Replies

Your best guess is like your best argument, worthless.

You slipped in to ad hominem because you don't have the knowledge to answer the simple assertions I made.

To wit,

"University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations."

which is misleading at best because while it indicates that only 20% of subprime mortages were issued by CRA covered institutions it fails to note that greater than 75% of the dollar value of those loans were written by that same 20% of those institutions.

You undertand that part right?

Secondly, CRA covered institutions are disproportionately going under. You understand what that sentence means Mr Economy?

More to the point your link has the following paragraph:

"On average, loans with a high loan-to-value ratio (LTV) are riskier than lower LTV ones. Borrowers with little equity in a home can walk away more easily from their homes, putting lenders more at risk. Furthermore, when the LTV is high, there is increased risk that the home value could fall below the loan balance, creating a negative situation during the early years of the loan. The average LTVs of loans in most states in the two divisions are significantly higher than the national average."

CRA covered institutions were given incentives, read big hammer of government, to make these loans with no incentive to make sure they performed.

So Mr Economics, what happens when government gives incentives for a and not for b?