footnote on page 126:
"*Contrary to popular belief, not all subprime loans are to poor people. The classification of a loan depends on the relationship between [sic: I think he meant "a function of"] the borrower, the property, and the size of the loan. Chris Mayer and Karen Pence have found that "subprime mortgages are not only concentrated in the inner cities, where lower-income households are more prevalent, but also on the outskirts of metropolitan areas where new construction was more prominent." 11"
Yes, the footnote has an end note. It's to Mayer and Pence's paper, so it is actually not ridiculous. Okay, it is ridiculous. Whatever. Not my point here.
On the one hand, I don't know anyone who thinks all subprime loans are to poor people. Subprime loans are primarily to people who have not been tremendously reliable about paying on debt. (That's assuming it isn't a loan to someone who is prime but got sold something worse because they didn't know better.) Maybe they declared bankruptcy. Maybe they got a knockdown on credit card debt. Maybe they have limited credit history. Whatever.
But if you want to convince me that subprime loans aren't to poor people, telling me many of the loans were on properties on the outskirts of MSAs is a shitty way to accomplish that goal. I've heard the phrase "drive till you qualify". And I lived in Mayberry for a while. Poor can include house-poor.