Quote:
Originally Posted by fishpoopoo
Spence, that is consistent with what I've been saying.
1) The crisis had its roots in the dumbing down of lending standards via CRA and broader "affordable housing" policies.
2) Low interest rates, beginning in 2001, provided the fuel for the underwriting.
CRA enforcement and amendments were only part of the hilarity that ensued prior to the housing bubble. You allude to HUD quotas (which were ultimately adopted by GSE's after HUD established them, not the other way around as you indicate).
By the way, I am an economist and do my own research.
But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to read a chart. Mortgage originations exploded fivefold after the federal reserve dropped rates to imprudently low levels from 2001-2004, even though the economy was recovering by late 2001. The data is publicly available if you want to verify.
|
I'm well aware of your background.
But all the chart indicates is the relationship between lending and interest rates. This relationship seems pretty obvious. The issue at hand is how much the CRA enabled this growth. Most of the non-political analysis I've read doesn't seem to support the argument that it had a major impact in new loans or defaults.
And my statement on HUD quotes isn't as you indicate. Reading the actual HUD charter, it looks like they're set in anticipation of where the market is going and then set upon the GSE's. My interpretation could be wrong though as I've just read the one HUD document and it's not completely clear.
-spence
Threaded Mode