doesn't that still count as good news?
Given the house of cards the mortgage securities market was built on, primarily by the federal government presurring lenders to make riskly loans and for Fannie and Freddie to buy and sell them, it had to shake out sometime.
Also, how bad are things when the GOP nominee is running against the GOP? This is the strangest election I've ever seen. The sitting president isn't campaigning at all for his party's nominee. Really baby, I've changed. I promise I won't hit you again.
“... discrimination may be observed when a lender’s underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants.”
Key program criteria that ensure successful products for immigrant populations include many alternatives: lower down payments; higher qualifying ratios; acceptance of nontraditional credit history; latitude in proving legal residence; no mortgage insurance requirement; assistance with down payments and closing costs; and required native-language education and counseling.
byomtov: Especially since Carly ("I cut HP's value in half and got a $21 million severance package) Fiorina is advising him.
After Fiorina's departure from Hewlett-Packard in 2005, the company quickly prospered, overtaking Dell as the top-selling computer maker in the world. Her defenders, and even some critics, credit her with laying the foundations for that prosperity.
Lots of perks came with Fannie and Freddie’s charters and government backing: exemptions from state and local taxes, relatively meager capital requirements, and an ability to borrow money at rock-bottom rates.
Indeed, executives of both companies maintain that one of the reasons the firms hold so many bad loans is that Congress has leaned on them for years to buy mortgages from low-income borrowers to encourage affordable housing.
the financial markets have long assumed that the government would step in to cover the companies' trillions of dollars of obligations if they were unable to do so themselves. The belief that the government stands behind them helps explain why Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have historically been able to borrow money at low rates -- and why the demand for their mortgage securities did not dry up as investors abandoned other mortgage-related investments.
In October 1992, a brief debate unfolded on the floor of the House of Representatives over a bill to create a new regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. On one side stood Jim Leach, an Iowa Republican concerned that Congress was "hamstringing" this new regulator at the behest of the companies.
He warned that the two companies were changing "from being agencies of the public at large to money machines for the stockholding few."
On the other side stood Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who said the companies served a public purpose. They were in the business of lowering the price of mortgage loans.
Congress chose to create a weak regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. The agency was required to get its budget approved by Congress, while agencies that regulated banks set their own budgets. That gave congressional allies an easy way to exert pressure.
If violent crime is down, why is the cost of ammo up?
Low interest rates are not the cause of bad mortgages,. It's poor underwriting that causes lender losses.
Letting AIG fail would trigger a world wide depression.