iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
GET UPDATES FROM Shaun Donovan
 
GET UPDATES FROM Eric H. Holder, Jr.
 

Discrimination Lawsuit Holds Subprime Lenders Accountable

Posted: 01/16/12 11:08 AM ET

As we continue to recover from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, it is clear that every American family has been touched in some way by the recession -- a recession sparked in many ways by the irresponsibility and recklessness on Wall Street over the last decade.

From Ponzi schemes to health care scams to mortgage fraud, too many Americans have experienced the pain of this crisis in one form or another. African-American and Latino families have been hit especially hard. Between 2005 and 2009, fully two-thirds of median household wealth in Hispanic families was wiped out.

And from Queens, New York, to Oakland, California, strong, middle class African-American and Hispanic neighborhoods saw nearly two decades of gains reversed in a matter of months. Most outrageously, these communities so devastated by the crisis were also targets of many of the practices that helped cause it -- including discrimination, predatory lending and fraud.

One of the federal government's most important tasks is to hold accountable those responsible for such abuses and that is what this administration has done in achieving the largest fair housing discrimination settlement in U.S. history -- a $335 million settlement with Countrywide on behalf of over 200,000 African-American and Latino families across the country.

At the core of this case is a simple story: If you were a qualified African-American or Hispanic borrower who received a mortgage from Countrywide, you likely paid more simply because of the color of your skin.

Moreover, if you were African-American or Hispanic, you were far more likely to be steered into an expensive and risky subprime loan than a white borrower with equal creditworthiness and financial situation.

As a result of these predatory practices, the odds of an African-American or Hispanic borrower receiving a subprime loan instead of a prime loan were more than twice as high as those for non-Hispanic white borrowers with similar profiles. Indeed, Countrywide forced over 10,000 Hispanic and African-American borrowers into subprime loans -- even though non-Hispanic white borrowers with similar credit qualifications were able to obtain prime loans.

As a result, minority borrowers who were steered into subprime loans paid, on average, thousands of dollars more for their loans and experienced additional harm as a result of increased risk of prepayment penalties, credit problems, default and ultimately foreclosure. Nothing can undo the damage that hard-working, responsible families suffered as a result of these outrageous practices.

However, the $335 million in relief for victims of discrimination will not only address their financial loss, it will make it abundantly clear that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.

Since President Obama took office, this administration has worked to tackle the foreclosures that are harming families and devastating our communities.

We've pushed the banks hard to keep responsible families in their homes -- and because we have, foreclosure notices are down 45 percent since early 2009. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) has withdrawn the approval of over 1,600 lenders to participate in FHA programs -- more than four times the number during the entire tenure of the previous administration.

In 2009, President Obama formed the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, chaired by the Justice Department, to wage an aggressive and coordinated effort to investigate and prosecute devastating financial crimes, like this one.

And, through the Wall Street reform law President Obama signed into law last year, we created a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau -- the sole mission of which is to protect ordinary Americans from abuses like these.

With this fair housing discrimination settlement, we are ensuring that help will go to some of the families who need it most. We are telling irresponsible banks and mortgage servicers that the unfair practices of the past will no longer stand.

And most of all, we are reaffirming the basic tenets of who we are as Americans and what we believe. That this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, and when everyone plays by the same rules.

Eric Holder is the attorney general of the United States and Shaun Donovan is the secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Originally published at TheGrio.com

 

Follow Shaun Donovan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@HUDnews

As we continue to recover from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, it is clear that every American family has been touched in some way by the recession -- a recession sparked in ma...
As we continue to recover from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, it is clear that every American family has been touched in some way by the recession -- a recession sparked in ma...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 192
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
01:56 PM on 01/17/2012
What a mess. On the one side you had government requiring lenders to make at least 50% of their loans to sub prime borrowers even though there were not anywhere enough "legitimate" sub prime borrowers out there. We also had and Fanny/Freddy offering to buy up as many sub-prime loans as the lenders could generate. On the other side we had other arms of the government ready to bail out banks that made bad loans. Now we sit here wondering why the banks encouraged people into sub-prime loans who either could have gotten a standard loan or maybe shouldn't have gotten a loan at all. Your tax dollars at work.
12:21 PM on 01/17/2012
While it's nice to see all the commentors' personal take on the causes of the housing collapse, no one seems to be responding to the actual settlement that is discussed in this post.

This post is about a lawsuit related to lenders giving loans to minorities who had THE SAME credit scores and employment as whites, but instead of giving the minority borrower a prime rate, as they did the white borrower, they forced the minority borrowers into sub-prime loans with higher interest rates.

So, while it's true that there are lots of white folks with a house and a job finding it hard to make their mortgages. The point of this article is that black and brown folks had THE SAME HOUSE and THE SAME JOB as a white home owner, but found it much harder to pay their mortgage because the banks were making them pay MORE for the same thing simply because of the borrower's race.

Oh, and Citywide settled the lawsuit.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
R Andrew Ohge
Writer of Articles, Poetry, Comments & Much More..
12:10 PM on 01/17/2012
As a former Mortgage Originator, I will say there WERE others in the "Broker" side of the Mortgage Business who were more than a little predatory. However, myself included, I knew a lot more who worked hard, over-came underwriting stipulations and Lender resistance to get the best fixed rate loans they could. What seems to NOT be discussed above is WHERE these "Sub-Prime" PRODUCTS came from. Well-they're still in business.

When last I had my license in IOWA, the two worst offenders for ARM's were National Chain Bank and a Local state Bank. My E-Mail was flooded with "Incentive" Offers in the form of Lender Fee reductions (these could be as much as $1-1.5 thousand on top of processing and closing fees.) to bonuses on the discount points if I were to "push" their Sub-Prime Products. There you have it-different problem-same villains!
08:48 AM on 01/17/2012
The Problem: Grossly Inflated Housing Prices

The Solution: Dramatically Lower Housing Prices

The Solution is coming to every city town and state in America.
photo
AlfredE69
Liberty Lovin' Tree Hugger
08:17 AM on 01/17/2012
AG Holder, stop harassing medical marijuana patients. Have you no shame sir?
10:23 AM on 01/17/2012
It is a little more complex than you imply. Technically, it is against federal law. I agree it is a bad law, but not even the president is supposed to be allowed to break the law. And that includes enforcing current law. The problem you have is with congress.
photo
AlfredE69
Liberty Lovin' Tree Hugger
07:16 PM on 01/17/2012
Wrong. The problem is with the executive branch and their response to petitions calling for the re-legalization of cannabis. Obama's response was as if he thought that the move Reefer Madness was the truth.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jasel
Nurse
07:08 AM on 01/17/2012
What a racist counrty.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
AZreb
equal-opportunity Independent heathen
10:20 AM on 01/17/2012
We are seeing more and not less racism and some comes from the top of our government. Instead of worrying about ALL Americans, the focus has been on minorities, and, yes, they have suffered - but so have others. Lived through and participated in the Civil Rights movement. Born and raised in the south and saw first-hand the racism - but it was not limited to the south - and now it is more prevalent in ALL states.

Holder is not making things better - for ANYONE - black, brown, white, yellow.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jasel
Nurse
01:40 PM on 01/17/2012
How has the focus been on minorities??
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Hector Boag
You want what??
06:34 AM on 01/17/2012
If I recall, there was a big push from Frank, Dodd, Clinton, and Carter for the banks to lend to folks who shouldn't have been buying homes in the first place. I believe it was billed as housing rights or something of that nature.
Speaking of rasicm, Holder never said anything about all the poor White folks who had forclosures; I guess poor can be divided into classes of race too in this administration.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
okradingle
09:42 AM on 01/17/2012
This information been created for you to believe a lie. Rightwing prevarications say that ending redlining through the cra caused the crisis too. It just took 30 years and a Bush to really take effect?

Partisan piffle.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
AZreb
equal-opportunity Independent heathen
10:22 AM on 01/17/2012
fanned - from a "mutt" American - Native American, French, Welsh and ??????
04:04 AM on 01/17/2012
In the late 1990s we had slightly over 60% home ownership in this country, the government wanted to get that to 70%. Then in 2008 we learned that the reason we had 60% ownership in the 1990s was only 60% of people could afford a house without lowering the standards to qualify. This was a social experiment by the government that our nation will pay for for a long time. The real losers were the people that believed it when the government told them they could afford a home.
The people that lost their homes because of this have my sympathy, as do the people that had to refinance for medical bills, schooling, or to update their homes. Anyone else who is underwater on their homes because they were using it as a credit card for vehicles, vactions, land or bigger houses that they didn't need deserve what they got.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Hector Boag
You want what??
06:36 AM on 01/17/2012
You are correct, but get ready for the name calling to start in 3-2-1,...
10:27 PM on 01/17/2012
Hector your countdown to the hate coming my way was right on schedule. As predictable as the sun rise. Enjoy your day later MTS52
10:25 AM on 01/17/2012
Banks weren't forced to change their standards. They did it willingly, because there was no immediate downside with a failed mortgage
10:38 PM on 01/17/2012
In the late 1990s the banks were told that if they did not make home loans in the red zones they would face IRS audits and find it extremely difficult to make any major mergers or acqusitions. Later when prices started to climb you are correct the banks were more that happy to make those loans. However the only reason home prices were rising so fast was because the government intervention created a false market that caused prices to rise at a pace faster than was healthy.
02:43 AM on 01/17/2012
"Between 2005 and 2009, fully two-thirds of median household wealth in Hispanic families was wiped out." What a ridiculous statement. These "authors" still do not understand that there was no household net worth for many people in this country. The asset that has the most value for Americans is their house. The prices of houses in 2005 were so artificial that to use that year as a calculation for ACTUAL NET WORTH is pure mularkey. The only way that you captured the 2005 housing prices on your Net Worth was if you sold and did not reenter the market. People who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tmrn31m
02:39 AM on 01/17/2012
When I rob you of $200 but only have to repay $10 without any admission of guilt or other penalties on my part no matter how many times I do it, then something is wrong. This would not be acceptable for any other citizen, then why is it for banks? Crime should not pay, nor should you get off freely.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Hector Boag
You want what??
07:03 AM on 01/17/2012
Banks were doing what they were supposed to do; making loans to folks who couldn't realistcally repay them and selling those loans back to the govenment like they were supposed to. A bank will not intentioanlly make a bad loan unless it is directed to, and/or they have a place to sell that bad loan to.

The only crime committed here was by our own politicians for pushing banks to make those loans and allowing Fannie and Freddie to finanace them.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
okradingle
09:39 AM on 01/17/2012
Nonsense. The banks made and continue to make money originating and servicing loans. They package them and sell them to investors. They have little skin in the game, unless they bought the same toxic garbage from their fellow banksters as an investment.

The government did not "force" banks to do squat. If you think they can, you misunderstand power in America.
10:27 AM on 01/17/2012
They made bad loans because there was no incentive for mortgage brokers to be honest when they weren't responsible for bad loans.
02:11 AM on 01/17/2012
Are you out of your mind? I know the post has the most well educated and established people writing for it, yet you are undermining that standard from my standpoint. Please give facts to back up such polarizing statements if you decide to go that far.
12:24 AM on 01/17/2012
"As a result of these predatory practices, the odds of an African-American or Hispanic borrower receiving a subprime loan instead of a prime loan were more than twice as high as those for non-Hispanic white borrowers with similar profiles. "

Why? Because people like President Obama took lenders to court (or at least threatened to do so), forcing them to provide home loans to people would never have been approved in the first place. The Community Reinvestment Act was abused by radicals to enable the poor (in particular African Americans) to become home owners, a noble, but misguided goal. Now that their homes have been foreclosed, which was inevitable, people like Eric Holder wish to hold the lenders accountable. This is insane and this is coming from the Attorney General of the United States.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
traceymarie
the President is black, deal with it
12:49 AM on 01/17/2012
lmao...so very wrong. What you refer to and do not understand is red lining. This was discrimination. What CRA and Obama at one point did was force the banks to give consumers an EQUAL CHANCE for credit, not a guareentee. WHy don't you actually research for yourself instead of regurgitating slop
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheTightwireGuy
Attempting to balance reason and passion
02:36 AM on 01/17/2012
Dan,

Please research the facts regarding racially motivated redlining in the US. Here is a good start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

I mention this because I was once a hard-core libertarian who believed that the CRA was undue government interference imposed on bankers' abilities to make a profit. Part of what changed my mind was watching the American Experience documentary, The World That Moses Built, on Robert Moses. You can watch it YouTube starting here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUmI6mUzSH8

But I also read up on the research literature while preparing to teach university-level courses in financial institutions and markets (I have a Ph.D. in Business Administration), I became convinced that too many bankers were guilty of using their ability to control lending markets in order to advance strongly held but publicly quiet racist policies.

But also, if you'd like to understand better my thoughts about my own racists sentiments, I encourage you to check out this post to my personal blog:

http://thetightwireguy.com/2012/01/17/some-videos-i-watched-on-mlk-day/

Because I truly did not understand this about myself not so long ago.

Thank you for listening.

The Tightwire Guy
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
georgeny
12:13 AM on 01/17/2012
Some people were taken advantage of, but if either of you have actually done a closing in America in the past ten years you know that the purchaser would have to be functionally illiterate not to understand the repayment plan. Rather than wasting time on Countrywide, why not look at the banks not lending, or not lending on reasonable terms, today. Or look at the financial companies better against their clients? At least one of you is an attorney - imagine if you bet against a client (especially if it were based on inside knowledge) the way a few of the financial companies bet, and continue to bet, against clients? You'd loose your license. Or imagine if your average attorney ignored the interest of his clients, the way that corporate boards ignore the interests of their shareholders in favor of a few short-sighted, selfish "executives?" and on and on.

For every urban grandparent with a paid off mortgage who remortgaged their house unknowingly, my heart goes out: But they haven't been helped. The fact of the matter is that, and I know it may be hard to admit, the majority of people of whatever race, for every "subprime" borrower who was wrongfully given a chance (and I can't even believe that statement makes sense, "wrongfully given a chance?") there are ten subprime and non-subprime potential borrowers today who can't get financing now on any terms. And don't even consider the "alt-a's."
10:29 AM on 01/17/2012
mortgage brokers were doing loans with no down payment, no income verification. Is it a big surprise that so many loans went bad. Banks are supposed to know better.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
georgeny
02:10 PM on 01/17/2012
Yes, and in an obviously overheated market. The problem is that now that they have swung the other way, no one is benefitting.
10:41 PM on 01/16/2012
For Eric Holder: I believe Countrywide execs took home larger bonus money than your total settlement. Mozilo alone took over 100 million out of the his exit from the company. One exec 100 million 200000 settlement parties split 335 Million. Doesn't sound like a good deal at all. 335 Million seems big, except a better number would be the median payout per settlement plaintiff.
10:37 PM on 01/16/2012
Look around.... Foreclosures are everywhere. They are in all neighborhoods with all races being represented.

When are the investigations of Mr. Frank and Mr. Dodd going to occur?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
georgeny
12:15 AM on 01/17/2012
Actually I believe Congresspeople are protected by the speech and debate clause. I think I'd more concentrate on the revolving door between regulators and the regulated.
12:26 AM on 01/17/2012
Mr. Frank got rich out of Fannie May and Freddie Mac. It was a feeding trough for the likes of Barney Frank and former Clintonistas. No investigation was or will ever happen.
02:37 AM on 01/17/2012
In the late 90's, the government wanted to enable subprime borrowers to obtain loans that were unavailable at the time. The set up pilot programs with Fannie and Freddie to rollout loans to people who never should have gotten loans. IndyMac and Countrywide and their ilk originated them and sold them to Fannie and Freddie. The big investment banks (Lehman, Bear Stearns, Goldman etc...) chopped them up into traunches, levered them and packaged them so they could spread like a cancer throughout the world. The fed kept rates low through the whole process and the loans got sillier and sillier. Everybody thought they were king*&^% on both sides of the aisle. Then the bubble burst and the feds are suing for this fraud or that fraud. THE WHOLE THING WAS A FRAUD INITIATED BY OUR GOVERNMENT. It is almost funny when you think about it. Be careful out there.
10:31 AM on 01/17/2012
The only one who got rich from Fannie mae was Gingrich