Roots of rotten mortgages

[MacNews]

Roots of rotten mortgages

By Ralph R. Reiland
Monday, September 29, 2008

The roots of today's mortgage-based financial crisis can be traced back to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which Jimmy Carter signed in 1977. Seeking to address complaints from anti-poverty activists and housing advocates about banks allegedly discriminating against minority borrowers and "redlining" inner-city neighborhoods, the CRA decreed that banks had "an affirmative obligation" to meet the credit needs of victims of discrimination in borrowing.

To add a government stick to the process, the CRA decreed that federal banking regulators would consider how well banks were doing in meeting the goal of more multiculturalism in loaning when considering requests by banks to open new branches or to merge.

A good "CRA rating" was earned by way of increasing loans in poor neighborhoods. Conversely, lenders with low ratings could be fined.

The Fed, for instance, warned banks that failure to comply with government guidelines regarding the delivery of "equal credit" could subject them to "civil liability for actual or punitive damages in individual or class actions, with liability for punitive damages being as much as $10,000 in individual actions and the lesser of $500,000 or 1 percent of the creditor's net worth in class actions."

However well-intentioned in terms of delivering "economic justice," this push for more government-directed social engineering produced a widespread weakening of long-established industry standards for credit worthiness.

Led by Congressional Democrats, this policy of replacing private and decentralized decision-making with a system of centrally-delivered rewards and punishments was basically a one-party effort. Republicans, it seems, were more aware of the unintended consequences that flow from government interference in the market.

As Investor's Business Daily recently put it, succinctly and correctly: "Over the past 30 years, Democrats, along with a handful of Republicans, have demonized lenders as racist and passed regulation after regulation pressuring them to make more loans to unqualified borrowers in the name of diversity."

The march toward the eventual financial meltdown picked up speed during the Clinton administration via an increased lowering of loan standards in order to expand minority borrowing.

The result was widely praised. "It's one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era," wrote Ronald Brownstein in May 1999 in the Los Angeles Times. "In the great housing boom of the 1990s, black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded. The number of African-Americans owning their own homes is now increasing nearly three times as fast as the number of whites; the number of Latino homeowners is growing nearly five times as fast as that of whites."

In 2000, Howard Husock reported in City Journal that the "Clinton Treasury Department's 1995 regulations made getting a satisfactory CRA rating much harder. There would be no more A's for effort. Only results -- specific loans, specific levels of service -- would count."

The "specific levels of service" referred to how well banks were responding to complaints, including complaints from advocacy groups that were in the business of complaining.

"By intervening -- even just threatening to intervene -- in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers," reported Husock. "A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from The Bank of New York."

In addition to setting the stage for giving money for mortgage payouts to ACORN and other lending amateurs, CRA authorized those organizations to collect fees from the banks for their "marketing" of loans.

"The Senate Banking Committee has estimated that, as a result of CRA, $9.5 billion so far has gone to pay for services and salaries of the nonprofit groups involved," reported Husock.

There's big money, in short, in "nonprofit" activism -- and upward mobility. A guy carries a sign advocating "Change" in front of a bank and the government turns him into a salaried protester, credit analyst and dispenser of mortgage money.

"The changes came as radical 'housing rights' groups led by ACORN lobbied for such loans," reports Investor's Business Daily, regarding the Clinton era. "ACORN at the time was represented by a young public-interest lawyer in Chicago by the name of Barack Obama."

Ralph R. Reiland is an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University and a local restaurateur. He can be reached at rrreiland@aol.com.

It is interesting how many causes there are to this financial crisis that we are in. As well it is interesting how doing "the right thing" can lead to unforeseen changes, and ultimately the wrong thing.

With Bush out of office now and Democrats controlling the House and Senate, I wonder who the Democrats and groups like ACORN will blame? 8)

IMO, instead of handing under-qualified people loans, why not allow them to earn a loan? Remove any red-tape in their way, but otherwise if certain groups do not meet the requirements..then they do not meet the requirements and should be given a mortgage.

[Bobbyp]

All you have to look at is the spending habits of people... does a kid in highschool need a cell phone? how about a house wife out buying groceries? How much money do people waste each month on things that are precieved as needed that really arent? How many extra square feet of a house that you dont need or use do you need to pay for? How about that car ? do you need a new one or will the 2005 Escalade get you where you need to for another year? Even if you think back just 20 years ago we never had to pay for that crap. Just cause you might qualify for a loan doesnt mean you need it.

[Soundy]

Hmm, echoes of the Roman Empire, which ultimately collapsed under the weight of its own decadence?

Speaking of which, someone posted this to another board:

DUBAI (Reuters) - The seaside emirate of Dubai shifted into crisis mode this week as its breakneck building boom stalled, its lending bonanza evaporated and the government pondered wider steps to rescue banks.

Dubai -- self-styled bling capital of the Middle East, nightclub hotspot for the teetotalling Gulf and home to the world's tallest building and biggest mall -- has gone pear-shaped.

"It's gotten pretty ugly out there," analysts at Nomura Investment Banking wrote in a note this week, describing Dubai's property market as "a full-scale frenzy in which speculation went largely unchecked until it was very late."

The result may be a new business model for the emirate, one based less on debt and speculation.

Dubai's response is now being hammered out by a committee of business and government leaders charged with steering the emirate through the crisis and perhaps throwing its high-debt business model out the window.

Big developers have started firing staff and paring projects, banks like Emirates NBD ENBD.DU have blocked consumer credit to employees of companies at risk, and at least one major mortgage company has stopped lending altogether.

"Lenders blinded by rising oil prices and borrowers spellbound by easy returns have helped build a mountain of private sector debt in parts of the region that has generated an illusion of excess and abundance," Nomura said.

Now, investors fear that individuals and corporations alike will have trouble paying back Dubai's non-bank foreign currency debt estimated at just under $70 billion, according to estimates by ratings agency Fitch.

Shares in the region have lost around $1 trillion since the beginning of the year as investors fled. The UAE finance ministry said last month it would inject 70 billion dirhams ($19 billion) into the banking system, and is already looking at doing more to keep interbank liquidity flowing.

Many had hoped that the six countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) would escape the crisis due to their massive current account surpluses from energy exports.

"Dubai is the most vulnerable, as it has little oil and has been booming on the oil surpluses from the GCC, Iran and Russia," said analysts at Citibank this week.

DUBAI INC.

Dubai Inc. -- the name applied to the emirate because it is run more as a business than a state -- now faces a major overhaul and has taken on teams of consultants to advise on how it might reshape itself in an era of weaker credit, rising competition, falling speculation and narrower profit margins.

With barely any oil to call its own within the loose UAE confederation, Dubai made its bid for fame by housing banks, retail, media, shipping and logistics enterprises and by billing itself as a safe haven in a volatile region for investors.

Post-crisis, banks and property firms are likely to merge, developers retrench, and the wild culture of speculation grow tame.

"The solution is a comprehensive effort to consolidate the myriad of companies that make up Dubai Inc.," Citibank said.

In addition, some suggest that the monetary regimes in the Gulf -- all, except Kuwait, which peg their currencies to the dollar -- may need to restructure as floating regimes instead, a move likely to spur decades-old goals of monetary union.

Few anticipate default given the widespread view that Dubai is too big to fail and the implicit support provided by its neighbor Abu Dhabi -- home to the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world, ADIA.

"We believe Dubai will pull through with some help," Citibank said.

But with the cost of credit for the Gulf's top 22 financial firms rising from 30 basis points over LIBOR in early 2007 to around 200 now, many expect Dubai's spree to halt, plans to be swept from the drawing board, and existing projects to struggle.

The result, in the end, may be the sustainable growth model that Dubai has sought all along