rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 9, 2012 14:30:32 GMT -5
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 9, 2012 14:31:58 GMT -5
NOOOO!!!! I need more time. Get the government out of the mortgage mess, I need the market to stay crappy for a few more years.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Feb 9, 2012 14:59:06 GMT -5
The settlement helps "turn the page" on "recklessness" and abusive practices by banks that led to the housing crisis, President Barack Obama told reporters in remarks at the White House
The prez left out the part about the reckless and abusive practices of the federal govt in mandating lending to unqualified borrowers.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Feb 9, 2012 15:05:55 GMT -5
The settlement helps "turn the page" on "recklessness" and abusive practices by banks that led to the housing crisis, President Barack Obama told reporters in remarks at the White House The prez left out the part about the reckless and abusive practices of the federal govt in mandating lending to unqualified borrowers. I've never understood this part. Did the federal govt really mandate that banks lend these dollars, or did they mandate that FNMA would buy up the loans? I understand if it's the second, it'd lead to the first anyway because a bank would need to be stupid to leave that free governement cheese on the table.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Feb 9, 2012 15:09:12 GMT -5
Basically the banks have to lend some amount to 'low income' individuals, this is the basic mandate, beyond that the 'understanding' was that in some way the federal government was backing up all these bad loans.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Feb 9, 2012 15:10:52 GMT -5
Basically the banks have to lend some amount to 'low income' individuals, this is the basic mandate, beyond that the 'understanding' was that in some way the federal government was backing up all these bad loans. What law was it that made banks lend a certain amount to 'low income' individuals? Anyone have a link to the pdf for it?
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 9, 2012 19:20:08 GMT -5
The prez left out the part about the reckless and abusive practices of the federal govt in mandating lending to unqualified borrowers. He probably left it out because it didn't happen.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 9, 2012 19:26:46 GMT -5
Basically the banks have to lend some amount to 'low income' individuals, this is the basic mandate, beyond that the 'understanding' was that in some way the federal government was backing up all these bad loans. What law was it that made banks lend a certain amount to 'low income' individuals? Anyone have a link to the pdf for it? No such law. I also wonder where it was written that banks have to loan 300K or more to some midnight cable speculator on a no doc interest only mortgage that was looking to cash in on the bubble? But that can't be the problem can it- somehow the poor people or the democrats have to be to blame- can't be the banks, can't be the brokers, can't be wall street- yep- poor minorities in cheap houses brought down the country.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 9, 2012 19:32:30 GMT -5
can't be the banks, can't be the brokers, can't be wall street- yep- poor minorities in cheap houses brought down the country. Hey, in this area 300K was a cheap house during the boom, all the decent ones were double that.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 9, 2012 20:12:55 GMT -5
I don't get it...a bank is a business and a hospital is a business, so what right does our government have to butt its nose into any business? In the case of the banks, when you show up in DC begging for money to keep your industry from imploding you kind of lose the right to complain when the government decides to crack down on the crap that you did which drove your businesses to the brink of collapse.
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Feb 9, 2012 21:08:02 GMT -5
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 9, 2012 21:13:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jarhead1976 on Feb 9, 2012 21:33:32 GMT -5
Angelo Mozilo , and the "FOA" all connected to Freddie and Fannie.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Feb 9, 2012 21:44:44 GMT -5
That doesn't explain anything at all other than point out we had a lofty goal. It did mention one factor- predatory loans and brokers writing up anything and everything that came across their desks. The majority of this failure is on wall street and lenders that didn't give a shit and kept the party going. Let's see- I can't find anyone that will rent me an apartment because I have bad credit and no job, but you want to sell me a HOUSE? Hmmm OK.
|
|
nllsq
Initiate Member
Joined: Aug 14, 2011 15:15:50 GMT -5
Posts: 93
|
Post by nllsq on Feb 9, 2012 22:50:18 GMT -5
NOOOO!!!! I need more time. Get the government out of the mortgage mess, I need the market to stay crappy for a few more years. Don't worry: the market will stay crappy because the politicians keep prolonging the agony as opposed to letting the foreclosures clear.
|
|
nllsq
Initiate Member
Joined: Aug 14, 2011 15:15:50 GMT -5
Posts: 93
|
Post by nllsq on Feb 9, 2012 22:55:53 GMT -5
Basically the banks have to lend some amount to 'low income' individuals, this is the basic mandate, beyond that the 'understanding' was that in some way the federal government was backing up all these bad loans. What law was it that made banks lend a certain amount to 'low income' individuals? Anyone have a link to the pdf for it? It is the CRA, Community Reinvestment Act. Banks were (still are) scrutinized and expected to provide loans in proportion to ethnicity in the area (hence, the "community"). If it happened that a group could not have enough qualified borrowers, tough for the bank. It has to give loans in proportion, otherwise will be sanctioned for discrimination. The banks understood that this was the cost of doing business, made the bad loans, and then gladly unloaded them. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act"The CRA was passed as a result of national pressure to address the deteriorating conditions of American cities—particularly lower-income and minority neighborhoods. Community activists, such as Gale Cincotta of National People's Action in Chicago, had led the national fight to pass, and later to enforce the Act."
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Feb 10, 2012 8:21:16 GMT -5
What law was it that made banks lend a certain amount to 'low income' individuals? Anyone have a link to the pdf for it? It is the CRA, Community Reinvestment Act. Banks were (still are) scrutinized and expected to provide loans in proportion to ethnicity in the area (hence, the "community"). If it happened that a group could not have enough qualified borrowers, tough for the bank. It has to give loans in proportion, otherwise will be sanctioned for discrimination. The banks understood that this was the cost of doing business, made the bad loans, and then gladly unloaded them. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act"The CRA was passed as a result of national pressure to address the deteriorating conditions of American cities—particularly lower-income and minority neighborhoods. Community activists, such as Gale Cincotta of National People's Action in Chicago, had led the national fight to pass, and later to enforce the Act." Key repeated phrase from the linked wiki:
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Feb 10, 2012 8:28:08 GMT -5
If you are going to bailout auto companies, GREEN companies, and banks, then the head honchos at those institutions need to take their salary in stock ONLY. If they make a success, the stock is worth money and they get the rewards but if they piss it away, especially on high salaries and bonuses for themselves, this would alleviate that abuse.
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Feb 10, 2012 9:44:57 GMT -5
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 10, 2012 10:05:26 GMT -5
While it is and will never be possible to determine the exact cause and effect of all the variables that influenced this crisis from most things I read on this subject most people believe that there were many factors that happened within our government including bad legislation forcing lending institutions to do certain things, insufficient oversight in other areas along with a failure to listen or react to warnings and indicators that contributed to this bubble or crisis. But many decisions made decades before like our free trade agreement with China that resulted in 28% of our high tech manufacturing jobs moving over seas in a ten year period of time mostly likely was a huge in direct contributor as well.
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Feb 10, 2012 10:07:17 GMT -5
you left out unbridled greed and immorality
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Feb 10, 2012 10:16:07 GMT -5
While it is and will never be possible to determine the exact cause and effect of all the variables that influenced this crisis from most things I read on this subject most people believe that there were many factors that happened within our government including bad legislation forcing lending institutions to do certain things, insufficient oversight in other areas along with a failure to listen or react to warnings and indicators that contributed to this bubble or crisis. But many decisions made decades before like our free trade agreement with China that resulted in 28% of our high tech manufacturing jobs moving over seas in a ten year period of time mostly likely was a huge in direct contributor as well. Are you one of those 'most'? If so, what legislation do you think forced banks to do 'certain things' and what were those things?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 9:13:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2012 10:21:42 GMT -5
Don't forget HGTV, A&E, and any other network that had those "flipping" shows that gave the average homeowner they nutty idea that they could get rich quick by buying a house, fixing it up a bit, and selling it for a huge profit....
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Feb 10, 2012 10:52:43 GMT -5
That doesn't explain anything at all other than point out we had a lofty goal. It did mention one factor- predatory loans and brokers writing up anything and everything that came across their desks. The majority of this failure is on wall street and lenders that didn't give a shit and kept the party going. Let's see- I can't find anyone that will rent me an apartment because I have bad credit and no job, but you want to sell me a HOUSE? Hmmm OK. Actually the rating companies like Moody's had a huge part. I believe the rating companies were established by a bill passed in congress. I am not 100 percent on this, but I will have to double check.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 10, 2012 10:56:14 GMT -5
Are you one of those 'most'? If so, what legislation do you think forced banks to do 'certain things' and what were those things?
Some of the links above talk about different legislation that had this affect including the Community Reinvestment Act and I really wasn't involved or close enough to some of things to be part of the "most" just going by what I have researched and read.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 10, 2012 10:59:28 GMT -5
As everyone should be able to see from these various posts there may have been a trigger that broke the camels back but this crisis was without much doubt a result of many various factors that probably contributed but would be very difficult to prove an absolute or direct result from most.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Feb 10, 2012 11:02:08 GMT -5
That doesn't explain anything at all other than point out we had a lofty goal. It did mention one factor- predatory loans and brokers writing up anything and everything that came across their desks. The majority of this failure is on wall street and lenders that didn't give a shit and kept the party going. Let's see- I can't find anyone that will rent me an apartment because I have bad credit and no job, but you want to sell me a HOUSE? Hmmm OK. Actually the rating companies like Moody's had a huge part. I believe the rating companies were established by a bill passed in congress. I am not 100 percent on this, but I will have to double check. ok, I was wrong on that bill I am not sure where I got that. Must have been my creative part of my brain. I think a lot had to deal with regulations not being enforced, like sarbanes-oxly.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Feb 10, 2012 11:08:10 GMT -5
Are you one of those 'most'? If so, what legislation do you think forced banks to do 'certain things' and what were those things? Some of the links above talk about different legislation that had this affect including the Community Reinvestment Act and I really wasn't involved or close enough to some of things to be part of the "most" just going by what I have researched and read.Have you read in the CRA where it specifically states that banks are (edit to delete the not that I should not have had here)required to make loans that would have an adverse financial impact on them? I have. You should before you use it as support for the 'banks were forced to make bad loans' meme. I have no doubt you've read plenty of what others have written about this. What I'm interested in is whether you have researched any of the claims that have been made to see if there is truth in them. To me this looks like a case of repeat a lie (the banks had to make bad loans) often enough and people will believe it. Edited in italics.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 10, 2012 11:34:58 GMT -5
Again your interpretation of any statement in a law is just that. I have read many various opposing views on this subject and it seems to me that most support the idea that this legislation "forced" banks to do things they normally would not have done. For one thing may times one does not even know what will have an or what would be the definition of "adverse financial impact" until a court of law hears and rules to determine what they think this actually means. Secondly you will find I do not support the idea that one factor caused the crisis but many factors including some that happened many years prior. I do not defend the banks or their actions but I also choose not to support many of the actions taken by our elected officials.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Feb 10, 2012 11:50:49 GMT -5
Again your interpretation of any statement in a law is just that. When was the first time you wrote your interpretation of any statement in a law is just that? So if enough bank shills are writing enough columns interpreting the law wrong, then the banks were forced to do something the law didn't force them to do. Got it. So the bank made a business decision that it would be better to loan money to anyone that could fog a mirror rather than take a chance they would have to defend their actions the next time they wanted to expand or merge. Understood and agreed there was not a single cause. saying banks were forced to lend money due to unworthy clients due the the CRA just isn't a valid one.
|
|