Elizabeth Warren

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

What banks specifically did that? I've taken out numerous mortgages (10+) from 1997 - 2008 and have never once witnessed that.

Anecdotal knowledge is awesome.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

Anecdotal knowledge is awesome.

I asked you a question. Thanks for your nonanswer. I did not say you were wrong, but rather asked you to qualify what you posted by asking specifics.

[busigator96]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

What banks specifically did that? I've taken out numerous mortgages (10+) from 1997 - 2008 and have never once witnessed that.

Countrywide did

[chemgator]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

So the mortgage lenders who told people to leave their income levels blank or to inflate them bear no responsibility? Or the banks that rubber stamped them?

If your democrat president would re-enact Glass-Steagal, this would not be a problem. If the banks had to keep the mortgages that they wrote, or sell them individually to other banks, they would make sure they only wrote good mortgages. The bank typically loses a lot of money when the homeowner stops paying the mortgage. Even if they foreclose on the house in good condition, the homeowner didn't have much equity in the house, and the bank has limited ability to maintain the house and fix it up for sale. The only one who normally does well is the person who buys the foreclosed house from the bank.

The primary responsibility is with the person who accepted the loan, assuming the lender did not commit fraud or forgery.

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by chemgator

If your democrat president would re-enact Glass-Steagal, this would not be a problem. If the banks had to keep the mortgages that they wrote, or sell them individually to other banks, they would make sure they only wrote good mortgages. The bank typically loses a lot of money when the homeowner stops paying the mortgage. Even if they foreclose on the house in good condition, the homeowner didn't have much equity in the house, and the bank has limited ability to maintain the house and fix it up for sale. The only one who normally does well is the person who buys the foreclosed house from the bank.

The primary responsibility is with the person who accepted the loan, assuming the lender did not commit fraud or forgery.

So Obama can enact legislation without congress now? Cool!

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

So the mortgage lenders who told people to leave their income levels blank or to inflate them bear no responsibility? Or the banks that rubber stamped them?

Under threatened lawsuit for discrimination by HUD, but still bound to a fiduciary duty to shareholders, between that rock and hard place, plausible deniability is a sympathetic approach to take.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

So Obama can enact legislation without congress now? Cool!

Well, he did it with the Dream Act.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by busigator96

Countrywide did

I'm assume you went through a mortgage process with them? The only parameter I'm familier with is putting down over 30% and not having to provide proof of income.

[Gatormb]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

I'm assume you went through a mortgage process with them? The only parameter I'm familier with is putting down over 30% and not having to provide proof of income.

In an effort to be "fair" to those who had no business buying a home the government expanded the CRA under Clinton mandating equal opportunity for all to participate in the American Dream of home ownership .

Banks were forced to alter prudent lending practices or be penalized, thus creating the subprime market. No income loans were made to those with little or no down with marginal credit under the auspicious that it was only "fair". These loans carried a heavy "premium" and were abused by borrowers, Realtors, lenders and Wall Street alike. Of course the industry was blamed even though government was the underlying cause.

For the record, yours truly did not participate in that market. 30% down, excellent credit makes sense for a no doc. No money down with assets not supportive of stated income does not, however, if at the time institutions did not offer these loans they were considered to be discriminating and would pay the penalty.

[108]

Originally Posted by diehardgator1

just another ding bat

just wow

my guess is you like when our Senators (R's) suck up to the likes of Jamie Dimon, even apologizing to him for even having him be there

[108]

Originally Posted by chemgator

If your democrat president would re-enact Glass-Steagal, this would not be a problem. If the banks had to keep the mortgages that they wrote, or sell them individually to other banks, they would make sure they only wrote good mortgages. The bank typically loses a lot of money when the homeowner stops paying the mortgage. Even if they foreclose on the house in good condition, the homeowner didn't have much equity in the house, and the bank has limited ability to maintain the house and fix it up for sale. The only one who normally does well is the person who buys the foreclosed house from the bank.

The primary responsibility is with the person who accepted the loan, assuming the lender did not commit fraud or forgery.

i'd love for any president to re-enact Glass-Steagal, but I imagine the $$$ won't let that happen

[gator996]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

What banks specifically did that? I've taken out numerous mortgages (10+) from 1997 - 2008 and have never once witnessed that.

Many banks & mortgage companies did exactly that....


Are you stating that fraud & lax credit standards didn't occur in the last mortgage bubble"

[gator996]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

I'm assume you went through a mortgage process with them? The only parameter I'm familier with is putting down over 30% and not having to provide proof of income.

Do you have any clue how many lending programs exist?


Plenty of ninja loans did not require any down at all...

What you're describing are "low-doc" loans (high down payment) not "no-doc" loans

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by gator996

Many banks & mortgage companies did exactly that....

Are you stating that fraud & lax credit standards didn't occur in the last mortgage bubble"

Lax credit standards, in compliance with government mandate. Fraud, because like most sane people, they didn't want to be holding the bag when the stupidity underlying those mandates blew up. But who is at fault, the guy that said "here, hold this old, wet dynamite", or the guy who just got all this dynamite shoved on him and said screw that and got rid of it?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by gator996

Do you have any clue how many lending programs exist?


Plenty of ninja loans did not require any down at all...

What you're describing are "low-doc" loans (high down payment) not "no-doc" loans

Never said it nor implied it, but rather was asking the question which of the major banks were not requiring salary confirmation for loans with under 30% down with excellent credit ratings. It's just a question and no need to get riled up. I understand that there was a lot of shady dealings going on, just saying I was required to disclose all salary information for three years. Granted I only used two banks which were Wells Fargo and Chase and took out 12 mortgages from 97 - 08.

[G8trGr8t]

Originally Posted by 108

just wow

my guess is you like when our Senators (R's) suck up to the likes of Jamie Dimon, even apologizing to him for even having him be there

No it is much more entertaining listening to bawney defend Franklin Rained and Fannie Mae and listen to pelousy attack regulators who were trying to pull her head out of the sand

[gator996]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Lax credit standards, in compliance with government mandate. Fraud, because like most sane people, they didn't want to be holding the bag when the stupidity underlying those mandates blew up. But who is at fault, the guy that said "here, hold this old, wet dynamite", or the guy who just got all this dynamite shoved on him and said screw that and got rid of it?

As a former treasurer of a very large national mortgage company...

...that's BS.


No mandate to misprice loans my friend.... or to ignore credit standards.

As a matter of fact, the majority of CRA loans were not originated by banks regulated by the standard but from independent mortgage companies.

Data aslo supports the notion that CRA loans were not the subprime loans that caused the crisis...


...it makes for an easy scapegoat but is far from the truth.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by gator996

As a former treasurer of a very large national mortgage company...

...that's BS.

No mandate to misprice loans my friend.... or to ignore credit standards.

As a matter of fact, the majority of CRA loans were not originated by banks regulated by the standard but from independent mortgage companies.

Data aslo supports the notion that CRA loans were not the subprime loans that caused the crisis...

...it makes for an easy scapegoat but is far from the truth.

Um, point of interest... per most of your own liberal airing of grievances, aren't you one of the ones who should be against the wall when the revolution comes, so to speak in leftist revolutionary terms? Treasurer of a major mortgage company? Or were you just the one decent one in an indecent world?

[gator996]

Boy, talk about simplistic....


Is every lawyer responsible for the actions of the ambulance chaser?
Every cop responsible for the actions of the bad cop?
Every doctor responsible for the ones who commit medicare fraud?


I speak very critically about the problems in the financial sector all the time...

...so, in your simple model ...yes I was one of the decent ones in a indecent world.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by gator996

Boy, talk about simplistic....

Is every lawyer responsible for the actions of the ambulance chaser?
Every cop responsible for the actions of the bad cop?
Every doctor responsible for the ones who commit medicare fraud?

I speak very critically about the problems in the financial sector all the time...

...so, in your simple model ...yes I was one of the decent ones in a indecent world.

So you were a senior executive at a major mortgage company... exactly the generic class that liberals have been blaming for all economic problems for the better part of five years, uh, yourself included... but you should just be presumed to have been screaming into the wind?

If anyone wants to measure the credibility of accusations about the housing bubble collapse, it is worth noticing that conservatives aren't shy about naming names. Franks, Dodd, Raines, etc. Usually all you get out of liberals is "them", "they", "banks", "corporations".