Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (578338)	7/29/2010 5:50:43 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1575980

Ted, I appreciate the detailed post, but I still don't see the "wall of separation" between CRA and the encouragement of high-risk lending or poor underwriting. All the CRA of 1977 did was state that it was illegal to redline particular areas of a city where a bank would not provide loans. Banks could still turn down an applicant if they did not qualify for a loan or if the home did not appraise out. Yes, I get the intent of CRA. It was to stop the redlining. I also get that CRA wasn't the primary cause of the subprime mess, if there even is a "primary" cause. But there was a primary cause......banks got creative because no one was watching. But CRA is all part of the motivation to expand the real estate housing boom to lower middle class citizens, which often consist of ethnic minorities. Spread the success around a little. It's perfectly understandable, if you're willing to accept that we all had a hand in this disaster. The intent of the CRA was to stop discrimination and to allow minorities the opportunity to purchase their own home.......assuming they qualified. What you see as two very different things, I see as two separate but very related things. The intent of sub prime mortgages was to extend the housing boom that was making banks rich. They didn't care if people qualified or not; if the house was inner city or not.