Discussion:
NO CONSUMER WHO CAN COMPETE WITH THIRD WOLD SALARIES UNLESS YOU'RE STARVING
(too old to reply)
Vile Parasites Corporate Welfare Bums
2009-03-18 01:26:45 UTC
Permalink
WHO'S GOING TO SHOP AT THESE SALARIES ONLY AT WALMART HIRING ILLEGAL
CHEAP MEXICAN WORKERS
Fred Oinka
2009-03-18 01:19:17 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 17, 8:26 pm, Vile Parasites Corporate Welfare Bums
Post by Vile Parasites Corporate Welfare Bums
WHO'S GOING TO SHOP AT THESE SALARIES ONLY AT WALMART HIRING ILLEGAL
CHEAP MEXICAN WORKERS
I'm sorry that you are not happy with your job at McDonalds. Perhaps
Taco Bell would suit you better?
Vile Parasites Corporate Welfare Bums
2009-03-19 02:02:34 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:19:17 -0700 (PDT), Fred Oinka
Post by Fred Oinka
On Mar 17, 8:26 pm, Vile Parasites Corporate Welfare Bums
Post by Vile Parasites Corporate Welfare Bums
WHO'S GOING TO SHOP AT THESE SALARIES ONLY AT WALMART HIRING ILLEGAL
CHEAP MEXICAN WORKERS
I'm sorry that you are not happy with your job at McDonalds. Perhaps
Taco Bell would suit you better?
I want to work at AIG and get taxpayer's money for bonuses for
screwing up the economy. Dumbshits at AIG even a baby can do their job
Lamont Cranston
2009-03-19 15:26:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vile Parasites Corporate Welfare Bums
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:19:17 -0700 (PDT), Fred Oinka
On Mar 17, 8:26 pm, Vile Parasites Corporate Welfare Bums
Post by Vile Parasites Corporate Welfare Bums
WHO'S GOING TO SHOP AT THESE SALARIES ONLY AT WALMART
HIRING ILLEGAL
CHEAP MEXICAN WORKERS
I'm sorry that you are not happy with your job at
McDonalds. Perhaps
Taco Bell would suit you better?
I want to work at AIG and get taxpayer's money for bonuses
for
screwing up the economy. Dumbshits at AIG even a baby can
do their job
Tell us how credit default swaps work.
Billary/2008
2009-03-19 17:32:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vile Parasites Corporate Welfare Bums
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:19:17 -0700 (PDT), Fred Oinka
On Mar 17, 8:26 pm, Vile Parasites Corporate Welfare Bums
Post by Vile Parasites Corporate Welfare Bums
WHO'S GOING TO SHOP AT THESE SALARIES ONLY AT WALMART
HIRING ILLEGAL
CHEAP MEXICAN WORKERS
I'm sorry that you are not happy with your job at
McDonalds.  Perhaps
Taco Bell would suit you better?
I want to work at AIG and get taxpayer's money for bonuses
for
screwing up the economy. Dumbshits at AIG even a baby can
do their job
Tell us how credit default swaps work.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
AIG is the insurance business. They bet on the real estate market by
selling CDS, now it's time to pay the insured. By the way. How much
does AIG owe the gub'ment entities Fannie & Freddie? You know, the
guys who drove this bubble by financing 50%+ of all sub-prime
mortgages...Why aren't you blaming Barney Fag and Chris "where's my
loan" Dodd? They knew all of this was going on. They squelched the
regulators who testified, in committee, that Fannie & Freddie had
assumed too much risk. Why are you shilling Crampston?
Lamont Cranston
2009-03-19 18:49:08 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 19, 11:26 am, "Lamont Cranston"
Post by Lamont Cranston
Tell us how credit default swaps work.
AIG is the insurance business. They bet on the real
estate market by
selling CDS, now it's time to pay the insured.
That's a hell of an explanation, Shill. You have shown that
you have no idea what is going on. ROTFL!
By the way. How much
does AIG owe the gub'ment entities Fannie & Freddie? You
know, the
guys who drove this bubble by financing 50%+ of all
sub-prime
mortgages...
THAT'S A FUCKING LIE, SHILL! You lying is chronic. Seek
help.

Businessweek Magazine wrote last September of the argument
that Freddy Mac/Frannie Mae caused the subprime meltdown:
"It's s completely false. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were
victims of the credit crisis, not culprits." Almost none of
the $1.5 trillion of subprime loans were made by Fannie Mae
or Freddie Mac; most subprimes did not meet their lending
standards. 84 percent of the subprime loans were made by
private lending institutions.
Why aren't you blaming Barney Fag and Chris "where's my
loan" Dodd? They knew all of this was going on.
Cite?
They squelched the
regulators who testified, in committee, that Fannie &
Freddie had
assumed too much risk. Why are you shilling Crampston?
Fannie and Freddie did not cause this mess, you fucking
moron. They were victims. Why are you lying and shilling,
Shill?

www.mcclatchydc.com/251/v-print/story/53802.html

McClatchy Washington Bureau
Posted on Sun, Oct. 12, 2008

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered
crisis

David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers

last updated: October 27, 2008 03:12:24 PM

WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day
approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global
financial crisis on a government push to make housing more
affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk
radio and e-mail.

Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market
meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically
targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6,
contending that lending to poor and minority Americans
caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true,
and that the private sector, not the government or
government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime
lending at the core of the crisis.

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

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

a.. More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006
were issued by private lending institutions.

b.. Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime
loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

c.. Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was
directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted
by conservative critics.
The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a
dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S.
subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending
into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial
Markets reported Friday.

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

"I don't remember a clarion call that said Fannie and
Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky
folks is a disaster," said Neil Cavuto of Fox News.

Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and
Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend
money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase
loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the
loans.

It's a process called securitization, and by passing on the
loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even
more.

This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home
ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of
Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and
Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into
the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52
percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families.

To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become
homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous
lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of
homeownership in nightmares.

But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income
families represent a small portion of overall lending. And
at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006,
Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President
Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently
boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever
rates of U.S. homeownership.

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding,
Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of
the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market
to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside
Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is
that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards
than many of the unregulated players in the private sector
who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone
bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment
banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage
loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary
mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector
securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages,
supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of
specialty publications that track this data.

In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton
administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private
sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all
mortgages.

Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices
between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen,
and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the
technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company,
usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them
into the secondary mortgage market.

About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary
mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.

Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending mess on
the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at
freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods.

Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of
redlining and other restrictive banking practices that
locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of
homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it
affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured
financial institutions to show that they're lending and
investing in their communities.

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently
that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, "it led to
tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — who in
turn pressured banks and other lenders — to extend mortgages
to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called
subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current
calamity."

Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell
them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their
private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new
restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing
even more market share in the booming subprime market.

What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow
CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the
now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial
Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime
loans.

These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap,
allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking
supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage
brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or
the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.

In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion
that the push for affordable housing created today's
problems.

"Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined
under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans," she said.
"The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to
low- and moderate-income households."

In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in
June 2007, the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich
wrote that only one-third of all CRA loans had interest
rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to the
pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default
rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he
wrote, "that this new lending is good business."

McClatchy Newspapers 2008
Billary/2008
2009-03-19 19:42:45 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 19, 11:26 am, "Lamont Cranston"
Post by Lamont Cranston
Tell us how credit default swaps work.
AIG is the insurance business.  They bet on the real
estate market by
selling CDS, now it's time to pay the insured.
That's a hell of an explanation, Shill.  You have shown that
you have no idea what is going on.  ROTFL!
 By the way. How much
does AIG owe the gub'ment entities Fannie & Freddie?  You
know, the
guys who drove this bubble by financing 50%+ of all
sub-prime
mortgages...
THAT'S A FUCKING LIE, SHILL!  You lying is chronic.  Seek
help.
Businessweek Magazine wrote last September of the argument
"It's s completely false. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were
victims of the credit crisis, not culprits."  Almost none of
the $1.5 trillion of subprime loans were made by Fannie Mae
or Freddie Mac; most subprimes did not meet their lending
standards.  84 percent of the subprime loans were made by
private lending institutions.
Why aren't you blaming Barney Fag and Chris "where's my
loan" Dodd? They knew all of this was going on.
Cite?
They squelched the
regulators who testified, in committee, that Fannie &
Freddie had
assumed too much risk.  Why are you shilling Crampston?
Fannie and Freddie did not cause this mess, you fucking
moron.  They were victims.  Why are you lying and shilling,
Shill?
www.mcclatchydc.com/251/v-print/story/53802.html
McClatchy Washington Bureau
Posted on Sun, Oct. 12, 2008
Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered
crisis
David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: October 27, 2008 03:12:24 PM
WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day
approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global
financial crisis on a government push to make housing more
affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk
radio and e-mail.
Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market
meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically
targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6,
contending that lending to poor and minority Americans
caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.
Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true,
and that the private sector, not the government or
government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime
lending at the core of the crisis.
Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest
borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to
2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.
  a.. More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006
were issued by private lending institutions.
  b.. Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime
loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
  c.. Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was
directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted
by conservative critics.
The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a
dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S.
subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending
into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial
Markets reported Friday.
Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration
pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership
more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for
their ability to pay the mortgages.
"I don't remember a clarion call that said Fannie and
Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky
folks is a disaster," said Neil Cavuto of Fox News.
Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and
Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't lend
money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They purchase
loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the
loans.
It's a process called securitization, and by passing on the
loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even
more.
This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable home
ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of
Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and
Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into
the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52
percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families.
To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become
homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous
lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of
homeownership in nightmares.
But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income
families represent a small portion of overall lending. And
at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006,
Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President
Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently
boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever
rates of U.S. homeownership.
Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding,
Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of
the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market
to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside
Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is
that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards
than many of the unregulated players in the private sector
who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone
bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.
During those same explosive three years, private investment
banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage
loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary
mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector
securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages,
supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of
specialty publications that track this data.
In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton
administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private
sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all
mortgages.
Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices
between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen,
and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the
technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company,
usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them
into the secondary mortgage market.
About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary
mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.
Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending mess on
the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at
freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods.
Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of
redlining and other restrictive banking practices that
locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of
homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it
affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured
financial institutions to show that they're lending and
investing in their communities.
Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently
that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, "it led to
tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — who in
turn pressured banks and other lenders — to extend mortgages
to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called
subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current
calamity."
Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell
them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their
private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new
restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing
even more market share in the booming subprime market.
What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow
CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the
now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial
Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime
loans.
These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap,
allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking
supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage
brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or
the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.
In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion
that the push for affordable housing created today's
problems.
"Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined
under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans," she said.
"The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to
low- and moderate-income households."
In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in
June 2007, the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich
wrote that only one-third of all CRA loans had interest
rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to the
pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default
rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he
wrote, "that this new lending is good business."
McClatchy Newspapers 2008
Stupid moron, CDS are nothing but insurance by another name
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swaps

It's time for AIG to pay the insured. How much are Fannie & Freddie
gonna get Crampston? On top of the bailout they already got, AIG is
going to funnel billions more back to the gub'ment. It's one great
big vicious cycle. And you're shilling for the Obama administration.
By the way. Fannie & Freddie did this. I stoped reading your bullshit
article when it started to blamed right wing radio.
Lamont Cranston
2009-03-19 19:50:20 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 19, 2:49 pm, "Lamont Cranston"
On Mar 19, 11:26 am, "Lamont Cranston"
Post by Lamont Cranston
Tell us how credit default swaps work.
AIG is the insurance business. They bet on the real
estate market by
selling CDS, now it's time to pay the insured.
That's a hell of an explanation, Shill. You have shown
that
you have no idea what is going on. ROTFL!
By the way. How much
does AIG owe the gub'ment entities Fannie & Freddie?
You
know, the
guys who drove this bubble by financing 50%+ of all
sub-prime
mortgages...
THAT'S A FUCKING LIE, SHILL! You lying is chronic. Seek
help.
Businessweek Magazine wrote last September of the
argument
that Freddy Mac/Frannie Mae caused the subprime
"It's s completely false. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
were
victims of the credit crisis, not culprits." Almost none
of
the $1.5 trillion of subprime loans were made by Fannie
Mae
or Freddie Mac; most subprimes did not meet their
lending
standards. 84 percent of the subprime loans were made by
private lending institutions.
Why aren't you blaming Barney Fag and Chris "where's
my
loan" Dodd? They knew all of this was going on.
Cite?
They squelched the
regulators who testified, in committee, that Fannie &
Freddie had
assumed too much risk. Why are you shilling Crampston?
Fannie and Freddie did not cause this mess, you fucking
moron. They were victims. Why are you lying and
shilling,
Shill?
www.mcclatchydc.com/251/v-print/story/53802.html
McClatchy Washington Bureau
Posted on Sun, Oct. 12, 2008
Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered
crisis
David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: October 27, 2008 03:12:24 PM
WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day
approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the
global
financial crisis on a government push to make housing
more
affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on
talk
radio and e-mail.
Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market
meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically
targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and
Freddie
Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6,
contending that lending to poor and minority Americans
caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.
Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't
true,
and that the private sector, not the government or
government-backed companies, was behind the soaring
subprime
lending at the core of the crisis.
Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest
borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001
to
2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to
2006.
a.. More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in
2006
were issued by private lending institutions.
b.. Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime
loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
c.. Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was
directly subject to the housing law that's being
lambasted
by conservative critics.
The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered
by a
dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S.
subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending
into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial
Markets reported Friday.
Conservative critics claim that the Clinton
administration
pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership
more available to riskier borrowers with little concern
for
their ability to pay the mortgages.
"I don't remember a clarion call that said Fannie and
Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky
folks is a disaster," said Neil Cavuto of Fox News.
Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and
Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't
lend
money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They
purchase
loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite
the
loans.
It's a process called securitization, and by passing on
the
loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend
even
more.
This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable
home
ownership for minorities and rural whites, the
Department of
Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and
Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale
into
the secondary market that eventually reached this
number: 52
percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income
families.
To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become
homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and
unscrupulous
lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams
of
homeownership in nightmares.
But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income
families represent a small portion of overall lending.
And
at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006,
Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President
Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently
boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever
rates of U.S. homeownership.
Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was
exploding,
Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48
percent of
the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary
market
to holding about 24 percent, according to data from
Inside
Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is
that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher
standards
than many of the unregulated players in the private
sector
who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone
bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.
During those same explosive three years, private
investment
banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage
loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary
mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector
securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages,
supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of
specialty publications that track this data.
In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton
administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private
sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of
all
mortgages.
Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home
prices
between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever
seen,
and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities,
the
technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company,
usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells
them
into the secondary mortgage market.
About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this
secondary
mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.
Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending
mess on
the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed
at
freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods.
Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of
redlining and other restrictive banking practices that
locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of
homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it
affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and
insured
financial institutions to show that they're lending and
investing in their communities.
recently
that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, "it led to
tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — who
in
turn pressured banks and other lenders — to extend
mortgages
to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's
called
subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current
calamity."
Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to
sell
them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their
private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator,
the
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed
new
restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie
losing
even more market share in the booming subprime market.
What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must
follow
CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the
now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century
Financial
Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the
subprime
loans.
These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap,
allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state
banking
supervisors instead of the federal government. And
mortgage
brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation
or
the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.
In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of
the
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the
notion
that the push for affordable housing created today's
problems.
"Most of the loans made by depository institutions
examined
under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans," she
said.
"The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending
to
low- and moderate-income households."
In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in
June 2007, the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich
wrote that only one-third of all CRA loans had interest
rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to
the
pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low
default
rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found,
he
wrote, "that this new lending is good business."
McClatchy Newspapers 2008
Stupid moron, CDS are nothing but insurance by another
name
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swaps
Stupid moron, I never said otherwise.
It's time for AIG to pay the insured. How much are Fannie
& Freddie
gonna get Crampston? On top of the bailout they already
got, AIG is
going to funnel billions more back to the gub'ment. It's
one great
big vicious cycle. And you're shilling for the Obama
administration.
By the way. Fannie & Freddie did this. I stoped reading
your bullshit
article when it started to blamed right wing radio.
By the way, Shill, Fannie and Freddie were victims of this.
But, stay stupid, Shill.

By the way, I see that you are unable to back up your lie
that Fannie and Freddie made half of the subprime loans.
Surrender accepted. ROTFLMAO! You are one pitiful, stupid
pug, Shill. Do you get all of your news from Limbaugh and
Hannity?
Billary/2008
2009-03-20 00:20:44 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 19, 2:49 pm, "Lamont Cranston"
On Mar 19, 11:26 am, "Lamont Cranston"
Post by Lamont Cranston
Tell us how credit default swaps work.
AIG is the insurance business. They bet on the real
estate market by
selling CDS, now it's time to pay the insured.
That's a hell of an explanation, Shill. You have shown
that
you have no idea what is going on. ROTFL!
By the way. How much
does AIG owe the gub'ment entities Fannie & Freddie?
You
know, the
guys who drove this bubble by financing 50%+ of all
sub-prime
mortgages...
THAT'S A FUCKING LIE, SHILL! You lying is chronic. Seek
help.
Businessweek Magazine wrote last September of the
argument
that Freddy Mac/Frannie Mae caused the subprime
"It's s completely false. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
were
victims of the credit crisis, not culprits." Almost none
of
the $1.5 trillion of subprime loans were made by Fannie
Mae
or Freddie Mac; most subprimes did not meet their
lending
standards. 84 percent of the subprime loans were made by
private lending institutions.
Why aren't you blaming Barney Fag and Chris "where's
my
loan" Dodd? They knew all of this was going on.
Cite?
They squelched the
regulators who testified, in committee, that Fannie &
Freddie had
assumed too much risk. Why are you shilling Crampston?
Fannie and Freddie did not cause this mess, you fucking
moron. They were victims. Why are you lying and
shilling,
Shill?
www.mcclatchydc.com/251/v-print/story/53802.html
McClatchy Washington Bureau
Posted on Sun, Oct. 12, 2008
Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered
crisis
David Goldstein and Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: October 27, 2008 03:12:24 PM
WASHINGTON — As the economy worsens and Election Day
approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the
global
financial crisis on a government push to make housing
more
affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on
talk
radio and e-mail.
Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market
meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically
targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and
Freddie
Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6,
contending that lending to poor and minority Americans
caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.
Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't
true,
and that the private sector, not the government or
government-backed companies, was behind the soaring
subprime
lending at the core of the crisis.
Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest
borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001
to
2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to
2006.
a.. More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in
2006
were issued by private lending institutions.
b.. Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime
loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
c.. Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was
directly subject to the housing law that's being
lambasted
by conservative critics.
The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered
by a
dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S.
subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending
into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial
Markets reported Friday.
Conservative critics claim that the Clinton
administration
pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership
more available to riskier borrowers with little concern
for
their ability to pay the mortgages.
"I don't remember a clarion call that said Fannie and
Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky
folks is a disaster," said Neil Cavuto of Fox News.
Fannie, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and
Freddie, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., don't
lend
money, to minorities or anyone else, however. They
purchase
loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite
the
loans.
It's a process called securitization, and by passing on
the
loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend
even
more.
This much is true. In an effort to promote affordable
home
ownership for minorities and rural whites, the
Department of
Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and
Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale
into
the secondary market that eventually reached this
number: 52
percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income
families.
To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become
homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and
unscrupulous
lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams
of
homeownership in nightmares.
But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income
families represent a small portion of overall lending.
And
at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006,
Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President
Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently
boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever
rates of U.S. homeownership.
Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was
exploding,
Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48
percent of
the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary
market
to holding about 24 percent, according to data from
Inside
Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is
that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher
standards
than many of the unregulated players in the private
sector
who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone
bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.
During those same explosive three years, private
investment
banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage
loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary
mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector
securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages,
supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of
specialty publications that track this data.
In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton
administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private
sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of
all
mortgages.
Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home
prices
between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever
seen,
and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities,
the
technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company,
usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells
them
into the secondary mortgage market.
About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this
secondary
mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.
Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending
mess on
the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed
at
freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods.
Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of
redlining and other restrictive banking practices that
locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of
homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it
affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and
insured
financial institutions to show that they're lending and
investing in their communities.
recently
that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, "it led to
tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — who
in
turn pressured banks and other lenders — to extend
mortgages
to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's
called
subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current
calamity."
Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to
sell
them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their
private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator,
the
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed
new
restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie
losing
even more market share in the booming subprime market.
What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must
follow
CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the
now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century
Financial
Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the
subprime
loans.
These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap,
allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state
banking
supervisors instead of the federal government. And
mortgage
brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation
or
the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.
In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of
the
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the
notion
that the push for affordable housing created today's
problems.
"Most of the loans made by depository institutions
examined
under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans," she
said.
"The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending
to
low- and moderate-income households."
In a book on the sub-prime lending
...
read more »- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Why should I do your research for you, when you come up with bullshit
articles that throw dumbass statistics around without proper cites?
An article which blames "conservatives" and "talk radio" for the
"misinformation" about this crisis. You really are a stupid shill
aren't you? Look it up. Fannie & Freddie own half of all the
subprime mortgages in America. It's why they went under so fast. Now
we need to figure out how much AIG owes Fannie & Freddie in CDO
payments. And how much Fannie & Freddie will contribute to the DNC in
2010. Why do you think the Gub'ment saved AIG? Did you really believe
that bullshit about a "shock to the system"?
Lamont Cranston
2009-03-20 15:14:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Billary/2008
Why should I do your research for you, when you come up
with bullshit
articles that throw dumbass statistics around without
proper cites?
An article which blames "conservatives" and "talk radio"
for the
"misinformation" about this crisis.
Conservatives and talk radio are the source of most of the
misinformation in this country. It's obvious that you get
all of your news from right wing talk radio.
Post by Billary/2008
You really are a stupid shill
aren't you? Look it up. Fannie & Freddie own half of all
the
subprime mortgages in America.
No, asshole, they don't. I've already posted proof of that.
You really are dumber than dogshit, aren't you. I provided
you with information supplied by the Federal Reserve Board
that shows that more than 84 percent of the subprime
mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending
institutions and that private firms made nearly 83 percent
of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers
that year. The term private firms *excludes* Fannie and
Freddie. So, I believe the Federal Reserve Board while you
believe Limbaugh, Hannity, and a plethora of lying right
wing hacks.
Post by Billary/2008
It's why they went under so fast.
No, it's not, you dumbfuck. The charter of Freddie and
Fannie is to be the main sources of funding for mortgage
lenders, pool mortgages into securities for sale to
investors, and guarantee that they will cover the payments
if borrowers default. That's what they did and they got
burned when the subprime collapse occurred. They were
victims and not the cause. Almost none of the $1.5
trillion of subprime loans were made by Fannie Mae or
Freddie Mac because most subprimes did not meet their
lending standards.
Post by Billary/2008
Now
we need to figure out how much AIG owes Fannie & Freddie
in CDO
payments.
No, Shill, we don't. AIG is fully aware of what it owes to
whom.
Post by Billary/2008
And how much Fannie & Freddie will contribute to the DNC
in
2010.
Zero. Fannie and Freddie are now owned by the government.
Post by Billary/2008
Why do you think the Gub'ment saved AIG? Did you really
believe
that bullshit about a "shock to the system"?
Since AIG is still in business, Shill, the government has
saved it.

Here is something else for you to read, Shill. It's from a
very conservative source. Read it or stay stupid. I'm
betting that you will stay very, very stupid. Oh, Shill?
Eat shit.

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/fannie_mae_and.html

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims, not culprits
Posted by: Aaron Pressman on September 26

There’s a dangerous — and misleading — argument making the
rounds about the causes of our current credit crisis. It’s
emanating from Washington where politicians are engaging in
the usual blame game but this time the stakes are so high
that we can’t afford to fall victim to political
doublespeak. In this fact-free zone, government sponsored
mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the real
estate bubble and subprime meltdown. It’s completely false.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims of the credit
crisis, not culprits.

Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the
$1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by
Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages
did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards.
All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser
rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s
income or employment history? All made in the private
sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.

Look at the numbers. While the credit bubble was peaking
from 2003 to 2006, the amount of loans originated by Fannie
and Freddie dropped from $2.7 trillion to $1 trillion.
Meanwhile, in the private sector, the amount of subprime
loans originated jumped to $600 billion from $335 billion
and Alt-A loans hit $400 billion from $85 billion in 2003.
Fannie and Freddie, which wouldn’t accept crazy floating
rate loans, which required income verification and minimum
down payments, were left out of the insanity.

There’s a must-read study by staff members of the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York analyzing the roots of the subprime
crisis that came out in March. I don’t think it got much
attention then as the conclusions seemed uncontroversial at
the time. But now that Washington politicians are trying to
rewrite history, it should be mandatory reading for every
American interested in knowing how we got here.

The study identifies five causes of the subprime meltdown:
-Convoluted loan products that consumers didn’t understand.
-Credit ratings that didn’t do a good job highlighting the
risks contained in subprime-backed securities.
-Lack of incentives for institutional investors to do their
own research (they just relied on the credit ratings).
-Predatory lending and borrowing (which I think means fraud
perpetrated by borrowers).
-Significant errors in the models used by credit rating
agencies to assess subprime-backed securities.

You’ll note in the Fed’s five causes that there’s some
culpability for lenders, borrowers, investors and credit
raters. There’s no blame for Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae which
had little or nothing to do with the entire situation.

It’s certainly fair to criticize Fannie and Freddie over
real issues that contributed to their downfall. The
companies had numerous accounting problems and inadequate
safeguards covering their own investment portfolios. Those
weaknesses came home to roost when the real estate market
cratered. Fannie and Freddie purchased billions of dollars
of subprime-backed securities for their own investment
portfolios and got hit just like every other investor. But
it’s some kind of crazy, politically inspired CYA to blame
for the mess we’re in.

Loading...