Economic GROWTH: Trump rolling back Dodd Frank! (independent, paycheck, employees)

[WilliamSmyth]

Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry

It's not just GSE but all horrible loans. Not just CRA specific but CRA type of loans which were 3 percent down or less.

"The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages."

We know this, in 2007 1 in 3 mortgages were 3 percent down or less. That 45 percent of all first time mortgages, defined as not having a mortgage in the last three years, were no money down.

When the Fed lowered interest rates to next to nothing for all is that the free market or a managed market? I'm getting a 5% offer from the Fed so I can't make money or it's not a good risk to offer sub prime loans. I'm getting a 1% offer so now I'll take a chance on sub prime loans. Don't entice lenders by lowering standards.

Don't forget those who refinance. No need/enticement to refinance when interest rates are X but now that they are .2X why not refinance? Demand artificially created.

Plus more proof lenders were pressured.

"Our empirical strategy compares lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that do not face these exams. We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks: in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams lending is elevated on average by about 5 percent every quarter and loans in these quarters default by about 15 percent more often. These patterns are accentuated in CRA-eligible census tracts and are concentrated among large banks. The effects are strongest during the time period when the market for private securitization was booming."

"the CRA exam induces lending to riskier borrowers both in CRA eligible tracts as well as to low-income borrowers in non-CRA-eligible tracts."
Exact same bad loan but not considered CRA.

Why make those loans if they weren't under pressure?

"Under the rules, banks are banned from denying or raising the cost of banking to residents of low-income and minority neighborhoods. Banks also get graded based on how much credit they provide for mortgages and apartments as well as how many branches they have in low-income areas. In other words, banks aren't allowed to cater only to rich customers."

"But as banks expanded their deposit bases and other businesses, they often found that they were at risk of regulators discovering they had fallen behind in making CRA loans.

One way of addressing this problem was buying the loans in the secondary market. Mortgage companies like Countrywide began to serve this entirely artificial demand for CRA loans. Countrywide marketed its loans directly to banks as a way for them to meet CRA obligations."

Which banks do not fall under those regulations? non FDIC banks? How many of those are around?
And what about those that did not CURRENTLY fall under those regulations?

Regulators threatened that if the mortgage companies didn't step up to the plate by relaxing lending standards they would be brought under the CRA umbrella and required to do so.

"Freddie Mac began an "alternative qualifying" program with the Sears Mortgage Corporation that let a borrower qualify for a loan with a monthly payment as high as 50 percent of his income, at a time when most private mortgage companies wouldn't exceed 33 percent. The program also allowed borrowers with bad credit to get mortgages if they took credit-counseling classes administered by Acorn and other nonprofits. Subsequent research would show that such classes have little impact on default rates."

Clinton administration pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities or they'd seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers.

"In Congress, Representative Maxine Waters called financial firms not covered by the CRA "among the most egregious redliners." To rebuff the criticism, the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) shocked the financial world by signing a 1994 agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), pledging to increase lending to minorities and join in new efforts to rewrite lending standards. The first MBA member to sign up: Countrywide Financial"

All created with government mischief.

"Which banks do not fall under those regulations?"
Bear Streans, Lehman Bros, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, etc.

They are important not only because CRA or CRA type regulations don't apply to them but they also created great demand for subprime loans. At the height of the bubble they were buying over 80% of the subprime.

Notice they were also the institutions whose failure along with AIG (critical player in non agency lending) resulted in the systemic risk and the credit crisis.

"How many of those are around?"
Not many now. Almost all got wiped out because of their failed strategies. Either they failed or were bought. The landscape now is totally different now then it was pre-2008.

Goldman Sachs survived because they saw what was coming and used derivatives to place bets against companies like their partner AIG and the crapping products Goldman Sachs were selling to their customers. Let me reemphasize the last point. Goldman Sachs sold CDOs to their customers that they knew were going fail. Knowing this they bet against their own CDOs so that they would get paid when the failed. There is the free market for you. Caveat emptor!

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth

"Which banks do not fall under those regulations?"
Bear Streans, Lehman Bros, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, etc.

They are important not only because CRA or CRA type regulations don't apply to them but they also created great demand for subprime loans. At the height of the bubble they were buying over 80% of the subprime.

Notice they were also the institutions whose failure along with AIG (critical player in non agency lending) resulted in the systemic risk and the credit crisis.

"How many of those are around?"
Not many now. Almost all got wiped out because of their failed strategies. Either they failed or were bought. The landscape now is totally different now then it was pre-2008.

Goldman Sachs survived because they saw what was coming and used derivatives to place bets against companies like their partner AIG and the crapping products Goldman Sachs were selling to their customers. Let me reemphasize the last point. Goldman Sachs sold CDOs to their customers that they knew were going fail. Knowing this they bet against their own CDOs so that they would get paid when the failed. There is the free market for you. Caveat emptor!

really..??

goldman won't fall under the BANKING rules??? Goldman Sachs was founded in 1869 in NYC as a BANK

Bear Stearns a 1923 BANK, and part of JPMorgan...a BANK

Lehman Bros.... a bank...one of the original FED banks


GS didnt have anything to do with the crisis

GS or GLB wouldnt have done a thing

gs/glb had zero to due with bad loans secured by the government

gs/glb had very liitle to do with the housing bubble, that started in 1995....


yes GS was a stupid thing....but it was BEFORE GS...gs had very little to do with the housing crash, gs had very little to due with "too big to fail"

gs was 1999


they(banks) became 'too big to fail' before the repealing of G-S

1987 chemical bank merged into jp morgan
1992 manufactorers hanover and trust into jp morgan
1996 chase manhattin into jp morgan
1993 Banc one into JPmorgan
1995 first chicago into jpmorgan
1995 NDBancorp into jpmorgan

1988 fleet into norstar... into bank of america
1990 bank of new england into BOA
1990 Citizens into BOA

1998 travelrs into citi

1987 first fidelity into wells fargo
1996 Meridian Bancorp into wells fargo
1997 signet into first union into wells fargo
1988 barclays into wells fargo


yes some happend after gs.. but the 'too big to fail' happend before Gs

these BANK mergers all happened BEFORE 2000 and the repealing of glass-stegal (the grammleachy)

the redoing of the mortgage rules....1995 by the HUD chief...henry cisnero's at the direction of clinton

nafta (and all the other 'free'trade agreements )has cost the USA 40 million jobs since 1994.......certainly not part of GS...



GS had nothing to due with the housing bubble...the bubble/bust was GOVERNMENT CAUSED... banks are NOT going to lend to people that cant pay UNLESS they are DIRECTED to from the GOVERNMENT..




Merrill Lynch the bought and sold securities...the packages that fannie/Freddie packaged for sale of crappy cra mortgages



think about the FED itself

Ben Bernanke forecast :

ben Jan 2007: It is hard to imagine any time in history when such rampant pessimism about the economy has existed with so little evidence of serious trouble.

Ben in May 2007: The subprime mess is grave but largely contained, said Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke

Ben In March 2007: Bernanke had said that the problems in the subprime market would only “reduce somewhat the effective demand for housing.”

Ben in May 2007: “Importantly, we see no serious broader spillover to banks or thrift institutions from the problems in the subprime market... ,” Bernanke said.

Ben in Jan 2008: Now that the Fed has cut interest rates by 175 basis points, the odds of a huge surge in growth later in 2008 have grown. The biggest threat to the economy is still inflation, not recession.

Ben in Feb 2008: Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Thursday that the USA will avoid a recession. The US economy will be sluggish in coming months before picking up later this year.


the problem ALWAYS was the government...

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth

"Which banks do not fall under those regulations?"
Bear Streans, Lehman Bros, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, etc.

They all failed and they didn't combine commercial with investment banking either.

Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth

They are important not only because CRA or CRA type regulations don't apply to them but they also created great demand for subprime loans. At the height of the bubble they were buying over 80% of the subprime.

Of course they applied to them. You didn't respond to what I posted.
You don't think this matters? Why?

"But as banks expanded their deposit bases and other businesses, they often found that they were at risk of regulators discovering they had fallen behind in making CRA loans.

One way of addressing this problem was buying the loans in the secondary market. Mortgage companies like Countrywide began to serve this entirely artificial demand for CRA loans. Countrywide marketed its loans directly to banks as a way for them to meet CRA obligations."

"Regulators threatened that if the mortgage companies didn't step up to the plate by relaxing lending standards they would be brought under the CRA umbrella and required to do so.

Clinton administration pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities or they'd seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers."

Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth

Notice they were also the institutions whose failure along with AIG (critical player in non agency lending) resulted in the systemic risk and the credit crisis.

"How many of those are around?"
Not many now. Almost all got wiped out because of their failed strategies. Either they failed or were bought. The landscape now is totally different now then it was pre-2008.

I don't understand what this has to do with what I posted. I wasn't referring to a pre vs post 2008.

Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth

Goldman Sachs survived because they saw what was coming and used derivatives to place bets against companies like their partner AIG and the crapping products Goldman Sachs were selling to their customers. Let me reemphasize the last point. Goldman Sachs sold CDOs to their customers that they knew were going fail. Knowing this they bet against their own CDOs so that they would get paid when the failed.

Goldman Sachs survived because they got bailed out.

Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth

There is the free market for you. Caveat emptor!

lol Managed market.

[WilliamSmyth]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

really..??

goldman won't fall under the BANKING rules??? Goldman Sachs was founded in 1869 in NYC as a BANK

Bear Stearns a 1923 BANK, and part of JPMorgan...a BANK

Lehman Bros.... a bank...one of the original FED banks


GS didnt have anything to do with the crisis

GS or GLB wouldnt have done a thing

gs/glb had zero to due with bad loans secured by the government

gs/glb had very liitle to do with the housing bubble, that started in 1995....


yes GS was a stupid thing....but it was BEFORE GS...gs had very little to do with the housing crash, gs had very little to due with "too big to fail"

gs was 1999


they(banks) became 'too big to fail' before the repealing of G-S

1987 chemical bank merged into jp morgan
1992 manufactorers hanover and trust into jp morgan
1996 chase manhattin into jp morgan
1993 Banc one into JPmorgan
1995 first chicago into jpmorgan
1995 NDBancorp into jpmorgan

1988 fleet into norstar... into bank of america
1990 bank of new england into BOA
1990 Citizens into BOA

1998 travelrs into citi

1987 first fidelity into wells fargo
1996 Meridian Bancorp into wells fargo
1997 signet into first union into wells fargo
1988 barclays into wells fargo


yes some happend after gs.. but the 'too big to fail' happend before Gs

these BANK mergers all happened BEFORE 2000 and the repealing of glass-stegal (the grammleachy)

the redoing of the mortgage rules....1995 by the HUD chief...henry cisnero's at the direction of clinton

nafta (and all the other 'free'trade agreements )has cost the USA 40 million jobs since 1994.......certainly not part of GS...



GS had nothing to due with the housing bubble...the bubble/bust was GOVERNMENT CAUSED... banks are NOT going to lend to people that cant pay UNLESS they are DIRECTED to from the GOVERNMENT..




Merrill Lynch the bought and sold securities...the packages that fannie/Freddie packaged for sale of crappy cra mortgages



think about the FED itself

Ben Bernanke forecast :

ben Jan 2007: It is hard to imagine any time in history when such rampant pessimism about the economy has existed with so little evidence of serious trouble.

Ben in May 2007: The subprime mess is grave but largely contained, said Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke

Ben In March 2007: Bernanke had said that the problems in the subprime market would only “reduce somewhat the effective demand for housing.”

Ben in May 2007: “Importantly, we see no serious broader spillover to banks or thrift institutions from the problems in the subprime market... ,” Bernanke said.

Ben in Jan 2008: Now that the Fed has cut interest rates by 175 basis points, the odds of a huge surge in growth later in 2008 have grown. The biggest threat to the economy is still inflation, not recession.

Ben in Feb 2008: Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Thursday that the USA will avoid a recession. The US economy will be sluggish in coming months before picking up later this year.


the problem ALWAYS was the government...

Ignoring most of the post because why bother. Yes, investment banks are banks. But they are not the type of bank covered by the government affordable housing mandates. If you don't care to understand the difference then you don't care enough to understand the issue.

[WilliamSmyth]

Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry

They all failed and they didn't combine commercial with investment banking either.

I never claimed they did combine commercial and investment banking. The significance is important because as investment banks they are not covered by the government affordable housing mandates.

What is your point with the above statement?

Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry

Of course they applied to them. You didn't respond to what I posted.
You don't think this matters? Why?

"But as banks expanded their deposit bases and other businesses, they often found that they were at risk of regulators discovering they had fallen behind in making CRA loans.

One way of addressing this problem was buying the loans in the secondary market. Mortgage companies like Countrywide began to serve this entirely artificial demand for CRA loans. Countrywide marketed its loans directly to banks as a way for them to meet CRA obligations."

"Regulators threatened that if the mortgage companies didn't step up to the plate by relaxing lending standards they would be brought under the CRA umbrella and required to do so.

Clinton administration pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities or they'd seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers."

The largest buyers of subprime by far, not even close, were banks not covered by the CRA.
No threats were required for investment banks to buy subprime because it was extremely profitable for them to do so. Think about it. If the the government came to you and said to you that must engage in this legal activity where you personally are making millions of dollars a year your response would be what? Oh, how horrible I must make a couple of million.

Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry

I don't understand what this has to do with what I posted. I wasn't referring to a pre vs post 2008.

Goldman Sachs survived because they got bailed out.

lol Managed market.

[J746NEW]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

I am no defending the investment bankers...their job is to make money for the shareholders...that is their ONLY job


the fact is that had the government not eased the standards... that made for bad paper (bad mortgages) ...then there would not have been bad packages in the MBS's


the bankers (private, commercial, and even the scary shadow) invest/trade money or securities to do what?..... make money..... the government forced bad loans...those bad loans were packaged as 'sweet deals' and that is the rest of the story


the MBS problem was due to bad paper packages, of loans directed by the government

Nonsense.
The bankers responsibility is also to serve their customers and their community.

I wonder how you would like iif we declared all households and families should be run like a business with the only responsibility is to gathering wealth only for the family?

That means noone is responsible except for their own interests.
We can get rid of the military then.

[J746NEW]

Originally Posted by Freak80

Poor black people were responsible for the 08 housing crisis and related economic collapse, because the government forced banks to give them mortgages.

Reckless bankers had nothing to do with it.

That’s what I heard from Fox News, so it’s The Truth.

Yep.
There were millions of protestors screaming for cheap housiing and loans.

Oh wait, that never happened.

What happened is the banksters own both parties and they profit from this arrangement everytime.
The banksters are the government.

[ChiGeekGuest]

Originally Posted by J746NEW

Yep.
There were millions of protestors screaming for cheap housiing and loans.

Oh wait, that never happened.

What happened is the banksters own both parties and they profit from this arrangement everytime.
The banksters are the government.

They're the 'shadowy' 4th branch.

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth

Ignoring most of the post because why bother. Yes, investment banks are banks. But they are not the type of bank covered by the government affordable housing mandates. If you don't care to understand the difference then you don't care enough to understand the issue.

maybe I am not explaining it clearly


those "investment" banks ( yes they are not the type of bank covered by the government affordable housing mandates ) bought MBE's ...packaged mortgages, that the GOVERNMENT said (fannies packages then ) were good, under HUD,FRA,CRA standards


but the packagers lied as they were crap mortgages

and those "investment banks' ended up buying soup-sandwiches (military slang for all messed up) that they were promised by the government were "diamonds in the rough"

[WilliamSmyth]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

maybe I am not explaining it clearly


those "investment" banks ( yes they are not the type of bank covered by the government affordable housing mandates ) bought MBE's ...packaged mortgages, that the GOVERNMENT said (fannies packages then ) were good, under HUD,FRA,CRA standards


but the packagers lied as they were crap mortgages

and those "investment banks' ended up buying soup-sandwiches (military slang for all messed up) that they were promised by the government were "diamonds in the rough"

The investment banks themselves were doing 60% of the packaging at the height of the bubble. The GSEs' (which includes Fannie) share of the packaging had fallen to 40%. At the height of the bubble over 80% of the subprime mortgages were being packaged by the investment banks. The investment banks intentionally wanted subprime, because it was subprime mortgages that were of most value to the investment banks. One of the reasons the GSEs were losing market share to the investment banks was because even with the GSEs lower standards most of the new subprime being generated were below the GSE standard. The investment banks were not limited to the GSE standard.