Over mortgage backed losses/fraud.
Thoughts?
but until people like Barney frank and so many in Washington are willing to step up and admit they screwed up, really seems disingenuous. After all, it was the Fed pressuing lenders to make loans in the name of "fairness" when they borroers were questionable at best.
When did the fed pressure lenders to make bad loans?
tells me you do not keep up with the subjects we are discussing at all!!!
Check out the link below for ONE example, or just do a little research and type "Government pressure subprime loans" and pick from the 1000s of hits you will get!!
GEEEZZZZ!!
Government asking (pressuring in your world) and defrauding agencies by greed is entirely diffrentt. I am certain you would not see it that way considering the fact that Clinton and everyone else you mentioned are democrats.
The organization is consists of right wing nut jobs and lack credibility.
I am not GWB fan either, so give it a rest.
I did notice however, that while you pointed out they were all democrats (I did not), you failed to actually prove that they did not do this or the other side did.
Typical liberal, whine about the person making the argument but produce NO FACTS to the contrary.
BTW, not sure what you consider asking vs. pressuring, but when an organization with the power to regulate and tax, and thus destroy, starts asking you to do something (instead of staying out of the private sector), I would not so easily dismiss it like you do.
Also, the reason I say they Fed should stay out of the private sector, well, lets see, they actually did get involved with mortgage lending, remember those two little organizations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. How did that work out?
Well clearly, I'm having this conversation with an adult.
I ask again, how did the fed pressure institutions to make bad loans? You've simply linked a BLOG that makes a bunch of unspecific claims about what the Clinton administration supposedly did to pressure banks to loan to unqualified mortgage holders. Give me a specific action taken by the people you mentioned in your post that contributed to the housing crisis. Simply saying "well hey, the Clinton administration pressured people to write bad mortgages" isn't enough.
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 went a step further by requiring affirmative action by banks in meeting the credit needs of minorities in their service areas. Loans to subprime areas were made a statutory condition by the CRA for receiving approval from bank regulators bank mergers. That legislation did not prove to be immediately effective in expanding subprime lending, because banks continued to shy away from the credit risks associated with such loans. The Clinton administration, however, overcame that resistance through its National Homeownership Strategy, which sought to boost homeownership by minorities, and thereby increase the percentage of owner-occupied residences to 67.5 percent by the year 2000. That strategy was assisted by new CRA requirements, which, “in the words of the Federal Reserve Governor who wrote the regulations, set up soft quotas on lending in underserved areas.”
The Clinton administration’s CRA efforts led to an eighty percent increase in the number of subprime mortgages. “Subprime mortgage originations grew from $35 billion in 1994 to $140 billion in 2000, indicating an average annual growth rate of 26%.” The Federal Reserve Board advised banks that CRA loans were to be made in a safe and sound manner. That admonition begged the question: how do you make a safe and sound subprime loan when, as Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has candidly admitted those borrowers pose a “high credit risk?” The solution for this counterparty risk problem was solved by the Clinton administration when CRA regulations were amended in 1995 to allow CRA based subprime loans to be securitized. Securitization provided the banks with a way to move subprime loans off their balance sheets, and it allowed “lenders to shift mortgage credit risk and interest rate risk to investors who have greater risk tolerance.” Once again, it seems clear that GLBA played little, if any, role in the development of the CDO market for subprime mortgages.
Commercial banks were soon making massive CRA commitments. For example, Washington Mutual made a CRA pledge of $120 billion in its 1998 acquisition of HF Ahmanson & Co. The merger of Citibank and the Travelers Group in 1999 resulted in a ten year $115 billion CRA pledge. Bank of America made a ten-year CRA subprime lending pledge of $750 billion when it merged with FleetBoston Financial Corp. in 2003. JPMorgan Chase made a larger $800 billion CRA pledge when it merged with Bank One Corp. in 2004. One website, which is highly critical of these pledges, claims that total CRA commitments by banks reached $4.2 trillion by 2004.
The Federal Reserve Board has contended that the CRA did not cause the subprime crisis because many subprime loans did not have CRA credit. One author argues that the CRA was not responsible for subprime crisis because (1) few CRA loan applications were denied, which the author seems to suggest demonstrates they were good loans; (2) many of the players in the subprime market were not regulated banks; and (3) most subprime loans originated in California, Florida and Nevada, suggesting that since CRA had little effect elsewhere, it was not to blame. These claims overlook the fact that the CRA required, and thereby legitimatized, subprime lending by institutions that had previously shied away from such risky loans. As former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before Congress in October 2008: “Its instructive to go back to the early stages of the subprime market, which has essentially emerged out of the CRA.”
NevetheleAfter being forced into the market by the federal government, banks found the business to their liking. This was another unfortunate legacy of the CRA. Former Senator Phil Gramm noted that: “It was not just that CRA and federal housing policy pressured lenders to make risky loans—but that they gave lenders the excuse and regulatory cover” to enter what was appearing to be a lucrative business in which risks could be managed through securitizations. The proof is in the pudding. Subprime lenders were initially an industry unto themselves because large banks avoided such lending, until the CRA pushed them into it. There were only ten lenders in the subprime market in 1994, but their numbers increased to fifty by 1998. By 2001, as the result of the CRA, ten of the twenty-five largest subprime lenders were banks or their affiliates.
It's a lengthy theory, with lots of facts and statistics…unfortunately, the facts and statistics cited fail to bridge the Community Reinvestment Act to the housing crisis. I would invite you to actually read it.
These are the facts that are relevant to this argument: Only 25% of subprime loans were made by institutions regulated by the CRA. And even within those institutions that WERE regulated by the CRA, only a small percentage of the subprime mortgages had any connection to the actual act or its amendment in 1994. What makes your claim even more off-the-mark is that overall, loans made under CRA regs have only a 10% rate of default. So you can copy and paste whatever you like, but there's no relevant facts that link the federal government to the mortgage crisis (unless you want to talk about lack of oversight and regulation of derivatives, which has absolutely nothing to do with the CRA or policy that encouraged minority home ownership). The thing that surprised me was that the author of the article you copied and pasted even goes so far as to mention some of these very same arguments against his theory; and then laughably fails to refute them with anything other than his baseless opinion - no numbers, no evidence, no verifiable facts.
I'll direct you to the link below, which links to a report by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission on the mortgage debacle. Now, the report is some 600 pages long, so I'll just give you a quote from the summary on page 230: "The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)—which requires regulated banks and thrifts to lend, invest, and provide services consistent with safety and soundness to the areas where they take deposits—was not a significant factor in subprime lending."
Your willingness to readily accept some blogger's article without taking the time to consider the substance of his argument is quite sad. It's also terrifying, because so may opinionated Americans are doing the same thing, and we have to live with consequences of that inattention.
It was taken from a piece written by Professor Jerry Markham:
Jerry W. Markham is a Professor at the Florida International University College of Law,[1] and a legal scholar on business organizations and securities regulation in the United States. He has been quoted or cited as an expert on the regulation of financial and commodities markets in a wide variety of news sources,[2] and his three-volume collection, A Financial History of the United States, has also been cited authoritatively.[3]
You asked where feds had forced banks to "write bad loans" and I provided that. The fact that you stick your head in the sand to deny it means you are'nt interested in learning the facts, you just have an ax to grind. Sad because like so many today, having your head up your ass leads to accidents.
Phil Angelides? Treasurer of California? Nuff said.
You're a fucking moron, dude, no kidding. Your retort amounts to "b-b-but he's a professor." lmao. Well the professor's argument doesn't fucking add up, and your copy/paste job is a bunch of pseudo-academic drivel (for reasons already mentioned). I'm sure to a bugger-flipping motherfucker like you, tenure at FIU is the end-all, be-all to commentary on government policy, but this excerpt doesn't amount to shit to people who can read. The stats show that the CRA had no impact on the housing crisis, and no amount of poorly manufactured connections to subprime lending is going to convince an educated reader otherwise.
When people evade taxes, is the federal government complicit in their tax evasion because it taxes people? Don't hurt your head trying to understand the analogy.
You know who else has published material available for public consumption? Snooki. You like Snooki? Think she's brilliant too? Maybe you'll copy and paste a passage from her book into your next argument. Fucking dunce.
I can always tell when I've proven my point when the other person (you) resort to namecalling and childish insults. I'm surprised you did'nt add a picture too, like that will prove something.
Speaking of LMAO, I'm Laughing My Ass Off at ridiculous your analogy!!!
Face it, it's just another failed bullshit lib plan. File it with shovel ready/green jobs...LOL
"I can always tell when I've proven my point when the other person (you) resort to namecalling and childish insults."
Oh that's how you can tell? Yea, I suppose there's no possible way for you to have the stupidity of your position articulated for you *and* get insulted at the same time. I'll bet it's fun to grasp at straws and regurgitate grade school consolations too.
"Speaking of LMAO, I'm Laughing My Ass Off at ridiculous your analogy!"
Whatever makes you feel better when you don't understand something.
"Face it, it's just another failed bullshit lib plan."
Efficacy of the plan is a different subject. Given your inability to understand simple numbers and rates thus far, though, the chances of us successfully having *that* discussion sits firmly at zilch. Maybe start another thread on that when you've graduated from playing with blocks next year.
Make no mistake, Academia is often of quacks. And they're kept nice and comfy in their careers by people who are so impressed with their titles, that they don't even bother scrutinizing or even attempting to understand their hypotheses. A perfect example of this is you copying and pasting the article here without even bothering to interject a thought that would prove that you even understand what you posted.
I've outlined the problems with Markham's hypothesis, and I've shown how the facts about the CRA run squarely against his claims without opposition. Perhaps he needs his tenure revoked. I don't know what it takes to be a prof down there at Florida International, but the man has failed to make his case in this instance.
nothing about other than "he's a professor". LOL. I did'nt comment because the small piece I posted said it all. I did'nt realize you'd be so obtuse as to have it put in other words. The words proved the point. Nothing further needed to be said. It makes no sense to say I did'nt understand it.
Interestingly enough, you give absolute credibility to the Obama Panel, loaded up with poilitical hacks. Lead by a guy who helped run California into the ground.
LMAO!
He wrote an article and failed miserably to make his case. Nothing better illustrates a lack of credibility than that. Feel free to quote the part of the article that proves the federal government forced banks to make bad loans, though.
see the forest for the trees. I can't help you with this.
BTW, the point of the article, which was 60+ pages was something else entirely so to say the author did'nt make his point is beyond your ability to judge unless you read the entire thing, which you obviously have'nt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL4024515D4DAE3168
Sometimes, the simple answer is the right one.
You've provided him cited evidence, I have provoded evidence and you have provided that awesome video!!
I would say that pretty much warps it up.
We can await his apology, because anything else would just be an admission of his total blind faith to his liberal masters...
Between Mr.N's naive sourcing of "proof" and your pitiful display at commentary, the whole thing has been a display of intellectual laziness really. And it's sad, because I do believe that both of you represent a significant portion of the American public. It makes me fear for the fate of this great nation.
is that when presented with the facts you can only hide your head in the sand 
You remind me of Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and so many other liberals who when presented with hard, cold facts simply pull an Alfred E Neuman and proclaim "Who, Me?"
As long as liberals run the government, the fate of our great nation is in peril...
that aren't the result of shameless editing by some amateur YouTube poster with a lame agenda. You're terribly naive if you didn't notice that there are chunks of the video missing that would severely twist the context of Cuomo's statement. The most obvious of example of this is that Cuomo isn't even speaking about the CRA. He's talking about the Clinton administration's stepped up enforcement of the FAIR HOUSING ACT OF 1968. If you oppose enforcement of laws that protect minorities from being discriminated against in housing, then fine, but start another thread for that debate and be prepared to accept the fact that you're probably a racist. As far as the CRA concerned, well this video isn't even relevant.
The video fails to convey (by way of omitting relevant parts of the speech at 05:33:49 and 05:34:10) that Cuomo is discussing a settlement in which HUD took legal action against a bank in Texas, AccuBanc, that blatantly discriminated against Hispanic and African American applicants by denying them loans when they had more favorable credit history and higher incomes than white applicants who had been approved for the same mortgages. This is about a SPECIFIC BANK that was sued and then forced to make $2billion in loans (a drop in the bucket really) to the very group of people it had a proven history or discriminating against. Cuomo wasn't speaking about the CRA. He wasn't speaking about forcing banks nationwide to make "bad loans," he was talking about a single instance that would have no bearing on the mortgage crisis at all. Now Accubanc will in fact take a loss on those loans, but it's essentially a fine for violating a law. Fines aren't supposed to be profitable for the entities they're levied against.
If you're interested in actually understanding the matter, go directly to the source (C-Span). I've linked it for you in the ad. You can start at 5:30 and watch from there. You probably won't, though, as it's become very clear that all you're capable of doing here is parroting bits of tainted information that support your ignorance on these issues.
As for segment of the video on Obama, I didn't even bother. I'm confident that the butchering of the content there is just as bad if not far worse.
it is NOT relevant to the question of whether or not banks were forced to make loans they would not have otherwise made whether it was a CRA of Fair housing act action.
I am dead set against discriminating based on race. I am also dead set against USING race as a cudgle to beat people into silence. If you are for that that then start another thread and be prepared to be called a racebaiter.
In the case of Cuomo's 2.1 Billion, (he said BILLION $) SETTLEMENT, the operative word is SETTLEMENT. As is usually the case with government settlements, the accusing party does'nt have the FACTS to prevail so they settle. It certainly isn't for lack of resources. So the Clinton administration levies a fine and FORCES $2.1 BILLION, I said BILLION loans be made to people who would not have otherwise gotten those loans and yet Huomo never PROVED in court discrimination. In treturn, Obama and his ACORN buddies get off the lawns of bank execs calling the banker a racist. This is considered a win.
I know you will never see it this way. You are a blind partisan who is only interested in furthering your agenda and continuing to fuck up this country.
Lots of off-topic banter, smoke, and mirrors, but no acknowledgement that you tried to advance your original point with a deceptively edited video. And still no one can provide evidence of the federal government forcing banks to make bad loans. Does anyone here ever concede when they no longer have a foot to stand on?
The whole purpose of the CRA was to make banks make loans to people they were not lending to and would rather not lend to. It forced them by denying application for expansion unless they could prove "compliance" and made records public so angry mobs could show up at bank locations. It was'nt until they allowed for the securitazation of subprime loans that the floodgates blew wide open.
It does'nt get any clearer than this.
Are you saying that "compliance" with CRA was voluntary?????
You're either being obtuse, or you're stupid. And I don't think you're stupid.
A friend of mine, former mortgage broker, was recently hired along with hundreds of other former mortgage brokers to review thousands of mortgages written over the last decade or so.
The exposure to these banks is huge, and the plan to have the foxes show how the chicken coop was raided is a sound one. The banks could easily be on the hook for tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars to Freddie and Fannie.
I would sure be nervous if I were a holder of thousands of shares of BAC.lol
and that will for the most part free BOA for liability for the Countrywide mortgages and securities which is the primary source of the billions of dollars in liability.
BOA did not merge with Countrywide but simply bought its stock and is no more liable as shareholder than I am. Why haven't they done so yet? Bc management is absolutely clueless- they paid 4 billion for Countrywide and already have tried to settle a part of its liabilities for 20 billion.
How moronic is BOA's management? Ask yourself this- why is Anglo Mozillo still a millionaire? Why is Ken Lewis still getting a severance package instead of being sued for gross negligence? Meanwhile, the statute of limitations has just about run out on lawsuits against the Countrywide guys who were writing mortgages blindfolded.
One more thing - if you read about the BOA CEO being strangled - um, make that tortured and then strangled- it wasn't me.
as long as BoA stock retains even just 2% of its previous value, Mary still has a "substantial" amount of his investment left.