<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Collins Richey <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:crichey@gmail.com">crichey@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Angelo Bertolli<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><<a href="mailto:angelo.bertolli@gmail.com">angelo.bertolli@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
</div><div class="Ih2E3d">> Subsidizing mortgages not withstanding, I think you'd at least agree that<br>
> the mortgage crisis we're in right now has way more to do with banks/loan<br>
> officers/whoever not doing their risk assessment "properly." Unless you<br>
> mean that our attitudes about houses and the culture created by our laws<br>
> gave the banks the feeling that they could get away with it.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>You missed Jed's point entirely. It's not a matter of the banks<br>
feeling that they could get away with it. They were actively<br>
encouraged (if not required) to ignore the ability to pay back loans<br>
by Freddie and Fannie and the Barney Frank types in Congress. The<br>
"proper" risk assessment was the desire to get a loan, not the ability<br>
to pay back the loan.<br>
<font color="#888888"></font></blockquote><div><br><br>And they don't have to report it as a loss? Or they were forced to give the house away for free? I don't think so.<br><br></div></div>