Ten Things that Chafes my Ass . . .

[Ron 10]

Quote

That's like saying that without the telegraph, the automobile would have never been invented

Nonsense, the CRA REQUIRED banks to loan to areas where people could not qualify under normal methods.

Quote

You're assuming that because the CRA came first, that it is the cause the high risk loans. Where is your data supporting that assertion?

When you put a requirement out and people create something to meet it... It DID create the new programs.

I don't know how much simpler that could be.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

But even with demand, without the CRA they WOULD not have existed.

That's like saying that without the telegraph, the automobile would have never been invented. You're assuming that because the CRA came first, that it is the cause the high risk loans. Where is your data supporting that assertion?

If I read correctly, Ron didn't say it was the cause, just a contributing factor, an 'enabler' of sorts.

That'd be like saying "Without the steel, they wouldn't have been able to make automobiles."

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

That's like saying that without the telegraph, the automobile would have never been invented

Nonsense, the CRA REQUIRED banks to loan to areas where people could not qualify under normal methods.

Nonsense. Areas don't qualify for mortgages. People do. Given their lower foreclosure rates, CRA banks have provably demonstrated more careful underwriting practices than non-CRA lenders.

Quote

When you put a requirement out and people create something to meet it... It DID create the new programs.

I don't know how much simpler that could be.

Your conclusion is not logically valid.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's like saying that without the telegraph, the automobile would have never been invented

Nonsense, the CRA REQUIRED banks to loan to areas where people could not qualify under normal methods.

Nonsense. Areas don't qualify for mortgages. People do. Given their lower foreclosure rates, CRA banks have provably demonstrated more careful underwriting practices than non-CRA lenders.


WRONG! CRA targets specific areas no matter what people go in to those areas to get the CRA loan you have to buy in those areas. You can use CRA i other areas as well but many areas are targeted still today. Downtown Cinci for example near Over the Rhine.... CRA guidelines are still offering a 100% no PMI loan at 5.25% with a minimum credit score of 650. A 650 score won't even get you a loan with 20% down right now.


"have provably demonstrated more careful underwriting practices than non-CRA lenders."

WRONG! The banks will cram what they can in to it to meet their quota..... I have watched it happen over and over again. After all they are Govt. backed so what would the bank have to worry about?

What got Fannie and Freddie in the subprime game started with buying bulk CRA loans because of that same mentality even though it did not fit the risk model then they went all the way to subprime which to me does not have much distinction there are just more subprime loans out there because there were way more lenders giving money for them

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

WRONG! CRA targets specific areas no matter what people go in to those areas to get the CRA loan you have to buy in those areas.

You missed my point. People apply for mortgages, not geographic areas. That is true regardless of the location of the property being mortgaged.

Quote

Quote

"have provably demonstrated more careful underwriting practices than non-CRA lenders."

WRONG! The banks will cram what they can in to it to meet their quota.

Are you suggesting that it was only by sheer luck that CRA banks have had significantly lower foreclosure rates than non-CRA lenders during this financial crisis? If not superior underwriting and not by luck, to what do you attribute the lower foreclosure rates?

The criticism the CRA in this thread is beginning to remind me of items 2 & 8 in billvon's Conservative values for kids, circa 2009 list in another recent thread. The data do not justify the criticism.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Rstanley0312 1]

But you get an even "better loan" if it is in a targeted CRA area and more is overlooked.

I am suggesting that CRA banks lend less and I am not saying they are the cause of it all but those loans are a big part of it.

Are you suggesting that it is a good idea to give someone a 100% loan with "C-D grade" credit and allow them to qualify with 48% back end ratios (gross income being used) Quote whatever source you want.... I underwrote, loaned, and managed a portfolio for many years. CRA was part of what I did so whatever conclusion you want to draw..... I really do not care because I was in the thick of this mess from the just before the boom to the crash.

Again, CRA is not the sole reason but it was a major issure that led to even more bad practices.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I can't really find a major fiscal issue that Dems have fucked up over the last 30 years, can you? The Republicans are horrific with money.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123776518094909023.html

If you have anything to say, I would love to respond.

Oh I thought the link said it all. my bad.

OK here goes....

You think the Republicans are horrific with money yet you see no problem with Obama's budget...is this correct?

Yes, but let's be real, we can't tally things up until after time has elapsed and we see the outcome. For instance, you hate his budgte and all of his stimulus, but do you realize the GDP turnaround?

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm

So after that, from -6.4 to -1.0 in one quarter, is his budget excessive? Are you going to pretend that Obama inherited a sorta stumbling economy or THE WORST ECONOMY SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION? I think your side underestimates the severity of the mess that Obama inherited. That turnaround is insanely awesome and next quarter serves to be well into the black, probably +2 or +3.

So when you ask me abiut Obama's budget I am pleased, first he's going to fix the mess he inherited, then as he does that he's going to make America more humanistic and ensure we all have medical coverage while he gets us back to work, then he'll focus on debt / deficit issues. He's doing what Clinton did but in a much more efficient and proactive process after iheriting a REAL MESS.

Well I never said anything about the stimulus package but I'll play. The GDP turnaround while jobless rates soared is an indication corporate America is learning how to produce without creating jobs. THAT is not good in the long run.

Looking at 1 metric of a highly complicated issue and calling the issue a success is naive at best. Likely we won't know the affect the stimulus had for a couple years.

I saw you admitted to being a socialist. I understand fully now.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I am suggesting that CRA banks lend less and I am not saying they are the cause of it all but those loans are a big part of it.

That doesn't matter when comparing foreclosure rates.

Quote

Are you suggesting …

I'm pointing out that the data do not support the assertion that the CRA has been harmful. The fact remains that "CRA Banks were substantially less likely than other lenders to make the kinds of risky home purchase loans that helped fuel the foreclosure crisis." (Traiger & Hinckley)

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Rstanley0312 1]

That is a conclusion drawn on whatever data was used. You can use percentages all you want but the fewer amount of loans does impact the difference. I personally think that number is garbage considering that som major banks that are hurting as well as some that no longer exist were or are CRA lenders. Again, use whatever source you want but the bottom line is I saw everything happen first hand and I have a client who works for Fannie and the inside info I get from him..... WOW. The first thing he will site is CRA. Go on thinking what you want... I cannot stop that.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

That is a conclusion drawn on whatever data was used.

Do you have a specific criticism with respect to using the data from the fifteen most populous US metropolitan areas?

Quote

You can use percentages all you want but the fewer amount of loans does impact the difference. I personally think that number is garbage considering that som major banks that are hurting as well as some that no longer exist were or are CRA lenders. Again, use whatever source you want but the bottom line is I saw everything happen first hand and I have a client who works for Fannie and the inside info I get from him..... WOW. The first thing he will site is CRA. Go on thinking what you want... I cannot stop that.

Like I said, items 2 & 8. It may be politically expedient to blame the CRA, but the data do not support your conclusion.

Ignore the data all you like; it won't change the fact that non-CRA banks had a substantially higher foreclosure rate than CRA banks. If you have data to the contrary, feel free to provide it for us.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

Quote

That is a conclusion drawn on whatever data was used. You can use percentages all you want but the fewer amount of loans does impact the difference. I personally think that number is garbage considering that som major banks that are hurting as well as some that no longer exist were or are CRA lenders. Again, use whatever source you want but the bottom line is I saw everything happen first hand and I have a client who works for Fannie and the inside info I get from him..... WOW. The first thing he will site is CRA. Go on thinking what you want... I cannot stop that.

Like I said, items 2 & 8. It may be politically expedient to blame the CRA, but the data do not support your conclusion.

Ignore the data all you like; it won't change the fact that non-CRA banks had a substantially higher foreclosure rate than CRA banks. If you have data to the contrary, feel free to provide it for us.

I cannot post internal documents. I can tell you our CRA book which is quite big was 4x more likely to foreclose than any of our other loans. CRA hit my former company harder than our ALT paper loans... much harder. Again, it is not the primary nor the only cause. It amazes me you cannot at least see this..... Subprime, Cra, or any other loans that go outside a solid risk model are bad for the entity giving the money. You will never fully understand bc it is not what you do just as I will never fully understand everything you do. It is simple logic that when you give someone something for no money down with a horrible track record and a very slim chance to be able to afford the loan its going to be bad. Also when it comes to your numbers you do not even see that many of the CRA lenders didn't touch any subprime and largly did A paper loans so in comparison to those who did no CRA but did subprime, or alt loans of course their portfolio will look worse but that is not because they are CRA lenders or are tighter its because 80% or more of their loans are A paper in vanilla guidelines. Like I said look at the stats all you want but there are many unseen factors involved in them. Simply saying CRA lenders had less foreclosures than non CRA lenders is a blanket stat that does not even take in to account the why.

Edit: CRA is what hit the A paper lenders and hurt them the most even if they have less foreclosures.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[jcd11235 0]

So, you're saying that, according to a much smaller pool of data, which you won't disclose, you've come to different conclusions.

Forgive me if I place more faith in the analysis of the much larger pool of data.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Rstanley0312 1]

Did you even read everything or just the first few sentences? "A" paper lenders were hurt badly by CRA.... yes they still had less foreclosures than subprime lenders who did not touch CRA (traditional lenders typically do) that is because they are largly A paper lenders not because they do CRA. What keep there foreclosures lower is the rest of the portfolio..... what do you not understand about this???? Is it that difficult???? You are using a blaket statement that proves NOTHING. Those same A paper lenders had some of their highest foreclosure rates and guess what..... most came from the CRA portfolio. Ever heard of US Bank, Wells Fargo, Chase, etc..... they are going to make it because they stick to A paper but they are also big CRA lenders which is why........ they got hit.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Did you even read everything or just the first few sentences?

You lost my attention when you provided an anecdote when data was requested, because I try to disregard noise in favor of signal.

We can find anecdotes to support whatever we assertions we want to support. That's not the same as using data to support those assertions.

I'll ask again: Do you have any data to support your assertion?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Rstanley0312 1]

What I am telling you is not an anecdote. As for data you are using slanted data.... I really am done with this bc you are hell bent on believeing that CRA is wonderful and caused no problems. Logic simply is escaping you right now.

Here you go anyway

http://mises.org/story/2963

yes this is where you are gonna say my source is crap......

Again... bye bye logic

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

What I am telling you is not an anecdote.

It certainly isn't data.

Quote

yes this is where you are gonna say my source is crap.

I certainly wouldn't consider mises.org an unbiased, credible source.

Ignoring that for a moment, the linked article lacks data to support its author's assertions. Thus far, the data suggests the CRA has been beneficial, despite the rhetoric stating otherwise.

Quote

As for data you are using slanted data.

Once again, I'll ask: What specific criticisms do you have with the data from the fifteen largest US metropolitan areas? Why do you feel it is slanted?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Rstanley0312 1]

Quote

Quote

What I am telling you is not an anecdote.

It certainly isn't data.

Quote

yes this is where you are gonna say my source is crap.

I certainly wouldn't consider mises.org an unbiased, credible source.

Ignoring that for a moment, the linked article lacks data to support its author's assertions. Thus far, the data suggests the CRA has been beneficial, despite the rhetoric stating otherwise.

Quote

As for data you are using slanted data.

Once again, I'll ask: What specific criticisms do you have with the data from the fifteen largest US metropolitan areas? Why do you feel it is slanted?

Again.... it's called logic and I really am done with this... I have explained to you why citing what you are in not an accurate way to look at the negative impact CRA had on this whole mess.

Again.... I am not saying it caused the whole mess I am saying it is part of the problem.

Again.... If you cannot understand simple logic and concede this to be true..... that is your problem

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Well I never said anything about the stimulus package but I'll play.

The stimulus package isn't within this deficit you're talking about? He voted for the stimulus last year, so there is no correlation to the 2010 budget?

Quote

The GDP turnaround while jobless rates soared is an indication corporate America is learning how to produce without creating jobs.

Not true, shall I go to Reagans's mess in teh early 80's or GHWB's mess in the early 90's and show you that the GDP turns around before unemployment drops? It's typical for the GDP to flip and then jobs to follow 1-3 years later. Can we get out of grade school economics?

Quote

Looking at 1 metric of a highly complicated issue and calling the issue a success is naive at best.

Considering Obama has been in office for a few months it's not. Furthermore, here's another measure of teh economy: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^DJI

2 of the 3 major indexes has turned STARKLY positive in just 8 months. Hmmm, what did your hero do in 8 months? Cut taxes for the rich which paved the way for the $5 trillion debt increase, gave away the surplus and did nothing while 911 happened. Bizzare how you could fault Obama whether you like GWB or not.

Quote

Likely we won't know the affect the stimulus had for a couple years.

Yep, but then we won't know the entire Obama admin's success for several years either, but you're willing to drive a stake thru his heart now. Maybe live by your own words.

Quote

I saw you admitted to being a socialist. I understand fully now.

Yes.

http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings/2009

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=7585729&page=1

Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands rated at the top of the list, ranking first, second and third, respectively. Outside Europe, New Zealand and Canada landed at Nos. 8 and 6, respectively. The U.S. did not crack the top 10. Switzerland placed seventh and Belgium placed tenth.

Oh shocker. Even greasy-greedy-grubby Forbes didn't have the US in there

[jcd11235 0]

Thanks for attacking the poster instead of answering the questions that have been asked. It makes separating the noise from the signal in these forums that much easier and saves me time.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Rstanley0312 1]

Hahahaha..... you are funny. Thanks for the entertainment today.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[downwardspiral 0]

You make some excellent points. I'll be the first to say I am more interested in learning than winning an argument.

Quote

Not true, shall I go to Reagans's mess in teh early 80's or GHWB's mess in the early 90's and show you that the GDP turns around before unemployment drops? It's typical for the GDP to flip and then jobs to follow 1-3 years later. Can we get out of grade school economics?

Absolutely!

Quote

Considering Obama has been in office for a few months it's not. Furthermore, here's another measure of teh economy: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^DJI

2 of the 3 major indexes has turned STARKLY positive in just 8 months. Hmmm, what did your hero do in 8 months? Cut taxes for the rich which paved the way for the $5 trillion debt increase, gave away the surplus and did nothing while 911 happened. Bizzare how you could fault Obama whether you like GWB or not.

Obama's short months in office what is so surprising about your confidence in his affect on the economy. THAT is bizarre. Especially when only 1/5th of the stimulus package has been spent so far.

Quote

Yep, but then we won't know the entire Obama admin's success for several years either, but you're willing to drive a stake thru his heart now. Maybe live by your own words.

Who is driving a stake through his heart? I have an issue with Obama this is true. My biggest issue is his budget and deficit spending which should be an issue for yourself and people like you however since it's Obama, it's ok to spend away. Hipocrisy is non-partisan which you so vehemently claim to be.

Quote

Yes.

http://www.visionofhumanity.org/...esults/rankings/2009

http://abcnews.go.com/...d=7585729&page=1

Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands rated at the top of the list, ranking first, second and third, respectively. Outside Europe, New Zealand and Canada landed at Nos. 8 and 6, respectively. The U.S. did not crack the top 10. Switzerland placed seventh and Belgium placed tenth.

Oh shocker. Even greasy-greedy-grubby Forbes didn't have the US in there

have you condisered relocating?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[pirana 0]

Quote

In no particular order...

1. Driving slow in the fast lane.

2. Tailgating in the slow lane.

3. Foreigners that don't speak conversational english working the drive-thru window.

4. Crying babies in the cinema! Shut your kid up or leave.

5. Concession stand prices at the cinema.

6. Slow cars in the HOV lane.

7. Fox news

8. Auburn during the Iron-Bowl.

9. The idiot who tells me I can't bring snacks or drinks in to the cinema (see #5).

10. Spam calling.

Glad to see somebody else just wanted to have fun with this.

Yes, the price of snacks at the movies is fucking criminal.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I'll be the first to say I am more interested in learning than winning an argument.

Me too, bro, I'm glad we can keep this all friendly. It wasn't that long ago that I paired GHWB with the other 2 clowns, now I see he was much like Clinton, GWB and Reagan were virtually carbon copies. It was hard to seperate him, as he fathered GWB and VP/succeeded Reagan, but he was great, did a great job in Desert Storm too and on top of that he was a great WWII hero; he exemplified the Greatest Generation. OTOH, coward Ronnie and coward GWB not only blew the economy, but they were worthless in their respective wars. Not that you have to be an honorable warrior to be a good pres, but that's important to me that a person serve honorably.

Quote

Obama's short months in office what is so surprising about your confidence in his affect on the economy. THAT is bizarre.

Yea, his short time and 2 of 3 major indexes are waaaay positive. I can't see what's so hard to believe that Obama can't fix things, he's off to a great start.

Quote

Especially when only 1/5th of the stimulus package has been spent so far.

I think that supports my point, he didn't shoot his wad and buy his way back into + numbers, he's leaking it out there for staying power. Radical changes are a sign of the right, but they have 'Boom-and-bust' characteristics. IOW's how many of Bush's indicators were stable or had staying power? The little success he had was as a result of the stolen money from the mortgage industry. Then it petered out and we were left dead. Look at what Obama can do with the money he has to distribute as is neccessary. Let's say there was a surplus after the economy and jobs are stable, he would return it, Bush would have given it away.

Quote

Who is driving a stake through his heart?

It appears you are, am I wrong?

Quote

I have an issue with Obama this is true. My biggest issue is his budget and deficit spending which should be an issue for yourself and people like you however since it's Obama, it's ok to spend away.

It's not who is spending, it's what they are doing with it. Bailing out the banks and auto indust is brilliant. Actually I would have prefered to let the banks fail and buy their mortgage notes thriu the gov, butthe anti-socialist folks would scream.

Tell me where he's wasted the money and what you think he should have done. Make sure and give me a cause and effect. IOW's, what happens if we let the big 3 die, ripple, etc.

Quote

Hipocrisy is non-partisan which you so vehemently claim to be.

No, I'm against matching the world in military spending, Im all for moderate social spending as the benefit makes it's way back into the economy and is a benefit to all citizens.

Also, again, you can't just ask for a mulligan with this mess he inherited, it might cost 1 or 2 trillion to fix teh banks, auto industry and whatever else. That's a cost he inherited, do you agree? I think Obama did himself a disservice by fixing things so fast, this recession was several times worse than the 1990 recession yet it seems to be fixing way quicker, so we think it wasn't as bad. Check GDP numbers then and now, check unemp numbers then and now; this is waaaay wrose than before, yet 2 of the 3 indexes are basically fixed. I bet the market is 12k by year's end. The GDP will be +4 to +5 then but unemp will be 9ish still.

Quote

have you condisered relocating?

Not very often, only every day

Peace.