The bank lent you money that you contractually agreed to pay back with interest after meeting the qualifications for said loan. You sought the loan from them, they didn't put a gun to your head. The bank has a butt load of government regulations they have to follow to ensure you are being treated fairly. How exactly was the bank "treating you"? This is like asking someone to hit you in the head with a hammer and then complaining because it left a mark.
The bank made a bad investment along with the homeowner. It is no different than a business loan. If a bank invests in a business and the business goes belly-up....the bank takes a loss too.
The bank needs to make an offer to the potentially defaulting homeowner so that both share some of the loss. The all or nothing policy of most banks encourages the borrower to choose nothing
If banks were free to make mortgage loans to only those customers who were decent to good risks, we wouldn't have the problem we do today. The government forces banks to make loans to people with questionable means to repay them and then the banking industry is made out to be the bad guy when people default. Like I said earlier, if you make $30,000 per year, you can't afford a $200,000 home. But it happens. If banks were free to say NO, they would never make such loans. Their profit comes from people paying interest on loans, not from repossessing the collateral and selling it for pennies on the dollar.
Incorrect. The feds never pushed the banks to make subprime loans. And the federal government has never required the banks to loan to anyone except those that meet the exact same financial criteria of others they are loaning too...only the race differs.
Now if you think it was the feds making banks loan money to equally qualified black people that caused the crisis, you are entitled to think that. But those are the only people the banks were forced to loan too.