Talk:Community Reinvestment Act/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Subprime lending CRA and redlining

Here is a good source:

• What’s Behind the Race Gap? New york Times

Last year, blacks were 2.3 times more likely, and Hispanics twice as likely, to get high-cost loans as whites after adjusting for loan amounts and the income of the borrowers, according to an analysis of loans reported under the federal Home Mortgage Disclosure Act...The study suggests that the concentration of high-cost loans is not caused by an area’s racial makeup, though there is a correlation, said Jay Brinkmann, vice president for research and economics at the Mortgage Bankers Association.

But the Fed study also suggests that a big part of the reason may have to do with the lenders that minority borrowers do business with. The biggest home lenders in minority neighborhoods are mortgage companies that provide only subprime loans, not full-service banks that do a range of lending.

It may be that these borrowers do not have access to traditional banks, because there are no branches near them. The Community Reinvestment Act, enacted 30 years ago, was intended to address redlining by forcing banks to make loans in lower-income areas. But the law’s provisions do not apply to banks in neighborhoods where they have no branches.

“You could go into a middle-class area in Queens County that is white and there will be lots of banks on the shopping street,” said Alfred A. DelliBovi, president of the Federal Home Loan Bank of New York and a deputy secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the first Bush administration. “If you go to an area that is equal income and that is black, you won’t see many.”

futurebird (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism paragraph

The last edit is poorly written. I refer to the last two sentences of the criticsm section. It has factual errors (there is no such thing as a 'FFF' rated junk bond, the lowest rating is 'D') and the point the author is trying to make is hard to determine. If he is saying that securitization created the subprime mess that is a different issue - I believe - than saying that banks trying to meet their CRA obligations is a significant cause of the subprime debacle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbedmiston (talk • contribs) 21:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

CRITICISM section needs balance

This section is balanced but not thorough. What is needed is a full disclosure of statistics that show which sector of the market actually caused the crisis. It is very clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were set up for and biased towards lenders who eliminated redlining and favored race and class-based criteria. And it is clear that a significant number of mortgage companies were not under the CRA criteria. These facts are not debatable nor are they the complete picture of the crisis. The crisis lies in the numbers that actually pulled the market down. It is undisputable that those numbers come out of the half that is regulated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Therefore, racial and class-driven loans are the cause of this crisis. The article is good but should endeavor to explain all of the matter at hand. Race and class are at issue here and everyone seems to want to eliminate this fact from the explanation. To do this is to thwart and even edit the historical merit and impact of the situation. It is a race and class based crisis manifest in one particular industry - mortgages. It is arguable that race polarity has not only negatively caused the social fabric to erode but has now bled into our country's financial fabric. The debate is simple: If you don't qualify for a loan, you don't get a loan. Neither race nor class should grant special treatment. SOCIALISM is really the core of this debate and both the Clinton and Carter White Houses are proponents of such principles (see Hillary Clinton's doctoral dissertation). Financial socialism has been an American debacle. America is the only country in the world that has taken socialism one step further than classism and included racism. Discriminating on behalf of one group is no different than discriminating against any other group. The amendment to this section should include something about the actual social deconstruction to American society or more to the point, American Socialism verses Americanism. At this point in history, America does not just face a mere a mortgage crisis. It faces a social crisis. And this crisis will challenge America in every Democratic institution down to the soul and spirit of Americanism. I believe the article reads well as is but needs to venture into the complexities of the thinkers and formers of the CRA. The CRA is not consistent with American capitalism and values. That inconsistency, it can be argued, is a very probable cause to this great mortgage crisis. It can also be argued that stronger regulation is needed rather than outright government-owned or back companies. Either way, fairness does not lie in racial or class scrutiny but rather in financial scrutiny alone where mortgages are concerned. Finally, since the government has played a great role in this crisis by sponsoring such companies, the greatest amount of responsibility lies with the lawmakers who wrote and backed the bill as well as the those who presided over the companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, i.e., Barney Frank and others like him.Truthinfused (talk) 05:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)truthinfused.

This article is still biased. Yes, we have a criticism section, but the "Criticism" is merely stated, without benefit of supporting argumentation. After that, it's rebutted with two different arguments. If we're being fair, shouldn't we provide two supporting arguments? How about amending this section to read as below:

Critics claim that government policy encouraged the development of the subprime debacle through legislation like the CRA, which gave government regulators and community activists the power to force banks and other lending institutions to extend credit to otherwise uncreditworthy customers.[2] [3] Critics also point out that the Boston Fed explicitly directed banks to meet their CRA objectives by abandoning "outdated" lending criteria such as a check of credit history, income verification, and a comparison of income relative to the size of the proposed loan.[2] Since this is exactly what occurred, it seems reasonable to assume that the CRA achieved its objectives, with the results we can all see today.

Defenders of CRA maintain that half of all subprime loans were made by institutions that are not subject to CRA and another substantial share of subprime loans were made by subsidiaries of banks that do not fully come under CRA. Additionally, they claim that subprime lending intensified as enforcement of CRA was abating.[4]

This gives both sides of the argument and--in my opinion--is a better representation of the facts. Way2manyhix (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

--"Defenders of CRA maintain that half of all subprime loans were made by institutions that are not subject to CRA". This is a balanced addition, but if true, its relevance assumes that the default rate on the CRA subprime loans was similar to, or lower than, the default rate on the non-CRA subprime loans. Is there a reference to substantiate that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brat0009 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This article makes absolutely no sense to me, other than as an attempt to blame Democrats and Civil Rights Groups. It makes no sense because this act worked well for over 25 years, without causing any trouble. Plus, it does not stand up to statistical scrutiny. Banks that more closely followed CRA guidelines are actually less likely to engage in risky lending, less likely to make a sub-prime or high cost loans (by 66%), and less likely to use the secondary mortgage market to offload the sub-prime loans they did make. Unfortunately, CRA banks only make up 25% of the mortgage market. Read "Community Reinvestment Act: A Welcome Anomaly in the Foreclosure Crisis: Indications that the CRA Deterred Irresponsible Lending in the 15 Most Populous U.S. Metropolitan Areas". By Traiger and Hinckley LLC. New York, 2008. The study looks at the Metropolitan Statistical Area's of Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Riverside, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C.

Interestingly, MSA's (Metropolitan Statistical Area's) where there were a lot of CRA banks and branches (NYC, Boston, Chicago) which originated subprime loans performed far better than MSA's where other subprime lenders were operating (Riverside, CA). I'm from the Netherlands and don't have much expertise in this market but while trying to get a grip on the current financial problems I came across this article and found it fundamentally flawed. I got the feeling that several people who contributed to this article acted out of partisanship, without any knowledge about this market. People with more expertise in this market might want to clear it up. One more thing: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac operate in the secondary mortgage market, CRA banks operate in the primary mortgage market. That distinction is not made clear in this article. --Wprange (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The central question

I fully agree that the criticism section needed balancing. I think I've provided it. One major question remains: did these independent mortgage companies send the mortgage packages to CRA banks, and did the CRA banks then use them to beef up their CRA rating? Nobody has answered the question, although DiLorenzo has said he thinks they can, without much in the ways of facts to back itup. Until we find someone who has a credible answer, we should assume that they are not allowed to. The answer no doubt lies in the Code of Federal Regulation, which you can access in the lead of this article (click the Cornell USC link, then Parallel authorities).

This article has comments from some people who say they work in the industry. They note that CRA never forces you do make loans to people; however, you can't deny a minority who has the same credit rating and income as a white that you gave a loan to. II | (t - c) 23:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that there are defacto quotas which gives real estate people and mortgage people an incentive to phony up the paperwork. I'm sure a source can be found for that at my leisure. I just hope there aren't any CRA or other govt employees in related bureaucracies editing this article :-) But hopefully reliable numbers on all of this will be generated - ha ha ha. Carol Moore 03:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Book references should be inline or taken out

Specifically: Canner, G. and W. Passmore; Schwartz, A., 1998; Seidman, E.; Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Warren Tyagi. Given this is now a hot and controversial topic and lots of inline current sources will be put in, I think that we can't rely on old nonspecific references. This is wiki policy, upon challenging of sources (Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_reference). If the originator of these are around, they should make them inline refs, preferably with page numbers. Otherwise they should either be removed entirely or if truly significant sources be put in a "Reading" section. Just FYI before I do it soon. Carol Moore 16:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

They seem relevant. Why not move them here to the talk page for the time being? Someone may find a relevant quote in one of them and reinsert it later. lk (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally we put these in a "Further Reading" section. We should keep in mind that listing all books on CRA might not be helpful. Some are outdated. It is sometimes better to filter. If someone wants to find all the books on CRA, they can look up the word CRA on Google Books. II | (t - c) 20:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section is total nonsense

The criticism section quotes liberal commentators who make factual mistakes, and passes of their inaccurate claims as facts. The liberal commentator claims that half of subprime mortgages were issued by institutions not subject to the CRA. This is nonsense. They were subject to the CRA, they were simply under less regulations.

Here is the testimony who these liberal commentators are citing:

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/barr021308.pdf

But what Michael Barr says is:

"More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision"

it doesn't say they weren't subject to the CRA.

"However, the chief executive of Countrywide Financial, the nation's largest mortgage lender, is said to have "bragged" that to approve minority applications "lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit", suggesting that Countrywide was responsible for relaxing its standards rather than the other way around.[17]"

This is a stretched interpretation of an article that actually blames the government for inviting the mess. Countrywide was saying that they were induced in to stretching the rules. We also have to remember that if they didn't stretch the rules and accept minorities; people like Obama went around suing banks for discrimination of minorities.

I agree that this whole section is leftist spin. It should at least present the arguments from both sides neutrally. So instead of saying: Some say CRAs caused this mess but here's why they're wrong based on this other evidence, simply present a pro and con section presenting both sides of the argument. So some say CRAs caused this mess and here's their arguments. Others say the CRAs weren't responsible and here's their arguments. Then let the reader look at the evidence and decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.157.73.143 (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind a "criticism" section should not be "balanced". It should be accurate. This section should only contain criticism(s) of the CRA. It should not be "someone said but on the other hand someone else said". As currently written, not only does the criticism section contain statements defending the CRA, 80% of the section is a defense of the CRA. This section needs to be rewritten.--FelixCab (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I just happened to beef it up now. Please suggest reliable sources. We don't just opine, we cite sources. I'm still working on it - plus trying to correct weird changes that keep happening not recorded in History... Carol Moore 20:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Carolmooredc - You obviously did not read my above post. You continue to include "rebuttals" and "defenses" of the CRA in a section entitled "Criticism". The section needs to be rewritten to include only ctiticisms. My post has nothing to do with "sources".--FelixCab (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've worked on a lot of criticism sections that have rebuttal, since it's our job to show both sides of story if there are specific rebuttals. All we have to worry about is if the source is reliable. As you'll notice I added more criticisms last night and am still working on making some others more detailed. Feel free to do so yourself! Carol Moore 12:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

On the other hand, looking at it again, I think we could toss out the Traiger & Hinckley, LLP study - whether they are representing banks or community groups or both, it's still a commercial source. Also Seidman's "warnings" to banks might be unnecessary. Go for it! Carol Moore 13:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

The Traiger & Hinckley, LLP study shouldn't be removed. It's a high quality source. lk (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I find the Traiger & Hinckley, LLP study to be deliberately misleading. One has to scroll all the way down to page B2 to discover that "Non-CRA Banks" are actually subject to the CRA. A footnote on the same page discloses that only 1.6% of the loans in the study area were truly not subject to CRA disclosure. This mislabeling pollutes the tables, bar graphs, and pie charts, as well as the study authors' analysis, by falsely minimizing the negative impacts of the CRA throughout the industry. Also the study's foreclosure statistics are from 2006, encompassing a large period of time before the credit crunch had fully arrived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.75.131 (talk) 05:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent analysis. Why aren't you beefing up this article, oh anonymous IP? ;-) I'm motivated by solving a mystery: What percent of bad debt really is created by this law - and why aren't they talking about repealing it?? I'd be delighted kif somoene else solved it. At least clue us in if you know any good public domain charts. Carol Moore 00:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Biased Entry

Overall, this is a pretty biased entry. It begns to read like a college term paper with a central thesis about how bad banks are. I agree there are very reasonable pro's and con's for each side of the argument (for/against CRA), but this is a very one dimensional explanation of the act. I think the best way to go is to take the editorializing out of the "Changes in 2005" section, and creating a new "Criticism" category. This could also present the bank's points of view in a more neutral light. Dapdeimos (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

English is not my first language, so i may be completely wrong here, but this sentence don't make sense to me. "CRA, requires banks and *savings and loans* to offer credit throughout their entire market areas and prohibits them from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their lending and services" How can saving and loan offer credit?

I would put it this way, CRA required banks to service underserved areas and groups or something like that

—"Savings and Loans" are not always "banks." Exclusive S&L shops were more prevailant prior to the 1980s, however, there are still some around in some areas, just not as many I believe. S&L shops primarily dealt with mortgages and less with demand deposit accounts. Amdsupport 20:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Over the past year and a half, Wikipedia has allowed this entry to be hijacked by Republicans and allowed them to turn it into propaganda. It is a blatant attempt to rewrite history. Check the history, there is a two year dry spell and then a flurry of activity accusing the article of having a liberal bias and then rewriting it. Here is an article from an economist on the CRA: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/04/yet-again-it-wa.html

Here are two business articles talking about President Bush forcing Fannie Mae to expand subprime lending:

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

Here's the REPUBLICAN SEC chairman blaming deregulation for the current financial meltdown:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/business/27sec.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin

No wonder McCain wants him fired, he just blamed Republican policies for the recession.

WIKIPEDIA, take back your page. I am not going to rewrite the entire article with a liberal bias, because then I'd be no better than the people I'm complaining about. I'm asking for a FAIR article on this topic, with both sides of the story, from a moderate viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.217.185 (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue is orderly representation of reliable resources showing differing viewpoints. Putting those together in a nonbiased way is a lot of work and unfortunately we don't have a bunch of economists with WP:RS at their finger tips working on it. I've just been doing a little bit here and there but can see it would take a whole day of concentrated effort to clean this up and make it up to wiki standards. However, you cannot deny a lot of sources do blame a certain percentage of the problems on left and right special interest groups messing with regulations and profiteering off various combinations of the act, Fannie and Freddie, and secondary mortgates, etc. and the whole financial system. Carol Moore 15:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

NPOV tag?? Unless the person speaks up, I guess we'll have to assume that the person who put the POV tag on the article did so because of criticisms like the above. Carol Moore 01:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

---

Note to my talk page meant for talk, though the unsigned poster gets author wrong twice:

63.167.71.105 (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Recently, you critized a Wikipedia article for being Republican biased and submitted the two following articles as evidence of your argument:

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

The fact is, these two articles merely served to further authenticate the Wikipedia article as written. As an open-minded individual, I try to obtain all the facts on a given topic and draw my own conclusions; independent of my party affiliations. With that in mind, I was very interested in reading your submitted articles. In doing so, it became immediately clear that you were reading the articles through very liberal eyes.

The first article points out that President Bush wanted to increase the number of minority homeowners by providing government grants to minority borrowers and tax benefits to builders. His plan deals with the construction of affordable housing and does not include any form of loan deregulation.

On the other hand, the second article deals with Franklin Raines' enthusiasm for President Bush's plan. In fact, he is so enthusiastic about Bush's plan that he decides to augment it by making it easier for minorities and higher risk borrowers to obtain loans for the houses that President Bush was trying to have built.

Obviously, the construction of affordable housing did not cause the current financial crisis. If you want to point a finger, it should be directed squarely at Franklin Raines and the institutions that provided the high-risk loans. FROM THE UNSIGNED POSTER VIA Carol Moore 12:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Bush himself used his Bully Pulpit to encourage a dramatic expansion of minority home ownership; e.g. the "first article" (above).

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

It is very clear that President Bush himself was doing far more than simply proposing a program to construct new homes.

President Bush proposed helping 5.5 million minority families to buy their own homes before the end of the decade. He proposed tax incentives to result in construction of 200,000 lower-cost homes in the period. He also provided very strong, bully pulpit language endorsing the concept of dramatically extending home ownership among minorities.

Now, simple math indicates that building 200,000 lower cost homes would not begin to scratch the "new goal of helping 5.5 million minority families buy their own homes before the end of the decade."

I think that it's clear that actions of Raines and lending institutions squared with the sentiments issued from the Presidential Bully Pulpit in 2002. The vast majority of the bad loans were made after 2003.

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1812

n.b., this Wharton Business School article is the most credible explanation of the causes of the collapse of the subprime market which I've been able to find.

The vast majority of the dollar amount of the bad loans were made after 2003, when the GOP controlled both the Presidency and Congress. Charges that the Democrats "blocked" reform are spurious. There were no filibusters pertaining to any proposed reforms, which is the only way such reforms could be blocked.

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2008/09/18/republican-congress-talked-about-financial-reform-but-did-nothing.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by LWeisenthal (talk • contribs) 15:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Savings and Loans are a type of financial institutions that are state chartered. DRTAXSACTO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.56.187 (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

CRA and Fannie & Freddie troubles

There is no reliable source that links CRA to Fannie & Freddie's problems. Economists usually point at the housing bubble which they blame on financial innovation and deregulation. Before such a non-mainstream extraordinary claim can be inserted it MUST be backed up by a reliable source. Articles from right wing think tanks, self published sources and editorials are NOT enough to make such an extraordinary statement in the encyclopedic voice. lk (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion this article has some problems but some of the criticisms are also problematic. I would disagree with the sources above about "reliable sources" on CRA. The fundamental question here is how much intervention is appropriate in the marketplace to increase equity. The GSEs (Fannie and Freddie) and the CRA were all designed to level the playing field. But the moral hazard in such efforts is that leveling is in the eyes of the beholders. There is lots of good evidence that the GSEs and CRA helped to create some of the problems that we now refer to as the credit crisis. The troubles in 2002-2004 at Fannie were a good precursor of the issues. At the same time, part of the issues on the credit crisis came from things like actions of the ratings agencies who seem to have done a less than competent job in rating mortgage backed securities. Obviously some of one's perceptions on the CRA come from underlying political philosophies. The section needs at least passing reference to rent seeking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking) At some point passing reference should be made to Tullock's influential article "The Charity of the Uncharitable." Drtaxsacto

It's pretty obvious that forcing banks to make questionable loans and then making Fannie/Freddie buy the loans brought all sorts of crooks - both "activist" and "capitalist" - out of the woodwork. An unintended (or was it?) consequence of later revisions to the act. This is the point some of the challenged refs are making in opinionated fashion. I've still got a bunch of solid new refs to look through, which is one reason I'm not bothering to defend some of the more opinionated ones, or ones that draw from more solid refs that should be used instead. However, if one wants to argue that Husock is self-published, that stands even more so for Barr, Seidman and Gordon. The sources showing why CRA not to blame not that great either, by the way.

Carol Moore 14:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Banks were never forced to make questionable loans, they were simply trying to maximive shareholder returns. That's why some banks, such as WFB, are currently acquirers. Most banks never jumped on the subprime and Alt-A lending bubble.Bleacherdave (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Fannie and Freddie only deal with 'conforming loans'. That is 'prime' loans. Almost by definition, the subprime loan industry has little to do with Fannie and Freddie. I wonder if we shuld make that clearer in the article. lk (talk) 05:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What's your source? Carol Moore 13:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Husock receives undue weight

It's doubtful if the essentially self published piece by Husock should even be on this page. It certainly doesn't deserve it's own subsection. I refer to WP:UNDUE. lk (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if your user name here in talk read User:Lawrencekhoo since lk looks like a different user and could be mistaken as an attempt to use a WP:sock puppet identity. I just figured out it wasn't someone different now. Carol Moore 19:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Quotes have to be used sparingly

Editorials do not have to use NPV language, but we at Wikipedia must do so WP:NPV. Therefore, we should not quote extensively, as this will 1) introduce POV language into the article, and 2) make it seem that wikipedia advocates the poition of the person quoted. See WP:QUOTE. lk (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

more quotes exonerating CRA from subprime, should they be added?

Rob K. Blake had an article in Seeking Alpha where he said of the argument that CRA caused the subprime crisis that it's, "It's laughable. It's ridiculous. It's borderline racist." [1] It's not WP:SPS, as Seeking Alpha is a website that provides financial opinion and analysis.

There's also this in Business week http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html

lk (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

SeekingAlpha is a blog aggregator. Since Rob Blake has experience with mortgages, he's probably more qualified than someone like DiLorenzo to discuss them, so he could be added, but it's basically an opinion article. The BusinessWeek article just covers all the decent sources we've already got (Barr, Seidman, Gordon, and Traiger & Hinckley). II | (t - c) 19:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the BusinessWeek article grabbed its sources from an earlier version of this wikipedia article. As for Rob Blake being "a 15 year veteran of the mortgage industry" - I think in any case of someone profiting from the industry, we have to be skeptical. AGAIN, DeLorenzo is a professor and his opinions matter. I have been looking for better sources than opinion piece so haven't thoroughly studied if either of his two articles are solid on those grounds - however both DID generate a bit of a response so may be relevant on notability standards, as well as opinion. :-) Carol Moore 19:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I just don't see what your making this claim about the BW article on. And even so, BW put their stamp on it, so it's theirs now, not Wikipedia's. The article itself is much more than a listing of sources. Notmyrealname (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not that much of an active contributor on Wikipedia, I recently heard about this act (yes through that youtube vid) and I'm thinking it will probably be impossible to find unbiased sources. Right wingers will say this is the cause of all our problems now while left wingers will just dismiss it. I think a lot of people are going to be coming here and view this as their primary source. Maybe you could have a debate section explaining both sides opinions? I'm still new here so don't yell at me if I said something wrong. I also heard that the Community Reinvestment act was talked about in this german magazine called Der Spiegel. I don't really know that much about the article though, just heard about it. Memeligutsa (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Some passerby did create two such sections, another editor deleted them, and I haven't had that strong opinion, especially since it was divided up into different issues. I guess each one would just have differing opinions and at this point only last one on subprime does. Carol Moore 13:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

POV deletion of facts about CRA beneficiaries

I do think this article needs a good facts section - and facts on CRA related loans after 2003 so far have been hard to find. Whether or not that is done, deleting these two facts cited in sources making points about problems with CRA is pure POV protection of the subject and not NPOV editing. Do I have to get a third opinion?

• Countrywide's commitment to low-income loans had grown to $600 billion by early 2003.ref name="Liebowitz"
• From the Advocacy groups section: As of that time such groups also had received tens of billions of dollars in multi-year commitments from banks, including ACORN Housing $760 million; Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America $3 billion; a New Jersey Citizen Action-led coalition $13 billion; the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance $220 million ref name="Husock" However, I think I'll put that one back where it started in the 1995 Clinton changes section which I'm beefing up with more WP:RS sources. No one at Reliable sources noticeboard thought Husock or Manhattan Institute NOT a reliable source. Carol Moore 14:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Please see WP:UNDUE. Those paragraphs should be trimmed down as they give undue weight to a) a new york post article, and b) a self-published article by the vice-president of Manhattan Institute. I merely deleted the least important of the statements. They should in fact be trimmed further. Actually, the whole section should be trimmed down to a couple of paragraphs. lk (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it seems like a lot of statistics that make CRA or its advocates look bad keep disappearing and WP:NPOV is a higher policy than WP:UNDUE.

Liebowitz is a real live academic economist, which is what is important, not that he's in NY Post.

Husock is a contributing editor to an edited publication - saying his being VP means he's self published assumes information that we do not have and is WP:OR

Seidman and Gordon DO write blogs and there is no evidence they are edited, so I guess we better say "in their blog," Carol Moore 15:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

My argument is with the weight that Husock, a former journalist (not an economist, banker or lawyer) and his arguably self published opinion piece is getting. He gets a whole section a longish paragraph.

Compare with: Tenured law professor Michael S. Barr gets two sentences. A research paper by two economists at the Federal reserve gets one sentence. Economist Luci Ellis gets one sentence. Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco gets one sentence. Ellen Seidman, former director of the Office of Thrift Supervision gets two sentences.

And you've repeatedly removed: A white paper by a reputable law firm. An opinion piece printed in Businessweek.

lk (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The facts from Husock will be found in his book and moved to the fact section where relevant. And if you re-read the problems with the CRA attorney's biased paper above, you wouldn't bring it up again, not to mention the fact that Business week cribbed their sources from this article! Carol Moore 17:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Husock's book is a collection of his City Journal essays. There are essentially the same thing. Exactly what problems are there with the Law firm's white paper, except your assertion that they have clients that benefit from CRA? lk (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break. The book is published by a publisher. See last 5 or 6 comments on Traiger here Talk:Community_Reinvestment_Act#Criticism_section_is_total_nonsense. Carol Moore 18:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

If the essays are published by a university press or other major publishing house, then they would gain stature. But if their publication is paid for by the Manhattan Institute, I really don't see what difference that would make. On the Traiger article – let me get this straight – based on original research by an anoymous IP, we are to believe that the Traiger paper is misleading and therefore shouldn't be included? lk (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

How do you know Manhattan Institute paid for it? I don't. Why are you prejudiced against journalists? 50% of wiki refs probably come from journalists.

As for Traiger, given comments on WP:RS/N, I guess the important this is to describe them accurate: Traiger & Whose, LLC, which counsels financial services entities on Community Reinvestment Act compliance, per http://www.traigerlaw.com/index.php So people can make up their own minds of whether they are credible :-) Also someone else was calling it a "Criticisms" section which is why I changed since I figured it must be misnomered. Carol Moore 19:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I am prejudiced against journalists ;) From my participation in press conferences and from reading news articles on topics I have knowledge of, it seems that much of the time, journalists get things more wrong than right. lk (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on the reliability of sources at WP:RS/N

Carolmoore has started a discussion on the reliability of the sources used here over at WP:RS/N. Note that there is an entry on the Manhattan Institute, and another entry on the Business Week article. lk (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Niskasen info could go to 1995 clinton

First I think it is clear he is talking about the whole banking system contracting, and just using the fact that it would hurt the poor to make a point, since obviously that was the intent of the original bill. However, I'm just as happy to add it where it really belongs, in the 1995 Clinton section, which I am trying to work on still. Carol Moore 21:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc