GM is doing AWESOME

[buckeye45_73]

I see you're on the "lets blame blacks" bandwagon. Too bad the facts don't bear this out. 56% of the 2.5 million foreclosures between 2007 through 2009 were mortgages to non-hispanic whites. Your logic is also bullshit. Telling banks that they have to increase lending to minorities does not automatically equate to "subprime". It was the result of banks not providing equal treatment to minorities. CRA originated loans actually perform better than average, and only accounted for 6% of subprime lending.

It was Wall Street that pushed subprime lending, believing that they could bundle the mortgages with subprime mortgages, and still reduce risk. Wall Street's problem was they let their greed blind them to the fact that home prices were skyrocketing, and forming a clear bubble. Were minorities hit harder when the bubbles burst? Yep. But that's beside the point. To support this, 83% of the foreclosures between 2007-2009 were originated after 2004.

Source: http://www.responsiblelending.org/m...alysis/foreclosures-by-race-and-ethnicity.pdf

So they thought there was risk.....hence they higher rates....and trust me they didnt want to do it...the main reason blacks had issues, is their credit sucks,, black people admit their credit sucks....it's not exactally a secret, so we had to LOWER the bar....and it backfired....OOOPS
No I think it is the point.

And so you do admit they wanted to increase black ownership (affimative action) NOW WHY did Cuomo say that they know some loans will not be paid?????

Now as for the whites, there are lots more whites than others, so yes they would get more loans

The problem was they lent money to people who couldnt pay (that includes whites, BUT the law was made so blacks could get more house owenership, so the credit threshold went down, and people couldnt pay their mortgages, and BOOOM it collapsed.)

What a fucking liar you are. You didn't even read the industry analysis that I provided you. One more time. Only 6% of subprime loans are covered under CRA. CRA originated loans perform better than average. What part of that don't you understand? I'm sorry if the facts get into way of your racist propaganda.

Ok dipshit.... I found some interesting points:

Non-Hispanic whites represent the majority of at-risk borrowers, but African-American and
Latino borrowers are more likely to be at imminent risk of foreclosure (21.6% and 21.4%,​

respectively) than non-Hispanic white borrowers (14.8%).

Among recent borrowers, we estimate that nearly 8% of both African Americans and Latinos​

have lost their homes to foreclosures, compared to 4.5% of whites.

Third, on average, families of color have fewer resources for fending off foreclosure

So, in
addition to the lower levels of wealth, lower levels of asset diversification makes families of color​

more vulnerable to downturns in the housing market.

Until recent years, foreclosures typically were
isolated events with occasional regional concentrations.
Now, with millions of home loans
failing in rapid succession across the nation,
entire communities—particularly communities
with predominantly African-American and Latino​

residents—are being severely affected.

Consequently, many lenders aggressively marketed and originated loans without due regard for​

borrowers’ ability to repay them.
NOW WHY WOULD THEY DO THIS??????????????


Finally, the

regulatory system failed by not adapting to the changing structure of the mortgage
market and the increased complexity of mortgage products

NO WAY!!!!!!!!!!

In fact, federal regulators
actively hindered consumer protection at the state level, ruling that strong state anti-predatory​

lending laws could not be enforced on nationally-chartered banks or thrifts.

Interesting.........

It was not until
July 2008, 14 years after Congress had authorized the Federal Reserve Board to prohibit mortgage
lending acts and practices for all originators that were abusive, unfair or deceptive, that the Fed​

implemented any rules to ban some of the more abusive practices,

More interesting......

CRA has been on the books for three decades, while the rapid growth of subprime and other
non-prime loan securitization and the pervasive marketing of risky loan products did not occur​

until recent years.
Now this is key.....

Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In a 2002 study exploring the relationship between the CRA and lending looked at as predatory, Kathleen C. Engel and Patricia A. McCoy noted that banks could receive CRA credit by lending or brokering loans in lower-income areas that would be considered a risk for ordinary lending practices

BADA BING!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you for making me read it, it is NOW MUCH MUCH Clearer.....

​

 

[francoHFW]

Your Voltcrappe is just that. Volts are close to projected even though Pubs BSed and made it political, the semi-treasonous a-holes.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The meltdown was decades in the making, it was cultural in its DNA, and simplistically blaming the banks for it is shallow thinking at best, intellectually dishonest at worst. I can't believe that people actually let themselves believe this crap. This was/is the inevitable result of narcissistic hyper-consumerism and a culture rotting at its core.

.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Your Voltcrappe is just that. Volts are close to projected even though Pubs BSed and made it political, the semi-treasonous a-holes.

Volts suck, I dont like my steering wheel comming off....I think QA was a little lacking.
AP Source: GM to call back 8,000 Chevy Volts - Yahoo! News

The company sold 7,671 Volts last year, falling short of its goal of 10,000. It was outsold last year by its main electric car competitor, the Nissan Leaf, at 9,674.

 

[Dick Tuck]

If you think the Volt is a dismal failure, you're a brainwashed tick on Rush's BS azz...

Really? Have you seen the sales figures? Do you know how much the Government has to pay for each one that is sold?

How the fuck do you idiots measure Success?

23,778 units for June. It still is outselling the Nissan Leaf, by 3 to 1.

Source: Green car sales continue to impress despite gas prices | TG Daily

 

[francoHFW]

.chevydealer.com/Buffalo
News for volt salesPlug-in hybrid sales soar; all-electric cars stay in low gear - 1 day ago
General Motors has sold 8817 Chevrolet Volts in the first half of this year, a 221 percent increase. That includes 1760 sold in June. Volt sales ...The Seattle Times - 17 related articles »
Green car sales continue to impress despite gas prices - *TG Daily - 192 related articles »

GM: Chevrolet Volt sales in 2012 already surpass last year; on track ...
Jul 3, 2012 ... According to the Detroit-based automaker, Volt sales through June were at 8817
units, up 221.2 percent compared to the same time period last ...

www.mlive.com/auto/index.../gm_chevrolet_volt_sales_in_201.html - CachedVolt Helps Charge Chevy Sales In California; Will Cruze Stall - Forbes
Jun 27, 2012 ... Third in a series on the Detroit Three's incursions in the California market.
Automakers must flow vehicles to where the demand is, which means ...

www.forbes.com/.../volt-recharges-chevy-sales-in-california-will-cruze-stall/ - Cached

 

[francoHFW]

Volt sales rebounding from all the BULLSHYTTE attacks from the BULLSHYTTE Pub propaganda machine, a total disgrace, dupes.

 

[Dick Tuck]

.

The meltdown was decades in the making, it was cultural in its DNA, and simplistically blaming the banks for it is shallow thinking at best, intellectually dishonest at worst. I can't believe that people actually let themselves believe this crap. This was/is the inevitable result of narcissistic hyper-consumerism and a culture rotting at its core.

.

If you read the industry analysis, they aren't blaming banks. Banks who are both originator and lender were much less likely to result in foreclosure, even if they were operating under CRA. In fact, CRA banks had about half as many foreclosures than independent mortgage companiesl.

Sources:

http://www.responsiblelending.org/m...alysis/foreclosures-by-race-and-ethnicity.pdf

http://www.richmondfed.org/conferen..._in_low_and_moderate_income_neighborhoods.pdf

 

[buckeye45_73]

So they thought there was risk.....hence they higher rates....and trust me they didnt want to do it...the main reason blacks had issues, is their credit sucks,, black people admit their credit sucks....it's not exactally a secret, so we had to LOWER the bar....and it backfired....OOOPS
No I think it is the point.

And so you do admit they wanted to increase black ownership (affimative action) NOW WHY did Cuomo say that they know some loans will not be paid?????

Now as for the whites, there are lots more whites than others, so yes they would get more loans

The problem was they lent money to people who couldnt pay (that includes whites, BUT the law was made so blacks could get more house owenership, so the credit threshold went down, and people couldnt pay their mortgages, and BOOOM it collapsed.)

What a fucking liar you are. You didn't even read the industry analysis that I provided you. One more time. Only 6% of subprime loans are covered under CRA. CRA originated loans perform better than average. What part of that don't you understand? I'm sorry if the facts get into way of your racist propaganda.

Ok dipshit.... I found some interesting points:

Non-Hispanic whites represent the majority of at-risk borrowers, but African-American and
Latino borrowers are more likely to be at imminent risk of foreclosure (21.6% and 21.4%,​

respectively) than non-Hispanic white borrowers (14.8%).

Among recent borrowers, we estimate that nearly 8% of both African Americans and Latinos​

have lost their homes to foreclosures, compared to 4.5% of whites.

Third, on average, families of color have fewer resources for fending off foreclosure

So, in
addition to the lower levels of wealth, lower levels of asset diversification makes families of color​

more vulnerable to downturns in the housing market.

Until recent years, foreclosures typically were
isolated events with occasional regional concentrations.
Now, with millions of home loans
failing in rapid succession across the nation,
entire communities—particularly communities
with predominantly African-American and Latino​

residents—are being severely affected.

Consequently, many lenders aggressively marketed and originated loans without due regard for​

borrowers’ ability to repay them.
NOW WHY WOULD THEY DO THIS??????????????


Finally, the

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

regulatory system failed by not adapting to the changing structure of the mortgage
market and the increased complexity of mortgage products​

NO WAY!!!!!!!!!!​

In fact, federal regulators

actively hindered consumer protection at the state level, ruling that strong state anti-predatory​

​

​

​

​

lending laws could not be enforced on nationally-chartered banks or thrifts.​

Interesting.........​

It was not until

July 2008, 14 years after Congress had authorized the Federal Reserve Board to prohibit mortgage
lending acts and practices for all originators that were abusive, unfair or deceptive, that the Fed​

​

​

​

​

implemented any rules to ban some of the more abusive practices,​

More interesting......​

CRA has been on the books for three decades, while the rapid growth of subprime and other

non-prime loan securitization and the pervasive marketing of risky loan products did not occur​

​

​

​

​

until recent years.
Now this is key.....​

Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In a 2002 study exploring the relationship between the CRA and lending looked at as predatory, Kathleen C. Engel and Patricia A. McCoy noted that banks could receive CRA credit by lending or brokering loans in lower-income areas that would be considered a risk for ordinary lending practices​

BADA BING!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you for making me read it, it is NOW MUCH MUCH Clearer.....​

I love the smell of napalm in the morning.....nothing like using someone else's source to drop a 'bow

 

[francoHFW]

.

The meltdown was decades in the making, it was cultural in its DNA, and simplistically blaming the banks for it is shallow thinking at best, intellectually dishonest at worst. I can't believe that people actually let themselves believe this crap. This was/is the inevitable result of narcissistic hyper-consumerism and a culture rotting at its core.

.

Bullshytte- Booosh regulators looking the other way and letting AIG, Countrywide, etc etc etc run wild.
Pub cronyism and corruption epitomized.

 

[buckeye45_73]

.

The meltdown was decades in the making, it was cultural in its DNA, and simplistically blaming the banks for it is shallow thinking at best, intellectually dishonest at worst. I can't believe that people actually let themselves believe this crap. This was/is the inevitable result of narcissistic hyper-consumerism and a culture rotting at its core.

.

Bullshytte- Booosh regulators looking the other way and letting AIG, Countrywide, etc etc etc run wild.
Pub cronyism and corruption epitomized.

OMG you are right, it was Bush that wanted more minorities to own homes he relaxed the rules, except that was done in the Clinton year, I'll post it again....You guys are feeding my ego, I may just have to trash talk a little.....how I hate that
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TWOPDN5Va0"]1998: Sec. Andrew Cuomo Defends Affirmative Action Mortgage Policy - YouTube[/ame]

"To take a greater risk to give families mortgages that wouldnt have had them".....gee I think Cuomo and I agree on that....except he did it before the collapse.....oooops

 

[francoHFW]

The CRA made worthy minorities eligible. Bush regulators made unemployed minorities eligible. Give it up. But they were a tiny minority of toxic assets, junk rated A+ and sold around the world. Greece etc were taking advice from Leyman Bros- a total Pub cronyism mess....

 

[Dick Tuck]

So they thought there was risk.....hence they higher rates....and trust me they didnt want to do it...the main reason blacks had issues, is their credit sucks,, black people admit their credit sucks....it's not exactally a secret, so we had to LOWER the bar....and it backfired....OOOPS
No I think it is the point.

And so you do admit they wanted to increase black ownership (affimative action) NOW WHY did Cuomo say that they know some loans will not be paid?????

Now as for the whites, there are lots more whites than others, so yes they would get more loans

The problem was they lent money to people who couldnt pay (that includes whites, BUT the law was made so blacks could get more house owenership, so the credit threshold went down, and people couldnt pay their mortgages, and BOOOM it collapsed.)

What a fucking liar you are. You didn't even read the industry analysis that I provided you. One more time. Only 6% of subprime loans are covered under CRA. CRA originated loans perform better than average. What part of that don't you understand? I'm sorry if the facts get into way of your racist propaganda.

Ok dipshit.... I found some interesting points:

Non-Hispanic whites represent the majority of at-risk borrowers, but African-American and
Latino borrowers are more likely to be at imminent risk of foreclosure (21.6% and 21.4%,​

respectively) than non-Hispanic white borrowers (14.8%).

Among recent borrowers, we estimate that nearly 8% of both African Americans and Latinos​

have lost their homes to foreclosures, compared to 4.5% of whites.

Third, on average, families of color have fewer resources for fending off foreclosure

So, in
addition to the lower levels of wealth, lower levels of asset diversification makes families of color​

more vulnerable to downturns in the housing market.

Until recent years, foreclosures typically were
isolated events with occasional regional concentrations.
Now, with millions of home loans
failing in rapid succession across the nation,
entire communities—particularly communities
with predominantly African-American and Latino​

residents—are being severely affected.

Consequently, many lenders aggressively marketed and originated loans without due regard for​

borrowers’ ability to repay them.
NOW WHY WOULD THEY DO THIS??????????????


Finally, the

regulatory system failed by not adapting to the changing structure of the mortgage
market and the increased complexity of mortgage products

NO WAY!!!!!!!!!!

In fact, federal regulators
actively hindered consumer protection at the state level, ruling that strong state anti-predatory​

lending laws could not be enforced on nationally-chartered banks or thrifts.

Interesting.........

It was not until
July 2008, 14 years after Congress had authorized the Federal Reserve Board to prohibit mortgage
lending acts and practices for all originators that were abusive, unfair or deceptive, that the Fed​

implemented any rules to ban some of the more abusive practices,

More interesting......

CRA has been on the books for three decades, while the rapid growth of subprime and other
non-prime loan securitization and the pervasive marketing of risky loan products did not occur​

until recent years.
Now this is key.....

Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In a 2002 study exploring the relationship between the CRA and lending looked at as predatory, Kathleen C. Engel and Patricia A. McCoy noted that banks could receive CRA credit by lending or brokering loans in lower-income areas that would be considered a risk for ordinary lending practices

BADA BING!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you for making me read it, it is NOW MUCH MUCH Clearer.....

​

You're still a racist piece of shit. What you left out from the analysis:

There have been persistent attempts to pin the foreclosure crisis on the Community Reinvestment
Act (CRA), a law passed in 1977 designed to encourage depository institutions to increase lending
in lower-income communities. Critics of the CRA used the foreclosure crisis to suggest that lending
to “risky” borrowers who are the beneficiaries of the CRA is at the root of the problem. However,
this accusation is simply not backed by the facts, and banking and government leaders as diverse as
OCC head John Dugan, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner
and others have publicly and explicitly stated that CRA did not cause the financial crisis.39 Among
the empirical evidence that dispels the CRA myth are these items:
• CRA has been on the books for three decades, while the rapid growth of subprime and other
non-prime loan securitization and the pervasive marketing of risky loan products did not occur
until recent years.
• Studies have shown that loans made to low- and moderate-income borrowers under CRA perform
better than loans made by originators not covered by CRA or outside of CRA-assessment areas.40
• The Federal Reserve estimates that CRA lending accounted for a mere 6% of all subprime
lending.41 The predominant players in the subprime market—mortgage brokers, mortgage
companies and the Wall Street investment banks that provided the financing—were not covered
under CRA.

The failure of the public sector was its inability or unwillingness to adequately address predatory
lending practices, not in its support of lending to historically underserved communities. Blaming
CRA when approximately 94% of subprime loans were not covered by the Act’s requirements serves
only to distract attention from the real shortcomings of the mortgage and regulatory system.

This from another study done by the California Federal Reserve:

http://www.richmondfed.org/conferen..._in_low_and_moderate_income_neighborhoods.pdf

Loans made by lenders regulated
under the CRA were close to half as likely (.59 odds ratio) to go into foreclosure than those made
by IMCs.

Both studies agree that the biggest problem were independent brokers, who are notregulated by CRA, and real estate agents steering people to them. Well guess what idiot, the people they were steering were more often black and Hispanic. This is where the subprime lending was happening. It's also where the minorities were more likely to be the victims.

You still a race baiting liar.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The CRA made worthy minorities eligible. Bush regulators made unemployed minorities eligible. Give it up. But they were a tiny minority of toxic assets, junk rated A+ and sold around the world. Greece etc were taking advice from Leyman Bros- a total Pub cronyism mess....

Dude stop, you know they wanted more minorities to get houses and they had to lower the bar, and it failed......I used Dick's document along with an article on CRA to show that. ANDREW CUOMO PREDICTED it before it happened based on the regulationi 1999, 2 years BEFORE BUSH took office......so quit being a douche, you got your ass kicked and now you're looking like a fool.

 

[buckeye45_73]

What a fucking liar you are. You didn't even read the industry analysis that I provided you. One more time. Only 6% of subprime loans are covered under CRA. CRA originated loans perform better than average. What part of that don't you understand? I'm sorry if the facts get into way of your racist propaganda.

Ok dipshit.... I found some interesting points:

Non-Hispanic whites represent the majority of at-risk borrowers, but African-American and
Latino borrowers are more likely to be at imminent risk of foreclosure (21.6% and 21.4%,​

respectively) than non-Hispanic white borrowers (14.8%).

Among recent borrowers, we estimate that nearly 8% of both African Americans and Latinos​

have lost their homes to foreclosures, compared to 4.5% of whites.

Third, on average, families of color have fewer resources for fending off foreclosure

So, in
addition to the lower levels of wealth, lower levels of asset diversification makes families of color​

more vulnerable to downturns in the housing market.

Until recent years, foreclosures typically were
isolated events with occasional regional concentrations.
Now, with millions of home loans
failing in rapid succession across the nation,
entire communities—particularly communities
with predominantly African-American and Latino​

residents—are being severely affected.

Consequently, many lenders aggressively marketed and originated loans without due regard for​

borrowers’ ability to repay them.
NOW WHY WOULD THEY DO THIS??????????????


Finally, the

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

regulatory system failed by not adapting to the changing structure of the mortgage
market and the increased complexity of mortgage products​

NO WAY!!!!!!!!!!​

In fact, federal regulators​

actively hindered consumer protection at the state level, ruling that strong state anti-predatory​

lending laws could not be enforced on nationally-chartered banks or thrifts.​

Interesting.........​

It was not until​

July 2008, 14 years after Congress had authorized the Federal Reserve Board to prohibit mortgage

lending acts and practices for all originators that were abusive, unfair or deceptive, that the Fed​

implemented any rules to ban some of the more abusive practices,​

More interesting......​

CRA has been on the books for three decades, while the rapid growth of subprime and other​

non-prime loan securitization and the pervasive marketing of risky loan products did not occur​

until recent years.
Now this is key.....​

Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In a 2002 study exploring the relationship between the CRA and lending looked at as predatory, Kathleen C. Engel and Patricia A. McCoy noted that banks could receive CRA credit by lending or brokering loans in lower-income areas that would be considered a risk for ordinary lending practices​

BADA BING!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you for making me read it, it is NOW MUCH MUCH Clearer.....​

You're still a racist piece of shit. What you left out from the analysis:

There have been persistent attempts to pin the foreclosure crisis on the Community Reinvestment
Act (CRA), a law passed in 1977 designed to encourage depository institutions to increase lending
in lower-income communities. Critics of the CRA used the foreclosure crisis to suggest that lending
to “risky” borrowers who are the beneficiaries of the CRA is at the root of the problem. However,
this accusation is simply not backed by the facts, and banking and government leaders as diverse as
OCC head John Dugan, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner
and others have publicly and explicitly stated that CRA did not cause the financial crisis.39 Among
the empirical evidence that dispels the CRA myth are these items:
• CRA has been on the books for three decades, while the rapid growth of subprime and other
non-prime loan securitization and the pervasive marketing of risky loan products did not occur
until recent years.
• Studies have shown that loans made to low- and moderate-income borrowers under CRA perform
better than loans made by originators not covered by CRA or outside of CRA-assessment areas.40
• The Federal Reserve estimates that CRA lending accounted for a mere 6% of all subprime
lending.41 The predominant players in the subprime market—mortgage brokers, mortgage
companies and the Wall Street investment banks that provided the financing—were not covered
under CRA.
The failure of the public sector was its inability or unwillingness to adequately address predatory
lending practices, not in its support of lending to historically underserved communities. Blaming
CRA when approximately 94% of subprime loans were not covered by the Act’s requirements serves
only to distract attention from the real shortcomings of the mortgage and regulatory system.

This from another study done by the California Federal Reserve:

http://www.richmondfed.org/conferen..._in_low_and_moderate_income_neighborhoods.pdf

Loans made by lenders regulated
under the CRA were close to half as likely (.59 odds ratio) to go into foreclosure than those made
by IMCs.

Both studies agree that the biggest problem were independent brokers, who are notregulated by CRA, and real estate agents steering people to them. Well guess what idiot, the people they were steering were more often black and Hispanic. This is where the subprime lending was happening. It's also where the minorities were more likely to be the victims.

You still a race baiting liar.

]
nope I just pointed out the facts in YOUR article....and again why would wallstreet JUST LOAN people money that couldnt pay? where is the money in that? Again logic is not a liberal's strong suit, I understand, but they just didnt wake up one day and say, hey lets go get black folks homes and jack up the rates so they get forclosed on and we're stuck with a pile of houses.....yeah what a great idea!!!!!!!!!

 

[Dick Tuck]

.

The meltdown was decades in the making, it was cultural in its DNA, and simplistically blaming the banks for it is shallow thinking at best, intellectually dishonest at worst. I can't believe that people actually let themselves believe this crap. This was/is the inevitable result of narcissistic hyper-consumerism and a culture rotting at its core.

.

Bullshytte- Booosh regulators looking the other way and letting AIG, Countrywide, etc etc etc run wild.
Pub cronyism and corruption epitomized.

OMG you are right, it was Bush that wanted more minorities to own homes he relaxed the rules, except that was done in the Clinton year, I'll post it again....You guys are feeding my ego, I may just have to trash talk a little.....how I hate that
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TWOPDN5Va0"]1998: Sec. Andrew Cuomo Defends Affirmative Action Mortgage Policy - YouTube[/ame]

"To take a greater risk to give families mortgages that wouldnt have had them".....gee I think Cuomo and I agree on that....except he did it before the collapse.....oooops

Cuomo was mistaken. Mortgages originated by CRA institutions were almost half as likely to be forclosed than loans originated by independent brokers like Countrywide.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Ok dipshit.... I found some interesting points:

Non-Hispanic whites represent the majority of at-risk borrowers, but African-American and
Latino borrowers are more likely to be at imminent risk of foreclosure (21.6% and 21.4%,​

respectively) than non-Hispanic white borrowers (14.8%).

Among recent borrowers, we estimate that nearly 8% of both African Americans and Latinos​

have lost their homes to foreclosures, compared to 4.5% of whites.

Third, on average, families of color have fewer resources for fending off foreclosure

So, in
addition to the lower levels of wealth, lower levels of asset diversification makes families of color​

more vulnerable to downturns in the housing market.

Until recent years, foreclosures typically were
isolated events with occasional regional concentrations.
Now, with millions of home loans
failing in rapid succession across the nation,
entire communities—particularly communities
with predominantly African-American and Latino​

residents—are being severely affected.

Consequently, many lenders aggressively marketed and originated loans without due regard for​

borrowers’ ability to repay them.
NOW WHY WOULD THEY DO THIS??????????????


Finally, the

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

regulatory system failed by not adapting to the changing structure of the mortgage
market and the increased complexity of mortgage products​

NO WAY!!!!!!!!!!​

In fact, federal regulators​

actively hindered consumer protection at the state level, ruling that strong state anti-predatory​

lending laws could not be enforced on nationally-chartered banks or thrifts.​

Interesting.........​

It was not until​

July 2008, 14 years after Congress had authorized the Federal Reserve Board to prohibit mortgage

lending acts and practices for all originators that were abusive, unfair or deceptive, that the Fed​

implemented any rules to ban some of the more abusive practices,​

More interesting......​

CRA has been on the books for three decades, while the rapid growth of subprime and other​

non-prime loan securitization and the pervasive marketing of risky loan products did not occur​

until recent years.
Now this is key.....​

Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In a 2002 study exploring the relationship between the CRA and lending looked at as predatory, Kathleen C. Engel and Patricia A. McCoy noted that banks could receive CRA credit by lending or brokering loans in lower-income areas that would be considered a risk for ordinary lending practices​

BADA BING!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you for making me read it, it is NOW MUCH MUCH Clearer.....​

You're still a racist piece of shit. What you left out from the analysis:



This from another study done by the California Federal Reserve:

http://www.richmondfed.org/conferen..._in_low_and_moderate_income_neighborhoods.pdf

Loans made by lenders regulated
under the CRA were close to half as likely (.59 odds ratio) to go into foreclosure than those made
by IMCs.

Both studies agree that the biggest problem were independent brokers, who are notregulated by CRA, and real estate agents steering people to them. Well guess what idiot, the people they were steering were more often black and Hispanic. This is where the subprime lending was happening. It's also where the minorities were more likely to be the victims.

You still a race baiting liar.

]
nope I just pointed out the facts in YOUR article....and again why would wallstreet JUST LOAN people money that couldnt pay? where is the money in that? Again logic is not a liberal's strong suit, I understand, but they just didnt wake up one day and say, hey lets go get black folks homes and jack up the rates so they get forclosed on and we're stuck with a pile of houses.....yeah what a great idea!!!!!!!!!

No, what you did was pick a few facts in that article, out of context, to support your racist lie. You omitted those facts that demonstrate that it wasn't CRA institutions that were responsible for 94% of subprime loans. You omitted the fact in the analysis that showed that CRA institutions originated mortgages were almost half as likely to be forclosed.

Countrywide wasn't a CRA institution.

Prosecuting Wall Street - CBS News

In 2007, Foster sent a team to the Boston area to search several branch offices of Countrywide's subprime division - the division that lent to borrowers with poor credit. The investigators rummaged through the office's recycling bins and found evidence that Countrywide loan officers were forging and manipulating borrowers' income and asset statements to help them get loans they weren't qualified for and couldn't afford.

Foster: All of the-- the recycle bins, whenever we looked through those they were full of, you know, signatures that had been cut off of one document and put onto another and then photocopied, you know, or faxed and then the-- you know, the creation thrown-- thrown in the recycle bin.

Countrywide wouldn't have been stuck with those houses, since they weren't the lender. Damn you're an idiot.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Bullshytte- Booosh regulators looking the other way and letting AIG, Countrywide, etc etc etc run wild.
Pub cronyism and corruption epitomized.

OMG you are right, it was Bush that wanted more minorities to own homes he relaxed the rules, except that was done in the Clinton year, I'll post it again....You guys are feeding my ego, I may just have to trash talk a little.....how I hate that
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TWOPDN5Va0"]1998: Sec. Andrew Cuomo Defends Affirmative Action Mortgage Policy - YouTube[/ame]

"To take a greater risk to give families mortgages that wouldnt have had them".....gee I think Cuomo and I agree on that....except he did it before the collapse.....oooops

Cuomo was mistaken. Mortgages originated by CRA institutions were almost half as likely to be forclosed than loans originated by independent brokers like Countrywide.

no he wasnt, He understood the regulation and that to loan to a person with less than A paper credit, you had to LOWER The bar, therefore it was riskier and the riskier the loan the higher the rate.

I sold new and used cars for a year for Ford(pre crises, so this was when it was EASY to get a loan)and I know this stuff, if your credit was a 400 you cant buy shit (I saw people with below a 400 ), if it's a 500 you might be able to buy but your interest is gonna kick your ass and if you have 700+ you can pick the car you want. That's how it works. Now I live in Memphis, trust me when minorities came in we had to help them, but we weren't thrilled because their credit usually sucked, you can call it racism all you want, but the fact is have a promotion and see who comes to use the "key" it's minorities and even they will tell you alot of the times they probably cant buy. And alot of times it's because they dont understand credit (maybe teach it in schools? instead of global warming? just saying) or they dont care about it and alot of young people black and white are like that....once you accept that, then we can try and figure out why and get shit done, until then you'll cry racism all you want, it doesnt solve a thing. AND IN YOU article I highlighted the FACTS and for minorities it wasnt good, and WhY DID THEY GET LOANS, because of an AFFIRMATIVE ACTION policy, they suspended regulations so they could make the loans, and it was a DISASTER......

 

[Dick Tuck]

OMG you are right, it was Bush that wanted more minorities to own homes he relaxed the rules, except that was done in the Clinton year, I'll post it again....You guys are feeding my ego, I may just have to trash talk a little.....how I hate that
1998: Sec. Andrew Cuomo Defends Affirmative Action Mortgage Policy - YouTube

"To take a greater risk to give families mortgages that wouldnt have had them".....gee I think Cuomo and I agree on that....except he did it before the collapse.....oooops

Cuomo was mistaken. Mortgages originated by CRA institutions were almost half as likely to be forclosed than loans originated by independent brokers like Countrywide.

no he wasnt, He understood the regulation and that to loan to a person with less than A paper credit, you had to LOWER The bar, therefore it was riskier and the riskier the loan the higher the rate.

I sold new and used cars for a year for Ford(pre crises, so this was when it was EASY to get a loan)and I know this stuff, if your credit was a 400 you cant buy shit (I saw people with below a 400 ), if it's a 500 you might be able to buy but your interest is gonna kick your ass and if you have 700+ you can pick the car you want. That's how it works. Now I live in Memphis, trust me when minorities came in we had to help them, but we weren't thrilled because their credit usually sucked, you can call it racism all you want, but the fact is have a promotion and see who comes to use the "key" it's minorities and even they will tell you alot of the times they probably cant buy. And alot of times it's because they dont understand credit (maybe teach it in schools? instead of global warming? just saying) or they dont care about it and alot of young people black and white are like that....once you accept that, then we can try and figure out why and get shit done, until then you'll cry racism all you want, it doesnt solve a thing. AND IN YOU article I highlighted the FACTS and for minorities it wasnt good, and WhY DID THEY GET LOANS, because of an AFFIRMATIVE ACTION policy, they suspended regulations so they could make the loans, and it was a DISASTER......

Affirmative action has nothing to do with it. CRA has nothing to do with it. The vast majority of subprime loans came from independent mortgage brokers, who weren't even covered under CRA. Companies like Countrywide didn't give a damn if these people could pay these loans back, since they weren't the ones who were lending them the money. Most were sold to investment banks, who were bundling them into derivative packages, and selling them has high grade securities to things like foundations, pension funds, etc..

How in the fuck can you blame CRA for something that they were in no way responsible for, unless you're just a piece of racist trash?

 

[francoHFW]

Because AIG etc insured the crappe, bundled it, and sold it around the world. CRA is only the story for hater/dupes. Scammers are the story. Big and HUGE scammers..