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.
Toyman at Jewel Lake, do you have data that proves that the housing debacle we're in now, were loans from the 1990s, mostly CRA... I will look forward to the source you draw your conclusions from.
Toyman at Jewel Lake, do you have data that proves that the housing debacle we're in now, were loans from the 1990s, mostly CRA... I will look forward to the source you draw your conclusions from.
No more, or less so, than you do. Even financial "experts" are debating the issue, seems as if no one knows for sure. Or to be more precise, most articles tend to spin the data in such a way that presents the arguement that they are trying to make. I try to take information from web sites that have some level of expertise in the field, not specifically "progressive" or "conservative" ones. Are you going to try to argue that CRA does not encourage practices that make risky loans more probable? If so, what would be that arguement? My primary arguement is that government backing of mortgages (via Fannie and Freddie), and the resulting buy-up of risky mortgages encourages banks to make loans that they would not if it were their own assets at risk.
No more, or less so, than you do. Even financial "experts" are debating the issue, seems as if no one knows for sure. Or to be more precise, most articles tend to spin the data in such a way that presents the arguement that they are trying to make. I try to take information from web sites that have some level of expertise in the field, not specifically "progressive" or "conservative" ones.
Let me guess then that you don't have anything to support your claims. I have yet to see factual data supporting the premise of loans originating in 1990s being the major source of housing debacle. There's plenty out there that proves my point, however. If you promise me to provide with one piece of real data that supports your point, I promise to provide you with at least one that debunks that myth. How about we start now?
If you don't provide that piece of information I asked for, we are clearly not going anywhere from lack of logic, and it will be your way of suggesting: we're done with the discussion.
I'm still waiting for Toyman to prove that my high school civics teacher (in Idaho!) was wrong. I was taught that the majority in Congress call the shots in that branch. Republicans had the White House and the majority in Congress during the exact years of the housing bubble, up to its peak. Was 6 years not long enough for them to fix some problem Clinton created? I'm confused.
By every measure, CRA loans are not as profitable as non-CRA loans.
No institution reported that CRA lending was more profitable than non-CRA lending for home mortgage, refinance, home improvement, or small business loans.
For home purchase and refinance lending, three times as many institutions reported their CRA-related loans not profitable as compared to non-CRA-related loans.
One out of three large institutions report that CRA lending in the home mortgage and refinance markets is not profitable.
Three times the value of CRA home improvement loans are not profitable as compared to non-CRA loans.
Delinquency rates for CRA loans in the home purchase and refinance market are twice that for non-CRA loans.
Among all institutions, about 40 percent of CRA special lending programs are not profitable. For large institutions, 58 percent report that their CRA special lending programs are not profitable. This is inconsistent with the safety and soundness requirements of CRA.
The key one is second from the bottom, that delinquency rates on CRA loans are twice that of Non-CRA loans.
Again though, my concern is more the fact that sub-prime loans were being backed by Fannie and Freddie, IMO that's a much bigger issue than the specific ones associated with CRA.
Combined, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae has either bought up or issued nearly half of all outstanding home mortgages by buying up loans from other lending institutions. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were able to begin buying up large amounts of outstanding home loans because they could now sell mortgage backed securities. Prior to the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act(which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act), banks were prohibited from offering investment services. But now Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and all banks could begin leveraging their outstanding home mortgage loans to raise additional capitol.
It was a new way to raise capitol revenue and a new way to increase profits. It’s natural for all businesses to exploit their profit margins while managing risks. However, the risks of mortgage backed securities were lessened by the nonbinding understanding in the financial sector that the government implicitly guaranteed the securities issued by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The federal government has long provided these two instutitions with tax breaks, subsidies, low interest loans, and a reduction in capitol backing regulations.
Your turn, what evidence do you have that government policy associated with CRA and backing of Fannie and Freddie did NOT contribute heavily to the meltdown of the housing/financial industry?
Heiwos, get off of your platform and your constant bashing republican bull crap. When did you last live here? Do you realize there are many people here whom make great wages, can afford more expensive homes?
Not everyone works for Micron. Why do you always see the glass half emtpy?
What is your agenda? What are you trying to prove here????
Do you miss Boise so much that all of the sudden you decided to start posting in Boise threads with a constant downer tone and actually telling people to leave the state???
Are you a happy person? Having depression issues?
while i don't live in idaho and don't want to step on toes, i can kinda see why some states don't want to take the stimulus. here is something to ponder and compare.
several years ago, subprime mortgages were extended. credit was loosened and people who could not buy homes, or cars, were offered a great opportunity. I'm not blaming this as much on the borrowers. they probably believed that their circumstances would change and a loan would help boost their credit scores so they could refinance. but the lenders sold the notes...oh don't worry. we have years to wait before this becomes an issue...and the notes got sold down the load until that road ended. here in texas, it is being said the same way. oh...take the stimulus..take what you can and worry about how to pay it back later. just think about the present circumstances. isn't that way of thinking the reason we find ourselves in our current situation?
again, i'm not saying we shouldn't take the package, but there are red flags going up over this
Hi folks, This seemed like a good place to post this. According to the news article below: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/us/27govs.html Idaho is one of the states considering turning down federal funds from the recent stimulus bill that would provide for extended unemployment benefits for those laid off in this hard year. As a friend or colleague of many people in this situation at HP or Micron, I have written to our governor to protest this action and demand that they take the funds and extend people's benefits per the requirements for taking this money. Their argument is that though they would get money from the federal government, the changes might end up costing the state treasury more. I say, if they need to raise more money for the state treasury, they should enact new taxes on the companies and highly paid managers who are making the decisions to cut jobs in Boise and send them overseas, not punish the poor souls who find themselves jobless in this horrible economy after long careers of dedicated service. You can write to our governor at this page: C. L. “Butch” Otter - The State of Idaho - Our Governor Contact Form Please forward this to all your friends and family.
If loony politicians don't want bridges and roads repaired in their districts and want to make their people suffer more then I'd say the voters have a choice to make come the next election. I for one am glad my state's Republican governor isn't so blindly partisan.
I'm still waiting for Toyman to prove that my high school civics teacher (in Idaho!) was wrong. I was taught that the majority in Congress call the shots in that branch. Republicans had the White House and the majority in Congress during the exact years of the housing bubble, up to its peak. Was 6 years not long enough for them to fix some problem Clinton created? I'm confused.
I am not, nor have ever supported Republican policy in this regard. The round of R leadership we had in congress from about 2000 on was (for the most part) anything but fiscially responsible. They spent like drunked liberals on both domestic and military issues.
while i don't live in idaho and don't want to step on toes, i can kinda see why some states don't want to take the stimulus. here is something to ponder and compare.
several years ago, subprime mortgages were extended. credit was loosened and people who could not buy homes, or cars, were offered a great opportunity. I'm not blaming this as much on the borrowers. ...
Notice that the states that say they don't want the stimulus are the same ones that created this mess. It's all grandstanding. Those states LOVE welfare--the same love that caused this mess--so they'll take the stimulus eventually.
If loony politicians don't want bridges and roads repaired in their districts and want to make their people suffer more then I'd say the voters have a choice to make come the next election. I for one am glad my state's Republican governor isn't so blindly partisan.
They can get away with this looniness in Idaho for now, because the majority of Idahoans will vote Republican until that causes a lack of food. Only then will they vote liberal to put food back on the table. Same thing happened in the 1930s.
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.
