Thank ACORN (And Co) For Mortgage Crisis
From the New York Post:
THE REAL SCANDAL
HOW FEDS INVITED THE MORTGAGE MESS
By STAN LIEBOWITZ
February 5, 2008 — PERHAPS the greatest scandal of the mortgage crisis is that it is a direct result of an intentional loosening of underwriting standards - done in the name of ending discrimination, despite warnings that it could lead to wide-scale defaults.
At the crisis’ core are loans that were made with virtually nonexistent underwriting standards - no verification of income or assets; little consideration of the applicant’s ability to make payments; no down payment.
Most people instinctively understand that such loans are likely to be unsound. But how did the heavily-regulated banking industry end up able to engage in such foolishness?
From the current hand-wringing, you’d think that the banks came up with the idea of looser underwriting standards on their own, with regulators just asleep on the job. In fact, it was the regulators who relaxed these standards - at the behest of community groups and “progressive” political forces.
In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of “redlining” - claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation.
In fact, minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently than other applications - but the overwhelming reason wasn’t racial discrimination, but simply that minorities tend to have weaker finances.
Yet a “landmark” 1992 study from the Boston Fed concluded that mortgage-lending discrimination was systemic.
That study was tremendously flawed - a colleague and I later showed that the data it had used contained thousands of egregious typos, such as loans with negative interest rates. Our study found no evidence of discrimination.
Yet the political agenda triumphed - with the president of the Boston Fed saying no new studies were needed, and the US comptroller of the currency seconding the motion.
No sooner had the ink dried on its discrimination study than the Boston Fed, clearly speaking for the entire Fed, produced a manual for mortgage lenders stating that: “discrimination may be observed when a lender’s underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants.”
Some of these “outdated” criteria included the size of the mortgage payment relative to income, credit history, savings history and income verification. Instead, the Boston Fed ruled that participation in a credit-counseling program should be taken as evidence of an applicant’s ability to manage debt.
Sound crazy? You bet. Those “outdated” standards existed to limit defaults. But bank regulators required the loosened underwriting standards, with approval by politicians and the chattering class. A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.
Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department.
Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with “100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don’t report it on your tax returns.” Credit counseling is required, of course.
Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed “the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted.” That lender’s $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003.
Who was that virtuous lender? Why - Countrywide, the nation’s largest mortgage lender, recently in the headlines as it hurtled toward bankruptcy.
In an earlier newspaper story extolling the virtues of relaxed underwriting standards, Countrywide’s chief executive bragged that, to approve minority applications that would otherwise be rejected “lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit.” He’s not bragging now.
For years, rising house prices hid the default problems since quick refinances were possible. But now that house prices have stopped rising, we can clearly see the damage caused by relaxed lending standards.
This damage was quite predictable: “After the warm and fuzzy glow of ‘flexible underwriting standards’ has worn off, we may discover that they are nothing more than standards that lead to bad loans . . . these policies will have done a disservice to their putative beneficiaries if . . . they are dispossessed from their homes.” I wrote that, with Ted Day, in a 1998 academic article.
Sadly, we were spitting into the wind.
These days, everyone claims to favor strong lending standards. What about all those self-righteous newspapers, politicians and regulators who were intent on loosening lending standards?
As you might expect, they are now self-righteously blaming those, such as Countrywide, who did what they were told.
Stan Liebowitz is the Ashbel Smith professor of Economics in the Business School at the University of Texas at Dallas.
This needs to be shouted from the (foreclosed) rooftops.
But of course it will not be.
(And of course not only is Mrs. Clinton a big ACORN supporter, but Mr. Obama worked for them both before and after attending law school.)
Related Articles:
- New Hillary Ad - "Bush Economy's A Trapdoor"
- Whitewater - Hillary's Own Real Estate Scam
- Hillary Blamed Tax Cuts For 2001 Recession
- NYT: Good Times Economy Was Only Mirage
- Reuters: Tent City Due To The Housing Crisis
- Law School's Hunger Strike For Illegal Aliens
- Who Is Allied In Soros’s Democracy Alliance
- Time Mag Pronounces "End of Easy Money"
- Look Who Is In "America Votes" Coalition
- Edwards's Firm Involved In Predatory Lending
- Taxpayer-Funded Anti-US 501c3 "Charities"
- ACORN Caught In Voter Register Fraud Again!
- ACORN - Highly Professional Poverty Pimps
7 Responses to “Thank ACORN (And Co) For Mortgage Crisis”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.




February 5th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
“In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of “redlining” - claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending.”
Now the city of Baltimore is citing “reverse redlining” in it’s lawsuit against Wells Fargo Bank. http://www.examiner.com/a-1144.....Fargo.html
Their lawyers claim the bank targeted black neighborhoods. Yes, they were coerced into targeting black neighborhoods by ACORN. Amazingly, the local media just forgot this part of history.
Next to George Soros, I believe ACORN is one of the biggest threats to our way of life. Anyone not familiar with them should to read here.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.....grpid=6968
Not surprisingly, they receive funding from Soros’ Open Society Institute.
Thanks to Mr. Liebowitz for writing this and S&L for posting it.
February 5th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
That’s exactly it, SG.
The cries of “redlining” and loosening of mortgage standards were largely responsible for the current “crisis.”
Banks aren’t stupid. Their underwriting rules were in place for decades because they balanced risk with reward.
Unfortunately, they gave in to political correctness and relaxed their lending rules to become government-friendly, and the mess now is the result.
Add the many, many shady appraisers who fed the bubble and you’ve got a real recipe for disaster.
It’s only too bad that the Government will end up bailing out the borrowers and, likely, the banks so that no lessons are learned.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:00 am
“…they are now self-righteously blaming those, such as Countrywide, who did what they were told.”
So countrywide was being ‘told’ to make these loans? They could see, being the wise businessmen that they were, that these loans would probably go bad, but they were somehow forced to make them?
The argument is absurd. Can you not see that? Talk to people in the loan industry like I have. You’ll hear no complaint of liberal regulators breathing down their necks, forcing them to make loans based on shaky data.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:12 am
“From the current hand-wringing, you’d think that the banks came up with the idea of looser underwriting standards on their own, with regulators just asleep on the job. In fact, it was the regulators who relaxed these standards - at the behest of community groups and “progressive” political forces.”
I love it. Conservatives complying about those damn liberals calling for less regulation of private industry. How ironic.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Greed knows no party affiliation. What is plain to see is a combination of collusion and coersion. First, the government issues mandates. Next, as in the case of risky lending practices, the government assures the lenders that they (government) will mitigate the losses. Then, in exchange for votes, monetary contributions to campaigns, and/or other legal scams (does anyone remember the Keating Five?), the perpetrators of this fraud cash out. Everybody involved gets that warm, fuzzy feeling that comes with the illusion of having done something noble, and the taxpayer gets it in the neck once again.
Anybody up for MANDATORY HEALTHCARE?
February 10th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
When mandatory healthcare fails, the leftists will be blaming greedy doctors and greedy patients. When the quota for certain procedures is reached and “greedy” patients go to India to get it done, the leftists will blame greedy doctors who left this country for better paying jobs. Greed will be blamed and not the inherent inefficiency of socialized medicine.
Just FYI, I linked to your article from Ethnic Cleansing is Sometimes a Good Thing.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Thanks, BernieG.
And welcome.