Why not lynch the borrowers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Yea, once again, it had to come up. The entire housing crisis lies at the foot of poor minorities.


Who said it did? Please don't try to confuse the issue by not reading posts.

The root of bankers/lenders not saying no is uncle sam......

Is this the cause of the entire mess? Of course not.
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Yea, once again, it had to come up. The entire housing crisis lies at the foot of poor minorities.


Who said it did? Please don't try to confuse the issue by not reading posts.

The root of bankers/lenders not saying no is uncle sam......

Is this the cause of the entire mess? Of course not.



Oh please Pablo, then why do you go "ding ding ding" (like a rabbit tapping for a food pellet) when you see this: "Mortgage officers who deny loans to low income people get threatened with racial discrimination, ethnic discrimination or gender discrimination lawsuits."

If you guys can prove with any ounce of credibility that there is rampant litigation against banks, mortgage brokers, and loan officers for not making loans to "low income gender ethnic" people, then do it!

It's a fact that CRA loans have less of a default rate then private subprime loans and regular loans (even jumbo loans) not subject to ANY government oversight, so you are flat out wrong that uncle sam forced banks to make bad loans. Did uncle sam force banks to make loans on 500K+ homes, which far and away have more foreclosures than CRA covered homes???
 
Originally Posted By: XS650
There you go again Drew, trying to confuse the issue with facts.


It does tend to counter popular myth.

Yes, borrowers didn't change, lenders did. Everyone has been conditioned from birth to buy as big a house as they are allowed to buy. I've known about 3 people in my lifetime that have actually "down moved" to a neighborhood below their income's ability to support it. One was a very successful couple that wanted to have a stay at home mother. They decided that they wanted an easier time "doing things right" ..so they went into a newer middle class neighborhood. All of there neighbors were "moving up" ..they were "waiting it out". In some terms ..they were slumming it.

To those who wish to blame the "users" ..it surely has merit. I would like to point out that there's always a pusher for whatever crack addiction is out there. The users pay their consequences ..and regardless of how you deal with them, you still have to pay for them anyway.

The "lower dwellers" that are the easiest to blame for this are a good object for your displaced anxiety over this. I would like to point out that they didn't just show up at somebody's house and kick them out. There was an advancing new home market that provided the vacancies for these "unworthy's" occupy. The new home starts were what fueled (almost) our entire economy.

So, you were going to pay some piper either way. The mortgage debacle was "used" (wink:wink) to forestall a recession to beyond a certain point. It manipulated and corrupted the normal pauses that indicate that you've over extended your credit ..and our credit is the ONLY thing that fuels most of the global economy.

When you made money over the past 7-8 years, it was largely tied to this scam. Now it's time to pay YOUR piper too.
 
I can tell you that a repeating pattern in this area is of a house purchased for an extremely high price, which is then used as a flophouse for a year or two and then is foreclosed on.

I can also tell you that this area is on the FBI's list of mortgage fraud hot spots.

Quote:
Did uncle sam force banks to make loans on 500K+ homes, which far and away have more foreclosures than CRA covered homes???


In this area, that once-500K was worth 200K in 2000, had the price rise to about 500K in by 2005, and then had the price fall to about 240K by 2008.

I just can't imagine why the prices shot up so fast. Any ideas? Anyone? Anyone?
 
Quote:
I can tell you that a repeating pattern in this area is of a house purchased for an extremely high price, which is then used as a flophouse for a year or two and then is foreclosed on.

I can also tell you that this area is on the FBI's list of mortgage fraud hot spots.


That's probably an evolution of the lower rung scam thieves. One technique was to get a renter in ..who would then destroy the place via the loopholes that tenant laws allowed. After the landlord was hog tied and legally at risk ..and financially pinned down, he/she would sell at the new "as is" market value with discounts for a freeloader that he couldn't remove.

What was that movie with Micheal Keaton?? Ah ..Pacific Heights.

I guess they've graduated to bigger and faster methods of legally swindling money ..or so it sounds.
 
People in the US getting mortgages they didn't deserve didn't cause Swiss banks (many, many others too) to need bailouts, as a housing bubble deflating would be a regional or national problem. People turning the mortgages into investment instruments didn't cause Swiss banks (many, many others too) to need bailouts as lots of other risky investments have always been available, are available now, and will be available in the future. The key problem was the 'free market' system of ratings agencies having conflicts of interest regarding the instruments they were rating, rating the high risk / high yield (junk) instruments as AAA, and institutions all over the world buying billions and billions of dollars of these AAA high yield instruments. A lot of people didn't question the ratings, they loaded up on the stuff like it was crack, and the stuff was later downgraded to junk.

The Weathermen could have used nukes three decades ago and not have inflcited 1/10 the damage that is now upon us.
 
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT

If you guys can prove with any ounce of credibility that there is rampant litigation against banks, mortgage brokers, and loan officers for not making loans to "low income gender ethnic" people, then do it!


So we didn't need all those laws since the 1960's?

The argument basically comes down to this. Did lenders make bad loans to comply with the CRA and satisfy the demands of activists and the Fed, or did they make those bad loans simply to get enhanced profits? I argue that both are true. CRA and the activists got the ball rolling, and it took off from there, giving us liar loans, 100% financing, etc. to ALL walks of people - including the quasi-rich and illegal aliens. There's no doubt that the finance industry made huge profits off this and many borrowers were duped into loans they could not afford. But if we ignore the roots of this crisis we will be doomed to repeat it in another form. As with any system with multiple positive feedback, strict cause and effect are difficult to identify, hence a lively BITOG discussion.
 
I think it is silly to blame the lenders for the crisis. However, I think that foreclosing on them is fair recourse. After all, they put up the house for collateral on the loan. If the banks failed to ensure that the lender would be able to pay, or ensure that the collateral would be enough to recoup their investment if the lender failed to pay. Then the banks get to suffer. It is all fair, and there is no reason to lynch the lender.

The problem I have is who should the govt bail out? The homeowners or the banks? I personally dont think either is worthy, but if you bail out one, you should bail out the other.

In other words, the mess is the fault of the banks AND the lenders. Not one or the other.
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT

If you guys can prove with any ounce of credibility that there is rampant litigation against banks, mortgage brokers, and loan officers for not making loans to "low income gender ethnic" people, then do it!


So we didn't need all those laws since the 1960's?

The argument basically comes down to this. Did lenders make bad loans to comply with the CRA and satisfy the demands of activists and the Fed, or did they make those bad loans simply to get enhanced profits? I argue that both are true. CRA and the activists got the ball rolling, and it took off from there, giving us liar loans, 100% financing, etc. to ALL walks of people - including the quasi-rich and illegal aliens. There's no doubt that the finance industry made huge profits off this and many borrowers were duped into loans they could not afford. But if we ignore the roots of this crisis we will be doomed to repeat it in another form. As with any system with multiple positive feedback, strict cause and effect are difficult to identify, hence a lively BITOG discussion.


Did you have your PR firm compose that ..or did you get some new meds, perhaps??
grin2.gif


(it happens to me too. I can occasionally be mistaken for "sane"
grin2.gif
)
 
Almost forgot:

Quote:
Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois
Case Summary
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctiverelief, actual damages, and punitive damages.

U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).


I dare not post the links.
 
I've said it time and time again... Let them starve in the streets. I had to jump through all sorts of hoops to get my mortgage, only went with a fixed mortgage assuming no increase in value of what I was buying, and actually researched how much I could afford and what was sustainable given various scenarios. I did it, so can everyone else... If they can't, they deserve to loose everything and pay for the inconvenience to others
 
Another problem is the enormous size of today's houses compared to 50 years ago. People did ok on 200 sq ft per person, but now for some reason people are so huge they require 500. In fact, if you kicked out half the people who can't pay their mortgages, there would be plenty of room in the other half's homes to take them in.
 
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
I am amazed at the outright gall involved in armies of PhDs in Economics and MBAs in finance blaming those pesky less educated people for collapsing the world financial system! Does that not sound surreal to anyone but me?

It sounds a lot like an automotive engineer deliberately designing an unsafe car, using his personal reputation for expertise to reassure all customers that the car is perfect for them, and then blaming them when they purchase these cars and have accidents.

You can not reasonably, simultaneously claim to be both the expert in the system (and on the system), and the victim of the other less expert elements.

I am particularly amazed by Allan Greenspan saying he never dreemed that markets would not self-regulate rationally. You create a system where the leaders are rewarded if they gamble and win, and rewarded if they gamble and fail. Where is the accountability for gambling, failing, and collapsing the system? How is this rational? In my opinion he has no moral high ground to talk about rational thinking and behavior.


I think this is the best, most accurate comment here.

It's easy to blame the uneducated "low man on the totem pole", the person who maybe doesn't understand all the intricacies of the mortgage business. All they want is a home of their own, to stop throwing their money at someone else's investment and actually own something, maybe for the first time in their lives. Now all you people can do is demonize them for being "greedy"? That's pathetic.

What about the phalanx of MBA's who created the system? The guy with the advanced degree working at Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns, who developed the concept of the credit derivative? You do realize that you cannot get a job at a place like Lehman Brothers or Goldman Sachs without an advanced college degree, don't you? Don't sit there and think for a millisecond that the guys at Countrywide and Washington Mutual were driving forklifts one day and generating billions in mortgage loans the next. Aren't these people supposed to be the smartest, best educated in the world? Where is their culpability?

As a nation we are all taught to shoot for the stars. We are taught to strive to be the best, be #1, go for the gusto, that we're all special and deserve everything we get. 300 million people, all hearing the same message. Why have millions of people emigrated to the US? Because they've heard the same message!! It's the siren song of our times.

While everyone's out trying to carve out their monster piece of the pie, where is the oversight? Where are the people who know the difference between right and wrong? Shouldn't the HyperSmart, over educated, Type A, "Oh, he's soooo driven" type be supervised and managed somehow? Why were the B-school overachievers allowed to bollock up the banking industry?

You mean to tell me you are going to sit there and blame the truck driver or the car salesman or the asst. manager of the Apple Store for the financial crisis we are in? Really? You want to lynch the shift manager at a plastic molding company instead of the MBA who knew better? REALLY?

Look, the whole thing was motivated by greed. We get it. There were people gaming the system from the top to the bottom. That's hardly an original concept. But, somewhere in the vast middle are people that were taught to know better, and they did nothing to stop this. Sure, they maxed out their bonus plan, got the wife that new Lexus hybrid, set up their kid at Duke or Florida State or wherever, upgraded the kitchen with granite countertops and that sweet Viking range. So what if a bunch of high school dropout truck driving losers get foreclosed on. That $250,000 annual bonus paid for the basement home theater system. Isn't that what really matters, anyway? The MBA's got what they wanted and if someone else has to take the fall, oh well. See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya!
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

So, you were going to pay some piper either way. The mortgage debacle was "used" (wink:wink) to forestall a recession to beyond a certain point. It manipulated and corrupted the normal pauses that indicate that you've over extended your credit ..and our credit is the ONLY thing that fuels most of the global economy.

When you made money over the past 7-8 years, it was largely tied to this scam. Now it's time to pay YOUR piper too.



This, my friend, is the whole reason we have this mortgage crisis. The interest rate is kept too low and was not raised unless there is solid evidence of inflation forcing the policy makers to. They want to hide the dot com bubble by "borrowing from the future" through low interest rate.

Normally, if the interest rate is high enough, there is no incentive for a housing bubble even if there is no regulation.
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Almost forgot:

Quote:
Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois
Case Summary
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctiverelief, actual damages, and punitive damages.

U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).


I dare not post the links.


"Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories"

That's the best you can come up with???
 
Last edited:
The lenders gave them the money. Let all of those who took the risk pay the prices life has no guarantees. No one would be crying if the risk they all took paid off . But in todays world no one is responsible for their actions and the responsible ones as well as the people who made the wrong choices have to pay .
 
The ones responsible for the problems are your beloved elected representatives and the people who own them. Look up the donors to those politicians .
 
Originally Posted By: bretfraz
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
I am amazed at the outright gall involved in armies of PhDs in Economics and MBAs in finance blaming those pesky less educated people for collapsing the world financial system! Does that not sound surreal to anyone but me?

It sounds a lot like an automotive engineer deliberately designing an unsafe car, using his personal reputation for expertise to reassure all customers that the car is perfect for them, and then blaming them when they purchase these cars and have accidents.

You can not reasonably, simultaneously claim to be both the expert in the system (and on the system), and the victim of the other less expert elements.

I am particularly amazed by Allan Greenspan saying he never dreemed that markets would not self-regulate rationally. You create a system where the leaders are rewarded if they gamble and win, and rewarded if they gamble and fail. Where is the accountability for gambling, failing, and collapsing the system? How is this rational? In my opinion he has no moral high ground to talk about rational thinking and behavior.


I think this is the best, most accurate comment here.

It's easy to blame the uneducated "low man on the totem pole", the person who maybe doesn't understand all the intricacies of the mortgage business. All they want is a home of their own, to stop throwing their money at someone else's investment and actually own something, maybe for the first time in their lives. Now all you people can do is demonize them for being "greedy"? That's pathetic.

What about the phalanx of MBA's who created the system? The guy with the advanced degree working at Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns, who developed the concept of the credit derivative? You do realize that you cannot get a job at a place like Lehman Brothers or Goldman Sachs without an advanced college degree, don't you? Don't sit there and think for a millisecond that the guys at Countrywide and Washington Mutual were driving forklifts one day and generating billions in mortgage loans the next. Aren't these people supposed to be the smartest, best educated in the world? Where is their culpability?

As a nation we are all taught to shoot for the stars. We are taught to strive to be the best, be #1, go for the gusto, that we're all special and deserve everything we get. 300 million people, all hearing the same message. Why have millions of people emigrated to the US? Because they've heard the same message!! It's the siren song of our times.

While everyone's out trying to carve out their monster piece of the pie, where is the oversight? Where are the people who know the difference between right and wrong? Shouldn't the HyperSmart, over educated, Type A, "Oh, he's soooo driven" type be supervised and managed somehow? Why were the B-school overachievers allowed to bollock up the banking industry?

You mean to tell me you are going to sit there and blame the truck driver or the car salesman or the asst. manager of the Apple Store for the financial crisis we are in? Really? You want to lynch the shift manager at a plastic molding company instead of the MBA who knew better? REALLY?

Look, the whole thing was motivated by greed. We get it. There were people gaming the system from the top to the bottom. That's hardly an original concept. But, somewhere in the vast middle are people that were taught to know better, and they did nothing to stop this. Sure, they maxed out their bonus plan, got the wife that new Lexus hybrid, set up their kid at Duke or Florida State or wherever, upgraded the kitchen with granite countertops and that sweet Viking range. So what if a bunch of high school dropout truck driving losers get foreclosed on. That $250,000 annual bonus paid for the basement home theater system. Isn't that what really matters, anyway? The MBA's got what they wanted and if someone else has to take the fall, oh well. See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya!


Well put. Nobody can convince me that the underlings are to blame. If the geniuses of our commerce sector are that easily swayed ..they don't deserve anything that they have ever received (apparently) by accident. They obviously don't have the brains to be in the jobs that they have ..nor the worth to earn their paychecks.

It's the dummy that made me do it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom