No, it confirms the first half (what the bank was doing), but not the second half.Warren Dew wrote:That just confirms exactly what I posted.
Well yeah, if you lend only to the wealthy who already have lots of money, your default rate is going to be very low. So why don't all banks just say, "We're only going to do home mortgages for wealthy people"? Do you think that sort of thing is in the best interest of the nation?The lender maintained a low default rate of 5.2% by sticking to loans over $400,000,
Right, because if all banks did that, then few middle and lower class families would have access to home ownership. Owning a house would become a luxury of only the wealthy.and the Department of Justice is forcing them to make loans below that amount
When were those statistics compiled? Does that rate include defaults during the Bush era economic collapse?which resulted in a default rate of 41.7% for other lenders.
No it's not. It's quite revealing that you equate lending to the non-wealthy and racial minorities as "making bad loans". As the original complaint states, the bank dropped to a $20k minimum loan amount in June 2011, and there have been no adverse consequences to the bank.The government is forcing them to make bad loans, just as I said.
Loaning a young family $75k for a house or a business is not automatically a "bad loan" just because they're a minority or not wealthy, or because the loan isn't above $400k. As long as the family can demonstrate a steady, reliable income and show good credit worthiness, it's a good loan. And the fact that it gets them into a house or helps the start a business is good for the nation as a whole.
Nothing...absolutely nothing...in the CRA says banks have to make bad loans. The right wing is just trying to scapegoat minorities and the poor...which of course we've neeeeeeeever seen before.
