U.S. Is Set to Sue a Dozen Big Banks Over Mortgages

80% of the bad loans were made my non regulated finiancial entities.

So this proves deregulation to be a good thing?
 
Ame®icano;4085321 said:
The federal agency that oversees the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is set to file suits against more than a dozen big banks, accusing them of misrepresenting the quality of mortgage securities they assembled and sold at the height of the housing bubble, and seeking billions of dollars in compensation.

At first, government force banks to give loans to those who couldn't afford it while giving to banks warranties thru Fannie & Freddy. Now they suing them for quality of given mortgages.
Market hasn't opened yet, but premarket doesn't look good at all.

Another story that the lazy media either doesn't fully understand or isn't will to tell. I'd like to see the big banks countersue the government for putting in place the policies that led to this.
 
No federal government office ever forced any bank to give a loan to anyone who couldn't afford it. Ever.

That's why most of the toxic subprimes were offered by nondepository institutions outside the reach of the FDIC and the CRA.


Both Barack Hussein Obama and Andrew Cuomo sued CitiBank for not making enough 'affordable' loans under the community Reinvestment Act. The banks did what was natural to protect their balance sheets and their investors against the losses that would be coming, securitized and sold them off as quickly as possible.
The whole thing became a house of cards, but the original and continuing impetus was the Government's foolish attempt at social engineering. What is going on now is the building of a legal action trail by the Democratically controlled Justice Department that willl allow the Democratic Party to wash their hands of their complicity in the financial disaster that befell America

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4]Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis? Bombshell - YouTube[/ame]
 
Without the ability to keep sending their constituents to the polls with visions of "Bread and Circuses" dancing through their heads the Democratic Party is out of business.
 
80% of the bad loans were made my non regulated finiancial entities.

So this proves deregulation to be a good thing?

Religiuos type thinking.

Its why the right courted these voters we argue with.

They have been raised to deny sceince all their lives, to "believe " no matter how thick the evidence gets to the contrary.

They make great little political zombies who just keep moving no matter what the reality arround them is.
 
Ame®icano;4085585 said:
What "pressure" did nondepository, non-CRA, FDIC regulated institutions face?

Banks had to issue sub-prime mortgages, otherwise they were facing big fines.

this is very interesting! Which banks were forced to issue subprimes? And why is it that banks (depository institutions) had such a small share of the market of toxic subprimes. while non-banks sold and repackaged the vast majority of these?

And who bought those packages of shit? Hint: FM and FM's share of the subprime repurchase market declined dramatically between 2001 and 2007.

That's bull shit. Of all Fannie sub-prime loans in 2004, 92% were variable rate, and in 2005 were 91%.

Look, FM&FM are GSE's. That means they guarantee mortgages (buying them from banks). Only way to produce more mortgages is to move down the income ladder and government did it with a shell game called "affordable housing". Changes made to CRA did exactly that, it gave flexibility to lenders by lowering borrowing requirements to NINJA.

By CRA law, GSEs must make affordable housing part of their business, but they do not lend directly to individuals, instead they act on "secondary market" by buying mortgages from banks and all other mortgage lenders. Then they package the loans in pools and sell them to investors as mortgage-backed securities. By doing that they got funds needed to issue new mortgages, thus bringing additional capital into the housing loan market. More loans they repackage, more money is made. Only way to get more mortgages is to "encourage" banks into giving more loans.

And to answer your question, which banks were forced to issue subprimes? All of them. CRA made sure of that. Clinton's Senate Banking Committee chairman Phil Gramm made sure of that. Lawyers made sure of that. Even Obama was involved in extortion scheme... Huffington Post.

Barack Obama was just four years out of law school when he appeared before U.S. District Judge Ruben Castillo, representing Calvin Roberson in a lawsuit claiming Citibank systematically denied mortgages to minorities and people in minority neighborhoods.
 
Ame®icano;4085321 said:
The federal agency that oversees the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is set to file suits against more than a dozen big banks, accusing them of misrepresenting the quality of mortgage securities they assembled and sold at the height of the housing bubble, and seeking billions of dollars in compensation.

At first, government force banks to give loans to those who couldn't afford it while giving to banks warranties thru Fannie & Freddy. Now they suing them for quality of given mortgages.
Market hasn't opened yet, but premarket doesn't look good at all.

Another story that the lazy media either doesn't fully understand or isn't will to tell. I'd like to see the big banks countersue the government for putting in place the policies that led to this.

Me too, that would be a great idea.

They could use this as proof...


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJbBV-Ntwic&feature=player_embedded"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJbBV-Ntwic&feature=player_embedded[/ame]
 
Last edited:
No federal government office ever forced any bank to give a loan to anyone who couldn't afford it. Ever.

That is a patently false statement. You are either ignorant or lying. The federal government, as well as activist groups like ACORN, very much pressured banks to give mortgages to people who otherwise wouldn't qualify in order to boost minority home ownership. They were threatened with accusations of redlining if they didn't do it.

This does not mean the banks are without fault, of course, but the federal government caused the problem in the first place and they've done everything they can to point their fingers at everyone else just typical politicians.

So tell me, which bank was forced to give a loan to an unqualified customer?
 
No federal government office ever forced any bank to give a loan to anyone who couldn't afford it. Ever.

That's why most of the toxic subprimes were offered by nondepository institutions outside the reach of the FDIC and the CRA.


Both Barack Hussein Obama and Andrew Cuomo sued CitiBank for not making enough 'affordable' loans under the community Reinvestment Act. The banks did what was natural to protect their balance sheets and their investors against the losses that would be coming, securitized and sold them off as quickly as possible.
The whole thing became a house of cards, but the original and continuing impetus was the Government's foolish attempt at social engineering. What is going on now is the building of a legal action trail by the Democratically controlled Justice Department that willl allow the Democratic Party to wash their hands of their complicity in the financial disaster that befell America

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4]Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis? Bombshell - YouTube[/ame]

Which nondepository institutions (the originators of over 80% of toxic subprimes) were sued?
 
No federal government office ever forced any bank to give a loan to anyone who couldn't afford it. Ever.

That is a patently false statement. You are either ignorant or lying. The federal government, as well as activist groups like ACORN, very much pressured banks to give mortgages to people who otherwise wouldn't qualify in order to boost minority home ownership. They were threatened with accusations of redlining if they didn't do it.

This does not mean the banks are without fault, of course, but the federal government caused the problem in the first place and they've done everything they can to point their fingers at everyone else just typical politicians.

Yup.

I wonder if they are going to go after those members of Congress who were supposed to be oversite for the banking industry??

How about any of those looking to buy homes who lied on their applications??

They'd need bigger jails.
 
Ame®icano;4085790 said:
Ame®icano;4085585 said:
Banks had to issue sub-prime mortgages, otherwise they were facing big fines.

this is very interesting! Which banks were forced to issue subprimes? And why is it that banks (depository institutions) had such a small share of the market of toxic subprimes. while non-banks sold and repackaged the vast majority of these?

And who bought those packages of shit? Hint: FM and FM's share of the subprime repurchase market declined dramatically between 2001 and 2007.

That's bull shit. Of all Fannie sub-prime loans in 2004, 92% were variable rate, and in 2005 were 91%.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? A variable rate is not be definition a subprime, nor is it inherently more likely to default. There's a lot of rational reason to get a variable-rate loan.

And your calling bullshit on FM's portion of the Subprime market declining? Then you need some basic education / research.


Look, FM&FM are GSE's. That means they guarantee mortgages (buying them from banks).

Correction: They guarantee conforming mortgages. The private sector got in the business of protecting nonconforming mortgages.

Only way to produce more mortgages is to move down the income ladder and government did it with a shell game called "affordable housing". Changes made to CRA did exactly that, it gave flexibility to lenders by lowering borrowing requirements to NINJA.

This is hilarious. A hint: CRA-regulated institutions have minimum loan guidelines. NINJA's don't meet that guideline. That's why companies like Ameriquest and the nondepository side of Countrywide were the primary issuers - because depository banks were blocked from that market. The large depository institutions met their requirements simply by paying a small percentage to originators who would generate business among low income individuals and in formerly-redlined areas. It didn't change the lending requirements, the 1% origination fee simply created a supply of loans.
 
Last edited:
No federal government office ever forced any bank to give a loan to anyone who couldn't afford it. Ever.

That's why most of the toxic subprimes were offered by nondepository institutions outside the reach of the FDIC and the CRA.


REALLY--

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - NYTimes.com

The Federal Government is as much to blame--they wrote the policy--thereby opening the door for fraud--they pressured banks to lower their lending standards--no collateral--no down payment--and less than a desirable credit rating. A tenant--renting a residence would have had more to lose under these policies. They would have at least lost their deposit when they walked. Robert Rubin and Allan Greenspan fully supported and defended the use of sub-prime lending--and all of this right under the nose of congressional and senate banking boards--who completely IGNORED all warning of an imminent collapse.
 
Last edited:
No federal government office ever forced any bank to give a loan to anyone who couldn't afford it. Ever.

That's why most of the toxic subprimes were offered by nondepository institutions outside the reach of the FDIC and the CRA.


REALLY--

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - NYTimes.com

The Federal Government is as much to blame--they wrote the policy--thereby opening the door for fraud--they pressured banks to lower their lending standards--no collateral--no down payment--and less than a desirable credit rating. A tenant--renting a residence would have had more to lose under these policies. They would have at least lost their deposit when they walked. Robert Rubin and Allan Greenspan fully supported and defended the use of sub-prime lending--and all of this right under the nose of congressional and senate banking boards--who completely IGNORED all warning of an imminent collapse.


As I said. Wonder if they will be going after the Clowns in Congress who were supposed to be oversite??
 
No federal government office ever forced any bank to give a loan to anyone who couldn't afford it. Ever.

That's why most of the toxic subprimes were offered by nondepository institutions outside the reach of the FDIC and the CRA.


REALLY--

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - NYTimes.com

The Federal Government is as much to blame--they wrote the policy--thereby opening the door for fraud--they pressured banks to lower their lending standards--no collateral--no down payment--and less than a desirable credit rating. A tenant--renting a residence would have had more to lose under these policies. They would have at least lost their deposit when they walked. Robert Rubin and Allan Greenspan fully supported and defended the use of sub-prime lending--and all of this right under the nose of congressional and senate banking boards--who completely IGNORED all warning of an imminent collapse.

Yep! in 1999 the GSE's lowered their standards - yet even still, they were pushed out of the subprime market throughout the period from 2001 to 2007 as private-market firms offered even more toxic loan packages to consumers.

Let me repeat the take home part: The GSE's were pushed out of the subprime market between 2001 and 2007 - from almost 55% of that market to about 40%. That gap was filled by who, exactly? Oh, that's right - the private sector.

in case you're wondering who was applying pressure where, you might find an answer in this quote:
"In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans."
 
Last edited:
Ame®icano;4085790 said:
this is very interesting! Which banks were forced to issue subprimes? And why is it that banks (depository institutions) had such a small share of the market of toxic subprimes. while non-banks sold and repackaged the vast majority of these?

And who bought those packages of shit? Hint: FM and FM's share of the subprime repurchase market declined dramatically between 2001 and 2007.

That's bull shit. Of all Fannie sub-prime loans in 2004, 92% were variable rate, and in 2005 were 91%.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? A variable rate is not be definition a subprime, nor is it inherently more likely to default. There's a lot of rational reason to get a variable-rate loan.

And your calling bullshit on FM's portion of the Subprime market declining? Then you need some basic education / research.


Look, FM&FM are GSE's. That means they guarantee mortgages (buying them from banks).

Correction: They guarantee conforming mortgages. The private sector got in the business of protecting nonconforming mortgages.

Only way to produce more mortgages is to move down the income ladder and government did it with a shell game called "affordable housing". Changes made to CRA did exactly that, it gave flexibility to lenders by lowering borrowing requirements to NINJA.

This is hilarious. A hint: CRA-regulated institutions have minimum loan guidelines. NINJA's don't meet that guideline. That's why companies like Ameriquest and the nondepository side of Countrywide were the primary issuers - because depository banks were blocked from that market. The large depository institutions met their requirements simply by paying a small percentage to originators who would generate business among low income individuals and in formerly-redlined areas. It didn't change the lending requirements, the 1% origination fee simply created a supply of loans.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FewmvkaTXHU&feature=player_embedded]Explosive Audio Unearthed: After the Sub Prime Crisis already started in 2007 Obama says Sub Prime Mortgages that gave houses to people WHO COULDN'T AFFORD THEM was a GOOD IDEA!! - YouTube[/ame]
 
Ame®icano;4086164 said:
Ame®icano;4085790 said:
That's bull shit. Of all Fannie sub-prime loans in 2004, 92% were variable rate, and in 2005 were 91%.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? A variable rate is not be definition a subprime, nor is it inherently more likely to default. There's a lot of rational reason to get a variable-rate loan.

And your calling bullshit on FM's portion of the Subprime market declining? Then you need some basic education / research.




Correction: They guarantee conforming mortgages. The private sector got in the business of protecting nonconforming mortgages.

Only way to produce more mortgages is to move down the income ladder and government did it with a shell game called "affordable housing". Changes made to CRA did exactly that, it gave flexibility to lenders by lowering borrowing requirements to NINJA.

This is hilarious. A hint: CRA-regulated institutions have minimum loan guidelines. NINJA's don't meet that guideline. That's why companies like Ameriquest and the nondepository side of Countrywide were the primary issuers - because depository banks were blocked from that market. The large depository institutions met their requirements simply by paying a small percentage to originators who would generate business among low income individuals and in formerly-redlined areas. It didn't change the lending requirements, the 1% origination fee simply created a supply of loans.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FewmvkaTXHU&feature=player_embedded]Explosive Audio Unearthed: After the Sub Prime Crisis already started in 2007 Obama says Sub Prime Mortgages that gave houses to people WHO COULDN'T AFFORD THEM was a GOOD IDEA!! - YouTube[/ame]

So then, you can't dispute the facts? So you turn to an edited youtube video?

You can't dispute that the GSE's repackaged loans were less likely to default?
That the CRA-regulated banks were pushed out of the subprime market by the unregulated ones?

OK then.
 
Last edited:
No federal government office ever forced any bank to give a loan to anyone who couldn't afford it. Ever.

That's why most of the toxic subprimes were offered by nondepository institutions outside the reach of the FDIC and the CRA.


REALLY--

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - NYTimes.com

The Federal Government is as much to blame--they wrote the policy--thereby opening the door for fraud--they pressured banks to lower their lending standards--no collateral--no down payment--and less than a desirable credit rating. A tenant--renting a residence would have had more to lose under these policies. They would have at least lost their deposit when they walked. Robert Rubin and Allan Greenspan fully supported and defended the use of sub-prime lending--and all of this right under the nose of congressional and senate banking boards--who completely IGNORED all warning of an imminent collapse.

That's what I kept saying - it's government fault. In this case, primarily Clinton's.

Clinton Signs Legislation Overhauling Banking Laws

This clip is from 1998. Andrew Cuomo is explaining about forcing banks to to give bad loans... oops, to take greater risk. Need to say more?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFlYmLAMbrw]Andrew Cuomo: CRA Should be Abused to Force Banks to Give Risky Loans - YouTube[/ame]
 
Ame®icano;4086205 said:
No federal government office ever forced any bank to give a loan to anyone who couldn't afford it. Ever.

That's why most of the toxic subprimes were offered by nondepository institutions outside the reach of the FDIC and the CRA.


REALLY--

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - NYTimes.com

The Federal Government is as much to blame--they wrote the policy--thereby opening the door for fraud--they pressured banks to lower their lending standards--no collateral--no down payment--and less than a desirable credit rating. A tenant--renting a residence would have had more to lose under these policies. They would have at least lost their deposit when they walked. Robert Rubin and Allan Greenspan fully supported and defended the use of sub-prime lending--and all of this right under the nose of congressional and senate banking boards--who completely IGNORED all warning of an imminent collapse.

That's what I kept saying - it's government fault. In this case, primarily Clinton's.

So this was government's fault:
*that the private sector undercut the GSE's and CRA-regulated banks, issuing the vast majority of toxic subprimes.
*that the private sector pleaded with FM to reduce standards, ala
""In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers.
"
 
Ame®icano;4086164 said:
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? A variable rate is not be definition a subprime, nor is it inherently more likely to default. There's a lot of rational reason to get a variable-rate loan.

And your calling bullshit on FM's portion of the Subprime market declining? Then you need some basic education / research.




Correction: They guarantee conforming mortgages. The private sector got in the business of protecting nonconforming mortgages.



This is hilarious. A hint: CRA-regulated institutions have minimum loan guidelines. NINJA's don't meet that guideline. That's why companies like Ameriquest and the nondepository side of Countrywide were the primary issuers - because depository banks were blocked from that market. The large depository institutions met their requirements simply by paying a small percentage to originators who would generate business among low income individuals and in formerly-redlined areas. It didn't change the lending requirements, the 1% origination fee simply created a supply of loans.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FewmvkaTXHU&feature=player_embedded]Explosive Audio Unearthed: After the Sub Prime Crisis already started in 2007 Obama says Sub Prime Mortgages that gave houses to people WHO COULDN'T AFFORD THEM was a GOOD IDEA!! - YouTube[/ame]

So then, you can't dispute the facts? So you turn to an edited youtube video?

You can't dispute that the GSE's repackaged loans were less likely to default?
That the CRA-regulated banks were pushed out of the subprime market by the unregulated ones?

OK then.

I don't need to dispute the truth. GSE repackaged loans were less likely to default.

Only thing is CRA was forcing banks to give bad loans while using GSE's to buy them out, covering up for it, then they were cooking books and lying that everything is OK.

Remember this?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs]Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis - YouTube[/ame]
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top