Report: Lending rules could have cut defaults in half
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
- Status
Once again we see a case where the dimwit reads, but cannot comprehend. You might want read past the headlines next time dimwit.
Most defaults were the type of loans that are excluded from Dodd/Frank. But it is equally dimwitted to believe that the individuals and businesses that engaged in these high risk mortgage loans, for speculative purposes, didn't also know what they were getting into. By the way, the biggest culprits for bad loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, appear to be exempted from these rules.
Most defaults were the type of loans that are excluded from Dodd/Frank. But it is equally dimwitted to believe that the individuals and businesses that engaged in these high risk mortgage loans, for speculative purposes, didn't also know what they were getting into. By the way, the biggest culprits for bad loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, appear to be exempted from these rules.
evince
Truthmatters
Nearly half of all mortgage defaults from the housing bust might have been prevented by forthcoming consumer-protection regulations, but another 25% of loans that didn’t default might not have been made, according to an analysis by economists at Goldman SachsGS -1.07%.
The Goldman analysis tries to quantify the impact of the forthcoming “qualified mortgage” regulations, which were part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial-regulatory overhaul. The law changed lending rules so that mortgage lenders are legally responsible for ensuring a borrower can repay a loan. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was tasked with writing rules for a “qualified mortgage” that lenders could make that would automatically satisfy the new ability-to-repay mandate.
a report from Goldman Sacks no less.
Now I guess yu have to hate them too huh you fucking pablum lapper
The Goldman analysis tries to quantify the impact of the forthcoming “qualified mortgage” regulations, which were part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial-regulatory overhaul. The law changed lending rules so that mortgage lenders are legally responsible for ensuring a borrower can repay a loan. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was tasked with writing rules for a “qualified mortgage” that lenders could make that would automatically satisfy the new ability-to-repay mandate.
a report from Goldman Sacks no less.
Now I guess yu have to hate them too huh you fucking pablum lapper
Dear fucking dimwit; I read the article which is much more than you did because based on your dimwitted prattle, it suggests you could not have read it, or if you did, failed to comprehend it.
Once again, you read, but do not comprehend. Just for you dimwit; I bolded the relevant parts that suggest this prattle is hypothetical in nature and not factual.
Once again, writing these rules would not have prevented the mortgage implosion which was the result of zero down interest only loans by unqualified purchasers or speculators. It would have done NOTHING to prevent the disaster caused by Democrats who played the race hustling game and diminished traditional loan approvals making it easier for less qualified individuals to obtain them in an attempt to be "arbiters" of what is fair.
No, but I am sure that you will continue ranting ignorant about things you know nothing about because you have the intelligence of an earthworm and the comprehension skills of a lemming.
Let me give you a tiny clue about how dumb this is: The law changed lending rules so that mortgage lenders are legally responsible for ensuring a borrower can repay a loan.
How does one make a mortgage lender responsible for ensuring borrowers will pay back their loans? How does one know a mortgage holder will not lose their job? How does one prevent a borrower from deciding to buy that new car instead of paying his/her mortgage?
Such poorly thought out idiot laws only do one thing; destroy markets and make the economic recovery less possible.
But you're a brain dead dimwit who parrots leftist talking points like a trained circus monkey who cannot possibly comprehend anything you read, let alone think for yourself.
Who is responsible? For you dimwit:
evince
Truthmatters
dear fucking idiot,
what the fuck do yo8u think credit ratings are?
They were designed by lenders to deem who was more likely to pay back a debt.
here is your idiot ass pretending that is something new.
The reason they didn't care in the sub prime case was because they DUMPED the loans on unsuspecting securities buyers so it would NOT cost them if the person NEVER paid.
how can you be so fucking stupid and dishonest?
what the fuck do yo8u think credit ratings are?
They were designed by lenders to deem who was more likely to pay back a debt.
here is your idiot ass pretending that is something new.
The reason they didn't care in the sub prime case was because they DUMPED the loans on unsuspecting securities buyers so it would NOT cost them if the person NEVER paid.
how can you be so fucking stupid and dishonest?
No dimwit; loan standards cannot guarantee anything. They limit the potential the borrower will default.
Requiring lenders to guarantee their borrowers can repay is the moronic of dimwits that only brain dead dullards like you can be gullible enough to believe in.
The pot claiming everyone else is black. You are an idiot at the pinnacle of stupid.
Too stupid to read your own article?
But the study shows that around 25% of mortgages made between 2005 and 2008 that didn’t default might also have been excluded from the market, including 30% of loans made in 2007.
Loans with those nontraditional product features were concentrated in the “sand states”—Arizona, California, Florida and Nevada—that had some of the bubbliest housing markets. More than nine in 10 interest only loans in 2006 were in those states, along with nearly seven in 10 so-called “option” adjustable-rate mortgages, which require low minimum payments before resetting to sharply higher levels.
Many of those products have largely disappeared from the lending environment since 2008 and aren’t expected to come back anytime soon. So what changes could consumers see as a result of the regulations?
In addition to restricting QM to fully amortizing mortgages, lenders must show that borrowers’ total debt payments don’t exceed 43% of their pretax income. (Loans that are eligible for purchase by Fannie MaeFNMA -2.83% and Freddie MacFMCC -2.06% can have higher debt-to-income ratios for now.)
Dear fucking dimwit; credit ratings are used to MINIMIZE risk, not gaurantee repayment.
evince
Truthmatters
its what the bank does stupid.
they lend people money after they deside if they are a good risk or not.
Then if the people don't pay they have to still give the money used back to the investor huh?
its a business designed right around what you say they shouldn't have to do.
your just so dumb and partisan you cant see how stupid you are
they lend people money after they deside if they are a good risk or not.
Then if the people don't pay they have to still give the money used back to the investor huh?
its a business designed right around what you say they shouldn't have to do.
your just so dumb and partisan you cant see how stupid you are
Dear dimwit; this is not what the article is arguing for. So repeating what I have already said about lenders acting like I have not is mere lunacy on your part.
But then, you are a dimwitted loony who fried your brains on drugs a long time ago. Hopefully you didn't breed.
By the way, it is “decide” not “deside” you moron.
Dear dimwit; if the borrower doesn't pay, the "investor" or "lender" is forced to foreclose on the asset and sell it for whatever they can get.
Once again your lunatic rants make little or no sense; take some Prozac and see me in the morrow.
Coming from a dumb lunatic hyper partisan like you, this would be the pinnacle of irony and hypocrisy.
But you’re a raving lunatic; how can you possibly comprehend how incredibly stupid you look, sound and act?
Dismissed dimwit.
- Status