Special offer

The Blame Game................................

By
Real Estate Broker/Owner with RICOASTALLIVING.COM
  

After reading one of Broker Bryants blogs regarding short sales and foreclosures, it occurred to me that a lot of Loan Officers and Realtors tend to place the blame on not only themselves but everyone except the actual homebuyer for letting themselves slip in to an untenable situation.

 

Realtors....How many times have you sat at a closing and wondered to yourself...How are these buyers going to afford this?

 

Let's be realistic. The buyer comes to you and you help them out with choosing Mortgage Brokers. You may give them a list of some that you know. You already have a relationship with some of these Brokers and you think you are helping your buyer out by referring to them. These Brokers have all told you they will "take care of any clients you send their way". You believe that they will approach your client with your clients best interests in mind.

 

You follow as closely as you can without invading your client's privacy.

 

Finally, the Broker calls you and tells you he has found the perfect package for your client and you can now look at homes in a certain price range.

 

So, you breathe a sigh of relief and start doing your thing and finding the dream home. You notice that your buyers seem to be a little more nervous than when you first met them, but you attribute this to new home anxiety. Finally, the perfect home in the right price range is found. Your buyers bid and the seller accepts. You feel the house is priced right. You have done all you can for these buyers. Held their hands and prodded and pushed through the whole transaction.

 

Fast forward to the closing.

 

You are all sitting around the big table, minus your Broker friend, of course. You are listening to the figures and browsing through the paperwork. You see the PMI insurance. Was that mentioned to your buyers? It must have been, but they didn't say anything to you. Okay, well hmmmmm, what is this silent second? Do your buyers know about this? What, they don't have to pay, ever? hmmmmm. Where did that down payment come from?  Oh.

 

Your euphoria has quickly faded. You had been under the impression that the Broker explained all this to your client, and maybe it has been explained, but looking at the transaction makes you wonder wny anyone thought this would be a good deal. You leave and congratulate your buyers, but as you are driving away. What are you feeling? (Here's the emotion, Ines)

 

Is this the Realtors fault, the Mortgage Broker's, the buyers? Or perhaps the lawyers???  

 

Every time I hear about a short sale or foreclosure, which lately seems to be several times a day, I think back to those closings.  It's not just that people go out and refinance after they buy the house. They couldn't afford it in the first place.

Posted by

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Opinions are of Karen Hurst, Broker/Owner of Stonehurst Realty only. For a free consultation, visit me at Stonehurstrealty.com and find out if this is your time to buy or sell!

Click on  to find me and decide.

If you are looking to sell, we can provide you with the latest stats for the market value of your home.

We specialize in bayside communities in all of Rhode Island

Contact me at Oceanstatehomes@gmail.com

 

 

 

 

 

Want to be a Rainmaker?

Follow me on these sites.

                        

Comments(157)

Anonymous
Mikey

Jason,

The tightening will come in many forms, regulations from the government and money not coming into secondary market for loans (this is the real driver of the current market, once investors start taking losses you'll see it dry up). The lenders won't have much choice but to tighten or go under, but if they tighten it leads to the spiral downward I spoke earlier. I don't think it will be instant or anything like that, this will be a long slow ride down (imho) unless the economy tanks then all bets are off.

I think this topic is very interesting, people were so quick to shout "Consumer has to be responsible" but as soon as I pointed out (for some, definitely not all) that they should take personal responsibility as well I got the line "If I didn't someone else would". Maybe someone else would, maybe they wouldn't, but by taking personal responsibility and making sure you did everything you could to let to help these PEOPLE not make poorly decisions you'll know you did the right thing.

Dec 29, 2006 04:07 PM
#138
Brian Brady
Matthews Capital Markets - Tampa, FL
858-699-4590

Mikey:

Are you suggesting that lenders created this problem?  If so, I must say that is an awfully naive statement.  Lehman Brothers did a study earlier this year that suggested that the rapid increase in foreclosures:

(a)- were indeed off of historical lows

(b)  might approach half  of the historical high in the next two years.

They account for one thing for this problem:  abuse of stated income loans...NOT inappropriate lending practices.  The borrower "states" his income on these loans.  In actuality, the lenders got hoodwinked by unscrupulous borrowers. 

This blame the victim rhetoric simply has the be ended.  Mikey, your facts are incorrect and your conjecture is wholly irresponsible. Who said "If I didn't...someone else would" on this thread?

Dec 29, 2006 04:20 PM
Brian Brady
Matthews Capital Markets - Tampa, FL
858-699-4590

Jason:

I obviously "singled you out" because you would understand where I was going on this.  I think attending the closings, while an absolute wonderful personal touch, are unnecessary.  Do I like to attend them?  Of course.  Anytime I can show a borrower that I can offer a personal touch, I will.  I appreciate the fact that you understood the spirit of my comment.  

Dec 29, 2006 04:38 PM
Anonymous
Mikey

"They account for one thing for this problem:  abuse of stated income loans...NOT inappropriate lending practices.  The borrower "states" his income on these loans.  In actuality, the lenders got hoodwinked by unscrupulous borrowers. "

You know what stated incomes nicknames are, right? "Liar loans"..

For example:

"The rising popularity of low- and no-documentation ("stated income") mortgages is also a key component of rising fraud levels, according to MARI. Sometimes referred to as "liar loans" or "NINAs" (no asset, no income verification), low-doc mortgages originally were designed for professionals and business owners with high credit scores who preferred not to lay out their confidential tax, income and investment information every time they applied for a mortgage. Typically those loans required FICO scores above 700, relatively low loan-to-value (LTV) ratios, and came with slightly higher fees or rates.

But recently, even consumers with subprime credit scores, low down payments and questionable incomes are opting for reduced documentation. Too many of these, however, turn out to be liar loans indeed, says MARI, where applicants falsify their incomes and asset information -- frequently with the help or a cooperative mortgage broker.

The MARI report cites this real-life example to illustrate the problem: "An officer at a Florida mortgage company applied to a second lender for two stated income loans. The applications were submitted 90 days apart. In the first application, the borrower stated his monthly income as $24,000, and in the second he said it was $30,000." When the mortgage officer was challenged about the discrepancy, he replied, "I thought that on stated income loans you could claim an income as high as necessary" to qualify for the loan amount the applicant needed. "

http://realtytimes.com/rtcpages/20050801_applicationfraud.htm

Poor lenders getting screwed by the unscrupulous borrowers? Sometimes. Or poor consumer getting hoodwinked by their broker? Sometimes.

Like I said earlier, I don't think any side can claim their hands are clean. BUT what people can do is make sure their hands are clean and that they have done everything they can do.

PRUDENT LENDING PRACTICES could be in place to stop many types of frauds, but many of the checks and balances that SHOULD BE IN PLACE are not. One of the simple things they do with stated incomes is check that the wages the person claims they have actually matches within general guidelines of the job they claim they have (no waitresses making 80k type things). Others lenders simply WONT ALLOW a person who is W-2 to state income. How are these not inappropriate lending practices? How were stated income loans given to subprime borrowers? How were risk layering practices such as IO or neg-am loans, plus stated income, plus low fico, plus low LTV, plus high DTI, plus qualifying the borrower at low teaser rates not fully indexed rates.. yeah that is the CONSUMER being irresponsible. The consumer is IRRESPONSIBLE for TAKING such loans, just as the lender is IRRESPONSIBLE for funding them.

Their is a lack of responsibility by all side, and to think there isn't is simply wrong.

If you don't believe these bad lending practices are going on, I welcome you read the Feds "Nontraditional Mortgage Guidance" as they were trying to stop exactly that (note the public comments by lenders trying to fight the feds efforts and the arguments they make):

http://www.federalreserve.gov/BoardDocs/Press/bcreg/2006/20060929/attachment1.pdf

Still think lenders and brokers don't shoulder any responsibility?

Dec 29, 2006 05:23 PM
#141
Brian Brady
Matthews Capital Markets - Tampa, FL
858-699-4590

Okay, Mikey...you answered my earlier question...it's not the lenders but their reps or crooked independent mortgage brokers who are the culprits. My suggestion was to throw them in jail along with the consumer for fraud.

The lenders set underwriting guidelines, designed to produce loans that will perform some 97-99% of the time.  To date, that performance number is steady.  Accounting for the coming onslaught of ARM adjustments, that number is still predicted to be acceptable nationwide.

I think we agree on the abuse of stated income loans but the lenders didn't lie, the consumer dug his hole (possibly and most probably aided and abetted by a disreputable mortgage originator).  Layering of risk is performed before the loan programs hit the market by sophisticated modeling, Mikey, assuming a certain degree of integrity on the consumer's part.  Are you suggesting that consumers who are documented liars are people for whom I should shed a tear?

You still haven't answered my question:  Who said "If I didn't...someone else would" on this thread?

Dec 29, 2006 06:17 PM
Anonymous
Mikey

"I think we agree on the abuse of stated income loans but the lenders didn't lie, the consumer dug his hole (possibly and most probably aided and abetted by a disreputable mortgage originator). "

The lender didn't lie, he was just irresponsible.

"Layering of risk is performed before the loan programs hit the market by sophisticated modeling, Mikey, assuming a certain degree of integrity on the consumer's part.  "

Sophisticated modeling? Maybe. But no checks and balances to ensure they are in fact are getting what they asked for. If a consumer asked for a 30 year fixed loan, but signed docs on a neg-am loan, is it his fault for not checking the paperwork to ensure he was getting what he thought he was? Absolutely. It is the same for the lender, they need their procedures in place to verify what they are getting. Bad quality control and lack of due dilegence is irresponsible.

"Are you suggesting that consumers who are documented liars are people for whom I should shed a tear?"

No, nor should you shed a tear for brokers, lenders, originators, realtors. All sides have blood on their hands and everyone should make sure they do their part to bring responsibility back into the equation.

"You still haven't answered my question:  Who said "If I didn't...someone else would" on this thread?"

I specificially said that line, paraphrasing Jeff's post:

"My whole point is....  if Brian and I don't step in to at least help someone with what they want, they will go some where else....AND there is a good chance that they will get a worse, way worse deal....  I don't care as much if the banks and lenders raise the debt to income ratio to 50%... that is their guideline and rule. Trust me, I do care... but I can't be peoples credit counselors. "

------------

Forgive the double post after this, I don't want the next point to be lost in the point being made here.

Dec 29, 2006 07:45 PM
#143
Anonymous
Mikey

If I own a liquor store, a guy comes in tries to buy beer, he looks young so I ask for I.D. and he gives me a license that says he is 21 but I don't believe it. Do I turn him away knowing the liquor store down the street will probably sell to him? Take the money knowing I covered myself and am not responsible for his action?

The proper business response would be to come up with a procedure (maybe call the cops to verify the I.D. for example) that protects you in every way. You get the legitimate business, and get rid of the illegal guys. The business side was responsible even if the consumer was not.

Fine, great, we now have a system that maximizes my legitimate cash flow and minimizes underage drinking in my town and my liability.

Fast forward, I am now selling beer like gangbusters, super busy. But sometimes these legal adults that look young come and try to buy beer and that is slowing things down. Word is out on the street that you can't buy beer here underage, so no kids ever try it anymore so I have this procedure that is designed to catch the bad guys but is only slowing things down for all my legitimate customers. I know if I don't change, my full parking lot my drive other people to my competitors.. what to do?

Well I figure I'm a business guy, the time in between catching a kid trying to buy beer is less and less, and a call to the local police lets me know that underage drinking is at an all time low. So I drop my policy so I can make more money.

Guess what? Some kid tries to get beer and is successful and lets his friends know, I'm still selling lots and lots of beer. Heck now it seems like I am selling even MORE beer....

See any similarities anywhere? In this scenario who is being irresponsible?

------

"It's only when the tide goes out that you learn who's been swimming naked." - Warren Buffett

Tide is going out..

Dec 29, 2006 08:03 PM
#144
Jeff Belonger
Social Media - Infinity Home Mortgage Company, Inc - Cherry Hill, NJ
The FHA Expert - FHA Loans - FHA mortgages - USDA loans - VA Loans

EVERYONE.... Please read this word for word. This might open some eyes, because there are many other factors not mentioned in this debate. 

 

Mikey.....  good trying to use an analogy...but the similarities are false because my statement is open ended....  with no true explanation.  Just a statemet that can be torn apart. 

Let me add to what I stated.... when I say I can't be someone's credit counselor,  I am talking about the aftermath.  I CAN DO MY JOB throughout the process, making sure that I EDUCATE them.... GIVE them the correct type of loan program.....  DOUBLE explain the program and process so they do fully understand.....  and get them into the house LEGALLY (without fraud) & by lending standards and guidelines.  Okay?

In regards to my statement now...."I can't be someone's credit counselor"  I can't POLICE what the client does after settlement, when the loan closes. I have not seen one person in here really talk about this or mention that. I made a statement earlier, that you failed to dwell on. "people, after buying a house, will go out and buy new things...furniture, TV's....  a new car, new appliances".... and put all of this on credit.

Who is policing this? What about all of those companies that now allow you to buy large ticketed items on credit and pay later. ????  Even before this....  what about the credit companies that give consumers many credit cards... raise their limits...  giving young kids in COLLEGE credit cards, when they really don't have a job. I got a few of these back then. There was a major article on this several months ago. SO....   in these foreclosures... is part of the reason from the consumer over-spending???? What percentage of the foreclosures are directly related to the lender????   Howe about taxes going up big time in some towns, that weren't the norm?????   Many little factors that you are failing to mention, that can attribute to all of this.  

So....as I did to you, asking to explain a statement of yours, because it was very vague, I would have expected you to have done the same thing, since you are this so-called business person. But you just proved to me that you like to assume, just as the media and general public does. Besides....  you still haven't answered anyone's question, on who you are or what you do. And for all I know, you could be someone from Active Rain. 


Dec 30, 2006 01:38 AM
Brian Brady
Matthews Capital Markets - Tampa, FL
858-699-4590

Mikey:

I think you're cause is just and your points are valid.

As I've stated earlier:  I'm finished with the crusade, I just want to get paid for my expertise.

Education may seem like the answer.  The American consumer has an element among it that is just reckless. 

Protecting reckless people from themselves via paternalistic approaches penalizes the millions of consumers who are responsible.  You may recommend restrictive guidelines to protect that fringe element . I'll fight for the millions of hard-working, honest, relatively prudent people who will be denied home ownership by those very restrictions you propose.

I gratefully pass the torch to you; try not to get too jaded. For all your best efforts you'll still get your heart broken.

Dec 30, 2006 04:23 AM
Brian Brady
Matthews Capital Markets - Tampa, FL
858-699-4590
Oh, yeah...Go Eagles!
Dec 30, 2006 04:28 AM
Karen Hurst
RICOASTALLIVING.COM - Warwick, RI
Rhode Island Waterfront!
Go Pats!
Dec 30, 2006 01:42 PM
Jeff Belonger
Social Media - Infinity Home Mortgage Company, Inc - Cherry Hill, NJ
The FHA Expert - FHA Loans - FHA mortgages - USDA loans - VA Loans

Go Donald Duck....

 

 

E-A-G-L-E-S

 


Dec 31, 2006 12:11 AM
Brian Brass
Brian Brass - Guaranteed Rate - Troy, MI

I'd like to comment on a couple of points from the original post...and the resulting comments:

1.  I take great umbrage in the comments and perception that originators be present at closings.
    
     Attendence determines neither the competence nor the commitment of the originator.
     This is accomplished by providing the client with the best service available:
          - Consulting with the client to understand their goals (long/short term), 
          - Asking the proper questions to insure the end result still meets their goals,
            (i.e. Based on your qualifications a home of X will result in a payment of Y - is that ok?),            
          - Approving the best program available to meet the clients qualifications,       
          - Delivering the documents and funds necessary to close the loan in a timely fashion, 
          - Making sure ALL parties invlovled are aware of the details in the transaction,
          - Walk through the closing with the Buyer, Agent and Attorney PRIOR to the settlement,
          - Contact settlement agent to make sure the documents/escrows/prorations are correct,
          - Contact the settlement agent during the closing to answer any questions that might arise.  

We have several originators that close 40+ loans/months making attendence a difficult proposition.
Prepared properly most closing challenges are clerical/typo's that are better handled from the office. 

So questioning one's competence or their commitment is unfounded and painting with a broad brush.
Those who predicate either of these on attendance should rethink this based on these and other factors.

However, one should attend whenever possible (not to handle problems) to build/strengthen relationships.


2.  The general disregard for the client's right to privacy per Graham Leach Bliley.
     
     "We're looking to write/we accepted an offer for X...do they...what's the problem, etc?" 
   
     Discussions of credit/employment/income/assets are not permitted - ask the client.
     
     Professional originators offer approvals/commitments NOT qualifications or mere opinions.
     The applicant's qualifications ALWAYS determine the program/rate and the resulting obligation.

     Ask the client if the proposed program (resulting payment) meets their short/long term goals.
     This is of course outside of obtaining the subject property in question - regardless of cosequences.

This was a good post that prompted many comments that should be discussed further in new posts.

Looking forward to posts/comments...    

 

Jan 01, 2007 05:12 PM
Karen Hurst
RICOASTALLIVING.COM - Warwick, RI
Rhode Island Waterfront!

Brian,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. It was a good discussion and shows how we all think differently. I'm sure you will find many posts touching these subjects around here. People tend to get a little accusatory sometimes though, when we are all here to simply voice our opinions. You have some valid points and I have to say that the originator being at the closing probably has no bearing on his/her competence or intergrity.Hopefully these types of discussions will make more people aware of perceptions in this industry.

Jan 03, 2007 02:07 PM
Brian Brady
Matthews Capital Markets - Tampa, FL
858-699-4590
I think Active Rain found another opinionated mortgage broker named Brian.  Thank God for that.
Jan 06, 2007 10:23 AM
Karen Hurst
RICOASTALLIVING.COM - Warwick, RI
Rhode Island Waterfront!
:) will you be Brian #1?  both BB's also. This could get very confusing. You can blame things on each other.
Jan 06, 2007 10:33 AM
Gary Urich
Elliott Costal Living / Better Homes & Garden Real Estate - North Myrtle Beach, SC
North Myrtle Beach Real Estate
good info here..I guess everyone could have different views about closing but personally I know my broker gets very involved so I guess it starts at the top
Jan 24, 2007 06:23 AM
Paul Silver
Tiverton, RI
Rhode Island full service real estate firm
All this is ludicrous, and we should really take a long long look at what has been happening... I completely agree Karen... and by the way, I found this oneby reading your post about your top 6 blogs...
Nov 07, 2007 10:03 AM
Karen Hurst
RICOASTALLIVING.COM - Warwick, RI
Rhode Island Waterfront!

Paul,

A blast from the past! Little did I know when I wrote this post. I was so much older then:)

I was wondering what brought you here.

Nov 07, 2007 02:26 PM
Karen Hurst
RICOASTALLIVING.COM - Warwick, RI
Rhode Island Waterfront!

Couple of years later, some possible answers from www.factcheck.org. See original article here. and read the Whole article!!


Who Caused the Economic Crisis? October 1, 2008 MoveOn.org blames McCain advisers. He blames Obama and Democrats in Congress. Both are wrong. Summary A MoveOn.org Political Action ad plays the partisan blame game with the economic crisis, charging that John McCain's friend and former economic adviser Phil Gramm "stripped safeguards that would have protected us." The claim is bogus. Gramm's legislation had broad bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Clinton. Moreover, the bill had nothing to do with causing the crisis, and economists - not to mention President Clinton - praise it for having softened the crisis.

A McCain-Palin ad, in turn, blames Democrats for the mess. The ad says that the crisis "didn't have to happen," because legislation McCain cosponsored would have tightened regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But, the ad says, Obama "was notably silent" while Democrats killed the bill. That's oversimplified. Republicans, who controlled the Senate at the time, did not bring the bill forward for a vote. And it's unclear how much the legislation would have helped, as McCain signed on just two months before the housing bubble popped.

In fact, there's ample blame to go around. Experts have cited everyone from home buyers to Wall Street, mortgage brokers to Alan Greenspan. Analysis As Congress wrestled with a $700 billion rescue for Wall Street's financial crisis, partisans on both sides got busy - pointing fingers. MoveOn.org Political Action on Sept. 25 released a 60-second TV ad called "My Friends' Mess," blaming Sen. John McCain and Republican allies who supported banking deregulation. The McCain-Palin campaign released its own 30-second TV spot Sept. 30, saying "Obama was notably silent" while Democrats blocked reforms leaving taxpayers "on the hook for billions." Both ads were to run nationally.

And both ads are far wide of the mark.

MoveOn.org Ad:
"My Friends' Mess"

MoveOn.org Ad, "My Friends"

Narrator: We all know the economy is in crisis, but who's responsible?

McCain: My friends. My friends. My friends.

Narrator: John McCain's friend Phil Gramm wrote the bill that deregulated the banking industry, and stripped the safeguards that would have protected us.

McCain asked Gramm to help write his economic plan.

John McCain's friend Rick Davis lobbied for Fannie and Freddie for years, "defending" them against stricter regulation. And now? He runs McCain's presidential campaign.

And John McCain himself? He's stood by "deregulation" time and time again.

McCain: I think the deregulation was probably helpful to the growth of our economy.

Narrator: And now that the markets are in meltdown? John McCain's friend George Bush wants hardworking Americans to write the biggest blank check in history, bailing out the Wall Street firms and the Washington lobbyists who got us into this mess. Main Street giving Wall Street $700 billion and getting nothing in return? It's outrageous.

Americans shouldn't have to foot the bill for mistakes that John McCain and his friends made.

Narrator: MoveOn.org Political Action is responsible for the content of this advertisement. Blame the Republicans!

The MoveOn.org Political Action ad blames a banking deregulation bill sponsored by former Sen. Phil Gramm, a friend and one-time adviser to McCain's campaign. It claims the bill "stripped safeguards that would have protected us."

That claim is bunk. When we contacted MoveOn.org spokesman Trevor Fitzgibbons to ask just what "safeguards" the ad was talking about, he came up with not one single example. The only support offered for the ad's claim is one line in one newspaper article that reported the bill "is now being blamed" for the crisis, without saying who is doing the blaming or on what grounds.
 
The bill in question is the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which was passed in 1999 and repealed portions of the Glass-Steagall Act, a piece of legislation from the era of the Great Depression that imposed a number of regulations on financial institutions. It's true that Gramm authored the act, but what became law was a widely accepted bipartisan compromise. The measure passed the House 362 - 57, with 155 Democrats voting for the bill. The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 90 - 8. Among the Democrats voting for the bill: Obama's running mate, Joe Biden. The bill was signed into law by President Clinton, a Democrat. If this bill really had "stripped the safeguards that would have protected us," then both parties share the blame, not just "John McCain's friend."

The truth is, however, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act had little if anything to do with the current crisis. In fact, economists on both sides of the political spectrum have suggested that the act has probably made the crisis less severe than it might otherwise have been.

Last year the liberal writer Robert Kuttner, in a piece in The American Prospect, argued that "this old-fashioned panic is a child of deregulation." But even he didn't lay the blame primarily on Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Instead, he described "serial bouts of financial deregulation" going back to the 1970s. And he laid blame on policies of the Federal Reserve Board under Alan Greenspan, saying "the Fed has become the chief enabler of a dangerously speculative economy."

What Gramm-Leach-Bliley did was to allow commercial banks to get into investment banking. Commercial banks are the type that accept deposits and make loans such as mortgages; investment banks accept money for investment into stocks and commodities. In 1998, regulators had allowed Citicorp, a commercial bank, to acquire Traveler's Group, an insurance company that was partly involved in investment banking, to form Citigroup. That was seen as a signal that Glass-Steagall was a dead letter as a practical matter, and Gramm-Leach-Bliley made its repeal formal. But it had little to do with mortgages.

Actually, deregulated banks were not the major culprits in the current debacle. Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and J.P. Morgan Chase have weathered the financial crisis in reasonably good shape, while Bear Stearns collapsed and Lehman Brothers has entered bankruptcy, to name but two of the investment banks which had remained independent despite the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

Observers as diverse as former Clinton Treasury official and current Berkeley economist Brad DeLong and George Mason University's Tyler Cowen, a libertarian, have praised Gramm-Leach-Bliley has having softened the crisis. The deregulation allowed Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase to acquire Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns. And Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have now converted themselves into unified banks to better ride out the storm. That idea is also endorsed by former President Clinton himself, who, in an interview with Maria Bartiromo published in the Sept. 24 issue of Business Week, said he had no regrets about signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall:

Bill Clinton (Sept. 24): Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill. ...You know, Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can't possibly be wrong about everything. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence. But I can't blame [the Republicans]. This wasn't something they forced me into.

No, Blame the Democrats!

McCain-Palin 2008 Ad: "Rein"

McCain Ad, "Rein"

Narrator: John McCain fought to rein in Fannie and Freddie.

The Post says: McCain "pushed for stronger regulation"..."while Mr. Obama was notably silent."

But, Democrats blocked the reforms.

Loans soared. Then, the bubble burst. And, taxpayers are on the hook for billions.

Bill Clinton knows who is responsible.

Clinton: I think the responsibility that the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Narrator: You're right, Mr. President. It didn't have to happen.

McCain: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.
The McCain-Palin campaign fired back with an ad laying blame on Democrats and Obama. Titled "Rein," it highlights McCain's 2006 attempt to "rein in Fannie and Freddie." The ad accurately quotes the Washington Post as saying "Washington failed to rein in" the two government-sponsored entities, the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae") and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac"), both of which ran into trouble by underwriting too many risky home mortgages to buyers who have been unable to repay them. The ad then blames Democrats for blocking McCain's reforms. As evidence, it even offers a snippet of an interview in which former President Clinton agrees that "the responsibility that the Democrats have" might lie in resisting his own efforts to "tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." We're then told that the crisis "didn't have to happen."

It's true that key Democrats opposed the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which would have established a single, independent regulatory body with jurisdiction over Fannie and Freddie - a move that the Government Accountability Office had recommended in a 2004 report. Current House Banking Committee chairman Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts opposed legislation to reorganize oversight in 2000 (when Clinton was still president), 2003 and 2004, saying of the 2000 legislation that concern about Fannie and Freddie was "overblown." Just last summer, Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd called a Bush proposal for an independent agency to regulate the two entities "ill-advised."

But saying that Democrats killed the 2005 bill "while Mr. Obama was notably silent"  oversimplifies things considerably. The bill made it out of committee in the Senate but was never brought up for consideration. At that time, Republicans had a majority in the Senate and controlled the agenda. Democrats never got the chance to vote against it or to mount a filibuster to block it.

By the time McCain signed on to the legislation, it was too late to prevent the crisis anyway. McCain added his name on May 25, 2006, when the housing bubble had already nearly peaked. Standard & Poor's Case-Schiller Home Price Index, which measures residential housing prices in 20 metropolitan regions and then constructs a composite index for the entire United States, shows that housing prices began falling in July 2006, barely two months later.

The Real Deal

So who is to blame? There's plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn't do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility ... with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here's a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:

  • The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.

  • Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.

  • Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.

  • Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.

  • The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.

  • Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.

  • Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.

  • Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.

  • The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.

  • An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.

  • Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.

The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.

-by Joe Miller and Brooks Jackson Sources Benston, George J. The Separation of Commercial and Investment Banking: The Glass-Steagall Act Revisited and Reconsidered. Oxford University Press, 1990.

Tabarrok, Alexander. "The Separation of Commercial and Investment Banking: The Morgans vs. The Rockefellers." The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 1:1 (1998), pp. 1 - 18.

Kuttner, Robert. "The Bubble Economy." The American Prospect, 24 September 2007.

"The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999." U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. Accessed 29 September 2008.

Bartiromo, Maria. "Bill Clinton on the Banking Crisis, McCain and Hillary." Business Week, 24 September 2008.

Standard and Poor's. "Case-Schiller Home Price History." Accessed 30 September 2008.

"Understanding the Tax Reform Debate: Background, Criteria and Questions." Government Accountability Office. September 2005.

Bianco, Katalina M. "The Subprime Lending Crisis: Causes and Effects of the Mortgage Meltdown." CCH. Accessed 29 September 2008.

Oct 03, 2008 03:26 AM