ADN

http://clearinghouse.wustl.edu/detail.p ... 7CcaseName;

Case Name:
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011

Summary: In 1994, A case that charged Citibank with not lending enough to Black appilicants, regardless of ability to pay Mortgage.

The Result: Settlement out of court, and the beginning of the re-installment of President Carter's Community Reinvestment Act; ramped up by current President Clinton. Becomes one of the most cited cases in accusations that loan applicants were not black enough, and become catalyst for "quota" loan giving as a criteria for lenders, mentioned by name in other settlements. By 1997, there was a notable Subprime Mortgage crisis in plain sight.

What does this have to do with The Democratic Presidential Candidate?

One of the plaintiff's EIGHT lawyers:

Obama, Barack H. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000

He has second from the bottom billing on the side of the plaintiff, and was just a junior lawyer, but Barack is one of the DAMNED EIGHT.

I meant to respond to this earlier, and forgot...so...Anyway...Sometimes, when you post these articles, I'm wondering if you do it to test readers or something...

raum's source wrote:Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories.

Where'd you get that 'ability to pay' jingle from man..? That's clearly what the summary says, on the article you posted...

And again, I don't see the point...

Kumicho wrote:Where'd you get that 'ability to pay' jingle from man..? That's clearly what the summary says, on the article you posted...

And again, I don't see the point...

OK, i guess i can't try and make it and simple, and post the record.

"ability to pay" is layman term for Solvency Analysis, which is an accounting term. Sorry, but even the housing market financiers account for accounts payable and doubtful accounts. if you have someone who is not in a job long enough, or has alot of ancillary monthly payments, or have not demonstrated to pay a bill as large as their mortage, this calculates their 'ability to pay", or Solvency Analysis if you will, which heavily factors in their likelyhood of "doubtful account" or "bad debt"; thus Solvency Analysis was one of the financial characteristics considered. Many thought, and maybe rightfully so, race impacted an applicant's Solvency Analysis.

But if you want to ask who was involved in helping escalate this, Obama wins hands down, as this case started to race to force banks to hold quotas, which forced the subprime rush, and the crash that ensued. this forced demographic is something you yourself used to resist and resent. you even wrote about it here, about what would happen if someone told you your hamburger joint had to have a demographic of employees.

Oh, so we want to blame Obama for the housing crisis...Got it...Far out, if I must say...

Again, this finance/mortage area...It is my field Homez...This is what I've been doing...Every day...State licensed Mortgage Broker....My profession...For probably the last what...7 years..? I don't need a lesson in loans, how they work...I've written plenty, I train on the laws of doing so all every year...I know how to configure a debt ratio...I've closed more home loans than you I'm sure, and I've never heard the term 'solvency analysis'...So while I won't say it doesn't exist, its not a definite prerequisite for all lending institutions...Banks I work with...Chase, Citi....AKA, national, well known banks...Banks, might I add, that have not been implicated in any lending scandals I am aware of...So if I may make it 'simple'

raum wrote:Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories.

That suit says...That Doug Williams, who is making 2,000 per month with a 620 Beacon score isn't getting approved for loans that Joe Montana is getting with those same scores...

Now, if you want to point me to a place in that article where it says something different, I'll be glad to read it...But your parallel; the ability to pay vs what the suit summary says, it doesn't add up...It doesn't even make sense...None...

raum wrote:Solvency Analysis if you will, which heavily factors in their likelyhood of "doubtful account" or "bad debt"

It's called a 'Credit Report' and whenever you go to buy something like a mortgage, it gets pulled...If you've gotten shit before and not paid for it, the doubt of your bad debt will be reflected in your less than savory credit score...That's it...If you have a job, proof of income, and a good score, you should be able to get what you want...That's what the suit is about...You want to show some proof of someone in that case who shouldn't have gotten a mortgage and a reason, I'll read that...Otherwise, this is bogus...

Article wrote:Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank's loan application files.........The parties voluntarily dismissed the case on May 12, 1998, pursuant to a settlement agreement.

That means, they called up those 1003's...Saw they had been denied...When they should have been approved...And settled the case out of court...

Again, this finance/mortage area...It is my field Homez...This is what I've been doing...Every day...State licensed Mortgage Broker....My profession...For probably the last what...7 years..? I don't need a lesson in loans, how they work...I've written plenty, I train on the laws of doing so all every year...I know how to configure a debt ratio...I've closed more home loans than you I'm sure, and I've never heard the term 'solvency analysis'...So while I won't say it doesn't exist, its not a definite prerequisite for all lending institutions...Banks I work with...Chase, Citi....AKA, national, well known banks...Banks, might I add, that have not been implicated in any lending scandals I am aware of...So if I may make it 'simple'

1. Citi is destroyed for risking their own solvency. They sold out to Saudi Arabia long ago just to manage their own bad debt to themselves. In fact, this required a reform in the National Association of Mortgage Brokers policy of caluclating solvency of the lenders themselves. http://www.namb.org/Images/namb/Governm ... 02007).pdf

2. You might know Brokering and mortgage, but evidentally not finance. solvency and liquidity are the two major factors in financial decision, even above profitability, which is a prime consideration of investment, but not finance.

Solvency refers to the risk of not being able to cover losses regardless of the source, type, or size of the losses. In a broad sense, solvency is often equated with liquidity risk since ready money is needed to cover losses. However, it is more accurate to say that the ultimate source of funds available to cover losses is capital. Therefore, solvency risk is the risk that the lender will default. Ultimately, it is the risk of bank failure. It's the "how much will your mortgage be worth if the bank has to sell it?" analysis.

It's called a 'Credit Report' and whenever you go to buy something like a mortgage, it gets pulled...If you've gotten shit before and not paid for it, the doubt of your bad debt will be reflected in your less than savory credit score...That's it...If you have a job, proof of income, and a good score, you should be able to get what you want...That's what the suit is about...You want to show some proof of someone in that case who shouldn't have gotten a mortgage and a reason, I'll read that...Otherwise, this is bogus...

Solvency effects your chance of getting a good APR and in effects alot of your mortg, in ways you should definitely have on the forebrain. It is one of the two major risk analysis done on real estate mortgage investment. Your FICO is a single factor on your solvency, and an important one for FHA. Your "credit score" is not your FICO, and doesn't matter near as much as your FICO in asset mortgaging. Your credit score is likely a formulation of the Fair Isaac equation.

Lets just say you're right about everything you said...Every sentence...Hypothetically, you're right...A simple man might be lost in all that juicy rhetoric... ;)

I will say again...That's still not what the suit is about...

Are you saying that the bank had sub-standard credit requirements..? You can say that without going into a spill about finances, right..? They should have been looking at 650 credit scores instead of 600 scores..? Must be what you mean...Cause that's the only thing that I can see that would even make a remote connection to that suit and what you're saying...

On the end of the deal where that suit is concerned, the relationship between client and broker, solvency has nothing to do with that...Banks sell off and trade loans all the time...We give our clients something called a 'Servicing Disclosure' which basically tells you banks will sell off your loan repeatedly but cannot change the rates and terms of your loan...

Again, the suit says, "Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. " And the case was settled out of court...Settled....If anything you were saying had anything to do with what the suit was about...Why would they have done that..?

You go to the gas station get a 16 Oz coke for $1.29...I go to the same store 10 minutes later, get a $16 oz coke and they charge me $1.59...Somehow I find out, hire a lawyer, and we bring the suit to those responsible...They settle the case out of court and here you come telling me one of the lawyers that represented me in the case is responsible for the price hike in soda..?

Kinda scary...

That's not what i am saying Ty. I am saying this case was abused to threaten banks with lawsuits, and to intimidate banks to have racial quotas for their lending habits.

I also know this - Not every minority person is a credit risk. Not every majority person is a credit risk. I don't even know if these applicants for this case were credit risks. Banks can only take so much credit risk without risking their own solvency.

This was not BLAMING Obama or even this case, just saying this is a case that led to the crisis, not on purpose. You know lawyers look for legal precedents, and this could easily be abused. And it has been.

I misunderstood then, I interpreted all of your posts to mean or suggest that this case in particular had no merit...Sorry..! Nevertheless, I think its safe to say that the outcomes that followed this case were not the intent of this suit...That kind of thing happens...This, after all, is America...

Kumicho wrote:I misunderstood then, I interpreted all of your posts to mean or suggest that this case in particular had no merit...Sorry..! Nevertheless, I think its safe to say that the outcomes that followed this case were not the intent of this suit...That kind of thing happens...This, after all, is America...

s'all good.