More socialism and redistribution

[SkisNH]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/biden-rule-redistribute-high-risk-loan-costs-homeowners-good-credit

This equates to 14.4k should you take your loan to term.

Experts believe that borrowers with a credit score of about 680 would pay around $40 more per month on a $400,000 mortgage under rules from the Federal Housing Finance Agency that go into effect May 1, costs that will help subsidize people with lower credit ratings also looking for a mortgage, according to a Washington Times report Tuesday.

[01mxz800]

The dems will be the death of America as we know it glad my property is paid for

[spin_dry]

I’ll stay in the van and continue to pile up cash. 

[SkisNH]

8 minutes ago, spin_dry said:

I’ll stay in the van and continue to pile up cash. 

Just don't pay your bills...let your credit rating fall and you will qualify for these subsidized loans.

[SnowRider]

The title should be about trickled on economics and Repug economic policy 

[spin_dry]

5 minutes ago, SkisNH said:

Just don't pay your bills...let your credit rating fall and you will qualify for these subsidized loans.

It’s a fucking insane idea. Just from the condition of today’s housing market. 

[SkisNH]

6 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

The title should be about trickled on economics and Repug economic policy 

As you may recall the last big push to lend money to people with a proven track record of not paying it back didn't go so well....

Lots of these people defaulted on their mortgage and sent the economy into a tailspin.

Edited April 20, 2023 by SkisNH

[spin_dry]

9 minutes ago, SkisNH said:

As you may recall the last big push to lend money to people with a proven track record of not paying it back didn't go so well....

Lots of these people defaulted on their mortgage and sent the economy into a tailspin.

Umm. No. That’s not what occurred. 

[SkisNH]

4 minutes ago, spin_dry said:

Umm. No. That’s not what occurred. 

Umm yes.....so it was the people with 700+ scores defaulting? 

It started with the community reinvestment act

https://www.federalreserve.gov/consumerscommunities/cra_about.htm

[spin_dry]

2 minutes ago, SkisNH said:

Umm yes.....so it was the people with 700+ scores defaulting? 

It started with the community reinvestment act

https://www.federalreserve.gov/consumerscommunities/cra_about.htm

Ah no. It was fraud on a large scale. 
 

 

[snoughnut]

2 minutes ago, spin_dry said:

Ah no. It was fraud on a large scale. 
 

 

I've seen that vid before and it shows how ugly the banking industry is and they wonder why it has to be so regulated.

[SkisNH]

6 minutes ago, spin_dry said:

Ah no. It was fraud on a large scale. 
 

 

No doubt..but this is the origin of the crisis.  I'm not into writing a book on my phone so here is the brief version. 

Govt tells banks to lend money to people that can't pay it back.

Banks and lenders say why would I do that...doent make sense. 

Govt says don't worry about it we will guarentee all of these loans through Fannie and Freddie. 

Business shoves a ton of bad debt right up the Gov't ass because they were given green light.

[spin_dry]

14 minutes ago, SkisNH said:

No doubt..but this is the origin of the crisis.  I'm not into writing a book on my phone so here is the brief version. 

Govt tells banks to lend money to people that can't pay it back.

Banks and lenders say why would I do that...doent make sense. 

Govt says don't worry about it we will guarentee all of these loans through Fannie and Freddie. 

Business shoves a ton of bad debt right up the Gov't ass because they were given green light.

It was all about fraud. Top to bottom. 

[jonlafon1]

2 minutes ago, spin_dry said:

It was all about fraud. Top to bottom. 

You forgot the word "greed".    

[spin_dry]

32 minutes ago, snoughnut said:

I've seen that vid before and it shows how ugly the banking industry is and they wonder why it has to be so regulated.

The banking industry sold people on the idea that it was loans to poor people that created the global catastrophe. They have a helluva marketing department. 

[Mainecat]

This helps anyone associated with homes from roofers to movers ……so is beneficial to corporate America.

So yeah socialism.

You guys are blind and dumb.

[Sleepr2]

4 hours ago, Mainecat said:

This helps anyone associated with homes from roofers to movers ……so is beneficial to corporate America.

So yeah socialism.

You guys are blind and dumb.

Lying again eh,,,,,

[Highmark]

5 hours ago, spin_dry said:

It was all about fraud. Top to bottom. 

Not all.  GOP was in recognition in 2003 which the dems stopped.   I won't argue the GOP did not do enough to reign things in.  Recognition of the govt entities in trouble surely should have spilled over into public entities.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

By Stephen Labaton

• Sept. 11, 2003

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

 

''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.''

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.''

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

[spin_dry]

Just now, Highmark said:

Not all.  GOP was in recognition in 2003 which the dems stopped.   I won't argue the GOP did not do enough to reign things in.  Recognition of the govt entities in trouble surely should have spilled over into public entities.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

By Stephen Labaton

• Sept. 11, 2003

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

 

''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.''

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.''

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

I’m with William Black on this. Without the fraud this would’ve been a manageable glitch. GOP’ers just love to blame the poor. 

[Highmark]

1 minute ago, spin_dry said:

I’m with William Black on this. Without the fraud this would’ve been a manageable glitch. GOP’ers just love to blame the poor. 

I'm with the theory that there were many, many to blame and consumers were a big part of it and not just lower income consumers. 

Point is the GOP recognized 4 years prior to the collapse that 2 of the largest and govt "owned" entities had massive amounts of bad debt piling up on their balance sheet.   It didn't take much to understand that the big banks likely had the same and needed to be acted on.   The dems squashed it in committee.  If this action was taken in 2003 the entire financial collapse may have been avoided.

Not often do I agree with Time Magazine but their 25 people to blame article was pretty spot on.

https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877319,00.html

https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1877351,00.html

[Mainecat]

Corporate America wins the trifecta……socialism dollars, tax breaks and profiting from both.

Yeah that socialism bullshit.

[spin_dry]

49 minutes ago, Highmark said:

I'm with the theory that there were many, many to blame and consumers were a big part of it and not just lower income consumers. 

Point is the GOP recognized 4 years prior to the collapse that 2 of the largest and govt "owned" entities had massive amounts of bad debt piling up on their balance sheet.   It didn't take much to understand that the big banks likely had the same and needed to be acted on.   The dems squashed it in committee.  If this action was taken in 2003 the entire financial collapse may have been avoided.

Not often do I agree with Time Magazine but their 25 people to blame article was pretty spot on.

https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877319,00.html

https://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1877351,00.html

Follow the money. Bush also emptied out the SEC of all senior regulators to chase Bin Laden and Company. But I’m sure you won’t consider that. 

Edited April 20, 2023 by spin_dry

[Highmark]

31 minutes ago, spin_dry said:

Follow the money. Bush also emptied out the SEC of all senior regulators to chase Bin Laden and Company. But I’m sure you won’t consider that. 

I wouldn't?   Bush was one of the 25 in the Time article that I agreed with.  Also stated above that although the GOP (which included Bush) tried in 2003 to make changes they still didn't do enough.....so wrong again. 

[spin_dry]

1 hour ago, Highmark said:

I wouldn't?   Bush was one of the 25 in the Time article that I agreed with.  Also stated above that although the GOP (which included Bush) tried in 2003 to make changes they still didn't do enough.....so wrong again. 

If bush was so concerned he should’ve gutted the SEC. The last audit at Lehman Bros involved only two junior regulators. There should’ve been 30. There was plenty of regulation in place to prevent the fraud. What wasn’t in place was an adequate number of regulators. They are the enforcers. 

Edited April 20, 2023 by spin_dry

[f7ben]

11 hours ago, SkisNH said:

No doubt..but this is the origin of the crisis.  I'm not into writing a book on my phone so here is the brief version. 

Govt tells banks to lend money to people that can't pay it back.

Banks and lenders say why would I do that...doent make sense. 

Govt says don't worry about it we will guarentee all of these loans through Fannie and Freddie. 

Business shoves a ton of bad debt right up the Gov't ass because they were given green light.

That is not what occurred you fucking moron. Bundled derivatives and credit default swaps were the problem. Not an individual with a loan they couldn’t pay.