Started By
Message

re: Who/what entity would you say is most to blame for the 2007-2009 housing crisis/recession?

Posted on 2/3/22 at 1:42 pm to
Posted by squid_hunt
Baton Rouge
Member since Jan 2021
11272 posts
Posted on 2/3/22 at 1:42 pm to
Didn't Congress push redlining laws and the government lenders Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were putting out subprime loans which lowered standards for the entire mortgage system. I was making about 50k at the time and told I could get a 300k loan. Ridiculous.
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
140573 posts
Posted on 2/3/22 at 1:42 pm to
Community Reinvestment Act > Bakers > Subprime loans > Wall Street Investment Firms > Real Estate Derivatives > Mortgage Backed Securities > Credit Default Swaps > Investors > Pension Funds > 401ks > Federal Reserve > Bailouts > Tax Payer

Once the subprime borrowers couldn't make their monthly payments (usually because Adjustable Mortgages adjusted higher) the system collapsed.
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
140573 posts
Posted on 2/3/22 at 1:44 pm to
quote:

Didn't Congress push redlining laws and the government lenders Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were putting out subprime loans which lowered standards for the entire mortgage system. I was making about 50k at the time and told I could get a 300k loan. Ridiculous.


IIRC those standards were lowered through the Community Reinvestment Act.
Posted by jfw3535
South of Bunkie
Member since Mar 2008
5574 posts
Posted on 2/3/22 at 1:44 pm to
quote:

The Clinton administration had a large hand in it.

This gets my vote. Clinton pushed hard for every American to own a home and be a part of the American dream. This resulted in the loosening of mortgage lender requirements, which in turn to led to the infamous NINJA loans. You can't just give houses and loans to everybody and expect it to work.

And then you had the whole mess with the banks and the syndication of loans that only exacerbated the problem. Lots of blame to go around, but I think the Clinton administration put the first dominoes down.

On this subject, if you've never seen The Big Short, I think it's an excellent movie that does a pretty good job of explaining in layman's terms how everything went to shite.
Posted by fallguy_1978
Best States #50
Member since Feb 2018
53541 posts
Posted on 2/3/22 at 1:45 pm to
quote:

I was making about 50k at the time and told I could get a 300k loan. Ridiculous.

When I bought my first house you could do 100% financing.
Posted by LT
The City of St. George
Member since May 2008
5163 posts
Posted on 2/3/22 at 1:45 pm to
quote:

Banks would offer crazy loan amounts that people were accepting. A ton of people foreclosed on homes and it created a bubble from so many houses being foreclosed on? Is that right?



Banks would get a bunch of loans written to Fannie/Freddie guidance. The loans were packaged up and sold as bonds, with mortgage payments paying interest.

Risky loans had higher rates because they went bad more often

Less risky loans had low rates because people who make those loans rarely go to foreclosure

The problem was when they would mix risky loans in with the low risk loans. When those went bad the bonds failed.

That's a 10000 foot explanation that leaves a lot out, but should give you the general idea.
Posted by tigahbruh
Louisiana
Member since Jun 2014
2863 posts
Posted on 2/3/22 at 1:46 pm to
It started with Democrats in Congress and the Clinton Administration, ie pushing lenders to service people who would never be able to pay it back.
The changes in the stock market toward derivatives and then the trading of those shitty loans also gives blame to Wall St and banking.

Hard to pin it on one particular entity. Lots of blame to go around, and in very different directions.
Posted by hubreb
Member since Nov 2008
2132 posts
Posted on 2/3/22 at 1:46 pm to
Bill Clinton - in 1999 we repealed Glass Steagall which separated banks and investment banks. During the years after that - securitization of home loans, credit card debt, and auto loans became a huge industry. That allowed banks to free up balance sheet and a huge new asset class was created for investors. Banks got more and more creative in lending and created new asset classes - as long as there were investors to buy it, then they created it. In 2006 and 2007 many broker dealers teamed up with mortgage companies - and basically said underwrite to these standards and we will buy everything you create -- fraud became very prevalent. It didn't matter at that time because as long as home prices were going up, it didn't matter - no losses. Then in February 2008 home prices dipped a bit and the route was on.
Posted by Paul Allen
Montauk, NY
Member since Nov 2007
78366 posts
Posted on 2/3/22 at 1:47 pm to
100% financing is still around for rural development loans?

50k for a 300k house isn’t that inconceivable without debt and a 20% down payment. What would they note be, like $1400-$1500. Someone makings 50k could afford it.
Posted by fallguy_1978
Best States #50
Member since Feb 2018
53541 posts
Posted on 2/3/22 at 1:49 pm to
quote:

100% financing is still around for rural development loans?

I'm not not if they still offer them or not.
Posted by squid_hunt
Baton Rouge
Member since Jan 2021
11272 posts
Posted on 2/3/22 at 1:49 pm to
quote:

50k for a 300k house isn’t that inconceivable without debt and a 20% down payment. What would they note be, like $1400-$1500. Someone makings 50k could afford it.

It was pretty much 100% financing. And at the time I calculated, it was something like my entire paycheck. It wasn't leaving a lot of extra cash on hand, either way.
Posted by HubbaBubba
North of DFW, TX
Member since Oct 2010
51891 posts
Posted on 2/3/22 at 1:50 pm to
Congressman Barney Frank, and Senator Chris Dodd
Posted by cuyahoga tiger
NE Ohio via Tangipahoa
Member since Nov 2011
6162 posts
Posted on 2/3/22 at 1:51 pm to
Bill Clinton
Posted by goldennugget
NIL Ruined College Sports
Member since Jul 2013
26376 posts
Posted on 2/3/22 at 1:52 pm to
quote:

Congressman Barney Frank, and Senator Chris Dodd



Correct, which made it even more insulting they were the ones in charge of fixing the problem they created.
Posted by hubreb
Member since Nov 2008
2132 posts
Posted on 2/3/22 at 1:53 pm to
quote:

100% financing is still around for rural development loans?

I'm not not if they still offer them or not.



nearly everything that was available in the mid 2000s is available now - underwriting standards are just a little stricter and securitizations have to have more credit support than then -- a ton of the leverage in the system is gone as well
Posted by 3nOut
I don't really care, Margaret
Member since Jan 2013
32400 posts
Posted on 2/3/22 at 1:53 pm to
quote:

fed/banks/clinton administration



100% this.

i also blame Bush for recognizing the problem, trying to fix it, getting called a racist, and then backing down and celebrating high home ownership.

Bush is low on the list compared to Clinton and the fed, but his cowardice in the face of name calling will always stand out.
Posted by Pettifogger
I don't really care, Margaret
Member since Feb 2012
87383 posts
Posted on 2/3/22 at 1:54 pm to
quote:

home buyers don't get nearly enough blame. just because you get approved for a loan doesn't mean you should take it.

Posted by GreatLakesTiger24
Member since May 2012
60710 posts
Posted on 2/3/22 at 1:54 pm to
quote:

Didn't Congress push redlining laws and the government lenders Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were putting out subprime loans which lowered standards for the entire mortgage system. I was making about 50k at the time and told I could get a 300k loan. Ridiculous.

i'm curious what i could get approved for right now. its almost certainly wayyyy too much.
This post was edited on 2/3/22 at 1:55 pm
Posted by LSUFanHouston
NOLA
Member since Jul 2009
41084 posts
Posted on 2/3/22 at 1:55 pm to
Fedgov pushed the banks to expand credit availability.

The banks responded by creating subprime mortgages.

The market wanted a piece of the action, thinking of course these loans are safe, and if they are not, we will make enough interest at the outset to make up for it.

Financial journalists fed the beast by constantly talking about how owning a home was the best and fastest way to wealth.

And homebuyers thought buying was better than renting, even if they had to stretch a bit.

And it all worked fine... until it didn't anymore.
Posted by LSUFanHouston
NOLA
Member since Jul 2009
41084 posts
Posted on 2/3/22 at 1:56 pm to
Income to debt still matters but with rates so low the face amounts are stupid high.
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 8Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram