CRA: damned little justification in 1977, *ZERO* justification today

[Rudy Canoza]

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2662&context=fss_papers

[jim]

Rudy Canoza wrote nothing:

Fixed the subject line for you

[jim]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2662&context=fss_papers
>

justification of CRA:


As Senator Proxmire, the principal sponsor
of the CRA, remarked, "We need to encourage bankers to get out
of the office and walk around the block and find loan opportunities
here at home. The law already provides that banks are chartered to
meet the convenience and needs of their communities.
[U]nfortunately many bankers and many bank regulators have forgotten
the meaning of those words."'

The purpose of CRA is to discourage banks from
exporting the wealth of communities by taking
deposits and funnelling the loans to the
bankers community.

Any honest banker will tell that amounts to theft.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/31/2015 2:54 AM, "jim >" wrote:

> I unethically edited the subject line,

I fixed that.

> and then I wrote nothing.

Agreed. You never write anything of substance.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/31/2015 3:20 AM, "jim >" wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2662&context=fss_papers
>>
>>
>
> justification of CRA:

None.

[Tom Del Rosso]

Loaning the depositor's money to anyone who can't pay it back, no matter
where they live, is theft.

The banker's community already has money. That's why he lives there in the
first place.

Unless "community" means something other than "neighborhood".

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/31/2015 3:13 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> jim" <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m...@mwt.net wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2662&context=fss_papers
>>>
>>
>> justification of CRA:
>>
>>
>> As Senator Proxmire, the principal sponsor
>> of the CRA, remarked, "We need to encourage bankers to get out
>> of the office and walk around the block and find loan opportunities
>> here at home. The law already provides that banks are chartered to
>> meet the convenience and needs of their communities.
>> [U]nfortunately many bankers and many bank regulators have forgotten
>> the meaning of those words."'
>>
>> The purpose of CRA is to discourage banks from
>> exporting the wealth of communities by taking
>> deposits and funnelling the loans to the
>> bankers community.
>>
>> Any honest banker will tell that amounts to theft.
>
> Loaning the depositor's money to anyone who can't pay it back, no matter
> where they live, is theft.

Exactly right.

> The banker's community already has money. That's why he lives there in the
> first place.
>
> Unless "community" means something other than "neighborhood".

"Community" means whatever lying leftists want it to mean.

[jim]

Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> jim" <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m...@mwt.net wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2662&context=fss_papers
>>>
>>
>> justification of CRA:
>>
>>
>> As Senator Proxmire, the principal sponsor
>> of the CRA, remarked, "We need to encourage bankers to get out
>> of the office and walk around the block and find loan opportunities
>> here at home. The law already provides that banks are chartered to
>> meet the convenience and needs of their communities.
>> [U]nfortunately many bankers and many bank regulators have forgotten
>> the meaning of those words."'
>>
>> The purpose of CRA is to discourage banks from
>> exporting the wealth of communities by taking
>> deposits and funnelling the loans to the
>> bankers community.
>>
>> Any honest banker will tell that amounts to theft.
>
> Loaning the depositor's money to anyone who can't pay it back, no matter
> where they live, is theft.
>

What's your point? You are insunuating
something that is false.

The FED studied the matter after the financial
crash and found that loans made outside
a deposit facility's service area defaulted at
twice the rate of loans made inside the service area.

Honest bankers will tell you loaning locally
is good banking.
Corrupt bankers will lie because they want to
steal from their depositors.

CRA is a law designed to inform depositors of
where their bank is making loans. The truth
drives away the larceny.

> The banker's community already has money. That's why
> he lives there in the
> first place.

If he is making loans in his neighborhood instead of
where the depositors live the banker is a thief.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/31/2015 4:25 PM, "jim >" wrote:
> Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> jim" <""sjedgingN0Sp\"@m...@mwt.net wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2662&context=fss_papers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> justification of CRA:
>>>
>>>
>>> As Senator Proxmire, the principal sponsor
>>> of the CRA, remarked, "We need to encourage bankers to get out
>>> of the office and walk around the block and find loan opportunities
>>> here at home. The law already provides that banks are chartered to
>>> meet the convenience and needs of their communities.
>>> [U]nfortunately many bankers and many bank regulators have forgotten
>>> the meaning of those words."'
>>>
>>> The purpose of CRA is to discourage banks from
>>> exporting the wealth of communities by taking
>>> deposits and funnelling the loans to the
>>> bankers community.
>>>
>>> Any honest banker will tell that amounts to theft.
>>
>> Loaning the depositor's money to anyone who can't pay it back, no matter
>> where they live, is theft.
>>
>
> What's your point? You are insunuating
> something that is false.

He is stating exactly what the problem with CRA is. It mandates lending
to un-creditworthy people, which is stealing from depositors.

[jim]

You are spouting propaganda lies.

Here is the law show us where it mandates
any type of lending.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/chapter-30

The only thing the law requires is for bank
regulators to determine to what extent deposit
facilities lend within the area they ate chartered
to serve.

The purpose is to expose the lending behavior of
corrupt bankers and that drives corrupt banker
crazy because they don't want the depositors
to find out that they are making all the loans
in the bankers community instead of making
loans in the depositors community.

[Rudy Canoza]

No.

> Here is the law show us where it mandates
> any type of lending.
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/chapter-30

Clinton's executive order amendments to the law mandated that type of
lending.

[jim]

Rudy Canoza wrote:

>
>> Here is the law show us where it mandates
>> any type of lending.
>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/chapter-30
>
> Clinton's executive order amendments to the law mandated that type of
> lending.
>

All you have is fiction that you pull out of
your ass.

The president has no authority to tell bank
regulators how to do their job. Only Congress
can do that. The regulators follow what is in the
statutes and the CRA statutes are very clear that
all loans are required to be consistent with safe
and sound lending practices.

The reckless lending during the housing bubble
was financed by private investors mostly
thru private label mortgage backed securities.
Most of the bad loans originated with independent
mortgage companies not CRA regulated deposit
facilities.

Your whole story is pure fiction. The propaganda
stories are coming from corrupt bankers.
Corrupt bankers want to go back to the old way of
doing business where they can screw the depositors
without anyone being able to find out about it.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 5/31/2015 6:25 PM, "jim >" wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>>
>>> Here is the law show us where it mandates
>>> any type of lending.
>>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/chapter-30
>>
>> Clinton's executive order amendments to the law mandated that type of
>> lending.
>>
>
> All you have is

Stop lying. Clinton changed the CRA to *require* that banks make a
minimum quota of mortgage loans to low-income people in slums.

[John B.]

I'm not sure how all banks work, but it is my understanding that,
essentially, all money is, essentially, an international commodity,
that is moved back and forth to where it can make a profit.

When I worked in Indonesia I know that the company frequently borrowed
on the international, "dollar market", rather than the local currency
market, and it was my impression that many businesses did that. It was
considered good business and a lot of local banks borrowed in dollars
and loaned in Rupiah.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Rudy Canoza]

They better have been charging a substantial exchange rate risk premium
on the loans, because the rupiah has been dropping against the dollar
more or less steadily for at least 25 years.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/indonesia/currency

There have been a few jolts along the way, especially around 1998, but
for the most part the rupiah has fallen steadily.

[Tom Del Rosso]

And his Justice Department threatened to prosecute banks that didn't do it
on civil rights and other grounds, and required Freddie and Fanny to buy
most of the debt.

And that quota in 1999 was a whopping 30% but HUD had power to adjust it.
They raised it to 50% by 2000.

To avoid going under, banks sold the remaining debt to investors. Left wing
documentaries like the one made by Bill Moyers begin the story there, and
never mention Freddie and Fanny.

By 2005 Freddie and Fanny had 4 trillion in debt. Private investors bought
a lot less of it, but more than they could afford.

All easily demonstrated by googling the articles from the NY Times and
elsewhere from that period. I just looked them up and reviewed them again.
I was going to provide the links, but I've wasted enough time with
delusional people. Socialism is their religion. They don't want to know
anything else.

[jim]

Your propaganda lies come from corrupt bankers.

The housing bubble had nothing to do with bank loans
to people in slums.
http://grist.org/list/america-has-40-million-big-houses-that-no-one-wants/

[jim]

Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 5/31/2015 6:25 PM, "jim >" wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Here is the law show us where it mandates
>>>>> any type of lending.
>>>>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/chapter-30
>>>>
>>>> Clinton's executive order amendments to the law mandated that
>>>> type of lending.
>>>>
>>>
>>> All you have is
>>
>> Stop lying. Clinton changed the CRA to *require* that banks make a
>> minimum quota of mortgage loans to low-income people in slums.
>
> And his Justice Department threatened to prosecute banks that didn't do it
> on civil rights and other grounds, and required Freddie and Fanny to buy
> most of the debt.

Its all lies. Clinton didn't sue banks to make
bad loans or force Freddie and Fannie to fund bad
loans.
Its a bullshit story and repeating it over and
over doesn't make it true.

If you want to know who was funding the bad loans
look at who funded the loans that failed.
Most of the loans that failed were financed by
private investors and originated with
private non-bank mortgage companies.

The actual realized loan losses from 2006-2012 are:

Fannie $77 Bn
Freddie $51 Bn
Privately backed $713 Bn

F&F financed 45% of the loans but only had 14% of the loan
losses.

https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2013-06-26-Resurrection-of-RMBS.pdf

>
> And that quota in 1999 was a whopping 30% but HUD had power to adjust it.
> They raised it to 50% by 2000.
>

If there were any truth to your story it
would show up in the loan loss data.
The fact is that the home loans that F&F
financed from 1995-2006 had extremely
low loss rates. Much lower than the loss
rates for loans F&F funded in the 1980's.

F&F had high lending standards. Mortgages backed by
private investors had no standards at all.

There was $6 trillion in US mortgages that were funded
through private market channels. That is were you
will find the loans that defaulted and
the cause of the housing bubble.

> To avoid going under, banks sold the remaining debt to investors. Left wing
> documentaries like the one made by Bill Moyers begin the story there, and
> never mention Freddie and Fanny.

Documentaries don't include fiction.

>
> By 2005 Freddie and Fanny had 4 trillion in debt. Private investors bought
> a lot less of it, but more than they could afford.
>

More lies. No investor that bought securities from
Freddie and Fannie has lost a penny of their investment.

F&F have made 10's of billions of dollars
for the US Treasury since they were taken over.
That's because Freddie and Fannie funded
the loans that had the lowest concentration of
defaults and delinquencies. There is no
other funding source for mortgages that comes even
close to performing as well as F&F backed moans.
http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/gse-critics-ignore-loan-performance-1059187-1.html

[Rudy Canoza]

On 6/1/2015 3:25 AM, "jim >" wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 5/31/2015 6:25 PM, "jim >" wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Here is the law show us where it mandates
>>>>> any type of lending.
>>>>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/chapter-30
>>>>
>>>> Clinton's executive order amendments to the law mandated that type of
>>>> lending.
>>>>
>>>
>>> All you have is
>>
>> Stop lying. Clinton changed the CRA to *require* that banks make a
>> minimum quota of mortgage loans to low-income people in slums.
>>
>

> My propaganda lies

Yep.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 6/1/2015 4:27 AM, "jim >" wrote:
> Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 5/31/2015 6:25 PM, "jim >" wrote:
>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is the law show us where it mandates
>>>>>> any type of lending.
>>>>>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/chapter-30
>>>>>
>>>>> Clinton's executive order amendments to the law mandated that
>>>>> type of lending.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All you have is
>>>
>>> Stop lying. Clinton changed the CRA to *require* that banks make a
>>> minimum quota of mortgage loans to low-income people in slums.
>>
>> And his Justice Department threatened to prosecute banks that didn't
>> do it
>> on civil rights and other grounds, and required Freddie and Fanny to buy
>> most of the debt.
>
> Its all lies.

No.

> Clinton didn't sue banks to make
> bad loans or force Freddie and Fannie to fund bad
> loans.

Yes, the administration did.

> Its a bullshit story and repeating it over and
> over doesn't make it true.

It's not, and it is the prevailing "narrative" now, to borrow a worn-out
left-wing term. Do a search on "CRA + financial + crisis", and the
truth - that CRA was the cornerstone of the house price bubble - turns
up dozens of times more often than any lame defense of it as a
legitimate policy.

CRA - more properly, Clinton turning into a policy bludgeon - was the
beginning, and Clinton's corruption of the mission of the GSEs was the
end. Together they caused the bubble and crash.

[jim]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 6/1/2015 4:27 AM, "jim >" wrote:
>> Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> On 5/31/2015 6:25 PM, "jim >" wrote:
>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is the law show us where it mandates
>>>>>>> any type of lending.
>>>>>>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/chapter-30
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Clinton's executive order amendments to the law mandated that
>>>>>> type of lending.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All you have is
>>>>
>>>> Stop lying. Clinton changed the CRA to *require* that banks make a
>>>> minimum quota of mortgage loans to low-income people in slums.
>>>
>>> And his Justice Department threatened to prosecute banks that didn't
>>> do it
>>> on civil rights and other grounds, and required Freddie and Fanny to buy
>>> most of the debt.
>>
>> Its all lies.
>
> No.
>
>> Clinton didn't sue banks to make
>> bad loans or force Freddie and Fannie to fund bad
>> loans.
>
> Yes, the administration did.

Only in your fairy tales.

>
>> Its a bullshit story and repeating it over and
>> over doesn't make it true.
>
> It's not, and it is the prevailing "narrative" now,

That doesn't mean its not a big lie.
Wall street and the corrupt bankers
have done an excellent job of flooding the
media with their lying propaganda narrative.

The easy way to tell it is a lie is
to look at who funded the loans that
actually failed. The overwhelming
majority of defaults were loans that
were amongst the $6 trillion in mortgages
financed through private channels.
Only a tiny minority of defaults were loans
from depository institutions to low income
borrowers inside the deposit institutions
service area. The type of loan CRA encourages
performed better than the market average.

[Rudy Canoza]

Only in reality.

>>
>>> Its a bullshit story and repeating it over and
>>> over doesn't make it true.
>>
>> It's not, and it is the prevailing "narrative" now,
>
> That doesn't mean its not a big lie.

Well, we both know that it isn't a lie at all, and that it is your
garbage narrative - "stealing from depositors", "corrupt" vs "honest"
bankers, etc. - that is a lie from beginning to end.

But the main thing is, whether or not you - for purely political and
polemical reasons - wish to call it a lie, the prevailing view is that
it is the truth. That's because it is the truth.