╌>

May Day: It's all about equity

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  vic-eldred  •  last year  •  38 comments

May Day: It's all about equity
“The implosion of the subprime lending market has left a scar on the finances of black Americans — one that not only has wiped out a generation of economic progress but could leave them at a financial disadvantage for decades,” The Washington Post observed in 2012.

Starting today, May 1, a Biden decree will force mortgage calculations to penalize the hard working, honest citizens with a FICO credit score of 680 and above in order to accomodate and reduce costs for people with low credit scores. It is not only unfair but it puts bankers in the terrible position of extending loans to risky borrowers more likely to default on mortgages. That is the very thing that caused the 2008 Financial/Housing crisis. This penalty for those with good credit could amount to $600 per month.

It is intended to close the homeownership gap between black and white families. In other words it is what the radical left calls "equity" and after 2008 it is their second bite of the apple. Many of the hard working decent Americans don't even know it's happening. The social experiment launched by Bill Clinton and Andrew Cuomo actually hurt the very people it was intended to help. This time around Biden's radical handlers seem determined to harm everyone. Such is the cost of "equity" and "social justice."

Maybe it's time to get the federal government out of the housing market?


Don't like it?

Maybe it's time to vote against democrats?


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    last year


Many are simply wrapped up in the day-to-day struggle to raise a family and don't even know this is happening.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    last year

yeah, it really sucks that middle class americans have to bear the costs of the wealthy white supremacist activities in our culture for the last 160+ years.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.1    last year

Well, if you have all that white guilt, why not give your possessions to those you consider oppressed.

Charity begins at home. Go for it.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    last year
give your possessions to those you consider oppressed.

oh, don't go all biblical on me now...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.1.2    last year

That has little to do with the Bible. It's about you setting the example. Not all of us have white guilt.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.4  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    last year
Not all of us have white guilt.

... you definitely can't. close, but no sigaro...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.1.4    last year

Those with white guilt must be the ones to provide the reparations.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.1.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.6    last year
hite guilt must be the ones to provide the reparations.

If guilt and responsibility is something that gets magically handed down through the generations, than the Democratic Party should be responsible for reparations.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.7    last year

Agreed!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.9  devangelical  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.7    last year
If guilt and responsibility is something that gets magically handed down through the generations

okay by me, but I really don't think republicans in the south can afford it...

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
1.1.10  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @1.1.9    last year

Exactly, only the Dems in the South have money.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  JohnRussell    last year
This penalty for those with good credit could amount to $600 per month.

Prove it. 

What I have seen is that those with good credit would pay a higher fee associated with the initiation of a mortgage. A one time fee with an average of 375 dollars. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @2    last year
Experts believe that borrowers with a credit score of about 680 would pay around $40 more per month on a $400,000 mortgage under rules from the Federal Housing Finance Agency that go into effect May 1, costs that will help subsidize people with lower credit ratings also looking for a mortgage, according to a Washington Times report Tuesday.

So that's a penalty of over $14,000 over the course of a 30 year loan on people who pay their bills.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.2  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @2    last year

Fuck off. People with good credit shouldn't pay anything extra, period.

Especially to cover irresponsible assholes who will more than likely default on their loans anyways.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    last year
it puts bankers in the terrible position of extending loans to risky borrowers more likely to default on mortgages. That is the very thing that caused the 2008 Financial/Housing crisis.

-

According to the Final Report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis of the United States, between 2001 and 2007, mortgage debt rose nearly as much as it had in the whole rest of the nation's history. At about the same time, home prices doubled.

Around the country, armies of mortgage salesmen hustled to get Americans to borrow more money for houses—or even just prospective houses. Many salesmen didn’t ask borrowers for proof of income, job or assets. Then the salesmen were gone, leaving behind a new debtor holding new keys and perhaps a faint suspicion that the deal was too good to be true.

Mortgages were transformed into ever-riskier investments

The salesmen could make these deals without investigating a borrower's fitness or a property's value because the lenders they represented had no intention of keeping the loans. Lenders would sell these mortgages onward; bankers would bundle them into securities and peddle them to institutional investors eager for the returns the American housing market had yielded so consistently since the 1930s.

The ultimate mortgage owners would often be thousands of miles away and unaware of what they had bought. They knew only that the rating agencies said it was as safe as houses always had been, at least since the Depression.

The fresh 21-century interest in transforming mortgages into securities owed to several factors. After the Federal Reserve System imposed low interest rates to avert a recession after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, ordinary investments weren’t yielding much. So savers sought superior yields.

To meet this demand for higher returns, the U.S. financial sector developed securities backed by mortgage payments. Ratings agencies, like Moody's or Standard and Poor's, gave high marks to the processed mortgage products, grading them AAA, or as good as U.S. Treasury bonds. And financiers regarded them as reliable, pointing to data and trends dating back decades. Americans almost always made their mortgage payments. The only problem with relying on those data and trends was that American laws and regulations had recently changed. The financial environment of the early 21st century looked more like the United States before the Depression than after: a country on the brink of a crash.
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3    last year

After the majority’s report was published, many people lamented that it was not possible to achieve a bipartisan agreement even on the facts. But the way the Commission was organized and run made this impossible. One glaring example will illustrate the problem. In March 2010, Edward Pinto, a resident fellow (and my colleague) at the American Enterprise Institute who had served as chief credit officer at Fannie Mae, sent the Commission a 70-page, fully sourced memorandum on the number of subprime and other high-risk mortgages in the financial system in 2008. Pinto’s research showed that he had found more than 25 million such mortgages (his  later work  showed that there were approximately 27 million). Since there are about 55 million mortgages in the U.S., Pinto’s research indicated that, as the financial crisis began,  half  of all U.S. mortgages were of inferior quality and liable to default when housing prices were no longer rising.


In August, Pinto supplemented his initial research with a  paper  documenting the efforts of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), over two decades and through two administrations, to increase home ownership by reducing mortgage-underwriting standards.



 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    last year
To meet this demand for higher returns, the U.S. financial sector developed securities backed by mortgage payments.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    last year

So you expected the banks who were forced to lower lending standards to quit banking all together or should they have operated at a loss for the sake of "equity?"

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.2    last year

I believe the mortgage backed securities scheme predates the "lowering of lending standards". 

Wall St investment banks were not happy with returns they were getting and cooked up a new way to get higher returns. There wasnt a lot of concern that some of the millions of mortgages they were bundling were shaky. That was someone else's problem. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    last year
I believe the mortgage backed securities scheme predates the "lowering of lending standards". 

The effort to get more minority home ownership was in the works for a long time. It was Clinton who got it going.

 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
3.2  bccrane  replied to  JohnRussell @3    last year
To meet this demand for higher returns, the U.S. financial sector developed securities backed by mortgage payments. Ratings agencies, like Moody's or Standard and Poor's, gave high marks to the processed mortgage products, grading them AAA, or as good as U.S. Treasury bonds. And financiers regarded them as reliable, pointing to data and trends dating back decades. Americans almost always made their mortgage payments. The only problem with relying on those data and trends was that American laws and regulations had recently changed. The financial environment of the early 21st century looked more like the United States before the Depression than after: a country on the brink of a crash.

You highlighted the wrong part of the last paragraph.  The banks were forced into granting loans to people they would normally have rejected, but found that bundling them together they figured that the people who would be able to make the payments would outnumber the ones who couldn't and still be able to make a profit, because that was always the trend.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4  Greg Jones    last year

"What I have seen is that those with good credit would pay a higher fee associated with the initiation of a mortgage. A one time fee with an average of 375 dollars."

The  $600 figure has been mentioned in the popular media. Look it up.

Why punish people with good credit histories all? That would include minorities, not just White people, who you seem to despise.

Didn't the Democrat inspired mortgage debacle of 2008 teach you anything?

 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @4    last year
Didn't the Democrat inspired mortgage debacle of 2008 teach you nothing?

read comment 3

Greed on Wall St. caused the debacle of 2008. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
4.1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    last year

Prove it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @4.1.1    last year

There are dozens , if not hundreds, of articles about this on the internet. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.2    last year

There is a lot of bull shit on the internet.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.3    last year
There is a lot of bull shit on the internet.

You should know. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.4    last year

I leave it for you. What does the Daily Kos say?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
4.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Greg Jones @4    last year
The  $600 figure has been mentioned in the popular media. Look it up.

It may have been, but I'm pretty sure it's not accurate.

Why punish people with good credit histories all?

This is an exceedingly fair point.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
5  Nerm_L    last year

Just another consequence of gifting the economy to the financial sector.  These fees are a boon for lenders because they can create more loans.  This expands the credit market which won't benefit any borrowers.

There's a lot of talk about redistributing wealth.  Well, any sort of loan or mortgage redistributes wealth from the borrower to the lender.  Adding fees and surcharges to less risky borrowers only subsidizes transfer of wealth from the working population to the investor class.  More borrowers allow investors to dig deeper into the pockets of people in the real economy.  Collecting interest from more borrowers only redistributes wages to investor capital gains.  A debt slave is still a slave.

Don't blame the poor for investor greed.  Biden is subsidizing lending; no lenders will be harmed by Biden's move.  Biden is playing with people's lives to expand the credit market and redistribute wages to investor capital gains.  Biden has shown he will protect financial profit with his use of the public treasury to subsidize student debt; lenders won't be hurt by student debt forgiveness.  The financial sector is little different than Ukraine; there's never enough.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6  author  Vic Eldred    last year

There is good stuff too. You need to separate the good from the bad.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @6    last year

That post was in response to somebody who deleted her comment right after making it.

Amazing what goes on here.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
7  Snuffy    last year

Just another hidden tax increase on those making less than $400k.  But it's hidden so I guess we can't accuse Biden of breaking another campaign promise.

 
 

Who is online