How many more lies did Barney Frank participate in???

[Dad2three]

Last note to you dad2three....

You said this....

The historical "originate and hold" mortgage model was replaced with the "originate and distribute" model. Incentives were such that you could get paid just to originate and sell the mortgages down the pipeline, passing the risk along.

You are correct.

Who was the one who did that for them?

Do you know?

Find out.

Then tell me who reprimanded the IG who reported issues with the above entity and how they did the above transactions.

Then tell me who said "there is no issue with the above referenced entity" and implied that claiming there was an issue was racially motivated.

Then take your childish way of posting and.....well......learn to act like an adult.

I'LL NOTE YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED THIS THREE TIMES. Weird


Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN’T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.

Actually, it is not that they did not have to document it. They had to, under the oath of an affidavit, list their income on the application. This is required so an underwriter can make an educated decision based on the value of the home and the income of the borrower. What they did NOT have to do is produce a w-2 or a tax return.
Many lied. Many lied when they signed the affidavit at closing. Yes, the "victims" lied to get the loan.



Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them

Why would they do it? It is a recipe for disaster and any lending institution is well aware of it. Unless, of course, there is an impetus to take the risk of major losses. Hmmm....what could that have been? I mean, why would a lending institution take such a great risk for a mere 5% return on their money?

Seems you are confused with your facts sparky.

'Actually, it is not that they did not have to document it. They had to, under the oath of an affidavit, list their income on the application. This is required so an underwriter can make an educated decision based on the value of the home and the income of the borrower. What they did NOT have to do is produce a w-2 or a tax return.
Many lied. Many lied when they signed the affidavit at closing. Yes, the "victims" lied to get the loan.'


WEIRD, FBI SAID 80% OF THE FRAUD WAS LENDER INITIATED? I guess those 'victims'; shouldn't had dropped their underwriting standards? Why did the Banksters drop underwriting standards again? lol



"Why would they do it? It is a recipe for disaster and any lending institution is well aware of it. Unless, of course, there is an impetus to take the risk of major losses. Hmmm....what could that have been? I mean, why would a lending institution take such a great risk for a mere 5% return on their money?"


YEAH, I WONDER WHY?

Compensation schemes encouraged gambling: Wall Street’s compensation system was—and still is—based on short-term performance, all upside and no downside. This creates incentives to take excessive risks. The bonuses are extraordinarily large and they continue–$135 billion in 2010 for the 25 largest institutions and that is after the meltdown.


Wall Street became “creative”: The demand for higher-yielding paper led Wall Street to begin bundling mortgages. The highest yielding were subprime mortgages. This market was dominated by non-bank originators exempt from most regulations.


Private sector lenders fed the demand: These mortgage originators’ lend-to-sell-to-securitizers model had them holding mortgages for a very short period. This allowed them to relax underwriting standards, abdicating traditional lending metrics such as income, credit rating, debt-service history and loan-to-value.


Financial gadgets milked the market:


Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes


"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms," said Allan Greenspan.


Greenspan - I was wrong about the economy. Sort of | Business | The Guardian

WEIRD RIGHT?

 

[Dad2three]

I'LL NOTE YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED THIS THREE TIMES. Weird


Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN’T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.

Actually, it is not that they did not have to document it. They had to, under the oath of an affidavit, list their income on the application. This is required so an underwriter can make an educated decision based on the value of the home and the income of the borrower. What they did NOT have to do is produce a w-2 or a tax return.
Many lied. Many lied when they signed the affidavit at closing. Yes, the "victims" lied to get the loan.



Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them

Why would they do it? It is a recipe for disaster and any lending institution is well aware of it. Unless, of course, there is an impetus to take the risk of major losses. Hmmm....what could that have been? I mean, why would a lending institution take such a great risk for a mere 5% return on their money?

Seems you are confused with your facts sparky.

Are you aware that the borrower must sign the application 4 different times at closing? They also have to sign a separate affidavit asserting that all information they offered the lender is accurate to the best of their knowledge.

So they lied on an affidavit......and they are victims?

Wow.

You mean the lenders who initiated 80%+ (ACCORDING TO THE FBI) of the fraud told them it's OK, AND Dubya fought ALL 50 states who wanted to reign in those types of lenders?

 

[Dad2three]

Lawmaker Accused of Fannie Mae Conflict of Interest | Fox News

Barney's conflict of interest with Fannie Mae boyfriend. "Hey when I get done fucking you, lets fuck America!"

Yeah, ACCUSED? LOL

Weird, Barney had ZERO power in the GOP House, like todays Dems, but SOMEHOW he had super duper powers dealing with HUD's F/F which Dubya had oversight on? lol

"Moses worked at the government-sponsored enterprise from 1991 to 1998, while Frank was on the House Banking Committee, which had jurisdiction over Fannie."


WHAT'S THAT GOT TO DO WITH ANYTHING WHEN DUBYA PUT F/F INTO TROUBLE THE SAME TIME PERIOD AS HIS SUBPRIME CRISIS


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“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.”

I ACCUSE YOU OF BEING A DUMBASS!

 

[Dad2three]

I'LL NOTE YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED THIS THREE TIMES. Weird


Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN’T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.

Actually, it is not that they did not have to document it. They had to, under the oath of an affidavit, list their income on the application. This is required so an underwriter can make an educated decision based on the value of the home and the income of the borrower. What they did NOT have to do is produce a w-2 or a tax return.
Many lied. Many lied when they signed the affidavit at closing. Yes, the "victims" lied to get the loan.



Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them

Why would they do it? It is a recipe for disaster and any lending institution is well aware of it. Unless, of course, there is an impetus to take the risk of major losses. Hmmm....what could that have been? I mean, why would a lending institution take such a great risk for a mere 5% return on their money?

Seems you are confused with your facts sparky.

Are you aware that the borrower must sign the application 4 different times at closing? They also have to sign a separate affidavit asserting that all information they offered the lender is accurate to the best of their knowledge.

So they lied on an affidavit......and they are victims?

Wow.

"Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them"

 

[Jarhead]

Calm down and debate like an adult.

Those loans were not "no income required" loans.

They were no income verification laons.

The 1003 is an affidavit and it required an honest response as to income and job history.

Yes, fraud was the cause of most of the defaults...

Most of the fraud was committed by those that lied on the 1003.

Some of the fraud was misleading by the sub prime brokers when they said "take the ARM and when it balloons in 5 years you can refinance"

Problem was, when it came to refinance, the value of their homes dropped.....so they could not refinance and were stuck with the balloon.

look bro...I know this shit....obviously a lot more than you do. It has been a part of my life for the better part of a quarter century.

But stick to what you believe.

Wont change my life.

 

[Jarhead]

Seems you are confused with your facts sparky.

Are you aware that the borrower must sign the application 4 different times at closing? They also have to sign a separate affidavit asserting that all information they offered the lender is accurate to the best of their knowledge.

So they lied on an affidavit......and they are victims?

Wow.

"Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them"

Greed?

Take a major risk for a 5% return?

You call that greed?

LMAO...you are clueless.

 

[Jarhead]

FYI...

A president does not hire regulators.

Just saying, moron.

 

[Faun]

I'LL NOTE YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED THIS THREE TIMES. Weird


Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN’T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.

Actually, it is not that they did not have to document it. They had to, under the oath of an affidavit, list their income on the application. This is required so an underwriter can make an educated decision based on the value of the home and the income of the borrower. What they did NOT have to do is produce a w-2 or a tax return.
Many lied. Many lied when they signed the affidavit at closing. Yes, the "victims" lied to get the loan.



Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them

Why would they do it? It is a recipe for disaster and any lending institution is well aware of it. Unless, of course, there is an impetus to take the risk of major losses. Hmmm....what could that have been? I mean, why would a lending institution take such a great risk for a mere 5% return on their money?

Seems you are confused with your facts sparky.

Are you aware that the borrower must sign the application 4 different times at closing? They also have to sign a separate affidavit asserting that all information they offered the lender is accurate to the best of their knowledge.

So they lied on an affidavit......and they are victims?

Wow.

Huh? What lie was that?

 

[Dad2three]

I'LL NOTE YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED THIS THREE TIMES. Weird


Q HOLY JESUS! DID YOU JUST PROVE THAT OVER 50 % OF ALL MORTGAGES IN 2006 DIDN’T REQUIRE BORROWERS TO DOCUMENT THEIR INCOME?!?!?!?

A Yes.

Actually, it is not that they did not have to document it. They had to, under the oath of an affidavit, list their income on the application. This is required so an underwriter can make an educated decision based on the value of the home and the income of the borrower. What they did NOT have to do is produce a w-2 or a tax return.
Many lied. Many lied when they signed the affidavit at closing. Yes, the "victims" lied to get the loan.



Q WHO THE HELL LOANS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CHECKING THEIR INCOMES?!?!?

A Banks.

Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them

Why would they do it? It is a recipe for disaster and any lending institution is well aware of it. Unless, of course, there is an impetus to take the risk of major losses. Hmmm....what could that have been? I mean, why would a lending institution take such a great risk for a mere 5% return on their money?

Seems you are confused with your facts sparky.

Are you aware that the borrower must sign the application 4 different times at closing? They also have to sign a separate affidavit asserting that all information they offered the lender is accurate to the best of their knowledge.

So they lied on an affidavit......and they are victims?

Wow.

FBI SAID 80% OF FRAUD WAS LENDER INITIATED? WOW


FBI Reports 80% of Mortgage Fraud Committed by Lenders - AskMikeButler.com




Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI ? Financial Crimes Report 2005

The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/washington/19fbi.html?pagewanted=all
FBI ? Financial Crimes Report 2007

 

[Dad2three]

FYI...

A president does not hire regulators.

Just saying, moron.

Really? BUT his branch of Gov't IS in charge of them right asswipe? FBI, SEC, HUD, GSE'S ALL FALL UNDER EXECUTIVE BRANCH. Weird right? lol

 

[Jarhead]

Seems you are confused with your facts sparky.

Are you aware that the borrower must sign the application 4 different times at closing? They also have to sign a separate affidavit asserting that all information they offered the lender is accurate to the best of their knowledge.

So they lied on an affidavit......and they are victims?

Wow.

Huh? What lie was that?

The no income verification loans required the borrower list income and job history on the 1003.

The 1003 has 4 places to sign asserting the information is true. Furthermore, there is an affidavit in the settlement documents asserting the same.

Sub prime brokers told applicants the income required for the underwriter to approve the loan (based on LTV and personal income)...and suggested they put that number on the 1003 as their income.

Yes, the brokers suggested they lie.....and they did.

Would you lie on an affidavit and then call yourself a victim if the lie got you in trouble?

 

[Dad2three]

Are you aware that the borrower must sign the application 4 different times at closing? They also have to sign a separate affidavit asserting that all information they offered the lender is accurate to the best of their knowledge.

So they lied on an affidavit......and they are victims?

Wow.

"Q WHY??!?!!!?!

A Two reasons, greed and Bush's regulators let them"

Greed?

Take a major risk for a 5% return?

You call that greed?

LMAO...you are clueless.

Yeah, it was the reason the Banksters took risk, the 5% the banks could make, NOT the hundreds of thousands AND millions in bonuses they made off of the lend and securtize and sell model *shaking head*

ANOTHER DISHONEST FUKING CON. Shocking

 

[Dad2three]

Are you aware that the borrower must sign the application 4 different times at closing? They also have to sign a separate affidavit asserting that all information they offered the lender is accurate to the best of their knowledge.

So they lied on an affidavit......and they are victims?

Wow.

Huh? What lie was that?

The no income verification loans required the borrower list income and job history on the 1003.

The 1003 has 4 places to sign asserting the information is true. Furthermore, there is an affidavit in the settlement documents asserting the same.

Sub prime brokers told applicants the income required for the underwriter to approve the loan (based on LTV and personal income)...and suggested they put that number on the 1003 as their income.

Yes, the brokers suggested they lie.....and they did.

Would you lie on an affidavit and then call yourself a victim if the lie got you in trouble?

Weird how you keep ignoring Dubya fighting ALL 50 states who wanted to stop that PREDATORY LENDING that the FBI said Banksters were responsible for 80% + of the fraud?

MANY of those 0%-2% (ARMS) loans didn't require lying BTW, lol

 

[Jarhead]

the two primary causes of the bubble bursting:

1) No income verification loans
This opened the door to borrowers lying on their application about their income. Usually suggested by the sub prime broker, but the borrower followed suit

2) Suggestion to take an ARM and then refinance when the rate adjusts
Usually a good deal. You start off with a very low rate, and when it adjusts with the market, you refinance to a fixed rate. Many saw it as a "no brainer" but they never questioned "what if I cant refinance"....and what happened? Their rates went up per the ARM and when they went to refinance, their LTV was negative, and unable to refinance

Now....blame whomever you want.

No ne made anyone sign anything

I did not take the ARM....for I worried that I would not be able to refinance.

So for the first 5 years, I was paying over 4 percent more than I had to.

 

[Dad2three]

Calm down and debate like an adult.

Those loans were not "no income required" loans.

They were no income verification laons.

The 1003 is an affidavit and it required an honest response as to income and job history.

Yes, fraud was the cause of most of the defaults...

Most of the fraud was committed by those that lied on the 1003.

Some of the fraud was misleading by the sub prime brokers when they said "take the ARM and when it balloons in 5 years you can refinance"

Problem was, when it came to refinance, the value of their homes dropped.....so they could not refinance and were stuck with the balloon.

look bro...I know this shit....obviously a lot more than you do. It has been a part of my life for the better part of a quarter century.

But stick to what you believe.

Wont change my life.

Weird you haven't refuted a DAMN thing I've posted on the Banksters WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND DUBYA CHEERING THEM ON IN THE US WHY IS THAT?

You can point to thousands of housing and financial policies and laws prior to Bush but none of them explain why banks lowered their lending standards in late 2004 and none of them explain why Bush’s regulators did nothing to stop it. Bush’s agressive and toxic housing policies do explain why bush’s regulators did nothing. No bad mortgages, no housing bubble.


In case you don’t know it, republicans controlled congress in 2001-2007. Don’t be offended if you knew it. A lot of conservatives don’t.



Banks used cheap capital to create a bubble. Their lending strategies fueled and fed off the housing bubble, and they did so using mortgage products whose performance was premised on continued growth of that bubble.



So, while those who had money to buy MBS were looking for product, those who were originating and packaging MBS lacked enough to sell them. This meant that there was a huge incentive to increase the number of mortgages. This incentive sent loan originators looking for new mortgage markets to feed the securitization machine and led to the rapid growth of the subprime and Alt-A markets.

The aggressive pursuit of those markets by banks of all kinds has led us to the current situation. The main role that regulators played was to refuse to intervene into these markets


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

 

[Jarhead]

Huh? What lie was that?

The no income verification loans required the borrower list income and job history on the 1003.

The 1003 has 4 places to sign asserting the information is true. Furthermore, there is an affidavit in the settlement documents asserting the same.

Sub prime brokers told applicants the income required for the underwriter to approve the loan (based on LTV and personal income)...and suggested they put that number on the 1003 as their income.

Yes, the brokers suggested they lie.....and they did.

Would you lie on an affidavit and then call yourself a victim if the lie got you in trouble?

Weird how you keep ignoring Dubya fighting ALL 50 states who wanted to stop that PREDATORY LENDING that the FBI said Banksters were responsible for 80% + of the fraud?

MANY of those 0%-2% (ARMS) loans didn't require lying BTW, lol

No. It did not require lying. It required some forethought.

If a deal is too good to be true, it likely isn't.

 

[Jarhead]

Your problem, dad2three, is that you want to blame Bush for everything.

I get it.

You hate the man.

Now....grow up and debate like a father of three.

 

[Dad2three]

the two primary causes of the bubble bursting:

1) No income verification loans
This opened the door to borrowers lying on their application about their income. Usually suggested by the sub prime broker, but the borrower followed suit

2) Suggestion to take an ARM and then refinance when the rate adjusts
Usually a good deal. You start off with a very low rate, and when it adjusts with the market, you refinance to a fixed rate. Many saw it as a "no brainer" but they never questioned "what if I cant refinance"....and what happened? Their rates went up per the ARM and when they went to refinance, their LTV was negative, and unable to refinance

Now....blame whomever you want.

No ne made anyone sign anything

I did not take the ARM....for I worried that I would not be able to refinance.

So for the first 5 years, I was paying over 4 percent more than I had to.

Weird, Reagan ignored regulator warnings on his S&L crisis (1984 Mr Gray) and Dubya ignored REPEATED warnings from the FBI and Dems in Congress? HMM

ALMOST LIKE THE GOP DOESN'T 'BELIEVE IN' GOV'T OR THE REGULATORS RIGHT?

 

[Jarhead]

Never mind dad2three.....

Don't appreciate your style of debating.

I will no longer respond to you.

I came back hoping I could calm you down. I was wrong.

Cya.

 

[Dad2three]

Your problem, dad2three, is that you want to blame Bush for everything.

I get it.

You hate the man.

Now....grow up and debate like a father of three.

Debate what? Dubya ALLOWED a subprime bubble to form AND then pop. He fed it off his REQUIRING F/F to purchase $440 BILLION in MBS's (know what they are yet Bubba) and then upping the requirement on them from 50% to 56% in 2004, WHILE getting rid of Clinton's rule that reigned in 'high cost loans' (NOW WHAT MIGHT THAT BE?)


DUBYA REGULATOR FAILURE ALLOWED THE BANKSTERS TO RUN WILD. Pretty simple really, IF YOU weren't such an ideologue!