Obama didn't learn much from subprime mess

general35

5,000+ Posts
of course, it was all bush's fault anyway, but just for giggles, the justice dept is going after banks for not lending and building branches in poor areas. So basically, our banking system will remain screwed thanks to the community organizer in chief.....

Community activists in St. Louis became concerned a couple of years ago that local banks weren't offering credit to the city's poor and African American residents. So they formed a group called the St. Louis Equal Housing and Community Reinvestment Alliance and began writing complaint letters to federal regulators.

Apparently, someone in Washington took notice. The Federal Reserve has cited one of the group's targets, Midwest BankCentre, a small bank that has been operating in St. Louis's predominantly white, middle-class suburbs for over a century, for failing to issue home mortgages or open branches in disadvantaged areas. Although executives at the bank say they don't discriminate, Midwest BankCentre's latest annual report says it is in the process of negotiating a settlement with the U.S. Justice Dept. over its lending practices.

Lawyers and bank consultants say regulators and the Obama Administration are scrutinizing financial institutions for a practice that last drew attention before the rise of subprime lending: redlining. The term dates from the 1930s, when the Federal Housing Administration drew up maps using red ink to delineate inner-city neighborhoods considered too risky for lending. Congress later passed laws banning lending discrimination on the basis of race and other characteristics. "The agencies have refocused on redlining because, in the wake of the subprime explosion and sudden implosion, they are looking at these disadvantaged neighborhoods and not seeing any credit access," says Jo Ann Barefoot, co-chair at Treliant Risk Advisors in Washington, D.C., which consults with banks on regulatory issues.

The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) requires banks to make loans in all the areas they serve, not just the wealthy ones. A Bloomberg analysis found the percentage of banks earning negative ratings from regulators on CRA exams has risen from 1.45 percent in 2007 to more than 6 percent in the first quarter of this year.

At the Justice Dept., a new 20-person unit dedicated to fair lending issues received a record number of discrimination referrals from regulators in 2010 and has dozens of open cases, according to a recent agency report. Potential penalties can reach into the millions of dollars. "We are using every tool in our arsenal to combat lending discrimination," Thomas E. Perez, the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Div., told a conference of community development advocates in Washington in April.

To some banks the crackdown has come as a surprise, say consultants and lawyers representing financial institutions in discussions with regulators. Like Midwest BankCentre, some lenders are being cited for failing to operate in minority and low-income census tracts near their branches, even when they have never done business there before. "If you put your branches only in upper-income areas, the regulators are not accepting that anymore," says Warren W. Traiger, a lawyer at BuckleySandler in New York, which advises banks on fair lending issues.

Mortgage refinancing activity doubled in white neighborhoods but dropped sharply in minority neighborhoods in a sample of major U.S. cities in 2008 and 2009, according to Paying More for the American Dream, an April study by a group of seven community development nonprofits. "The pendulum has swung back too far the other way," says Kevin Stein, associate director of the California Reinvestment Coalition in San Francisco, one of the report's authors.

Bank lobbyists say the stepped-up government scrutiny could backfire if financial institutions decide to shrink their operations rather than yield to pressure to do business in areas that don't make sense for them. "It would do a disservice to communities for a bank to suddenly pull back," says Robert Rowe, vice-president and senior counsel at the American Bankers Assn.

Meanwhile, in Missouri, things are starting to change. Midwest BankCentre Chairman Ronald T. Barnes recently announced the bank would open a branch in Pagedale, a town near St. Louis that is predominantly African American.

The bottom line: Lenders have been caught off guard by stepped-up enforcement of laws to prevent discrimination against minorities and the poor.

The Link
 
When did the President of the United States start being referred to as 'the community organizer in chief'?

Hard to take this and other posts seriously when you insert this disrespectful text at the beginning of your post.
 
It wasn't clear to me from the article. Did this small bank discriminate? Did qualified minorities apply for loans from this bank and get turned down?

If not what is the issue? Can the Federal gov't force businesses to open in places the Feds choose?
First the Feds try to make decisions on where a business canb't open ( Boeing) and now try to force where the biz must open

is this really what we want the gov't to do?
 
This is about providing the same opportunity to qualified customers no matter where they live or what their race. You have a problem with that?
__________________________________________________

Why should a bank be forced to build a branch in an area with limited customers? you are not for free markets i guess? it is not about discrimination. it is about sound business decisions.
 
Texas Golf, you are always way over the top, but do you seriously think the Feds have just started investigating unfair lending practices in the last couple of years?
 
chango
2 questions
1. Do you think the Feds should decide and dictate where a business does business> choose locations for a biz?

2.did the small bank turn down loans based on race?
 
Congress later passed laws banning lending discrimination on the basis of race and other characteristics.
_________________________________________________

other charateristics being no credit.
 
Well, like it or not, there is some racial discrimination going on in credit and housing. Some decendants of our first president have gotten the brushoff from landlords because their last name happens to be one that is mostly for black people. Until we are at a place where a person called Shateria Washington will get the same treatment as an Ellen Soderberg when she calls about a loan or an apartment, there is a role for government.
 
Isn't this along the same lines as to why we got in to our current housing mess, banks socially forced to give loans to people that can't afford them, or at least not smart enough to understand what they were getting in to? Ahhh social engineering.
 
lots of white people received loans that are unqualified as well. fannie mae was created in the 1930's by the great progressive FDR to increase home ownership by unqualified applicants. basically, the government backed these loans. the debt became so large that LBJ, the next great progressive, created fannie mac to relieve fannie mae. currently, they hold 5 Trillion, with a T, in mortgages, over 1/3 of our entire national debt. We can say today emphatically, that the progressive experiment worked out well for all of us.
 
H6721, -- I do not think businesses should be forced to open locations where they do not want to, and I do not know the specifics into the investigation of the one bank mentioned.

My problem with the original post (and many responses) is the idea that Obama is doing something new by investigating lenders for discriminatory lending practices.

It is a crime to look at someone and make a decision in your head about whether or not you want to take the time to take a loan application from them, and it was a crime long before Obama came along.
 
Making loans to unqualified individuals in minority neighborhoods was part of the problem with the mortgage meltdown, but mostly it was making loans to unqualified people in housing bubble market that were mostly affluent. I don't advocate loans to the unqualified. I just don't think someone should be able to labell you unqualified based on skin color or where you live. Is that a liberal position?
 
chango
we agree that the Gov't has no business dictating where a business may open or not open.

This issue, as explained in the OP, is coming up AGAIN, even though as you correctly point out this had been done before and in part started us on a decline
So why would we try to get the same policy going again?

The article doesn't state this small bank turned anyone down based on race, rather it is that this bank didn't make many minority loans.
So yes this is on Obama's watch.
 
"Diversity" is not the source of the problem. Bad loans are. Creditors failed to discriminate based on creditworthiness and loaned lots in bubble markets. It wasn't government making the loans, it was free market capitalist, who by the way were laughing all the way to the bank as they made junk loans that people at Goldman Sachs and elsewere were rolling into highly rated bonds and selling to people who didn't know what they were buying. Greedy capitalists bear more fault in this fiasco than meedling politicos, though both should have learned a lot.
 
There were all sorts of loans. Actually, for several years there was tighter scrutiny on the VA and FHA loans than in the private mortgage market. Losing market share, stockholder owned Fannie and Freddie started taking junkier loans to maintain market share. Ginnie Mae mortgage bonds had a quasi-governmental guarantee and were of a much higher quality than those guaranteed in the private market by insurance companies lacking the assets to cover.
 
The problem is that because her name is "Shateria Washington" she's assumed to be unqualified and treated like crap and given higher prices over the phone. If she has bad credit, tough noogies. But at least check her credit.
 

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top