Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: The Real Culprits In This Meltdown

  1. #1
    Senior Hostboard Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13th, 2001
    Posts
    4,009
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    Here's what the article DIDN'T say:

    Subprime lendingoriginating mortgages to relatively risky borrowersexpanded during
    the 1990s. Market analysts estimate that lenders originated about $160 billion worth of subprime
    loans in 1999, up from $40 billion in 1994.1 As detailed later in this report, a number of factors
    accounted for this growth: federal legislation preempting state restrictions on allowable rates and
    loan features, the tax reform act of 1986, increased demand for and availability of consumer debt,
    and an increase in securitization. It is noteworthy that subprime lending grew in the 1990s largely
    without the assistance of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.2 According to Inside B and C Lending,
    Freddie Mac purchased $18.6 billion of subprime (mostly Alt A and A-) loans on a flow basis in
    2000. In addition, Freddie Mac purchased another $7.7 billion of subprime loans through structured
    transactions. Fannie Mae?s participation in the subprime market was much smaller: it only
    purchased about $600 million of subprime loans on a flow basis.3 This pattern will change. Both
    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have announced that they plan to increase their subprime mortgage
    purchases. Though the GSEs currently only purchase about 14 percent of subprime loans
    originated, market analysts expect that within the next few years the GSEs could purchase as much
    as 50 percent of the overall subprime mortgage volume.
    The GSEs are increasing their business, in part, in response to higher affordable housing
    goals set by HUD in its new rule established in October 2000. In the rule, HUD identifies subprime
    borrowers as a market that can help Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet their goals, and also help
    to establish more standardization in the subprime market.
    A larger GSE presence in the subprime lending market will

    http://www.huduser.org/Publications/pdf/subprime.pdf

    <font color="#CC6600" size="1">[ September 16, 2008 09:59 PM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>

  2. #2
    Inactive Member travelinman's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 19th, 2001
    Posts
    2,440
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    The Real Culprits In This Meltdown
    By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 15, 2008 4:20 PM PT

    Big Government: Barack Obama and Democrats blame the historic financial turmoil on the market. But if it's dysfunctional, Democrats during the Clinton years are a prime reason for it.

    Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the "trickle-down" economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.

    But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.

    Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.

    The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."

    Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.

    And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America.

    As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud.

    Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million.

    Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and other senior executives could earn big bonuses.

    In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk.

    But it was too little, too late. Raines had reportedly steered Fannie Mae business to subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which was saved from bankruptcy by Bank of America.

    At the same time, the Clinton administration was pushing Fannie and her brother Freddie Mac to buy more mortgages from low-income households.

    The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to affordable-housing lobbyists, resulted in today's nationalization of both Fannie and Freddie, a move that is expected to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.

    And the worst is far from over. By the time it is, we'll all be paying for Clinton's social experiment, one that Obama hopes to trump with a whole new round of meddling in the housing and jobs markets. In fact, the social experiment Obama has planned could dwarf both the Great Society and New Deal in size and scope.

    There's a political root cause to this mess that we ignore at our peril. If we blame the wrong culprits, we'll learn the wrong lessons. And taxpayers will be on the hook for even larger bailouts down the road.

    But the government-can-do-no-wrong crowd just doesn't get it. They won't acknowledge the law of unintended consequences from well-meaning, if misguided, acts.

    Obama and Democrats on the Hill think even more regulation and more interference in the market will solve the problem their policies helped cause. For now, unarmed by the historic record, conventional wisdom is buying into their blame-business-first rhetoric and bigger-government solutions.

    While government arguably has a role in helping low-income folks buy a home, Clinton went overboard by strong-arming lenders with tougher and tougher regulations, which only led to lenders taking on hundreds of billions in subprime bilge.

    Market failure? Hardly. Once again, this crisis has government's fingerprints all over it.

  3. #3
    Senior Hostboard Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13th, 2001
    Posts
    4,009
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    And the worst is far from over. By the time it is, we'll all be paying for Clinton's social experiment, one that Obama hopes to trump with a whole new round of meddling in the housing and jobs markets. In fact, the social experiment Obama has planned could dwarf both the Great Society and New Deal in size and scope.
    <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The "social experiment" isn't the problem.

    The problem is that Wall Street found a way to deregulate the housing market by selling crappy mortgages during an era of cheap, easy money.

    Here's how it happened:

    1. Greenspan keeps money cheap.
    2. Wall Street makes takes in lots of fees packaging mortgages and selling them off to investors.
    3. Banks sell off mortgages to investors, giving them even more money to loan to home buyers.
    4. Because banks no longer own the mortgages, they stop underwriting the mortgages.
    5. Because banks stopped underwriting the mortgages the packaged mortgages sold to investors started to fail
    6. Because the packaged mortgages to investors started to fail, investors stopped buying them.
    7. Because investors stopped buying the packaged mortgages, less money was available to lend to potential homebuyers.
    8. Because potential homebuyers no longer could get loans to buy homes, the demand for homes went down.

    10. Because the demand for homes went down, the price of homes went down.
    11. Because the price of homes went down. Homeowners weren't able to refinance when their option arms reset.
    11. Because people weren't able to refinance, they couldn't afford the new payment when the loan rest.
    12. Because people couldn't afford the new payment, they foreclosed on their homes.
    13. Because people foreclosed on their homes, more homes were put on the market.
    14. Because more homes were put on the market, the prices of homes went down.
    15. Because the prices of homes went down, buyers waited for the price to go down more.
    16. Because people waited for prices to go down more, the demand for homes went down.
    17. Because the demand for homes went down, the price of homes went down more.
    18. Because the price of homes went down more, financial institutions who bought those packaged mortgages needed to raise capital.
    19. Because those institutions needed to raise capital, they had no money to lend.
    20. Because they had no money to lend, there were even fewer loans for homes, thus depresing the price for homes.
    21. Because the price of the house market spiraled downward, banks preserved whatever capital they had, creating a liquidity crisis.
    22. Because there was a liquidity crisis, financial instititions like Bear became subject to investor scrutiny because their short term funding for daily business dried up.

    I could go on. The point is, trav's article is so far removed from reality is shows he doesn't know what's going on.

    <font color="#CC6600"><font size="1">[ September 19, 2008 02:24 PM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font></font>

    <font color="#CC6600" size="1">[ September 19, 2008 02:25 PM: Message edited by: The Big Sexy ]</font>

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •