Throughout 2004, interest-only mortgages were offered to more and more subprime borrowers with the weakest credit.
Unresolvable The public record could not settle it.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
The second judge would not resolve this claim; the verdict shown is the first judge's.
What would count as true or false
True: mortgage origination data show that interest-only loans grew as a share, or in volume, of subprime originations over the course of 2004. Mostly true: interest-only lending to subprime borrowers grew in 2004, but the growth was uneven or concentrated in part of the year. Mixed: interest-only loans grew mainly in Alt-A and prime lending, and only modestly in subprime. Mostly false: interest-only growth in 2004 was almost entirely outside subprime, and the subprime share stayed roughly flat. False: interest-only lending to subprime borrowers fell or was negligible in 2004.
Set before the research began.
Evidence (2)
-
E1 ОМЮЫТЭТгКЭТШЧȱКЧНȱ ОНОЫКХȱ ... (CRS report RS22722, text titled on its first page as a Congressional Research Service report on non-bank mortgage securitization) Congressional Research Service (via everycrsreport.com) · 31 October 2008
“For example, interest-only mortgages (I/Os) rose from 0.0% of subprime loans in 2000 to 26.5% of subprime loans in 2005, before falling back to 16.3%.”
-
E2 The Great Capital Strike Wharton Zell/Lurie Real Estate Center (Peter Linneman)
“These exotic mortgage loans gradually increased their shares in total subprime origination between 2002 and 2006.”
Reasoning
E1 shows the interest-only share of subprime loans rose from 0.0% in 2000 to 26.5% in 2005 but gives no 2004 figure, and E2 refers only to unspecified exotic loans gaining subprime share over 2002–2006. Neither item shows how interest-only lending to subprime borrowers changed during 2004 or whether that growth was uneven, which the criteria require.
Cite this claim
Michael Burry, “Throughout 2004, interest-only mortgages were offered to more and more subprime borrowers with the weakest credit.” (said 6 April 2010). Verdict: unresolvable. Reliability API, claim c_5f19b215f3a5, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_5f19b215f3a5
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Michael Burry
-
Mostly false
“The Superinvestors of Graham & Doddsville all lost money 3 years in a row during the mid-1970s.”
The Superinvestors of Graham & Doddsville all lost money three years in a row during the mid-1970s.
-
Mostly true
“It’s a perfect storm for Build-A-Bear (BBW), a one-of-one retailer now heavily shorted, 25% of the float, almost 9 days to cover.”
-
Resolved true
“Here is the link where I made the case last week that beneath the surface the October 6, 2026 record close in the S&P 500 looks more like the March 2000 top than any other record high since 1980.”
-
Mostly true
“October 6, 2026 stands head to head with March 2000 as the two most narrow, thin, soft new highs”
-
Mostly true
“Both stocks have retraced essentially all their gains since Trump’s election, and they put in a giant head-and-shoulders-and-elbows top for added emphasis.”
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.