Question by : Why do so many so called Conservatives insist that banks were forced to make loans to people who could not pay? When the reality is that banks encouraged these loans for the following reasons. #1 Fees generated at someone else risk. #2 They could have these loans marked as AAA Securities so they could legally hold them as reserve capital while earning a much higher interest premium than reserve capital held in the form of Treasury Bonds or Cash held by the Fed. Too bad these people can't get pull their heads from their.......and see what happened. Pretty sad. Best answer for Why do so many so called Conservatives insist that banks were forced to make loans to people who could not pay?:
Answer by NCR Elite
because we were paying attention to what folks like Franklin Raines and Barney Frank were doing. Maxine Waters: Through nearly a dozen hearings, we were frankly trying to fix something that wasn�??t broke. Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Franklin Raines. Gregory Meeks: �?� I�??m just pissed off at OFHEO [the regulators trying to warn Congress of insolvency at the GSEs], because if it wasn�??t for you, I don�??t think we�??d be here in the first place. �?� There�??s been nothing that indicated that�??s wrong with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac has come up on its own �?� The question that then comes up is the competence that your agency has with reference to deciding and regulating these GSEs. Lacy Clay: This hearing is about the political lynching of Franklin Raines.
Answer by Samm
Same reason Liberals think Banks force them to sign the Mortgage with pistols pointing against their heads????
Answer by Centrally Planned Parenthood
I don''t know. Making loans to people who could not pay was the most profitable part of their business there, at least for a while.
Answer by crash.override
So says the liberal troll who ignores the Community Re-investment Act, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the Chris-Dodd who pretty much were the drivers of the whole mess.
Answer by paul s
community redevelopement act, ala Jimmy Carter. Given this they tried to make money. If not for this I am not saying that some might have done bad things but this is why banks were forced to make loans to people who could not pay and that is your question.
Answer by MTR 2.0
I think they fail to realize that if these banks did not take these loans and costumers decided to access their accounts, we would have been in the same boat Greece is in now.
Answer by Ron
I suggest you do more research before you spew......all you need to do is use any search engine and type in barney frank housing bubble
Answer by How would I Know
Oooh.. I'm so sorry. Both your answers are incorrect and make you look foolish. The correct answer is.. #3) Because banks were forced to make loans to people unlikely to repay. Banks were required to meet lending requirements in order to qualify for federal lending programs, open new branches or even keep FDIC coverage.
Answer by George B
Jeeez! Think, man, think. If they could have afforded to pay we would have never had so many foreclosures.
AAA Loans & Gun Shop www.ziplocal.com 12831 Pacific Hwy SW Lakewood, WA 98499
http://leafgardenpress.com/ AAA Loans & Gun Shop - (253)582-4000
The portfolio is wholly made up of full documentation loans which have a weighted average current loan-to-value ratio of 63.0%, and a weighted average seasoning of 3.3 years. Floating-rate loans represent 83.0% of the cover pool. In a 'AAA' scenario ... TEXT-Fitch Rates Westpac Covered Bonds 'AAA'
Today I�??m going to share with you the findings of the September 11th commission.
�
I�??m not a committee member, and as I'm writing this they're still holding hearings, but I�??ve already figured it all out:
�
There were a number of warning memos and reports that were poorly written and not specific enough. Therefore, the memos didn�??t scream for immediate attention or call for direct action, and there was no follow-up.Top officials didn�??t meet, share information, agree on a plan, and then communicate that plan down to the lowest levels�?" the airport workers, INS officials, border patrols, and even ordinary citizens who could look out for danger.
No one person will be held solely responsible. A number of people in wide-ranging departments ignored the warning signs, choosing to do one or all of the following: Make political points for themselves and get money for their departments, Concentrate on matters that seem trivial in retrospect, Punch out at 5 p.m. and go home.
Loads of people are now looking to place blame and point fingers. We�??re hearing �??I told you so�?� and �??It�??s not my job, it�??s so-and-so�??s job.�?� And we�??re hearing complaints about being overworked, understaffed, and poorly trained. Everyone is covering their own ass, choosing to throw other people under the bus while trying to look good doing it.
That�??s the way our government works.
�
In other words, our government works like a typical ad agency.
�
Think about it: Most of the work we do comes in fast and goes out the door fast. Research is limited. Timelines are short. Corners get cut. Major ass-covering happens. And shitty work often results.
�
How many times have you heard, �??Let�??s just get it out the door�?�? And once an ad or a project leaves the agency, it�??s gone. We foist it on the general public and we breathe a sigh of relief that we never need to deal with it again.
�
That is, unless someone (like a client or distantly removed CD or CEO) isn�??t happy with the way the work turned out. Then the finger pointing begins:
�
�??The creatives dropped the ball on this one.�?�
�
�??The AE�??s brief wasn�??t tight enough.�?�
�
�??The production artist inhaled too much spray mount, so he passed out and we missed the deadline.�?�
�
But the odds are, bad work is not the fault of one person or one missed step. Agencies that struggle with problems tend to make the same mistakes over and over again, even on radically different assignments. That�??s because agency management doesn�??t take the time to collectively understand how the process breaks down and how it can be fixed. They just look for scapegoats. Why? It�??s just easier that way.
�
The advertising world faces a daunting future: Not a week goes by that the trade press doesn�??t report some major level of client dissatisfaction with the performance of the ad industry.
�
And, just like we won�??t return to the world that we knew on September 10, 2001, the ad industry won�??t return to yesterday�??s world of fat network TV commissions and three-martini lunches. We�??ll continue to be pressured to perform, and fast. We�??ll still have to unearth truths to produce world-beating great ideas.
�
The doomed ad agencies are the ones that are stuck in the past. Many ad agencies today continue to be managed (and mismanaged) under a structure and process that looks the same as it did 20 years ago.
�
So if your agency is full of blame games, office politics and finger pointing, try to rise above it. Be forward thinking. You can�??t change the past. How can your agency be a better place tomorrow? Or next week? Or next year?
�
Do people in your agency ask those questions, or do they prefer to point fingers and find scapegoats?
�
I truly hope we�??ll find the right answers. Because there�??s a whole load of consultants, PR firms, and other folks ready and willing to hijack our clients�?? marketing dollars.
�
*********
SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION: If you've enjoyed reading my columns, and you appreciate my writing, thinking and philosophy, perhaps you should hire me. Contact me at dannyg@talentzoo.com and let's start a conversation. Thanks.
�
Recommend Fbi, Cia, Aaaa, and Cya Topics
