Subprime Meltdown Hbr Case

The mortgage crisis of 2007 marked catastrophe for millions of homeowners who suffered from foreclosure and short sales. Most of the problems involving the foreclosing of families’ homes could boil down to risky borrowing and lending. Lenders were pushed to ensure families would be eligible for a loan, when in previous years the same families would have been deemed too high-risk to obtain any kind of loan. With the increase in high-risk families obtaining loans, there was a huge increase in home buyers and subsequently a rapid increase in home prices. As a result, prices peaked and then began falling just as fast as they rose. Soon after families began to default on their mortgages forcing them either into foreclosure or short sales. Who was to blame for the risky lending and borrowing that caused the mortgage meltdown? Many might blame the company Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but in reality the entire system of buying and selling and free market failed home owners and the housing economy.

The responsibilities of the mortgage brokers to the borrowers, lenders, and investors were to promote the subprime mortgages to these groups of people in order for them to take out a loan. Although they did fulfill their responsibilities of promoting and having people sign up for it, they mishandled on how people should be granted for a mortgage loan. These brokers were to desperate about earning huge amount of money due to the expanding market that they ignored the proper precaution that they should have taken when they

After the optimistic forecast from the realstate that the houses value were going to increase, many institutions started to make adjustments to take profit from this trend. In some cases, prime mortgages were allowed for subprime borrowers to take. This might look like a great idea to financial institutions because the house values were rising: if a people (who in the first place couldn’t afford a house) stop paying their mortgages then the bank could sell the house for a value greater than the one at the moment of default. Everything was going well, so how is it that the crisis unfolded? Well, these institutions wanted to make more profit

Subprime lending became prevalent in the early 2000’s when property values were sky-rocketing and many Americans thought they would fulfill their home ownership dreams, by obtaining loans they may not otherwise qualify for. A subprime loan is a loan offered to an individual who does not qualify for a loan at the prime rate due to their credit history. Subprime loans have higher interest rates because of the risk that the lender is taking. During the early 2000’s the housing market was great for homebuyers, since interest rates where low and property values

In 2008 the real estate market crashed because of the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act and Commodities Futures Modernization Act, which led to shady mortgage lending or “liar loans” (Hartman). The loans primarily approved for lower income and middle class borrowers with little income or no job income verification, which lead to many buyers purchasing homes they could not afford because everyone wants a piece of the American dream; homeownership. Because of “reckless lending to lower- and middle-income borrowers who could not afford to repay their loans many of the home buyers lost everything when the market collapsed” (Tankersley 3). Homeowners often continued to live in their houses for months or years without paying any

Simply put, it all commenced within the United States housing market. In the years leading up to 2008, buying and selling mortgages became a very popular way for lenders to make money. While housing prices continued to increase, lenders found themselves in a win-win situation. If homeowners paid their mortgages, the lenders made money. If homeowners could not pay their mortgages, they would

According to Bates & Robb (2015), the history of subprime mortgage lending dates back to the early 1970's when the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) passed. The CRA change the way federally chartered banks loan money in inner-city communities to primarily low income and minority consumers (Schuchter, & Jutte, 2014). The intent of the CRA was not to prevent the financial crisis; however, it did play a role in the mortgage crisis. The original indictment of the statute, however, it failed to insulate low- and moderate-income communities from the harshest impacts of the crisis (Brescia, 2014). The CRA legislation purpose is to generate a response to lending activities that occurred primarily in urban communities, but it also applies to depository

EXAMINE THE FACTS. The housing market was making huge financial gains by misleading buyers into buying home that were out of their budget, lenders and originator created unconventional mortgages to people who were at high risk for default.

A few years later the market took a turn for the worse, where interest rates were on the rise, and homes were losing their value quickly. Now borrowers that were in these interest only ARM’s needed to refinance these loans because the rates were going up, to a point where the homeowner was not be able to afford the payment. The Federal Reserve tried to stimulate the economy by lowering interest rates during the recession in early 2001, from over 6% in 2000, to a rate just above 1.25% in 2002. These low rates encouraged many Americans to apply for loans for homes that a few years ago they would have not been able to. To encourage the homeownership boom, the Bush administration urged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to allot more money for low-income borrowers so they could buy their own homes. This resulted in the subprime mortgage

The mortgage lenders were extremely greedy, they offered undocumented immigrants as well as citizens the high-risk loans. These immigrants were not in a place where they could take any type of loans or be in debt with any corporation. However, the mortgage loans were easy to obtain so they give in. If anyone of these subprime borrowers didn’t sign the loan, they would have felt like they missed out an opportunity to own a house. They didn’t take into consideration the adjustable interest but the interest only loans was more enticing.

There is no doubt that subprime lending was a major cause of the Recession. It was a tactic used by investment banks in order to get more money from unsuspecting homeowners. However, lenders found out that most of the people who were qualified to have a mortgage already had one. In turn, the lenders had to lower their credit criteria for people to take out a loan on a house. This is how the term subprime lending came to be in the financial world. As a result of subprime lending, the investors were able to make millions off of these mortgages. People who qualified for a subprime mortgage usually had a credit score below that of 620. To make the subprime mortgage deal more customer friendly, the lending banks decided to have the people who qualified for these mortgages didn’t have to have a down payment. Normally, the down payment would be as much as 20%, but this made it easier for people to get mortgages without having to worry about how much money they needed at the beginning of their purchase. “ Many American homeowners bought houses they could not afford,

The problem was everyone who qualified for a mortgage already had one. Lenders knew if they sold a mortgage to a person that defaults the lender gets the house, and houses were always increasing in value in that market, that would be a valuable asset to sell. To keep up with the demand from investors, lenders started selling mortgages to borrowers who wouldn’t have qualified before because of the risk for default. These mortgages are called sub-prime mortgages and lenders started creating tons of them. In the unregulated market, lenders employed predatory tactics to get more borrowers with attractive offers such as no money down, no credit history required, even no proof of income. People never would have qualified before were now buying large houses, and the lenders sold their mortgages to Investment bankers. The investors packed subprime mortgages in with prime mortgages so credit agencies would still give a AAA rating. The rating Agencies who had a conflict of interest by receiving payments from the investment banks, had no liability if their credit ratings were correct or not. They turned a blind eye to the risky CDOs and kept giving AAA ratings. This worked for a while and everyone was happy including the new homeowners. The housing market became hyper inflated with more homeowners than ever. Wall Street continued to sell their CDO’s which were ticking time bombs. The subprime mortgages began

The U.S. subprime mortgage crisis was a set of events that led to the 2008 financial crisis, characterized by a rise in subprime mortgage defaults and foreclosures. This paper seeks to explain the causes of the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis and how this has led to a generalized credit crisis in other financial sectors that ultimately affects the real economy. In recent decades, financial industry has developed quickly and various financial innovation techniques have been abused widely, which is the main cause of this international financial crisis. In addition, deregulation, loose monetary policies of the Federal Reserve, shadow banking system also play

With all of the incentives and mortgage products given so easily to people that couldn’t afford the high prices (including interest rates), many people defaulted on their first mortgages because they were no longer were able to receive the profit from the homes they first intended to flip. “During the first quarter of 2008, nearly 9% of all mortgage holders were delinquent or in foreclosure, the highest rate since recordkeeping began in 1979. Foreclosure filings more than

Due to such events as the subprime mortgage crisis, the auto market and Wall Street’s failure, the United States suffered a severe economic blow. Looking at the situation from an economic view, supply is supposed to equal demand. Due to the mortgage crisis and the careless attempts of some to make money, there is a superfluous amount of empty homes throughout the United States. In the subprime mortgage crisis, the nature of the failure was the inability to account for money given to individuals, who lack the appropriate requirements. In order to obtain a loan, collateral is needed. References were not being checked and poor credit history went ignored. People were obtaining loans and not paying attention to the interests rates associated. “This time around, the slack standards allowed millions of high-risk borrowers to get easy home mortgages. When this so-called subprime market collapsed beginning about a year ago, ordinary working people bore the brunt” (Gallagher, 2008). Companies were so anxious to place people in homes, that it cost them billions of dollars and