- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Who/what entity would you say is most to blame for the 2007-2009 housing crisis/recession?
Posted on 2/4/22 at 2:01 pm to Adam Banks
Posted on 2/4/22 at 2:01 pm to Adam Banks
quote:Theory? Theory?!?!
Please give your theory. Based on your posts it’s like you completely made up your understanding by watching the big short. Good movie but definitely has a bias and ignores big steps in the process of forming the bubble to fit that view
I don't need no stinking theory!!
I lived through it. I was there. I have facts. I have the reports.
Banks did not reduce lending requirements to meet government requirements. The government never required NINJA loans or short-term variable rate financing.
Banks reduced lending requirements to meet demand for investors' appetite for mortgage backed securities.
The problem was NOT that there was too much supply of subprime mortgage backed securities allegedly caused by government intervention. The problem was there was too much demand for mortgage backed securities.
In the early 2000s, there were few investment vehicles providing a significant return. American home values had always increased. Mortgages were deemed safe investments. Domestic and foreign investors wanted to invest in American mortgage backed securities.
Hedge funds, banks, and brokerages had too much demand for mortgage backed securities and other home mortgage investment vehicles.
Banks and lenders reduced their requirements to meet that demand.
FDIC Report
Federal Reserve Report
Posted on 2/4/22 at 2:06 pm to Salviati
Ah yes. Two government agencies saying that implicate everyone but the government.
Typical.
ETA
LINK
Typical.
ETA
quote:
His most successful effort was to impose what were called "affordable housing" requirements on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 1992. Before that time, these two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had been required to buy only mortgages that institutional investors would buy--in other words, prime mortgages--but Frank and others thought these standards made it too difficult for low income borrowers to buy homes. The affordable housing law required Fannie and Freddie to meet government quotas when they bought loans from banks and other mortgage originators. At first, this quota was 30%; that is, of all the loans they bought, 30% had to be made to people at or below the median income in their communities. HUD, however, was given authority to administer these quotas, and between 1992 and 2007, the quotas were raised from 30% to 50% under Clinton in 2000 and to 55% under Bush in 2007. Despite Frank's effort to make this seem like a partisan issue, it isn't. The Bush administration was just as guilty of this error as the Clinton administration. And Frank is right to say that he eventually saw his error and corrected it when he got the power to do so in 2007, but by then it was too late.
is certainly possible to find prime mortgages among borrowers below the median income, but when half or more of the mortgages the GSEs bought had to be made to people below that income level, it was inevitable that underwriting standards had to decline. And they did. By 2000, Fannie was offering no-downpayment loans. By 2002, Fannie and Freddie had bought well over $1 trillion of subprime and other low quality loans. Fannie and Freddie were by far the largest part of this effort, but the FHA, Federal Home Loan Banks, Veterans Administration and other agencies--all under congressional and HUD pressure--followed suit. This continued through the 1990s and 2000s until the housing bubble--created by all this government-backed spending--collapsed in 2007. As a result, in 2008, before the mortgage meltdown that triggered the crisis, there were 27 million subprime and other low quality mortgages in the US financial system. That was half of all mortgages. Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans; less than 30% (7.8 million) were held or distributed by the banks, which profited from the opportunity created by the government. When these mortgages failed in unprecedented numbers in 2008, driving down housing prices throughout the U.S., they weakened all financial institutions and caused the financial crisis.
LINK
This post was edited on 2/4/22 at 2:12 pm
Posted on 2/4/22 at 3:36 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
Ah yes. Two government agencies saying that implicate everyone but the government.
That's pretty fricking dismissive.
They are government agencies. They are not political parties. They have no responsibility for creating mortgage law or mortgage policies. They have zero reasons to prevaricate.
Then you post an editorial by Peter Wallison, a person who directly and specifically had an axe to grind with Barney Frank. Did you read the first paragraph of the article you linked:
quote:The Atlantic
On December 9, The Atlantic published online an interview with Congressman Barney Frank. In it, he called me a "real extremist." This name-calling was not only false but also inappropriate to the seriousness of the issue -- which is whether government housing policy, and not the banks or the private sector, caused the 2008 financial crisis. I decided to respond to both Congressman Frank's statements and the questions he was asked about government housing policy and the financial crisis.
Wallison is a political hack with an axe to grind.
Why was Wallison called an "extremist"? Wallison wrote a dissent from both the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission majority report and from his fellow Republican commissioners, in which he alone blamed the global financial crisis on U.S. affordable housing policies.
How did Wallison come to the conclusion that it was federal affordable housing policies that caused the crisis, despite the countervailing evidence? As Phil Angelides, chairman of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, stated:
quote:Wallison's argument was clearly contradicted by the facts:
The source for this newfound wisdom [is] shopworn data, produced by a consultant to the corporate-funded American Enterprise Institute, which was analyzed and debunked by the FCIC Report.
(1) Parallel bubble-bust cycles occurred outside of the residential housing markets (for example, in commercial real estate and consumer credit).
(2) Parallel financial crises struck other countries, which did not have analogous affordable housing policies.
(3) As others in this thread have said, the U.S. government’s market share of home mortgages was actually declining precipitously during the housing bubble of the 2000s.
(4) Mortgages originated for private securitization defaulted at much higher rates than those originated for Fannie and Freddie securitization, even when controlling for all other factors (such as the fact that Fannie and Freddie securitized virtually no subprime loans). Overall, private securitization mortgages defaulted at more than six times the rate of those originated for Fannie and Freddie securitization.
These facts are irrefutable.
You could not have picked a more biased and thoroughly discredited source.
Posted on 2/4/22 at 3:53 pm to grizzlylongcut
Barney Frank and the Democrats in Congress.
Posted on 2/4/22 at 3:55 pm to FlyingTiger1955
quote:Wrong.
Barney Frank and the Democrats in Congress.
Read the thread and try again.
Posted on 2/4/22 at 4:09 pm to grizzlylongcut
I was a broker from 2002-2006. I started in subprime and graduated to working at a legitimate brokerage doing Fannie/Freddie loans when it all started to hit the fan.
As I see it, this was a property value bubble that popped, more than anything else.
Property Values were going up double digits every year. Why, I don't know. But that's what was happening. People had tons of equity. People wanted (or were convinced) to "take advantage" of that equity to pay off credit cards and the like. So they did.
Then Katrina hit.
Gas prices soared. Transportation took a hit. Layoffs started in most sectors. Laid off people looking to sell their houses found out their houses weren't worth what they owed, because they had cashed out equity.
As more and more upside-down homeowners put their houses on the market, the further down home prices went.
People were simply walking away from their homes.
This is what happened.
Complete and total housing market crash, nationally.
Regarding the mortgage-backed security side of this, it's all backed by the property value, foreclosure is supposed to at least get your principle back, but when all the collateral is suddenly worth 40 cents on the dollar, then all those securities crumble as well.
People can talk about Barney Frank, Clinton, Fannie/Freddie, greedy wall street, dumb borrowers, etc...
But the real collapse was simply a result of a very large market correction on home values, the powder keg, and the spark was the post-Katrina oil prices and layoffs.
I speculate that the home values were rising so quickly due to suppressed interest rates, not necessarily the LIBOR or Prime, or the FFR, but due to the bond market. I don't think any of this was political.
As I see it, this was a property value bubble that popped, more than anything else.
Property Values were going up double digits every year. Why, I don't know. But that's what was happening. People had tons of equity. People wanted (or were convinced) to "take advantage" of that equity to pay off credit cards and the like. So they did.
Then Katrina hit.
Gas prices soared. Transportation took a hit. Layoffs started in most sectors. Laid off people looking to sell their houses found out their houses weren't worth what they owed, because they had cashed out equity.
As more and more upside-down homeowners put their houses on the market, the further down home prices went.
People were simply walking away from their homes.
This is what happened.
Complete and total housing market crash, nationally.
Regarding the mortgage-backed security side of this, it's all backed by the property value, foreclosure is supposed to at least get your principle back, but when all the collateral is suddenly worth 40 cents on the dollar, then all those securities crumble as well.
People can talk about Barney Frank, Clinton, Fannie/Freddie, greedy wall street, dumb borrowers, etc...
But the real collapse was simply a result of a very large market correction on home values, the powder keg, and the spark was the post-Katrina oil prices and layoffs.
I speculate that the home values were rising so quickly due to suppressed interest rates, not necessarily the LIBOR or Prime, or the FFR, but due to the bond market. I don't think any of this was political.
Posted on 2/4/22 at 4:38 pm to grizzlylongcut
Home buyers were financially illiterate or greedy, which led to banks being greedy, backed by the fed who wanted nicer houses for worse off financial situations, and then you had financial people who damn well knew better trying to make money off it knowing if shite went down they'd be bailed out.
Posted on 2/4/22 at 4:49 pm to GreatLakesTiger24
quote:
home buyers don't get nearly enough blame. just because you get approved for a loan doesn't mean you should take it.
How dare you. This board will not stand for personal responsibility.
Posted on 2/4/22 at 4:52 pm to grizzlylongcut
Trump's fault. Impeach him again over it.
Posted on 2/4/22 at 9:33 pm to grizzlylongcut
Clinton's push for more home ownership by the coloreds which was achieved by softening lending requirements. Bush 43 should have ended little-no document loans that resulted from the administration before him.
The further we get away from it the closer the "WHAT IF 9/11 didn't happen" becomes to the "WHAT IF Hitler was killed in WWI". As it is, W spent his first term balancing a war on two fronts, minority support, and limited political capital. If he had ended the weak mortgage lending in that first term he wouldn't have been elected again in 2004.
The further we get away from it the closer the "WHAT IF 9/11 didn't happen" becomes to the "WHAT IF Hitler was killed in WWI". As it is, W spent his first term balancing a war on two fronts, minority support, and limited political capital. If he had ended the weak mortgage lending in that first term he wouldn't have been elected again in 2004.
Popular
Back to top


1







