preview

Predatory Lending Hypothesis

Good Essays

“The events triggered the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression” (Yeager 2). The early 2000’s economic crisis raised many legitimate questions about the failure of foreseeing the housing bubble and it’s collapse. Although there were many signs of the impending to come, the excitement of rising home prices caused a disregard. After the foreclosure crisis studies evaluated where the fault began and should be placed and determined that consumers, lenders, and government has an equal blame. Even though the real estate market collapse was a lesson in learning to adapt , predatory lending, overreaching, and failure of government policy is the main emphasis from the housing collapse because Wall Street banks took advantage of …show more content…

Economists at the University of Arkansas researched the foreclosure crisis from 2007 and 2008. Specifically their research examined whether Wall Street or households played a bigger role. What they determined was that they could be mutually exclusive. A household could still overreach while also falling victim to predatory lenders (Yeager 1-5).This makes discerning where the problem lies far more complex. Yeager and team decided to observe graphic patterns for proof of predatory lending. “The predatory lending hypothesis predicts that the geographic distribution of foreclosures will simply reflect the spatial distribution of low-income households because bankers will seek out households most easily deceived regardless of the household’s location” (Yeager 11). The foreclosure rates for low-income households should be similar across states. However, when examining the data they found that the majority of households that had to foreclose were young with high income and education. This group is known as Generation X. Born between the 1960’s and early 1970’s. This is significant because they are considered one of the least likely groups to default. Members of groups with low net worth are most …show more content…

Doing so effectively requires us to be successful in both identifying the incipient bubble and in developing and implementing a response that will limit bubble growth and avert a destructive asset price crash. This is not easy because asset bubbles are hard to recognize in real time and each asset bubble is different. However, these challenges cannot be an excuse for inaction. Recent experience strongly suggests that asset bubbles exist and that their collapse can be very damaging to the financial system and the macroeconomy. In my view, a proactive approach is appropriate when three conditions are satisfied: First, circumstances should suggest that there is a meaningful risk of a future asset price crash that could threaten financial stability. Second, we have identified tools that might have a reasonable chance of success in averting such an outcome. Third, we are reasonably confident that the costs of using the tools are likely to be outweighed by the benefits from averting the prospective crash. When these three conditions are satisfied, we should be willing to

Get Access