Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Baloney. I remember clowns protesting banks here in Chicago for not making enough loans to people with sketchy credit. One of those clowns is the whiner in the White House.
OH YOU MEAN REDLINING, THAT THING THAT'S ILLEGAL!
It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sectors drive for short-term profit was behind it.
...The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.
Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes
OH YOU MEAN REDLINING, THAT THING THAT'S ILLEGAL!
I know, telling poor risks that you won't lend to them gets the poverty pimps all in a tizzy.
The nonbank underwriters
Ummm....we're talking about Glass-Steagall. That means we're talking about banks.
Try to stay on topic.
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.
Further, most all sub-prime loans were not done by banks. They were done by non-bank lenders which were not covered by the CRA.
The common factor is an explosion in funny mortgage products and low interest loans, that had no connection to the actual risk of the loan. This allowed people to purchase more house than ever before, and drove a bubble. The reason you could detach the risk from availability of loans was that they found a way to hide the actual risk from the end purchasers of the loans. Furthermore, they found a way to insulate the people who could and should have known about the risks, from the consequences of the risk (yet those people still harvested the upside with little or no exposure to the downside). In most cases it was an adoption of the failed ideology of markets can take care of themselves that allowed these absurd situations to develop without regulators or politicians stopping them.
It's repeal helped banks to diversify.
If you define diversification as extreme leverage and exposure then you're right.
Which banks got in trouble because of securities trading? Or derivatives?
Lehman.
Then we had AIG, Washington Mutual, Ambac, Fannie Mac and Fannie Mae. The institutions all failed due to derivatives exposure. If they weren't bailed out, they wouldn't be around today.
diversify: to produce or sell more kinds of products : to increase the variety of goods or services produced or offered by (someone or something)
Lehman.
We're talking about banks that take deposits, not investment banks.
Try to stay on topic.
And why did Lehman fail? They held mortgages bonds financed with overnight money. LOL!
Then we had AIG, Washington Mutual, Ambac
AIG, not a bank.
Washington Mutual failed because of mortgages, not securities trading or derivatives.
Ambac, not a bank.
Fannie Mac and Fannie Mae not banks and didn't fail because of securities trading or derivatives.
You should take a break, you're more confused than usual.
Good you agree, Wall street loans performed 450%-600% worse than Gov't backed loans!
Government backed loans are backed by the taxpayer.
The bond holder does great.
The backer of the bond, not as well.
Just wait until we add up the student loan losses due to "Gov't backed loans!"
Good you agree, Gov't backed loans (meeting the Gov't underwriting standards, the one the private markets collapsed 2004-2007) did MUCH better ,450%-600% better and if NOT for the private markets going nuts, allowed by Dubya, Gov't loans wouldn't had collapsed at all!
OH YOU MEAN REDLINING, THAT THING THAT'S ILLEGAL!
I know, telling poor risks that you won't lend to them gets the poverty pimps all in a tizzy.
The nonbank underwriters
Ummm....we're talking about Glass-Steagall. That means we're talking about banks.
Try to stay on topic.
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.
Further, most all sub-prime loans were not done by banks. They were done by non-bank lenders which were not covered by the CRA.
The common factor is an explosion in funny mortgage products and low interest loans, that had no connection to the actual risk of the loan. This allowed people to purchase more house than ever before, and drove a bubble. The reason you could detach the risk from availability of loans was that they found a way to hide the actual risk from the end purchasers of the loans. Furthermore, they found a way to insulate the people who could and should have known about the risks, from the consequences of the risk (yet those people still harvested the upside with little or no exposure to the downside). In most cases it was an adoption of the failed ideology of markets can take care of themselves that allowed these absurd situations to develop without regulators or politicians stopping them.
just encouragement to try to lend to weaker borrowers in areas where the banks opened branches.
And if you didn't make enough loans to weak borrowers, community organizers protested and sued.
Further, most all sub-prime loans were not done by banks.
This thread is about banks. Try to stay on topic.
I know, all those mortgages. Just awful.
Mortgages that weren't prevented by Glass Steagall.
Mortgages were one part of the equation, how they were securitized is another, as were derivatives and credit default swaps.
One of the dumber liberal ideas. Ever.
More proof, not that it's needed, that liberals don't understand markets.
LOL, that precious considering I work on Wall Street.
A Tobin tax is simply a sin tax for speculation. It will discourage the practice.
Also, transaction costs have become so cheap that the total ratio of real-economic activity to trading have become all out of whack. A perfect example is high frequency trading, where speculators can increase liquidity when it's not even needed or required, and removing it in a destabilizing way is how we get into trouble.
Government backed loans are backed by the taxpayer.
The bond holder does great.
The backer of the bond, not as well.
Just wait until we add up the student loan losses due to "Gov't backed loans!"
Good you agree, Gov't backed loans (meeting the Gov't underwriting standards, the one the private markets collapsed 2004-2007) did MUCH better ,450%-600% better and if NOT for the private markets going nuts, allowed by Dubya, Gov't loans wouldn't had collapsed at all!
I agree, government backed loans cost us hundreds of billions for Fannie and Freddie and will cost even more for bad student loans.
Awesome when government gets involved!!
"A bank's CRA performance record is taken into account in considering an institution's application for deposit facilities"
4. Enforcement
The CRA regulations contain several provisions relating to enforcing the CRA, including the effect that discriminatory lending practices will have on a banks CRA rating and the effect that a banks CRA record will have on its expansion applications. Evidence that a bank is engaged in discriminatory credit practices will have an adverse impact on the banks CRA rating.54 The degree of adversity depends on the extent and nature of the evidence and corrective action the bank has taken. The CRA regulations also state that the federal banking agencies will take a banks CRA record and public comments about that record into account when considering a banks application to establish a branch, relocate a branch, merge or consolidate with another bank, or acquire the assets or assume the liabilities of another bank.55 The regulations state that when considering an application, a banks CRA performance may be the basis for denying an application or conditioning approval of an application on an improved CRA record.
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.
Further, most all sub-prime loans were not done by banks. They were done by non-bank lenders which were not covered by the CRA.
The common factor is an explosion in funny mortgage products and low interest loans, that had no connection to the actual risk of the loan. This allowed people to purchase more house than ever before, and drove a bubble. The reason you could detach the risk from availability of loans was that they found a way to hide the actual risk from the end purchasers of the loans. Furthermore, they found a way to insulate the people who could and should have known about the risks, from the consequences of the risk (yet those people still harvested the upside with little or no exposure to the downside). In most cases it was an adoption of the failed ideology of markets can take care of themselves that allowed these absurd situations to develop without regulators or politicians stopping them.
just encouragement to try to lend to weaker borrowers in areas where the banks opened branches.
And if you didn't make enough loans to weak borrowers, community organizers protested and sued.
Further, most all sub-prime loans were not done by banks.
This thread is about banks. Try to stay on topic.
Protested and sued? AND? You trying to claim Banksters created a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST BECAUSE OF CRA? lol
This thread is about FACTS, things YOU don't really like, instead you prefer to minimize and obfuscate
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html
"A bank's CRA performance record is taken into account in considering an institution's application for deposit facilities"
4. Enforcement
The CRA regulations contain several provisions relating to enforcing the CRA, including the effect that discriminatory lending practices will have on a bank’s CRA rating and the effect that a bank’s CRA record will have on its expansion applications. Evidence that a bank is engaged in discriminatory credit practices will have an adverse impact on the bank’s CRA rating.54 The degree of adversity depends on the extent and nature of the evidence and corrective action the bank has taken. The CRA regulations also state that the federal banking agencies will take a bank’s CRA record and public comments about that record into account when considering a bank’s application to establish a branch, relocate a branch, merge or consolidate with another bank, or acquire the assets or assume the liabilities of another bank.55 The regulations state that when considering an application, a bank’s CRA performance may be the basis for denying an application or conditioning approval of an application on an improved CRA record.
Good YOU agree....
Good you agree, Gov't backed loans (meeting the Gov't underwriting standards, the one the private markets collapsed 2004-2007) did MUCH better ,450%-600% better and if NOT for the private markets going nuts, allowed by Dubya, Gov't loans wouldn't had collapsed at all!
I agree, government backed loans cost us hundreds of billions for Fannie and Freddie and will cost even more for bad student loans.
Awesome when government gets involved!!
So you DON'T know the Gov't actually made money off of F/F. Got it..lol
just encouragement to try to lend to weaker borrowers in areas where the banks opened branches.
And if you didn't make enough loans to weak borrowers, community organizers protested and sued.
Further, most all sub-prime loans were not done by banks.
This thread is about banks. Try to stay on topic.
Protested and sued? AND? You trying to claim Banksters created a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST BECAUSE OF CRA? lol
This thread is about FACTS, things YOU don't really like, instead you prefer to minimize and obfuscate
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html
I'm not saying anything about the world-wide bubble.
Just pointing out your idiocy.
If you didn't make enough loans to weak borrowers, community organizers protested and sued.
Clear?
4. Enforcement
The CRA regulations contain several provisions relating to enforcing the CRA, including the effect that discriminatory lending practices will have on a banks CRA rating and the effect that a banks CRA record will have on its expansion applications. Evidence that a bank is engaged in discriminatory credit practices will have an adverse impact on the banks CRA rating.54 The degree of adversity depends on the extent and nature of the evidence and corrective action the bank has taken. The CRA regulations also state that the federal banking agencies will take a banks CRA record and public comments about that record into account when considering a banks application to establish a branch, relocate a branch, merge or consolidate with another bank, or acquire the assets or assume the liabilities of another bank.55 The regulations state that when considering an application, a banks CRA performance may be the basis for denying an application or conditioning approval of an application on an improved CRA record.
Good YOU agree....
agree that encouragement means shutting them down or preventing them from expanding. Do you think you'll ever get one right? What does that tell you about liberalism.
I agree, government backed loans cost us hundreds of billions for Fannie and Freddie and will cost even more for bad student loans.
Awesome when government gets involved!!
So you DON'T know the Gov't actually made money off of F/F. Got it..lol
Really? They sold all their shares and removed the government guarantee? Got it.
How much have they made on student loans?
I agree, government backed loans cost us hundreds of billions for Fannie and Freddie and will cost even more for bad student loans.
Awesome when government gets involved!!
So you DON'T know the Gov't actually made money off of F/F. Got it..lol
Really? They sold all their shares and removed the government guarantee? Got it.
How much have they made on student loans?
Protested and sued? AND? You trying to claim Banksters created a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST BECAUSE OF CRA? lol
This thread is about FACTS, things YOU don't really like, instead you prefer to minimize and obfuscate
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html
I'm not saying anything about the world-wide bubble.
Just pointing out your idiocy.
If you didn't make enough loans to weak borrowers, community organizers protested and sued.
Clear?
Yes, you meant when you red lined and didn't meet the communities needs,, they did those things and had ZERO to do with the WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE or Dubya's regulator failure in the US that allowed the Banksters to crash the worlds economies!
So you DON'T know the Gov't actually made money off of F/F. Got it..lol
Really? They sold all their shares and removed the government guarantee? Got it.
How much have they made on student loans?
Nope, the money they INVESTED to save F/F has been repaid, luckily they are holding onto F/F to bring down the GOP's deficits
Student loans? Yes, I agree free university education would've been cheaper!
I'm not saying anything about the world-wide bubble.
Just pointing out your idiocy.
If you didn't make enough loans to weak borrowers, community organizers protested and sued.
Clear?
Yes, you meant when you red lined and didn't meet the communities needs,, they did those things and had ZERO to do with the WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE or Dubya's regulator failure in the US that allowed the Banksters to crash the worlds economies!
When you didn't lend to poor risks in poor neighborhoods, Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama protested. When banks increased loans in those poor neighborhoods, they had more loans default.
Clear yet?
Really? They sold all their shares and removed the government guarantee? Got it.
How much have they made on student loans?
Nope, the money they INVESTED to save F/F has been repaid, luckily they are holding onto F/F to bring down the GOP's deficits
Student loans? Yes, I agree free university education would've been cheaper!
luckily they are holding onto F/F
Yes, it's always lucky when the government distorts such a huge market.
What could go wrong?
We're talking about banks that take deposits, not investment banks.
Try to stay on topic.
And why did Lehman fail? They held mortgages bonds financed with overnight money. LOL!
AIG, not a bank.
Washington Mutual failed because of mortgages, not securities trading or derivatives.
Ambac, not a bank.
Fannie Mac and Fannie Mae not banks and didn't fail because of securities trading or derivatives.
You should take a break, you're more confused than usual.
Yes, you meant when you red lined and didn't meet the communities needs,, they did those things and had ZERO to do with the WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE or Dubya's regulator failure in the US that allowed the Banksters to crash the worlds economies!
When you didn't lend to poor risks in poor neighborhoods, Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama protested. When banks increased loans in those poor neighborhoods, they had more loans default.
Clear yet?
When you didn't lend to poor risks in poor neighborhoods, Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama protested. When banks increased loans in those poor neighborhoods, they had more loans default.
REALLY? SOURCE?
Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up
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.
CRA were less likely to default than Subprime Mortgages Source: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
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
LOL
