Concerns About Riskier Mortgages Are Sprouting

I started to see ads with the “no SS needed, we take ITIN number”.

Frank Dodd was the only obstacle between the last recession scenario and a good economy, but some people don’t like it. And they call themselves conservative.

Who signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall?

All these FHA loans were made AFTER Dodd-Frank was passed. The government is the one setting underwriting standards and insuring the mortgages. The people in the last administration decided FHA should take over subprime and make tax payers fully liable for defaults. So what they really did is making the top 20% who are paying 87% of income taxes liable for the risk of subprime, because people are entitled to home ownership.

I posted about the risk of FHA years ago. It was only a matter of time before it implodes and tax payers are on the hook. The even better irony is Obama lowered FHA insurance rates on his way out the door. Trump raised them back to the previous level, and there were a lot of headlines about how he was attacking first-time home buyers. FHA insurance rates should be based on projections of future losses. It turns out he was right to reinstate the prior rates. They may need to increase even more.

The three co-sponsors of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act were:

Sen. Phil Gramm - R
Rep. Jim Leach - R
Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. - R

In 1999, the Republicans held a majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The final version of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed the House by a vote of 362-57 and the Senate by a vote of 90-8. This made the bill “veto proof”, meaning that if Clinton had decided to veto, the bill would have been passed anyways. Having said that, if Clinton truly didn’t want the bill to become law, he could have vetoed the bill in a symbolic gesture, but this did not happen.

You are very welcome!

You realize that means both parties overwhelmingly voted for it, right? Clinton signed it. He supported it.

Again Marcus, note the numbers in bold. Republicans!

It’s unlikely that the Dem only had 8 seats in senate that year. So either most of the Dem voted yes for the bill or your data is wrong. Which one is it?

1 Like

:slight_smile: Math is hard.

22% of the mortgage market is FHA while the percentage was only 5% in 2007. FHA loan needs to be scrutized more due to its size.

Quicken and Freedom mortgage has almost all the FHA market. They must be making a huge amount of money. What’s the requirement to start a FHA lending business? SoFi should focus on FHA instead

I think they allow credit scores as low as 580 too…

I know, I should have said the majority were republicans, my bad.
At least I recognize my mistakes, not like some nuts out there.

The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1, 1999, by a bipartisan vote of 343–86 (Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent 0–1),[9][10][note 1] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6 by a much narrower 54–44 vote along basically partisan lines (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[12][13][14][note 2]

Final Congressional vote by chamber and party, November 4, 1999
When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of 241–132 (R 58–131; D 182–1; Ind. 1–0) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law which ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy as well as “robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities” (i.e., protection against exclusionary redlining).[note 3]

The bill then moved to a joint conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November.[16][17] On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90–8,[18][note 4] and by the House 362–57.[19][note 5] The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[20

You realize you just posted that in the house most republicans voted against it while most democrats were for it. I guess that changes your story a bit.

I will give you a clue…Simple Majority

Anyway, we may see some problems with these easy loans. I can’t say it twice, we may see some problems in the future. It is the nature of the business to be risky, and when there are not safeguards, you see crashes. Period!