TIME to kill the ALL Fannie's and Freddie's fault rumor!

[Alpha1]

also alpha, president Bush had an initiative also to put more people in to homes and President Bush is the one that went to the fha and had them remove the 5% down as a requirement...in order to reach his goal of 5.5 million people in to homes over the next decade....i think this was done in either 2003 or 2004?

let me try to find it....I don't believe congress was even involved with that...???

brb...with link in a minute...


care

Friday, March 14, 2008
The Barney Frank FHA Refinance Plan
Calculated Risk: The Frank FHA Refinance Plan

H.R. 1852, the “Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007” ...Barney Frank
http://tinyurl.com/4tvols

Adopts the Frank/Miller/Cardoza amendment that would raise FHA single family loan limits, which now bar loans above 95% of the median home price in each local area and shut FHA out of higher cost home markets. The amendment raises the FHA loan limit in each area to the lower of (a) 125% of the local area median home price or (b) 175% of the national GSE conforming loan limit.
Congress 2007: Make It Easier to Buy a Home at The Brian Sullivan Blog

Sen. Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and a Connecticut Democrat, backed Frank's general approach to FHA-backed refinancing.
Under legislation unveiled by the lawmakers, the FHA would be permitted to offer $300 billion more in new guarantees to help refinance distressed mortgages that banks and mortgage holders have agreed to significantly write down.
Key lawmakers seek wider FHA role in mortgages | Special Coverage | Reuters

May 6, 2008
H.R. 5830, the Frank–Dodd FHA Refinance Plan, Is Still the
Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) of the House Financial Services Committee has proposed H.R. 5830, which would use the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to refinance at-risk mortgages at a lower interest rate in return for a cash fee.
H.R. 5830, the Frank–Dodd FHA Refinance Plan, Is Still the Wrong Policy for the Housing Mess

 

[Alpha1]

Funny that links I had saved months ago concerning this debacle that were not flattering to Dims, no longer work....

now why the is that ?

 

[Care4all]

Expanding Homeownership. The President believes that homeownership is the cornerstone of America's vibrant communities and benefits individual families by building stability and long-term financial security. In June 2002, President Bush issued America's Homeownership Challenge to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to encourage them to join the effort to close the gap that exists between the homeownership rates of minorities and non-minorities. The President also announced the goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families before the end of the decade. Under his leadership, the overall U.S. homeownership rate in the second quarter of 2004 was at an all time high of 69.2 percent. Minority homeownership set a new record of 51 percent in the second quarter, up 0.2 percentage point from the first quarter and up 2.1 percentage points from a year ago. President Bush's initiative to dismantle the barriers to homeownership includes:
American Dream Downpayment Initiative, which provides down payment assistance to approximately 40,000 low-income families;
Affordable Housing. The President has proposed the Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit, which would increase the supply of affordable homes;
Helping Families Help Themselves. The President has proposed increasing support for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunities Program; and
Simplifying Homebuying and Increasing Education. The President and HUD want to empower homebuyers by simplifying the home buying process so consumers can better understand and benefit from cost savings. The President also wants to expand financial education efforts so that families can understand what they need to do to become homeowners.

Fact Sheet: America's Ownership Society: Expanding Opportunities

the bold part is what covered the 5% downpayments....

i am not blaming president bush, only showing you how this whole mess was just a Perfect Storm...

i still support an initiative to get more families in to home ownership....

of course, not in the ''creative'' and very irresponsible manner that the industry did it in

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

There were no banks that were intimidated by this law.

Oh, well, that proves it then.

Actually, here's an interesting find:

http://clearinghouse.wustl.edu/chDocs/public/FH-IL-0011-9000.pdf

Check the name for plaintiff's 2nd attorney.

 

[Ravi]

Oh, well, that proves it then.

Actually, here's an interesting find:

http://clearinghouse.wustl.edu/chDocs/public/FH-IL-0011-9000.pdf

Check the name for plaintiff's 2nd attorney.

What does a job discrimination case have to do with this?

 

[editec]

The problem was that the mortgage companies could make bad loans with no risk, because they would sell the loan on the day after closing. That and the derivatives that allowed loaning out more money than you had, were the problem.

Yup!

And wrose, they could sell their bonds because they pressured the RATING COMAPNIEs to lie to the bond holders about the REAL degree of risk.

Had the rating companies not LIED for them?

They could never have offered those products to begin with, nobody could have puchsed on NINA financing, and this bond mess would never have developed.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

What does a job discrimination case have to do with this?

Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.

U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs' suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank's loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).

The parties voluntarily dismissed the case on May 12, 1998, pursuant to a settlement agreement.

Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse

 

[Ravi]

Okay. Still, what does that have to do with loaning money to people that can't repay it? Perhaps you don't know what redlining is, though it explains it pretty well in the quote that you posted.

 

[Larkinn]

Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse

Man, so thats why Citibank failed. Oh wait, actually they are doing quite well and in fact just took over Wachovia. Hmm, maybe its not quite such a cause and effect that conservatives are asserting?

 

[Ravi]

Man, so thats why Citibank failed. Oh wait, actually they are doing quite well and in fact just took over Wachovia. Hmm, maybe its not quite such a cause and effect that conservatives are asserting?

Good catch.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

Man, so thats why Citibank failed. Oh wait, actually they are doing quite well and in fact just took over Wachovia. Hmm, maybe its not quite such a cause and effect that conservatives are asserting?

The OP suggests CRA based loans are defaulting and that banks are forced to giver loans they normally would not.

The counter contention was made that banks were not issuing CRA absed loans bacuse of lawsuits.

I showed that CRA lawsuits.

Just because Citi is acquiring Wachovia--which itself suffered heavily in Chicago because of race-baiting hucksters--does not bolster the denial that lawsuits pushed other banks into giving bad loans.

 

[Larkinn]

The OP suggests CRA based loans are defaulting and that banks are forced to giver loans they normally would not.

The counter contention was made that banks were not issuing CRA absed loans bacuse of lawsuits.

I showed that CRA lawsuits.

Just because Citi is acquiring Wachovia--which itself suffered heavily in Chicago because of race-baiting hucksters--does not bolster the denial that lawsuits pushed other banks into giving bad loans.

Oh? Any evidence that those citi was not providing were bad? Them being black isn't good enough.

CRA made banks give loans to blacks if they gave loans to whites in similar financial conditions. It didn't make them give it to mass amounts of poor people. What made banks give it to mass amounts of poor people is that someone realized that it can be profitable.

 

[Truthmatters]

Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2002 there was an inter-agency review of the effectiveness of the 1995 regulatory changes to the Community Reinvestment Act and new proposals were considered.[5]

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency put new regulations into effect September of 2005. [9] The regulations were opposed by a contingent of Democrats.[10]

The regulations included less restrictive new definitions of "small" and "intermediate small" banks.[3] "Intermediate small banks" were defined as banks with assets of less than $1 billion, but allows banks to opt for examination as a large bank.[9] Currently banks with assets greater than $1.061 billion have their CRA performance evaluated according to lending, investment and service tests. The agencies use the Consumer Price Index to adjust the asset size thresholds for small and large institutions annually.[

 

[Care4all]

The OP suggests CRA based loans are defaulting and that banks are forced to giver loans they normally would not.

The counter contention was made that banks were not issuing CRA absed loans bacuse of lawsuits.

I showed that CRA lawsuits.

Just because Citi is acquiring Wachovia--which itself suffered heavily in Chicago because of race-baiting hucksters--does not bolster the denial that lawsuits pushed other banks into giving bad loans.

75% of the subprime loans the last 5 years, were not issued by companies that had to abide by CRA....is what i heard on cnn last night, who had a segment on it....

so even if the banks and thrifts accounting for 25% of those subprime loans, which did have to abide by the discrimination laws that CRA covered, felt intimidated for some reason, this DID NOT require them to make irresponsible loans and they are trying to pass along their own responsibility in this mess...they are trying to pass the buck imo.... the business decisions they made, was irresponsible to their stock holders, who they hold a charter with...fiduciary responsibilities.

they have SOOOOOOOOO MUCH POWER and pull with Congress, if the CRA was an issue with them, they had enough power and pull to have congress pull back....these are not small guys, they have alot of influence, and we all can see it with this insistance of the $700 billion....

the bankers, the 25% of them that were regulated by CRA CHOSE to make up and create and devise these NEGLIGENT loans... NO ONE in our government created them....no one in the government created the devices THEY came up with to sell them off quickly to the next guy either... the lack of oversight and regulations governing them is the part that the government played in this mess...

Unless you want to go really deep in to this and that would boil down to going off the gold standard and having private, central banks, being the Federal Reserve...again, imo.

care