Home Loans Brokered By Nonprofits Helped Fuel The Housing Crisis

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Home Loans Brokered By Nonprofits Helped Fuel The Housing Crisis stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

The Huffington Post Investigative Fund   |  Jeff Horwitz and Dave Jamieson
First Posted: 10- 1-09 01:08 PM   |   Updated: 11- 4-09 12:18 PM

What's Your Reaction?
Nonprofits Home Loans

Before the housing boom got underway in the late 1990s, a California nonprofit group hatched an idea to help families who qualified for government-backed mortgages but still couldn't raise the down payment.

A home builder would agree to make a donation to the nonprofit in an amount equal to the down payment. The nonprofit would give the cash to the buyer, often earning a generous fee for its role as middleman. In less than a decade, nonprofits had arranged more than a million no-money-down house sales around the country. By 2008, they represented more than a third of all loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration.

Now many of those loans have gone bad. Defaulting at up to three times the rate of other FHA loans, they are one reason the housing agency's insurance fund is about to drop below its required capital level for the first time since it was created during the Great Depression.

Congress last year stopped the FHA from insuring any more of the loans, saying they were risky and carried the potential for fraud and abuse. One case in July confirmed those concerns: As part of a settlement of criminal charges in U.S. District Court in North Carolina in July, Beazer Homes USA Inc., acknowledged that its employees had defrauded buyers by simply rolling the extra cost of the down payment assistance into the house price.

Little attention has been paid to the role of the down payment programs in the origins of the financial crisis. Government and court records examined by the Huffington Post Investigative Fund illustrate how two large housing nonprofits - Nehemiah Corporation of America and AmeriDream Inc. -- worked closely with the mortgage divisions of the nation's biggest home builders, adding fuel to the housing bubble and in effect paving the way for even riskier subprime loans by private lenders.

Nehemiah, the Sacramento, Calif.-based inventor of seller-funded down payment assistance, and its closest competitor, AmeriDream of Gaithersburg, Md., together facilitated 40 percent of all such loans backed by the FHA. Over eight years, they arranged 392,000 mortgages worth $54 billion, records from the Department of Housing and Urban Development show.

While the two nonprofits earned tens of millions of dollars in fees from the deals, borrowers have defaulted on more than $3 billion worth of the loans. So far that has translated into losses exceeding $1 billion for the FHA insurance fund.

Story continues below
advertisement

Last month FHA officials said they expect the agency's cash reserves to soon fall below the level mandated by Congress, which is at least 2 percent of the value of all the mortgages it backs. Some lawmakers are concerned that the FHA insurance account - which always has been funded by fees from borrowers - could need a taxpayer bailout. But Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan has said that the FHA's funds will recover because the quality of loans the agency insures has been improving.

Officials at Nehemiah and AmeriDream declined requests for interviews for this article. In a statement to the Investigative Fund, AmeriDream president Ann Ashburn said she hopes that Congress will pass a bill to create a new gift program "to help stabilize the U.S. housing market."

In testimony to Congress in 2007, Ashburn acknowledged that "the extremely fast growth led to a measure of disorganization among down payment assistance providers, and, in some cases, excesses by certain individuals associated with those entities." The National Association of Home Builders, one of the group's allies in the effort to revive the system, also noted the past problems but said they can be fixed.

"Let's reform it so it can operate in a safe and sound way," said David L. Ledford, senior vice president of the association. "The down payment is still the major hurdle and obstacle to homeownership ... It would be great if sellers could help out in a way that's managed properly."

The non-profits have enjoyed the support of an unlikely coalition of real estate interests and civil rights activists - as well as some Democratic and Republican lawmakers who have received campaign contributions from key players. At a congressional hearing in May, Rep. Gary Miller (R-Calif.), co-sponsor of a bill that would restart the system with tighter rules, said that the ban was "an injustice to a lot of the private sector."

Since January 2008, Nehemiah, AmeriDream, and AmeriDream's affiliate, the Association of Homeowners Across America, have spent roughly $2 million lobbying Congress, at first to prevent the ban and then to reverse it, according to disclosure forms.

"They did a lot of pushing and pulling," said Mark Calabria, who until recently was a high-ranking Republican staff member on the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. "That really tells you this is the most danger they've ever been in. It also tells you how much money they were making."

Working with the Builders

Seller-funded down payment assistance was the creation of Don Harris, a Sacramento lawyer and minister. In 1994, Harris named his organization after the Biblical figure Nehemiah who rebuilt Jerusalem. He sought to revitalize blighted pockets of the California capital by turning low- and moderate-income renters into homeowners.

The model was simple. The FHA required homebuyers to put down a minimum of 3 percent. Nehemiah would front the money to a qualified buyer. After the deal closed, the seller would donate the same amount back to Nehemiah, along with a fee ranging from a few hundred dollars up to one percent of the sales price. In the end, all parties seemed delighted: The buyer got his no-money-down loan, the seller unloaded a house at the asking price, and Nehemiah collected its cut.

When down payment gifts come from a family member or a traditional charity, the buyer can shop around for the best deal on the best home. But seller-funded gifts were an enticement to purchase a specific house at a specific price, usually from a large company developing a huge tract of homes.

Harris' idea quickly proved to be lucrative for his nonprofit. Nehemiah's revenues from down payment gifts and fees jumped from $18 million in its first year to $162 million by 2002. Others took notice. AmeriDream was founded as a nonprofit in 1999 under a model similar to Nehemiah's. Soon, hundreds of other copy-cats sprouted, many of them nonprofit in name only, as the IRS would later rule.

According to HUD data, Universal American Mortgage Co. -- the in-house mortgage company for Lennar Homes, the second-largest builder in the country by volume -- underwrote $2 billion in FHA loans with Nehemiah's help alone between 2000 and 2008. For the in-house lenders of Centex, D.R. Horton and Dominion Homes, Nehemiah facilitated just shy of $1 billion in sales each.

Within a few years, the Government Accountability Office looked into down payment assistance programs, finding that rather than making a true donation, many sellers were just factoring their contributions into the sales price. That was the practice confirmed in July by Beazer Homes, which said as part of a deferred prosecution agreement that it "accepts and acknowledges" that its former employees engaged in criminal acts by inflating the price of homes funded with down payment gifts. Beazer agreed to pay $5 million to the federal government and up to $48 million to homeowners who'd been defrauded.

Filings in the North Carolina case do not specify which nonprofits provided the "gifts" in Beazer's deals and no nonprofit was charged with any wrongdoing in the matter. According to HUD records, Nehemiah served as a conduit for the down payments on $400 million in Beazer Mortgage Corp. loans nationwide from 2000 to 2008. Nehemiah has said that it told builder partners that price inflation was not permitted.

'Illusion' of Rising Home Values

Aside from questions about the home builders' conduct, the high foreclosure rate among buyers with seller-funded down payment assistance quickly became evident in some places. Mildred Wilkins, then a foreclosure specialist for Fannie Mae in greater Indianapolis, a hotbed for such programs, said she began to receive a "startling" number of new cases around 2002. She was disturbed by how many of the bad loans on Fannie's books had been backed by the FHA and facilitated by seller gifts.

"These were neighborhoods explicitly advertised as [down payment assistance] communities," said Wilkins. Most of the homes were new construction, with prices between $100,000 and $150,000, and went to low- and middle-income buyers, many of them African-American, she said. On many of the quickly soured mortgages, the price at foreclosure could be 15 percent less than the original sales price. "At the very minimum, the price had been inflated by the amount of the down payment, plus the administrative fee, plus the closing cost and taxes [and] a couple of other little things," she said.

In some cases, there were much larger costs built into the mortgage, she said. To secure an FHA loan, a buyer cannot have any outstanding judgments against him. Wilkins said she saw dozens of loans in which the lender paid off the buyer's previous debts and added them to the final price tag of the home. In many such cases, the buyer essentially had a bad car loan rolled into a new, government-insured mortgage. "They were told by the financial institution, partnered with the builder, 'Don't worry about it,'" she said.

These inflated sales prices helped put some upward pressure on the lower end of the housing market, at least in communities where seller-funded gifts were common. "It created the illusion that the average sales price was in fact higher than it was," said Wilkins, who is now a consumer housing advocate.

As the wave of loans crested, Nehemiah publicly decried the tactics of other down payment providers, and called for government intervention. "Allowing credit card and car payments to be wrapped into housing -- it was so wrong," said William Atlas, a former Nehemiah chief financial officer who left the nonprofit in 2004 but remains a great believer in its staff and mission. "It's like watching a boat cruising toward the rocks, and everybody's partying on the boat, having too good a time to listen to the horn."

Soon it wasn't just competition threatening Nehemiah's model - it was the housing bubble itself. A river of cash was flowing from Wall Street into the mortgage market, meaning that builders and mortgage brokers marketing to subprime buyers could avoid the FHA and its down payment requirement entirely by getting loans through the private market, where rules were looser.

Nehemiah's fee revenue dropped from $162 million in 2002 to $70 million in 2005. Instead of charging a full percent of the purchase price to facilitate the transaction, Nehemiah went to a fixed fee of as little as $495. It slashed its staff down to only 20 people at one point, according to a former employee.

Things looked even worse for Nehemiah when the Internal Revenue Service ruled in 2006 that seller-funded down payment gifts did not qualify for tax exemptions but rather were "scams" that left both buyers and the government stuck with houses sold at an inflated price. The IRS immediately rejected several dozen applicants seeking nonprofit status for down payment assistance programs and said it would begin reviewing the previously granted tax-exempt status of 185 other providers. (Nehemiah's status was already under review independently, according to its most recent audit.) Yet in the majority of cases, the IRS never took action to shut them down.

When housing prices peaked, low- and no-down payment mortgage providers began to pull out of the market, and Nehemiah seemed poised for a comeback. The nonprofit took in more than $360 million in down payment gifts and fees in 2007, representing billions of dollars worth of mortgages issued after the market's peak.

Lobbying For Another Round

The problems of FHA loans with seller-funded down payment assistance finally led Congress to ban the practice last year. Not long afterwards, in September 2008, Nehemiah's current head, Scott Syphax, addressed a rally in front of the U.S. Capitol. Flanked by a troupe of civil rights activists, including former NAACP Executive Director Benjamin Chavis Muhammad and representatives of the National Urban League, Syphax warned that if the ban went into effect, aspiring lower-income homeowners risked being consigned to the "rental plantation." The Rev. Al Sharpton had been stumping for Nehemiah and others since the previous fall, when he blasted Senate Democrats who'd grown skeptical of down payment assistance during the housing crash. And hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons soon would be speaking for the program in an online video.

he Capitol rally also included members of the National Association of Mortgage Brokers, which as part of its $1.5 million in federal lobbying that year was pushing for a bill that would have kept Nehemiah and AmeriDream in business. Also in attendance was Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), who sponsored the bill to revive down payment programs while subjecting borrowers to stricter credit standards.

Green's co-sponsors on the bill include California's Miller and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), who has called seller-funded down payments "an instant source of equity" for borrowers, arguing that "homeownership would be out of reach to thousands ... without down payment assistance programs."

Nehemiah and AmeriDream officials have returned that loyalty to their bipartisan boosters in Congress. Last year, AmeriDream's Ashburn, board member Tom Carmody, vice president Robert Newman, and Nehemiah's Syphax each donated $1,000 to Waters' campaign. Ashburn has donated $2,000 to Miller's campaign since 2007, while Carmody and Ashburn also made the largest individual donations -- of $2,500 apiece -- to America First, a political action committee with ties to Miller that disbursed at least $12,500 to the National Republican Congressional Committee in 2008. One of the lead lobbyists on down payment assistance, Lesli McCollum Gooch of Potomac Partners DC, is a former senior policy adviser to Miller.

McCollum Gooch did not return phone calls seeking comment. Ashburn said in her statement that the reincarnation of down payment gifts would "expand responsible homeownership while establishing unprecedented safeguards for homebuyers."

In its latest audit, Nehemiah reported it still had more than $16 million in assets. The nonprofit also said it expected to successfully challenge any IRS ruling that could revoke its nonprofit status.

With many of its former clients in danger of losing their homes, Nehemiah recently launched a new venture, called NFinit Solutions - advertised at its old Web address,www.getDownPayment.com. The group now offers itself as an intermediary between lenders and borrowers who are in foreclosure. It will earn a fee for each such solution it arranges.


Jeff Horwitz is a freelance writer who recently finished the Lorana Sullivan Investigative Business Reporting Fellowship at Columbia University. Dave Jamieson, a freelance writer in Washington, D.C., won the 2007 Livingston Award for Young Journalists.


Before the housing boom got underway in the late 1990s, a California nonprofit group hatched an idea to help families who qualified for government-backed mortgages but still couldn't raise the down pa...
Before the housing boom got underway in the late 1990s, a California nonprofit group hatched an idea to help families who qualified for government-backed mortgages but still couldn't raise the down pa...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
412
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo
Post Comment

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (8 pages total)
- Ddayv825 I'm a Fan of Ddayv825 4 fans permalink

I have been a Realtor/Broker/Loan originator for over 20 years. Prior to the " crazy " years , under Fannie Mae guidelines, when regulations were actually in effect, small sums of verifiable money was problematic. A buyer needed to show documentation that they had the down payment, overestimated closing costs AND a reserve of 2 to 3 months mortgage payments. Why , I thought, couldn't the realtor ( we were usually tapped to lower our commissions ), the seller or someone else contribute ? The federal law was that " no party to a transaction " that actually benefits from a sale , can solicit, contribute or offer compensation as an inducement to do business.. It actually lowered the real appraised value so it was considered fraud.. " Gift money " from family or friends was allowed.Later, Realtor s were allowed to offer TV's or other inducements to list with them. Nehemiah and Ameridream programs developed as a " non profit" program , devised as " not a party " to a transaction that would accept 4% given by a seller and give 3% back to a buyer for downpayment or closing casts as a " gift ". ( This was an allowable scam ). Soon afterwards, the law allowed sellers to contribute. Mortgage companies including the one I operated under continued to push the Ameridream & Nehemiah programs for profit. I refused. i just asked the sellers straight up for the % dollar for dollar.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:24 AM on 10/06/2009
- cartunes I'm a Fan of cartunes 3 fans permalink
photo

MTV'S FAULT To many people watching CRIBS, started thinking that if i diots like these could own this cribs and rides why couldn't they. They didn't realize they couldn't sing.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:37 PM on 10/05/2009
photo

To make matters far worse, consider what the US government has actually done to fix the underlying problems? Nothing

http://iamned.blogspot.com

The government has put the same punch bowl out that got us into the mess in the first place. More debt and consumption and don't worry about paying it back. (Berbnanke= Greenspan II)

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:05 AM on 10/04/2009
photo

To make matters far worse, consider what the US government has actually done to fix the underlying problems? Nothing

The government has put the same punch bowl out that got us into the mess in the first place. More debt and consumption and don't worry about paying it back. (Berbnanke= Greenspan II)

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:05 AM on 10/04/2009
photo

To make matters far worse, consider what the US government has actually done to fix the underlying problems? Nothing

The government has put the same punch bowl out that got us into the mess in the first place. More debt and consumption and don't worry about paying it back. (Berbnanke=

Greenspan II)

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:04 AM on 10/04/2009
- SMAckley I'm a Fan of SMAckley 14 fans permalink

This was a horrible scam. There were subdivisions and entire new suburbs here in the Phoenix metro area where more than 90% of the houses sold used this scam to entice buyers. The developers made a "donation" to the "not for profit" which made a "gift" to the home buyer (after taking their fees), then the uneducated victims bought an overpriced house because the developer added the cost of the "donation" to the price of the house.

Many of these subdivisions now sit half-empty and the houses have dropped to their true value.

Another Bush-era scam burns the poor and the greedy.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:22 AM on 10/02/2009
- jsarets I'm a Fan of jsarets 162 fans permalink

This is just one of several scams that littered various parts of the world with clusters of ridiculous developments that nobody wanted (except for developers, lenders, and brokers) and now exist as surreal deserted monuments to finance capitalism.

Within the span of just a few years, 800 golf courses surrounded by luxury condo developments were built along the Spanish Riviera, where golf is not a very popular sport. The vast majority of the units were never occupied and probably never will be. The only sign of civilization is the groundskeepers and water sprinkler systems that the Spanish government pays to operate. A whole majestic coastline was tarnished for absolutely no good reason.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:47 AM on 10/02/2009
- jsarets I'm a Fan of jsarets 162 fans permalink

If not for the various subsidies, the only rational justification for owning a home would be to rent it to someone else. Home ownership is a flawed model for primary residence.

You should only buy an asset if you are prepared to sell it as soon as you expect its value to depreciate. Most families aren't prepared to treat their home as a proper investment because their whole lifestyle revolves around it.

The "ownership society" is a scam designed to entice people to accept inappropriate levels of risk. Homeowners were sold the romantic notion of freedom and instead received a devastating burden.

Invest your savings. Don't invest with debt, because you are not prepared to manage the risks of leverage. Vastly more sophisticated investors than yourself were caught out for the same reason.

We live in a dangerously volatile world of finance capitalism where our incomes and investments are constantly under attack by massive institutions, and we cannot afford to be inflexible and illiquid if and when we experience financial difficulty. We can't afford to be ruined by temporary hardship.

Please be responsible and rent your primary residence. It's not prudent investment vehicle.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:34 AM on 10/02/2009
photo

Great advice!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:19 AM on 10/02/2009
- KIVPossum I'm a Fan of KIVPossum 51 fans permalink
photo

Home ownership should be seen as a choice of lifestyle, not as an investment.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:39 AM on 10/02/2009
- jsarets I'm a Fan of jsarets 162 fans permalink

It should be seen as both a lifestyle and an investment. Maybe it's better to consider it an obligation or commitment. You're signing a contract that says you'll always be able to make your mortgage payments no matter what happens over the next few decades.

It's a huge promise to make in light of the uncertainty of predicting that far into the future, and as lifestyles go, it's fraught with stress and sacrifice. To own your home is to be a slave to your home. Your family is worth such a commitment. Your home is not.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:22 AM on 10/02/2009
- vfdowner I'm a Fan of vfdowner 4 fans permalink
photo

Your logic makes no sense. You have two basic options for primary residence: a bank loan that gets paid down over time or a rental in which you presumably spend the same amount of money out of pocket in which you are building no equity in. Your theory of cut-and-run is exactly what is making investing so risky in today's markets. Day Trading attitudes have given people the illusion that investing is for short-term gain, when it is supposed to be a tool to build long-term wealth.

By your own logic - no person should own anything. If it isn't prudent to own a home, then you probably should not own any furniture or electronics. This would then create a culture where nobody actually owns anything.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:00 AM on 10/02/2009
- jsarets I'm a Fan of jsarets 162 fans permalink

You're carrying my argument way too far.

First of all, there's a fundamental difference between consumer goods like furniture and electronics and assets like homes and businesses.

Also, I explicitly said that it could make sense for some people to own a home that they rent out as an investment, but I would caution against using debt for this.

But most importantly, I'm singling out the primary residence as a special case because it's a large debt burden relative to income, and a disruption of income in a down market can leave homeowners without the option to step down to a home they can afford.

When you're investing your savings for retirement, a long-term strategy is certainly advisable. But when you're trying to keep a roof over your head that you purchased with debt, short-term volatility matters quite a lot. It's a completely different ballgame.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:58 AM on 10/02/2009
- Jason369 I'm a Fan of Jason369 5 fans permalink

ACORN was one of these non profits!!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:01 AM on 10/02/2009
- moongal6 I'm a Fan of moongal6 74 fans permalink
photo

FAIL!
Please read the article. It involves two other non profit entities, Nehemiah and AmeriDream. Nowhere does it mention Acorn.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:06 AM on 10/02/2009
- SMAckley I'm a Fan of SMAckley 14 fans permalink

It was not. You're a liar. These were scams perpetrated by the developers.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:18 AM on 10/02/2009

You don't know what your talking about. These programs were not designed by builders or developers. It was designed to overcome one of the largest barriers to home ownership, the lack of saving for a down payment. FHA did not allow a homebuyer to finance closing costs and down payment, but it did allow a grant from a non-profit. Seller would give the money to the non-profit, non- profit would take a fee out and give the home buyer a grant for the remaining funds. It was nothing more than legalized money laundering. No one complained as long as long as minorities, the poor and unqualified were able to buy a house with nothing. If i refused to do this loan for someone, it could be interpreted as discrimination. If i gave someone a loan and they defaulted, it could be considered predatory lending. WTF. And every buyer that I spoke to about this program insisted and even demanded it. Now many minorities can't get any type of loan without a large down payment which many don't have, and the higher credit score which they don't have. Be careful of what you ask for, you may get it. Bankers will not be taking on riskier first time buyers and that will hurt all of us. and I don't blame them. And if that group is mostly minorities.....

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:28 PM on 10/02/2009

I've been in mortgage lending for 30 years and there is no such thing as discrimination on race. This may shock most of you. The discrimination was based on poor credit, no ability to save, large increase in housing expense and poor appraisal because the homes were in poor neighborhoods. I have never seen or heard of any banker/businessman reject a loan that qualified, regardless of race. Money is money. Why should a minority applicant with low scores, overdrawn bank accounts and no down payment get the same price and programs as more qualified buyers. Subprime loans and grant programs were designed to address the added risk associated with high risk borrowers, and in response to politicians who thought that all poor disadvantaged people should have a home. Remember acorn demonstrating against banks demanding that they free up money in poor areas. Remember the politicians from both parties taking credit helping the poor purchase homes. Subprime loans should have helped poor applicants because if they paid their bills on time after the loan, they would have been able to refi into a prime loan. Statistically, if they had bad credit before the loan, many will have bad credit after the loan. The truth is i've seen more lenders bend the rules for minorities. FHA wants to document money used to purchase a home, except for hispanics. Hispanics were allowed to bring cash/mattress money to closing because they did not trust banks, others were not allowed this accommodation.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:40 PM on 10/01/2009
photo

Not true when you consider how FHA discriminated against blacks through redlining AND subsidizing white home owners between the 30s and 60s--purely Affirmative Action of the most negative type.

"The FHA made home ownership possible for many Americans by introducing low down-payment, long-term fixed-interest, self-amortizing loans. In 1938, the creation of the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) provided a market for Federal Housing Authority (FHA) loans, increasing liquidity and further decreasing lender risk.

As Kaplan explains, black Americans were almost completely excluded from benefiting from these loans because the FHA assigned “risk” rating to neighborhoods, based on various demographic factors, especially race. Mixed and predominantly black neighborhoods were rated as “riskier” and were generally not eligible for FHA loans.

Valls said after World War II, the G.I. Bill led to a housing boom where returning soldiers bought new homes in the newly-formed suburbs. However, black veterans were largely excluded from the housing benefits of the G.I. Bill."

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/january162008/housing_discrimination_study_011608.php

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:25 AM on 10/02/2009
- KIVPossum I'm a Fan of KIVPossum 51 fans permalink
photo

I disagree with you. Slightly over 30 years ago I was in the mortgage department of a large bank, now part of Wells Fargo. We consistently redlined neighborhoods. Those neighborhoods were predominately black, so easy to assume we wanted to avoid loans to blacks. We also waived off on certain professions, no matter the credit rating of the individual.

Discriminatory? Probably. Good business? Maybe. We knew where our losses occured and tried to avoid them.

The current mortage problem stems from three things: 1/Home ownership, the American 'dream' became the American 'right' 2/ Keep up with the Jones' required bigger homes in fancier neighborhoods (I'lve actually known families with half million $ homes unable to furnish their kids' bedrooms) 3/ People bought in the false assumption values would always increase and used the artificial values to live a more lavish lifestyle.

I have true empathy for the people who were suckered into buying a home by unscrupulous agents and mortgage brokers. I have none for those who knowlingly reached for the sky and got caught.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:52 AM on 10/02/2009

Redlining has always been around/and still in use today. The term used now is a declining market, and why is this bad? In many or these redlined areas, even if the property was maintained beautifully, it would lose value. Homeowner's would not be able to sell the property and the bank gets another abandoned property. There are areas in florida where lenders refused to lend money because the crime was so bad and the number of abandoned properties too high that homes were not selling. you can interpret the numbers anyway that serves a particular need but when you have poor neighborhoods, vacant properties and high crime you will have redlining. And that won't change until private money comes in, buys up the vacant properties, home prices and taxes increase, criminal elements gets driven , more money comes in its generally better for the city but activists will complain that it drives out the poor and the elderly. And FHA has been addressing this problem for years. HUD developed programs for law enforcement, health workers and teachers who purchase hud owned properties in these "redlined' areas at a 50% discount as long as they agreed to reside in the neighborhood for I think 3 years. The theory being that professional would stabilize the neighborhood. Didn't work too well because many moved their families out as soon as they could because of the crime. For the most part bad neighborhood don't change unless they neighborhood changes. Sad but true

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:46 AM on 10/02/2009

maybe the banks should have said, regardless of who is brokering this loan, the actually owner of the loan cant pay it... and then maybe the loan originators shouldnt have ok'd falsified information (or falsified it themselves) and then maybe banks shouldnt have made all these fancy new "financial instruments" that compounded the problem

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:37 PM on 10/01/2009
photo

If you can't afford a house, don't buy a house. If someone can't afford a house, don't help them buy a house. Pretty simple advice, don't you think???

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:51 PM on 10/01/2009
- Viper I'm a Fan of Viper 248 fans permalink

I agree... but none of that matters if 1) real wages fall 18% .. those that could afford may not now. If helath insurance paymentd rise to where they are more than most peoples house payment.

2) Real Unemployment approaches 16%. 3) House values drop 50% such that in any other circumstances... if you could not afford your house... you sold it... thats not the situation now because our economy was nothing but a credit bubble with no net private sector job creation in ten year.

Regards

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:54 PM on 10/01/2009

loot the whole world, and

you get rewarded with more money and get a job in DC.

try to survive the rigged system, and

the elites and the elite-wanna-bes throw the book at you.

see how long the top can float without the bottom.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:11 PM on 10/01/2009
- Lorianne I'm a Fan of Lorianne 60 fans permalink
photo

Is his retirement related to moving HQ to NYC?.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:42 PM on 10/01/2009

The Community Reinvestment Act (of 1976 I believe) was designed to stop a practice called "redling" which was basically drawing a marker line around complete neighborhoods by banks who then instructed their loan officers NOT to write loans in that zone.CRA tried to get banks in the same neighborhood they had branches in to write loans.The act had almost no teeth thats why it was IGNORED FOR 30 YEARS.The loans written to UNQUALIFIED minority owners were written because THE BANK HAD NO INTETION of holding the loans.They had an outlet:bundle them as securities!Viola! problem gone ooops untill the market tanked

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:38 PM on 10/01/2009
- dadw5boys I'm a Fan of dadw5boys 278 fans permalink
photo

Cities had begged Congress for a Program to get people back in the cities to reestablish their tax base when people were flocking to the Burbs.

That is the CRA 1976

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:06 PM on 10/01/2009
photo

Excuse me! But the Clinton administration rewrote the CRA in 1993 and begain suing banks for redlining minority areas. Each bank had quota's that had to be filled and Clinton held their feet to the fire to force them to lend to low income. Here is a very good series of articles on CRA from the LA Times archives and what was REALLY going on. It was "universal" homeownership run amok.

U.S. Bancorp Accused of Avoiding Poorer Areas
EDMUND SANDERS | September 14, 1999
Some consumer groups are criticizing U.S. Bancorp's recent acquisitions in Southern California, accusing the Minneapolis-based bank of focusing on suburban neighborhoods and avoiding low-income and minority areas. The California Reinvestment Committee, a network of more than 200 community organizations and public agencies, is calling for a public hearing by the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency to determine if U.S.
http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/community-reinvestment-act-of-1977

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:23 PM on 10/01/2009
- elkabong I'm a Fan of elkabong 151 fans permalink
photo

It was not about lending to people who could not afford to pay their mortgages. It was about lending to people who QUALIFIED for loans but who were discriminated against because of the neighborhoods in which they lived.
Mass sub-prime lending was about the greed of the mortgage brokers, lenders and the packagers of mortgage backed securities. Wall street was buying anything and everything and selling doses of the mortgage soup.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:45 PM on 10/01/2009

All our manufacturing jobs (read :fairly high paying middle class jobs with benifits) are gone.So now its a race to the bottom .You should listen to the newspaper here in San Diego wailing about obscene pension benifits.I guess they are obscene when you work at Walmart for $8.00 an hour.The right wing would love to turn us into a third world dump of haves and have nots.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:28 PM on 10/01/2009
photo

Right wing folks have no pensions?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:25 PM on 10/01/2009
- Viper I'm a Fan of Viper 248 fans permalink

Job done! The last 8 years of repug rule exceeded the expectations of Osam Bin laden's stated goal to bankrupt us.

Regards

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:34 PM on 10/01/2009
photo

No wonder Bush said he was no longer interested in bin laden...

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:36 PM on 10/01/2009
- tralfas I'm a Fan of tralfas 11 fans permalink

San Diego is effectively bankrupt due to obscene pension benefits for public workers

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:38 PM on 10/01/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (8 pages total)

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect