The next financial meltdown- and why Andrew Cuomo should be in prison [Reader Post]

Loading

There is one word that accompanies the news from this administration more than any other. “Unexpected.”

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – New claims for jobless benefits unexpectedly rose last week, hardening the view the central bank will pump more money into the economy in hopes of boosting growth and lowering unemployment.

As this country fights for oxygen to breathe, Obama’s big spending, bigger regulation government’s tentacles continue to pull Uncle Sam under the water.

Sitting in a boat on the water, armed with a bat, ready to bash Uncle Sam as he struggles for air is the next Democrat financial crisis.

Potential paperwork errors on some of the $1.34 trillion of securitized home mortgages may give investors an opening to challenge the legality of deals, threatening to unnerve financial markets, according to Joshua Rosner, managing director at Graham Fisher & Co.

Some loans to borrowers with poor credit before 2007 may not have been transferred to mortgage trusts in the manner required by their pooling and servicing agreements. That raises questions about the ownership of the loans and may allow investors to force lenders to buy back the securities, Rosner wrote yesterday in a note to clients.

And it’s a big one:

“If plaintiffs bring suit it could rock the market,” Rosner, 44, said in a telephone interview. “If courts allowed those suits to proceed it would well feel much like 2008,” when the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. led to the biggest market collapse since the Great Depression, he said.

And it all goes back to the sub-prime mortgage feeding frenzy:

Wall Street firms stopped selling almost all so-called private-label mortgage-backed securities in 2007 after defaults began to surge on loans to borrowers with poor credit. MBS values plunged as foreclosures climbed. More than 90 percent of mortgages are now issued by government sponsored enterprises, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or are insured by the federal government.

Daniel Inviglio describes the Doomsday Scenario

Why is this so bad? The investors who hold that MBS might be able to claim that the bonds they hold were not created properly, contracts were breached, and the bank that originated the mortgages needs to buy back the bonds. This, of course, would require many billions of dollars in capital in excess of that banks have lying around. And remember these aren’t pretty bonds. They are mostly toxic and full of losses. Those losses would then be passed on to the banks.

Rosner imagines this leading to a Lehman-type weekend, where the financial industry again nears collapse. That might be a little melodramatic, but it isn’t impossible. If these investors have the legal standing that Rosner thinks, they would be sort of crazy not to force banks to take back these bad deals. After all, it’s better for the investors that they force these losses back to the banks who wrote the mortgages.

No matter what happens, it’s going to hurt those of us who pay taxes. Badly. Again.

Wall St. was quick to assign fault:

“If you didn’t pay your mortgage, you shouldn’t be in your house. Period. People are getting upset about something that’s just procedural,” said Walter Todd, portfolio manager at Greenwood Capital Associates.

Of course, that’s right, but it goes nowhere near explaining how this became so malignant.

There are many contributors to the current dire financial condition of this country, but no one is more responsible than Andrew Cuomo.

As Secretary of HUD under Bill Clinton, Cuomo set this entire fiasco into motion. But first, Henry Cisneros.

Redistribution pervades Obama’s administration but it is not new.

The roots of the whole debacle are by this point fairly clear. Clinton’s first HUD secretary, Henry Cisneros, required that mortgages serving low to middle income and underserved groups (read subprime loans) comprise at least 42% of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s business. Since Fannie and Freddie are the primary purchasers of mortgages for packaging on the secondary mortgage market, this created a vacuum of demand, and encouraged primary lenders to make these bad loans for which they knew they could find a ready buyer in Fannie and Freddie.

Cisneros was Clinton’s redistributionist enforcer:

HUD held a series of “standing up for communities” rallies, financed by taxpayers, which encouraged local officials and special interest groups to lobby against Republican budget cuts. One piece of propaganda distributed by HUD’s New York office warned that the budget cuts “would dramatically expand America’s underclass” and that “thousands of families, many with children, would end up homeless.” HUD also sponsored a National Tenants Organization convention in Puerto Rico to defend the department. But that event was so political that even a HUD translator refused to take part and walked out of the proceedings in protest. According to HUD’s inspector general, an NTO official responded that “he really didn’t care whether HUD translated or not because the point was to get rid of Newt Gingrich.”

When Cisneros left HUD, he was lauded for the increase in homeownership rates that occurred on his watch. Part of his apparently winning strategy, Cisneros noted, was HUD’s “ability to convince lenders, builders and real estate agents that there was money to be made in selling housing to low- and moderate-income individuals.” Part of this “convincing” involved HUD-initiated legal action against mortgage lenders who declined higher percentages of loans for minorities than whites. As a result of such political pressure, lenders begin lowering their lending standards, which was another contributing factor to the housing meltdown in the 2000s

A giant, shovel-ready welfare program. And as is so common in the real world, the Law of Unintended Consequences takes its pound of flesh:

A key weapon in the Cisneros arsenal was the Clinton administration’s changes to the Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA was passed in 1977 and updated in 1995 to pressure lenders into making more loans to moderate-income borrowers by allowing regulators to deny merger approvals for banks with low CRA ratings. Even complaints brought by activists, such as the leftist group ACORN, were now counted against a bank’s CRA rating. The result was that banks began issuing more loans to otherwise uncreditworthy borrowers while purchasing more CRA mortgage-backed securities. As housing finance expert Peter Wallison noted, “The most important fact associated with the CRA is the effort to reduce underwriting standards. … Once those standards were relaxed … they spread rapidly to the prime market and to subprime markets where loans were made by lenders other than insured banks.”

Enter Andrew Cuomo, Clinton’s second HUD Secretary. Cuomo pushes GSE’s requirement of risky mortgages to 50%:

In 2000, Cuomo required a quantum leap in the number of affordable, low-to-moderate-income loans that the two mortgage banks—known collectively as Government Sponsored Enterprises—would have to buy. The GSEs don’t actually sell mortgages to borrowers. They buy them from banks and mortgage companies, allowing lenders to replenish their capital and make more loans. They also purchase mortgage-backed securities, which are pools of mortgages regularly acquired by the GSEs from investment firms. The government chartered these banks to pump money into the mortgage market and, while they did it, to make a strong enough profit to attract shareholders. That created a tug-of-war between their efforts to maximize shareholder value, which drove them toward high-end mortgages, and their congressionally mandated obligation to finance loans for those who needed help. The 1992 law required HUD’s secretary to make sure housing goals were being met and, every four years, set new goals for Fannie and Freddie.

Cuomo’s predecessor, Henry Cisneros, did that for the first time in December 1995, taking a cautious approach and moving the GSEs toward a requirement that 42 percent of their mortgages serve low- and moderate-income families. Cuomo raised that number to 50 percent and dramatically hiked GSE mandates to buy mortgages in underserved neighborhoods and for the “very-low-income.”

Cuomo knew how bad these loans were going to be, and he did all he could to make sure no one was going to know.

The HUD secretary is also required to produce voluminous rules that govern how the GSEs meet those goals, and the 187-page rules Cuomo issued opened the door to abuse.

The rules explicitly rejected the idea of imposing any new reporting requirements on the GSEs. In other words, HUD wanted Fannie and Freddie to buy risky loans, but the department didn’t want to hear just how risky they were.

HUD conceded in the rules that many consumer groups had urged it to insist that the GSEs provide “loan-level data” revealing how many of their loans contained high interest rates, prepayment penalties, or other requirements that presaged bad loans.

Cuomo made bad even worse:

But Cuomo wasn’t only stifling data that HUD could use to keep the GSEs out of trouble. He also went against his own recommendation—in a report issued jointly with the Treasury Department a few months earlier—that called for a prohibition against the GSEs purchasing loans “with high costs and/or predatory features.” Instead, Cuomo decided without explanation to adopt rules that prohibited nothing.

Profits from sub-prime mortgages are derived largely from Yield-Spread Premiums” or YSP’s. Up to 90% of sub-prime mortgages trigger them.

There are certainly those who believe that YSPs are at the heart of the crisis. Senator Chris Dodd, the chair of the banking committee, is trying to ban them, prodded by the fact that up to 90 percent of subprime mortgages quietly triggered these lucrative payments. When the Federal Reserve recently considered barring them and then backed off, a Times editorial charged that it had “balked on banning the practice whereby brokers maximize their commissions by signing up borrowers for the most expensive loan possible, even when the borrower qualifies for a cheaper.” The Illinois attorney general, Lisa Madigan, accused Countrywide of structuring their deals with brokers “in a manner that virtually guaranteed” that they were “more concerned with getting the highest YSP possible than getting their borrowers the best loan possible,” oblivious to “the possible fraud that this financial incentive would motivate.”

Cuomo tacitly endorsed them.

Cuomo hasn’t sued anybody over these outrageous payments to brokers—which are based on the “spread” between the high interest rate that brokers persuade unwary borrowers to accept and the par or going rate they would ordinarily have to pay. If Cuomo did sue, it might make for an awkward moment or two in court, since it was Cuomo who issued a rule in 1999 that dozens of federal courts have since found legalized the yield-spread premiums. He was the first HUD secretary to say they were “not illegal per se,” nullifying most of the 150 class-action lawsuits against them filed across the country.

All the “evil” bankers did was to take advantage of the infrastructure that Cuomo created. Then Democrats ran Fannie and Freddie as though the GSE’s were personal piggie banks. Barney Frank protected this fraud as though his life depended on it. Now he lies through his teeth about doing so.

Barney Frank in 2005: “Those of us on our committee in particular will continue to push for home ownership.”

Barney Frank in 2010: “I was very much in disagreement with this push into home ownership, and I think the Federal government should not be artificially doing that.”

Henry Cisneros see no government culpability in this mess:

“The real problem occurred not out of a governmental push, but out of a hijacking of the homeownership process by some unscrupulous interests.”

And what of Cisneros? Well, he joined the Board of Countrywide in 2001.

In 1998 Cuomo sued Accubanc for $2 billion because they were not making enough bad loans.

Every time liberals do something that they see as “fair” it screws the working people of this country and ends up as a disaster. Cuomo should doing time in Riker’s, serving as a sexual relief station for inmates. Instead, he’s going to be the next Governor of New York.

Sometimes life cannot be more ironic than it is.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
114 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@ Old Trooper —

The problem I have with your Marxist dichotomy of a “Producing Class” and a “Non-Producing Class” is that it is inaccurate and both under inclusive and over inclusive. A few examples:

1) I had a client years ago who was a 52 y.o. laid off man on disability after he had a stroke. He had worked the previous 30 years as an engineer. Which category would he fall in?

2) Paris Hilton — which category is she in? She does not work at all, but pays some taxes. Producing Class?

3) A woman I know who retired after 35 years as a registered nurse, now working as a consultant to the juvenile court system. Which class?

4) U.S. military officers and enlisted men. They are employed by the government. So where do they fall?

5) All children under 15 who do not work. They do nothing but consume consume consume and pay nothing into the fisc. Non-Producing Class?

6) John Stagliano, the pornographer known as “Butt Man,” makes millions and pays a lot in taxes.

7) My lawyer’s son, a 30 year old Black man in the Peace Corps in Azerbajian. He pays no taxes. Where would you put him?

8) Greg Mortenson, an Army veteran who builds schools in Pakistan. He makes less than $30,000 per year and, therefore, probably pays no income taxes.

9) Albert Haynesworth makes about $18 million under his contract with the redskins, but considers himself a slave because they want him to play nose tackle. He makes lots of money and pays lots of taxes.

The idea of measuring the worth of a citizen by whether they pay taxes is odious, absurd and nonsensical. The idea of measuring a person’s contribution to society based on what they earn is laughable and, to put it simple, unamerican. By your measure, Buttman is MUCH more important that my lawyer’s son and Mortenson (who put their a$$es on the line every day simply because they are Americans in Central Asian countries) and a 19 year old soldier. Paris Hilton is more important that the woman working with youth in the juvenile court system, and so is Haynesworth. But your Producing Class theory, I guess, explains a lot about the values of the right and why you guys push the policies you push.

@ B-Rob, over the years I have run into many folks like you that don’t seem to have a grasp of the Constitution, US Code, the UCMJ or Status of Forces Agreements and cite “Clauses” but quite frankly peddle snake oil when they cannot cite specifics.

Over the years, as a Commissioned Officer, I have served on Court Martial Boards and as defense counsel for Soldiers charged under the UCMJ for offenses. Any Soldier charged can choose from SJA Attorneys or any Commissioned Officer for their counsel. Not the same as Civilian Courts where specifics must be cited. In Civilian Courts, citations or previous court decisions are referenced but a higher standard of “proofs” must be presented so I know the difference between your “work” and mine.

Serving as Counsel was in addition to my other duties. Producing a product, in my case Beef on the hoof, was my civilian occupation and the level of taxes that I have paid over the past year despite serving on Active Duty in the Army is most likely more than you make in a year at your “Practice” and raising prime beef in the wilds of Montana, employing over 30 Folks Full Time, never missing tax payments, never missing a payroll, complying with a plethora of regulations, the USDA, the EPA and State Agencies makes me a “Producer” as well as a consumer of supplies from local businesses that support the jobs of thousands.

I am held to a bit higher standard than you and find your vague references to “Clauses” as pathetic. I employ more folks than you do and pay more in taxes than you make in a year and despite three recalls to Active Duty post Retirement after 28 years of Service plus two, have run my spread, dealt with educated Fools, Pretenders, and outright Phonies involved in the Legal Profession, clowns that work in Government but never worked a day in the Private Sector on the “Producing” end and know BS when I see and smell it. You set off my BS Detector very keenly.

Read Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution, that cite the scope of employment for the Executive and Legislative Branches because your overly vague and loose interpretation of the Law just makes you another Snake Oil Peddler. Under your “view” dope dealers are just undocumented pharmacists. I don’t see it in that light. So, under your standard, after representing 8 Soldiers in Court Martial over 30 years of Service, I have done more Legal work than the POTUS.

@ Old Trooper —

Since am not Obama’s mom, I do not have his transcripts. Hell, I don’t even have my own college transcripts, nor has anyone requested them since I went to law school. And no one has requested my law school transcripts since I started practicing law. See how this works?

What do we know about Obama’s grades in college? They were good enough to get him into Harvard. What do we know about his grades at Harvard? They were good enough to get him on Law Review and to graduate magna cum laude. And his grades were good enough to get him the teaching job at a conservative Top Five law school in 1993, long before he ever ran for office and long before you even knew who the hell he was. (And please don’t even try the “affirmative action” b.s. argument. It would just reinforce that you know NOTHING about how conservative and hostile to affirmative action Chicago was in the 1990s.)

As I explained before, with the exception of Ginsberg, Roberts and Sotomayor, Obama three years after law school had more litigation experience than all the other Supreme Court justices when they went on the Supreme Court. So the idea that Obama was not qualified to teach at Chicago, among a faculty with LESS LITIGATION EXPERIENCE and with no other Harvard Law Review presidents, says more about your reflexive inability to give credit where credit is due than it says about anyone else.

And here is what his students though about him as a professor:

http://volokh.com/posts/1209848068.shtml

So what else can we say? Even if one agreed with you and Mata that he was “not qualified” to teach at U. Chicago (a laughable claim), he was still a damn good teacher, good enough to be offered tenure! All this happened long before he ran for any national office, so what does that say about your carping now?

@ Mata —

I forgot to add one thing — Obama graduated magna cum laude from Harvard, the same status as John Roberts and Steven Breyer. Hopefully we can put that issue to rest, too.

I checked your link about how one nut thinks Bill Ayers wrote the book. It remains a laughably weak theory. One piece of “evidence” he cites is that Ayers and Obama both used the phrase “hog butcher to the world” to describe Chicago. “B- evidence” is I think how he put it. This is, in a word, insane. Hog Butcher to the World is up there with “The City of Big Shoulders” and “The Windy City” among the most common monikers for Chicago. If two people using that phrase is B- evidence in his mind, then he is simply insane.

Again — you are trying to get me to believe that the guy who wrote this Con law exam question in 1996 could not write his own memoir in 1994:

http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/2008OBAMA_LAW/conlaw3.obama.1996.fall.pdf

Here’s the other reason your theory is nonsense: is there a sheet of paper, a note, a scrap of anything supporting this? Anything? Any person from the publishing house, a witness, any human being who would know who could support this? No. A la “Deep Throat” being uncovered by Carl Bernstein’s 12 year old son, is there any commentary by any person who knows the parties claiming Ayers got drunk one day and claimed he wrote the book, or Obama admitting it in a moment of weakness?

Then there is the entire time/space continuum problem with this theory. Obama got his book contract in 1991/1992 time frame. The publishers felt that he had the ability to produce a book and gave him an advance for a few grand to do it. He starts teaching at Chicago in 1992 and he turns the manuscript in to the publisher in 1994. The book is published in 1995 and hits the market with a thud. Obama met Ayers in 1995, so I’m wondering how you contend Obama got him to write a book that had already been sent to the publisher in 1994. But I am sure you have a non-spaceship abduction explanation for this feat of time travel.

B-Rob, HEY, you twisted mind is at it again, as a notation to you,you have no idea what your writing
about because the MARXIST dichotomy come from your side of the fence, and you know it,
AS much as you try to shoot your twisted lies,targeted to many here
it doesn’t reach anyone,and you end up being so frustrated,
your telling of how desperation can take you so low, and all of your energy
SPEND for nothing, you don’t even have a worthy cause to defend anymore,
FROM now on the cause belong to the PEOPLE of THIS BEAUTIFUL AMERICA
THE JEWEL of the WORLD. YES the AMERICANS SAW and NOTICE
AND want their AMERICA back

@ Old Trooper —

I have a hair under 15 years experience representing public governments and private employers in civil rights matters at the trial and appellate level;I have taught continuing legal education courses on civil rights law. I think I know a teensy bit about the Constitution.

I have no idea what your experience is on Constitutional issues. But interpretation is simply not supported by any court decision I am aware of. Again, you are entitled to your opinion. You can chose to believe anything you want. But I simply pointed out reality — no court has EVER interpreted the Constitution the way you do.

You presume quite a bit in assuming that you pay more in taxes than I do. And you needlessly try to make this a “me vs. you” thing, changing the subject from your Marxist “Producing Class” theory. But you have not answered my questions, have you? Where does a 30 year old Peace Corps worker in a Muslim country fit in your little theory? Is he one of the people you put in the “Non-Producing Class”, while high-tax paying Paris Hilton and Buttman, by your implication, are more “productive.”

I will remember your dichotomy whenever I hear cons argue in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts and talk about “producers.” Buttman does create a lot of jobs (albeit dangerous and degrading jobs) so I guess he is a hero in your Randian eyes, meriting fewer government regulations, tax cuts, and more freedom to reinvest money in even more degrading sexually debasing material. Come to think of it, aren’t obscenity laws stifling commerce? Guess we should do away with them and open up more opportunities for Buttman.

See, from your “Producing Class” theory”, you really don’t care what individuals actually contribute to this country, only how much money they pay in taxes; in your eyes, externalities do not matter one whit. I get it. That says tons about your values.

@ B-Rob, I am a Minority by Law, never received a “lowered bar” for my admission to any school,
am a Graduate of UNC Chapel Hill, have a Masters in International Relations from the University of Maryland and am a grad of the War College. I hit the mark on Merit and GPA alone and not AA despite the fact that I am 1/4 Lakota Sioux Indian by parentage and have faced more discrimination than anyone that you know. I am a Native Born Citizen and my ancestors were here before the first boat load of slaves from Africa set foot on the continent.

The rest of your posting is reflective of the lowered standards that AA brought to the mix over the past few years. My Daughter is a Second Year Cadet at the USAFA, earned entirely on Merit, not influence due to race, gender or AA quotas that currently exist. I was in the top 10% of my Class as She currently is at USAFA.

I don’t know why I waste my time responding to your nonsense. Plead your care here but until you can post your Zeros transcripts or and relevant proof of achievement, you are just pissing in the wind. He has an empty resume and yours most likely is the same. Keep fishing but expect no further bites from me. You are just not credible.

@ B-Rob, shouldn’t you be out chasing ambulances instead of posting tripe here in defense of your
“Heroes”? 😛

beeswarzone —

I am responding to Old Trooper dividing this country into a “Producing Class” and a “Non-Producing Class”; that is his construct and it is entirely consistent with Karl Marx’s industrialists vs. workers dichotomy. Your post is little more than a weak attempt to change the subject to “Oh, yeah, well you guys are Marxists, too.” Old Trooper, realizing he stepped in it, is trying to change the subject, too, and not answer my question about who he puts in which class and to which class he owes his allegiance. But I will not let him off the hook so easily.

See, that is what is so funny about the far right and the far left, too: too many slogans and sound bites, not enough thinking or challenging your own preconceived notions. It is shown here with the whole ACORN/CRA b.s. — you all bought into this claim because Fox News promoted it, but you did not bother to think it through to see if it was supported in fact or logic. After flailing to support the unsupportable (that ACORN’s opposition to subprime lending means they are responsible for subprime lending) Old Trooper spins off into his Marxist “Producing Class” theory.

Now it all makes sense, of course!

ACORN, in opposing subprime lending and redlining, was supporting the Non-Producing Class, i.e., the non-wealthy. Old Trooper, therefore, must take the position opposite ACORN (because they could NEVER be right on an issue) and Old Trooper supports the Producing Class, i.e., the mortgage brokers and the banks, and blames ACORN for the problems. They are on the “right” side of things regardless as to what they actually did, just as John “Buttman” Stagliano is in the Producing Class because he makes a lot of money. In other words, ACORN supports the hoes and Old Trooper is on the side of the pimps. It has nothing to do with morality or ethics or what you actually do FOR America; for Old Trooper, it is all about how much you make.

@ Old Trooper —

I asked you nothing about your racial background because is it irrelevant. I didn’t even say anything about your professional background because that, too, is irrelevant. You brought up qualifications, not me. So your “ambulance chasing” blast is another weak diversion, especially since, for example, I represented an ambulance company against it’s two employees who violated the law and were terminated.

But I note that this is the second time you have responded and STILL not “fleshed out” (pun intended) which side of the “Producing Class” dichotomy you put Paris Hilton and John Stagliano. C’mon, don’t be shy! ‘Splain what you mean!

@ Old Trooper 2,

I applaud your work ethic and your position in this exchange, however, if we followed the dollar, any guesses as to who is buttering B-Bob’s bread? . . . And any guesses as to why they can, or why they do so? He squanders a good deal of energy on poorly constructed arguments, easily leaping from assumption to assumption, in vain attempt to appear astute.

Such individuals sprinkle their performances with an occasional fact, which, if presented with enough vigour, will move other feeble minds. Evidently, like the object of his adoration, he can hear, but he can neither listen, nor learn. What he claims being, required that he “memorize,” which does not automatically point to any other capacity.

Your own varied career, and achievements, on the other hand, automatically point to your having been open to listening and learning. Your own path likely evolved, while I would guess that he is stuck.

I’m not pretending to psychoanalyze here because I certainly don’t have the wherewithal to do so, but there are a couple of current threads here in which assailant clamourings from B-Bob are so deeply embedded in either ideology, or in worship of his leader that he will never be moved. . . . But the anger drum keeps beating, and he still does not READ.

B-Rob:IT’S no one here but the side you work so hard to sell to the CONSERVATIVES, that carry the so call from you divide between the ones who produce for the GOVERNMENT and the ones that take moneys from them, KEEP in mind that It’s you who attack the CONS as you call them
and polluted this POST and 2 more POST, with your arrogant so call knowledge corrections,
treating our friends like you have no respect for anyone: well I have news for you,
these local at FA, are of higher INTELLIGENCE and CLASS, they happen to have knowledge:
I cannot allow you to go on the abuse you push on my friends, without noting that fact
and your position is irrelevant compare to the militarys who are fighting for your right to talk
and write insults as you do here like a thug. they are standing way up over you and who you represent, all of them could be better to run AMERICA and serve the people according to the CONSTITUTION,; return to your seeds and remember who you all should fight for,
that is your decency toward AMERICA.

@ Old Trooper —

I just reread your post and, on second reading, it is even more disconnected and bizarre than on the first reading. First, you know nothing about anyone I know, so how do you know you have faced more discrimination than anyone I know? You have no idea whether I know someone who escaped the Holocaust (I do), or someone who lived through Jim Crow (I do). You think you suffered more discrimination than them? Please . . . .

It’s weird — your post was both presumptuous and self-pitying, especially for someone implying they NEVER took advantage from any affirmative action. And another thing, Old Trooper — how do you even KNOW if you benefited from affirmative action? You may have been given opportunities precisely because you were a minority. Like Michael Steele being given a shot at the RNC, or Sarah Palin, or Clarence Thomas. The idea that they were “the most quallified” for their positions does not pass the giggle test. They were given an opportunity precisely because of their ethnic/gender background. That you excelled (like Condi Rice and Colin Powell) is admirable; but don’t act as if affirmative action may not have benefited you. Because it probably helped you in many ways even if you did not know it.

But I see what you are doing: changing the subject to more comfortable ground. You would rather talk about how you are a Producer, not a Non-Producer, instead of answering my question about where a Peace Corps worker fits in. Not gonna let you off the hook, though.

@ James Raider —

I note that you did not try to actually disprove anything I wrote about ACORN’s role in the subprime mortgage meltdown. And I also note that you did not try to controvert what I wrote about the CRA, its scope, bank’s efforts to comply, ACORN’s use of CRA to combat subprime lending, and the fact that the conservatives meme about ACORN and the CRA is b.s. You call them “poorly constructed” arguments, yet you make no effort to deconstruct them and prove them wrong. Instead, you change the subject to who you assume is paying me and why — as if that would actually negate what I wrote. It’s as if say “The sky is blue” and you tell the crowd “He works for the Dems” as if that actually is relevant to the question “What color is the sky?” Very weak . . . .

James, I will take your post as a punt, a tap out, a “No mas!” Because how else can you respond to someone who does not even bother to prove their point using facts or logic but, instead relies on an emotional argument?

@B-Rob: You show your ignorance when you imply that Obama was not qualified to teach at U. Chicago Law School (where he taught AND EXCELLED AT TEACHING for more than ten years) — because, by your count (not his, yours) he only had one litigation case under his belt.

ah yes… another Axelrod “have you evidence it isn’t..?”, eh Billy Bob. Since we already know your math challenged, we’ll walk you thru it s-l-o-w-l-y.

The short story? Obama went to his graduation ceremony, got his sheepskin and was nigh on immediately handed a “teaching” job for that mere accomplishment. By the numbers:

“da won” entered Harvard late 1988 and graduated Harvard in three years (late 1991)

He was also with a law firm with 13 associates for three years… 1993 to 1996. In that same period while he was amassing Billy Bob’s imagined legal experience, he was busy writing that book Billy Bob is so sure he penned (took four years…), and running Project Vote. And let’s not forget the time he spent, while in the law firm’s employ, on the State Senate campaign trail,

Between community organizing, writers block on a biography, and “teaching” without any notable experience in law in the real world, plus campaigning, just what time did he have to be lead attorney on anything, Billy Bob?

His second stint as a “senior lecturer” was while he was a sitting IL junior Senator. He’s getting lots of litigation experience there too, right? But I’m sure it was a great extra paycheck to just have a rock star politician show up at the campus for a paid chit chat.

Oh, but don’t take my word for it. Unlike you, I’m willing to post some sources to back up my comments, where you just deliver lip service. Obama, himself, admits he worked behind the scenes at his law firm.

Obama admits he played a mostly behind-the-scenes role at his law firm, Miner Barnhill & Galland. He researched the law, drafted motions, prepared for depositions and did other less glamorous work during his three years full-time and eight years “of counsel” to the firm. Many trial lawyers spend their time similarly, part of a trend over the last 20 years of settling a greater percentage of cases before trial.

“I was an associate, and a lot of my work was in the research and writing,” Obama told the Sun-Times on Sunday.

“I was one of the better writers. I ended up doing the more cerebral writing, less trial work,” Obama added. “That’s actually something I regret — not doing more trial work.”

“He wrote lots of substantial memos, but he didn’t try any cases,” said Judson Miner, a partner in the firm who was Obama’s boss.

Hence…. glorified paralegal from the horse’s mouth. Or would that be “jacka$$”… LOL Sorry, with the ado on that description, it seemed fitting to add it here as an alternative for some.

Your attempt to defend a top ranked law school, hiring a guy’s who’s accomplishments were to be graduated, and was a lack luster, unpublished editor of the Law Review, to teach “Constitutional law” to the students – who can get more informed teachers with their own summer jobs – is simply laughable.

Billy Bob sez: Mata, I guess you were not paying much attention during the last 30 years as O’Conner, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsberg, Breyer, Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor and Kagan (have I missed anyone?) were confirmed. Want to know how many of them have actual jury trial experience? Only Ginsberg and Sotomayor. O’Conner, Breyer, Alito and Kagan came from the legislative/administrative branches and did not even have ANY appellate experience. Thomas had only done appellate work for a couple years when he was fresh out of law school, then went into the administrative side of government. Roberts had scads of appellate experience, but no more jury trial experience than my 14 year old; ditto Ginsberg.

Before I get into any specifics, let’s start with the obvious, Billy Bob. These High Court nominees had SOME and ANY experience before being nominated for SCOTUS. They didn’t just graduate law school, toss their caps in the air, then get handed the nomination – as Obama did.

Secondly, again we will have to straighten out the forum readers on your inability to read. Where did I say that Obama had to be a trial lawyer to be qualified, Billy Bob? What I said to get your BVD’s in a wedgie was:

Obama “taught” law? I think that one caught my eye as the most humorous, and perhaps the most telling statement of your own demonstrated capabilities. The universities had a “constitutional lawyer as instructor”, who had as his resume one trial as lead attorney, and a glorified paralegal in the rest of his legal practice?

Now your confused and singular brain cell may beeline into “trial attorney” being the ticket to godliness in the legal world, but the fact you can’t read isn’t my problem. I’m pretty sure the rest of the forum was quick enough to pick up the point his experience was pitifully minimal to be anyone’s “instructor”.

This pretty much debunks your attempt to link Obama’s experience of being handed a sheepskin, and a lecturer’s job simultaneously to years of some, or *any*, experience by SCOTUS justices. And oh, BTW, the AG’s office is the government’s “law firm”, and most certainly qualifies as litigation experience.

Now, instead of wandering thru history which even your less than nimble mind can find on Wiki, why don’t you show me what SCOTUS appointee had *no* experience, save the graduation ceremony and the sheepskin in hand, to get their job?

BTW, you wouldn’t know what “Mata’s world” is like… because pond scum is never allowed beyond the guarded perimeter.

~~~

INRE all your CRA prattle… obviously real estate law is not your speciality, and you remain confused, and intent on creating “victims”.

ACORN was picketing banks over predatory lending in the inner city well before 2004. Indeed, both the NAACP and ACORN were protesting banks alleging that they were steering sub-prime loans into the inner cities. And don’t just disbelieve them — because the Greespan-led Fed completed studies around that same time frame that showed that minorities were getting put into subprime, higher interest rate loans at a time when whites with identical credit ratings were put into conventional loans with lower interest rates.

INRE the Fed study you quote as definitive proof. What that study ultimately showed was that the Boston hispanics and blacks were more likely to be in a subprime loan, even thro their income was similar.

The problem is lending criteria is not just about income numbers. It’s also your credit history, your scores, and your income to debt ratios. As Jay Brinkmann, an economist with the Mortgage Bankers Association, said about a similar NYC Furman Center study in the NY boroughs, it had puzzle pieces missing as to the specific differences between the minority and non minority loan specifics. Just because two households have equal income, doesn’t mean they are shouldering the same debt or credit history.

So exactly how widespread was the discrimination in the Fed study you cited? 6%, Billy Bob. Let’s shine some reality on your helter skelter fear campaign INRE subprime, shall we? Again, from the link you tout:

The study found that economic differences account for a substantial part of the disparities in the HMDA data, but that they do not explain those differences entirely. Minority applicants in the study had, on average, lower income, fewer liquid assets, more late and delinquent credit accounts, and higher debt-to-income ratios than white applicants. However, even after controlling for differences in relevant economic and financial variables, black and Hispanic mortgage applicants were more likely to be turned down than similarly situated whites. Specifically, on a statistical basis, minority applicants with credit-related characteristics identical to those of an average white applicant would experience a 17 percent denial rate, as compared with the white denial rate of 11 percent.

The study also found that the vast majority of minority applicants obtained loans, and that loan-approval rates for well-qualified and clearly unqualified applicants of all races were essentially what would be expected in a nondiscriminatory system. Disparities appeared to be most common among applicants who have some imperfections or flaws in credit qualifications. Many such applicants can–and do–qualify for a loan if a lender acts diligently, creatively, and flexibly on their behalf. However, the study’s results suggest that applicants of different races do not all benefit equally from such discretionary efforts in the lending process. This tentative explanation of the study’s findings is also consistent with investigation-based allegations recently reported by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Yes, it looks like 6% of minorities, with flawed credit and low income, did not “benefit equally” in obtaining the loans they did. Fact is they, as well as whites, were turned down. And in retrospect, all of them… both whites and minorities… with the flawed credit, low income, and high debt…. Should have been turned down.

But specifics of the small percentage of disparities of already a bad practice of relaxing lending criteria don’t stop the NAACP (or you, Billy Bob) from running willy nilly, shouting widespread “discrimination”. Instead they insist the buyers were “forced” into subprime loan rates and terms, despite stellar credit and income.

Now the question is, who forced them to sign on the dotted line with that particular lending institution?

What a loaf of baloney. Anyone ever heard of shopping around for the best rates? Are you “forced” to get a loan from your local bank when you can, and *should*, comparison shop to a plethora of lending institutions nationally? Is it the fault of Best Buy if you purchase your 50″ HDTV from them for $500 more than you can buy it at Video Only simply because you didn’t dial a few more phone numbers, or seek some help?

No buyer has ever been “forced” to sign on the dotted line. There is no lack of competition for loans, and good credit, income to debt buyers are welcome from lenders everywhere.. most especially minorities buyers with those qualifications. This means that the buyers with less than stellar credentials need to shop around. And, if they find the penalties they must pay are unmanageable until they can clean up their credit, then they remain renters until they clean their credit and get their debt down to sustainable levels. Lenders cannot price fix loan rates for bad credit risks… that’s also illegal. So you will always find some higher than others. Junk fees, to this day, still exist and are slipped past many an incautious and ill-informed buyer.

Then there is the question of how many of these loans were refinancing 100+ % of their equity, and then not putting a dime of their cash out into their house. Such was the case with the ACORN folks, making fools of themselves and their cause when using the scam artist, Donna Hanks, as their victim of foreclosure poster child. Ms. Hanks, of course, purchased her home for $87K in 2001. She refinanced, sucking out $175K approx cash proceeds… then defaulted with a year or so. Her income did not support that refinance, so she used some of the exotic loans instead. In any other climate, she would have been refused the loan… and should have. But it was Hanks, herself, that buried herself in debt.

And, BTW, no word from Ms. Hanks or ACORN as to where that $175K she sucked out of the house went. But, according to ACORN and Billy Bob types, she was “forced” to sign on the dotted line for a subprime loan to abscond with that cash.

So who’s the victim really? Depends upon who’s telling you the story, eh?

Billy Bob: Now how did cons come to the conclusion that the CRA was implicated in the subprime mortgage meltdown? I don’t know . . . alchemy, possibly. Because I have not seen them cite to any bank official or regulator anywhere who identified the CRA as a factor in this implosion. I have not seen any study that would support the conclusion, nor a rational explanation as to how the CRA regulations on commercial banks somehow “forced” non-bank mortgage lenders to do anything.

…. snip….

You state that banks complied with CRA by booking residential mortgages in the inner city. This is simply out and out false. I know because I DID CRA LOANS for what is now part of Bank of America. There is no money in $50,000 mortgages, so banks would meet their CRA responsibilities by lending to churches, doiing SBA loans to small grocers, doing construction loans for community development corporations, etc. Those larger loans allowed them to make money while benefiting underserved inner cities, which was the purpose of CRA. THAT is the definition of a CRA loan, not some individual mortgage to some schmoe in the hood.

Again, can you be this dense? You show *your* ignorance when you say commercial loans to develop the inner cities was the “definition” of a CRA loan. CRA bank did development loans, yes, but they most certainly included residential mortgages. And there weren’t many places where $50K mortgages to a “schmoe” was the norm… don’t keep up on pricing around the nation much, eh Billy Bob?

You will not find me saying that the CRA banks, themselves, are those responsible for the bulk of defaults. However the Rubin/Clinton 1995 backroom CRA reg change required that banks now show, on their books, a certain amount of these loans in order to expand, and that was applied to all banks… not only the community banks. To translate for Billy Bob, even non CRA banks had to comply with CRA regs INRE accounting in order to merge/expand.

The problem is, how do you get buyers with low credit scores, high debt and low income thru the GSE underwriting guidelines? One is to create new loan packages… i.e. low doc, no doc, stated income, 7-10 year ARMs, etc. The second is the help that Barney Frank and the GSE Congressional pets did when they demanded the GSE’s up the amount of assets to liquidity late 1990s. Thus the birth of the lax criteria, exotic loan packages and GSE increased risk was aided and abetted by the CRA regulation changes, and Congress.

Now the creative loan packages were a great financial tool… *when* they were used correctly. If one was moving to a new location, starting a new job outside your prior career, the stated income/lo doc/no doc loans were a great way to purchase immediately, instead of waiting two years to reestablish yourself.

If you were buying a home, knowing you’d be relocated in 3 or 4 years, the 5 -10 year ARMS were great since you’d be selling before your terms were reset to prime.

Interest only loans were great for investor/flippers. They knew they’d be increasing the value, and turning the home quickly.

But when buyers abuse these financial tools for their own greed, why is that the lender’s fault? When they mismanage their household budget, why is that a lenders fault? Only the progs constantly portray the culprits as victims.

~~~

Oh, and lastly, ACORN wasn’t protesting subprime loans in the way you portray. They were protesting securitization. The only protest they’d make about subprime was being POed that borrowers had to pay a higher rate because of their income/debt/credit… and as the Boston Fed study says, that was only a 6% difference than the caucasians *also* being turned down.

Now, if you’re one of those 6%, and you’re dumb enough to sign loan papers, ignore your right of rescission 3 day period (in the case of refinances), and not shop around, I don’t have a ton of sympathy with a post loan whine and lawsuit. Fact is, discrimination laws have been place for lending a long time. When you run into a lender that you know is discriminating, then you report them, and go elsewhere with your business.

But this accused steerage of loans, and widespread discrimination BS – save for that small percentile – is just prog talking points, making victims out of the irresponsible.

Mata —

Something you wrote just struck a chord with me. There is a book called “Supreme Discomfort” by two Washington Post journalists, about Clarence Thomas. Merida and Fletcher, the authors, relate the story that Clarence Thomas, appointed in 1993, was appalled that some people accused his clerks (who have all been White) of writing his opinions. erida and Fletcher also point out that Thurgood Marshall, appointed in 1967, was also accused of not writing his opinions, supposedly relying on his clerks (all White, as well).

Imagine my surprise, then, in 2010 that the same kind of accusation made against Marshall in the 60s and 70sl, and in the 90s against Thomas, is made against the president today. Another prominent Black leader, this one a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law, accused of fobbing off on the public something written by a white man. Whether it is Marshall or Thomas or Obama, there is something in SOME PEOPLE’S minds that cannot conceive of the idea that a Black person, no matter how well educated (Thomas at Yale Law) or experienced (Marshall with 25 years experience litigating, including winning more than 90% of his Supreme Court cases) can write. No, Marshall, Thomas and Obama ALL must have taken their work from White people.

Yet the allegations are just as baseless with Obama as they were with Thomas. In fact, the accusations against Obama make even LESS SENSE because he OBVIOUSLY had to submit a book proposal to his publisher before he got his contract. The proposal, in substance and quality, had to be good enough to convince the publisher that he could complete the book; because that is how the business works. But you, Mata, would have us believe that Obama could write well enough to submit a book proposal in 1991, but was incompetent in 1994 to actually complete his book; and, thus, Obama had to fraudulently submit the memoir of a White man — WHO HAD NEVER WRITTEN A MEMOIR BEFORE! — claiming it as his own in order to meet his contractual obligations. Somehow I bet Clarence Thomas and Obama both understand what it feels like to not get credit for your own accomplishments and intelligence. Indeed, after reading “My Grandfather’s Son,” I bet Obama and Thomas would probably agree they have a lot in common: abandoned by their hard drinking fathers, raised by grandparents, flighty mother’s, and never getting the credit due them from a White society (liberals toward Thomas, conservatives toward Obama) not willing to admit that they are qualified, competent or intelligent. From this point on, I will remember the things said about Thomas every time I hear a similar accusation toward Obama.

Mata —

You characterization of ACORN only protesting securitization and higher rates for people with poor credit is entertaining, but contradicted by contemporaneous newspaper reporting by American Banker, and weekly newspapers. alike, not to mention the plain text of the lawsuits filed by ACORN. In other words, ACORN’s opposition to subprime lending is documented, but your claims are not supported by any document anywhere. This suggests that you and people on your side made it up out of whole cloth and that it had no foundation, outside of the fervent imagination of wingnuts.

@B-Rob: Mata –

Something you wrote just struck a chord with me. …snip…

Wow…. talk about a racist wingnut….. Thanks for that demo, bud.

I have no idea why you delve off into this racist rant, and most certainly why you direct it at me. Where have I noted that Obama depends upon “White” people for speeches, writing, accomplishments, etal… or that he doesn’t get credit for his agenda and “accomplishments” personally because of his color?

And you wonder why I call you racial in nature? Doesn’t take long for you to prove such.

I personally give Obama all the credit in the world for further tanking the economy, and shoving Euro-socialism down the Republic’s throat as the step to further “equal justice” downline a decade or so. And I give that old “White” guy, FDR, the same credit… equally, and sans any comment on color of skin.

I leave that fixation of skin color to you and your compadres.

I see you didn’t bother to really read that fed study you, yourself, linked, Billy Bob. The amount of those experiencing discrimination in lending is but 6% of those cases different from “white” who experienced the same. Makes it’s hard to say it’s all racial, don’t you think? And, in fact, while the income/debt/credit for the minorities was indeed more flawed, those evil whites were also rejected, or thown into subprime. Those lenders that practiced subprime were not eyeing color of skin, they were eyeing the bucks… from whomever they felt didn’t do their due diligence in shopping for loans.

This, of course, makes it somewhat absurd to glorify ACORN’s attempts INRE subprime protests. Especially since, on the other side, they flooded the halls of Congress to lobby for loans for the low income.

Here’s the point… buying a home is a responsibility. Taking out a loan is a responsibility. When people tackle such a large financial endeavor in their lives, they should engage in some education about the subject and repercussions. You don’t buy a sail boat without taking some lessons, right? It’s not like there isn’t plenty of free assistance out there. Realtors who work for buyers are paid out of the listing agent’s co-op compensation contract, and do not cost the buyers a fee. There’s online education. HUD not only has a killer educational site for first time buyers about both homes and lending, but they also have free counseling services. Simply shopping around for loans will yield different results and different quality of service from loan originator to loan originator.

As I said, discriminatory lending has been against federal law for quite some time. When you suspect discrimination, or any violation of Fair Housing, you report it. You don’t sign on the dotted line.

But no… that small percentage of those found to not be plunked into subprime because of legitimate credit/income/debt scores are all victims to you… and all because of their skin color.

Me? I just think they were too stupid to own a home. Just as there are many of those evil “white” people who are just as stupid… taking out 120% of their equity, and spending it on anything other than their asset’s improvement.

Perhaps, like getting a drivers’ license, there should be basic home ownership economics courses that allow people to get a loan discount when purchasing. Then we wouldn’t have a nation of idiots, destroying home values for the rest of us.

Mata —

So it is “racist” to point out that your allegation that Obama did not write his book, but took credit for the efforts of a White man, is identical to the claims that Clarence Thomas and Thurgood Marshall did not write their opinions? OK. You may call it racist, but you know what I call it? A fact.

Mata, does it trouble you at all that your nonsensical accusations against Obama are recycled,having been used before against other prominent Blacks? Isn’t it interesting that you guys claim Bill Ayers, who had never written a memoir, must be the brains behind Obama’s book? Why Bill Ayers? Wouldn’t it be more likely that Reverend Wright or Frank Marshall, both of whom had published before, would be more likely to have ghost written the book about a Black teenager, especially since Obama ACTUALLY KNEW THEM DURING THE 1991 TO 1994 TIME FRAME WHEN THE BOOK WAS WRITTEN?!

No . . . for some reason, YOU choose instead to ascribe the credit for the book to a White guy who Obama did not even know. I guess next you’ll tell me that Obama burglarized Ayers’ house, rifled through his briefcase and took hiss book, all the while smoking a crack pipe!

Do you cons ever get tired of being laughed at? Guess not . . . .

Cons are descending down a paranoid rat hole. And it is kinda entertaining to watch, truth be told.

Billy Bob: So it is “racist” to point out that your allegation that Obama did not write his book, but took credit for the efforts of a White man, is identical to the claims that Clarence Thomas and Thurgood Marshall did not write their opinions? OK. You may call it racist, but you know what I call it? A fact.

No, Billy Bob. It’s “racist” for you to accuse me of noting that he may, or may not have used a ghost writer when I could care less if Wm Ayers is black, white or purple. Fact is, he’s “red” thru and thru. But because you live that eveything revolves around race, you assume others live under that same rock.

And BTW, you again demonstrate you have less than 8th grade reading levels. Otherwise you would have comprehended that when I linked Cashill’s articles, I said “hardly baseless” and “no smoking gun” either.

Mata —

Your accusations against ACORN remain link free, unsupported, and contradicted by the historical and documentary record. But then you throw in a NEW CLAIM that ACORN was supposedly lobbying Congress for “more loans.”* Again — an allegation with not a single supporting link or even a plausible argument supporting it. I chalk it up to the same thing I chalk up your claim that ACORN was “demanding” subprime loans — it is a flat out, unmitigated bald faced lie. And you know its a lie, too.

See, I am not like you cons: just because a con says something doesn’t mean I believe it. In fact, unlike liberals, libertarians and moderates, you con people have such little credibility, I assume you are lying until I can confirm it.

* How does one “lobby” Congress for loans? And when did this supposedly happen? And since the GOP controlled the House from 1994 through 2006, why they hell would they have bothered to try to get ANYTHING from fat Denny Hastert and John Boehner? You allegation is not only a lie, it is not even plausible!

Oh that’s rich… you, who never provides links and blames it on your laptop… now wants links? ACORN was active lobbyists in Congress for pressuring HUD to lower lending criteria. History, evidently something you prefer to view thru black-colored glasses.

Where’s your links, Billy Bob? Perhaps your undoubtedly more intelligent paralegal can dig them up for you.

While you’re at trying to catch up on current events, perhaps you’ll let us know what the majority spread of the GOP over the Dems were from 1994 thru 2006. Supermajority anywhere? Even close to a supermajority? Or was it a slim margin, which gave them little power to do anything without Dem defection?

duh… fish in a barrel.

Anyone who can defend ACORN after the embezzlement scandle and the Breitbart videos has a lot of oatmeal between his ears.

MATA, I have a rock here in my front lawn that you likely can have a better discussion with than B-Rob! Don’t waster your time. You have much to contribute to other discussions. Remember, when you wrestle with a pig, all you get is dirty!

Randy —

*yawn*

Not content to accuse ACORN of doing provable things (like sloppy accounting, submitting bogus voter registrations in the name of Mickey J. Mouse, etc.), cons decided to accuse them of bogus things (like the heavily edited Breitbart video). But to say that ACORN was culpable in the housing melt down was simply a flat out lie. I proved my point — that ACORN sued over and protested subprime lending — and backed it up with contemporaneous news articles and cites to legal documents. Just because ACORN did X does not give you cons license to flat out lie . . . which is what people here did . . . they lied. Just as with Breitbart and O’Keefe’s edited videos, once the source is proven a liar, their credibility is shot. You folks continue to undermine your own credibility and I was more than happy to point out the facts.

OK, my turn

On September 29, the article “Bank of America Pulls ACORN funding” appeared on the CNN political ticker. While the short piece thankfully does list some of ACORN’s recent scandals, such as the Breitbart video investigation and the voter registration fraud, it didn’t answer the question that was surely on every reader’s mind: What exactly was Bank of America paying ACORN for?

Let’s not fault writer/editor Amy Sabha for not addressing the topic, as she was clearly very busy working on this video in which she goes up and down the UN escalator.

Instead we can just go to the Bank of America community website, which notes that the firm works with ACORN in more than 20 cities to provide “special mortgage products.” Or we can go to the ACORN Housing website, which describes a program that produced $246 million in mortgages from Bank of America with “flexible underwriting and discounted pricing.” Or this page, which describes a program with low down payments, no private mortgage insurance, no cash reserve necessary, and flexibility on income requirements, such as being able to include public assistance.

Yes, ACORN and Bank of America joined forces to become the ultimate subprime lender. So much for the organization’s lofty social justice rhetoric.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-did-bank-of-america-pay-acorn/

The key question, however, is the effect of relaxed lending standards on lending standards in non-CRA markets. In principle, it would seem impossible–if down payment or other requirements were being relaxed for loans in minority-populated or other underserved areas–to limit the benefits only to those borrowers. Inevitably, the relaxed standards banks were enjoined to adopt under CRA would be spread to the wider market–including to prime mortgage markets and to speculative borrowers. Bank regulators, who were in charge of enforcing CRA standards, could hardly disapprove of similar loans made to better qualified borrowers. This is exactly what occurred. Writing in December 2007 for the Milken Institute, four scholars observed: “Over the past decade, most, if not all, the products offered to subprime borrowers have also been offered to prime borrowers. In fact, during the period from January 1999 through July 2007, prime borrowers obtained thirty-one of the thirty-two types of mortgage products–fixed-rate, adjust-able rate and hybrid mortgages, including those with balloon payments–obtained by subprime borrowers.”

…….

Although it is difficult to prove cause and effect, it seems highly likely that the lower lending standards banks were required to adopt under the CRA influenced what they and other lenders were willing to offer to borrowers in prime markets.

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.29015/pub_detail.asp

Mata —

You did not allege that Obama “may or may not” have used a ghost writer. You stated, as fact, that Bill Ayers wrote the book. You linked to a number of articles (hmm . . . can’t find them now . . . wonder where they are . . . guess you erased all that) that you said “proved” Bill Ayers really wrote the book. But I see you are backtracking fast now, aren’t you? It’s OK, Mata, it’s OK.

MATA, I read the links, too, I think you would be more enlightened watching “Days of Our Lives”!

drjohn —

That AEI article is the second one from the conservative side SPECULATING on a link between the CRA and subprime lending. But, as I have explained above, it does not hold any water whatsoever. To me, it is a post hoc blame shifting exercise to take the heat off the people who REALLY were responsible: the lenders who extended credit and the bundlers who put all the crappy loans together.

So Bank of America and ACORN partnered on a program that resulted in $246 million in loans. Are you sh*tting me? THAT is why you cons are blaming ACORN for a multi-trillion dollar international meltdown in subprime loans, collateralized debt obligations and default swaps? Seriously . . .
again, read “The Big Short” by Michael Lewis to get a flavor of what was going on and why. And read “On the Brink” by Hank Paulson to get a taste of what we were up against.

Mata —

You just made an allegation (that ACORN was “lobbying for loans” so to speak) that not only did not make sense, but I had also not heard before. I asked you to support your claim and you refuse. As such, I can only conclude that, just like the “ACORN is responsible for the subprime lending meltdown” accusation, it is b.s.

I read the AEI article; it was light and airy and content free. For example, it mentions that (a) the Clinton administration wanted CRA covered banks to lend in low and moderate income areas. But it (b) conjures up subprime loans as the RESULT of this, claiming “Thus, a law that was originally intended to encourage banks to use safe and sound practices in lending now required them to be innovative and flexible–a clear requirement for the relaxation of lending standards.” Huh?

Do not forget, though, that during this same time, ACORN was challenging mergers and expansions arguing that subprime mortgages far from COMPLYING with CRA, actually violated CRA! But the AEI article takes the first fact, conjures lower lending standards the second with respect the CRA-banks, then puts that in a black box to conclude that “it seems highly likely” that the lower lending standards it conjured for CRA banks migrated to mortgage brokers and non-bank lenders? W.t.f.? A daisy chain of conjecture and surmise results in that conclusion? Wow . . . what passes for intelligent thought on the right today . . . .

But here is the proof that AEI was grasping at straws:

There is very little data available on the performance of loans made under the CRA. The subject has become so politicized in light of the housing meltdown and its effect on the general economy that most reports–favorable or unfavorable–should probably be discounted.

Got that? You can’t identify the performance of a CRA loan so don’t listen to anyone who claims they did well or did poorly. In other words, “We have no idea what we are talking about, so don’t quote us.”

Billy Bob rides again on his horse of lies and miscomprehension. ah… where do we begin? Some of us have to work for a living, ya know.

Billy Bob: Mata –

You did not allege that Obama “may or may not” have used a ghost writer. You stated, as fact, that Bill Ayers wrote the book. You linked to a number of articles (hmm . . . can’t find them now . . . wonder where they are . . . guess you erased all that) that you said “proved” Bill Ayers really wrote the book. But I see you are backtracking fast now, aren’t you? It’s OK, Mata, it’s OK.

Billy Bob, that comment is located here, on another thread. Now since I know you’re picture and reading challenged, and don’t seem to follow links, let’s see how your assertation that I “…stated, *as fact, that Bill Ayers wrote the book.” really fares in current event, linkable archives.

Billy Bob: In fact, let me ask you — what is the EVIDENCE that anyone other than Obama wrote the book, which languished in the market until 2004? Not you baseless speculation, but actual evidence. Hell, is there even a plausible argument? No. It’s just silliness on your part.

Mata: Ah… another Axelrod/Alinsky “toss the mud” moment?

Here ya go… Jack Cashill’s research – hardly “baseless”, and certainly not “smoking gun. Load your pipe and read.
Who Wrote “Dreams” and Why It Matters
Breakthrough on the Authorship of Obama’s “Dreams”.

You asked of “what evidence”. I gave you not only “the evidence” that Cashill researched, but also stated it was hardly “baseless”, as you avered, but was certainly not the “smoking gun”.

Yet you read that as I stated *as fact* that Ayers had written the book. I suggest you request a refund for your education, Billy Bob. Obviously, the simplest of skillsets, reading, didn’t take. I “erased” it? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Your accusations against ACORN remain link free, unsupported, and contradicted by the historical and documentary record. But then you throw in a NEW CLAIM that ACORN was supposedly lobbying Congress for “more loans.”* Again — an allegation with not a single supporting link or even a plausible argument supporting it. I chalk it up to the same thing I chalk up your claim that ACORN was “demanding” subprime loans — it is a flat out, unmitigated bald faced lie. And you know its a lie, too.

…snip…

* How does one “lobby” Congress for loans? And when did this supposedly happen?

Dang, Billy Bob. Hope you have clean shorts on, because you’re about to eat them.

From the the March 1992 NYTs, “Fading Red Line; A special report; New Hope in Inner Cities: Banks Offering Mortgages”:

The Philadelphia banks in the program, Mellon, Continental and Fidelity,, say their experience shows that a well-structured program can break even in the short run and promises intangible and financial gains over the long haul. The banks charge sufficient fees to cover costs and work hard to keep delinquencies and foreclosures low.

“These are not conventional loans and we make sure that we don’t lose money,” Mr. Desiderio said. “But they are totally beneficial to us because they improve our trade area. In the long run this will drop to the bottom line.”

…snip…

What is more, these mortgages help banks fulfill somewhat vague obligations of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, which requires banks to invest in communities that provide them with deposits.

“What happens to these neighborhoods when there are no loans?” said Bruce Dorpalen, Acorn’s housing coordinator in Philadelphia. “You limit sales to those who pay cash or who make large down payments. Who is that? Absentee landlords or drug dealers.

“There is a market for these houses. Where bankers get religion is when then see they can do this with no risk.

…snip…

The terms of these loans might well cause most bankers to wince — at first. A typical borrower earns from $10,000 to the mid-$20,000’s a year and gets a mortgage — which averages about $22,000 — a percentage point or more below market rates. Fees are lowered and lending standards allow even welfare payments and food stamps to be counted as income.

Since many inner-city residents have never had checking accounts and pay only with cash, many have no credit history. So, banks look at rent and utility payments and outstanding debts to determine creditworthiness. Normally, banks require two years of steady employment. But here, since so many low-income residents switch jobs frequently, banks look for steady income, even if from many jobs.

…snip…

But the mergers that have helped create the lending programs are also a cause of concern for some. LaVerne Butts, a Philadelphia Acorn official, fears that mega-mergers may leave the poor in the dust. “Where’s the accountability?” she asked. “We’re doing wonderful things, but we’re still swimming against the tide. Many of these banks still don’t view low- and moderate-income people as people. When they get so big, who do you lean on?”

Yet at present, the three Philadelphia banks seem responsive. They have lobbied with Acorn in Washington to find ways to make it easier to package these mortgages and sell them in the secondary market. This would reduce the banks’ risk and free up more money to lend.

The biggest buyer of mortgages is the Federal National Mortgage Association, known as Fannie Mae, which resells them to investors. But Fannie Mae has been reluctant to buy such unconventional mortgages. Acorn hopes that large commitments like that of Nationsbank will help bring pressure on Fannie Mae. Already, Nationsbank is talking about joining with Acorn’s Washington lobby.

“You wouldn’t picture it,” Ms. Bessant of Nationsbank said, “but community-based groups and giant banks lobbying together is a pretty powerful combination.”

I’d say the admission of their active lobby activity with Barney Franks as the House Banking Chair is inarguable when it comes right from the horse’s mouth. But, simultaneously, they are worried about banks meeting their CRA requirements and being allowed to “merge”, thus making them “… get so big, who do you lean on?” Thus their stepped up activity on securitization.

Hope those shorts taste good, Billy BOb.

ah yes… relaxing the standards in order to get buyers who do not qualify for A ratings, the A ratings. No steady employment, using welfare and food stamps as income? And this was before Clinton/Rubin’s backroom reg change in late 1995. Oddly enough, those “protests” you like to tout as Herculean compassion by ACORN/AHC were actually responsible for the increase in these loans because their complaints against banks was used to affect their CRA rating, and ability to merge. From CATO’s Nov 2009 study of HUD failures:

Henry Cisneros served as President Bill Clinton’s HUD secretary from 1993 to 1997, when he resigned to deal with allegations that he lied to the FBI about payments he made to a former mistress. Cisneros plead guilty in 1999 and was fined $10,000, avoiding a possible prison sentence.

Cisneros oversaw a politicized HUD that mobilized to help fend off the Republicans, who gained a congressional majority in the 1994 election. The resurgent GOP initially sought to eliminate many departments and agencies as part of a plan to rein in federal spending and reduce budget deficits. HUD was one of the Republican targets, and department officials fought back in numerous ways to ward off proposed reforms.

…snip…

Cisneros used HUD as a political tool, but when he left office he was lauded for the increase in homeownership rates that occurred on his watch. Part of his apparently winning strategy, Cisneros noted, was HUD’s “ability to convince lenders, builders and real estate agents that there was money to be made in selling housing to low- and moderate-income individuals.”27

Part of this “convincing” involved HUD-initiated legal actions against mortgage lenders who declined higher percentages of loans for minorities than whites. As a result of such political pressure, lenders begin lowering their lending standards, which was another contributing factor to the housing boom and bust in the 2000s.28

A key weapon in the Cisneros arsenal was the Clinton administration’s changes to the Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA was passed in 1977 and updated in 1995 to pressure lenders into making more loans to moderate- income borrowers by allowing regulators to deny merger approvals for banks with low CRA ratings. Even complaints brought by activists, such as the leftist group ACORN, were counted in a bank’s CRA rating.

Under political pressure, banks began issuing more loans to otherwise uncreditworthy borrowers while purchasing more CRA mortgage- backed securities.29 As housing finance expert Peter Wallison noted, “The most important fact associated with the CRA is the effort to reduce underwriting standards. . . . Once those standards were relaxed . . . they spread rapidly to the prime market and to subprime markets where loans were made by lenders other than insured banks.”30

It didn’t get any better, because tho Cisneros started this, Cuomo continued it… which is the thrust of drjohn’s post about his culpability.

Cuomo also supported efforts to have home sellers funnel money to nonprofit groups to help pay for buyers’ down payments and closing costs. These “down payment assistance” loans ended up having default rates twice that of standard FHA-insured mortgages.

Cuomo portrayed his efforts as helping to increase homeownership rates for minorities, but he also had an interest in pleasing mortgage industry officials who would later help finance his gubernatorial campaign.55

Cuomo also worked hard to receive support from leftist housing advocacy groups, such as ACORN. During the Cuomo years, mortgage industry officials and housing advocates wanted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase greater volumes of high-risk loans offered to less credit-worthy borrowers. Cuomo’s HUD pressured Fannie and Freddie to increase the portion of their portfolios consisting of loans to moderate-income and higher-risk borrowers.

Cuomo applied pressure by having HUD publicly “investigate” whether Fannie and Freddie were sufficiently in compliance with government fair-lending standards designed to prevent discrimination.57

How are those shorts tasting, Billy Bob?

And, as I said to you, their subprime protest was charging fees and rates that were normally reserved for prime A rating buyers. They weren’t protesting they were getting loans, they were protesting the price of getting those loans. Then, testifying before the Senate Banking, House & Urban Affairs committee in 2001, AHC’s Mike Shea started whining about some new injustice… all those minorities being sent advertisements for refinances with subprime terms.

The increased rates of homeownership among underserved populations over the last decade are due almost entirely to banks starting to live up to their obligations under the Community Reinvestment Act. That?s happening for a variety of reasons ? continued pressure from community organizations like ACORN, somewhat more effective monitoring of CRA preformance, and, most importantly, the banks? realization that they had been neglecting good business opportunities. Don?t get me wrong ? there?s a tremendous amount yet to be done and many banks that receive passing grades are not living up to their CRA obligations, but we have made progress and that needs to be recognized.

Increasingly, however, we?re finding that predatory lending abuses are threatening that progress. As soon as families in our communities start to build up some equity, they?re bombarded with offers to refinance their mortgages or take out additional debt ? receiving three or four letters a week and regular phone calls.

We know people have heard the numbers before, but we really need to seriously think through the consequences of more than half of refinance loans in communities of color being made by subprime lenders. Now not all subprime lending is predatory, but it?s a sad fact that abusive practices are running rampant in the subprime industry.

When you consider that number in combination with the observations that Fannie and Freddie and others have made about the market ? that 30%, 40% or more of borrowers in subprime loans could have qualified for A loans, you are clearly talking about an incredible drain of equity from those communities which can least afford it. At a minimum, these numbers represent huge numbers of borrowers paying interest rates 2 to 3% higher than they would be if they instead had gotten an A loan. Over the life of a 30 year mortgage for $100,000, the difference in payments between interest rates of 8% and 10.5% is over $65,000.

Of course, as the Fed study you linked pointed out, that 30-40% of borrowers Shea touts is shear hype. But I’m sure it sounded good as a political exaggeration. Secondly, I received those flyers and ads as well. Did I get so greedy as to see my house as a piggy bank, refinance for 100%+ of my equity, merely to take the money and run? No. But, as I pointed out above, ACORN”s foreclosure poster child, Donna Hanks, did. She had a perfectly affordable home, purchasing for $87K. But no… she saw green and cashed out more than $170K in equity with a refinance, then claimed she was a victim. Right… perhaps of greed and stupidity.

ACORN themselves love to proclaim they saw it coming… while deftly dodging their own involvement in laying the groundwork. Again, true to the lib/prog mentality of “it’s always someone else’s fault”, they blame the abuse of refinancing and widespread use of what owners perceived as EZ money as the fault of the lenders and advertisements. So they set to work to get anti-predatory lending laws around in states, and still hung around heavily in the beltway, weighing in on the various federal reform legislation as well. Their own self congratulatory round up can be read here.

Despite all the writing on the wall, and the warnings of the GSE’s extremely dangerous load of risky securities, ACORN/AHC was still whining about proposed CRA changes in 2004, saying they “… would reduce lending, investment, and service in low-income communities.” You know, those special loans that don’t need steady income at one place, and allow for food stamps and welfare to count as income?

~~~

A recap? We have ACORN/AHC, HUD, Dems, Barney, Clinton, Rubin and Cisneros getting the ball rolling on creating “arsenic cookies” (ala the beginning of toxic mortgages) to distribute thru the seconary mortgage market, actively joining forces to lobby for relaxation of lending criteria – which created exotic loan packages and spread thru the the prime world as well. And ACORN”s beef was that their precious minority was being bombarded with inviting refinance terms, but says nothing about the greed and stupidity of any and all who indulged in this for quick cash… of all races. The stupid are the victims.

But you like to see it as as Eileen Markey of the City Limits Mag calls it. City Limits is, of course, the grown up offspring of the “social justice” housing organizations.

Now while you pine to view ACORN as the white…er, black knight in this story, I see the hypocritical dichotomy. Throughout this City Limits article are all the warnings from ACORN/AHC about the securitizing of these loans that they, themselves, helped to create and nurture with lowering lending standards and lobby pressure.

On August 4, 2000, American Banker reported on ACORN protests at nationwide offices of Lehman Brothers – the investment bank that went bankrupt last month because of its investment in over-valued mortgage-backed securities:

“Acorn members said they want Lehman and other investment banks to sign a code of ethics, pledging to adhere to ‘best practices’ in the mortgage lending business. Though the banks are not lenders, the group argues that they provide capital and financial support to abusive lenders by buying and securitizing their loans.

‘They have to look at the terms of the loans they are funding and say they won’t buy or securitize loans with unconscionable terms,’ said Bertha Lewis, executive director of Acorn in New York. ‘These secondary market players can see what kind of loans these are. They must refuse to buy loans from predatory lenders.'”

ACORN’s campaign to get investment banks to adopt best practices for the mortgages they bought was aimed at drying up the secondary market for the toxic mortgages now at the bottom of the fallen financial house of cards. If investment banks didn’t buy the shady loans, predatory lenders wouldn’t receive the capital to make such loans, ACORN reasoned.

Ten days later, on August 14, 2000, as banks congratulated themselves for making more loans to minorities than the previous year, American Banker reported that ACORN voiced skepticism about the meaning of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data:

“ACORN questioned whether the reported growth in lending was due to subprime loans, which may be cause for alarm, said ACORN National President Maude Hurd. ‘Not all loans are equal. We have seen too many mortgage companies prey on black and Latino homebuyers, taking advantage of their desire to share in the American dream by overcharging them. Without knowing the specific breakdown of what kind of loans people were getting, it’s hard to say what these numbers really show,’ she said.”
~
But ACORN and other proponents of the Community Reinvestment Act – the 1977 law requiring banks to lend in all communities from which they receive deposits – did promote a fairly nuanced message. They lobbied for more quality lending in low-income and minority communities while also calling for more stringent regulation of the kind of non-bank lenders like Countrywide that fueled the mortgage crisis. Campaigns by ACORN and like-minded groups including the Chicago-based Neighborhood Training and Information Center sought to shrink the risky-mortgage business by pressuring investment banks not to buy the debt, and also pushed for changes in the way banks measured creditworthiness so that people with lower credit scores could be eligible for decent mortgages from real banks.

Interesting that they wanted traditionally unqualified buyers to get the same rates and terms as A rated buyers, protested when those buyers succumbed to their own greed for hefty cash outs, but then were adamant about these loans not being bundled and sold.

Think they knew they created a vast batch of arsenic cookies? Yup… they just thought they could keep it confined. They are no heroes, Billy Bob. They were appalled when the special favors for their minorities backfired because greed took over… and they saw the widespread damage of what they, themselves, helped to foster.

I neglected to add to the above, Billy Bob…

GAME, SET, MATCH

Get a refund on your student loan, dude. You’ve been shafted.

MataHarley at #82 was just excellent.

I can only say, you’re right.
We also got those offers to refinance.
And we were bombarded with TV and radio ads pushing the same.
But we knew not to do it.
It just made no sense.

But, if you have no sense, and ”own a home” as so many did, it seemed a keen way to get out of their credit card debt, buy a new wardrobe and go visit a relative.

Dumb, dumb, dumb!

None of the things (people mostly did with their refinance cash) made money for them.

If they had re-done a kitchen or bathroom, maybe.
But so much was just frittered away.

Anyway, even newly redone rooms won’t save folks from that burst bubble now.

We bought at $12,000 in the early 1980’s.
(Proposition 13 is why I’m still in CA)

By the late 80’s prices were 3 and even 4 times that.
In the 90’s they were 10 times that.

But right now a condo (twin to ours) sold for only $64,000 cash after being walked away from at $120,000.

Too bad the other one on the market is an estate sale.
They will take any offer.
But banks aren’t lending.

Now, Mata, I know you’re a stickler for details, so was it or wasn’t it anti-discrimination law that got this ACORN-created bad practice widened away from the minority buyers and into any buyer of any color dumb enough to fall for it?

@Nan G: Now, Mata, I know you’re a stickler for details, so was it or wasn’t it anti-discrimination law that got this ACORN-created bad practice widened away from the minority buyers and into any buyer of any color dumb enough to fall for it?

Ms. Nan… well rounded, and educated lady I respect (despite our differences on the Muslim/GZ issue, BTW… LOL), that’s a tough question to answer as phrased.

Do I think it was the anti-discrimination policies by ACORN that is the cause? Partially.. but not entirely. Again, I have to defer that it was a perfect storm of events that culminated.. of which this was the rock pushed off the avalanche hill to start.

But then, let’s talk about “dumb” real estate homeowners. I see no dearth of those in my everyday life. And via my teaching and work daily, I try to correct this one on one. I don’t expect people to “know” everything. But then, what I teach is that if you don’t “know”, there are those within your reach that should be able to shed light.

There are those that are corrupt in every business that exists in the US. Can’t deny that. However you aren’t a victim when you use all of our avenues of education to validate your own responsibilities. And I never find a way that anyone, doing their due diligence, and using our free resources, can’t learn how to protect themselves.

With every single case and event , with in our economic woes ,comes another way of entrepreneurial and scam abuse, so to speak. But with such comes ways to self educate, or to ask others with more knowledge. The environment provides both the prolific advancement of abuse, as well as education. All depends upon if those use the resources availble.

In the case of Billy Bob and ACORN’s assessment, they think “laws” can protect against ignorance. Bad juju… People need to smell a scam, and then use the resources to research. If they can’t “smell” the scan, no amount of legislation can protect them from their own personal ignorance and laziness.

Whew! That’s our Mata! Got anyone handy to help you ice up that fist? 😉

Nah, Missy… not even a buise on the knuckles for Billy Bob. Think I just used the third finger on one hand… LOL

Thanks for that, MataHarley.
Nice to link to the older thread, too.
Seems we have been round and round with ”cause and effect” when the reality is lots of stuff was all happening at once.

MATA: hi, funny that we can count on either side of the hand, and the 3rd finger is the same
3rd in each side, good to notice those things. I know, you’ll have a chuckle
bye

@MataHarley:

Image Source,Image Source,Photobucket Uploader Firefox Extension,Photobucket Uploader Firefox Extension

Oh, the brutality!

I reckon that Mata was just plinking . Didn’t even break a sweat or get her blood pressure up.

Educating fools is not within my venue but I can see that the competition for the FA Village Pest Silver Medal is what Billy Bob is after. Johnny ryan holds the Gold as drive by Village Idiot.

The Bronze appears to be open but the contenders are showing up here regularly.

AYE CHIHUAHUA: hi, how did you do it?, that is something. bye

BTW.. did anyone happen to notice an extremely important moment in the timeline of in my comment above?

Let me repeat… according to the apple of ACORN’s eye, the City Limits Magazine, and their 2008 article:

Ten days later, on August 14, 2000, as banks congratulated themselves for making more loans to minorities than the previous year, American Banker reported that ACORN voiced skepticism about the meaning of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data… snip

Please note that this increase of toxic loans to unqualified buyers via relaxed standards was well on the move prior to the Bush admin coming to power. Hang… even prior to the 2000 election. This, admittedly by City Limits Magazine themselves.

Was this a Bush engineered problem? Only to the history deficient. The set up for housing bubble, and failure, was well on the move since prior to the 2000 Presidential election.

@Randy: MATA, I have a rock here in my front lawn that you likely can have a better discussion with than B-Rob! Don’t waster your time. You have much to contribute to other discussions. Remember, when you wrestle with a pig, all you get is dirty!

Thanks for the warning, my friend. But when you wrestle with a pig, you can also get fresh bacon! And I so love bacon! :0)

Seriously, I never debate Billy Bob under the assumption I can make him see the light of reality. I do, however, make sure that any lurkers and readers have a counter to his “doth protest too strongly” arguments. He is easily debunked, and in doing so, others may have ammo for their own debate machines. That’s what it’s all about….

Mata 93 The rapid rise in housing also started during that time frame also providing additional fuel to the fire. A buyer could get an interest only loan and then refi in a few years and tale out more equity that was invested in another house. When the bubble burst, low equity people were under water with numerous houses. The rapid rise in housing was caused by the sellers market created by subprime loans.

Yes, Randy… if you go back and read my 2008 post on “the perfect storm”, also linked in the right frame as a “highlighted posts” for regular visits… you’ll see that the icing on the cake, and the final nail in the housing coffin was the astronomical rise in housing prices. There are graphs in that original post that I linked that show the beeline in prices going up. What is interesting is that other nations followed the US in the EZ money fad.

However as the EZ money flowed ever faster, the supply v demand (lots of buyers with loans, diving at the existing housing inventory) drove homes up to unsustainable levels. Meaning more buyers than houses, lots of overbidding, raising the values. And no, appraisers were not at fault. If seven buyers dove at a house, overbidding the asking price by $50K, the new “norm” that the appraisers had to use was that $50K plus value. Or, as the business calls it, “what a buyer is willing and able to pay”. Just as our houses lose value with an area foreclosure, they also benefit when someone overpays.

Had the prices not appreciated at that rate, we may have been able to survive this. Replace a defaulting buyer with a qualified buyer for a house worth the note. Been doing foreclosures and swapping owners for decades like this.

However the overpriced assets then became “toxic”… notes valued more than what the market could bear. Banks had to eat the difference… but with that volume, that loss by the banks is what led to both the banking crises and AIG.. the primary mortgage insurance giant… losing their real estate tee shirts.

It’s like dominoes…. push the first one over, and the rest have no choice to to fall as well.

Mata, I saved this, it’s from January 20, 1998 callled Looming Liabilities, note this paragraph:

The quasi-governmental organizations known as government- sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, provide still another example of what Kettl has called “the budgetary twilight zone.” A recent study for the libertarian Cato Institute calls the two largest GSEs — Fannie Mae, the home-financing company; and Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. — “financial time bombs.” These two GSEs, which buy mortgages from lenders, package them into securities and then resell them to investors, don’t receive taxpayer funds directly. But the study contends that the implicit federal guarantee behind the GSEs exposes taxpayers to “potential contingent liability that could ultimately cost tens of billions of dollars to rectify” should a bailout ever be required.

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?filepath=/dailyfed/0198/012098t1.htm

What is it now, hundreds of billions?

BTW, go John Kasich!

Also included in the article, but not relevant to the FM/FM meltdown:

In the meantime, the GAO is continuing its work on long- term budget costs, looking at everything from entitlements, federal pensions and railroad retirement benefits to insurance programs, environmental cleanup, and deferred maintenance and life-cycle costs for equipment and infrastructure. “We know we’re faced with long-term costs, and they don’t show up in our budget numbers that well,” said Paul L. Posner, the GAO’s director of budget issues. “The challenge is: How do we make those long-term costs more immediately understandable and compelling to people in the short term?”

The latest GAO work was requested by House Budget Committee chairman John R. Kasich, R-Ohio, who’s taken a particular interest in future liabilities.

“We not only have a $5.5 trillion national debt, but we also have about $14 trillion in unfunded liabilities related to Medicare and Social Security that doesn’t even appear on the books,” Kasich said at an October Budget Committee session he convened to discuss the post-balanced-budget era. Kasich reaches the arresting $14 trillion total by using projections of the unfunded liability for Social Security’s old-age, survivors and disability funds and Medicare’s hospital insurance program over the next 75 years. Budget analysts note that the use of the term “liabilities” is imprecise, because Congress can rewrite entitlement laws to change its future commitments, as it did when it overhauled Social Security in 1983. Still, Kasich’s fundamental point is certainly correct: The government faces sobering future costs.

“There’s an almost instinctive sense here that if people start thinking there are surpluses, it’s going to reduce the desire to restrain spending,” said a Republican Budget Committee aide. “If we begin to see that these long-term commitments are unmanageable, it may force us… to undertake more-efficient ways” of dealing with problems such as environmental cleanups. “In a sense, we may be making commitments now that we’re never going to be able to keep.”

Let’s add a bit more fodder to the bonfire, Missy. The 1999 Clinton era NYTs story INRE the GSEs, easing credit restrictions to the less credit worthy.

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates — anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

”Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s by reducing down payment requirements,” said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. ”Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.”

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.

”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

Wallison, as we can see, has been around for awhile warning about this. As he said in the CATO study,

“The most important fact associated with the CRA is the effort to reduce underwriting standards. … Once those standards were relaxed … they spread rapidly to the prime market and to subprime markets where loans were made by lenders other than insured banks.”

Billy Bob, of course, disses anything the AEI had to say above, calling it “… light and airy and content free”. Sounds much like Billy Bob’s cranium, eh? But then, Billy Bob probably cares not to lend credibility to a fellow member of the bar if he doesn’t agree with him. Or probably because Wallison could run circles around Billy Bob in Wallison’s specialty of banking, corporate, and financial law when he was with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Washington, D.C., and New York. He was also general counsel for the US Treasury back in the mid 80s. No dummy that one… Wallison, that is. (I think Billy Bob’s dummy status is self evident…) Personally, Wallison’s a guy I’d like to see re’enter the WH advisory world… once this temporary occupant has been deservedly booted out. It’s going to take some seriously good minds to get out us of what Congress etal has wrought for decades, and Wallison’s been ahead of the curve on much of this.

From your article, the print that really make me roar was this:

That explains why Social Security looks like a cash cow in the short term: Payroll taxes from the large generation of current workers provide far more money than is needed to finance benefits for today’s retirees; the extra money is used for other government programs.

“extra money”???? Ironic, eh? That the “trust fund” of those dutifully paying in, with faith, is considered “extra money”.

@ Missy, as this is most likely just an estimate from 98″ that has got me scratching my head and wondering how deep the water is right now with spending unchecked and borrowing at a rate that should have some heads spinning at the Treasury, the Fed and the Lenders on the debt like China must be just drooling on the interest on the debt alone.

Under or Unfunded Pensions are issues that Cities and States are sweating out. The Current Regime and the last four made promises that cannot possibly be kept based upon commitments to SS, Medicare and Federal Pensions that are the equivalent of just “leaves in the wind”.

Maybe Gingrich’s Food Stamp Nation comment was off a ways. At this point we may not have a pot to pi*s in or a window to throw it out of. Pretty Scary business.

Great find by the way.

@Old Trooper 2:

You’ve probably seen this:

And, if you respond you will probably hit post 100, Beezy will like that. 😉

Billy bob isn’t fit to shine that Wallison’s shoes.

Can’t wait for the spin from the unicorn asses that dwell among us.

Nite all, big day tomorrow, working fends off depression, sometimes. 🙁

MISSY: hi, MATA is owning this one, and OT let her have it with grace,
I wonder if she drank more KIELEBA, to be able to hit the exclusive 100ds
I will focus on a bigger one like the 200ds, and with MATA around, we will get there.
good day, and this full moon is a fighter, we must be up to it. bye what is kileba?

MISSY: I would’nt be surprise if OLD TROOPER 2 understand CHINESE LANGUAGE too,
HE know so many. bye
NOW so close to NOVEMBER, no one is allowed to feel depress around here,
such good work has been done here, and the merit
has been notice

The way it is looking, Fannie & Freddie are a fiscal sinkhole with no bottom that can be predicted.
The notion that any Government Agency is even involved in the Housing business or as Brokers for loans was never in the Constitution and is evidence of the waste, fraud and abuse that results from reliance upon the mythical “General Welfare Clause” that can be stretched to cover any amount of foolishness and larceny that the Parliament of Whores can create.

We are talking Trillions here and all in IOUs. I suggest that we pay for it with Senate and Congressional Pension funds and let the Fools that wrote the blank checks find legitimate work to fund their own retirements through their own resources but collect zero in Federal pensions until the debt is paid. The same for any President that signed off on this grand theft from the Treasury. Responsibility and Accountability needs to return to Government or we might as well say Good Bye to the Republic.