Finally, Subprime Foreclosure Rates by Race

[75th]

So banned....

 

[binö]

if you click onthe link and hit the home button.
You will see the entire website is dedicated to bashing minorities read the other articles and ebooks such as " the white population is dwindeling " " who speaks for whites "

if this thread was neg towards whites and a link was posted from a black themed site hostile towards white, i really doubt you'd be hostile.
most likely you'd be in agreeance

 

[Pat_McCrotch]

Kill everyone that doesn"t look like me!!!!!!!!!!!!!#!#@$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

this would be a fat ugly world if you had it your way.

 

[Dial_tone]

Mortgage dollars (prime and subprime) for home purchases leant to Hispanics went up 691% from 1999 to 2006 and 397% for blacks (but only 218% for Asians and about 100% for whites). In other words, mortgage lending to Hispanics almost octupled from 1999 to the peak of the Housing Bubble in 2006.

Due in no small part to Bush's mandate to the housing industry to increase minority home ownership, a noble cause for sure. How this was achieved led to most of the problems.

Lenders went back to potential borrowers in areas that were previously redlined and said "hey poor person in zip code xxx, you know that loan we've been denying you (simply based on where you live*) for the last ten years? well we've rechecked and it looks like you're qualified now". They were sold mortgages only within their means via ARMs that were soon to reset. Also unqualified people were put into homes by lenders who chose to not verify finances because they wanted the sale.. Of course some borrowers fudge data as well so there's blame to go around.


* - It's been proven that minority borrowers in certain areas (often delineated by zip code) were declined more often than white borrowers of similar credit rating. This was true even if someone simply wanted a 2nd mortgage to improve the home they're already in.

 

[slat1]

Hmmmmm. I seem to recall Bush trying to regulate the Fanny and Freddie and getting vilified for it. Even the NYTimes wrote article about it. They thought he was a moron for trying to do it.
You can break down who is defaulting by race just as easy as you can who is lending by race.
In the end if you couldn't pay for it you shouldn't have signed for it.
If the person couldn't pay for it you should not have lent it to them.
Pretty simple.
Greed knows no bounds.
At least everyone gets to blame it on everyone else.

 

[mrplunkey]

Hmmmmm. I seem to recall Bush trying to regulate the Fanny and Freddie and getting vilified for it. Even the NYTimes wrote article about it. They thought he was a moron for trying to do it.
You can break down who is defaulting by race just as easy as you can who is lending by race.
In the end if you couldn't pay for it you shouldn't have signed for it.
If the person couldn't pay for it you should not have lent it to them.
Pretty simple.
Greed knows no bounds.
At least everyone gets to blame it on everyone else.

When the bush administration tried to rein-in the GSE's, members of the congressional black caucus accused him of attempting a "public lynching" of the GSE CEO (who happened to also be black).

It was politics at its finest.

 

[Jacob Creutzfeldt]

I often hear the phrase, "predatory lender" thrown about, but what about the "predatory borrower" slat1 eluded to? I've watched a former friend of mine lie about his income numerous times to get credit extended to him, now his financial house of cards is collapsing and he can't make his payments. His response is to lie to another credit issuer in an attempt to get more credit extended to keep afloat. He will gladly pay them Tuesday for a hamburger today.

 

[Dial_tone]

I often hear the phrase, "predatory lender" thrown about, but what about the "predatory borrower" slat1 eluded to? I've watched a former friend of mine lie about his income numerous times to get credit extended to him, now his financial house of cards is collapsing and he can't make his payments. His response is to lie to another credit issuer in an attempt to get more credit extended to keep afloat. He will gladly pay them Tuesday for a hamburger today.

Lenders should be verifying the information. A few weeks of pay stubs would knock that right out.

 

[jnevin]

Due in no small part to Bush's mandate to the housing industry to increase minority home ownership, a noble cause for sure. How this was achieved led to most of the problems.

Lenders went back to potential borrowers in areas that were previously redlined and said "hey poor person in zip code xxx, you know that loan we've been denying you (simply based on where you live*) for the last ten years? well we've rechecked and it looks like you're qualified now". They were sold mortgages only within their means via ARMs that were soon to reset. Also unqualified people were put into homes by lenders who chose to not verify finances because they wanted the sale.. Of course some borrowers fudge data as well so there's blame to go around.


* - It's been proven that minority borrowers in certain areas (often delineated by zip code) were declined more often than white borrowers of similar credit rating. This was true even if someone simply wanted a 2nd mortgage to improve the home they're already in.

Eh, kind of, but it wasn't a race issue. HUD cracked down on all lenders from banks to brokers to expand their marketing and guidelines were relaxed to get more people into houses. It was completely irresponsible to say a W2 wage earner could just state their income to qualify for 100% of a home's purchase price with a 580 fico. That opened the door for so much fraud it was ridiculous. Realtors and builders were the ones that in my experience really put the screws to people. Realtors making 6% on homes they listed and sold and builders suing straw buyers to inflate values. The programs were just what helped it along.

 

[ceo]

Lenders should be verifying the information. A few weeks of pay stubs would knock that right out.

But that's the whole purpose of stated income and no doc loans. What you're describing is a full documentation loan. Sure, the income you're stating has to be "reasonable" for the job or busienss, but "reasonable" has/had a pretty wide margin.

Jnevin's right on this one.