For some reason, a financial scandal doesn't excite me the way it does most people. I guess I'm something of a cynic: newspapers need to fill column-inches, TV networks need to fill airtime (oh, and law professors need to fill law journals and resumes). At least to some extent, IMHO, financial scandals may be manufactured by media coverage. Or if not manufactured, at least sensationalized.
So I've been following the mortgage crisis with only one eye. But that one eye was caught by Gretchen Morgenstern's NYT piece two Sundays ago (sorry, I been busy), where she does something of an expose on Countrywide, the giant mortgage lender that has just been rescued by BofA. Her tagline for the piece is Countrywide's scripted pitch that it's getting "the best possible loan" for the customer. She also echoes familiar outrages expressed about mortgage lenders and the mortgage crisis:
1. Countrywide made risky subprime loans they should not have made.
a. subprime loan terms are unfair
b. Countrywide made too much money from subprime loans
2. Countrywide is now getting its comeuppance, as subprime mortgage defaults are causing massive losses.
3. securitization of mortgage debt is bad because it enables Countrywide and other mortgage lenders to lend irresponsibly and dish hidden problems to unsuspecting securities purchasers.
No doubt, the real estate downturn is causing much suffering for folks who are being hit with interest rate adjustments that can't meet. How much of that is Countrywide's fault, though, I'm just not sure.
Subprime loans are surely risky, and according to Ms. Morgenstern's piece, 25% of Countrywide's subprime loans are now delinquent. What this means also, though, is that 75% of Countrywide borrowers now own homes they would not have been able to buy if the subprime mortgage market had never emerged. And without securitization to diversify the risk of these overly risky loans, lenders would not be making these loans, and many fewer folks would be homeowners.
Ms. Morgenstern points out objectionable loan terms--prepayment
penalties, teaser interest rates, 100% financing, and loans requiring
no supporting documentation of borrower income. Each of these no doubt
places risk on borrowers. OTOH, each also makes it easier for a
subprime borrower to get a loan. I hate prepay penalties myself, but
presumably the borrower gets a break on the interest rate in exchange
for accepting the term, which gives the lender (and investors in
mortgage-backed securities) some short-term protection from market-wide
interest rate drops. 100% financing is also risky for both lender and
borrower, but again, easy financing puts folks into homes they
otherwise could not buy. Moreover, each of these terms shows up in
prime loans as well. Are they inherently evil?
Countrywide made way too much money from these loans, according to
the article, and now they're taking it on the chin. The stock price is
dropping and Countrywide had to draw down its bank credit line. Again,
I'm not sure how this counts as a criticism. Countrywide took some
risks by lending into the subprime market. For a while, the risktaking
paid off. Now it turns out that delinquency rates are up, and
Countrywide is smarting. But that's how it goes, right?
Ms. Morgenstern also objects to smooth sale pitches, agents pushing home equity lines, high closing costs, and high appraisal costs, among other things. We all hate these things, and perhaps Countrywide sale agents were pushier or slicker than most, but this is hardly expose material.
I don't want to minimize the human and financial toll of too-easy credit. But I foresee Countrywide becoming the Wal-Mart of subprime mortgage lenders--condemned by being the biggest to also being the scapegoat. Too much smoke just obscures the discussion of what ought to be done.
Most observers seem to agree that market failure abounds in the subprime mortgage market (though I'm hardly an expert). But regulating is tricky. Though fraudulent representations to borrowers must surely be at least part of the story, even coming up with a definition of "predatory loan" is controversial. As with Ms. Morgenstern's attack, many loan terms common in predatory loans also appear in prime loans. What about disclosure? A whole raft of federal disclosure regulation already exists--perhaps too much? Anyone who has bought a house is familiar with the raft of federal (as well as local) disclosure documents that accompany a mortgage. Moreover, any regulatory approach should keep in mind that a lot of folks are (presumably) happy homeowners because of the availability of subprime mortgages.
Today's NYT discusses the plight of Maple Heights, a small town in Ohio because of slumping real estate values and foreclosures. There, an advocacy group called East Side Organizing Project is helping homeowners renegotiate their mortgages. Countrywide is in their cross hairs as well. Besides protesting outside Countrywide offices, they've scattered plastic sharks on the lawns of Countrywide's regional managers.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e200e54ed62ef68833
Links to weblogs that reference Big Bad Bank:
1. Posted by Jake on September 2, 2007 @ 17:23 | Permalink
Subprime borrowers scattering plastic sharks on the lawns of Countrywide's regional managers strikes me as an entertaining exercise of First Amendment rights.
I once bought a house from a builder who tried to screw me. Unfortunately (for him), he had several more lots and homes to sell in the subdivision. The modest billboard that I erected in our front yard, proclaiming our dissatisfaction with the builder, quickly adjusted his attitude and got us the satisfaction we contracted for.
But let me ask. Where there is evidence of outright fraud by a subprime lender or its marketing agents, the law already provides that such misconduct is criminally punishable, and/or answerable to a suit in tort by the damaged borrower. So what is Morgenstern advocating? Presumably subprime borrowers need not read the papers they sign, nor repay the loans they get, because it is far easier to paint subprime lenders as predatory.
Morgenstern's view typifies the sad descent to which she and her ilk would lead the American republic, built on self-reliance and a will to succeed, to a lowest common denominator mode of doing business, which might as well be no business at all.
Bah.
2. Posted by archer on September 2, 2007 @ 21:41 | Permalink
Fred,
With all due respect, there was PLENTY wrong with Morgenson's article, but you did not characterize her main arguments accurately. It seems you have enough distaste for the subprime discussion (witness your admission that you haven't been following it) that you misread her story.
Her main beef was the aggressive upsell, that customers who qualified for prime loans were steered into subprimes, and that was done systematically, and was clearly policy.
This IS a big deal. I know law firms (respectable ones, not the usual class action shops) that are readying false advertising claim suits against Countrywide. This is fraud, and the law takes a very dim view of that.
And per the comment above, I beg to differ. Even the Wall Street Journal, hardly a bastion of liberal thinking, has reported on cases where consumers had to go in three times to get the mortgage documents to say what the broker said its terms would be. Three times means it wasn't an error. How may people sit to read the loan documents at closing? Most people aren't legally savvy and wouldn't know where to look for the key terms.
In addition, many people (and businesses), recognizing that mortgages are complicated, go to a mortgage broker to shop on their behalf. Many consumers are not sophisticated enough to realize that the broker may be more interested in lining his pockets than in getting them the best deal.
3. Posted by Fred Tung on September 3, 2007 @ 11:22 | Permalink
You're right, Archer, I left something out, sort of. The upselling "best possible loan" aspect of the piece I relegated to the phrases "smooth sales pitches" and sales agents "slicker than most," because I don't know what to make of it. It's not clear to me that upselling is categorically fraud--it depends on what was said. It's not ethical, and it is surely distasteful. But it's not fraud unless the sales agent is lying.
Is your view that the sales agent is required to give the customer the best deal (for the customer) available? I don't know many companies that do that. Moreover, the line in the article about how the Countrywide commission structure rewarded sales of the loans most lucrative to the company sounds like a pretty standard commission structure. (Whenever the waiter in a restaurant touts the "specials." I always wonder whether those are the plates with the highest margins or ingredients most ready to spoil.).
Now suppose the sales agent says the loan is the "best deal" they have, even if it's not. Is that fraud? If so, then lots of sales people in lots of different businesses may be headed for jail. At the same time, you identify the nub of the problem--mortgages are complicated and people can get misled. It's a very fine interaction we're trying to regulate. State attorneys general and federal regulators have used litigation and moral suasion to persuade lenders to curb or eliminate specific practices deemed especially sharp, but these after-the-fact approaches seem unsatisfying. Many folks are already in trouble by that point. Lenders' boundaries are never clear, and that vagueness may work its way into loan pricing.
I'm not defending Countrywide sales practices or even opining on whether fraud was ever committed. I'm just not sure Ms. Morgenstern's piece clarifies more than it obscures.
4. Posted by Jake on September 3, 2007 @ 17:44 | Permalink
Morgenstern = clueless = hearty concurrence.
5. Posted by Joe Cisewski on September 3, 2007 @ 21:57 | Permalink
Is it true that the "upsells" were company policy?
6. Posted by Marie on October 8, 2007 @ 14:13 | Permalink
My fiance and I are a victim of the "best Loan Possible" Countrywide made us assume our mortgage was a certain amount, when they slipped a HELOC loan on top it, if we knew that our mortgage payment was going to be 3100.00 a month for a 2 bed condo, we would of not bought. For a year we have been trying to get a straight answer from Countrywide on the seperate loan, they hit us with, NOONE ever returns our call. They say they are going to investigate and call us back within a week and NOONE ever calls us back. We are now tapped out with these 2 seperate mortgage payments forced to put our house up for sale (short sale). CW set us up to fail, here is a couple with perfect credit that thought our mortgage was going to be 1855.00 not 3100.00. I have talked to several attys thy want cash upfront to take this big company to court, which I have no more money in reserves, we have used all of our reserve money to stay ontop of our mortgage. I am asking anyone if they know a atty who is willing to take a look at our case and help us out, we would be ever so grateful.
7. Posted by Westgate Capital on March 3, 2009 @ 2:10 | Permalink
Manhattan hedge fund manager and part-time Palm Beach resident James Nicholson is under house arrest today, accused of securities fraud and bank fraud by federal prosecutors and the FBI. Westgate Capital is the next company to try and pull a Madoff. Nicholson allegedly took investment monies, intended for investing in a hedge fund, and then he and his partners essentially took all of it. They even went so far as to put up a Westgate Capital branded investments division complete with virtual address and a phone number that only went to an answering service.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |





