Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In other words, you've got nothing. No experience in the industry, no experience in government. Just the ability to ignore facts that don't fit your tidy little narrative. I have thirty years experience in the business and you are just another keyboard warrior.
Gee. another round of vapid personal attacks. How utterly unsurprising. Meanwhile, the histories you have purported here are simply made up rubbish. Putting some muscle behind CRA only opened the door for traditional lenders to explore what had long been underserved markets. What they found there was vast new pools of profit potential. Nobody had to force the industry to move forward from there.
Gee. another round of vapid personal attacks. How utterly unsurprising. Meanwhile, the histories you have purported here are simply made up rubbish. Putting some muscle behind CRA only opened the door for traditional lenders to explore what had long been underserved markets. What they found there was vast new pools of profit potential. Nobody had to force the industry to move forward from there.
Let's see. You have no experience in either the industry or in the halls of the government entities regulating the industry, and yet you're accusing me of making things up whole cloth: You have zero knowledge or understanding of went on from 1996 onward. Nothing. Zip. Bupkis. Yet you want to discount the people who were actually in the middle of it all, and saw the collapse coming years in advance. You know all those writers you likely are reading on the subject? They were all caught flat-footed when the actual crisis erupted. As early as 2002 when the warning bells were starting to ring, I bet you were listening to fools such as Barney Frank instead, who thought the bubble could inflate forever.
So, yeah, you deserve all the scorn I'm heaping on you. You don't know squat about how the regulators suddenly started reinterpreting the CRA in a completely new way in order to fulfill some kind of bizarre fly-by-night brainchild.
Again, answer the question. What is your actual working knowledge of this? Not what you read in Mother Jones News or some such rag, written by journalists who have never spent a nanosecond in a bank other than to deposit a check. Real experience. Let's hear it.
Temper, temper. You have simply over-played your low-grade hand from the outset. Your claims are all comprised of worthless "alternative facts". In the real world, there were no post-1996 federal changes that had any of the effects that you have suggested. There was no pressure brought at any time on covered institutions to lend to unqualified borrowers. The National Home Ownership Strategy was a non-binding academic exercise. HUD goals for the GSEs barely kept up with what the industry had been doing anyway. GLB and CFMA had none of the effects that partisan reactionaries try to ascribe to them.
What actually did happen was that the Russian and Asian financial crises of the late 1990's created a lot of new liquidity, at the same time generating investment losses that ravaged the finance companies that had been torturing low-income and red-lined borrowers for decades. Into that vacuum rushed ambitious but unscrupulous and unregulated private brokers (Countrywide, Ameriquest, 20th Century Financial, etc.) who hooked up with Wall Street's newly expanded private-label securitizing networks to push new products into primary markets and then make huge profits and bonuses by selling their unfiltered wares into yield-starved secondary markets. That worked out well for everyone for a while, but then it caused the credit crisis that morphed unchecked into the Great Recession. That's where it all came from.
Temper, temper. You have simply over-played your low-grade hand from the outset. Your claims are all comprised of worthless "alternative facts". In the real world, there were no post-1996 federal changes that had any of the effects that you have suggested. There was no pressure brought at any time on covered institutions to lend to unqualified borrowers. The National Home Ownership Strategy was a non-binding academic exercise. HUD goals for the GSEs barely kept up with what the industry had been doing anyway. GLB and CFMA had none of the effects that partisan reactionaries try to ascribe to them.
What actually did happen was that the Russian and Asian financial crises of the late 1990's created a lot of new liquidity, at the same time generating investment losses that ravaged the finance companies that had been torturing low-income and red-lined borrowers for decades. Into that vacuum rushed ambitious but unscrupulous and unregulated private brokers (Countrywide, Ameriquest, 20th Century Financial, etc.) who hooked up with Wall Street's newly expanded private-label securitizing networks to push new products into primary markets and then make huge profits and bonuses by selling their unfiltered wares into yield-starved secondary markets. That worked out well for everyone for a while, but then it caused the credit crisis that morphed unchecked into the Great Recession. That's where it all came from.
Still bluffing I see. What is your background? You're dodging that question the way Donald Trump is dodging the release of his tax returns.
So just another round of feeble attempts at personal insult? This is completely unsurprising. As your claims all lie in rubble at this point, there is really nothing else left to you.
I wonder why there is even debates on these points.
It's already history and fact that the lack of responsibility - of the banks, brokers and ratings agencies - is what caused the bulk of the Great Recession.
We can wax poetic about some of the tiny details - but those are the facts. It was pure greed and predation.
I have lived through quite a bit of this - the same, to a degree, happened with the Savings and Loan Crisis in the 80's - loosen up the strings, allow banks to offload their risk, allow more chancy loans to chancy situations...and the whole thing blows up.
Again, I'm pretty sure you have no direct experience in this area, just scouring the internet for
Pub-911, when people make posts like this, they are "indirectly asking you the question" what are your qualifications?
You keep responding it's a personal attack. While it is a personal attack, it is not only a personal attack. It is an indirect question at the same time. Which you keep ignoring.
He is opening a situation for you to explain what your background experience is, too.
Aside from keep saying what his fairy tales, when other people say what years experience they have and with what field, it's also an indirect opener for you to explain yours.
You have a hard time understanding when people are actually saying 2 things, but you only respond to 1 of them.
Again, it's easy to say other people are wrong - much harder to show why they're wrong.
Why should anyone "just" take your word for anything without explanation?
Should we take the Bible for it's word, just because?
CRA has little to do with the housing bubble. I know about the 1995 amendment to the law which allowed subprime mortgages to be securitized. The reality is that the mortgages had to be repackaged into CDOs as investment-grade debt securities since the market for junk debt is only a small fraction of the total bond market.
I have lived through quite a bit of this - the same, to a degree, happened with the Savings and Loan Crisis in the 80's...
The S&L crisis was importantly related to an interest rate crunch -- they had to pay more to attract new deposits than they were earning on current investments. The response was to put money into ever more risky investments in hopes of pumping up yields and closing the gap. That didn't work well in the long run. The moving parts of the credit crisis were different from that.
Pub-911, when people make posts like this, they are "indirectly asking you the question" what are your qualifications?
The failures of cpg35223's claims are not related in any way to my "qualifications." They sink or swim on their own merits, and there has been a lot more sinking than swimming going on here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
