Investment banks are not prime generators of notes. They deal in the secondary markets enabling the lenders to have their capital at hand.

Quote Originally Posted by SadisticNature View Post
Again, more dodging the question and inaccuracies. I don't refuse to consider the underlying legislation, I have read and addressed your concerns. You refuse to consider any arguments why these legislations aren't relevant to the issue.

In particular, you ignore evidence that the CRA is not at fault. Namely subprime mortgages were almost entirely driven by investment banks NOT SUBJECT TO THE CRA.

In 1977 it might have been true that the lenders were not making these loans at appropriate rates. However, by 2007 the situation was largely changed. I consider the most important information here to be:

(I) The 1968 Fair Housing Act is not actually relevant to the situation.

(II) The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act does not actually cover investment banks who were by far the largest dealers in subprime mortgages.

Your coverage of these laws is highly inaccurate. Nothing says anything about refusing an individual loan without regard to reason. Furthermore, conditions of the CRA are only a condition for mergers and takeovers. The CRA does not have any enforcement powers except when the bank is trying to reduce competition in the marketplace. I personally believe it is not unreasonable to test whether a community is being served adequately when considering reducing competition in a market. Particularly one with such limited competition as the banking sector.