The role of the Community Reinvestment Act in the collapse of the 2007 housing bubble The reality of the worst financial crisis in 80 years has led to much speculation about its causes. . Although a plethora of theories have been proposed, none has been as persistent and as blatantly false as the claim that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 played a significant role in the collapse of the housing bubble. Critics of the Community Investment Act (CRA) argue that by pressuring banks to meet the credit needs of low-income borrowers, the law forced lending institutions to take on riskier loans that proved financially irresponsible. Securitization and speculation on these shoddy loans led to the collapse of the housing bubble and the broader financial crisis. This argument is subject to a number of problems, namely: the CRA never imposed lower lending standards, the CRA was enacted more than a quarter century before the housing crash, none of the hundreds of banks that collapsed were subject to CRA legislation. , CRA loans had a historically low level of default, and CRA loans included an extremely small amount of subprime loans during the relevant period of the crisis. Although the CRA may have played a small role in the collapse of the housing bubble and the financial crisis that followed, it is clear that its effect was negligible. There are simply too many mitigating factors that limit the extent to which the CRA could have harmed the housing market for this theory to be plausible. The Community Reinvestment Act is a United States federal law passed in 1977 and formulated to encourage lending by depository institutions in the United States. low and moderate income areas. The law was designed largely to combat redlining, a systematic practice ... middle of paper ... that could have such an impact after three decades of virtually innocuous existence. Experts point to 1995 regulatory changes passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. These changes strengthened the standards by which ARC regulators were able to judge banks on how well they met the credit needs of their local community. However, in 2004, President George Bush repealed most of these changes and weakened the CRA to the level it was in the early 1990s. It is simply implausible that the CRA had no consequences negative until 30 years after its adoption. If it had been a major cause of the horrible lending standards, the financial crisis would have occurred well before 2007. There must be other, much more important factors that have emerged in the 30 years since the CRA was enacted. and which led to the real estate crash..

Essay / The role of the Community Reinvestment Act in the collapse of the 2007 housing bubble The reality of the worst financial crisis in 80 years has led to much speculation about its causes. . Although a plethora of theories have been proposed, none has been as persistent and as blatantly false as the claim that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 played a significant role in the collapse of the housing bubble. Critics of the Community Investment Act (CRA) argue that by pressuring banks to meet the credit needs of low-income borrowers, the law forced lending institutions to take on riskier loans that proved financially irresponsible. Securitization and speculation on these shoddy loans led to the collapse of the housing bubble and the broader financial crisis. This argument is subject to a number of problems, namely: the CRA never imposed lower lending standards, the CRA was enacted more than a quarter century before the housing crash, none of the hundreds of banks that collapsed were subject to CRA legislation. , CRA loans had a historically low level of default, and CRA loans included an extremely small amount of subprime loans during the relevant period of the crisis. Although the CRA may have played a small role in the collapse of the housing bubble and the financial crisis that followed, it is clear that its effect was negligible. There are simply too many mitigating factors that limit the extent to which the CRA could have harmed the housing market for this theory to be plausible. The Community Reinvestment Act is a United States federal law passed in 1977 and formulated to encourage lending by depository institutions in the United States. low and moderate income areas. The law was designed largely to combat redlining, a systematic practice ... middle of paper ... that could have such an impact after three decades of virtually innocuous existence. Experts point to 1995 regulatory changes passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. These changes strengthened the standards by which ARC regulators were able to judge banks on how well they met the credit needs of their local community. However, in 2004, President George Bush repealed most of these changes and weakened the CRA to the level it was in the early 1990s. It is simply implausible that the CRA had no consequences negative until 30 years after its adoption. If it had been a major cause of the horrible lending standards, the financial crisis would have occurred well before 2007. There must be other, much more important factors that have emerged in the 30 years since the CRA was enacted. and which led to the real estate crash..

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch