Re: The FCIC falls apart

I don’t disagree.  But he clearly shows how much the CRA and the ratings and
impact it had on banks had a part in their decisions.

So any positive benefit seems to be washed away by the powder keg it created.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Lance McLain
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 5:04 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] The FCIC falls apart


On Dec 16, 2010, at 6:39 PM, Karl wrote:

> Found this which seems to be trying to be objective.
>
> http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon1030hh.html

It's funny but that guy seems to be spinning his data.

He clearly states that the only study of CRA loans done is the one that found
CRA performed better than subprime.  He discounts that study saying they only
looked at a small subset of loans, but then goes on to confirm what I said, that
most of the "CRA eligible" loans weren't even made by the banks, but purchased
from non-bank lenders (which coincidentally are exempt from CRA standards).  It
is pretty clear to me that these non-bank lenders were advertising "CRA
eligible" loans that likely were not true CRA loans.  The banks bought them to
satisfy regulators.
Truth is, there was so much bank fraud going on (as is now being uncovered with
the whole MERS debacle) with buying and selling of securitized mortgages by
those very same lenders that I don't see how anyone can not look at this and see
where the real issue lies.  It was clear and simple fraud by the banks.  Why
won't our government protect us, but will protect the bankers?  Who do they work
for?

regards,
-Lance

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot