The Community Reinvestment Act does no such thing and any practicing bank attorney worth their salt would know that.
The ONLY criteria for CRA lending is that the property be located in a census tract that has a median income less than 80% of the median income of the county the census tract is located within. All other lending standards remain the same.
There is NO preference given to race or gender, NO limitations are placed on the borrowers income, NO exceptions are made for a borrower's bad credit or low credit scores. King Midas himself would qualify for CRA lending provided the property he was buying was located within a qualifying census tract.
Banks also typically hold CRA loans on their books rather than sell them into the secondary market as a means of demonstrating their commitment to the entire community in which they operate. This precludes the type of fraudulent loan bundling practices you claimed they were 'forced' to engage in.
Consequently, banks in every community in America have been forced to create a portfolio of bad loans, euphemistically referred to as “sub-prime” loans. In order to compensate themselves for the added risk of extending these loans, most lenders have increased the lending fees associated with loans. This is simply an indirect way of doing what banks always do – and what they must do to remain solvent: charging effectively higher rates of interest on riskier loans.
Nonsense.
There is no correlation between CRA lending and sub-prime lending, they are two completely different programs. Sub-prime lending programs are employed when borrowers with poor credit history are applying for a loan. Sub-prime borrowers come in all shapes, sizes, and colors. Many sub-prime borrowers earn substantial incomes or be self employed. The same standards and practices are used to qualify sub-prime loans as with the prime lending programs, the difference being the higher interest rates sub-prime borrowers are charged to reflect the added risk their loan represents.
There is also no consideration given to the location of the property as there is in CRA lending, thus a million dollar home in an upscale neighborhood is eligible for sub-prime financing but not CRA financing.
There is plenty of evidence that crooked lenders who stood to make larger fees from the origination of sub-prime loans, either bent the qualification standards or simply placed prime borrowers into sub-prime loan programs anyway. It was the latter practice that minorities complain about especially.
The rest of your screed is a pack of regurgitated distortions and outright lies about lending and investment practices that I'm not going to waste time responding to. The idea that the existence of today's Too Big To Fail institutions were ever threatened by 'community activists' or that these same super-banks are kept on a tight leash today by some federal bureaucracy regulating the Community Reinvestment Act is laughably not true.
I could go on and on.
So could a babbling brook, with about the same effect.
So far, all I have seen is why “I am wrong” and not a peep about WHY banks have increased 37% their fees or ANYTHING else on ANY other view for our financial situation.
Since everything you posted in response to my “theory” comes right out of the leftist handbook, I’m really keen to see your diagnosis and cure.
Mine is pretty simple. Stop telling banks HOW and TO WHOM they must lend and let them make loans on their own terms.
It was once called the “free market”. Ever heard of it?