Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Ogie Oglethorpe wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
I'm talking about 2007.
2007 happened because the FHA demanded that banks take loans they would have otherwise never issued.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... is/249903/That wasn't by act of Congress either.
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/busin ... nding.htmlIt seems like FHA hasn't learned as they are lowering the down payment level to 3.5% (0% if it's rural development
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a2dcf/a2dcfc0b4da1df4e55e47bebe62ed78d26493b67" alt="Shocked :shock:"
)
Ha. So it was poor people that cause it. It's not only wrong it' cruel. This was a Wall Street orchestrated disaster.
Banks were re-packaging mortgages as top-rated securities and selling them off. It was a basic something for nothing scheme. If it was just giving people houses they could not afford it would not have been the giant cluster that it became. It was compounded hundreds of times over because of Wall St. trading and making bets on the securities.
They forced those poor bankers to make loans. Sure.
You know the Federal Government made the banks issue loans to people who had no business taking out a mortgage, right? The banks don't issue those loans without government backing to guarantee them.
The banks got more cautious afterwards and stopped issuing those loans after 2008. Notice how hard it was to get credit then? That's how it should have stayed. However, our noble government, unwilling to learn, decided to lower the standards so that people with 580 credit scores can take out a government backed FHA loan with 3.5% down. They made it 0% down if it's a rural development loan.
The housing crisis doesn't occur if we were limited to conventional mortgages, as it should be. When you get FHA guarantees out of there, banks only issue after serious manual underwriting since they are on the hook for the defaults.
The government did not force the banks to issue millions of loans so that they could be packaged as securities and dumped investors. That was the game. This is basic follow the money type stuff. Who benefitted? The Federal government was forcing banks to get on this business? Come on. The banks wanted these standards because they knew there was money to be made doing this. It's incredibly naive to think that this was the result of greedy poor people wanting a home.
Except for the fact the government did force them to issue the loans in the first place after rule chances in 1998 drafted by Andrew Cuomo when he was the Secretary of HUD. The banks were instructed to issue these loans and Fannie and Freddie were instructed to buy them up.
These were loans that would not be issued in the absence of Ferally backed mortage insurance or low minimum FHA credit standards.
The banks did screw up packaging them as securities, but the housing market crashes with high default rates even if that part doesn't happen.
The fact is the mortgage market we saw from 2008-2012 is the mortgage market we should have. Banks should be strict in lending practices. Either have 20% down, or if you only have 5-10% down, make sure you can qualify for PMI. IF you can't do either of those 2, then you should rent until you can.
Having federally insured high risk loans with the promise of a bailout (since they are Federally insured) is creating a moral hazard that ensures the housing bubble will repeat itself. If you can't either accumulate a 20% down payment or qualify for PMI, then you shouldn't own a home. Some people are better off renting. The guy who buys a home with 3.5% down and a 590 credit score (who gets FHA backing today) should rent until his situation improves. However, our noble government wants to get him a mortgage and then blame the bank when the predictable happens.
Except that's bullshit.
Quote:
The reason there was a sudden rush to lend out homes to subprime borrowers was not because of Fannie and Freddie, but because the banks had discovered fancy new derivative tools like CDOs and CMOs that allowed them to chop up bundles of home loans and turn them into AAA-rated securities. Countrywide was not trolling the streets looking for jobless indigents to lend mansions to (this literally happened, by the way) because the government was forcing them to. It was because big banks like Goldman and JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America were letting them know that they had a virtually limitless market for mortgage-backed securities, thanks to the new derivative tools that allowed them to sell billions of subprime MBS as AAA-rated investments to suckers like German land-banks and Icelandic trade unions and the like.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... t-20101117Quote:
But, to my mind, that view is only half-right. Yes, people got loans who had no hope of paying them back, and that was insane. But Fannie and Freddie’s affordable housing goals — which the G.S.E.’s easily gamed — were not the main reason. Rather, it was the rise of the subprime lenders — and their ability to get even their worst loans securitized by Wall Street —that was the main culprit. Fannie and Freddie lowered their standards mostly because they were losing market share to the subprime originators.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/busin ... a.html?dbkIt was not forcing people to issue loans that was the may problem. That does not make sense. The banks desperately wanted the loans issued so they could package and sell the security.
_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?The Missing Link wrote:
For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.