Sorry, i take those dialogue pieces with more validity than i take your opinion -- but, feel free to direct me to the articles you've written on the matter. Or, better yet, CC me on the email you are going to send to those publications explaining to them why they are wrong.
And i didnt say the CRA was the cause of the crisis, but a cog in the mechanism of failure -- Banks encouraged to lend to applicants with high risk of defaults -- coupled with the credit swap regulation exemption played a significant role. This goes against your disingenuous narrative that the CRA had nothing to do with it.
But, please -- draft up a letter to those four publications -- im sure they would love to know how you prove them wrong.
Also, a study did lead to show that banks undergoing CRA-related regulatory exams took additional mortgage lending risk
http://www.nber.org/digest/may13/w18609.html
"Using data that track loan performance, the authors also show that loans originated by treatment-group banks around CRA exams are 15 percent more likely to be delinquent one year after origination than loans originated by control-group banks. Thus the evidence shows that around CRA examinations, when incentives to conform to CRA standards are particularly high, banks not only increase lending rates but also appear to originate loans that are markedly riskier."