By Mary Sanchez, The Kansas City Star
In the great search for somebody to blame for the nation’s economic meltdown, an easy scapegoat is emerging.
Or rather, make that a few million easy scapegoats. By golly, it’s those low-income minorities! Those people who never should have qualified for home loans in the first place.
The uncredit-worthy defaulters of all those nasty subprime loans that caused our lending system to crumble and is catapulting world markets into the tank.
It’s a conspiracy that involves all the usual boogeymen. The snooty liberal do-gooders who championed the Community Reinvestment Act, the 1977 law that mitigated lending standards for minorities under certain conditions; Wall Street sharks greedy to turn a profit, and everyone’s favorite miscreants, the members of Congress who failed to adequately regulate when the spigots of credit were opened.
“In fact, much of the crisis we’re in today is because the government set out to fiddle with the market,” George Will fumed on ABC’s “This Week”. He was referring to the CRA, which in his view “would criminalize as racism ...if you didn’t lend to unproductive borrowers.”
It makes a nice conspiracy theory, but unfortunately it’s a lie. A big lie.
Let’s start with some facts. The world financial system is now in a panic because banks, brokerages, pension funds, governments, and all manner of other institutions hold mortgage-backed securities whose structure is arcane and whose value is dubious.
Those values have plummeted because borrowers are defaulting on their mortgages at much higher rates — a trend that will likely worsen as the real estate bubble deflates.
At the center of the controversy are subprime mortgages, which are issued to borrowers deemed more risky than usual. Minorities did receive disproportionate percentages of subprime loans. Blacks make up 10 percent of home borrowers but account for 19 percent of subprime loans, according to a report cited in the New York Times. Hispanics make up 14 percent of borrowers but account for 20 percent of subprime loans.
But note that about 56 percent of subprime mortgages went to non-Hispanic white people, according to the study which was made in 2006 at the peak of their usage.
And about 40 percent went to borrowers considered affluent — that is, who have annual incomes at least 120 percent of their local median income.
Data are not readily available, but it’s likely that as few as one in four subprime loans was made by a lending institution that falls under the purview of the CRA. So, are default rates in CRA-related pools of mortgages higher than those in unrelated pools? Nobody has come forward with data showing that they are.
In other words, there is no basis for the libel against minority borrowers.
So let’s go back to the facts. As bad as the losses may be on the defaulted mortgages themselves, the losses on the securities made up of these mortgages are frighteningly catastrophic. That’s because the securities were structured with irrationally high levels of leverage. Leverage is what financial geniuses call borrowing to buy securities or other assets. It magnifies the upside of an investment as long as the asset is appreciating in price. When the price of the asset is falling — well, right now we’re learning how that feels.
We are suffering now not simply because people are defaulting on their mortgages. That is one cause, sure, but not a sufficient cause for a mess of this magnitude.
We are suffering because the mortgage companies, the investment banks, the credit-rating agencies, and a host of other worthy members of the financial elite were carrying on without adult supervision.
Two final points about minorities and mortgages: Government studies and independent analyses have shown that a shockingly high number of prime-qualified minority borrowers are steered toward higher-cost loans. That’s racism, folks.
Take two equally qualified potential borrowers — one white, one black — and the black person is more likely to end up with the more costly loan.
And as for undocumented immigrant mortgage holders, studies tracking their loan-payment histories show that they have some of the lowest default rates, lower than U.S. citizens, in fact.
In other words, be careful where you point that finger.
Distributed by Tribune Media Services
To reach Mary Sanchez call 816-234-4752 or send e-mail to









Delicious
Digg
ed hardy ed hardy ed hardy
ed hardy ed hardy
ed hardy clothing ed hardy clothing
ed hardy shop ed hardy shop
christian audigier christian audigier
ed hardy cheap ed hardy cheap
ed hardy outlet ed hardy outlet
ed hardy sale ed hardy sale
ed hardy store ed hardy store
ed hardy mens ed hardy mens
ed hardy womens ed hardy womens
ed hardy kids ed hardy kids ed hardy kids
Uh, apologies, but I
Uh, apologies, but I couldn't resist. Mary frames her argument on the supposition that people like George Will are trying to scapegoat minorities for this, via the CRA argument.
That's not the case - the case is that we are blaming government for using the CRA as a vehicle to push credit-unworthy borrowers into houses through the GSEs Freddie and Fannie, who then repackaged the loans and sold them off as debt-backed securities. Had the government NOT encouraged this, often directly referring themselves to the 'underserved' communities, this would not have happened.
I hadn't even thought of blaming minorities, because the facts are that non-minorities also jumped in with both feet - I AM blaming the government who fanned the flames of 'affordable homes' for anyone with a pulse, regardless of their ability to pay. I also blame the individuals who took out the loans, either fraudulently or stupidly, who have dragged the rest of us responsible homeowners down into this socialistic morass we're now in, where my neighbor's bad (or illegal) decision is a demand on my prudence (I paid off my mortgage in 3 years back in 2001).
Concerning illegal mortgage activity as opposed to just getting in over your head: why the hell hasn't Congress added provisions to the bill to force foreclosures on mortgagees when it is determined they committed fraud to get into the house? That would include illegal aliens, who often used stolen Social Security numbers when applying for the loans. How in hell can you tell me that you deserve to be rescued by the rest of us responsible, hard-working or retired people because you either fraudulently obtained a loan or made a bad decision?
This isn't even arguable - this is common sense. I would far rather endure a depression than watch the government force us into 'temporary' socialism as they did today by literally forcing the 9 largest banks to sell Uncle Sam preferred stock with a 5% dividend, which must be paid ahead of all other shareholders, include private investors like you and I.
So while minorities were certainly represented in this mess, they didn't cause it. We have to target the cause, and that's government.
Because I saw the writing on the wall back in Dec 2006, I moved almost all of my liquid assets into 5 year CDs, leaving the rest in an FDIC-insured money market account. I saw such an over-exuberant home market bubbling that it reminded me of the Tech Bubble, and I wanted no part of it. Now, I want no part of investing in an economy where I don't even know what the rules will be day-to-day, and where the government can and will screw things up with their intrusion into the capital markets. Finally, the wild-card is Obama - if he gets in and does what he says he's going to do, the economy is definitely going to get even worse because you cannot spend yourself out of this morass, and that's what he'll try even MORE to do than this moronic administration is currently doing.
Welcome back Grinch
Thank you for clarifying the real and salient issue surrounding the bailout mess....and the real and long lasting effect of the action that was frivolously taken.
Prudent older Americans are painfully aware of the outrageous long term costs attributable to the New Deal. This one is most likely going to be far worse.
It's a new world out there ....just not a very brave one.
Yeah, right, the CRA had zip to do with it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 30, 1999
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
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 re legated 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 bai l 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.
(from the New York Times)
let's repeat what VOR said
because Rogue apparently doesn't read well:
Hard to blame CRA
From Robert Gordon of the Center for American Progress: It is hard to blame CRA for the mortgage meltdown when CRA doesn't even apply to most of the loans that are behind it. As the University of Michigan's Michael Barr points out, half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves. (With affiliates, banks can choose whether to count the loans.) Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA.
Try selling this heifer dust somewhere else Mary!
Why all those banks just, our of their own choosing decided to make loans to people with poor credit, who had no evidence of the income they claimed, in less that desirable areas, because it would be "good business" to do so.
Do you really expect any thinking person to swallow that bilge!?
Come on Mary, get a grip.
Get Out Much?
Apparently you don't get around much.
There are large subdivisions with homes that are all $500,000+ that have very high numbers of foreclosures, There were hundreds of thousands of people that could afford homes, just not megamansions. But they went ahead and got mortgages anyway and now can't pay them.
Counties just outside of Denver have some of the highest foreclosure rates around on very pricey property.
Also California, Seattle and other similar areas.
You need to stop thinking that minorities are to blame for everything. Ms Sanchez' column was very well thought out and balanced.
False
"Government studies and independent analyses have shown that a shockingly high number of prime-qualified minority borrowers are steered toward higher-cost loans."
Since the Star has a habit of cherry picking studies and polls to suit their opinions, I would like to see a link to the studies that prove this.
Of course, being Mary, she won't.