It's about time it was said.

[Two Thumbs]

During the limbaugh Bush interviewtoday Rush ask President Bush aboiut the car in the ditch
I will let President Bush speak for himself on this issue

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, on this issue, I don't steer clear because I remind the reader that on the issue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I saw a problem, and went to Congress and said, "Look, this is a group of... These are enterprises that have got an implicit government guarantee and they're taking risky stances, and therefore we ought to regulate them. If they've got an implicit government guarantee there ought to be some sense of regulation and make sure they don't misuse that guarantee, and I make it clear in the book what happened, and that is that powerful forces in Congress resisted that reform. Whether those reforms had taken place in 2003 it's hard to predict whether or not this crisis would have occurred, but I'm comfortable in telling the reader and comfortable that history will judge that we tried to do something about it. You know, and eventually the truth wins out, and this book is an attempt to set the record straight from my perspective.

Time and time again I have said Freddy and fanny was the cause of the fanical crisis. Thank you George for telling it like it is.

While in 2003 the gop had the majority, it wasn't enough to burst the filabuster. And, if I recall, he mentioned the need to reg F/F 13 times, and every time, congress, especially that traitor Franks, blew him off.

I haven't seen much news lately. Did the dims re-elect that traitor?

 

[Intense]

During the limbaugh Bush interviewtoday Rush ask President Bush aboiut the car in the ditch
I will let President Bush speak for himself on this issue

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, on this issue, I don't steer clear because I remind the reader that on the issue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I saw a problem, and went to Congress and said, "Look, this is a group of... These are enterprises that have got an implicit government guarantee and they're taking risky stances, and therefore we ought to regulate them. If they've got an implicit government guarantee there ought to be some sense of regulation and make sure they don't misuse that guarantee, and I make it clear in the book what happened, and that is that powerful forces in Congress resisted that reform. Whether those reforms had taken place in 2003 it's hard to predict whether or not this crisis would have occurred, but I'm comfortable in telling the reader and comfortable that history will judge that we tried to do something about it. You know, and eventually the truth wins out, and this book is an attempt to set the record straight from my perspective.

Time and time again I have said Freddy and fanny was the cause of the fanical crisis. Thank you George for telling it like it is.

While in 2003 the gop had the majority, it wasn't enough to burst the filabuster. And, if I recall, he mentioned the need to reg F/F 13 times, and every time, congress, especially that traitor Franks, blew him off.

I haven't seen much news lately. Did the dims re-elect that traitor?

Dumb dee dee dumb.... What do you think?

 

[edthecynic]

American Dream Downpayment Initiative


Summary
The American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) was signed into law on December 16, 2003. The American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act authorizes up to $200 million annually for fiscal years 2004 - 2007. ADDI will provide funds to all fifty states and to local participating jurisdictions that have a population of at least 150,000 or will receive an allocation of at least $50,000 under the ADDI formula. ADDI will be administered as a part of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, a formula grant program

American Dream Downpayment Initiative - Affordable Housing - CPD - HUD


Who ran HUD in 2003????? Who wrote the Law?????

Bush appointee Mel Martinez ran HUD in 2003

ADDI was sponsored by Wayne Allard in the Senate and Kathrine Harris, remember her, in the House.

And here is the part about being required to be at least 20% below the means of the neighborhood they are buying into, from the link you posted.

Eligible Customers

To be eligible for ADDI assistance, individuals must be first-time homebuyers interested in purchasing single family housing. A first-time homebuyer is defined as an individual and his or her spouse who have not owned a home during the three-year period prior to the purchase of a home with ADDI assistance. ADDI funds may be used to purchase one- to four- family housing, condominium unit, cooperative unit, or manufactured housing. Additionally, individuals who qualify for ADDI assistance must have incomes not exceeding 80% of area median income.

 

[Samson]

During the limbaugh Bush interviewtoday Rush ask President Bush aboiut the car in the ditch
I will let President Bush speak for himself on this issue

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, on this issue, I don't steer clear because I remind the reader that on the issue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I saw a problem, and went to Congress and said, "Look, this is a group of... These are enterprises that have got an implicit government guarantee and they're taking risky stances, and therefore we ought to regulate them. If they've got an implicit government guarantee there ought to be some sense of regulation and make sure they don't misuse that guarantee, and I make it clear in the book what happened, and that is that powerful forces in Congress resisted that reform. Whether those reforms had taken place in 2003 it's hard to predict whether or not this crisis would have occurred, but I'm comfortable in telling the reader and comfortable that history will judge that we tried to do something about it. You know, and eventually the truth wins out, and this book is an attempt to set the record straight from my perspective.

Time and time again I have said Freddy and fanny was the cause of the fanical crisis. Thank you George for telling it like it is.

While in 2003 the gop had the majority, it wasn't enough to burst the filabuster. And, if I recall, he mentioned the need to reg F/F 13 times, and every time, congress, especially that traitor Franks, blew him off.

I haven't seen much news lately. Did the dims re-elect that traitor?

The answer is Yes, Bwaney Fwanks was re-elected to represent the 10th MA district in the US House.

The GOP had the majority up until the final two years of the Bush Presidency. You'd think that with all the Alarms going off over the period, there'd be more than a whisper "hey, maybe we should throw a bucket of water on the fire."

There wasn't.

The Bush White house was concentrating on a number of immediate disasters: 9/11, Katrina, Iraq, and probably didn't have the resources to hold R's feet to the fire regarding the impending economic disaster that was tipped over by leveraging high risk loans.

 

[Two Thumbs]

During the limbaugh Bush interviewtoday Rush ask President Bush aboiut the car in the ditch
I will let President Bush speak for himself on this issue


Time and time again I have said Freddy and fanny was the cause of the fanical crisis. Thank you George for telling it like it is.

While in 2003 the gop had the majority, it wasn't enough to burst the filabuster. And, if I recall, he mentioned the need to reg F/F 13 times, and every time, congress, especially that traitor Franks, blew him off.

I haven't seen much news lately. Did the dims re-elect that traitor?

The answer is Yes, Bwaney Fwanks was re-elected to represent the 10th MA district in the US House.

The GOP had the majority up until the final two years of the Bush Presidency. You'd think that with all the Alarms going off over the period, there'd be more than a whisper "hey, maybe we should throw a bucket of water on the fire."

There wasn't.

The Bush White house was concentrating on a number of immediate disasters: 9/11, Katrina, Iraq, and probably didn't have the resources to hold R's feet to the fire regarding the impending economic disaster that was tipped over by leveraging high risk loans.

Good Lord

That alone completely invalidates any bs they spew about re-electing Bush.

Most of us wanted Pelosi and Reid gone, but they were just assholes, Franks actually is a traitor.

damn

 

[Samson]

While in 2003 the gop had the majority, it wasn't enough to burst the filabuster. And, if I recall, he mentioned the need to reg F/F 13 times, and every time, congress, especially that traitor Franks, blew him off.

I haven't seen much news lately. Did the dims re-elect that traitor?

The answer is Yes, Bwaney Fwanks was re-elected to represent the 10th MA district in the US House.

The GOP had the majority up until the final two years of the Bush Presidency. You'd think that with all the Alarms going off over the period, there'd be more than a whisper "hey, maybe we should throw a bucket of water on the fire."

There wasn't.

The Bush White house was concentrating on a number of immediate disasters: 9/11, Katrina, Iraq, and probably didn't have the resources to hold R's feet to the fire regarding the impending economic disaster that was tipped over by leveraging high risk loans.

Good Lord

That alone completely invalidates any bs they spew about re-electing Bush.

Most of us wanted Pelosi and Reid gone, but they were just assholes, Franks actually is a traitor.

damn

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-romper-room/140172-barney-franks-avoids-taking-one-in-the-ass.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...eddie-while-his-seat-is-being-challenged.html

But the odd fact remains: NOT even the MENTION of a congressional investigation of the events leading up to the "Great Recession?" Why?

Because Both parties are guilty.

 

[Intense]

American Dream Downpayment Initiative


Summary
The American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) was signed into law on December 16, 2003. The American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act authorizes up to $200 million annually for fiscal years 2004 - 2007. ADDI will provide funds to all fifty states and to local participating jurisdictions that have a population of at least 150,000 or will receive an allocation of at least $50,000 under the ADDI formula. ADDI will be administered as a part of the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, a formula grant program

American Dream Downpayment Initiative - Affordable Housing - CPD - HUD


Who ran HUD in 2003????? Who wrote the Law?????

Bush appointee Mel Martinez ran HUD in 2003

ADDI was sponsored by Wayne Allard in the Senate and Kathrine Harris, remember her, in the House.

And here is the part about being required to be at least 20% below the means of the neighborhood they are buying into, from the link you posted.

Eligible Customers

To be eligible for ADDI assistance, individuals must be first-time homebuyers interested in purchasing single family housing. A first-time homebuyer is defined as an individual and his or her spouse who have not owned a home during the three-year period prior to the purchase of a home with ADDI assistance. ADDI funds may be used to purchase one- to four- family housing, condominium unit, cooperative unit, or manufactured housing. Additionally, individuals who qualify for ADDI assistance must have incomes not exceeding 80% of area median income.

Yet at the time, it seems that he didn't do enough. You guy's need to make up your mind. Another point, as I understand it, the "No Money Down" came from Cuomo, also the threat of Government Investigation, if the Loan applications were looked at too closely.

When Mel Martinez announced his candidacy for the Senate from his home state of Florida, it was inevitable that he would give a positive spin to his record as secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Martinez is claiming that on his watch HUD successfully promoted minority homeownership and faith-based initiatives, and eliminated waste and fraud. But housing advocates say his accomplishments have been ephemeral at best, as flimsy as a house of cards.

“I am disappointed that Mr. Martinez never got behind a new production program, as it appeared he might when he first arrived in Washington,” says Sheila Crowley, president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC). “He certainly acknowledged the need. But he followed orders from the White House and [Office of Management and Budget] and actually worked against the National Housing Trust Fund.”

And that’s not all he did.

“[W]hat I resent most about the Martinez agenda for HUD is the co-optation of the language of ending chronic homelessness,” observes Crowley. “First of all, it has been all too easy for his declaration to morph into ending homelessness,” she says. “But more egregiously, the rhetoric was never matched with deeds and, I fear, was simply adopted to be used in political campaigns to validate the Bush Administration’s claims to compassionate conservatism.”

Seven Republican candidates are jockeying for position in advance of the August 31 primary for the opportunity to compete for the seat currently held by Democrat Bob Graham, who is retiring. Florida’s Senate race is being heralded as one of the most important in the nation for two reasons. First, the seat is up for grabs, with neither party having a clear advantage. Second, it is likely that, in what is widely predicted to be a close presidential race, Florida will once again figure prominently. Florida, as the 2000 presidential contest revealed, is a closely divided state, and both the Bush and Kerry campaigns will be putting considerable effort into winning the Sunshine State.

Martinez, who has the support of President Bush and an apparently close relationship with him, is perceived as having an edge. A profile of Martinez that ran last year in Orlando magazine derided the importance of HUD, and quoted from a National Journal report card of Cabinet members that gave Martinez an overall C, but an A for carrying out the president’s political agenda.

But even with the president’s support and as a member of the politically active Cuban-American community, Martinez is no shoo-in for the nomination. Earlier this year polls showed him running even with former U.S. Rep. Bill McCollum, a 20-year veteran of Congress. Martinez is running to McCollum’s right (even as he’s being attacked as a liberal by GOP gadfly and professional Clinton-hater Larry Klayman) but should he win the nomination he will have to move towards the center. He hopes his experience at HUD will help him do this. But if the Florida media examines the record – as the Orlando report suggests – the candidate might not get the bump he hopes for.
House of Cards: Mel Martinez's HUD Accomplishments

 

[MaggieMae]

What you are attempting to do, but failing, the spin control, how is that not Myth?

What I said is true. How many examples of misfortune that this country has experienced in, let's say, the last 30 years, can you name that do NOT have a rightwing myth to explain them in a way that makes conservatives look good and liberals look bad?

Go!!

Shuttle Crash. 9/11. Katrina (Unlike Democrat's we did not blame you for the actual storm itself). Global Warming. Mercury losing Planet Status. There's really ton's of stuff. Bush primarily sought to Govern, he really did try hard to work with Democrats, and was very slow to speak negatively. He took a ton of shit from you guy's, I would have never taken.

What "storm" did Dems blame you for? Are you admitting global warming isn't just a myth? And I didn't even realize Mercury wasn't considered a planet anymore, so not sure there was any "blame" going viral for that or I would have seen it.

As for Bush working with Democrats, he didn't have to, except when it came to war supplementals, when he would simply say that if there were any clauses that put a timeframe for withdrawal in the bills, that he would veto them. Bush lived in an even tighter bubble than Obama does--relying heavily on his insiders to feed him only what he needed to know. He was not aware of Internet jokes, rumors, etc. Bush also wasn't a big reader of newspapers, so he was insulated from most of the negative press.

 

[MaggieMae]

The powerful forces even though the republicans had a majority did not have enough to bust a threaten democratic fillabuster. Oh and 2003 wasn't the only time he said something he did it for all of his 8 years.

must have been a real soft whisper.

so which regulatory bill was sponsored by whom? drafted even? resolved for debate?

nada. smokescreen mode. party of responsibility or something.

instead, i remember several state of the union addresses when the president stroked himself over record-breaking home 'ownership' figures. where were you?

Paying higher property taxes. How about you?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcIBFLSmVGA[/ame]

The federal government doesn't impose property taxes; your state does.

 

[Samson]

What "storm" did Dems blame you for? Are you admitting global warming isn't just a myth? And I didn't even realize Mercury wasn't considered a planet anymore, so not sure there was any "blame" going viral for that or I would have seen it.

As for Bush working with Democrats, he didn't have to, except when it came to war supplementals, when he would simply say that if there were any clauses that put a timeframe for withdrawal in the bills, that he would veto them. Bush lived in an even tighter bubble than Obama does--relying heavily on his insiders to feed him only what he needed to know. He was not aware of Internet jokes, rumors, etc. Bush also wasn't a big reader of newspapers, so he was insulated from most of the negative press.

Do you try to write incoherent babble, or does it come naturally?

 

[MaggieMae]

What astonishes me is that Enron implodes, and we see all sorts of top executives being chained together in court.

But, AIC, Fanny Mea, Freddy Mac, CitiBanc, et al., bring the ENTIRE COUNTRY to the brink of a ******* financial disaster, and there hasn't yet been EVEN THE MENTION of a congressional investigation.

Doesn't that strike anyone as more than a little odd?

From Angelo Mozilo's Wikipedia entry:

On Friday October 15 2010, Mozilo reached a settlement with Securities and Exchange Commission, over securities fraud and insider trading charges. Mozilo agreed to pay $67.5 million in fines and accepted a lifetime ban from serving as an officer or director of any public company, it is the largest settlement by an individual or executive connected to the 2008 housing collapse. Robert Khuzami, director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, said in a statement that "Mozilo's record penalty is the fitting outcome for a corporate executive who deliberately disregarded his duties to investors by concealing what he saw from inside the executive suite." By settling the SEC charges, Mozilo will avoid a trial that could have provided fodder for future criminal charges.

Countrywide was by far the largest, having multiple smaller storefront mortgage operations.

There are several other SEC investigations going on, but you have to read the financial pages to find them (which I don't do either). I think the SEC is still investigating Moody's sloppy ratings and something ongoing with Goldman-Sachs.

SEC - CNBC

The SEC also has a link on its website to new rules imposed as a result of this mess, and also a "whistle-blower" link.

 

[MaggieMae]

What astonishes me is that Enron implodes, and we see all sorts of top executives being chained together in court.

But, AIC, Fanny Mea, Freddy Mac, CitiBanc, et al., bring the ENTIRE COUNTRY to the brink of a ******* financial disaster, and there hasn't yet been EVEN THE MENTION of a congressional investigation.

Doesn't that strike anyone as more than a little odd?

Think harder. Charlie Rangel just got re-Elected.

What does he have to do with congressional oversight of the banking crisis? (Also, Rangel has represented HARLEM for eons, so that was a given...duh...)

You might scroll down to the entry of October 14th to see what the congressional oversight committee is currently investigating. This entire blog report is chock full of information for everyone.

Blog

 

[Samson]

What astonishes me is that Enron implodes, and we see all sorts of top executives being chained together in court.

But, AIC, Fanny Mea, Freddy Mac, CitiBanc, et al., bring the ENTIRE COUNTRY to the brink of a ******* financial disaster, and there hasn't yet been EVEN THE MENTION of a congressional investigation.

Doesn't that strike anyone as more than a little odd?

From Angelo Mozilo's Wikipedia entry:

On Friday October 15 2010, Mozilo reached a settlement with Securities and Exchange Commission, over securities fraud and insider trading charges. Mozilo agreed to pay $67.5 million in fines and accepted a lifetime ban from serving as an officer or director of any public company, it is the largest settlement by an individual or executive connected to the 2008 housing collapse. Robert Khuzami, director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, said in a statement that "Mozilo's record penalty is the fitting outcome for a corporate executive who deliberately disregarded his duties to investors by concealing what he saw from inside the executive suite." By settling the SEC charges, Mozilo will avoid a trial that could have provided fodder for future criminal charges.

Countrywide was by far the largest, having multiple smaller storefront mortgage operations.

There are several other SEC investigations going on, but you have to read the financial pages to find them (which I don't do either). I think the SEC is still investigating Moody's sloppy ratings and something ongoing with Goldman-Sachs.

SEC - CNBC

The SEC also has a link on its website to new rules imposed as a result of this mess, and also a "whistle-blower" link.

So, there's been no congressional investigation.

Why?

 

[MaggieMae]

What astonishes me is that Enron implodes, and we see all sorts of top executives being chained together in court.

But, AIC, Fanny Mea, Freddy Mac, CitiBanc, et al., bring the ENTIRE COUNTRY to the brink of a ******* financial disaster, and there hasn't yet been EVEN THE MENTION of a congressional investigation.

Doesn't that strike anyone as more than a little odd?

Think harder. Charlie Rangel just got re-Elected.

You...You.......

You don't suppose there's a double standard, do you?

As chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee? Like what? His only direct involvement would have been making the funding available for the TARP bill once it was enacted.

 

[MaggieMae]

This is no surprise to me. Bush was a lone voice over Fanny and Freddie... and much more. I don't credit Bush for much but, on this, he listened to the right people - Economists - who were warning about the state of the financial industry, ballooning personal debt through stupid lending policies and really stupid Americans borrowing more than they could afford. On Fanny and Freddie, both Republicans and Democrats fucked us over. A bipartisan effort. One of the very, very few who actually tried to do something BEFORE the shit hit the fan was George W Bush.

In fairness, we should also take note that Senator McCain (who has done plenty of stupid shit) was ALSO a kind of lonely voice on the topic.

Indeed. The nail that sealed his coffin was "The economy is basically sound," as it was crashing down all around him.

 

[Samson]

What astonishes me is that Enron implodes, and we see all sorts of top executives being chained together in court.

But, AIC, Fanny Mea, Freddy Mac, CitiBanc, et al., bring the ENTIRE COUNTRY to the brink of a ******* financial disaster, and there hasn't yet been EVEN THE MENTION of a congressional investigation.

Doesn't that strike anyone as more than a little odd?

Think harder. Charlie Rangel just got re-Elected.

What does he have to do with congressional oversight of the banking crisis? (Also, Rangel has represented HARLEM for eons, so that was a given...duh...)

You might scroll down to the entry of October 14th to see what the congressional oversight committee is currently investigating. This entire blog report is chock full of information for everyone.

Blog

This is about TARP investigations.

My point is there are no congressionals investigations into the CAUSE(S) of the 2008 financial meltdown that required TARP.

 

[MaggieMae]

In fairness, we should also take note that Senator McCain (who has done plenty of stupid shit) was ALSO a kind of lonely voice on the topic.

I recall going to grad school during the early 2000's and a week never went by without the WSJ running an article about the EVILS of Fannie Mea or Freddie Mac.

In all fairness though - if Fanny & Freddie weren't direct competition to the bankers with subscriptions, would the WSJ have cared?

Great point, but I wonder if anyone will get it. That's why they jumped on the subprime bandwagon. PROFIT!!!

 

[Samson]

I recall going to grad school during the early 2000's and a week never went by without the WSJ running an article about the EVILS of Fannie Mea or Freddie Mac.

In all fairness though - if Fanny & Freddie weren't direct competition to the bankers with subscriptions, would the WSJ have cared?

Great point, but I wonder if anyone will get it. That's why they jumped on the subprime bandwagon. PROFIT!!!

No, I get it, and agree with it: Citibank's arms were never twisted.

 

[MaggieMae]

I recall going to grad school during the early 2000's and a week never went by without the WSJ running an article about the EVILS of Fannie Mea or Freddie Mac.

In all fairness though - if Fanny & Freddie weren't direct competition to the bankers with subscriptions, would the WSJ have cared?

It is a business journal.

I'm certain it didn't take the editorial board very long to weigh the pro's vs. the cons of running a story about the Evil Fannie Mae or whether green eyeshadow looked good on Madonna.

But The Wall Street Journal will never own up to any mistakes made by said "business" models, either. Ever.

The book "Bailout Nation" takes a look at the factual calculations (not singling out a political position). If people can't read the book, they should at least read the generalized points made:

Get Me ReWrite! | The Big Picture

When writing Bailout Nation, I tried to steer clear of partisan finger pointing. I kept the focus on what actually occurred, what could be proven mathematically. I blamed Democrats and Republicans — not equally, but in proportion to their actions, and what they did. Unsupported theories, tenuous connection, loose affiliations were not part of the analysis.

To be blameworthy, every legislative change, each regulatory failure, any corporate action had to manifest themselves in actual mathematical proof. This led me to ascertain the following 30 year sequence:

-Free market absolutism becomes the dominant intellectual thought.

-Deregulation of markets, investment houses, and banks becomes a broad goal: This led to Glass Steagall repeal, unfettering of Derivatives, Investing house leverage exemptions, and a new breed of unregulated non bank lenders.

-Legislative actions reduce or eliminate much of the regulatory oversight; SEC funding is weakened.

-Rates come down to absurd levels.

-Bond managers madly scramble for yield.

-Derivatives, non-bank lending, leverage, bank size, compensation levels all run away from prior levels.

-Wall Street securitizes whatever it can to satisfy the demand for higher yields.
-”Lend to securitize” nonbank mortgage writers sell enormous amounts of subprime loans to Wall Street for this purpose.

-To meet this huge demand, non bank lenders collapse lending standards (banks eventually follow), leading to a credit bubble.

-The Fed approves of this “innovation,” ignores risks.

-Housing booms . . . then busts

-Credit freezes, the markets collapse, a new recession begins.

You will note that the CRA is not part of this sequence. I could find no evidence that they were a cause or even a minor factor. If they were, the housing bubbles would not have been in California or S. Florida or Las Vegas or Arizona — Harlem and South Philly and parts of Chicago and Washington DC would have been the focus of RE bubbles.

Nor do I blame Fannie and Freddie. Now understand, there is no love lost between myself and the GSEs. For years, I have called them “Phoney and Fraudy.” Since George Bush and Hank Paulson nationalized them, I have accused the government of using these two as a backdoor bailout for banks — a hidden PPIP/TARP used to buy all the garbage mortgages that banks are desperate to get off their balance sheets. Longtime readers will recall we very publicly shorted Fannie based upon their fraudulent practices and horrific balance sheet when FNM’s stock was in the $40s (it soon after collapsed).

 

[MaggieMae]

Agreed I am not saying the repuyblicans aren't at fault but afterall Freddy and Fanny are democrats pet projects and the CRA which is another democratic thing did most of the damage.

What evidence do you have to back that up with?


The right wing put that talking point out right after the meltdown occured. It has been completely disproved.

In a recent report to Congress, The Federal Reserve System investigated the CRA's alleged connection to the housing crisis; it found the CRA has in fact demonstrated success in its purpose over the years, and noted the following:

•Through partnerships with community organizations as well as adhering to sound lending practices, CRA-covered banks and thrifts created new ways to meet credit needs in underserved areas.
•Studies by the Federal Reserve System and Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, among others, have shown the CRA increased lending and home ownership in poorer communities without undermining banks’ profitability.
•Some financial institutions, not regulated by the CRA, were encouraged by its success and began to compete for business in lower-income areas by offering risky loan products or subprime loans.
•Non CRA-covered financial institutions were responsible for 60 percent of subprime loan originations made to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods -- borrower demographics not covered by the CRA. More than 20 percent of subprime loans were extended to lower-income borrowers or communities by independent non-bank institutions not covered by the CRA.
•CRA-covered banks and thrifts extended only 6 percent of all subprime loans to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods.
Since the CRA did not urge financial institutions to take on unnecessary financial risk, using sound lending practices in lower income neighborhoods has proved to be just as profitable as lending in more affluent areas. Therefore, this piece of legislation is not to blame for our current woes. Instead, it appears we should look more closely at these “independent non-bank institutions” not covered by the CRA that extended risky and subprime loans to borrowers of all income levels.

New Hampshire Housing - Housing Myths

Did the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act cause the housing crisis? No.
It was revised in 1994.

NO, it did not.