[Fri Aug 19 17:36:47 2022] index.cgi: CGI::param called in list context from /home/kevin/sites/csua.com/PRODUCTION/index.cgi line 78, this can lead to vulnerabilities. See the warning in "Fetching the value or values of a single named parameter" at /usr/share/perl5/CGI.pm line 415. Entry 51485 (Berkeley CSUA MOTD)
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 51485
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2022/08/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
8/19    

2008/10/12-15 [Finance/Banking, Reference/RealEstate] UID:51485 Activity:nil
10/12   Fannie and Freddie originated only 15% of subprime loans in 2006
        Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and
        moderate-income borrowers that year.
        http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html
        \_ But those horrid dark skinned people ruined our economy by letting
           the Democrats force them to take home loans they knew they couldn't
           afford.  I think it was terrorist plot by all those muslim sleeper
           agents that have been infiltrating our elected government for a
           generation now.
2022/08/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
8/19    

You may also be interested in these entries...
2013/8/29-11/7 [Finance/Banking] UID:54734 Activity:nil
8/29    Applying for a home loan now. The loan officer keeps asking why
        I wrote large amounts of check, and what they're for, and fax
        her proof to support what I said. She said loan regulations have
        tightened a lot to prevent money laundry. What is the max amount
        of money I can transfer these days without triggering annoying
        audits? I am not a terrorist.
	...
2013/7/31-9/16 [Reference/RealEstate, Finance/Investment] UID:54720 Activity:nil
7[31    Suppose you have a few hundred thousand dollars in the bank earning
        minimum interest rate and you're not sure whether you're going to
        buy a house in 1-5 years. Should one put that money in a more
        risky place like Vanguard ETFs and index funds, given that the
        horizon is only 1-5 years?
        \_ I have a very similar problem, in that I have a bunch of cash
	...
2013/5/13-7/3 [Finance/Banking] UID:54676 Activity:nil
5/13    Does FDIC ever matter? How likely is it that your deposit of
        over $250k going to be screwed over in a major US bank?
        \_ Was Washington Mutual a major bank?
        \_ Was Washington Mutual a major US bank?
        \_ Hahahahahahahahahahaha. Good one.
        \- As with nuclear weapons, this insurance produces much of its value
	...
2013/3/9-4/16 [Finance/Banking] UID:54621 Activity:nil
3/9     In a 15/30 year loan, the amount of payment stays the same but
        the payment on interest decreases while the principal increases.
        Suppose I decide to pay off a huge chunk of principal, will
        the amount of interest I need to pay decrease drastically, or
        do banks still want to take out a huge chunk of interest rate?
        \_ You don't actually have separate "interest" and "principal"; you
	...
2011/11/27-2012/1/10 [Finance/Banking] UID:54243 Activity:nil
11/27   Whoa, since when did FDIC coverage go up to $250,000? That's cool.
        So is this coverage per customer per bank, per account per bank,
        total per person, etc?
        \_ I believe that it is per customer per bank. Not 100% sure though.
           \_ Yes, and you can get even more with joint accounts, etc.:
              http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/dis/index.html
	...
2013/3/11-4/16 [Reference/RealEstate] UID:54622 Activity:nil
3/10    I'm trying to help my parents, in their mortgage there's an
        "escrow" amount. What exactly is this? From reading Google,
        the loan company uses the escrow account to pay for home
        insurance, but they've been paying home insurance themselves.
        I'm really confused on what this fee is.
        \_ Without an escrow account, you write checks to your insurance
	...
2012/8/21-11/7 [Reference/Law, Reference/RealEstate] UID:54462 Activity:nil
8/21    I'm trying to negotiate rent renewal and my manager came
        back saying she can't do that due to Fair Housing Laws
        that states that if they adjust price for one person
        they need to adjust price for everyone else. Is this
        an actual law or some bullshit she just made up?
        \_ Probably bullshit.
	...
2012/5/25-30 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Reference/RealEstate] UID:54400 Activity:nil
5/25    Sorry suburban hicks, properties in walkable cities retain
        better values:
        http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/05/18/study-resilient-walkables-lead-the-housing-recovery
	...
Cache (6737 bytes)
www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html
The Economy in Turmoil By David Goldstein and Kevin G Hall | McClatchy Newspapers WASHINGTON -- As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail. Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis. Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Federal Reserve Board data show that: * More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions. The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for US subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday. Conservative critics claim that the Clinton administration pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make home ownership more available to riskier borrowers with little concern for their ability to pay the mortgages. "I don't remember a clarion call that said Fannie and Freddie are a disaster. Loaning to minorities and risky folks is a disaster," said Neil Cavuto of Fox News. They purchase loans from the private lenders who actually underwrite the loans. It's a process called securitization, and by passing on the loans, banks have more capital on hand so they can lend even more. In an effort to promote affordable home ownership for minorities and rural whites, the Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families. To be sure, encouraging lower-income Americans to become homeowners gave unsophisticated borrowers and unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers more chances to turn dreams of homeownership in nightmares. But these loans, and those to low- and moderate-income families represent a small portion of overall lending. And at the height of the housing boom in 2005 and 2006, Republicans and their party's standard bearer, President Bush, didn't criticize any sort of lending, frequently boasting that they were presiding over the highest-ever rates of US homeownership. Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble. During those same explosive three years, private investment banks -- not Fannie and Freddie -- dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all US mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data. In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages. Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market. About 70 percent of all US mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve. Conservative critics also blame the subprime lending mess on the Community Reinvestment Act, a 31-year-old law aimed at freeing credit for underserved neighborhoods. Congress created the CRA in 1977 to reverse years of redlining and other restrictive banking practices that locked the poor, and especially minorities, out of homeownership and the tax breaks and wealth creation it affords. The CRA requires federally regulated and insured financial institutions to show that they're lending and investing in their communities. Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote recently that while the goal of the CRA was admirable, "it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- who in turn pressured banks and other lenders -- to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. Fannie and Freddie, however, didn't pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market. What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans. These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans. In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for affordable housing created today's problems. "Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans," she said. "The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households." In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in June 2007, the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich wrote that only one-third of all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to the pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he wrote, "that this new lending is good business."