Re: The rich pay less taxes

[jim]

Gunner Asch wrote:
>
> On Mon, 06 Jan 2014 08:08:57 -0500, Sancho Panza
> <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 1/6/2014 7:54 AM, jim wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Sancho Panza wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Let the Progressives explain it to you in their own words.
> >>>>
> >>>> The progressive politicians are full of hot air just like you are.
> >>>>
> >>>> You still haven't found a single lawsuit or piece of legislation
> >>>> that extorted banks to make bad loans.
> >>>>
> >>> Executive policy mandates don't count when you don't want them to.
> >>
> >> You have come up with nothing factual. All you have is stories.
> >
> >The entire text of the forceful mandate has been posted right here. Your
> >forgetfulness may indicate a more serious illness.
>

You posted 20 pages that say nothing to support
the claim that banks were forced to make bad loans.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[jim]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> On 1/6/2014 4:54 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
> collective, lied:

> >
> >
> > Sancho Panza wrote:
> >
> >>>> Let the Progressives explain it to you in their own words.
> >>>
> >>> The progressive politicians are full of hot air just like you are.
> >>>
> >>> You still haven't found a single lawsuit or piece of legislation
> >>> that extorted banks to make bad loans.
> >>>
> >> Executive policy mandates don't count when you don't want them to.
> >
> > You have come up with nothing factual.
>

> False. He has come up with *THE* factual explanation for the housing
> market collapse: government meddling in markets to provide goodies to
> politically favored constituents. That's the cause - established beyond
> rational dispute.


That is your made up story.

Here are some stories based on facts:

This study found that GSE backed loans did not fail
as often because they were given to borrowers who
had better credit scores, employment history and
put up larger down payments than non-GSE lending.

http://www.ncsha.org/blog/fhfa-report-shows-gse-loans-outperformed-private-label-mbs-loans

This analyst (chief economist for Moody's) found:

"The private RMBS market was at the heart of
the financial panic and the Great Recession that
followed. The market financed egregious mortgage
lending to homebuyers who had low credit
scores, put little or nothing down, and in many
cases lied about jobs, incomes, or intentions to
flip the property for a quick buck. The private
RMBS market was the financial pump that inflated
the housing bubble."

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

[jim]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> On 1/6/2014 4:52 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

> collective, lied:
> >
> >
> > Sancho Panza wrote:
> >>

> >> On 1/5/2014 2:15 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Sancho Panza wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 1/5/2014 12:37 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:
> >>>>> The mortgage company is not a FDIC deposit taking
> >>>>> bank and is not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act.
> >>>>
> >>>> Accurate up to the point when FDIC-insured institutions acquired
> >>>> mortgage companies' paper or when FDIC-insured institutions acquired
> >>>> said mortgage companies.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Nobody acquired that mortgage company. Your just making
> >>> up more stories to cover the deficiency of your
> >>> previous story.
> >>>
> >>
> >> STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
> >>
> >> Five years ago today, Bank of America announced it was buying the
> >> troubled subprime mortgage lender Countrywide Financial for $40 billion.
> >
> > Countrywide is a different private mortgage company.
>
> Countrywide Funding was, of course, *THE* biggest subprime lender by far.
>

Countrywide lending was not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act.

Countrywide made tons of bad loans for one reason - they were
profitable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/business/yourmoney/26country.html

"Regulatory filings show how much more profitable subprime loans
are for Countrywide than higher-quality prime loans. Last year,
for example, the profit margins Countrywide generated on subprime
loans that it sold to investors were 1.84 percent, versus 1.07
percent on prime loans. A year earlier, when the subprime machine
was really cranking, sales of these mortgages produced profits of
2 percent, versus 0.82 percent from prime mortgages. And in 2004,
subprime loans produced gains of 3.64 percent, versus 0.93 percent
for prime loans.

One reason these loans were so lucrative for Countrywide is that
investors who bought securities backed by the mortgages were willing
to pay more for loans with prepayment penalties and those whose interest
rates were going to reset at higher levels. Investors ponied up because
pools of subprime loans were likely to generate a larger cash flow than
prime loans that carried lower fixed rates."

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/6/2014 7:42 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
collective, lied:
>
>

> Gunner Asch wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 06 Jan 2014 08:08:57 -0500, Sancho Panza
>> <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>>

>>> On 1/6/2014 7:54 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:

>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Let the Progressives explain it to you in their own words.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The progressive politicians are full of hot air just like you are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You still haven't found a single lawsuit or piece of legislation
>>>>>> that extorted banks to make bad loans.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Executive policy mandates don't count when you don't want them to.
>>>>
>>>> You have come up with nothing factual. All you have is stories.
>>>
>>> The entire text of the forceful mandate has been posted right here. Your
>>> forgetfulness may indicate a more serious illness.
>>
>
> You posted 20 pages that say nothing to support
> the claim that banks were forced to make bad loans.

False. It absolutely did support it.

CRA and other federal price-rigging meddling forced mortgage lenders to
make bad loans to deadbeats.

[jim]

Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> On 1/6/2014 5:51 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

> collective, lied:
> >
> >
> > Sancho Panza wrote:
> >>
> >> On 1/6/2014 7:54 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Sancho Panza wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> Let the Progressives explain it to you in their own words.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The progressive politicians are full of hot air just like you are.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You still haven't found a single lawsuit or piece of legislation
> >>>>> that extorted banks to make bad loans.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Executive policy mandates don't count when you don't want them to.
> >>>
> >>> You have come up with nothing factual. All you have is stories.
> >>
> >> The entire text of the forceful mandate has been posted right here.
> >

> > Ha ha ha That is just anothedr story.
>
> It is just the facts.

The 20 page document doesn't say anything that
would support the story that banks were forced
to make bad loans.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/6/2014 7:48 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

collective, lied:
>
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> On 1/6/2014 4:54 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
>> collective, lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Let the Progressives explain it to you in their own words.
>>>>>
>>>>> The progressive politicians are full of hot air just like you are.
>>>>>
>>>>> You still haven't found a single lawsuit or piece of legislation
>>>>> that extorted banks to make bad loans.
>>>>>
>>>> Executive policy mandates don't count when you don't want them to.
>>>
>>> You have come up with nothing factual.
>>
>> False. He has come up with *THE* factual explanation for the housing
>> market collapse: government meddling in markets to provide goodies to
>> politically favored constituents. That's the cause - established beyond
>> rational dispute.
>
>
> That is your made up story.

No, what I wrote is 100% factual. Your left-wing fantasy is the made-up
story.

[jim]

Rudy Canoza wrote:

> >>> Ha ha ha That is just anothedr story.
> >>

> >> For the Alzheimer's cases and search impaired, here is a re-posting of
> >> the administration's marching orders of 1994,
> >
> > You just made up
>
> No, he did the research you are too dishonestly ideological and too lazy
> to do. He reported the truth.

Copying and pasting a 20 page document that
he never read is not research.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/6/2014 7:52 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

collective, lied:
>
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> On 1/6/2014 4:52 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
>> collective, lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 1/5/2014 2:15 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/5/2014 12:37 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:
>>>>>>> The mortgage company is not a FDIC deposit taking
>>>>>>> bank and is not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Accurate up to the point when FDIC-insured institutions acquired
>>>>>> mortgage companies' paper or when FDIC-insured institutions acquired
>>>>>> said mortgage companies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody acquired that mortgage company. Your just making
>>>>> up more stories to cover the deficiency of your
>>>>> previous story.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
>>>>
>>>> Five years ago today, Bank of America announced it was buying the
>>>> troubled subprime mortgage lender Countrywide Financial for $40 billion.
>>>
>>> Countrywide is a different private mortgage company.
>>
>> Countrywide Funding was, of course, *THE* biggest subprime lender by far.
>>
>
> Countrywide lending was not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act.
>
> Countrywide made tons of bad loans for one reason - they were
> profitable.

They were *ONLY* profitable because the GSEs bought them.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/6/2014 7:54 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
collective, lied:
>
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> On 1/6/2014 5:51 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
>> collective, lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 1/6/2014 7:54 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let the Progressives explain it to you in their own words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The progressive politicians are full of hot air just like you are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You still haven't found a single lawsuit or piece of legislation
>>>>>>> that extorted banks to make bad loans.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Executive policy mandates don't count when you don't want them to.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have come up with nothing factual. All you have is stories.
>>>>
>>>> The entire text of the forceful mandate has been posted right here.
>>>
>>> Ha ha ha That is just anothedr story.
>>
>> It is just the facts.
>
> The 20 page document

Is just one small part of the proof that federal policy, 100% Democrat,
caused the meltdown.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/6/2014 7:55 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

collective, lied:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:

>> On 1/6/2014 7:31 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

>> collective, lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>

>>>> On 1/6/2014 8:51 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

>>>> collective, lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/6/2014 7:54 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
>>>>>> collective, lied:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Let the Progressives explain it to you in their own words.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The progressive politicians are full of hot air just like you are.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You still haven't found a single lawsuit or piece of legislation
>>>>>>>>> that extorted banks to make bad loans.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Executive policy mandates don't count when you don't want them to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have come up with nothing factual. All you have is stories.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The entire text of the forceful mandate has been posted right here.
>>>>>

>>>>> Ha ha ha That is just anothedr story.
>>>>
>>>> For the Alzheimer's cases and search impaired, here is a re-posting of
>>>> the administration's marching orders of 1994,
>>>
>>> You just made up
>>
>> No, he did the research you are too dishonestly ideological and too lazy
>> to do. He reported the truth.
>
> Copying and pasting

He copied and pasted the truth that shows you to be a polemical and
ideological liar. Your left-wing fantasy is rubbished.

[jim]

And yet you can't seem to identify what
in the document supports the story that banks were
forced to make bad loans. Instead you just create another
unsupported story.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/6/2014 7:59 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

collective, lied:
>
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> On 1/6/2014 7:42 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
>> collective, lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 06 Jan 2014 08:08:57 -0500, Sancho Panza
>>>> <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/6/2014 7:54 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let the Progressives explain it to you in their own words.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The progressive politicians are full of hot air just like you are.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You still haven't found a single lawsuit or piece of legislation
>>>>>>>> that extorted banks to make bad loans.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Executive policy mandates don't count when you don't want them to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have come up with nothing factual. All you have is stories.
>>>>>
>>>>> The entire text of the forceful mandate has been posted right here. Your
>>>>> forgetfulness may indicate a more serious illness.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You posted 20 pages that say nothing to support
>>> the claim that banks were forced to make bad loans.
>>
>> False. It absolutely did support it.
>>
>
> And yet you can't seem to identify

Already have done: Democratic Party corruption of the mortgage lending
business caused the collapse. The Democrats are always trying to steal
from honest hard-working people in order to shower goodies on deadbeats,
to keep them voting Democratic.

[jim]

Rudy Canoza wrote:

> >>
> >
> > Countrywide lending was not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act.
> >
> > Countrywide made tons of bad loans for one reason - they were
> > profitable.
>
> They were *ONLY* profitable because the GSEs bought them.

Fannie Mae bought a few. The bad loans were sold to
the GSEs by fraud.
The loan documentation misrepresented the loans.
Without false documentation they would not have
been purchased.

BoA settled for $14 billion. They got off easy.

http://newsroom.bankofamerica.com/press-release/corporate-and-financial-news/bank-america-announces-settlement-fannie-mae-resolve-agen

Bank of America today announced agreements with the Federal
National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) to resolve outstanding
and potential repurchase and certain other claims relating to the
origination, sale and delivery of substantially all residential
mortgage loans originated and sold directly to Fannie Mae from
January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2008 by entities related
to Countrywide Financial Corporation (legacy Countrywide) and
Bank of America, National Association (BANA).

[Jeff M]

On 1/6/2014 9:31 AM, jim wrote:

> You just made up another story.
>
> Where is the evidence that banks were extorted to
> make bad loans?
>
> The only thing I see is efforts to get lenders to
> apply their lending standards equally to all applicants.
>
> Their is nothing about lowering standards or forcing

> banks to make bad loans.

It's been very entertaining, watching you make these know-nothings
twist, dance and and writhe in an agony of confusion and frustration
while fulminating with rage, all because you keep quietly insisting upon
facts and truth, and you patiently refuse to submit to their ignorant,
repetitious nonsense and lies.



--
�The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in
moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification
for selfishness.� - John Kenneth Galbraith

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/6/2014 8:07 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

>>> Countrywide lending was not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act.
>>>
>>> Countrywide made tons of bad loans for one reason - they were
>>> profitable.
>>
>> They were *ONLY* profitable because the GSEs bought them.
>
> Fannie Mae bought a few.

They bought a huge quantity of them.

> The bad loans were sold to the GSEs by fraud.

No, the GSEs gutted their underwriting standards and eagerly bought them up.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/6/2014 8:07 AM, Jeff M wrote:
> On 1/6/2014 9:31 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:

>
>> You just made up another story.
>>
>> Where is the evidence that banks were extorted to
>> make bad loans?
>>
>> The only thing I see is efforts to get lenders to
>> apply their lending standards equally to all applicants.
>>
>> Their is nothing about lowering standards or forcing
>> banks to make bad loans.
>
> It's been very entertaining, watching you make these know-nothings

No.

[jim]

Nice story, but where are the facts?

Here is a story that shows GSE backed lending to be far more
prudent than the rest of the mortgage market. It has plenty
of data that compares GSE backed lending to lending that
was financed by private label mortgage backed securities.

http://www.ncsha.org/blog/fhfa-report-shows-gse-loans-outperformed-private-label-mbs-loans

If you don't know what a private label mortgage backed
security is, here is an explanation.

http://securitization.weebly.com/private-label-mbs.html

[jim]

Then how come the loans in the GSE portfolio had a
lower rate of default and delinquency than any other
segment of the mortgage market?

"There is no data anywhere to cast doubt on the vastly
superior loan performance of the GSEs."

http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/gse-critics-ignore-loan-performance-1059187-1.html

In a study by the Office of the Comptroller of Currency the
found GSEs had a higher concentration of prime mortgages and
fewer foreclosures than loans backed by Private securities or
held by the originating lender.

http://www.occ.gov/publications/publications-by-type/other-publications-reports/mortgage-metrics-q1-2009/performance-of-gse-mort-2009-1-quarter.html

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 1/6/2014 7:52 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>

>> On 1/5/2014 2:15 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 1/5/2014 12:37 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>> The mortgage company is not a FDIC deposit taking
>>>>> bank and is not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act.
>>>>
>>>> Accurate up to the point when FDIC-insured institutions acquired
>>>> mortgage companies' paper or when FDIC-insured institutions acquired
>>>> said mortgage companies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nobody acquired that mortgage company. Your just making
>>> up more stories to cover the deficiency of your
>>> previous story.
>>>
>>
>> STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
>>
>> Five years ago today, Bank of America announced it was buying the
>> troubled subprime mortgage lender Countrywide Financial for $40 billion.
>
> Countrywide is a different private mortgage company.
>
>
>

>> At the time, the financial crisis had not fully revealed itself, and
>> many people thought Bank of America was getting a good deal. Instead,
>> the acquisition has turned into a never-ending legal and financial
>> nightmare. NPR's Jim Zarroli reports.
>
> Yes Countrywide was the biggest of the subprime lenders.
> It made tons of bad loans for purely profit motives.

>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/business/yourmoney/26country.html
>
> "Regulatory filings show how much more profitable subprime loans
> are for Countrywide than higher-quality prime loans. Last year,
> for example, the profit margins Countrywide generated on subprime
> loans that it sold to investors were 1.84 percent, versus 1.07
> percent on prime loans.

Subprime loans were so profitable that Countrywide went bankrupt.....


Don't you ever get tired of spreading lies?


This is a lie like the ones Liberals tell about, ever growing government
and more taxing, and that it saves us money and grows the economy.


--
If you haven't found the lie in what a Liberal told you, then you
didn't dig deep enough.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 1/6/2014 7:54 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> Sancho Panza wrote:
>

>>>> Let the Progressives explain it to you in their own words.
>>>
>>> The progressive politicians are full of hot air just like you are.
>>>
>>> You still haven't found a single lawsuit or piece of legislation
>>> that extorted banks to make bad loans.
>>>
>> Executive policy mandates don't count when you don't want them to.
>
> You have come up with nothing factual. All you have is stories.
>

Facts in video, directly from the lips of the Liberals you voted into
office.

I often call them lies too....


Welcome to reality.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/6/2014 8:16 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

I've presented them, you've seen them and acknowledged them, and you
have not even made an attempt to rebut them.

The *FACTS* are, government policy set by Democrats destroyed the
mortgage industry and the housing market, and ultimately brought down
the whole financial system.

[jim]

Countrywide was sold to Bank of America and that sale was
Countrywide's biggest single swindle.

The management of Countrywide knew they business model
would not endure. Didn't matter.
They all made fortunes long before the crash.
The internal code for this was known as
IBGYBG (I'll be gone you'll be gone)

When the end was near the response from Countrywide
management was to accelerate their fraudulent lending in a scam
they called "The Hustle"

http://consumerist.com/2013/10/23/bank-of-america-found-liable-for-countrywides-hustle-scam/

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/6/2014 8:41 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
collective, lied:
>
>
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>
>> On 1/6/2014 7:52 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 1/5/2014 2:15 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/5/2014 12:37 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:

Bank of America was forced by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury
Department to take over Countrywide.

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 5:52 AM, jim wrote:
> It was a good deal for the sellers

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/12/new-study-finds-democrats-fully-to-blame-for-subprime-mortgage-crisis-that-caused-financial-collapse/

In his early activist days, Barack Obama the community organizer sued
banks to ease lending practices.

State Sen. Barack Obama and Fr. Michael Pfleger led a protest against
the payday loan industry demanding the State of Illinois to regulate
loan businesses in January 2000. During his time as a community
organizer Barack Obama led several protests against banks to make loans
to high risk individuals. (NBC 5 Week of January 3, 2000)

Here�s something that won�t get any play in the liberal media�
A new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research found
that Democrats are to blame for the subprime mortgage crisis.
Investor�s Business Daily reported:

Democrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the
anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do
with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession.

But a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research
finds, �Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier
lending by banks.�

Added NBER: �There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans
made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the
effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts,� or predominantly
low-income and minority areas.

To satisfy CRA examiners, �flexible� lending by large banks rose an
average 5% and those loans defaulted about 15% more often, the 43-page
study found.

The strongest link between CRA lending and defaults took place in the
runup to the crisis � 2004 to 2006 � when banks rapidly sold CRA
mortgages for securitization by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Wall Street.

CRA regulations are at the core of Fannie�s and Freddie�s so-called
affordable housing mission. In the early 1990s, a Democrat Congress gave
HUD the authority to set and enforce (through fines) CRA-grade loan
quotas at Fannie and Freddie.

It passed a law requiring the government-backed agencies to �assist
insured depository institutions to meet their obligations under the
(CRA).� The goal was to help banks meet lending quotas by buying their
CRA loans.

But they had to loosen underwriting standards to do it. And that�s what
they did.

Republicans warned Democrats of the impending doom in 2004.

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 5:54 AM, jim wrote:
> You have come up with nothing factual.

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 6:51 AM, jim wrote:
> Ha ha ha That is just anothedr story.
>

> ---

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 7:07 AM, jim wrote:
> No it isn't. That is just another story you just made up.

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 8:31 AM, jim wrote:
> Their is nothing about lowering standards or forcing

> banks to make bad loans.

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 8:42 AM, jim wrote:
> You posted 20 pages

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 8:48 AM, jim wrote:
> That is your made up story.

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 8:52 AM, jim wrote:
> Countrywide lending was not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act.

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 8:54 AM, jim wrote:
> The 20 page document doesn't say anything

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 8:55 AM, jim wrote:
> Copying and pasting a 20 page document

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 8:59 AM, jim wrote:
> And yet you can't seem to identify what

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 9:07 AM, jim wrote:
> Fannie Mae bought a few.

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 9:16 AM, jim wrote:
> If you don't know what a private label mortgage backed

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 9:30 AM, jim wrote:
> Then how come the loans

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 9:41 AM, jim wrote:
> Countrywide was sold

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 9:07 AM, Jeff M wrote:
> you keep quietly insisting upon facts and truth

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 9:41 AM, jim wrote:

> Didn't matter.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/21/study-says-community-reinvestment-act-in

Study Says Community Reinvestment Act Induced Banks To Take Bad Risks
J.D. Tuccille|Dec. 21, 2012 6:37 pm

'twas Wall Street greed what done it, some folks say, when it comes to
explaining the spectacular housing meltdown of recent years, which had
its roots in a great many astonishingly risky loans. Other folks suggest
that the federal government just may have played something of a role in
inducing, even strong-arming, banks to take risks they otherwise would
have avoided. Specifically, the Community Reinvestment Act and related
policy pressures are pointed to as culprits, part of a government effort
to extend home-ownership in lower-income neighborhoods. Now comes a new
study from the National Bureau of Economic Research that says, quite
bluntly. that the CRA played a major role.

In the academic world, mealy-mouthed delivery of even powerful
conclusions is the norm, so it's refreshing to see authors Sumit
Agarwal, Efraim Benmelech, Nittai Bergman, Amit Seru answer the title's
question, "Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky
Lending?," with the clear, "Yes, it did. ... We find that adherence to
the act led to riskier lending by banks." The full abstract reads:

Yes, it did. We use exogenous variation in banks� incentives to conform
to the standards of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) around
regulatory exam dates to trace out the effect of the CRA on lending
activity. Our empirical strategy compares lending behavior of banks
undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month to the
behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that do not
face these exams. We find that adherence to the act led to riskier
lending by banks: in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams lending
is elevated on average by about 5 percent every quarter and loans in
these quarters default by about 15 percent more often. These patterns
are accentuated in CRA-eligible census tracts and are concentrated among
large banks. The effects are strongest during the time period when the
market for private securitization was booming.

Investors Business Daily does a very nice job of summarizing the nature
of the pressure brought on lenders (that's IBD's most excellent graphic,
above):

"We want your CRA loans because they help us meet our housing goals,"
Fannie Vice Chair Jamie Gorelick beseeched lenders gathered at a banking
conference in 2000, just after HUD hiked the mortgage giant's affordable
housing quotas to 50% and pressed it to buy more CRA-eligible loans to
help meet those new targets. "We will buy them from your portfolios or
package them into securities."

She described "CRA-friendly products" as mortgages with less than "3%
down" and "flexible underwriting."

From 2001-2007, Fannie and Freddie bought roughly half of all CRA home
loans, most carrying subprime features.

Note that the authors of the study caution that their work here may
actually understate the impact of the CRA. How? Because the study
assumes that the major impact of CRA took place when banks were
undergoing examination regarding their compliance with CRA goals. If
banks found it difficult to shift gears in preparation for such exams,
they may have altered their overall behavior to satisfy politicians and
regulators. Or, as the authors put it in their conclusion, "If
adjustment costs in lending behavior are large and banks can�t easily
tilt their loan portfolio toward greater CRA compliance, the full impact
of the CRA is potentially much greater than that estimated by the change
in lending behavior around CRA exams."

The housing meltdown and the Great Recession. Something else for which
you can thank the feds.

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 9:30 AM, jim wrote:

> This email is free from viruses and malware

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 9:16 AM, jim wrote:
> It has plenty
> of data

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 9:07 AM, jim wrote:
> Antivirus protection is active.

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 8:59 AM, jim wrote:
> And yet you can't seem to identify what

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 8:55 AM, jim wrote:
> Copying and pasting a 20 page document

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 8:54 AM, jim wrote:
> The 20 page document doesn't say anything

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 8:52 AM, jim wrote:

> Countrywide made tons of bad loans for one reason -

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 8:48 AM, jim wrote:

> Here are some stories based on facts:

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 8:42 AM, jim wrote:

> You posted 20 pages that say nothing

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 8:31 AM, jim wrote:

> You just made up another story.
>
> Where is the evidence that banks were extorted to
> make bad loans?

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 7:07 AM, jim wrote:
> No it isn't. That is just another story you just made up.

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 5:54 AM, jim wrote:
> You have come up with nothing factual. All you have is stories.
>
> ---

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 6:51 AM, jim wrote:
> Ha ha ha That is just anothedr story.

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 5:52 AM, jim wrote:
> One reason these loans were so lucrative

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 5:52 AM, jim wrote:

> One reason these loans were so lucrative for Countrywide is that


http://www.businessinsider.com/three-ways-the-cra-pushed-countrywide-to-lower-lending-standards-2009-6

When we discuss the role of the Community Reinvestment Act and other
fair lending rules in contributing to lax lending standards, people bent
on exonerating the CRA often point out that many of the questionable
loans were made by non-depository mortgage companies not covered by the
CRA.

Barry Ritholtz has been a prominent critic of the theory that the CRA
has some culpability for lax lending. He has pointed out that 50% of
subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject
comprehensive federal supervision. �How was this caused by either CRA or
GSEs?� Barry asked.

As much as I respect Barry�s formidable analytical powers, I�m afraid
he�s taken too narrow of the view of the matter. His question is far
easier to answer than he suspects. Regulations often touch those who are
not directly regulated. Indeed, the regulation of one group in a
marketplace will almost always wind up affecting other groups.

More concretely, there are three very specific ways in which the CRA
nudged Countrywide and other mortgage companies to adopt lax lending
standards.

1. The Creation Of Artificial Demand For Low-Income Mortgages. Banks
that were regulated by the CRA often found it difficult to meet their
obligations under the CRA directly. Long standing lending practices by
local loan officers were a big problem. But as banks expanded their
deposit bases and other businesses, they often found that they were at
risk of regulators discovering they had fallen behind in making CRA loans.

One way of addressing this problem was buying the loans in the secondary
market. Mortgage companies like Countrywide began to serve this entirely
artificial demand for CRA loans. Countrywide marketed its loans directly
to banks as a way for them to meet CRA obligations. "The result of these
efforts is an enormous pipeline of mortgages to low- and moderate-income
buyers. With this pipeline, Countrywide Securities Corporation (CSC) can
potentially help you meet your Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) goals by
offering both whole loan and mortgage-backed securities that are
eligible for CRA credit,� a Countrywide advertisement on its website read.

2. The Threat Of Regulation Is Often As Good As Regulation. It is
highly misleading to claim that just because mortgage companies were not
technically under the CRA that they were not required by regulators to
meet similar tests. In fact, regulators threatened that if the mortgage
companies didn�t step up to the plate by relaxing lending standards they
would be brought under the CRA umbrella and required to do so.

Here�s how City Journal explains the dynamic:

To meet their goals, the two mortgage giants enlisted large
lenders�including nonbanks, which weren�t covered by the CRA�into the
effort. Freddie Mac began an �alternative qualifying� program with the
Sears Mortgage Corporation that let a borrower qualify for a loan with a
monthly payment as high as 50 percent of his income, at a time when most
private mortgage companies wouldn�t exceed 33 percent. The program also
allowed borrowers with bad credit to get mortgages if they took
credit-counseling classes administered by Acorn and other nonprofits.
Subsequent research would show that such classes have little impact on
default rates.

Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn�t
stop with Sears. If it didn�t happen, Clinton officials warned, they�d
seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers. In Congress,
Representative Maxine Waters called financial firms not covered by the
CRA �among the most egregious redliners.� To rebuff the criticism, the
Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) shocked the financial world by
signing a 1994 agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), pledging to increase lending to minorities and join
in new efforts to rewrite lending standards. The first MBA member to
sign up: Countrywide Financial, the mortgage firm that would be at the
core of the subprime meltdown.

3. The CRA Distorted the Mortgage Market. With banks offering
mortgages with high loan to value, delayed payment schedules and other
enticing features, the mortgage companies would have quickly found
themselves unable to compete if they didn�t offer similar loans. The
requirement to offer risky loans from banks created a situation where
other lenders found they had to offer similar products if they wanted to
expand their business.

Of course, Angelo Mozillo didn't need very much prompting on this score.
He believed exactly what the CRA regulators believed: that these lax
lending practices were the wave of the future, democratizing the glories
of home ownership.

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 5:54 AM, jim wrote:
> You have come up with nothing factual. All you have is stories.

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 6:51 AM, jim wrote:
> Ha ha ha That is just anothedr story.

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 7:07 AM, jim wrote:

> Countrywide loans have nothing to do with

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 8:31 AM, jim wrote:
> Where is the evidence that banks were extorted to
> make bad loans?

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 8:48 AM, jim wrote:

> That is your made up story.

>
> Here are some stories based on facts:

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 8:52 AM, jim wrote:

> Countrywide made tons of bad loans for one reason - they were
> profitable.

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 8:54 AM, jim wrote:

> The 20 page document doesn't say anything that
> would support the story that banks were forced

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 8:55 AM, jim wrote:
> Copying and pasting a 20 page document

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 8:59 AM, jim wrote:
> And yet you can't seem to identify what

> in the document supports the story that banks were
> forced to make bad loans.

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 9:07 AM, jim wrote:

> Fannie Mae bought a few. The bad loans were sold to
> the GSEs by fraud.

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 9:16 AM, jim wrote:

> Nice story, but where are the facts?

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 9:30 AM, jim wrote:
> "There is no data anywhere to cast doubt on the vastly
> superior loan performance of the GSEs.

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 9:41 AM, jim wrote:
> The management of Countrywide knew they business model
> would not endure. Didn't matter.

[Sancho Panza]

On 1/6/2014 9:07 AM, jim wrote:
>
>

> Sancho Panza wrote:
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/5/2014 12:37 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>>> The lawsuit in the video private mortgage company that
>>>>>>> was accused of violating applicants civil rights.
>>>>>>> The mortgage company is not a FDIC deposit taking
>>>>>>> bank and is not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Accurate up to the point when FDIC-insured institutions acquired
>>>>>> mortgage companies' paper or when FDIC-insured institutions acquired
>>>>>> said mortgage companies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody acquired that mortgage company. Your just making
>>>>> up more stories to cover the deficiency of your
>>>>> previous story.
>>
>> Seeing as how you specify which company your referred to
>
> Accubanc is the mortgage company in the video.
> The legal settlement said nothing about lowering lending
> standards. Accubanc simply agreed to stop denying loans
> to qualified applicants. Accubanc was free to set whatever
> standards they want since it was not funded by FDIC deposits.
> The only requirement was to apply the same standards to any
> applicant based on the 14th amendment. The equal protection
> clause in the 14th amendment is the basis of all civil rights
> laws.
>
>> and continue to
>> do so, we'll just have to go with the largest and most publicized. After
>> all, that is what the point about FDIC coverage is all about.

>
> No it isn't. That is just another story you just made up.

> Countrywide loans have nothing to do with FDIC coverage.
> BoA acquisition of Countrywide doesn't change that fact.

It doesn't matter only to people who think that $500 million is chump
change:

"(Reuters) - A federal judge has granted final approval to Bank of
America Corp's record $500 million settlement with investors who claimed
they were misled by the bank's Countrywide unit into buying risky
mortgage debt.

In a decision made public on Friday, U.S. District Judge Mariana
Pfaelzer in Los Angeles called the accord fair, reasonable and adequate.
She also awarded the investors' lawyers $85 million of fees plus $2.98
million for expenses.

Investors, including several public and union pension funds, had accused
Countrywide of misleading them in offering documents between 2005 and
2007 about the quality of home loans underlying the securities they bought.

Many of those securities carried high credit ratings that tumbled to
"junk" status as market conditions worsened.

Countrywide had been the largest U.S. mortgage lender before Bank of
America bought it in July 2008.

The $500 million payout was the largest to resolve federal class-action
litigation over mortgage-backed securities. It surpassed a $315 million
accord with Bank of America's Merrill Lynch unit that won court approval
in May 2012.

Bank of America had originally been sued over roughly $352 billion of
securities, but Pfaelzer reduced that sum to about $15 billion by ruling
that investors could sue only over securities they bought, not those
with similar qualities.

Bank of America, based in Charlotte, North Carolina, is the
second-largest U.S. bank.

OBJECTIONS OVERRULED

In approving the latest settlement, Pfaelzer overruled objections by two
groups of class members.

One group included the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, acting as
receiver for 19 failed banks, and 16 institutional investors. They said
the settlement unfairly favored some investors over others and that $500
million was not enough.

But Pfaelzer said there were "significant legal obstacles" to recovering
more, noting that the bank might try to attribute investment losses to
investor panic amid a "broader crisis in the housing and credit markets."

The other objectors included a bank and a fund company that claimed the
accord released too many potential claims.

A lawyer for the FDIC and the institutional investors referred a request
for comment to the FDIC. Greg Hernandez, an FDIC spokesman, declined
immediate comment.

Talcott Franklin, a lawyer for the other group of objectors, also
declined immediate comment.

The accord is separate from an $8.5 billion Bank of America settlement
over Countrywide securities that is pending in a New York State court.

Bank of America is also awaiting a ruling on damages from U.S. District
Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan after a jury found it liable for fraud
over Countrywide's sale of defective mortgages to Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac.

In August, the federal government filed two lawsuits in Charlotte that
accused Bank of America of understating the risks on about $850 million
of mortgage securities.

Among the law firms to share in the $85 million of legal fees are
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd; Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check; and Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll, court papers show.

The cases are in the U.S. District Court, Central District of
California. They are Maine State Retirement System v. Countrywide
Financial Corp et al, No. 10-00302; Western Conference of Teamsters
Pension Plan v. Countrywide Financial Corp et al, No. 12-05122; and
Luther v. Countrywide Financial Corp et al, No. 12-05125.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[Sancho Panza]

On 1/5/2014 12:22 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 1/5/2014 8:58 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
> collective, lied:
>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/3/2014 5:19 PM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
>>> collective, lied:
>>>
>>>> There was one reason that lenders lowered lending standards
>>>> and that was the private sector quest for profits.
>>>
>>> No. They lowered lending standards *only* after, and in response to,
>>> the obliteration of standards by the GSEs.
>>
>> That is fiction.
>
> Nope. It's *exactly* how the collapse happened. Proved beyond rational
> dispute.
>
Even the White House had been saying that for more than a decade:

The statement also puts the lie to the fantasies about the actions of
Fannie and Freddie:

"The secondary market guidelines have in some cases been made more
flexible, for example, with respect to factors such as stability of
income (rather than stability of employment) and use of nontraditional
ways of establishing good credit and ability to pay (e.g., use of past
rent and utility payment records). Lenders should ensure that their
loan processors and underwriters are aware of the provisions of the
secondary market guidelines that provide various alternative and
flexible means by which applicants may demonstrate their ability and
willingness to repay their loans. FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC NOT
INFREQUENTLY PURCHASE MORTGAGES EXCEEDING THE SUGGESTED RATIOS, AND
THEIR GUIDELINES CONTAIN DETAILED DISCUSSIONS OF THE COMPENSATING
FACTORS THAT CAN JUSTIFY HIGHER RATIOS." --From 1994 Policy Statement

[Sancho Panza]

On 1/6/2014 10:59 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> On 1/6/2014 7:42 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
>> collective, lied:
>>>
>>>
>>> Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 06 Jan 2014 08:08:57 -0500, Sancho Panza
>>>> <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/6/2014 7:54 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let the Progressives explain it to you in their own words.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The progressive politicians are full of hot air just like you are.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You still haven't found a single lawsuit or piece of legislation
>>>>>>>> that extorted banks to make bad loans.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Executive policy mandates don't count when you don't want them to.

>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have come up with nothing factual. All you have is stories.
>>>>>

>>>>> The entire text of the forceful mandate has been posted right here. Your
>>>>> forgetfulness may indicate a more serious illness.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You posted 20 pages that say nothing to support
>>> the claim that banks were forced to make bad loans.
>>
>> False. It absolutely did support it.

>>
>
> And yet you can't seem to identify what
> in the document supports the story that banks were

> forced to make bad loans. Instead you just create another
> unsupported story.

Seems to be plenty of legal and regulatory teeth in the ignored policy
statement:

"An inaccurate HMDA data submission constitutes a violation of
the HMDA, the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation C, and other
applicable laws, and may subject the lending institution to an
enforcement action, which could include civil money penalties, and, if
the lender is a HUD-approved mortgagee, the sanctions of the HUD
Mortgagee Review Board.

"An inaccurate HMDA data submission, however, is not in itself a
violation of the ECOA or the FH Act. However, a person who intentionally
submits incorrect or incomplete HMDA data in order to cover up a
violation of the FH Act may be subject, under the FH Act and federal
criminal statutes, to a fine or prison term or both.

"In addition, a failure to ensure accurate HMDA data may be considered
as a relevant fact during a FH Act investigation or an examination of
the institution's lending activities."

"Self-testing and corrective actions do not expunge or extinguish legal
liability for the violations of law, insulate a lender from private
suits, or eliminate the primary regulatory agency's obligation to make
the referrals required by law.

"However, they will be considered as a substantial mitigating factor by
the primary regulatory agencies when contemplating possible enforcement
actions. In addition, HUD and DOJ will consider as a substantial
mitigating factor an institution's self-identification and self-
correction when determining whether they will seek additional penalties
or other relief under the FH Act and the ECOA.

"The Agencies strongly encourage self-testing and will consider further
steps that might be taken to provide greater incentives for institutions
to undertake self-assessment and self-correction."

"In any case where discriminatory lending by a lending institution is
identified, the lender will be expected to identify and fairly
compensate victims of discriminatory conduct. . . . Such a violation
might constitute a ``pattern or practice'' that must be referred to DOJ
or a violation that must be referred to HUD."

"Enforcement sanctions and remedial measures for lending discrimination
violations vary depending on whether such sanctions are sought by the
appropriate federal financial institutions regulatory agencies, DOJ, HUD
or other federal agencies charged with enforcing either the ECOA or the
FH Act. The following discussion sets out the
criteria typically employed by the federal banking agencies (i.e., OCC,
OTS, the Board and FDIC), NCUA, DOJ, HUD, OFHEO, FHFB and FTC in
determining the nature and severity of sanctions that may be used to
address discriminatory lending practices.

"As discussed in Questions 8 and 9, above, in certain situations, the
primary regulatory agencies will also refer enforcement matters to HUD
or DOJ.

The Federal Banking Agencies:
The federal banking agencies are authorized to use the full range of
their enforcement authority under 12 U.S.C. 1818 to address
discriminatory lending practices. This includes the authority to seek:
* Enforcement actions that may require both prospective and
retrospective relief; and
* Civil money penalties (``CMPs'') in varying amounts against the
financial institution or any institution-affiliated party modification
of those terms and refunds of any greater amounts paid.
* Other Affirmative Action As Appropriate to Correct Conditions
Resulting From Discrimination: The federal banking agencies also have
the authority to require a financial institution to take affirmative
action to correct or remedy any conditions resulting from any violation
or practice. The banking agencies will determine whether such
affirmative action is appropriate in a given case and, if such action is
appropriate, the type of remedy to order.
* Requiring the financial institution to pay CMPs: The banking agencies
have the authority to assess CMPs against financial institutions or
individuals for violating fair lending laws or regulations. Each agency
has the authority to assess CMPs of up to $5,000 per day for any
violation of law, rule or regulation. Penalties of up to $25,000 per day
are also permitted, but only if the violations represent a pattern of
misconduct, cause more than minimal loss to the financial institution,
or result in gain or benefit to the party involved. CMPs are paid to the
U.S. Treasury and therefore do not compensate victims of discrimination.

National Credit Union Administration
For federal credit unions, NCUA will employ criteria comparable to those
of the federal banking agencies, pursuant to its authority under 12
U.S.C. 1786.

The Department of Justice
The Department of Justice is authorized to use the full range of its
enforcement authority under the FH Act and the ECOA. DOJ has authority
to commence pattern or practice investigations of possible lending
discrimination on its own initiative or through referrals from the
federal financial institutions regulatory agencies, and to file lawsuits
in federal court where there is reasonable cause to believe that such
violations have occurred. DOJ is also authorized under the FH Act to
bring suit based on individual complaints filed with HUD where one of
the parties to the complaint elects to have the case heard in
federal court.
The relief sought by DOJ in lending discrimination lawsuits may include:
* An injunction which may require both prospective and retrospective
relief; and,
* In enforcement actions under the FH Act, CMPs not to exceed $50,000
per defendant for a first violation and $100,000 for any subsequent
violation.
Prospective injunctive relief may include:
* A permanent injunction to insure against a recurrence of the unlawful
practices;
* Affirmative measures to correct past discriminatory policies,
procedures, or practices, so long as consistent with safety and
soundness, such as:
* Expansion of the lender's service areas to include previously excluded
minority neighborhoods;
* Opening branches or other credit facilities in underserved minority
neighborhoods;
* Targeted sales calls on real estate agents and builders active in
minority neighborhoods;
* Advertising through minority-oriented media;
* Self-testing;
* Employee training;
* Changes to commission structures which tend to discourage lending in
minority and low-income neighborhoods; and
* Changes in loan processing and underwriting procedures (including
second reviews of denied applications) to ensure equal treatment without
regard to prohibited factors; and
* Record keeping and reporting requirements to monitor compliance with
remedial obligations.
Retrospective injunctive relief may include relief for victims of past
discrimination, actual and punitive damages, and offers or adjustments
of credit or other forms of loan commitments.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development
The Department of Housing and Urban Development is fully authorized to
investigate complaints alleging discrimination in lending in violation
of the FH Act and has the authority to initiate complaints and
investigations even when an individual complaint has not been received.
HUD issues determinations on whether or not reasonable cause exists to
believe that the FH Act has been violated. HUD also may authorize
actions for temporary and preliminary injunctions to be brought by DOJ
and has authority to issue enforceable subpoenas for information related
to investigations.
Following issuance of a determination of reasonable cause under the FH
Act, HUD enforces the FH Act administratively unless one of the parties
elects to have the case heard in federal court in a case brought by DOJ.
Relief under the FH Act that may be awarded by an administrative law
judge (``ALJ'') after a hearing, or by the Secretary on review of a
decision by an ALJ, includes:
* Injunctive or other appropriate relief, including a variety of actions
designed to correct discriminatory practices, such as changes in loan
processes or procedures, modifications of loan service areas or
branching actions, approval of previously denied loans to aggrieved
persons, additional record-keeping and reporting on future activities or
other affirmative relief;
* Actual damages suffered by persons who are aggrieved by any violation
of the FH Act, including damages for mental distress and out-of-pocket
losses attributable to a violation; and
* Civil penalties of up to $10,000 for each initial violation and up to
$25,000 and $50,000 for successive violations within specific time frames.
HUD also is authorized to direct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to undertake
various remedial actions, including suspension, probation, reprimand, or
settlement, against lenders found to have engaged in discriminatory
lending practices in violation of the FH Act or the ECOA.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight is authorized to use
its enforcement authority under 12 U.S.C. 4631 and 4636, including cease
and desist orders and CMPs for violations by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
of the fair housing regulations promulgated by the Secretary of HUD
pursuant to 12 U.S.C. Sec. 4545.

The Federal Housing Finance Board
While the Federal Housing Finance Board does not have enforcement
authority under the ECOA or the FH Act, in reviewing the members of the
Federal Home Loan Bank System for community support, it may restrict
access to long-term System advances to any member that, within two years
prior to the due date of submission of a Community Support Statement,
had a final administrative or judicial ruling against it based on
violations of those statutes (or any similar state or local law
prohibiting discrimination in lending). System members in this situation
are asked to submit to the Finance Board an explanation of steps taken
to remedy the violation or prevent a recurrence. See 12 U.S.C. 1430(g);
12 CFR 936.3 (b)(5).

The Federal Trade Commission
The Federal Trade Commission enforces the requirements of the ECOA and
Regulation B for all lenders subject to the ECOA, except where
enforcement is specifically committed to another agency. The FTC may
exercise all of its functions and powers under the Federal Trade
Commission Act (``FTC Act'') to enforce the ECOA, and a violation of any
requirement under the ECOA is deemed to be a violation of a requirement
under the FTC Act.
The FTC has the power to enforce Regulation B in the same manner as if
a violation of Regulation B were a violation of an FTC trade regulation
rule. This means that the FTC has the power to investigate lenders
suspected of lending discrimination and to use compulsory process in
doing so.
The Commission, through DOJ or on its own behalf where the Justice
Department declines to act, may file suit in federal court against
suspected violators and seek relief including:
* Injunctions against the violative practice;
* Civil penalties of up to $10,000 for each violation; and
* Redress to affected consumers.
In addition, the Commission routinely imposes recordkeeping and
reporting requirements to monitor compliance."

[Sancho Panza]

On 1/6/2014 9:07 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> Sancho Panza wrote:
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/5/2014 12:37 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>>> The lawsuit in the video private mortgage company that
>>>>>>> was accused of violating applicants civil rights.
>>>>>>> The mortgage company is not a FDIC deposit taking
>>>>>>> bank and is not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Accurate up to the point when FDIC-insured institutions acquired
>>>>>> mortgage companies' paper or when FDIC-insured institutions acquired
>>>>>> said mortgage companies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody acquired that mortgage company. Your just making
>>>>> up more stories to cover the deficiency of your
>>>>> previous story.
>>
>> Seeing as how you specify which company your referred to
>
> Accubanc is the mortgage company in the video.
> The legal settlement said nothing about lowering lending
> standards. Accubanc simply agreed to stop denying loans
> to qualified applicants. Accubanc was free to set whatever
> standards they want since it was not funded by FDIC deposits.
> The only requirement was to apply the same standards to any
> applicant based on the 14th amendment. The equal protection
> clause in the 14th amendment is the basis of all civil rights
> laws.

The Accubanc story is one hell of a lot more than equal protection.
Andrew Cuomo makes that clear, as well as the expectations for more
problems and defaults:

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/cuomo-subprime-loans-affirmative-action

[jim]

Sancho Panza wrote:



>
> One group included the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, acting as
> receiver for 19 failed banks, and 16 institutional investors. They said
> the settlement unfairly favored some investors over others and that $500
> million was not enough.
>

FDIC is acting on behalf of banks that Countrywide swindled.
Part of the reason the banks went bankrupt is because
Countrywide sold them loans with phony documentation.

It is the FDIC's job to recover as much money as possible
from bank robbers like Countrywide.

> But Pfaelzer said there were "significant legal obstacles" to recovering
> more, noting that the bank might try to attribute investment losses to
> investor panic amid a "broader crisis in the housing and credit markets."
>
> The other objectors included a bank and a fund company that claimed the
> accord released too many potential claims.
>
> A lawyer for the FDIC and the institutional investors referred a request
> for comment to the FDIC. Greg Hernandez, an FDIC spokesman, declined
> immediate comment.
>
> Talcott Franklin, a lawyer for the other group of objectors, also
> declined immediate comment.
>
> The accord is separate from an $8.5 billion Bank of America settlement
> over Countrywide securities that is pending in a New York State court.

That claim is for fraudulent loans that Countrywide
sold to the GSEs

>
> Bank of America is also awaiting a ruling on damages from U.S. District
> Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan after a jury found it liable for fraud
> over Countrywide's sale of defective mortgages to Fannie Mae and Freddie
> Mac.

The total extent of fraud by Countrywide is probably beyond
accurate enumeration.

The motive for all these bad loans was profit. The
bad loans produced profits many times greater than
making good loans would. Their are an infinite number
of applicants for bad loans while there are a limited
number for good loans. Countrywide management took the money
and ran like any bank robber would.

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 8:27 PM, jim wrote:
> It is the FDIC's job to recover as much money as possible
> from bank robbers like Countrywide.

[jim]

And yet you can't explain why the loans that GSE
financed had so few failures. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
had a much lower foreclosure and delinquency rate than
any the segment of the mortgage market. That record of
of the best loan performance held in 90's and both before and
after the 2008 meltdown.

[prime cut]

On 1/6/2014 8:36 PM, jim wrote:
> And yet you can't explain why the loans that GSE

[Rudy Canoza]

[followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]

On 1/6/2014 8:31 PM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Jan 2014 19:19:11 -0800, "billy", impotent squat-to-piss no-fight *shitbag* bitch, lied:
>
>>
>> Rudy is of course wrong,

I am, of course, right.


>>
>
> Rudy is right about one thing, the left, in the Western Liberal tradition,

There is *NO* left in the western liberal tradition. Today's left is
fully illiberal - totalitarian statist.


> is more concerned with racism which,

They *imagine* racism.

[jim]

Sancho Panza wrote:

> >>
> >
> > And yet you can't seem to identify what
> > in the document supports the story that banks were
> > forced to make bad loans. Instead you just create another
> > unsupported story.
>
> Seems to be plenty of legal and regulatory teeth in the ignored policy
> statement:
>
> "An inaccurate HMDA data submission constitutes a violation of
> the HMDA, the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation C, and other
> applicable laws, and may subject the lending institution to an
> enforcement action, which could include civil money penalties, and, if
> the lender is a HUD-approved mortgagee, the sanctions of the HUD
> Mortgagee Review Board.

Intentional inaccurate accounting is called fraud. Are you
implying that you would like govt to allow fraud?

>
> "An inaccurate HMDA data submission, however, is not in itself a
> violation of the ECOA or the FH Act. However, a person who intentionally
> submits incorrect or incomplete HMDA data in order to cover up a
> violation of the FH Act may be subject, under the FH Act and federal
> criminal statutes, to a fine or prison term or both.

Isn't enforcing laws against fraud a good idea?

F&F are expected to also comply with civil rights laws.

The above is all about enforcement of civil rights laws.
There is nothing about forcing banks to lower
lending standards. There is nothing about compelling
lenders to make bad loans.
Have you abandoned those stories?

[Sancho Panza]

On 1/5/2014 4:28 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>

>> On 1/5/2014 3:35 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>

>>>> On 1/5/2014 2:26 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If the GSEs were the ones financing lender's bad loans then
>>>>> how come the GSEs have much lower default rates
>>>>> than privately funded lending?
>>>>
>>>> Lower costs.
>>>
>>> Another bad story.
>>>
>>> The study found that GSE backed loans did not fail
>>> as often because they were given to borrowers who
>>> had better credit scores, employment history and
>>> put up larger down payments.
>>>
>>> http://www.ncsha.org/blog/fhfa-report-shows-gse-loans-outperformed-private-label-mbs-loans
>>
>> Completely ignoring the lower overhead of Fannie and Freddie. No small
>> factor in a competitive universe.
>>
>
> I can agree that the GSEs were cost effective, but
> what is the relevance?

The relevance, for the economic illiterates, is that lower overhead,
including taxpayer-funded embellishments, means lower carrying costs
than the competition has to face.

[jim]

Sancho Panza wrote:
>
> On 1/5/2014 4:28 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sancho Panza wrote:
> >>
> >> On 1/5/2014 3:35 PM, jim wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Sancho Panza wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 1/5/2014 2:26 PM, jim wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> If the GSEs were the ones financing lender's bad loans then
> >>>>> how come the GSEs have much lower default rates
> >>>>> than privately funded lending?
> >>>>
> >>>> Lower costs.
> >>>
> >>> Another bad story.
> >>>
> >>> The study found that GSE backed loans did not fail
> >>> as often because they were given to borrowers who
> >>> had better credit scores, employment history and
> >>> put up larger down payments.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.ncsha.org/blog/fhfa-report-shows-gse-loans-outperformed-private-label-mbs-loans
> >>
> >> Completely ignoring the lower overhead of Fannie and Freddie. No small
> >> factor in a competitive universe.
> >>
> >
> > I can agree that the GSEs were cost effective, but
> > what is the relevance?
>
> The relevance, for the economic illiterates, is that lower overhead,
> including taxpayer-funded embellishments, means lower carrying costs
> than the competition has to face.

How is that relevant to the claim that the GSEs were
funding bad loans? How does lower cost support the story
that govt forced or enticed lenders to make bad loans?

The facts show that the loans that the GSEs financed
were the loans with the lowest concentration of defaults
and delinquencies. The reason for that good performance is
that GSE lending standards required a combination of higher
credit scores, larger down payments and better employment
history than loans that were financed by private money.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/7/2014 4:37 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
collective, lied:
>

> Sancho Panza wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>
>>> And yet you can't seem to identify what
>>> in the document supports the story that banks were
>>> forced to make bad loans. Instead you just create another
>>> unsupported story.
>>
>> Seems to be plenty of legal and regulatory teeth in the ignored policy
>> statement:
>>
>> "An inaccurate HMDA data submission constitutes a violation of
>> the HMDA, the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation C, and other
>> applicable laws, and may subject the lending institution to an
>> enforcement action, which could include civil money penalties, and, if
>> the lender is a HUD-approved mortgagee, the sanctions of the HUD
>> Mortgagee Review Board.
>
> Intentional inaccurate accounting is called fraud.

Was Franklin Raines convicted and sent to prison?

[jim]

You still can't support your fairy tale that govt
forced lenders to make bad loans. You cant support
the assertion that the GSEs were financing the
reckless lending.

The facts show that the loans that the GSEs financed
were the loans with the lowest concentration of defaults
and delinquencies. The reason for that good performance is
that GSE lending standards required a combination of higher
credit scores, larger down payments and better employment
history than loans that were financed by private money.

[Sancho Panza]

On 1/5/2014 4:28 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>
>> On 1/5/2014 3:35 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 1/5/2014 2:26 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If the GSEs were the ones financing lender's bad loans then
>>>>> how come the GSEs have much lower default rates
>>>>> than privately funded lending?
>>>>
>>>> Lower costs.
>>>
>>> Another bad story.
>>>
>>> The study found that GSE backed loans did not fail
>>> as often because they were given to borrowers who
>>> had better credit scores, employment history and
>>> put up larger down payments.
>>>
>>> http://www.ncsha.org/blog/fhfa-report-shows-gse-loans-outperformed-private-label-mbs-loans
>>
>> Completely ignoring the lower overhead of Fannie and Freddie. No small
>> factor in a competitive universe.
>>
>
> I can agree that the GSEs were cost effective, but
> what is the relevance?
>

> Please explain:
> How does that support your previous story that the GSE's were
> buying bad loans?
>
> How does it explain that the GSEs had much less
> defaults than the privately financed mortgages?

"FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC NOT INFREQUENTLY PURCHASE MORTGAGES
EXCEEDING THE SUGGESTED RATIOS, AND THEIR GUIDELINES CONTAIN DETAILED
DISCUSSIONS OF THE COMPENSATING FACTORS THAT CAN JUSTIFY HIGHER RATIOS."

Also, see Cuomo's video on more-than-usual defaults. Think that the
government and its incompetent agencies might have trouble getting their
cover stories together?

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/7/2014 7:32 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

collective, lied:
>
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> On 1/7/2014 4:37 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
>> collective, lied:
>>>
>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet you can't seem to identify what
>>>>> in the document supports the story that banks were
>>>>> forced to make bad loans. Instead you just create another
>>>>> unsupported story.
>>>>
>>>> Seems to be plenty of legal and regulatory teeth in the ignored policy
>>>> statement:
>>>>
>>>> "An inaccurate HMDA data submission constitutes a violation of
>>>> the HMDA, the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation C, and other
>>>> applicable laws, and may subject the lending institution to an
>>>> enforcement action, which could include civil money penalties, and, if
>>>> the lender is a HUD-approved mortgagee, the sanctions of the HUD
>>>> Mortgagee Review Board.
>>>
>>> Intentional inaccurate accounting is called fraud.
>>
>> Was Franklin Raines convicted and sent to prison?
>
> You still can't support your fairy tale that

No "fairy tale." The only fairy tale is that massive government
corruption of the mortgage and housing markets wouldn't lead to
disaster. There was Democrat corruption, and it brought the system down.

Was Franklin Raines convicted and sent to prison? He committed exactly
the kind of accounting fraud you described: intentionally inaccurate
accounting. Answer the question.

[jim]

Correct. And the facts show that was an effective method to get
high quality loans that were unlikely to fail. If a loan applicant
had a very high credit score they could get a lower down payment.
Or if the down payment was large the borrower could be approved
with a below average credit score. Those are just an aspect of
prudent lending standards.

The data on loan performance shows that the GSE standards were
the very best in the entire mortgage industry. GSE backed loans
had a lower concentration of delinquencies and foreclosures than
than any other segment of the mortgage industry. That excellent
performance record held for all the years before and after the
2008 financial meltdown.

How do you explain that GSE loans are much less likely
to default or be delinquent than non-GSE loans?

> Also, see Cuomo's video on more-than-usual defaults.

Cuomo is a putz like you. What Cuomo said wasn't the truth.
And there is no physical evidence to support Cuomo's statement.
The Accubanc settlement had no provision for lowering the
lender's standards. Nor did it require the lender to make loans
that were more likely to fail. Cuomo's statement about what
the settlement contained was false.

How does Cuomo's statement support the story that
the GSEs were financing the bad loans?

[jim]

Raines probably should have gone to prison and
shared a cell with the CEO of Countrywide.

But that doesn't make your fairy tale any less fictional.

You still can't support your story that govt

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/7/2014 8:29 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

Good dog.

[prime cut]

On 1/7/2014 5:37 AM, jim wrote:
> Isn't enforcing laws against fraud a good idea?

[prime cut]

On 1/7/2014 8:01 AM, jim wrote:
> How is that relevant to the claim that the GSEs were
> funding bad loans?

[prime cut]

On 1/7/2014 8:32 AM, jim wrote:
> This email is free from viruses and malware

[prime cut]

On 1/7/2014 9:25 AM, jim wrote:
> Correct. And the facts show that was

[prime cut]

On 1/7/2014 9:29 AM, jim wrote:
> You still can't support your story that govt
> forced lenders to make bad loans.

[jim]

Rudy Canoza wrote:

> >>
> >> Was Franklin Raines convicted and sent to prison? He committed exactly
> >> the kind of accounting fraud you described: intentionally inaccurate
> >> accounting. Answer the question.
> >
> > Raines probably should have gone to prison and
>

Rudy still can't answer this question:

How come the GSEs loan portfolio had so much lower
loan failure rate than non-GSE lending?

[Rudy Canoza]

[followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]

On 1/7/2014 8:48 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

>>>>>> Was Franklin Raines convicted and sent to prison?
>>>>>

>>>>> You still can't support your fairy tale that
>>>>
>>>> No "fairy tale." The only fairy tale is that massive government
>>>> corruption of the mortgage and housing markets wouldn't lead to
>>>> disaster. There was Democrat corruption, and it brought the system
>>>> down.
>>>>

>>>> Was Franklin Raines convicted and sent to prison? He committed exactly
>>>> the kind of accounting fraud you described: intentionally inaccurate
>>>> accounting. Answer the question.
>>>
>>> Raines probably should have gone to prison and
>>

>> Good dog.

>
> Rudy still can't answer this question:

There's no question.

[prime cut]

On 1/7/2014 9:48 AM, jim wrote:
> Rudy still can't answer this question:

[jim]

prime cut and paste more fictional stories:

>
> On 1/7/2014 5:37 AM, jim wrote:
> > Isn't enforcing laws against fraud a good idea?
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/three-ways-the-cra-pushed-countrywide-to-lower-lending-standards-2009-6
>
> When we discuss the role of the Community Reinvestment Act and other
> fair lending rules in contributing to lax lending standards, people bent
> on exonerating the CRA often point out that many of the questionable
> loans were made by non-depository mortgage companies not covered by the CRA.

About 90% of the bad loans were originated with
non-CRA lenders.

>
> Barry Ritholtz has been a prominent critic of the theory that the CRA
> has some culpability for lax lending. He has pointed out that 50% of
> subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject

> comprehensive federal supervision. “How was this caused by either CRA or
> GSEs?” Barry asked.
>
> As much as I respect Barry’s formidable analytical powers, I’m afraid
> he’s taken too narrow of the view of the matter. His question is far

> easier to answer than he suspects. Regulations often touch those who are
> not directly regulated. Indeed, the regulation of one group in a
> marketplace will almost always wind up affecting other groups.

>
> More concretely, there are three very specific ways in which the CRA
> nudged Countrywide and other mortgage companies to adopt lax lending
> standards.
>
> 1. The Creation Of Artificial Demand For Low-Income Mortgages. Banks
> that were regulated by the CRA often found it difficult to meet their
> obligations under the CRA directly.

Total bullshit. All banks have to do to get a good
CRA rating is to make half their loans in the same
geographic area that gives the bank deposits. Any competent
banker knows that where you get deposits you can find credit
worthy borrowers. Lending to the same community that gives the
bank deposits is good banking practice. Destroying the community
where the bank gets deposits is bad banking.

>
> One way of addressing this problem was buying the loans in the secondary
> market. Mortgage companies like Countrywide began to serve this entirely
> artificial demand for CRA loans.

No they didn't. They were gaming the system and committing
fraud because it was more profitable than honest banking.

> Countrywide marketed its loans directly
> to banks as a way for them to meet CRA obligations. "The result of these
> efforts is an enormous pipeline of mortgages to low- and moderate-income
> buyers. With this pipeline, Countrywide Securities Corporation (CSC) can
> potentially help you meet your Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) goals by
> offering both whole loan and mortgage-backed securities that are

> eligible for CRA credit,” a Countrywide advertisement on its website read.

What you are describing is a subversion of the law. It involved a
corrupt lender (Countrywide) in cahoots with corrupt bankers (the same
banks that turned out to be too big to fail)

This study proved conclusively that it was only the banks
with assets greater than $50 billion that were gaming the system.
There are only 25 banks that big. The other 6000 banks
in the study got there CRA rating the honest way.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w18609

The honest bankers got a good CRA rating by doing
what the law intended and that is by lending to the same
geographic areas that supply the bank with deposits.

>
> 2. The Threat Of Regulation Is Often As Good As Regulation. It is
> highly misleading to claim that just because mortgage companies were not
> technically under the CRA that they were not required by regulators to
> meet similar tests. In fact, regulators threatened that if the mortgage

> companies didn’t step up to the plate by relaxing lending standards they

> would be brought under the CRA umbrella and required to do so.

That is a lie. The Community Reinvestment Act is a law
that is designed to protect the interest of the FDIC insured
depositors. When a bank takes deposits in a community and
then makes loans in the bankers community the bank is
stealing the wealth of the depositors. CRA discourages that
practice by exposing banks that do not lend to the areas
they are chartered to do business.


>
> Here’s how City Journal explains the dynamic:

>
> To meet their goals, the two mortgage giants enlisted large

> lenders—including nonbanks, which weren’t covered by the CRA—into the
> effort. Freddie Mac began an “alternative qualifying” program with the

> Sears Mortgage Corporation that let a borrower qualify for a loan with a
> monthly payment as high as 50 percent of his income, at a time when most

> private mortgage companies wouldn’t exceed 33 percent. The program also

> allowed borrowers with bad credit to get mortgages if they took
> credit-counseling classes administered by Acorn and other nonprofits.
> Subsequent research would show that such classes have little impact on
> default rates.

Made up story. The GSEs had better lending standards
than any other part of the mortgage market. The fact that
the GSEs had a much lower concentration of defaults and
delinquency proves that the GSEs were not buying the loans
that tend to fail.


>
> Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn’t
> stop with Sears. If it didn’t happen, Clinton officials warned, they’d

> seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers.

Clinton had no such authority. There was never any possibility
that CRA could be extended to non-deposit institutions. The only
purpose of the law is to protect the interest of the depositors.

>
> 3. The CRA Distorted the Mortgage Market. With banks offering
> mortgages with high loan to value, delayed payment schedules and other
> enticing features, the mortgage companies would have quickly found

> themselves unable to compete if they didn’t offer similar loans. The

> requirement to offer risky loans from banks created a situation where
> other lenders found they had to offer similar products if they wanted to
> expand their business.

Total bullshit. The facts about loan performance prove the
story is bogus.
The GSEs had the best loan performance followed by
the CRA regulated banks. The ones making 95% of the risky loans
were the private lenders not covered by CRA and the loans they made
that had the highest default rate were the ones not financed by
the GSEs.

>
> Of course, Angelo Mozillo didn't need very much prompting on this score.
> He believed exactly what the CRA regulators believed: that these lax
> lending practices were the wave of the future, democratizing the glories
> of home ownership.

Mozillo believed (plenty of evidence for that). There
is no evidence that CRA regulators believed that lax lending
practices were the wave of the future. That is just another
made up story.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/7/2014 9:34 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
collective, lied:
>
>
> prime cut kicked my ass again:
>>
>> On 1/7/2014 5:37 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:

>>> Isn't enforcing laws against fraud a good idea?
>>
>> http://www.businessinsider.com/three-ways-the-cra-pushed-countrywide-to-lower-lending-standards-2009-6
>>
>> When we discuss the role of the Community Reinvestment Act and other
>> fair lending rules in contributing to lax lending standards, people bent
>> on exonerating the CRA often point out that many of the questionable
>> loans were made by non-depository mortgage companies not covered by the CRA.
>
> About 90% of the bad loans were originated with
> non-CRA lenders.

Bullshit.

[jim]

Rudy Canoza wrote:

> >>>>
> >>>> Was Franklin Raines convicted and sent to prison? He committed exactly
> >>>> the kind of accounting fraud you described: intentionally inaccurate
> >>>> accounting. Answer the question.
> >>>
> >>> Raines probably should have gone to prison and
> >>
> >> Good dog.
> >
> > Rudy still can't answer this question:
>
> There's no question.

Rudy can't answer so he snips and runs away.
Here try again:

[Rudy Canoza]

On 1/7/2014 9:34 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation
collective, lied:
>
>

> prime cut kicked my lying left-wing ass:
>>
>> On 1/7/2014 5:37 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation collective, lied:

>>> Isn't enforcing laws against fraud a good idea?
>>
>> http://www.businessinsider.com/three-ways-the-cra-pushed-countrywide-to-lower-lending-standards-2009-6
>>
>> When we discuss the role of the Community Reinvestment Act and other
>> fair lending rules in contributing to lax lending standards, people bent
>> on exonerating the CRA often point out that many of the questionable
>> loans were made by non-depository mortgage companies not covered by the CRA.
>
> About 90% of the bad loans were originated with
> non-CRA lenders.

That's a lie.

You didn't address the excellent points made in the link. Read them now:

When we discuss the role of the Community Reinvestment Act and other
fair lending rules in contributing to lax lending standards, people bent
on exonerating the CRA often point out that many of the questionable
loans were made by non-depository mortgage companies not covered by the CRA.

Barry Ritholtz has been a prominent critic of the theory that the CRA
has some culpability for lax lending. He has pointed out that 50% of
subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject

comprehensive federal supervision. �How was this caused by either CRA or
GSEs?� Barry asked.

As much as I respect Barry�s formidable analytical powers, I�m afraid

he�s taken too narrow of the view of the matter. His question is far

easier to answer than he suspects. Regulations often touch those who are
not directly regulated. Indeed, the regulation of one group in a
marketplace will almost always wind up affecting other groups.

More concretely, there are three very specific ways in which the CRA
nudged Countrywide and other mortgage companies to adopt lax lending
standards.

1. The Creation Of Artificial Demand For Low-Income Mortgages.

Banks that were regulated by the CRA often found it difficult to meet

their obligations under the CRA directly. Long standing lending
practices by local loan officers were a big problem. But as banks
expanded their deposit bases and other businesses, they often found that
they were at risk of regulators discovering they had fallen behind in
making CRA loans.

One way of addressing this problem was buying the loans in the secondary
market. Mortgage companies like Countrywide began to serve this entirely

artificial demand for CRA loans. Countrywide marketed its loans directly

to banks as a way for them to meet CRA obligations. "The result of these
efforts is an enormous pipeline of mortgages to low- and moderate-income
buyers. With this pipeline, Countrywide Securities Corporation (CSC) can
potentially help you meet your Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) goals by
offering both whole loan and mortgage-backed securities that are

eligible for CRA credit,� a Countrywide advertisement on its website read.

2. The Threat Of Regulation Is Often As Good As Regulation.

It is highly misleading to claim that just because mortgage companies
were not technically under the CRA that they were not required by
regulators to meet similar tests. In fact, regulators threatened that if

the mortgage companies didn�t step up to the plate by relaxing lending

standards they would be brought under the CRA umbrella and required to
do so.

Here�s how City Journal explains the dynamic:

To meet their goals, the two mortgage giants enlisted large

lenders � including nonbanks, which weren�t covered by the
CRA � into the effort. Freddie Mac began an �alternative
qualifying� program with the Sears Mortgage Corporation that let

a borrower qualify for a loan with a monthly payment as high as
50 percent of his income, at a time when most private mortgage

companies wouldn�t exceed 33 percent. The program also allowed

borrowers with bad credit to get mortgages if they took credit-
counseling classes administered by Acorn and other nonprofits.
Subsequent research would show that such classes have little
impact on default rates.

Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities

didn�t stop with Sears. If it didn�t happen, Clinton officials
warned, they�d seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage
makers. In Congress, Representative Maxine Waters called
financial firms not covered by the CRA �among the most egregious
redliners.� To rebuff the criticism, the Mortgage Bankers
Association (MBA) shocked the financial world by signing a 1994
agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), pledging to increase lending to minorities and join in new
efforts to rewrite lending standards. The first MBA member to
sign up: Countrywide Financial, the mortgage firm that would be
at the core of the subprime meltdown.

3. The CRA Distorted the Mortgage Market.

With banks offering mortgages with high loan to value, delayed payment
schedules and other enticing features, the mortgage companies would have

quickly found themselves unable to compete if they didn�t offer similar

loans. The requirement to offer risky loans from banks created a
situation where other lenders found they had to offer similar products
if they wanted to expand their business.

[Rudy Canoza]

[followups vandalism by unethical racist shitbag looter repaired]

On 1/7/2014 9:41 AM, jim, front boy for a left-wing disinformation

>>>>>>>> Was Franklin Raines convicted and sent to prison?
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> You still can't support your fairy tale that
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No "fairy tale." The only fairy tale is that massive government
>>>>>> corruption of the mortgage and housing markets wouldn't lead to
>>>>>> disaster. There was Democrat corruption, and it brought the system
>>>>>> down.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Was Franklin Raines convicted and sent to prison? He committed
>>>>>> exactly
>>>>>> the kind of accounting fraud you described: intentionally inaccurate
>>>>>> accounting. Answer the question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Raines probably should have gone to prison and
>>>>
>>>> Good dog.
>>>
>>> Rudy still can't answer this question:
>>
>> There's no question.
>
> Rudy can't answer so

There's nothing to answer. Your question is illegitimate and based
entirely on false premises.

You're the one who snips and runs. Here, try again: