PDA

View Full Version : With all the mudslinging going on this is a great article from the past...



CosmicCowboy
09-26-2008, 05:20 PM
September 30, 1999, New York Times

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

By STEVEN A. HOLMES

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Bill Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''
Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.
Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.
Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.
In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.
Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.
In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.
The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

CosmicCowboy
09-26-2008, 05:24 PM
And further clarified here:


http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...0714966728980

How A Clinton-Era Rule Rewrite Made Subprime Crisis Inevitable
By TERRY JONES
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, September 24, 2008 4:30 PM PT

One of the most frequently asked questions about the subprime market meltdown and housing crisis is: How did the government get so deeply involved in the housing market?

The answer is: President Clinton wanted it that way.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even into the early 1990s, weren't the juggernauts they'd later be.

While President Carter in 1977 signed the Community Reinvestment Act, which pushed Fannie and Freddie to aggressively lend to minority communities, it was Clinton who supercharged the process. After entering office in 1993, he extensively rewrote Fannie's and Freddie's rules.

In so doing, he turned the two quasi-private, mortgage-funding firms into a semi-nationalized monopoly that dispensed cash to markets, made loans to large Democratic voting blocs and handed favors, jobs and money to political allies. This potent mix led inevitably to corruption and the Fannie-Freddie collapse.

Despite warnings of trouble at Fannie and Freddie, in 1994 Clinton unveiled his National Homeownership Strategy, which broadened the CRA in ways Congress never intended.

Addressing the National Association of Realtors that year, clinton bluntly told the group that "more Americans should own their own homes." He meant it.

Clinton saw homeownership as a way to open the door for blacks and other minorities to enter the middle class.

Though well-intended, the problem was that Congress was about to change hands, from the Democrats to the Republicans. Rather than submit legislation that the GOP-led Congress was almost sure to reject, Clinton ordered Robert Rubin's Treasury Department to rewrite the rules in 1995.

The rewrite, as City Journal noted back in 2000, "made getting a satisfactory CRA rating harder." Banks were given strict new numerical quotas and measures for the level of "diversity" in their loan portfolios. Getting a good CRA rating was key for a bank that wanted to expand or merge with another.

Loans started being made on the basis of race, and often little else.

"Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group and race, to rate banks on performance," wrote Howard Husock, a scholar at the Manhattan Institute.

But those rules weren't enough.

Clinton got the Department of Housing and Urban Development to double-team the issue. That would later prove disastrous.

Clinton's HUD secretary, Andrew Cuomo, "made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country's current crisis," the liberal Village Voice noted. Among those decisions were changes that let Fannie and Freddie get into subprime loan markets in a big way.

Other rule changes gave Fannie and Freddie extraordinary leverage, allowing them to hold just 2.5% of capital to back their investments, vs. 10% for banks.

Since they could borrow at lower rates than banks due to implicit government guarantees for their debt, the government-sponsored enterprises boomed.

With incentives in place, banks poured billions of dollars of loans into poor communities, often "no doc" and "no income" loans that required no money down and no verification of income.

By 2007, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed nearly half of the $12 trillion U.S. mortgage market — a staggering exposure.

Worse still was the cronyism.

Fannie and Freddie became home to out-of-work politicians, mostly Clinton Democrats. An informal survey of their top officials shows a roughly 2-to-1 dominance of Democrats over Republicans.

Then there were the campaign donations. From 1989 to 2008, some 384 politicians got their tip jars filled by Fannie and Freddie.

Over that time, the two GSEs spent $200 million on lobbying and political activities. Their charitable foundations dropped millions more on think tanks and radical community groups.

Did it work? Well, if measured by the goal of putting more poor people into homes, the answer would have to be yes.

From 1995 to 2005, a Harvard study shows, minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners.

The problem is that many of those loans have now gone bad, and minority homeownership rates are shrinking fast.

Fannie and Freddie, with their massive loan portfolios stuffed with securitized mortgage-backed paper created from subprime loans, are a failed legacy of the Clinton era.
__________________

T Park
09-26-2008, 05:30 PM
Both Clinton and Bush are to blame.

Both sides of the aisle.

IMO at least.

ChumpDumper
09-26-2008, 05:33 PM
True enough.

Just another result of folks counting on the infinite growth of a market. Someday we'll learn.

T Park
09-26-2008, 05:41 PM
True enough.

Just another result of folks counting on the infinite growth of a market. Someday we'll learn.

Yup.

Its like people were asleep during economics class and the invisible hand.

Economies have to slow and go down to go back up and grow again.

Theres only so much growth and prosperity an economy can do before its time to go back down.


Hopefully ours doesn't go down as hard as some are saying.

boutons_
09-26-2008, 05:46 PM
Nobody forced the banks to lend to people with weak financials.
Encourage? yes, force,no.

The real difference was when the lenders could close mortgage, and then sell it off, and then go write more loans. This allowed the lenders to churn through a loan, pocket their fee, and never have to face defaults or service the loan.


If the banks had been forced to carry the mortages themselves, they would have been much more careful about qualifying borrowers (eg, no "stated income"), to avoid exposure and loading up their REO/real-estate-owned depts with foreclosures.

It's typical that the right tries to blame the whole mess on Clinton.

If the Repug admin had wanted to deflate the housing bubble and the reselling/slicing/dicing of mortages, they had dominant control of the Exec and both houses of Congress for 6 years, and the Repugs did nothing.

Greenspan/Fed also has a huge responsbility with super-low rates the encourage new and re-financing activity.

T Park
09-26-2008, 05:51 PM
Nobody forced the banks to lend to people with weak financials.
Encourage? yes, force,no.



God hes right...


Makes me sick saying that.

CosmicCowboy
09-26-2008, 06:20 PM
Nobody forced the banks to lend to people with weak financials.
Encourage? yes, force,no.

The real difference was when the lenders could close mortgage, and then sell it off, and then go write more loans. This allowed the lenders to churn through a loan, pocket their fee, and never have to face defaults or service the loan.


If the banks had been forced to carry the mortages themselves, they would have been much more careful about qualifying borrowers (eg, no "stated income"), to avoid exposure and loading up their REO/real-estate-owned depts with foreclosures.

It's typical that the right tries to blame the whole mess on Clinton.

If the Repug admin had wanted to deflate the housing bubble and the reselling/slicing/dicing of mortages, they had dominant control of the Exec and both houses of Congress for 6 years, and the Repugs did nothing.

Greenspan/Fed also has a huge responsbility with super-low rates the encourage new and re-financing activity.

Boutons, I am not saying this is all Clinton's fault. Our federal government from BOTH parties is equally culpable. I get angry just thinking about it.

Sometimes good intentions have bad results. sometimes AWFUL results.

But watch the debate tonight. Watch the talking heads. This is going to be BUSH'S fault.

just trying to be fair and balanced here :lol

CosmicCowboy
09-26-2008, 06:25 PM
God hes right...


Makes me sick saying that.

It was just bidness. Take your little slice and push the paper to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who had the bottomless checkbook. Make the politicians happy and show them how how "fair" your bank was so they would let you keep expanding.

The system was rigged to reward banks that looked the other way.

T Park
09-26-2008, 06:31 PM
It was just bidness. Take your little slice and push the paper to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who had the bottomless checkbook. Make the politicians happy and show them how how "fair" your bank was so they would let you keep expanding.

The system was rigged to reward banks that looked the other way.

True.

I hate it though when its used as an excuse for underhanded bad business deals though.

CosmicCowboy
09-26-2008, 06:42 PM
Thats why I bank at a state chartered bank that is one of the most conservative in the country. Yeah, I'm one of those dumb asses that still pays a fee for checking. You just never know when the shit will REALLY hit the fan.

T Park
09-26-2008, 06:52 PM
Thank god for CDs as well.

You may not be able to touch the money but....