Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
This is rather stupid, and absolutely ridiculous.

The solution to having the housing sector blown up do to sub prime lending ..... is to force more sub prime lending on the banks?

Yep .... we're going to hell in the proverbial handbasket.

Obama Has Learned Nothing From The Mortgage Meltdown Mess | Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/01/02/obama-has-learned-nothing-from-mortgage-meltdown-mess/

Just days before Christmas, the Obama administration gave Bank of America a big lump of coal, levying a hefty $335 million dollar fine on the company for discriminating against minorities in its lending practices. 

Supposedly Countrywide, a mortgage company bought by Bank of America in 2008, had not given out enough low interest rate loans to minorities from 2004 to 2008.

What the large fine reveals is that President Obama hasn’t learned anything from the recent financial crisis. 

What the president sees as discrimination in awarding a mortgage, lenders saw as wise business decisions. 

If a borrower can’t afford a down payment, Obama appears to view charging a higher interest rate as discrimination. Lenders also think that they shouldn’t treat borrowers whose sole source of income is welfare or unemployment insurance, the same as those applicants who have a job. But Obama, again, appears to view this as discrimination.

There is obviously a problem with no down payments: if the price of the house falls so that it is worth less than the loan, people will default and walk away. Similarly, when unemployment insurance or welfare runs out, borrowers might find they can’t keep paying their mortgage.

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act the Obama administration used to impose this fine was exactly what helped cause the mortgage crisis by forcing lenders to make risky loans that they didn’t want to make. 

Yet, just last month, Obama put the blame for these risky loans going bad on banks for their “breathtaking greed” that “plunged our economy and the world into a crisis.”

It’s hard to believe that Countrywide, a leading lender of subprime mortgages, wasn’t already doing too much to make these risky loans. Indeed, it was the poster child for doing what the government wanted. 

In 2002, Countrywide had adopted its “No Income/No Asset Documentation Program.” Borrowers could get a loan with just 5 percent down. The big government mortgage bundlers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, bought these mortgages and encouraged Countrywide to expand the program. By the first half of 2006, almost two-thirds of Countrywide’s subprime loans had absolutely no down payment.

Certainly President Obama push to encourage banks to make risky loans isn’t unique --  in truth, he is just doing what Presidents Clinton and Bush also did. 

Starting with the Clinton administration and continuing through the administration of George W. Bush, if lenders didn’t give out loans under these conditions to minorities, it was viewed as evidence of discrimination. The motive for encouraging risky loans was a noble one: to increase home ownership. It was meant to help people who couldn’t, under the previous standards, afford a home mortgage.

But with hindsight of the disaster these regulations created, Obama has no excuse. These regulations should be scraped and the last thing that should be happening is for banks to feel pressure to make more such risky loans.

Obama’s actions show that we have never left the world where the Federal Reserve and other government agencies told mortgage lenders: “discrimination may be observed when a lender’s underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower–income minority applicants.”

This is a world where the Federal Reserve told banks that the “outdated” criteria included:

Credit History: Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor.... In reviewing past credit problems, lenders should be willing to consider extenuating circumstances. For lower–income applicants in particular, unforeseen expenses can have a disproportionate effect on an otherwise positive credit record. In these instances, paying off past bad debts or establishing a regular repayment schedule with creditors may demonstrate a willingness and ability to resolve debts.... Down Payment and Closing Costs: Accumulating enough savings to cover the various costs associated with a mortgage loan is often a significant barrier to homeownership by lower-income applicants. Lenders may wish to allow gifts, grants, or loans from relatives, nonprofit organizations, or municipal agencies to cover part of these costs. . . . Sources of Income: In addition to primary employment income, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will accept the following as valid income sources: overtime and part–time work, second jobs (including seasonal work), retirement and Social Security income, alimony, child support, Veterans Administration (VA) benefits, welfare payments, and unemployment benefits.
Is this really how we want mortgage lending to operate?

It was bad enough that the lenders were forced during the last couple of decades to made such risky loans. Obama’s decision to punish Countrywide because it didn’t go even further with these bad loans sends the wrong message. Instead of working through the bad loans we already had, Obama now wants to continue forcing lenders to make still more of them.


Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,374
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,374
The Human Race learn from it's past mistakes.................


LET'S GO BROWNS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Linked Image]
[b]WOOF WOOF[b]
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Yeah ... I know that it's a bit much to expect .......


Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Quote:

The Human Race learn from it's past mistakes.................




I thought we were talking about politicians here.

Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433
R
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
R
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433
You might want to try and find a report from a media outlet that isn't terribly biased towards/against The President...

Here's a link to a diferent report about the same fine. Link

Unfortunately it's a video report but I was able to gather this much. This happened during 2004-2007 and the individuals were qualified to have mortgages as they met the regular requirements. They were still denied even though they met the base requirements.

Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
T
All Pro
Offline
All Pro
T
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
Quote:

What the president sees as discrimination in awarding a mortgage, lenders saw as wise business decisions.

If a borrower can’t afford a down payment, Obama appears to view charging a higher interest rate as discrimination. Lenders also think that they shouldn’t treat borrowers whose sole source of income is welfare or unemployment insurance, the same as those applicants who have a job. But Obama, again, appears to view this as discrimination.




http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/business/us-settlement-reported-on-countrywide-lending.html

If you read this article (with linked court documents), you will see that in this particular instance, the issue is that minorities with the same credit risk as white borrowers were being charged higher fees, higher interest rates, and being steered into riskier products. This author from Fox has taken this fact and portrayed it as if the minorities had worse credit histories, when in fact they didn't. There is nothing about that practice that is a "wise business decision."

Quote:

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act the Obama administration used to impose this fine was exactly what helped cause the mortgage crisis by forcing lenders to make risky loans that they didn’t want to make.




This act, codified here http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1691.html, simply states that creditors cannot discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, having taken public assistance, etc. I'm not clear on how banks not being allowed to use race as a determinant in creditworthiness "forces" the bank to lend. Last time I checked, banks should be looking at a little bit more than the color of someone's skin in compiling their assessment.

Further, the author quotes a Federal Reserve document http://www.bos.frb.org/commdev/closing-the-gap/closingt.pdf. What they fail to mention is this paragraph:

"These recommendations are intended as guidelines.
As with any business strategy, each institutionmust define for
itself what is appropriate, effective, and feasible. Some of
the recommendations focus on working with lower–income
consumers, first–time homebuyers, urban residents, or
applicants unfamiliar with conventional financial practices.
It should be recognized, however, that many minority
borrowers do not possess these characteristics."

No bank had a gun held to their head. They were given guidelines, not regulations. You have to ask yourself in all this, does it fit any of the data that the big, bad government forced the poor banks into these bad loans?

Why did 80% of the riskiest mortgages (and highest default rates) originate from independent mortgage firms, which fall outside of government regulation (of note, these firms are very similar to savings and loans that caused another housing crisis in the late 80's)?

Why were some banks allowed to maintain conservative standards (like Third Federal)? If there were laws on the books forcing bad loans to be made, how could smaller banks like this resist?

Why were large investment firms buying up these independent firms if the government was forcing these independent firms to make bad loans?

Why were large investment firms securitizing most of these bad loans, and thus in effect putting the asset on their own balance sheet if it was known that they were bad loans being forced by regulation?

Why did large investment firms start doing "accounting magic" to move these assets off their balance sheets after the bubble burst? If they knew all along that these were bad loans forced by the government, why didn't they use these accounting tricks all along?

The value Wall Street put on these loans via unregulated transactions leads me to believe that either banks didn't realize the risks, or did and gambled that the government would ultimately bail them out. Not one shred of evidence suggests that the government forced loans that were known all along to be bad.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
F
Legend
Offline
Legend
F
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
I dont even recall my mortgage application having a line asking my race..


We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Quote:

I dont even recall my mortgage application having a line asking my race..




I don't either. I think my final mortgage documents might have, but not the application.


Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,171
Mine did, but mine was a VA loan.
Conventional loans may not have it, but I'm fairly certain that VA/FHA loans have to have it.


Browns is the Browns

... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,870
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,870
The last time we bought was 1998 and I just dug up the document package, (about 50 pages most of which are about the property itself) no questions about my race at all.

I have an application from a mortgage company that my wife worked for.. there was a section for VA/FHA loans and in that section, they do ask race, but you have the choice not to respond.. FYI


#GMSTRONG

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan

"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Haven't We Learned Anything From Mortgage Meltdown?

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5