|
|
Tue Sep 16, 2008 14:23 pm What's going on? |
|
|
It's complicated, but here is basically what is happening:
Over the years, the government saw that "minority" applicants for mortgages in the US ("minority" usually means black and Hispanic but sometimes just black) were approved for home mortgages 72% of the time, while whites were approved 89% of the time, and they decided that this was evidence of racial discrimination. (They ignored the fact that Asians here are approved for mortgages at a higher rate than whites are, because on average they have a higher net worth and better credit than whites, just as whites tend to have a higher net worth and credit rating than blacks.)
When the government decides that statistical differences are evidence of discrimination, they usually use some draconian measure to try to forcibly eliminate the statistical difference, and they often don't look at the possible consequences. In this case, the Congress passed laws forcing banks to lend money to minorities who would normally not be considered creditworthy. Of course, a bank cannot simply create a racially based lending policy, so they lowered the credit standards for everybody. They also had to use various creative financing techniques, such as giving out flexible-rate loans that looked really good while the interest rate was low, and "interest-only" loans, where the borrower would not have to pay the principle for several years.
It also became common to take out what are called "home equity loans", which are second mortgages on the portion of a house's value that was already paid up. Some seedier lenders (generally not banks) made these "home equity" loans for as much as 150% of the value of the house, which means the loans were based on nothing. The original idea was that these home equity loans could be used for improvements to the home, but many people used them (and were encouraged to use them) for ordinary consumer spending, because the interest on a mortgage is tax-deductible but not the interest on a credit card or ordinary consumer loan.
And most important, all of this allowed the banks to boost their racial numbers in lending, so that they could show the government they were "Equal Opportunity Lenders".
All this "easy" money being available had several results:
-- Many, many people (not just minorities) bought houses they couldn't afford, because the configuration of the loan payments made them think they could. -- It created such a demand for houses that the prices skyrocketed, which of course made people take out even bigger surrealistic loans. It also caused a lot of speculation in real estate. -- It caused a building boom in residential housing.
Interest rates don't stay the same forever, and when they went up a little, many people who had flexible-rate loans could no longer make their payments. With the "interest-only" loans, payments on the principle started coming due, and suddenly many people couldn't afford to make those payments either. The double whammy was when someone had a flexible-rate interest-only loan.
Many of these loans then had to be foreclosed on. The problem was that with all the foreclosures, the housing market began to shrink, and prices began to drop. People couldn't sell their houses for what they owed, and so many people just walked away from them. The banks then owned property that was not worth the loan amount. And remember, sometimes the loans were for as much as 150% of the value of the house, so there was no way to recover the money once the borrower defaulted.
Mortgages are sold back and forth by banks (my mortgage has belonged to two banks so far), and many banks and other financial institutions owned so many of these mortgages, or securities backed by these mortgages, that once a lot of people started to default, the banks and investment companies began to fail.
As to the question of how this situation affects Joe Average, the answer is pretty much not at all. If a person has not gotten up to his ears in debt, he sees the situation but is not affected by it. In fact, it can be beneficial to him, because the drop in housing values makes his own property tax rate go down. The last statistic I heard was that even in the worst-affected state, 93% of mortgage borrowers were still solvent, so most people are in good shape. The problem in some places comes when people want to move and need to sell their houses, because there are virtually no buyers. There are houses in my neighborhood that have been on the market for a year or more, which is unheard of.
Most people, though, see the effects but don't feel them. Over the past few years many blacks bought houses in my neighborhood, but over the past year more than half of them have disappeared and their houses are sitting empty. Some whites have disappeared also. Some of this is due to changes in local employment patterns, and some is due to defaults.
Another visible effect is that people who are solvent and like to invest in real estate and rehabilitate houses to sell them (so-called house flippers) are finding a lot of bargains.
There is a current attempt by some political factions to make people believe that the problem was created by the Reagan administration when it removed some bank regulations in the 1980s, but if that were true, the problem would have appeared 20 years earlier. It's really about banks being forced by Uncle Sam to lend to people with bad credit.
Here is one economist's explanation of what happened: http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/07/22/bankrupt_exploiters |
|
Jamie (K) I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006 Posts: 4407 Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
|
Tue Sep 16, 2008 14:43 pm What's going on? |
|
|
Hi Jamie,
Many thanks for that.
Alan _________________ English as a Foreign Language You can read my EFL story Your Choice |
|
Alan Co-founder

Joined: 27 Sep 2003 Posts: 7582 Location: UK
|
 |
Sun Sep 21, 2008 0:24 am What's going on? |
|
|
Alan, here is another explanation from one of the financial papers:
| Quote: | Congress Tries To Fix What It Broke
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 9/17/2008 Regulation: As the financial crisis spreads, denials on Capitol Hill grow more shrill. Blame an aloof President Bush, greedy Wall Street, risky capitalism — anybody but those in Congress who wrote the banking rules. Such denials won't hold against the angry facts banging on their doors. The only question is whether the guilty party can keep up the barricade until Election Day. A visibly annoyed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected suggestions that Democrats share blame for the meltdown. "No," she snapped at reporters who dared ask. Stick to our narrative, she scolded: The bursting of the housing bubble was another story of market failure and deregulation. "The American people are not protected from the risk-taking and the greed of these financial institutions," she said, while calling for investigations of the industry.
Only, the risk-taking was her idea — and the idea of all the other Democrats, along with a handful of Republicans, who over the past 30 years have demonized lenders as racist and passed regulation after regulation pressuring them to make more loans to unqualified borrowers in the name of diversity. They were the ones who screamed — "REDLINING!" — and sent banks scurrying for cover in low-income neighborhoods, where they have been forced to lower long-held industry standards for judging creditworthiness to make the subprime loans. If they don't comply, they are threatened with stiff penalties under the Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA, a law that forces banks to make home loans to people with poor credit risks. No fewer than four federal banking regulatory agencies are responsible for enforcing the law. They subject lenders to racial litmus tests and issue regular report cards, the industry's dreaded "CRA rating." The more branches that lenders put in poor neighborhoods, and the more loans they make there, the better their rating. Those lenders with low ratings can not only be fined, but also blocked from mergers and other business transactions needed to expand.
The regulation grew to monstrous proportions during the Clinton administration, obsessed as it was with multiculturalism. Amendments to the CRA in the mid-1990s dramatically raised the amount of home loans to otherwise unqualified low-income borrowers. The revisions also allowed for the first time the securitization of CRA-regulated loans containing subprime mortgages. The changes came as radical "housing rights" groups led by ACORN lobbied for such loans. ACORN at the time was represented by a young public-interest lawyer in Chicago by the name of Barack Obama.
HUD, in turn, pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase more subprime mortgages, and Fannie and Freddie, in turn, donated to the campaigns of leading Democrats like Barney Frank and Pelosi who throttled investigations into fraud at the agencies. Soon, investment banks such as Bear Stearns were aggressively hawking the securities as "guaranteed." Wall Street's pitch was that MBSs were as safe as Treasuries, but with a higher yield. But they weren't safe. Everyone in the subprime business — from brokers to lenders to banks to investment houses — absolved themselves of responsibility for ensuring the high-risk loans were good. The mortgage lenders didn't care, because they were going to sell the loans to other banks. The banks didn't care, because they were going to repackage the loans as MBSs. The investors and traders didn't care, because the MBSs were backed by Fannie and Freddie and their implicit government guarantees. In other words, nobody up and down the line — from the branch office on main street to the high-rise on Wall Street — analyzed the risk of such ill-advised loans. But why should they? Everybody was just doing what the regulators in Washington wanted them to do. So everybody won until everybody lost, including the minorities the government originally mandated the banks to serve.
The original culprits in all this were the social engineers who compelled banks to make the bad loans. The private sector has no business conducting social experiments on behalf of government. Its business is making profit. Period. So it did what it naturally does and turned the subprime social mandate into a lucrative industry. Of course, it was a Ponzi scheme, because they weren't allowed to play by their rules. The government changed the rules for risk. In order to put low-income minorities into home loans, they were ordered to suspend lending standards that had served the banking industry well for centuries. No one wants to talk about it, so they just scapegoat Wall Street. Even John McCain has joined the Democrat chorus on this. The FBI is now investigating 24 large mortgage lenders for alleged abuses. But who will investigate the pols and the lobbyists and the community agitators who made the bad decisions that ultimately forced businesses to make their bad decisions? |
|
|
Jamie (K) I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006 Posts: 4407 Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
 |
Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:22 am What's going on? |
|
|
Alan, many here live outside their means. Anecdotal examples:
- Buying a $400,000 house on a $70,000 annual household income. You can't make the payments, so you lose your house, and the creditor loses money trying to sell it again. - Buying a $30,000 car when the person makes $12 per hour - Having child after child when you have no job and are living off of credit cards and the largesse of the tax-payer. Then you not only take welfare, but you also file for bankruptcy, making your creditors eat your debt.
Simply put, people of limited means are jealous of their neighbors, wanting that nice car, that nice house, or that nice life... putting it all, basically, on credit cards. We need to wake up en masse and realize that debts are real dollar amounts and not just bank statements and bills.
And as you've seen, people's moronic financial blunders are President Bush's fault.
Greed is good when it drives people to start, build, invest in (etc.) businesses, because that is how jobs are created for people and, ultimately, good products are made for consumers. But greed is NOT good when it is felt by those who cannot afford purchases of pride and/or impulse... when those people cannot afford such purchases. _________________ Billie Jean is not my lover. Hee. |
|
Prezbucky I'm a Communicator ;-)

Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: Nashville, TN (USA)
|
 |
Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:31 am What's going on? |
|
|
the gas crunch is due to Ivan... and the fact that so many of our refineries (and supply) are located in the Gulf of Mexico. Maybe we should diversify the location of our supply depots. _________________ Billie Jean is not my lover. Hee. |
|
Prezbucky I'm a Communicator ;-)

Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: Nashville, TN (USA)
|
 |
Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:45 am What's going on? |
|
|
| prezbucky wrote: | | Alan, many here live outside their means. Anecdotal examples: |
One of my friends has recently bought a small house to rehab and resell. He bought it for practically nothing from a bank that had seized it when its previous owner defaulted. The previous owner was a gainfully employed person who lost the house because she was unable to make a $250-per-month loan payment. That's a payment that even a full-time McDonald's cook can afford, and this person made more than that. It means the person had amassed enormous credit card debt and other obligations.
It's all about impulse control. |
|
Jamie (K) I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006 Posts: 4407 Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
 |
Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:54 am What's going on? |
|
|
one word, my man:
Budget _________________ Billie Jean is not my lover. Hee. |
|
Prezbucky I'm a Communicator ;-)

Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: Nashville, TN (USA)
|
 |
|
Fan Of Arabian Horses I'm here quite often ;-)

Joined: 20 Apr 2006 Posts: 877
|
 |
|
Jamie (K) I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 24 Feb 2006 Posts: 4407 Location: Detroit, Michigan, USA
|
 |
|
Fan Of Arabian Horses I'm here quite often ;-)

Joined: 20 Apr 2006 Posts: 877
|
 |
Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:07 am What's going on? |
|
|
Yes sir... except when government overspends, nearly everyone feels it.
(though I suppose you could say that even one person defaulting on a loan starts a sort of butterfly effect that is, however slightly, felt by most or all) _________________ Billie Jean is not my lover. Hee. |
|
Prezbucky I'm a Communicator ;-)

Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 2241 Location: Nashville, TN (USA)
|
 |
|
| Has anyone heard of TBL or PPP? | Some ideas on activities I can use as a 'Warm up' before beginning a lesson |