see my edit above. She LIES...and yes I trust my instincts far more than ANYTHING I read or hear about.
Who Caused The Subprime Meltdown?
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
see my edit above. She LIES...and yes I trust my instincts far more than ANYTHING I read or hear about.
You're the "liar". BOTH Riegle and Glenn were Democrats at the time of the investigation.
Recall the uproar about "redlining" of loans in Black Neighborhoods by the Democratic party pr outlets [the media] in the Clinton era?? Regulations were passed which pressured lenders to place loans where the payments could not be made... so lenders did just that... and in order to stay alive as well as keep the regulators off their backs they sold off the risk... but some of them realized that the risk was very easy to get rid of so they really went to work on that situation, the CEO of Countrywide took out a personal billion [with a B] dollars before the game was up. Were I him I would put up a website with me giving Clinton and the Black-vote-buying-Democratic party the finger... but that's just me...
not liar just wrong but willing to admit when I am wrong
Check the facts. You're wrong, and it's obvious. The numbers just don't add up.
The attached document shows the distribution (by race etc.) of the subprime,low-income lending in 2006. Whites accounted for 60% of the subprime, low-income lending. The number of minority, low-income loans is far too small to have caused the subprime meltdown.
It's a fact; The majority (57%) of the subprime loans went to non-Hispanic whites. The majority (45%) of the subprime loans went to high income individuals. Only 6% to low-income borrowers. (See "The Demographic Impact of the Subprime Meltdown" at www.compliancetech.com for an indepth discussion)
As a consultant to the mortgage lending industry (our clients include some of the largest lenders in the country, as well as a good sampling of lenders of various sizes) I know that your statement that lenders were lowering underwriting standards specifically to lend to unqualified minorities (in response to pressure for increased lending to minorities) is either naive or evidence of a nefarious objective.
Another point of clarification, Fannie and Freddies goals are not race based, they are primarily income based (and to a lessor extent geography based). Your statement that an emphasis on increased lending to low-income borrowers equates to a preference for lending to minorities suggests that low income and minority are synonyms. It's much more feasible (and many lenders find it more achievable) to increase low-income lending by reaching out to low-income non-Hispanic White borrowers. There are more low-income non-Hispanic White borrowers than there are low-income minority borrowers.
Your misunderstaindng is a common one. But, not all low-income borrowers are minority, and not all minorities are low-income.
While the proportion of minorities who are low-income is higher than the proportion of non-Hispanic Whites who are low-income, it's a fact tha the majority of low-income people in this country (and receiving subprime mortgage loans) are non-Hispanic Whites.
The attached document shows the distribution (by race etc.) of the subprime,low-income lending in 2006. Whites accounted for 60% of the subprime, low-income lending. The number of minority, low-income loans is far too small to have caused the subprime meltdown.
It's a fact; The majority (57%) of the subprime loans went to non-Hispanic whites. The majority (45%) of the subprime loans went to high income individuals. Only 6% to low-income borrowers. (See "The Demographic Impact of the Subprime Meltdown" at www.compliancetech.com for an indepth discussion)
As a consultant to the mortgage lending industry (our clients include some of the largest lenders in the country, as well as a good sampling of lenders of various sizes) I know that your statement that lenders were lowering underwriting standards specifically to lend to unqualified minorities (in response to pressure for increased lending to minorities) is either naive or evidence of a nefarious objective.
Another point of clarification, Fannie and Freddies goals are not race based, they are primarily income based (and to a lessor extent geography based). Your statement that an emphasis on increased lending to low-income borrowers equates to a preference for lending to minorities suggests that low income and minority are synonyms. It's much more feasible (and many lenders find it more achievable) to increase low-income lending by reaching out to low-income non-Hispanic White borrowers. There are more low-income non-Hispanic White borrowers than there are low-income minority borrowers.
Your misunderstaindng is a common one. But, not all low-income borrowers are minority, and not all minorities are low-income.
While the proportion of minorities who are low-income is higher than the proportion of non-Hispanic Whites who are low-income, it's a fact tha the majority of low-income people in this country (and receiving subprime mortgage loans) are non-Hispanic Whites.