(12-08-2017, 10:35 PM)hb1148 Wrote:

(12-08-2017, 10:29 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: I guess if you say so...

I understand what you're saying; I just disagree with the conclusion. The lending happened before the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and that's proven through the CRA lending numbers.

They were pressured by Clinton to hand out more loans. Those loans faulted more often. Yes, the mortgages were gambled, but that isn't why the money was negligently distributed to people unable to pay the loan. If the money had never been force out, it wouldn't have become a problem in the first place. You think the problem started in 1999, but it was already a predicted problem by late-2000. The numbers how that subprime mortgage skyrocketed after 1992 and the Clinton-led enforcement of the CRA.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Subprime lending has occurred at various points but it got out of hand when financial companies realized they could book all the profits and pass off the risks without penalty. Remember the "$1 move in, no credit check" 300K mortgages? You can disagree with that if you want but it doesn't change what happened.

Again, the subprime lending increased substantially in 1992. There's no denying that. It went from just a $8 billion to $1.25 trillion by 1999 when you claim the subprime actually took off. That's, what, a 15,000%+ increase all before 1999. In 1990, 80% of mortgages were considered prime mortgages with solid down payments.

Clinton wrote about this in his book. He initially wanted to use private pensions to fund the housing market, but when he couldn't find investors, he used the CRA to enforce it. In 1992, they forced Fannie and Freddie to make 30% of their transactions subprime mortgages. By 1997, it was 42%... 50% in 2000. 

OK. So...

1990 -- Less than $8 billion in subprime mortgages
1992 -- Clinton enforces CRA
1995 -- CRA rules tightened even further after minimal increase in subprime mortgages, CRA at around $100 billion
1997 -- CRA rules fully enforced, CRA at around $400 billion
1999 -- CRA at around $1.25 trillion

After just a couple of years, the CRA increases 15,000%+ but you're saying it's because of something that happened after all of this. I don't disagree that it negatively influenced the whole process, but the chart was vertical by 1999 and it pretty much stayed consistent until the burst.

---