| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Christopher Buckley Bows Out of the National Review | Main | VISUALIZING POLITICS »

October 15, 2008

What Caused the Crisis? Financial Deregulation and Exotic Products vs. CRA-driven Homeownership to Poor Americans

The debate is heating up on the role of CRA (and its, ahem, "neo-Marxist" supporters like ACORN) vs. the role of Phil Gramm's Commodities Future Modernization Act, which helped grow the market in credit default swap from $900 billion in 2000 to $62 trillion market today.  (The chat over at Business Week is interesting, as is this exchange between Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone and Byron York of National Review in NY Magazine.) [H/t: Mark Blyth and James Leighton, respectively.]  Ellen Seidman over at The New America Foundation:

The sub-prime debacle has many causes, including greed, lack of and ineffective regulation, failures of risk assessment and management, and misplaced optimism. But CRA is not to blame.

First, the timing is all wrong. CRA was enacted in 1977, its companion disclosure statute, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) in 1975. While many of us warned against bad subprime lending before the turn of the millennium, the massive breakdown of underwriting and extension of risky products far down the income scale-without bothering to even check on income-was primarily a post-2003 phenomenon. To blame a statute enacted in 1977 for something that happened 25 years later takes a fair amount of chutzpah.

It's even more outrageous because of the good CRA clearly did in between. The 1990s were the heyday of CRA enforcement-for a variety of reasons including the raft of mergers and acquisitions that followed the 1994 Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Act, increased scrutiny of lending practices by the media and activism by housing advocacy groups and tougher enforcement by the Clinton Administration.That period saw increased home mortgage lending to lower income households and in lower income communities by the banks and thrifts covered by CRA, and a steady increase in the homeownership rate, especially for lower income and minority families. (See The Joint Center for Housing Studies). In addition, there was significant investment in affordable rental housing, community facilities and broader community economic development, directly by banks and thrifts earning investment credit under CRA or indirectly through bank investment in Community Development Financial Institutions and other community-based organizations.

Posted by Robin Varghese at 05:03 PM | Permalink

Comments

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=10&year=2008&base_name=usa_today_thinks_its_possible

Posted by: Bryon | Oct 15, 2008 7:47:44 PM

C'mon, are you serious?

A "debate" between "Matt Taibbi" and "Byron York" over CRA and credit default swaps, and Fannie Mae?

What are Taibbi's credentials? Wikipedia mentions that he lived in Uzbekistan, wrote for The Moscow Times as a sports editor, and he played professional basketball in Mongolia.

Byron York writes for National Review, was a producer at CNN, and is a contributor to the Huffington Post.

And you expect anyone to take a debate between these 2 "financial geniuses" seriously?

You're merely showing what your political beliefs are, rather than exhibiting any interest in a reasoned, balanced, pursuit of the truth.

Posted by: Wade Nichols | Oct 16, 2008 8:45:18 AM

How about extending ARM's to 40 years fixed (at today's present value of existing mortgage). The defaults would stop as people could afford note payments again. Then, if necessary, you could have a lottery like the draft whereby exotic securites could get the right to sell to US each year in a limited amount and the right would be transferrable so, for a price owners could sell and other owners would earn more while holding them.

Posted by: rg | Oct 16, 2008 11:12:21 AM

Wade,

Do you have anything substantial to say about the actual discussions linked to by this post or do you prefer to decide the merits of an argument based strictly on the credentials or political leanings of the participants?

If, after reading these pieces you still feel that the Community Reinvestment Act significantly contributed to the present economic crisis, I hope you'll share your thoughts with the rest of the class.

Posted by: Chris Schoen | Oct 16, 2008 12:38:38 PM

If, after reading these pieces you still feel that the Community Reinvestment Act significantly contributed to the present economic crisis, I hope you'll share your thoughts with the rest of the class.

I keep an open mind regarding all possible "contributors" to the present economic woes. Where did I say or did not say that CRA contributed to the problem? Nowhere, genius.

I don't care to read or hear amateur rants or pseudo analysis by Lilliputian "analysts" of either side of the political spectrum - Bill O'Reilly, Michael Moore, Matt Taibbi, Byron York, or Chris Schoen.

I don't have all the answers, nor do I claim to. But intelligent articles by people such as Nouriel Roubini, Paul Krugman, Tyler Cowen, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, et. al., is far more inciteful than any of the five clowns mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Posted by: Wade Nichols | Oct 16, 2008 3:51:03 PM

Wade,

Perhaps they are more "inciteful" (though I've always found Krugman to be far more grounded and level-headed than his reputation would suggest).

My point is, if you read the NY Mag dialogue, and found it wanting, I'm curious to know on what score. And if you didn't read it, aren't you just posting these remarks to let everyone know how discerning you are?

Posted by: Chris Schoen | Oct 16, 2008 6:27:25 PM

Wade, it's time once more for the vino santo and a few biscotti.

Posted by: Elatia Harris | Oct 17, 2008 12:44:56 AM

Perhaps they are more "inciteful"

Wow, very good! You found one word that I misspelled. How clever! I hope you're well paid at your copy editing job.

My point is, if you read the NY Mag dialogue, and found it wanting, I'm curious to know on what score. And if you didn't read it, aren't you just posting these remarks to let everyone know how discerning you are?

I don't have to actually read articles to comment on them, do I? Why would I actually read it?

If the article appeals to you, then it's more likely simply validating your own preconceived political beliefs, rather than challenging them.

Does Byron York know what he's talking about, obviously not. Does Matt Taibbi have any first hand knowledge of either the Community Reinvestment Act or credit default swaps through: market participation (trader of credit default swaps); loan officer (CRA); bank regulation; academia (Has he conducted research on either topic?); internal auditor? I'll let you be the judge of his credentials.

Otherwise, it's just a cheap political stunt, obviously preaching to his believers.

And let me preempt any of your "thought processes" that may be occurring right now: I'm not an apparatchik of John McCain, nor do I support Obama. (I'd love to toy with you and say I'm a Pat Buchanan operative, but that's not true either)

Posted by: Wade Nichols | Oct 17, 2008 9:10:02 AM

"I don't have to actually read articles to comment on them, do I?"

Thanks for first laugh of the day.

Posted by: Jared | Oct 17, 2008 10:13:13 AM

Thanx @bryon for the link.
Nice Comments!

Posted by: Tom | Oct 20, 2008 7:35:54 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

3QD Politics Prize

Donate to Todd Shea

More info about Todd Shea and his work here on 3QD.

3QD ADVERTISING

3QD on Facebook

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google


Recent Comments

czrpb on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

chris on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

odysseus14 on The World's Fastest Animal Takes New York

Daniel on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Robin on The Incomparable Economist

odysseus14 on The Incomparable Economist

Cyrus Hall on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Jane Lenoir on The Humanists: Frederick Wiseman's High School (1968)

Norman Costa on Psychological Science: Measurement, Uncertainty, and Determinism – Part 1

Norman Costa on Psychological Science: Measurement, Uncertainty, and Determinism – Part 1

czrpb on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Daniel on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Elatia Harris on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

chris on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Carlos on you can't handle the truth

Nick Smyth on you can't handle the truth

eric on you can't handle the truth

Ruchira on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Randolyn Zinn on Shards and Fragments: Eva Hesse Studioworks

Luke Lea on Hollywood gives biologists a helping hand

Chris Schoen on Psychological Science: Measurement, Uncertainty, and Determinism – Part 1

Rhea on Psychological Science: Measurement, Uncertainty, and Determinism – Part 1

Chris Schoen on Psychological Science: Measurement, Uncertainty, and Determinism – Part 1

J.H. on you can't handle the truth

J.H. on The World's Fastest Animal Takes New York

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes


Logos designed by Vicki Winters

Subscribe to this blog's feed