How many sub-prime loans were based on the CRA?

[Moby]

I keep reading different numbers but they all seem to claim that about 65% to 80% of all sub-prime loans were NOT made by institutions that came under the Community Reinvestment Act.

Has anyone that keeps blaming this done any research to support their blame?

[Dale escondido]

I keep reading different numbers but they all seem to claim that about 65% to 80% of all sub-prime loans were NOT made by institutions that came under the Community Reinvestment Act.

Has anyone that keeps blaming this done any research to support their blame?

Anytime you open the door to new scams for quick bucks you find the greedy.
We need to get back to applying the same principals to business as we do to ourselves, like that would happen.
WAIT isnt that why we have government?
I suppose years from now we willl still be argueing whos the culprits here.
I so dont care anymore as I cant define myself by anyone washington has to offer.

[disrupter]

Bush passed his zero down payment initiative in February 2004,

opening the floodgates to disaster.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/163451

[StevenC]

I keep reading different numbers but they all seem to claim that about 65% to 80% of all sub-prime loans were NOT made by institutions that came under the Community Reinvestment Act.

You are most likely right but read on.

The Community Reinvestment Act was pushed hard by Bill Clinton, although it originated under Jimmy Carter. Asked about it the other day on one of the morning TV talk shows, Clinton said times back then were different. Fannie and Freddie had lots of money and he (in his infinite wisdom) decided that the money should not go to share holders or to executive compensation, but should be used to put the poor into homes.


As you can imagine, wonderful things happen when the government strong arms corporations as to how they should spend their money and, better yet, how they should assess the qualifications of home buyers. So the country's biggest buyers of mortgages were pressured into lowering the qualifications of applicants, in order to increase the percentage of poor that got mortgages. By 2006, 30% of all mortgages went to people who in any other circumstances wouldn't qualify.


Now the political left would like you to know that the CRA-controlled institutions did not lend the largest percentage of sub-prime mortgages. But that's information by deception, because the mortgage business is a competitive business. If the government strong arms one part of the business, the other part will respond. And strong arm was what the Clinton administration did, even using the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to pressure banks to lend more money to the disadvantaged. Caught in the act, a spokesman for the office noted that its abuse of power was "for the best of intentions:" the same inclination used to pave the road to hell.

These are only figures I have found. SO FAR

[Independent Harry]

I made a post on this, I think less than 5% of loans were done through CRA. You can check the numbers yourself from the lenders.

[StevenC]

Bush passed his zero down payment initiative in February 2004,opening the floodgates to disaster.

Straight from the article you linked.

The dream of a better society through homeownership didn't originate with George W. Bush. It's as American as Manifest Destiny. The Homestead Act in 1862 offered acres to anyone willing to brave the Western frontier. During Reconstruction, freed slaves were promised "40 acres and a mule." And after World War II, with Levittown and its cousins, affordable homes were a reward of victory. But until very recently, those hopes and dreams were connected to actual income and gainful employment. No longer.

In 1999, Bill Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a bank deregulation bill that swept away a Depression-era law known as Glass-Steagall.

Who, then, in Washington, is to blame? As it happens, it’s many of the same people who were behind Gramm-Leach-Bliley. The Clinton administration and Congressional Republicans failed to create a strong framework in place of Glass-Steagall.
Democrats pushed for riskier mortgage lending, in an effort to expand home ownership. But surely the bulk of the blame lies with the policy makers and regulators who were on duty while the housing bubble inflated and Wall Street went wild.

If you could even blame JUST ONE person for this whole mess the only one that could even come close to having the ability's and cash etc. would be George Soros, even still he had help.

[StevenC]

I made a post on this, I think less than 5% of loans were done through CRA. You can check the numbers yourself from the lenders.

Can you give me some links I would honesty like to look it up.

[Moby]

You are most likely right but read on.



These are only figures I have found. SO FAR
You need to post links to your sources when copying their material.

So the only numbers that you've found say nothing about the CRA at all? I find that interesting that you highlight some one's opinion about "Strong Arming" but have no numbers what so ever concerning the CRA.

How was Bill Clinton strong arming companies in 2006? How was he strong arming them at all?


You're making the connection that there was compitition to offer bad loans? Think about it.

[Moby]

In 1999, Bill Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a bank deregulation bill that swept away a Depression-era law known as Glass-Steagall.
How did the Act named after Republicans affect the CRA?

Do you know how Gramm was able to get enough votes in the Senate? Do you know how many votes came from the Senate and the house on that bill?

[StevenC]

How did the Act named after Republicans affect the CRA?

Do you know how Gramm was able to get enough votes in the Senate? Do you know how many votes came from the Senate and the house on that bill?

Nov. 4th, 1999 Senate vote 90-8 to pass all info you could possibly want is here.
http://banking.senate.gov/conf/

[disrupter]

Bush is the sponsoring author of zero down payment mortgages.

The idea of broad home ownership is not necessarily bad,
but it must be done with sane, sustainable banking & other economic practices.

But until very recently, those hopes and dreams were connected to

actual income and gainful employment.

No longer.

Sorry, but Bush is still a super fool.

His initiative may have even included those years of no payments & other screwy practices, or those may have been extensions of absurdity sponsored by a bunch of drunk, brain-dead wall street idiots & their lawyers.

[Moby]

Nov. 4th, 1999 Senate vote 90-8 to pass all info you could possibly want is here.
http://banking.senate.gov/conf/
What about the first time when democrats will rejected the bill. What did Gramm and Leach add to it to get it passed the next time around?

Isn't 90 - 8 veto proof? One of those things where the President has to sign it?


You're starting to head towards the right direction in how our government has been working against America. You just have to go a little further to understand how everyone in Washington is corrupt.

You still haven't mentioned what this has to do with the CRA (the topic of the thread).

[Independent Harry]

Can you give me some links I would honesty like to look it up.

I forget where I got the info, this is the link explaining CRA.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/default.htm

Here's the original post that has the census data for CRA

http://www.dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=7031

[StevenC]

Could these be the numbers you are looking for SM?

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

The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. However, it is even more ridiculous when you consider that firms that are not subject to the CRA made most subprime loans. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts, which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor, Ned Gramlich said in an August 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”

How did the Act named after Republicans affect the CRA?
I’m not sure it did but there are CRA Amendments to the Act.
If I am not mistaken, the CRA Compliance Check amendment to the Gramm-Leach Act had an effect on banks that had a better then satisfactory rating. Which allowed them to make these toxic loans etc., with no fear of the Feds oversight. I am sure Independent Harry will correct me if I am wrong

http://banking.senate.gov/conf/craamd.htm

Do you know how Gramm was able to get enough votes in the Senate?
I would say that was the Sunshine Amendment.
http://banking.senate.gov/prel99/1020grm.htm

Isn't 90 - 8 veto proof? One of those things where the President has to sign it?
I would have to say yes that was pretty much a slam-dunk if you would.

[SeedyROM]

Straight from the article you linked.



In 1999, Bill Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a bank deregulation bill that swept away a Depression-era law known as Glass-Steagall.

Who, then, in Washington, is to blame? As it happens, it’s many of the same people who were behind Gramm-Leach-Bliley. The Clinton administration and Congressional Republicans failed to create a strong framework in place of Glass-Steagall.
Democrats pushed for riskier mortgage lending, in an effort to expand home ownership. But surely the bulk of the blame lies with the policy makers and regulators who were on duty while the housing bubble inflated and Wall Street went wild.

If you could even blame JUST ONE person for this whole mess the only one that could even come close to having the ability's and cash etc. would be George Soros, even still he had help.

Well said, dems need to get it together, dems are too blame equally. As well Clinton signed the Commodities Modernization Act of 2000 which had the Enron loophole that allowed Oil traders the ability to trade oil and unleaded in unregulated markets. Democrats could have changes the laws when they took the majority in 2006 but no they were in bed with wallstreet and big oil along with reps. Yet we paid high oil prices and they sat on thier asses.

Soro's is a corrupt mother fucking slime ball who is gaming the system to give power to Europe while he pushes socialist agendas to drain our montary system. Most dems are clueless as to how deep his tetacles reach through all the media outlets he's manipulating.

[SeedyROM]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/pos...lty_logic.html
Bill Clinton beat Papa Bush in 1992 by blaming him for economic woes, even though the downturn of that year was over by the time of the election. Now Barack Obama is hoping to blame that hyphenated adversary, Bush-McCain, even though the facts don't fit his narrative.

Obama is trying to draw a link between the Wall Street blow-ups and a lack of regulation. But the blow-ups have included Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two of the most highly regulated financial institutions in the country. They have included three out of five of the top investment banks, institutions that were also regulated. By contrast, there have been relatively few blow-ups at hedge funds, which are not regulated directly. This pattern of failure is not consistent with Obama's claim that deregulation caused the trouble

Embarrassingly for Obama, the principal piece of financial deregulation over the past decade was the reform of Glass-Steagall, the law that separated investment banks from deposit-taking ones. The ending the division between the two types of bank was a policy that the Clinton team also supported, which does not fit the Obama narrative. And during the current crisis, the Glass-Steagall reform has proved to be a boon. It has cleared the way for relatively healthy deposit-taking banks, such as JP Morgan and Bank of America, to rescue desperate investment banks, such as Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch. Without that piece of deregulation, we would all be in more trouble.

The regulation-versus-deregulation rhetoric is appealingly simple, and both parties abuse it. Republicans like to say they will get the economy going by cutting red tape. Democrats like to say that they will make the economy more stable by demanding rational oversight. Neither claim is worth much.


http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76160
Rep. Barney Frank denounced Mankiw, saying he had no "concern about housing." How dare you oppose suicidal loans to people who can't repay them! The New York Times reported that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were "under heavy assault by the Republicans," but these entities still had "important political allies" in the Democrats.


http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76160

This crisis was caused by political correctness being forced on the mortgage lending industry in the Clinton era. Before the Democrats' affirmative-action lending policies became an embarrassment, the Los Angeles Times reported that, starting in 1992, a majority-Democratic Congress "mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains."

[SeedyROM]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communi...ct#cite_note-5
Clinton Administration Changes of 1995

In early 1993 PresidentBill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities.[6] The new rules January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring strictly numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to target to groups to collect a fee from the banks.[

Bush Administration Changes of 2005:
In 2002 there was an interagency review of the effectiveness of the 1995 regulatory changes to the Community Reinvestment Act and new proposals were considered.[7] In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended that a new Department of the Treasury agency should supervise the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congressional support was approximately split along Party lines and the proposal eventually failed

[StevenC]

Soro's is a corrupt mother fucking slime ball who is gaming the system to give power to Europe while he pushes socialist agendas to drain our monetary system. Most dems are clueless as to how deep his tentacles reach through all the media outlets he's manipulating.

I hate to say it but what I've read about this man (multi-billionaire) Soros. He scares the living shit out of me. What he does with his money equates to murder in my book. If you google him all you will find is the good shit. You really have to dig to find to find the dirt.

[Dale escondido]

I hate to say it but what I've read about this man (multi-billionaire) Soros. He scares the living shit out of me. What he does with his money equates to murder in my book. If you google him all you will find is the good shit. You really have to dig to find to find the dirt.

I believe most people with the kind of money soros has he uses it to move markets without even considering the small people crushed on the way.
Then everyone seems to tout how smart and what good investors they are.

[Cat slave]

I keep reading different numbers but they all seem to claim that about 65% to 80% of all sub-prime loans were NOT made by institutions that came under the Community Reinvestment Act.

Has anyone that keeps blaming this done any research to support their blame?

Quite obviously, too many!

[Moby]

Could these be the numbers you are looking for SM?

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

The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. However, it is even more ridiculous when you consider that firms that are not subject to the CRA made most subprime loans. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts, which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor, Ned Gramlich said in an August 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”
The numbers that I keep finding are similar.

So it's clear that no more then 20% of all sub-prime loans were influenced by the CRA. Since some organizations were giving sub-prime mortgages it's very possible that banks that did fall under the reg may have done so even without the CRA. The 20% may be even less.

I think that all the blame on the CRA causing the sub-prime mortgage issues doesn't fly if at worst case only 20% of those mortgages were influenced by it.

Seems that again comparing facts vs. pundits = facts win again :thumbsup:

[StevenC]

The numbers that I keep finding are similar.

So it's clear that no more then 20% of all sub-prime loans were influenced by the CRA. Since some organizations were giving sub-prime mortgages it's very possible that banks that did fall under the reg may have done so even without the CRA. The 20% may be even less.

I think that all the blame on the CRA causing the sub-prime mortgage issues doesn't fly if at worst case only 20% of those mortgages were influenced by it.

Seems that again comparing facts vs. pundits = facts win again :thumbsup:

ya can't argue with facts, but sometimes it's just fun to argue

[disrupter]

CRA existed for a very long time with no economic collapse,

but a mere 4 years after Bush passed the zero down payment initiative the globe's entire economy collapsed.

You know, this ain't rocket science.

You don't have to have a college degree to figure this one out.

Although there is an amazing amount of propaganda & spin to the contrary,
By the villains of this economic collapse,
as well as their gullible little patsies who will believe any spew they put out.

[Cat slave]

The numbers that I keep finding are similar.

So it's clear that no more then 20% of all sub-prime loans were influenced by the CRA. Since some organizations were giving sub-prime mortgages it's very possible that banks that did fall under the reg may have done so even without the CRA. The 20% may be even less.

I think that all the blame on the CRA causing the sub-prime mortgage issues doesn't fly if at worst case only 20% of those mortgages were influenced by it.

Seems that again comparing facts vs. pundits = facts win again :thumbsup:


It wasnt just the mortgages. It was the bundling and selling securities
that started the nasty thing rolling. But that couldnt have happened without
Freddie and Fannie and Fwank, Chris and Reid.

This was planned! We need to see what has been in the works for a long
time and where it all was headed...right here. The traitors have done this
intentionally. Think any of them are hurting? Hell, they dont even pay
their taxes and they dont have to worry about health care or pensions
or anything...they are set high and mighty and untouchable.

And if you are a "producer", look out, youre not going to have squat left
real soon.

[Cat slave]

ya can't argue with facts, but sometimes it's just fun to argue

Its always fun to argue.:D

[disrupter]

It was the bundling of mortgages ['securitization'*] into seemingly simple abstract investment vehicles combined with the faulty statistical alchemy that a triple B [garbage] source could produce triple A rated instruments, provided you stirred in a sufficient amount of bullshit.

LOL, this is just all too funny.
It is just unreal, . . . until i think of all those <getting more serious> unsuspecting homebuyers.

Then the glut of global capital sloshing around the planet connected up with this whole fabricated scheme & all those people who were 'smarter than reality'

and the stage for disaster was set.

& Bush & the deregulation nut cases played a VERY pivotal role.

Sound legitimate self-interested mortgage lenders would have never touched this crap, not in this way.
it is only the layering set of disconnections that would have created this.
Like the layers of graphite creating a great lubricant to undercut the base of a very tall tower . . . . of cards.

It suggests that keeping a tight reign on your money is a possibly wise course of action.

By the way, did you know that Citibank got scammed for 27 MILLION dollars in a Nigerian financial scheme? :disbelief:
http://www.betanews.com/article/Citibank-nearly-duped-by-Nigerian-scam/1235459454

Yeah, we better increase their bonuses at Citibank,
we sure don't want to lose these 'Geniuses' :rolleyes: to the competition.

Please, somebody shoot me, This just can't be real.

*'Securitization', That has to be one ironic word. Secure, as in being strapped to the rail of the Titanic.:lmao2:

[SeedyROM]

The numbers that I keep finding are similar.

So it's clear that no more then 20% of all sub-prime loans were influenced by the CRA. Since some organizations were giving sub-prime mortgages it's very possible that banks that did fall under the reg may have done so even without the CRA. The 20% may be even less.

I think that all the blame on the CRA causing the sub-prime mortgage issues doesn't fly if at worst case only 20% of those mortgages were influenced by it.

Seems that again comparing facts vs. pundits = facts win again :thumbsup:

Add up the dollar amount of the 20% of CRA loans that became commercial paper traded on the exchanges. Then do the math as you should have already done. I showed you how leverage works in a couple of threads. Democrats wanted more CRA loans, Bush backed it as did many other Reps. They all fell prey to wallstreet lies, yet no dem nor rep could explain the formulas used to write the loans, guarantee them with CDS's nor could anyone understand the math in DC!! Leveraging the loans with small deposits worked to the countries disadvantage as the housing market collapsed. The CRA was part of the problem, you cannot deny the negatives when the history and the investigations have tied the CRA to be part of the problem as were the politicians/dems who backed the CRA for far too long. It appears you are the pundit on this subject.

[SeedyROM]

ya can't argue with facts, but sometimes it's just fun to argue

He can't deny the negative with facts, be wary moderators and Obama supporters here. They can't seem to admit facts that have been written and confirmed by professional economists and financial leaders who have investigated the crisis from one end to another. Many on this site still believe all the campaign rhetoric, yet they routinely fall prey to the NLP tactics they complain about constantly.

[Moby]

He can't deny the negative with facts, be wary moderators and Obama supporters here. They can't seem to admit facts that have been written and confirmed by professional economists and financial leaders who have investigated the crisis from one end to another. Many on this site still believe all the campaign rhetoric, yet they routinely fall prey to the NLP tactics they complain about constantly.
Who has fallen prey to the campaign rhetoric? Please list the and those posts to support that claim? :lmao2:

[Moby]

Add up the dollar amount of the 20% of CRA loans that became commercial paper traded on the exchanges. Then do the math as you should have already done. I showed you how leverage works in a couple of threads. Democrats wanted more CRA loans, Bush backed it as did many other Reps. They all fell prey to wallstreet lies, yet no dem nor rep could explain the formulas used to write the loans, guarantee them with CDS's nor could anyone understand the math in DC!! Leveraging the loans with small deposits worked to the countries disadvantage as the housing market collapsed. The CRA was part of the problem, you cannot deny the negatives when the history and the investigations have tied the CRA to be part of the problem as were the politicians/dems who backed the CRA for far too long. It appears you are the pundit on this subject.
So what are the dollar values of subprime loans that were "forced" on banks as opposed to those that weren't forced on banks? :lmao2:

Are you going to quote The Weekly Standard, News Max or World Net Daily on this one? :lmao2:

[Moby]

yet they routinely fall prey to the NLP tactics they complain about constantly.
You mentioning NLP after you just quoted Krauthammer's is kind of crazy isn't it?

[SeedyROM]

You mentioning NLP after you just quoted Krauthammer's is kind of crazy isn't it?

All media outlets use NLP. At least Fox admits they use NLP. Krauthammer is a brilliant writer who wades in the shallow end of the pool. Nothing crazy about it. What is crazy is how you people hide your complaints about irrational spending. Even more crazy is how you people continue to defend the CRA as if dems were somehow innocent of wrongdoing. It takes 2 parties to pass laws and 2 parties to undo the mess they've created!!

[Moby]

All media outlets use NLP. At least Fox admits they use NLP. Krauthammer is a brilliant writer who wades in the shallow end of the pool. Nothing crazy about it. What is crazy is how you people hide your complaints about irrational spending. Even more crazy is how you people continue to defend the CRA as if dems were somehow innocent of wrongdoing. It takes 2 parties to pass laws and 2 parties to undo the mess they've created!!
The bottom line is that according to the FDIC the CRA could NOT have effected more then 20% of all sub-prime loans. Probably much less then that.

Your anger is probably based on the fact that the Neoconservatives assumptions that the CRA was the leading cause is obviously wrong. Anyone parroting the Neocon media is obviously wrong as well.

The sheep are following the people that are wrong, again.

[SeedyROM]

The bottom line is that according to the FDIC the CRA could NOT have effected more then 20% of all sub-prime loans. Probably much less then that.

Your anger is probably based on the fact that the Neoconservatives assumptions that the CRA was the leading cause is obviously wrong. Anyone parroting the Neocon media is obviously wrong as well.

The sheep are following the people that are wrong, again.

I'm not angry. But 20% of fannie and freddie loans is a lot when you actually consider the dollar value of the loans in comparison to the current home values for those loans. 20% adds up. I don't know why you can't just admit that the CRA had a role in the fall too.

[Hog Trash]

_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related
usvG-s_Ssb0&feature=related
No comment!

[Moby]

I'm not angry. But 20% of fannie and freddie loans is a lot when you actually consider the dollar value of the loans in comparison to the current home values for those loans. 20% adds up. I don't know why you can't just admit that the CRA had a role in the fall too.
When did I ever say that it didn't?

Many blind sheep that listen to pundits blame the crisis on the CRA. You can find that all over this board.

Facts and intellectual thought paints a very different picture. Sorry, the facts claim that your hysteria is wrong and leaves many with nothing to do but post pictures and videos.