This is sickening. Thanks to Jimbeau for passing along this little piece of financial history. If you wonder why the economy is completely in the crapper right now, well here is a contributor to the problem. Nine years ago today the New York Times issued this report.
Let’s be clear, although the report gives some statistics about minorities, I’m not pointing this out as a racial issue. This is a credit worthiness issue. If you have the means to pay back a loan – you should be given one. If not, you should be denied. The reason this lending practice changed was pure and simple greed.
“…felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.”
They got caught up in the pre-Internet bubble growth around them, and everyone started grabbing for cash. Pathetic. By the way, I’ve highlighted (in blue) some of the choice comments below. Enjoy.
September 30, 1999
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates — anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
”Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s by reducing down payment requirements,” said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. ”Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.”
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.
”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”
Under Fannie Mae’s pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 — a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.
Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.
Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.
Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990’s. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.
In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.
Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.
In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.
The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.
Under Fannie Mae’s pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 — a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.
This means they made a small fortune on the poor for some time. Why is it the poor have to pay more interest? That one percent certainly adds up to a whole lot of profit.
Rich Donovan,
I guess you’re a Democrat, eh? News flash, Obama isn’t going to right the ship either. The entire system needs to be stripped to the core and restarted from scratch…Republicans and Democrats are equally spoiled.
“So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand.” Thucydides 1.20.3
This is the breakdown of Executive and Congressional power during the Clinton and Bush years (102nd thru 110th Congresses). Since 1995, the Republicans have controlled Congress for 12 of 14 years. They have controlled the White House for the last 8 of those 14 years. The Republicans controlled both the Executive and Congressional branches of government exclusively from 2001 through 2007. From his inauguration until Nov. 8, 2007, President George W. Bush never experienced a veto override. Indeed, from Jan. 20, 2001, until Jan 20, 2007, his party controlled both chambers of congress.
Indeed, the “pilot program” that Steven Holmes speaks of was actually expanded nationwide under veto-immune President Bush and a Republican controlled Congress.
Now, who again was asleep at the wheel?
Senate House
Congress Years % Rep. % Dem. % Rep. % Dem. Pres
102 91-93 43 57 37.7 62.1 GHWB
103 93-95 44 56 40.6 59.3 WJC
104 95-97 53.5 46.5 52.9 46.9 WJC
105 97-99 55 45 52.4 47.4 WJC
106 99-01 54 46 51.3 48.6 WJC
107 01-03 50* 48 51.5 48.5 GWB
108 03-05 51 49 52 48 GWB
109 05-07 55 45 53 47 GWB
110 07-09 49 51 45.7 54.3 GWB
*Cheney gave Republicans advantage prior to outright majority.
Thanks for the article John! It has a serious irony about it. I posted an excerpt on my blog and linked here, because I think people need to be more aware of the economic situation. I also posted an email from a friend about “placing blame” and how many parties are involved, not just the current administration. I thought you might enjoy it.