You are here

Live Blogging the CRA Hearings (IV)

Adam Rust's picture

Posted September 16, 2009

Taylor is back.  A passing comment can't be ignored - it is so opaque - but also significant.  He comments, "in my neighborhood, Roxbury, where I grew up..."

That's a telling comment because Roxbury is in Barney Frank's district.  Taylor represents NCRC in DC, but he actually lives in Boston, in Frank's district.

Rep. Marchant wants to talk about extending CRA to new institutions.  This is a hot subject.  Credit unions and insurance companies may get a CRA obligation.  It seems very likely that if CRA Modernization passes, that it would extend coverage to independent mortgage companies.

Rep. Marchant (R-Tx): "Is it your opinion that even if the CRA was properly enforced under current law, would it bring enough money to neighborhoods?"

Taylor: it is not well enforced.

The Mass. Commissioner of Banks points out that while no state-chartered institutions are currently not meeting their requirements under the Mass. state law, some did not always reach that level.  And, he says, credit unions have not

sought to change their charters in spite of their regulatory stituation.

Marchant: Would investment banks be coverered? Can you name them?

Frank intervenes: It would have to be Goldman Sachs, there aren't many left.

Taylor: It would cover investment banks.

Frank then goes back to the ACORN/Fannie discussion.  Who knew that the CRA hearing would become the ACORN hearing.  Frank notes that affordable purchases by Fannie were raised from 42 to 56 percent, and lmi percentages to 12 percent, during the Bush Administration, as part of the Hensarling Amendment.

Rep. Lance (R-NJ) suggests a summary of where we are:

  • CRA did not cause sub-prime.
  • ACORN has been discredited.