Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationofnet-neutrality
On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Brad Belton wrote: > The underlying point still holds true; big government imposing rules on > lenders forcing them to lend to those that wouldn't have normally qualified. > No, it in fact does not hold true. Since CRA mortgages were only a fraction of the bad mortgages it is logical to conclude the other bad mortgages would have still been made if there were no CRA mortgages. Further, it is reasonable to assume that if no CRA mortgages were made even more non-CRA mortgages would have been made given the additional available capital. There is plenty of blame to go around; trying to pin it on one thing is a waste of time. -Matt WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationofnet-neutrality
The underlying point still holds true; big government imposing rules on lenders forcing them to lend to those that wouldn't have normally qualified. The cash for clunkers will probably have the same results. People getting a new car payment they probably wouldn't have qualified for without big government intervention. We have a customer that specializes in asset recovery...they gave an enthusiastic hip-hip-hurray for cash for clunkers because they know they'll be picking up a good portion of those cars in the coming years. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 8:53 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationofnet-neutrality That is factual incorrect. Only minor changes were made to CRA under Clinton. It was the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act also under Clinton that required Fannie and Freddie to securitize a certain percentage of CRA mortgages. Again, only a fraction of the bad mortgages that caused the housing crisis were subject to CRA. -Matt On Feb 5, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: > CRA was started under Carter and greatly expanded under Clinton. This is a > far more detailed conversation then we can have here, but the fact is that > if the government (Fan and Fred) hadn't created the market for the paper, > this could not have happened. > > > Regards, > > Jeff > > > Jeff Broadwick > ImageStream > 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) > +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Matt Liotta > Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 9:36 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in > regulationofnet-neutrality > > The Community Reinvestment Act was first passed in 1977. It was later > changed under Bush in 1989 because of the S & L crisis. I mention this only > to provide some context as to how long it has been with us and the variety > of administrations that have affected it. It was really the Federal Housing > Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 that put us in the > current situation with Fannie and Freddie securitizing CRA loans. That in > and of itself didn't get us here. It was really the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act > that started us down the wrong road. This ultimately allowed companies like > Goldman to create CDOs, sell them, and buy insurance against their failure > all without having any interest in the underlying securities. > > Sorry for the history lesson, but I thought the background was useful. > Understand that by 2004 only 30% of mortgages were done under CRA and in > 2005 regulatory changes allowed certain banks to do less CRA mortgage > lending. Thus, it just isn't credible to suggest that the CRA caused the > housing crisis. > > Was the housing crisis created by people getting mortgages they couldn't > afford? Yes, but that wasn't limited to CRA mortgages. Both parties helped > get more people into houses they couldn't afford for their own reasons. > > -Matt > > On Feb 5, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: > >> That's just not accurate Tom. The Community Reinvestment Act required >> lenders to do a lot of this stuff and then Fannie and Freddie created >> the market for the paper. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Jeff >> >> >> Jeff Broadwick >> ImageStream >> 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) >> +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >> On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi >> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 2:19 AM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in >> regulationof net-neutrality >> >> Brad, >> >>> People are losing their homes.many of which never should have been >>> afforded the privilege of home ownership if it were not for big >>> government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers. >> >> You had me, until the above paragraph. That is a crock of ShXX. >> >> Most housing foreclosures are conscious business decissions by the >> middle class, to improve their finance and cash flow. They ask, Is it >> worth continuing to sink money into this bad investment losing money? >> I will say that there are a shortage of buyer. So when an investor >> cant offload their losing investment (House)
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationofnet-neutrality
That is factual incorrect. Only minor changes were made to CRA under Clinton. It was the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act also under Clinton that required Fannie and Freddie to securitize a certain percentage of CRA mortgages. Again, only a fraction of the bad mortgages that caused the housing crisis were subject to CRA. -Matt On Feb 5, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: > CRA was started under Carter and greatly expanded under Clinton. This is a > far more detailed conversation then we can have here, but the fact is that > if the government (Fan and Fred) hadn't created the market for the paper, > this could not have happened. > > > Regards, > > Jeff > > > Jeff Broadwick > ImageStream > 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) > +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Matt Liotta > Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 9:36 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in > regulationofnet-neutrality > > The Community Reinvestment Act was first passed in 1977. It was later > changed under Bush in 1989 because of the S & L crisis. I mention this only > to provide some context as to how long it has been with us and the variety > of administrations that have affected it. It was really the Federal Housing > Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 that put us in the > current situation with Fannie and Freddie securitizing CRA loans. That in > and of itself didn't get us here. It was really the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act > that started us down the wrong road. This ultimately allowed companies like > Goldman to create CDOs, sell them, and buy insurance against their failure > all without having any interest in the underlying securities. > > Sorry for the history lesson, but I thought the background was useful. > Understand that by 2004 only 30% of mortgages were done under CRA and in > 2005 regulatory changes allowed certain banks to do less CRA mortgage > lending. Thus, it just isn't credible to suggest that the CRA caused the > housing crisis. > > Was the housing crisis created by people getting mortgages they couldn't > afford? Yes, but that wasn't limited to CRA mortgages. Both parties helped > get more people into houses they couldn't afford for their own reasons. > > -Matt > > On Feb 5, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: > >> That's just not accurate Tom. The Community Reinvestment Act required >> lenders to do a lot of this stuff and then Fannie and Freddie created >> the market for the paper. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Jeff >> >> >> Jeff Broadwick >> ImageStream >> 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) >> +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) >> >> -Original Message- >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] >> On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi >> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 2:19 AM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in >> regulationof net-neutrality >> >> Brad, >> >>> People are losing their homes.many of which never should have been >>> afforded the privilege of home ownership if it were not for big >>> government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers. >> >> You had me, until the above paragraph. That is a crock of ShXX. >> >> Most housing foreclosures are conscious business decissions by the >> middle class, to improve their finance and cash flow. They ask, Is it >> worth continuing to sink money into this bad investment losing money? >> I will say that there are a shortage of buyer. So when an investor >> cant offload their losing investment (House) to someone else, they >> resort to less ethical choices. >> What does someone do if their house jsut lost 50k in value? IF they go >> to foreclosure, they can pretty much live rent free for a year in >> their home, before they are forced out. If they put their rent check >> in hidden savings instead, they earn 50k that year. That combined with >> gettting out of a loan taht is valued at mor ethan the house, it is a >> net $100k earning, for doing nothing. They learn they can earn more >> losing their home than some people do holding on to their home as an > investment to resale. >> >> And governments were not the ones forcing lenders to lend. Its the >> opposite Government regulation is unnecessarilly setting >> regulations to make buying har
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationofnet-neutrality
CRA was started under Carter and greatly expanded under Clinton. This is a far more detailed conversation then we can have here, but the fact is that if the government (Fan and Fred) hadn't created the market for the paper, this could not have happened. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 9:36 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationofnet-neutrality The Community Reinvestment Act was first passed in 1977. It was later changed under Bush in 1989 because of the S & L crisis. I mention this only to provide some context as to how long it has been with us and the variety of administrations that have affected it. It was really the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 that put us in the current situation with Fannie and Freddie securitizing CRA loans. That in and of itself didn't get us here. It was really the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that started us down the wrong road. This ultimately allowed companies like Goldman to create CDOs, sell them, and buy insurance against their failure all without having any interest in the underlying securities. Sorry for the history lesson, but I thought the background was useful. Understand that by 2004 only 30% of mortgages were done under CRA and in 2005 regulatory changes allowed certain banks to do less CRA mortgage lending. Thus, it just isn't credible to suggest that the CRA caused the housing crisis. Was the housing crisis created by people getting mortgages they couldn't afford? Yes, but that wasn't limited to CRA mortgages. Both parties helped get more people into houses they couldn't afford for their own reasons. -Matt On Feb 5, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: > That's just not accurate Tom. The Community Reinvestment Act required > lenders to do a lot of this stuff and then Fannie and Freddie created > the market for the paper. > > > Regards, > > Jeff > > > Jeff Broadwick > ImageStream > 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) > +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi > Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 2:19 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in > regulationof net-neutrality > > Brad, > >> People are losing their homes.many of which never should have been >> afforded the privilege of home ownership if it were not for big >> government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers. > > You had me, until the above paragraph. That is a crock of ShXX. > > Most housing foreclosures are conscious business decissions by the > middle class, to improve their finance and cash flow. They ask, Is it > worth continuing to sink money into this bad investment losing money? > I will say that there are a shortage of buyer. So when an investor > cant offload their losing investment (House) to someone else, they > resort to less ethical choices. > What does someone do if their house jsut lost 50k in value? IF they go > to foreclosure, they can pretty much live rent free for a year in > their home, before they are forced out. If they put their rent check > in hidden savings instead, they earn 50k that year. That combined with > gettting out of a loan taht is valued at mor ethan the house, it is a > net $100k earning, for doing nothing. They learn they can earn more > losing their home than some people do holding on to their home as an investment to resale. > > And governments were not the ones forcing lenders to lend. Its the > opposite Government regulation is unnecessarilly setting > regulations to make buying harder for consumers, to address a problem that didn't exist. > > Some People loose homes because a home is a 30 year commitment, > and its hard for anyone to predict how one's life will pan out every > year for 30 years. All it takes is one bad year, and there goes the > house. People loose houses because they loose jobs. People loose > houses because most personal debt is secured by their house, and > loosing the house is the easiest way to get rid of the other debt. > People lose houses because they cant live within their mean in other > areas of their life. Or because they set their sights to high. But the > biggest reason people default, is because they develop a sense of > satisfaction or entitlement in screwing their lender when they feel > they were taken advantage of by their le
