Barry Ritholtz says “First, Blame the Lenders” in a good post today over at The Big Picture on the crisis in Greece:
There is a familiar odor to the “Blame the profligate Greeks” meme now circulating. It is little more than a brilliant marketing ploy. This distraction ignores the simple reality that lending to insolvent people, institutions and countries is first and foremost the fault of the lenders.
Let us start first with the Greeks, who lied their way into the EU (with the help Goldman Sach’s financial engineers). The ridiculous pay and vacation structure, the absurdly generous pension plan, the excessive spending by Athens. They are a nation that can honestly be described as tax scofflaws. Yes, Greece is a mess.
Which begs the question: WHO THE FUCK WOULD LEND A DIME TO THESE PEOPLE?
Indeed.
Ritholtz gets to the heart of why lenders ultimately bear the vast majority of the responsibility for bad loans (emphasis mine), even the ones that weren’t predatory:
Which brings us back to the lenders. What is their role, if not to exercise expert judgment? If they cannot independently determine who is credit worthy and who is not, than why do they even exist at all? We might as well leave piles of money around and ask borrowers to self-regulate their appropriate credit limits.
That shows very clearly why the argument of the blame-the-borrowers crowd, which has been heard far too often in our own mortgage crisis, is so off base.
— Bloomberg News reports that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is considering stepping down after the fake debt-ceiling debate is finished. That would offer the Obama administration perhaps its last chance to distance itself from the Wall Street-friendly policies Geithner has instituted or pushed for, and stake out a more American people-friendly policy for the 2012 campaign. Will it take it?
Unlikely, says a (justly) cynical Mike Konczal.
I imagine short-list for Treasury will be drawn up (with the) assumption Obama needs to raise ~$1B for 2012, much from Wall Street
Andy Kroll jokes on Twitter—or I should say: half-jokes:
so…Jamie Dimon? Bob Rubin redux? I bet Stan O’Neal needs a gig…
I wrote that Obama would more likely to nominate any of those guys before he’d nominate Elizabeth Warren, and set forth my own slate of nominees: Tom Donohue, Phil Gramm, and Ken Lewis.
More seriously, American Banker Washington bureau chief Rob Blackwell reports on Twitter, contra my skepticism, that the Republicans would be open to confirming outgoing FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair. She’s a Republican, but she also fairly tough-minded on regulating the financial industry. She’d have to be an early favorite then.
— The New York Times’s Steven Greenhouse reports on a new study that says 88 percent of all the meager economic growth we’ve had in this recovery has gone to corporate profits, while just 1 percent has gone to workers.
“The lack of any net job growth in the current recovery combined with stagnant real hourly and weekly wages is responsible for this unique, devastating outcome,” wrote the report’s authors, Andrew Sum, Ishwar Khatiwada, Joseph McLaughlin and Sheila Palma.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, average real hourly earnings for all employees actually declined by 1.1 percent from June 2009, when the recovery began, to May 2011, the month for which the most recent earnings numbers are available.
The authors said another factor explaining the weak performance for aggregate wages and salaries was the slow growth in weekly hours during the recovery. At the same time, worker productivity has grown just under 6 percent since the recovery began, helping to keep employment down while lifting corporate profits, the study said.
And on and on.
"...and set forth my own slate of nominees: Tom Donohue, Phil Gramm, and Ken Lewis"
. That Phil Gramm's name even appears in print as a consideration for Secty of Treasury supports the notion that Robespierre was right in every word he uttered and every deed he did. Phil Gramm, the god father of financial industry de-regulation, who went on to feather his personal nest as bag man to the financial industry
#1 Posted by Jack, CJR on Fri 1 Jul 2011 at 07:33 PM
Time to toll the Reality Bell again...
I'd be all for blaming the lenders for the current meltdown.. If the lenders had voluntarily made bad loans to deadbeats..
But that's not what happened..
In FACT... HUD demanded that more than 50% Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac secured mortgages be issued to buyers with below median incomes...
So we have not a voluntary decision to lend money to high risk borrowers, but instead a government mandate to do so. And an utterly and predictably miserable outcome. When you force private citizens to part with their money at gunpoint by lending it to people they wouldn't otherwise lend it to... What the F*CK do you think will happen (to paraphrase Mr. Ritholtz)?
So don't blame the lenders... Blame the government!
Screwing with markets makes misery, in general. Any tampering with market forces comes at the expense of efficiency and to the detriment of the economy. Societal interests that justify interference with the free market should be narrowly defined and limited in scope, and interference with market forces should be scrutinized and limited to ensure competition and to prevent fraud.
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 1 Jul 2011 at 07:54 PM
So wait, the borrowers are analagous to "the Greeks, who lied their way into the EU (with the help Goldman Sach’s financial engineers). The ridiculous pay and vacation structure, the absurdly generous pension plan, the excessive spending by Athens. They are a nation that can honestly be described as tax scofflaws. Yes, Greece is a mess" and yet blaming the borrowers is "off base"? The borrowers often lied on their loans, spent ridiculous amounts of money on HDTVs and SUVs, and can be described as mortgage scofflaws: why shouldn't they be blamed? There's plenty of blame to go around: bankers out for a quick score, govt interference through Fannie and Freddie that blew them up, and borrowers that over-extended themselves. Blaming just one group or claiming that one group shouldn't be blamed is simply a sign of partisanship, nothing else.
#3 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Fri 1 Jul 2011 at 08:23 PM
If you can't say something true, then shut up. The Fannie, Freddie nonsense has been debunked many many MANY times.
If you can't recognize that there were perverse bonus incentives based on perverse risk management which passed on loan products to investors and tried to use mixes of good loans and bad loans to hide the collapse of underwriting standards, then you don't understand the first thing of what happened over the last decade.
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2010/06/it-wasnt-fannie-freddie-or-the-cra.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/fannie-freddie-karl-smith-2010-9
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 1 Jul 2011 at 09:09 PM
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/yet_again_fannie_and_frannie_d.php
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 1 Jul 2011 at 09:16 PM
As I wrote in that last link:
"The funny thing is that by focusing Freddy and Fannie as government failings, one ignores the real government failings which happened at the Securities Exchange Commission (CSE failures), the Federal Reserve (subprime watchdog failure), the Office of the Comptroller of Currency (overriding state laws against predatory lending failure), the Office of Thrift Supervision (AIG failure), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (cops pulled off the white collar crime during a fraud epidemic failure).
That's only natural since the government failed in the wrong way in those institutions. It failed to regulate, it failed to enforce the law, it failed to protect the public. Those were failures of small government, laissez faire in nature, so we can ignore them. But if you really cared about government failures, the above would be your focus.
Freddy and Fannie on the other hand... they were private, weren't they? They used to be public institutions, but then they were spun off to private investors with government guarantees (because they were to big to fail) and strict charters (because TBTF requires responsible acting institutions). It wasn't until 2008 that they became wards of the state, like AIG and the rest of the banking system soon after.
So if you really hate Freddy and Fannie, then you have to hate all the other TBTF scumbags because the government guarantees their risks (and puts the money for them up front through the Federal Reserve) while not restricting their charters nor requiring that they behave as responsible actors. Whatever brings in the bonuses in a mark to market system is fine with these new TBTF players.
If you really want to protect citizens, the economy, and the treasury then your focus would be on the rogue banks and the government institutions that see no evil / hear no evil while power lunching with these people they are supposed to regulate."
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 1 Jul 2011 at 09:40 PM
Thimbles, if you can't back up your idiotic statements, then shut up. Your first three links do not attempt to make the case that Freddie and Fanny weren't important factors, only that their lending to the poor and minorities wasn't the reason. The evidence regarding the CRA's culpability is mixed, but they all note that Fannie and Freddie were doing a lot of guaranteeing outside of the poor/minority segment anyway. Only the final link claims that Fannie/Freddie "contributed to the crash... But they were minor players compared to Wall Street." However, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed 53% of all residential mortgages last summer. One can argue about whether they were reason 1 or reason 1a, but given Fannie and Freddie's giant size and enormous losses, it's tough to argue they weren't one of the major factors. As for Wall Street, I'm well aware of the risk management and quality issues there, which is why I also blamed near-sighted bankers. As I said, the fact that you hold only the bankers responsible makes it clear that you are a partisan hack, swallowing the nonsense that Pelosi/Frank/Dodd feed you whole.
#7 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Fri 1 Jul 2011 at 09:42 PM
Ding! Ding!.
Another tug on the Reality Bell's pull rope:
"Beginning in 1992, Congress pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their purchases of mortgages going to low and moderate income borrowers. For 1996, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave Fannie and Freddie an explicit target -- 42% of their mortgage financing had to go to borrowers with income below the median in their area. The target increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.
For 1996, HUD required that 12% of all mortgage purchases by Fannie and Freddie be "special affordable" loans, typically to borrowers with income less than 60% of their area's median income. That number was increased to 20% in 2000 and 22% in 2005. The 2008 goal was to be 28%. Between 2000 and 2005, Fannie and Freddie met those goals every year, funding hundreds of billions of dollars worth of loans, many of them subprime and adjustable-rate loans, and made to borrowers who bought houses with less than 10% down."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122298982558700341.html
Sweet JEEBUS!... You demand that a QUARTER of ALL government backed mortgages go to people who make less than 60 percent of the median income and then you wonder why we had a mortgage crisis?.. For crying out loud!.. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac underwrote half the mortgages in the country!
What does this mean? It means that the government policy was that more than 10% of ALL the mortgages in this country had to be given to borrowers who made less than 60% of the median salary!
Yeah... It's a head-scratcher to figure out what happened here, isn't it?
Padikiller 1, Thimbles 0
#8 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 1 Jul 2011 at 09:49 PM
This is just Example No. 13,458 of Liberal Hypocrisy...
When it suits the need to blame a "Wall Street" villain to shield the whining liberal Greek protesters from liability for their own mistakes, then the mantra is "WHO THE F*CK WOULD LEND A DIME TO THESE PEOPLE?!"
When it comes to mortgages here at home, however, then any lender who refuses to give a no-money down, low payment, ARM to a single unwed mother of five making half the median income is a racist, redlining, selfish bigot, and by God, we need to get the government into the equation to fix the injustice of it all!
#9 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 1 Jul 2011 at 10:02 PM
And here we go again!
Obama's putting the heat on the private sector to write crappy loans again:
"Community activists in St. Louis became concerned a couple of years ago that local banks weren't offering credit to the city's poor and African American residents. So they formed a group called the St. Louis Equal Housing and Community Reinvestment Alliance and began writing complaint letters to federal regulators.
Apparently, someone in Washington took notice. The Federal Reserve has cited one of the group's targets, Midwest BankCentre, a small bank that has been operating in St. Louis's predominantly white, middle-class suburbs for over a century, for failing to issue home mortgages or open branches in disadvantaged areas. Although executives at the bank say they don't discriminate, Midwest BankCentre's latest annual report says it is in the process of negotiating a settlement with the U.S. Justice Dept. over its lending practices. "
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_20/b4228031594062.htm
#10 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 1 Jul 2011 at 10:10 PM
Haha, this is hilarious, Thimbles links to an article that shows Fannie was a crucial part of the mortgage mess and was pressured by Congress and dumb investors to do so, Then, he links to a graphic that shows that Fannie was a critical driver in the rise of mortgage-backed securities, as their share of that market rose from 34% to 44% while the value of MBS's rocketed upwards by $2 trillion. This is all red meat for the tea party, :) as it perfectly highlights the stupidity of government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie and Freddie and why the dummies in Congress shouldn't be allowed to spend anywhere near the amount of our money they're spending now. The fact that Thimbles thinks these links "interrupt" anything is truly funny. :D
Let me guess, you'll say there wasn't enough regulation? Well, Fannie and Freddie had a federal agency devoted solely to regulating them, OFHEO, and those dummies didn't find anything wrong till it all went bust. Govt regulation doesn't work- never has, never will- yet funny how politicians always find suckers like Ryan or Thimbles to fall for that line.
#11 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Fri 1 Jul 2011 at 11:46 PM
Don't bother reading this either.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant
Surely it was thirty year old regulations and 50 year old institutions which blew up in 2007.
It couldn't have been a result of lax oversight, lax regulations on leverage limits
http://www.propublica.org/article/flawed-sec-program-failed-to-rein-in-investment-banks-101
increased market share by sharks like countrywide, and insane networks of CDO's protected by CDS's turning bad risk into hot potatoes to lob to sucker pensions and bet against.
It had to be lazy black people who tricked smart sophisticated bankers into giving them loans for properties beyond their means.
The banks and the mortgage brokers were victims. Poor banks. Poor brokers.
It was those stupid, tricky minorities and that mean old government telling Freddy and Fannie to lend to them, in 2006 -2007, which caused Wall Street banks to inflate the market in 2002 - 2006.
Wall Street was the victim, guys. Victims who got taken advantage of and watched in horror as they collected bonuses based on these terrible actions they were forced to do.
By the government and the minorities.
You people are ridiculous.
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 2 Jul 2011 at 12:11 AM
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/fannie_mae_and.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=axfeEvVeLwww
Freddie and Fannie were suckers, not actors in the market. The government failed, it was bipartisan, and they deserve much blame for the mess.
But the fault was they trusted the banks and the sophisticated men running them - just like they had with Enron and Arthur Andersen less than a decade before - and watched as the bankers flushed the market into the toilet.
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 2 Jul 2011 at 12:27 AM
These were the crooks Wall Street partnered with to defraud loan customers
http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/economic_meltdown/articles/entry/1286
so Wall Street could defraud investment customers. And it worked because the risk of these shoddily made "vehicles" was passed to an insurance sucker - AIG.
Which worked until 2005:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/58818622/AIGFP-Lewis-Vanity-Fair
"What no one realized was that it was too late. A.I.G. F.P.’s willingness to assume the vast majority of the risk of all the subprime-mortgage bonds created in 2004 and 2005 had created a machine that depended for its fuel onsubprime-mortgage loans. “I’m convinced that our input into the system led to a substantial portion of theincrease in housing prices in the U.S. We facilitated a trillion dollars in mortgages,” says one trader. “Just us.” Every firm on Wall Street was making fantastic sums of money from this machine, but for the machine to keep running the Wall Street firms needed someone to take the risk. When Gene Park informed them that A.I.G. F.P. would no longer do so—
Hello, my name is Gene Park and I’m closing down your business—he became the most hated man on Wall Street.
The big Wall Street firms solved the problem by taking the risk themselves. The hundreds of billions of dollars in subprime losses suffered by Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and the others were hundreds of billions in losses that might otherwise have been suffered by A.I.G. F.P. Unwilling to take the risk of subprime-mortgage bonds in 2004 and 2005, the Wall Street firms swallowed the risk in 2006 and 2007. Lending standards had fallen, property values had risen, and the more recent loans were thus far riskier than the earlier ones, but still they gobbled them up—for if they didn’t, the machine would have ceased to function. The people inside the big Wall Street firms who ran the machine had made so much money for their firms that they were now, in effect, in charge. And they had no interest in anything but keeping it running."
And then it stopped running around 2006 - 2007 because a bubble requires inflated growth in order to sustain it. When values plateau, there's no value in buying property because there's no money to be made in flipping it. The speculators drop out, the house prices drop. Then ARM subprime rates begin reseting causing a wave of foreclosures and bad securities which had been based on these subprime assets. The subprime market collapses taking Bear Stearns and Lehman with it. Goldman and hedge funds which bet on the collapse of the American Dream start calling in their CDS positions. AIG collapses. Now the whole housing market is in freefall and people don't know which bank is next to blow up. Freddy and Fannie have a lot invested in the housing market by definition. When the housing market went down the drain, it sucked down Freddy and Fannie with it.
Remember, we're arguing about cause of, not participation in. Nobody says Fannie and Freddy didn't do anything within the bubble that made it worse, but they didn't cause the bubble or the collapse of underwriting standards. That was Wall Street driving the market, not some government dictate or an avarious agency or two.
#14 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 2 Jul 2011 at 01:00 AM
Wait, so I point out how your links actually support the Tea Party position and state specific examples showing how you must not have even read the links, then you say I didn't bother reading it? :D Your dumb arguments only get funnier. Then you link to an article talking about faulty risk management on Wall Street, which I already agreed was a problem: do you even read the comments before slapping a bunch of irrelevant links up? As I said, there was a whole federal agency focused solely on Fannie and Freddie, OFHEO, and they didn't stop anything: how much more evidence do you need that regulation doesn't work? Markopolos, a private party, was reporting Madoff to the SEC for almost a decade, yet the SEC was so incompetent they didn't even understand the evidence. I see, Fannie and Freddie, who only underwrote or guaranteed half of all mortgages and Fannie's chief even admits they chased bad loans in the market in your first NYT link, are not primarily responsible because they didn't "cause" the decline in standards, they only whole-heartedly embraced it and pumped trillions into it at the behest of dumb congressmen like Barney Frank.
They all made mistakes. The fundamental difference is that the market punishes: Bear Stearns got taken over and Jimmy Cayne lost 90+ of his net worth, Lehman is in bankruptcy and Dick Fuld is reviled. Borrowers are of course under water. What happened to the govt agencies? Frank and Dodd get even more power, even though they were the ones pressuring Fannie and Freddie to lend more for years, and they ramp up the SEC and other incompetent agencies' budgets, throwing even more money down the drain.
We have one system, the market, where incompetence is punished, except of course when govt intervenes, and another system, the govt, where it's rewarded. The fact that dummies like Thimbles can't see this is why con men like Barney Frank and the Fannie CEO, Mudd, keep getting away with it.
#15 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Sat 2 Jul 2011 at 02:29 AM
Tweedle dumb and dumber, this is what I wrote in response to:
"I'd be all for blaming the lenders for the current meltdown.. If the lenders had voluntarily made bad loans to deadbeats..
But that's not what happened..
In FACT... HUD demanded that more than 50% Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac secured mortgages be issued to buyers with below median incomes..."
I put up the links that the lenders voluntarily lent to deadbeats and defrauded legit borrowers. I put up the graph showing when fannie got back into the game in 2005 - 2006.
The meltdown was set in motion by actions in the credit market from 2000 - 2003 and especially 2004 -2005 when Bush was touting his ownership society bs.
The credit market was freed from regulation and regulators as the federal government prevented state regulators from doing their job.
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/spitzers_ghost.php
And the press was CNBC-ite about covering fraud and the bubble until it was too late.
The lenders/securitizers then trashed the ratings industry, trashed underwritting standards, trashed the ownership tracking property system and replaced it with a private industry spread sheet (MERS), trashed their investors, and - when all else had been trashed - they trashed their own balance sheets. Not freddie, not fannie, not the HUD, not Barney Frank, made them do that. They did it because some of the lenders believed that fairy tale quant magic and the ability to sell your liability to a sucker would protect them. They were stupid. Others did it because they knew the market was irrational and so used their positions to encourage the irrationality while betting against it. They were sharks.
The government, under Clinton and Bush, deregulated and put deregulating lobbyists in charge of regulatory agencies. You admit, "they didn't stop anything". We tried fifty years of regulation after the second world war and had no systemic collapses in 40 years. We've tried deregulation and government negligence since 1981 and 1999 and we got market anarchy and regular crashes. The tea party solution is "more deregulation / less government". THAT DOESN'T WORK.
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/delong115/English
Trust between customers and providers needs rules and enforcement or else people abuse each other; the powerful abuse the weak. The tea party doesn't get that. "The government is ewil." No, the government is a tool, just like the banks. The people in charge of the institutions determine whether they are good or bad and, over the Bush era, we had spectacularly bad people in charge of both. The tea party's only answer is to abolish the institution and its powers, it doesn't have an answer on how to put good people in charge and good policies in place. Therefore its answer to problems caused by deregulation and lacking enforcement is more deregulation and less enforcement.
DUMB ON IT'S FACE.
Unfortunately, the only way the tea party can maintain that position is by changing the history of what happened. Blame it on Barney Frank and Fannie Mae and black folks. Fabricate a fairy tale that no one but you and your cult can buy.
"I'd be all for blaming the lenders for the current meltdown.. If the lenders had voluntarily made bad loans to deadbeats..
But that's not what happened.."
LIE. You lie. You are a liar. The evidence is there and copious for anyone to read, but you and your new minion choose to LIE.
There are plenty of places you can lie. Here isn't one of them.
#16 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 2 Jul 2011 at 04:30 AM
""I'd be all for blaming the lenders for the current meltdown.. If the lenders had voluntarily made bad loans to deadbeats..
But that's not what happened.."
That is a LIE. A well documented, unavoidable, inexcusable LIE.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/355/the-giant-pool-of-money
Go lie somewhere else. There are plenty of places to do it. But don't try it here, you LIARS.
#17 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 2 Jul 2011 at 05:14 AM
Fannie got back into the game in 2005-6? I already pointed out that that graph shows that they were heavily in the game from 2000-3. I'll note that you never address the central issue that I raised, which is that incompetent financial firms go bankrupt while govt regulators get rewarded for their incompetence. But this is only because dummies like you then double down on the deregulation fantasy- if there was no regulation, what was OFHEO, which was only there to regulate Fannie and Freddie, doing?- and then call for even more regulation.
Saying that we got more crashes since 1981 is as dumb as saying we've had more hurricanes since 1981, as one actually has to show causation. The S&L crisis of the '80s actually started with the stagflation of the '70s and went back decades further, but of course in your retarded world, Reagan was the only reason. There were crashes before the Fed, there were crashes after the Fed: only in your fantasy world would govt regulation stop anything. The only difference is that the regulators slow down progress while times are good, then fuck things up worse when the inevitable, occasional crash hits, all while grabbing more power and selling pipe dreams to morons like you.
Your attempt at an explanation of how trust works between customers and business is knee-slappingly funny: the notion of a brain-dead liberal like you trying to explain anything about business must leave people laughing for hours. It is also quite hilarious how a shrieking idiot like yourself calls everybody else dumb and a liar, but those are the hallmarks of an idiot. Right, I made up all the quotes in the articles about how Barney was pushing Fannie and Freddie to lend more and how Fannie/Freddie have trillions of crappy mortgages on their books. XD The only interesting part of this whole exchange is seeing who the kind of ignorant loony is who actually falls for the crap that Frank/Pelosi/Dodd put out there: Thimbles.
#18 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Sat 2 Jul 2011 at 07:10 AM
Time for another Reality Injection!:
""Beginning in 1992, Congress pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their purchases of mortgages going to low and moderate income borrowers. For 1996, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave Fannie and Freddie an explicit target -- 42% of their mortgage financing had to go to borrowers with income below the median in their area. The target increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122298982558700341.html
Q. WHO THE F*CK WOULD VOLUNTARILY LEND A DIME TO THESE PEOPLE?
A. NOBODY!
That's why the government forced lenders to do it!
We're not talking about the cause of the mortgage meltdown here (though the reader can make his or her own determination of the effect of forcing more than one out of every 10 mortgages to be written to borrowers with incomes less than 60% below the median income).
We are simply agreeing with Ryan that anyone who voluntarily lends money to deadbeats must assume responsibility for the choice, and noting the difference between such voluntary lending and the circumstances of the mortgage market in the U.S., where the government forced lenders to write mortgages to unqualified borrowers.
#19 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 2 Jul 2011 at 08:30 AM
My'o'My. Mr. Paaaaaaadikiller reveals something of "himself," doesn't "he"?
"His" elitism pants are down as his latest angry post just drips with contempt for "low and moderate income borrowers."
Let's see. According to common rule of thumb for mortgage lenders here, a family making the median household income of $50,000 per year ($24 per hour) can buy a home for $189,070 at 6%, very doable in most parts of the country, including his own neck of the woods. Not in *his* neighborhood, obviously. A household making $20,000 per year ($9.60/hour, low income) can buy a place for $80,957. A little harder to find in this day and age, but possible. Especially in right-to-work (for the lowest possible wages) states where most seething, angry Republicans call home.
A family making 60% of median -- $30,000 or $14.50 per hour -- can easily afford a home at $113,161.
So yeah, a lot of mortgage lenders, including private mortgage lenders, are very, very happy to extend a mortgage to low and moderate income families.
According to Mr. Paaaadikiller, every American family who earns less than $50,000 per year -- 50% of American families -- are deadbeats. Almost half of the people in his own state are deadbeats, according to "him." More than half of the people across the South and the Midwest are deadbeats. (Note the map on page 2. See where LESS than half of the families are deadbeats. ha! Liberal states!)
That's a pathological view of "his" fellow Americans, but sad to say, is in reality the prevalent view in the angry, seething political rightwing GOP. More importantly, it is untrue.
#20 Posted by James, CJR on Sat 2 Jul 2011 at 10:13 AM
Thimbles, the same man who thinks that black columnists should be held to different standards than their white counterparts (at least when racial factors are at issue), now tries to twist this debate into some sort of racist commentary by speaking of "black folks".
Nobody's mentioning skin color here except him.
This is a perfect example of liberal hypocrisy - I'd just love to see Thimbles sit on a street corner in a predominantly black neighborhood and refer to the residents as "black folks" from a soapbox... That wouldn't go over well for him, I'd wager. Somehow I suspect that we're more likely to find Thimbles on a love seat at a Japanese Starbucks, sipping on a latte and bewailing the condition of the American "poor" with his pseudointellectual internet pals, than toiling away in slums advocating for the elevation of the people he refers to as "black folks".
At any rate, it is easy to confront this kind of liberal hypocrisy with a simple "yes or no" question.
"Do you think the federal government should force lenders to write a certain percentage of loans to low-income borrowers?"
Yes?
Or No?
Answering yes makes my case with regard to the liability of the government instead of the mortgage lenders, and so our debate here is finished.
Answering no puts you on my side of the political spectrum and so our debate here is finished.
Answering anything besides "yes" or "no" is non-responsive weaseling that amounts to a forfeit, so our debate here is finished.
Refusing to answer at all is also a forfeit, so our debate here is finished.
Padikiller 2, Thimbles 0.
#21 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 2 Jul 2011 at 10:18 AM
@James
Question 1: If the lenders are hopping all over themselves to lend money to people who make less than 60% of the median wage.... Then why did the federal government force them to make these loans in ever increasing numbers?
Question 2: Given your insistence that low-wage earners can afford to buy homes and float the mortgages and attendant costs of home ownership, I suppose it's safe to conclude that you disagree with the Pioneer Press' contention that low-wage renters in Minneapolis are having a hard time finding housing, right?
#22 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 2 Jul 2011 at 10:31 AM
"Mr." Paaaadikilerrrr, to your questions:
1) I have no idea if that is true. I don't take an opinion piece from the WSJ as a valid reference, unless they provide a link from a reputable source to substantiate their wild, distorted accusations. Please provide me with a credible source for your claim. At what rate did the private mortgage industry extend mortgages to low income families? What was the default rate by income group? Let's start with some objective data and some context here, and begin the discussion.
2) It isn't my insistence, it is standard mortgage underwriting guidelines. Please look it up. As for specific market areas, you are conflating renting vs. buying, ignoring area-specific housing prices and prevailing wages, and all kinds of irrational sputtering. I can't respond to you in a respectful discussion unless you ask a relevant question..
Conclude what you may, I didn't read the Pioneer Press piece, nor am I particularly interested in Minneapolis housing issues. And I can't imagine why you would be. I don't regard mortgage lending issues ideologically like you do. I was struck by your post in which you exposed your contempt for fully half of American families as "deadbeats." No one who earns less than $24/hour should be allowed to buy a home, is what you implied. Mortgage lenders and the home building industry, private and semi-public, disagree with you vigorously.
Of course, that might have been excess, inflammatory rhetoric on your part.
#23 Posted by James, CJR on Sat 2 Jul 2011 at 01:27 PM
Dear Padkiller.
Since you like yes or no:
The Meltdown was precipitated by a subprime crisis.
*plays jeopardy music*
Sorry padi. The answer was Yes.
The subprime loans were issued by the GSE's Freddy and Fannie.
*plays jeopardy music again*
Nope. I'm afraid, padi, the GSE's did not issue subprime loans even though they were pressured by their shareholders, ABS issuer competition, and mortgage companies like countrywide to take riskier Alt-A products. They securitized prime rate loans.
From the fannie nytimes articles above:
"Fannie never actually made loans. It was essentially a mortgage insurance company, buying mortgages, keeping some but reselling most to investors and, for a fee, promising to pay off a loan if the borrower defaulted...
Regulators, spurred by the revelation of a wide-ranging accounting fraud at Freddie, began scrutinizing Fannie’s books. In 2004 they accused Fannie of fraudulently concealing expenses to make its profits look bigger.
Mr. Howard and Mr. Raines resigned. Mr. Mudd was quickly promoted to the top spot.
But the company he inherited was becoming a shadow of its former self.
Shortly after he became chief executive, Mr. Mudd traveled to the California offices of Angelo R. Mozilo, the head of Countrywide Financial, then the nation’s largest mortgage lender. Fannie had a longstanding and lucrative relationship with Countrywide, which sold more loans to Fannie than anyone else.
But at that meeting, Mr. Mozilo, a butcher’s son who had almost single-handedly built Countrywide into a financial powerhouse, threatened to upend their partnership unless Fannie started buying Countrywide’s riskier loans.
Mr. Mozilo, who did not return telephone calls seeking comment, told Mr. Mudd that Countrywide had other options. For example, Wall Street had recently jumped into the market for risky mortgages. Firms like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs *all consolidated supervised entities* had started bundling home loans and selling them to investors — bypassing Fannie and dealing with Countrywide directly.
“You’re becoming irrelevant,” Mr. Mozilo told Mr. Mudd, according to two people with knowledge of the meeting who requested anonymity because the talks were confidential. In the previous year, Fannie had already lost 56 percent of its loan-reselling business to Wall Street and other competitors."
Which explains this chart:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_nTCQ4ihGgUU/SNlo6gHOX8I/AAAAAAAAAEQ/4gPZAzEgmSs/s1600-h/MDO_By_Holder%281%29%281%29.jpg
Or, if you prefer the Wall Street Journal version of history, these charts:
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2011/02/11/fannie-and-freddie-the-saga-in-charts/
"But let’s just start during our recent housing mania. During the housing boom, Fannie and Freddie, which were publicly traded private companies — albeit with a fairly obvious backing of the Feds — began losing market share in the profitable business of buying up loans, packaging them up into securities and selling them off to investors.
The Journal reported that two companies, seeking to regain lost market share, loaded up on riskier subprime and Alt-A loans in 2006 and 2007 just as the housing market was starting to tank. As people began to have trouble paying their loans, some pretty ugly losses began to show up for Fannie and Freddie, like this."
They didn't start buying subprime loans for securitizing until 2006, they only bought safe tranche subprime loans that had been securitized by wall street banks since 1995. During the housing boom they lost half their market share to wall street bankers who had low
#24 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 2 Jul 2011 at 01:33 PM
I hate the "about 600 word" cutoff and the two link maximum.
Anyways, fannie bought safe tranche CDO's and mbs's, securitized by wall street containing subprime, since 1995.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060902626.html
They started buying subprime loans for securitization in 2006 - 2007.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/18/AR2008081802111_2.html
"During the peak years of the housing bubble, the company was distracted by an accounting scandal and its fallout. For much of 2006, the company was focused on a continuing effort to correct years of false financial reports, a massive project that cost more than $1 billion and ultimately revealed that Fannie Mae had overstated past profits by $6.3 billion...
Buying Alt-A and subprime mortgages was part of Fannie Mae's effort to meet the challenge. Fannie Mae sought to reap the rewards and protect itself from the downside of the investments through a feat of financial engineering it called its "Risk Transformation Facility," which was meant to transfer the riskiest elements to other investors.
"We engaged in the subprime market, for the first time closing deals to guarantee and securitize subprime loans, with help from the new facility that allows us to sell off the riskiest layers," Mudd wrote. By October, the company had signed $3 billion of such deals."
The government forced subprime lenders to lend with ridiculously low standards.
*cue jeopardy music*
Wrong, yet again padi. There was a reason it was called the shadow banking system. It was unregulated. It did what it wanted and what it wanted was to book a bunch of profits, a bunch of bonuses, and to loot their company and their customers.
No government made them do that.
Stop lying.
#25 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 2 Jul 2011 at 01:53 PM
The Ole' Liberal Two-Step!
Watch 'em dance, ladies and gentleman!.
Out of one side of their mouths, they tell us that the government doesn't need to force lenders to make loans to low-income borrowers - and out of the other side of their mouths they defend the government programs that do precisely that. Sure... The government forced lenders to loan billions of dollars to unqualified borrowers... But that didn't do anything bad..
Sure it didn't...
Thankfully, this kind of abject silliness has now become background noise in the comment threads instead of U.S. government policy. The liberal agenda is kaput and it looks like (fingers crossed!) the GOP finally understands that the American people aren't going to tolerate the liberal nonsense any longer. If the GOP can remain united like this, the Dems don't have enough votes to spend another penny. I nearly fell over when, in the course of a two hour presidential debate among seven candidates, I didn't see a single GOP candidate badmouth another candidate.. This is unprecedented. And extremely encouraging.
As it stands, the default position on August 2nd is fiscal lucidity - Obama will have to ignore the debt ceiling law to avoid fiscal responsibility and crossing that Rubicon would bring a shitstorm I doubt he has the balls to withstand. I hope like hell that the GOP keeps it together and shuts the government down before it caves into the liberal nonsense.
The latest polls have Obama losing to any Republican by a landslide. Trillions of dollars of wasteful spending and debt have resulted in 9.1 % unemployment, a deflated housing market, inflation, etc. etc. etc. Oh.. And a mere $1.5 TRILLION deficit...
But hey!.. It's not like Obama doesn't have a plan or anything. All we have to do is cut the tax breaks for corporate jet owners (the tax break HE signed into law in 2009) and then all is hunkey-dorey! Back in the black, right?
Whoever gets the office in 2012 (assuming it's not Obama or another Dem who steals the nomination from him) will need to swing far right to hold onto the base. For the first time since Reagan.. It looks like the conservatives will get a chance to clean house. Here's hoping!
#26 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 2 Jul 2011 at 03:25 PM
"Whenever you put your faith in big government for any reason, sooner or later you wind up an apologist for mass murder." -Karl Hess
#27 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Sat 2 Jul 2011 at 05:20 PM
"Out of one side of their mouths, they tell us that the government doesn't need to force lenders to make loans to low-income borrowers - and out of the other side of their mouths they defend the government programs that do precisely that. Sure... The government forced lenders to loan billions of dollars to unqualified borrowers... But that didn't do anything bad.."
Yeah there's a reason for that. The law that regular bank to lend responsibly was not responsible for the loans that tanked the market.
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/a_community_reinvestment_act_r.php
And the subprime lenders who lent responsibly were not responsible for those loans either.
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/subprime_didnt_have_to_be_a_di.php
Expanding credit to low income people wasn't a bad idea and the legislation that worked for 30 years previous extending PRIME loans wasn't a bad idea. Bad actors took advantage of good ideas to make bad products that the federal government (run by free market "conservative" idiots) wouldn't allow the states to regulate.
The states tried to make bad lenders make good products. Your people decided it would be more fun to blow up the economy.
And now you lie about it. Nobody forced Countrywide, Bear Stearns, Merryl Lynch, Goldman Sachs, etc.. to make these products, and nobody stopped them from doing so either. Laissez faire.
If you claim otherwise, you claim so in the face of vast evidence that you are well aware of, which makes you are a liar.
Keep pretending the only lenders that tanked the market were Fannie and Freddie. Keep ignoring the documentation above that everyone else but you can read. Is that how you practice your dollar store law?
You keep re-bleating your lies. I'll keep establishing you're a liar. Good day.
#28 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 2 Jul 2011 at 08:26 PM
Ding! Ding!..
Time to toll the Ole' Reality Bell once again!:
"Attorney General Janet Reno, accompanied by her underlings, strides to the podium at the Department of Justice and announces another settlement with a bank for alleged lending discrimination. Reno has reached a number of similar accords with high-profile institutions such as the Chevy Chase Federal Savings Bank in Washington, Shawmut Bank in Boston and the First National Bank of Vicksburg, Miss. "We will tackle lending discrimination wherever it appears," declares Reno. "No loan is exempt; no bank is immune."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n47_v11/ai_17839400/
#29 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 2 Jul 2011 at 09:16 PM
"Time to toll the Ole' Reality Bell once again!"
Except, what does that have to do with subprime? Ding Ding, Dummy!
Meanwhile, at Lehman Brothers:
http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2011/06/dawn-of-gargoyles-romney-proves-hes.html
"Lehman’s senior managers consciously chose to take the unethical path because they knew it generate extraordinary reported income in the short-term, which would maximize their compensation. Prior to becoming one of the world’s largest purchasers and sellers of nonprime loans through Aurora and BNC, Lehman had eagerly embraced fraudulent and predatory lending. The officers who controlled Lehman also showed in this earlier episode that they would choose that short-term reported income that maximized their compensation even when they were warned that it was produced by fraud and abuse of the customers and knew that the loans would produce large losses,..
Aurora and BNC Mortgage were regulatory “black holes.” The Fed had unique authority under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA) to regulate all mortgage lenders and had unprecedented practical leverage during the crisis because of its ability to lend to investment banks and convert them to commercial bank holding companies. Fed Chairmen Greenspan and Bernanke, despite pleas from Dr. Gramlich, refused to use this authority to close the regulatory black hole. Bernanke finally, under repeated pressure from Congressional Democrats, used the Fed’s HOEPA authority in August 2008 – over a year too late to even minimize losses. Greenspan and Bernanke were chosen to lead the Fed because of their intense, anti-regulatory dogma. Greenspan was notorious for his assertion that fraud provided no basis for regulation. He believed that financial markets automatically excluded fraud.
The SEC was equally notorious for its anti-regulatory policies. It created the disgraceful non-regulation regulation of Lehman and its four sister investment banks. The Consolidated Supervised Entities (CSE) program never made the SEC a real “primary regulator.” The SEC is incapable, as constituted, staffed, and led to be a primary regulator of anything – and that includes the rating agencies. “Safety and soundness” regulation is a completely different concept than a “disclosure” regime. The SEC’s expertise, which it has allowed to rust away for a decade, is in enforcing disclosure requirements. The SEC did not have the mindset, rules, or appropriate personnel to make the CSE program a success even if the agency had been a “junk yard dog.” Given the fact that the SEC was self-neutered by its leadership during the period Lehman was in crisis in 2001-2008, there was no chance that it would succeed even if the CSE been a real program...
The primary cause of severe bank failures has long been senior insider fraud (James Pierce, The Future of Banking (2001). We know the characteristics that cause the criminogenic environments that produce the epidemics of accounting control fraud that cause our recurrent, intensifying crises. Two of the most important factors are the “three de’s” – deregulation, desupervision, and de facto decriminalization – and perverse executive, professional, and employee compensation. These two factors were principally responsible for creating the epidemic of mortgage fraud that drove our crisis. Financial regulation was effectively destroyed in the U.S. "
But don't blame the lenders with their billion dollar bonuses. Blame Freddie and Fannie and the mean old government for making too many rules.
#30 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 2 Jul 2011 at 10:22 PM
"These two factors were principally responsible for creating the epidemic of mortgage fraud that drove our crisis. Financial regulation was effectively destroyed in the U.S. "
I hate that approximate 600 word limit.
#31 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 2 Jul 2011 at 10:33 PM
Thimbles..
If you think anyone's buying a screed from a guy who worked for the Obama campaign AND Michael Moore...
You've got another think coming...
It is plain as day that the government has been cajoling lenders to dole out money to poor people for years, and the crap finally hit the fan. Anyone with a brain can see it for what it is.
The funny part is watching you guys spend half your time claiming that the private sector lent money to poor people without government intervention, and the other half of the time justifying the government intervention that plainly led to the current mess.
Clinton forced lenders to loan money to poor people. So did Bush. And what did Obama do for the tiny amount of time he was in private practice? He sued Citibank for ACORN, of course! Under the Community Reinvestment Act...
Dude... Lenders don't want to lend money to low-income people. That's WHY the government makes them do it! It ain't complicated!
#32 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 2 Jul 2011 at 10:58 PM
Oh goody. It's a meme.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/07/02/couldnt-have-been-wall-street-right/
"Guess who’s buying into the revisionist idiocy that Dems and poor minorities created the financial crisis? George Will:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/burning-down-the-house/2011/06/30/AGeRSGuH_story.html
Put on asbestos mittens and pick up “Reckless Endangerment,” the scalding new book by Gretchen Morgenson, a New York Times columnist, and Joshua Rosner, a housing finance expert."
What's Gretchen Morgenson doing swirling in this swill?
#33 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 2 Jul 2011 at 11:04 PM
After listening to this interview:
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/2/reckless_endangerment_how_outsized_ambition_greed
I think it would be productive for cjr to interview her so we can establish who was responsible for deriving the methods used in the housing bubble and who was responsible for actually inflating the housing bubble.
In particular, it would be good to ask her to clarify statements like this in the interview above:
"JOSHUA ROSNER: Including the fact that you have to remember there was a symbiotic relationship between Fannie and Freddie and the private firms. Fannie Mae’s largest customer was Countrywide. Countrywide sold more of their volume to Fannie Mae than any other lender. And that relationship is really part of the ebb and flow of the private versus the government-sponsored."
With her reporting here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/business/yourmoney/26country.html
"Among the $470 billion in loans that Countrywide made last year, 45 percent were conventional nonconforming loans, those that are too big to be sold to government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Home equity lines of credit given to prime borrowers accounted for 10.2 percent of the total, while subprime loans were 8.7 percent...
According to the former sales representative, Countrywide’s big subprime unit also avoided offering borrowers Federal Housing Administration loans, which are backed by the United States government and are less risky. But these loans, well suited to low-income or first-time home buyers, do not generate the high fees that Countrywide encouraged its sales force to pursue."
There seems to be a lot of potential for confusion in Fannie's role since it did buy securities, not direct loans, since 1995 and it did securitize subprime loans after 2006.
And while the housing bubble was on, Fannie and Freddie were getting pummeled by regulators for corruption previous to the housing bubble.
So Gretchen needs to clarify whether she claims the GSE's were the models for the actors in the housing bubble or the actors, because sloppy readers on the right wing are going to misinterpret her work so they can push their own "the market was innocent... Even Gretchen Morgenson says so" fantasy.
What do you say Ryan? Is it good fodder for an interview?
#34 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 3 Jul 2011 at 12:59 AM
Ajay wrote: "I see, Fannie and Freddie, who only underwrote or guaranteed half of all mortgages and Fannie's chief even admits they chased bad loans in the market in your first NYT link, are not primarily responsible because they didn't "cause" the decline in standards, they only whole-heartedly embraced it and pumped trillions into it at the behest of dumb congressmen like Barney Frank."
padikiller responds: Yep... That's the liberal line, alright..
The private sector "predatory lending" did it all! (But we still need the government to force lenders/predators to give loans to low-income borrowers).
Thimbles gets his panties most twisted when he takes these kinds of inconsistent positions. Anyone can see how ridiculous they are, but he just can't bring himself to acknowledge the reality. It's like a cult thing, or something.
Thankfully, the stupidity is almost over, I hope!
I was driving down the road yesterday, listening to the radio, when a commercial came on advertising $100 billion dollars in student loans available from the federal government. Now here we are, a month away from default.. With a $1.5 TRILLION deficit.. $15 TRILLION in debt... And the government is paying for ads about doling out money...
You've got a President who is an admitted felon (promoting cocaine is five year felony in Hawaii) who uses taxpayer funds to buy GM, and then a few months later doles out billions of dollars in taxpayers to trade in Oldsmobiles for Hondas!.. And none of the "professional journalists" call him on it? Well, the people see through this idiocy.
It's just plain, moronic stupidity, and I think we're going to see a sea change in this country - when you see the guy who will probably be President (Romney) - a liberal GOP candidate - stating that the question to be asked isn't "what should we eliminate in the federal government, but what should we keep?" - THAT is a fundamental transformation in American politics.
The Tea Partiers have finally smacked some sense into these guys (at least it seems so). Here's hoping they stick with it!
#35 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 3 Jul 2011 at 09:23 AM
"The private sector "predatory lending" did it all! (But we still need the government to force lenders/predators to give loans to low-income borrowers)."
You keep avoiding the REALITY that the collapse of underwriting standards, the proliferation of fraud, and the abusive loan stipulations took place in subprime markets. These subprime markets were institutions which were not federally insured. The government could not give them a mandate, these guys were unregulated.
As William Black, respected economics professor who helped oversee the S&L crisis under Bush I and doesn't work for Michael Moore, puts it:
http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2011/01/fannie-and-freddies-managers-bought.html
"Most nonprime loans were made by entities that are not federally insured – and not subject to the CRA. The uninsured lenders made nonprime loans for the same reason that insured banks made the loans – doing so guaranteed the creation of record short-term income and executive compensation."
I'm not defending Freddie and Fannie, they were bad institutions in which regulators uncovered billions of dollars of fraud within. They used their political capital and the implicit promise of government backing to secure favorable capital for themselves and a reduction of lending requirements for their investments.
But your using Freddie and Fannie's graffiti on the side of the house to absolve wall street of their actions in burning down the house. And to top it off you claim "the government made them do it".
You keep talking about freddie, fannie, Barney Frank, and the people who accuse anyone who "refuses to give a no-money down, low payment, ARM to a single unwed mother of five making half the median income is a racist, redlining, selfish bigot" but never mention the republicans who pushed the ownership society and complained about how money up front was a barrier to efficient credit:
http://www.businessinsider.com/fcic-report-ownership-society-was-intended-as-a-bridge-to-a-permanent-republican-majority-2011-1
never mind your omission that the banks who were making most of the 'no-money down, low payment, ARM's' weren't under government direction AT ALL. They were subprime, remember?
Dick Fuld walked away with millions. Mozilo sold his stock as his company bought and sold inflated junk. Executives and insiders walked away with overflowing pockets for the work they were doing extending fraudulent loans and selling fraudulent securities. No government mandate needed. No government alibi exists. You are lying on behalf of bad bankers because you believe markets need less rules and more cowboys. Sane people don't share that opinion.
#36 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 3 Jul 2011 at 01:08 PM
Subprime was only around 10-15% of all mortgages, so while its collapse was a factor, subprime was not the main contributor to this crisis. For that, you have to look at all mortgages, including prime, which Fannie/Freddie had a major hand in. As I said before, dumb bankers, ignorant speculators, and idiotic politicians all had their hands in this mess, and anyone trying to say it was just the bankers is clearly looking at the world through blue-tinted partisan glasses. As for the notion of bankers walking away with a ton of money, Jimmy Cayne was a billionaire in 2000 but he lost 90+% of his net worth with the collapse of Bear Sterns, because his net worth was tied up in Bear's stock and their housing bet. When do Pelosi/Frank/Dodd lose 90% of their power? That's what I'm waiting for.
#37 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Mon 4 Jul 2011 at 05:18 PM
Cayne walked away with $600 million.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/31/magazines/fortune/rise_and_fall_Cayne_cohan.fortune/index.htm
If that's considered market discipline, I want in on the crime.
Subprime was rated AAA and gave a higher rate of return than traditional mortgage securities.
When they were wiped out, they wiped out everyone who had invested in them. Pensions, foreign banks, municipalities. wall street firms, about 1.3 trillion bucks was wiped out. Gone.
Then the CDS vultures started picking their shares of the carcass. Nobody says Fannie and Freddie were innocent at the end of the bubble, but the beginners and drivers of the bubble were wall street assholes who had no government direction. Greenspan trusted them to do the right thing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html
He was wrong. He was an idiot. And yet Wallstreet firms like AIG, Goldman Sachs, and others are still in business with the same executives because they were unsupervised for more than a decade, grew big enough to create systemic risk should they fail, and the world needs "their help" unwinding the complicated garbage they created.
Cassano walked away with a million a month to be an AIG consultant. If that's losing in the market, I'm going full retard once I sign up.
You see, if you pretend Wallstreet was innocent, if you pretend Wallstreet doesn't need regulation going forward, if you pretend that all of these problems were caused by government meddling by semi-government institutions, then you allow firms to grow beyond the size and scope for their losses to be contained.
And when you do that, you force the Federal Reserve to choose between catastrophic economic damage or bail outs. (After Lehmans, was there really a choice?)
And when you've done that, you've turned all the big Wall Street firms into Freddie and Fannie - institutions which are the same in that they benefit from government backing - but different in that they lack any real government supervision.
Why do you want these institutions capable of holding a gun to the economy or the taxpayer? Why do you want to force society to continue making such choices?
Free markets? Free markets can only be free if the greater society can withstand the failure of the participants. You have to make a choice, do you limit participant growth, do carefully monitor obese participant risk, or do you swallow the obese participant's losses?
Pick.
#38 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 4 Jul 2011 at 09:04 PM
If a "Wall Street" lender refuses to lend money to low-income borrowers, he is a redlining, racist and the government should force him to make these loans...
If this same lender makes these same loans, he is a "predator" and responsible for the collapse of the financial system.
The government programs like CRA and HUD targets for GSE's are only responsible for good things - never bad things.
The government regulators screwed up and let the "Wall Street" crooks get away with murder by not enforcing the regulations, so what we need are more government regulators and more government regulations, and all will be good in the world...
There! I think I've stated Thimbles' case without running afoul of the word limit.
I don't see why he needs so much ink.
#39 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 5 Jul 2011 at 12:38 PM
"If a "Wall Street" lender refuses to lend money to low-income borrowers, he is a redlining, racist and the government should force him to make these loans..."
Did this happen?
If it didn't, then you're a liar.
It didn't.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20081203a.htm
Wow. That took less than 20.
#40 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 5 Jul 2011 at 06:33 PM
Thimbles, try reading your linked CNN Money article to the end. Cayne ended up with 6% of the former value of his stake in Bear, which was valued at almost $1 billion at one point. I had read elsewhere that his Bear stake was the primary source of his net worth, but the CNN Money article seems to indicate he had another $600 million in net worth from other investments. Either way, that money is irrelevant as it is separate from his Bear stake and losses, he certainly didn't "walk away" from Bear with it. Subprime was not "wiped out," as $1.3 trillion would be essentially the entire value of all subprime mortgages. Subprime took big losses but to say it lost 100% is just displaying your ignorance. Right, Fannie and Freddie were a big part of the rise from 2000-3 in your own linked NYT chart, but somehow you keep repeating the lie that they came in late. And it doesn't really matter who starts a bubble, what matters is who put the most money in: Fannie/Freddie certainly were a big part of that.
Wall Street wasn't innocent, but govt meddling was a big part of the problem and suggesting regulation would fix the problem is just faith-based, nothing more. One of the main reasons these firms get so big is to intentionally become "too big to fail." I linked to a video of John Gutfreund, former head of Salomon Brothers, giving the game away on this blog last year (first comment, quote is from 13 mins into video). As Gutfreund notes in the video and I agree with, there's no real economic benefit from getting so big: those firms are essentially hoodwinking their investors into getting so big. The only real solution is to call their bluff, just as was done with Lehman. Don't bail them out and be willing to take the potential pain, then they will stop trying to get so big.
#41 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Tue 5 Jul 2011 at 06:55 PM
"Thimbles, try reading your linked CNN Money article to the end. Cayne ended up with 6% of the former value of his stake in Bear, which was valued at almost $1 billion at one point. I had read elsewhere that his Bear stake was the primary source of his net worth, but the CNN Money article seems to indicate he had another $600 million in net worth from other investments. "
Either that or he was pocketing 13 million a year or so in bonuses on top of his stock options.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/12/9X3I.html
Not bad coin for a loser.
"Subprime was not "wiped out," as $1.3 trillion would be essentially the entire value of all subprime mortgages."
I estimated 1.3 trillion based on what it was in 2008 before the FASB rules were changed and the federal reserve started swallowing the bad assets on to their balance sheets.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a8sW0n1Cs1tY
We really don't know for sure what the real losses were, which is why the market is leaning heavily on government backing because one can't be sure the health of private institutions/assets since the private market broke itself.
#42 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 5 Jul 2011 at 08:34 PM
So -- assuming the factoid is true -- HUD mandated that half of Fannnie and Freddie mortgages go to people under the median income. Doesn't that mean, then, that they other half went to folks over the median income -- in other words, the mandate was that F & F lending represent a cross section of the nation?
Here's piece of data that's worth mentioning in discussion of Fannie and Freddie: 6% of Fannie and Freddie-backed mortgages originated from 2001 through 2008 ended up seriously delinquent. 27% of Wall Street-backed mortgages originated over the same period were seriously delinquent.
Do the math: Wall Street-backed mortgages performed somewhere between 4 and 5 worse than Fannie and Freddie-backed ones.
#43 Posted by mortg, CJR on Tue 5 Jul 2011 at 08:57 PM
$13 million/year in bonuses over a decade works out to $130 million, he lost $930 million when Bear went under. If you think that's a great deal, I'd be more than willing to take the other side of that deal with you. ;) The entire subprime mortgage market was estimated to be valued at $1.3 trillion, so it would all have to go to zero for it to be the sole cause of $1.3 trillion in losses, which is basically impossible. Rather, even the bloomberg article is talking about all losses that were booked after the crisis, which likely includes much bigger losses in prime than subprime, as prime is simply a much bigger segment of the mortgage market. The private market broke largely because of trillions dumped into it by government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie and Freddie, at the well-document behest of politicians like Barney Frank, in addition to a similar amount of bad bets by dumb bankers.
#44 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Tue 5 Jul 2011 at 09:06 PM
When you look at the energy that the liberals will put into dodging reality with regard to the misery that comes from governmental intervention into the economy, you have to wonder what's going to happen to our society when the 1st of the month checks don't hit the mailboxes for the first time.
That date is soon upon us.
We'll have to deal with a huge dependent population that will riot, steal, burn and murder before it will actually do any work.
It's a scary future, but one we'll have to address in the very near future - there just isn't enough money to keep the liberal gravy train from derailing.
There are only two options, as I see it. 1. Keep robbing from the "rich" to pay the "poor", which will result in the decline of society to the point that will result in violence, or 2. Stop the nonsense now and restore this country to the limited government, free society that it was designed to be - a decision that will result in violence.
Though I hope it doesn't happen, I can't see any peaceful way out of this liberal nightmare. I feel sorry for my kids - their culture is depressing (from their music to their literature to the comic books where Superman denounces his American citizenship) and this culture just echoes the hideous reality that 60 years of liberal policies have decimated the American dream.
#45 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 5 Jul 2011 at 09:08 PM
Actually, F&F didn't bankroll half of mortgages during the lending frenzy -- their share of the mortgage market dropped from 55% in '03 to 35% in '06. F&F's share of the market and power over the market was dropping at the very time the market was spinning out of control.
#46 Posted by mortg, CJR on Tue 5 Jul 2011 at 09:20 PM
Hmm, I stumbled across a NYT article and testimony by a former Fannie chief credit officer that says Fannie/Freddie were actually hiding their giant involvement in subprime, by listing many of their subprime mortgages as prime. Fannie and Freddie may have backed off a bit from the MBS market during 2003-5, after helping make the MBS market much bigger with their binge from 2000-3, but they certainly picked up again big time from 2005-8, doubling down on the market during the worst time to do so.
#47 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Tue 5 Jul 2011 at 09:47 PM
Going from 55% of the market to 35% isn't "backing off a bit" -- that's a huge dropoff in market share.
Even in 2007, a year in which they supposedly "doubled down," Fannie and Freddie (for all their faults, which are many) didn't underwrite as many risky loans as Wall Street.
15 percent of Fannie- and Freddie-backed loans made in '07 have been seriously delinquent, compared to nearly 42 percent of mortgages bankrolled by Wall Street. Meaning that '07 WS loans were nearly 3x as likely as F&F loans to go bad.
#48 Posted by mortg, CJR on Wed 6 Jul 2011 at 01:22 AM
Just to round out the serious delinquency data for Fannie and Freddie vs. Wall Street for years F&F were supposed to have "doubled down."
2006
F&F: 13.2%
WS: 45.1%
2007
F&F: 14.9%
WS: 42.2%
2008:
F&F: 4.2%
WS: 14.5%
#49 Posted by mortg, CJR on Wed 6 Jul 2011 at 01:42 AM
Got some time to catch up.
"Right, Fannie and Freddie were a big part of the rise from 2000-3 in your own linked NYT chart, but somehow you keep repeating the lie that they came in late."
Read carefully.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/10/04/business/20081004_FANNIE_GRAPHIC.html
From the chart:
"Mortgage Backed Securities Issued"
There was a credit bubble, inflated by Alan Greenspan. Fannie Mae had 44% of that market. Those were prime loans.
Fannie and Freddie bought safe tranche subprime securities, they did not buy and insure subprime loans until after 2005-2006.
Which is why you see, on the next chart, the explosion of risky debt on fannie's balance sheet from 2005. You say that doesn't matter:
"And it doesn't really matter who starts a bubble, what matters is who put the most money in: Fannie/Freddie certainly were a big part of that."
Right, it doesn't really matter who started a bubble when you want to claim Freddie, Fannie, and government over regulation caused the crisis. Cause is such a ephemeral concept.
"The entire subprime mortgage market was estimated to be valued at $1.3 trillion, so it would all have to go to zero for it to be the sole cause of $1.3 trillion in losses, which is basically impossible."
Have you read the source where that 1.3 trillion figure comes from? You should.
http://www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/congressional-testimony/2007/pub-test-2007-27-written.pdf
Interesting read, no?
"Fannie and Freddie may have backed off a bit from the MBS market during 2003-5, after helping make the MBS market much bigger with their binge from 2000-3, but they certainly picked up again big time from 2005-8, doubling down on the market during the worst time to do so."
WE FINALLY AGREE. Thank you.
Have a nice day.
#50 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 6 Jul 2011 at 02:20 AM
mortg, you should read the testimony by Pinto that I linked to, he suggests that you have been misled. You do not source your delinquency stats; in any case, the real issue is losses, not delinquency rates and we know fannie/freddie have taken more than a hundred billion in losses and counting.
Thimbles, as Pinto notes, Fannie/Freddie have been in subprime for a long time and those "safe tranche" securities were anything but. So let's see, Fannie and Freddie dumped a bunch of money into MBS as the market was taking off in 2000-3, then they doubled down when the market was flooded with bad loans in 2005, yet somehow they're absolved because they stepped out for a year or two while being investigated for accounting fraud? Right, no causation there. :) I found nothing particularly interesting in that comptroller report, what did you see that stuck out? It turns out that his $1.3 trillion figure is likely low, because Pinto points out that Fannie/Freddie were laundering subprime loans as prime. I suggest you read Pinto's testimony, that's the real deal.
#51 Posted by Ajay, CJR on Wed 6 Jul 2011 at 04:18 AM
Time for another toke on the Reality Pipe:
"In 1992, President George H.W. Bush signed the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. The Act amended the charter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reflect Congress' view that the GSEs "have an affirmative obligation to facilitate the financing of affordable housing for low-income and moderate-income families." For the first time, the GSEs were required to meet "affordable housing goals" set annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and approved by Congress. The initial annual goal for low-income and moderate-income mortgage purchases for each GSE was 30% of the total number of dwelling units financed by mortgage purchases[16] and increased to 55% by 2007.
In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers by increasing the ratios of their loan portfolios in distressed inner city areas designated in the CRA of 1977. Because of the increased ratio requirements, institutions in the primary mortgage market pressed Fannie Mae to ease credit requirements on the mortgages it was willing to purchase, enabling them to make loans to subprime borrowers at interest rates higher than conventional loans. Shareholders also pressured Fannie Mae to maintain its record profits.
In 1999, The New York Times reported that with the corporation's move towards the subprime market "Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s."] Alex Berenson of The New York Times reported in 2003 that Fannie Mae's risk is much larger than is commonly held. Nassim Taleb wrote in The Black Swan: "The government-sponsored institution Fannie Mae, when I look at its risks, seems to be sitting on a barrel of dynamite, vulnerable to the slightest hiccup. But not to worry: their large staff of scientists deem these events 'unlikely'". Mike Stathis also warned about the risks of Fannie Mae, triggering the financial crisis in America’s Financial Apocalypse. “With close to $2 trillion in debt between Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae alone, as well as several trillion held by commercial banks, failure of just one GSE or related entity could create a huge disaster that would easily eclipse the Savings & Loan Crisis of the late 1980s. This would certainly devastate the stock, bond and real estate markets. Most likely, there would also be an even bigger mess in the derivatives market, leading to a global sell-off in the capital markets. Not only would investors get crushed, but taxpayers would have to bail them out since the GSEs are backed by the government. Everyone would feel the effects. At its bottom, I would estimate a 30 to 35 percent correction for the average home. And in ‘hot spots’ such as Las Vegas, selected areas of Northern and Southern California and Florida, home prices could plummet by 55 to 60 percent from peak values.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae
#52 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 6 Jul 2011 at 09:12 AM
Nobody's saying F&F didn't contribute to the problem and that F&F didn't spread a lot of pain across the land.
But the meme that F&F somehow "forced" private label lenders and Wall Street banks to make risky, predatory loans isn't backed up by fact, and seems to be driven by a lack of understanding of how markets work.
There is no evidence that F&F or the govt "forced" Lehman, Goldman, New Century, Option One and the plethora of other players to participate in the subprime and alt-A markets. They did so because they profits in this business were high and, as for-profit companies, they wanted to maximize their profits. Wall Street started financing subprime in the early to mid-1990s and bankrolled the market year after year. New Century, for example, wasn't covered by CRA and certainly wasn't forced to make certain kinds of loans by F&F or the govt.
#53 Posted by mortg, CJR on Wed 6 Jul 2011 at 11:35 AM
"mortg, you should read the testimony by Pinto that I linked to, he suggests that you have been misled. ..
Thimbles, as Pinto notes, Fannie/Freddie have been in subprime for a long time and those "safe tranche" securities were anything but. "
Have you read Pinto's testimony and research? The guy is a bit off the wall.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/ed_pinto_testimony_and_attachments.pdf
"There are a total of approximately 25 million subprime and Alt-A loans outstanding, with an unpaid principal amount of over $4.5 trillion. The data and computations necessary to derive these numbers are included in Attachment 1. Because of customs developed years ago in the mortgage markets, subprime and Att-A loans may show up in both subprime and prime databases."
Nobody uses these figures. You cannot come up with figures like these unless you redefine the meaning of the terms the figures refer to.
Which it appears he did.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/pdf/pinto.pdf
And doing things like claiming Alt-A were NINJA loans, bad scholarship.
Things like this "The term "subprime" refers to the credit characteristics of individual borrowers. Subprime borrowers typically have weakened credit histories that include payment delinquencies, and possibly more severe problems such as charge-offs, judgments, and bankruptcies"
Are just plain wrong. Subprime refers to loan products that offer less than prime conditions for the borrower (higher interest rate, prepayment penalty, adjustable interest rates) in return for less than prime demands upon the borrower.
This is how many prime qualified borrowers were given subprime products due higher commissions booked on subprime by the brokers.
Even he admits "This could have been averted. They could have exercised leadership as they had done at least twice before, and stopped the mortgage madness that was enveloping the industry. In 1985 Fannie published new guidelines that tightened its underwriting standards. In the early-1990s Fannie and Freddie publicly announced they were no longer buying low doc/no doc loans because they were too risky (see attachment 8). But in 2004, Fannie and Freddie announced initiatives that opened the floodgates. In the years 2005 through 2007, they bought over $1 trillion of loans that they knew were default prone."
He gets the dates right and then he writes stuff like this "Their purchases were a major factor in the development of the housing bubble, and in the huge number of defaulted mortgages that are causing the massive decline in home prices. Without Fannie and Freddie's actions, we would not have this unprecedented housing crisis....
This was not a failure of the free market. It is a failure of Congress and the ill conceived regulatory regime it implemented."
Typical AEI scholar quality research.
#54 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 6 Jul 2011 at 11:46 AM
@mortg: Of course it depends on what you mean by "forced"..
You guys have a very selective Clintonian definition of this word. Certainly nobody physically "forced" moronic borrowers to take out 100% ARM's on $700,000 townhouses, just like nobody "forced" moronic mortgage brokers to lend this kind of money to a high-risk, low-income borrowers.
The question is WHY did the lenders do it? In large part because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were out there buying up securitized subprime paper left and right. It wasn't "forcing" as much as it was "fostering" and "encouraging" compliance with government regulations, combined with "punishing" noncompliance with litigation.
If you're in the candy business, and the federal government is buying up 35% of the candy contracts for low-income candy consumers who can't pay the bill - Guess what? You write a lot more contracts and dump them as fast as you can. And if the candy sellers down the street want to stay in business, they had better do the same thing.
If you're selling cars and the government guarantees the loan payments on 35% of the cars you sell to people who can't afford the cars... Guess what? You sell a bunch more cars and then dump the loans on the first chump who will pay for them. And to compete, everyone has to make similar loans.
And if you are a lender who doesn't want to make subprime loans, and Janet Reno brings the full force if the U.S. Justice Department (minus the tanks she used at Waco) upon you, what do you do? You cave in and make loans you don't want to make.
We're not talking about niggling amounts of money here. We're talking about hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars just in subprime loans made from 2002 to 2006 bought up by Fannie and Freddie. In 2008, these two mismanaged quasi-governmental companies held half of all the mortgages in the country.
To deny that that governmental policies contributed substantially to the financial meltdown is just silly.
#55 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 6 Jul 2011 at 12:10 PM
"So let's see, Fannie and Freddie dumped a bunch of money into MBS as the market was taking off in 2000-3, then they doubled down when the market was flooded with bad loans."
Yes Freddy and Fannie bought subprime securities sold by Wall Street since the 1990's. The idea behind it was that by being a purchaser of subprime securities, the GSE's could influence the underwriting standards of subprime bundlers and counter some of their more predatory practices. If the market for good products is healthy, why create bad products? In 2000, the GSE's found their ineffectual influence completely overwhelmed by the demand of global investors who didn't care about details like "job" or "income". They let the professionals and their quants handle it.
Was the problem the money in the system or the lack of underwriting standards, the girth of bad assumptions about loan performance after standards collapsed, the dependence on AIG to swallow irresponsible risk, the bending of ratings agencies and appraisers to suit the profiteers and not the pensions depending on them, and the willingness of lenders and securitizers to lie about their products and pass false information up and down the mortgage chain?
Because if you assume it's just the money, you're missing an important point. If the money had been properly managed, there would not have been a problem. If Freddy Mac's and Fanny Mae's cash wasn't there, there still would have been a problem with global investors' cash. You still would have had Bear Stearns, Lehman, AIG and others in default. Why? Because the cause of the crisis was not money, it was the mismanagement of money.
That was caused by Wall Street and the boiler rooms it employed - institutions not under the purview of government. Shadow Banks.
If Freddie and Fannie were out of the action while the housing bubble inflated on false data, false assumptions, and fraud, then they did not cause the crisis. If we let ourselves get too distracted from the crisis's cause, we will not know enough about the crisis to prevent it again.
This Fannie, Freddie, CRA stuff is a distraction brought to you, from the AEI, to prevent change to the broken financial system. That's why I hate it.
#56 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 6 Jul 2011 at 12:30 PM
So when you say...
"That's why the government forced lenders to do it!"
"the government forced lenders to write mortgages to unqualified borrowers."
"Clinton forced lenders to loan money to poor people. So did Bush."
. . . you actually meant "fostering" and "encouraging".
These weren't candy stores, by the way. They were sophisticated Wall Street banks.
And the 35% of securities F&F bought? (actually it was more like 24% during the boom years, in terms of subprime and alt-A). That means that F&F was "involved" in 24% or 35% of these risky deals. Wall Street was involved in 100% of these deals -- as the packager/underwriter/seller and, often, as the owner or warehouse lender for the originating lender. And global investors were involved in something like 65-75% of the deals as purchasers of the securities.
Again -- nobody's denying that F&F played a role in mortgage debalce (as did govt. homeownership policies or other govt. policies).
But the weight of the evidence is that Wall Street and the private label mortgage industry (which was mostly not covered by CRA) were the primary drivers of the worst practices and most reckless lending. F&F and the govt. didn't "force" poor little Goldman Sachs or Lehman Bros or Bear Stearns or Deutsche Bank or Morgan Stanley or Chase or Credit Suisse or UBS or any of the rest to participate in this market. They did so because the deals were extremely profitable, until they weren't. Then the govt bailed them out (the implicit TBTF govt guarantee, by the way, could certainly be criticized for "encouraging" these big players to act irresponsibly. But, again, it didn't "force" them to do so.)
#57 Posted by mortg, CJR on Wed 6 Jul 2011 at 04:33 PM
Lets cut to the real meat about why this article is bullshit, Barry Ritholtz stlye
THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT INDIVIDUAL BORROWERS, COLLEGE KIDS WITH CREDIT CARDS OR OTHER UNSOPHISTICANTS, IT THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT OF A DEVELOPED NATION AND REPRESENTATIVE OF ITS MOST WELL EDUCATED PEOPLE.
And thats why Ritholtz’s argument, and Ryan’s by extension falls apart for. The Greek government isn’t an unsophisticated low income home buyer or a kid who puts too much on her Gap card. The people who made these decisions are well educated in their respective fields of expertise and knew God damn well what they were getting themselves into. On top of that they lied to their lenders about the true state of their financials. While I don’t believe those who lent the Greek government should get off without some fiscal consequences, I hope the financial ass raping they give Greek government and the idiots who elected them is directly proportional to the amount of debt the Greeks would like forgiven.
#58 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Wed 6 Jul 2011 at 05:34 PM
Again... It depends on what you mean by "forced"...
There was certainly coercive effort on the part of the government to force lenders (with carrots and sticks) to lend money to low-income borrowers.
But the borrowers, on the other hand... Who forced them to take out loans they couldn't afford? Nobody.
Who's more culpable? The dumbass borrowers and the bloated government, obviously. The lenders knew that they would get paid, either by selling the loans or directly through government guarantees. They also knew (as evidenced by the articles going back to the '90's) that government would bail them out when the crap hit the fan. The government knew that the borrowers would default in high numbers, and yet it demanded more and more subprime lending (Obama is STILL doing it, as a matter of fact). And nobody put a gun to the borrowers' heads and demanded that they take out mortgages they couldn't afford.
The lenders were the parties who acted the most responsibly in this subprime mess.
It seems like you guys aren't getting it, so I'll reiterate. Lending money to poor people at a low interest rate isn't a good business model generally - unless the government is buying up the loans or guaranteeing them, that is. Then it becomes sound business practice.
The solution to this problem is simple. Take the damned government out of the equation. The lenders who make bad loans go under. The lenders who make good loans prosper. The borrowers who don't pay their mortgages lose their houses. The borrowers who pay their mortgages succeed. If low income people want to own a home.... Then they have a market incentive to get.... Income!... (Translation: "Do work!"). This instead of the current incentive - stay poor to qualify for government backed mortgage assistance.
It's not a complicated problem, nor is the solution complicated. The only problem in implementing this solution is that 60 years of liberal nonsense has created a culture of whiny dependency and a dangerous and misguided faith in the power of the government to do anything efficiently.
#59 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 6 Jul 2011 at 06:25 PM
Once again, facts are facts, and math isn't a liberal conspiracy, it's just math, 2+2=4, etc. etc.
The vast majority of these bad loans (and securities backed by bad loans) weren't bought up by the government. They were bought up by Wall Street banks and global investors, none of whom were forced or coerced by the U.S. government to do so.
And yet again:
Serious delinquency rate for F&F-backed loans '01-'08: 6 percent (bad, and unacceptable, and caused a lot of economic and social pain).
Serious delinquency rate for Wall Street-baked loans '01-'08: 27 percent (likewise bad, and unacceptable, and caused a lot of economic and social pain, but at a magnitude 4 1/2 times that of F&F).
#60 Posted by mortg, CJR on Thu 7 Jul 2011 at 12:48 AM
mortg: First of all.. In 2008, Fannie and Freddie owned more than half of all the mortgages in the country.
Secondly, your reasoning is fallacious, even accepting your stilted statistics. If the government buys 10 percent of widgets on the market at a premium price, then the market price of widgets goes up to the premium price. Similarly, if the government screws with the loan market by subsidizing 10% of the subprime market, the loan standards fall across the industry. Supply and demand... ECON 101.
It's just silly of you guys to argue otherwise; indeed, Fannie's and Freddie's charters explicitly state the objective of facilitating low-income financing by screwing with market forces.
You can huff, and you can puff... But the simple fact of the matter is that government spent hundreds upon hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars in the years leading up to the mortgage fiasco on loans to low-income borrowers, and another simple fact of the matter is that HUD deliberately increased GSE low-income targets to more than 50% of Fannie and Freddie owned mortgages..
And this isn't even getting into the HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS that government tossed down the subprime toilet with TARP, HAMP and other bailouts during the meltdown.
To deny the government's responsibility in the mess is disingenuous - nobody who is even casually informed of the facts could believe such a preposterous claim.
The lenders did generally well, and did what they were supposed to do in a business transaction - they got paid, for the most part, courtesy of the taxpayers. The borrowers in default walked away in the same position they came into the the loan office - without a house, and with low incomes (and also with a deficiency balance they will never pay). They'll either get free mortgage payments towards subsidized housing, courtesy of the taxpayers, or they'll discharge their debts in tax write-offs or in bankruptcy, courtesy of the taxpayers.
Who's on the hook? The taxpayers. Why? Because the damned government meddled in the damned mortgage market!
PERIOD. It ain't rocket science.
You guys are government apologists - TRUE BELIEVERS - and your faith is misplaced. You're forced by stark reality to admit the failure of government regulators to enforce regulations, yet your proposed solution is patently absurd - more government regulators and more government regulations.
You want people to believe that low-income "affordable housing" mandates are both necessary and effective forms of government intervention into the free market and yet also simultaneously you expect people to buy your nonsensical argument that these necessary and effective government programs had no real effect on the markets? Seriously?
Good luck selling that message!
#61 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 7 Jul 2011 at 07:35 AM
Whatever you do, don't look at this: http://www.bos.frb.org/commdev/closing-the-gap/index.htm
FED "regulators" tell lenders:
"Ignore traditional measures of creditworthiness when it comes to minority and low-income consumers."
"Traditional ratios of mortgage payments to monthly income can also be ignored."
"Lack of credit history should not be a factor either. Successful participation in credit counseling is an adequate substitute."
"If a sub-prime borrower has a property appraisal problem, then the FED or Fanny Mae could help to find another experienced appraiser."
"Failure to comply (with the above guidelines) can subject a financial institution to civil liability for actual and punitive damages, and individual or class actions."
But all that had nothing to do with the meltdown. The Federal Reserve is only here to "help." Central planning is awesome!
#62 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Thu 7 Jul 2011 at 07:51 PM
You want to know what government policies have lead to more fraud and risky lending by institutions outside traditional bank regulations such as the CRA?
Look here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/business/in-shift-federal-prosecutors-are-lenient-as-companies-break-the-law.html
Gretchen Morgenson writes We are not policing fraud anymore.
#63 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 8 Jul 2011 at 07:29 PM
We MUST demand criminal prosecution not only for BofA, Countrywide executives, but many other from Wall Street and our government that turned the other way while all this fraud was going on and then bailed them out with OUR MONEY so now they can settle their crimes! WHAT ABOUT US, WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE???? Are we going to get our houses for free now? Are we going to be reimbursed for pain and sufferings caused by those greedy demons???
The results of Wall Street’s fraud are numerous FRAUDclosuers, topped with the ignorance that works well for those who committed the biggest financial crime in the history of the world. Nothing will change until the responsible for this scam are prosecuted! We must do that, we should not rest until the truth is out and all those responsible are prosecuted.
Please read a press release from MA Essex County Register of Deeds:”My office is a crime scene!” - http://tinyurl.com/42e8nom
Also, here is my open letter to MA Attorney General, to the President Obama and to any government official that will listen: PEOPLE HAVE HAD ENOUGH - http://t.co/CntNVPn
#64 Posted by Senka, CJR on Sat 9 Jul 2011 at 11:50 PM
Two links for follow up:
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/07/fannie-mae-and-housing-bubble
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=fanniebackwards
If anyone ever decides to cover "Reckless Endangerment" with Gretchen, they should use the above for the basis of their questions.
#65 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 18 Jul 2011 at 01:28 PM