Reply With Quote
neither was anyone else. Fannie and Freddie didn't start hoovering up subprime until after August of 2007. whole sector had the jump on Fannie and Freddie, tbh
Boutons must still be living in his mothers sewing room and never actually gotten a mortgage loan of his own. If he had, he would know that the Underwriter (Fannie/Freddie) establishes guidelines of what do entation it DEMANDS before approving and funding a loan. Loan Originators (banks, mortgage brokers, etc.) work with the buyer to assemble this package...extended application and financial statement, Bank statements, at least two years tax returns, at least 2 months proof of income (pay check stubs) survey, current appraisal, etc.etc.etc. Once the buyer has submitted all the required do entation demanded by the underwriter to the loan originator they go over it and make sure that every bit of information requested by the originator has been included and then submit it. (Fannie/Freddie) goes over it again to make sure the loan meets their guidelines and everything they asked to be do ented has been do ented. THEN they fund the loan.
If Fannie and Freddie bought undo ented loans it is because they allowed undo ented loans. It's that simple. Banks weren't out there forging tax returns and pay check stubs...Fannie and Freddie weren't ASKING for them.
neither was anyone else. Fannie and Freddie didn't start hoovering up subprime until after August of 2007. whole sector had the jump on Fannie and Freddie, tbh
the etiology that blames it on Fannie and Freddie has it exactly backwards. the GSEs were used as a heat sink to fade the damage to the out of control private sector, after the credit crunch of 2007.
before end of August 2007, subprime was less than a third of the GSE's portfolio. A year later, that ratio had grown to nearly 2/3. they loaded up when they knew the housing sector was going to .
In the end, the people are to blame.
We all know, if we enter into a contract, and renege on that contract, certain things will happen. All these people had to do was pay their mortgages. The only fault of the banks was not seeing the epidemic coming from an unnatural increase in values, and the bursting of a bubble. Bubbles always burst.
Life is always a gamble. Some had bad luck and lost jobs. Some bet they could sell at a higher price getting over their heads.
Bottom line. Those who lost their homes put themselves there.
gross simplification suits you
The bottom line usually is simple, isn't it?
Really not. people have been buying and losing homes for ages.
Corporations have been rising and falling for as long as they existed.
Too big to fail... My Ass... They failed! We would have been so much better off not reviving them with tax dollars.
Did regulations enable this? yes. Still, the responsibility was those who made the decisions. Those using the regulations to their advantage should have been allowed to fail when the hit the fan.
Simple bottom lines are for simple minded people who, for whatever reason, get tired head from the idea that many problems are caused by a number of factors.
Did anyone who could pay their mortgages on time have problems?
Did any banks who properly controlled their risks have problems?
I'm sure you can find rare cases of improper paper work, but otherwise...
I just took another look at this.
Shazbot...
Do you even understand what that chart shows, or are you believeing what Mother says?
Please unpack it for us, Professor Wild Cobra. I love it when you explain graphs.
It's a simple percentage allotment or mortgage types. the e in secured mortgages and drop of government backed mortgages have nothing to do with sub-prime rates. Sure, those may have come to, but they were always around as well.
Lenders got smart, and in the uncertain market, more loans required collateral.
It also doesn't show actual numbers. Only percentages. To use the chart like Mother did, is laughable in my opinion.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
