Community Reinvestment Act

The mortgage crisis of 2007 marked catastrophe for millions of homeowners who suffered from foreclosure and short sales. Most of the problems involving the foreclosing of families’ homes could boil down to risky borrowing and lending. Lenders were pushed to ensure families would be eligible for a loan, when in previous years the same families would have been deemed too high-risk to obtain any kind of loan. With the increase in high-risk families obtaining loans, there was a huge increase in home buyers and subsequently a rapid increase in home prices. As a result, prices peaked and then began falling just as fast as they rose. Soon after families began to default on their mortgages forcing them either into foreclosure or short sales. Who was to blame for the risky lending and borrowing that caused the mortgage meltdown? Many might blame the company Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but in reality the entire system of buying and selling and free market failed home owners and the housing economy.

Since mid 1990s, the subprime mortgage market has grown rapidly experiencing a phenomenal 23% compound annual growth rate to 2006. The total subprime loan originations increased from $65 billion in 1995 to $613 billion in 2006. The subprime sector has become a significant sub-sector of the total residential market accounting for 21% of all residential mortgage originations in 2006. Similarly, by year-end 2006, total outstanding balance of subprime loans grew to $1.2 trillion, approximately 12.6% of all outstanding mortgage debt.

In 2008 the real estate market crashed because of the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act and Commodities Futures Modernization Act, which led to shady mortgage lending or “liar loans” (Hartman). The loans primarily approved for lower income and middle class borrowers with little income or no job income verification, which lead to many buyers purchasing homes they could not afford because everyone wants a piece of the American dream; homeownership. Because of “reckless lending to lower- and middle-income borrowers who could not afford to repay their loans many of the home buyers lost everything when the market collapsed” (Tankersley 3). Homeowners often continued to live in their houses for months or years without paying any

The reality of the worst financial crisis in the last 80 years has led to wide speculation of its causes. While a plethora of theories have been offered, none have been as persistent and as patently false as the assertion that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 played a significant role in the housing bubble collapse. Critics of the Community Investment Act (CRA) argue that by pushing banks to meet the credit needs of low-income borrowers, the law forced lending institutions to take on riskier loans that proved to be fiscally irresponsible. The securitization and speculation of these low quality loans led to the housing bubble collapse and the wider

Many factors that led to the crash of the financial markets in 2008. Liberals and conservatives have differing views on the reasons for this crisis. From 1980 to 2007, deregulation, HUD, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), and bank management pushing banks to make high risk loans caused the market to shatter. Hedge funds contributed a humongous portion of the market crash. A commission of conservatives and liberals was established to try get to the bottom of how the stock market crashed. The name of the commission to conduct this study is Financial Inquiry Commission.

All the economy’s parts seem to be working together for a change: joblessness is under 5% - a 24 year low – yet inflation is holding steady at 3%, a combination that economists thought impossible” (Pooley). This article placed the economy in very favorable position, but the economy collapsed back in 2008 when Wall Street folded. In a video published by Johnathan Jarvis titled “The Cause and Effects of the 2008 Financial Crisis,” the video explains how the economy went from being healthy and vibrant, to desperate and helpless because investors were creating mortgages with people who were not financially stable, and those mortgagors were more than likely struggling to pay their debts prior to attaining a sub-prime mortgage loan. When these sub-prime mortgages defaulted, the house was reposed by the mortgagee and put on the market to sell. When the house went up for sale because of the default, the

A few years later the market took a turn for the worse, where interest rates were on the rise, and homes were losing their value quickly. Now borrowers that were in these interest only ARM’s needed to refinance these loans because the rates were going up, to a point where the homeowner was not be able to afford the payment. The Federal Reserve tried to stimulate the economy by lowering interest rates during the recession in early 2001, from over 6% in 2000, to a rate just above 1.25% in 2002. These low rates encouraged many Americans to apply for loans for homes that a few years ago they would have not been able to. To encourage the homeownership boom, the Bush administration urged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to allot more money for low-income borrowers so they could buy their own homes. This resulted in the subprime mortgage

The beginning of the crisis: From the early to the mid-2000’s, high-risk mortgages became available from lenders who funded mortgages by repackaging them into pools that were sold to investors. New financial products were used to apportion these risks, with private-label mortgage-backed securities providing most of the funding of subprime mortgages. The less

Low interest rates and the ease of borrowing money are two primary causes of the current recession. In 2007, 37% of the total home mortgage loans were considered a “liar loan” because the mortgage lender did not evaluate income or assests (Russo, Mitschow, & Schinski, 2015). The Federal Government sought to encourage home loaners to loan to risky homebuyers and they kept low interest rates for far too long. During this time mortgage brokers began selling home mortgage loans rather than a commercial banking system. They were not subject to the scrutinized federal regulations, and lent money to many individuals who were unable to afford the homes that they were buying. Many people overestimate their ability to pay debt, resulting in them buying expensive homes because they were approved regardless of their credit or income. The crisis occurred when homes values dropped due to the ability for individuals to buy expensive homes, which resulted in people owing more on their homes than the value of the house. It was nearly impossible for people to make a profit when selling their homes, so many homeowner’s felt that it would be best to default on their loans as they were losing money paying for a home with less value than the actual loan. The more foreclosures there was, the more home values diminished and causing more and more

Financial institutions did little stop subprime lending, the popularity of these types of loans kept growing, and lending companies took quantity of loans over quality which added to the so called “housing bubble” (Burry, 2010). Financial institutions didn’t

Additionally, a primary factor in the financial crisis was unsustainable mortgage lending. Subprime mortgages increased from eight percent of total mortgages in 2004 to twenty percent in 2006 with more than 90 percent of these mortgages being adjustable rate mortgages allowing borrowers to qualify for loans for which they did not have long-term repayment capacity. Furthermore, lenders lowered their loan underwriting standards especially for loan to appraised value and repayment capacity to allow borrowers to obtain significantly larger loans than in the past. System institutions did not participate in lowered lending standards. The System is prohibited by regulation from making mortgage loans with

Sub-prime mortgages were a lucrative new market idea, pushed by the government, executed by the lending institutions, in order to provide everyone the American Dream. During the expanding economy, this dream became a reality—untested and unchecked—as low interest rates fueled the desire of investors to make dreams come true! Ultimately, the vicissitudes of the economy turned downward and the snowball effect began while financial sectors and investors scrambled to catch the falling knife. While history is being written this very day and hindsight is 20/20, we can reflect on the ideologies and policies that brought forth the worst economic downturn since the Great

Hence, we can assess that the goals and objectives of these laws were to provide independence, social uplifting and a better standard of living for particular communities in the United States. These were the communities which could not avail the services of financial intermediaries. Hence, a regulatory agency had been tasked by the Federal government to oversee the provision of safe and sound lending practices. This was to generate an economic revival in medium-low income earning neighborhoods.

The most popularly known subprime mortgage crisis came into lime light when a steep rise in home foreclosures in 2006 spiraled seemingly out of control in 2007, triggering a national financial crisis that went global within the year. The maximum blame is pointed at the lenders who created such problems. It was the lenders who ultimately lent funds to people with poor credit and a high risk of default. When Fed flooded the markets with increasing capital liquidity, its intention was not only to lower interest rates but it also broadly depressed risk premiums as investors sought riskier opportunities to bolster their investment returns. At that point of time, lenders found themselves loaded with capital for lending out and higher willingness to undertake higher risks in a surge to get greater investment returns. To overcome of the financial instability and housing price bubbles, Federal Reserve has to intervene to combat these issues.

The early beginning of the 21st century had marked the history of the United States (US) with the Subprime mortgage crisis. In fact, it started when the traditional model used by the bank to finance mortgages lending trough customer deposits moved to a new model in which they were selling the mortgages to the bond markets through new kind of investment vehicles . This method made it easier to find borrowers because banks were no more limited by a maximum amount of mortgage lending . The increasing demand fuelled the rise of housing prices, so homeowners tried to take advantage of it by tacking out second mortgage with lower interest rates against their added value . In 2006, the unexpected burst of US housing prices bubble