[Dean Hoffman[_13_]]

http://tinyurl.com/cm8px6q

A study by the "respected" National Bureau of Economic Research says
the act did lead to riskier lending practices. I put respected in
quotes only because I have no idea if the bureau deserves its
description in the article.

[The Daring Dufas[_8_]]

On 12/20/2012 9:23 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/cm8px6q

A study by the "respected" National Bureau of Economic Research says
the act did lead to riskier lending practices. I put respected in
quotes only because I have no idea if the bureau deserves its
description in the article.

Some years ago, I was told I could one of those "Affirmative Action
Loans" but I knew better than to get one. I knew I had no backup if
something happened to me..... and it did, I became very ill and I
would have lost what little I have. O_o

TDD

[Bob F]

The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 12/20/2012 9:23 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/cm8px6q

A study by the "respected" National Bureau of Economic Research
says the act did lead to riskier lending practices. I put respected
in quotes only because I have no idea if the bureau deserves its
description in the article.

Some years ago, I was told I could one of those "Affirmative Action
Loans" but I knew better than to get one. I knew I had no backup if
something happened to me..... and it did, I became very ill and I
would have lost what little I have. O_o

TDD

Some years ago, anyone could get some kind of "special" loan. Lenders didn't
care if you could pay it off. They were just selling off the junk loans in
collateralized packages, and thereby had no risk.

[The Daring Dufas[_8_]]

On 12/20/2012 10:44 PM, Bob F wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 12/20/2012 9:23 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/cm8px6q

A study by the "respected" National Bureau of Economic Research
says the act did lead to riskier lending practices. I put respected
in quotes only because I have no idea if the bureau deserves its
description in the article.

Some years ago, I was told I could one of those "Affirmative Action
Loans" but I knew better than to get one. I knew I had no backup if
something happened to me..... and it did, I became very ill and I
would have lost what little I have. O_o

TDD

Some years ago, anyone could get some kind of "special" loan. Lenders didn't
care if you could pay it off. They were just selling off the junk loans in
collateralized packages, and thereby had no risk.


Then they all fall down. O_o

TDD

[George Bush[_3_]]

Dean, Hoffman, wrote:

A study by the "respected" National Bureau of Economic Research
says the act did lead to riskier lending practices.

======================
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68

George Bush:

"We want everybody in America to own their own home.
That's what we want."
======================

Those video's show your god-like monkey talking about his "no
black/latino left behind" strategy to bring the american dream to
minorities - or was that his plan to bring votes to repubicans?

Instead of the american dream, Bush gave you the american nightmare.

He started the war on americans - but for some reason the media kept
calling the "war on terror".

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:44:48 -0800, "Bob F"
wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 12/20/2012 9:23 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/cm8px6q

A study by the "respected" National Bureau of Economic Research
says the act did lead to riskier lending practices. I put respected
in quotes only because I have no idea if the bureau deserves its
description in the article.

Some years ago, I was told I could one of those "Affirmative Action
Loans" but I knew better than to get one. I knew I had no backup if
something happened to me..... and it did, I became very ill and I
would have lost what little I have. O_o

TDD

Some years ago, anyone could get some kind of "special" loan. Lenders didn't
care if you could pay it off. They were just selling off the junk loans in
collateralized packages, and thereby had no risk.

Thank you F&F. Your government at work.

[Tegger[_3_]]

"Bob F" wrote in :



Some years ago, anyone could get some kind of "special" loan. Lenders
didn't care if you could pay it off.



They were FORCED to do that by the laws and regulations of the time (The
Community Reinvestment Act among them). There were penalties for failing to
write enough loans for the "underprivileged" . There were some four or five
pieces of legislation that basically required lenders to ignore borrowers'
abilities to pay back the loans.

Those "teaser"rates that got so many in trouble were a desperate attempt by
banks to comply with regulations and keep the loans flowing, even as the
supply of borrowers was drying up.

Towards the very end, banks were even told to ignore any failure of
potential borrowers to show any proof of income.



They were just selling off the
junk loans in collateralized packages, and thereby had no risk.




Those loans were largely being bought by Fannie Mae, which was under
specific Congressional and presidential orders to purchase anything the
banks offered, regardless of the underlying soundness of those loans.
Others were being insured by the FHA, which was under similar orders.


--
Tegger

[The Daring Dufas[_8_]]

On 12/21/2012 7:00 AM, Tegger wrote:
"Bob F" wrote in :



Some years ago, anyone could get some kind of "special" loan. Lenders
didn't care if you could pay it off.



They were FORCED to do that by the laws and regulations of the time (The
Community Reinvestment Act among them). There were penalties for failing to
write enough loans for the "underprivileged" . There were some four or five
pieces of legislation that basically required lenders to ignore borrowers'
abilities to pay back the loans.


That's why I refer to them as "Affirmative Action Loans". Government
pushed the banking industry into putting the unqualified into loans they
couldn't handle. O_o

Those "teaser"rates that got so many in trouble were a desperate attempt by
banks to comply with regulations and keep the loans flowing, even as the
supply of borrowers was drying up.

Towards the very end, banks were even told to ignore any failure of
potential borrowers to show any proof of income.



They were just selling off the
junk loans in collateralized packages, and thereby had no risk.




Those loans were largely being bought by Fannie Mae, which was under
specific Congressional and presidential orders to purchase anything the
banks offered, regardless of the underlying soundness of those loans.
Others were being insured by the FHA, which was under similar orders.



I have a longtime friend who was in that industry before it collapsed. O_o

TDD

[George]

On 12/20/2012 11:44 PM, Bob F wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 12/20/2012 9:23 PM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/cm8px6q

A study by the "respected" National Bureau of Economic Research
says the act did lead to riskier lending practices. I put respected
in quotes only because I have no idea if the bureau deserves its
description in the article.

Some years ago, I was told I could one of those "Affirmative Action
Loans" but I knew better than to get one. I knew I had no backup if
something happened to me..... and it did, I became very ill and I
would have lost what little I have. O_o

TDD

Some years ago, anyone could get some kind of "special" loan. Lenders didn't
care if you could pay it off. They were just selling off the junk loans in
collateralized packages, and thereby had no risk.


Exactly, that was the "machine" that made it all work. We know since men
have been on the earth there are some who lack a moral compass and thats
why we develop regulations to temper those folks. We kept on relaxing
banking regulations and also let banks and brokerages merge. There was
only one possible outcome and we saw it happen.

I still laugh when the "free market" folks defend all of the bailouts.
If you believe any interference of the "free market" by regulation is a
bad thing then you should also believe the interference of bailouts and
not letting failures play out is also a bad thing. Can't have it both ways.

[George]

On 12/21/2012 8:00 AM, Tegger wrote:
"Bob F" wrote in :



Some years ago, anyone could get some kind of "special" loan. Lenders
didn't care if you could pay it off.



They were FORCED to do that by the laws and regulations of the time (The

Really? there were plenty of FDIC insured banks (mostly the regional
banks)that did not get involved in bad lending just to make a quick.


Community Reinvestment Act among them). There were penalties for failing to
write enough loans for the "underprivileged" . There were some four or five
pieces of legislation that basically required lenders to ignore borrowers'
abilities to pay back the loans.

Those "teaser"rates that got so many in trouble were a desperate attempt by
banks to comply with regulations and keep the loans flowing, even as the
supply of borrowers was drying up.

Mostly the mortgage brokers and big dishonest megabanks who knew they
could falsify applications and immediately sell off the very
questionable mortgages to be sold off and packaged into complicated
investments.


Towards the very end, banks were even told to ignore any failure of
potential borrowers to show any proof of income.



I have a family member who has a very responsible position in a large
regional who is FDIC insured and they didn't go near shady mortgages and
are healthy and did not need a bailout. Maybe whomever was telling the
banks to do all of this forget to mention it to them and the many other
similar banks who were honest?



They were just selling off the
junk loans in collateralized packages, and thereby had no risk.




Those loans were largely being bought by Fannie Mae, which was under
specific Congressional and presidential orders to purchase anything the
banks offered, regardless of the underlying soundness of those loans.
Others were being insured by the FHA, which was under similar orders.

[HeyBub[_3_]]

Tegger wrote:
"Bob F" wrote in
:



Some years ago, anyone could get some kind of "special" loan. Lenders
didn't care if you could pay it off.



They were FORCED to do that by the laws and regulations of the time
(The Community Reinvestment Act among them). There were penalties for
failing to write enough loans for the "underprivileged" . There were
some four or five pieces of legislation that basically required
lenders to ignore borrowers' abilities to pay back the loans.


It wasn't just loans. Subsequent legislation (under Clinton) and various
regulations required financial institutions to "serve the formerly
'underserved' communities in which they operated." Failure to score enough
points on subsequent surveys invoked penalties.

Drive through the most desparate sections of your town. In a given
commercial block you'll see a payday loan outfit, a couple of pawn shops,
maybe a bodega. Maybe a hooker or two. And a Bank of America branch! Can any
reasonable person believe a branch bank was located on that block out of the
desire to "serving the community" (and making a profit) or in hopes of
gaining favor with the government?

[Robert Green]

"Dean Hoffman" " wrote in message
...
http://tinyurl.com/cm8px6q

A study by the "respected" National Bureau of Economic Research says
the act did lead to riskier lending practices. I put respected in
quotes only because I have no idea if the bureau deserves its
description in the article.

The actual article on which the investors.com editorial is based lives
behind a paywall at

http://www.nber.org/papers/w18609 But a precis says:

. . . 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.

Five percent every quarter *when the Feds were looking." Looking at the IBD
interpretation of their results is interesting.

First of all, it's an editorial. Instead of talking about actual loans,
they talk about "loan commitments" and "pledges." There's a big difference
between a pledge and an actual loan although you wouldn't know it from the
way the author writes.

Secondly, they claim Democrats say the CRA had "nothing to do" with the
subprime crisis. No Democrat I know of believes the CRA had no effect. But
most credible sources put it at ten percent or less of the entire problem.

The NBER seems to indicate that the CRA's contribution was much lower - five
percent and then only around the times that banks were subjected to
compliance inspections. Throughout the editorial are such "alert" words as
"housing analysts say." Which analysts? Where?

They do point out the CRA was passed in 1977. There were lots of cooks,
both Democrats and Republicans, stirring the CRA pot over the years. Both
sides believed and still believe that home ownership is essential to
American prosperity. I do too.

The real cause of the crash is pretty simple to understand. Banks made
horribly bad loans knowing they could escape the risk by rolling them up
with good loans into CDOs. They sold those collateralized debt obligations
to investors who couldn't get enough of them, partly because they were
wrongly rated AAA.

This was a simple case of adulteration, something that's probably happened
since Ackbar cheated Amentop by selling him a barrel of fish with all the
rotten ones concealed on the bottom in 2,000 BC.

--
Bobby G.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Dec 22, 6:10*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Dean Hoffman" " wrote in message

...

http://tinyurl.com/cm8px6q

* *A study by the "respected" *National Bureau of Economic Research says
the act did lead to riskier lending practices. *I put respected in
quotes only because I have no idea if the bureau deserves its
description in the article.

The actual article on which the investors.com editorial is based lives
behind a paywall at

http://www.nber.org/papers/w18609*But a precis says:

. . . 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.

Five percent every quarter *when the Feds were looking." *Looking at the IBD
interpretation of their results is interesting.

First of all, it's an editorial. *Instead of talking about actual loans,
they talk about "loan commitments" and "pledges." *There's a big difference
between a pledge and an actual loan although you wouldn't know it from the
way the author writes.

Secondly, they claim Democrats say the CRA had "nothing to do" with the
subprime crisis. *No Democrat I know of believes the CRA had no effect.

Oh please. I have never, ever seen a Dem say that CRA had
anything to do with the subprime crisis. There might be one or
two somewhere, that you could did up. But the above claims is
just silly.


*But
most credible sources put it at ten percent or less of the entire problem..

So, what? Ten percent is a whopping big problem.
What percent of the mass shooting problem is allegedly attributable to
high capacity magazines? Sure ain't 10%. Yet in that case, why
it's the biggest thing ever. Nice double standard.






The NBER seems to indicate that the CRA's contribution was much lower - five
percent and then only around the times that banks were subjected to
compliance inspections. *Throughout the editorial are such "alert" words as
"housing analysts say." *Which analysts? *Where?

They do point out the CRA was passed in 1977. *There were lots of cooks,
both Democrats and Republicans, stirring the CRA pot over the years. Both
sides believed and still believe that home ownership is essential to
American prosperity. *I do too.

Even more essential to prosperity, something you need before
you can even get to home ownership is a robust, growing economy.
How are the lib ideas working there? The economy is growing at
less than half the rate it should be. Must be time for more govt
spending and higher taxes, right?



The real cause of the crash is pretty simple to understand. *Banks made
horribly bad loans knowing they could escape the risk by rolling them up
with good loans into CDOs. *They sold those collateralized debt obligations
to investors who couldn't get enough of them, partly because they were
wrongly rated AAA.

Except that obviously it wasn't that simple. If it was, then
why did so many banks and financial institutions fail? They
should not have been holding much of the bad stuff, right?




This was a simple case of adulteration, something that's probably happened
since Ackbar cheated Amentop by selling him a barrel of fish with all the
rotten ones concealed on the bottom in 2,000 BC.

--
Bobby G.

Uh huh. Only then we didn't have so many regulations, so
many regulators, so much overhead that we all pay for. And
it still happens anyway. Food for thought.