Showing posts with label real estate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label real estate. Show all posts

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Who is more moderate?

Here's David Brooks's column, "Who Is James Johnson," in the New York Times on Gretchen Morgenson's new book on the mortgage meltdown, Reckless Endangerment.

And here's my VDARE column from 12 days ago on the same book. 

My question is: Who is more even-handed, non-partisan, reasonable, and just plain moderate on this crucial topic: David Brooks or me?

Monday, June 6, 2011

Gretchen Morgenson's "Reckless Endangerment"

My VDARE column reviews the new book Reckless Endangerment on the origins of the mortgage meltdown by Gretchen Morgenson of the NYT and financial analyst Joshua Rosner.

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

The past is an unknown country

The New York Times appears genuinely surprised to discover that racial activists like La Raza and the NAACP are teaming up with big mortgage lenders to try to undermine prudent regulation of home loans. Who could imagine such a thing?

From the New York Times: 
Advocates and Bankers Join to Fight Loan Rules 
As banking regulators rewrite mortgage rules, unusual alliances have sprung up to oppose tighter standards
By EDWARD WYATT and BEN PROTESS 
WASHINGTON — The weight of the mortgage crisis fell heavily on lower-income and minority communities, where first-time home buyers often fell victim to the predatory lending practices that resulted in an explosion of defaults and foreclosures. 
That left consumer advocates and civil rights groups frequently at odds with bankers, mortgage lenders and their lobbyists during the debate over the financial regulation act last year, which aims to rein in the subprime mortgage excesses that inflated the housing bubble. 
Now, as banking regulators are rewriting the rules for the mortgage market, unusual alliances have sprung up in opposition to tighter lending standards. Advocacy groups like the N.A.A.C.P. and the National Council of La Raza, a Latino civil rights organization, on the one hand, and the American Bankers Association on the other, are joining together to fight rules they say could make home loans less affordable for minority and working-class Americans. 
The growing alliance between civil-rights organizations and banking lobbyists could extend beyond the current round of financial rule-making. If Congress turns its focus to restructuring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example, the same groups could voice similar concerns over anything that restricts the availability of credit for first-time home buyers. ...
For the uncommon alliance

Huh? It was an awfully common alliance in the 1990s and 2000s.
the first point of attack is on a proposal that would require sellers of mortgage-backed securities to retain part of the risk should a package of loans go sour. The sellers would have to keep on their books at least 5 percent of the value of any baskets of loans they purchase from lenders and then resell to investors. One of the few exceptions to the requirement would be for mortgages on which the home buyer has made a down payment equal to 20 percent of the purchase price. 
“Most people don’t have 20 percent to put down,” said Janis Bowdler, a project director in La Raza’s office of research, advocacy and legislation. “These rules will so significantly deter the ability of first-time buyers to break into the market that we will see a real decline in home ownership.” 
... Any standards that apply to the private mortgage market will have to be reflected in government housing finance entities that help low-income and minority borrowers, said Barry Zigas, director of housing policy for the Consumer Federation of America. ... 
Last year, according to the National Association of Realtors, 96 percent of first-time home buyers made down payments below 20 percent. ... 
 Some regulators  say that the coalition of consumer and industry groups is jeopardizing rules that could, in the long run, protect borrowers from risky lending practices. In private meetings, some top agency lawyers now refer to the partnership as “the unholy alliance.”
But mortgage lenders, consumer and community groups, which are planning a joint news conference in Washington on Thursday to highlight their opposition to the risk-retention proposals, say they are just as certain that the regulations will not prevent risky loans from being made while hurting qualified borrowers. 
“It is more likely that the credit restrictions that result will disproportionately fall on lower-income borrowers,” said Robert R. Davis, an executive vice president for the American Bankers Association. That, in turn, puts banks in a bind, because it gives the appearance of violating fair-lending practices. 
The bonds between the former foes could unravel, in part because the wounds created by the implosion of the housing market remain fresh.

"Former foes"??? Mortgage lenders like Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide and diversity mongers like Henry Cisneros of Countrywide's board were best friends from roughly 1994 through 2007. 

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Mortgage Lending Industry Strategic Markets & Diversity Conference

All these years after the mortgage meltdown, most well-informed Americans have yet to hear about the existence of the mortgage diversity industry. The number of activists and academics employed by the mortgage diversity biz isn't huge, but it's not insignificant either. And it has a major impact on molding reporting on mortgage and diversity issues. Since all the self-proclaimed experts are rewarded for promoting more lending to the diverse, we get a one-sided view. This industry's conventions don't rival AIPAC's wingding, but they're not insubstantial 

Dear Steve Sailer: 
The Lending Industry Diversity Conference and ComplianceTech are pleased to announce Bank of America as a Silver Sponsor of the 6th Annual Mortgage Lending Industry Strategic Markets and Diversity Conference to be held in the Washington, DC area on June 22-24, 2011 at the Westin Arlington Gateway Hotel, Arlington, Virginia (Ballston Metro stop).  The Strategic Markets and Diversity Conference is a one of a kind forum for candid discussions on the interplay of workforce diversity, multicultural marketing, and how housing policies and practices influence minority homeownership outcomes. The bank has been a strong supporter of the conference for each of the past five years.  We thank Bank of America for its display of leadership with regard to mortgage industry diversity and homeownership opportunity for all Americans. 
Click Here to Register Online at the registration rate of $499.

The schedule at a glance is as follows:

June 22, 2011
3:00 pm -5:00 pm:  Pre-Conference Workshop:  Data Driven Solutions for Strategic and Responsible Lending
5:00 -7:00 pm Opening Reception
June 23, 2011
9:00 am – 10:15 am General Session I:  The State of the Industry: Diversity & Section 342 of Dodd-Frank
10:30 am - 11:45 am:  General Session II:  Qualified Residential Mortgage (QRM) proposal and other Supply Side Impediments to furthering Strategic and Multi-Cultural Lending Activities
12:00pm – 1:45pm:  Diversity Luncheon w/ Guest Speaker, Diversity Awards Ceremony
Session A: 2:00 pm – 3:00 pm: The 2010 Census: The Impact of Demographic Changes & Industry Statistics on Strategic and Responsible Lending
Session B: 2:00 pm – 3:00 pm:  Fair Servicing Analysis and Standards
3:15 pm - 4:30 pm:  General Session III:  Life after HAMP
4:30 pm-5:15 pm:  General Session IV:  Beryl Satter, Author of Family Properties: Race, Real Estate, and the Exploitation of Black Urban America
5:15 pm - 7:30 pm Diversity Reception
June 24, 2011
9:00 am - 9:30 am:  General Session V:  Keynote Address: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
9:30 am - 10:30 am:  General Session VI:  Regulatory Perspectives on Consumer Protection and Responsible Lending
10:45 am - 12:30 pm:  General Session VII:  Debate on National Homeownership policy: Impact on Affordable Housing & Minority Populations

Click Here to Register Online.
Visit the conference website for more details: www.MortgageIndustryDiversity.com.


The hot topic is Rep. Maxine Water's Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires hiring lots of diversity compliance officers who will then funnel money to others in the diversity industry.
My old articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

National Latino Museum Needs Creative Financing

From the New York Times:
National Latino Museum Plan Faces Fight
By KATE TAYLOR 
A move to create a new Smithsonian museum is running into a crowded National Mall and lack of will to pay for it. 
Seven years after opening its National Museum of the American Indian, and four years before the scheduled unveiling of its museum of African-American history, the Smithsonian Institution is being urged to create another ethnic museum on the National Mall, this one to recognize the history and contributions of Latino Americans. 
A federal commission has spent two years asking Latinos what they would want in such a museum, and next month the commission will report its findings to Congress, which would have to approve a new museum. 
Though the creation of such an institution has support from members of Congress, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and celebrities like Eva Longoria

What about Evan Longoria? They should get him involved, too.

Looking up the museum's official website, I see that the other celebrity on-board is Emilio Estefan, who is not Charlie Sheen's brother Emilio Estevez, who was in Repo Man. Instead, he's singer Gloria Estefan's husband. And he's Lebanese.

And the third-ranking celebrity involved, after Longoria and Estefan, is Henry Munoz III, who doesn't appear to have his own Wikipedia page.

As I pointed out last week in my Fernandomania column for Taki's Magazine, here we are in 2011 and the most famous of the 35,000,000 Mexican-Americans appears to be Eva Longoria. That's really weird when you stop to think about it. Is Desperate Housewives even on the air anymore? That's like if the guy who played Joey on Friends was the most famous Italian-American.
building it faces significant obstacles, including budget pressures, and a feeling among some in Washington that the Smithsonian should stop spinning off new specialty museums and concentrate on improving the ones it already has. 
“I don’t want a situation,” said Representative Jim Moran, a Democrat from Virginia, “where whites go to the original museum, African-Americans go to the African-American museum, Indians go to the Indian museum, Hispanics go to the Latino American museum. That’s not America.”

Would Hispanics go to the Latino American museum? They go to a lot of movies, but they don't go to see Latino movies much. How many Latinos are starring in Fast Five? To juice up the box office for the latest Fast and Furious movie, they didn't add a Mexican hero, they added a Samoan/black guy, The Rock. Are Hispanics really going to flood to a museum? Is anybody else?
In Washington, where politics infects all matters, there is wide acknowledgment that the 50 million Latinos who live in this country have become an increasingly important constituency. But even supporters of the museum acknowledge it faces a battle.

I suspect "boredom" is what it's really facing. The media constantly tries to prod Latinos into racial anger by telling them somebody wants to have a "fight" and a "battle" with them, but, on the whole, apathy reigns on all sides, except among Hispanic ethnic lobbyists:
“The atmosphere is not friendly at all,” said Estuardo V. Rodriguez Jr., a lobbyist with the Raben Group who has worked pro bono on the museum proposal, citing the economic pressures and what he described as anti-immigrant sentiment. 
The idea for a Smithsonian Latino museum was born in the mid-1990s when a task force said the Smithsonian had largely ignored Latinos in its exhibitions and should create at least one museum to correct that imbalance. 
The panel’s report, entitled “Willful Neglect,” found, for example, that only 2 of the 470 people featured in the “notable Americans” section of the National Portrait Gallery were Latino.

As opposed to 2011, when we can all instantly name countless Latino "notable Americans," like Emilio Estefan and Henry Munoz III.
There are dozens of other museums across the country that focus on the heritage or culture of Latinos, whose population in the United States grew by 43 percent over the last decade, according to 2010 Census figures. But supporters of the national museum say it is imperative that there be a similar presence in the nation’s capital. 
While the commission is not expected to make specific proposals about content, the museum would probably try to cover a wide swath of history, from the role of the Spanish conquistadors to the work of Latinos in the labor and civil-rights movements. It would include culture, from popular music to visual arts, and would try to feature people and traditions from all Hispanic countries. 

My heart's racing already. Where can I buy tickets?
Lisa Navarrete, a spokeswoman for the National Council of La Raza, a Latino advocacy organization, said it was unfortunate that Latino children who now travel to the Mall cannot see “their community and history and legacy reflected.” 

Think of the children!
She said that a museum that accomplishes that is particularly crucial now because discussions of immigration issues have created a “toxic” environment for Latinos. “It’s even more important to show other Americans that our roots go back centuries on this continent,” she said. 
Though legislation to authorize a Latino museum commission, known formally as the National Museum of the American Latino Commission, was first introduced in 2003 by Representative Xavier Becerra, a Democrat of California, it did not pass until 2008, as part of an omnibus budget bill. 

A fitting year.
The economy and the balance of power in Congress have changed much since that vote, with Republicans now holding a 49-vote majority in the House of Representatives.
Federal money for the museum would not appear to be an option, members of Congress say, as it was for the African-American and Indian museums. The National Museum of African American History and Culture has a $500 million price tag, half of which is being paid by the federal government. The government paid for two-thirds of the Indian museum.

I'm sure that Mexican-Americans would be happy to reach into their pockets and pay for it on their own, just like all the other charitable institutions Mexican-Americans have built, such as, uh, well, let me get back to you on this one. As Gregory Rodriguez, a columnist for the L.A. Times, explained:
In Los Angeles, home to more Mexicans than any other city in the U.S., there is not one ethnic Mexican hospital, college, cemetery, or broad-based charity.

When it comes to self-organizing for pro-social purposes, Mexicans are in a class by themselves.
Opposition to the Latino museum at this point is muted, and with the commission not yet having presented its report, few in Congress beyond the group of ardent supporters have focused on the issue. 
Representative Jack Kingston, a Republican of Georgia, said in an interview that he supported a Latino museum as long as it was not financed with federal money, and as long as he was assured that the museum would not become “an interest group’s platform to advance political agendas.”

I guess that means he's against it, because it will cost the taxpayers a lot of money and it will promote a leftist agenda. Those are givens.

Actually, this Latino museum just need some creative financing ingenuity. The tremendous trio of Henry Gonzales, Angelo Mozilo, and George W. Bush should be appointed to devise a mortgage for the Latino Museum. With zero down and no documents required, the museum's own mortgage, along with the subsequent default notices, could then serve as educational exhibits helping explain the Latino role in the Recent Unpleasantness in the mortgage market.

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Anaheim

From the Washington Post:
Without influxes of Hispanics and Asians, some U.S. cities would be smaller
By Carol Morello and Dan Keating 
More than half of the United States’ 100 largest cities relied on Hispanics and Asians to grow and would have seen their populations decline without them over the past decade, a Washington Post analysis shows. 
According to recent census data, Hispanics accounted for the population growth of Philadelphia, Phoenix, Indianapolis, Omaha and Atlanta. Asians boosted the count in Anaheim, Calif.; Fort Wayne, Ind.; Baton Rouge; and Jersey City. Without influx from the two groups, all of those cities would have shrunk. .... 
Much of the growth can be attributed to recent immigrants, part of a pattern that has determined city size throughout much of American history. Many came in search of job opportunities, making population growth a marker of a city’s economy and vitality. ... 
In many cases, what determined whether a city grew or contracted was the number of Hispanics and, to a lesser degree, Asians it attracted. Among the 100 biggest cities, 26 would have had population losses without an influx of Hispanics, and 11 would have shrunk without Asians. 
Cities that do not attract more new immigrant communities over the next decade will hemorrhage population, demographers predicted. 
“The real energy in cities is going to be from Hispanics coming in,” said William H. Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution. “Cities in the industrial Midwest could use an infusion of new immigrant minorities coming in. Cleveland and Detroit haven’t done well; they’re not attracting enough Hispanics. Clearly, Hispanics were the magic bullet for a lot of cities.”

Thank God that Anaheim was saved from turning into a depopulated wasteland by our leaders' wise immigration policies and the brave foreigners who volunteered to settle Anaheim's jagged, snow-covered wilderness for us. After all, what American has ever wanted to go to Anaheim? Remember how your parents would scare you into eating your vegetables by threatening that if you didn't finish them, they'd take you to Anaheim

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Because that's where the money isn't

The centerpiece story on NYTimes.com is:

Bank Closings Tilt Toward Poor Areas
By Nelson D. Schwarz

Government data shows that as banks shut branches in poorer areas last year, like an Ohio Savings Bank in Cleveland, they expanded in richer neighborhoods. 

Perhaps Willie Sutton could have explained this strange phenomenon.

Reading this article reminds me that there is a sizable infrastructure of academics, activists, corporate staffers, and government officials whose jobs revolve around checking up on mortgage lending to make sure enough money is going to the right sort of people. We have a sizable apparatus of people employed to nudge mortgages in only one direction.

In contrast, far fewer people get a paycheck for complaining that, say, Apple Stores aren't opened in Compton. For example, the three Apple Stores on the Apple website listed as being in Los Angeles are at The Grove, the Beverly Center, and Century City, which aren't exactly fully representative of Los Angeles. At minimum, Apple, which has a colossal amount of cash on its balance sheet, should be required to run free buses from the corner of Florence and Normandie to the nearest Apple Store.

Saturday, February 19, 2011

Fraud or Stupidity: Pick One

A reader writes with some experience in SoCal financial circles writes:
-- Essentially, Michael Milken felt a certain level of guilt and agreed to go to jail. That sense of guilt seems lacking with the current crew.

-- I have been informed that the reason Countrywide would not be the ideal firm to get a judgment against is for at least two reasons:

1) As you mentioned, he seems to have believed he was doing his patriotic duty to the multicultural cult by issuing mortgages to minorities. [Here's Mozilo's pledge of January 14, 2005 "to fund $1 trillion in home loans to minorities and lower-income borrowers and communities through 2010."]

2) Mozilo/Countrywide made it policy to keep only FICO scores on borrowers (i.e., it was policy; whether or not they paid attention to them seems to be another matter). In short, and unlike almost any finance firm I have heard of, Countrywide made plausible deniability the counrnerstone of its recordkeeping process and procedures. This might imply that he really didn't believe that they were going to be paid back, but smoking gun type proof would be tough to come by ....

-- Still, it is hard to believe that fraud is so difficult to prove in at least some cases during the bubble period.

For my money I would go after any and all Wall Street firms. Fraud and failing in their fiduciary duties seems like relatively easy cases to me. It's not the packaging of securities I would focus on; rather, I would push fraud and related issues. Essentially, I would make the case boil down to fraud or stupidity. For example, if presented with the choice between admitting fraud or admitting stupidity, would the head of Goldman Sachs choose stupidity over fraud? I'd bet fraud; whereas, Mozilo would be the one that gets him home without an ankle bracelet (i.e., stupidity with probably a large measure of gross incompetence).

I like the idea of trying them for fraud, while leaving stupidity as a defense. It would certainly be educational to the public. I wouldn't mind seeing the witness list that a hotshot defense lawyer like Mark Geragos would come up with to prove that everybody was this stupid: Henry Cisneros, George W. Bush, Barney Frank ...