dcsimg
A Flash Developer Resource Site

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 78910111213 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 248

Thread: The US Economy in the crapper starting Monday?

  1. #201
    Senior Member MagnusVS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    764

  2. #202
    Hood Rich FlashLackey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    148
    Sorry, I couldn't help but notice a flaw in your work. I've corrected it for you:



    "We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf

  3. #203
    Senior Member MagnusVS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    764
    Hehe... As I've mentioned for you earlier, I have found out that there are so many better ways to spend the hours than formulating posts for these threads

  4. #204
    Hood Rich FlashLackey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    148
    Except that your knowledge of the threads and the time taken to draw up this image betrays you.
    "We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf

  5. #205
    That web bloke Stoke Laurie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    869
    Enuf politics, lets get back to religion or the end of the world is neigh threads!

  6. #206
    Didn't do it. japangreg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    \o/ |o| |o_ /o\
    Posts
    784
    Quote Originally Posted by FlashLackey
    The quote says that those 30% "are not subject to routine supervision or examinations." Not that they are "exempt from the regulations."
    Aplogies - rushed post and not as clear as I intended. To state it in another fashion, only about 25% of those banks who made risky loans were fully cra compliant. Of those complying with the CRA regs, their loans were less likely to be high-cost, more likely to have a lower interest rate, and twice as likely to remain in their portfolio. (source, pages 4-5). These loans were a very small part of those that had high risk coupled with excessive interest that found their way into the rest of the investment market via bundling. The loans made by the other 75% are the ones that have caused the majority of the problem.
    Combine or expand. I'm not a banking expert. But, it sounds like substantial pressure to me if you are limiting your options to expand or merge by ignoring CRA.
    I think you're over-stating the pressure CRA exerted, at least during the time frame you cite - look at the following graph I'm ripping from this article at WSJ:

    Note that the rate of subprime mortgages as a percentage of the total number of mortgages does not spike until late 03; if CRA in general and the 90-era revisions specifically were the cause of the problem, what retarded the rise in their use?

    Financial institutions aren't exactly known to be slow in responding to market pressures; if this was something that had potential back in 95, there would have been a much stronger shift to them as soon as it was possible. Something else happened in 03 that opened this door, and it had nothing to do with Clinton. What was it that sparked this peak? Not to sure - still looking for changes to laws and regulations that fit the time period.
    This seems to support what I've been saying, that Democrats have fought to keep CRA pressures.
    There's never been any doubt that Democrats wanted to keep CRA - the contention is that CRA was somehow at the root of all the current financial troubles, or that by opposing limiting CRA enforcement Dems were somehow blocking Republican calls for *more* regulations.
    Regarding the critique, I don't think it makes any sense. What about this bill had any "welfare" aspect to it? Libertarians are often critical of Republicans. But, their assertion is even more bizarre in that they seem to be arguing for more government involvement, the exact opposite of what they usually fight for. According to basic Libertarian ideas, companies being able to merge should not be a "privilege" but a right.
    I assume you're talking about the More Awful Truths About Republicans piece? I think that's explained a few paragraphs below:
    ...So far, the Republican solution has been to bail out lenders — wealthy financial-industry professionals for the most part — who made unwise market decisions with subsidies and election-year subventions...
    Can't really speak for Libertarian vs. Republican differences.
    Hush child. japangreg can do what he wants. - PAlexC
    That was Zen - this is Tao.

  7. #207
    Total Universe Mod jAQUAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Honolulu
    Posts
    2,429
    Finally an intelligible break down!
    http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/c...t-the-cre.html

  8. #208
    Hood Rich FlashLackey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by japangreg
    Aplogies - rushed post and not as clear as I intended. To state it in another fashion, only about 25% of those banks who made risky loans were fully cra compliant. Of those complying with the CRA regs, their loans were less likely to be high-cost, more likely to have a lower interest rate, and twice as likely to remain in their portfolio. (source, pages 4-5). These loans were a very small part of those that had high risk coupled with excessive interest that found their way into the rest of the investment market via bundling. The loans made by the other 75% are the ones that have caused the majority of the problem.
    The fib here is in only looking at "fully" CRA compliant loans rather than all lending that would have been affected by CRA (ie. lending institutions looking to have a good "CRA Rating"). This study that you refer to includes a dodgy definition of "CRA Banks" and relies on an assertion to imply a broader conclusion. The study also only relies on data from 2006 for some reason.

    If regulators (and community protesters) require a certain CRA rating for the action the banks seek (like simply building another branch to grow), they would be motivated to include all lending that qualifies to improve their rating. Not just loans that require CRA compliance that this study isolates.

    This study isolates the 2006 performance of one category of mortgage lenders—banks originating loans in their Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) assessment areas, referred to herein as “CRA Banks.” Our hypothesis is that the CRA, which requires banks to help serve the credit needs of their local communities, including low- and moderate-income (LMI)
    neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound banking practices, may have deterred banks from engaging, at least in their local communities, in lending practices that fuel foreclosures.

    ...

    In computing the lending performance of a CRA Bank, only loans originated by the bank are included. While a bank has the option of including affiliate lending in its CRA assessment (12 CFR §228.22(c)), only direct lending must be assessed. We note, however, that the conclusions of this report would not be affected by including affiliate lending in the lending performance of CRA Banks.
    I realize that it's a pain. But, I'm going to have to ask you to support these findings with a study that covers more than 2006 and includes all lending that might have been affected by CRA rather than some isolated part. Their assertion alone is not enough to assume that the new data would compel the same conclusion.

    It would also be nice to get some data from an apparently neutral source considering how well-heeled the CRA lobby is.

    Quote Originally Posted by japangreg
    I think you're over-stating the pressure CRA exerted, at least during the time frame you cite - look at the following graph I'm ripping from this article at WSJ:

    Note that the rate of subprime mortgages as a percentage of the total number of mortgages does not spike until late 03; if CRA in general and the 90-era revisions specifically were the cause of the problem, what retarded the rise in their use?
    I think that both sources you have provided try to attribute fewer loans being affected by CRA than there really were.

    In that chart, the rise in sub-primes approximately doubles from the time CRA was modified up to the time of the more apparent spike. So, there is a correlation between the start of CRA and rising sub-prime loans. Increasing availability of those loans was the very goal of CRA and the supporting lobby has boasted that it worked.

    There are many factors involved in housing market trends and I have already pointed out that I am not arguing that CRA is the only reason for the problem. It is a significant contributor to a pattern of government manipulation that has been supported generally by Democrats (and occasionally some Republicans). Offering government supported forms of credit (for many things in addition to mortgages) goes back a long ways and has always been a liberal proposition contested by conservatives.

    That said, CRA made loans available. It did not dictate when people would seek them the most. Other factors in the housing market, interest rates, etc. could have encouraged under-credited people to buy at the time of the spike you reference. Without CRA, a significant proportion of those sub-prime loans would not have been available, despite whatever reasons those people had for wanting to buy at that time.

    To me, that sub-prime loans under CRA might not have been as bad as sub-prime loans not under CRA is not a good argument for CRA. Any contribution to artificially increasing bad loans is bad for the health of the finance industry. It doesn't have to be the cause for all sub-prime loans or the worst of all sub-prime loans in order for that to be true.

    Quote Originally Posted by japangreg
    Financial institutions aren't exactly known to be slow in responding to market pressures; if this was something that had potential back in 95, there would have been a much stronger shift to them as soon as it was possible. Something else happened in 03 that opened this door, and it had nothing to do with Clinton. What was it that sparked this peak? Not to sure - still looking for changes to laws and regulations that fit the time period.
    There's never been any doubt that Democrats wanted to keep CRA - the contention is that CRA was somehow at the root of all the current financial troubles, or that by opposing limiting CRA enforcement Dems were somehow blocking Republican calls for *more* regulations.
    I disagree. I think that it is false to conclude that the increase in percentage of sub-prime loans has to be attributable to a law or regulation that occurred in 03. A previous law or regulation could have created the circumstances that allowed such an increase given other changes in climate to the market in general.

    Again, I did not say that CRA is at the root of all current financial troubles. CRA is a significant factor that contributed to a specific type of trouble that we are now suffering from.

    Democrats opposing limiting CRA was just them supporting something that contributed to our current problem. Their opposition to regulations that Republicans called for came later and was not related to CRA.

    Quote Originally Posted by japangreg
    I assume you're talking about the More Awful Truths About Republicans piece? I think that's explained a few paragraphs below:Can't really speak for Libertarian vs. Republican differences.
    They say specifically that the act would equal corporate welfare, not the other items they reference later in that paragraph.

    I realize that you are short on time, but I'm hoping that you will address the fundamental arguments I made. For instance, do you believe that regulation is a better approach to maintaining health in the financial markets?

    Do you agree, as I have argued, that if institutions had to suffer the consequences of their own lending practices, they would be more motivated to lend only to people who would pay back? Wouldn't there be less of a market to sell bad loans to if the government didn't attempt to standardize, guarantee and promote them as being safe investments for big time investors?

    Or, do you think that the government should guarantee the loans in order to encourage investment and then hire a band of experts to watch over the process to make sure they are mostly good loans?
    "We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf

  9. #209
    N' then I might just
    Jump back on
    An' ride
    Like a cowboy
    Into the dawn
    ........To Montana.
    david petley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    not in Montana ™
    Posts
    10,192
    I think magnus' graph reflects the situation fine.

    dp
    No longer a Flashkit mod, not even by stealth

    Insanity is just a point of view. After all, the world looks pretty normal through your own underpants.

  10. #210
    Hood Rich FlashLackey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    148
    I think Magnus' graph reflects that he actually is interested in following these threads/subjects but is frustrated by the fact that if he contributes, someone might disagree with him. So, he resolves this internal conflict by believing that he is better than the people who choose to participate, as expressed by his occasional lamentations and now this elaborate drawing.
    "We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf

  11. #211
    That web bloke Stoke Laurie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    869
    I believe "Get over it" is what is said in these circumstances

  12. #212
    Hood Rich FlashLackey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    148
    I agree.

    The drawing was easy to get over, if that is what you are referring to. It also should be easy to get over people debating something you don't want to get involved with too.
    "We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf

  13. #213
    Flashkit historian Frets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    flashkit
    Posts
    8,797
    Anyway the political theatre of the republicans worked.
    They got more earmarks so they passed the bill.

    I guess the nations economic heath was not as important as a bridge to nowhere that someone could run back home and say "Look what I did for you. A new Walmart can now be built."

  14. #214
    Hood Rich FlashLackey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    148
    I didn't realize that tax breaks are now considered earmarks too. That break for middle-class Americans on the AMT sure was a scandalous addition!
    "We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf

  15. #215
    Senior Member MagnusVS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    764
    Quote Originally Posted by FlashLackey
    I think Magnus' graph reflects that he actually is interested in following these threads/subjects but is frustrated by the fact that if he contributes, someone might disagree with him. So, he resolves this internal conflict by believing that he is better than the people who choose to participate, as expressed by his occasional lamentations and now this elaborate drawing.
    C'mon mate. It's a joke. I never thought that anyone could actually seem to be offended by it.

    Your psycoanalysis is quite far from the truth. It was a bit of self irony in there, since I thought of myself when drawing the first graph...

  16. #216
    Hood Rich FlashLackey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    148
    You specifically wrote my name in both graphs, basically as the butt of the joke. I don't really mind being the butt of a joke. But, when I returned the favor, you essentially said that you have better things to do than debate on forums (as you had pointed out that I do).

    Anyway, no worries. Maybe it just came off differently than you thought it would. I know that you appreciate and look forward to my posts on these subjects.

    And do they say 'mate' in Norway? Or, did you pick that up already?
    "We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf

  17. #217
    Senior Member MagnusVS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    764
    Good! Yes I appreciate your posts (I have agreed with you several times earlier actually)

    In Norway, we speak Norwegian, so I've picked up most of the things I write here

  18. #218
    Hood Rich FlashLackey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    148
    What is the equivalent of "mate" in Norwegian?
    "We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf

  19. #219
    Senior Member MagnusVS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    764
    kamerat/kompis

  20. #220
    Hood Rich FlashLackey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    148
    It's all good kamerat.

    Is that proper usage?
    "We don't estimate speeches." - CBO Director Doug Elmendorf

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width

HTML5 Development Center