beowulf 1
Recommended Posts
rushmc 23
QuoteQuotegov forcing banks to make bad loans because every one deserves a home of their own
This is the part that everyone seems to forget. The politicians trying to rig the market to get votes and it ends up biting everyone in the ass.
Yes
And then the pro gov lefties want eveyone to think just the evil bankers and corps are the problems
But the facts get in the way
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
wmw999 2,548
Whom do you think it's OK to deny a loan to? Is it based only on financial grounds (i.e. income vs. outgo), with no consideration towards judgment as to whether the individual banker thinks they're likely to repay?
If so, why do loan officers need to have experience; you should be able to just fill out a checklist.
Wendy P.
If so, why do loan officers need to have experience; you should be able to just fill out a checklist.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
rushmc 23
QuoteWhom do you think it's OK to deny a loan to? Is it based only on financial grounds (i.e. income vs. outgo), with no consideration towards judgment as to whether the individual banker thinks they're likely to repay?
If so, why do loan officers need to have experience; you should be able to just fill out a checklist.
Wendy P.
You are moving off topic
The gov coerced the banks to make loans they otherwise would not have based on the financial rules that were, in a large part, defined by the gov/regulators.
The banks then had to create tools to minimize the risk the gov was in effect, forcing them to take. Risk that was greater than they normally would. It is said the tools worked until payments stopped. Why did they stop? Maybe because they could not afford the home they bought to begin with? And yet they were still allowed to get the loan. And we now know what that is
So I think you believe everyone has the ability to, and should be allowed to no matter their financial situation?
In the end, a loan is denied to those who are by rule, bitting off more than they can chew
So your question makes no sense to me
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
beowulf 1
Lowering the standards for loans just to give loans to people who can't really afford them is a bad idea no matter how you paint it. Not everyone should own a home.
isn't that the pinnacle of the american dream?
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
wmw999 2,548
Absolutely true, not everyone should own a home. Not everyone can even afford to live on their own -- I think there should be more boarding houses out there.
But my question goes to why there might have been some "interference" into loan decisions in the first place. A post-runner to the "no Irish need apply" mentality that still exists in some places. Like those where employees are expected to be like everyone else, including liking to listen to Rush Limbaugh, be comfortable with NASCAR, like rap music, have tits, or anything else like that.
As long as there are qualitative decisions, there will be discrimination. If it's too strong against any single group across an industry, then either the industry needs to consider its guidelines, or the government maybe ought to encourage it to reconsider them.
Guidelines for loans aren't entirely financial, are they. I don't think that people who can't afford houses should buy them. I also don't think that people who can't afford bigger houses should buy them, nor should people who can refinance to the entire value of their house.
Wendy P.
But my question goes to why there might have been some "interference" into loan decisions in the first place. A post-runner to the "no Irish need apply" mentality that still exists in some places. Like those where employees are expected to be like everyone else, including liking to listen to Rush Limbaugh, be comfortable with NASCAR, like rap music, have tits, or anything else like that.
As long as there are qualitative decisions, there will be discrimination. If it's too strong against any single group across an industry, then either the industry needs to consider its guidelines, or the government maybe ought to encourage it to reconsider them.
Guidelines for loans aren't entirely financial, are they. I don't think that people who can't afford houses should buy them. I also don't think that people who can't afford bigger houses should buy them, nor should people who can refinance to the entire value of their house.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
beowulf 1
No
you've missold it then - people will want their money back...
stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding
beowulf 1
While favoritism or racism might have had some influence on giving out loans, I don't think it was overwhelming. It certainly didn't warrant pushing banks to make bad loans that they normally would not make. Over all the minoritys ended up suffering more due to these bad loans. Having a house a short period of time till they can't pay the mortgage isn't better then not having owned a home at all.
beowulf 1
you make a lot of assumptions. I didn't sell anyone anything.
rushmc 23
QuoteLowering the standards for loans just to give loans to people who can't really afford them is a bad idea no matter how you paint it. Not everyone should own a home.
The sad part is they were not told to lower their standards, they were told to ignore them
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
beowulf 1
It's pretty much the same thing. Just a matter of degree of lowering the standard.
rushmc 23
QuoteIt's pretty much the same thing. Just a matter of degree of lowering the standard.
Ya I know
Post was not really pointed at you as much as the crappy way the gov handled this
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteYes
And then the pro gov lefties want eveyone to think just the evil bankers and corps are the problems
But the facts get in the way
Except that roughly 50% of sub-prime mortgages were issued by non-CRA governed independent-mortgage companies. (A further third or so where issued by financial institutions only partially governed by the CRA)
By the end of 2009 a majority of commerical real estate loans were "upside down". Commercial real easte loans are not governed by CRA, but are part of subsequent derivatives.
Banks could have also adjusted their corporate risk profiles. The problem is that through opaque derivatives institutions held incredible amounts of risk, without the ability to measure the risk, or rights to an offsetting asset. The trade in those derivatives got larger, but it needed a constant stream of "product" to keep it going. In this particular case that product was mortgages.
mnealtx 0
QuoteExcept that roughly 50% of sub-prime mortgages were issued by non-CRA governed independent-mortgage companies. (A further third or so where issued by financial institutions only partially governed by the CRA)
And when Fed.gov changes *their* standards, so does everyone else to try to keep competitive.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteYes
And then the pro gov lefties want eveyone to think just the evil bankers and corps are the problems
But the facts get in the way
Except that roughly 50% of sub-prime mortgages were issued by non-CRA governed independent-mortgage companies. (A further third or so where issued by financial institutions only partially governed by the CRA)
.
Not true
The standards were being pushed on all banks
The implied threat was that they would be audited more often and mergers (which were really going heavy at the time) would be held up or denied
Regulators were sending letters basicly threatening ALL lenders
I am not saying that the banks have no skin in this as they really do
But it was put into motion by the gov
That is NOT in question here
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
This is the part that everyone seems to forget. The politicians trying to rig the market to get votes and it ends up biting everyone in the ass.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites