Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Failure: The Lies, the Cover Ups and the Making of a Disaster | Loan Calculators
Wall Street Journal October 4, 2004:
Fannie Mae isnt an ordinary company and this isnt a run-of-the-mill accounting scandal. The U.S. government had no financial stake in the failure of Enron or WorldCom. But because of Fannies implicit subsidy from the federal government, taxpayers are on the hook if its capital cushion is insufficient to absorb big losses. Private profit, public risk. Thats quite a confidence game and its time to call it.
Moe- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have failed and you, the tax payers, ARE bailing them out. I just wanted to make that loud and clear.
Fan and Fred also couldnt prosper for as long as they have without the support of the political left, both in Congress and the intellectual class. This includes Mr. Frank and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) on Capitol Hill, as well as Mr. Krugman and the Washington Posts Steven Pearlstein in the press. Their claim is that the companies are essential for homeownership. Yet as studies have shown, about half of the implicit taxpayer subsidy for Fan and Fred is pocketed by shareholders and management. According to the Federal Reserve, the half that goes to homeowners adds up to a mere seven basis points on mortgages. In return for this, Fannie was able to pay no fewer than 21 of its executives more than $1 million in 2002, and in 2003 Mr. Raines pocketed more than $20 million. Fannies left-wing defenders are underwriters of crony capitalism, not affordable housing. - See more at: Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac Failure: The Lies, the Cover Ups and the Making of a Disaster | Loan Calculators
Nope, you mean the hole Dubya/GOP left US in is worse, AND even though the TPGOP has fought him EVERY step of the way, MORE THAN 10+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS HAVE BEEN CREATED SINCE HITTING DUBYA'S BOTTOM, MARCH 2010
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
You'd think, after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator policies, the US economy would've been booming? ANYONE?
Yup, Obama added 5.5 million jobs and it only took $6.26 trillion in new debt, $1,138,000 million per job.
Reagan added 14.7 million jobs and he added $1.76 trillion in new debt, $119,727 per job.
Oh yeah, beat the Soviet Union. How's that Russia reset working out for ya?
Yep, Ronnie tripled US debt, and the policies satarted under Dubya are killing Obama who MIGHT add 80% to his debt. Go look at US debt OCT 1, 2009, his first F/Y
AGAIN, Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies. Weird where were those 'jobs, jobs, jobs'?
the following quote was from dad2threeWhy did the Housing Market Crash? There are many people who are asking this question and most of them did not recognize the irrationality during the housing bubble nor had the foresight that the housing bubble would collapse.
Contrary to the misconception that it was the free market that made the housing bubble possible it was interference in the market place that distorted the demand and supply variables for credit and real estate. The Federal Reserve greatly distorts the supply and availability of money with its anti-free market loose interest rate manipulation. The Government also interferes in the market place with non-sense guarantees of home loans made through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, USDA, and VA.
It wasn’t the free market that encouraged malinvestment and speculation. It was the Government guaranteeing home loans through various agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that eliminated risk as the lender would have the ability to make loans while the Government guaranteed its potential losses.
Why Did The Housing Market Crash?*|*WTF FinanceWrong! Obviously you are still relying on old left wing claims and parroting your puppet master's propaganda. The NEW STUDIES show the facts based on actual scientific data collection and not the left wing rhetoric you are spewing. Why not read the study conclusions and how they reached them?Wall Street, Not Fannie and Freddie, Led Mortgage Meltdown
Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending?New Study Blames Community Reinvestment Act For Mortgage Defaults - Investors.com
Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending?
Sumit Agarwal, Efraim Benmelech, Nittai Bergman, Amit Seru
NBER Working Paper No. 18609
Issued in December 2012
NBER Program(s): AP CF
Yes, it did. We use exogenous variation in banks’ incentives to conform to the standards of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) around regulatory exam dates to trace out the effect of the CRA on lending activity. Our empirical strategy compares lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that do not face these exams. We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks: in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams lending is elevated on average by about 5 percent every quarter and loans in these quarters default by about 15 percent more often. These patterns are accentuated in CRA-eligible census tracts and are concentrated among large banks. The effects are strongest during the time period when the market for private securitization was booming.
Democrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession.
But a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research finds, "Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks."
Added NBER: "There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts," or predominantly low-income and minority areas.
WEIRD
NEWER STUDY DEBUNKS AEI ( NBER ) 'STUDY'
January 2013
Debunking the CRA Myth – Again
In this paper, center researchers review the research evidence on CRA and show that there is no credible research to support the assertion that CRA contributed to an increase in risky lending during the subprime boom. In particular, they present a detailed rebuttal of a recent paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, titled “Did the Community Reinvestment Act Lead to Risky Lending,” which purports to find evidence that “yes, it did.” The study is severely flawed, both in terms of the empirical analysis and in the authors’ interpretation of the results, and thus fails to contribute to the existing literature on both the strengths and weaknesses of CRA.
UNC Center for Community Capital
Given CEOs' proclivity for government bashing, any lenders being driven to write bad loans by the CRA would have been on CNBC screaming at the top of their lungs.
But that dog that didn't bark.
GO HERE DUMMY, TRY TO EDUCATE YOURSELF
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html
Yup, Obama added 5.5 million jobs and it only took $6.26 trillion in new debt, $1,138,000 million per job.
Reagan added 14.7 million jobs and he added $1.76 trillion in new debt, $119,727 per job.
Oh yeah, beat the Soviet Union. How's that Russia reset working out for ya?
Yep, Ronnie tripled US debt, and the policies satarted under Dubya are killing Obama who MIGHT add 80% to his debt. Go look at US debt OCT 1, 2009, his first F/Y
AGAIN, Dubya/GOP 'job creator' policies. Weird where were those 'jobs, jobs, jobs'?
Go look at US debt OCT 1, 2009, his first F/Y
Why would I ignore the fact that he added spending well before Oct 1, 2009?
That would be dishonest.
The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains
Why do you keep confusing capital gains with dividends?
Why do you keep confusing wealth with income?
You're not very good at this.
Higher taxes you tend to put money back into your Biz versus taking it out
If my corporate tax rate is 35% instead of 15%, I'm going to invest less in my business, not more.
The higher rate is going to cause me to create fewer new businesses, not more.
Cause me to hire fewer employees, not more.
You're not very good at this.
Got it, you'll CHOOSE to be dishonest, I'm shocked. No really, I am
top 1/10th of 1% get over 50% of ALL dividends <------idiot
and yet under Obama unemployment is still 50% higher than it was for decades before the recession? Obama's record is worst since Great Depression.
Nope, you mean the hole Dubya/GOP left US in is worse, AND even though the TPGOP has fought him EVERY step of the way, MORE THAN 10+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS HAVE BEEN CREATED SINCE HITTING DUBYA'S BOTTOM, MARCH 2010
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
You'd think, after 8 years of Dubya/GOP 'job creator policies, the US economy would've been booming? ANYONE?
Yup, Obama added 5.5 million jobs and it only took $6.26 trillion in new debt, $1,138,000 million per job.
Reagan added 14.7 million jobs and he added $1.76 trillion in new debt, $119,727 per job.
Oh yeah, beat the Soviet Union. How's that Russia reset working out for ya?
what a drag to scroll through
too bad a few supposedly smaht individuals couldn't take it into the bull ring where points could be made in a structured order?
I tried to take it over to my posts, he refused. Sorry
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html
what a drag to scroll through
too bad a few supposedly smaht individuals couldn't take it into the bull ring where points could be made in a structured order?
I tried to take it over to my posts, he refused. Sorry
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html
This was an interesting thread until you started boring the shit out of everyone with all this technical horse manure.
Who controls interest rates, Derp2three?
Look to my next post Bubba,
I never meant to say that the conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
John Stuart Mill, in a letter to the Conservative MP, John Pakington
NOT THE FED
I noted earlier that the most important source of lower initial monthly payments, which allowed more people to enter the housing market and bid for properties, was not the general level of short-term interest rates, but the increasing use of more exotic types of mortgages and the associated decline of underwriting standards. That conclusion suggests that the best response to the housing bubble would have been regulatory, not monetary. Stronger regulation and supervision aimed at problems with underwriting practices and lenders' risk management would have been a more effective and surgical approach to constraining the housing bubble than a general increase in interest rates. Moreover, regulators, supervisors, and the private sector could have more effectively addressed building risk concentrations and inadequate risk-management practices without necessarily having had to make a judgment about the sustainability of house price increases.
FRB: Speech--Bernanke, Monetary Policy and the Housing Bubble--January 3, 2010
Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?
According to research by Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi and Alessandro Rebucci, the housing bubble was caused by "regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":
Economist's View: Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?
Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble?
after the Fed started to tighten its monetary-policy stance and the prime segment of the mortgage market promptly turned around, the subprime segment of the mortgage market continued to boom, with increased perceived risk of loans portfolios and declining lending standards. Despite this evidence, the first regulatory action to rein in those financial excesses was undertaken only in late 2006, after almost two years of steady increases in the federal funds rate.
When regulators finally decided to act, it was too late:
Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble? | AEIdeas
The global housing boom: In come the waves | The Economist
The global boom in house prices has been driven by two common factors: historically low interest rates have encouraged home buyers to borrow more money; and households have lost faith in equities after stock markets plunged, making property look attractiveAs a built in historic wealth containment mechanism. Will prices now fall, or simply flatten off? And in either case, what will be the consequences for economies around the globe? The likely answers to all these questions are not comforting.
Cool and?
Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?
According to research by Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi and Alessandro Rebucci, the housing bubble was caused by "regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":
Economist's View: Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?
Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble?
after the Fed started to tighten its monetary-policy stance and the prime segment of the mortgage market promptly turned around, the subprime segment of the mortgage market continued to boom, with increased perceived risk of loans portfolios and declining lending standards. Despite this evidence, the first regulatory action to rein in those financial excesses was undertaken only in late 2006, after almost two years of steady increases in the federal funds rate.
When regulators finally decided to act, it was too late:
Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble? | AEIdeas
Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.
http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf
Who controls interest rates?
The global housing boom: In come the waves | The Economist
The global boom in house prices has been driven by two common factors: historically low interest rates have encouraged home buyers to borrow more money; and households have lost faith in equities after stock markets plunged, making property look attractiveAs a built in historic wealth containment mechanism. Will prices now fall, or simply flatten off? And in either case, what will be the consequences for economies around the globe? The likely answers to all these questions are not comforting.
Cool and?
Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?The big event that drove the monetary bubble
ry
According to research by Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi and Alessandro Rebucci, the housing bubble was caused by "regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":
Economist's View: Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?
Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble?
after the Fed started to tighten its monetary-policy stance and the prime segment of the mortgage market promptly turned around, the subprime segment of the mortgage market continued to boom, with increased perceived risk of loans portfolios and declining lending standards. Despite this evidence, the first regulatory action to rein in those financial excesses was undertaken only in late 2006, after almost two years of steady increases in the federal funds rate.
When regulators finally decided to act, it was too late:
Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble? | AEIdeas
Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.
http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf
Who controls interest rates, Derp2three?
Look to my next post Bubba,
I never meant to say that the conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
John Stuart Mill, in a letter to the Conservative MP, John Pakington
NOT THE FED
I noted earlier that the most important source of lower initial monthly payments, which allowed more people to enter the housing market and bid for properties, was not the general level of short-term interest rates, but the increasing use of more exotic types of mortgages and the associated decline of underwriting standards. That conclusion suggests that the best response to the housing bubble would have been regulatory, not monetary. Stronger regulation and supervision aimed at problems with underwriting practices and lenders' risk management would have been a more effective and surgical approach to constraining the housing bubble than a general increase in interest rates. Moreover, regulators, supervisors, and the private sector could have more effectively addressed building risk concentrations and inadequate risk-management practices without necessarily having had to make a judgment about the sustainability of house price increases.
FRB: Speech--Bernanke, Monetary Policy and the Housing Bubble--January 3, 2010
Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?
According to research by Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi and Alessandro Rebucci, the housing bubble was caused by "regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":
Economist's View: Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?
Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble?
after the Fed started to tighten its monetary-policy stance and the prime segment of the mortgage market promptly turned around, the subprime segment of the mortgage market continued to boom, with increased perceived risk of loans portfolios and declining lending standards. Despite this evidence, the first regulatory action to rein in those financial excesses was undertaken only in late 2006, after almost two years of steady increases in the federal funds rate.
When regulators finally decided to act, it was too late:
Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble? | AEIdeas
Who controls interest rates, Derp2Three?
Cool and?
Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?
According to research by Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi and Alessandro Rebucci, the housing bubble was caused by "regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":
Economist's View: Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?
Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble?
after the Fed started to tighten its monetary-policy stance and the prime segment of the mortgage market promptly turned around, the subprime segment of the mortgage market continued to boom, with increased perceived risk of loans portfolios and declining lending standards. Despite this evidence, the first regulatory action to rein in those financial excesses was undertaken only in late 2006, after almost two years of steady increases in the federal funds rate.
When regulators finally decided to act, it was too late:
Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble? | AEIdeas
Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.
http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf
Who controls interest rates?
Cool and?
Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?The big event that drove the monetary bubble
ry
According to research by Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi and Alessandro Rebucci, the housing bubble was caused by "regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":
Economist's View: Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?
Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble?
after the Fed started to tighten its monetary-policy stance and the prime segment of the mortgage market promptly turned around, the subprime segment of the mortgage market continued to boom, with increased perceived risk of loans portfolios and declining lending standards. Despite this evidence, the first regulatory action to rein in those financial excesses was undertaken only in late 2006, after almost two years of steady increases in the federal funds rate.
When regulators finally decided to act, it was too late:
Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble? | AEIdeas
Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.
http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf
Liberal intervention in housing market was massive!!
"The big event that drove the drove the monetary bubble being created by the Fed into the housing market was a decision made by the Clnton Administration in Sept of 1999, Bill Clinton put teeth into and his political power behind the goal of Fred/ Fan having at least 50% of their loan portfolios in affordable housing( sub prime) loans." John Allison
In addition to the Federal Reserve System you had Fanny and Freddie which bought and guaranteed many of the mortgages so no one had to worry about them failing. Then you had CRA, FHA, Federal Home Loan Bank Board( 3% down payment loans) SEC, Govt ratings agencies, and several others that were designed to get everybody in their own home.
When the states tried to move against predatory lending by national banks they were blocked by the bank's federal regulator, the office of the comptroller of the currency. That empowered money lenders said Lynn Turner.
Just as significantly you had very badly conceived govt accounting rules that hid the problems from everyone until it was too late. Accounting rules are supposed to do the opposite, not move billions in potential liabilities off the balance sheet onto tiny footnote on the bottom of a page as happened at Citibank, or onto on sentence at the end of a 10-Q report as happened at AIG, or as generally happened with SIVs (structured investment vehicles). Then you had gov't rules from the last crisis, the Enron Crisis, the created mark-to- market accounting rules for this crisis that many believe greatly exacerbated this crisis.
Then you had the problem with the government backed ratings agencies that simply failed to rate the mortgage backed and related securities, properly. Sorry, it had little to do with the private market, but had everything to do with inane attempts by the liberal to regulate the free market!
Your own link makes you look like a farkin' tard, fella.
Cool and?
Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?The big event that drove the monetary bubble
ry
According to research by Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi and Alessandro Rebucci, the housing bubble was caused by "regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":
Economist's View: Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?
Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble?
after the Fed started to tighten its monetary-policy stance and the prime segment of the mortgage market promptly turned around, the subprime segment of the mortgage market continued to boom, with increased perceived risk of loans portfolios and declining lending standards. Despite this evidence, the first regulatory action to rein in those financial excesses was undertaken only in late 2006, after almost two years of steady increases in the federal funds rate.
When regulators finally decided to act, it was too late:
Was it easy money or easy regulation that caused the housing bubble? | AEIdeas
Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.
http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf
Liberal intervention in housing market was massive!!
"The big event that drove the drove the monetary bubble being created by the Fed into the housing market was a decision made by the Clnton Administration in Sept of 1999, Bill Clinton put teeth into and his political power behind the goal of Fred/ Fan having at least 50% of their loan portfolios in affordable housing( sub prime) loans." John Allison
In addition to the Federal Reserve System you had Fanny and Freddie which bought and guaranteed many of the mortgages so no one had to worry about them failing. Then you had CRA, FHA, Federal Home Loan Bank Board( 3% down payment loans) SEC, Govt ratings agencies, and several others that were designed to get everybody in their own home.
When the states tried to move against predatory lending by national banks they were blocked by the bank's federal regulator, the office of the comptroller of the currency. That empowered money lenders said Lynn Turner.
Just as significantly you had very badly conceived govt accounting rules that hid the problems from everyone until it was too late. Accounting rules are supposed to do the opposite, not move billions in potential liabilities off the balance sheet onto tiny footnote on the bottom of a page as happened at Citibank, or onto on sentence at the end of a 10-Q report as happened at AIG, or as generally happened with SIVs (structured investment vehicles). Then you had gov't rules from the last crisis, the Enron Crisis, the created mark-to- market accounting rules for this crisis that many believe greatly exacerbated this crisis.
Then you had the problem with the government backed ratings agencies that simply failed to rate the mortgage backed and related securities, properly. Sorry, it had little to do with the private market, but had everything to do with inane attempts by the liberal to regulate the free market!
Before the inflation which has taken place since McDonalds and Walmart were created maybe, but now? $10 hamburgers and $60 shirts are likely less than they would be. Hint, I had to pay $60 for a simple dress shirt in May. I was not pulling that price out of my rear. It appears you have your head firmly implanted in your excremental orifice....and you wonder where the smell comes fromOK, so the government should shut Walmart and McDonalds and all the other businesses like them down. Then what have you got? $10 hamburgers? $$60 shirts? Good for you. You have just thrown 3 to 5 million people out of work.
Yeah, because before Walmart and McD's we had $10 hamburgers and $60 shirts *shaking head*
what a drag to scroll through
too bad a few supposedly smaht individuals couldn't take it into the bull ring where points could be made in a structured order?
I tried to take it over to my posts, he refused. Sorry
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html
This was an interesting thread until you started boring the shit out of everyone with all this technical horse manure.
The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence
The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence
dear, you may be the only person on earth who believes that! Ask 1000 economists and not one will pick that. See why we have to doubt the intelligence of liberals?
