Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-18-2015, 05:49 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,006 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13709

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrexDigit View Post
I am speaking to their flawed math -- not FM documents.

The math that their entire premise is based on.
The math that dictates their hyper-inflated Alt-A and subprime #'s.
What makes you think the #'s are inflated? Fannie Mae admitted to setting up programs with all their "best lenders" (including Countrywide) to buy exactly those types of loans to meet the HUD mandate.

And people wonder why Mozilo never went to jail.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-18-2015, 05:56 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,006 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13709
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
The GSE had an upper limit on the size of the loans they would take, they also would not take loans less than 97 LTV, if there was a FICO rating then there was a minimum level they would not go below and if there wasn't a FICO score they required other assessments of the credit risk (as the document you have referenced stated).
No FICO score = subprime

It really is that simple.

Quote:
"The term "subprime" refers to the credit characteristics of individual borrowers. Subprime borrowers typically have weakened credit histories that include payment delinquencies, and possibly more severe problems such as charge-offs, judgments, and bankruptcies. They may also display reduced repayment capacity as measured by credit scores, debt-to-income ratios, or other criteria that may encompass borrowers with incomplete credit histories. Subprime loans are loans to borrowers displaying one or more of these characteristics at the time of origination or purchase. Such loans have a higher risk of default than loans to prime borrowers."
https://www.fdic.gov/about/comein/background.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 07:26 AM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
7,605 posts, read 4,845,391 times
Reputation: 1438
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No FICO score = subprime

It really is that simple.

https://www.fdic.gov/about/comein/background.html
Really Just too funny.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 07:29 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,006 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13709
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
Really Just too funny.
Funny that you didn't know that no FICO score and an incomplete credit history = subprime (it's certainly not prime)? I'd say that's rather sad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 07:56 AM
 
Location: Texas
37,949 posts, read 17,865,154 times
Reputation: 10371
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Hmmm... Higher increase in home ownership after the Clinton Admin lowered lending standards and introduced higher LTV (97%) loans. Higher increase in loans. Under Bush? Much lower increase. What are you not getting?
There were more loans made under Bush than Clinton.
Again You never showed how many little to no down payment loans were made.
We know that 1 in 3 loans were little to no money down in 2006. What percentage of those type of loans were made under Clinton? You don't think that matters?
You haven't responded to this once yet and showed that number.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 08:05 AM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,738,058 times
Reputation: 20674
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
Because you are trying to make it seem they weren't rejecting any loans which is not accurate.
Here we go again.

FNMA/ FHLMC market share substantially declined as the bubble inflated because fewer loans qualified for their securitization programs. Instead, Wall Street was buying whole loans from issuers and slicing, dicing and packaging PRIVATE LABEL securities.

The independent credit rating agencies assigned AAA ratings to many of these securities which made them investment grade. ( after the shift hit the fan, these independent rating agencies blamed their faulty ratings on " computer glitches" ) As a result, in the never ending quest for higher ROI, public and private pension and retirement plans, insurance companies, mutual funds and banks bought these private label securities.

Given the substantial loss of market share as the bubble inflated, FNMA/ FNMA invested their capital in AAA rated private label MBS derivitives securities. It was the losses associated with these investments, not securitization, that caused FNMA/ FHLMC to fail.

In effect, the most conservative investors, not government, were funding the worst of the sub prime loans and did so because of the AAA credit rating assigned by independent rating agencies.

Unlike publicly- traded securities, pricing of private label securities is less than transparent. The big name investment bankers, Bear Stearns, Lehman Bros, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Merril Lynch could churn enough trades amongst their themselves to establish market value and in doing so, goose their own balance sheets. This is the same cast of characters who persuaded the SEC to obtain relief from established Net Capital Rules allowing them to further leverage their balance sheets.

This house of cards began to collapse as it became apparent these private label securities were not delivering the expected ROI and in fact were junk bonds in AAA rated sheep's clothing. Intra-day and overnight credit makes the world go around. When credit is withheld, the game is over. Lehman filing for bankruptcy set off panic in the global financial markets. The rest is history.

It is important to understand that there was a global real estate bubble. This was in no way limited to the U.S. South Africa, New Zealand, Ireland, Iceland and so on, experienced unprecedented home and commercial real estate appreciation, no different than Japan, 15 years earlier. Real estate drove the global economy for a blip in time.

Our friends to the north, Canada are still functioning within their own bubble. They, like the U.S. have an assortment of government sponsored loan programs for low income earners. What Canada does not have is the massive speculative interests that drove the U.S. housing bubble.

Hank Paulson, summed up the U.S. situatio the best, when he said words to the effect of "too many were making too much money to question it. " This is mania.

As for the too big to fail thing, the seeds for repealing a portion of Glass Steagall were sown by Greenspan, beginning in the 80's. He diligently worked Congress until a majority agreed to let it rip. Regardless, the federal government has a strong track record of bailing out the private sector, rail roads, auto manufacturer, the Savings and Loan industry and so on when the consequences not not doing so are greater than doing so.

We seem to forget or never realized or were to young to recall the U.S. Government was up to their eyeballs in the S&L crisis in the 80's- early 90's which required a massive infusion of government funds.

Lastly, no one put a gun to the heads of people who sucked the paper equity out of their homes to live substantially beyond their means and drove the economy for a blip in time. Take note that Texas state laws severely restricted home equity loans which at the time did not make a lot of Texans happy. Yet, Texas did not experience the rate of foreclosures nor loss of value home values near as much as they did in most other areas of the country. This is an example of government regulation protecting the best interests of the people, whether they like it or not.

Last edited by middle-aged mom; 09-18-2015 at 08:14 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 08:15 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,006 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
There were more loans made under Bush than Clinton.
Home ownership grew more under Clinton than Bush. More homes owned = more loans.

The high LTV/no established credit loans were a Clinton-era GSE thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 08:18 AM
 
Location: Texas
37,949 posts, read 17,865,154 times
Reputation: 10371
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom View Post
Lastly, no one put a gun to the heads of people who sucked the paper equity out of their homes to live substantially beyond their means and drove the economy for a blip in time. Take note that Texas state laws severely restricted home equity loans which at the time did not make a lot of Texans happy. Yet, Texas did not experience the rate of foreclosures nor loss of value home values near as much as they did in most other areas of the country. This is an example of government regulation protecting the best interests of the people, whether they like it or not.
If government didn't get involved in lowering the standards we wouldn't have been in this mess in the first place.

The Texas experience presents an important case study, in part because of a unique state law. Texas is the only state with a regulation limiting home equity borrowing. After purchase, mortgage debt along with any new borrowing—including home equity loans—cannot exceed 80 percent of a home’s market value unless the new debt funds home improvements.

1997:
Texas voters passed a constitutional amendment allowing closed-end home equity loans effective Jan. 1, 1998. It stipulated that a home equity loan plus the primary mortgage be less than 80 percent of the value of the home.

https://www.dallasfed.org/assets/doc...3/swe1303b.pdf

What gives? I'm in Texas and I received a mortgage with 5 percent down in 2003. Something in the wording about closed end?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 08:23 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,006 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
If government didn't get involved in lowering the standards we wouldn't have been in this mess in the first place.
That is exactly correct.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-18-2015, 08:24 AM
 
Location: Texas
37,949 posts, read 17,865,154 times
Reputation: 10371
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Home ownership grew more under Clinton than Bush. More homes owned = more loans.

The high LTV/no established credit loans were a Clinton-era GSE thing.
Again You never showed how many little to no down payment loans were made. We know that 1 in 3 loans were little to no money down in 2006. What percentage of those type of loans were made under Clinton? You don't think that matters?
You haven't responded to this once yet and showed that number.

All of this is what matters imo as far as to when the breaking point was reached. I believe we are in agreement as to the entity that caused it.

Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 09-18-2015 at 08:32 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:47 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top