[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by hartford_renter

Well I am stating the facts, the taxpayers were forced to bail out Fannie Mae. The taxpayers are forced to guarantee loans made to poor people.

The total cost to the taxpayers to bail out Fannie mae was approximately 317 Billion dollars

True Cost of Fannie, Freddie Bailouts: $317 Billion, CBO Says

Dude, you're just wrong! According to the Minneapolis Fed:

"In analyzing the available data, we consider two distinct metrics of lending activity: loan origination activity and loan performance. With respect to the first question posed above concerning loan originations, we determine which types of lending institutions made higher-priced loans, to whom those loans were made, and in what types of neighborhoods the loans were extended.3/ This analysis therefore depicts the fraction of subprime mortgage lending that could be related to the CRA.

Using loan origination data obtained pursuant to the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), we find that in 2005 and 2006, independent nonbank institutions—institutions not covered by the CRA—accounted for about half of all subprime originations. (See Table 1.) Also, about 60 percent of higher-priced loan originations went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods, populations not targeted by the CRA. (See Table 2.) In addition, independent nonbank institutions originated nearly half of the higher-priced loans extended to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income areas (share derived from Table 2).

In total, of all the higher-priced loans, only 6 percent were extended by CRA-regulated lenders (and their affiliates) to either lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in the lenders' CRA assessment areas, which are the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes. The small share of subprime lending in 2005 and 2006 that can be linked to the CRA suggests it is very unlikely the CRA could have played a substantial role in the subprime crisis."

It continues:

"To assess the relative performance of CRA-related, higher-priced loans, we use data from First American LoanPerformance (LP) on subprime and alt-A mortgage securitizations to compare delinquency rates for subprime and alt-A loans in lower-income neighborhoods relative to those in middle- and higher-income neighborhoods. The LP data do not provide information on borrower income or the type of originating institution, but do indicate the ZIP Code of the property, which we use to group loans into neighborhood income categories.5/ The results indicate that the 90-days-or-more delinquency rate as of August 2008 for subprime and alt-A loans originated between January 2006 and April 2008 is high regardless of neighborhood income, with delinquency rates comparable across neighborhood income categories. (See Table 4.)6/

In order to gauge more precisely the possible effects of the CRA, we use the LP data again and focus attention on the subset of ZIP Codes that are similar, in principle, except for their relationship to the CRA. Specifically, we focus only on ZIP Codes right above and right below the CRA eligibility threshold. (A neighborhood meets the CRA threshold if it has a median family income equivalent to 80 percent or less of the median family income of the broader area.) As such, the only major difference between these two sets of neighborhoods should be that the CRA focuses on one group and not the other. This analysis indicates that subprime loans in ZIP Codes that are the focus of the CRA (those just below the threshold) have performed virtually the same as loans in the areas right above the threshold.7/ (See Table 5.)

To gain further insight into the risks of lending to lower-income borrowers or areas, we also compared the performance of first mortgages originated and held in portfolio under the nationwide affordable lending programs operated by the NeighborWorks® America (NWA) partners to the performance of loans of various types as reported by the Mortgage Bankers Association of America. Many loans originated through NWA programs are done in conjunction with banking institutions subject to the CRA, so the performance of these loans provides another basis to address the relationship between the CRA and the subprime crisis. Along any measure of the severity of loan delinquency or the incidence of foreclosure, the loans originated under the NWA program have performed better than subprime loans.8/ (See Table 6.) Although the performance of loans in the NWA portfolio provides one benchmark to compare the performance of CRA-related loans with other loans, it is only one portfolio of such loans; further research of this type could provide a stronger base from which to draw conclusions.

Another way to measure the relationship between the CRA and the subprime crisis is to examine foreclosure activity across neighborhoods that are classified by income. Data made available by RealtyTrac on foreclosure filings from January 2006 through August 2008 indicate that most foreclosure filings (e.g., about 70 percent in 2006) have taken place in middle- or higher-income neighborhoods. More important, foreclosure filings have increased at a faster pace in middle- or higher-income areas than in lower-income areas that are the focus of the CRA.9/ (See Table 7.)

Two basic points emerge from our analysis of the available data. First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations is related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, the available evidence seems to run counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis."

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publi...arket-meltdown

Again, if Fannie and Freddie (which were private orgs at the start of the crisis) and the CRA was the cause riddle me this: why was the commercial crisis at the same time???

Either you're lying or you're daft. Which is it?

..::Edit::.. even if the total cost was "400bn" (by all other figures it was $100bn total... including the ex post facto usurpation of toxic notes from the private market) F and F carries more the $5Tr in liabilities. Seriously...

[hartford_renter]

Wrong about what?

Your post does nothing to dispute the fact that taxpayer dolled out 317 Billion dollars to pay for defaulted mortgages. They bailed out Fanie Mae

These mortgages were guaranteed by the government on behalf of the taxpayers.

OK you seem like a troll albeit a stupid one.

You must support Bernie Sanders!

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by hartford_renter

Wrong about what?

Your post does nothing to dispute the fact that taxpayer dolled out 317 Billion dollars to pay for defaulted mortgages. They bailed out Fanie Mae

These mortgages were guaranteed by the government on behalf of the taxpayers.

OK you seem like a troll albeit a stupid one.

You must support Bernie Sanders!

What exactly are you not getting? F and F were very preemptively taken over before anything could go bad, then the new F and F were directed to take most of the toxic paper from the paper market. You're focusing on the blur and not the details.

The mortgages that went bad were not guaranteed by the government when they were written, but the fed took it over once the scale of incompetence was known that could clog the whole credit system!

This is not really a point of contention. It's like if you are arguing 2 + 2 = 1

[GoHuskies]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

Not for nothing but I do believe that was Goebbels that is accredited with that.

Well I'll be damned I learned something tonight

[hartford_renter]

Originally Posted by Beeker2211

What exactly are you not getting? F and F were very preemptively taken over before anything could go bad, then the new F and F were directed to take most of the toxic paper from the paper market. You're focusing on the blur and not the details.

The mortgages that went bad were not guaranteed by the government when they were written, but the fed took it over once the scale of incompetence was known that could clog the whole credit system!

This is not really a point of contention. It's like if you are arguing 2 + 2 = 1

No

The government guarantees loans made to poor people. They do this because they want poor people to get loans and buy houses. These loans are backed by the taxpayer - thats what it means when it says backed by the government.

The government also guarantees Fannie & Sallie Mae loans. This part may not be official - like the loans to the poor - but the democrats made sure that they would get bailed out.

This is about giving taxpayer money to the poor. It is about giving freebies to one group of people at the expense of others.

This redistribution is essentially the policy platform that Sanders and Clinton are running on. Its why people with jobs should not support their policies.

[FutureTown]

Out of curiosity hartford renter, how do you expect disabled Americans to pay back their loans? Or should they just be fed to the dogs cause who cares about them?

And I'm talking actual disabled Americans. So, don't go off on a tangent about how people are scamming services

[GoHuskies]

Originally Posted by hartford_renter

No

The government guarantees loans made to poor people. They do this because they want poor people to get loans and buy houses. These loans are backed by the taxpayer - thats what it means when it says backed by the government.

The government also backs bank accounts and investments. This is also bad right?

[Cambium]

Another poll. The people are speaking and the "establishment" better accept it and let the people vote without interfering!

[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by hartford_renter

No

The government guarantees loans made to poor people. They do this because they want poor people to get loans and buy houses. These loans are backed by the taxpayer - thats what it means when it says backed by the government.

The government also guarantees Fannie & Sallie Mae loans. This part may not be official - like the loans to the poor - but the democrats made sure that they would get bailed out.

This is about giving taxpayer money to the poor. It is about giving freebies to one group of people at the expense of others.

This redistribution is essentially the policy platform that Sanders and Clinton are running on. Its why people with jobs should not support their policies.

At this point I'm not entirely convinced you're not a Markov Chain Bot, and I can barely see where you moved those goal posts to over yonder. Let's recap: I said the deregulation and low tax era brought on a predictable You countered that F and F caused the financial crisis by lending to poor people. I rebutted that the F and F loans were by an large the safer of the subprime (6% of total loans underwritten by F and F, with a lot more mortgages coming out of those two than the private market), and the issue was in opaque derivatives and the private lending market. Now you say the issue is that F and F is in the business of just lending money to poor people. Woosh.

This really has stopped being funny for me... just disheartening.

[RunD1987]

Saw on Route 8 North a Trump poster