Subprime Suspects

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: reddawnz @ 10/08/2008 2:33:56 PM

    Well, mostly correct. You did mention the rating of the MBS's being too high. You fail to mention the reason's why they were so high. Because they were implicitly backed by the Federal Government via Fannie & Freddie as well as the fact that they had liquidable assetts backing them. The fault rests with individuals (buying houses above their means / assuming realestate would always rise), Fannie, Freddie & the government The Federal Government has no business guaranteeing home mortgages, ratings agencies for drinking the kool aid, Investment banks for leveraging 40 to 1, and The federal government again for repealing Glass-Stegal / The CRA and drinking the koolaid. This whole country, investmentbanks, elected officials, millionare CEO's, ratings agencies, individuals and not mentioned before but THIRD PARTY ORIGINATORS are to blame. It is a *** pie and we all have an equal piece.

  • Posted By: Roz0804 @ 10/08/2008 2:30:59 PM

    Minorities have the same dreams as anybody else. We work hard and want to put our families in homes just like anybody. It's not our fault that all the manufacturing and service jobs have been taken away from this country. Many work two and three jobs just trying to hold their families together. Now you want to blame us for the sub-prime mess? Who designed the mortgages knowing that they would fail and people would not be able to keep the monthly payments? We need jobs people! $ 7-8-10 dollars will not keep our head above water. Answer me this: How can a person buy a house if they don't have jobs. Roosevelt knew that inorder for the country to prosper people had to have jobs! With 75% of America working for small business no wonder we are sinking in debt. Now you know what the normal hard working American is having to go through every day.

  • Posted By: eagle575 @ 10/08/2008 2:30:43 PM

    i don't think it's blaming minorities as much as it blaming the government, then fannie and freddie, for boneheaded & irresponsible legislation enacted in 1977, 1993, and 1995.

    attempts were made to correct the problem in 2001, 2003 and 2005----all blocked by frank and dodd. even bill admits his worthy goals went beyond good judgment.

  • Posted By: Ohboy1 @ 10/08/2008 1:10:18 PM

    I keep hearing about all of these jobs that have been shipped overseas. Overseas where? If all the jobs have been shipped overseas, and the opportunities are "overseas" now, then let's get with the program and find out where all of these good paying jobs are overseas and get our passports updated and get overseas and get employed and start making some money. Anybody with me?

    • Posted By: TheWiseAmerica @ 10/08/2008 2:30:38 PM

      This is the most vacous and simplistic analogy I have seen from anyone that has contributed on this subject - and there's quite a few poor showings to pick from. You must not care for your country or countrymen when you vend such grotesquely misdirected folly with woefully deficient forethought.

  • Posted By: eagle575 @ 10/08/2008 12:12:12 PM

    wow. he cannot connect dots at all, can he?

    first, the CRA required banks to lend in minority and low - income areas. i saw for nearly 20 years. your CRA ratings were the determining factor whether you could open or close branches, merge, etc. additionally, these mortgages were exempt when regulators did their examinations.

    the problem worsened in 1993. congress directed fannie and freddie to allot up to half of their mortgage guarantees to low income and minority borrowers. it was determined, by fannie's ceo then, that down payment requirements, credit scores, etc that the rest of us had to meet, were racist tools meant to keep minorities and low income people out of owning their own homes. see maxine waters' clip on c-span.

    by 2001, over $1 trillion of these subprime mortgages had been guaranteed by fannie and freddie, again, under the direction of frank, dodd, etc. these are the 2 people primarily responsible for blocking all attempts in 2001,.2003, and 2005 to strengthen oversight of the gse's. see clips on c-span.

    mortgage bankers like fleet, and countrywide got in the act, not because they were required to under CRA, but rather a market share decision. if the government was going to guarantee these mortgages, they might as well write them also.

    • Posted By: Iakavous @ 10/08/2008 12:22:23 PM

      So who forced the banks to take these subprimes and repackage them into exotic mutual funds and sell them at exorbitant prices and then have the ratings firms value them in the billions?? The Federal Gov.? Wrong, the plan was to take homes back after a few months worth of payments and put them back on the market because the prices were threw the roof.....only when the ARM mortgages caused excessive foreclosures the number of houses on the market shot up to 10 months and prices fell which meant that those exotic funds which had been valued based on the inflated prices now saw their value plummet and soo many large institutions had gotten in on the feeding frenzy that the contagion spread to everything....and that was because no regulation of hedge funds and investment banks was taking place under this administration....yeah it's all poor peoples fault....what a crock...

      • Posted By: eagle575 @ 10/08/2008 2:27:09 PM

        selling mortgages to the secondary has been around for decades. it's how lenders obtain funds to make new loans.

        why aren't you asking why did frank, dodd, and company tell fannie and freddie to make 1/2 their portfolio these type of subprime mortgages? why aren't you asking why did fannie and freddie require banks to make these subprime loans 10% of their total mortgage business? THAT's the crux of the matter.

  • Posted By: techresmgt @ 10/08/2008 2:25:35 PM

    Blah, blah, blah, everyone's a victim, right? Figures. This financial crisis is not a Republican problem, this is not a Democratic problem, this is a problem of good old human greed, all genders, all ethnic groups, all political affiliations, all socio-economic levels, across the board. No one can say they are 'innocent' and without some responsibility.

  • Posted By: Panok @ 10/08/2008 12:40:56 PM

    Look at WAMU's loss writedown.

    Ou of $176 billion in bad loans.

    $60 million to equity lines
    $50 million to prime credit holders
    $50 million in prime alt-A
    and get this ONLY $16 billion in sub prime.

    What SUB PRIME PROBLEM? Its a GREEN PROBLEM IN CANF. California, Arizona, Nevada and Florida.

    Look around, don't saddle the poor with your baggage.

    • Posted By: eagle575 @ 10/08/2008 2:24:11 PM

      only $16 billion? uh, most banks are seized when bad loans exceed 1.5 - 2% of total loans. further the 10% of their subprime loans (16 billion/176 billion) was freddie and fannies target for banks to meet their CRA requirements.

  • Posted By: DavidM_15 @ 10/08/2008 2:23:12 PM

    Your article is great but I'm sick and tired of hearing people talk about Rich White Guys as if it's bad to be one. You stick up for the "poor" minority....are there not any Rich Black Guys or would that be considered racist to say that. I make good money, I'm educated and I'm white and not ashamed to admit it. As long as folks like you continue to identify people by the color of their skin racism will live and prosper. Try saying poor people or rich people

  • Posted By: bmd12345 @ 10/08/2008 2:20:57 PM

    Another Democratic trying to justify the financial meltdown. Bottom line was, these banks started taking more risks and got greedy because an oligapoly existed with Fannie and freddie. They should not have been their in the first place. Second, there was a push to regulate them, however the minorities in congress started lambasting the regulators.
    Look if the banks did not want to lend to minoroties, then some minorities should have gotten together and created a bank to support them. That is what the Chinese and other "minorities" do. By the way, how come the other minorities were not a problem - namely Korean, Chinese, Indian etc

  • Posted By: Iakavous @ 10/08/2008 12:52:11 PM

    This is a nothing but mud in the water. The fact that John McCain and the republicans have continually resisted the regulation of hedge funds and investment banks is where this turns bad. It was these institutions that encouraged subprime loans. The nature of Freddie and Fannie is to give in implicit guarantee to loans made to low income people. Not to actually set the terms.....they certainly did not create "ARM" mortgages, which is the real culprit of this. Because of the lack of transparency hedge funds and investment banks like Bear Sterns (leveraged 33:1) were able to operate because of deregulation. The ratings agencies Ambak Financial and MBIA had the investment banks rated at top levels without having seen their books - based solely on reputation. When the number of homes on the market hit 11 months the bubble burst, and the house of cards came down. Fannie and Freddies complicity is that they were backing up ARM mortgages by investment banks without being able to look into their books. They were wrong and sloppy, but the Greed of Wall Street combined with the deregulation of the republicans allowed Wall Street to consume itself with it's inflated valuations while strangling the goose that laid the golden egg - homeowners pursuing the American dream.

    • Posted By: eagle575 @ 10/08/2008 2:20:35 PM

      hedge funds have nothing to do with this. CRA.

      investment banks have never been under federal banking oversight, only commercial retail banks, even after deregulation was passed---in 1979.

  • Posted By: Judi from Jersey @ 10/08/2008 2:20:11 PM

    There is nothing wrong w/ lending minorities or other groups of people cash, provided the individuals have a proven track record of paying back their debts. The problem is giving them access to more money than they could ever think of paying back. Common sense would tell you if you make $40,000 a year you shouldn't be approved to purchase a house for $750,000 and that's not including interest. Each individual knows best what they can afford. Just because a bank approves you for a particular amount, doesn't mean you have to take it. Shame on everyone involved. Its not just corporate greed, its individual greed here as well. Those of us who have lived within our means are now paying the price for those who didn't.

  • Posted By: Panok @ 10/08/2008 1:02:37 PM

    Again, this is a Greed problem. Fannie and Freddie were tools that were mismanaged. Furthermore, they did not originate exotic loans anyway. They were not a problem. The understood government backing was the problem. It was a free get out of jail card for raucous inverstors, and everyone knew it. GSE's, that's Government Sponsored Entities have a distinct problem. They are government sponsored, which means if they fail, the government failed. Yes, sounds crazy. But, this cause and effect association is EXACTLY why everyone knew Fannie and Freddie would socialize their losses. We can't let the perception of a massive US economic vehicle failing, further hamper the markets. But saving that vehicle, in itself was a perception of a massive economic vehicle failing. We can't win. Lies built on lies.

    • Posted By: eagle575 @ 10/08/2008 2:19:07 PM

      no, they didn't originate the loans-true enough. but they were directed to 1) guarantee them, and 2) make half their portfolio these types of loans.

      the lenders-ie, banks-were under the threat of CRA ratings to make the loans. when your ability to conduct business operations is under the threat of the government's clubbed hand, you do it to stay in business.

      the reason mortgage lenders like countrywide got in the fray was pure marketing and economics: if fannie and freddie were guaranteeing these loans, why shouldn't they get some of that market also? if they hadn't moved in that direction, delaware chancery court (where they are incorporated) would have been clogged even more with shareholder suits for negligence, fraud, etc.

  • Posted By: phiomalibumalibu @ 10/08/2008 1:05:28 PM

    Cut the crap, all of the defaulted and foreclosed homes can be paid off in full for 100 billion. Minorities are not to blame for anything. This is not about home mortgages at all. It's about the fraud and crookedness of these companies in America that are doing anything for profits. Anything meaning elevating the value of their paper, and shipping jobs overseas. The biggest problem Americans face it the H!-B visa. 10 million jobs have been shipped overseas by greasing the palms of congress and corporate CIO's and CEO's

    • Posted By: eagle575 @ 10/08/2008 2:13:29 PM

      ummm...if congress, through freddie and fannie, hold a club over lenders to make these loans, how is it not their culpability???

  • Posted By: david1978 @ 10/08/2008 1:20:16 PM

    Wow Mr. Gross I do not know how you can be more wrong.

    The reason why there are not many defaults in community housing projects is that they are in fact paid by taxpayers. People get to live there through assisted housing programs for $299 a month. The rest of the tab is picked up by the taxpayer. With welfare payments sometimes topping off at $2000 a month I think it is pretty easy to afford $199 a month for a HUD assisted house.

    ACORN and other activist groups made a push to drive minorities out of housing projects into nearby suburbs to increase the minority voting block thereby influencing elections. In order to get them into the nearby suburbs they needed programs to get them into houses that they could not afford.

    Using scare tactics ACORN and other groups effectively forced banks to loan to low income minorities. A huge push was made after the 2004 election to take over the state of Ohio and deliver it to the next democratic candidate.

    In my suburb of Cleveland the ammount of minorities that moved into the neighborhood increased to a rate not seen since the late 1970s and early '80s. It ammounted to a full takeover and the city is not better off because of it. Now the city is experiencing one of the highest forclosure rates in the nation. Crime has increased and a fine suburb is in complete disaray.

    For community housing advocates I am sure they were just trying to make it through the election year. Once that happnned they could care less about the defaults. The minorites would just go back to the projects and the objective would have been accomplished.

    This is the reason why ACORN wants to allow people who have forclosed to vote in the precinct where they once lived. They were kicked out before they could acomplish thier mission.

    • Posted By: eagle575 @ 10/08/2008 2:11:39 PM

      don't forget ACORN's congressional allies: pelosi, reid, frank, dodd, etc. they funnel money to this group that essentially blackmails banks into making these loans.

    • Posted By: Ohboy1 @ 10/08/2008 1:24:10 PM

      Touche!

  • Posted By: gbigler2208 @ 10/08/2008 1:19:20 PM

    Now they're blaming Carter & Clinton? Excuse me......didn't I hear Gov. Sarah Palin say just last week -- that was looking back at the past ---- it's behind us.....move on forward? Or do they only want us not to look at the past if it's a Republican sitting in the White House?

    • Posted By: Bernice's Mom @ 10/08/2008 2:09:56 PM

      No problems looking at the past here since both parties are to blame.

  • Posted By: Iakavous @ 10/08/2008 1:23:29 PM

    THE MARKET IS NOT "SELF CORRECTING", IT IS MADE UP OF PEOPLE, AND PEOPLE HAVE VARIABLE EMOTIONS.....THE REPUBLICAN ECONOMIC THEORY THAT TRYS TO EXCLUDE HUMAN EMOTIONS FROM THE MARKET IS FALSE. THE PEOPLE ARE THE MARKET AND THE MARKET IS THE PEOPLE.
    PEOPLE ARE PRONE TO IRRATIONAL BEHAVIOR.

    • Posted By: eagle575 @ 10/08/2008 2:09:45 PM

      it's dems who use emotions in the market, or why else would you have social actjon mutual funds? the market is perfectly rational when decisions are made on the basis of technical analysis or the like.

  • Posted By: TheWiseAmerica @ 10/08/2008 2:08:36 PM

    I agree with you derrick. Peapod is here bragging about her net worth and the fact that somehow Obama threatens it. Not only is that analogy false and absurd, but the people she has voted in (and will attempt to vote in again) are chiefly responsible for falling asleep on the button when they should have been watching out for the criminal financial opportunism that has caused this meltdown. Peapod, you may be financially secure in your own right but a vote for McCain will not change the bottom line...when the economy is bad for the majority of hardworking Americans, then it is necessarily bad for you and other persons that want to brag about net worth. Those fortunes can decline very handily if the political class embraces economic doctrines that subdue growth in population segments that perpetually drive our economy. Republicans amaze me with their blind conservatism almost as much as Democrats amaze me with their unbridled optimism. The truth is, a country where the rich get richer and the middle class gets culled out by macroeconomic trends that defeat prosperity for most in favor of a misguided reward program for the best capitalist amongst us, can only sustain itself until there's a more lucrative dollar to be made somewhere else (like China, or India...hence that word we all love - outsourcing). Peapod, if this trend continues, the small fortunes of others around you that contributed to your $2 million networth will not be there to sustain your continued prosperity. Wise up or embrace the failing communities your doctrine espouses.

  • Posted By: YLDROVER @ 10/08/2008 1:14:35 PM

    What does it say about our society that we need the governement to "babysit" our financial decisions to save us from self destruction? Whether a person is white or a minority, earn $20K, $200K or $2M the people who lived outside their means have created this issue. We are a society of enjoy today and worry about tomorrow never....unfortunately "never" is here.

    • Posted By: Bernice's Mom @ 10/08/2008 2:06:04 PM

      Amen! By the way come November we are going to have to pay the babysitter....how much will he charge?

  • Posted By: derrick1517 @ 10/08/2008 1:34:29 PM

    peapod123 You need to spend some of the 2 million you have and invest in spell check. No one is coming for your money.

    • Posted By: TheWiseAmerica @ 10/08/2008 2:02:22 PM

      I agree with you derrick. Peapod is here bragging about her net worth and the fact that somehow Obama threatens it. Not only is that analogy false and absurd, but the people she has voted in (and will attempt to vote in again) are chiefly responsible for falling asleep on the button when they should have been watching out for the criminal financial opportunism that has caused this meltdown. Peapod, you may be financially secure in your own right but a vote for McCain will not change the bottom line...when the economy is bad for the majority of hardworking Americans, then it is necessarily bad for you and other persons that want to brag about net worth. Those fortunes can decline very handily if the political class embraces economic doctrines that subdue growth in population segments that perpetually drive our economy. Republicans amaze me with their blind conservatism almost as much as Democrats amaze me with their unbridled optimism. The truth is, a country where the rich get richer and the middle class gets culled out by macroeconomic trends that defeat prosperity for most in favor of a misguided reward program for the best capitalist amongst us, can only sustain itself until there's a more lucrative dollar to be made somewhere else (like China, or India...hence that word we all love - outsourcing). Peapod, if this trend continues, the small fortunes of others around you that contributed to your $2 million networth will not be there to sustain your continued prosperity. Wise up or embrace the failing communities your doctrine espouses.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse