Once Is A Mistake–Twice Is A Decision

Yesterday The New York Post reported that the Obama Administration is making the same mistakes that led to the housing market collapse of 2008. One of the major causes of the economic collapse of 2008 was the amount of money borrowed for housing loans that was not going to be paid back. There were a number of causes of the problem. The economy had been good for a while, interest rates were reasonably low, people had moved into bigger houses, and banks were pressured to give loans to people with questionable credit and unsubstantiated income. As gasoline prices doubled, many of the people who had taken out loans that were on the edge of their ability to repay found themselves unable to make the payments. The banks, in turn, sold those mortgages as if they were going to be paid back, and they were not paid back. The YouTube video Burning Down the House provides one of the best explanations of the cause of the 2008 collapse that I have seen. I am posting it here in case YouTube takes it down:

That was then, but where are we now?

The story in The New York Post reports:

As Paul Sperry recently noted in The Post, Team Obama has pushed mortgage lenders to offer home loans to folks with shaky credit, setting up conditions for another housing-market collapse.
Wasn’t the last one bad enough?

Credit scores of approved borrowers, for example, have been trending down, even as their debt levels have grown.

The Federal Housing Administration and government-sponsored “independent” lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been demanding lower credit standards — just as the feds did starting under President Bill Clinton, in pursuit of the same “affordable housing” goal.

Some borrowers need only put 3 percent down to get a Fannie Mae loan — even if the downpayment is a gift. Fannie also has started up a new subprime-lending program.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency recently warned that mortgage underwriting standards have slipped and now reflect “broad trends similar to those experienced from 2005 through 2007, before the most recent financial crisis.”

When the economy and housing prices turn south again, a lot of these loans will go bad, just as they did last time.

The writer of the article states that he doesn’t believe the loans will cause a worldwide problem this time because the banks have learned their lesson. He does point out, however, that a large portion of housing loans made in America are government insured. That means taxpayers will be on the hook this time (I thought we were the last time). Hang on to your hats. Here we go again.

Been There, Done That, Can’t Afford The T-Shirt

Yesterday Investor’s Business Daily posted an article about a possible prelude to another mortgage crisis.

The article reports:

In an orchestrated assault on the credit standards underpinning mortgages, no fewer than four Obama agencies have gone to war against FICO. If politicians don’t want another bank crisis, they’ll stop the attack.

Home loan approvals hinge on FICO credit scores. But the Obama regime views FICO scoring as too strict, cutting off millions of low-income minorities and immigrants from mortgages. So it’s pressuring Fannie and Freddie, which control 90% of the mortgage market and set the underwriting standards for the entire mortgage industry, to abandon FICO for a softer standard in evaluating credit risk.

We  have been down this road before. It is unwise to lend money to people who are probably not able to pay it back.

The article further reports:

FHFA chief Mel Watt, the former Democrat congressman who before the crisis demanded Fannie and Freddie back loans for welfare recipients in his district, has instructed Fannie and Freddie, the failed mortgage giants now under his control, to come up with “alternative credit scoring models.” They’re expected to make the transition sometime this quarter.

The hope is that the new scoring regime will inflate scores by as much as 100 basis points, thereby qualifying millions of low-income African-Americans with subprime credit and Hispanic immigrants with thin credit for prime home loans.

This is coming at a time when Fannie is launching a subprime mortgage product called HomeReady that caters to immigrants with weak credit and limited income. The new loan lets borrowers for the first time bundle income from roommates and relatives to meet qualifications for income. They have to put only 3% down and can use gifts from nonprofit groups to subsidize their down payments.

Before the crisis, your income had to be your own.

Now, as a renter, you can get a conventional home loan backed by Fannie by claiming others’ income.

You don’t have to bring much financial wherewithal to the table. You can even live in government-subsidized housing. Just as long as you round up enough income earners and pool finances to help meet a minimum debt-to-income ratio of 45%-50%.

Could we please elect people who have the intelligence to learn from their previous mistakes?

Getting It Half Right

The mainstream media never hesitates to rewrite history when it is to their advantage, but every now and again they accidentally begin to report actual facts.

The Nation posted an article yesterday about the role Bill Clinton played in the 2008 mortgage meltdown. This information is readily available information that the mainstream media has so far ignored.

The article reports:

Candidate Clinton is essentially whitewashing the financial catastrophe. She has produced a clumsy rewrite of what caused the 2008 collapse, one that conveniently leaves her husband out of the story. He was the president who legislated the predicate for Wall Street’s meltdown. Hillary Clinton’s redefinition of the reform problem deflects the blame from Wall Street’s most powerful institutions, like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, and instead fingers less celebrated players that failed. In roundabout fashion, Hillary Clinton sounds like she is assuring old friends and donors in the financial sector that, if she becomes president, she will not come after them.

The seminal event that sowed financial disaster was the repeal of the New Deal’s Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which had separated banking into different realms: investment banks, which organize capital investors for risk-taking ventures; and deposit-holding banks, which serve people as borrowers and lenders. That law’s repeal, a great victory for Wall Street, was delivered by Bill Clinton in 1999, assisted by the Federal Reserve and the financial sector’s armies of lobbyists. The “universal banking model” was saluted as a modernizing reform that liberated traditional banks to participate directly and indirectly in long-prohibited and vastly more profitable risk-taking.

While that is true, you need to take a step back and look at what actually made that change necessary. Due to some changes in federal regulations and pressure by groups like ACORN, banks were forced to issue loans to people who could not pay them back. This sub-prime loans were doomed to fail, and banks needed to find a way to cut their loses. The issuing of the sub-prime mortgages goes back to a law passed during the Carter administration that was put on steroids during the Clinton administration. When the Bush administration called for curbs on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, they were rebuffed by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank in Congress. It was later revealed that Chris Dodd had a ‘friends and family’ mortgage from one of the major players in the sub-prime mortgage market.

For the entire story, please watch the video below. I have posted it before; it is not new. I am embedding it because I am afraid that it will disappear from YouTube.

 

This is the real story of what happened in the economic meltdown.

It Won’t Pay To Be A Non-Muslim In Seattle

On Monday, the Christian News reported that the Mayor of Seattle, Washington, has proposed Sharia law-compliant housing loans for Muslim residents. In case you are not aware of what a Sharia law-compliant loan is, it is a loan without interest. How many of us would like to take out a mortgage without interest?

The article reports:

“For our low—and moderate—income Muslim neighbors who follow Sharia law—which prohibits the payment of interest or fees for loans of money—there are limited options for financing a home,” the proposed plan reads. “Some Muslims are unable to use conventional mortgage products due to religious convictions.”

The City will convene lenders, housing nonprofits and community leaders to explore the best options for increasing access to Sharia-compliant loan products to help these residents become homeowners in Seattle,” it says.

Arsalan Bukhari, chapter executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, told the Puget Sound Business Journal that he believes that there are approximately two hundred Seattle residents who identify as Muslim that avoid taking out home loans because of their religion.

“[T]hey don’t want to pay interest,” he said.

Mayor Ed Murray mentioned the proposal at a recent press conference, which will go to city counsel for consideration.

“We will work to develop new tools for Muslims who are prevented from using conventional mortgage products due to their religious beliefs,” he said.

Non-Muslim Americans will still be paying interest on the loans they take out. Aside from the fact that one of the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood is to bring Sharia Law to America slowly, so that we won’t object to it, what about the Americans who will be paying more for their loans because of the Muslims who will not pay interest? This is stupid on many levels. Is beating your wife (legal under Sharia Law) now going to be legal in Seattle?

Recreating The Housing Bubble

On Friday, The Daily Caller posted an article about the government making changes in the mortgage industry that will put the taxpayers on the hook for unpaid loans (sound familiar?).

The article reports:

The administration’s policies and price cuts at the Federal Housing Administration – the latest coming on January 26 — are squeezing the private sector competitors. President Barack Obama and the FHA are engineering things so that just about anyone with a modest down payment who wants a mortgage needs Uncle Sam to get it.

FHA was originally conceived as a vehicle only for low- and moderate-income individuals seeking modest homes and mortgages who were not served by the conventional market. Today, FHA is insuring very large mortgages for people in all income brackets (including ones that absolutely can get mortgage financing in the conventional market). Thanks to prodding from the administration, the FHA mission’s has been transformed in a way that grows the government’s market share, puts private capital in the backseat, and exposes the taxpayers to even greater risks due to their 100 percent guarantee.

After the Dodd Frank law required that lenders to make sure borrowers have the ability to repay mortgage loans, the FHA loosened the standards for FHA loans. This is setting up the taxpayers to be the ones that will have to bail out those loans.

The article concludes:

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Together the Obama administration and the House and Senate committees looking at the whole business are setting the mortgage market on a path to where — as it now is with student loans — anyone who buys a house will have a government guaranteed loan. This is about as far from the founder’s vision of limited government as one can get. Instead, policymakers should be taking steps to strengthen the private mortgage insurance industry to minimize the exposure of us all to bad policy.

Improving Your Image On A False Premise

On Friday, Investors.com posted an article about Elizabeth Warren‘s objections to the budget bill because of bank risk.

The article reports:

Warren last week took to her socialist soapbox to try to torpedo the “cromnibus” spending bill. She warned legislators they would be blamed for another financial crisis if they dared to vote for any appropriations legislation that includes anti-Dodd-Frank provisions.

Pontificating from the Senate floor Thursday, Warren railed against Republicans and fellow Democrats alike for adding a provision to the bill to restore to banks the right to use derivatives to hedge risks for customers.

She claimed repeal of the regulation “would let derivatives traders on Wall Street gamble with taxpayer money and get bailed out by the government when their risky bets threaten to blow up our financial system.”

Added Warren: “These are the same banks that nearly broke the economy in 2008 and destroyed millions of jobs. The same banks that got bailed out by taxpayers and are now raking in record profits.

“A vote for this bill is a vote for taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street,” she continued.

But where was she three days earlier, when Fannie and Freddie unveiled new low-income mortgages with just 3% down payments? The move encourages the kind of risky lending that actually caused the crisis, yet she didn’t say a peep.

The taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street go back to the Community Reinvestment Act, passed by Jimmy Carter and revised in 1994 to repeal some restrictions on interstate banking.

The article explains what actually happened:

The “main culprit” in the housing crisis was Fannie and Freddie and their mission regulator, HUD, which was cheered on by affordable-housing zealots in the House like Warren’s pal Barney Frank.

HUD pressured Fannie and Freddie to make high-risk loans to “underserved” borrowers, and to do that they had to lower their underwriting standards to the point where they were buying as many subprime loans as prime. While HUD was enforcing its affordable-housing quotas, down payments plunged along with credit scores.

When the housing price bubble burst, those loans were the first to default. When the music stopped, a whopping 77% of all the bad loans ended up on the books of Fannie and Freddie and other federal agencies — not Wall Street banks.

The evidence of government guilt in the crisis is overwhelming. Yet Warren keeps up the false narrative.

Unfortunately, that false narrative has been used for so long that uninformed voters believe it. Part of what is needed to change the politics of Washington is an educated voter. Until voters learn to look past what the mainstream media is telling them, the government will continue to make reckless decisions that result in taxpayer money being used to correct government mistakes.

If You Don’t Understand The Problem, Your Solution Won’t Solve It

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line posted an article yesterday about the new Dodd-Frank rules regarding mortgages that will go into effect on January 10.

The article points out that because Congress chose to ignore the actual cause of the problem, the new rules will not solve the problem. The article cites comments by Diane Katz of the Heritage Foundation.

The article reports:

As Katz points out, Washington’s response to the financial crisis of 2008 rests on the premise that the housing bubble and subsequent crash were the fault of unscrupulous mortgage lenders who took advantage of naive, uninformed consumers. In reality, she says, “lenders and borrowers were responding rationally to incentives created by an array of deeply flawed government policies.”

What were these policies? Primarily, (1) artificially low interest rates set by the Federal Reserve, (2) the massive subsidy of risky loans by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, (3) and the low-income lending quotas set by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Rather than admit that the government was a major part of the problem, Congress simply directed the focus elsewhere, passed laws that will not address the problem, and continued on its way.

The article reports:

At the heart of the new regulation is a requirement that lenders ensure that borrowers have the “ability to repay” a mortgage. Borrowers will now have the right to sue lenders for misjudging their financial fitness. Borrowers may also assert a violation of the ability-to-repay requirement as a defense against foreclosure, even if the original lender has sold the mortgage or assigned it to a servicing firm.

The impact of this new scheme is obvious. As Katz says, it “will raise the costs and risks of mortgage lending” and thereby result in less credit availability.

I wonder if you lie about your income on your mortgage application if you still have the right to sue.

Diane Katz sums up the problem:

The 3,500 pages of new mortgage regulation will not guarantee that a housing bubble and collapse will not happen again. Nor can such inflexible standards possibly keep pace with the constant changes in market conditions. But it will constrain the availability of credit and increase the costs. Such a regime eviscerates the fundamental principles of a mortgage “market,” thereby punishing consumers more than protecting them.

The federal government gets more power to regulate and the American people pay the price.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Deja Vu All Over Again

Yesterday’s Washington Post posted an article stating that the Obama Administration is working toward making home loans available to people with weak credit in order to boost the economy. Wow. Just as the housing market is recovering from the sub-prime mortgages of the 1990’s, we are going to add a bunch of risky mortgages to the mix.

The article reports:

In response, administration officials say they are working to get banks to lend to a wider range of borrowers by taking advantage of taxpayer-backed programs — including those offered by the Federal Housing Administration — that insure home loans against default.

Housing officials are urging the Justice Department to provide assurances to banks, which have become increasingly cautious, that they will not face legal or financial recriminations if they make loans to riskier borrowers who meet government standards but later default.

Part of the problem here is the government’s intervention into the housing market. Banks should be left alone to make their own decisions on issuing loans.

The article further reports:

Deciding which borrowers get loans might seem like something that should be left up to the private market. But since the financial crisis in 2008, the government has shaped most of the housing market, insuring between 80 percent and 90 percent of all new loans, according to the industry publication Inside Mortgage Finance. It has done so primarily through the Federal Housing Administration, which is part of the executive branch, and taxpayer-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, run by an independent regulator.

It really is time to let the private sector be the private sector and shrink to government to a reasonable size.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Recovery Doesn’t Seem To Be Recovering Very Well

Yesterday Ed Morrissey posted an article at Hot Air about the latest report to come out on the housing market. The National Association of Realtors reported that the market for both new homes and existing homes went down in March. March was the third month out of the past four months when sales of existing homes have gone down.

The article reports:

Residential real estate remains the economy’s soft spot, challenged by stricter lending standards, lower home values and the threat of more foreclosures. An improved labor market and mortgage rates near historic lows have yet to stoke bigger gains in demand.

The article further states:

The description of an “improved labor market” applied more in February than it did in March.  Last month, the US only added 120,000 jobs, barely enough to keep up with population growth.  Even before that, the previous three months added around 650,000 jobs in the aggregate, which means actual growth above population increase of about 300,000 jobs — which wouldn’t greatly increase demand in the housing market, but shouldn’t result in a decrease in demand.  First-time buyers still only account for a third of these purchases, when the normal level is around 40%, according to Bloomberg News.  That’s an indication of a lack of confidence among younger adults.

I am not an economist, but it seems to me that until people feel they have secure jobs, they won’t buy houses. I also wonder if the fact that it used to cost $30 to fill up a gas tank and now costs $60 might have people saving their pennies in case things get worse.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Mortgage Settlement

It’s easier for the government to blame the banks than to take responsibility for their own role in the housing meltdown. CNN Money posted an article today about the settlement reached with five of the largest home loan lenders.

The article reports:

Participating banks: The five mortgage servicers that are parties to the settlement — Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500), Citigroup (C, Fortune 500), Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500) and Ally Financial — will pay a total of $5 billion to the states. Some of that money will go to foreclosed homeowners and the rest to the states.

Federal officials say negotiations are underway to expand the settlement to nine other major servicers, which would raise the overall value of the settlement to $30 billion.

I am not in any way connected to a bank (although I do use them), but this makes me totally furious. On September 28, 2008, Jeff Jacoby at Boston.com stated:

The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and “redlining” because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.

The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to “meet the credit needs” of “low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods.” Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms,Fannie Mae andFreddie Mac, encouraged this “subprime” lending by authorizing ever more “flexible” criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

I commend the effort to make home ownership available to more people; I object to putting pressue on banks to make bad loans. The fact that the government is now going after the banks they put at risk is the height of chutzpah. Going after the lenders they forced to make bad loans is simply another example of the anti-business attitude of the Obama Administration.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why In The World Are We Still Funding These People ?

 

Woodbury-Story House

Image via Wikipedia

Fox News reported today that Freddie Mac lost $4.4 billion, or $1.86 per share, in the July-September quarter and is asking the federal government for $6 billion in additional aid. That’s billion with a ‘b.’

The article reports:

Taxpayers have spent about $169 billion to rescue Fannie and Freddie, the most expensive bailout of the 2008 financial crisis. The government estimates it could cost up to $51 billion more to support the companies through 2014.

Freddie and Washington-based Fannie own or guarantee about half of all U.S. mortgages, or nearly 31 million home loans worth more than $5 trillion. Along with other federal agencies, they backed nearly 90 percent of new mortgages over the past year.

Charles E. Haldeman Jr., Freddie’s chief executive, said many homeowners are refinancing at lower mortgage rates or are shortening the terms of their mortgage. While that saves homeowners money, it is pushing Freddie deeper into the red.

“In fact, borrowers we helped to refinance will save an average of $2,500 in interest payments during the next year,” he said.

Meanwhile, on July 9, 2011, rightwinggranny.com reported that Eric Holder’s Justice Department has asked several major banks to relax their lending standards in order to make home ownership available to more Americans. Here we go again.

Enhanced by Zemanta