Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That clip doesn't even mention the Community Reinvestment Act.
It does, however, show the result of it. Think about it for a little bit and you might understand.
Fannie and Freddie only bought conforming loans. The loans with the highest failure rates were outside of their reach, being bought and sold in the private market.I agree that laws do not cause financial meltdowns, people do, but the idea that everyone could own their own home. and the attempts to make that dream happen through expanded access to loans, coupled with Fannie and Freddie being willing to buy those bundled loans, made it worse. If the government had just passed the law, and stayed out of it, we would not have had a meltdown.
Personal Responsibility? The banks were give incentives by the government to give people those loans, People who could not afford the loans and who would otherwise not have received those loans. Those banks knew that Fannie and Freddie would back most of the loans and the government would bail them out anyway, Big government is the problem always has been, they screw up the free market and create crony capitalism. How can you have a Goldwater avatar and want more big government regs?
Not only that, but if banks didn't give out enough of these loans they would get a low rating from bank regulators. This was caused by the government, but people don't want to admit it.
Subprime lenders WERE NOT SUBJECT TO THE CRA ACT. In 2006 only 6% of all loans were given to low and moderate income borrowers in low income areas per CRA. And the value of those loans was much lower than the average mortgage where total loan dollars for the CRA loans was around 4% of the total loan dollar market.
And get this, the report found that CRA loans, which I oppose and opposed the 1977 Act, were HALF as likely to default as smiliar loans NOT SUBJECT TO CRA regulation in low to moderate income areas.
And how did the Fed feel about CRA: "The Fed Board believes the CRA agreements to be agreements between PRIVATE parties and does not facilitate,monitor, judge, make requirements or enforce agreements orspecific portions of agreements".
The fact is that CRA was so broad and unspecific on it's face banks could use it as they wanted.
Read the commissions report. I will provide tissue for your ideological tears.
Home : Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission
That clip doesn't even mention the Community Reinvestment Act.
It does, however, show the result of it. Think about it for a little bit and you might understand.
I agree that laws do not cause financial meltdowns, people do, but the idea that everyone could own their own home. and the attempts to make that dream happen through expanded access to loans, coupled with Fannie and Freddie being willing to buy those bundled loans, made it worse. If the government had just passed the law, and stayed out of it, we would not have had a meltdown.
That is true. However, the 30 year mortgage, low monthly payments, ARMs and low down payments did ten times more damage than Freddie or Fannie ever could have.
And that would be FINANCIALS offering those.
Fact is Gramm, Leach, Bliley was the worst law of them all. Allowing banks into the game fucked it all up.
Its no wonder he tried to downgrade the true extent of the recession, to hide his culpability.McCain Adviser Refers to ‘Nation of Whiners’
By MICHAEL COOPER
Published: July 11, 2008
BELLEVILLE, Mich. — Senator John McCain has spent the week trying to tell people that he feels their economic pain. So it was more than a little unhelpful when one of his top economic advisers was quoted Thursday as saying that the United States was only in a “mental recession” and that it had become a “nation of whiners.”
That clip doesn't even mention the Community Reinvestment Act.
It does, however, show the result of it. Think about it for a little bit and you might understand.
I agree that laws do not cause financial meltdowns, people do, but the idea that everyone could own their own home. and the attempts to make that dream happen through expanded access to loans, coupled with Fannie and Freddie being willing to buy those bundled loans, made it worse. If the government had just passed the law, and stayed out of it, we would not have had a meltdown.
That is true. However, the 30 year mortgage, low monthly payments, ARMs and low down payments did ten times more damage than Freddie or Fannie ever could have.
And that would be FINANCIALS offering those.
Fact is Gramm, Leach, Bliley was the worst law of them all. Allowing banks into the game fucked it all up.
Fannie and Freddie only bought conforming loans. The loans with the highest failure rates were outside of their reach, being bought and sold in the private market.
Most of the damage was done from 2005 through 2007, when Fannie and Freddie were binging on risky mortgages. Back then, Mr. Frank was the bartender, denying that there was any cause for concern, and claiming that he wanted to "roll the dice" on subsidized housing support.
Associated Press
.In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then controlled by Republicans, adopted tough regulatory legislation that would have established more auditing and oversight of the two agencies. But it was passed out of committee on a partisan vote, and with no Democratic support it never came to a vote.
By the end of 2008, Fannie and Freddie held or guaranteed approximately 10 million subprime and Alt-A mortgages and mortgage-backed securities (MBS)—risky loans with a total principal balance of $1.6 trillion. These are now defaulting at unprecedented rates,
Mortgage Crisis: Government Bailout
The government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in September to prevent them from collapsing and worsening the already escalating mortgage crisis. At that time, the two giants owned nearly half of the country's mortgages.
As part of being placed in "government conservatorship," they would get as much money as needed from the Treasury Department to cover losses and continue guaranteeing new mortgages. Their top executives were fired and replaced by Wall Street veterans Herb Allison and David Moffett.
At that time, it was the largest takeover of any financial institution in American history, and was expected to cost taxpayers between $25-$50 billion.
In October, after posting a massive quarterly loss, Freddie Mac asked for a $13.8 billion cash infusion from the government to keep it afloat. Fannie Mae has also warned that it would need a similar loan soon, according to the Associated Press.
"The facts show, gentlemen, that many of you at this table did know the risks and that you were warned not to take them, and that you ignored your internal adviser, your chief risk officer," Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, told the executives in presence.
Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., pointed out that, in 2006 and 2007, roughly 33 percent of Fannie and Freddie's businesses involved buying or guaranteeing risky mortgages, compared to 14 percent in 2005.
Lawmakers questioned Mudd about an internal Fannie Mae presentation from June 2005 that showed the company at a "strategic crossroads," at which it could either delve into riskier loans or focus on more secure ones.
"We couldn't afford to make the bet that the changes were not going to be permanent," Mudd said in defense of Fannie Mae's efforts.
Syron also added to their defense and his company's plans to compete against Wall Street banks that were pouring money into their loans.
Fannie and Freddie only bought conforming loans. The loans with the highest failure rates were outside of their reach, being bought and sold in the private market.
Most of the damage was done from 2005 through 2007, when Fannie and Freddie were binging on risky mortgages. Back then, Mr. Frank was the bartender, denying that there was any cause for concern, and claiming that he wanted to "roll the dice" on subsidized housing support.
Associated Press
.In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then controlled by Republicans, adopted tough regulatory legislation that would have established more auditing and oversight of the two agencies. But it was passed out of committee on a partisan vote, and with no Democratic support it never came to a vote.
By the end of 2008, Fannie and Freddie held or guaranteed approximately 10 million subprime and Alt-A mortgages and mortgage-backed securities (MBS)risky loans with a total principal balance of $1.6 trillion. These are now defaulting at unprecedented rates,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870327860457462468
Fannie, Freddie Ignored Risky Loan Warnings
Fannie and Freddie Execs Defend Their Decisions as House Members Question Motives
Mortgage Crisis: Government Bailout
The government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in September to prevent them from collapsing and worsening the already escalating mortgage crisis. At that time, the two giants owned nearly half of the country's mortgages.
As part of being placed in "government conservatorship," they would get as much money as needed from the Treasury Department to cover losses and continue guaranteeing new mortgages. Their top executives were fired and replaced by Wall Street veterans Herb Allison and David Moffett.
At that time, it was the largest takeover of any financial institution in American history, and was expected to cost taxpayers between $25-$50 billion.
In October, after posting a massive quarterly loss, Freddie Mac asked for a $13.8 billion cash infusion from the government to keep it afloat. Fannie Mae has also warned that it would need a similar loan soon, according to the Associated Press.
"The facts show, gentlemen, that many of you at this table did know the risks and that you were warned not to take them, and that you ignored your internal adviser, your chief risk officer," Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, told the executives in presence.
Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., pointed out that, in 2006 and 2007, roughly 33 percent of Fannie and Freddie's businesses involved buying or guaranteeing risky mortgages, compared to 14 percent in 2005.
Lawmakers questioned Mudd about an internal Fannie Mae presentation from June 2005 that showed the company at a "strategic crossroads," at which it could either delve into riskier loans or focus on more secure ones.
"We couldn't afford to make the bet that the changes were not going to be permanent," Mudd said in defense of Fannie Mae's efforts.
Syron also added to their defense and his company's plans to compete against Wall Street banks that were pouring money into their loans.
Fannie, Freddie Ignored Risky Loan Warnings - ABC News
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in 2011 that Fannie & Freddie "contributed to the crisis, but were not a primary cause." GSE mortgage securities essentially maintained their value throughout the crisis and did not contribute to the significant financial firm losses that were central to the financial crisis. The GSEs participated in the expansion of subprime and other risky mortgages, but they followed rather than led Wall Street and other lenders into subprime lending
Fannie and Freddie only bought conforming loans. The loans with the highest failure rates were outside of their reach, being bought and sold in the private market.
Really?..
Most of the damage was done from 2005 through 2007, when Fannie and Freddie were binging on risky mortgages. Back then, Mr. Frank was the bartender, denying that there was any cause for concern, and claiming that he wanted to "roll the dice" on subsidized housing support.
Associated Press
.In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then controlled by Republicans, adopted tough regulatory legislation that would have established more auditing and oversight of the two agencies. But it was passed out of committee on a partisan vote, and with no Democratic support it never came to a vote.
By the end of 2008, Fannie and Freddie held or guaranteed approximately 10 million subprime and Alt-A mortgages and mortgage-backed securities (MBS)risky loans with a total principal balance of $1.6 trillion. These are now defaulting at unprecedented rates,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870327860457462468
Fannie, Freddie Ignored Risky Loan Warnings
Fannie and Freddie Execs Defend Their Decisions as House Members Question Motives
Mortgage Crisis: Government Bailout
The government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in September to prevent them from collapsing and worsening the already escalating mortgage crisis. At that time, the two giants owned nearly half of the country's mortgages.
As part of being placed in "government conservatorship," they would get as much money as needed from the Treasury Department to cover losses and continue guaranteeing new mortgages. Their top executives were fired and replaced by Wall Street veterans Herb Allison and David Moffett.
At that time, it was the largest takeover of any financial institution in American history, and was expected to cost taxpayers between $25-$50 billion.
In October, after posting a massive quarterly loss, Freddie Mac asked for a $13.8 billion cash infusion from the government to keep it afloat. Fannie Mae has also warned that it would need a similar loan soon, according to the Associated Press.
"The facts show, gentlemen, that many of you at this table did know the risks and that you were warned not to take them, and that you ignored your internal adviser, your chief risk officer," Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, told the executives in presence.
Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., pointed out that, in 2006 and 2007, roughly 33 percent of Fannie and Freddie's businesses involved buying or guaranteeing risky mortgages, compared to 14 percent in 2005.
Lawmakers questioned Mudd about an internal Fannie Mae presentation from June 2005 that showed the company at a "strategic crossroads," at which it could either delve into riskier loans or focus on more secure ones.
"We couldn't afford to make the bet that the changes were not going to be permanent," Mudd said in defense of Fannie Mae's efforts.
Syron also added to their defense and his company's plans to compete against Wall Street banks that were pouring money into their loans.
Fannie, Freddie Ignored Risky Loan Warnings - ABC News
Fannie and Freddie only bought conforming loans. The loans with the highest failure rates were outside of their reach, being bought and sold in the private market.
Really?..
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870327860457462468
Fannie, Freddie Ignored Risky Loan Warnings
Fannie and Freddie Execs Defend Their Decisions as House Members Question Motives
Mortgage Crisis: Government Bailout
The government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in September to prevent them from collapsing and worsening the already escalating mortgage crisis. At that time, the two giants owned nearly half of the country's mortgages.
As part of being placed in "government conservatorship," they would get as much money as needed from the Treasury Department to cover losses and continue guaranteeing new mortgages. Their top executives were fired and replaced by Wall Street veterans Herb Allison and David Moffett.
At that time, it was the largest takeover of any financial institution in American history, and was expected to cost taxpayers between $25-$50 billion.
In October, after posting a massive quarterly loss, Freddie Mac asked for a $13.8 billion cash infusion from the government to keep it afloat. Fannie Mae has also warned that it would need a similar loan soon, according to the Associated Press.
"The facts show, gentlemen, that many of you at this table did know the risks and that you were warned not to take them, and that you ignored your internal adviser, your chief risk officer," Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, told the executives in presence.
Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., pointed out that, in 2006 and 2007, roughly 33 percent of Fannie and Freddie's businesses involved buying or guaranteeing risky mortgages, compared to 14 percent in 2005.
Lawmakers questioned Mudd about an internal Fannie Mae presentation from June 2005 that showed the company at a "strategic crossroads," at which it could either delve into riskier loans or focus on more secure ones.
"We couldn't afford to make the bet that the changes were not going to be permanent," Mudd said in defense of Fannie Mae's efforts.
Syron also added to their defense and his company's plans to compete against Wall Street banks that were pouring money into their loans.
Fannie, Freddie Ignored Risky Loan Warnings - ABC News
Non sequitor.
They all ignored risks. Doesn't change (or even address, for that matter) the fact that Fannie and Freddie were margin players during all this hoopla.
That clip doesn't even mention the Community Reinvestment Act.
It does, however, show the result of it. Think about it for a little bit and you might understand.
I've thought about it. Housing market foreclosures in Bradenton Beach and Naples Florida, Las Vegas Nevada and SFO, Ca we're not caused by poor people taking loans.
Fannie and Freddie only bought conforming loans. The loans with the highest failure rates were outside of their reach, being bought and sold in the private market.I agree that laws do not cause financial meltdowns, people do, but the idea that everyone could own their own home. and the attempts to make that dream happen through expanded access to loans, coupled with Fannie and Freddie being willing to buy those bundled loans, made it worse. If the government had just passed the law, and stayed out of it, we would not have had a meltdown.
Until recently, Fannie Mae was only involved marginally in guaranteeing subprime loans, while Freddie Mac had sidestepped the market altogether. But, the agencies are now stepping into the breach caused by a surge of defaults, foreclosures and subsequent caution that's set in on Wall Street where the bulk of the loans were packaged into tradable securities.
Consumer advocacy groups and politicians have been calling on the agencies to get more involved in guaranteeing subprime loans and creating consumer-friendly mortgages that can be made available to borrowers with blemished credit histories.
Such borrowers have seen their options reduced as some subprime lenders have shut their doors and many others have tightened lending standards.
The agencies have already begun moving into this lower-credit mortgage market segment.
That clip doesn't even mention the Community Reinvestment Act.
It does, however, show the result of it. Think about it for a little bit and you might understand.
I agree that laws do not cause financial meltdowns, people do, but the idea that everyone could own their own home. and the attempts to make that dream happen through expanded access to loans, coupled with Fannie and Freddie being willing to buy those bundled loans, made it worse. If the government had just passed the law, and stayed out of it, we would not have had a meltdown.
That is true. However, the 30 year mortgage, low monthly payments, ARMs and low down payments did ten times more damage than Freddie or Fannie ever could have.
You continue to miss the point, CRA was the basis, FHA DPA was a Zero Down / Zero Closing Cost Loan created under the Clinton Administration....
I ask this question: Would the housing bubble and financial crisis have occurred had the CRA never existed? This is another way of asking if the CRA caused the crisis, which is the point of this thread. And this is what we know;
- The housing bubble was global. It wasn't just national. The CRA could not possibly have caused housing bubbles in other countries, of which many were relatively bigger than in America. How did the CRA cause an explosion of lending in Norway?
- The housing bubble followed the tech bubble. That is not a coincidence. We experienced one of the biggest financial bubbles of all time, only to be followed by an even bigger financial bubble a mere few years later. This was in big part a result of government, i.e. monetary, policy. Easy monetary policy was a reaction to the tech bubble as the Fed was trying to avoid a repeat of the 1930s. That easy money was channeled into the housing market. The tech bubble was not caused by the CRA, nor did the CRA cause the subsequent monetary response.
- The emergence of China, along with deflation in Japan, created a vast pool of savings in Asia looking for a safe home in dollars. That massive pool of capital was re-cycled into the US bond market, via purchases of Treasuries and agency mortgages, lowering interest rates across the curve. The economic condition of Asia had nothing to do with the CRA.
- Securitization exploded. Low interest rates caused asset/liability problems as pension plans and insurance companies which relied on bonds to generate their actuarial return, were falling short. Securitization created "AAA" products out garbage, which fed the Wall Street machine, as garbage in / garbage out created alchemy that investors swallowed whole. This is why Wall Street firms such as Merrill Lynch bought mortgage origination companies, so they had a steady supply of inventory to feed investors "AAA" rated product 20 to 30 basis points above Treasuries. Wall Street also created other products such as synthetic CDOs and CDO-squareds as financial alchemy to flog to investors. This explosion in financial "technology" happened independent of the CRA, and the demand for shitty subprime and alt-A loans was happening outside of the CRA. This was the dynamic that created all the crap mortgages, not the CRA. Had the CRA not existed, crappy liar's loans would have been created anyways.
- This housing bubble is not unique. Almost all housing bubbles throughout time look pretty much the same. The only difference this time was the scale, which was massive. Housing bubbles, as well as other asset bubbles such as the tech bubble, follow a pretty well-defined pattern. They are always a function of the excess creation of credit, they are usually followed by some period of prosperity, and there is usually some exogenous shock or change from outside the system. The CRA is so small relative to the forces that were and still are buffeting the global economy.
So I look at those factors and conclude that the CRA was inconsequential to the Financial Crisis. I'm not being dogmatic about it. If someone could provide evidence, I would change my mind. Nor am I arguing that the CRA was wise policy. I have no opinion on whether it was or not. But I do know that it didn't cause the Financial Crisis.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/70006-cra-not-to-blame-for-housing-debacle.html
At the risk of repeating myself.
You continue to miss the point, CRA was the basis, FHA DPA was a Zero Down / Zero Closing Cost Loan created under the Clinton Administration....
I ask this question: Would the housing bubble and financial crisis have occurred had the CRA never existed? This is another way of asking if the CRA caused the crisis, which is the point of this thread. And this is what we know;
- The housing bubble was global. It wasn't just national. The CRA could not possibly have caused housing bubbles in other countries, of which many were relatively bigger than in America. How did the CRA cause an explosion of lending in Norway?
- The housing bubble followed the tech bubble. That is not a coincidence. We experienced one of the biggest financial bubbles of all time, only to be followed by an even bigger financial bubble a mere few years later. This was in big part a result of government, i.e. monetary, policy. Easy monetary policy was a reaction to the tech bubble as the Fed was trying to avoid a repeat of the 1930s. That easy money was channeled into the housing market. The tech bubble was not caused by the CRA, nor did the CRA cause the subsequent monetary response.
- The emergence of China, along with deflation in Japan, created a vast pool of savings in Asia looking for a safe home in dollars. That massive pool of capital was re-cycled into the US bond market, via purchases of Treasuries and agency mortgages, lowering interest rates across the curve. The economic condition of Asia had nothing to do with the CRA.
- Securitization exploded. Low interest rates caused asset/liability problems as pension plans and insurance companies which relied on bonds to generate their actuarial return, were falling short. Securitization created "AAA" products out garbage, which fed the Wall Street machine, as garbage in / garbage out created alchemy that investors swallowed whole. This is why Wall Street firms such as Merrill Lynch bought mortgage origination companies, so they had a steady supply of inventory to feed investors "AAA" rated product 20 to 30 basis points above Treasuries. Wall Street also created other products such as synthetic CDOs and CDO-squareds as financial alchemy to flog to investors. This explosion in financial "technology" happened independent of the CRA, and the demand for shitty subprime and alt-A loans was happening outside of the CRA. This was the dynamic that created all the crap mortgages, not the CRA. Had the CRA not existed, crappy liar's loans would have been created anyways.
- This housing bubble is not unique. Almost all housing bubbles throughout time look pretty much the same. The only difference this time was the scale, which was massive. Housing bubbles, as well as other asset bubbles such as the tech bubble, follow a pretty well-defined pattern. They are always a function of the excess creation of credit, they are usually followed by some period of prosperity, and there is usually some exogenous shock or change from outside the system. The CRA is so small relative to the forces that were and still are buffeting the global economy.
So I look at those factors and conclude that the CRA was inconsequential to the Financial Crisis. I'm not being dogmatic about it. If someone could provide evidence, I would change my mind. Nor am I arguing that the CRA was wise policy. I have no opinion on whether it was or not. But I do know that it didn't cause the Financial Crisis.
Personal Responsibility? The banks were give incentives by the government to give people those loans, People who could not afford the loans and who would otherwise not have received those loans. Those banks knew that Fannie and Freddie would back most of the loans and the government would bail them out anyway, Big government is the problem always has been, they screw up the free market and create crony capitalism. How can you have a Goldwater avatar and want more big government regs?
Not only that, but if banks didn't give out enough of these loans they would get a low rating from bank regulators. This was caused by the government, but people don't want to admit it.
Subprime lenders WERE NOT SUBJECT TO THE CRA ACT. In 2006 only 6% of all loans were given to low and moderate income borrowers in low income areas per CRA. And the value of those loans was much lower than the average mortgage where total loan dollars for the CRA loans was around 4% of the total loan dollar market.
And get this, the report found that CRA loans, which I oppose and opposed the 1977 Act, were HALF as likely to default as smiliar loans NOT SUBJECT TO CRA regulation in low to moderate income areas.
And how did the Fed feel about CRA: "The Fed Board believes the CRA agreements to be agreements between PRIVATE parties and does not facilitate,monitor, judge, make requirements or enforce agreements orspecific portions of agreements".
The fact is that CRA was so broad and unspecific on it's face banks could use it as they wanted.
Read the commissions report. I will provide tissue for your ideological tears.
Home : Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/70006-cra-not-to-blame-for-housing-debacle.html
At the risk of repeating myself.
You continue to miss the point, CRA was the basis, FHA DPA was a Zero Down / Zero Closing Cost Loan created under the Clinton Administration....
I ask this question: Would the housing bubble and financial crisis have occurred had the CRA never existed? This is another way of asking if the CRA caused the crisis, which is the point of this thread. And this is what we know;
- The housing bubble was global. It wasn't just national. The CRA could not possibly have caused housing bubbles in other countries, of which many were relatively bigger than in America. How did the CRA cause an explosion of lending in Norway?
- The housing bubble followed the tech bubble. That is not a coincidence. We experienced one of the biggest financial bubbles of all time, only to be followed by an even bigger financial bubble a mere few years later. This was in big part a result of government, i.e. monetary, policy. Easy monetary policy was a reaction to the tech bubble as the Fed was trying to avoid a repeat of the 1930s. That easy money was channeled into the housing market. The tech bubble was not caused by the CRA, nor did the CRA cause the subsequent monetary response.
- The emergence of China, along with deflation in Japan, created a vast pool of savings in Asia looking for a safe home in dollars. That massive pool of capital was re-cycled into the US bond market, via purchases of Treasuries and agency mortgages, lowering interest rates across the curve. The economic condition of Asia had nothing to do with the CRA.
- Securitization exploded. Low interest rates caused asset/liability problems as pension plans and insurance companies which relied on bonds to generate their actuarial return, were falling short. Securitization created "AAA" products out garbage, which fed the Wall Street machine, as garbage in / garbage out created alchemy that investors swallowed whole. This is why Wall Street firms such as Merrill Lynch bought mortgage origination companies, so they had a steady supply of inventory to feed investors "AAA" rated product 20 to 30 basis points above Treasuries. Wall Street also created other products such as synthetic CDOs and CDO-squareds as financial alchemy to flog to investors. This explosion in financial "technology" happened independent of the CRA, and the demand for shitty subprime and alt-A loans was happening outside of the CRA. This was the dynamic that created all the crap mortgages, not the CRA. Had the CRA not existed, crappy liar's loans would have been created anyways.
- This housing bubble is not unique. Almost all housing bubbles throughout time look pretty much the same. The only difference this time was the scale, which was massive. Housing bubbles, as well as other asset bubbles such as the tech bubble, follow a pretty well-defined pattern. They are always a function of the excess creation of credit, they are usually followed by some period of prosperity, and there is usually some exogenous shock or change from outside the system. The CRA is so small relative to the forces that were and still are buffeting the global economy.
So I look at those factors and conclude that the CRA was inconsequential to the Financial Crisis. I'm not being dogmatic about it. If someone could provide evidence, I would change my mind. Nor am I arguing that the CRA was wise policy. I have no opinion on whether it was or not. But I do know that it didn't cause the Financial Crisis.
