senior citizens who are just as brainwashed as teenagers,so sad,but so true!
An article entitled "The Minority Mortgage Meltdown (contd.): How The Community Reinvestment Act Fits In"
Back in the summer of 2008, I pointed out that affirmative action likely had something to do with the horrific default rates on subprime mortgages. That became a modestly popular argument during the recent election campaign. Republicans would attempt to counter Democrats' claim that the mortgage meltdown was caused by "greed" by pointing toward the Community Reinvestment Act.
After being strengthened under the elder Bush (n.b.!) and Clinton Administrations, the CRB was exploited by "community organizers", like President Barack Obama's old ally ACORN, to shake down banks wanting government permission to buy others banks. In return for not protesting the merger, the racial activists would demand promises of more loans to minorities with doubtful credit.
We now know that subprime foreclosures are centered among exactly the kind of people targeted in WaMus CRA agreement with racial activists. During the Housing Bubble of 2004-2007, minorities accounted for twice as many subprime dollars borrowed per capita than did whites. And the new report by the Boston Fed shows that, at least in Massachusetts, minorities defaulted on subprime loans at twice the white rate. All this suggests that minorities accounted for approaching two-thirds of subprime mortgage dollars lost.
And yet ... there's a more subtle point that I, and seemingly everybody else, missed in thinking about the impact of the CRA's veto over bank acquisitions: the selection effect on who gets to get big.
Knowing all the biases favoring risky business, you might expect the government to prudently lean against the tendency of ambitious mortgage lenders to hand out too much money to bad credit risks. Yet, in the name of increasing minority and low-income home ownership, the government did exactly the opposite: since the early 1990s, it has relentlessly pushed for more risky mortgage lendingwith the catastrophic results we see all around us.
The question is, how can Barack Obama, a former community organizer and a charter member of the socialist, interventionist, Big Government Left, get us out of this mess?
Answerhe can't. He can only get us in deeper.
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/090201_meltdown.htm
The whole system is based on the "elite" and the special interest groups, all minority racial groups are special interest groups. The whole system is based on exploiting the White working and middle class. If we look at the forces creating the new Depression, one sees that the "elite" are transferring the wealth of the Whites to the "elite" and nonwhites. If one looks at the past at how the "elite" viewed black slaves and that slaves were viewed to out rank free Whites in the social order. During the time after reconstruction until the so-called "Civil rights" movement blacks were put into the bottom rung of society. But then the "elite" conspired to return them to a place above common Whites with the "civil rights" movement. Since the so-called "civil rights" movements the "elite" and nonwhites have looted the wealth and production of the common Whites.
Since the so-called "civil rights" movement social security has been looted. It is not the nonwhites who are oppress but they are the oppressors along with the "elite." The looting of the governments, the banks and other businesses, and the unspeakable crimes committed by the nonwhites and the "elite" form the pattern of these two groups oppressing the Whites. The "elite" give themselves large salaries and bonuses while they outright steal from other people and in turn they give to the nonwhites free reign with crimes against common Whites and "loans" and judgements based on nothing but duplicity.
The current "elite" are failures whose power and wealth are based not on their own abilities but on taking from others. The nonwhites and other special interest are the ones who enable them to remain in power and in turn they give a part of the looting of the Working and middle class Whites to the special interest groups and allow them to commit crimes against the common Whites. The nonwhites are the thugs who oppress the common Whites for the "elite". Alone either group would be crushed by the Whites, but together they have been able to commit countless atrocities.
But now the system is failing for they were too greedy and stupid and killed the goose that laid the golden egg. Whites are told by the "elite" they must sacrifice as the nonwhites demand more, but there is no more and little left for the Whites to sacrifice. The "elite" are currently bailing out themselves and the nonwhites by increasing the debt. In desperation the "elite" may try more oppression but that could lead to chaos for it has only been because of the appearance of prosperity that the Whites allowed themselves to be oppress, so the situation falls apart. We are entering a time of change or "interesting times".
An article entitled "Bank Of Americas TRILLION Dollar Community Reinvestment Act Pledge"
You might think that now that Bank of America wants to get even more bailout money from the taxpayers, theyd ixnay mentioning to Wall Street Journal subscribers their earlier promise to lend $1.5 trillion imprudently, and that now theyd instead be talking about how the taxpayers are likely to get their money back in the long run.
But thats not how the contemporary worldview works. Everybody is a Kool-Aid drinker, including WSJ subscribers. No, trillion in Community Reinvestment Act pledges shows you are a good bank, not one of those evil people who didnt pour hundreds of billions down the CRA rathole. So, your moral superiority makes you worthy of getting even more money out of the taxpayers.
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/...-of-americas-t rillion-dollar-community-reinvestment-act-pledge/
An article entitled "1990s FHA Mortgage Default Rates By Ethnicity"
Default rates for 1992 vintage FHA-insured mortgages after 7 years:
White: 4.27%
Black: 10.81%
Hispanic: 13.18%
In 2004-2007, minorities received half of subprime mortgage dollars handed out. A new 2008 Boston Fed study shows minorities in Massachusetts getting foreclosed on subprime loans at twice the race of whites, suggesting that minorities accounted for a sizable majority of subprime dollars defaulted.
The Clinton Administration both strengthened some mortgage regulations and loosened others, all in the name of increasing minority homeownership. In complete contrast, tThe Bush Administration loosened some regulations and strengthened others, all with the intention of closing the racial homeownership gap.
The results of all this "affordable housing" social engineering was to first make housing unaffordable, and then, when the world finally woke up to the fact that it wouldnt be getting paid back on its mortgage lending, to smash the global economy.
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/...s-fha-mortgage -default-rates-by-ethnicity/
An article entitled "The Minority Mortgage Meltdown (cont.): Charting The CRA Crackup"
When measured in terabucks, the Community Reinvestment Act was negligible until the 1990s. And it was still small potatoes until the Clinton "reforms" of 1995 and the rise of well-organized pressure groups of the kind affiliated with the NCRC.
But the biggest flood of CRA assurances came during the presidency of George W. Bush, who repeatedly called in 2002-2004 for 5.5 million more minority homeowners by 2010. Cumulative bank pledges (typically doled out over ten years) grew from $1.85 trillion in 2002 to $4.20 trillion in 2004.
Indeed, total CRA commitments increased by $1.63 trillion in 2004 alone, the first year of the Housing Bubble.
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/090215_cra.htm
An article entitled "Street gang indicted for mortgage fraud ring"
Sowas it blacks? Or Mexicans? Well, all we know is the ringleader is named Darnell, so only his Jeri-Curl dealer knows for sure.
http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/...ds/2009/04/07/ street-gang-indicted-for-mortgage-fraud-ring/
An article entitled "Ground Zero of the Mortgage Meltdown"
As overly-simplifed as it is, it still gives an informative overall picture of what went on in the Inland Empire that first drove prices through the roof and then back down again: a giant surge of lending to Hispanics, followed by a sobering up that no doubt accelerated in 2008.
The most obvious fact is that new mortgage dollars flowing to Hispanics in this sprawling California region increased an astonishing 2,704% from $0.5 billion in 1999 to $13.4 billion in 2006. Is there a word in the English language for that? We have words like doubling, tripling, quadrupling, but Ive never heard of a 28-tupling.
In contrast, the non-Hispanic white borrowing over 1999-2006 was up 217% (a tripling). To be fair, white borrowing from 1999 to the white peak in 2005 was up 306% (a quadrupling). By the way black borrowing was from 1999-2006 was up 1,179% and Asians borrowing perhaps even more.
To put the 1999 to 2006 change in perspective, conventional purchases mortgage dollars handed out in the Inland Empire in 2006 to Pacific Islanders (Samoans and the like) were virtually as the same as 1999 lending to the huge Hispanic community ($0.489 billion for Pacific Islanders in 2006 versus $0.496 billion for Hispanics in 1999).
In 2007, Hispanic borrowing crashed back down to $4.8 billion in 2007 as financial institutions finally started to worry about loan quality. In the Inland Empire in 1999, Hispanics received only 15% as much conventional purchase mortgage money as non-Hispanic whites did. By 2006, they received 128% as much.
Clearly, there was a mortgage bubble among non-Hispanic whites, too, but borrowing peaked earlier in 2004-2005 and has declined in a more orderly fashion. In contrast, the Latino bubble peaked in 2005-2006 and then started to collapse in 2007. (In 2007, Hispanic borrowing was back down to 75% of white borrowing.)
If you look at all minorities, the non-Hispanic white share of conventional purchase mortgage dollars in the Inland Empire fell from 73% in 1999 to 35% in 2006.
Keep in mind that the Bush Administration was actively promoting riskier lending to minorities, such as by calling for the elimination of down payment requirements.
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/...nd-zero-of-the -mortgage-meltdown/
An article entitled "My Favorite Name For A Subprime Mortgage Firm: ConquistAmerica"
From a August 12, 2007 Orange Country Register article, "Street of Broken Dreams," by John Gittelsohn and Ronald Campbell about one block of 48 homes in all-Latino Santa Ana, CA
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/...avorite-name-f or-a-subprime-mortgage-firm-conquistamerica/
An article entitled "The Subprime Bubble in Living Color"
But, youve got to admit, invoking the sacred war against racist redlining was one hell of an effective cover story Who was going to be so racist as to publicly say that we shouldnt expand homeownership for minorities? Who would say that minorities didnt have equal creditworthiness?
It was such a fantastic cover story, that here it is, almost the middle of 2009, and you are just now seeing a graph of who got the money, even though the 2006 numbers have been available for free on the Web since September 2007!
We still dont know the subprime default rates nationally by ethnicity, but the recent Boston Fed study found that the default rates on black and Hispanic subprime loans in Massachusetts were about twice the rate of white subprime borrowers. If that holds true for the whole country, then minorities appear to account for roughly two-thirds of defaulted subprime dollars.
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/...subprime-bubbl e-in-living-color/
An article entitled "The Subprime Crisis: "Predatory Lending" or "Predatory Securitizing?""
Yet, while I think the concept of "predatory lending" has some merit, especially in areas such as credit card lending, it mostly throws us off the scent in figuring out the subprime mortgage disaster.
After all, the point of making predatory loans is to extract a stream of high monthly payments from the borrower. But the point of making worthless mortgage originations was not to get paid back a lot of money over the next thirty years (many wouldnt last past the two year teaser rate period, and by 2005-2006 a fair number of loans never made more than one payment). No, the point was to extract a high payment now from credulous saps who bought the worthless mortgages from you thinking that they would get up to thirty years of high payments.
What hundreds of anecdotal accounts show is a process often involving collusion between the borrower and the originator of subprime mortgages to defraud institutions farther up the financial food chain by selling them garbage. Of course, many financial firms then played a game of Hot Potato with each other, repackaging the garbage loans and selling them on to rich but clueless folks, or insuring themselves with AIG against losses.
Thus, the term "predatory securitizing" may be more useful for describing much of what happened during the Housing Bubble than "predatory lending."
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/...subprime-crisi s-predatory-lending-or-predatory-securitizing/
An article entitled "Obsessive Housing Disorder"
Its not clear, however, which way the arrow of causality flows here. My best guess is that Mozilo figured out that there could be huge profits in "predatory securitizing" and browbeat Fannie and Freddie into letting him dump his crud loans on them so that they wouldnt lose marketshare and because Countrywide had played the race card so heavily over the years in building up its reputation as the "paragon" of diversity lending. (Countrywide sold all the mortgages they originated as fast as they could package them up.) So, Fannie and Freddie didnt invent the Bubble, but their massive entry into the buying up terrible loans in 2005 and 2006 from boiler room operators like Countrywide caused the disaster to reach its most lurid heights.
It now looks like we taxpayers are going to be subsidizing Fannie and Freddie for, roughly, ever.
By the way, why in this otherwise admirably comprehensive history is there no mention of George W. Bushs October 15, 2002 White House Conference on Increasing Minority Homeownership? Republicans and Democrats have sure worked together to drop that event, where Bush called for adding 5.5 million new minority homeowners by 2010 by getting rid of down payment requirements to drop that key even down the Memory Hole.
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/...ssive-housing- disorder/
An article entitled "Minorities Affected Most as New York Foreclosures Rise"
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives...inorities_affe .php
An article entitled "Baltimores "reverse redlining" lawsuit against Well Fargo"
The government spent decades attacking redlining as evil and irrational, so in this decade we got "reverse redlining" a.k.a., Diversity Outreach. Also, no doubt the bank was under pressure to hire more diverse workers, and to work more with more diverse mortgage brokers. All this is conducive to boiler room high pressure tactics that stay under the radar screen of regulators and the media until the bubble bursts.
Im not particularly impressed by the implicit argument that the higher default rates on subprime loans taken out by blacks and Hispanics are due to them being steered into subprime loans instead of the prime loans they deserved. First, lots of them defaulted while still on the two year introductory teaser rates. Second, all that just suggests the risk premium should have been even higher, so high that many of these loans wouldnt have been made. But of course that would just lead to charges of "redlining." So, Housing Bubbles and Busts in heavily minority areas are inevitable under the current conventional wisdom about race.
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/...imores-reverse -redlining-lawsuit-against-well-fargo/
An article entitled "A surprisingly sophisticated GOP report on the Mortgage Meltdown"
</BLOCKQUOTE>Republican staffers on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (Darrell Issa (CA-49), Ranking Member) have penned a lengthy report on The Role of Government Affordable Housing Policy in Creating the Global Financial Crisis of 2008. Despite the inevitable partisan tendentiousness no mention of George W. Bushs White House Conference on Increasing Minority Homeownership, too much blame on Fannie and Freddie, not enough blame on businesses and deregulation it turns out to be better than youd expect. Heres the first paragraph:
<BLOCKQUOTE>The housing bubble that burst in 2007 and led to a financial crisis can be traced back to federal government intervention in the U.S. housing market intended to help provide homeownership opportunities for more Americans. This intervention began with two government-backed corporations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which privatized their profits but socialized their risks, creating powerful incentives for them to act recklessly and exposing taxpayers to tremendous losses. Government intervention also created "affordable" but dangerous lending policies which encouraged lower down payments, looser underwriting standards and higher leverage. Finally, government intervention created a nexus of vested interests politicians, lenders and lobbyists who profited from the "affordable" housing market and acted to kill reforms. In the short run, this government intervention was successful in its stated goal raising the national homeownership rate. However, the ultimate effect was to create a mortgage tsunami that wrought devastation on the American people and economy. While government intervention was not the sole cause of the financial crisis, its role was significant and has received too little attention.
<BLOCKQUOTE> http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/...rprisingly-sop histicated-gop-report-on-the-mortgage-meltdown/ </BLOCKQUOTE>
An article entitled "Foreclosure Rates In California By Ethnicity"
So, in the economists simple multiple regression model, after adjusting for income and FICO, minorities in California still had substantially higher foreclosure rates than whites:
<UL>
<LI>blacks 3.3X
- Latinos 2.5X
- Asians 1.6X</LI>
<LI></LI>[/list]
(These adjusted gaps are all statistically significant at the 0.01 level.)
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/...closure-rates- in-california-by-ethnicity/
Notice how the "model" Asians have a higher foreclosure rate than Whites!
An article entitled "Demographics of the Inland Empire Mortgage Meltdown"
The New York Times article "A Cul-de-Sac of Lost Dreams, and New Ones" profiles a nice-looking street in Moreno Valley in Riverside County, CA, where four of the eight homes have been foreclosed, and two more are teetering. It provides a human interest illustration of what Ive been saying all along based on statistics.
Riverside Co. is ground zero for the mortgage meltdown. Moreno Valley, with 180,000 people, is 60 miles east of downtown LA, 80 miles in from the ocean. It was filled in by houses from west to east in the 1980s and 1990s. When I played golf there around 1990, the west half was completely carpeted by subdivisions, with homes under construction making up the eastern edge of the carpet, and the rest of the valley, farther from the jobs, all sagebrush.
The street attracted strivers from the working class and the lower middle class. Since people moved in and moved out, its a little hard to calculate the demographics of the street from the article, but it looks like at the peak of the bubble it was at least half Mexican, one quarter white-Mexican couples, and perhaps one-eighth black. (The retired white couple featured in the article, the Hansons, who own their house outright and serve to keep the neighborhood organized, live around the corner from this culdesac.) This seems typical of who defaulted people from the second quartile up from the bottom who bought a nicer home than they could maybe afford, often to get into a decent school district and keep their kids out of the hood.
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/...graphics-of-th e-inland-empire-mortgage-meltdown/
An article entitled "Crucial New Mortgage Study: "Liars Loan?""
The government spent years telling the mortgage industry to diversify its broker forces. When it finally did, that just greased the skids for Spanish-speaking and black mortgage brokers to dredge up bad borrowers who didnt have a clue what they were getting themselves talked into by their co-ethnics.
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/...ial-new-mortga ge-study-liars-loan/
An article entitled ""The Recessions Racial Divide""
In summary, the government and the media worked for 40 years to change the business culture to demonize anyone holding perceptions that minorities tend to be worse credit risks. They succeeded on a vast scale. The debauching of credit standards for everybody, and the creation of a false sense of confidence, which has been promoted by all right-thinking people in the name of minority homeownership, led to a mortgage meltdown which set off a huge recession.
And we still arent supposed to talk about it.
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/...recessions-rac ial-divide/
An article entitled "Some Bank Foreclosures Not Worth the Effort"
Of course, many of the sub-prime properties were sold to blacks and Latinos, so in addition to owning a house they now cannot unload, the bank is also responsible for property taxes and repairs on a building that has in almost every case been trashed. Imagine holes smashed in the walls, the plumbing and wiring ripped out and any copper sold for drug or wine money and wall-to-wall cockroaches left behind as a memento of Diversity. Houses vacated by blacks and Mexicans are usually unfit for human habitation, never mind immediate re-sale. This explains why the banks dont try to rent out the properties. If they can only collect one to two thousand per month, they arent going to spend $50,000 they can ill afford to fix the place up. And then theres the problem of dealing with flaky tenants, which is what you often get if the house is in a black or Latino neighborhood. Most banks dont want to get involved with the slumlord business.
ACORN has been encouraging minorities to keep living in their houses even after they stop making mortgage payments. Apparently the "gubmint" owes them all a house at White taxpayers expense.
Virtually all of these foreclosure problems were caused by liberal polices and the inherent nature of blacks and Latinos. A house in a White neighborhood would still have value. A house that White people lived in can be rented out again with relatively little cleaning and few if any repairs. Most White people make a 20 percent down payment, which keeps them from deserting a mortgage if the house drops 19 percent in value. A federal court ruled that it was "racist" to force minorities to make down payments on a house since most minorities never save up any money. The minority subrpime loans did not have down payments, putting all the risk on the bank if the house price suddenly dropped and the new "owner" didnt feel like paying off a $600k price for a $500k home.
Unfortunately, White people will likely wind up getting stuck with the cost of all these bank failures imposed on them as part of the national debt.
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/?p=2802
An article entitled "Researching The Minority Mortgage Meltdown: Can The Fed Evade My FOIA Request?"
In this sample of 239,101 mortgages made in California in 2004-2006, blacks defaulted 3.3 times more often than non-Hispanic whites with the same income and FICO score. Hispanics defaulted 2.5 times more often than similar whites, and Asians 1.6 time more.
Presumably the unadjusted default rate ratios, at least for blacks and Hispanics, are even worse. After all, blacks and Hispanics tend to have lower income and lower credit scores, so the Laderman-Reid adjustment makes minorities look better.
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/091101_foia.htm
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote