Citibank Gets $306 Billion

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2007
Citibank Gets $306 Billion
185
Mon, 11-24-2008 - 1:21am

Detroit needs to hurry up and come up with a plan.

Sopal

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2007
Tue, 12-02-2008 - 11:46pm

It seems that you have insight into the portions of the law that you suggest support your assertion, but you refuse to share them with me.

Sopal

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2008
Tue, 12-02-2008 - 11:55pm
Unfortunately it appears there are some
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-22-2008
Wed, 12-03-2008 - 12:04am

"It seems that you have insight into the portions of the law that you suggest support your assertion, but you refuse to share them with me."


A link to the legislation's been provided.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2007
Wed, 12-03-2008 - 12:21am
Just give me a hint.

Sopal

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-22-2008
Wed, 12-03-2008 - 12:40am

"Unfortunately it appears there are some

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-22-2008
Wed, 12-03-2008 - 1:00am

"Just give me a hint.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 12-03-2008 - 4:11am

I get all that. Having now read the wiki link that was provided, I see that my guess was correct. The actual guarantees to make the loans happen were funded by Fannie Mae. However, the CRA states that loans have to be made soundly and responsibly. I imagine that Fannie Mae equally has some requirements along those lines. It IS possible to make responsible loans to people with low incomes, but it means that you have to make many small loans to meet the targets.

Anyway, the point is that I can not see anything in this whole chain of events that would justify either making the kinds of loans that verified neither employment nor income or reselling irresponsibly made mortgages as securities. From what I have read, the entire system was based on the assumption that RE prices can only go up. The softwares used to calculate the risks did not allow for either a stagnation or a fall in RE prices. As far as I can judge, that was the main problem. It was probably a dumb move for the government to flood the market with easy credit, but it still does not justify how the banks reacted and how the feds abdicated oversight.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 12-03-2008 - 4:16am
Where in the legislation does it say that? What I read says that the banks are NOT required to make unsafe loans and that loans should be made responsibly.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 12-03-2008 - 4:20am
Now you are not making sense. If you want to debate this, I really don't think it is unreasonable to ask you to back your assertion that the CRA required banks to make risky loans with specific quotes from the legislation. Sopall has read it, I have read it and we do not get from it what you apparently get.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2008
Wed, 12-03-2008 - 9:43am
It must be a guessing

Pages