But it's also a not-insignificant factor that ACORN used lawsuits based on the CRA to force banks to issue subprime loans that they otherwise would not have issued because they were bad risks.
This? I have seen no evidence that CRA loans in general, or sub-prime CRA loans in specific, were given better terms than other sub-prime loans. And I've seen no evidence that CRA sub-prime loans default at any higher rates than sub-prime loans for other populations.
If you can find default data on CRA loans that shows is significantly higher than comparable sub-prime loans, especially during the 1998-2003 time period, I'd love to see it because everything I've seen says it is comparable or better given loan quality.
One can argue (soundly, I think) that this set the stage for the later bundling of the bad loans.
And this is another point where your logic chain breaks down. Banks were issuing sub-prime mortgages before the CRA, and were securitizing sub-prime mortgages before the special CRA mortgage backed securities were created in 1997. Details listed in my response.
no subject
This? I have seen no evidence that CRA loans in general, or sub-prime CRA loans in specific, were given better terms than other sub-prime loans. And I've seen no evidence that CRA sub-prime loans default at any higher rates than sub-prime loans for other populations.
If you can find default data on CRA loans that shows is significantly higher than comparable sub-prime loans, especially during the 1998-2003 time period, I'd love to see it because everything I've seen says it is comparable or better given loan quality.