Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Intolerant in NJ

“goal is hardly the same as coercing banks into giving out mortgages to people who likely can’t pay them back, “

The CRA only applied to deposit-takers, which were not the main lenders in the bubble. Investment banks, pure mortgage lenders, hedge funds, the entire Shadow Banking sector were free to do exactly as they pleased. Which they did, as they ate F&F’s lunch.

Moreover Dubya had eight years to reverse the CRA if he chose to. He didn’t.

” pushing the Fannies to cover those bad loans at government expense,”

Fannie and Freddie both had ceased to be government agencies back in the 1960s and 1970s. They were listed stocks on the New York Exchange during the bubble, owned by investors. There was absolutely no legal requirement for the American taxpayer to backstop Fannie and Freddie. The decision to make them the responsibility of the government and therefore the taxpayer was a decision made entirely by Bush and his administration.

“encouraging the resale of repackaged loans into the public market, especially when it was known at the time that those practices were possibly going to damage the wider economy “

Nonsense. CDOs, CMOs, CDOs Squared, Synthetic CDOs, all of this stuff was being cranked out by the unregulated private sector without the slightest pressure to do so by the government. Moreover CDOs had been around for decades, they were nothing new, and the CDOs of Fannie and Freddie were comprised of conforming paper, and like all conforming paper were the safest of loans and performed the best.

“Bush was not pushing mortgages for those who couldn’t afford them. He was trying to cover those toxic loans already in the system, and the undercapitalization of Fannie and Freddie was a major problem area.”

More nonsense. Bush never addressed “toxic loans” in any of his speeches, Fannie and Freddie didn’t deal in them anyway, they required conforming paper even when loans were made to subprime borrowers. NINJA loans, Option Arms, all of the exotic paper was the purview of firms other than F&F. They lost market share exactly because they weren’t dealing in high yield, high risk paper. The sole concern expressed by the Bush administration was the undercapitalisation of the Fannie, and that had exactly nothing to do with exotic paper, it was purely a matter of loans to assets.

“Their overleveraged position meant that should the mortgages they held decline little more than two percent, they would be technically wiped out”

Fine. So their investors would be wiped out. That’s the risk you take when you own stock in a listed company, which is what Fannie and Freddie were in 2008 before Dubya decided that the American taxpayer and not the investors should be left holding the bag.

“Eventually Fannie and Freddie held over half the mortgages in the country, and 45% of those they purchased between 2005, when the bill failed, and 2007 were subprime and other nonprime loans.”

And F&F holding half the mortgages in the country is news to whom, exactly? Apparently to those who don’t know that F&F were created in the first place in order to provide a secondary market for mortgages and at one time had no competition. So 45% represents a big loss of market share for what they once had. In the second half of your sentence you focus on subprime loans without noting that F&F dealt in conforming subprime paper, probably because you have no idea that that is significant because you have never mentioned conforming paper once.

You are obviously eager to excuse Bush but you really know little about the factors that were involved in creating the bubble. It was a perfect storm of events that began in the 1990s, it involved tax law exemptions for real estate, exemption of OTC derivatives from regulation, David X Li’s famous Gaussian copula function, financial engineering by quants, Greenspan dropping interest rates to extreme lows, and Bush was also there with his goofball plan to greatly increase minority home ownership. You can read all about it in his speech to HUD where he somehow fails to mention all of the risks that you seem to believe consumed him.


17 posted on 08/29/2016 11:02:36 PM PDT by Pelham (Best.Election.Ever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: Pelham
You forgot the repeal of Glass-Steagall (engineered by Robert Rubin and signed by Bill Clinton), the AQ program to help warehouse excess production of quickie mortgages, and the corruption of the rating agencies which were slapping triple A ratings on vehicles they didn’t understand.
Bush's speech was pretty much boilerplate we're going to help the poor and downtrodden. Being a brilliant man and a perceptive and visionary leader, he knew better than to undertake a public campaign against the shaky mortgage industry which would have tanked the markets for sure. It does seem a reasonable alternative to try to get some sort of control over the Fannies, which were leading the way and enabling the creation of so many risky loans. It’s just a wee bit disingenuous to talk about how Fannie and Freddie were taking only conforming loans without acknowledging that the standards for what was considered “conforming” had been lowered so drastically, beginning as early as 1993 with the abandonment of the 20% down-payment requirement. Things probably deteriorated worst under Andrew Cuomo who announced as HUD secretary "GSE presence in the subprime market could be of significant benefit to lower income families, minorities, and families living in underserved areas". By the time he left office Fannie and Freddie were buying over 50% of their loans to service low and moderate-income families. Bush couldn’t order the FM’s directly to return to higher standards of lending because although they had considerable governmental advantage like reduced interest rates with and a standing line of credit from the US Treasury and were perceived by the public to have government backing (and eventually had to be bailed out by the taxpayers to the tune of $400 billion) they were independent entities with their own governing bodies peopled by the likes of financial wizard Rahm Emmanuel. The next best thing was to attempt to gain some control over them with regulations similar to those already imposed on banks, S&L’s, and credit unions. But as long as they remained such cash cows for the Democrats, they were having none of it. Attempts to produce laws regulating them were met as attacks by congressional Democrats led by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, who at one point argued that attempts at regulation were "an artificial issue created by the administration...I don't think we are in any remote danger here", and on went the parade. There's a reason there has never been a complete investigation and accounting for the financial disaster in 2008 - half the Democrat pary would have ended up behind bars.
18 posted on 08/30/2016 9:29:29 PM PDT by Intolerant in NJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson