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.
Apparently the "liberals" at these "liberal" institutions caused the global financial imbroglio?
Countrywide Financial (Bank of America)
HCBS Finance (HCBS)
Chase Home Financial (JP Morgan Chase)
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage (Wells Fargo)
American Home Mortgage (WL Ross & Co.)
Ocwen Financial Group
Littoral (Goldman Sachs)
Home Loan Services (Bank of America)
HomeEq Mortgage Services (Barclays)
Washington Mutual (JP Morgan Chase)
Residential Capital LLC (GMAC)
Saxon Mortgage (Morgan Sta
To WHOM did they sell the loans they originated? Fannie and Freddie. And WHY did they originate those loans? Explained here on the Clinton Admin's HUD's Issue Brief released on January 1, 2001, specifically on page 7, here :https://www.huduser.gov/portal/Publications/PDF/gse.pdf
To WHOM did they sell the loans they originated? Fannie and Freddie. And WHY did they originate those loans? Explained here on the Clinton Admin's HUD's Issue Brief released on January 1, 2001, specifically on page 7, here :https://www.huduser.gov/portal/Publications/PDF/gse.pdf
That report is dated 2001.
Subprime lending was at its height between 2004 & 2006. During that time, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market.
Only commercial banks & thrifts were required to follow CRA rules. The investment banks were not, which is why they dominated the market in subprime lending.
Additionally, mortgage brokers were not subject to federal regulation or the CRA, & they originated most of the subprime loans.
Do you remember the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission?
Why did some folks want to ban the words "Wall Street," "shadow banking," "interconnection," and "deregulation" from the investigative report?
Quote:
The vote of the four Republicans on the commission to ban the words "Wall Street," "shadow banking," "interconnection," and "deregulation" from the main report—which was rejected by the six Democratic commissioners but carried out in the dissenting Republican report—was criticized by some such as Bethany McLean,[21] Paul Krugman,[22] and Shahien Nasiripour.[23]
Business columnist Joe Nocera also criticized the partisanship of the Republican members of the commission who issued a nine-page, three-footnote minority report[24] before the report had been written. According to Nocera the contents of the report "simply reiterates longstanding Republican dogma."[25]
Subprime lending was at its height between 2004 & 2006. During that time, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market.
Only commercial banks & thrifts were required to follow CRA rules. The investment banks were not, which is why they dominated the market in subprime lending.
Additionally, mortgage brokers were not subject to federal regulation or the CRA, & they originated most of the subprime loans.
Do you remember the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission?
Why did some folks want to ban the words "Wall Street," "shadow banking," "interconnection," and "deregulation" from the investigative report?
If subprime loans NOT sold to F&F were the problem, WHY did the Federal Reserve have to create $2 trillion in QE out of thin air to bail out F&F? $1.44 trillion worth of F&F MBS are still on the Federal Reserve's H.4.1.
Those loans in the F&F MBS may never be paid. They'll just roll off the Federal Reserve's H.4.1 as the MBS mature, paid or not. We'll never know as the Federal Reserve doesn't have to state or recognize losses. It's artificial liquidity in the form of US Dollars injected into (in this case, global as Fannie and Freddie MBS were sold to investors, worldwide) the economy which can't be reined back in if the MBS loans default and the MBS lose value, so the US Dollar is devalued by the corresponding amount of the loss. The Federal Reserve actually loses nothing.
You REALLY need to get a clue instead of mindlessly parroting left-wing talking points.
You've been told several times but still DON'T understand WHY the $700 trillion in derivatives DIDN'T unwind. You're completely clueless. Ignorance is a choice.
No, you've been told several times, and you still don't understand why. When you master reading comprehension, you let me know:
OTC derivatives based on F&F buying too many high-risk loans? No surprise, which is why savvy investors took the bet. Again, If subprime loans NOT sold to F&F were the problem, WHY did the Federal Reserve have to create $2 trillion in QE out of thin air to bail out F&F? $1.44 trillion worth of F&F MBS are still on the Federal Reserve's H.4.1.
Those loans in the F&F MBS may never be paid. They'll just roll off the Federal Reserve's H.4.1 as the MBS mature, paid or not. We'll never know as the Federal Reserve doesn't have to state or recognize losses. It's artificial liquidity in the form of US Dollars injected into (in this case, global as Fannie and Freddie MBS were sold to investors, worldwide) the economy which can't be reined back in if the MBS loans default and the MBS lose value, so the US Dollar is devalued by the corresponding amount of the loss. The Federal Reserve actually loses nothing.
You REALLY need to get a clue instead of mindlessly parroting left-wing talking points.
To WHOM did they sell the loans they originated? Fannie and Freddie. And WHY did they originate those loans? Explained here on the Clinton Admin's HUD's Issue Brief released on January 1, 2001, specifically on page 7, here :https://www.huduser.gov/portal/Publications/PDF/gse.pdf
Sounds to me that the Democrats were really pushing these lenders to give out loans to low-income people, what with their "affordable" and "low-income" goals. What really struck me was the pressure for these lenders to give out loans to "underserved" areas - 31% requirement - which of course are areas with uneducated, low-income people who really can't afford to buy a home.
As a (former) business owner, the only way I would sell my service to customers unlikely to be able to pay me back (I ran credit checks on companies before taking them on as clients) would indeed be if a) the government pushed me to work for customers unlikely to pay me, and b) guaranteed that if the unqualified purchaser did not pay up, the government would make me whole. And THAT is exactly what happened with the Clinton's Administration push for lenders to hand out loans to unqualified borrowers.
The root of all this? The liberal pipedream of "equality," with the coinciding belief that everybody, even if low-income, is entitled to own a house. Our first step to avoiding a repeat of this is for liberals to acknowledge that being able to buy your own home is a privilege, not a right, and that waitresses, retail clerks, and other low-paid people have to choose between a) renting their entire lives,* or b) enrolling in a vocationally-oriented educational program to better their income prospects.
*Renting one's entire life is not necessarily bad. I know people in their 60s who never bought a house because they couldn't afford it, and the apartments (or townhouses) they live in are warm and welcoming, nicely furnished, and feel just like home.
OTC derivatives based on F&F buying too many high-risk loans? No surprise, which is why savvy investors took the bet. Again, If subprime loans NOT sold to F&F were the problem, WHY did the Federal Reserve have to create $2 trillion in QE out of thin air to bail out F&F? $1.44 trillion worth of F&F MBS are still on the Federal Reserve's H.4.1.
Those loans in the F&F MBS may never be paid. They'll just roll off the Federal Reserve's H.4.1 as the MBS mature, paid or not. We'll never know as the Federal Reserve doesn't have to state or recognize losses. It's artificial liquidity in the form of US Dollars injected into (in this case, global as Fannie and Freddie MBS were sold to investors, worldwide) the economy which can't be reined back in if the MBS loans default and the MBS lose value, so the US Dollar is devalued by the corresponding amount of the loss. The Federal Reserve actually loses nothing.
You REALLY need to get a clue instead of mindlessly parroting left-wing talking points.
It is true that several Presidents encouraged minority ownership. However, because of legislation pushed by Democrats, banks were literally forced into making marginal and bad loans. The penalties for not doing so were very severe.
Sounds to me that the Democrats were really pushing these lenders to give out loans to low-income people, what with their "affordable" and "low-income" goals. What really struck me was the pressure for these lenders to give out loans to "underserved" areas - 31% requirement - which of course are areas with uneducated, low-income people who really can't afford to buy a home.
And THAT is exactly what happened with the Clinton's Administration push for lenders to hand out loans to unqualified borrowerAs a (former) business owner, the only way I would sell my service to customers unlikely to be able to pay me back (I ran credit checks on companies before taking them on as clients) would indeed be if a) the government pushed me to work for customers unlikely to pay me, and b) guaranteed that if the unqualified purchaser did not pay up, the government would make me whole.
The root of all this? The liberal pipedream of "equality," with the coinciding belief that everybody, even if low-income, is entitled to own a house. Our first step to avoiding a repeat of this is for liberals to acknowledge that being able to buy your own home is a privilege, not a right, and that waitresses, retail clerks, and other low-paid people have to choose between a) renting their entire lives, or b) enrolling in a vocationally-oriented educational program to better their income prospects.
100% correct!
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.
