Zone1 Tax the Rich! Make them Pay their Fair Share!

JonKoch said:
Incentive Stock Options (ISOs) are restricted exclusively to employees (including employee-directors and employee-officers) and cannot be granted to independent contractors, consultants, or non-employee directors. However, they are frequently used as a, "key employee" retention tool, often favoring top-level management over standard employees.
Click to expand...

Yes, employees, not top executives. The value of ISOs is limited, over a certain threshold they become NQSOs.
 
Toddsterpatriot said:
Freddie Mac was chartered by Congress as another GSE in 1970. Fannie and Freddie carried out their mission effectively until the early 1990s, and in the process established conservative lending standards for the mortgages they were willing to purchase, including elements such as downpayments of 10 to 20 percent, and minimum credit standards for borrowers.

The GSE Act, however, created a new “mission” for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—a responsibility to support affordable housing—and authorized HUD to establish and administer what was in effect a mortgage quota system in which a certain percentage of all Fannie and Freddie mortgage purchases had to be loans to low- and moderate-income (LMI) borrowers—defined as persons with income at or below the median income in a particular area—or to borrowers living in certain low-income communities. These AH goals put Fannie and Freddie into direct competition with the FHA, which was then and is today an agency within HUD that functions as the federal government’s principal subprime lender.

Over the next fifteen years, HUD consistently enhanced and enlarged the AH goals. In the GSE Act, Congress had initially specified that 30 percent of the GSEs’ mortgage purchases meet the AH goals. This was increased to 42 percent in 1995 and 50 percent in 2000. By 2008, the main LMI goal was 56 percent, and a special affordable subgoal had been added requiring that 27 percent of the loans acquired by the GSEs be made to borrowers who were at or below 80 percent of area median income (AMI). Table 10, page 71, shows that Fannie and Freddie met the goals in almost every year between 1996 and 2008.

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uplo...m-the-majority-report_154941211677.pdf?x97961 (pg12)
Click to expand...


TRY TO KEEP UP CUPCAKE



Dubya (2004) Reversing the Clinton rule (2000) that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans



Under this authority, HUD believes it may restrict the GSEs from funding loans with predatory features. Such loans may undermine the availability of mortgage credit to low- and moderate-income families.


According to a HUD-Treasury report, these practices, which often occur in the subprime market, can strip homeowners of their equity and increase the risk of foreclosure, specifically targeting vulnerable populations and minority communities.





KNOW WHO YOU ARE QUOTING BTW? THE ONLY GOPer who dissented from the MAJORITY report, 9 TO 1 TOO



Let's see what the LYING WALLISON ALSO SAID CUPCAKE



Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now
. In the words of Peter Wallison (AEI CON) in 2004:

"In recent years, study after study has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing."


THAT'S THE SAME WALLISON THAT WAS THE ONLY GOP MEMBER OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS COMMITTEE, THAT BLAMED GOV'T FOR FORCING BANKS TO LOAN TO THE MINORITIES, LOL


Key context regarding this claim includes:


  • The Argument: Critics in the early 2000s claimed that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's affordable housing contributions were lower than banks/thrifts, which were mandated by the Community Reinvestment Act.


  • The Counter-Argument: Data indicates that private lenders (not Fannie/Freddie) issued over 84% of subprime mortgages in 2006, often targeting low-income borrowers.

  • Performance: Private securitization, rather than GSE loans, had much higher default rates

  • Regulatory Environment: Throughout the 2000s (DUBYA), HUD increased quotas, demanding that over 50% of mortgages purchased by Fannie/Freddie be for low- or moderate-income households.


MY FORUM CUPCAKE



My personal favorite is Cato's

"Should CRA Stand for Community Redundancy Act? from 2000 (here's a write-up by James Kwak), which argues a position amplified in its 2003 Handbook for Congress financial deregulation chapter: "by increasing the costs to banks of doing business in distressed communities, the CRA makes banks likely to deny credit to marginal borrowers that would qualify for credit if costs were not so high."



Dad2three

Thread 'FACTS on Dubya's great recession'

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From BushÂ’s PresidentÂ’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.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or...
  • Thanks
 
Woodznutz said:
The poor pay gas taxes, sales taxes, and cigarette and liquor taxes.
Click to expand...
We're talking federal here. Did you just wake up?

State taxes vary so much it is not funny. I was paying 6% state income tax until I moved to TN. Now 0%. In TN I pay taxes on my groceries. In KY, I did not. Now, I drive over the state line and don't pay taxes on my groceries. You do what is best for you.
 
Toddsterpatriot said:
The demand from Fannie and Freddie, forced by HUD and the demand from FHA, forced by HUD, required huge numbers of low-quality loans, to low quality borrowers, with low (or no) downpayments.

The commercial banks also had mandates to make low quality loans. Or buy securitized subprime paper.
Click to expand...


LMAOROG

GAWD YOU ARE DUMB


The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks.


They developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors.





...Nobody forced the big five investment banks to do what they did; they were not subject to CRA or other regulations common to depository banks. In fact, they mainly bought and sold loans rather than originate them. They did it because they thought they would make money.



Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis



Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.


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.




Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their ability to pay the mortgages.




But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. 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.


 
JonKoch said:
TRY TO KEEP UP CUPCAKE



Dubya (2004) Reversing the Clinton rule (2000) that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans



Under this authority, HUD believes it may restrict the GSEs from funding loans with predatory features. Such loans may undermine the availability of mortgage credit to low- and moderate-income families.


According to a HUD-Treasury report, these practices, which often occur in the subprime market, can strip homeowners of their equity and increase the risk of foreclosure, specifically targeting vulnerable populations and minority communities.





KNOW WHO YOU ARE QUOTING BTW? THE ONLY GOPer who dissented from the MAJORITY report, 9 TO 1 TOO



Let's see what the LYING WALLISON ALSO SAID CUPCAKE



Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now
. In the words of Peter Wallison (AEI CON) in 2004:

"In recent years, study after study has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing."


THAT'S THE SAME WALLISON THAT WAS THE ONLY GOP MEMBER OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS COMMITTEE, THAT BLAMED GOV'T FOR FORCING BANKS TO LOAN TO THE MINORITIES, LOL


Key context regarding this claim includes:


  • The Argument: Critics in the early 2000s claimed that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's affordable housing contributions were lower than banks/thrifts, which were mandated by the Community Reinvestment Act.


  • The Counter-Argument: Data indicates that private lenders (not Fannie/Freddie) issued over 84% of subprime mortgages in 2006, often targeting low-income borrowers.

  • Performance: Private securitization, rather than GSE loans, had much higher default rates

  • Regulatory Environment: Throughout the 2000s (DUBYA), HUD increased quotas, demanding that over 50% of mortgages purchased by Fannie/Freddie be for low- or moderate-income households.


MY FORUM CUPCAKE



My personal favorite is Cato's

"Should CRA Stand for Community Redundancy Act? from 2000 (here's a write-up by James Kwak), which argues a position amplified in its 2003 Handbook for Congress financial deregulation chapter: "by increasing the costs to banks of doing business in distressed communities, the CRA makes banks likely to deny credit to marginal borrowers that would qualify for credit if costs were not so high."



Dad2three

Thread 'FACTS on Dubya's great recession'

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From BushÂ’s PresidentÂ’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.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or...
  • Thanks
Click to expand...

Reversing the Clinton rule (2000) that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans

Clinton rule? Post it.

Data indicates that private lenders (not Fannie/Freddie) issued over 84% of subprime mortgages in 2006, often targeting low-income borrowers.

Hey, dipshit, Fannie/Freddie don't "issue" any loans. Not now, not ever, never.
 
Toddsterpatriot said:
Freddie Mac was chartered by Congress as another GSE in 1970. Fannie and Freddie carried out their mission effectively until the early 1990s, and in the process established conservative lending standards for the mortgages they were willing to purchase, including elements such as downpayments of 10 to 20 percent, and minimum credit standards for borrowers.

The GSE Act, however, created a new “mission” for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—a responsibility to support affordable housing—and authorized HUD to establish and administer what was in effect a mortgage quota system in which a certain percentage of all Fannie and Freddie mortgage purchases had to be loans to low- and moderate-income (LMI) borrowers—defined as persons with income at or below the median income in a particular area—or to borrowers living in certain low-income communities. These AH goals put Fannie and Freddie into direct competition with the FHA, which was then and is today an agency within HUD that functions as the federal government’s principal subprime lender.

Over the next fifteen years, HUD consistently enhanced and enlarged the AH goals. In the GSE Act, Congress had initially specified that 30 percent of the GSEs’ mortgage purchases meet the AH goals. This was increased to 42 percent in 1995 and 50 percent in 2000. By 2008, the main LMI goal was 56 percent, and a special affordable subgoal had been added requiring that 27 percent of the loans acquired by the GSEs be made to borrowers who were at or below 80 percent of area median income (AMI). Table 10, page 71, shows that Fannie and Freddie met the goals in almost every year between 1996 and 2008.

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uplo...m-the-majority-report_154941211677.pdf?x97961 (pg12)
Click to expand...



Wallison, of course, wrote a lonely dissent from both the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission majority report and from his fellow Republican commissioners, in which he alone blamed the global financial crisis on U.S. affordable housing policies. This argument is clearly contradicted by the facts, including the following:

  • Parallel bubble-bust cycles occurred outside of the residential housing markets (for example, in commercial real estate and consumer credit).

  • Parallel financial crises struck other countries, which did not have analogous affordable housing policies.

  • The U.S. government’s market share of home mortgages was actually declining precipitously during the housing bubble of the 2000s.

These facts are irrefutable.



Wallison’s argument, which places most of the blame on the affordable housing goals of the former government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before they fell into government conservatorship in 2008, also ignores the actual delinquency rates


Mortgages originated for private securitization defaulted at much higher rates than those originated for Fannie and Freddie securitization, even when controlling for all other factors (such as the fact that Fannie and Freddie securitized virtually no subprime loans). Overall, private securitization mortgages defaulted at more than six times the rate of those originated for Fannie and Freddie securitization.



www.americanprogress.org

Why Wallison Is Wrong About the Genesis of the U.S. Housing Crisis

David Min reexamines his core criticisms of Peter Wallison’s dissent from the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, and responds to Wallison’s latest criticisms.
www.americanprogress.org www.americanprogress.org
 
Toddsterpatriot said:
Reversing the Clinton rule (2000) that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans

Clinton rule? Post it.

Data indicates that private lenders (not Fannie/Freddie) issued over 84% of subprime mortgages in 2006, often targeting low-income borrowers.

Hey, dipshit, Fannie/Freddie don't "issue" any loans. Not now, not ever, never.
Click to expand...



I DID DUMMY



Yeah Dummy, I know GES's don't issue ANY loans, I wrote that for the LOW INFORMED CHEETO CULT



Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up​


•The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.


Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom



Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.





 
Toddsterpatriot said:
Reversing the Clinton rule (2000) that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans

Clinton rule? Post it.

Data indicates that private lenders (not Fannie/Freddie) issued over 84% of subprime mortgages in 2006, often targeting low-income borrowers.

Hey, dipshit, Fannie/Freddie don't "issue" any loans. Not now, not ever, never.
Click to expand...



In 2004, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), under the George W. Bush administration, finalized a new rule that, in conjunction with previous regulatory guidance, encouraged Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to expand their purchases of "A-minus" (subprime) mortgage loans to meet affordable housing goals






In April 2000, a HUD-Treasury task force co-chaired by HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo and Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers was convened to investigate rising predatory lending practices. Following field forums held in April and May, the task force released a joint report in June 2000 titled "Curbing Predatory Home Mortgage Lending," which proposed a four-point plan to curb abusive lending



Treasury and HUD Report and HUD Report- Curbing Predatory Home Lending


The task force findings concluded that while subprime lending broadened credit access, it was often accompanied by exorbitant fees, "packed" high-priced insurance, and targeted vulnerable populations in low-income and minority neighborhoods.




 
Last edited:
JonKoch said:
LMAOROG

GAWD YOU ARE DUMB


The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks.


They developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors.





...Nobody forced the big five investment banks to do what they did; they were not subject to CRA or other regulations common to depository banks. In fact, they mainly bought and sold loans rather than originate them. They did it because they thought they would make money.



Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis



Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.


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.




Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their ability to pay the mortgages.




But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. 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.


Click to expand...

The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks.

Banks had to hold subprime loans. DURR

Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

And the other 24 sold their shit to Fannie/Freddie/FHA and the commercial banks.

In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie

Probably something to do with their accounting scandals. DURR
 
JonKoch said:
I DID DUMMY



Yeah Dummy, I know GES's don't issue ANY loans, I wrote that for the LOW INFORMED CHEETO CULT



Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up​


•The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.


Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom



Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.





Click to expand...

I DID DUMMY

121 pages isn't the "rule".
Post the rule.

Yeah Dummy, I know GES's don't issue ANY loans, I wrote that for the LOW INFORMED CHEETO CULT

Cute nickname for yourself.
 
Toddsterpatriot said:
The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks.

Banks had to hold subprime loans. DURR

Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

And the other 24 sold their shit to Fannie/Freddie/FHA and the commercial banks.

In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie

Probably something to do with their accounting scandals. DURR
Click to expand...


There was almost no subprimes in the 1990's less than 10%, most years 6%-8% for SELF EMPLOYED with a lot of equity DURR

MORON, TRY READING COMPRHENSION


Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

TALKING ABOUT CRA, 24 OF THE 25 BIGGEST LENDERS WERE MORTGAGE BROKERS, IE WALL STREET DUMMY
 
Toddsterpatriot said:
I DID DUMMY

121 pages isn't the "rule".
Post the rule.

Yeah Dummy, I know GES's don't issue ANY loans, I wrote that for the LOW INFORMED CHEETO CULT

Cute nickname for yourself.
Click to expand...
Fuk off Cupcake, Sorry you can't find it


But let me help you with more from my forum


Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Investment bank's capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime​





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




Dad2three

Thread 'FACTS on Dubya's great recession'

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From BushÂ’s PresidentÂ’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.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or...
  • Thanks
 
JonKoch said:
In 2004, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), under the George W. Bush administration, finalized a new rule that, in conjunction with previous regulatory guidance, encouraged Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to expand their purchases of "A-minus" (subprime) mortgage loans to meet affordable housing goals






In April 2000, a HUD-Treasury task force co-chaired by HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo and Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers was convened to investigate rising predatory lending practices. Following field forums held in April and May, the task force released a joint report in June 2000 titled "Curbing Predatory Home Mortgage Lending," which proposed a four-point plan to curb abusive lending



Treasury and HUD Report and HUD Report- Curbing Predatory Home Lending


The task force findings concluded that while subprime lending broadened credit access, it was often accompanied by exorbitant fees, "packed" high-priced insurance, and targeted vulnerable populations in low-income and minority neighborhoods.




Click to expand...

In 2004, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), under the George W. Bush administration, finalized a new rule that, in conjunction with previous regulatory guidance, encouraged Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to expand their purchases of "A-minus" (subprime) mortgage loans to meet affordable housing goals

Over and above what they bought under the Clinton regulatory guidance.
Thanks for admitting your previous error.

In April 2000, a HUD-Treasury task force co-chaired by HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo and Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers was convened to investigate rising predatory lending practices.

They wanted lenders to charge lower fees on their subprime lending. Awesome!
 
JonKoch said:
Fuk off Cupcake, Sorry you can't find it


But let me help you with more from my forum


Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Investment bank's capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime​





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




Dad2three

Thread 'FACTS on Dubya's great recession'

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From BushÂ’s PresidentÂ’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.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or...
  • Thanks
Click to expand...

Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans

Cool story bro.

Let me know if you ever pull the "Clinton rule" out of your ass.

Until then I'll just be pointing and laughing. Even more.
 
Real GDP is ay $30T for easy math. The corrupt mafia GOVT already takes $6T out of it (20%) yet spends 25% 30%?


If I have a $1T company, I can't will it to my kids? Must be sold off to pay $500B tax due? I paid all my taxes for 50 years, all m uh employees taxes too.

Earth to AllStain?
 
Toddsterpatriot said:
In 2004, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), under the George W. Bush administration, finalized a new rule that, in conjunction with previous regulatory guidance, encouraged Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to expand their purchases of "A-minus" (subprime) mortgage loans to meet affordable housing goals

Over and above what they bought under the Clinton regulatory guidance.
Thanks for admitting your previous error.

In April 2000, a HUD-Treasury task force co-chaired by HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo and Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers was convened to investigate rising predatory lending practices.

They wanted lenders to charge lower fees on their subprime lending. Awesome!
Click to expand...


LMAOROG. Sure Cupcake
 
15th post
Toddsterpatriot said:
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans

Cool story bro.

Let me know if you ever pull the "Clinton rule" out of your ass.

Until then I'll just be pointing and laughing. Even more.
Click to expand...

In April 2000, as part of a broader effort to combat predatory lending, the Clinton administration's Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) moved to restrict Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from receiving "affordable housing" credit for purchasing certain high-cost, risky subprime loans.
In 2000, as HUD revisited its affordable-housing goals, the housing market had shifted. With escalating home prices, subprime loans were more popular. Consumer advocates warned that lenders were trapping borrowers with low "teaser" interest rates and ignoring borrowers' qualifications.




HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay. Freddie and Fannie adopted policies not to buy some high-cost loans.



That year, Freddie bought $18.6 billion in subprime loans; Fannie did not disclose its number.




In 2001, HUD researchers warned of high foreclosure rates among subprime loans.
"Given the very high concentration of these loans in low-income and African American neighborhoods, the growth in subprime lending and resulting very high levels of foreclosure is a real cause for concern," an agency report said.


But by 2004, when HUD next revised the goals, Freddie and Fannie's purchases of subprime-backed securities had risen tenfold. Foreclosure rates also were rising.




That year, President Bush's HUD ratcheted up the main affordable-housing goal over the next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent. John C. Weicher, then an assistant HUD secretary, said the institutions lagged behind even the private market and "must do more."


For Wall Street, high profits could be made from securities backed by subprime loans. Fannie and Freddie targeted the least-risky loans. Still, their purchases provided more cash for a larger subprime market.



 
JonKoch said:
In April 2000, as part of a broader effort to combat predatory lending, the Clinton administration's Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) moved to restrict Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from receiving "affordable housing" credit for purchasing certain high-cost, risky subprime loans.
In 2000, as HUD revisited its affordable-housing goals, the housing market had shifted. With escalating home prices, subprime loans were more popular. Consumer advocates warned that lenders were trapping borrowers with low "teaser" interest rates and ignoring borrowers' qualifications.




HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay. Freddie and Fannie adopted policies not to buy some high-cost loans.



That year, Freddie bought $18.6 billion in subprime loans; Fannie did not disclose its number.




In 2001, HUD researchers warned of high foreclosure rates among subprime loans.
"Given the very high concentration of these loans in low-income and African American neighborhoods, the growth in subprime lending and resulting very high levels of foreclosure is a real cause for concern," an agency report said.


But by 2004, when HUD next revised the goals, Freddie and Fannie's purchases of subprime-backed securities had risen tenfold. Foreclosure rates also were rising.




That year, President Bush's HUD ratcheted up the main affordable-housing goal over the next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent. John C. Weicher, then an assistant HUD secretary, said the institutions lagged behind even the private market and "must do more."


For Wall Street, high profits could be made from securities backed by subprime loans. Fannie and Freddie targeted the least-risky loans. Still, their purchases provided more cash for a larger subprime market.



Click to expand...

HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay. Freddie and Fannie adopted policies not to buy some high-cost loans.

HUD wouldn't credit them for some subprime loans but would credit them for some other subprime loans?

So, they bought some subprime loans; they didn't buy some other subprime loans.

Was that supposed to prove your claim?

DURR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The Movie "A Time To Kill"

< Previous Thread

Can free speech exist after the death of Kirk ?

Next Thread >

Similar threads

DennisPTate
Zone1 Reverse Engineering of a Real Estate Boom and Paying off the USA national debt?
Replies
2
Views
371
g5000
g5000
Captain Creeper
  • Locked
White Black People
Replies
10
Views
264
OKTexas
OKTexas
DGS49
Bernie's Wealth Tax and Its Presumed Purpose
2
Replies
37
Views
568
pknopp
pknopp
DennisPTate
Joe Rogan interviews Pierre Poilievre?
Replies
7
Views
313
DennisPTate
DennisPTate
J
Zohran Mamdani’s plan to tax the “rich” and paying your fair share
Replies
8
Views
230
leftwinger
leftwinger

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom