Anything that encourages
more subprime lending (and other high interest forms of debt) is in my opinion, a bad thing.
Not exact matches
Richard Cordray, director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, commented, «
Subprime [auto] borrowers may be
more vulnerable to predatory practices, so direct oversight of their
lending practices is essential.»
In the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, banks started
lending more to African American buyers, but these buyers were frequently targeted by
subprime loans with high interest payments and terms that were difficult to fulfill.
It was common knowledge that «no doc» loans were absurd, and the adjustable rate schedules and prepayment penalties for
subprime (and some conventional) loans were beyond impractical and
more like homicidal (from a
lending perspective).
The increased competition within the
subprime market has resulted in putting borrowers
more in control of
lending process.
On the other hand, if the availability and attractiveness of mortgages declines, as did during the fallout from the
subprime lending crisis, renting an apartment becomes
more appealing, so occupancy rates and rental revenue per apartment increase.
This group has been hit hard with
subprime lending, and LendUp hopes to offer them a
more affordable option.
Paul Siegfired, senior vice president for TransUnion, commented that this uptick can also be explained by
more subprime borrowers entering the card market — an event that occurs as banks relax their
lending standards.
The riskiest of the
subprime auto loan borrowers might find
more luck in going with smaller lenders that are willing to accept the risk to stay in the
lending game.
Proponents of
subprime lending realized the demand for homeownership and refinancing despite imperfect credit and jumped on this untapped customer base, offering similar, if not
more aggressive mortgage loan programs at a premium.
This is especially true if you are a
subprime borrower, as credit unions tend to have
more lenient
lending standards than banks.
What's even
more alarming is that
subprime auto loans share some strikingly similar numbers to the
subprime mortgage
lending.
This led to major shifts in market share, which brought even
more lenders into the world of
subprime lending.
In 2004, as regulators warned that
subprime lenders were saddling borrowers with mortgages they could not afford, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development helped fuel
more of that risky
lending.
Jumbo
lending, Alt - A
lending and traditional mortgage
lending had the same problems as
subprime, just in a smaller way — but there was so much
more of them.
Subprime auto
lending boomed in the aftermath of the Great Recession, since car owners proved
more resilient than many lenders had anticipated.
Subprime lending is riskier, because borrowers are
more likely to default.
It is a similar story in credit card
lending, with lenders providing less credit to
subprime borrowers and focusing
more heavily on better qualified applicants.
Oh — one
more thing, gbaikie — look up deceptive marketing practices used by lenders to sell
subprime loans (you can start that search with the keywords «predatory
lending.»)
In my own view, the
subprime lending parameters in Canada are
more restrictive than the American practices and better judgment is in place here.
Canadians are
more conservative in their
lending practices, not resulting in the same
subprime disaster as witnessed in the U.S.,» says Robert Tatomir, broker of record and owner of Future Homes & Real Estate Ltd. in Leamington, Ont.
Since
subprime mortgage
lending had a large role in instigating the Great Recession, mortgage
lending has therefore come under greater scrutiny in the U.S. where information about the prevalence and scope of mortgage fraud is now
more readily available.
The reason the number of affordable /
subprime mortgages skyrocketed during the boom was because lower
lending standards mean
more people can get mortgages and that means mortgage companies can sell
more mortgages.