Comments on: Conservative Clarion Call: Lending To Minorities Is A “Disaster”

By: Robt

Robt — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 08:06:40 +0000

Maybe Cavuto has something there about not lending to minorities.

The way I see it, in America there are very few big lard fat cats like in Wall Street.
I beleive these CEO’s are a minority. Should we loan money to these minorities.

Lets ask Cavuto, shall we?

By: PJEvans

PJEvans — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 04:23:45 +0000

A lot of people have bought into the idea that the whole financial situation is because minorities and poor people were buying houses. Apparently, to them, if you aren’t white, you’re supposed to be renting a room in a slum. And apparently, to them, if you are white, you’re automatically able to make your mortgage payment, regardless of income.

By: Synoia

Synoia — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 04:10:15 +0000

Isiah you are correct, and you should be angrry. It was lax underwriting standards, so people who could not pay were given mortgages. They happened to be minorities, as victims.

http://agonist.org/synoia/2008.....ry_lawsuit

By: BooRadley

BooRadley — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 01:41:56 +0000

Thanks so much Isaiah. Please keep writing on this topic as no one gets it.

Charles R. Morris agrees with you emphatically and explicity in his “THE TRILLION DOLLAR MELTDOWN.” Ian hosted Morris at an FDL book salon. See page 146 regarding the “black affinity” marketing schemes cooked up by the hedge funds/investment banks. In some cases they EMPTIED equity out of homes that were almost entirely paid for. See page 70 about Edward Jordan.

By: NelsonAlgren

NelsonAlgren — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 01:20:43 +0000

That picture is a classic. Just like the Paulson/Apocalypse Now one.

By: ConnecticutMan1

ConnecticutMan1 — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 01:17:54 +0000

We already lost our home… Thanks Countrywide! We knew our mortgage would go up after two years… But by the fourth year the monthly payment had nearly doubled and we were falling behind badly. We tried desperately to refinance. Nobody would do it.

You are one of the lucky ones.

By: Ann in AZ

Ann in AZ — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 01:15:21 +0000

Oops, forgot one of my main points on my 41; I am not a minority!

By: Ann in AZ

Ann in AZ — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 01:11:50 +0000

Gee, I don’t know how they would account for me since I got one of those subprime no-doc loans. It was the only loan I could get; yet I felt it was a reasonable enough rate and the payment was to be about $100/mo less than my rent at the time. Then I made sure that I refinanced it as soon as the prepayment penalty time was over (after 3 years) because the terms were the first change in 5 years, when the interest rate would have risen from 7.5% to prime plus 9 pts! When I refied the loan, I bought down the mortgage rate to 6.5%, bringing my payment down an additional $100/mo. In the meanwhile, I had to have an appraisal on the house for the refinance, and the home I bought for $93,500 appraised at $170,000 just 3 years later. But for the timing of my original purchase (and a little good luck!) I could have been one of those people who are now loosing their homes. However, as a real estate agent, I don’t think my property’s value will go down as far as the original price I paid for the property, so I don’t think I will ever be upside down on my home. It may go down 30% or 40%, but at 40% it’s potential selling price would still be $102,000. Still, this what you call a real estate bubble. I could feel it in my bones!

By: SunnyNobility

SunnyNobility — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 01:07:34 +0000

Unfortunately, regulations were not simultaneously put in place to forestall deposit brokers thereby given an opening to ply their insidious trade.

By: prostratedragon

prostratedragon — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 01:04:38 +0000

Isaiah, Barry Ritholtz takes on this nasty meme from the other end in a comment at his own blog, The Big Picture (@ 12:13:24 PM), by listing key policy-enabled aspects of the mortgage lending phase of the debacle and noting that CRA has nothing to do with compelling any of them:

Here’s why the CRA meme is nonsense:

• Did the 1977 CRA require banks to not verify income or payment history?

• Loan to value — what in the Act sent mortgage writers to the same corrupt appraisers that managed to come in at exactly the purchase price, no matter what?

• Developed automated underwriting (AU) systems that were designed more for speed than accuracy in process mortgage apps as fast as possible.

• What about piggy back loans? Were banks required by the act to lend the first mortgage and do a HELOC for the down payment?

[et cetera —pd]

He’s got bugged enough on the subject to threat-mise a post on it soon.