The Real Causes Of The Great Recession

[mudwhistle]

Yes I think we are all well aware of your Bush obsession. lol

The bubble and the crash happened on his watch.

The OP is a pathetic attempt to retroactively blame the crash on Obama, which is as insanely laughable as it gets.

The OP is pointing out government's responsibility for enabling the mess in the first place. This stretches back to the Clinton administration and yes Bush has some responsibility as well. Obviously this mess wasn't Obama's fault as president, he has some responsibility as a participant in enabling the mess that's what the OP has documented, but so do millions of Americans. What I have a problem with is Democrats acting like they are clean as a fresh winter snow when they were hip deep in this mess.

Candycorn doesn't realize how stupid she looks.

The OP said the damage was done before Obama became president. It was his work with ACORN that lead to the collapse.

Just sayin.

 

[BluesLegend]

Dem's in congress block Bush repeated efforts to deal with the problem and you blame Bush? That sounds about typical for dishonest Democrats.

Wall Street wanted to limit the GSE's portfolios so it could get more market share. Bush, acting as Wall Street's bitch, tried to get the GSEs portfolios capped. The Democrats stopped this plan.

No one was acting out of pure motives.

No one.

I blame everyone for the housing bubble, Rep's, Dem's, and the foolish citizens who purchased more home than they could afford, took out 2nd mortgages and spent like there's no tomorrow. What I have a problem with is lying scum Democrats in congress who acted like they had nothing to do with the whole mess. I have never seen such a group of snakes as Democrats.

Can you name a single politician that has accepted responsibility for any of the problems our nation experiences?

The real victims of the housing bubble? The banks. Yes, the banks. They were threatened by the government if they did not show "equality" in lending and were forced to write loans to those that would likely default....

And then, of course, there were the ARM loans...people loved the idea of refinancing, taking a mess of cash out, and having their payments LOWERED for 5 years....and they all believed they would be able to refinance when the ARM expired....so they spent the cash out, had a field day....and then their LTV's changed for the worse, and they couldn't refinance...their rates shot up to prime plus whatever, and they couldn't afford it.

But they lived the high life for 5 years.....and now they are...dare I say.....VICTIMS of their own greed.

It does not take rocket science to understand what really took place.

No it doesn't. Sales (and that is what the banks engaged in) is to get someone to buy to benefit the seller, rarely the buyer. Telling someone who is not familiar with the process the broker/banker tandem convinced the unsophisticated buyer that the home they want is really affordable. Simply sign here, and here and here and here (as anyone who has ever secured a loan understands, even when they don't really understand what they are signing) and come back in five years and we'll refinance the loan, or you can sell the home and make a huge profit.

Hell, the banker had nice suit and a great smile, and the broker drove a new and shiny SUV when they looked at the home that could be theirs. They were assured the price of the home they looked at would continue to more expensive if they didn't act now, and in the future they could use the rising value to fund their retirement or even buy that vacation home in the mountains.

In a nutshell, people signed without knowing what they are signing. I have attended thousands of closings.....whereas it is rare that an attorney is present at a refinance closing, I don't EVER recall an attorney not being involved in a purchase.....an attorney drafts the contract, goes back and forth with the opposing attorney as it pertains to minor particulars; reviews the settlement statement (HUD) prior to the closing, and then explains the documents to the client as they sign.

You are making it something it never was...it was not a broker/banker versus an uneducated victim.

The uneducated "victim" had the advantage of legal counsel.

That is true in for example NY State where attorney's are in charge of the purchase/closing process but there are states where an attorney is rarely ever involved in a purchase. Oregon for example, realtors are relied upon to handle the legal stuff (scary) neither are attorneys, both are paid by the seller, talk about a conflict of interest and lack of competence.

 

[g5000]

Why would a borrower make a negative amortization payment on a loan, you may be wondering.

Because they had bitten off more house than they could chew, that's why.

If you earn $60,000 and have an 800 credit rating, that doesn't mean you are good for a loan of any amount up to a zillion dollars. This is common sense.

So how come such people were able to get jumbo loans for $400,000?

They were able to do so because of insane ARMs and Pick-A-Pay loans. Our $60K man couldn't afford the nut for a 30-year mortgage on a $400,000 McMansion, but he could afford the negative amortization payment for three to five years. And he really, really, really, really wanted that $400,000 McMansion. And his mortgage broker told him that house was going to be worth a lot more than $400,000 in three years when it came time to refinance. So he would have some serious equity and would easily be approved for a refinance.

This idiot's eyes were bigger than his paycheck.

Five years later, our $60K man now owes $750,000 instead of $400,000. He can't even afford the smallest payment of the refinance loan now. Him, and millions of other people are seriously fucked, and so all those houses are thrown on the market at the same time, which drives down the prices of all those houses.

Now he's underwater in a big way. So he forecloses.

BOOM!

 

[Dad2three]

This is the kind of shit that makes this place so unpleasant. All of the dickheads that pull this same ole same ole.

I'd rather post pretty pictures than talk to all of you jizzbreath mofos.

Obama and ACORN - Bing Images

This is an article that was posted 2 months before Obama took office. Everything in it has proven to be true. It's strange how all of this information has been out there for years yet little bits and pieces of it keep surfacing. The left will claim that it's all old news and they'll say that anyone who brings it up is just trolling. I expect the usual USMB members to do their jobs and attack me personally. Well, bring it on:

​

As a New York Post article describes it:

A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.


Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department.

Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with "100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don't report it on your tax returns." Credit counseling is required, of course.

Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." That lender's $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003.

The lender they were speaking of was Countrywide, which specialized in subprime lending and had a working relationship with ACORN.

Investor's Business Daily added:

The revisions also allowed for the first time the securitization of CRA-regulated loans containing subprime mortgages. The changes came as radical "housing rights" groups led by ACORN lobbied for such loans. ACORN at the time was represented by a young public-interest lawyer in Chicago by the name of Barack Obama. (Emphasis, mine.)

Since these loans were to be underwritten by the government sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the implicit government guarantee of those loans absolved lenders, mortgage bundlers and investors of any concern over the obvious risk. As Bloomberg reported: "It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit."

And if you think Washington policy makers cared about ACORN's negative influence, think again. Before this whole mess came down, a Democrat-sponsored bill on the table would have created an "Affordable Housing Trust Fund," granting ACORN access to approximately $500 million in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac revenues with little or no oversight.

Even now, unbelievably -- on the brink of national disaster -- Democrats have insisted ACORN benefit from bailout negotiations! Senator Lindsay Graham reported last night (9/25/08) in an interview with Greta Van Susteren of On the Record that Democrats want 20 percent of the bailout money to go to ACORN!

This entire fiasco represents perhaps the pinnacle of ACORN's efforts to advance the Cloward-Piven Strategy and is a stark demonstration of the power they wield in Washington.

Enter Barack Obama

In attempting to capture the significance of Barack Obama's Radical Left connections and his relation to the Cloward Piven strategy, I constructed following flow chart . It is by no means complete. There are simply too many radical individuals and organizations to include them all here. But these are perhaps the most significant.

In his few years as a U.S. senator, Obama has received campaign contributions of $126,349, from Fannie and Freddie, second only to the $165,400 received by Senator Chris Dodd, who has been getting donations from them since 1988. What makes Obama so special?

His closest advisers are a dirty laundry list of individuals at the heart of the financial crisis: former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson; Former Fannie Mae CEO and former Clinton Budget Director Frank Raines; and billionaire failed Superior Bank of Chicago Board Chair Penny Pritzker.

........
Most significantly, Penny Pritzker, the current Finance Chairperson of Obama's presidential campaign helped develop the complicated investment bundling of subprime securities at the heart of the meltdown. She did so in her position as shareholder and board chair of Superior Bank. The Bank failed in 2001, one of the largest in recent history, wiping out $50 million in uninsured life savings of approximately 1,400 customers. She was named in a RICO class action law suit but doesn't seem to have come out of it too badly.

As a young attorney in the 1990s, Barack Obama represented ACORN in Washington in their successful efforts to expand Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) authority. In addition to making it easier for ACORN groups to force banks into making risky loans, this also paved the way for banks like Superior to package mortgages as investments, and for the Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to underwrite them. These changes created the conditions that ultimately lead to the current financial crisis.


​

Note the repeated theme of using existing laws and expanding their reach thus changing their intended purpose. This has been repeated over and over throughout Obama's tenure as president. He expands on existing laws or programs and renders them unrecognizable. He did this with Fast & Furious and several other programs. The excuse is always that it was a law or program from a previous administration. He's doing the same thing with the Patriot Act. Many liberals here think this is funny, but this is no joke.

ACORN has split up and changed it's name, but it is still highly active. Ferguson was one of it's babies.

Links:
Articles Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis
Obama 8217 s new pardon chief funded ACORN
Obama and ACORN - WikiLeaks
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Obama 8217 s Secret Collaboration with ACORN Bosses FrontPage Magazine
Obama and ACORN Chicago-The Barack Obama Campaign 2004 - WikiLeaks​

The real cause? George W. Bush. The dam was leaking before W. took office, but he's the one who told the Congress to take their fingering out of the leak.

Clever. Now explain why.

Nothing clever about my remark, it is simply true, and your effort to remake history isn't honest, clever or unexpected. President Bush was the nation's leader when one horrific and one terrible event occurred: 9-11 and the nearly total crash of our economy. He was also President when we invaded and occupied Iraq, and cut taxes while spending an enormous amount of our treasury on expanding government, by establishing Homeland Security and prosecuting war, without raising the necessary revenue. Nor did he listen to the advice of those who warned of the housing bubble.

Thus, since the election of President Obama, an effort to rewrite the history of the 21st Century has commenced by dishonest partisans, some in fact who worked to prevent the recovery and now seem willing to admit the Great Recession is over simply because they controlled the H. or Rep. Ignoring the fact that shutting down the government in a foolish political stunt was costly.

Iceweasle posted proof that Bush warned congress of the coming crisis for years, yet Frank and Dodd ignored the warnings.

Then you post this nonsense.

Sorry, but I think you should read his post before you continue to look foolish.

Minority member of the GOP majority House 1995-Jan 2007 Barney Frank where minority can stop NOTHING? LOL

Name the bill that Dodd stopped in the Senate?

 

[mudwhistle]

Yes I think we are all well aware of your Bush obsession. lol

The bubble and the crash happened on his watch.

The OP is a pathetic attempt to retroactively blame the crash on Obama, which is as insanely laughable as it gets.

The OP is pointing out government's responsibility for enabling the mess in the first place. This stretches back to the Clinton administration and yes Bush has some responsibility as well. Obviously this mess wasn't Obama's fault as president, he has some responsibility as a participant in enabling the mess that's what the OP has documented, but so do millions of Americans. What I have a problem with is Democrats acting like they are clean as a fresh winter snow when they were hip deep in this mess.

Obama's ties to ACORN gives him culpability.

ACORN? lol

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

Here are key things we know based on data. Together, they present a series of tough hurdles for the big lie proponents.

•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


Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.

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

If you can't beat em with facts, baffle em with Bullshit, right?

 

[Dad2three]

Yes I think we are all well aware of your Bush obsession. lol

The bubble and the crash happened on his watch.

The OP is a pathetic attempt to retroactively blame the crash on Obama, which is as insanely laughable as it gets.

The OP is pointing out government's responsibility for enabling the mess in the first place. This stretches back to the Clinton administration and yes Bush has some responsibility as well. Obviously this mess wasn't Obama's fault as president, he has some responsibility as a participant in enabling the mess that's what the OP has documented, but so do millions of Americans. What I have a problem with is Democrats acting like they are clean as a fresh winter snow when they were hip deep in this mess.

Obama's ties to ACORN gives him culpability.

ACORN? lol

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

Here are key things we know based on data. Together, they present a series of tough hurdles for the big lie proponents.

•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


Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.

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

If you can't beat em with facts, baffle em with Bullshit, right?

YOU sure are trying Bubba

 

[Jarhead]

Wall Street wanted to limit the GSE's portfolios so it could get more market share. Bush, acting as Wall Street's bitch, tried to get the GSEs portfolios capped. The Democrats stopped this plan.

No one was acting out of pure motives.

No one.

I blame everyone for the housing bubble, Rep's, Dem's, and the foolish citizens who purchased more home than they could afford, took out 2nd mortgages and spent like there's no tomorrow. What I have a problem with is lying scum Democrats in congress who acted like they had nothing to do with the whole mess. I have never seen such a group of snakes as Democrats.

Can you name a single politician that has accepted responsibility for any of the problems our nation experiences?

The real victims of the housing bubble? The banks. Yes, the banks. They were threatened by the government if they did not show "equality" in lending and were forced to write loans to those that would likely default....

And then, of course, there were the ARM loans...people loved the idea of refinancing, taking a mess of cash out, and having their payments LOWERED for 5 years....and they all believed they would be able to refinance when the ARM expired....so they spent the cash out, had a field day....and then their LTV's changed for the worse, and they couldn't refinance...their rates shot up to prime plus whatever, and they couldn't afford it.

But they lived the high life for 5 years.....and now they are...dare I say.....VICTIMS of their own greed.

It does not take rocket science to understand what really took place.

No it doesn't. Sales (and that is what the banks engaged in) is to get someone to buy to benefit the seller, rarely the buyer. Telling someone who is not familiar with the process the broker/banker tandem convinced the unsophisticated buyer that the home they want is really affordable. Simply sign here, and here and here and here (as anyone who has ever secured a loan understands, even when they don't really understand what they are signing) and come back in five years and we'll refinance the loan, or you can sell the home and make a huge profit.

Hell, the banker had nice suit and a great smile, and the broker drove a new and shiny SUV when they looked at the home that could be theirs. They were assured the price of the home they looked at would continue to more expensive if they didn't act now, and in the future they could use the rising value to fund their retirement or even buy that vacation home in the mountains.

In a nutshell, people signed without knowing what they are signing. I have attended thousands of closings.....whereas it is rare that an attorney is present at a refinance closing, I don't EVER recall an attorney not being involved in a purchase.....an attorney drafts the contract, goes back and forth with the opposing attorney as it pertains to minor particulars; reviews the settlement statement (HUD) prior to the closing, and then explains the documents to the client as they sign.

You are making it something it never was...it was not a broker/banker versus an uneducated victim.

The uneducated "victim" had the advantage of legal counsel.

That is true in for example NY State where attorney's are in charge of the purchase/closing process but there are states where an attorney is rarely ever involved in a purchase. Oregon for example, realtors are relied upon to handle the legal stuff (scary) neither are attorneys, both are paid by the seller, talk about a conflict of interest and lack of competence.

I did not know that of Oregon. That is a state issue and should be addressed.

Here in NY, attorneys oversee purchases, but usually just a signing agent (notary) is required for re-fi's. Then there is the other end of the spectrum such as Massachusetts...where an attorney is required for refis as well as purchases.

 

[g5000]

"And Mudwhistle missed the financial news that Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers bailed out on the Long Term Capital Management bail out in 1998, the proximate cause of the Meltdown."

Yeah. When Bear Stearns went under, there was a certain amount of Schadenfreude on the Street because of the way Bear Stearns had sneered at LTCM for their troubles and had refused to help LTCM.

Payback is a bitch.

 

[Dad2three]

Purported relationship to the 2008 financial crisis
See also: Subprime mortgage crisis and Global financial crisis of 2008–2009
Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charged the Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA.[102] According to Manhattan Institute scholar Howard Husock, the CEO of a midsize bank reported that 20% of his institution's CRA-related mortgages were delinquent in their first year and probably 7% would end in foreclosure.[107] In a commentary for CNN, Congressman Ron Paul, who serves on the United States House Committee on Financial Services, charged the CRA with "forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks."[108] In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, economist Russell Roberts wrote that the CRA subsidized low-income housing by pressuring banks to serve poor borrowers and poor regions of the country.[109]

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission formed by the US Congress in 2009 to investigate the causes of the 2008 financial crisis, concluded "the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis".[110] Ben Bernanke, then Chairman of the Federal Reserve, wrote that experience and research contradict "the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties."[111]

Other economists and government officials, including Janet Yellen, then President and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco,[112] FDIC Chair Sheila Bair,[113] Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan,[114] and Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner,[115] also hold that the CRA did not significantly contribute to the subprime crisis. According to Yellen, now current Chair of the Federal Reserve, independent mortgage companies made risky "higher-priced" loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the "higher-priced" loans that have contributed to the current crisis.[112][116][117]

Others concluded the CRA did not contribute to the financial crisis, notably New York Times columnist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman,[118] Tim Westrich of the Center for American Progress,[119] Robert Gordon of the American Prospect,[120] Ellen Seidman of the New America Foundation,[121] Daniel Gross of Slate,[122] and Aaron Pressman from BusinessWeek.[123]

However, according to American Enterprise Institute fellow Edward Pinto, Bank of America reported in 2008 that its CRA portfolio, which constituted 7% of its owned residential mortgages, was responsible for 29 percent of its losses. He charged that "approximately 50 percent of CRA loans for single-family residences ... [had] characteristics that indicated high credit risk", yet, per the standards used by the various government agencies to evaluate CRA performance at the time, were not counted as "subprime" because borrower credit worthiness was not considered.[124][125][126][127] Paul Krugman argues that Pinto's category of "other high-risk mortgages" incorrectly includes loans that were not high-risk, that instead were like traditional conforming mortgages.[128] Another CRA critic, Joseph Fried, concedes that "some of this CRA subprime lending might have taken place, even in the absence of CRA. For that reason, the direct impact of CRA on the volume of subprime lending is not certain."[129]

Law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,[63][130] stated that approximately 50% of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight".[131]

During a 2008 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing on the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the financial crisis, including in relation to the Community Reinvestment Act, when asked if the CRA provided the "fuel" for increasing subprime loans, former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines said it might have been a catalyst encouraging bad behavior, but it was difficult to know. Raines also cited information that only a small percentage of risky loans originated as a result of the CRA.[132]

Economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that banks undergoing CRA-related regulatory exams took additional mortgage lending risk. The authors of a study entitled "Did the Community Reinvestment Act Lead to Risky Lending?" compared "the lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month (the treatment group) to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that did not face these exams (the control group). This comparison clearly indicates that adherence to the CRA led to riskier lending by banks." They concluded: "The evidence shows that around CRA examinations, when incentives to conform to CRA standards are particularly high, banks not only increase lending rates but also appear to originate loans that are markedly riskier." Loan delinquency averaged 15% higher in the treatment group than the control group one year after mortgage origination.[133]

Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

Good for you, got the CATO, ED PINTO AND PETER WALLISON'S LIES GOING STRONG. Though they have LONG been debunked, lol

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[BluesLegend]

Dem's in congress block Bush repeated efforts to deal with the problem and you blame Bush? That sounds about typical for dishonest Democrats.

Wall Street wanted to limit the GSE's portfolios so it could get more market share. Bush, acting as Wall Street's bitch, tried to get the GSEs portfolios capped. The Democrats stopped this plan.

No one was acting out of pure motives.

No one.

I blame everyone for the housing bubble, Rep's, Dem's, and the foolish citizens who purchased more home than they could afford, took out 2nd mortgages and spent like there's no tomorrow. What I have a problem with is lying scum Democrats in congress who acted like they had nothing to do with the whole mess. I have never seen such a group of snakes as Democrats.

Can you name a single politician that has accepted responsibility for any of the problems our nation experiences?

The real victims of the housing bubble? The banks. Yes, the banks. They were threatened by the government if they did not show "equality" in lending and were forced to write loans to those that would likely default....

And then, of course, there were the ARM loans...people loved the idea of refinancing, taking a mess of cash out, and having their payments LOWERED for 5 years....and they all believed they would be able to refinance when the ARM expired....so they spent the cash out, had a field day....and then their LTV's changed for the worse, and they couldn't refinance...their rates shot up to prime plus whatever, and they couldn't afford it.

But they lived the high life for 5 years.....and now they are...dare I say.....VICTIMS of their own greed.

It does not take rocket science to understand what really took place.

As soon as government took the risk out of sub-prime loans many banks piled on to cash in running non-stop ads, its not like they were dragged into this kicking and screaming.

True....but they also knew that those loans were worthless if FM did not find them as having value....so to them, it was worth the risk. Don't get me wrong, they should never have been bailed out.....but FM (for all intents and purposes, run by the government) failed them miserably.

Agreed. Here's another government mess, they have enslaved young people to student loan debt. There's over $1 trillion dollars of government back student loan debt on the books. Government took the risk out of student loans, made it easier to borrow, so what happened? Yes the market (colleges and universities) cranked up the tuition to cash in and pretty soon a freaking degree costs $100k? And now what do we hear, the idiots in government advocating a taxpayer bail out for the very mess they created.

 

[Dad2three]

Dissenting Statements
Hennessey, Holtz-Eakin, and Thomas
In a 27 page dissenting statement, Vice Chairman Bill Thomas and Commissioners Keith Hennessey and Douglas Holtz-Eakin criticized the majority report for being an “account of bad events” rather than a “focused explanation of what happened and why.” According to the three Republicans, the majority report ignored the global nature of the financial crisis and, consequently, focused too narrowly on US regulatory policy and supervision. For those reasons, the dissent argues that the majority’s conclusion that the crisis could have been avoided with more restrictive regulations, in conjunction with more aggressive regulators and supervisors, is false.

The dissent lists ten essential causes of the financial and economic crisis:[12]

• I. Credit bubble.
• II. Housing bubble.
• III. Nontraditional mortgages.
• IV. Credit ratings and securitization.
• V. Financial institutions concentrated correlated risk.
• VI. Leverage and liquidity risk.
• VII. Risk of contagion.
• VIII. Common shock.
• IX. Financial shock and panic.
• X. Financial crisis causes economic crisis.

Wallison
American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Peter Wallison authored a 93-page dissent in which he disagreed with both the majority report and the three other Republican appointees. Wallison argued that the US government’s housing policies–implemented primarily through the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac— caused the financial crisis. [13]

In specific, Wallison named the GSEs’ Affordable Housing goals, heightened enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Best Practices Initiative as the primary culprits. According to Wallison, these programs, which were intended to give low- and moderate-income borrowers better access to mortgage credit, ultimately required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reduce the mortgage underwriting standards they used when acquiring loans from originators. Because the GSEs dominated the mortgage market, they set the underwriting standards for the entire industry and pushed private institutions into riskier loans. Wallison concludes that these policies fueled a massive housing bubble full of non-traditional, risky loans that ultimately led to a financial crisis.

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Wallison
American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Peter Wallison authored a 93-page dissent in which he disagreed with both the majority report and the three other Republican appointees. Wallison argued that the US government’s housing policies–implemented primarily through the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac— caused the financial crisis. "


THIS PETER WALLISON:

4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now

Peter Wallison in 2004: “In recent years, study after study has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing.”

Hey Mayor Bloomberg No the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown but thats just according to the data The Big Picture



LOL

 

[Jarhead]

Wall Street wanted to limit the GSE's portfolios so it could get more market share. Bush, acting as Wall Street's bitch, tried to get the GSEs portfolios capped. The Democrats stopped this plan.

No one was acting out of pure motives.

No one.

I blame everyone for the housing bubble, Rep's, Dem's, and the foolish citizens who purchased more home than they could afford, took out 2nd mortgages and spent like there's no tomorrow. What I have a problem with is lying scum Democrats in congress who acted like they had nothing to do with the whole mess. I have never seen such a group of snakes as Democrats.

Can you name a single politician that has accepted responsibility for any of the problems our nation experiences?

The real victims of the housing bubble? The banks. Yes, the banks. They were threatened by the government if they did not show "equality" in lending and were forced to write loans to those that would likely default....

And then, of course, there were the ARM loans...people loved the idea of refinancing, taking a mess of cash out, and having their payments LOWERED for 5 years....and they all believed they would be able to refinance when the ARM expired....so they spent the cash out, had a field day....and then their LTV's changed for the worse, and they couldn't refinance...their rates shot up to prime plus whatever, and they couldn't afford it.

But they lived the high life for 5 years.....and now they are...dare I say.....VICTIMS of their own greed.

It does not take rocket science to understand what really took place.

As soon as government took the risk out of sub-prime loans many banks piled on to cash in running non-stop ads, its not like they were dragged into this kicking and screaming.

True....but they also knew that those loans were worthless if FM did not find them as having value....so to them, it was worth the risk. Don't get me wrong, they should never have been bailed out.....but FM (for all intents and purposes, run by the government) failed them miserably.

Agreed. Here's another government mess, they have enslaved young people to student loan debt. There's over $1 trillion dollars of government back student loan debt on the books. Government took the risk out of student loans, made it easier to borrow, so what happened? Yes the market (colleges and universities) cranked up the tuition to cash in and pretty soon a freaking degree costs $100k? And now what do we hear, the idiots in government advocating a taxpayer bail out for the very mess they created.

Do you see a pattern?

 

[mudwhistle]

This is the kind of shit that makes this place so unpleasant. All of the dickheads that pull this same ole same ole.

I'd rather post pretty pictures than talk to all of you jizzbreath mofos.

Obama and ACORN - Bing Images

This is an article that was posted 2 months before Obama took office. Everything in it has proven to be true. It's strange how all of this information has been out there for years yet little bits and pieces of it keep surfacing. The left will claim that it's all old news and they'll say that anyone who brings it up is just trolling. I expect the usual USMB members to do their jobs and attack me personally. Well, bring it on:

​

As a New York Post article describes it:

A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.


Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department.

Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with "100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don't report it on your tax returns." Credit counseling is required, of course.

Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." That lender's $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003.

The lender they were speaking of was Countrywide, which specialized in subprime lending and had a working relationship with ACORN.

Investor's Business Daily added:

The revisions also allowed for the first time the securitization of CRA-regulated loans containing subprime mortgages. The changes came as radical "housing rights" groups led by ACORN lobbied for such loans. ACORN at the time was represented by a young public-interest lawyer in Chicago by the name of Barack Obama. (Emphasis, mine.)

Since these loans were to be underwritten by the government sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the implicit government guarantee of those loans absolved lenders, mortgage bundlers and investors of any concern over the obvious risk. As Bloomberg reported: "It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit."

And if you think Washington policy makers cared about ACORN's negative influence, think again. Before this whole mess came down, a Democrat-sponsored bill on the table would have created an "Affordable Housing Trust Fund," granting ACORN access to approximately $500 million in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac revenues with little or no oversight.

Even now, unbelievably -- on the brink of national disaster -- Democrats have insisted ACORN benefit from bailout negotiations! Senator Lindsay Graham reported last night (9/25/08) in an interview with Greta Van Susteren of On the Record that Democrats want 20 percent of the bailout money to go to ACORN!

This entire fiasco represents perhaps the pinnacle of ACORN's efforts to advance the Cloward-Piven Strategy and is a stark demonstration of the power they wield in Washington.

Enter Barack Obama

In attempting to capture the significance of Barack Obama's Radical Left connections and his relation to the Cloward Piven strategy, I constructed following flow chart . It is by no means complete. There are simply too many radical individuals and organizations to include them all here. But these are perhaps the most significant.

In his few years as a U.S. senator, Obama has received campaign contributions of $126,349, from Fannie and Freddie, second only to the $165,400 received by Senator Chris Dodd, who has been getting donations from them since 1988. What makes Obama so special?

His closest advisers are a dirty laundry list of individuals at the heart of the financial crisis: former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson; Former Fannie Mae CEO and former Clinton Budget Director Frank Raines; and billionaire failed Superior Bank of Chicago Board Chair Penny Pritzker.

........
Most significantly, Penny Pritzker, the current Finance Chairperson of Obama's presidential campaign helped develop the complicated investment bundling of subprime securities at the heart of the meltdown. She did so in her position as shareholder and board chair of Superior Bank. The Bank failed in 2001, one of the largest in recent history, wiping out $50 million in uninsured life savings of approximately 1,400 customers. She was named in a RICO class action law suit but doesn't seem to have come out of it too badly.

As a young attorney in the 1990s, Barack Obama represented ACORN in Washington in their successful efforts to expand Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) authority. In addition to making it easier for ACORN groups to force banks into making risky loans, this also paved the way for banks like Superior to package mortgages as investments, and for the Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to underwrite them. These changes created the conditions that ultimately lead to the current financial crisis.


​

Note the repeated theme of using existing laws and expanding their reach thus changing their intended purpose. This has been repeated over and over throughout Obama's tenure as president. He expands on existing laws or programs and renders them unrecognizable. He did this with Fast & Furious and several other programs. The excuse is always that it was a law or program from a previous administration. He's doing the same thing with the Patriot Act. Many liberals here think this is funny, but this is no joke.

ACORN has split up and changed it's name, but it is still highly active. Ferguson was one of it's babies.

Links:
Articles Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis
Obama 8217 s new pardon chief funded ACORN
Obama and ACORN - WikiLeaks
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Obama 8217 s Secret Collaboration with ACORN Bosses FrontPage Magazine
Obama and ACORN Chicago-The Barack Obama Campaign 2004 - WikiLeaks​

The real cause? George W. Bush. The dam was leaking before W. took office, but he's the one who told the Congress to take their fingering out of the leak.

Clever. Now explain why.

Nothing clever about my remark, it is simply true, and your effort to remake history isn't honest, clever or unexpected. President Bush was the nation's leader when one horrific and one terrible event occurred: 9-11 and the nearly total crash of our economy. He was also President when we invaded and occupied Iraq, and cut taxes while spending an enormous amount of our treasury on expanding government, by establishing Homeland Security and prosecuting war, without raising the necessary revenue. Nor did he listen to the advice of those who warned of the housing bubble.

Thus, since the election of President Obama, an effort to rewrite the history of the 21st Century has commenced by dishonest partisans, some in fact who worked to prevent the recovery and now seem willing to admit the Great Recession is over simply because they controlled the H. or Rep. Ignoring the fact that shutting down the government in a foolish political stunt was costly.

Iceweasle posted proof that Bush warned congress of the coming crisis for years, yet Frank and Dodd ignored the warnings.

Then you post this nonsense.

Sorry, but I think you should read his post before you continue to look foolish.

Minority member of the GOP majority House 1995-Jan 2007 Barney Frank where minority can stop NOTHING? LOL

Name the bill that Dodd stopped in the Senate?

The GOP, in all their wisdom decided for the first time, to share responsibilities with the minority party. This is why Democrats held so many committee hearings and investigations during the Bush Administration.

 

[BluesLegend]

I blame everyone for the housing bubble, Rep's, Dem's, and the foolish citizens who purchased more home than they could afford, took out 2nd mortgages and spent like there's no tomorrow. What I have a problem with is lying scum Democrats in congress who acted like they had nothing to do with the whole mess. I have never seen such a group of snakes as Democrats.

Can you name a single politician that has accepted responsibility for any of the problems our nation experiences?

The real victims of the housing bubble? The banks. Yes, the banks. They were threatened by the government if they did not show "equality" in lending and were forced to write loans to those that would likely default....

And then, of course, there were the ARM loans...people loved the idea of refinancing, taking a mess of cash out, and having their payments LOWERED for 5 years....and they all believed they would be able to refinance when the ARM expired....so they spent the cash out, had a field day....and then their LTV's changed for the worse, and they couldn't refinance...their rates shot up to prime plus whatever, and they couldn't afford it.

But they lived the high life for 5 years.....and now they are...dare I say.....VICTIMS of their own greed.

It does not take rocket science to understand what really took place.

No it doesn't. Sales (and that is what the banks engaged in) is to get someone to buy to benefit the seller, rarely the buyer. Telling someone who is not familiar with the process the broker/banker tandem convinced the unsophisticated buyer that the home they want is really affordable. Simply sign here, and here and here and here (as anyone who has ever secured a loan understands, even when they don't really understand what they are signing) and come back in five years and we'll refinance the loan, or you can sell the home and make a huge profit.

Hell, the banker had nice suit and a great smile, and the broker drove a new and shiny SUV when they looked at the home that could be theirs. They were assured the price of the home they looked at would continue to more expensive if they didn't act now, and in the future they could use the rising value to fund their retirement or even buy that vacation home in the mountains.

In a nutshell, people signed without knowing what they are signing. I have attended thousands of closings.....whereas it is rare that an attorney is present at a refinance closing, I don't EVER recall an attorney not being involved in a purchase.....an attorney drafts the contract, goes back and forth with the opposing attorney as it pertains to minor particulars; reviews the settlement statement (HUD) prior to the closing, and then explains the documents to the client as they sign.

You are making it something it never was...it was not a broker/banker versus an uneducated victim.

The uneducated "victim" had the advantage of legal counsel.

That is true in for example NY State where attorney's are in charge of the purchase/closing process but there are states where an attorney is rarely ever involved in a purchase. Oregon for example, realtors are relied upon to handle the legal stuff (scary) neither are attorneys, both are paid by the seller, talk about a conflict of interest and lack of competence.

I did not know that of Oregon. That is a state issue and should be addressed.

Here in NY, attorneys oversee purchases, but usually just a signing agent (notary) is required for re-fi's. Then there is the other end of the spectrum such as Massachusetts...where an attorney is required for refis as well as purchases.

I bought and sold 2 houses in NY, I thought requiring attorney's to manage the transaction was a great idea and the attorney fee was quite modest. I felt bad they didn't get paid more compared to the realtors. Nothing against a truly professional realtor but its been my experience there are a bunch of licensed realtors who are dumb as a brick I don't want them doing the legal work on my purchase.

 

[Dad2three]

I blame everyone for the housing bubble, Rep's, Dem's, and the foolish citizens who purchased more home than they could afford, took out 2nd mortgages and spent like there's no tomorrow. What I have a problem with is lying scum Democrats in congress who acted like they had nothing to do with the whole mess. I have never seen such a group of snakes as Democrats.

Can you name a single politician that has accepted responsibility for any of the problems our nation experiences?

The real victims of the housing bubble? The banks. Yes, the banks. They were threatened by the government if they did not show "equality" in lending and were forced to write loans to those that would likely default....

And then, of course, there were the ARM loans...people loved the idea of refinancing, taking a mess of cash out, and having their payments LOWERED for 5 years....and they all believed they would be able to refinance when the ARM expired....so they spent the cash out, had a field day....and then their LTV's changed for the worse, and they couldn't refinance...their rates shot up to prime plus whatever, and they couldn't afford it.

But they lived the high life for 5 years.....and now they are...dare I say.....VICTIMS of their own greed.

It does not take rocket science to understand what really took place.

As soon as government took the risk out of sub-prime loans many banks piled on to cash in running non-stop ads, its not like they were dragged into this kicking and screaming.

True....but they also knew that those loans were worthless if FM did not find them as having value....so to them, it was worth the risk. Don't get me wrong, they should never have been bailed out.....but FM (for all intents and purposes, run by the government) failed them miserably.

Agreed. Here's another government mess, they have enslaved young people to student loan debt. There's over $1 trillion dollars of government back student loan debt on the books. Government took the risk out of student loans, made it easier to borrow, so what happened? Yes the market (colleges and universities) cranked up the tuition to cash in and pretty soon a freaking degree costs $100k? And now what do we hear, the idiots in government advocating a taxpayer bail out for the very mess they created.

Do you see a pattern?

We elect who 'don't believe in Gov't' and then shit happens, Harding/Coolidge, Reagan and Dubya...

 

[mudwhistle]

Can you name a single politician that has accepted responsibility for any of the problems our nation experiences?

The real victims of the housing bubble? The banks. Yes, the banks. They were threatened by the government if they did not show "equality" in lending and were forced to write loans to those that would likely default....

And then, of course, there were the ARM loans...people loved the idea of refinancing, taking a mess of cash out, and having their payments LOWERED for 5 years....and they all believed they would be able to refinance when the ARM expired....so they spent the cash out, had a field day....and then their LTV's changed for the worse, and they couldn't refinance...their rates shot up to prime plus whatever, and they couldn't afford it.

But they lived the high life for 5 years.....and now they are...dare I say.....VICTIMS of their own greed.

It does not take rocket science to understand what really took place.

No it doesn't. Sales (and that is what the banks engaged in) is to get someone to buy to benefit the seller, rarely the buyer. Telling someone who is not familiar with the process the broker/banker tandem convinced the unsophisticated buyer that the home they want is really affordable. Simply sign here, and here and here and here (as anyone who has ever secured a loan understands, even when they don't really understand what they are signing) and come back in five years and we'll refinance the loan, or you can sell the home and make a huge profit.

Hell, the banker had nice suit and a great smile, and the broker drove a new and shiny SUV when they looked at the home that could be theirs. They were assured the price of the home they looked at would continue to more expensive if they didn't act now, and in the future they could use the rising value to fund their retirement or even buy that vacation home in the mountains.

In a nutshell, people signed without knowing what they are signing. I have attended thousands of closings.....whereas it is rare that an attorney is present at a refinance closing, I don't EVER recall an attorney not being involved in a purchase.....an attorney drafts the contract, goes back and forth with the opposing attorney as it pertains to minor particulars; reviews the settlement statement (HUD) prior to the closing, and then explains the documents to the client as they sign.

You are making it something it never was...it was not a broker/banker versus an uneducated victim.

The uneducated "victim" had the advantage of legal counsel.

That is true in for example NY State where attorney's are in charge of the purchase/closing process but there are states where an attorney is rarely ever involved in a purchase. Oregon for example, realtors are relied upon to handle the legal stuff (scary) neither are attorneys, both are paid by the seller, talk about a conflict of interest and lack of competence.

I did not know that of Oregon. That is a state issue and should be addressed.

Here in NY, attorneys oversee purchases, but usually just a signing agent (notary) is required for re-fi's. Then there is the other end of the spectrum such as Massachusetts...where an attorney is required for refis as well as purchases.

I bought and sold 2 houses in NY, I thought requiring attorney's to manage the transaction was a great idea and the attorney fee was quite modest. I felt bad they didn't get paid more compared to the realtors. Nothing against a truly professional realtor but its been my experience there are a bunch of licensed realtors who are dumb as a brick I don't want them doing the legal work on my purchase.

Real Estate lawyers do the closings. Quite lucrative. I'm sure they made money.

 

[BluesLegend]

I blame everyone for the housing bubble, Rep's, Dem's, and the foolish citizens who purchased more home than they could afford, took out 2nd mortgages and spent like there's no tomorrow. What I have a problem with is lying scum Democrats in congress who acted like they had nothing to do with the whole mess. I have never seen such a group of snakes as Democrats.

Can you name a single politician that has accepted responsibility for any of the problems our nation experiences?

The real victims of the housing bubble? The banks. Yes, the banks. They were threatened by the government if they did not show "equality" in lending and were forced to write loans to those that would likely default....

And then, of course, there were the ARM loans...people loved the idea of refinancing, taking a mess of cash out, and having their payments LOWERED for 5 years....and they all believed they would be able to refinance when the ARM expired....so they spent the cash out, had a field day....and then their LTV's changed for the worse, and they couldn't refinance...their rates shot up to prime plus whatever, and they couldn't afford it.

But they lived the high life for 5 years.....and now they are...dare I say.....VICTIMS of their own greed.

It does not take rocket science to understand what really took place.

As soon as government took the risk out of sub-prime loans many banks piled on to cash in running non-stop ads, its not like they were dragged into this kicking and screaming.

True....but they also knew that those loans were worthless if FM did not find them as having value....so to them, it was worth the risk. Don't get me wrong, they should never have been bailed out.....but FM (for all intents and purposes, run by the government) failed them miserably.

Agreed. Here's another government mess, they have enslaved young people to student loan debt. There's over $1 trillion dollars of government back student loan debt on the books. Government took the risk out of student loans, made it easier to borrow, so what happened? Yes the market (colleges and universities) cranked up the tuition to cash in and pretty soon a freaking degree costs $100k? And now what do we hear, the idiots in government advocating a taxpayer bail out for the very mess they created.

Do you see a pattern?

Yes, government corruption and incompetence.

 

[Dad2three]

This is the kind of shit that makes this place so unpleasant. All of the dickheads that pull this same ole same ole.

I'd rather post pretty pictures than talk to all of you jizzbreath mofos.

The real cause? George W. Bush. The dam was leaking before W. took office, but he's the one who told the Congress to take their fingering out of the leak.

Clever. Now explain why.

Nothing clever about my remark, it is simply true, and your effort to remake history isn't honest, clever or unexpected. President Bush was the nation's leader when one horrific and one terrible event occurred: 9-11 and the nearly total crash of our economy. He was also President when we invaded and occupied Iraq, and cut taxes while spending an enormous amount of our treasury on expanding government, by establishing Homeland Security and prosecuting war, without raising the necessary revenue. Nor did he listen to the advice of those who warned of the housing bubble.

Thus, since the election of President Obama, an effort to rewrite the history of the 21st Century has commenced by dishonest partisans, some in fact who worked to prevent the recovery and now seem willing to admit the Great Recession is over simply because they controlled the H. or Rep. Ignoring the fact that shutting down the government in a foolish political stunt was costly.

Iceweasle posted proof that Bush warned congress of the coming crisis for years, yet Frank and Dodd ignored the warnings.

Then you post this nonsense.

Sorry, but I think you should read his post before you continue to look foolish.

Minority member of the GOP majority House 1995-Jan 2007 Barney Frank where minority can stop NOTHING? LOL

Name the bill that Dodd stopped in the Senate?

The GOP, in all their wisdom decided for the first time, to share responsibilities with the minority party. This is why Democrats held so many committee hearings and investigations during the Bush Administration.

Sure they did Bubba, SURE. Now care to give ONE bill Barney Frank stopped in the GOP House? Tax cuts for rich, twice? 2 wars? UNFUNDED Medicare expansion? Getting between a man and his wife (Schiavvo)?


PLEASE tell me the super power the Dems had in the GOP House? lol

 

[haissem123]

what I love about all you party members is that you still actually believe that if you vote someone into power they will actually vote fore the benefit of you or "your kind of people" unless your people are one of the super rich paying the ads and pay off bills for them to get into office. Then if he's your guy and things go from bad to worse it was the legislators fault but if one thing appears to improve, and appearances are important and not always what they seem, (see low gas prices) then your vote is vindicated and your hero is hailed chief for his life. lol. funny you guys never seem to learn

 

[BluesLegend]

No it doesn't. Sales (and that is what the banks engaged in) is to get someone to buy to benefit the seller, rarely the buyer. Telling someone who is not familiar with the process the broker/banker tandem convinced the unsophisticated buyer that the home they want is really affordable. Simply sign here, and here and here and here (as anyone who has ever secured a loan understands, even when they don't really understand what they are signing) and come back in five years and we'll refinance the loan, or you can sell the home and make a huge profit.

Hell, the banker had nice suit and a great smile, and the broker drove a new and shiny SUV when they looked at the home that could be theirs. They were assured the price of the home they looked at would continue to more expensive if they didn't act now, and in the future they could use the rising value to fund their retirement or even buy that vacation home in the mountains.

In a nutshell, people signed without knowing what they are signing. I have attended thousands of closings.....whereas it is rare that an attorney is present at a refinance closing, I don't EVER recall an attorney not being involved in a purchase.....an attorney drafts the contract, goes back and forth with the opposing attorney as it pertains to minor particulars; reviews the settlement statement (HUD) prior to the closing, and then explains the documents to the client as they sign.

You are making it something it never was...it was not a broker/banker versus an uneducated victim.

The uneducated "victim" had the advantage of legal counsel.

That is true in for example NY State where attorney's are in charge of the purchase/closing process but there are states where an attorney is rarely ever involved in a purchase. Oregon for example, realtors are relied upon to handle the legal stuff (scary) neither are attorneys, both are paid by the seller, talk about a conflict of interest and lack of competence.

I did not know that of Oregon. That is a state issue and should be addressed.

Here in NY, attorneys oversee purchases, but usually just a signing agent (notary) is required for re-fi's. Then there is the other end of the spectrum such as Massachusetts...where an attorney is required for refis as well as purchases.

I bought and sold 2 houses in NY, I thought requiring attorney's to manage the transaction was a great idea and the attorney fee was quite modest. I felt bad they didn't get paid more compared to the realtors. Nothing against a truly professional realtor but its been my experience there are a bunch of licensed realtors who are dumb as a brick I don't want them doing the legal work on my purchase.

Real Estate lawyers do the closings. Quite lucrative. I'm sure they made money.

The attorney made $600 to prepare/review all the paperwork throughout the transaction vs the realtors raked in thousands for 5 minutes work entering the listing into the MLS.