• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. sues S&P over subprime ratings


No cite ? I post 99% of the time from a droid phone. Its difficult to post links so take the information I laid out in specifics( which is more than you have to offer ) and Google your damn self.

Yea your'e right, allot of people have no idea what actually transpired and your one of them.
 
Kushinator said:
Ratings agencies rated them highly because they simply did not understand the products they were insuring. Blaming the motivations for risk management failure on F&F is a cop out.
Click to expand...

Everyone thought and "knew" if F&F were involved in the mortgages that they would back them or be bailed out by the US government, that is in fact why they were rated so highly. It wasnt misunderstanding, it was belief that the US was the final backed of the instruments. Like I said, in the end, they were.
 
I would like to see a quote of the specific CRA/HUD regulations that require lenders to give loans to unqualified applicants. An independent study showing that these regulations contributed to the home mortgage meltdown would also help make the case. I'm no expert on these issues but everything I have read indicates that derivatives and fraud caused the meltdown. I suspect that those who blame the CRA are racists and/or philosophically opposed to anti-discrimination laws.
 

http://cei.org/sites/default/files/Michelle Minton - CRA - FINAL_WEB.pdf
 

Any aquisition, merger or increase in fed rated money lending (loans direct from the fed at highly decreased interest rates) has to be met with satisfactory ratings from CRA inspections. If they dont have it, they dont get it.

In addition, here are the reporting criteria:

The bigger you are the more likely you are to have to report your loan information to the CRA inspectors.
 

We dont have a silver bullet to fix all the problems that happened in 2007 so Im going to posit that we dont have a real root cause, but a series of causes to what really occurred. There are contributing factors---I feel the CRA was a large one. You feel differently. Oh well.
 

If you've read the link sent to you you will see that the Democrats were taking credit for it until it failed, and despite being warned by Alan Greenspan John McCain, and George Bush. Now they are, incredibly it seems, intending to do the same thing again.

The American Spectator : And You Thought the Housing Crisis Was Over!

Someone seems keen on destroying the American economy.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Everyone thought and "knew" if F&F were involved in the mortgages that they would back them or be bailed out by the US government
Click to expand...

Credit risk is assessed based on its intrinsic risk, not on the perceived risk appetite of its purchasers and their backing by the U.S. Treasury.

that is in fact why they were rated so highly. It wasn't misunderstanding, it was belief that the US was the final backed of the instruments. Like I said, in the end, they were.
Click to expand...

Your point is irrelevant.
 
Kushinator said:
Credit risk is assessed based on its intrinsic risk, not on the perceived risk appetite of its purchasers and their backing by the U.S. Treasury.



Your point is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Cmon Kush, you and I both know everyone from the homeowners to the raters to the lenders to the agencies that the GSEs and the loans they underwrote were backed by the US government. The raters certainly did and when push comes to shove they will testify to that; because it was a criteria in their rating.
 
3...2...1... and go::

LOOOOOL

HAHAHHAHAHHA.

Like they are EVER going to win this case. Oh boy. This was a good one. Lawls.

Tough luck. They should get Holder to manage this case at least that way, when they lose, they will have a convenient person to blame.
 

That was an editorial in a conservative magazine. I asked for a quote of the specific CRA/HUD regulations that require lenders to give loans to unqualified applicants and/or an independent study showing that these regulations contributed to the home mortgage meltdown.
 

You apparently missed this:

All instances of aquisition, merger or tapping into federal loans at prime have a requirement of satisfactory CRA rating.
CAMELS ratings are how banks rate their own liquidity and worth. CAMELS ratings went down as their CRA rating went up.

Im not sure how you dont understand that.
 
If I was S&P I would respond by lowering their rating again. Sorry, but the government has no business doing this.
 
Bottom line when it was all said and done the GSEs wound up with close to 70% of all sub-prime debt.

More than 80% of the subprime debt wound up on Gov Financial Institutions books.

Quotas spekled out under Clinton forced the GSEs to acquire over 50% of sub prime loans.

Under Clinton that debt was allowed to be securitized.

All that is easy to look up. The lone disenter in the Govts own study of the financial crisis ( Peter Wallison) had access to all the pertinent data.

Just Google him. The fact is there was a concerted effort by the Democrats, the media and Holly Wood to put a the blame on banks and gullible people fell for it.

Watch the movie (fiction) to big to fail or the Movie (fiction) Margin Call.

The truth is the banks had no power to force mass Govt backed sub-prime lending. Only Washington has that power.

As a bank to be told you had to make risky loans to people just because community activist groups and Liberals in Congress ( Barney Frank ) accused you of racism is akin to being told your'e being forced into bankruptcy.

Banks dont make risky loans, its bad for bussiness. But Congress allocated regulatory control to HUD and the CRA and not only forced private banks to loan but worse forced massive Government entities like Fannie Mae who had bern around for 70 years to start offering up these mortgages, sometimes 105% financed.

THIS is what nearly cratered our economy and is still threatening our economy.

Sure we might have rebounded but idiot voters elected a nobody. A media creation. A empty suite.
 

There have been several links provided since Jimmy Carter first introduced the Community Restoration Act, how Obama sued City Bank to get them to lend mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, a video of Bill Clinton boasting how all these homes were going to minorities under his administration, how the Democrats, despite being warned by Allan Greenspan and several Republicans, went ahead anyway and called their opponents racist and said everything was alright and that there was no crisis. It's all there on this thread.

I have no idea what else you could possibly need to form an opinion of what happened but you should have some knowledge of the history of the CRA before you even get involved in the discussion.

And if you understand how the government mismanaged the CRA and the mortgage industry, wait until they get their hands on Obamacare.
 

You nailed it!
 
There is such a thing as both sides of the story, you know?

Wikipedia? You know that anyone can go in to that to put information in, right?

And the pdf file. Can you break those 20 pages down please. :roll:

Note in the YouTube video that Clinton didn't say "force them", so what's your point? :shrug:

And "Let Freedom Ring"? Are you serious? :roll:

I'm sorry to tell you that a courtroom doesn't play that kind of malarkey from either party; they want backed-up facts.
 

Which facts are in dispute?

The facts have been out there for a long while yet its clear you have no idea what went on. Believe whatever you want and good luck.
 



:lamo

That assessment is an obtuse piece of flotsam. First of all, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977 and it was the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (read GEORGE H.W. BUSH) which required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to greatly expand their securitization of subprime loans. You are also intentionally skewing the data. 80% of subprime loans were issued by institutions which did NOT fall under the jurisdiction of the CRA. The vast majority of subprime loans did NOT originate from GSEs. The debt obligations were purchased. In fact, most of the toxic securities didn't even contain CRA loans. These facts are well documented and aptly pointed out in Michel Barr's testimony to Congress. Your entire statement is just know-nothing partisan hackery.
 
Grant said:
I have no idea what else you could possibly need to form an opinion of what happened but you should have some knowledge of the history of the CRA before you even get involved in the discussion.
Click to expand...

People are claiming that the CRA forces banks to give loans to unqualified borrowers. I would like to see the language in the CRA legislation, or associated regulations, that require banks to give loans to people who are not qualified. I don't believe that such language exists because it is never quoted by the CRA opponents. I suspect that the opposition to the CRA is from racists and/or people who oppose government regulation against discrimination.

If the argument is that regulators are misinterpreting the law or going beyond the law to force banks to give loans to the unqualified, then it is an issue with the interpretation or the enforcement, not the legislation itself. I don't believe that problem is widespread, but if anyone has statistics that doesn't come from a right wing organization that proves regulators frequently abused the law to force banks to provide loans to the unqualified I will reconsider.
 
Hard Truth said:
I suspect that the opposition to the CRA is from racists and/or people who oppose government regulation against discrimination.
Click to expand...

We are going through the worst recession in 80 years, triggered by a wave of mortgage defaults. To say that opposition to legislation that contributed to all these risky mortgages is about racism, is an insult and a joke.

Please try again, sans race card.
 

Prove that the legislation "contributed to all these risky mortgages" with an excerpt from the part of the legislation that forces banks to loan to unqualified borrowers, otherwise you are just repeating a conservative talking point. I bet no one will because such a requirement doesn't exist in the CRA. The opposition to the CRA is not based on facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…