Subprime lending

In finance, subprime lending (also referred to as near-prime, non-prime, and second-chance lending) means making loans that are in the riskiest category of consumer loans and are typically sold in a separate market from prime loans. The standards for determining risk categories refer to the size of the loan, "traditional" or "nontraditional" structure of the loan, borrower credit rating, ratio of borrower debt to income or assets, ratio of loan to value or collateral, and documentation provided on those loans which do not meet Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac underwriting guidelines for prime mortgages (are "non-conforming"). Although there is no single, standard definition, in the United States subprime loans are usually classified as those where the borrower has a FICO score below 640. Subprime lending encompasses a variety of credit types, including mortgages, auto loans, and credit cards. The term was popularized by the media during the "credit crunch" of 2007.

"Subprime" could also refer to a security for which a return above the "prime" rate is adhered, also known as C-paper. Subprime borrowers show data on their credit reports associated with higher default rates, including limited debt experience, excessive debt, a history of missed payments, failures to pay debts, and recorded bankruptcies. Proponents of subprime lending maintain that the practice extends credit to people who would otherwise not have access to the credit market.[1]

Contents

Background

Subprime lendings evolved with the realization of a demand in the marketplace for loans to high-risk borrowers with imperfect credit.[2] The first subprime was initiated in 1993. Many companies entered the market when the prime interest rate was low, and real interest became negative allowing modest subprime rates to flourish; negative interest rates are hand-outs, such that the more you borrow the more you earn. Others entered with the relaxation of usury laws.[2] Traditional lenders were more cautious and historically turned away potential borrowers with impaired or limited credit histories.[2] Statistically, approximately 25% of the population of the United States falls into this category. In 1998, the Federal Trade Commission estimated that 10% of new-car financing in the US was provided by subprime loans, and that $125 billion of $859 billion total mortgage dollars were subprime.[2]

In the third quarter of 2007, subprime ARMs only represented 6.8% of the mortgages outstanding in the US, yet they represented 43.0% of the foreclosures started. Subprime fixed mortgages represented 6.3% of outstanding loans and 12.0% of the foreclosures started in the same period.[3]

Subprime lenders

To access this increasing market, lenders often take on risks associated with lending to people with poor credit ratings or limited credit histories. For example, they would lend money to consumers that have bad credit. The FICO score indicates to the lender the rate of default. Those with credit scores below 620 have a much higher default rate than those with credit score above 720. However, if a borrower has sufficient income then he or she may qualify for a subprime mortgage product. Subprime loans are considered to carry a far greater risk for the lender due to the aforementioned credit risk characteristics of the typical subprime borrower. Lenders use a variety of methods to offset these risks. In the case of many subprime loans, this risk is offset with a higher interest rate. In the case of subprime credit cards, a subprime customer may be charged higher late fees, higher over-the-limit fees, yearly fees, or up-front fees for the card. Late fees are charged to the account, which may drive the customer over their credit limit, resulting in over-the-limit fees. These higher fees compensate the lender for the increased costs associated with servicing and collecting such accounts, as well as for the higher default rate.

Borrower profiles

Subprime loans can offer an opportunity for borrowers with a less-than-ideal credit record to become a home owner. Borrowers may use this credit to purchase homes, or in the case of a cash-out refinance, finance other forms of spending such as purchasing a car, paying for living expenses, remodeling a home, or even paying down on a high-interest credit card. However, due to the risk profile of the subprime borrower, this access to credit comes at the price of higher interest rates, increased fees and other increased costs. Subprime lending (and mortgages in particular) provides a method of "credit repair"; if borrowers maintain a good payment record, they should be able to refinance into mainstream rates after two to three years. In the United Kingdom, most subprime mortgages have a two or three-year tie-in, and borrowers may face additional charges for replacing their mortgages before the tie-in has expired.

Generally, the credit profile keeping a borrower out of a prime loan may include one or more of the following:

Private label credit

In the USA, this group of credit companies includes major banks such as Wells Fargo, CitiBank, GE Credit, Household Finance, and more. While it is not certain what percentage of subprime lending involves the private label branding of the retail chains, most national retail chains use some form of subprime lending as a marketing strategy. Deferred interest programming may result in high default rates that must be offset by aggressive lending practices. It is common for a $200,000,000 furniture retailer to have 50% of their long-term business be derived from the direct result of private label credit promotions.

Origination, securitization and servicing

Some subprime originators (mortgage companies or brokers) formerly promoted residential loans with features that could trap financially naive, low income borrowers into loans with increasing yield terms that eventually exceed borrower’s capability to make the payments. Most of these loans were originated for the purpose of selling them into securitization conduits, which are special purpose entities (REMICs) that issue residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), bonds, securities and other investment vehicles for resale to pension funds and other fixed income investors. The same process takes place for some commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS).

Some of these mortgage originators are owned or controlled by major financial institutions which provide a "Warehouse" line for their lending. For example, First Franklin was owned by Merrill Lynch and WMC was owned by GE. These financial institutions then remain in control of these loans as "Trustee", "Servicers" and "Controlling Class" of the REMIC trusts in hopes of deriving significant fees and other income from management of Taxes, Insurance and Repair Reserve Funds required by the terms of these mortgages.

In most cases, should these loans default, the servicing is passed to "Special Servicers" who derive "Workout", "Foreclosures" and Real estate owned (REO) management fees. The Special Servicers are directed by "Directing Class" or "Controlling Class" which comprise of majority holders of the lowest class of REMIC Trust securities also referred to as "First Loss" or "B-Piece" holders.

The shortfall of loan repayment is usually repaid as a result of "Repurchase Demand" by Special Servicer on GSE or loan seller to REMIC Trust also called "Loan Depositor." The purchased collateral at auctions by Special Servicers are referred to as REO properties which then can be marketed and sold for market value. Special Servicers usually keep the "Upside" or difference between auction price and market sale of the collateral. These foreclosure fees and REO income form a major incentive for Servicers to purchase the "Servicing Rights" of the REMIC trusts from Trustees who, depending on the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA), have the authority to replace Servicers. It is not uncommon for a predatory Servicer to pay millions of dollars to procure the "Servicing Rights" of the REMIC trusts in hopes of successful foreclosures and equity stripping from Borrowers, Guarantors, Loan Sellers and Investors.

REMIC Trusts are "Passive" or "Pass-Through" Entities under the IRS code and are not taxed at trust level. However, the bond-holders are expected to be taxpaying entities and are taxed on interest income distributed by the REMIC trusts. REMIC trusts are forbidden from any other business activities and are taxed 100% on any other income they may generate which is referred to as "Prohibited Income" under IRC 860 Code.

Types

Subprime mortgages

Advertisement by a subprime lender in London

Like other subprime loans, subprime mortgages are defined by the financial and credit profile of the consumers to which they are marketed. According to the US Department of Treasury guidelines issued in 2001, "Subprime borrowers typically have weakened credit histories that include payment delinquencies, and possibly more severe problems such as charge-offs, judgments, and bankruptcies. They may also display reduced repayment capacity as measured by credit scores, debt-to-income ratios, or other criteria that may encompass borrowers with incomplete credit histories."

Subprime mortgage loans are riskier loans in that they are made to borrowers unable to qualify under traditional, more stringent criteria due to a limited or blemished credit history. Subprime borrowers are generally defined as individuals with limited income or having FICO credit scores below 620 on a scale that ranges from 300 to 850.[4] Subprime mortgage loans have a much higher rate of default than prime mortgage loans and are priced based on the risk assumed by the lender.

In contrast, the majority of borrowers that receive "prime" mortgage loans from Fannie Mae have a FICO score above 620, a debt-to-income ratio less than 45%, and a combined loan-to-value ratio of 90%. While FICO scores have a median of 723[5] (meaning half of all Americans at the time of the statistic fell above this level and half below), a score of 620 is simply a point many financial institutions use a basic measure of moderate, yet manageable, risk. Having a debt-to-income ratio less than 45% means that no more than 45% of the borrower's gross income pays for housing and other debts, meaning the borrower is more likely to have the income necessary to make the required payments without subjecting the lender to increased costs associated with servicing and collecting delinquent accounts. The loan-to-value ratio simply means that the borrower's down payment is for at least 10% of the total appraised value of the property.

Although most home loans are not subprime mortgages, their numbers rapidly grew in the 1990's. According to the Federal Reserve, the number of sub-prime mortgages grew 19-fold from 1993 to 2000.[6] Additionally, the large majority of sub-prime loans were made to low-income neighborhoods and to minorities. This spawned criticism of possible predatory lending practices [7] and also provided fuel for critics of the controversial Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which promoted such lending practices. Subprime mortgages totaled $600 billion in 2006, accounting for about one-fifth of the US home loan market.[8]

As with other types of mortgage, various special loan features are available with subprime mortgages, including:

This last class of mortgages has grown particularly popular among subprime lenders since the 1990s. Common subprime hybrids include the "2-28 loan", which offers a low initial interest rate that stays fixed for two years after which the loan resets to a higher adjustable rate for the remaining life of the loan, in this case 28 years. The new interest rate is typically set at some margin over an index, for example, 5% over a 12-month LIBOR. Variations on the "2-28" include the "3-27" and the "5-25".

Subprime credit cards

Credit card companies in the United States began offering subprime credit cards to borrowers with low credit scores and a history of defaults or bankruptcy in the 1990s when usury laws were relaxed. These cards usually begin with low credit limits and usually carry extremely high fees and interest rates as high as 30% or more.[9] In 2002, as economic growth in the United States slowed, the default rates for subprime credit card holders increased dramatically, and many subprime credit card issuers were forced to scale back or cease operations.

In 2007, many new subprime credit cards began to sprout forth in the market. As more vendors emerged, the market became more competitive, forcing issuers to make the cards more attractive to consumers. Interest rates on subprime cards now start at 9.9% but in some cases still range up to 24% APR.

In some situations, subprime credit cards may help a consumer improve poor credit scores. Most subprime cards report to major credit reporting agencies such as TransUnion and Equifax, but in the case of "secured" cards, credit scoring often reflects the nature of the card being reported and may or may not consider it. Issuers of these cards claim that consumers who pay their bills on time should see positive reporting to these agencies within 90 days.

Proponents

Individuals who have experienced severe financial problems are usually labeled as higher risk and therefore have greater difficulty obtaining credit, especially for large purchases such as automobiles or real estate. These individuals may have had job loss, previous debt or marital problems, or unexpected medical issues, usually unforeseen and causing major financial setbacks. As a result, late payments, charge-offs, repossessions and even bankruptcy or foreclosures may result. From a servicing standpoint, these loans have a statistically higher rate of default and are more likely to experience repossessions and charge offs. Lenders use the higher interest rate and fees to offset these anticipated higher costs.

Due to these previous credit problems, these individuals may also be precluded from obtaining any type of conventional loan. To meet this demand, lenders have seen that a tiered pricing arrangement, one which allows these individuals to receive loans but pay a higher interest rate and higher fees, may allow loans which otherwise would not occur. Provided that a consumer enters into this arrangement with the understanding that they are higher risk, and must make diligent efforts to pay, these loans do indeed serve those who would otherwise be under-served. Continuing the example of an auto loan, the consumer must purchase an automobile which is well within their means, and carries a payment well within their budgets.

In 1999, under pressure from the Clinton administration, Fannie Mae, the nation's largest home mortgage underwriter, relaxed credit requirements on the loans it would purchase from other banks and lenders, hoping that easing these restrictions would result in increased loan availability for minority and low-income buyers. Putting pressure on the GSE's (Government Sponsored Enterprise) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Clinton administration looked to increase their sub-prime portfolios, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development expressing its interest in the GSE's maintaining a 50% portion of their portfolios in loans to low and moderate-income borrowers.[10]

As noted, subprime mortgages sky-rocketed during the initial era of loosening of terms throughout the 1990's. From a low of 5% of mortgages in 1994, to 14% in 1997, to 23% in 2005, subprime mortgages continued to boom in the early 2000's. Following the 2004 initiative policy change spearheaded by a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital, subprimes became an even greater investment vehicle for investment banks and institutions in the U.S. and around the world. Since 1994, the securitization rate of subprime loans has increased from approximately 32 percent to nearly 78 percent of total subprime originations.[11] This further exposed the financial community to the effects of the coming housing bubble.

Criticism

“ Subprime is Wall Street's euphemism for junk. ”

—Andy Serwer and Allan Sloan, How Financial Madness Overtook Wall Street, TIME, September 18, 2008

Capital markets operate on the basic premise of risk versus reward. Investors taking a risk on stocks expect a higher rate of return than do investors in risk-free Treasury bills, Guaranteed Investment Certificates, etc. which are backed by the full faith and credit of the issuing country or institution. The same goes for loans. Less creditworthy subprime borrowers represent a riskier investment, so lenders will charge them a higher interest rate than they would charge a prime borrower for the same loan.

To avoid high initial mortgage payments, many subprime borrowers took out adjustable-rate mortgages (or ARMs) that give them a lower initial interest rate. But with potential annual adjustments of 2% or more per year, these loans can end up costing much more. So a $500,000 loan at a 4% interest rate for 30 years equates to a payment of about $2,400 a month. But the same loan at 10% for 27 years (after the adjustable period ends) equates to a payment of $4,220. A 6% increase in the rate caused slightly more than a 75% increase in the payment.[12] This is even more apparent when the lifetime cost of the loan is considered (though most people will want to refinance their loans periodically). The total cost of the above loan at 4% is $864,000, while the higher rate of 10% would incur a lifetime cost of $1,367,280.

On the other hand, interest rates on ARMs can also go down — in the US, some interest rates are tied to federal government-controlled interest rates, so when the Federal Reserve cuts rates, ARM rates go down, too. Most subprime ARM loans are tied to London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) - a rate trading system originating in Britain. ARM interest rates usually adjust once a year or per quarter, and the rate is based on a calculation specified in the loan documents. Also, most ARMs limit the amount of change in a rate. See Adjustable rate mortgages.

Mortgage discrimination

Some subprime lending practices have raised concerns about mortgage discrimination on the basis of race. The NAACP filed a lawsuit in federal court in Los Angeles against 12 mortgage lenders. The lawsuit accuses the companies of steering black borrowers into subprime loans.[13] Black and other ethnic minorities disproportionately fall into the category of "subprime borrowers", even when median income levels were comparable, 46% of home buyers in the African American Neighborhood of Jamaica Queens, New York City received loans from sub-prime lenders while only 3.6% of those in a predominantly white Bay Ridge, Brooklyn received a loan from a subprime lender.[13] Interest rates and the availability of credit are often tied to credit scores. The results of a study by the Texas Department of Insurance in 2004 found that of the 2 million Texans surveyed, "black policyholders had average credit scores that were 10% to 35% worse than those of white policyholders. Hispanics' average scores were 5% to 25% worse, while Asians' scores were roughly the same as whites."[14] It should be noted that while this shows association (thereby demonstrating the possibility of the existence of ethnicity-based discrimination), it does not show causation.

Definition

The meaning of "subprime" changed during the last quarter of the 20th century. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, in 1976 a subprime loan was one with a below-prime interest rate; it wasn't until 1993 that the term took on its present meaning.[15]

The American Dialect Society designated the word "subprime" as the 2007 word of the year on January 4, 2008.[16]

US subprime mortgage crisis

Main article: Subprime mortgage crisis

Beginning in late 2006, the US subprime mortgage industry entered what many observers have begun to refer to as a meltdown. A steep rise in the rate of subprime mortgage defaults and foreclosures has caused more than 100 subprime mortgage lenders to fail or file for bankruptcy, most prominently New Century Financial Corporation, previously the nation's second biggest subprime lender.[17] The failure of these companies has caused prices in the $6.5 trillion mortgage backed securities market to collapse, threatening broader impacts on the US housing market and economy as a whole. The crisis is ongoing and has received considerable attention from the US media and from lawmakers during the first half of 2007.[18][19]

However, the crisis has had far-reaching consequences across the world. Tranches of sub-prime debts were repackaged by banks and trading houses into attractive-looking investment vehicles and securities that were snapped up by banks, traders and hedge funds on the US, European and Asian markets. Thus when the crisis hit the subprime mortgage industry, those who bought into the market suddenly found their investments near-valueless - or impossible to accurately value. Being unable to accurately assess the value of an asset leads to uncertainty. With market uncertainty, banks reined in their lending to each other and to business, leading to rising interest rates and difficulty in maintaining credit lines. As a result, ordinary, run-of-the-mill and healthy businesses across the world with no direct connection whatsoever to US sub-prime suddenly started facing difficulties or even folding due to the banks' unwillingness to budge on credit lines.

Observers of the meltdown have cast blame widely. Some have highlighted the practices of subprime lenders and the lack of effective government oversight.[20] Others have charged mortgage brokers with steering borrowers to unaffordable loans, appraisers with inflating housing values, and Wall Street investors with backing subprime mortgage securities without verifying the strength of the underlying loans. Borrowers have also been criticized for entering into loan agreements they could not meet.[21]

Many accounts of the crisis also highlight the role of falling home prices since 2005. As housing prices rose from 2000 to 2005, borrowers having difficulty meeting their payments were still building equity, thus making it easier for them to refinance or sell their homes. But as home prices have weakened in many parts of the country, these strategies have become less available to subprime borrowers.[22]

Several industry experts have suggested that the crisis may soon worsen. Lewis Ranieri, formerly of Salomon Brothers, considered one of the inventors of the mortgage-backed securities market in the 1970s and 1980s, warned of the future impact of mortgage defaults: "This is the leading edge of the storm. ... If you think this is bad, imagine what it's going to be like in the middle of the crisis."[23] Echoing these concerns, consumer rights attorney Irv Ackelsberg predicted in testimony to the US Senate Banking Committee that five million foreclosures may occur over the next several years as interest rates on subprime mortgages issued in 2004 and 2005 reset from the initial, lower, fixed rate to the higher, floating adjustable rate or "adjustable rate mortgage".[24] Other experts have raised concerns that the crisis may spread to the so-called Alternative-A (Alt-A) mortgage sector, which makes loans to borrowers with better credit than subprime borrowers at not quite prime rates.[25]

Some economists, including former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan in March 2007, expected subprime-mortgage defaults to cause problems for the economy, especially so if US home prices fell.[26]

Other economists, such as Edward Leamer, an economist with the UCLA Anderson Forecast, doubt home prices will fall dramatically because most owners won't have to sell, but still predicts home values will remain flat or slightly depressed for the next three or four years.[27]

In the UK, some commentators have predicted that the UK housing market will in fact be largely unaffected by the US subprime crisis, and have classed it as a localised phenomenon.[28] However, in September 2007 Northern Rock, the UK's fifth largest mortgage provider, had to seek emergency funding from the Bank of England, the UK's central bank as a result of problems in international credit markets attributed to the sub-prime lending crisis.

As the crisis has unfolded and predictions about it strengthening have increased, some Democratic lawmakers, such as Senators Charles Schumer, Robert Menendez, and Sherrod Brown have suggested that the US government should offer funding to help troubled borrowers avoid losing their homes.[29] Some economists criticize the proposed bailout, saying it could have the effect of causing more defaults or encouraging riskier lending.

On August 15, 2007, concerns about the subprime mortgage lending industry caused a sharp drop in stocks across the Nasdaq and Dow Jones, which affected almost all the stock markets worldwide. Record lows were observed in stock market prices across the Asian and European continents.[30] The US market had recovered all those losses within 2 days.

Concern in late 2007 increased as the August market recovery was lost, in spite of the Fed cutting interest rates by half a point (0.5%) on September 18 and by a quarter point (0.25%) on October 31. Stocks are testing their lows of August now.

On December 6, 2007, President Bush announced a plan to voluntarily and temporarily freeze the mortgages of a limited number of mortgage debtors holding ARMs by the Hope Now Alliance. He also asked members of Congress to: 1. Pass legislation to modernize the FHA. 2. Temporarily reform the tax code to help homeowners refinance during this time of housing market stress. 3. Pass funding to support mortgage counseling. 4. Pass legislation to reform Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.[31]

In late March 2008, Friedman Billings Ramsey reported the default rate on securitized subprime loans hit 25.2% in December 2007.[32] Alt-A loan defaults also increased to 8.65%. (The default rate includes loans 90 days or more past due, in foreclosure, and real estate owned.)

See also

  • Carry trade
  • collateralized mortgage obligation - "CMO"
  • Alt-A mortgages (Alternative A-paper)
  • A-paper

References

  1. ↑ Goolsbee, Austan (2007-03-29). "'Irresponsible' Mortgages Have Opened Doors to Many of the Excluded". Economic Scene (The New York Times). http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29scene.html?ex=1332820800&en=e09a15f9b118d649&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss. Retrieved 2007-08-12. "Professor Rosen explains, "The main thing that innovations in the mortgage market have done over the past 30 years is to let in the excluded: the young, the discriminated against, the people without a lot of money in the bank to use for a down payment."" 
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Bjorhus, Jennifer (1998-10-06). "Mortgage lender starts liquidation". The Internet Archive. Archived from the original on 2008-10-10.
  3. ↑ "Delinquencies and Foreclosures Increase in Latest MBA National Delinquency Survey". Mbaa.org. 2007-12-06. http://www.mbaa.org/NewsandMedia/PressCenter/58758.htm. Retrieved 2010-05-01. 
  4. ↑ Lee, Mara. "Subprime Mortgages: A Primer". NPR. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9085408 
  5. ↑ New Mortgages Worry Regulators, Washington Post, June 10, 2006.
  6. ↑ Remarks by Governor Edward M. Gramlich, from FederalReserve.Gov Archives.
  7. ↑ Prepared statement on Predatory Lending Practices in the Home-Equity Lending Market, from FTC.Gov Archives.
  8. ↑ anurag. "Subprime lending, subprime mortgages, subprime car loans, subprime credit cards, U.S. subprime crisis". Banknet India. http://www.banknetindia.com/banking/subprime.htm. Retrieved 2010-05-01. 
  9. ↑ ""Need a Loan? No Problem."". Fool.com. http://www.fool.com/ccc/secrets/secrets02.htm. Retrieved 2010-05-01. 
  10. ↑ Holmes, Steven A., "Fannie Mae eases credit to ease mortgage lending," New York Times, Sept. 30, 1999.
  11. ↑ White, Brenda B., "A Short History of Subprime" AllBusiness, Mar. 1, 2006.
  12. ↑ Gad, Sham (2007-07-10). "The Skinny on Subprime". Fool.com. http://www.fool.com/investing/value/2007/07/10/the-skinny-on-subprime.aspx. Retrieved 2010-05-01. 
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 Study Finds Disparities in Mortgages by Race The New York Times By MANNY FERNANDEZ Published: October 15, 2007
  14. ↑ Weston, Liz Pulliam. "Is your insurer discriminating against you?". MSN Money. http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/KnowYourRights/IsYourInsurerDiscriminatingAgainstYou.aspx 
  15. ↑ Notes on OED's June 2008 release of new words from the Oxford English Dictionary website
  16. ↑ 2007 Word of the Year from the American Dialect Society
  17. ↑ Morgenson, Gretchen. "Crisis Looms in Market for Mortgages". The New York Times, March 11, 2007. Retrieved April 19, 2007.
  18. ↑ [1]
  19. ↑ "The Mortgage Lender Implode-O-Meter - tracking the housing finance breakdown, related to Alt-A and subprime mortgages, lending fraud, predatory lending, housing bubble, mortgage banking, foreclosures, debt, consolidation, lawyers, class-action lawsuits". Ml-implode.com. 2007-10-18. http://www.ml-implode.com/. Retrieved 2010-05-01. 
  20. ↑ Still others have cited government mandated affirmative action based lending in order to increase home ownership among minorities. Fuseaction=Articles.Detail&Article_id=125&Month=3&Year=2007 "Opening Statement of Chairman Chris Dodd - Hearing on Mortgage Market Turmoil: Causes and Consequences". United States Senate. 2007-03-22. http://banking.senate.gov/index.cfm? Still others have cited government mandated affirmative action based lending in order to increase home ownership among minorities. Fuseaction=Articles.Detail&Article_id=125&Month=3&Year=2007. "people paying the price for the regulators’ inaction are homeowners across America struggling ... Homeownership is supposed to be a ticket to the middle class. Predatory lending reverses the trip." 
  21. ↑ Christie, Les. "Subprime blame game". CNNMoney.com (CNN). http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/real_estate/0704/gallery.paly_the_subprime_blame_game/index.html?section=money_realestate. Retrieved 2007-08-12. "In the end, they are responsible for deciding that they could afford the mortgage and signing the papers. No one forced them to take on a loan they couldn't afford." 
  22. ↑ Morgenson, Gretchen. "FAIR GAME; Home Loans: A Nightmare Grows Darker". The New York Times, April 8, 2007. Retrieved on March 23, 2008.
  23. ↑ "Has the Housing Crisis Finally Arrived?" The Trumpet.com, March 29, 2007. Retrieved on April 19, 2007.
  24. ↑ By Les Christie, CNNMoney.com staff writer (2007-03-22). "Subprime lenders deny responsibility - Mar. 22, 2007". Money.cnn.com. http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/22/real_estate/subprime_lenders_deny_responsibility/index.htm?postversion=2007032218. Retrieved 2010-05-01. 
  25. ↑ Fleckenstein, Bill. "Next: The real estate market freeze". MSN.com, March 12, 2007. Retrieved on April 19, 2007.
  26. ↑ Strasburg, Jenny. "Subprime Defaults to Soar, Hurt Lenders, Funds Say". Bloomberg.com, March 15, 2007. Retrieved on April 19, 2007.
  27. ↑ Associated Press. "Will subprime mess ripple through economy". MSN.com, March 13, 2007. Retrieved on April 19, 2007.
  28. ↑ Durrant, Brian. Will the US subprime crisis cause a UK property meltdown?MoneyWeek, April 13, 2007
  29. ↑ Zibel, Alan and Dan Caterinicchia (2007-04-11). ""U.S. Housing Aid needed, Schumer says"". Boston.com. http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/04/11/washington_sees_housing_woes_worsening/?page=2. Retrieved 2007-04-19. 
  30. ↑ TOBY ANDERSON, AP Business Writer (2007-08-15). ""European markets slide; Asia closes down"". news.yahoo.com. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070815/ap_on_bi_ge/world_markets. Retrieved 2007-08-15. 
  31. ↑ "Fact Sheet: Helping American Families Keep Their Homes". Georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov. 2007-12-06. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20071206-7.html. Retrieved 2010-05-01. 
  32. ↑ FBR Capital Markets

External links