Skip to comments.Post 2007 Obama says Sub Prime Mortgages: a GOOD IDEA!!
Posted on 10/13/2011 4:41:59 PM PDT by Titus-Maximus
Explosive Audio Unearthed: After the Sub Prime Crisis already started in 2007 Obama says Sub Prime Mortgages that gave houses to people WHO COULDN'T AFFORD THEM was a GOOD IDEA!!
Obama started the lawsuits in 1994 with Selma S Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Federal Savings. The whole ACORN zoo was involved and accused Citi of not making mortgage loans to African-Americans because they were black. It was an ugly lie, and Citi was not lending to people because of their bad credit histories, not because they were black. This government action, magnified by Clinton and his faithful companion "Reno" browbeat the banks into funding the subprime market. The video shows, Franklin Raines, chief falsifier of Fannie Mae accounts, bragging about the 1 trillion (TRILLION) they set aside for subprime loans.
Send it to you daughter in Zucotti Park.
Theres no There, there. He said it started off as a good idea. Started off being the operative words.
Then I realized they were not talking about loan rates but the 'sub-prime' borrowers themselves.
Billionaire business mogul Penny Pritzker is a member of one of Americas richest families and was the Finance Chair for the presidential campaign of Barack Obama. It was Pritzker that led the prolific, and illegal, fundraising that helped power Barack Obamas presidential campaign. She was the chair of Chicago-based Superior Banks board for five years.
Pritzker was into subprime lending before it became all the rage starting in around 2000. Prtizker's chairmanship was to concentrate on sub prime lending, principally on home mortgages, but for a while in subprime auto lending, too, after the Pritzkers' bank acquired its wholesale mortgage organization division, Alliance Funding, in December 1992.
Superior Bank went belly up in 2001 with over $1 billion in insured and uninsured deposits; 1,406 depositors lost much of their life savings. This collapse came amid harsh criticism of how Superiors owners promoted sub-prime home mortgages.
Except that too is wrong. It was never a good idea to get people in houses they couldn’t afford.
A true unregulated market will shake itself out.
The problem is: They lied about the value of the derivatives and they lied when grading the risk of those investments.
All they needed to do was set aside a certain amount of that risk for future (inevitable) cancellations. I'd say the value of a no money down house is probably 30%. But they booked 100% and sold it as such.
Example: My sales team had a special no money down sale on widgets. Within one year, only 30% of the sales were still on the books. You say the lesson is zero tolerance for no money down widgets, I say the lesson is budget for the inevitable and only book 30% of the sales.