I left it off, because i don't think the higher assessed risk of default than prime loans is relevant for explaining that the true cause is the fraud and purpos

I left it off, because i don't think the higher assessed risk of default than prime loans is relevant for explaining that the true cause is the fraud and purposeful misstating of actual risk. The same thing could have happened with prime loans as well. Yeah, subprime loans are riskier than prime, but that doesn't matter when something is being repackaged as being less risky than it actually is. And even when we talk about why the loans defaulted, the issue isn't that the loans were subprime instead of prime and that that was due to a higher risk of default. It's that the loan was given based on falsified data to cover up reasons that should have prevented the loan from being given (almost always due to a debt:income ratio that was much too high), the borrower was advised by fiduciaries to take more than they should have given their income, and the preferred loan type was one where the the necessary payment ballooned massively after a set time period, which meant that when the payment when up the borrower would be unable to pay the higher payment because of how far they were stretched by the base payment, because the borrower was advised that they would be able to refinance at a lower rate due to an expected-by-their-fiduciary rise in equity.