Sorry cynic, but your accusations are laying at the wrong feet there.<quoted text>
Yes, I indeed did blame them as well.
Would you purchase a home under these circumstances? Low introductory rate mortgage with interest only payment the first five years knowing the rate may adjust and the payment would go up substantially in five years?
Remember it was the mass default on these loans which really began the tumble. It was inevitable. Underwriters only cared about writing the loan. The loans would be repackaged and sold immediately in investment packages.
How can you blame the mark when the mark was set up from the get go with full knowledge that the mark would most likely default?
Was that not a secondary benefit to the so called lenders?
Who takes possession of the actually property, both physically and legally when the loan goes into default?
What happens to the property then?
Does it not then go back on the market with another opportunity for profit for the ones that helped set up the sting in the first place?
Tis the wrong feet where you lay burden and the wrong feet you kiss.