On 5/30/2015 9:01 AM, "jim " wrote:
Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 5/30/2015 5:46 AM, "jim " wrote:
Rudy Canoza wrote:
Rudy Canoza wrote:
That's simply a lie.

Corrupt bankers call it a lie.
Honest bankers call it the truth.

No one called it the truth. It's a lie. You're the only person who
has
every said it.

If you want to tell an honest
banker from a corrupt banker just
ask about the Community Reinvestment Act.

Ha ha ha ha ha!

That is really the reason Sen William Proxmire
introduced and got the Community Reinvestment Act
passed by Congress.

He did it because race-baiting leftists lied and said "redlining" was
going on.

The only thing the law requires is for bank
regulators to determine the extent to which each
deposit facility is lending back to the same
community that supply the deposits.

The law forces banks and non-bank mortgage originators to make risky
loans to deadbeats. This is settled.

Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending?

Yes, it did. We use exogenous variation in banks' incentives to
conform to the standards of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)
around regulatory exam dates to trace out the effect of the CRA on
lending activity. 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.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w18609

"Securitization" - what the GSEs were doing, thus making the CRA that
much worse.