The securitization of subprime Residence Mortgage USA

securitization, also identified as structured finance is a financing technique that permits capital markets to support the pooling of sources direct income and sell them to investors. In nations where the legislation would encourage structured finance, virtually all income-making assets can be securitized.

In the United States, securing financing can be done for almost almost everything, like health-related and hospital records, oil exploration, settlement procedures of trial in projects across the enterprise, royalties to music, or even a baseball stadium. But often the most securitized assets, globally and in the United States are customer loans, particularly residence mortgages. The corporate structure of the U.S. mortgage securitization has created into a complicated network of relationships among the a variety of enterprise units that supply wide range of loans and investment services. In the United States, there are two simple property mortgage marketplace securities: a public (or at least quasi-public) and the other private. In basic, most residence mortgages marketplace operates by one particular of the two government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) created by Congress.

These Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac acquire mortgages businesses that meet strict underwriting recommendations with respect to private mortgage lenders. The status of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is a little vague, due to the fact Congress has not passed a law that explicitly guarantees the payment of bonds or securities issued by the GSEs. However economic markets typically think about these two businesses as TBTF and remedy of debt practically assured by the U.S. government, saying that Congress will not permit these businesses to collapse.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to hold some mortgages in their own portfolios, securities, but many other people, they share investment instruments and sold to investors.

A huge amount of loans securitized by Fannie and Freddie give businesses economies of scale and the benefits of risk diversification that most private companies can not match. In addition. Due to the implicit federal guarantee of Fannie and Freddie, GSE can discover investors for their securities, increasing transaction expenses of credit rating agencies or credit enhancements.

In addition, GSE hesitate to provide the highest loan-to-value (LTV) loans and are reluctant to purchase loans to borrowers with a history of questionable credit. Loans sold to these sources of public funds are typically 5 or 30 years mortgage, often fixed interest and no penalty for early repayment. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will not buy loans from private breeders mortgages, unless they use standardized contracts that include terms generally regarded as fair to both parties. The two GSEs have strict automated underwriting standards and generally accepted monetary models need standardized documents, and pay the exact same price tag for all the loans they obtain.

This is why, in basic, Fannie and Freddie acts as a stabilizing force in the prime mortgage industry, protects against and eliminate predatory lending situations or underwriting risk. Some commentators also argue that mortgage pools GSE “merge decrease and moderate some borrowers with the same loan pricing danger, which also supplies modest help for some borrowers to moderate danger. Mortgages packaged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in a great position rather by current difficulties in the mortgage market in the United States.

James Milton has a passion for writing on topics related to finance and Accounting , and also manages a Books book . In his spare time, he also writes for directory of free of charge post .

Q&A: Is this exactly where the SubPrime Lending Mess got it is start (or boost?) see hyperlink?

Query by Morey000: Is this exactly where the SubPrime Lending Mess got it’s start off (or enhance?) see hyperlink?

Or is it less complicated just to blame it all on the democrats?
I have to admit, I’m learning more about this mess thanks to the responses right here. Even though the community reinvestment act seems like 1 of the culprits (beneath Andrew Cuomo a dem), the Bush administration re-ratified every thing. So, there’s enough blame to go around both parties.

Ideal answer:

Answer by Charlotte

It is less difficult to spot blame correct were it belongs, on the Democrates

What do you believe? Answer under!

Q&A: Who really caused the sub-prime crises Democrats?

Question by america first: Who really caused the sub-prime crises Democrats?
The Subprime Debacle
by Dr. Kuni Michael Beasley
30 Years in Gestation

The Democrats are doing a lot to try to pin the subprime debacle on the Republicans and the Bush administration. However, there is a long tail to this problem that just happened to pop at this time.

Now, for the rest of the story. Definitions first.

Fannie Mae is the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), founded in 1938 as a publically traded government sponsored enterprise (GSE) that is stockholder owned that makes loans and issue loan guarantees.
Its cousin is Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), founded in 1970 as another GSE created to expand the secondary market for mortgages. Freddie Mac buys individual mortgages on the secondary market, pooled them into packages, and sold them to investors on the open market.

The secondary market packaged mortgages as collateral and issues securities called collateralized mortgage obligations (CMO) and collateralized debt obligations (CDO), to reduce the risk of individual loans. CMOs are a separate entity that is the actual legal owner of the mortgages it has in a “pool.” CMOs sell bonds to investors based on the value of the mortgages. Investors receive payments based on the increased value of the loans in the pool. The collateral for the bonds are the actual mortgages.

CDOs are a separate entity like CMOs, but are more focused on fixed income assets such as, but not limited to mortgages (and can include commercial mortgages and corporate loans). The focus is cash flow and slices (tranches) of these cash flows are sold to investors.

The subprime mortgage crisis surfaced first in 2007, but it had been incubating for years, indeed, decades. Though roots can be traced back to the New Deal legislation in the 1930’s, the current crisis actually draws its source from the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) [1977] during the Carter administration that forced banks to lend money to less credit worthy clients. Lending institutions were evaluated to determine if it met the “credit needs of the community” and this was factored into regulatory decisions of the federal government such as applications for facilities, mergers, and acquisitions.

Interest in the CRA resurfaced in the Clinton administration when regulations in the CRA (which could be manipulated without any participation of congress) essentially forced institutions to offer loans to higher risk individuals and businesses. The term “Ninja” loans emerged describing high risk loans made to people with No Income, No Job, and no Assets, but completed a particular bank’s portfolio sufficient to keep federal regulators off their backs.

As access to easy money for high risk borrowers increased, certain institutions began to take advantage of these new opportunities to score fed points and make easy money. Name dropping here: Countrywide began to process, package, and offer investment instruments (CMOs) based on these loans. Revisions to the CRA by the Clinton administration allowed mortgage companies to offer loans without the relative reserve of deposits normally required of banks and other financial institutions.
In addition, this allowed for securitization of sub prime mortgages based on the pooling and packaging of cash-flow producing assets into securities that could be sold to investors – with the asset value not tagged to actual value of the property, but to the value of the cash flow produced by the asset held (sounds weird). The first public securitization of CRA loans was started in 1997 by (familiar name) Bear Stearns!

Now, let’s understand sub-prime loans for a moment. A sub-prime loan is a mortgage offered at a deep discount on interest the first year or two so the borrower could qualify for a larger loan and more expensive house, betting that their economic profile would get better and they could afford large payments later. Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs) are a form of this where the entry rate is low and rises based on certain criteria such as the rates for government securities.

Simply put, lenders (not necessarily banks, but more often mortgage
companies) offered low cost, low entry rate mortgages to people who would not normally qualify for that amount of debt.

These loans were “warehoused” by financial institutions, where a financial institution like Merrill Lynch would set up a separate, but wholly owned mortgage company (First Franklin) to attract loans.
Merrill Lynch would retain control of the loans as a “trustee” or “servicer,” and derive benefits from fees for “managing” the loans and increase assets by keeping escrow deposits. In turn, these loans would be sold to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (who were assumed to guarantee the loans), who, in turn, repackaged them for the secondary market.

In 2003 the Bush administration tried to head-off what they saw as a potential crisis by moving the supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under a new agency

Best answer:

Answer by Hater Police
Both parties are to blame AND financial companies AND consumers.

Add your own answer in the comments!

Q&A: the subprime meltdown econ test?

Question by taylah.: the subprime meltdown econ test?
i have a test on the subprime meltdown need to know these key words just basically their defiinition and the role they play in a meltdown….
the fed
the prime rate
alan greenspan
NASDAQ bubble
ben bernanke
subprime loan
types of subprime loans
adjustable rate (ARM – balloon)
SEC-securities exchange commission
diversifying risk
off balance sheet entities
troubled assets
taxpayer protection
making homes affordable plan
office of financial stability
ARRA (the stimulus) – discription
keynesian economics
supply side economics – reaganomics – milton friedman)

Best answer:

Answer by Bored Goblin
“the fed” are the upper-class people, who benefitted by ripping off the “the hungry” during the crisis.

you can look up other terms here:

What do you think? Answer below!

securitization and subprime investment?

Question by hetbh123: securitization and subprime investment?
I don’t really understand this concept and how these two are related are are causing the financial crisis it is today. the ethical issue that is imposing on companies such as AIG….Can someone explain to me? thank you very much.

Best answer:

Answer by Ed Atun
In 2003 bank accounts were paying 1% interest. Many people had their life savings in the bank. Merrill Lynch was investing money in mortgages that paid 6%. Merrill said they would pay people 5% which was great compared to 1% at the bank. Merrill made 1% profit and people got 5% on their life savings. Everyone was happy. So Merrill started loaning to people with bad credit (subprime) at 8%. The people could now get 7% on their money. Much better than 1%. Merrill still made its 1% profit on every mortgage. This worked great. Merrill was not selling mortgages to the citizens of the USA. They were selling investments in a giant pool of mortgages. When a citizen received their 7% interest, they did not own a mortgage. They owned a “security” that was invested in mortgages.
But the people with bad credit did not pay their mortgages. People quickly realized that they might not get their 7% interest. They might not get anything at all. All of a sudden, the old 1% in the bank looked very safe. So everyone pulled out at once. The money disappeared. Merrill Lynch had no money to pay employees; no money to buy new mortgages; no money to do anything. So it all folded…

Add your own answer in the comments!

When and how did the Clinton administration allow for the securitization of subprime mortgages?

Question by ortisthetortoise: When and how did the Clinton administration allow for the securitization of subprime mortgages?
Please cite sources (specific legislation, executive order, etc. – not just “CRA changes in 1995”)
I can’t seem to find these “CRA changes of 1995” in any law or order. Trying to figure out if they are fact or folklore
….changes specific to subprime securitization that is…

Best answer:

Answer by rhsaunders
It didn’t; securitization has been legal from the beginning. Which did not mean that it was smart, or that there were mechanisms in place to appropriately value such securities.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Q&A: Was the securitization of subprime loans the greatest scam in history?

Question by Kuntree: Was the securitization of subprime loans the greatest scam in history?
If not what was the greatest scam?

Best answer:

Answer by wg0z
maybe. the private loans thing was many people, and the final figures
are not yet tallied.
Bernie Madoff gets my vote for now.

Add your own answer in the comments!

What caused the Subprime Mortgage Crisis that Caused 2008 Financial Disaster?

Question by Rocky: What caused the Subprime Mortgage Crisis that Caused 2008 Financial Disaster?
New Study Finds Democrats Fully to Blame for Subprime Mortgage Crisis that Caused 2008 Financial Disaster
Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, December 22, 2012, 9:48 AM

In his early activist days, Barack Obama the community organizer sued banks to ease lending practices.

State Sen. Barack Obama and Fr. Michael Pfleger led a protest against the payday loan industry demanding the State of Illinois to regulate loan businesses in January 2000. During his time as a community organizer Barack Obama led several protests against banks to make loans to high risk individuals. (NBC 5 Week of January 3, 2000)

Here’s something that won’t get any play in the liberal media…
A new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research found that Democrats are to blame for the subprime mortgage crisis.
Investor’s Business Daily reported:

Democrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession.

But a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research finds, “Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks.”

Added NBER: “There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts,” or predominantly low-income and minority areas.

To satisfy CRA examiners, “flexible” lending by large banks rose an average 5% and those loans defaulted about 15% more often, the 43-page study found.

The strongest link between CRA lending and defaults took place in the runup to the crisis — 2004 to 2006 — when banks rapidly sold CRA mortgages for securitization by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Wall Street.

CRA regulations are at the core of Fannie’s and Freddie’s so-called affordable housing mission. In the early 1990s, a Democrat Congress gave HUD the authority to set and enforce (through fines) CRA-grade loan quotas at Fannie and Freddie.

It passed a law requiring the government-backed agencies to “assist insured depository institutions to meet their obligations under the (CRA).” The goal was to help banks meet lending quotas by buying their CRA loans.

But they had to loosen underwriting standards to do it. And that’s what they did.

Republicans warned Democrats of the impending doom in 2004.
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Hearings 2004

But Democrats wouldn’t budge.

Best answer:

Answer by Darla
The Gramm(R) Bliley(R) Act of 1999.

What do you think? Answer below!

Is the Clinton administration to allow the securitization of subprime mortgages? If so, how?

issue by ortisthetortoise : Is the Clinton administration to allow the securitization of subprime mortgages? If so, how?
I can not find anything specific to the securitization of subprime mortgages in the “CRA 1995 changes” that everyone parle.Essayer to understand whether this accusation is made or folklore.Y there a specific law or order Executive which refers to this Best answer:

response by Chris J

What do you think? Answer below!