, it is easy to make mistakes like this.

terriDeaner says

My reasoning for calling your reasoning crap was simple - you do not account for the effects of cancelled contracts on actual sales when using pending sales as a predictor. This holds whether the NAR data is accurate or not

My lord. I've answered this at least 5 times already. Do you have ANY reason to think cancelled contracts are significantly higher now than 3 months ago? Or 6 months ago? Otherwise it's meaningless. We are looking at the trend.

Further, I posted the actual closed sales numbers and they show the EXACT same trend as the pending sales did. Did you not see that??

tat, my guess is the upper/middle and upper markets start getting hammered next.
Also, all of the crashing commercial stuff has to have an effect on those rich bastards at some point too.

terriDeaner says

Further, you and SF are posting garbage from the NAR for current pending/sale data SINCE JULY 2010. Again, NAR is not a reliable data source.

OK--do you have another data set that shows pending home sales aren't a good prediction then? I'd be happy to see it.

terriDeaner says

And I don’t see how your collective, selective use of these timecourse datasets refutes Roberto’s assertion - pending sales are simply not always good predictor of final sales - take another look at the chart he posted over the much longer time period

I did. Was there a specific time period that you don't think conforms?

tatupu70 says

terriDeaner says

My reasoning for calling your reasoning crap was simple - you do not account for the effects of cancelled contracts on actual sales when using pending sales as a predictor. This holds whether the NAR data is accurate or not

My lord. I’ve answered this at least 5 times already. Do you have ANY reason to think cancelled contracts are significantly higher now than 3 months ago? Or 6 months ago? Otherwise it’s meaningless. We are looking at the trend.

yawn...

It doesn't matter whether I think canceled contracts are trending higher or lower right now. Either way, their relationship to final sales generates a level of uncertainty in pending sales as a predictor, given that canceled contracts can have a strong effect on final sale numbers.

Further, I posted the actual closed sales numbers and they show the EXACT same trend as the pending sales did. Did you not see that??

Again, NAR numbers are not reliable. Even so, please look at the trend after every peak (that is, post July 2009) in Roberto's figure, not just the short time period you selected to support your argument. Doesn't look like 1-2 months of strong growth that the earlier months should have predicted.

And I am aware that his dataset probably was drawn from the same NAR source. That said, your cited numbers should be a subset (perhaps seasonally adjusted) of this data. So even if it is all crap, YOUR crappy prediction is still not supported by the larger crap dataset you drew your data from.

terriDeaner says

yawn…
It doesn’t matter whether I think canceled contracts are trending higher or lower right now. Either way, their relationship to final sales generates a level of uncertainty in pending sales as a predictor, given that canceled contracts can have a strong effect on final sale numbers.

Wake up! I get that, but the point is that this uncertainty is in the number in every month. There is a clear trend over the last 6 months that is supported by the closed contract numbers. To claim otherwise is just being stubborn. Or disingenious.

terriDeaner says

Even so, please look at the trend after every peak (that is, post July 2009) in Roberto’s figure, not just the short time period you selected to support your argument. Doesn’t look like 1-2 months of strong growth that the earlier months should have predicted

Wow. That's your argument? We don't even know where the data came from because he didn't post a link. Is the PHSI forward adjusted?

tatupu70 says

terriDeaner says

Further, you and SF are posting garbage from the NAR for current pending/sale data SINCE JULY 2010. Again, NAR is not a reliable data source.

OK–do you have another data set that shows pending home sales aren’t a good prediction then? I’d be happy to see it.

For the record, your tack here is essentially a common trick or fallacy know as an "argument from ignorance". You seem to be trying to make it out so that my assertion is false because I do not provide proof via a different dataset, and therefore your assertion must be true.

But then I don't have to have to provide a different dataset. I have simply demonstrated that your assertion (pending home sales is a good predictor for final home sales), based on your evidence, is not true. Hope this helps.

this is getting tedious so I'm just going to call them as I see them...

tatupu70 says

Wake up! I get that, but the point is that this uncertainty is in the number in every month. There is a clear trend over the last 6 months that is supported by the closed contract numbers. To claim otherwise is just being stubborn. Or disingenious.

continue to misuse data, and bully

terriDeaner says

Even so, please look at the trend after every peak (that is, post July 2009) in Roberto’s figure, not just the short time period you selected to support your argument. Doesn’t look like 1-2 months of strong growth that the earlier months should have predicted

Wow. That’s your argument? We don’t even know where the data came from because he didn’t post a link. Is the PHSI forward adjusted?

misquote (please read the last paragraph of my post you quoted), dodge

terriDeaner says

But then I don’t have to have to provide a different dataset. I have simply demonstrated that your assertion (pending home sales is a good predictor for final home sales), based on your evidence, is not true

No offense, but you have done nothing of the sort. You have stated an opinion without any evidence to back it up. I have shown that you were incorect with actual data. The existing home sales were very much in line with the prediction from the pending home sales.

terriDeaner says

misquote (please read the last paragraph of my post you quoted), dodge

Miquote? You said you THINK it came from NAR. Do you know for a fact where it came from? If so, please post the link.

tatupu70 says

terriDeaner says

But then I don’t have to have to provide a different dataset. I have simply demonstrated that your assertion (pending home sales is a good predictor for final home sales), based on your evidence, is not true

No offense, but you have done nothing of the sort. You have stated an opinion without any evidence to back it up. I have shown that you were incorect with actual data. The existing home sales were very much in line with the prediction from the pending home sales.

yawn... straw man, incorrect assertion, then fallacy of composition. It seems that you are trying to prove a larger point based on a very selective set of data. Problem is, your larger point doesn't hold up over the (available) larger datasets.

tatupu70 says

terriDeaner says

misquote (please read the last paragraph of my post you quoted), dodge

Miquote? You said you THINK it came from NAR. Do you know for a fact where it came from? If so, please post the link.

Yep. It appeared that you selectively left of my last paragraph so that it would look like I hadn't addressed the source of the data.

But you do raise a valid point here, we do not know the source of Roberto's data. You may think it came from a less reputable source than yours, but for all we know it may be from a MORE accurate source than yours. I had simply assumed that it was as unreliable as yours (but from the same source).

Roberto - can you clear this up by posting your data source?

terriDeaner says

yawn… straw man, incorrect assertion, then fallacy of composition. It seems that you are trying to prove a larger point based on a very selective set of data. Problem is, your larger point doesn’t hold up over the (available) larger datasets.

Your strategy seems to be if you keep saying that pending home sales don't predict future closed sales then it won't be so. I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't work that way. The data is the data. And it is pretty clear.

Go ahead and keep your head in the sand--doesn't really make any difference to me.

robertoaribas says

tapabootie quotes a short term trend up (though in data that is still down drastically year over year) and moves to claim victory.

I'm not claiming victory--this isn't a contest. I just want to have a rational discussion, but you keep posting lies. It's all anyone can do to correct you...

robertoaribas says

So what is up? is an increase for a few months from the worst month in living memory really UP? If we are still down drastically from last year, and the year before that is it still up?

Agreed--sales numbers still aren't very good. If you guys wouldn't argue every stat and at least acknowledge that things are improving from 6 months ago, you'd have a little more credibility.

joshuatrio says

I agree. But if you are using NAR information to support your point - that puts you in that category - especially on a housing crash site.

I understand your concern.. I don't know where else to find the pending home sales data and existing home sales data. If there are other places, I would be happy to see their data. Further, we're comparing NAR data from one month to NAR data from another month. I'd expect any biases to be cancelled out, as it were.

St. Louis. If you ever get a chance to taste some serious BBQ ribs and briskets...
thats the place to go... freaking excellent!

Does all this include Los Angeles County?

I've been shocked lately-- prices have jumped about three percent in a month in some areas. I can't seem to find any rational reason for it given the current state of the economy, etc. It's left me scratching my head.

Mr.Fantastic says

St. Louis, Missouri. Are there any communities there with a median 108k income? I doubt it.

lol-I thought I lived in the sticks? Because I couldn't afford CA. Here are a few communities in the St. Louis metro area:

Ladue, MO--median income $159,473
Town and Country, MO--median income $157,500
Frontenac, MO--median income $134,478
Warson Woods, MO--median income $98,270
Huntleigh, MO--median income >$225,000
Westwood, MO--median income $134,602
Country Life Acres--median income $217,482

It took me about 2 minutes to come up with those. Every city has nice areas--like I said. I know you think CA is the end all be all. I'm glad you enjoy living there. But there is a whole wide world out there--you should really broaden your horizons...

Brett Heathcott says

These guys need to be kicked off these forums, for this reason. Ban their IP addresses here. They have little to contribute but negativity and personal attacks. They are not interested in respectful debate.

I created the "Ignore" link so that people could ignore anyone they want. I ban people only if they're way out of bounds, not merely rude. Though I'd be much happier if everyone were polite.

Spammers get nuked immediately and permanently. If someone's insulting you, at least they care about you enough to insult you. Spammers are not even that little bit human.

tatupu70 says

terriDeaner says

yawn… straw man, incorrect assertion, then fallacy of composition. It seems that you are trying to prove a larger point based on a very selective set of data. Problem is, your larger point doesn’t hold up over the (available) larger datasets.

Your strategy seems to be if you keep saying that pending home sales don’t predict future closed sales then it won’t be so. I hate to break it to you, but it doesn’t work that way. The data is the data. And it is pretty clear.
Go ahead and keep your head in the sand–doesn’t really make any difference to me.

yawn... another straw man. You may not like that I am making a consistent argument, but it helps derail your attempts to fixate on trivial details or confuse with tangents and or selective data use.

No, all data is not equal. Some data is reliable (to a degree) and some is not. Furthermore, selective use of data to support a model can easily be employed to support INCORRECT models.

thomas.wong1986 says

The source was at main street, your typical consumer created the bubble.

Dude wtf is with people who blame the victim? The housing bubble is the least part of the credit bubble which was generated by Wall St. and the banks who sold that paper back and forth to keep skimming profits. And the housing bubble never could've taken off without the banks/Wall St. in the first place either. But you're gonna place most if not all the blame on Main St who knew little to nothing about loans and relied on the expertise of others to advice and direct them through the home buying process?

When a mechanic fucks up someones car do you also blame the car owner instead of the mechanic?

thomas.wong1986 says

Sounds like a Ponzi scheme to me, found in many typical main street towns!

You do know that Ponzi and not his victims was held responsible for the mess he made right?

QUIT BLAMING THE VICTIMS!!

tts, with all due respect, the whole mess needed more buyers.
Where did more buyers come from?
illegal immigant mexicans.

How did they get access to money?
Neighborhood Reinevestment Act mandated a certian percentage of loans were wrote to unqualified buyers with hispanic sounding names. Most hispanic subprimes in Central Cal were done by non-Americans, were 80/20, and were with 'stated income". Lenders should be in jail over this.

What happened to "20% down"?
I have no idea. But, if 20% down had remained the standard there never would have been any bubble .... no matter who the buyer was. So far, the only reason the 20% standard was lowered was to increase the buyer pool. Sound right?

So, WallStreet may have found a way to play with the new money flowing between banks, but that liquid was created by non-buyers that had no business buying a house. In my opinion.

The only victims are the tax-payers.

tts says

QUIT BLAMING THE VICTIMS!!

1999 to 2001 long before low interest rates.. prices doubled!
Herd mentality like the dot.com era, the gold rush and all the rest!

Bap33 says

Neighborhood Reinevestment Act

well, you can't even correctly repeat the right-wing talking points any more, bap.

Poor people didn't cause the bubble. Lending money to poor people had some part, but that was an action executed by rich people that made them a lot of money.

Nobody in the mortgage business -- loan brokers, banking employees, appraisers, Wall Street investment houses, ratings agencies, private mortgage insurance houses, credit default swap writers, MBS buyers -- was losing money lending money to EVERYONE -- poor, middle class, and rich -- 2002-2006.

CRA had NOTHING to do with this run up. Absolutely nothing.

How could it when total mortgage debt:

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

nearly DOUBLED from $5.5T in early 2002 to $10.5T in late 2007.

Poor people IN POOR AREAS covered by the CRA weren't borrowing trillions of dollars. Poor people in total only got 10-20% of it -- the rest went to the RICH areas with SKY-HIGH home prices, like Salinas, San Diego, SF, and to middle-class people being allowed to borrow as much as they wanted via their high FICO scores and abuse of automatic underwriting.

Man, There are some perma bulls here to be sure, I thank you Robert for the data about Cash buyers, and I am sure by now you have been proven correct and those two D. Shirts are tail between their legs and long gone, as I think you were posting that back in june, and now Jan 2011 flippers needed to be cleared out as that is another part of the long term correction, the 2nd wave of people who helped ease the pain of the banks, now take their share of the losses and the banks are glad they SOLD them to those PRO's as one poster thinks, (gee wonder what he thinks you do, if your not a pro why would they consider a flipper a pro? I would rank you WAY WAY above a flipper as you are SELLING to them at times, and then for them, all along the way, Gee I call that FRONT ROW SEATS, and a great place to get the REAL pulse.... maybe in numbnuts analogy you would be Goldman... lol anyway I see a long way down to go, from here, and we might be in real discomfort, not sure why some think the GOV can do anything but slow it down, and in fact make things worse. We are in for some rough waters at best in the good ole USA I am sorry to say, as I am living it, FOOD PRICES, FUEL PRICES, TAXES, and HEALTH care are going up up up and Jobs are ... how shall I say being done for less in countries that are FAR MORE willing to work for their money! Fellow Citizens wake up, time to "See the wolf" he is huffing and a puffing, and then they will eat... you know what I mean?

tts says

But you’re gonna place most if not all the blame on Main St who knew little to nothing about loans and relied on the expertise of others to advice and direct them through the home buying process?

Prices from $200K - $400K skyrocketing to $750K to $1MILLION+ ...
and had no idea what a mortages were ? Irrational Exhuberance!

thomas.wong1986 says

1999 to 2001 long before low interest rates.. prices doubled!

apartment vacancy was VERY TIGHT in mid-2000. I know, I was FOB here in May 2000, apartment rents were going up $100 a month. I went to Cupertino City Center and they told me the rent on the website was out of date by $200, LOL.

It was only natural for prices to move up so much. Starting tech salary in the bay area was low 30s in the early 90s, but doubled in the dotcom rush and was about triple by 2000.

thomas.wong1986 says

and had no idea what a mortages were ?

it's funny looking back at how much I didn't know about the real estate market 10 years ago.

That was before zillow, and before they started changing (losing) the lending rules in 2002-2003.

Now, I probably know more than the average loan broker, but 10 years ago I was a total newbie.

What really messed things up was the pay-option stuff. Banks were allowed to qualify people on teaser rate payments, and never made it clear to borrowers that negative amortization payments were adding the unpaid interest to the loan balance.

Outfits like WaMu were actually booking this unpaid interest as current income!

Insane!

you must have mis-read my post.
I was suggesting that there was a reason beyond WallStreet.

Bap33 says

Lenders should be in jail over this.

Don't be an ass. My foreclosure was done due to a job loss, after putting 20%+ down and buying a home based on my wages. If you are suggesting the same be true from 99% of the hispanic sur-named Cen Cal buyers, that is your right, but that is not correct.
These new buyers had to have a reduced understanding of economics, and WERE VICTIMS used to blow up the bottom level markets. The bottom pushed the middle up, and that pushed the top up. The new, entry level, pay-too-much-for-a-stucco-box BUYER in the Cen Cal area were 90% illegal mexicans. That is not a racist thing, it is just a fact. If they were all named Frank, then that would be a fact too. If they all drove yellow Honda's, again that is just a fact. I was not trying to tempt nor challenge your agressive support of the invasion. I feel the invading mexicans were used as pawns by opritunists. Sorry if it struck a nerve. Race plays no part.

and I agree, the bottom is done and the middle/top is next.

lmao ... that was funny

Im trying to use a 3.5% FHA to buy a house, with a 203k rehab to fix it. That 3.5% has turned into almost 10% before the end. And the interest is over prime at 4.75%
But I agree, if there were no FHA buyer programs, then the prices would come down and meet the buyers.

Troy says

apartment vacancy was VERY TIGHT in mid-2000.

It was certainly true from 1997 to 2000, after the dot.com blow up rental prices fell.

Bay Area apartment rents fall further
January 21, 2003

The average rent in the Bay Area slid to $1,381 last year compared with the 2001 average of $1,572, according to RealFacts, which tracks rents and occupancy rates. Not surprisingly, rents fell furthest in San Jose, the epicenter of the dot-com boom. There, the average rent was $1,431 in 2002, down 18 percent from $1,753 in 2001.
Troy says

It was only natural for prices to move up so much. Starting tech salary in the bay area was low 30s in the early 90s, but doubled in the dotcom rush and was about triple by 2000.

Much of that compensation was pure VC investment dollars, not revenue generated. Once the plug from VC was pulled in Q1 2000 so was the salaries and headcount. "Too much money chasing too few good ideas". Too many startups driven by inexperienced kids who had no idea what they were doing. Too many people twidling their tumbs in a cube drawing up some powerpoint presentation which had no business purpose.

Salaries in early-mid 90s had some rationalism behind them. Bruised and battered from the 80s. Anyone who had a job didnt go crying for raises. They were lucky to be still working.

Bap33 says

The bottom pushed the middle up, and that pushed the top up.

This is true to some extent, in that move-up buyers needed someone to buy their old house (perhaps at an inflated valuation) before they could move up and buy their own inflated house.

To do that, the entire industry needed fresh meat entering the bottom, and the traditionally excluded credit-challenged borrowers filled the bill.

But this didn't have to blow up like it did. CRA didn't cause lenders to abandon traditional lending standards. They were allowed to do so in 2003-2004 by regulators refusing to regulate -- indeed, actively DEREGULATING.

"The Commission concludes the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of high-cost loans—a proxy for subprime loans—had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law."

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/01/one-more-time-with-feeling/

"The Republican commissioners’ desire to ban the use of the word “deregulation” in the Commission’s report is understandable. There was no chance that they would support a report that explained the decisive role that deregulation and desupervison played in making the crisis possible. Wallison was a major architect of three successful anti-regulatory pogroms (primarily, but not exclusively, led by Republicans) that created the criminogenic environments that led to our three most recent fraud epidemics and financial crises (the S&L debacle, the Enron era frauds, and the current crisis). The Republican congressional leadership appointed Wallison to the Commission in order to place the nation’s leading apologist for deregulation in a position where he could defend it."

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/01/how-can-the-architects-of-the-crisis-investigate-it/

The Republicans have totally fucked this country and how anyone can even begin to defend anything concerning their activities 1995 to now is perplexing to me.

And by banging the CRA pot that's exactly what you're doing bap. George Bush's admin fucked us cold in so many areas and the mess he made of everything will be with us for the remainder of our lives, and probably beyond.

Countries have a hard time bouncing back from screwing the pooch.

Now, to Bush's partial mitigation, Clinton and the Republican Congresses of 1995-2001 handed the Bush admin some real loser situations that were building up -- the burgeoning trade deficit with China, the total unseriousness about kicking our oil habit, a potentially embarrassing back-down from confrontation with Saddam's Iraq, and the beginning of a credit cycle boom in the late 90s.

But the Bushies doubled down in all these areas, so that mitigation doesn't go very far.

Troy says

it’s funny looking back at how much I didn’t know about the real estate market 10 years ago.
That was before zillow, and before they started changing (losing) the lending rules in 2002-2003.
Now, I probably know more than the average loan broker, but 10 years ago I was a total newbie.

I have been a homeowner since 1992! ..after giving up a pint of blood, 5 references, IRS tax return reviewed, etc etc. I had an appetite for the business press... daily news paper and like many back then, some common sense. Thats all it took!

The only thing the internet did was to amplify advertising and hype. Sad but true! Unlike your typical newspaper of years back, there is no one doing editing or reviewing what is posted on the internet. Its all advertising driven revenue. No one cares if its true or false. As long as the dollars keep rolling in.

Troy says

But this didn’t have to blow up like it did. CRA didn’t cause lenders to abandon traditional lending standards. They were allowed to do so in 2003-2004 by regulators refusing to regulate — indeed, actively DEREGULATING.

troy,
I spent most of Sunday speaking with an "ex-loan broker" at a volleyball touney in Stockton. He knew where my town was, and that suprised me enough to ask him, "how in the world do you know where Winton is?" He explained that he was a loan broker from 2002 to 2007. So, we started talking shop. And this man told me, with no reason to lie, and with most everything he said matching all I have learned from you guys on here, that the reinvestment act FORCED his bank to make a certian percentage of loans to match a few select groups. They were FORCED/TOLD/MADE to make a percentage of loans to hispanic-named people, and a certian percentage to unqualified buyers. He rattled off percentage numbers, and the legal rules behind everything, but this dude made it very clear that his bank was FORCED to write the sub-prime stuff if they wantedto do business. Now, he may have been full of crap, but the guy seemed pretty square to me. And that pretty much explains how the whole junk loan game was played. As for the guy I was visiting with, he went back to his teaching job.

He even was able to explain stuff about my house deal in detail, so he really seemed checked out. I know hearsay and , "some guy said", are not worth a crap, but I wanted to share. lol

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0de7db153ef933a0575ac0a96f958260

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.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

Tax Break May Have Helped Cause Housing Bubble

“Tonight, I propose a new tax cut for homeownership that says to every middle-income working family in this country, if you sell your home, you will not have to pay a capital gains tax on it ever — not ever.”

— President Bill Clinton, at the 1996 Democratic National Convention

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/business/19tax.html

Fueling the fires!!!!

Bap33 says

tts, with all due respect, the whole mess needed more buyers.

Where did more buyers come from?

illegal immigant mexicans.

Please tell me you're trolling.

Bap33 says

Neighborhood Reinevestment Act mandated a certian percentage of loans were wrote to unqualified buyers with hispanic sounding names.

Nope. You need to stop taking racist Repub. talking points to heart. The CRA eliminated redlining, it did not require the banks to give out bad loans to illegals or poor black people or poor white people either for that matter.

Bap33 says

What happened to “20% down”?

It vanished as a requirement when prices got so high that no one could own a home without relaxed loan conditions. That is the banks/Wall St./gov. colluding together. Aka Bush's "ownership society".

Bap33 says

The only victims are the tax-payers.

Even illegals pay local taxes believe it or not.

Troy says

But this didn’t have to blow up like it did. CRA didn’t cause lenders to abandon traditional lending standards. They were allowed to do so in 2003-2004 by regulators refusing to regulate — indeed, actively DEREGULATING.
“The Commission concludes the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis

Congress passed back in 2002 Sarbanes Oxley. Very often stated by Dems as result of Enron, Tyco and WorldCom fraud. None of them mentioned Fannie Mae Accounting Scandal which eclipsed all the prior ones mentioned.... $90Billion in losses hidden from investigators and regulators.

While the FEDs prosecuted and imprisoned the CEOs of the corporations, Enron especially, Fannie continued with their "Culture of Corruption". The libs in Congress didnt lift a single charge against their friends at Fannie! Fact is they all walked free of any charges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Of all things said! Conservatives want more regulations, while Libs wanted less regulations... see for yourself.

thomas.wong1986 says

tts says

QUIT BLAMING THE VICTIMS!!

1999 to 2001 long before low interest rates.. prices doubled!

Herd mentality like the dot.com era, the gold rush and all the rest!

1)Rates were still pretty low historically speaking.
2)Home prices were recovering from the early 90's bust still in the mid to late 90's.
3)Overflow from the .com bubble, which was mostly a Wall St. phenomenon but still effected prices in the wealthy areas.
4)Prices back in 1999/2001 were nowhere near their 2005-6 heights, they never could've been reached without the banks/Wall St./gov. interference.

Also do not confuse or conflate bubbles with booms. We've had booms before and are IMO unavoidable. If the gov/Wall St./banks do their job properly though the booms get limited in size/scope so that when they bust the damage is greatly mitigated.

Remember when it was the gov's job to "take away the punch bowl just when the party was getting started"?