One giant mortgage crisis wasn't enough

Look at this.


"In this research, we examine the relative risk of subprime mortgages and community reinvestment loans. Using the propensity score matching method, we construct a sample of comparable borrowers with similar risk characteristics but holding the two different loan products. We find that community reinvestment loans have a lower default risk than subprime loans, very likely because they are not originated by brokers and lack risky features such as adjustable rates and prepayment penalties. Our results suggest that similar borrowers holding community reinvestment loans exhibit significantly lower default risks."
(SNIP)
"We find that for borrowers with similar risk characteristics, the estimated default risk is about 70 percent lower with a CRA loan than with a subprime mortgage. Broker-origination channel, adjustable rates, and prepayment penalties all contribute substantially to the elevated risk of default among subprime loans. When broker origination is combined with both adjustable rates and prepayment penalties, the borrower’s default risk is four to five times higher than that of a comparable borrower with a prime-term CRA mortgage."
http://courses.washington.edu/pbafadv/Risky.Disaggreg.11.09. propensity scores.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now look at this.


"However, the evidence does not support the second explanation. First, with respect to the CRA, the main culprits in the crisis were private sector financial institutions that were not subject to the requirements of the CRA. In the story being pushed by free market advocates, the CRA forced banks to make loans to unqualified, low-income households. When those loans blew up, it caused the financial crisis. But the largest players in the subprime market were private sector firms that were not subject to the CRA’s rules and regulations. For example, “Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.” The largest losses had nothing to do with banks covered by the CRA."
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2011/07/reckless-endangerment-of-the-truth.html


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who are the lenders/originators? Look here.



"The top subprime lenders whose practices are largely blamed for triggering the global economic meltdown were owned or bankrolled by banks now collecting billions of dollars in bailout money—including several that have paid huge fines to settle predatory lending charges.

These big institutions were not only unwitting victims of an unforeseen financial collapse, as they have sometimes portrayed themselves, but enablers that bankrolled the type of lending that has threatened the financial system."
(SNIP)
"Most of the top subprime lenders were high-volume, "non-bank" retail lenders that advertised heavily, generated huge profits, and flamed out when Wall Street benefactors yanked their funding. Nine of the top 10 lenders were based in California—seven were located in either Los Angeles or Orange counties. At least eight of the top 10 were backed at least in part by banks that have received bank bailout money."



The Top 25 in Subprime

1. Countrywide Financial Corp.
Amount of Subprime Loans: At least $97.2 billion

2. Ameriquest Mortgage Co./ACC Capital Holdings Corp.
Amount of Subprime Loans: At least $80.6 billion

3. New Century Financial Corp.
Amount of Subprime Loans: At least $75.9 billion

4. First Franklin Corp./National City Corp./Merrill Lynch & Co.
Amount of Subprime Loans: At least $68 billion

5. Long Beach Mortgage Co./Washington Mutual
Amount of Subprime Loans: At least $65.2 billion

6. Option One Mortgage Corp./H&R Block Inc.
Amount of Subprime Loans: At least $64.7 billion

7. Fremont Investment & Loan/Fremont General Corp.
Amount of Subprime Loans: At least $61.7 billion

8. Wells Fargo Financial/Wells Fargo & Co.
Amount of Subprime Loans: At least $51.8 billion

9. HSBC Finance Corp./HSBC Holdings plc
Amount of Subprime Loans: At least $50.3 billion

10. WMC Mortgage Corp./General Electric Co.
Amount of Subprime Loans: At least $49.6 billion

11. BNC Mortgage Inc./Lehman Brothers
Amount of Subprime Loans: At least $47.6 billion

12. Chase Home Finance/JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Amount of Subprime Loans: At least $30 billion

13. Accredited Home Lenders Inc./Lone Star Funds V
Amount of Subprime Loans: At least $29.0 billion

14. IndyMac Bancorp, Inc.
Amount of Subprime Loans: At least $26.4 billion

15. CitiFinancial / Citigroup Inc.
Amount of Subprime Loans: At least $26.3 billion

16. EquiFirst Corp./Regions Financial Corp./Barclays Bank plc
Amount of Subprime Loans: At least $24.4 billion

17. Encore Credit Corp./ ECC Capital Corp./Bear Stearns Cos. Inc.
Amount of Subprime Loans: At least $22.3 billion

18. American General Finance Inc./American International Group Inc. (AIG)
Amount of Subprime Loans: At least $21.8 billion

19. Wachovia Corp.
Amount of Subprime Loans: At least $17.6 billion

20. GMAC LLC/Cerberus Capital Management
Amount of Subprime Loans: At least $17.2 billion

21. NovaStar Financial Inc.
Amount of Subprime Loans: At least $16 billion

22. American Home Mortgage Investment Corp.
Amount of Subprime Loans: At least $15.3 billion

23. GreenPoint Mortgage Funding Inc./Capital One Financial Corp.
Amount of Subprime Loans: At least $13.1 billion

24. ResMAE Mortgage Corp./Citadel Investment Group
Amount of Subprime Loans: At least $13 billion

25. Aegis Mortgage Corp./Cerberus Capital Management
Amount of Subprime Loans: At least $11.5 billion

http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=11323&pageid=37&pagename=Page+One

 

Yes.

No.

Maybe.

 

Are you serious? Just go back and read your own posts with an open mind.

I do agree this is getting tedious and uninteresting. But before we leave it, I would love to hear a concise summary of why you think the "lion's share of the blame rests with the banksters." Maybe it will help us improve our propaganda campaign

 

I try to do that before I post. I am not sure I can open my mind more than I have already done. As you may have observed from my posts, I am relatively free of political, religious, etc biases.

Hold on, does this mean that, provided sufficient evidence, you are willing to change your mind? Or is this going to be another futile exercise?

 

Futile exercise? Like trying to communicate with you given your biases? Speaking of which, you have no clue what I think if your replies to me were sincere. But let's try to put that behind us and avoid misinterpretation to the extent possible by keeping this clear and simple... you said the "lion's share of the blame rests with the "banksters" and I'm curious to hear a concise objective summary of why you think so, absent ideology.

 

Yes, I would be happy to go through this exercise and get some data together. However, I don't want to do it if it's futile, as I pointed out. Hence my question to you. Would you care to answer?

 

I'm open to facts and reason but not bias and faulty logic of the kind you've already presented. I'll be open minded but if you'll need to continue to hide behind smokescreens like calling me a "bankster apologist" for bringing up the bad actions of others, without whom the whole mess could not have occurred, you might as well back out now.

 

I have started to get something together... First, a couple of charts, more later.