WHO's Responsible for this Mess???

Chris

Contributor
Ten years ago...

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES

Published: Thursday, September 30, 1999


In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.
 
Every American deserves the opportunity to own a home = Good

You should be only able to purchase what you can afford = Bad

Writing 400K loans to people that could only afford 200K = Disaster
 
Yep. It all began in 1993 when Clinton singularly rewrote Fannie and freddie rules turning these pseudo lenders into ATM machines for minority and poorer folks in predominantly urban, low-income (democratic) areas. Then in 1994 Clinton pushes it a just a little bit further and creates his National Home-Ownership Strategy (look it up...but you won't find it on the DNC website archives anymore (they removed it about a year ago because it's probably too embarrassing at this point)) which simply exacerbated the already huge problems created by Carter's Community Reinvestment Act. (Brilliant :rolleyes: ) As if this idiocy wasn't enough, Clinton again rewrote the rules (via Robert Rubin's treasury department) which essentially forced lenders to satisfy quotas for sub-prime and minority loans to get a satisfactory a CRA rating. Without meeting these quotas, banks wouldn't qualify for any of the multitudes of governmental capital re-investment opportunities. Now, you guys remember Andy cuomo?...in ’97 clinton got Cuomo, to allow freddie and fannie to get into the sub-prime market even worse. The Dem. Congress lowered capital limits so F&F only had to hold 2.5% of capital to back their investments (but other banks needed 10%). This is when banks really cranked up the ATM machines pouring ungodly amounts of money into poor areas requiring no money down and no verification of income…this is a nice little deal the dems worked out with F&F…It’s no wonder that 384 politicians got big campaign donations from F&F (over $200million in lobbying and campaign contributions). Well, guess what? 15 years later, minorities made up 49% of the 12.5 million new homeowners, most of whom were in interest only or ARM loans…well, here we sit, reaping the benefits of a nationwide foreclosure crisis, and all that money is gone with no hopes of repayment...
 
Last edited:
And when questioned about it last year, all the Dems said there was no way Fannie and Freddy could fail......:banghead:
 
Cig I agree with you. However the downfall of this entire 15 year mess was management of the program. It is a shame that it took until 2005 for anyone to even have a slight inkling of what was to come, and in reality, no one said a word that held any water. It was management. Clinton's program was good, and the banking programs were good. It just wasnt managed properly on any level. I started in real estate in 1992 and it was a horrible time to be in real estate, especially in New England. Willy's program jump started the real estate dream for many people who could pay and did pay their loans back however it was taken to the extreme, mis-managed and the other cheek was turned. Now we are taking it in the cheeks.
 
Agreed. No doubt about. I'll take it one step further, not only was it mis-management, I'd call it managed fraud.
 
I think you'd have to advance that to around 2001/2002 to find who lit the fuse. Mortgage companies were the main sub prime culprit, and the big firms did the derivatives bomb. The CRA loans done by banks, mortgage outfits were hardly involved, still amount to a pimple on a camel's but of the meltdown. The winds that fueled the flames came from Washington. After 9/11 and the subsequent recession, nobody wanted to stop the train ride. When that happens, the real nasty minds get involved.

The biggest cheerleader for Fannie and Freddie was Bush himself, then a brand new President. But this is way too much fun to assign personal responsibility for. As both sides point and say It's Their Fault.

"There is no question we did not recognize the severity of the problems," said Al Hubbard, Bush's former chief economic adviser, who left the White House in December 2007. "Had we, we would have attacked them."

As early as 2006, top advisers to Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming. And when the economy deteriorated, Bush and his team misdiagnosed the reasons and scope of the downturn. As recently as February, for example, Bush was still calling it a "rough patch."

Looking back, Keith Hennessey, Bush's current chief economic adviser, said he and his colleagues had done the best they could "with the information we had at the time." But Hennessey did say he regretted that the administration had not paid more heed to the dangers of easy lending practices.

And both Paulson and his predecessor, John Snow, say the housing push went too far.

"The Bush administration took a lot of pride that home ownership had reached historic highs," Snow said during an interview. "But what we forgot in the process was that it has to be done in the context of people being able to afford their house. We now realize there was a high cost."

Lawrence Lindsay, Bush's first chief economic adviser, said there was little impetus to raise alarms about the proliferation of easy credit that was helping Bush meet housing goals.

"No one wanted to stop that bubble," Lindsay said. "It would have conflicted with the president's own policies."

oops
 
Last edited:
Bush Administration did try to reign in Freddie and Fannie...see for youself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgctSIL8Lhs&eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194210.php

You can also look this up:
Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005

It's quite interesting to see that people don't even listen to the heads of the administrations themselves. It's a you tube world now.

Bush was a huge cheerleader for more home ownership, and more pushing of Fannie to make those loans as needed back in 2001. Yes, like others, he made some statements about regulating Fannie and Freddie. In reality, the political will was to let things go as they were. Many Bush butt buddies had hard ons for his bull market and the prices their houses had achieved. How many go fast boats were bought with this money? look around.

He was a fool. That doesn't men everyone else is as smart as you are. But looking at you tubers and a few isolated rants may make it true. Nothing learned here at all.
 
Had they stayed on the 1% above Prime program, things might have worked out better. However, the lenders dropped those folks into Adjustable Rate Mortgages(ARMs), so when the rates adjusted upward they couldn't afford the monthly payments any more.

I was offered an ARM when I bought my house in 1977 but after having it explained to me I chose the fixed rate mortgage. Turned out to be the right choice.
 
It's quite interesting to see that people don't even listen to the heads of the administrations themselves. It's a you tube world now.

Bush was a huge cheerleader for more home ownership, and more pushing of Fannie to make those loans as needed back in 2001. Yes, like others, he made some statements about regulating Fannie and Freddie. In reality, the political will was to let things go as they were. Many Bush butt buddies had hard ons for his bull market and the prices their houses had achieved. How many go fast boats were bought with this money? look around.

He was a fool. That doesn't men everyone else is as smart as you are. But looking at you tubers and a few isolated rants may make it true. Nothing learned here at all.

I never said Bush didn't have a housing initiative...I agree he did. BUT there were also attempts to have additional oversight and regualtion of Fannie and Freddie that were rebuffed by the Democrats. When I see and hear the honorable Barney Frank say there is nothing wrong with those institutions a matter of months before they go bankrupt it is obvious he was either lying or didn't have a clue about what he was responsible for. Since you like video so much check out this clip from ABC where Bill Clinton blames the democrats for the failure of Fannie. Hmmmmm. You gonna tell me I made this up too?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/bill-clinton-do.html
 
This is one of my favorite video compositions...but I guesss all this didn't really happen either? I mean C-Span isn't real is it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related

Oh and BTW Franklin Raines was paid over $52.8 million in bonuses to fradulently manage Fannie. But of course he didn't have any idea the books were being cooked.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052300184.html

Following his tenure in Democrat Bill Clinton’s White House as Budget Director, Raines returned to Fannie Mae where he served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer prior to being forced out over accounting fraud allegations that federal authorities claimed were used to pad his own pocket with tens of millions of dollars in un-earned bonuses on top of his multi-million dollar pay. Raines and other top executives drew multi-million dollar salaries at Fannie Mae for many years.

Although he claimed no wrong doing, Raines agreed to settle the suit with the federal government just this year and agreed to pay back a few million of the near $50 million it had been alleged he obtained illegally through bonuses not due from Fannie Mae.


Yep, looks like it's all Bush's fault; after all he was the President; but I have to wonder about those directly responsible for those agencies who screamed at the regulators that there was nothing wrong; who rebuffed attempts at regulation; who said just a couple of months before bankruptcy that it was a safe investment; who cooked the books to pay themselves millions in bonus money...do they not have any responsibility? or does it all fall on the President?
 
We are not obligated in any way to separate this mess into partisan fractions. It's an advantage I choose to take advantage of. Given that, there is an embarrassing list of names on both sides that chose to vote for the Holy Grail of deregulation. It was a popular Republican theme for years, and it was pushed through. While Phil Graham (Enron Phil), was a huge proponent, others starange bedfellows like Pelosi were with him. Ironically, Franks voted against. McCain wasn't even there to vote, the only one. Biden was for it. The problem in 1999 wasn't the deregulation process itself, it was the actual bill. Poor legislation almost always ends badly.

But lots goes on behind the scenes many don't notice. Like the intense lobbying that went on for TARP last year, which made it more unregulated than it should have been.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=975305C0-18FE-70B2-A8B43AFE7B6C6C16

"f Mica was right, then some leaders of the current debate must have been wrong. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) all voted in 1999 to roll back banking regulations.

Like Mica, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) — who is now leading House negotiations over the bailout as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee — voted to keep the regulations in place.

Although Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Wednesday that he would suspend his campaign to return to Washington and focus on the economy, he was the lone senator to miss the vote back in 1999.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) wasn’t in the U.S. Senate then, but his campaign notes that he was calling for increased regulation of the banking sector at the time. His future running mate apparently didn’t hear him: Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) voted with 89 others to repeal the regulations.

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, leading the bailout negotiations for Senate Democrats as chairman of the Banking Committee, was on the side of deregulation. His GOP counterpart on the committee, Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, was on the opposite side — the lone Senate Republican to oppose the bill.

Hoyer spokeswoman Stacey Bernards said that the vote to repeal Glass-Steagall “was about creating a competitive market structure. There’s a difference between creating a structure and implementing it. The administration did not enforce the regulations on the books — as Mr. Hoyer says, they instead took the referees off the field.”

Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, now the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, explains the dynamic of the time: “In that environment, there was some concern our power as a financial center was being met by terrific competition from overseas, particularly in London and Tokyo, and that in order for us to stay competitive, there’d have to be some changes in our old laws before the period of international financial interchange.”

Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), whose father helped write Glass-Steagall in the 1930s, saw it in clearer terms. “The banks had been working on it for 40 — no, hell no — since it was enacted, the banks have been trying to get rid of it,” said Dingell, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. “They worked like hell. They finally wore this place down. Everybody forgot what happened during the Depression and why Glass-Steagall was passed.”

Dingell did what he could to persuade his colleagues before the vote to deregulate.

“[W]hat we are creating now is a group of institutions which are too big to fail,” he said then in words that sound unusually prescient now. “Not only are they going to be big banks, but they are going to be big everything, because they are going to be in securities and insurance, in issuance of stocks and bonds and underwriting, and they are also going to be in banks.

“And under this legislation, the whole of the regulatory structure is so obfuscated and so confused that liability in one area is going to fall over into liability in the next. Taxpayers are going to be called upon to cure the failures we are creating tonight, and it is going to cost a lot of money, and it is coming. Just be prepared for those events.”

Now that those events have come to pass, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), who chaired the Energy and Commerce Committee through 2006, says Pelosi and President Bush “would do well to listen to people like Dingell, who’s been in the House 50 years.”

Barton, known as a partisan warrior, saw eye to eye with Dingell on the vote in 1999. And on this issue, he has nothing but praise for the man on the other side of the aisle. “He’s the dean of the House and a man of great wisdom,” Barton said.

Barton said that his own no-vote wasn’t based on any great wisdom.

“I felt like that regulatory structure had served us well, and I kind of believe in basic accountability. But I didn’t have any magic prescience or anything,” he said.

Congress, then controlled by the GOP, didn’t make the law on its own; President Clinton signed it.

“He’ll have to speak for himself,” Dingell said of the former president. “I know he was unhelpful.”

Clinton did speak for himself this week during interviews with liberal bloggers. Clinton said that he didn’t regret signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall. But, he added, according to one of the bloggers present, that he “could be persuaded” that he should, if enough evidence were presented.

Mica said that his own opposition came from his experience in the real estate development industry. He watched his company get crowded out by savings and loans, which he felt had no business being in real estate and which used their capital to muscle out competitors — before needing their own federal bailout.

Although he said he was “very vocal,” he couldn’t counter the banking industry’s lobbying effort.

“The financial industry put a full-court press on and said, ‘Oh, we can’t compete in other financial markets and other countries are doing it and it’s going to be the end of banking and finance as we know it,’” said Mica. “But it has come home to roost.”"
 
Back
Top