I have been involved with at least 100+ loans in the last 3 years as a Realtor and have seen, first hand, the types of financing being offered. There were many who opted for NINA's (no income, no asset) or other similar types of programs. To get these, their credit normally had to be A1. Many buyers didn't have this and would sometimes take a riskier loan. These loans could have been fully documented loans or some type of limited doc loan, but never did I see a lender not fully disclose the loan parameters or go far above typical income ratios. I'm sure there are many lenders out there who weren't as up front, but my experience is that a person who has had trouble getting a mortgage and finally gets approved, has sort of new found credit revelation and too often buys the new car and 60" plasma to go with the new home. They could have afforded the home on its own, but not with the added goodies that go along. Should we have a witch hunt for these lenders because homeowners abused credit? In Baltimore City, you get a huge tax increase once the city sees the new sales price and those real estate taxes alone have put many a buyer over the edge. Blaming only the lenders for people's mortgage woes is like blaming television for Baltimore's crime epidemic. There is no accountability. As a buyer you should know your payment threshhold! To bring race into the mixture, IMO, is a desperate move from a desperate city. I have never seen any lender take advantage of someone becuase of race. Loans are based on credit risk period and if there was an unscrupulous lender out there, then go after them, but to make examples out of a Wells Fargo or the like is ridiculous. If the loans had been denied to these applicants, there would be a fury over that as well.