CRA Not to Blame for Housing Debacle

[PoliticalChic]

sorry dear...utter bullcrud.

you miss the factual, that has been presented PC.... the crash was not mainly due to the Community Reinvestment Act.....the housing boom did NOT occur in CRA areas, the subprime boom did NOT occur due to CRA areas.

you can try to blame the poor all you want, but they are not even a smidgen of the problem.

CRA has been around for decades, WHY OH WHY did this boom and bust occur under President bush 2 and not under Bush 1 or Reagan or Clinton or whomever, when they expanded it?

BECAUSE this boom and crash has NOTHING to do with the CRA itself......

we don't have enough poor people in the world to get all of those subprime loans/ put in Mortgage Backed Securities, that were created.

Yes, that is an exageration on the poor people in the world, but you SHOULD be able to get the gist of the argument that supports Toro's stance....IF you allow yourself.

There must be a simple reason why you ignored the question..."do you believe that government has a role in determining who should own a home?"


I'm going to assume that you do...but that you would rather pretend that Freddie, Fannie, the CRA, the Clinton HUD, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are not of the Democrat persuasion.

Can I toss ACORN in there as well?

Must be a coincidence, huh?

You would rather pretend that Bush is not a CON$ervative and his pet legislation, the ADDI, which changed the law to allow no downpayment loans for more than the house was worth to people with bad credit who could not keep up with the payments and who were at least 20% below the standard for the neighborhood never happened.

Must be a coincidence, huh?

OMG! Is that you, FredTheCricket?

Who dragged you away from the Limbaugh show????

Nice to hear from you again...but since you have picked up the gauntlet, ...that means joined the debate...
it was oh-so-cliched of you to bring up President Bush...was he part of this debate?

But this was: ..."do you believe that government has a role in determining who should own a home?"

Own up, I know you do....but let's get you on the record here.

 

[edthecynic]

There must be a simple reason why you ignored the question..."do you believe that government has a role in determining who should own a home?"


I'm going to assume that you do...but that you would rather pretend that Freddie, Fannie, the CRA, the Clinton HUD, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are not of the Democrat persuasion.

Can I toss ACORN in there as well?

Must be a coincidence, huh?

You would rather pretend that Bush is not a CON$ervative and his pet legislation, the ADDI, which changed the law to allow no downpayment loans for more than the house was worth to people with bad credit who could not keep up with the payments and who were at least 20% below the standard for the neighborhood never happened.

Must be a coincidence, huh?

OMG! Is that you, FredTheCricket?

Who dragged you away from the Limbaugh show????

Nice to hear from you again...but since you have picked up the gauntlet, ...that means joined the debate...
it was oh-so-cliched of you to bring up President Bush...was he part of this debate?

But this was: ..."do you believe that government has a role in determining who should own a home?"

Own up, I know you do....but let's get you on the record here.

As you well know in spite of your playing dumb, any debate on the "Housing Debacle" centers around Bush and his Dec 2003 ADDI. It was the centerpiece of his 2004 election campaign. The GOP realized that if they could strip off just a small percentage of minority votes from the Dems they could win in 2004 and the ADDi was the vehicle the GOP chose to do it with.

Since you brought up your MessiahRushie, even he admits 2004 was the turning point in the sub-prime housing market. The CRA didn't happen in 2004, but Bush's ADDI did!!!! The housing market may have been on the edge before the ADDI passed in December 2003, but it obviously was Bush's ADDI reelection ploy that changed the law and pushed the housing market over the edge from 2004 on. It was Bush's ADDI that burst the housing bubble.

July 7,2010
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: To illustrate my point even further: "Subprime mortgages accounted for 9 percent of all mortgage originations from 1996 through 2004." But that 9% became 21% from 2004 to 2006, 21% of all mortgages were subprime. Twenty-one percent of all mortgages were essentially money given away to people because they were loans made to people that everybody knew going in would never pay them back. And that 21% of the mortgage market being subprime equaled about $600,000 billion in 2006, which was at the time one-fifth of the US home loan market.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You would rather pretend that Bush is not a CON$ervative and his pet legislation, the ADDI, which changed the law to allow no downpayment loans for more than the house was worth to people with bad credit who could not keep up with the payments and who were at least 20% below the standard for the neighborhood never happened.

Must be a coincidence, huh?

OMG! Is that you, FredTheCricket?

Who dragged you away from the Limbaugh show????

Nice to hear from you again...but since you have picked up the gauntlet, ...that means joined the debate...
it was oh-so-cliched of you to bring up President Bush...was he part of this debate?

But this was: ..."do you believe that government has a role in determining who should own a home?"

Own up, I know you do....but let's get you on the record here.

As you well know in spite of your playing dumb, any debate on the "Housing Debacle" centers around Bush and his Dec 1993 ADDI. It was the centerpiece of his 2004 election campaign. The GOP realized that if they could strip off just a small percentage of minority votes from the Dems they could win in 2004 and the ADDi was the vehicle the GOP chose to do it with.

Since you brought up your MessiahRushie, even he admits 2004 was the turning point in the sub-prime housing market. The CRA didn't happen in 2004, but Bush's ADDI did!!!! The housing market may have been on the edge before the ADDI passed in December 2003, but it obviously was Bush's ADDI reelection ploy that changed the law and pushed the housing market over the edge from 2004 on. It was Bush's ADDI that burst the housing bubble.

July 7,2010
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: To illustrate my point even further: "Subprime mortgages accounted for 9 percent of all mortgage originations from 1996 through 2004." But that 9% became 21% from 2004 to 2006, 21% of all mortgages were subprime. Twenty-one percent of all mortgages were essentially money given away to people because they were loans made to people that everybody knew going in would never pay them back. And that 21% of the mortgage market being subprime equaled about $600,000 billion in 2006, which was at the time one-fifth of the US home loan market.

GetttinHomesick, your response is a totally bogus obfuscation...

1. You are afraid to admit that you belive it is the function of government to make sure American own a home. Of course, that is because admission would result in you immediatly being blown out of the water.
Mixing politics and mortgage policy is like mixing oil and water: good for salads, but not for the economy. This is the reason that the free market rules don’t apply.


2. "...any debate on the "Housing Debacle" centers around Bush and his Dec 1993 ADDI."

You are fibbbbbbing!

While corruption and undue influence are not entirely the province of Democrats, the overwhelming control of this area of the economy was due to the machinations of Democratic politicians.

“Social justice” aspirations of politicians resulted in the meltdown, which, it is well documented, was clearly warned against. Private business followed the lead of government policy, both due to pressure…and due to greed.

From the Village Voice analysis of Fannie and Freddie:
Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie - Page 1 - News - New York - Village Voice

a. "There are as many starting points for the mortgage meltdown as there are fears about how far it has yet to go, but one decisive point of departure is the final years of the Clinton administration, when a kid from Queens without any real banking or real-estate experience was the only man in Washington with the power to regulate the giants of home finance, the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), better known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

b. The Washington Post noted this June that the GSEs' aggressive acquisitions "created a market for more such lending" by others, feeding the fire. That June Post story focused its critical reassessment of HUD's affordable-housing goals on the department's 2004 decision—during the Bush re-election campaign—to juice them up again, pushing the target to 56 percent by 2007,… [Cuomo’s increases] exceeded Bush's more gradual six-point increase.

3. How convenient to begin the debate at 1993...
When the actual start of the debacle was the presidency of the Democrat FDR.

a. Fannie Mae was started in 1938 by FDR, with a billion dollars, to buy up mortgages from private lenders so that those banks would have more capital to lend. By 1968 the huge loan portfolio weighed on the federal budget, so that President Johnson converted it into a publically traded quasi-governmental corporation. Get it? It was designed to appear to be a free market entity. But everyone knew that the government wouldn’t allow them to fail, giving it an unfair advantage over its competition, and access to guaranteed lines of credit and exemption from state and local taxes. Then they used the same track for Freddie Mac. Then, in September ’08, the government took back control of the two, along with $5 trillion in mortgage liabilities.

4. While it must be admitted that Presiden Bush also saw home ownership as a government priority, every cornerstone of this sad tale is Democrat, from GRE's to CRA to HUD to Frank and Dodd.

The problem is based on political philosophy. Once you admit to a bias in favor of government guaranteeing home ownership, you had better be able to explain why government should be responsible for cars, food, and even clothing for all citizens.

And, of course, I'm sure you could explain where the revenue for same should come from...let me guess: Limbaugh!

 

[edthecynic]

OMG! Is that you, FredTheCricket?

Who dragged you away from the Limbaugh show????

Nice to hear from you again...but since you have picked up the gauntlet, ...that means joined the debate...
it was oh-so-cliched of you to bring up President Bush...was he part of this debate?

But this was: ..."do you believe that government has a role in determining who should own a home?"

Own up, I know you do....but let's get you on the record here.

As you well know in spite of your playing dumb, any debate on the "Housing Debacle" centers around Bush and his Dec 1993 [2003] ADDI. It was the centerpiece of his 2004 election campaign. The GOP realized that if they could strip off just a small percentage of minority votes from the Dems they could win in 2004 and the ADDi was the vehicle the GOP chose to do it with.

Since you brought up your MessiahRushie, even he admits 2004 was the turning point in the sub-prime housing market. The CRA didn't happen in 2004, but Bush's ADDI did!!!! The housing market may have been on the edge before the ADDI passed in December 2003, but it obviously was Bush's ADDI reelection ploy that changed the law and pushed the housing market over the edge from 2004 on. It was Bush's ADDI that burst the housing bubble.

July 7,2010
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: To illustrate my point even further: "Subprime mortgages accounted for 9 percent of all mortgage originations from 1996 through 2004." But that 9% became 21% from 2004 to 2006, 21% of all mortgages were subprime. Twenty-one percent of all mortgages were essentially money given away to people because they were loans made to people that everybody knew going in would never pay them back. And that 21% of the mortgage market being subprime equaled about $600,000 billion in 2006, which was at the time one-fifth of the US home loan market.

3. How convenient to begin the debate at 1993...

1993 was a typo, should have been 2003.

But way to dodge the fact that whatever caused the increase in sub-prime mortgages happened around 2004 and Bush"s ADDI was signed December 16, 2003. Not 1938 or 1968 or any other year you try to deflect to. Bush changed the law in Dec 2003 and the sub-prime market started to overheat in 2004. Bush OWNS the housing crisis with his ADDI.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As you well know in spite of your playing dumb, any debate on the "Housing Debacle" centers around Bush and his Dec 1993 [2003] ADDI. It was the centerpiece of his 2004 election campaign. The GOP realized that if they could strip off just a small percentage of minority votes from the Dems they could win in 2004 and the ADDi was the vehicle the GOP chose to do it with.

Since you brought up your MessiahRushie, even he admits 2004 was the turning point in the sub-prime housing market. The CRA didn't happen in 2004, but Bush's ADDI did!!!! The housing market may have been on the edge before the ADDI passed in December 2003, but it obviously was Bush's ADDI reelection ploy that changed the law and pushed the housing market over the edge from 2004 on. It was Bush's ADDI that burst the housing bubble.

July 7,2010
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: To illustrate my point even further: "Subprime mortgages accounted for 9 percent of all mortgage originations from 1996 through 2004." But that 9% became 21% from 2004 to 2006, 21% of all mortgages were subprime. Twenty-one percent of all mortgages were essentially money given away to people because they were loans made to people that everybody knew going in would never pay them back. And that 21% of the mortgage market being subprime equaled about $600,000 billion in 2006, which was at the time one-fifth of the US home loan market.

3. How convenient to begin the debate at 1993...

1993 was a typo, should have been 2003.

But way to dodge the fact that whatever caused the increase in sub-prime mortgages happened around 2004 and Bush"s ADDI was signed December 16, 2003. Not 1938 or 1968 or any other year you try to deflect to. Bush changed the law in Dec 2003 and the sub-prime market started to overheat in 2004. Bush OWNS the housing crisis with his ADDI.

Hey, TakinTheArsenic, how come you're hiding from the question of government role in housing?

Totally understandable...after all, once you admit that you're for it, your in deep, deep trouble.

I double dog dare ya'...defend the premise that your side must subscribe to....if I may end a sentence with a preposition.

Here, let me show you how you'd sound: "Oh, yeah...gov is so rich they should not guarantee houses for folks...they should buy them for 'em!

And then get them cars, so they can get to work! Big shiny cars! As good as rich people have....maybe better one!! 'Cause it's not fair if everyone isn't equal! Yeah, equal!

And good cloths, too!
(Probably the right jewelry, too, 'cause, you know, it's so difficult to accessorize.)

See, RideTheBroomstick....that's why you won't admit that you believe that government should have a role in guaranteeing homes for citizens. The premise is so flawed....

But, it explains why more Democrats support socialism than other groups.


"The most striking partisan differences come in reactions to the word "socialism." Just 15% of Republicans react positively to "socialism" while 77% react negatively. By more than two-to-one (64% to 26%), independents also have a negative impression of "socialism." However, Democrats are evenly divided -- 44% have a positive reaction to "socialism" while 43% react negatively." "Socialism" Not So Negative, "Capitalism" Not So Positive - Pew Research Center

 

[Toro]

Bush and the Republicans aren't primarily responsible for the housing mess, nor are Barney Frank and the Democrats, though both parties played a role.

 

[edthecynic]

3. How convenient to begin the debate at 1993...

1993 was a typo, should have been 2003.

But way to dodge the fact that whatever caused the increase in sub-prime mortgages happened around 2004 and Bush"s ADDI was signed December 16, 2003. Not 1938 or 1968 or any other year you try to deflect to. Bush changed the law in Dec 2003 and the sub-prime market started to overheat in 2004. Bush OWNS the housing crisis with his ADDI.

Hey, TakinTheArsenic, how come you're hiding from the question of government role in housing?

Totally understandable...after all, once you admit that you're for it, your in deep, deep trouble.

I double dog dare ya'...defend the premise that your side must subscribe to....if I may end a sentence with a preposition.

Here, let me show you how you'd sound: "Oh, yeah...gov is so rich they should not guarantee houses for folks...they should buy them for 'em!

And then get them cars, so they can get to work! Big shiny cars! As good as rich people have....maybe better one!! 'Cause it's not fair if everyone isn't equal! Yeah, equal!

And good cloths, too!
(Probably the right jewelry, too, 'cause, you know, it's so difficult to accessorize.)

See, RideTheBroomstick....that's why you won't admit that you believe that government should have a role in guaranteeing homes for citizens. The premise is so flawed....

But, it explains why more Democrats support socialism than other groups.


"The most striking partisan differences come in reactions to the word "socialism." Just 15% of Republicans react positively to "socialism" while 77% react negatively. By more than two-to-one (64% to 26%), independents also have a negative impression of "socialism." However, Democrats are evenly divided -- 44% have a positive reaction to "socialism" while 43% react negatively." "Socialism" Not So Negative, "Capitalism" Not So Positive - Pew Research Center

Still running from the fact that 2004 was the pivotal year, and BUSH changed the law with his ADDI in Dec 2003 as a reelection ploy that pushed the housing market over the edge.
The fact that most of the GOP is antisocial has nothing to do with Bush's ADDI.
Try again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Bush and the Republicans aren't primarily responsible for the housing mess, nor are Barney Frank and the Democrats, though both parties played a role.

Toro, not quite clear as to why you maintain this, but the more time goes by, the more expert opinion disagees with your premise.

1. The question of how well CRA loans have performed is of vital importance because of the trillions of dollars in such lending. During the first 15 years of the act’s existence, total announced commitments under the CRA totaled $9 billion. But starting in 1992, volume exploded. Over the next 16 years, from 1992 to 2008, announced CRA commitments totaled $6 trillion. And incredible though it may seem, the same federal regulators who forced the CRA on banks have neglected to track the performance of trillions of dollars of loans made to satisfy it. But there is a strong prima facie case that they constitute toxic lending—that is, lending that leads to unsustainable loans, resulting in an unacceptable level of foreclosures.

2. …approximately 50 percent of CRA loans for single-family residences were nevertheless made to borrowers who made down payments of 5 percent or less or had low credit scores—characteristics that indicated high credit risk. Whether or not anyone called these loans “subprime,” in other words, the chances are good that many of them have defaulted or remain at high risk of doing so.

3. Though the feds, again, haven’t collected figures for CRA loans’ performance as a whole, we do have statistics from a few lenders that are troubling indeed. In Cleveland, Third Federal Savings and Loan has a 35 percent delinquency rate on its CRA-mandated “Home Today” loans, versus a 2 percent delinquency rate on its non–Home Today portfolio. Chicago’s Shorebank—the nation’s first community development bank, with largely CRA-related loans on its books—has a 19 percent delinquency and nonaccrual rate for its portfolio of first-mortgage loans for single-family residences. And Bank of America said in 2008 that while its CRA loans constituted 7 percent of its owned residential-mortgage portfolio, they represented 29 percent of that portfolio’s net losses.Yes, the CRA Is Toxic by Edward Pinto, City Journal Autumn 2009


4. Stunning 2006 Barney Frank VIDEO Surfaces: Banks Forced to Report Too Much
by Connie Hair
05/07/2010
Stunning 2006 Barney Frank VIDEO Surfaces: Banks Forced to Report Too Much - HUMAN EVENTS

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) speaking at a forum on national housing policy on December 11, 2006. Three weeks after making this speech at the Treasury Department, Frank became Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
Frank on Democrats taking over regulatory reform:
“You will see far less difference with Democrats taking over in the Financial Services regulatory area than in virtually any other area of public policy, because we did work together on things like regulatory relief and we have more to do yet in the deregulation. One of the things we did was try to reduce the reporting requirements from the banks to the financial detectives."




5. Further, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae increased making risky loans from 42% to 50% of their loans.
Democrat Senator Dodd fully backed the program, and concurrently received sweetheart mortgage-loans on property that he owns. Topic Galleries -- Courant.com He and Democrat Representative Barney Frank thwarted Bush Administration attempts to rein in the loans, (Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco - The Boston Globe) many of which fell under the slogan “NINJA” loans: no income, no job, no assets.
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Let The Inquisition Start With Frank


6. US News, and Spectator agree: CRA major cause.

Yes, the Community Reinvestment Act Really Did Help Cause the Housing Crisis - Capital Commerce (usnews.com) CRA caused housing crisis

The American Spectator : The True Origins of This Financial Crisis
from the American spectator


7. Did the philosophy of a government role cause the problem? Yes.
Where the policies those of the Democrats? yes
Did Bush do enough to stem the problem? No


"The meltdown couldn’t have happened without Washington’s unexamined assumption that homeownership would transform the lives of low-income buyers in positive ways."
Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2009

 

[PoliticalChic]

1993 was a typo, should have been 2003.

But way to dodge the fact that whatever caused the increase in sub-prime mortgages happened around 2004 and Bush"s ADDI was signed December 16, 2003. Not 1938 or 1968 or any other year you try to deflect to. Bush changed the law in Dec 2003 and the sub-prime market started to overheat in 2004. Bush OWNS the housing crisis with his ADDI.

Hey, TakinTheArsenic, how come you're hiding from the question of government role in housing?

Totally understandable...after all, once you admit that you're for it, your in deep, deep trouble.

I double dog dare ya'...defend the premise that your side must subscribe to....if I may end a sentence with a preposition.

Here, let me show you how you'd sound: "Oh, yeah...gov is so rich they should not guarantee houses for folks...they should buy them for 'em!

And then get them cars, so they can get to work! Big shiny cars! As good as rich people have....maybe better one!! 'Cause it's not fair if everyone isn't equal! Yeah, equal!

And good cloths, too!
(Probably the right jewelry, too, 'cause, you know, it's so difficult to accessorize.)

See, RideTheBroomstick....that's why you won't admit that you believe that government should have a role in guaranteeing homes for citizens. The premise is so flawed....

But, it explains why more Democrats support socialism than other groups.


"The most striking partisan differences come in reactions to the word "socialism." Just 15% of Republicans react positively to "socialism" while 77% react negatively. By more than two-to-one (64% to 26%), independents also have a negative impression of "socialism." However, Democrats are evenly divided -- 44% have a positive reaction to "socialism" while 43% react negatively." "Socialism" Not So Negative, "Capitalism" Not So Positive - Pew Research Center

Still running from the fact that 2004 was the pivotal year, and BUSH changed the law with his ADDI in Dec 2003 as a reelection ploy that pushed the housing market over the edge.
The fact that most of the GOP is antisocial has nothing to do with Bush's ADDI.
Try again.

Now, SickWithTheColic, your perseveration, cute in a three year old, becomes a negative IQ factor in an adult...
so repeating the "...the fact that 2004 was the pivotal year,...' even though I have thoroughly shredded this nonsense, doen't support either your standing or your argument.

That, and your attempts to ignore the question of the role of government, identifies you as a debilitated and flaccid paticipant in this debate.

But, it was fun finding new appellations for you.

 

[edthecynic]

Hey, TakinTheArsenic, how come you're hiding from the question of government role in housing?

Totally understandable...after all, once you admit that you're for it, your in deep, deep trouble.

I double dog dare ya'...defend the premise that your side must subscribe to....if I may end a sentence with a preposition.

Here, let me show you how you'd sound: "Oh, yeah...gov is so rich they should not guarantee houses for folks...they should buy them for 'em!

And then get them cars, so they can get to work! Big shiny cars! As good as rich people have....maybe better one!! 'Cause it's not fair if everyone isn't equal! Yeah, equal!

And good cloths, too!
(Probably the right jewelry, too, 'cause, you know, it's so difficult to accessorize.)

See, RideTheBroomstick....that's why you won't admit that you believe that government should have a role in guaranteeing homes for citizens. The premise is so flawed....

But, it explains why more Democrats support socialism than other groups.


"The most striking partisan differences come in reactions to the word "socialism." Just 15% of Republicans react positively to "socialism" while 77% react negatively. By more than two-to-one (64% to 26%), independents also have a negative impression of "socialism." However, Democrats are evenly divided -- 44% have a positive reaction to "socialism" while 43% react negatively." "Socialism" Not So Negative, "Capitalism" Not So Positive - Pew Research Center

Still running from the fact that 2004 was the pivotal year, and BUSH changed the law with his ADDI in Dec 2003 as a reelection ploy that pushed the housing market over the edge.
The fact that most of the GOP is antisocial has nothing to do with Bush's ADDI.
Try again.

Now, SickWithTheColic, your perseveration, cute in a three year old, becomes a negative IQ factor in an adult...
so repeating the "...the fact that 2004 was the pivotal year,...' even though I have thoroughly shredded this nonsense, doen't support either your standing or your argument.

That, and your attempts to ignore the question of the role of government, identifies you as a debilitated and flaccid paticipant in this debate.

But, it was fun finding new appellations for you.

If by "shredding" you mean "running from" you might have a a point.
You brought up 30 year mortgages from 70 and 40 years ago as the cause of the Bush housing crash.

2004 was the year sub-prime loans jumped from 9% to 21% and Bush's Dec 2003 ADDI was the cause, not something that happened in 1938!

 

[Toro]

Toro, not quite clear as to why you maintain this, but the more time goes by, the more expert opinion disagees with your premise.

PC

I'm not quite sure why you think I would think otherwise, other than massive cognitive dissonance on your part. I have repeatedly posted studies and conclusions by experts backed by statistical analysis who have refuted the claims you've made below.

1. The question of how well CRA loans have performed is of vital importance because of the trillions of dollars in such lending. During the first 15 years of the act’s existence, total announced commitments under the CRA totaled $9 billion. But starting in 1992, volume exploded. Over the next 16 years, from 1992 to 2008, announced CRA commitments totaled $6 trillion. And incredible though it may seem, the same federal regulators who forced the CRA on banks have neglected to track the performance of trillions of dollars of loans made to satisfy it. But there is a strong prima facie case that they constitute toxic lending—that is, lending that leads to unsustainable loans, resulting in an unacceptable level of foreclosures.

2. …approximately 50 percent of CRA loans for single-family residences were nevertheless made to borrowers who made down payments of 5 percent or less or had low credit scores—characteristics that indicated high credit risk. Whether or not anyone called these loans “subprime,” in other words, the chances are good that many of them have defaulted or remain at high risk of doing so.

3. Though the feds, again, haven’t collected figures for CRA loans’ performance as a whole, we do have statistics from a few lenders that are troubling indeed. In Cleveland, Third Federal Savings and Loan has a 35 percent delinquency rate on its CRA-mandated “Home Today” loans, versus a 2 percent delinquency rate on its non–Home Today portfolio. Chicago’s Shorebank—the nation’s first community development bank, with largely CRA-related loans on its books—has a 19 percent delinquency and nonaccrual rate for its portfolio of first-mortgage loans for single-family residences. And Bank of America said in 2008 that while its CRA loans constituted 7 percent of its owned residential-mortgage portfolio, they represented 29 percent of that portfolio’s net losses.Yes, the CRA Is Toxic by Edward Pinto, City Journal Autumn 2009

This simply is not true. The Federal Reserve has tracked the performance of CRA loans, and they have concluded that the performance of those loans has been in line with industry standards.

5. Further, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae increased making risky loans from 42% to 50% of their loans.
Democrat Senator Dodd fully backed the program, and concurrently received sweetheart mortgage-loans on property that he owns. Topic Galleries -- Courant.com He and Democrat Representative Barney Frank thwarted Bush Administration attempts to rein in the loans, (Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco - The Boston Globe) many of which fell under the slogan “NINJA” loans: no income, no job, no assets.
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Let The Inquisition Start With Frank

Yet the GSE's share of such loans declined relative to the private sector.

6. US News, and Spectator agree: CRA major cause.

Yes, the Community Reinvestment Act Really Did Help Cause the Housing Crisis - Capital Commerce (usnews.com) CRA caused housing crisis

The American Spectator : The True Origins of This Financial Crisis
from the American spectator

You and these articles are merely using anecdotes and conjecture. Using one small bank as the US News article hardly qualifies as a broad-based conclusion based on statistical evidence, of which your argument is completely lacking. As the American Spectator states

Although it is difficult to prove cause and effect, it is highly likely that the lower lending standards required by the CRA influenced what banks and other lenders were willing to offer to borrowers in prime markets.

This is merely conjecture because they can't prove cause and effect.

Let's go over what we know

- 6% of all subprime loans were made into CRA areas
- the rate of default on those loans were no greater than non-CRA loans
- 24 of the top 25 subprime lenders had no CRA mandate
- the rate of home price growth and collapse in CRA areas was no greater than in non-CRA areas. In fact, it lagged in the worst markets, most of which were overwhelmingly middle and upper middle class and usually in the Sun Belt, just like all other real estate booms and busts.

Yet we are supposed to believe that the CRA was responsible for this mess. Only conservatives who have a vested interest in shifting blame make this argument.

I can be convinced otherwise. I believe a government agency - the Federal Reserve - was primarily responsible for this. But thus far, the critics have produced zero statistical evidence to back up their arguments, and all the statistical evidence that I have seen refutes them.


EDIT - The American Spectator uses a source which contradicts their argument. This is an expansion of the quote above.

Sure enough, according to data published by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, from 2001 through 2006, the share of all mortgage originations that were made up of conventional mortgages (that is, the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage that had always been the mainstay of the U.S. mortgage market) fell from 57.1 percent in 2001 to 33.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2006. Correspondingly, sub-prime loans (those made to borrowers with blemished credit) rose from 7.2 percent to 18.8 percent, and Alt-A loans (those made to speculative buyers or without the usual underwriting standards) rose from 2.5 percent to 13.9 percent. Although it is difficult to prove cause and effect, it is highly likely that the lower lending standards required by the CRA influenced what banks and other lenders were willing to offer to borrowers in prime markets. Needless to say, most borrowers would prefer a mortgage with a low down payment requirement, allowing them to buy a larger home for the same initial investment.

Yet, the same Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University clearly refutes the American Spectator

There are many causes to the collapse of the housing market and the recent financial turmoil, but the contribution of the CRA appears marginal. While banks did engage in subprime lending in their assessment areas, they did so at a lower rate than the market in general and accounted for only a small fraction of subprime loans to lower-income borrowers and lower income neighborhoods. The data suggest that far from being forced into risky corners of the market, the institutions under the scrutiny of the CRA were crowded out by unregulated lenders.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/70006-cra-not-to-blame-for-housing-debacle-13.html#post3253076

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If CRA loans are such a great investment why would the government have to force banks to make them?

 

[Care4all]

If CRA loans are such a great investment why would the government have to force banks to make them?

banks were discriminating, breaking the law, and not serving the people in poorer neighborhoods with services they offered to ALL of their other customers.

simple as that....

once CRA was passed, banks began loaning to those people wanting to buy a home in their poorer neighborhood....for the past near 40 years, millions of poor people were then able to get these smaller home loans for their cheaper housing in their poorer neighborhoods at higher interest rates than the basic conventional loan due to their supposed higher risk...and they have kept in good standing for the most part....many have paid off these loans, over the 40 some years.

Just because a person works and is still poor does not mean they are at a high risk for the banks..... my inlaws were piss poor, got a loan (at a higher interest rate) for their home, which was $7000 dollars, and they paid it off after 20 years....homes in richer neighborhoods were running about $35k.....when they bought theirs for the $7k.....

just because one is not wealthy, does not mean they should not be given a chance to buy a home of lesser value, that they can afford.

MOST SUBPRIME LOANS issued to customers WERE NOT issued to custmers in the CRA Mandate areas....

I truly don't know how much CLEARER this can be frank?

there WAS NO GVT mandate Frank....the banks CHOSE VIA FREEWILL to loan haphazardly.

 

[Toro]

If CRA loans are such a great investment why would the government have to force banks to make them?

I have no idea if CRA loans were great investments. I have no idea if CRA was a good or bad idea. I have no opinion on the CRA as policy.

I do know, however, that the CRA was not responsible for the housing bubble. That is ludicrous.

I don't think the GSEs were responsible either, or at least primarily responsible. (They had to have had some role since they were so large.) But pinning the blame on the GSEs is infinitely more plausible than blaming the CRA.

 

[Toro]

If CRA loans are such a great investment why would the government have to force banks to make them?

banks were discriminating, breaking the law, and not serving the people in poorer neighborhoods with services they offered to ALL of their other customers.

simple as that....

once CRA was passed, banks began loaning to those people wanting to buy a home in their poorer neighborhood....for the past near 40 years, millions of poor people were then able to get these smaller home loans for their cheaper housing in their poorer neighborhoods at higher interest rates than the basic conventional loan due to their supposed higher risk...and they have kept in good standing for the most part....many have paid off these loans, over the 40 some years.

Just because a person works and is still poor does not mean they are at a high risk for the banks..... my inlaws were piss poor, got a loan (at a higher interest rate) for their home, which was $7000 dollars, and they paid it off after 20 years....homes in richer neighborhoods were running about $35k.....when they bought theirs for the $7k.....

just because one is not wealthy, does not mean they should not be given a chance to buy a home of lesser value, that they can afford.

MOST SUBPRIME LOANS issued to customers WERE NOT issued to custmers in the CRA Mandate areas....

I truly don't know how much CLEARER this can be frank?

there WAS NO GVT mandate Frank....the banks CHOSE VIA FREEWILL to loan haphazardly.

In 2006, nearly 90% of all the mortgage loans made in the San Diego region were subprime loans. That's stunning.

 

[william the wie]

If CRA loans are such a great investment why would the government have to force banks to make them?

I have no idea if CRA loans were great investments. I have no idea if CRA was a good or bad idea. I have no opinion on the CRA as policy.

Toro, the only political as opposed to an economic question is whether the implementation of CRA was done with a clear and public goal of creating a housing bubble? The answer is yes. Secondarily was this goal stated first by the Ds or the Rs? The answer is the Ds.

I do know, however, that the CRA was not responsible for the housing bubble. That is ludicrous.

I don't think the GSEs were responsible either, or at least primarily responsible. (They had to have had some role since they were so large.) But pinning the blame on the GSEs is infinitely more plausible than blaming the CRA.

While I agree that the Ds (and Rs) incompetently pursued this goal of using the CRA to increase homeownership i. e. a bubble, a bubble did in fact form and like any other uncoerced confession this creates a strong presumption of guilt. At this point proof of effectively zero culpability is needed and indirect culpability in the form of jawboning is effectively impossible to disprove. This argument cannot be won with all of the public statements made to the effect that "We'uns is going to see that anyone with a pulse can get a house, cheap." Just give it up Cisneros and Cuomo lost this argument for you nearly 20 years ago.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If CRA loans are such a great investment why would the government have to force banks to make them?

banks were discriminating, breaking the law, and not serving the people in poorer neighborhoods with services they offered to ALL of their other customers.

simple as that....

once CRA was passed, banks began loaning to those people wanting to buy a home in their poorer neighborhood....for the past near 40 years, millions of poor people were then able to get these smaller home loans for their cheaper housing in their poorer neighborhoods at higher interest rates than the basic conventional loan due to their supposed higher risk...and they have kept in good standing for the most part....many have paid off these loans, over the 40 some years.

Just because a person works and is still poor does not mean they are at a high risk for the banks..... my inlaws were piss poor, got a loan (at a higher interest rate) for their home, which was $7000 dollars, and they paid it off after 20 years....homes in richer neighborhoods were running about $35k.....when they bought theirs for the $7k.....

just because one is not wealthy, does not mean they should not be given a chance to buy a home of lesser value, that they can afford.

MOST SUBPRIME LOANS issued to customers WERE NOT issued to custmers in the CRA Mandate areas....

I truly don't know how much CLEARER this can be frank?

there WAS NO GVT mandate Frank....the banks CHOSE VIA FREEWILL to loan haphazardly.

No, Care, banks were exercising their fiduciary responsibility in giving loans were they saw the best chance of getting the return that they, as a business, required.

It is your progressive misunderstanding of the role of both business and of government that forces you to hold the jaundiced view i.e., "banks were discriminating, breaking the law, and not serving the people in poorer neighborhoods..."

This view belongs in the pew, but not in the boardroom.
And is the best evidence that Democrat, liberal, progressive policies caused the crisis.


"there WAS NO GVT mandate Frank....the banks CHOSE VIA FREEWILL to loan haphazardly."
While it is absolutely essential for those of your perspective to propound this mistaken viewpoint, the facts run counter...


"a. Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.

b. In 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new “flexible credit and underwriting standards” for minority borrowers—for example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income.

c, ACORN then attacked Fannie Mae, the giant quasi-government agency that bought loans from banks in order to allow them to make new loans. Its underwriters were “strictly by-the-book interpreters” of lending standards and turned down purchases of unconventional loans, charged Acorn. The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers.

d. Clinton Administration housing secretary, Henry Cisneros, declared that he would expand homeownership among lower- and lower-middle-income renters. His strategy: pushing for no-down-payment loans; expanding the size of mortgages that the government would insure against losses; and using the CRA and other lending laws to direct more private money into low-income programs.

e. .... Freddie Mac, for instance, started approving low-income buyers with bad credit histories or none at all, ...

f. Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn’t stop with Sears. If it didn’t happen, Clinton officials warned, they’d seek to extend CRA regulations "

For the full article...which you should peruse...see here:Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2009


I challenge you to find any errors in the above. If you cannot, then you should retract "there WAS NO GVT mandate Frank....the banks CHOSE VIA FREEWILL to loan haphazardly."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If CRA loans are such a great investment why would the government have to force banks to make them?

banks were discriminating, breaking the law, and not serving the people in poorer neighborhoods with services they offered to ALL of their other customers.

simple as that....

once CRA was passed, banks began loaning to those people wanting to buy a home in their poorer neighborhood....for the past near 40 years, millions of poor people were then able to get these smaller home loans for their cheaper housing in their poorer neighborhoods at higher interest rates than the basic conventional loan due to their supposed higher risk...and they have kept in good standing for the most part....many have paid off these loans, over the 40 some years.

Just because a person works and is still poor does not mean they are at a high risk for the banks..... my inlaws were piss poor, got a loan (at a higher interest rate) for their home, which was $7000 dollars, and they paid it off after 20 years....homes in richer neighborhoods were running about $35k.....when they bought theirs for the $7k.....

just because one is not wealthy, does not mean they should not be given a chance to buy a home of lesser value, that they can afford.

MOST SUBPRIME LOANS issued to customers WERE NOT issued to custmers in the CRA Mandate areas....

I truly don't know how much CLEARER this can be frank?

there WAS NO GVT mandate Frank....the banks CHOSE VIA FREEWILL to loan haphazardly.

No, Care, banks were exercising their fiduciary responsibility in giving loans were they saw the best chance of getting the return that they, as a business, required.

It is your progressive misunderstanding of the role of both business and of government that forces you to hold the jaundiced view i.e., "banks were discriminating, breaking the law, and not serving the people in poorer neighborhoods..."

This view belongs in the pew, but not in the boardroom.
And is the best evidence that Democrat, liberal, progressive policies caused the crisis.


"there WAS NO GVT mandate Frank....the banks CHOSE VIA FREEWILL to loan haphazardly."
While it is absolutely essential for those of your perspective to propound this mistaken viewpoint, the facts run counter...


"a. Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.

b. In 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new “flexible credit and underwriting standards” for minority borrowers—for example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income.

c, ACORN then attacked Fannie Mae, the giant quasi-government agency that bought loans from banks in order to allow them to make new loans. Its underwriters were “strictly by-the-book interpreters” of lending standards and turned down purchases of unconventional loans, charged Acorn. The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers.

d. Clinton Administration housing secretary, Henry Cisneros, declared that he would expand homeownership among lower- and lower-middle-income renters. His strategy: pushing for no-down-payment loans; expanding the size of mortgages that the government would insure against losses; and using the CRA and other lending laws to direct more private money into low-income programs.

e. .... Freddie Mac, for instance, started approving low-income buyers with bad credit histories or none at all, ...

f. Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn’t stop with Sears. If it didn’t happen, Clinton officials warned, they’d seek to extend CRA regulations "

For the full article...which you should peruse...see here:Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2009


I challenge you to find any errors in the above. If you cannot, then you should retract "there WAS NO GVT mandate Frank....the banks CHOSE VIA FREEWILL to loan haphazardly."

SHHHH.... that's a word those on the left have no concept of
responsibility

 

[Toro]

banks were discriminating, breaking the law, and not serving the people in poorer neighborhoods with services they offered to ALL of their other customers.

simple as that....

once CRA was passed, banks began loaning to those people wanting to buy a home in their poorer neighborhood....for the past near 40 years, millions of poor people were then able to get these smaller home loans for their cheaper housing in their poorer neighborhoods at higher interest rates than the basic conventional loan due to their supposed higher risk...and they have kept in good standing for the most part....many have paid off these loans, over the 40 some years.

Just because a person works and is still poor does not mean they are at a high risk for the banks..... my inlaws were piss poor, got a loan (at a higher interest rate) for their home, which was $7000 dollars, and they paid it off after 20 years....homes in richer neighborhoods were running about $35k.....when they bought theirs for the $7k.....

just because one is not wealthy, does not mean they should not be given a chance to buy a home of lesser value, that they can afford.

MOST SUBPRIME LOANS issued to customers WERE NOT issued to custmers in the CRA Mandate areas....

I truly don't know how much CLEARER this can be frank?

there WAS NO GVT mandate Frank....the banks CHOSE VIA FREEWILL to loan haphazardly.

No, Care, banks were exercising their fiduciary responsibility in giving loans were they saw the best chance of getting the return that they, as a business, required.

It is your progressive misunderstanding of the role of both business and of government that forces you to hold the jaundiced view i.e., "banks were discriminating, breaking the law, and not serving the people in poorer neighborhoods..."

This view belongs in the pew, but not in the boardroom.
And is the best evidence that Democrat, liberal, progressive policies caused the crisis.


"there WAS NO GVT mandate Frank....the banks CHOSE VIA FREEWILL to loan haphazardly."
While it is absolutely essential for those of your perspective to propound this mistaken viewpoint, the facts run counter...


"a. Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.

b. In 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new “flexible credit and underwriting standards” for minority borrowers—for example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income.

c, ACORN then attacked Fannie Mae, the giant quasi-government agency that bought loans from banks in order to allow them to make new loans. Its underwriters were “strictly by-the-book interpreters” of lending standards and turned down purchases of unconventional loans, charged Acorn. The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers.

d. Clinton Administration housing secretary, Henry Cisneros, declared that he would expand homeownership among lower- and lower-middle-income renters. His strategy: pushing for no-down-payment loans; expanding the size of mortgages that the government would insure against losses; and using the CRA and other lending laws to direct more private money into low-income programs.

e. .... Freddie Mac, for instance, started approving low-income buyers with bad credit histories or none at all, ...

f. Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn’t stop with Sears. If it didn’t happen, Clinton officials warned, they’d seek to extend CRA regulations "

For the full article...which you should peruse...see here:Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2009


I challenge you to find any errors in the above. If you cannot, then you should retract "there WAS NO GVT mandate Frank....the banks CHOSE VIA FREEWILL to loan haphazardly."

SHHHH.... that's a word those on the left have no concept of
responsibility

Where is the responsibility from the Right?

The Right argues that we all have individual responsibility. Yet PC just argued that banks had a "fiduciary duty" to make bad loans to get a return. The Right's whole argument on the CRA is that it lowered lending standards, causing a Housing Bubble. Putting aside the incorrect notion that executives have a fiduciary duty to make bad business decisions, this argument absolves individuals of their individual responsibility to act in a prudent manner (which in fact violates an individuals fiduciary duty).

The Right doesn't usually buy blaming society when an individual, or many individuals, do the wrong thing. The Right argues that every individual makes a choice, and every individual should bear the consequences of that choice. Yet the Right is blaming society for the Housing Crisis, saying people "had" to lower their credit standards universally because of this one small part of the market. People did not have to lower their credit standards. Those were choices made by individuals.

"The market" is a collective. It is a vast group of individuals setting prices. Saying "Everyone else was doing it, so we have to do it to" - which is what the Right is arguing when they say credit standards were lowered because of the CRA - is no different than someone trying to absolve their bad behavior by blaming society.

I track the performance of over 500 publicly traded banks and thrifts. The majority of those banks and thrifts made money during the Financial Crisis. Many banks acted prudently. So banks did not have to lower their lending standards across the market in response to this one small part of the lending market.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, Care, banks were exercising their fiduciary responsibility in giving loans were they saw the best chance of getting the return that they, as a business, required.

It is your progressive misunderstanding of the role of both business and of government that forces you to hold the jaundiced view i.e., "banks were discriminating, breaking the law, and not serving the people in poorer neighborhoods..."

This view belongs in the pew, but not in the boardroom.
And is the best evidence that Democrat, liberal, progressive policies caused the crisis.


"there WAS NO GVT mandate Frank....the banks CHOSE VIA FREEWILL to loan haphazardly."
While it is absolutely essential for those of your perspective to propound this mistaken viewpoint, the facts run counter...


"a. Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.

b. In 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new “flexible credit and underwriting standards” for minority borrowers—for example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income.

c, ACORN then attacked Fannie Mae, the giant quasi-government agency that bought loans from banks in order to allow them to make new loans. Its underwriters were “strictly by-the-book interpreters” of lending standards and turned down purchases of unconventional loans, charged Acorn. The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers.

d. Clinton Administration housing secretary, Henry Cisneros, declared that he would expand homeownership among lower- and lower-middle-income renters. His strategy: pushing for no-down-payment loans; expanding the size of mortgages that the government would insure against losses; and using the CRA and other lending laws to direct more private money into low-income programs.

e. .... Freddie Mac, for instance, started approving low-income buyers with bad credit histories or none at all, ...

f. Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn’t stop with Sears. If it didn’t happen, Clinton officials warned, they’d seek to extend CRA regulations "

For the full article...which you should peruse...see here:Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2009


I challenge you to find any errors in the above. If you cannot, then you should retract "there WAS NO GVT mandate Frank....the banks CHOSE VIA FREEWILL to loan haphazardly."

SHHHH.... that's a word those on the left have no concept of
responsibility

Where is the responsibility from the Right?

The Right argues that we all have individual responsibility. Yet PC just argued that banks had a "fiduciary duty" to make bad loans to get a return. The Right's whole argument on the CRA is that it lowered lending standards, causing a Housing Bubble. Putting aside the incorrect notion that executives have a fiduciary duty to make bad business decisions, this argument absolves individuals of their individual responsibility to act in a prudent manner (which in fact violates an individuals fiduciary duty).

The Right doesn't usually buy blaming society when an individual, or many individuals, do the wrong thing. The Right argues that every individual makes a choice, and every individual should bear the consequences of that choice. Yet the Right is blaming society for the Housing Crisis, saying people "had" to lower their credit standards universally because of this one small part of the market. People did not have to lower their credit standards. Those were choices made by individuals.

"The market" is a collective. It is a vast group of individuals setting prices. Saying "Everyone else was doing it, so we have to do it to" - which is what the Right is arguing when they say credit standards were lowered because of the CRA - is no different than someone trying to absolve their bad behavior by blaming society.

I track the performance of over 500 publicly traded banks and thrifts. The majority of those banks and thrifts made money during the Financial Crisis. Many banks acted prudently. So banks did not have to lower their lending standards across the market in response to this one small part of the lending market.

The Right argues that we all have individual responsibility. Yet PC just argued that banks had a "fiduciary duty" to make bad loans to get a return.

NO she did not here's what she said.

No, Care, banks were exercising their fiduciary responsibility in giving loans were they saw the best chance of getting the return that they, as a business, required.