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

[Frankeneinstein]

Trickle down is VOODOO ECONOMICS

As GHWB found out then and like you are finding out today...believing in voodoo is like believing you can tax your way to prosperity...mythical beasts both

 

[JonKoch]

THEN there were GSE UNDERWITING STANDARDS that BILL CLINTON restricted in 2000 that GSE's (FANIE/FREDDIE)

But he never did.

LIAR


HUD (2000) 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.

https://archive.ph/ZhfIA#selection-503.0-503.262

In 2000-2001, HUD restricted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by refusing to credit them for purchasing loans with abusively high costs or those made without considering a borrower's ability to repay. This policy aimed to curb predatory lending by reducing the GSEs' incentive to buy risky loans, prompting them to establish guidelines against such purchases.


Dec 14, 2001 — HOEPA restricts certain loan terms for high-cost loans because they are associated with abusive lending practices.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/press/boardacts/2001/200112142/attachment.pdf

 

[JonKoch]

Democrats were running the house for two of those years.
The so-called loan crisis hit very fast and once it hit, it lasted several years.

It is very clear to me you never made an income handling loans for homes.

All utterly wrong.

Here at IBD, we've done more than a dozen pieces — most recently, in yesterday's paper — detailing how rewrites of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995 under President Clinton, along with major regulatory changes pushed by the White House in the late 1990s, created the boom in subprime lending, the surge in exotic and highly risky mortgage-backed securities, and the housing boom whose government-fed excesses led to inevitable collapse.

Despite this clear record, we're now besieged by enterprising journalists blaming Republican "deregulation" or the president's failure to recognize the seriousness of the problem or act. But these claims fall apart, as a partial history of the last decade shows.

Bush's first budget, written in 2001 — seven years ago — called runaway subprime lending by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "a potential problem" and warned of "strong repercussions in financial markets."

In 2003, Bush's Treasury secretary, John Snow, proposed what the New York Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." Did Democrats in Congress welcome it? Hardly.

"I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," declared Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., in a response typical of those who viewed Fannie and Freddie as a party patronage machine that the GOP was trying to dismantle. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," added Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del.

Unfortunately, it was broke.

In November 2003, just two months after Frank's remarks, Bush's top economist, Gregory Mankiw, warned: "The enormous size of the mortgage-backed securities market means that any problems at the GSEs matter for the financial system as a whole." He too proposed reforms, and they too went nowhere.

In the next two years, a parade of White House officials traipsed to Capitol Hill, calling repeatedly for GSE reform. They were ignored. Even after several multibillion-dollar accounting errors by Fannie and Freddie, Congress put off reforms.

In 2005, Fed chief Alan Greenspan sounded the most serious warning of all: "We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk" by doing nothing, he said. When a bill later that year emerged from the Senate Banking Committee, it looked like something might finally be done.

Unfortunately, as economist Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute has noted, "the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter."

Had they done so, it's likely the mortgage meltdown wouldn't have occurred, or would have been of far less intensity. President Bush and the Republican Congress might be blamed for many things, but this isn't one of them. It was a Democratic debacle, from start to finish.

.

OK YOU ARE A MORON WHO CAN'T CRITICALLY THINK. DEMS WON CONGRESS JAN 2007, WHAT DID DUBYA'S GROUP SAY HAPPENED AGAIN?


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

"The Presidents Working Group's March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007"





YES, DUBYA "WARNED" THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS, 17 TIMES IF YOU BELIEVE THAT, BUT OPPOSED THE ONLY BILL THAT GOT OUT OF THE HOUSE AND TOO THE SENATE, IN 2007.


ONCE MORE DUMMY, EXECUTIVE BRANCH (DUBYA) HAD OVERSIGHT WITH HUD OF THE GSE'S. IT WAS DUBYA WHO THIS HAPPENEDE TOO. THINK



June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004


YOU GUYS ARE DUMB AND LIARS

 

[JonKoch]

Democrats were running the house for two of those years.
The so-called loan crisis hit very fast and once it hit, it lasted several years.

It is very clear to me you never made an income handling loans for homes.

All utterly wrong.

Here at IBD, we've done more than a dozen pieces — most recently, in yesterday's paper — detailing how rewrites of the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995 under President Clinton, along with major regulatory changes pushed by the White House in the late 1990s, created the boom in subprime lending, the surge in exotic and highly risky mortgage-backed securities, and the housing boom whose government-fed excesses led to inevitable collapse.

Despite this clear record, we're now besieged by enterprising journalists blaming Republican "deregulation" or the president's failure to recognize the seriousness of the problem or act. But these claims fall apart, as a partial history of the last decade shows.

Bush's first budget, written in 2001 — seven years ago — called runaway subprime lending by the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "a potential problem" and warned of "strong repercussions in financial markets."

In 2003, Bush's Treasury secretary, John Snow, proposed what the New York Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." Did Democrats in Congress welcome it? Hardly.

"I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," declared Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., in a response typical of those who viewed Fannie and Freddie as a party patronage machine that the GOP was trying to dismantle. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," added Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del.

Unfortunately, it was broke.

In November 2003, just two months after Frank's remarks, Bush's top economist, Gregory Mankiw, warned: "The enormous size of the mortgage-backed securities market means that any problems at the GSEs matter for the financial system as a whole." He too proposed reforms, and they too went nowhere.

In the next two years, a parade of White House officials traipsed to Capitol Hill, calling repeatedly for GSE reform. They were ignored. Even after several multibillion-dollar accounting errors by Fannie and Freddie, Congress put off reforms.

In 2005, Fed chief Alan Greenspan sounded the most serious warning of all: "We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk" by doing nothing, he said. When a bill later that year emerged from the Senate Banking Committee, it looked like something might finally be done.

Unfortunately, as economist Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute has noted, "the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter."

Had they done so, it's likely the mortgage meltdown wouldn't have occurred, or would have been of far less intensity. President Bush and the Republican Congress might be blamed for many things, but this isn't one of them. It was a Democratic debacle, from start to finish.

.

WEIRD


The 2005 legislative effort to reform Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, specifically S.190, was passed out of the Senate Banking Committee on a partisan, 11-10 vote


WEIRD, IT GOT OUT OF COMMITTEE WHAT HAPPENED AGAIN?


On the day the House was scheduled to vote on H.R. 1461, the Bush Administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy opposing the House Republican GSE bill.


Sure he did. You meant he 'warned' GOP Congress 17 times on GSE reforms, but blocked the only bill to get out of the GOP House with bipartisan support?



Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary.


Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again



Testimony from W's Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation's of the GSE's 2004

Mr. (BARNEY) Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position.


We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.





October 26, 2005

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.

George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers"



KEEP UP YOUR BS
I'VE GOT EVERYTHING IN MY OLD THREAD CUPCAKE

Thread 'FACTS on Dubya's great recession'

Jul 2, 2014

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

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

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



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...

• Dad2three
• Replies: 481
• Forum: Economy

• 

 

[JonKoch]

LEARN WHAT PLS AND GSE WERE. They basically did the same thing, BUT Fannie and Freddie, UNTIL Dubya, had strict underwriting standards,

Until 1992.

Which is why PLS (wall street) bought and bundled the bad mortgages and sold them off

Sold some to commercial banks, to meet their CRA requirements.
Sold some to Fannie and Freddie.
Sold some to everybody else.

BS. Again NEXT

 

[Robert W]

WEIRD


The 2005 legislative effort to reform Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, specifically S.190, was passed out of the Senate Banking Committee on a partisan, 11-10 vote


WEIRD, IT GOT OUT OF COMMITTEE WHAT HAPPENED AGAIN?


On the day the House was scheduled to vote on H.R. 1461, the Bush Administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy opposing the House Republican GSE bill.


Sure he did. You meant he 'warned' GOP Congress 17 times on GSE reforms, but blocked the only bill to get out of the GOP House with bipartisan support?



Bush talked about reform. He talked and he talked. And then he stopped reform. (read that as many times as necessary.


Bush stopped reform). And then he stopped it again



Testimony from W's Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation's of the GSE's 2004

Mr. (BARNEY) Frank: ...Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow. No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position.


We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it.





October 26, 2005

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.

George W. Bush: Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005

Yes, he said he was against it because it "would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers"



KEEP UP YOUR BS
I'VE GOT EVERYTHING IN MY OLD THREAD CUPCAKE

Thread 'FACTS on Dubya's great recession'

Jul 2, 2014

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

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

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



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...

• Dad2three
• Replies: 481
• Forum: Economy

• 

Something is clanking on the forum.

 

[Robert W]

Everybody trust JonKoch since he owned a large mortgage firm and handled many loans. Wait, that was R Whitmore.

 

[JonKoch]

Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac generally maintained better loan quality than Private Label Securities (PLS) subprime loans, particularly in the lead-up to the 2008 housing crisis.

Because they still bought some conforming loans.
They still ended up with nearly $2 trillion of subprime crap.

While better than PLS, the GSEs did increase their own risk-taking in the mid-2000s by buying more ALT-A and higher-risk loans to compete with the expanding private market.

And to meet their HUD mandates.

Nah, ED Pinto and Peter Wallison are just liars, like you. Pinto's "math" is BS. He makes assumptions and uses bad data


CRA, AND FANNIE AND FREDDIE AROUND FOR DECADES, CAUSED THIS?

 

[JonKoch]

Everybody trust JonKoch since he owned a large mortgage firm and handled many loans. Wait, that was R Whitmore.

1. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf
2. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf
3. Financial Crisis Inquiry Report (2010)[1]
   “Conclusions of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission”

“We also studied at length how the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) affordable housing goals for the GSEs affected their investment in risky mortgages. Based on the evidence and interviews with dozens of individuals involved in this subject area, we determined these goals only contributed marginally to Fannie’s and Freddie’s participation in those mortgages.



“Using data provided by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the FCIC examined how single-family, multifamily, and securities purchases contributed to meeting the affordable housing goals. In 2003 and 2004, Fannie Mae’s single- and multifamily purchases alone met each of the goals; in other words, the enterprise would have met its obligations without buying subprime or Alt-A mortgage– backed securities. In fact, none of Fannie Mae’s 2004 purchases of subprime or Alt-A securities were ever submitted to HUD to be counted toward the goals.

Don’t blame the affordable housing goals for the financial crisis » NCRC

“We also studied at length how the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) affordable housing goals for the GSEs affected their investment in

ncrc.org

 

[JonKoch]

Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac generally maintained better loan quality than Private Label Securities (PLS) subprime loans, particularly in the lead-up to the 2008 housing crisis.

Because they still bought some conforming loans.
They still ended up with nearly $2 trillion of subprime crap.

While better than PLS, the GSEs did increase their own risk-taking in the mid-2000s by buying more ALT-A and higher-risk loans to compete with the expanding private market.

And to meet their HUD mandates.

Don’t blame the affordable housing goals for the financial crisis​

Federal Research​

1. Financial Crisis Inquiry Report (2010)[1]
   “Conclusions of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission”

“We also studied at length how the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) affordable housing goals for the GSEs affected their investment in risky mortgages. Based on the evidence and interviews with dozens of individuals involved in this subject area, we determined these goals only contributed marginally to Fannie’s and Freddie’s participation in those mortgages.

Don’t blame the affordable housing goals for the financial crisis » NCRC

“We also studied at length how the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) affordable housing goals for the GSEs affected their investment in

ncrc.org

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

LIAR


HUD (2000) 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.

https://archive.ph/ZhfIA#selection-503.0-503.262

In 2000-2001, HUD restricted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by refusing to credit them for purchasing loans with abusively high costs or those made without considering a borrower's ability to repay. This policy aimed to curb predatory lending by reducing the GSEs' incentive to buy risky loans, prompting them to establish guidelines against such purchases.


Dec 14, 2001 — HOEPA restricts certain loan terms for high-cost loans because they are associated with abusive lending practices.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/press/boardacts/2001/200112142/attachment.pdf

Carol D. Leonnig made a claim, I didn't see her, or you, provide any back up.

LIAR


HUD (2000) 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.

https://archive.ph/ZhfIA#selection-503.0-503.262

In 2000-2001, HUD restricted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by refusing to credit them for purchasing loans with abusively high costs or those made without considering a borrower's ability to repay. This policy aimed to curb predatory lending by reducing the GSEs' incentive to buy risky loans, prompting them to establish guidelines against such purchases.


Dec 14, 2001 — HOEPA restricts certain loan terms for high-cost loans because they are associated with abusive lending practices.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/press/boardacts/2001/200112142/attachment.pdf

Thanks for the Fed link.

In the past two years, various initiatives to address predatory lending have been undertaken. The Senate Banking Committee held hearings in July 2001 at which consumers and representatives of industry and consumer groups testified; the House Banking Committee held hearings in May 2000 at which the banking regulators and others testified; and bills have been introduced to address predatory lending. Several states and municipalities have enacted or are considering legislation or regulations. The Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Treasury held a number of public forums on predatory lending and issued a report in June 2000. The report makes recommendations to the Congress regarding legislative action and to the Board urging the use of its regulatory authority to address predatory lending practices. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac published guidelines last year to avoid purchasing loans that are potentially predatory; they are also making efforts to develop consumers’ awareness of their credit options

Sadly, it doesn't support your claim.

HUD issued a report. The report made recommendations.

No mention of Clinton making HUD refuse to give the GSEs credit for predatory loans.

Try again?

 

[Robert W]

1. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf
2. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf
3. Financial Crisis Inquiry Report (2010)[1]
   “Conclusions of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission”

“We also studied at length how the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) affordable housing goals for the GSEs affected their investment in risky mortgages. Based on the evidence and interviews with dozens of individuals involved in this subject area, we determined these goals only contributed marginally to Fannie’s and Freddie’s participation in those mortgages.



“Using data provided by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the FCIC examined how single-family, multifamily, and securities purchases contributed to meeting the affordable housing goals. In 2003 and 2004, Fannie Mae’s single- and multifamily purchases alone met each of the goals; in other words, the enterprise would have met its obligations without buying subprime or Alt-A mortgage– backed securities. In fact, none of Fannie Mae’s 2004 purchases of subprime or Alt-A securities were ever submitted to HUD to be counted toward the goals.

Don’t blame the affordable housing goals for the financial crisis » NCRC

“We also studied at length how the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) affordable housing goals for the GSEs affected their investment in

ncrc.org

You want to sell us that the crash happened in 2004? Fake story. It was in 2007/08

 

[JonKoch]

View attachment 1243562

DURR

​

​

Faulty Conclusions Based on Shoddy Foundations​

FCIC Commissioner Peter Wallison and Other Commentators Rely on Flawed Data from Edward Pinto to Misplace the Causes of the 2008 Financial Crisis​

David Min debunks Peter Wallison's claim, based on flawed data from Edward Pinto, that the federal affordable housing policies caused the financial crisis.


....Pinto also wrongly blames the affordable housing goals of Fannie and Freddie for the origination of Alt-A loans, which under his analysis account for 65% of the “high risk” mortgages attributable to Fannie and Freddie. In fact, these Alt-A loans (either according to the normal usage of “Alt-A” or Pinto’s newly invented definition of “Alt-A”) would not have qualified for the affordable housing goals.

Faulty Conclusions Based on Shoddy Foundations

David Min debunks Peter Wallison’s claim, based on flawed data from Edward Pinto, that the federal affordable housing policies caused the financial crisis.

www.americanprogress.org

Federal Research


Financial Crisis Inquiry Report (2010)[1]


“Conclusions of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission”


“We also studied at length how the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) affordable housing goals for the GSEs affected their investment in risky mortgages. Based on the evidence and interviews with dozens of individuals involved in this subject area, we determined these goals only contributed marginally to Fannie’s and Freddie’s participation in those mortgages.

Don’t blame the affordable housing goals for the financial crisis » NCRC

“We also studied at length how the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) affordable housing goals for the GSEs affected their investment in

ncrc.org

 

[JonKoch]

You want to sell us that the crash happened in 2004? Fake story. It was in 2007/08

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nah, ED Pinto and Peter Wallison are just liars, like you. Pinto's "math" is BS. He makes assumptions and uses bad data


CRA, AND FANNIE AND FREDDIE AROUND FOR DECADES, CAUSED THIS?


View attachment 1243630

CRA and HUD pressuring Fannie and Freddie helped increase demand for subprime mortgages for weak borrowers with low down payments.

Not the only factors in causing the real estate bubble, but certainly a very large part.

 

[JonKoch]

Carol D. Leonnig made a claim, I didn't see her, or you, provide any back up.


Thanks for the Fed link.

In the past two years, various initiatives to address predatory lending have been undertaken. The Senate Banking Committee held hearings in July 2001 at which consumers and representatives of industry and consumer groups testified; the House Banking Committee held hearings in May 2000 at which the banking regulators and others testified; and bills have been introduced to address predatory lending. Several states and municipalities have enacted or are considering legislation or regulations. The Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Treasury held a number of public forums on predatory lending and issued a report in June 2000. The report makes recommendations to the Congress regarding legislative action and to the Board urging the use of its regulatory authority to address predatory lending practices. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac published guidelines last year to avoid purchasing loans that are potentially predatory; they are also making efforts to develop consumers’ awareness of their credit options

Sadly, it doesn't support your claim.

HUD issued a report. The report made recommendations.

No mention of Clinton making HUD refuse to give the GSEs credit for predatory loans.

Try again?

HIGHLIGHTED DOES CUPCAKE. Try again

 

[JonKoch]

CRA and HUD pressuring Fannie and Freddie helped increase demand for subprime mortgages for weak borrowers with low down payments.

Not the only factors in causing the real estate bubble, but certainly a very large part.

CRAZY AND STOOPID. CRA AROUND SINCE 1977, GSE'S AROUND FOR 60+ YEARS, CAUSED THIS

2004-2007? LMAOROG

 

[JonKoch]

CRA and HUD pressuring Fannie and Freddie helped increase demand for subprime mortgages for weak borrowers with low down payments.

Not the only factors in causing the real estate bubble, but certainly a very large part.

BZZ. Wrong a very minor part, though Dubya hosed GSE's with HIS policies

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

​

​

Faulty Conclusions Based on Shoddy Foundations​

FCIC Commissioner Peter Wallison and Other Commentators Rely on Flawed Data from Edward Pinto to Misplace the Causes of the 2008 Financial Crisis​

David Min debunks Peter Wallison's claim, based on flawed data from Edward Pinto, that the federal affordable housing policies caused the financial crisis.


....Pinto also wrongly blames the affordable housing goals of Fannie and Freddie for the origination of Alt-A loans, which under his analysis account for 65% of the “high risk” mortgages attributable to Fannie and Freddie. In fact, these Alt-A loans (either according to the normal usage of “Alt-A” or Pinto’s newly invented definition of “Alt-A”) would not have qualified for the affordable housing goals.

Faulty Conclusions Based on Shoddy Foundations

David Min debunks Peter Wallison’s claim, based on flawed data from Edward Pinto, that the federal affordable housing policies caused the financial crisis.

www.americanprogress.org

Federal Research


Financial Crisis Inquiry Report (2010)[1]


“Conclusions of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission”


“We also studied at length how the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) affordable housing goals for the GSEs affected their investment in risky mortgages. Based on the evidence and interviews with dozens of individuals involved in this subject area, we determined these goals only contributed marginally to Fannie’s and Freddie’s participation in those mortgages.

Don’t blame the affordable housing goals for the financial crisis » NCRC

“We also studied at length how the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) affordable housing goals for the GSEs affected their investment in

ncrc.org

Faulty, based on data from Fannie Mae?

DURR

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

HIGHLIGHTED DOES CUPCAKE. Try again

They published guidelines.

You said Clinton forced them.

You lied.

Again.