Evaluate subprime loans with the notion of social responsibility. Compare and contrast the resulting consequences for these actions.

The third and final entry in this blog, we will evaluate subprime loans with the notion of social responsibility, compare and contrast the resulting action, and touch on the measures that have been implemented to prevent this crisis from occurring again(Leading To Significance, n.d.).  Subprime lending is closely associated with social responsibility.  There is a sound conviction that subprime lending offers credit to those borrowers who would then not have access to credit. Next, we understand that social responsibility is beyond just seeking profit, but being a concern with social and environmental concerns.  However, based on what we have seen, we can view the subprime mortgage loan as a rip-off and away to take advantage of people (What is this, n.d.).   Leaders in this scenario were more concern with earning a profit, than ensuring those who could afford home got one. These leaders did not take care of customer’s in an appropriate manner. Therefore it became detrimental for and lending organizations and a major stumbling block to stockholders.  The most important takeaway from this is that social responsibility is not just following the law, but it is ethically and morally taking care of buyers, stakeholders and employees interest (MBA Admissions, n.d.).   Finally, subprime lending may have attended to be socially responsible, but have after the housing bubble crash; it is far from being that.

Indicate the measures that have been taken since that time to assure this will not happen again.

When we consider steps taken to prevent another subprime mortgage crisis; we can take a look at the Bear Stearns and Federal Reserve actions.  Secondly, we can also look at how Congress ratified legislation to aid homeowners who were behind on their mortgage loan keep their homes. Thirdly, President Barack Obama on July 21, 2010, legislations signed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Board of Governors, 2012). The legislations caused the most substantial differences in financial regulation in the United States since the regulatory reform that followed the Great Depression.  Finally, stockholders, bondholders, and executives of the large financial corporation now understand that they will undergo obvious and exceedingly extreme individual monetary losses if they permit their corporations ever again to get into severe financial disorder.