DubsFan
Well-Known Member
First off, thank you guys for keeping this discussion on track with descending into the usual red vs blue stupidity. It's nice to be able to disagree without being disagreeable....
I agree that president mccain would have been a disaster and we would probably be much worse off. It's hard to say at this point, but I'm wondering whether romney would have been a better choice even if he is a tough pill to swallow for the religious right, being a mormon and all. But that's politics....
Weren't the mortgages underwritten by fannie and freddie, prime loans by definition? And I don't have any numbers to back this up, but my understanding was that there was very little delinquency and foreclosure with the loans underwritten by them before the bubble burst and that the problem came from loans by the unregulated sub-prime lenders that were bundled into what became the toxic assets that fucked up everyone's 401(k).
Don't you think regulation and more oversight of residential lending could have made up for the lack of common sense? There were obviously a lot of irresponsible practices going on the last 5-8 years....how do you prevent that without regulation? The fed with it's ridiculously low interest rates probably played a role too. I know very little about banking other than what I read in the newspaper, but I'm curious to hear what you think would have been the best way to avoid this whole mess. If I can give you a loan, then sell that loan to someone else and absolve myself of any risk associated with it, doesn't that encourage irresponsible lending?
And resin225, those aren't facts but political talking points. Again, fannie and freddie were self-sufficient, didn't cost the taxpayer a dime and the loans got payed back throughout the 1990s. The crisis was caused by irresponsible practices in the financial sector and a laissez-faire attitude on the part of the regulators, not by poor people getting advantageous housing loans and paying them back. Those are the facts and not many dispute them...
I would have voted for...gulp...Hillary if she got the nom vs McCain. Romney, as a Catholic was my choice.
FNMA did not really write subprime by definanition. But there underwriting at times was. Historically they average about 4% delinquency. I have no clue what it is today.
Here is my quick blurb on regulation. It only applies to O/O (owner occupied). NOO or Non Owner Occupied loans are loans borrowerd by investors and have far less compliance and regulatory stuff. But O/O loans are a bulk of what's be funded.
Also, in 2008 there was no new regulatory mandates yet. Are there any now? I'm not sure as I mainly am involved with Commercial paper. Anyway...no one was writing sub prime deals and selling them in the secondary market for one big reason. No one was buying the paper.
I hate to go back to supply and demand cause it's a little tired. But it's what I saw. Until someone is willing to buy the paper it won't get bought and subsequently not funded in the first place.
Right now in commercial lending, anything outside of a nice clean apartment loan (5+ units on up) the average leverage is in the 40-60% range. Not 70-75 or even 80% range like in the last cycle.
What really needs to change is who gets to be in this industry. Some states require no licensing and the states that do, like California...the Real Estate Sales Persons License test is a joke. The other license California offers is a brokers license. You need this to own a brokerage. That test was pretty tough. I don't think it should be that hard, but definately harder than the Salespersons exam. Some fail 4x and still get to retake the exame in like 30 days. Not that the material is educational, but your ability to pass the test shows where you are at mentally.