Today, the Center for Public Integrity releases the results of its investigation into the housing crisis, which showed that investment banks, some of which were recipients of billions of taxpayer dollars through the federal bailout, made major investments in subprime lending.
"The top subprime lenders whose loans are largely blamed for triggering the global economic meltdown were owned or bankrolled by banks now collecting billions of dollars in bailout money -- including several that have paid huge fines to settle predatory lending charges," write John Dunbar and David Donald.
"The banks made huge profits and executives collected handsome bonuses until the bottom fell out of the real estate market."
According to their analysis, 21 of the top 25 subprime lenders were either owned or partly financed by one or more of the top bailed-out banks.
Among those banks: Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs.
Click here to read the rest of the report. here
Here is the list of the top 25 subprime lenders based on the center's analysis of data collected on almost 7.2 million high-interest mortgages.
The center's investigation also features maps showing where the top 25 subprime lenders originated most of their high-interest mortgages from 2005 through 2007, the period that marks the peak and collapse of the subprime boom.
Link
Banks Need Billions More:
Link
Support This Blog-Please visit the Advertisers Above.
This article seems to be overlooking the real cause of this economic debacle we're in now. Banks and bailouts are just the result of the ultimate criminality which is the seed of our current problems. This original criminality is what needs to be addressed as these same criminals are still running the country and until they are brought to full and swift justice we don't have a ghost of a chance to get out of this.
ReplyDeleteDemocrats in Congress and the White House are to blame entirely for this mess, starting with Jimmy Carter and the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act). This little gem FORCED banks (Fannie & Freddie) to make risky loans to people who were unlikely to be able to pay the loans back long term. In 1995 Bill Clinton ramped up Fannie & Freddie to require that 42% of mortgages were written along these risky lines. In 1999 that requirement was raised to 50%. This may seem like racial politics as usual but they are playing with YOUR money and YOUR economy. What this says is that is O.K. to write risky loans, a concept that is totally contrary to good banking practices. They invited bankers to abandon good practice and become whores out for the buck.
It also set a mandate to do these loans on MORAL grounds. Giving those loans to people who cannot pay becomes a MORAL OBLIGATION and almost a DUTY. Would other banks follow suit to be competitive? OF COURSE!
Forward to G.W. Bush and his first attempt to introduce legislation in the Senate to reign in the GSEs (early 2001).
Chris Dodd personally filibustered against the attempt, killing it. Again in 2003, Bush made another attempt in the House and was severly castigated by Barney Franks for even mentioning Fannie & Freddie. The attempt went nowhere. Finally in 2004 a third attempt was ignored and simply round filed. Most (ignorant) Americans blame Bush for the economic mess when it is the Democrats, (yes Obama too has taken bribes from Fannie & Freddie), who have SCREWED US and THEY ARE IN POWER NOW! The republicans need to use the media more and refute this left wing nonsense. Their failure to set the record straight has given us this runaway rogue government from which we may never recover.
The subprime disaster is simply the result of banking as usual under a criminal government meddling in ways to destroy the nation's economy.
Another gem is OUTSOURCING. This lie was foisted on the American people by corporate lobbyists representing those who had bought and paid for YOUR elected representatives in Washington. Nowhere in any trade agreements that I am aware of does it require us to throw away our jobs in the name of free trade.
The CEOs and other fat cats made tremendous amounts of unjust profits at the expense of the American worker and this has been going on for nearly two decades. Do you think that it is possible to KILL the American marketplace? That is exactly what has happened. When you take a $25 an hour job away, ship it overseas and give the American worker a replacement job for $8 an hour you are DESTROYiNG WEALTH TO THE Nth DEGREE. No wonder so many people jumped at ready cash in the subprime crapshoot. They were already desperate and turning more and more to plastic for their existence, ultimately searching for a way out of their financial troubles.
Obama is an outsourcer extraordinaire who has no intention of bringing our jobs back home.
We've got the foxes devouring the chickens before our very eyes! Wake up America! We are, disappointingly, at the same point we were in 1776.
Reference : This article seems to be overlooking the real cause of this economic debacle we're in now.
ReplyDeleteYES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES. . . You are absolutely, 100% correct Sir!
People don't have the money to save in banks, so how can the banks lend money? There are 300 foreclosures that I know about in a 5-block area in my Chicago neighborhood. That is about 1 in 7 homes! Lets just say most of those homeowners COULD afford the loans when the took them out - with the raising of property taxes, insurance, and utilities (monopolized entities), those loans became unaffordable to those who did not lose thier jobs to a foriegn country!
ReplyDeleteMy thinking is getting twisted - I can remember, back in the '80's, when we were told that recycling would cut the cost of things, like soda pop - so then, why did the price of soda pop go up, if the bottling and canning companies were "saving" money by using reycled? Why did they go up, even though those companies bought land in Mexico and pay workers much less money? Don't give me the "customs clearance" taxes as an excuse.
Take "money" away, and go back to bartering. Every one would have a job and a home. We don't need banks anymore.
Everyone got mad at England because of a little TEA TAX. 1000 different taxes later we are no better off, and someone is making money here. The banks are going broke? Where did all the money go? When the Gov pays for War, who do they pay? If the homeowner doesn't pay the bank, the bank can't pay WHO? Taxes? O.K., if the bank can't pay taxes, people lose jobs, right? but the money from those jobs is TAXED, and people spend the money, on food, banks, etc, SO? No taxes, no jobs, no banks, no money, no government? As you can see, I'm confused.
The banks and related investors don't want your home - they want your LAND! Land gives food and housing. Supposedly, land doesn't depreciate - so who loses? The government? BUT, the government has no money?? WHERE DID THE MONEY GO??
We have taxed gross income, and then we are taxed on our take-home when we buy things. if those "things" happen to be cars, real estate, utilities, gasoline, etc, we pay other taxes on top of tax.
I understand this is necessary, supposedly, to support JOBS. But, where are the JOBS?
I'm sorry, but I see people on welfare living it up and getting free college and stuff, for NOT WORKING. I bust my but and can barely afford to live, but don't qualify for such luxuries. Oh yeah, sure, I can get a LOAN from a BANK so I can get schooling - wait a minute, most of my friends who did get those loans are now in trouble for not paying them, because they could not afford to live AND pay the loan, because they could not get a job that would support both off the bat...BUT, I see welfare people getting thier degrees and PREFERRED jobs, what the heck?? Breaks on rent, breaks on home ownership, breaks on education, free food - MAN, I should just stop working, and get on the government payroll as a welfare recipient,,,seeing that the gov and banks can give away college and housing money to "needy" people.
By the way, I know there are people who REALLY do need the help - but coming here with the intent to get pregnant and get a handout, then demand all kinds of benefits just doesn't fit in with the "needy" definition.
I really feel bad for that lady who chose to have 8 more kids when she couldn't afford or even take care of the 6 she already had. Mostly, I feel bad for the kids. But, her irresponsibility is being PRAISED, something is wrong here.
WHERE DID ALL THE MONEY GO???
Sorry for the rant - I'm only 20 and I just don't get it anymore.
Sorry, I meant I'm only 30, not 20. Actually, I thought things made sense when I was 20, but then again, back then I was still impressionable.
ReplyDelete