PDA

View Full Version : PROOF BANKS TARGETED MINORITIES 4 SUBPRIME LOANS



Gayle in MD
12-02-2011, 10:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Former Chase Banker Admits His Bank Pushed Minorities Into Subprime Mortgage Loans
By Pat Garofalo on Dec 1, 2011 at 9:20 am



One of the most pernicious practices in which the nation’ biggest banks engaged during the lead up to the financial crisis was pushing minority borrowers into subprime loans, even when many of them qualified for prime loans. Wells Fargo had perhaps the most horrifying practices in this department, calling the subprime loans that they pushed in poor, black neighborhoods “ghetto loans.”

This rampant predatory lending helped inflate the housing bubble; a Center for American Progress investigation actually found huge racial disparities in lending at the big banks that wound up getting bailed out, with minority borrowers far more likely to receive high-priced loans.

One former banker for Chase — James Theckston — told the New York Times’ Nick Kristof that not only did his bank push minority borrowers into higher-priced loans, but senior executives then tried to cover up the racial disparity in their banks’ lending:





"One memory particularly troubles Theckston. He says that some account executives earned a commission seven times higher from subprime loans, rather than prime mortgages. So they looked for less savvy borrowers — those with less education, without previous mortgage experience, or without fluent English — and nudged them toward subprime loans.

These less savvy borrowers were disproportionately blacks and Latinos, he said, and they ended up paying a higher rate so that they were more likely to lose their homes. Senior executives seemed aware of this racial mismatch, he recalled, and frantically tried to cover it up. "



“The bigwigs of the corporations knew this, but they figured we’re going to make billions out of it, so who cares? The government is going to bail us out. And the problem loans will be out of here, maybe even overseas,” Theckston explained.

In 2006, Chase made high-price loans to 16.4 percent of white borrowers, while nearly half of black borrowers and more than one-third of Hispanic borrowers received high-price loans. These disparities help explain why, according to a new report from the Center on Responsible Lending, Latinos and blacks are twice as likely to have been impacted by the housing crisis as whites. In fact, “approximately one quarter of all Latino and African-American borrowers have lost their home to foreclosure or are seriously delinquent, compared to just under 12 percent for white borrowers.”


</div></div>


http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/01/379332/former-banker-subprime-pushed/

LWW
12-03-2011, 04:45 AM
Why would they push people to loans they knew they couldn't repay?

Where's the payoff.

Use what brain cells you have remaining and think it through.

Qtec
12-03-2011, 05:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why would they push people to loans they knew they couldn't repay?

Where's the payoff.

Use what brain cells you have remaining and think it through. </div></div>

What if they already had a house?



Q

LWW
12-03-2011, 05:10 AM
And?

Qtec
12-03-2011, 05:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Laid off after 29 years of working for a local telephone company in North Carolina, "Roberta Green" was struggling. Although she had a part-time job driving a school bus, she was not earning enough to pay her bills. When she received a call from a man who said he could help her come up with some cash, it seemed like a godsend. The man said he worked for a home improvement company and that he could find her a loan that would both pay for some remodeling on her house and leave enough cash to pay her bills.

Unfortunately for Green, the salesman actually worked as a mortgage broker for "American Mortgage," and he was not peddling home improvement but a refinancing of her existing home mortgage at a high interest rate. He invited Green to his office, where he chatted with her while he filled out a mortgage application for her. While he indeed gave her a "good faith estimate" – a form required by regulators that lists the proposed interest rate and fees on a loan – the loan he wrote up was not a home equity loan for the $6,000 she needed to pay off bills. It was a loan for $76,500 that refinanced her entire mortgage at a higher interest rate. </div></div>

It gets worse.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A couple of weeks later Green signed the loan papers and walked out with a check for $1,900. The signing went by so fast, Green didn't catch all that was written on the pages. But she trusted the broker and the lawyer in the room and felt she had a pretty good grasp of what she was signing.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>What Green didn't realize was that her loan terms had changed since she received that good faith estimate. The broker had added $6,500 in fees to her loan, and changed the loan from a fixed-rate to a more expensive adjustable-rate mortgage. (Click here to see the loan she ended up with.) Green was a victim of predatory lending.</span> </div></div>

This is a typical case. The result?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Bottom Line: What Happens to the Borrower

Before this loan, Green had built up $23,000 of equity in her home. After the loan, she had less than $2,000 left. More than half of her home equity was lost to excessive fees.

Green will also end up paying more over the long term. Her monthly mortgage payments jumped from $500 a month to $740 a month. Her increased debt service and loss of wealth means she will be even more vulnerable to economic shocks in the future, and more likely to lose her home through foreclosure.

Those who profited from Green's loss of wealth are the loan broker ($3,500), the lender ($13,900), the credit insurance company ($3,000), and the secondary market, which will make an extra $40,000 on Green's loan. </div></div>

...and its goodbye house.

I believe 73% of all sub prime loans were loans like this.


Q link (http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/109/bradley.html)



Q

LWW
12-03-2011, 05:51 AM
So why would a lender make a loan to someone they knew couldn't pay?

Gayle in MD
12-03-2011, 06:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why would they push people to loans they knew they couldn't repay?

Where's the payoff.

Use what brain cells you have remaining and think it through. </div></div>

What if they already had a house?



Q

</div></div>

LOL, of all the people to be condescending toward others! Brain Cells? LMAO! He suffers from a severe deficit of brain cells himself. Additionally, he never reads anything and hence, never writes anything rational.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He says that some account executives earned a commission seven times higher from subprime loans, rather than prime mortgages. So they looked for less savvy borrowers — those with less education, without previous mortgage experience, or without fluent English — and nudged them toward subprime loans.

These less savvy borrowers were disproportionately blacks and Latinos, he said, and they ended up paying a higher rate so that they were more likely to lose their homes. Senior executives seemed aware of this racial mismatch, he recalled, and frantically tried to cover it up. "



“The bigwigs of the corporations knew this, but they figured we’re going to make billions out of it, so who cares? </div></div>

Apparently, idiot Wonkie Weenie, doesn't get anything, ever....if it isn't on his Fux Noise Kool Aid prescription.
Those who approved the loans, obviously, and as the whole world knows, knew the loans would be bundled up and sold off immediately, thereby removing their own personal risk, after they made their bundle of money and immediately put speace between themselves and the risk.

They were paid by how many mortgages they could get signed by unsuspecting consumers, whom they were targeting and exploiting, and didn't care about what happened after that.

Which is one of the reasons why it is so deceitful when they try to blamed the Community Reinvestment Act, since most of those loans were approved at the small community banks.

Our awareness of how many lost their homes, due to health Care costs, after being dropped by the corrupt and unscrupulous Health Insurance Industry, accounted for a huge majority of foreclosures during the first years of the infancy of the crash, the warnings of course were ignored, by Mr. Ownership Society, George idiot Bush and Greenspan, who flamed the risk of the coming crash with his unjustifiably low interest rates, and hence, flamed the risk of the coming Bush Crashed Economy, nearly a Bush Depression, which was all inherited by President Obama, including two F-ed up Wars, seven to eight hundred thousand in job losses a month, and a divided country, the worst legacy in history.

But the wonks on the right don't watch news, just the RW propaganda that assuages their non stop hate and denial, as intelligent, reasonable progressives, well know.

Repiglicans created the crash, ignoring fraud, as Greenspan admitted, and then proceeded to obstruct the recovery, for political gain, which more Americans are aware of these days....as their most agressive Reiglican Governors have created as many additional numbers of unemployed as they possibly could to the list of unemployed, and hence, they have the highest numbers of unemployed across the nation.

G.

LWW
12-03-2011, 07:16 AM
That was a rant and not an answer.

Here's a clue ... if you believe that blacks and other minorities were targeted for a scam that whites wouldn't fall for, you have to be proclaiming that blacks and other minorities are intellectually inferior.

Are you sure that's the public position y'all want to take ... although it's quite obvious that this is a core belief of the US left.

eg8r
12-03-2011, 11:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">PROOF BANKS TARGETED MINORITIES 4 SUBPRIME LOANS </div></div>Proof that minorities were agreeing to loans they could not afford. It is a two way street.

eg8r

eg8r
12-03-2011, 11:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why would they push people to loans they knew they couldn't repay?

Where's the payoff.
</div></div>This part I understand...They offered these loans irrespective of whether they could be repaid because the original lender had 100% intention of selling off these loans which happens all the time. For this I hold them 50% guilty and the other 50% is on the person who signed the dotted line on the contract.

eg8r

sack316
12-03-2011, 11:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So why would a lender make a loan to someone they knew couldn't pay? </div></div>

That part I do see. Individual Mr. or Mrs. bank person sees commission $$$, and goes on ahead and gets it. Big bank sees immediate $$$ on the books, and knows the unlikely-to-be-repaid debt will be shifted elsewhere in bundles, investments, and overseas (the positive of a "sale" looks yummy in the journal, while the potential liability/loss is in other hands).

Then when it all comes crashing down, who cares? Lender has their commission already. Big bank knows Gov't won't let them go under.

No chiming in on the argument itself here right now, just answering that particular question as I see it.

Sack

eg8r
12-03-2011, 11:26 AM
Yep, this was and is a very sad part of the banking industry.

eg8r

LWW
12-03-2011, 01:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why would they push people to loans they knew they couldn't repay?

Where's the payoff.
</div></div>This part I understand...They offered these loans irrespective of whether they could be repaid because the original lender had 100% intention of selling off these loans which happens all the time. For this I hold them 50% guilty and the other 50% is on the person who signed the dotted line on the contract.

eg8r </div></div>

So far, you are right.

Now ... why would someone buy a loan from someone that made it knowing that the borrower couldn't pay?

It's a chain of events thing ... and you should be commended as you are exhibiting thought. Something the cabal is unwilling to do.

LWW
12-03-2011, 01:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So why would a lender make a loan to someone they knew couldn't pay? </div></div>

That part I do see. Individual Mr. or Mrs. bank person sees commission $$$, and goes on ahead and gets it. Big bank sees immediate $$$ on the books, and knows the unlikely-to-be-repaid debt will be shifted elsewhere in bundles, investments, and overseas (the positive of a "sale" looks yummy in the journal, while the potential liability/loss is in other hands).

Then when it all comes crashing down, who cares? Lender has their commission already. Big bank knows Gov't won't let them go under.

No chiming in on the argument itself here right now, just answering that particular question as I see it.

Sack </div></div>

You are also correct.

Now, why would people buy this junk paper ... especially at such a low rate?

eg8r
12-03-2011, 02:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now ... why would someone buy a loan from someone that made it knowing that the borrower couldn't pay?
</div></div>I know nothing of this part of the industry other than I seriously don't think the buying party ever scrutinizes each individual loan as part of the group. I think they just buy a group but I could be wrong.

eg8r

LWW
12-03-2011, 02:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now ... why would someone buy a loan from someone that made it knowing that the borrower couldn't pay?
</div></div>I know nothing of this part of the industry other than I seriously don't think the buying party ever scrutinizes each individual loan as part of the group. I think they just buy a group but I could be wrong.

eg8r </div></div>

You are very wrong.

eg8r
12-03-2011, 06:15 PM
OK, so educate me...provide some links on the web from banks that describe the process they go through. To just say I am wrong doesn't prove anything.

eg8r

sack316
12-03-2011, 10:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

You are also correct.

Now, why would people buy this junk paper ... especially at such a low rate? </div></div>

Short answer: Gaussian copula-based technique used in correlation modeling.

Simple answer: The disbursement and redistribution of such bad debt, that would supposedly reduce risk, did not reduce risk but rather masked it instead.

Not enough time to go into the long answers here where I assign blame across the board /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

Qtec
12-04-2011, 02:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now ... why would someone buy a loan from someone that made it <u>knowing that the borrower couldn't pay?</u> </div></div>

The answer is, they wouldn't.

Q

Qtec
12-04-2011, 02:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I know nothing of this part of the industry other than I seriously don't think the buying party ever scrutinizes each individual loan as part of the group. I think they just buy a group but I could be wrong.

eg8r </div></div>


Normally they don't. Investors believed these risks were backed up with real estate, ie real money. If they had known how much US house prices were being artificially inflated, they might have been more cautious.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I seriously don't think the buying party ever scrutinizes each individual loan </div></div>


Some did.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- The Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday charged Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and one of its vice presidents with <u>defrauding investors by misstating and omitting key facts about a financial product related to subprime mortgages.</u>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>The SEC alleged in a civil lawsuit that Goldman GS -0.05% structured and marketed a collateralized debt obligation that hinged on the performance of subprime residential-mortgage-backed securities, or RMBS. However, it failed to disclose the role that a major hedge fund, Paulson & Co., played in the portfolio selection process as well as the fact that the hedge fund had taken a short position against the CDO.</span> See full story on Paulson & Co.'s role in the Goldman Sachs case. </div></div>


Translated: They sold something designed to fail!

This guy [ Paulson ] got a bunch of loans that he thought would fail. He, along with G Sachs bunched them together as a product [ known as Abacus 2007-AC1 ] and sold it on to investors as a good investment - while at the same time betting against it failing.

9 months later when Abacus 2007-AC1 became worthless, Paulson personally made 3.7 billion, Sachs got their cut and the investors lost everything.

Q.. link (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/goldman-charged-with-fraud-over-paulson-cdo-trade-2010-04-16)

LWW
12-04-2011, 04:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now ... why would someone buy a loan from someone that made it <u>knowing that the borrower couldn't pay?</u> </div></div>

The answer is, they wouldn't.

Q </div></div>

But your entire point has been that they would ... and I agree that they did.

The question is ... why?

LWW
12-04-2011, 04:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Translated: They sold something designed to fail! </div></div>

You are getting close.

eg8r
12-04-2011, 09:21 AM
So then you disagree with the entire premise of your post?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-04-2011, 10:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So then you disagree with the entire premise of your post?

eg8r </div></div>

Good God, do you everr get anything?

Take a reading course.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The SEC alleged in a civil lawsuit that Goldman /quotes/zigman/188479/quotes/nls/gs GS -0.05% structured and marketed a collateralized debt obligation that hinged on the performance of subprime residential-mortgage-backed securities, or RMBS. However, it failed to disclose the role that a major hedge fund, Paulson & Co., played in the portfolio selection process as well as the fact that the hedge fund had taken a short position against the CDO.


"Once upon a time, Wall Street firms protected clients," said Christopher Whalen, who heads the research firm Institutional Risk Analytics. "This litigation exposes the cynical, savage culture of Wall Street that allows a dealer to commit fraud on one customer to benefit another."
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
"Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party," said Robert Khuzami, director of the SEC's division of enforcement, according to a statement. Read commentary about Goldman's 'faulty brakes' argument.

</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The SEC's suit is aimed at the heart of one of the most profitable hedge-fund trades in history. Paulson, headed by John Paulson, generated billions of dollars in profit in 2007 from bets against CDOs. Other firms also made huge gains in similar trades as the housing market imploded, triggering a global financial crisis
</div></div>


Got it?
FRAUD!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Other firms also made huge gains in similar trades as the housing market imploded, triggering a global financial crisis
</span> </div></div>

It wasn't the CRA.

It wasn't Fannie and Freddi.

It was the corporate CEO CROOKS on Wall St.

Wake up!

eg8r
12-04-2011, 03:56 PM
LOL, maybe you should get a reading course. His thread is about banks targeting minorities, the reason being they could not afford the homes. Then he comes back and says the banks would not knowingly do this. Do you get it? Will you ever get it? Of course you don't, you know the saying about old dogs and new tricks.

Let's see if I can talk slowly enough for you to catch on. His premise is that they knew these people could not afford the loans but that they would mitigate their risk by selling off the loans. Now he is saying they would never do that. I am waiting on his explanation, so please remove your noise so his response is not missed.

eg8r

LWW
12-04-2011, 04:10 PM
Here's a hint ... why did she refinance the house?

Gayle in MD
12-04-2011, 07:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, maybe you should get a reading course. His thread is about banks targeting minorities, the reason being they could not afford the homes. Then he comes back and says the banks would not knowingly do this. Do you get it? Will you ever get it? Of course you don't, you know the saying about old dogs and new tricks.

Let's see if I can talk slowly enough for you to catch on. His premise is that they knew these people could not afford the loans but that they would mitigate their risk by selling off the loans. Now he is saying they would never do that. I am waiting on his explanation, so please remove your noise so his response is not missed.

eg8r </div></div>

You are mixing your "They" groups.

What a jerk.

G.

Qtec
12-05-2011, 02:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">PROOF BANKS TARGETED MINORITIES 4 SUBPRIME LOANS </div></div>Proof that minorities were agreeing to loans they could not afford. It is a two way street.

eg8r </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Law, Economics and Psychology of Subprime Mortgage Contracts
Oren Bar-Gill - New York University School of Law

Posted in Behavioral Economics Theory, Disclosure Regulation, Subprime Mortgage

Over 4 million subprime loans were originated in 2006, bringing the total value of outstanding subprime loans to over a trillion dollars. A few months later the subprime crisis began, with soaring foreclosure rates and hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars in losses to borrowers, lenders, neighborhoods, and cities, not to mention broader effects on the U.S. and world economy. In this Editorial, I focus on the subprime mortgage contract and its central design features. I argue that for many borrowers, these contractual design features were not welfare-maximizing. And to the extent that the design of subprime mortgage contracts contributed to the subprime crisis and to the ensuing recession, the welfare loss to borrowers, substantial in itself, is compounded by much broader social costs. Finally, I argue that a better understanding of the market failure that produced these inefficient contracts should inform the ongoing efforts to reform the regulations governing the subprime market.

During the five years preceding the crisis, the subprime market experienced staggering growth as riskier loans were made to riskier borrowers. Not surprisingly, these riskier loans came at the price of higher interest rates, which compensated lenders for the increased risk that they undertook. But high prices themselves are not the central problem; the problem is that these high prices were hidden by lenders and underappreciated by borrowers. In the prime market, the traditional loan is a standardized 30-year fixed-rate mortgage (FRM). Lenders could have accounted for the increased risk of subprime loans by simply raising the interest rate on the traditional FRM. Yet the typical subprime loan is a far cry from an FRM. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The subprime market boasted a broad variety of complex loans with multidimensional pricing structures. Hybrid loans—combining fixed and variable rates, interest-only loans, and option-payment adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs), each product type with its own multidimensional design—were all common in the expanding subprime market.</span> Many of these contractual designs were not new; they were known in the prime market since the early 1980s. But it was in the subprime market where they first took center stage.

Common subprime mortgage contracts share two suspect features. The first is cost deferral. (Of course, any loan contract involves deferred costs; I am referring to deferral of costs beyond what is necessarily implied by the very nature of a loan.) <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The traditional prime mortgage required a 20% down payment, which implies a loan-to-value (LTV) ratio of no more than 80%. In the subprime market, in 2006, over 40% of loans had LTVs exceeding 90%. Focusing on purchase-money loans, in 2005, 2006, and the first half of 2007, the median subprime borrower put no money down, borrowing 100% of the purchase price of the house. </span> The schedule of payments on the loan itself exhibits the same deferred-cost characteristic. Under the standard prime FRM, the borrower pays the same dollar amount each month—a flat payment schedule. Under a conventional ARM, where the monthly payment is calculated by adding a fixed number of percentage points to a fluctuating index, the dollar amount paid varies from month to month, but without any systemic trajectory. The majority of subprime loans, on the other hand, exhibited an increasing payment schedule: they set a low interest rate for an introductory period, commonly two years, and a higher interest rate for the remaining term of the loan. Other subprime loans exhibited an even steeper payment schedule. Interest-only loans and payment-option ARMs allowed for zero or negative amortization during the introductory period, further increasing the step-up in the monthly payment after the introductory period ended. A direct implication of an escalating-payments contract is the “payment shock,” which occurs when a rate reset leads to a significant, up to 100%, increase in the monthly payment.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The second suspect feature of subprime contracts is their level of complexity. </span> While the traditional FRM sets a single, constant interest rate, the typical subprime mortgage includes multiple interest rates, some of which are defined implicitly by non-trivial formulas that adjust rates from one period to the next. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The typical subprime loan also features a host of fees, some applicable at different periods during the loan term, some contingent on various exogenous changes or on borrower behavior. The numerous fees associated with a subprime loan fall under two categories: (1) origination fees, including a credit check fee, an appraisal fee, a flood certification fee, a tax certification fee, an escrow analysis fee, an underwriting analysis fee, a document preparation fee, and separate fees for sending emails, faxes, and courier mail; and (2) post-origination fees, including late fees, foreclosure fees, prepayment penalties, and dispute-resolution or arbitration fees. These fees can add up to thousands of dollars, or up to 20% of the loan amount.</span> The prepayment option, which is of special importance in the subprime market, further complicates the valuation of these contracts, and so does the (implicit) default option. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Finally, since a borrower must choose among many different complex products, each with a different set of multidimensional prices and features, the complexity of the borrower’s decision is exponentially greater than the already high level of complexity of a single contract. </span></div></div>

Q........

Qtec
12-05-2011, 02:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That was a rant and not an answer. </div></div>


That<u> was</u> an answer. Again, read it this time.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 23pt'>some account executives earned a commission seven times higher from subprime loans,</span> rather than prime mortgages. So they looked for less savvy borrowers — those with less education, without previous mortgage experience, or without fluent English — and nudged them toward subprime loans.

These less savvy borrowers were disproportionately blacks and Latinos, he said, and they ended up paying a higher rate so that they were more likely to lose their homes. Senior executives seemed aware of this racial mismatch, he recalled, and frantically tried to cover it up. " </div></div>

They made more money by selling subprime loans. Everyone down the line made more money on these subprime loans. Thats why the % of subprime loans contained in CDOs rose from the usual 8% to 20%.

50% of minorities who got subprime loans actually qualified for a normal loan. How do you account for that?



Q

Qtec
12-05-2011, 02:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> His thread is about banks targeting minorities, the reason being they could not afford the homes.</div></div>

73% of all subprime loans were made to people who already OWNED a house. Did you read my post? At all?

If you had good credit rating you could get a S-P loan and not even have to declare your income!!!!!!!!!

Q

Qtec
12-05-2011, 02:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Roberta Green's Loan
Value of home: $81,000
Loan amount: $76,500
Payoff of existing mortgage: $53,000
Credit Insurance (not on Good Faith Estimate): $3,000
Origination fee: <u>$7,500</u>
Broker fee (not on Good Faith Estimate): <u>$3,500</u>
Paid debts: $5,690
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Cash to borrower: $1,907
Equity left in house: $1,903 </span></div></div>

Q...did she get a good deal or was she mugged?

LWW
12-05-2011, 02:43 AM
http://artsaha.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/wrensite_dancingsnoopy.jpg

You are dancing in circles around the answer.

Qtec
12-05-2011, 02:47 AM
Grow up.

Q

LWW
12-05-2011, 02:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Grow up.

Q </div></div>

You say that when I can see the obvious answer ... to which you are totally oblivious?

Keep dancing.

Qtec
12-05-2011, 03:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Grow up.

Q </div></div>

You say that when I can see the obvious answer ... to which you are totally oblivious?

Keep dancing. </div></div>

let me fix that for you.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You say that when I <s>can</s> think I see the obvious answer </div></div>

As usual, you are convinced YOU are RIGHT and I am wrong and you want me to take your word for it!

If you haven't got something relevant to add to the thread, then don't post. We have all had enough of your pathetic childish One-upmanship. Well I have anyway, I'm sure there are others.

Q

LWW
12-05-2011, 04:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As usual, you are convinced YOU are RIGHT and I am wrong and you want me to take your word for it!

Q

</div></div>

No, I want you to ... just this once ... reject the spoon and think it through.

You have already contradicted your point ... that loans were intentionally made to people that couldn't afford them ... and that is a clear sign of confusion.

Although I know the answer, I don't want you to accept my answer ... I want you to come to an epiphany.

BTW ... where did you get the GOOD FAITH ESTIMATE data?

I'm not disputing it, but the answer is contained within that data.

Proceed.

Qtec
12-05-2011, 05:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You have already contradicted your point </div></div>

WRONG.

Try again.

Q

LWW
12-05-2011, 06:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You have already contradicted your point </div></div>

WRONG.

Try again.

Q </div></div>

Don't lie.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">they ended up paying a higher rate so that they were more likely to lose their homes. Senior executives seemed aware of this racial mismatch, he recalled</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ...and its goodbye house.

I believe 73% of all sub prime loans were loans like this.


Q</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So why would a lender make a loan to someone they knew couldn't pay? </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now ... why would someone buy a loan from someone that made it <u>knowing that the borrower couldn't pay?</u> </div></div>

The answer is, they wouldn't.

Q </div></div>

eg8r
12-05-2011, 09:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Finally, since a borrower must choose among many different complex products, each with a different set of multidimensional prices and features, the complexity of the borrower’s decision is exponentially greater than the already high level of complexity of a single contract. </div></div>These are all available because borrowers demanded the ability to borrow the money when they could not afford it. It happens all the time. People cannot afford to buy the house but they want the banker to "find" a way to "get it done".

This right here is where the author is being dishonest...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Finally, since a borrower must choose among many different complex products</div></div>There is no "must choose among many different complex products". Fixed rate is the way to go and not complex or confusing at all. If you cannot afford the 20% down then you have to pay the PMI but there is nothing secretive about that. All these other options are available to people who cannot afford the loan they are trying to get.

Sorry but I have not ever seen you place a single bit of blame on the borrower who chose to sign their name to a loan they could not afford.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-05-2011, 09:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> His thread is about banks targeting minorities, the reason being they could not afford the homes.</div></div>

73% of all subprime loans were made to people who already OWNED a house. Did you read my post? At all?

If you had good credit rating you could get a S-P loan and not even have to declare your income!!!!!!!!!

Q


</div></div>

They never want to address the huge numbers of wealthy investors, who worked the corrupt lending practices by the lenders, and then walked out and left the keys on the kitchen counter of four and five properties.

The right admires corruption, as long as the corrupt, through law breaking, and/or gross exploitation, got plenty of money for their crimes and lack of conscience.

Those Wall St. Bankers stole everyone's wealth, with their greed, both here and around the world.

Pretty funny watching the right try to slant this whole thing as though it was all about greedy poor people, the CRA, and Fannie and Freddie!

Really proves their ignorance.

G.
"Ronald Reagan proved that the deficits don't matter"
Dickhead Cheneycrook

eg8r
12-05-2011, 09:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">73% of all subprime loans were made to people who already OWNED a house. Did you read my post? At all?
</div></div>This means absolutely nothing. Earth to McFly. Owning a house does not mean good credit at all. Not one iota. It might mean at some time in the past you had just enough credit to purchase a house but if that credit was not good then you would be paying an extremely high interest rate. Then due to the high interest rate you agreed to at the signing you now cannot afford the monthly payments on time and you start missing payments. Well then that "just good enough" rating starts dropping fast and faster till it is well below the "just good enough" line.

Also, you really need to wake the heck up. Even if you have a good credit rating that does not mean you can afford whatever the heck you want. Buying a house and paying for the house have less to do with credit rating than actual income. If you don't have the money to pay the monthly payment don't buy it.

eg8r

eg8r
12-05-2011, 09:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They never want to address the huge numbers of wealthy investors, who worked the ocrrupt system used by the lenders, and then walked out and left the keys on the kitchen counter of four and five properties.
</div></div>Get on topic gayle. This is about banks targeting minorities. Sure there are minorities that were wealthy investors but they were not part of this subject.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-05-2011, 12:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">PROOF BANKS TARGETED MINORITIES 4 SUBPRIME LOANS </div></div>Proof that minorities were agreeing to loans they could not afford. It is a two way street.

eg8r </div></div>

Proof that loan companies were targeting those whom they percieved as not well educated, and people who didn't yet have enough understanding of our language, or were not as familiar with mortgages, and then there were also well educated, well to do speculators, who were stupid enough to think that the prices wouldn't go down, before they could flip properties. Apparently, they were not as smart as they thought they were.

Real Estate Agents, bankers, mortgage companies, The Wall St. large financial institutions, ratings agencies, all were intentionally pushing and approving these bad loans, knowing that they would quickly sell them off, as worthy, when they were not.

It is a fact, that we have a lot of people, new immigrants, and some African Americans, who have not had the opportunities that many of the rest of us have had, to pay for a good education, or secure high paying jobs. Those people were targeted. Pretty low down of the banking and loan industry. You want to ONLY blame those who were exploited. Very unfair of you, and shows you have no compassion for those who wre scammed.

Greenspan stated, that he was no slouch in financies, and he couldn't figure out much of the intentionally comples and superfluous paper work, designed intentionally, to confuse people, and used by these corrupt thieves, by the thieves on Wall St., as well, who actually committed gross fraud, upon the whole world.

You are defending corruption and theft.

No surprise.

G.

"Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don't matter"
Dickhead Cheneycrook

eg8r
12-05-2011, 01:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are defending corruption and theft.
</div></div>Quit being stupid. I have already stated it is a two way street. Are you too stupid to understand that I blame both parties involved? Yes you are.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-05-2011, 02:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are defending corruption and theft.
</div></div>Quit being stupid. I have already stated it is a two way street. Are you too stupid to understand that I blame both parties involved? Yes you are.

eg8r </div></div>

Now think real hard.

Which of the two parties, to whom you refer, exploited the other party?

Which party, intentionally skewed the paperwork, so they could exploit others, for their own financial gain?

I'd say, only those who could speak good english, had enough education to deal with the intentional complexity included in the paper work, meant to confuse, and who had a plan, to get rich by exploiting the unsuspecting....the disadvantaged...

It's known as being a con artist...a crook, a pig. Sort of like when a president lies the whole country into a war, to advantage his no bid contracting fellow crooks, and thousand die, to make them all richer.

You have no business ever telling anyone else, that they live in a fantasy world, after you voted for George Bush, TWICE!

Now get along with you, Sonny, you bore me.

Go get yourself a fried Twinkie, LOL, maybe it will improve your nasty disposition.

G. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif


"Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don't matter"
Dickhead Cheneycrook

eg8r
12-05-2011, 02:40 PM
Both parties are responsible. A fool is always parted with his money first. Just wish you were mentally capable of see the whole truth and not just your twisted fantasy.

eg8r

LWW
12-05-2011, 02:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote=Qtec]73% of all subprime loans were made to people who already OWNED a house.

Q</div></div>

Why?

LWW
12-05-2011, 02:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Real Estate Agents, bankers, mortgage companies, The Wall St. large financial institutions, ratings agencies, all were intentionally pushing and approving these bad loans, knowing that they would quickly sell them off, as worthy, when they were not.

G.</div></div>

Why were they able to do this?

Why wasn't this happening in the 1960's?

Qtec
12-06-2011, 02:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">These are all available because borrowers <u>demanded the ability to borrow the money</u> when they could not afford it. </div></div>

The borrowers didn't demand a loan, they were offered it. The banks did not have to give them the money. In any mortgage loan, the deal is that <span style='font-size: 14pt'>if you can't meet your payments, they take back the house.</span> Right?

Put it this way. Between 2002 and 2006 house prices were rising by 10% each year.
So imagine [ in 2002 ]the bank gives a 100% sub prime loan on a $200,000 house. After the borrower pays his mortgage for 2 years, then his payments almost double and goes into foreclosure.
The house is now worth <u>242,000.</u> The bank sells the house and makes <u>$42,000</u>, plus the two years of payments made by the borrower!....and they then sell a new mortgage!

Easy money yeah? You can't lose if house prices keep on rising.

This is why sub prime lending took off in 2004.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/U.S._Home_Ownership_and_Subprime_Origination_Share .png/800px-U.S._Home_Ownership_and_Subprime_Origination_Share .png

It became a Ponzi scheme. That's why, when so many houses were being foreclosed on, they lent more and more money to high risk lenders just to keep demand up and to stop house prices falling. They also deliberately kept 1,000s of house OFF the market!

Compare the graph above with this one.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e2/Foreclosure_Trend.png/800px-Foreclosure_Trend.png

Its pretty clear to me that this was fraud on such a massive scale that has never been seen before.

Q

LWW
12-06-2011, 03:38 AM
[quote=Qtec] <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Put it this way. Between 2002 and 2006 house prices were rising by 10% each year.

So imagine [ in 2002 ]the bank gives a 100% sub prime loan on a $200,000 house. After the borrower pays his mortgage for 2 years, then his payments almost double and goes into foreclosure.

The house is now worth <u>242,000.</u> The bank sells the house and makes <u>$42,000</u>, plus the two years of payments made by the borrower!....and they then sell a new mortgage!

Easy money yeah? You can't lose if house prices keep on rising.

Q </div></div>

Back to reality ... repossessed homes have always sold for a discount of 20% or more from like homes in the neighborhood. For one thing, if you know you are going to lose the home are you going to continue to maintain it? Second, it costs a lender an easy $10K in legal fees to repossess. Third it takes on average about 2 years. Next up ... first lien holder is actually always the state, so the lender has to make up back taxes. Let's review ... if the house goes up to $242K, the 20% loss Takes you to $194K ... minus $10K in legal fees leaves you at $184K ... minus 2 years of property taxes leaves you at about $175K ... minus 6% commission on the $194K leaves you with about $164K ... and that's rounding the numbers up at every turn.

Next uneducated assumption?

OH DEAR! (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-26/distressed-homes-in-u-s-sold-at-27-discount-in-first-quarter.html)

LWW
12-06-2011, 03:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its pretty clear to me that this was fraud on such a massive scale that has never been seen before.

Q </div></div>

Yes it was ... but you still don't realize who did it.

Qtec
12-06-2011, 04:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Back to reality ...</div></div>

Yes, lets get back to reality. These graphs are FACTS. NOBODY is interested in YOUR opinion. If you want to make a point and have it believed, back it up with FACTS.

Back to reality. How do you explain the two graphs?

Q

LWW
12-06-2011, 04:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Back to reality ...</div></div>

Yes, lets get back to reality. These graphs are FACTS. NOBODY is interested in YOUR opinion. If you want to make a point and have it believed, back it up with FACTS.

Back to reality. How do you explain the two graphs?

Q </div></div>

I haven't yet voiced an opinion ... that's what you have been doing from the start of the thread however, even offering opinions which counter your opinions.

BTW ... your graphs don't support your opinion.

Qtec
12-06-2011, 04:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Back to reality ... repossessed homes have <span style='font-size: 14pt'>always sold</span> for a discount of 20% or more </div></div>

Once again you are lying.

Unlike you and eg8r, I actually read the links that you post.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Distressed Homes in U.S. Sold at 27% Discount in First Quarter By Dan Levy - <span style='font-size: 26pt'>May 26, 2011</span> 6:01 AM GMT+0200 </div></div>

Anything to say?

Were you not deliberately trying to deceive?



Q,,,make your case. The jury will vote on it.

Qtec
12-06-2011, 04:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I haven't yet voiced an opinion</div></div>

That's ALL you have done.

Its ALL you ever do.


Q

LWW
12-06-2011, 05:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Back to reality ... repossessed homes have <span style='font-size: 14pt'>always sold</span> for a discount of 20% or more </div></div>

Once again you are lying.

Unlike you and eg8r, I actually read the links that you post.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Distressed Homes in U.S. Sold at 27% Discount in First Quarter By Dan Levy - <span style='font-size: 26pt'>May 26, 2011</span> 6:01 AM GMT+0200 </div></div>

Anything to say? </div></div>

Yes.

You are clueless.

I claimed less than 27%, the number is higher because of the current glut. In fact, I do believe that 27% is about 35% higher than the traditional 20% that I claimed.

Next foolish statement?

LWW
12-06-2011, 05:29 AM
HERE (http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/32472/1/12010035.pdf) the FHA in 1987 was reporting an average loss of 19%+ on judicial repossessions... well before the mess started up.

So, again, I have given your lame opinions every possible break ... and they have bled out. Quickly.

Next preposterous assertion?

LWW
12-06-2011, 05:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK, so educate me...provide some links on the web from banks that describe the process they go through. To just say I am wrong doesn't prove anything.

eg8r </div></div>

I'm not ignoring your post, I'm trying to force snoopy to figure this out on his own.

You are a smart enough guy that you have probably figured it out already.

If not ... here is a big clue am posting for snoopy. It explains his graph.

&gt;&gt;&gt;CLICK HERE SNOOPY ... THIS IS A LINK&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/125/goingsubprime.html)

eg8r
12-06-2011, 08:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unlike you and eg8r, I actually read the links that you post.
</div></div>LOL, and unlike you we can actually comprehend what we are reading.

eg8r

Qtec
12-06-2011, 09:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">HERE (http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/32472/1/12010035.pdf) the FHA in 1987 was reporting an average loss of 19%+ on judicial repossessions... well before the mess started up.

So, again, I have given your lame opinions every possible break ... and they have bled out. Quickly.

Next preposterous assertion? </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Farmers Home Administration (FmHA),
an important lender <u>in the agricultural sector,</u>
has recently been confronted with an inordinate
number of delinquent borrowers (table 1).
Poor performance in the agricultural sector,
declining<u> farm real estate prices, and potential
deterioration of rural residential and other farm
structures </u>have contributed to the delinquency
problem and have led FmHA to initiate foreclosure
and voluntary conveyance actions in
order to protect its security interests in mortgaged
properties. </div></div>

Q...?

LWW
12-06-2011, 09:34 AM
We aren't really talking about farms snoopy ... but let it be noted for the record that the snoopster is proving my assertions wrong by confirming them to have been correct.

Snoop demonstrates the clear signs of an inferior and confused mind trying to keep up with the rest of society

Next nutty notion?

BTW ... you have walked circles around the answer, to the point that I don't believe you even understand the question(s)?

LWW
12-07-2011, 04:54 AM
C'mon snoop ... you can figure this out.

LWW
12-08-2011, 04:53 AM
None of our illustrious leftist hatemeisters has figured this out yet?

Qtec
12-08-2011, 07:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We aren't really talking about farms snoopy . </div></div>

So why did you bring up an irrelevant point?

Q

LWW
12-08-2011, 07:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We aren't really talking about farms snoopy . </div></div>

So why did you bring up an irrelevant point?

Q </div></div>

I didn't.

I brought up that you brought up an irrelevant point.

Gayle in MD
12-08-2011, 07:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, maybe you should get a reading course. His thread is about banks targeting minorities, the reason being they could not afford the homes. Then he comes back and says the banks would not knowingly do this. Do you get it? Will you ever get it? Of course you don't, you know the saying about old dogs and new tricks.

Let's see if I can talk slowly enough for you to catch on. His premise is that they knew these people could not afford the loans but that they would mitigate their risk by selling off the loans. Now he is saying they would never do that. I am waiting on his explanation, so please remove your noise so his response is not missed.

eg8r </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>LOL, maybe you should get a reading course. His thread is about banks targeting minorities, </span> </div></div>

Lets see if I can talk slowly enough for your nitwit brain to comprehend.


Maybe you should get a reading course! It's not HIS thread. It's MY thread.

Do YOU ever get it?

Now stuff it, gnat.

G.

Gayle in MD
12-08-2011, 07:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Both parties are responsible. A fool is always parted with his money first. Just wish you were mentally capable of see the whole truth and not just your twisted fantasy.

eg8r </div></div>

You need to worry about your own mental capability. You're the one who voted twice for George idiot Bush. I'm the one who told you he would leave us in a debt ditch, was creating a disastrous FIASCO and ruining our honor, twice.

It's pretty obvious who was correct.

What is a shame is that you learned no humility after attacking others who were exactly right, all along.

Now go play with your toys. This conversation is for adults, hence, it's above your head.

G.

LWW
12-08-2011, 08:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, maybe you should get a reading course. His thread is about banks targeting minorities, the reason being they could not afford the homes. Then he comes back and says the banks would not knowingly do this. Do you get it? Will you ever get it? Of course you don't, you know the saying about old dogs and new tricks.

Let's see if I can talk slowly enough for you to catch on. His premise is that they knew these people could not afford the loans but that they would mitigate their risk by selling off the loans. Now he is saying they would never do that. I am waiting on his explanation, so please remove your noise so his response is not missed.

eg8r </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>LOL, maybe you should get a reading course. His thread is about banks targeting minorities, </span> </div></div>

Lets see if I can talk slowly enough for your nitwit brain to comprehend.


Maybe you should get a reading course! It's not HIS thread. It's MY thread.

Do YOU ever get it?

Now stuff it, gnat.

G. </div></div>

It's still titled "PROOF BANKS TARGETED MINORITIES 4 SUBPRIME LOANS"

eg8r
12-08-2011, 08:58 AM
Oh, you never learn.

eg8r

eg8r
12-08-2011, 08:59 AM
LOL, this idiot just stuck her own foot in her own mouth. Give an idiot like her enough rope and she will hang herself on her own. LOL she doesn't even understand the subject of her own thread. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

LWW
12-08-2011, 09:02 AM
She only learns from the teachings of dear leader ...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-onzTWYM_i34/TnFMuzTDoGI/AAAAAAAAOJ0/kut2sM5MsVY/s400/Obama-Jesus.jpg

Gayle in MD
12-08-2011, 10:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, maybe you should get a reading course. His thread is about banks targeting minorities, the reason being they could not afford the homes. Then he comes back and says the banks would not knowingly do this. Do you get it? Will you ever get it? Of course you don't, you know the saying about old dogs and new tricks.

Let's see if I can talk slowly enough for you to catch on. His premise is that they knew these people could not afford the loans but that they would mitigate their risk by selling off the loans. Now he is saying they would never do that. I am waiting on his explanation, so please remove your noise so his response is not missed.

eg8r </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>LOL, maybe you should get a reading course. His thread is about banks targeting minorities, </span> </div></div>

Lets see if I can talk slowly enough for your nitwit brain to comprehend.


Maybe you should get a reading course! It's not HIS thread. It's MY thread.

Do YOU ever get it?

Now stuff it, gnat.

G. </div></div>

It's still titled "PROOF BANKS TARGETED MINORITIES 4 SUBPRIME LOANS" </div></div>

So what! It's still MY thread, you lying coward.

Gayle in MD
12-08-2011, 10:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, this idiot just stuck her own foot in her own mouth. Give an idiot like her enough rope and she will hang herself on her own. LOL she doesn't even understand the subject of her own thread. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r </div></div>

LMAO!

You stuck your own foot in your own mouth, after years of calling others murderers, because they defended Row V. Wade, and then telling everyone that you used birth control pills, and the IUD for birth control, killing all of those fertilized "Babies" for all of these years.

REfusing to answer a simple question...Would you let your wife die if her life was at risk, or choose to abort?

Can't answer it, can you little Eddie?

LMAO!

What's so funny about both of you is that you can never admit it when you've been had, hook, line and sinker.

BWA HA HA HA....two cowardly little antagonistic gnats, neither one has a point, or the guts to own up.

G.

LWW
12-08-2011, 11:33 AM
<span style='font-size: 26pt'>FOCUS</span>

on the topic trollgirl.

eg8r
12-08-2011, 12:53 PM
Sorry white trash but you did not even know what your own thread was about. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif LOL, cracks me up.

eg8r

LWW
12-08-2011, 01:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry white trash but you did not even know what your own thread was about. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif LOL, cracks me up.

eg8r </div></div>

That's not fair to white trash.

LWW
12-10-2011, 05:53 AM
I've given all these hints, and no answers?

Gayle in MD
12-10-2011, 06:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry white trash but you did not even know what your own thread was about. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif LOL, cracks me up.



eg8r </div></div>




Now go play with your toys. This conversation is for adults, hence, it's above your head.

G

Gayle in MD
12-10-2011, 08:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Both parties are responsible. A fool is always parted with his money first. Just wish you were mentally capable of see the whole truth and not just your twisted fantasy.

eg8r </div></div>

Stupid comment.

It's called FRAUD.


The majo9r FRAUD, was committed by the financial institutions who pushed the FRAUD.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One of the most pernicious practices in which the nation’ biggest banks engaged during the lead up to the financial crisis was pushing minority borrowers into subprime loans, even when many of them qualified for prime loans. Wells Fargo had perhaps the most horrifying practices in this department, calling the subprime loans that they pushed in poor, black neighborhoods “ghetto loans.”

</div></div>

Those who were pushed into these loans, were the victims.

Those who walked away stuffing money into their pockets, were the FRAUDULENT PIGS!

Wake UP!

You are the one twisting.
G.

eg8r
12-10-2011, 01:20 PM
There has not been a single incident of people being pushed into a loan. Now you are just resorting to making crap up. Very sad to see you drop so quickly.

eg8r

LWW
12-10-2011, 04:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There has not been a single incident of people being pushed into a loan.

eg8r </div></div>

Au contraire mon frere ... many, many were "PUSHED" into loans.

Where charlotte is wrong is who was doing the pushing.

Here's another hint ... google <span style='font-size: 11pt'>fannie pushed mortgage credit rapid rescore</span> and then root around some.

Please, everyone, don't take anyone else's word on this ... educate yourself.