Should the Glass Steagall Act be brought back?

[thereisnospoon]

Tell me fucktard, what regulation would have prevented the collapse?

Would assigning a federal agent to each and everyone in the banking industry satisfy your socialistic inclinations?

.

you don't understand what glass-steagle did, do you?

here's what it would have prevented since you seem particularly confused. it would have kept banks from playing with the savings side of their business. and since you clearly don't understand what caused the crash... that would have printed the rise of garbage asset backed securities.

i hope that helps. i'm afraid i can't help your inability to articulate without a spew of profanity.

You don't understand what glass-steagall did, do you? Since it appears that you are blind and/or have some kind of cognitive impairment I am going to use a large fonts.

Shattering the Glass-Steagall myth

Facts such as that Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch — three institutions at the heart of the crisis — were pure investment banks that had never crossed the old line into commercial banking. The same goes for Goldman Sachs, another favorite villain of the left.

The infamous AIG? An insurance firm. New Century Financial? A real estate investment trust. No Glass-Steagall there.

Two of the biggest banks that went under, Wachovia and Washington Mutual, got into trouble the old-fashioned way – largely by making risky loans to homeowners. Bank of America nearly met the same fate, not because it had bought an investment bank but because it had bought Countrywide Financial, a vanilla-variety mortgage lender."

.

Actually had Wachovia not purchased Golden West Financial, the bank would still be in existence today.
Bank of America and Wachovia, the two banking giants based in Charlotte, NC were always "one upping" each other. When one went ahead with plans to purchase a bank, the other was soon to do that same. In 2006 or so, Bank of America purchased Countrywide Mortgage. Wachovia , in my opinion stupidly, followed suit with it's buy out of Golden West Financial. I told my wife who was then a Wachovia employee now with Wells Fargo, that this was a very bad idea and it would come back to bite them.
I was right. Ken Thompson then CEO was canned shortly after the financial meltdown began.

 

[Dad2three]

They actually continued to have borrowers making their payments. Because they had made good, sound, safe mortgage lending decisions. Called prudent underwriting in the trade.

WUT?

That has been against the law since the Carter administration.

"banks in every community in America have been forced to hold a portfolio of bad loans, euphemistically referred to as "subprime" loans."

.





.

CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown


It's time to stop the scapegoating: According to a study by the Federal Reserve, 94% of high-cost loans originated during the housing boom had nothing to do with Community Reinvestment Act goals. Lending to poor didn't spur crisis -Fed's Kroszner -


The Comptroller of the Currency. John C. Dugan, agrees: "CRA [the Community Reinvestment Act] is not the culprit behind the subprime mortgage lending abuses, or the broader credit quality issues in the marketplace. Indeed, the lenders most prominently associated with subprime mortgage lending abuses and high rates of foreclosure are lenders not subject to CRA. A recent study of 2006 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data showed that banks subject to CRA and their affiliates originated or purchased only six percent of the reported high cost loans made to lower-income borrowers within their CRA assessment areas."**

CRA was effective long before the subprime market existed



Most subprime lenders weren’t covered under CRA



Wall Street created the demand for riskier loans


Regulatory oversight and accountability was missing


The majority of subprime loans went to white borrowers

CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown




Community Reinvestment Act, which was enacted more than 30 years ago, suddenly caused an explosion in bad subprime loans from 2002 to 2007. During the 1990s, enforcement under the reinvestment act was strong, prime lending to low-income communities increased and it was done safely. In 2000, a Federal Reserve report found that lending under the act was generally profitable and not overly risky.

By contrast, in the 2002 to 2007 period, the act’s enforcement was weak and its advocates had little influence with Congress. In 2003, President Bush’s chief thrift regulator — holding a chainsaw in his hands as a prop — boasted of his plans to cut banking regulations, including the scope of the reinvestment act and his enforcement staff, which he carried out over the next two years.



Instead, the bad subprime loans were predominantly made by financial firms not covered by the act


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/opinion/18barr.html


There was no requirement in the Community Reinvestment Act that required banks to lend to marginal borrowers, just encouragement to try to lend to weaker borrowers in areas where the banks opened branches.



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.



First, with respect to the CRA, the main culprits in the crisis were private sector financial institutions that were not subject to the requirements of the CRA. In the story being pushed by free market advocates, the CRA forced banks to make loans to unqualified, low-income households. When those loans blew up, it caused the financial crisis. But the largest players in the subprime market were private sector firms that were not subject to the CRA's rules and regulations. For example, "Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics." The largest losses had nothing to do with banks covered by the CRA.



Second, even if the banks themselves were subject to the CRA, not all loans that they made were covered by these rules. Even in banks where the CRA applied, most of the problems were in loans that did not fall under the CRA's jurisdiction.

Third, the CRA has been in existence since 1977. If the CRA was responsible, why didn't the crisis occur sooner? The timing simply doesn't match up.

Fourth, the CRA only applies to domestic firms, but the crisis occurred in many countries. If the CRA is the problem, why did countries that had nothing like the CRA experience similar problems?

Fannie, Freddie, and the CRA are Not Responsible for the Financial Crisis - CBS News



CRA does not either encourage or condone bad lending. Bank regulators were decrying bad subprime lending before the turn of the millennium (see Interagency Guidance on Subprime Lending), and warning the CRA-covered institutions we regulated that badly underwritten subprime products that ignored consumer protections were not acceptable. Lenders not subject to CRA did not receive similar warnings.And we also explained to those we regulated how to serve lower income communities and borrowers in a manner that was good for the borrower, good for the bank, and earned CRA credit.


It's Still Not CRA | New America Blogs

 

[Dad2three]

To keep the risky side of INVESTING AWAY from the staid, old fashioned, safe, secure MORTGAGE lending arena

You know where banks lost money?

In staid, old fashioned, safe, secure MORTGAGE lending.

Well, except they dropped underwriting standards because they could bundle and off load the risk, mainly to insurance comp's and pension funds, instead of holding the loans as they traditionally did

"Banks have been placed in a Catch 22 situation by the CRA:

If they comply, they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults.

If they don’t comply, they face financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers, branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters, which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars.

Like most businesses, they have largely buckled under and have surrendered to their bureaucratic masters.

.

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.



Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up



The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.




A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative. How did U.S. regulations against redlining in inner cities also cause a boom in Spain, Ireland and Australia? How can we explain the boom occurring in countries that do not have a tax deduction for mortgage interest or government-sponsored enterprises? And why, after nearly a century of mortgage interest deduction in the United States, did it suddenly cause a crisis?

These questions show why proximity and statistical validity are so important. Let’s get more specific.The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 is a favorite boogeyman for some, despite the numbers that so easily disprove it as a cause.It is a statistical invalid argument, as the data show.

For example, if the CRA was to blame, the housing boom would have been in CRA regions; it would have made places such as Harlem and South Philly and Compton and inner Washington the primary locales of the run up and collapse. Further, the default rates in these areas should have been worse than other regions.


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture

 

[Contumacious]

They actually continued to have borrowers making their payments. Because they had made good, sound, safe mortgage lending decisions. Called prudent underwriting in the trade.

WUT?

That has been against the law since the Carter administration.

"banks in every community in America have been forced to hold a portfolio of bad loans, euphemistically referred to as "subprime" loans."

.





.

CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown


[ l]

A man named Bruce Marks became quite notorious during the last decade for pressuring banks to earmark literally billions of dollars to his organization, the "Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America."

He once boasted to the New York Times that he had "won" loan commitments totaling $3.8 billion from Bank of America, First Union Corporation, and the Fleet Financial Group.

And that is just one "community group" operating in one city — Boston

 

[thereisnospoon]

They actually continued to have borrowers making their payments. Because they had made good, sound, safe mortgage lending decisions. Called prudent underwriting in the trade.

WUT?

That has been against the law since the Carter administration.

"banks in every community in America have been forced to hold a portfolio of bad loans, euphemistically referred to as "subprime" loans."







.

CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown


It's time to stop the scapegoating: According to a study by the Federal Reserve, 94% of high-cost loans originated during the housing boom had nothing to do with Community Reinvestment Act goals. Lending to poor didn't spur crisis -Fed's Kroszner -


The Comptroller of the Currency. John C. Dugan, agrees: "CRA [the Community Reinvestment Act] is not the culprit behind the subprime mortgage lending abuses, or the broader credit quality issues in the marketplace. Indeed, the lenders most prominently associated with subprime mortgage lending abuses and high rates of foreclosure are lenders not subject to CRA. A recent study of 2006 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data showed that banks subject to CRA and their affiliates originated or purchased only six percent of the reported high cost loans made to lower-income borrowers within their CRA assessment areas."**

CRA was effective long before the subprime market existed



Most subprime lenders weren’t covered under CRA



Wall Street created the demand for riskier loans


Regulatory oversight and accountability was missing


The majority of subprime loans went to white borrowers

CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown




Community Reinvestment Act, which was enacted more than 30 years ago, suddenly caused an explosion in bad subprime loans from 2002 to 2007. During the 1990s, enforcement under the reinvestment act was strong, prime lending to low-income communities increased and it was done safely. In 2000, a Federal Reserve report found that lending under the act was generally profitable and not overly risky.

By contrast, in the 2002 to 2007 period, the act’s enforcement was weak and its advocates had little influence with Congress. In 2003, President Bush’s chief thrift regulator — holding a chainsaw in his hands as a prop — boasted of his plans to cut banking regulations, including the scope of the reinvestment act and his enforcement staff, which he carried out over the next two years.



Instead, the bad subprime loans were predominantly made by financial firms not covered by the act


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/opinion/18barr.html


There was no requirement in the Community Reinvestment Act that required banks to lend to marginal borrowers, just encouragement to try to lend to weaker borrowers in areas where the banks opened branches.



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.



First, with respect to the CRA, the main culprits in the crisis were private sector financial institutions that were not subject to the requirements of the CRA. In the story being pushed by free market advocates, the CRA forced banks to make loans to unqualified, low-income households. When those loans blew up, it caused the financial crisis. But the largest players in the subprime market were private sector firms that were not subject to the CRA's rules and regulations. For example, "Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics." The largest losses had nothing to do with banks covered by the CRA.



Second, even if the banks themselves were subject to the CRA, not all loans that they made were covered by these rules. Even in banks where the CRA applied, most of the problems were in loans that did not fall under the CRA's jurisdiction.

Third, the CRA has been in existence since 1977. If the CRA was responsible, why didn't the crisis occur sooner? The timing simply doesn't match up.

Fourth, the CRA only applies to domestic firms, but the crisis occurred in many countries. If the CRA is the problem, why did countries that had nothing like the CRA experience similar problems?

Fannie, Freddie, and the CRA are Not Responsible for the Financial Crisis - CBS News



CRA does not either encourage or condone bad lending. Bank regulators were decrying bad subprime lending before the turn of the millennium (see Interagency Guidance on Subprime Lending), and warning the CRA-covered institutions we regulated that badly underwritten subprime products that ignored consumer protections were not acceptable. Lenders not subject to CRA did not receive similar warnings.And we also explained to those we regulated how to serve lower income communities and borrowers in a manner that was good for the borrower, good for the bank, and earned CRA credit.


It's Still Not CRA | New America Blogs

.Genius....What else would you expect as a response from the Comptroller of the Currency. It's a political position.
The CRA was one of the worst of all financial laws to come out of Washington.

 

[Dad2three]

To keep the risky side of INVESTING AWAY from the staid, old fashioned, safe, secure MORTGAGE lending arena

You know where banks lost money?

In staid, old fashioned, safe, secure MORTGAGE lending.

Well, except they dropped underwriting standards because they could bundle and off load the risk, mainly to insurance comp's and pension funds, instead of holding the loans as they traditionally did

"Banks have been placed in a Catch 22 situation by the CRA:

If they comply, they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults.

If they don’t comply, they face financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers, branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters, which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars.

Like most businesses, they have largely buckled under and have surrendered to their bureaucratic masters.

.

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up


CRA were less likely to default than Subprime Mortgages — Source: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

For example, if the CRA was to blame, the housing boom would have been in CRA regions; it would have made places such as Harlem and South Philly and Compton and inner Washington the primary locales of the run up and collapse. Further, the default rates in these areas should have been worse than other regions.



What occurred was the exact opposite: The suburbs boomed and busted and went into foreclosure in much greater numbers than inner cities. The tiny suburbs and exurbs of South Florida and California and Las Vegas and Arizona were the big boomtowns, not the low-income regions. The redlined areas the CRA address missed much of the boom; places that busted had nothing to do with the CRA.



Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture

 

[Dad2three]

WUT?

That has been against the law since the Carter administration.

"banks in every community in America have been forced to hold a portfolio of bad loans, euphemistically referred to as "subprime" loans."







.

CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown


It's time to stop the scapegoating: According to a study by the Federal Reserve, 94% of high-cost loans originated during the housing boom had nothing to do with Community Reinvestment Act goals. Lending to poor didn't spur crisis -Fed's Kroszner -


The Comptroller of the Currency. John C. Dugan, agrees: "CRA [the Community Reinvestment Act] is not the culprit behind the subprime mortgage lending abuses, or the broader credit quality issues in the marketplace. Indeed, the lenders most prominently associated with subprime mortgage lending abuses and high rates of foreclosure are lenders not subject to CRA. A recent study of 2006 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data showed that banks subject to CRA and their affiliates originated or purchased only six percent of the reported high cost loans made to lower-income borrowers within their CRA assessment areas."**

CRA was effective long before the subprime market existed



Most subprime lenders weren’t covered under CRA



Wall Street created the demand for riskier loans


Regulatory oversight and accountability was missing


The majority of subprime loans went to white borrowers

CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown




Community Reinvestment Act, which was enacted more than 30 years ago, suddenly caused an explosion in bad subprime loans from 2002 to 2007. During the 1990s, enforcement under the reinvestment act was strong, prime lending to low-income communities increased and it was done safely. In 2000, a Federal Reserve report found that lending under the act was generally profitable and not overly risky.

By contrast, in the 2002 to 2007 period, the act’s enforcement was weak and its advocates had little influence with Congress. In 2003, President Bush’s chief thrift regulator — holding a chainsaw in his hands as a prop — boasted of his plans to cut banking regulations, including the scope of the reinvestment act and his enforcement staff, which he carried out over the next two years.



Instead, the bad subprime loans were predominantly made by financial firms not covered by the act


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/opinion/18barr.html


There was no requirement in the Community Reinvestment Act that required banks to lend to marginal borrowers, just encouragement to try to lend to weaker borrowers in areas where the banks opened branches.



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.



First, with respect to the CRA, the main culprits in the crisis were private sector financial institutions that were not subject to the requirements of the CRA. In the story being pushed by free market advocates, the CRA forced banks to make loans to unqualified, low-income households. When those loans blew up, it caused the financial crisis. But the largest players in the subprime market were private sector firms that were not subject to the CRA's rules and regulations. For example, "Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics." The largest losses had nothing to do with banks covered by the CRA.



Second, even if the banks themselves were subject to the CRA, not all loans that they made were covered by these rules. Even in banks where the CRA applied, most of the problems were in loans that did not fall under the CRA's jurisdiction.

Third, the CRA has been in existence since 1977. If the CRA was responsible, why didn't the crisis occur sooner? The timing simply doesn't match up.

Fourth, the CRA only applies to domestic firms, but the crisis occurred in many countries. If the CRA is the problem, why did countries that had nothing like the CRA experience similar problems?

Fannie, Freddie, and the CRA are Not Responsible for the Financial Crisis - CBS News



CRA does not either encourage or condone bad lending. Bank regulators were decrying bad subprime lending before the turn of the millennium (see Interagency Guidance on Subprime Lending), and warning the CRA-covered institutions we regulated that badly underwritten subprime products that ignored consumer protections were not acceptable. Lenders not subject to CRA did not receive similar warnings.And we also explained to those we regulated how to serve lower income communities and borrowers in a manner that was good for the borrower, good for the bank, and earned CRA credit.


It's Still Not CRA | New America Blogs

.Genius....What else would you expect as a response from the Comptroller of the Currency. It's a political position.
The CRA was one of the worst of all financial laws to come out of Washington.

Got it, a law around for 30+ years and weakened under Dubya was the cause *shaking head*

 

[Dad2three]

WUT?

That has been against the law since the Carter administration.

"banks in every community in America have been forced to hold a portfolio of bad loans, euphemistically referred to as "subprime" loans."

.





.

CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown


[ l]

A man named Bruce Marks became quite notorious during the last decade for pressuring banks to earmark literally billions of dollars to his organization, the "Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America."

He once boasted to the New York Times that he had "won" loan commitments totaling $3.8 billion from Bank of America, First Union Corporation, and the Fleet Financial Group.

And that is just one "community group" operating in one city — Boston

$3.8 whole billion? Well THAT certainly proves it. Dubya inherited a $1 trillion a year mortgage market and took it to $4 trillion by 2004, I'm sure $3.8 billion would've harmed US


Of course Dubya ALSO required Fannie/Freddie to purchase $440 BILLION in MBS's (guess who from) to meet his goals' starting in 2002....

GROW A BRAIN

 

[Contumacious]

Well, except they dropped underwriting standards because they could bundle and off load the risk, mainly to insurance comp's and pension funds, instead of holding the loans as they traditionally did

"Banks have been placed in a Catch 22 situation by the CRA:

If they comply, they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults.

If they don’t comply, they face financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers, branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters, which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars.

Like most businesses, they have largely buckled under and have surrendered to their bureaucratic masters.

.

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.

Don’t expect the facts to be disclosed about in the "mainstream media,". They generally view groups like ACORN as heroic champions of the poor, laws like the CRA as anti-discrimination laws, and places all of the blame for the subprime mortgage meltdown on greedy capitalists, especially mortgage brokers.

 

[Dad2three]

"Banks have been placed in a Catch 22 situation by the CRA:

If they comply, they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults.

If they don’t comply, they face financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers, branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters, which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars.

Like most businesses, they have largely buckled under and have surrendered to their bureaucratic masters.

.

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.

Don’t expect the facts to be disclosed about in the "mainstream media,". They generally view groups like ACORN as heroic champions of the poor, laws like the CRA as anti-discrimination laws, and places all of the blame for the subprime mortgage meltdown on greedy capitalists, especially mortgage brokers.

You mean CNBC is a harbinger of liberals? lol

How about Faux or WSJ, ANYTHING

How about the WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE, CRA TOO? How about the bubble in the commercial markets and auto industry in the 2000's too? CRA? LOL

 

[Dad2three]

"Banks have been placed in a Catch 22 situation by the CRA:

If they comply, they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults.

If they don’t comply, they face financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers, branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters, which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars.

Like most businesses, they have largely buckled under and have surrendered to their bureaucratic masters.

.

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.

Don’t expect the facts to be disclosed about in the "mainstream media,". They generally view groups like ACORN as heroic champions of the poor, laws like the CRA as anti-discrimination laws, and places all of the blame for the subprime mortgage meltdown on greedy capitalists, especially mortgage brokers.

"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms," said Allen (Ayn Rand) Greenspan.



Greenspan - I was wrong about the economy. Sort of | Business | The Guardian


Fun With Predatory Lending


“There was always a big financial incentive to make a subprime loan wherever one could.”

-affadavit of Wells Fargo Loan officer

Fun With Predatory Lending | The Big Picture




The "Fannie, Freddie, and the CRA did it!" crowd are doing the typical conservative analysis: start from a pre-determined conclusion (government is bad), then work backward, ignoring any and all evidence that might prove the conclusion wrong.

Of course, there's also the underlying -- and abhorrent -- theme of "It was all the fault of the poor and minorities."

Because there's no way the Master of Wall Street were the cause. Nope. Not at all. It was the fault of The Others.

**bangs head on keyboard**

 

[Dad2three]

"Banks have been placed in a Catch 22 situation by the CRA:

If they comply, they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults.

If they don’t comply, they face financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers, branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters, which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars.

Like most businesses, they have largely buckled under and have surrendered to their bureaucratic masters.

.

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.

Don’t expect the facts to be disclosed about in the "mainstream media,". They generally view groups like ACORN as heroic champions of the poor, laws like the CRA as anti-discrimination laws, and places all of the blame for the subprime mortgage meltdown on greedy capitalists, especially mortgage brokers.

The funny thing is that by focusing on CRA, Freddy and Fannie as government failings, one ignores the real government failings which happened at the Securities Exchange Commission (CSE failures), the Federal Reserve (subprime watchdog failure), the Office of the Comptroller of Currency (overriding state laws against predatory lending failure), the Office of Thrift Supervision (AIG failure), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (cops pulled off the white collar crime during a fraud epidemic failure).

That's only natural since the government failed in the wrong way in those institutions. It failed to regulate, it failed to enforce the law, it failed to protect the public. Those were failures of small government, laissez faire in nature, so we can ignore them. But if you really cared about government failures, the above would be your focus.


The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Don’t expect the facts to be disclosed about in the "mainstream media,". They generally view groups like ACORN as heroic champions of the poor, laws like the CRA as anti-discrimination laws, and places all of the blame for the subprime mortgage meltdown on greedy capitalists, especially mortgage brokers.

You mean CNBC is a harbinger of liberals? lol

How about Faux or WSJ, ANYTHING

How about the WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE, CRA TOO? How about the bubble in the commercial markets and auto industry in the 2000's too? CRA? LOL

Yes, indeed.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2V50AS7K0"]Look how disdainfully they treat Dr Ron Paul .[/ame]

.

.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Don’t expect the facts to be disclosed about in the "mainstream media,". They generally view groups like ACORN as heroic champions of the poor, laws like the CRA as anti-discrimination laws, and places all of the blame for the subprime mortgage meltdown on greedy capitalists, especially mortgage brokers.

The funny thing is that by focusing on CRA, Freddy and Fannie as government failings, one ignores the real government failings which happened at the Securities Exchange Commission (CSE failures), the Federal Reserve (subprime watchdog failure), the Office of the Comptroller of Currency (overriding state laws against predatory lending failure), the Office of Thrift Supervision (AIG failure), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (cops pulled off the white collar crime during a fraud epidemic failure).

That's only natural since the government failed in the wrong way in those institutions. It failed to regulate, it failed to enforce the law, it failed to protect the public. Those were failures of small government, laissez faire in nature, so we can ignore them. But if you really cared about government failures, the above would be your focus.

There are a gazillion bureaucrats regulating banking and credit. Only those profoundly retarded would classify bureaucratic incompetence as laissez-faire.

But don't worry - they system will collapse very very soon. Then we will be yet another socialistic banana republic. Somalia II

.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

First, it’s true that Frank was hardly Fannie and Freddie’s biggest critic. Nor did he spot the housing bubble. Back in 2003, as the Examiner’s Philip Klein points out, Frank said that the government-sponsored entities were not in any sort of crisis. “]

Look pal. this is not a Repugnant vs Dumbocrats issue. They are both incompetent fools.

And because Fannie and Freddy were created by the fascist state then - you guessed it - they were exempt from futher regulation.

.

Right Wing Versions of Political Events Challenged

First correction: Barney Frank/Housing Bubble/Frannie & Freddie

First the video:

[youtube]6coIcgdgF5U[/youtube]

Rightwingers will usually say something like "Barney Frank is on record as saying there was no bubble, and he planned to continue to push for easier home ownership."

True. But: What is this video about? I know: Representative Frank is a co-sponsor of a GOP sponsored resolution in the year 2005. Why is 2005 so important?
Look at who is Speaker of the US House and what changed: In November 2004, US SPEAKER, Dennis Hastert instituted his "majority of the majority" policy, allowing the House to vote only on bills supported by the majority of its Republican members.

H.Res.312 - Recognizing National Homeownership Month and the importance of homeownership in the United States.109th Congress (2005-2006)

To view go to: https://beta.congress.gov/
Drop Down MENU: All Sources
Type In SEARCH BOX: H.Res. 312​

H.Res.312 — 109th Congress (2005-2006)
Recognizing National Homeownership Month and the importance of homeownership in the United States.
Sponsor: Rep. Miller, Gary G. [R-CA-42] (Introduced 06/09/2005)
Committees: House - Financial Services
Latest Action: 06/27/2005 Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

---

Who was saying there was a housing bubble? The GOP?

 

[Dad2three]

Don’t expect the facts to be disclosed about in the "mainstream media,". They generally view groups like ACORN as heroic champions of the poor, laws like the CRA as anti-discrimination laws, and places all of the blame for the subprime mortgage meltdown on greedy capitalists, especially mortgage brokers.

You mean CNBC is a harbinger of liberals? lol

How about Faux or WSJ, ANYTHING

How about the WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE, CRA TOO? How about the bubble in the commercial markets and auto industry in the 2000's too? CRA? LOL

Yes, indeed.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW2V50AS7K0"]Look how disdainfully they treat Dr Ron Paul .[/ame]

.

.

Weird, so politicians taking 2 minutes a piece on opening statements (about 15 per committee) and criticizing them means Paul's nonsense has credibility? lol


ONE MORE TIME, HOW THE FUCK DOES CRA CREATE A WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE? Or one in the auto industry or commercial real estate? Grow a fkkng brain and get honest!!!

 

[Dad2three]

Don’t expect the facts to be disclosed about in the "mainstream media,". They generally view groups like ACORN as heroic champions of the poor, laws like the CRA as anti-discrimination laws, and places all of the blame for the subprime mortgage meltdown on greedy capitalists, especially mortgage brokers.

The funny thing is that by focusing on CRA, Freddy and Fannie as government failings, one ignores the real government failings which happened at the Securities Exchange Commission (CSE failures), the Federal Reserve (subprime watchdog failure), the Office of the Comptroller of Currency (overriding state laws against predatory lending failure), the Office of Thrift Supervision (AIG failure), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (cops pulled off the white collar crime during a fraud epidemic failure).

That's only natural since the government failed in the wrong way in those institutions. It failed to regulate, it failed to enforce the law, it failed to protect the public. Those were failures of small government, laissez faire in nature, so we can ignore them. But if you really cared about government failures, the above would be your focus.

There are a gazillion bureaucrats regulating banking and credit. Only those profoundly retarded would classify bureaucratic incompetence as laissez-faire.

But don't worry - they system will collapse very very soon. Then we will be yet another socialistic banana republic. Somalia II

.

Sure, and Paul and his wing nuts have warned of massive inflation is around the corner for over a decade, lol

 

[Andylusion]

THE ONLY provision you say???????That was exactly the purpose. To keep the risky side of INVESTING AWAY from the staid, old fashioned, safe, secure MORTGAGE lending arena.

Jesus you are dense.

To keep the risky side of INVESTING AWAY from the staid, old fashioned, safe, secure MORTGAGE lending arena

You know where banks lost money?

In staid, old fashioned, safe, secure MORTGAGE lending.

Well, except they dropped underwriting standards because they could bundle and off load the risk, mainly to insurance comp's and pension funds, instead of holding the loans as they traditionally did

No, they didn't do that traditionally. Mortgage Backed Securities, have been 'traditionally' sold on the market for 50 years. It was common practice, long long before they started making sub-prime mortgage backed securities that crash.

And yes, Freddie Mac, and later Fannie Mae, did lower the standards. I agree with that part. And the rest of the market followed.

 

[Andylusion]

First, it’s true that Frank was hardly Fannie and Freddie’s biggest critic. Nor did he spot the housing bubble. Back in 2003, as the Examiner’s Philip Klein points out, Frank said that the government-sponsored entities were not in any sort of crisis. “]

Look pal. this is not a Repugnant vs Dumbocrats issue. They are both incompetent fools.

And because Fannie and Freddy were created by the fascist state then - you guessed it - they were exempt from futher regulation.

.

Right Wing Versions of Political Events Challenged

First correction: Barney Frank/Housing Bubble/Frannie & Freddie

First the video:

[youtube]6coIcgdgF5U[/youtube]

Rightwingers will usually say something like "Barney Frank is on record as saying there was no bubble, and he planned to continue to push for easier home ownership."

True. But: What is this video about? I know: Representative Frank is a co-sponsor of a GOP sponsored resolution in the year 2005. Why is 2005 so important?
Look at who is Speaker of the US House and what changed: In November 2004, US SPEAKER, Dennis Hastert instituted his "majority of the majority" policy, allowing the House to vote only on bills supported by the majority of its Republican members.

H.Res.312 - Recognizing National Homeownership Month and the importance of homeownership in the United States.109th Congress (2005-2006)

To view go to: https://beta.congress.gov/
Drop Down MENU: All Sources
Type In SEARCH BOX: H.Res. 312​

H.Res.312 — 109th Congress (2005-2006)
Recognizing National Homeownership Month and the importance of homeownership in the United States.
Sponsor: Rep. Miller, Gary G. [R-CA-42] (Introduced 06/09/2005)
Committees: House - Financial Services
Latest Action: 06/27/2005 Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

---

Who was saying there was a housing bubble? The GOP?

Right, so because he wasn't emperor of the universe, he's completely excused from saying there was absolutely no bubble, and there would be no crash, and therefore he would continue to push for more home ownership.

Got, you are partisan hack filling the forum with excuses like all the other partisan hacks.

Why should we care what you have to say on this issue anymore? What reason should we think you have any credibility?

 

[Sallow]

Should the Glass Steagall Act be brought back?

Specifically, this...............

The Glass-Steagall Act Explained

2. Separation of Commercial and Investment Banking

As important as the FDIC’s creation was, the term Glass-Steagall usually refers to the set of rules that kept a savings-and-loan type bank from engaging in speculative, risky training with customers’ deposits. If a bank took deposits, it could not trade in anything other than government bonds; if it underwrote securities or engaged in market-making, it could not take deposits.

The motivation for this separation rested on alleged conflicts of interest. Glass and Steagall, as well as others, accused banks of partnering with affiliates which later sold securities to repay banks’ debts, or accepted loans from banks to buy securities. They also worried that banks engaged in risk-taking speculation, rather than investing in corporations to promote growth.

Five provisions of the Banking Act pertained to this separation:

Section 19: Federally chartered banks could not buy or sell securities, unless they were investment securities, government bonds or trades made on behalf of a customer.
Section 5(c): Glass-Steagall would also apply to state-chartered banks.
Section 20: Banks could not be affiliated with firms whose primary purpose was trading securities.
Section 21: If a bank did trade securities, it could not take deposits.
Section 32: Officers and directors of commercial banks (banks part of the Federal Reserve System) were barred from holding advisory positions in companies whose primary purpose was trading securities.

Absolutely!