SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ChanceIs who wrote (164505)11/15/2008 10:31:29 AM
From: bentwayRead Replies (3) | Respond to of 306849
 
Blah, blah - it's not lack of regulation! It's not a failure of the holy MARKET! GET REAL. If you let the greedheads run free, this ALWAYS happens. And THAT's what happened.

Trying to blame this on Clinton after Bush had 8 YEARS, six on them with a rubber-stamp congress, is just pathetic.

How Did This Happen?

howdidthishappen.org

"Myth #1: De-regulation had nothing to do with this crisis

The Facts
Conservative de-regulation left Wall Street with no cop on the beat. Bush’s conservative appointees rolled back regulation and oversight of banks, insurers, lenders, and credit raters. - The explosion in subprime loans after 2000 were made by unregulated mortgage companies, and the vast majority of them were issued to higher income borrowers, not low- to moderate-income borrowers. - The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (GLBA) dismantled Depression-era law that had prohibited bank holding companies from owning other financial companies such as investment, commercial banking, and insurance companies. GLBA ignited a wave of mergers and hampered government regulators charged with preventing conflicts of interest and risky financial behavior.

Myth #2: Private lenders were pressured into giving out risky loans

The Facts
Private lenders—not the government-backed Fannie and Freddie—issued the vast majority of subprime loans, and to low- and moderate-income borrowers in particular. Fannie and Freddie did not guarantee and securitize large quantities of subprime loans. - In fact, Fannie Mae actually lost market share because it chose not to “participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages in 2004 and 2005” because it “determined that the pricing offered for these mortgages often was insufficient compensation for the additional credit risk associated with these mortgages.” As economist Dean Baker stated, “Fannie and Freddie got into subprime junk and helped fuel the housing bubble, but they were trailing the irrational exuberance of the private sector….In short, while Fannie and Freddie were completely irresponsible in their lending practices, the claim that they were responsible for the financial disaster is absurd on its face—kind of like the claim that the earth is flat.” - In testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld acknowledged that Fannie and Freddie’s role in Lehman’s demise was “de minimis,” or so small that it does not matter.

Myth #3: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Caused the Crisis

The Facts
While some are attempting to scapegoat Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, economist Dean Baker recently stated that while Fannie and Freddie “got into subprime junk and helped fuel the housing bubble,” they were “trailing the irrational exuberance of the private sector” and actually lost market share to private subprime lenders in the years 2002-2007, when “the volume of private issue mortgage backed securities exploded.” - In a 2006 Securities and Exchange Commission filing (available here) covering its activities in 2004, Fannie Mae stated: “We did not participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages in 2004 and 2005.” In the report, Fannie Mae also noted the growth of subprime lending and reported, “These trends and our decision not to participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages contributed to a significant loss in our share of new single-family mortgage-related securities issuances to private-label issuers during this period.” - Additionally, Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on October 6, 2008, that Fannie and Freddie’s failure played a minimal role in Lehman’s demise.

Myth #4: The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act is to blame for the current financial crisis

The Facts
Several media figures have attempted to connect the financial crisis to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), originally passed in 1977 and since amended. However, according to housing experts, a large number of subprime loans were not made under the CRA, which applies only to depository institutions. Additionally, a study released earlier this year by a law firm specializing in CRA compliance estimated that in the 15 most populous metropolitan areas, 84.3 percent of subprime loans in 2006 were made by financial institutions not governed by the CRA.

However, the claim that the CRA is responsible for the current crisis ignores several crucial facts: - The CRA does not cover independent mortgage companies, which issued the vast majority of the loans underlying the crisis. The act applies only to depository banks and thrifts (savings and loan associations) that are federally insured. According to University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr in testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, just 20 percent of the subprime mortgages since the late 1990s were issued by CRA-covered lenders. Thus, 80 percent subprime loans were made by lenders not regulated by the CRA. - The CRA actually created more responsible lending. San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank President Janet L. Yellen rejected the “tendency to conflate the current problems in the subprime market with CRA-motivated lending,” and noted “that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households.” - The act was passed in 1977, well before the subprime loan bonanza occurred. In fact, the Bush administration’s weakening of the CRA coincided with the subprime boom. - Banks did not engage in an orgy of reckless subprime lending to meet CRA obligations; they did so for they same reason they always do: to make money. Only this time, deregulation allowed them to get paid not just for making the loans, but for turning them into securities and trading them (see below).

Myth #5: Progressives have opposed strengthening oversight over Fannie and Freddie

The Facts
Several media figures have accused progressives in Congress of opposing stronger oversight of two mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In fact, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and his predecessor, Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH) made efforts to enhance regulatory oversight on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, including the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 and sponsoring the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007. Both of these bills called for a new agency to oversee and regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Myth #6: Congress funded ACORN in the bailout package

The Facts
Numerous media figures reported that Congress tried to steer money to ACORN in the recent housing bailout bill. In fact, neither the draft proposal nor the final version of the bill contained any language mentioning ACORN. Those making the false claim were misrepresenting a provision—since removed—that would have directed 20 percent of any profits realized on troubled assets purchased under the plan into two previously established funds: the Housing Trust Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund, which, under the law authorizing them, distribute funds through state block grants and through competitive application processes, respectively."



To: ChanceIs who wrote (164505)11/15/2008 10:32:49 AM
From: ChanceIsRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 306849
 
RE: Blame for the housing crisis

The last two articles I posted place the blame for the mess squarely on the Clinton admin. I have several points of view on the matter which I will discuss below. Fundamentally, I think that Clinton started it, but "W" failed grossly to bring things back down to earth, and even enjoyed surfing the Clinton wave. I think it modestly important to understand the history as it affects my ability to understand the evolution going forward and to adjust my investments accordingly.

It is clear to me that Clinton got the ball rolling. I can recall being bored to tears back in the mid-'90s about banking this, banking that, and redlining. I recall a lot of radio hype about redlining. It didn't mean much to me, and I didn't understand banking at the time. It was a big part of Clinton admin policy.

Clinton was big on using the Department of Justice as a policy tool. I am not sure that this is a bad thing, or that every other president doesn't engage in it. DOJ like every other corporate entity has a limited budget, and priorities must be set. That prerogative belongs to the Prez. For sure, he was putting direct federal pressure on the banks to make mortgage loans to those on the edge. Expanding to the broader governmental sphere, we all saw Barney Frank recently castigating some republican for being a racist because he wanted to reign in FNE/FRE. For sure congress in its various forms since the '90s has been pushing the envelope of housing to the untenable.

Clinton was also prosecuting the daylights out of the coal generation plants. I know this from direct experience. It hurt me financially because I took positions against coal given the Clinton aggressiveness. Of course "W" got in there and reversed all of that, to include dropping cases which were pretty far down the pipe.

As far as "W" goes....does the phrase "ownership society" ring a bell??? He had the opportunity to shut things down. He was so proud that home ownership reached 69%. So heap a big piece of blame on him. No doubt about it.

Congress, executive.. Pubs...Dems. are all to blame in various portions. Frankly I don't care to apportion the blame. What I think important to recognize for the future is that it is endemic. I don't see the federal government doing anything but printing more money with the focus on producing housing inflation - much easier said than done. I rather firmly believe that the US is headed in the direction of a Japanese lost decade. The Japanese had zombie banks and zombie corporations. We will clearly have zombie banks - although the government briefly showed some spine when they let Lehman fail. That is now regarding by those at the financial levers as a big mistake - so count on more zombie banks. Zombie corporations??? Lets start with Detroit. Need I say more??? We will add the new twist of zombie homeowners. We got close - and we still may have zombie consumers. Think putting credit cards under the TARP. This has been discussed, and we already had the ridiculous tax rebate stimulation.

Where does that leave us??? Stagnation and infaltion. Or will it be stagnation and deflation - as Roubini suggests.

I have painfully been holding my oil stocks. I didn't know that the hedge funds had been so deeply involved or would be margin squeezed so hard. Depletion is on my side. So is the credit crisis because as we all know - banks are hoarding cash and not lending to drill. And won't. Why??? The politicians don't like drilling. They want green power. If you think that banks are reluctant o do mortgage deals in an environment of dropping home prices, will they feel better about financing crude production with dropping crude prices??? Energy was the only thing that did well in the stagflationary '70s.



To: ChanceIs who wrote (164505)11/15/2008 1:14:45 PM
From: Elroy JetsonRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 306849
 
You've taken some really bad pharmaceuticals.

Countrywide, Washington Mutual, Wachovia, and Downey Savings & Loan (among others) made 100% mortgages to would be home owners, without verification of their income, and the option to skip any 36 payments - usually the first 36. GM even created a subsidiary to lend home owners 125% of the value of their home.

And you're suffering under the delusion that some mysterious unnamed regulator made them do this.

Once your hallucinations wear off you'll be so humiliated that you posted this nonsense. It makes you sound like an imbecile.
.



To: ChanceIs who wrote (164505)11/15/2008 9:15:55 PM
From: Pogeu MahoneRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 306849
 
Chancels
WTF?

Bankers beat to a pulp by welfare queens?

you seem like a really smart man

then you post this bullshit:

Congress set up processes (Research the Community Redevelopment Act) whereby community activist groups and organizers could effectively stop a bank's efforts to grow if that bank didn't make loans to unqualified borrowers. Enter, stage left, the "subprime" mortgage. These lenders knew that a very high percentage of these loans would turn to garbage - but it was a price that had to be paid if the bank was to expand and grow



To: ChanceIs who wrote (164505)11/15/2008 9:48:55 PM
From: Skeeter BugRespond to of 306849
 
Chancels, that these is popular amongst the republican spinners.

the truth is, the cds market is where 95% of the severe damage was done - and no low income person ever bought or sold a single cds.

in addition, i read where the bush administration sued new york to prevent the state from using "ability to repay" as a requirement for loans. i also heard a bush speech where he said illegals (no social security number required), low income and people with bad credit can get a house as good as anyone else's home.

the republican cheerleaders won't tell these facts, b/c truth isn't their agenda. rather, deception is their aim.

yes, these home owners were stupid. but they didn't cause the major problems looking to take down the world economy.