Media conservatives baselessly blame Community Reinvestment Act for foreclosure spike
SUMMARY: Several conservatives in the media have recently blamed the Community Reinvestment Act for the current financial crisis -- when, in fact, the CRA does not apply to institutions making the vast majority of troubled loans underlying the crisis. It applies only to depository institutions, such as banks and savings and loan associations. Experts have estimated that 80 percent of high-priced subprime loans were offered by financial institutions that are not subject to the CRA.
Several conservatives in the media have recently blamed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) for the current financial crisis -- when, in fact, the CRA does not apply to institutions making what some experts have estimated to be the vast majority of troubled loans underlying the crisis. In a September 28 Boston Globe column, Jeff Jacoby asserted: "The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to 'meet the credit needs' of 'low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods.' Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans." Likewise, during the September 25 edition of The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, guest Jonathan Hoenig, a regular panelist on Fox News' Cashin' In and managing member of Capitalistpig Asset Management LLC, asserted that the CRA "makes banks give loans to bad risks." Similarly, during the September 25 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, radio host Laura Ingraham said that "the problem here is government intervention in the free markets" and baselessly suggested that 1995 rules strengthening the CRA "pushed all these institutions to lend to minority communities, many were very risky loans." A September 25 Investor's Business Daily editorial claimed the CRA "forced banks to make many more subprime loans." Contrary to the accusation that the CRA is responsible for the current crisis, experts have said that approximately 80 percent of high-priced subprime loans were offered by financial institutions that are not subject to the CRA. Moreover, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco earlier this year said the CRA has actually increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households, as Center for American Progress senior fellow Robert Gordon noted in an American Prospect blog post.
On The Radio Factor, host Bill O'Reilly asked Hoenig whether he had "a plan B" for the proposal for the U.S. Treasury to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-backed securities. Hoenig replied, "Let the bad actors fail, let bad banks fail, kick deadbeats out of their homes, get rid of the Community Reinvestment Act that makes banks give loans to bad risks, no more easy money from the Fed, no more bailouts for anybody, and no Fannie, Freddie, or government [inaudible]." During The O'Reilly Factor that evening, Ingraham claimed:
They say, "Well, this is a failure of the markets. Oh, this is about greed on Wall Street." And Bill, the problem here is government intervention in the free markets. 1995, when Bill Clinton decide to tell, you know, [then-Treasury Secretary] Robert Rubin to rewrite the rules that govern the Community Reinvestment Act and push all these institutions to lend to minority communities, many were very risky loans. That was a noble idea, perhaps, but that certainly wasn't following free-market principles. This big pressure on institutions to dole out money and these risky loans started this whole ball rolling at Fannie and Freddie.
In fact, the federal Community Reinvestment Act -- enacted in 1977 -- applies only to depository institutions, such as banks and savings and loan associations. In testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, Michigan law professor Michael Barr stated that while problems in the subprime lending industry were a driving force behind the housing crisis, he estimated that only 20 percent of subprime mortgages were issued by depository institutions under the CRA. In his testimony, Barr stated:
Despite the fact that CRA appears to have increased bank and thrift lending in low- and moderate-income communities, such institutions are not the only ones operating in these areas. In fact, with new and lower-cost sources of funding available from the secondary market through securitization, and with advances in financial technology, subprime lending exploded in the late 1990s, reaching over $600 billion and 20% of all originations by 2005. More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision; another 30 percent of such originations were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts, which are not subject to routine examination or supervision, and the remaining 20 percent were made by banks and thrifts.
Moreover, in comments to the National Interagency Community Reinvestment Conference in March, the president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Janet Yellen, criticized efforts to blame CRA lending for weaknesses in the mortgage market, stating:
There has been a tendency to conflate the current problems in the subprime market with CRA-motivated lending, or with lending to low-income families in general. I believe it is very important to make a distinction between the two. Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans, and studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households. We should not view the current foreclosure trends as justification to abandon the goal of expanding access to credit among low-income households, since access to credit, and the subsequent ability to buy a home, remains one of the most important mechanisms we have to help low-income families build wealth over the long term.
From the September 25 edition of the Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: I don't know if it's gonna solve it. I can't say with certainty that --
HOENIG: It's not, Bill, it's not.
O'REILLY: OK. But there's no other alternative other than a deep, deep recession, or -- slash depression, depending on what the foreign investors do. OK? There's no other alternative. There's no plan B.
HOENIG: Well, they're going to turn what probably could be 18-month slowdown -- Bill, they're going to turn that into a decades-long depression.
O'REILLY: I'm gonna give you 30 seconds to give me a plan B. You got one?
HOENIG: Let the -- yeah, absolutely.
O'REILLY: Go.
HOENIG: Let the bad actors fail, let bad banks fail, kick deadbeats out of their homes, get rid of the Community Reinvestment Act that makes banks give loans to bad risks, no more easy money from the Fed, no more bailouts for anybody, and no Fannie, Freddie, or government [inaudible].
O'REILLY: All right, and let the chips fall, right? All the people who lose their jobs, all the people who lose their savings, all the panic that will ensue -- all the panic, remember --
HOENIG: Yeah, that's the --
O'REILLY: -- panic that will ensue, you're going to sit by and say, "It's OK, because we'll emerge five years from now stronger."
HOENIG: You're so concerned with the folks, Bill, but you rattle off the same drivel that comes out of both the Democrats --
O'REILLY: You don't believe there would be panic from your plan?
HOENIG: Bill, the panic's being caused by the government. They're making up the rules as they go along. They're distorting markets and prices every day. Every little thing that comes out of [Treasury Secretary Henry] Paulson or [Rep.] Barney Frank's [D-MA] mouth has trillions of dollars worth of impact for those of us who are the folks working for a living, trying to navigate this market.
O'REILLY: All right, last question.
From the September 25 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: All right, [ABC News correspondent] John Stossel just said -- took a contrarian point of view and said, "Look, you know, you're enabling an inefficient government to be even more inefficient by doing this." I say you have to do the bailout. What say you?
INGRAHAM: Well, I think that I'm probably more closely aligned with Stossel than you, Bill.
Here's what I think we have to be very concerned about here is that the narrative being written about how we got here is the following. And you've heard [Sen. John] McCain and [Sen. Barack] Obama say similar things.
They say, "Well, this is a failure of the markets. Oh, this is about greed on Wall Street." And Bill, the problem here is government intervention in the free markets. 1995, when Bill Clinton decide to tell, you know, Robert Rubin to rewrite the rules that govern the Community Reinvestment Act and push all these institutions to lend to minority communities, many were very risky loans. That was a noble idea, perhaps, but that certainly wasn't following free-market principles. This big pressure on institutions to dole out money and these risky loans started this whole ball rolling at Fannie and Freddie.
O'REILLY: I don't disagree with you.
INGRAHAM: That's the problem.
O'REILLY: I don't disagree with you there. But see, that's hindsight. That was a mistake. But now we have to deal with reality of foreign investors pulling out of here unless they get assurances the federal government won't let the whole thing collapse. That's where I am, because I don't want people getting hurt from some mistake during the Clinton administration, because the Bush administration didn't practice oversight either, as I've said many times.
From the September 25 Investor's Business Daily editorial:
Congressional leaders contend that Wall Street is to blame and must be punished. Yet they're the ones who during the Carter years approved the Community Reinvestment Act that forced banks to make many more subprime loans.
And it was President Clinton who dramatically accelerated the rules that coerced banks to make far more subprime loans to people who couldn't normally qualify.
Three of every four foreclosures have involved these subprime loans. Most should never have been made, but big government mandated that they be made or else. Once again, a big government with the best of intentions created terrible unintended consequences. It was big government that started the whole mess.
From Jacoby's September 28 Boston Globe column:
The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.
The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.















Yup, it was the banks being forced to give loans to minorities and illegal immigrants that caused this mess. No Doc loans had nothing to do with it. Nosir, not a thing. It's always the minorities who screw everything up, taking away our white birthrights and causing financial distress. </sarcasm>
I don't know who to blame. BillO and other right wing pundits blame CRA and indirectly lazy stupid minorities. Boehner balmes Pelosi. Obama blames the republicans, who passed all sorts of anti goverment, tax cutting, invading soveriegn nations, Enron loopholes, financial market deregulations. It is just so hard to figure out who to blame. I know that once we are sure who to blame, we can then appoint a commission to write a report, others can then read that report and criticize the many innaccuracies and assumptions that went into the methodology. At that point we will all be hunter gatherers again, which is the best way to organize humans, it has never failed in 2.5 million years.
Just when I thought it couldn't get any stupider, along come the right wing phony christian fundies. According to them, it's the gays and lesbians <--(link!) who are responsible for the wall street crisis!
Yeah, it's all because California allowed gays to marry, that's the ticket. </rolling eyes>
Amazing!
This slug has a laundry list of things that we've done to piss God off like allowing abortion, gay marriage etc., but he doesn't see anything wrong with our invading other countries, abandoning the poor in NO or many of the other sins of the last seven years.
I'm just starting to see the tv commercials for the anti-Gay-Marriage prop. here in CA. It features clips of a frightening Gavin Newsom promising that it's here "whether you like it or not!", and the voice-over letting me know that our schools are "teaching" gay marriage, and that "acceptance of gay marriage is mandatory".
Gay marriage MAN-datory?
I don't like the sound of that.
It's the "acceptance" part that has me concerned.
that "of" has me deeply worried.
"of" is pretty bad, I'll admitt that. But really, I think "is" is well far worse when you really look into the issue.
I am a realtor and have seen much of what has been happening. I can assure everyone that the worst contributors to this situation have been independent mortgage brokers. They made loans chosen to collect maximum commissions. They sold people on ARMs at high interest rates when the borrowers qualified for a fixed rate at a lower rate. They coached people to tell lies they should put on their applications saying that everyone does it and they can't buy a house otherwise. Also, the brokers lied to the principals funding the loans. I saw this personally and have also heard the same stories from broker employees. Last week a former broker employee told me that his boss prohibited him from accepting fixed rate loan applications because the commission was higher on the more exotic loans.
As to the CRA which is getting this heat - there has NEVER been any law or rule that required anyone to make a loan to a financially unqualified applicant. 75-80% of subprime loans have originated from independent mortgage brokers who are NOT governed by CRA rules anyway. If CRA is at fault, why did it take from 1977 to 2006 for the effects to surface? We have had at least 3 housing downturns in that time.
Beyond the brokers, the actual lenders did not do due diligence on the loans that they were funding. These are the banks and Wall St brokers. They all just wanted their share of the gravy.
As a realtor/advisor, I tried to refer buyers to reputable direct lenders - not brokers. However, most people ignored my advice in favor of going somewhere recommended by a friend or relative.
Direct lenders such as banks who want to sell their loans to Fannie and Freddie are subject to stringent standards such as 20% down and rigorous investigation of the borrowers ability to pay. These are called "conforming" loans.
Good post.
EXCELLENT post. Thanks for providing some insight into this crisis from within the industry. And best of luck in your continuing recovery. :-)
"Pithaughn" observes:
Right Wing Watch explains how the Religiopolitical Right is starting to blame The Homosexual Agenda for the imminent collapse of the economy, and that the only salvation therefor would be a Return to Traditional Moral and Family Values:
Such, methinks, is a clear cut example of the old post hoc, ergo propter hoc ("after this, therefore because of this") in action. Which, come to think of it, is rather illogical in and of itself, as it blames current developments on a selective reading of past history without regards for deeper context.
The banks did not stop at that.
They mixed the bad loan they gave (to avoid punishment no less) with a good loan they gave and sold the combined loan to someone else.
Now, where were the regulations that required them, or pusished of they did not, to do it?
Simply, they were using regulations to make a quick buck and nothing f'ing apologists like Jacoby, Severin, Graham, say will prove otherwise
I never thought I'd hear O'Reilly say this...
“It gets me angry,” said O’Reilly. “I do talk radio and most talk radio is conservative-dominated ideologues; Kool-Aid drinking idiots. Idiots. Screaming at you that this is socialism, this is this, this is that. ‘It’s Clinton’s fault.’ It’s Clinton’s fault? He hasn’t been in office in 8 years. It’s Bush’s fault! It happened under Bush’s watch.”
But then O’Reilly’s tirade seemed to aim at Rush Limbaugh-without actually naming him.
“But let’s get back to this talk radio stuff,” said O’Reilly. “These idiots. I mean, they’re misleading you. They’re lying to you. They’re rich, these guys. Big cigars. All of that. ‘Yeah, oh yeah, my private jet!’ And they’re saying, ‘Oh, no! No bail out!’ Uh, uh, no way!
“Hey! You’re going to get it, not them!” O’Reilly continued. “That foreign investment pulls out, we are toast! And they’ll pull out if this bailout doesn’t happen. Are you getting the message here? Walk away from these liars, these right-wing liars. Walk away from them! They’re not looking out for you.”
I was listening to M. Rotten Levin's radio pukefest the other night, and he played the audio of what you posted. Levin then went on to call O'Reilly some of the worst things you can say on radio short of George Carlin's "Seven Words".
We're starting to see the right-wing talkers devour each other. It's gonna be fun to watch, so make sure ytou have plenty of popcorn.
what kind of wine goes with popcorn? ;)
"what kind of wine goes with popcorn? ;)"
Cheer Wine...what else? <G>
stinkin' elitists.
I haven't even been able to look at a glass of wine for more than forty years because of my days drinking Thunderbird as a teenager.
Thanks for the memories Colonel.
So you wear a blindfold when you drink?
WOW-EEE, Col., thanks for the pictures. We always joke about Thunderbird and Night Train wine. When i started using the stage moniker, "Mad Dog", some of my friends just called me "20-20". On a "Jazz Fest" visit a couple of years ago, my son bought some Thunderbird and Mad Dog 20-20 wine for me to display at home. I dare not drink it.
Many years ago I worked three jobs after my military service. One was with my then father-in-law at his TV sales and repair shop, another at an all-night drive-up liquor store (the midnight to 8am shift). During the day certain customers would come be the shop claiming they didn't have the cash to pay the monthly bill for their TVs. Later, around 2 or 3 in the morning, these same folks drove up to the window of the liquor store for their nightly bottle of Night Train or Thunderbird. Imagine their discomfort at seeing ME behind the window! We had a big laugh about that. I always promised I wouldn't tell my father-in-law. (Usually bored out of my mind, I spent most of the wee hours eating pickled eggs from a 5 gallon jar. De-licious!)
Why did it take so long? IF r-w radio was/is a free market this type of tearing down the competition should have been heard all along.
Bill's reaching out to a more thoughtful audience...
He's not just your run-of-the-mill bloviating, conservative moron.
However, he is still a dumbass. Which is on full display with his CRA vendetta.
Wow! He called them liars? He is right, of course. Just Google Bush + home ownership and you will see who was pushing what. The whole premise of Freddie Mac is -- and over thirty years of experience had shown -- that low income families are not poor credit risks. But racism and class warfare are so much easier.
If anybody is to blame, it's Phil Gramm.
And since Phil Gramm's wife was on the Board of Directors at ENRON, he's got blood all over his grubby little hands.
On the right wingnutz websites (such as Newsbusters) for the past few months folks have been pushing this idea. It's crazy to think that a 1977 law caused a 2008 residential mortgage meltdown.
For example, the Fannie and Freddie "sub-prime" loans were (and this is important) full doc - no stated income program. And they were fixed rate loans - often at below market rates. Some were 30/40 (or 40/30) loans - payments were interest only for 10 years and then rolled into 30 years amortization 30 year term. That's a heck of a loan if it's a fixed rate product!
Here is an excellent blog entry on this issue:
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html
Here's a detailed study of "CRA loan" defaults, etc.:
http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf
And here is a very interesting financial market deregulation timeline:
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB122246742997580395.html
Neil Cavuto just came out and said it on Faux Noise: What do you expect when you start loaning money to minorities? Guy must have more sheets in his closet than he does on his beds.
And when did IBD become more conservative than the Wall Street Journal?
Well, Thomas Dilorenzo Professor of Economics at Loyolla College doesn't agree with Gordon or Yellen:
CRA Scam
It is also worth noting that nowhere in the headline does MMfA mention that Clinton revised the CRA in 1994. Why did he do this and why does the left totally ignore it?
CATO institute's view
If something Clinton did in 1994 caused this, why didn't it happen in 1995?
"It is also worth noting that nowhere in the headline does MMfA mention that Clinton revised the CRA in 1994. Why did he do this and why does the left totally ignore it?"
Umm...because it's irrelevant? Your links don't contain any data that establish a valid correlation between CRA, subprime lending, and default (thanks Newzhound for that CRA foreclosure study - great stuff).
Here's more reality for you to pretend doesn't exist - according to HMDA demographic data the government gathers from mortgage applications, non-minorities comprise 72.5% of subprime borrowers with African-Americans and Latinos coming in at 16.2% and 6.2% respectively. That 22.4% ties back pretty nicely to Michael Barr's 20% estimate (see? We're using logic here).
Moreover, 52% of subprime borrowers have incomes ABOVE their area's median income level while 48% are at or below the median. Based on these data and your implication that the financial crisis should be blamed on subprime borrowers, I have to ask: Why are rich white people destroying America?
Anyway, the Wall Street Journal has a great article called "The United States of Subprime" for anyone with a triple-digit IQ and the desire to acquaint themselves with the actual facts (I'm guessing that this doesn't include you). Surprise me.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119205925519455321.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
It most certainly isn't irrelevant. In early 1993 President Bill Clinton ordered new regulations for the CRA which would increase access to mortgage credit for inner city and distressed rural communities. The new rules went into effect on January 31, 1995 and featured: requiring strictly numerical assessments to get a satisfactory CRA rating; using federal home-loan data broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race; encouraging community groups to complain when banks were not loaning enough to specified neighborhood, income group, and race; allowing community groups that marketed loans to targeted groups to collect a fee from the banks.
The new rules, during a time when many banks were merging and needed to pass the CRA review process to do so, substantially increased the number and aggregate amount of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans, some of which were "risky mortgages. Banks set up CRA departments, a CRA consultant industry was created and new financial-services firms helped banks invest in packaged portfolios of CRA loans to ensure compliance. Established and new community groups began marketing such mortgages. The Senate Banking Committee estimated that as of 2000, as a result of CRA, such groups had received $9.5 billion in services and salaries. As of that time such groups also had received tens of billions of dollars in multi-year commitments from banks, including ACORN Housing $760 million; Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America $3 billion; a New Jersey Citizen Action-led coalition $13 billion; the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance $220 million. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent.
The CRA was public policy that DROVE the market. To cast a blind eye that obvious econic fact and simply blame "the profit motive" is ludicrous.
It is equally ludicrious to blame Wall Street and investment banks when what they did was buy up the risky mortgages that became so prevelant in the market place.
Granted, no one intened to lose money, but, to lay blame on capitalism when the real source of the problem was government in the first place indicates to me a fundamental lack of economic understanding.
Please refer to my earlier post as recoveringrepub. About 80% of subprime loans made in the last 5 years were made by independent mortgage brokers who are not controlled by CRA. A large percentage of these brokers were totally dishonest in pursuing the maximum possible commissions. I know this from personal experience and direct observation and tried to redirect borrowers away from the worst brokers. The CRA absolutely did NOT drive the market and your ignorant perspective is what is ludicrous. Also, the real estate boom did not start until more than 10 years after the inception of CRA. No government agency tells their clients lies as has been done by the brokers so who is the problem? Why don't you give the CRA default rates?
I totally place the blame on greedy capitalism and I know the actual facts on the ground.
President Clinton doesn't agree with you:
Clinton adimits to pressuring Fannie Mae
The CRA opened the door for this mess. You can spin it anyway you want it, but the CRA was the seed planted that allowed predatroy lenders the avenue to work their magic. Even Bill has to agree.
Which is what?
<!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->
H.R. 5334 includes many of my Administration's regulatory relief proposals for depository institutions. The regulatory burden that the Congress has placed on our banking system has reached a staggering level that prevents banks from providing the credit that is necessary to assure economic growth. By reducing the regulatory burden, this bill will assist banks, borrowers, and the economy as a whole.
My Administration worked diligently to craft a compromise housing bill that would target assistance where it is needed most, expand home ownership opportunities, ensure fiscal integrity, and empower recipients of Federal housing assistance.
George H. W. Bush October 28,1992 Statement on Signing the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992
'nuff said.