Housing Starts Soar

[Dad2three]

YOUR LINK BUBBA

"What GAO Found United States Government Accountability Office Why GAO Did This Study Highlights Accountability Integrity Reliability
Highlights of GAO-06-24, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives
November 2005
MORTGAGE FINANCING
Additional Action Needed to Manage Risks of FHA-Insured Loans with Down Payment Assistance
The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) permits borrowers to obtain down payment assistance from third parties; but, research has raised concerns about the performance of loans with such assistance. Due to these concerns, GAO examined the (1) trends in the use of down payment assistance with FHA-insured loans, (2) the impact that the presence of such assistance has on purchase transactions and house prices, (3) how such assistance influences the performance of these loans, and (4) FHA’s standards and controls for these loans.
What GAO Recommends
The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development should direct the FHA Commissioner to implement additional controls to manage the risks associated with loans that involve down payment assistance. Such controls could involve considering the presence and source of down payment assistance when underwriting loans. Further, the FHA Commissioner should consider additional controls for loans with down payment assistance from seller-funded nonprofits. In written comments, HUD generally agreed with the report’s findings. HUD also commented on certain aspects of selected recommendations.
Almost half of all single-family home purchase mortgages that FHA insured in fiscal year 2004 had down payment assistance. Nonprofit organizations that received at least part of their funding from sellers provided assistance for about 30 percent of these loans and represent a growing source of down payment assistance. However, assistance from seller-funded nonprofits alters the structure of the purchase transaction. First, because many seller-funded nonprofits require property sellers to make a payment to their organization; assistance from these nonprofits creates an indirect funding stream from property sellers to homebuyers. Second, GAO analysis indicated that FHA-insured homes bought with seller-funded nonprofit assistance were appraised at and sold for about 2 to 3 percent more than comparable homes bought without such assistance.
Regardless of the source of assistance and holding other variables constant, GAO analysis indicated that FHA-insured loans with down payment assistance have higher delinquency and claim rates than do similar loans without such assistance. Furthermore, loans with assistance from seller-funded nonprofits do not perform as well as loans with assistance from other sources. This difference may be explained, in part, by the higher sales prices of comparable homes bought with seller-funded assistance."

OOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPPPSSSSSSSSSSSS.....

So 10 years after its origination and when 43 made it painfully clear Clintoon had mortgaged the future for votes, GAO says FHA DPA has higher delinquencies? But this ideology of ZERO DOWNPAYMENT is good in '95 but bad in '04?

Besides VA loans, which I will add you had no real clue about, what mortgage loan other than FHA DPA existed before the Sub Prime Zero Down, No MI, 560 FICO loan rolled out?

So let me get this straight, you believe no significant revisions were made to CRA under the Clintoon Admin, correct?

Regulatory changes 1995[edit]
In July 1993, President Bill Clinton asked regulators to reform the CRA in order to make examinations more consistent, clarify performance standards, and reduce cost and compliance burden.[51] Robert Rubin, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, under President Clinton, explained that this was in line with President Clinton's strategy to "deal with the problems of the inner city and distressed rural communities". Discussing the reasons for the Clinton administration's proposal to strengthen the CRA and further reduce red-lining, Lloyd Bentsen, Secretary of the Treasury at that time, affirmed his belief that availability of credit should not depend on where a person lives, "The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live." Bentsen said that the proposed changes would "make it easier for lenders to show how they're complying with the Community Reinvestment Act", and "cut back a lot of the paperwork and the cost on small business loans".[36]
By early 1995, the proposed CRA regulations were substantially revised to address criticisms that the regulations, and the agencies' implementation of them through the examination process to date, were too process-oriented, burdensome, and not sufficiently focused on actual results.[52] The CRA examination process itself was reformed to incorporate the pending changes.[40] Information about banking institutions' CRA ratings was made available via web page for public review as well.[36] The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) also moved to revise its regulation structure allowing lenders subject to the CRA to claim community development loan credits for loans made to help finance the environmental cleanup or redevelopment of industrial sites when it was part of an effort to revitalize the low- and moderate-income community where the site was located.[53]
During one of the Congressional hearings addressing the proposed changes in 1995, William A. Niskanen, chair of the Cato Institute, criticized both the 1993 and 1994 sets of proposals for political favoritism in allocating credit, for micromanagement by regulators and for the lack of assurances that banks would not be expected to operate at a loss to achieve CRA compliance. He predicted the proposed changes would be very costly to the economy and the banking system in general. Niskanen believed that the primary long term effect would be an artificial contraction of the banking system. Niskanen recommended Congress repeal the Act.[54]
Niskanen's, and other respondents to the proposed changes, voiced their concerns during the public comment & testimony periods in late 1993 through early 1995. In response to the aggregate concerns recorded by then, the Federal financial supervisory agencies (the OCC, FRB, FDIC, and OTS) made further clarifications relating to definition, assessment, ratings and scope; sufficiently resolving many of the issues raised in the process. The agencies jointly reported their final amended regulations for implementing the Community Reinvestment Act in the Federal Register on May 4, 1995. The final amended regulations replaced the existing CRA regulations in their entirety.[55] (See the notes in the "1995" column of Table I. for the specifics)

And this little blip also happened under Clintoon...

Legislative changes 1999[edit]
In 1999 the Congress enacted and President Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act. This law repealed the part of the Glass–Steagall Act that had prohibited a bank from offering a full range of investment, commercial banking, and insurance services since its enactment in 1933. A similar bill was introduced in 1998 by Senator Phil Gramm but it was unable to complete the legislative process into law. Resistance to enacting the 1998 bill, as well as the subsequent 1999 bill, centered around the legislation's language which would expand the types of banking institutions of the time into other areas of service but would not be subject to CRA compliance in order to do so. The Senator also demanded full disclosure of any financial "deals" which community groups had with banks, accusing such groups of "extortion"

Yes I do own your dumbass...

Oh one more issue, you continue to avoid the USDA Census Tract question?

I thought you said you where an expert?

AGAIN, GOV'T BACKED LOANS PERFORMED 450%-600% BETTER THAN PRIVATE MARKET LOANS 2004-2007, HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? lol


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

AGAIN, GOV'T BACKED LOANS PERFORMED 450%-600% BETTER THAN PRIVATE MARKET LOANS 2004-2007, HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? lol

of course, they had govt rates which were lower so private banks got stuck with lower quality borowers.

 

[Dad2three]

AGAIN, GOV'T BACKED LOANS PERFORMED 450%-600% BETTER THAN PRIVATE MARKET LOANS 2004-2007, HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? lol

of course, they had govt rates which were lower so private banks got stuck with lower quality borowers.

lol, Gov't rates were lower? Weird, generally Gov't back fees are HIGHER which gives a higher APR? lol
'
MORON

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

AGAIN, GOV'T BACKED LOANS PERFORMED 450%-600% BETTER THAN PRIVATE MARKET LOANS 2004-2007, HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? lol

of course, they had govt rates which were lower so private banks got stuck with lower quality borowers.

lol, Gov't rates were lower? Weird, generally Gov't back fees are HIGHER which gives a higher APR? lol


'
MORON

In a very real sense, the competition from Fannie and Freddie that began in late 2004 caused both the GSEs and the private-label issuers to scrape the bottom of the mortgage barrel. Fannie and Freddie did so in order to demonstrate to Congress their ability to increase support for affordable housing. The private-label issuers did so to maintain their market share against the GSEs’ increased demand for sub-prime and Alt-A products. Thus, the gradual decline in lending standards--beginning with the revised CRA regulations in 1993 and continuing with the GSEs’ attempts to show Congress that they were meeting their affordable housing mission--came to dominate mortgage lending in the United States.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

lol, Gov't rates were lower? Weird,

yes dear that is exactly why Fanny Freddie existed!!

 

[Dad2three]

AGAIN, GOV'T BACKED LOANS PERFORMED 450%-600% BETTER THAN PRIVATE MARKET LOANS 2004-2007, HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? lol

of course, they had govt rates which were lower so private banks got stuck with lower quality borowers.

lol, Gov't rates were lower? Weird, generally Gov't back fees are HIGHER which gives a higher APR? lol


'
MORON

In a very real sense, the competition from Fannie and Freddie that began in late 2004 caused both the GSEs and the private-label issuers to scrape the bottom of the mortgage barrel. Fannie and Freddie did so in order to demonstrate to Congress their ability to increase support for affordable housing. The private-label issuers did so to maintain their market share against the GSEs’ increased demand for sub-prime and Alt-A products. Thus, the gradual decline in lending standards--beginning with the revised CRA regulations in 1993 and continuing with the GSEs’ attempts to show Congress that they were meeting their affordable housing mission--came to dominate mortgage lending in the United States.

YOU KEEP PILING ON THE BULLSHIT BUBBA

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


Federal Reserve Board data show that:

• More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
• 
  
• Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
• 
  
• Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.


And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of U.S. homeownership.
Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.

Private sector loans not Fannie or Freddie triggered crisis Economics McClatchy DC

BTW, DUBYA UPPED F/F GOALS FROM 50% TO 56% IN 2004 THAT WAS AFTER HE REQUIRED THEM TO BUY $440 BILLION IN MBS'S (FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR), LOL

 

[Dad2three]

lol, Gov't rates were lower? Weird,

yes dear that is exactly why Fanny Freddie existed!!

BZZ, F/F don't give loans Bubba, they BUY or insure private market loans!!!

 

[Dad2three]

AGAIN, GOV'T BACKED LOANS PERFORMED 450%-600% BETTER THAN PRIVATE MARKET LOANS 2004-2007, HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? lol

of course, they had govt rates which were lower so private banks got stuck with lower quality borowers.

lol, Gov't rates were lower? Weird, generally Gov't back fees are HIGHER which gives a higher APR? lol


'
MORON

In a very real sense, the competition from Fannie and Freddie that began in late 2004 caused both the GSEs and the private-label issuers to scrape the bottom of the mortgage barrel. Fannie and Freddie did so in order to demonstrate to Congress their ability to increase support for affordable housing. The private-label issuers did so to maintain their market share against the GSEs’ increased demand for sub-prime and Alt-A products. Thus, the gradual decline in lending standards--beginning with the revised CRA regulations in 1993 and continuing with the GSEs’ attempts to show Congress that they were meeting their affordable housing mission--came to dominate mortgage lending in the United States.

Weird, F/F were arounf for 70 years, why all of a sudden did they need to 'show Congress' they were meeting the goals? lol

June 17, 2004

Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan

Groups ask HUD to rethink plan that would increase financing of homes to low-income people.


Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.
Home builders fight Bush s low-income housing - Jun. 17 2004

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

BZZ, F/F don't give loans Bubba, they BUY or insure private market loans!!!

dear, uber liberal FF existed to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford. The uber liberal Fed printed the money to get the process rolling and keep it rolling.

BUt you said you like liberal regulation?

 

[boedicca]

Have pity on Dad2Three, Ed. That much Stupid must cause him to be in constant pain.

 

[Dad2three]

BZZ, F/F don't give loans Bubba, they BUY or insure private market loans!!!

dear, uber liberal FF existed to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford. The uber liberal Fed printed the money to get the process rolling and keep it rolling.

BUt you said you like liberal regulation?

" FF existed to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford."


Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative


Eliot Spitzer - Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime



“We can put light where there’s darkness, and hope where there’s despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home.” — President Bush, Oct. 15, 2002

From the 2000 GOP Platform:

“Implement the “American Dream Down Payment” program"

Passed: December 16, 2003 — American Dream Down Payment Initiative (ADDI)

ADDI aims to increase the homeownership rate, especially among lower income and minority households, and to revitalize and stabilize communities. ADDI will help first-time homebuyers with the biggest hurdle to homeownership: downpayment and closing costs. The program was created to assist low-income first-time homebuyers in purchasing single-family homes by providing funds for downpayment, closing costs, and rehabilitation carried out in conjunction with the assisted home purchase.

President: George W. Bush (R)
US House: Rep. Dennis Hastert (R)
US Senate: Sen. Bill Frist (R)

 

[jasonnfree]

BZZ, F/F don't give loans Bubba, they BUY or insure private market loans!!!

dear, uber liberal FF existed to get people into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford. The uber liberal Fed printed the money to get the process rolling and keep it rolling.

BUt you said you like liberal regulation?

Where's there ever a free market, Ed? Houses we can't afford and military adventures we can't afford you forgot to add. Anyway, the Fed's been printing money like this for decades and America is still standing. Even the real economists on these forums aren't as negative about printing money as you are.

 

[GWV5903]

WHAT THE FUKK DOES ALL THAT HAVE TO DO WITH HOW DUBYA CHEER-LED FOR THE BANKSTERS WHEN HOUSEHOLD DEBT DOUBLED HIS FIRST SEVEN YEARS AS HE GUTTED REGULATORS AND CHEERED ON THE SUBPRIME LOANS BUBBA?

Well clearly it means nothing for someone as dumb as you, but for most individuals that have the ability to think beyond three years it is very relevant, funny thing is most intellects realize it takes a lot longer than three years for this to occur...

For someone who continues to C&P the same information time and time again, I get it you're a f'ing imbecile...

 

[Dad2three]

WHAT THE FUKK DOES ALL THAT HAVE TO DO WITH HOW DUBYA CHEER-LED FOR THE BANKSTERS WHEN HOUSEHOLD DEBT DOUBLED HIS FIRST SEVEN YEARS AS HE GUTTED REGULATORS AND CHEERED ON THE SUBPRIME LOANS BUBBA?

Well clearly it means nothing for someone as dumb as you, but for most individuals that have the ability to think beyond three years it is very relevant, funny thing is most intellects realize it takes a lot longer than three years for this to occur...

For someone who continues to C&P the same information time and time again, I get it you're a f'ing imbecile...

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

Lower lending standards started in late 2004 which caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble. Putting in people in homes they couldn't afford caused the default rate to start its dramatic increase in mid 2005. the increased defaults were so bad, the OCC started tracking people who defaulted on their first mortgage payments. this froze the credit markets in 2007. this caused the Great Bush Recession.

I don't have to ignore facts. I don't have to make up facts.



In 2000, securitization vehicles (entities classified as asset-backed security issuers and finance companies by the Federal Reserve) financed $572 billion in residential mortgages, equal to nearly 12% of all household mortgage debt outstanding. By the end of 2006, the volume of outstanding mortgages financed by PLS had grown to over $2.6 trillion, or more than 27% of all residential mortgage debt. The most explosive growth occurred in 2004 and 2005 when the outstanding mortgage debt financed by PLS increased by 49% and 44% respectively.

(6 years 400%???, lol)


It is important to note that these growth rates reflect net annual changes in total mortgage debt; when refinancings of existing PLS - funded mortgages are included, the growth rates on gross PLS issuance during these years exceed 90%

The dramatic growth in PLS issuance was the capital markets manifestation of the increase in the origination of nontraditional mortgage products outside of the GSE channel. According to the Government Accounting Office (GAO), “nonprime” mortgage loans (subprime plus Alt-A) accounted for 34% of the overall mortgage market in 2006. From 2001 to 2005, the dollar volume of subprime mortgages increased from $100 billion to $600 billion, while Alt - A mortgages grew from $25 billion to $400 billion over roughly the same period


http://business.gwu.edu/creua/research-papers/files/fannie-freddie.pdf

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

WHAT THE FUKK DOES ALL THAT HAVE TO DO WITH HOW DUBYA CHEER-LED FOR THE BANKSTERS WHEN HOUSEHOLD DEBT DOUBLED HIS FIRST SEVEN YEARS AS HE GUTTED REGULATORS AND CHEERED ON THE SUBPRIME LOANS BUBBA?

Well clearly it means nothing for someone as dumb as you, but for most individuals that have the ability to think beyond three years it is very relevant, funny thing is most intellects realize it takes a lot longer than three years for this to occur...

For someone who continues to C&P the same information time and time again, I get it you're a f'ing imbecile...

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

Lower lending standards started in late 2004 which caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble. Putting in people in homes they couldn't afford caused the default rate to start its dramatic increase in mid 2005. the increased defaults were so bad, the OCC started tracking people who defaulted on their first mortgage payments. this froze the credit markets in 2007. this caused the Great Bush Recession.

I don't have to ignore facts. I don't have to make up facts.



In 2000, securitization vehicles (entities classified as asset-backed security issuers and finance companies by the Federal Reserve) financed $572 billion in residential mortgages, equal to nearly 12% of all household mortgage debt outstanding. By the end of 2006, the volume of outstanding mortgages financed by PLS had grown to over $2.6 trillion, or more than 27% of all residential mortgage debt. The most explosive growth occurred in 2004 and 2005 when the outstanding mortgage debt financed by PLS increased by 49% and 44% respectively.

(6 years 400%???, lol)


It is important to note that these growth rates reflect net annual changes in total mortgage debt; when refinancings of existing PLS - funded mortgages are included, the growth rates on gross PLS issuance during these years exceed 90%

The dramatic growth in PLS issuance was the capital markets manifestation of the increase in the origination of nontraditional mortgage products outside of the GSE channel. According to the Government Accounting Office (GAO), “nonprime” mortgage loans (subprime plus Alt-A) accounted for 34% of the overall mortgage market in 2006. From 2001 to 2005, the dollar volume of subprime mortgages increased from $100 billion to $600 billion, while Alt - A mortgages grew from $25 billion to $400 billion over roughly the same period


http://business.gwu.edu/creua/research-papers/files/fannie-freddie.pdf

of course liberal regulators can weaken underwriting standards all they want but it does no good unless other liberal regulators are there printing the money to create mortgages in the first place. And of course it helps when liberal regulators at F/F buy and insure the mortgages and you have 132 other programs to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford.

THe liberal soviet result could all have been avoided with conservative Republican capitalism!

 

[Dad2three]

WHAT THE FUKK DOES ALL THAT HAVE TO DO WITH HOW DUBYA CHEER-LED FOR THE BANKSTERS WHEN HOUSEHOLD DEBT DOUBLED HIS FIRST SEVEN YEARS AS HE GUTTED REGULATORS AND CHEERED ON THE SUBPRIME LOANS BUBBA?

Well clearly it means nothing for someone as dumb as you, but for most individuals that have the ability to think beyond three years it is very relevant, funny thing is most intellects realize it takes a lot longer than three years for this to occur...

For someone who continues to C&P the same information time and time again, I get it you're a f'ing imbecile...

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

Lower lending standards started in late 2004 which caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble. Putting in people in homes they couldn't afford caused the default rate to start its dramatic increase in mid 2005. the increased defaults were so bad, the OCC started tracking people who defaulted on their first mortgage payments. this froze the credit markets in 2007. this caused the Great Bush Recession.

I don't have to ignore facts. I don't have to make up facts.



In 2000, securitization vehicles (entities classified as asset-backed security issuers and finance companies by the Federal Reserve) financed $572 billion in residential mortgages, equal to nearly 12% of all household mortgage debt outstanding. By the end of 2006, the volume of outstanding mortgages financed by PLS had grown to over $2.6 trillion, or more than 27% of all residential mortgage debt. The most explosive growth occurred in 2004 and 2005 when the outstanding mortgage debt financed by PLS increased by 49% and 44% respectively.

(6 years 400%???, lol)


It is important to note that these growth rates reflect net annual changes in total mortgage debt; when refinancings of existing PLS - funded mortgages are included, the growth rates on gross PLS issuance during these years exceed 90%

The dramatic growth in PLS issuance was the capital markets manifestation of the increase in the origination of nontraditional mortgage products outside of the GSE channel. According to the Government Accounting Office (GAO), “nonprime” mortgage loans (subprime plus Alt-A) accounted for 34% of the overall mortgage market in 2006. From 2001 to 2005, the dollar volume of subprime mortgages increased from $100 billion to $600 billion, while Alt - A mortgages grew from $25 billion to $400 billion over roughly the same period


http://business.gwu.edu/creua/research-papers/files/fannie-freddie.pdf

of course liberal regulators can weaken underwriting standards all they want but it does no good unless other liberal regulators are there printing the money to create mortgages in the first place. And of course it helps when liberal regulators at F/F buy and insure the mortgages and you have 132 other programs to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford.

THe liberal soviet result could all have been avoided with conservative Republican capitalism!

Got it, you are sticking to being the ignorant liar/tool you are

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

WHAT THE FUKK DOES ALL THAT HAVE TO DO WITH HOW DUBYA CHEER-LED FOR THE BANKSTERS WHEN HOUSEHOLD DEBT DOUBLED HIS FIRST SEVEN YEARS AS HE GUTTED REGULATORS AND CHEERED ON THE SUBPRIME LOANS BUBBA?

Well clearly it means nothing for someone as dumb as you, but for most individuals that have the ability to think beyond three years it is very relevant, funny thing is most intellects realize it takes a lot longer than three years for this to occur...

For someone who continues to C&P the same information time and time again, I get it you're a f'ing imbecile...

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”

Lower lending standards started in late 2004 which caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble. Putting in people in homes they couldn't afford caused the default rate to start its dramatic increase in mid 2005. the increased defaults were so bad, the OCC started tracking people who defaulted on their first mortgage payments. this froze the credit markets in 2007. this caused the Great Bush Recession.

I don't have to ignore facts. I don't have to make up facts.



In 2000, securitization vehicles (entities classified as asset-backed security issuers and finance companies by the Federal Reserve) financed $572 billion in residential mortgages, equal to nearly 12% of all household mortgage debt outstanding. By the end of 2006, the volume of outstanding mortgages financed by PLS had grown to over $2.6 trillion, or more than 27% of all residential mortgage debt. The most explosive growth occurred in 2004 and 2005 when the outstanding mortgage debt financed by PLS increased by 49% and 44% respectively.

(6 years 400%???, lol)


It is important to note that these growth rates reflect net annual changes in total mortgage debt; when refinancings of existing PLS - funded mortgages are included, the growth rates on gross PLS issuance during these years exceed 90%

The dramatic growth in PLS issuance was the capital markets manifestation of the increase in the origination of nontraditional mortgage products outside of the GSE channel. According to the Government Accounting Office (GAO), “nonprime” mortgage loans (subprime plus Alt-A) accounted for 34% of the overall mortgage market in 2006. From 2001 to 2005, the dollar volume of subprime mortgages increased from $100 billion to $600 billion, while Alt - A mortgages grew from $25 billion to $400 billion over roughly the same period


http://business.gwu.edu/creua/research-papers/files/fannie-freddie.pdf

of course liberal regulators can weaken underwriting standards all they want but it does no good unless other liberal regulators are there printing the money to create mortgages in the first place. And of course it helps when liberal regulators at F/F buy and insure the mortgages and you have 132 other programs to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford.

THe liberal soviet result could all have been avoided with conservative Republican capitalism!

Got it, you are sticking to being the ignorant liar/tool you are

typical liberal with IQ for substance turns to violent personal attack