Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Listen you fucktard, I have made extremely few
> mistakes for all the info I have posted here. Yet
> you harp on 1 minor mistake - ok I was off by
> about 5%, a long time ago. This does not warrant
> you saying "I have been known to fabricate the
> facts" charge by you - you who change your name
> every 10 minutes to escape from your past.
At least you are beginning to acknowledge you have, indeed, made up your own set of facts. I don't think it was malicious lying, just ignorant repetition of what you have been programmed to believe.
> Here is the study, published by the Federal
> Reserve on Minneapolis. Do they meet your
> reqirement? Or would you prefer a study done by
> the Heritage Institute, Dept of Statistics?
Well, considering you started out with a study purportedly done by the University of Nebraska and now you are throwing out some other study, you can see why the label of fabricator is appropriately applied to you.
> Here is what it says in a nutshell. I doubt you
> will read the whole thing, or even a few
> sentences. Sean Hammity and Rush Limbaugh told you
> the CRA was to blame and that is good enough for
> you.
Actually, unlike you, I can think independantly. I don't need someone else to spoon feed me my very own set of facts. Where's that University of Nebraska study again?
> The first point is a matter of timing. The current
> crisis is rooted in the poor performance of
> mortgage loans made between 2005 and 2007. If the
> CRA did indeed spur the recent expansion of the
> subprime mortgage market and subsequent turmoil,
> it would be reasonable to assume that some change
> in the enforcement regime in 2004 or 2005
> triggered a relaxation of underwriting standards
> by CRA-covered lenders for loans originated in the
> past few years. However, the CRA rules and
> enforcement process have not changed substantively
> since 1995.2/ This fact weakens the potential link
> between the CRA and the current mortgage crisis.
> Our second point is a matter of the originating
> entity. When considering the potential role of the
> CRA in the current mortgage crisis, it is
> important to account for the originating party. In
> particular, independent nonbank lenders, such as
> mortgage and finance companies and credit unions,
> originate a substantial share of subprime
> mortgages, but they are not subject to CRA
> regulation and, hence, are not directly influenced
> by CRA obligations. (We explore subprime mortgage
> originations in further detail below.)...
>
> In analyzing the available data, we consider two
> distinct metrics of lending activity: loan
> origination activity and loan performance. With
> respect to the first question posed above
> concerning loan originations, we determine which
> types of lending institutions made higher-priced
> loans, to whom those loans were made, and in what
> types of neighborhoods the loans were extended.3/
> This analysis therefore depicts the fraction of
> subprime mortgage lending that could be related to
> the CRA.
> Using loan origination data obtained pursuant to
> the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), we find
> that in 2005 and 2006, independent nonbank
> institutions—institutions not covered by the
> CRA—accounted for about half of all subprime
> originations. (See Table 1.) Also, about 60
> percent of higher-priced loan originations went to
> middle- or higher-income borrowers or
> neighborhoods, populations not targeted by the
> CRA. (See Table 2.) In addition, independent
> nonbank institutions originated nearly half of the
> higher-priced loans extended to lower-income
> borrowers or borrowers in lower-income areas
> (share derived from Table 2).
> In total, of all the higher-priced loans, only 6
> percent were extended by CRA-regulated lenders
> (and their affiliates) to either lower-income
> borrowers or neighborhoods in the lenders' CRA
> assessment areas, which are the local geographies
> that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation
> purposes. The small share of subprime lending in
> 2005 and 2006 that can be linked to the CRA
> suggests it is very unlikely the CRA could have
> played a substantial role in the subprime crisis.
> To the extent that banking institutions chose not
> to include their affiliates' lending in their CRA
> examinations, the 6 percent share overstates the
> volume of higher-priced, lower-income lending that
> CRA examiners would have counted.4/ It is
> possible, however, the examiners might have
> considered at least some of the lower-income
> lending outside of CRA assessment areas if
> institutions asked that it be considered in their
> CRA performance evaluations. No data are available
> to assess this possibility; however, the majority
> of the higher-priced loans made outside of
> assessment areas were to middle- or higher-income
> borrowers. In our view, this suggests it is
> unlikely that the CRA was a motivating factor for
> such higher-priced lending. Rather, it is likely
> that higher-priced lending was primarily motivated
> by its apparent profitability.
> It is also possible that the remaining share of
> higher-priced, lower-income lending may be
> indirectly attributable to the CRA due to the
> incentives under the CRA investment test.
> Specifically, examiners may have given banks "CRA
> credit" for their purchases of lower-income loans
> or mortgage-backed securities containing loans to
> lower-income populations, which could subsequently
> affect the supply of mortgage credit.
>
>
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/
> pub_display.cfm?id=4136
Excellent job of the cut and paste. Outstanding.
> Now show me somehow who has facts saying the CRA
> was responcible.... Please.
Please point to a statement I made that would require me to defend the notion that the CRA contributed to the mortgage crisis.