Talk:Community Reinvestment Act

Template:USGOV

Keeping article relevant to CRA and with decent sourcing

While it's tempting to start speculating on all the causes of subprime crisis, let's keep it to sources that mention CRA. For example,

• I'm still looking for something that specifically says CRA related to Bush 2003 proposed changes, otherwise info should be deleted.
• I'm having a lot of trouble sourcing just what really happened in 2005
• Some of the financial speculation in that section getting tentative or needs better sourcing like Bears Stern which I temporarily deleted.
• Please review WP:reliable sources. Even blogs from relative experts like Seidman can be iffy; the two I deleted not allowed. Hopefully registered users will abide by these, even if some ANON IPs have trouble doing so. Carol Moore 18:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Well, I'm finished for today - except to check later for vandalism of reliably sourced material. Please note that the 2005 info I deleted probably was accurate, if rambling, but there was no source and I couldn't find a source with that exact info. So if you really do know source or want to find it, stick it in. Carol Moore 22:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I think we need to ask for semi-protection. Anonymous IPs are being used to add POV sometimes libelous stuff to this article. lk (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to ask for it for a month or so. By then things should cool down and there will be fewer Anon IP drive by snotty snipes or reversals of sourced material, or adding of unsourced opinionated material. Carol Moore 12:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

This article is being used as a source for a pro McCain Palin promotional clip on YouTube [1]

where's the link? people are still trying to improve it with WP:RS material. I haven't even had a chance to look for really substantive criticism of - or reliable statistics one way or another on it. Just properly sourcing raw facts hard enough. Carol Moore Carol Moore 13:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I thought I saw someone comment on these two articles a third time, but can't find comment:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_2_102/ai_88582467

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2002_Oct_15/ai_92843805

Anyway, the problem is articles don't mention CRA and Bush could have been encouraging investment in minority neighborhoods through other means than CRA. Neither article is sufficiently explicit about the means.

Another example of relevance involves Fannie and Freddie. Obviously their buying CRA loans was a big issue, and should be covered to some extent as it is here, including their failure. But all the speculative brouhaha involving those loans once they were sold is only worth maybe a sentence or two, which isn't here yet. It's not our job to either blame or absolve CRA, only to be as accurate as possible with most reliable sources. Carol Moore 13:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

AFAIK, there is no reliable source that connects the problems of Fannie and Freddie to CRA. Their functions are distinctly different. CRA requires banks to spread out credit to all neighbourhoods. Fannie and Freddie buy prime mortgages from banks, package them into bonds and then sell them on the financial markets. The only source provided in the article that links them together is an editorial by Terry Jones for the Investors Business Daily that's essentially a right-wing hit piece. lk (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the first one I found on top of google, from Fannie Mae itself. And I've just begun to search. Also, the economist DiLorenzo writing for free articles at Lewrockwell.com is less of a blog than either Seidman or Gordon's blog entries at their paid employers' sites. These are the best sources for now until others appear. But I'd say an independent economist is generally more reliable than a paid employee. :-) In fact I just found an even longer and more explanative earlier article from him. Carol Moore 17:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

You overstate the credibility of Mises Institute. They have essentially zero credibility in the mainstream economics community. An unpaid blog entry essentially self-published by a fringe group is not a reliable source, and is definitely less credible than a whitepaper published by a reputable Law firm. lk (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The writings of a professor of economics at Loyola College have to be more credible than a law firm employed by special interests (community groups and/or banks who have learned to game the system) who make millions or even billions of dollars from CRA. If any banks trying to get rid of CRA hired Traiger, I'm sure we would not see such a rosy report, would we?? (Did I mention I was a temp in big law firms in DC for 13 years? Who pays the bills counts.) As for fringe, maybe you haven't heard that Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek won a 1974 Nobel Prize in economics and that Austrian economics often are studied or referenced in many think tanks and in academia. Carol Moore 18:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I disagree. Members of Mises Institute essentially self publish their own articles on their own website with essentially no review process. A white paper put out by a reputable law firm is at least as reliable. IMO both the Mises and law firm articles can appear, but only as sources for what they themselves say. Not as a basis for a statement in the encyclopedic voice. The same is true for editorials. Editorials are not reliable sources for facts. All statements in the encyclopedic voice must be sourced from high quality reliable sources: academic peer-reviewed papers, university books, or articles from highly-reputable mainstream magazines or newspapers. lk (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, City Journal is published by Manhattan Institute a right wing conservative think tank. Any article from City Journal is once again, essentially a self published source, and unreliable as a source for any statements of fact. They are only reliable as a source for what they themselves say. lk (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

[unindent]Lawrence is right. Austrian economists, Objectivists, and the Cato Institute have a reputation for poor fact-checking in their zeal for the free-market. You can find arguments that the Enron debacle was essentially just a conspiracy to lynch poor executives on their website. One of the major columnists at LewRockwell.com, "economist" Gary North, has written a 9000 page book explaining why the Christian Bible "mandates a free-market system".[2] In Austrian economists seem almost allergic to data, but couple that with major claims which need data. We see that in this article, with DiLorenzo admitting that he doesn't really know the facts because he cites no facts and admits that he is likely wrong with the words "even if Gordon is right". This is basically an issue that can be answered by looking at data and the law, and using common sense. It's a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy to think CRA was a major factor when there were so many other obvious factors (documented by Barry Ritholtz recently in the WSJ, who calls the CRA thing a "wingnut" theory). The law firm looks to have done some data analysis informed by knowledge of the CRA law, and Seidman had direct experience with the legal details of the CRA. LewRockwell and the Mises Institute just don't much care whether they have their facts straight. They preach to a crowd which doesn't need facts. Anyway, I also II | (t - c) 18:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You write: "All statements in the encyclopedic voice must be sourced from high quality reliable sources: academic peer-reviewed papers, university books, or articles from highly-reputable mainstream magazines or newspapers" Then we might as well blank 2/3 of the article now cause most of it is from advocacy groups which others will question. So make up your mind. Carol Moore 18:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I'm not stating anything new. This is Wikipedia policy (see WP:V, WP:Reliable Sources). IMO large parts of this article should be edited to remove the encyclopedic voice, or if that's not feasible, removed completely. As Jimbo Wales has stated, better no information than incorrect information. lk (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Then you delete the 2/3 that you don't think is WP:RS and I'll delete anything I think you missed. Carol Moore 19:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Even if you were serious, I doubt if the other editors would agree. However, we must be careful with controversial statements of fact that advance a position. If they cannot be sourced to a high quality source, then they must be framed as the argument or opinion of the person who made the argument. If it does not fit the article if reframed in such a way, then they should be fact tagged if innocous, but removed otherwise. Especially, WP:BLP demands that any negative statement about a living person be adequately sourced or immediately removed. lk (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

My point remains that an article by an academic economist (DiLorenzo) is of higher quality than a blog entry by an employee of an advocacy group (Seidman and Gordon and others stuck in there). And it's certainly absurd to have to defend Howard Husock, formerly the director of case studies in public policy and management at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, just because he works for the Manhattan Institute. This is getting to be an absurdly liberally biased rejection of sources. I'm still catching up with minor mistakes before re-insert more DiLorenzo material I've gathered. Also, I don't think I've seen any BLP issues and a LAW is not a person. Carol Moore 19:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Please don't tell me that you are going to call these reliable sources than Husock and DeLorenzo, where ever they might be published? http://www.crooksandliars.com/tag/republican-deregulation and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hale-stewart/memo-to-republicans-cra-h_b_127599.html Here's a couple of Reliable source notice board discussions on HuffingtonPost.com: #1, #2. Both hold that Huffington post is just a bunch of blog opinions and not WP:RS. Hale Steward has enough credibility if he wrote an article at a site that has some editorial oversight. quote a full sentence from his opinions. But Crooksandliars?? Logan Murphy has her economics or law degree from where? OI! Carol Moore 20:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Look, enough name calling. Let's go with the guidelines at WP:SOURCES, WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB. I'm going to revise the article so that only statements that can be backed by the highest quality reliable sources are stated in the encyclopedic voice. Anything else has to be prefaced with 'XXX has argued that ...". lk (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Hassock is a journalist who once held a job as director of case studies - essentially a head librarian - at KSG. He's now vice-president of a right wing think tank. His essentially self-published articles do not qualify as a reliable source. lk (talk) 07:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Just weighing in on one point. There are some fairly intriguing claims of a Senate Banking Committee finding on the matter that are sourced only to the Husock book (does not even provide the citation that the husock book provides for those reported senate banking committee findings). The supposed findings would be on Edgar if they exist. i can't find them, though am willing to be convinced that's because i don't know the title of the paper/hearing/etc... in question. But i don't see how such information can be included without a proper primary citation. the reader is essentially being asked to take an author's word for something, rather than being given the tools to check the facts for him or herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 23:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove WP:RS relevant info just because you can't find the original source in a quick search. I see you've only been editing a couple days here and may not be aware of all policies. I am sure we could do that with 90% of the assertions in the article on just those grounds if we want to. (Does anyone know where some of these statistics come from??) I'll put it on my own list to look into. With constant changes and deletions and reversions, it's hard to keep on top of everything. IMHO, if Husock was lying these groups would have been all over it in his book and that would be on the web. Meanwhile I'm putting it back. . Carol Moore 00:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

That's just not correct -- and if you can find specific factual statements attributed to government institutions, individuals, corporations etc... but that aren't cited, i'm all for their removal too.

In this case, the claim of $9.5 billion to "these groups" and the breakdown of various relationships between them and commercial banks, are specific claims. It's not enough to say, in effect, "it's in some guys book" -- when asked for a citation for the primary information. Since you (I assume) have access to that book, the direct citation should be available to you. Let's toss that in there -- which makes this claim possible to track town and verify. If he makes that statement in his book without providing a cite to his research, it can't be used.

There are of course books with lots of original research and the cite might be something like "author communication, tktktk" but in this case the implication is that senate committee generated this info sometime in the year 2000. Let's track down the actual finding, if it exists.

This is simply the basics of sourcing. I have no idea what the truth is here. But I know we shouldn't ask anyone to take anyone's (however smart, credible, etc...) word in place of primary sourcing. I'm still looking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 00:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

First read Wikipedia:RS#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources. Wikipedia articles should be based around reliable Secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources. I have found people being overly strict about not using primary sources! And the author is not some guy but someone who specializes in housing issues. But I'll look around some. Meanwhile, he gets sued, not wikipedia, so it's not a WP:BLP problem :-) Carol Moore 00:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I've read that issue on sourcing. I'm all for articles that say, for instance "husock, an expert on housing, interprets the date blah blah blah" or "Husock says this led to consequences x, y, z." But this is an instance of, in effect, "Husock says the US government issued a document that said X." The US government puts everything like that on the internet. I'm also very familiar with misleading and inaccurate information in books with a political bent. I'm not saying that Husock is being deceptive, or mistinterprating, just that in this case, the facts of the matter are easy to ascertain, not as a matter of primary research but as a matter of confirming if they exist or not, with a link provided. That's why i shifted an earlier cite from a treasury dept press release summarizing a report to the report itself; i was confused by what was written, found the press release was equally confusing (because it was largely cut and pasted into the article) so went to the actual document, which is preferable. As an addendum to all this, for some reason i can't get senate.gov on banking.senate.gov to open tonight, though most other government sites are working. this may be computer specific for me. senate.banking.gov is the committees space; go there and put "COmmunity Reinvestment Act" into a search. It will pop up quickly if its there.

A question: Does his book provide a citation? If it doesn't, that calls into question his bona fides as a "reliable secondary source." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 01:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Senate web site down since last night. His book doesn't provide citations. We'll have to see if all the new opinions from govt employees that the CRA is great do. Will have to do a word count for balance :-) But my time limit on this one is running out since my job is supposed to be organizing secession from govt not nitpicking one of the tens of thousands of laws we're seceding from :-) Carol Moore 12:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I complained to Senate banking web master so I can see site now. My guess is the info is in one of the 1998 - 1999 hearings on the Gramm-Bliley act. Remember Gramm hated it and doubtless had some staffer get that info and Hosock screwed up the timing. I just emailed Manhattan Institute and said it would be helpful to provide specific info on which hearing since their article is all over the internet. Of course, for a variety of reasons, the material probably is not on the web. Carol Moore 17:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Site is up for me now, too. Nothing in the 2000 or 1999 press releases on this. Gramm definitely had a bee in his bonnet about CRA and had critical things to say, tied to a Federal Reserve survey of lenders that found CRA loans were somewhat less profitable than standard loans (fed report here: http://www.federalreserve.gov/BoardDocs/Surveys/CRAloansurvey /summary2000.pdf ). Thought maybe Husock's information was misattributed and it might have been in the Fed report -- but nothing on fees to Acorn and the like there, either. There is this http://banking.senate.gov/prel99/0507fsm.htm from 1999, which hints in the direction Husock went in (an agreement between an unnamed "community group" and an unnamed bank to pay the community group 2.75% on CRA loans; no info beyond that and no follow up that i can find.)

The reason this caught my attention is $9.5 billion is a huge amount of money for lefty groups that provide advocacy and lending advice to poor/underpriveledged/dead-beats/pick your descriptor. Good luck fighting the man and all that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

=Structuring "Controversies"

Assuming we don't gut 2/3 of the article per:"All statements in the encyclopedic voice must be sourced from high quality reliable sources: academic peer-reviewed papers, university books, or articles from highly-reputable mainstream magazines or newspapers"...at least let's agree to put criticisms first and responses second, without WP:original research or WP:synthesis of trying to make some sort of complicated criticism and response thing that will try to make one side or other look good. (Unless it is a case where one person, like economist DiLorenzo, replies to staffer Robert Gordon.) Carol Moore 19:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

"All statements in the encyclopedic voice must be sourced from high quality reliable sources: academic peer-reviewed papers, university books, or articles from highly-reputable mainstream magazines or newspapers"is Wikipedia policy. We must all follow it. Arguments should be grouped by issues, not a criticisms section followed by a defenders section. That would give criticisms a stronger position. lk (talk) 04:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, but what the heck is the "encyclopedic voice?" Bleacherdave (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Janet Yellen's Claims need further investigation

She is correct that lending institutions not subject to the CRA are responsible roughly half of recent subprime originations. However, a substantial portion was originated under CRA. She also provides no evidence that subprime delinquencies are either uniformly distributed or more highly concentrated in the non-CRA lenders. If CRA loans accounted for as few as 15% of subprime loans, they could still be a significant proportion of those in default. She merely asserts that the loans were properly underwritten.

Janet Yellen is president of the SF Federal Reserve Bank, as such, her opinions about finance and banking carry weight. Husock is a former journalist who is now vice-president of a right wing think tank. And yet you don't suggest that his opinions bears further investigation? I have already investigated a claim he made about the Woodstock Institute and found that he substantially mis-stated their findings. lk (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What specifically are you talking about on Husock? You aren't confusing the The Woodstock PDF article which is a survey of small business loans done in 1996 h his sentence in this article a survey of the lending policies of Chicago-area mortgage companies by a CRA-connected community group, the Woodstock Institute, found "a tendency to lend in a wide variety of neighborhoods"—even though the CRA doesn't apply to such lenders.when the regulations were still in process of implementation. These groups do lots of surveys. Carol Moore 00:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

BTW the Woodstock Inst didn't carry out the surveys. They were analyzing survey data from the Federal reserve. And their main conclusion is that poor communities are still under served. Husock's statement is misleading at best. it's like the UN stating that 90% of the food in Burma is consumed by the military and only 10% is shared among the peasants; and the military junta citing this and stating "UN report shows that all the people in Burma have access to food." lk (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Which survey are you talking about when you criticize Husock? The small business one that you previously linked which Husock is not talking about or some other survey that you have not provided any info on, the mortgage one that Husock was referring to? Please don't accuse him of misstating if you are getting confused about two different surveys.

FYI rereading the Woodstock PDF I saw that it was about CRA banks. It's just more implied than outright stated, and further down in the document. Carol Moore 13:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

You say that Husock's statement is based on another survey, but have you been able to find any other survey that backs him up? I've looked at can't find anything. He doesn't provide a cite to the document he supposedly refers to. My point is, Husock comes from a partisan institute, and partisan institutes are well known for pulling shenanigans like that, which is why their statements can't be taken on face value per se. lk (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because you can't find a survey they had done on Mortgages, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In fact, I'd be surprised to hear they had NOT done a survey on it since it is their main interest. Since I'm not going to bother to use the quote, I don't have to prove it.

Having written an ebook on the black bloc from close personal experience in the peace movement, let's not even get started on activist "shenanigans." Carol Moore 16:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

We should refocus on facts

Half of this article is made up of summaries of people's criticisms of CRA and others responses to them. We must be breaking some guideline somewhere, if only WP:TOPIC. We need to refocus on facts – what is CRA, and what specific impact did it have. We need to severely cut down on the commentary, unless it's made by someone very notable, eg. Chair of Federal Reserve, US Senator, and even then, we should keep it short. lk (talk) 10:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

First, it would be useful to explain why you remove sourced material when you do so. I explain whatever factual tweaking is necessary when I put it back.

Second, while the length of the current criticism section isn't bad, we should try to only add new ones that are either more informative and/or from much more weighty sources. The editing of the Roberts quote seems appropriate to me - just try not to remove the wiki links, especially to people, another bad habit you have. Carol Moore 14:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Carol, try checking the histories before accusing me like that. The only wikilink I've removed on purpose is your wikilink from market-oriented to free markets which seems a bit of a stretch, and quite frankly, POV. lk (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually it originally was something more general like "market economy" but after it you deleted it the first time by you, I couldn't find or remember what is was so put in free market, which is what it is, but I don't have problem with market economy. Another example? I assume you took off the Russell Roberts wiki link since you shortened the quote which otherwise was ok. And I see Ken Blackwell's wikilink fell out too and you are only person editing in that area. Carol Moore 16:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Once again, I didn't delete wikilinks. If you're going to make a personal accusation like that, at least back it up with some page diffs showing the edits. lk (talk) 08:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Striking reference to wikilinks cause I don't have time to go through 200 edits to find out if I am correct about who is deleting these links. (To be clearer, as I have complained about at technical pump, not all edits have been shown in the Diffs. So the deletion of wikilinks by whoever made them may not show up anyway.) Plus the fact you too rarely use edit summaries makes it hard to figure out where you edited something others might want to go back and check. It's just good and cooperative editing to do so so I'd appreciate it if you would start doing it on all your edits, even if just one word like "punct" or "wikilink". 14:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Renaming sections to avoid partisan squabbles

I do think sourced info about Clinton admin role in Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Financial Services Modernization Act) should remain. As Wash Post source explicitly states "it will be one of the most significant pieces of legislation to be written by the White House and the 106th Congress." (deleting this is violation of WP:NPOV. Unless you can find a source that say Clinton Admin. had no role in writing it and it was foisted on him in some way, please stop reverting accurate sourced info) However the issue of presidential vs. congressional "blame" applies to all the headings, since the White House usually has involvement in all of these. To avoid blame game back and forth we should retitle the sections by year and only mentioning presidents when there is a source that says they were involved, like the one above. Please wait before doing so until I finish Fannie/Freddie info since I have direct correlations of the two from WP:RS sources. Once that's inserted it will be clear how to label years, ie by decades or clusters of laws and regulations. Carol MooreCarolmooredc

I think it bears pointing out that the titles I changed were prima facie inconsistent and POV. Changes under Bush Sr were labeled congressional changes, whereas changes under Clinton were labelled Clinton Administration changes. I think the changes should just be labeled by year. They are far enough apart so that there would be no confusion. lk (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It is important to note which changes are congressional and which are administrative. As you no doubt know, these are different. Administrative changes are made to the Code of Federal Regulations. It would be best if we could identify and link to each of these changes. I believe the 1995 changes were administrative, as I couldn't find a CRA bill in 1995-1996. II | (t - c) 18:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. I was referring to the information on the 1999 bill, which I had moved to another section labeled Congressional Changes 1999, but which was being continually reinserted into the the section on Clinton's administrative changes in 1995. lk (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Stick to the topic

Just because a person or group is mentioned does not mean that any controversies about that person or group should be inserted. It would be inappropriate, for example, to include a diatribe about the failures of GW Bush.

This whole paragraph does not refer to CRA at all, not even incidentally. It's got nothing to do with CRA. It's just playing guilt by association. Continually reinserting it demonstrates POV pushing. lk (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

During the fall 2008 congressional debate over the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, conservative politician Ken Blackwell wrote about “repeated rumors” that Democrats in Congress wanted to fund voting and housing activist groups like ACORN through a “Housing Trust Fund” provision. He charged that an organization that through its activities in influencing bank loans (described above) “possibly contributed” to the economic crisis might profit from it. In response a such a rumor spread by a Senator, an ACORN representative replied the group did not get any money from the government and was not sure if it would seek any funding provided under the Act.

I think it's clear that he's talking about ACORN's CRA related activities, and it has been place in a section on just that topic. However, will let it lay for the moment and after I have most of info I need in may ask for 3rd parties opinions on several issues. Carol Moore 17:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

In case you didn't know, CRA is not a housing trust fund. A housing trust fund channels monies to rebuild houses or refinance mortagages. CRA doesn't provide subsidies. lk (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"Housing trust fund" was a phrase used by a source - not me - about a prospective program, not about an existing program.

CRA starts as a government enforced private bank defacto subsidy. But once the banks sell the loans to fannie mae and freddie mac it becomes a defacto govt subsidy, partially to home buyers and partially to the fat cats who profited off the securities until they crashed. Carol Moore 19:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Please do a google on 'Housing trust fund', it's something completely different from CRA. The article doesn't even mention CRA. You are essentially arguing that in the future, CRA may become a 'Housing trust fund', and so the article on housing trust funds is related. (WP is not a crystal ball WP:CRYSTAL) If I may interject a personal note, please stop and reflect. You should recognize that your bias on this issue is leading you to make unreasonable arguments. lk (talk) 05:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You are not correct about what I am "arguing." I am assuming he's referring to ACORN's CRA-related activities. But now I can see there may be other behavior they're engaged in, like alleged voter fraud, he may be referring to, so therefore the quote is not relevant. Carol Moore 13:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmoore

Sub-section headings

How about we just arrange by changes and the years that they occurred in:

1. 1989 Legislative Changes
2. 1994 Legislative Changes
3. 1995 Administrative Changes
4. 1999 Legislative Changes
5. 2005 Administrative Changes

LK (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

With suggested changes and as long as there is flexibility as in leaving info on Fannie Mae loans after 1992 legislative changes left right after the law change. If found, other new admin or Fannie/Freddie CRA-related material should can be inserted in 1999 section cause I'm sure a bunch happened just has not been ref'd in part because Fannie Mae was cooking the books during that time. Plus probably more stuff after 2005 besides what I put in there today.

1. 1989-1992 Legislative Changes (there are three laws in there)
2. 1995 Administrative Changes
3. 1999 Legislative Changes
4. 2005 Administrative Changes

(note spelling correction) Carol Moore 19:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Proper WP:Weight in the article

I'm moving this to it's own subsection, as the main argument here is about weight to be given to certain arguments and the information that buttresses those arguments: LK (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That looks fine, but keep in mind that this article is about CRA not about Fannie, Freddie, Sallie; the two are not the same. We should try to stay on topic and not conflate them; there is only a tenuous connection between them. Information presented on Fannie, Freddie, Sallie should be short, to the point, and only if there is a specific established relationship to CRA. LK (talk) 05:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is POV WP:edit warring to delete well sourced information explicitly about the relation of CRA and Fannie Mae. Full deletions like this are for poorly sourced or totally irrelevant info only. And one must always use edit summaries when one is making such big deletions, which you do irregularly. Using them for all edits would be very helpful and cooperative editing.

My right to revert it back is stronger than your right to delete it. If you want to put a relevance tag on or discuss it in talk, fine. FYI I am working on more info that will tie it together even more explicitly.

Two of WP's most important guidelines are: 1. that properly cited text from WP:RS reliable sources should not be deleted without a very good reason, and 2. that full reverts of other editors' work should not be done lightly. I strongly suggest you read the wp:verifiability and wp:revert pages to better understand these WP policies. Carol Moore 15:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Just because something is sourced, doesn't mean it should be in the article. Firstly, the source must associate the material with the article topic, and the source must fully support your argument. Also, the insertion must pass WP:NOR and WP:NPV. You should be able to establish the relevance of the material to the article topic. This article is fast becoming a coatrack for the fringe theory that the current financial crisis is caused by wrongheaded government regulations. The creation of an Attack Page is specifically prohibited by Wikipedia policy.

It's POV edit warring to reinsert material that has no direct connection to the article topic to assert guilt by association or to push a particular synthetic argument. Information not directly about the article topic should not be inserted, unless the source associates the information with the article topic in the same way as you are presenting it in the article, otherwise you are guilty of synthesis. BTW, about your accusation of edit warring, it's like the pot calling the kettle black, I suggest counting the number of times you have reverted to a version that you last edited. LK (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is obvious we need a third opinion listing specific issues on the talk page. Why notlet me make the couple changes I need to make and then we can get it. Carol Moore 17:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

If the sources don't connect Fannie/Freddie with the CRA, then it is synthesis and cannot be included. That's the policy. II | (t - c) 17:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not contesting whether synthesis is the policy, but whether one person's interpretation of it is correct. And I don't use sources that don't make a direct connection. Just look at them. There are several other issues of POV, Weight, etc. where it really depends on view points and a truly unbiased eye is needed. Carol Moore 17:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

My internet connection is too terrible to really follow your exchange closely, Carol, but if you don't think there's synthesis and Lawrence does, the onus is on you to quote the spot where the sources connect Fannie/Freddie and the CRA, Carol. The only way for Lawrence to show that they do not connect is to quote the entire article. Proving a negative is often more difficult than proving a positive. Also, there are plenty of decently-informed, basically unbiased people. I'm one of them. We should not be giving undue weight to fringe theorists with a poor reputation for fact-checking, who show a general lack of knowledge of the data. Your userpage indicates an affiliation with the anarcho-capitalist movement. The reality is that anarcho-capitalist economic policy led to this crisis. The government did not hold a gun to the banks' and mortgage brokers' heads and force them to do no-doc loans. Nor did they force the investment banks to leverage their capital to ratio 40-to-1 when the usual regulation was 11-to-1. Also, Barry Ritholtz had a pretty good article on the CRA yesterday. II | (t - c) 20:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

My main concern is this. This article should not become a coatrack for the fringe theory that the current financial crisis is mainly caused by wrongheaded government regulations. Sourced or not, statements should be removed if their main purpose for inclusion is to buttress that particular fringe theory. The article should stick to providing sourced factual information about the CRA, and it's direct effects on the housing markets. It should not speculate on whether or how the CRA weakened the financial system and contributed to the crisis, apart from briefly noting the arguments for and against this position. It should particularly not devolve into an attack article that contains mainly criticisms of government regulations and evidence for those criticisms. The article is barely acceptable as it now stands, but Carol has been continually pushing it in a direction that worries me. A case in point is the repeated reinsertion of this edit

During the fall 2008 congressional debate over the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, conservative politician Ken Blackwell wrote about “repeated rumors” that Democrats wanted to fund voting and housing activist groups like ACORN through a “Housing Trust Fund” provision. He charged that an organization that through its activities in influencing bank loans “possibly contributed” to the economic crisis might profit from it. In response to such criticisms, an ACORN representative replied the group did not get any money from the government and was not sure if it would seek any funding provided under the Act.

(NOTE: Edited to quote the relevant paragraph.) This paragraph does not provide any factual information about the CRA and only serves to disparage government regulation in general. The source does not even mention the CRA. LK (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Carol, if you could state your position, we can ask for third parties to arbitrate a solution. LK (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

To answer several different posts in order of points made:

• [User:Lawrencekhoo|LK] says twice above: "This article should not become a coatrack for the fringe theory that the current financial crisis is mainly caused by wrongheaded government regulationsLK coatrack for the fringe theory that the current financial crisis is caused by wrongheaded government regulations."

Response: Both liberal and conservative and libertarian sources in this article infer that the current financial crisis is mainly caused by wrongheaded government regulations - either too many or too few, or a combination of both. So that sentence doesn't even make sense. Please try again to formulate your complaint since anyone providing a third opinion also would see that flaw in your argument.

• Response to [User:ImperfectlyInformed|II]'s question about whether CRA and FM/FM connection is synthesis see new section below.
• Re: [User:ImperfectlyInformed|II]'s statement "Your userpage indicates an affiliation with the anarcho-capitalist movement."an affiliation with the anarcho-capitalist movement." FYI, my home page doesn't mention the phrase, only libertarian, and I do not identify myself as one. However, I do not hide my libertarian sympathies, as many editors hide their sympathies - or even WP:COI paid jobs - on a variety of topics through anonymity. I certainly hope your diatribe after that wasn't a WP:Attack.
• [User:ImperfectlyInformed|II]'s statement: "It should particularly not devolve into an attack article that contains mainly criticisms of government regulations and evidence for those criticisms, since your opinions of regulations that didn't cause a problem doesn't answer the WP:RS opinions of those who think it does." We go where the facts lead us, don't we? Are you saying an article about US torture of suspects should be balanced even if criticisms far outweigh defenses? It's a "law" enforced inevitably by jackbooted thugs, just like the laws against smashing windows at anti-globalization protests ;-) (little joke)
• You'll be glad to know that I'm adding a section on the 2008 CRA hearing that had mostly pro-CRA regulators and only a couple people opposed. I'm sure the new hearings will lead to even more comments one way or the other.
• Ritholtz blog entry mostly quotes sources already in this article.
• [User:Lawrencekhoo|LK] asks about this edit where I removed redundant wikilink and moved relevant descriptive info up to front of article, changing this language "advocacy groups" to language more in line with what [User:Lawrencekhoo|LK] had used "This gave housing advocacy community groups." explaining that the fact it was "twice mentioned above" in the edit summary.
• Fringe theory is defined as: A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. Even if the idea that CRA somehow contributed to the current financial crisis WAS fringe, it has been covered by so many WP:RS sources that it is still notable.
• Finally, please do not assume an either/or attitude. Either that there is some theory that ONLY the CRA caused ALL the problems, which no one is advancing vs. the idea that CRA is a totally benign law corrupted by evil Republicans. As is so often the case, the truth lies in between. Think about that the next time you want to delete WP:RS info.

Carol Moore 13:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

At least rewrite the CRA/connection to 2008 financial crisis

This section could very much do with being rewritten to have an introductory section putting forward both points (neutrally if possible) and split into separate points. At the moment it's just a collection of quotes, with no organisation beyond that. I would attempt now but would prefer to a) wait until it calms down a bit and b) sleep. ;)

In its current form, it gives undue weight to the criticism by burying the rebuttals (even in simplistic form, i.e. "other commentators say the accusation is horse hockey") several paras down.--Gregalton (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Patience. Still working on the factual section with a big shift of material to happen up to section on 2008 hearings. Then we'll see what's left. Carol Moore 13:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

You speak as if you have the primary responsibility to shape this page's vision – WP:OWN. I usually don't have a problem with that, but I don't like the vision you're pushing; ie. a coatrack for anti-government regulation arguments. LK (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously such a section is in tune with what else is in the article. But I brought it up to tell people what I am up to, knowing they'll comment if they have a problem. If I was into WP:OWN I'd be deleting stuff I didn't like without explaining why :-)

Feel free to put it together. I am just assuming from past experience no one else wants to do that big a job of putting together a variety of sources with different opinions reflecting the variety of views on this topic.

If WP:RS sources add up to more new, non-redundant negative arguments against CRA, and you feel they don't reflect reality, then do some research and add other material. Carol Moore 13:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Forgive me - I'm new here, and won't get the terminology and WP references right, but the first 3 quotes in this section should be deleted. They use quotes to introduce a POV, and counter-factual information. Liebowitz says banks are "allowed" to make bad loand - banks can make whatever loans they wish. Both Paul and WSJ assert that banks are "forced" or "compelled" to make bad loans under the CRA. The CRA does not address underwriting standards, it only provided for evaluation of lending practices. If banks were forced to make bad loans, all big banks would be in trouble. They are not. WFB is an example of a bank that achieved a passing CRA grade, but does not have bad loans on its balance sheet. Is there a reason they shouldn't be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleacherdave (talk • contribs) 20:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, when in doubt look at the original source and see if language reflects what they said. I'll fix it since it's a bit nuanced.

What has not been addressed adequately in the article is that the banks started selling crappy loans to Fannie Mae so they themselves would not get hurt. They even would buy crappy loans issued by crappy mortgage companies to comply with CRA and then sell to Fannie Mae - which is why so many CRA supporters carefully claim that they banks CRA loans did not go bad. Of course they didn't, they didn't own them any more. The problem is either WP:RS sources don't always say as things as explicitly as they should, while TV commentators, sources deemed not wiki reliable, letters to editor, etc say it straight out.

The banks that went south were not ones that held a lot of bad mortgages but the ones that held all sorts of Fannie Mae and other securities that were partially crappy CRA and other bad mortgage loans and partially good securities, but the good ones get paid off first. So no one really knows how much they are worth. People/companies figure out the bank's in trouble and they take their money out of the bank.

Anyway, one of the hair pulling problems with wikipedia. But eventually some WP:Reliable source says just the right thing and then you edit it into the article. Carol Moore 20:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Your assertion about that banks started selling "crappy loans..so they themselves would not get hurt" is unverifiable, and, I'd say, incorrect. They did it to make money - heck, everyone else in the industry was doing it. Banks sell loans, to the GSE's, investment banks, and other secondary market buyers, in order to get the money to originate more loans. To say they did it not to get hurt is both speculative and incorrect. As we have seen, they WERE, in fact, hurt by these crappy loans - many of the purchasers of these loans had the right to put them back to the originators if they turned sour. And they did so.

Contrary to your assertion, I haven't seen any references to banks that bought crappy loans from mortgage companies. Countrywide had subprime CRA loans for sale, but apparently no CRA subject institutions bought them. Matter of fact, the Inner City Press article states that only one CRA subject institution ever bought loans on the secondary market that they then certified towards CRA compliance. However, that particular claim in the article is not well documented, so I left it out of the main page. In fact, NO SOURCE has ever documented that EVEN ONE secondary mortgage purchaser EVER used purchased mortgages to satisfy their CRA obligations. Hopefully, ACORN and the other groups would have been all over that - it certainly meets the letter of the CRA, but definitely not its spirit. Bottom line is that you cannot support your assertion that CRA subject institutions 1) bought crappy CRA loans, and 2) if they did, did so to comply with CRA.

Your description of why banks fell isn't quite accurate. The banks that fell didn't do so because of an old-fashioned run on deposits, but did so because they couldn't meet their capital, counterparty and reserve requirements. This was due to the write-down in the value of their assets, and the assets pledged as collateral to other parties. In any event, the value of ALT-A loans (liar loans) are a multiple of sub-prime loans value. Alt-A loans were those used by "house flippers" - primarily us middle-class and up folk. Most sub-prime loans, and the value of sub-prime loans are a fraction of Alt-A loans, also went to middle class and up borrowers. And CRA loans are yet a fraction of that. The goal of CRA loans are to find and prepare prime borrower prospects. That is the whole origninal intent of the CRA - to find prime borrowers in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods that are being ignored by credit institutions, and lend to them on the SAME TERMS as other borrowers.

Finally, look at the RealtyTrac's mortgage foreclosure map. California is a HUGE problem. Property values in California were so high, that most loans were non-conforming (> the Fannie/Freddie threshold), and couldn't be bought by the GSE's. Remember CRA only applies to a relatively small fraction of geographies. Do you agree those 3 quotes should come out?Bleacherdave (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This is how you set up the Liebowitz quote, "...CRA requirements allowed banks to loan to consumers..." This is not correct, the CRA does not authorize and lending. It implies that the CRA addresses underwriting standards. This is misleading, it does not. The CRA only requires reporting on the economic and demographic characteristics of lending areas and borrowers.Bleacherdave (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What I argue personally doesn't matter, so I should control myself (and only write for money, ho ho ho). Anyway, in wikipedia, all that matters is what the source's say. See WP:V. It doesn't matter what an editor thinks is true - or ten editors - unless they find it on a WP:Reliable source web site. If you really want to get into all the ins and outs of the Subprime_mortgage_crisis you should edit that page :-) This is just for facts and notable opinions about CRA. However, I did rewrite liebowitz tightly to the source because that does matter in wikipedia. Carol Moore 23:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

You make a valid point. The entire 2008 financial crisis section should be removed, and referred to Subprime_mortgage_crisis. Bleacherdave (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There already is a section on govt regs which needs to be rewritten, but this section is related specifically to CRA and the crisis. Each relevant article probably needs such a section and in near future I may go through a few of them and insert stuff, hoping they won't be as contentious as this one :-) (By the way, as a temp secretary in DC I average $18-20 an hours; guess what the only job I was up for that paid $32 - Fannie Mae!! Didn't get it so I'm not a co-conspirator to looting the trough :-) Oops. Just checked my resume. I did have a job for six months in mid-90s at Sallie Mae branch that paid going rate - of course they only gave me an hour of work a day and I wrote a book the rest of the time. :-) Carol Moore 16:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Full Quotes Connecting Fannie and Freddie & CRA

Someone wrote if "sources don't connect Fannie/Freddie with the CRA, then it is synthesis."

• First, I just changed Bernanke Speech on CRA article to show that in his Speech on CRA he was discussing important financial issues affecting CRA financial environment. In that paragraph (Third one in "Evolution of CRA" section) there are four. Two others mentioned elsewhere in the article. The other one was usury. I took material I had researched and stuck in usury section --which some might call WP:SYN background - and it in as a footnote to where it is directly relevant, i.e., Bernanke mentioning usury laws as impacting CRA. The problem is I'm not really sure yet what laws or regulations repealed which mortgage usury laws and when. Anyone else want to volunteer to find out?? The last influence is Fannie and Freddie. Now I can run around and find more refs if Bernanke isn't good enough for you.
• Bear Stearns whole relevant quote is:

"First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans."

• Roberts Wall Street Journal full quote is:

"Fannie and Freddie were part of the CRA story, too. In 1997, Bear Stearns did the first securitization of CRA loans, a $384 million offering guaranteed by Freddie Mac. Over the next 10 months, Bear Stearns issued $1.9 billion of CRA mortgages backed by Fannie or Freddie. Between 2000 and 2002 Fannie Mae securitized $394 billion in CRA loans with $20 billion going to securitized mortgages."

• CSR Newswire relevant quotes are:

To expand the secondary market for affordable community-based mortgages nationwide, Fannie Mae (FNM/NYSE), the nation's largest source of financing for home mortgages, today announced a commitment to purchase $2 billion of "MyCommunityMortgage" loans through a suite of flexible mortgage options for low- and moderate-income borrowers purchasing one-to-four unit homes. . . "We want to work with lenders who are willing to tackle the toughest housing problems in America, which is the focus of our American Dream Commitment," said Dan Mudd, Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer of Fannie Mae. "By teaming with lenders, Fannie Mae can not only help increase lending to minorities and other underserved market segments, but we also can assist depository institutions in meeting their own community investment goals and objectives. We look forward to working with our customers to create increased liquidity for Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) -eligible loans."

• Fannie Mae MyCommunityMortgage page just shows this program still exists. If THAT ref is WP:synthesis, it can be deleted.

Carol Moore 13:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Here I complied with the request for exact quotes from [User:ImperfectlyInformed|II]. But instead of discussion I get from [User:Lawrencekhoo|LK] only deletion without explanation. As I put in my reverting edit summary: put back specific relevant information which was deleted without edit summary and without specific criticism ("in talk")' (I accidently deleted word in talk. I only hear vague criticisms of things [User:Lawrencekhoo|LK] doesnt like in talk and then he just deletes whole sections without even being cooperative enough to put in an edit summary. Please try to edit more coopartively. Thanks.

Carol Moore 16:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Regarding Bernanke speech - he has two seperate threads: 1) changes to the CRA, and 2) changes to the general financial environment. The Community Reinvestment Act is a very specific and limited regulation. All it does is require that subject lending institutions be evaluated on a set of specific practices. It is not appropriate to describe changes in the general mortgage market as changes in the CRA environment; it would be appropriate to describe changes in specific CRA criteria as changes in the CRA market. Neither usury laws nor affordable housing credits fall under CRA, nor does Bernanke say that they do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleacherdave (talk • contribs) 04:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Bernanke quote: "Even as these [CRA] developments were occurring, extensive change was taking place in the financial services sector. During the 1980s and 1990s, technological progress significantly improved data collection and information processing, which led to the development and widespread use of credit-scoring models and the availability of generic credit history scores. Deregulation also contributed to the changes in the marketplace. Notably, the lifting of prohibitions against interstate banking was followed by an increased pace of industry consolidation. Also, the preemption of usury laws on home loans created more scope for risk-based pricing of mortgages. Securitization of affordable housing loans expanded, as did the secondary market for those loans, in part reflecting a 1992 law that required the government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to devote a percentage of their activities to meeting affordable housing goals (HUD, 2006). A generally strong economy and lower interest rates also helped improved access to credit by lower-income households." Bernanke clearly sets these changes apart from CRA developments. These are general changes in the financial services sector, not changes to the CRA. CRA is not an "affordable housing law"; the goal of CRA is to encourage access to credit. A significant beneficiary of the CRA has been middle class owners of property in low and moderate income neighborhoods. Very few neighborhoods would have been gentrified if lenders had not begun lending in them. Bleacherdave (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Confusing, inaccurate POV of New "enforcement" section

• Enforcement evolved through time, influenced by admin and legist moves, including the role of community groups in putting more and more pressure on banks to comply. So putting current enforcement up front is just inaccurate, with the POV to have people pay less attention to the evolution.
• This misuse of quote this quote shows the problem. It was part of the "Original Act" section and originally said "groups slowly organized". "Over time, community groups have slowly organized to take advantage of their right under the Act to complain about law enforcement of the regulations. This has lead to increased compliance with CRA regulations.[5][9][10]
• The Bernanke material is in part redundant advocacy material and in the wrong section.
• Note we don't give "advice" links to people in the text. It is valid to mention Clinton set up the web site and then put the site in the reference, next to the actual reference.
• If you can defend the changes, do so here soon." Thanks. Carol Moore 19:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

The Enforcement section should reflect all current enforcement efforts - the laws & regulations as they now stand - and a little history if relevant (I'm not wedded to this). I'm happy to see it fleshed out more, and edited to make things clearer, but do not remove cited relevant information just because you don't like what it says. BTW, how can a section about enforcement and history be POV? Do try to be WP:civil, this talk page is filled with you're incivility. The 'if you can' is just gratuitous. LK (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

POV can be unconscious and one tries to make others aware of them. See you did make changes dealing with my concerns.

Also, don't you realize what this sentence sounds like: Discussing the reasons for the Clinton administration's proposal to strengthen the CRA, Lloyd Bentsen, Secretary of the Treasury at that time, said, "The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live."

It's sounds like he's saying, if you live in an upper-middle class or upper-class neighborhood, you too can get loans, as long as you can pay." Is that what you want people to think it means???

I'm always willing to admit when I make a mistake, as I have a couple times above. Carol Moore 23:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

--There was an historical context to this act: some urban areas were considered disaster relief neighbourhoods (eg, the South Bronx) around 1977. It would be interesting to know who specifically benefited: were any wikipedia commentators recipients of this service. If so, did they benefit or not. It seems to me to be a worthwhile legislation that was misused/abused by some, but might have helped some truly deserving.~~humble opinion~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.156.43.8 (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't taken the train past the south bronx in 25 years so don't know how it is faring. Most of the govt regulators made a salary and hope to get a pension from their govt jobs. Lots of real estate brokers, home flippers and high flying investors did too, if they got out of the market in time. I don't think too many bankers are editing here. Govt employees or community activists making a $100 -200,000 a year or financial consultants trying to tell their investors their CRA-related investments really were good in order to avoid beheading may be :-). Hopefully they'd share any such POV. ;-) Carol Moore 14:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

But were some of the disadvantaged people this act was ostensibly passed for actually benefit from the CRA? Being a homeowner can help restore community spirit and revitalize or slow a neighbourhood from decaying. It was passed three decades ago (and modified later)and must have helped a few people. Or did it not help anyone at all? I don't mean financial or enforcement agents or community activists (the latter of whom I believe don't make much money anyway). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.156.43.8 (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Why all the fluff and redundancy?

• I mean outlining enforcement in the sentence before the enforcement section?

Then I dealt with these 3 problems with very clear edit summaries and then you reverted my fixes.

• A whole paragraph on three agencies that are adequately described in one sentence which was reverted? Remember all Fannie Mae was in a speech about CRA or policies influencing CRA or were other refs directly related to CRA. Mentioning all those agencies borderline WP:OR; going on and on about them even more so.
• Mentioning redlining twice in same paragraph. You reverted my fix; one mention was adequate.
• "Speaking in 2007, the 30th anniversary of the CRA, Ben Bernanke," is pure POV. Mentioning name of speech would be acceptable.

These don't seem to have any point but they do make editing very frustrating for others and I hope that is not the intent! Once I put in a couple more things we can get third opinions on specific issues, but I don't think you really want the 4 issues above to be them. So feel free to save me the time and hassle and aggravation of doing it yourself. Carol Moore 15:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

The lead should summarize the whole article - including the section following the lead. It seems to me that you consider anything that doesn't paint the CRA in a bad light as fluff and redundancy. The information you have been removing is about why the CRA was passed, and how it works. It is information basic to the topic of the article, and it deserves more space than any speculations about connections to the GSEs (Fannie, Freddie, Sallie). Esssentially, the GSEs took the loans that happened to be from lower income neighbourhoods and packaged them. They also took loan from higher income neighbourhoods as well. There was no material distinction in how they treated those loans. What the GSEs did or did not to loans and securities has no direct connection with enforcement of the CRA, and hence is largely irrelevant. LK (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree about whether there is need for info for reasons I've stated above. In fact I realized that the Fannie/Freddie/Usury stuff probably was fluff and after someone deleted it, I just adjusted the relevant section to make sure people could find out what it is about. So that info now IS directly related to CRA.

The GSE's were instructed to buy up CRA loans. See article: "In 2000, in order to expand the secondary market for affordable community-based mortgages and to increase liquidity for CRA-eligible loans, Fannie Mae committed to purchase and securitize $2 billion of "MyCommunityMortgage" loans." There is a material distinction. They bundled bad loans and good loans together and sold them off, not telling people just how bad the bad ones were. What it is relevant to is the controversy and accusations that surround the bill in the news - therefore it is NOTABLE and worthy of coverage here. In the fact or opinion section, depending on source and direct relevance. Carol Moore 21:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Well, I disagree. I think it's as in the same spirit as noting on the page about Domino's pizza, that the unabomber liked to order Domino's. Unless, theres something about Dominos that makes people want to blow up colleges, such information is trivia. I don't see anything in the laws or enforcement mechanism of CRA that makes the GSEs want to securitize loans, they did it themselves (in fact that was what they were set up to do - their raison d'etre). Anyway, even if relevant, it shouldn't be in the section about 1989-1994 congressional changes. (Is there a tag for irrelevant info, should be moved or deleted?) LK (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Do consider the "MyCommunityMortgage" loans in the "good loans" or "bad loans" bucket? Why or why not? Your opinions do matter - they're evidenced by the tortured way you've horned in some speeches (opinion pieces). Thanks for the link to the Reliable Source page - I've just barely scanned it. But based on that quick read - are those speeches a reliable source? After all speeches aren't fact checked before publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleacherdave (talk • contribs) 14:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Err, sorry, are you addressing Carol or me (Lawrence)? In general, speeches, blogs, and other essentially self-published sources are considered reliable for describing themselves, and what they say. So a speech by Bernanke is a reliable source for what Bernanke says. Whether the quote should be in the article depends on how much weight and standing the person has on the topic. For example, the statement of the chair of the Federal Reserve about banking regulations has more standing than that of a Professor of Biology, however, the situation would be reversed, were they talking about evolution. BTW, don't forget to sign your comments by putting four tildes after them, like so: ~~~~

LK (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

BleacherDave says: "I don't see anything in the laws or enforcement mechanism of CRA that makes the GSEs want to securitize loans." This article doesn't include every relevant regulation or admin. decision, so the causes of some things from the CRA/FDIC/Treasury side may remain mysterious until further info is forthcoming. And I've got a google alert on the act. Also, that info was been put in by other editors earlier in the process so I'm not the only one thinking it is relevant. We might not mention the Unibomber eating pizza, but we might mention that his favorite book was about bombing scientiests and he bombed a bunch of scientists, or whatever obvious cause or effect, just to use the same metaphor. Carol Moore 16:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)'Carolmooredc

Do CRA Regulations Make Banks Pay Groups Pay Actual "Fees"?

This was mentioned in a couple articles which I haven't or haven't finished defending as not WP:RS. And "Fee". seems to have stayed in the article even though neither of the sources attached to it mention such fees. I'm beginning to suspect that what they meant by "fees" was more an economic than a practical term, ie the activity of challenging and hanging up opening of new "deposit facilities" (bank branches?) and mergers and acquisitions. This has lead banks to not only make more loans available BUT contribute to groups. What they call fees, others call rent seeking. And that's what will come out in any Senate material eventually found. Any ideas? Carol Moore 23:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

The CRA doesn't "make" banks do anything. The CRA is merely a ranking and data dissemination tool. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. --Bleacherdave

It seems clear from the description by the federal agencies that CRA doesn't require any fees to be paid to anyone. However, community groups can collect fees when they arrange mortgages, the same as any other mortgage broker does. Also, if set up as a non-profit, community groups can accept donations from banks. However, we shouldn't charge community groups with extortion and banks with bribery, unless there is strong documentation that it actually took place (ie. an opinion piece in a newspaper is not enough.) LK (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'd read or figured it was brokerage fees earlier and then forgotten. We should find a source that makes that more explicit. Ad for "forcing" banks, obviously if they will not allow them to open a new branch or buy a new bank or merge with another bank unless they do 15% of mortgages in a certain class or 500 mortgages or whatever the numerical is, they are being forced because other wise they are prohibited from doing what they want. That's right up there at the top of the article. Carol Moore 16:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Source suggestion

I've taken this page off my watchlist, but Daniel Gross from Slate/Newsweek has a column on this issue here. Slate is a (arguably) center-left magazine, but it is no The Nation. Gross is a good economic journalist insofar as he seeks to understand economics before weighing in on things. This can be included in the article to contextualize some of the criticism. Protonk (talk) 05:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Gross makes the obvious point, the one so obvious that it hardly bears repeating: there's nothing in the CRA encouraging lax standards or linking it to the housing bubble. Unfortunately, conservatives aren't interested in the truth. In fact, we might just solidify misinformation through a "backfire" effect! [3]07:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, anyone who isn't looking at all the negative effects is being biased. But as one of the first laws that, once sufficiently manipulated by partisans, pretty much forced banks to lend to people who should not have been encouraged to take on debt they couldn't handle, it started a negative downward trend. And I think it is immoral because it was a law that, esp. after 1995, ensured community groups and/or brokers and/or banks and/or Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac or Wall Street could fulfill quotas and/or make a bundle. And they did it by pushing a lot of people who were hanging in with marginal but at least NOT negative credit ratings into buying homes they eventually defaulted on. Now they have seen their credit trashed and lost their homes, and any money they put into it. And now with a lousy credit rating they can't rent any place half as decent as where they lived before they owned a home and it probably costs more!

Home ownership is expensive. There's big bills every time you turn around; a lot of poorer people would rather see the landlord pay them. Pushing people into housing who can't afford it is not doing them a favor.

That is not a "conservative" or even a "libertarian" issue. That is an issue for anyone with any common sense!! I've come across several such opinions in a few sources and have to go back and collect some at some point and list. Carol Moore 16:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc