DOCSLIB.ORG

The Subprime Crisis and the Link Between Consumer Financial Protection and Systemic Risk

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Subprime Crisis and the Link Between Consumer Financial Protection and Systemic Risk FIU Law Review Volume 5 Number 1 Article 8 Fall 2009 The Subprime Crisis and the Link between Consumer Financial Protection and Systemic Risk Erik F. Gerding University of New Mexico School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/lawreview Part of the Other Law Commons Online ISSN: 2643-7759 Recommended Citation Erik F. Gerding, The Subprime Crisis and the Link between Consumer Financial Protection and Systemic Risk, 5 FIU L. Rev. 93 (2009). DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.25148/lawrev.5.1.8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by eCollections. It has been accepted for inclusion in FIU Law Review by an authorized editor of eCollections. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Subprime Crisis and the Link between Consumer Financial Protection and Systemic Risk Erik F. Gerding This Article argues that the current global financial crisis, which was first called the “subprime crisis,” demonstrates the need to revisit the divi- sion between financial regulations designed to protect consumers from ex- cessively risky loans and safety-and-soundness regulations intended to pro- tect financial markets from the collapse of financial institutions. Consumer financial protection can, and must, serve a role not only in protecting indi- viduals from excessive risk, but also in protecting markets from systemic risk. Economic studies indicate it is not merely high rates of defaults on consumer loans, but also unpredictable and highly correlated defaults that create risks for both lenders and investors in asset-backed securities. Consumer financial regulations can mitigate these risks in three, non- exclusive ways: (1) by reducing the level of defaults on consumer loans, (2) by making defaults more predictable, and (3) by reducing the correlation of defaults. The Article argues that: “predatory lending” can constitute a collective action failure by lenders; consumer behavioral biases may frustrate predictions of consum- er defaults; but consumer financial rules that take into account these biases and address the “menu design” of consumer loan choices may not on- ly protect consumers, but make the risk of consumer defaults more predictable. The Article also draws tentative conclusions on the implications of the link between consumer protection and systemic risk for the institutional reform of financial regulation by: arguing against federal preemption of state consumer regulation; * Assistant Professor of Law, University of New Mexico School of Law. The author would like to thank Fred Hart, Max Minzner, and participants in the UNM Department of Economics Colloquium for their comments. Any errors are mine. 93 94 FIU Law Review [5:93 providing a rough analysis of regulatory reform proposals for creating either a single financial regulator or a “Twin Peaks” model of separate regulators for consumer protection and systemic risk regulation. I. INTRODUCTION There has been a historical division in financial regulation between regulations designed to protect consumers and regulations intended to pro- tect financial markets from the collapse of financial institutions. This Ar- ticle argues that the current global financial crisis, which was first called the “subprime crisis,” demonstrates the need to revisit this division. More par- ticularly, this Article argues that consumer financial protection can, and must, serve a role not only in protecting individuals from excessive risk, but also in protecting markets from systemic risk. This additional role for con- sumer financial protection provides novel support for promoting vigorous and diverse consumer regulations. This Article defines consumer financial protection laws and regula- tions as legal rules designed to prevent individual borrowers from taking on excessive risk.1 These rules address lending practices that are sometimes labeled as unfair, abusive, or predatory, and are often justified on efficiency grounds.2 For example, consumer financial protection laws may address information asymmetries that prevent consumers from understanding the risk of a particular loan3 or behavioral biases and cognitive limitations that 4 cause consumers to act against their long-term self interest. 1 See generally Oren Bar-Gill & Elizabeth Warren, Making Credit Safer, 157 U. PA. L. REV. 1, 8- 11 (2008) (proposing new financial regulator to protect consumers from risk posed by credit products). Consumer financial law covers a broad range of concerns, many of which lie beyond the scope of this Article. For example, this Article does not address financial laws or regulations intended to: ensure wide consumer access to credit (including regulations that combat racial discrimination by lenders in denying credit to consumers and regulations that address private credit reports on consumers); govern consumer banking and payment transactions; address debt collection or foreclosure practices; or regulate consumer bankruptcy. Nevertheless, lender practices in these areas might also contribute to the phenomenon that is the subject of this Article– excessive consumer defaults that threaten the solvency of financial institutions. More particularly, this Article focuses on consumer credit products and consumer lending practices that lead to a a high level of market-wide consumer defaults that are both unpredictable and highly corre- lated. See infra notes 14, 15, 19, 76-82, Part IV.A.2 and accompanying text. 2 See generally Kathleen C. Engel & Patricia A. McCoy, A Tale of Three Markets: The Law and Economics of Predatory Lending, 80 TEX. L. REV. 1255 (2002) (arguing that predatory lending represents a market failure). 3 E.g., Bar-Gill & Warren, supra note 1, at 4 (arguing that market for consumer credit fails when consumers are not optimally informed); Elizabeth Renuart & Diane E. Thompson, The Truth, the Whole 2009] Subprime Crisis - Consumer Fin. Protection & Systemic Risk 95 As Part II.B explains, a separate set of financial laws and regulations address systemic risk. Scholars have defined systemic risk as the risk of market-wide losses or the breakdown of financial markets.5 Because sys- temic risk threatens the entire market, diversification does not adequately protect investors.6 To address systemic risk, financial regulations focus on the “safety and soundness” of financial institutions.7 By ensuring the finan- cial health of institutions, systemic risk regulations attempt to protect finan- cial markets from the collapse of a significant institution.8 There is a tension between the objectives of protecting consumers and ensuring the financial health of individual financial institutions. As Profes- sor Adam Levitin notes, lending practices that extract additional value from consumers strengthen the balance sheets of lenders.9 This means that ef- forts to clamp down on lending practices to protect consumers could ad- versely impact the finances of financial institutions. However, there is little empirical evidence that consumer protection efforts have ever threatened the stability of a financial institution to a de- gree that increases systemic risk. In fact, this Article argues that consumer financial protection is not antithetical to, but, in fact, represents a critical tool in mitigating systemic risk. When widespread consumer credit prod- ucts or lending practices induce high levels of consumer default, the safety and soundness of financial institutions can be threatened.10 Systemic risk can thus arise when losses due to consumer defaults threaten either one Truth, and Nothing but the Truth: Fulfilling the Promise of Truth in Lending, 25 YALE J. ON REG. 181, 181-82 (2008) (noting that Truth in Lending Act was intended to address information asymmetries that prevented consumers from understanding loan terms). 4 E.g., Lauren E. Willis, Decisionmaking and the Limits of Disclosure: The Problem of Predatory Lending: Price, 65 MD. L. REV. 707, 754-89 (2006) (using theories from behavioral economics to ex- plain predatory lending). Many consumer financial protection laws are also grounded in paternalism. Cf. Joshua D. Wright, Behavioral Law and Economics, Paternalism, and Consumer Contracts: An Empirical Perspective, 2 N.Y.U. J.L. & LIBERTY 470 (2007) (challenging empirical foundations of behavioral critiques of con- sumer credit markets). 5 George G. Kaufman & Kenneth E. Scott, What is Systemic Risk, and Do Bank Regulators Retard or Contribute to It, 7 INDEP. REV. 371, 371 (2003) (defining systemic risk as “the risk of a break- down in an entire system, as opposed to breakdowns in individual parts or components”). See also Steven L. Schwarcz, Systemic Risk, 97 GEO L.J. 193 (2008). 6 Schwarcz, supra note 5, at 200. 7 See Adam Feibelman, Commercial Lending and the Separation of Banking and Commerce, 75 U. CIN. L. REV. 943, 967 (2007) (equating concerns in banking law with the “safety and soundness” of banks with efforts to mitigate systemic risk). 8 Kaufman & Scott, supra note 5, at 372, 385 (discussing regulations designed to prevent domi- no chain failures of financial institutions). 9 Adam Levitin, Hydraulic Regulation: Regulating Credit Markets Upstream, 26 YALE J. REG. __ (forthcoming 2009). 10 Professor Levitin recognizes this potential confluence. Id. 96 FIU Law Review [5:93 important financial institution (and that failure, in turn, threatens other insti- tutions) or a number of institutions simultaneously.11 These two pathways to systemic risk point to a need for a refined un- derstanding of when consumer default can lead to market-wide
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Predatory Lending and the Subprime Crisis$
    Journal of Financial Economics ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Financial Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jfec Predatory lending and the subprime crisis$ Sumit Agarwal a, Gene Amromin b, Itzhak Ben-David c,d,n, Souphala Chomsisengphet e, Douglas D. Evanoff b a National University of Singapore, Singapore 119077, Singapore b Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60604, USA c Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA d NBER, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA e Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Washington DC 20219, USA article info abstract Article history: We measure the effect of a 2006 antipredatory pilot program in Chicago on mortgage Received 29 April 2011 default rates to test whether predatory lending was a key element in fueling the subprime Received in revised form crisis. Under the program, risky borrowers or risky mortgage contracts or both triggered 19 October 2012 review sessions by housing counselors who shared their findings with the state regulator. Accepted 29 July 2013 The pilot program cut market activity in half, largely through the exit of lenders specializing in risky loans and through a decline in the share of subprime borrowers. JEL classification: Our results suggest that predatory lending practices contributed to high mortgage default D14 rates among subprime borrowers, raising them by about a third. D18 & 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. G01 G21 Keywords: Predatory lending Subprime crisis Household finance Default 1. Introduction as imposing unfair and abusive loan terms on borrowers, often through aggressive sales tactics, or loans that contain Predatory lending has been the focus of intense aca- terms and conditions that ultimately harm borrowers demic and policy debate surrounding the recent housing (US Government Accountability Office, 2004 and Federal crisis (2007–2010).
    [Show full text]
  • Subprime Lending, Mortgage Foreclosures and Race: How Far Have We Come and How Far Have We to Go?
    Subprime Lending, Mortgage Foreclosures and Race: How far have we come and how far have we to go? Ira Goldstein, Ph.D. Director, Policy & Information Services The Reinvestment Fund With: Dan Urevick-Ackelsberg The Reinvestment Fund Subprime Lending, Mortgage Foreclosures and Race Background For most of the 20 th century, lending discrimination occurred primarily through the denial of credit to minority group members and to the neighborhoods in which they lived. Redlining is a place-based practice in which lenders denied mortgage credit to neighborhoods with substantial numbers of minorities – typically, African Americans and Latinos. Together with the differential treatment of minority and White applicants, a people-based practice, mortgage credit discrimination accelerated segregation and neighborhood decline. For many years, the private market and federal government (e.g., through the explicit practices of the Federal Housing Administration) operated under laws and policies that permitted (and many argue, promoted) redlining and racial segregation.1 After the passage of a number of historically significant federal laws in the 1960s and 1970s, especially the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968) and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 (ECOA), federal law and policy outlawed lending discrimination, and started to require data collection among federally-regulated lending institutions. However, early enforcement of federal fair lending laws was anemic as evidenced by the limited number of legal actions filed, most of which were by private actors.2 Data collection on lending institutions did not begin in earnest amongst regulators until petitions were made to the financial regulatory agencies by the National Urban League in 1971.
    [Show full text]
  • Predatory Lending Practices in the Subprime Industry
    PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION before the HOUSE COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES on Predatory Lending Practices in the Subprime Industry May 24, 2000 I. INTRODUCTION Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: I am David Medine, Associate Director for Financial Practices, of the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection.(1) I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Commission to discuss the serious problem of abusive lending practices in the subprime lending industry, commonly known as "predatory lending." I will discuss the recent growth of the subprime industry, predatory lending practices that reportedly are occurring in the industry, the Commission's recent activities in this area, and possible statutory changes to enhance consumer protection. First, however, let me briefly speak about the Commission's role in enforcing laws that bear on these problems. The Commission has wide-ranging responsibilities concerning nearly all segments of the economy. As part of its mandate to protect consumers, the Commission enforces the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTC Act"), which broadly prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices.(2) The Commission also enforces a number of laws specifically governing lending practices, including the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"),(3) which requires disclosures and establishes certain substantive requirements in connection with consumer credit transactions, the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act ("HOEPA"),(4) which, as part of the TILA, provides special protections for consumers in certain non-purchase, high-cost loans secured by their homes, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"),(5) which prohibits discrimination against applicants for credit on the basis of age, race, sex, or other prohibited factors.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Europe's Financial Bifurcation Point
    Beyond Europe’s financial bifurcation point: Policy proposals for a more stable and more equitable financial system Gary Dymski Leeds University Business School Annina Kalterbrunner Leeds University Business School The European citizens need a financial system that provides for their credit and payments- system needs without imposing costs from excessive volatility, recurrent crises and financial discrimination. Such a financial system will use productive finance to reduce inequality by levelling “up.”As things stand, the European financial system both reflects the effects of three decades of worsening inequality and operates in ways that deepen it. This policy brief proposes ten reforms aimed at breaking the inequality-finance cycle in Europe. Economic Policy Brief No.4 2014 1. Introduction The people of Europe need a financial system that provides for their credit and payments-system needs without imposing costs from excessive volatility, recurrent crises and financial discrimination. Such a financial system will use productive finance to reduce inequality by levelling “up.” As things stand, the European financial system both reflects the effects of three decades of worsening inequality and operates in ways that deepen it. Super-leveraged speculation enriches the 1% in the financial system’s inner core while fragilizing the financial institutions on which commerce, industry, and households depend. When these institutions’ weaknesses are exposed, it is the too-big-to-fail megabanks most prone to excessive risk-taking that have absorbed the lion’s share of bailout support: not as a reward for cushioning the economy from crisis, but because of fear that their failure could lead to system collapse.
    [Show full text]
  • Download File (Pdf; 839Kb)
    R E S E A R C H O N M O N E Y A N D F I N A N C E Discussion Paper no 2 Racial Exclusion and the Political Economy of the Subprime Crisis Gary A Dymski University of California Center Sacramento (UCCS) 15 February 2009 Research on Money and Finance Discussion Papers RMF invites discussion papers that may be in political economy, heterodox economics, and economic sociology. We welcome theoretical and empirical analysis without preference for particular topics. Our aim is to accumulate a body of work that provides insight into the development of contemporary capitalism. We also welcome literature reviews and critical analyses of mainstream economics provided they have a bearing on economic and social development. Submissions are refereed by a panel of three. Publication in the RMF series does not preclude submission to journals. However, authors are encouraged independently to check journal policy. Gary A Dymski, Address: UCCS, 1130 K Street Suite LL22, Sacramento CA 95814, USA. Email: [email protected]. The author gives special thanks to Mariko Adachi, Philip Arestis, Glen Atkinson, Dean Baker, David Barkin, Etelberto Cruz, Jim Crotty, Silvana De Paula, Shaun French, Masao Ishikura, Tetsuji Kawamura, Costas Lapavitsas, Noemi Levy, George Lipsitz, Andrew Leyshon, Tracy Mott, Jesus Munoz, Anastasia Nesvetailova, Ronen Palan, Yoshi Sato, Tokutaru Shibata, Jan Toporowski, Thomas Wainwright, Michelle White, Clyde Woods, and two anonymous referees of this journal for their insightful comments on the work presented here, and he acknowledges the useful feedback he received from participants in the January 2008 Association for Evolutionary Economics conference, in the 2008 conference on Structural Change and Development Policies at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, and in seminars at Denver University, the University of Nevada-Reno, Nottingham University, and the University of Tokyo.
    [Show full text]
  • Predatory Mortgage Loans
    CONSUMER Information for Advocates Representing Older Adults CONCERNS National Consumer Law Center® Helping Elderly Homeowners Victimized by Predatory Mortgage Loans Equity-rich, cash poor, elderly homeowners are an attractive target for unscrupulous mortgage lenders. Many elderly homeowners are on fixed or limited incomes, yet need access to credit to pay for home repairs, medical care, property or municipal taxes, and other expenses. The equity they have amassed in their home may be their primary or only financial asset. Predatory lenders seek to capitalize on elders’ need for cash by offer- ing “easy” credit and loans packed with high interest rates, excessive fees and costs, credit insurance, balloon payments and other outrageous terms. Deceptive lending practices, including those attributable to home improvement scams, are among the most frequent problems experienced by financially distressed elderly Americans seeking legal assistance. This is particularly true of minority homeowners who lack access to traditional banking services and rely disproportionately on finance compa- nies and other less regulated lenders. But there are steps advocates can take to assist vic- tims of predatory mortgage loans. • A Few Examples One 70 year old woman obtained a 15-year mortgage in the amount of $54,000 at a rate of 12.85%. Paying $596 a month, she will still be left with a final balloon payment of nearly $48,000 in 2011, when she will be 83 years old. Another 68 year old woman took out a mortgage on her home in the amount of $20,334 in the early 1990s. Her loan was refinanced six times in as many years, bringing the final loan amount to nearly $55,000.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cumulative Costs of Predatory Practices
    ? THE CUMULATIVE COSTS OF PREDATORY PRACTICES The State of Lending in America & its Impact on U.S. Households Sarah D. Wolff June 2015 www.responsiblelending.org Table of ConTenTs Foreword . 4 Executive Summary . 6 Lending Abuse and Their Costs . 8 Who Pays . 22 Cumulative Impact . 29 A Role for Regulation . 30 Conclusion . 34 References . 35 Appendix . 39 foreword By Michael Calhoun, President Shortly after the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL) started in 2002, we estimated the total cost of predatory The difference between a fair and mortgage lending to be $9.1 billion. That figure was affordable loan and a predatory of great concern then. Today the costs of all types of loan often becomes the difference abusive lending have become literally incalculable, but the total adds up to hundreds of billions of dollars. As a between achieving greater pros- whole, our series on The State of Lending in America perity and falling into a cycle of and its Impact on U.S. Households shows how predatory unending debt. lending has derailed economic opportunity for millions of Americans and weakened the U.S. economy. In previous State of Lending chapters, we focused on specific types of loans—mortgages, credit cards, and payday loans, just to name a few—as well as practices in debt settlement and collection. In this final chapter, we take a broader look at the lending landscape. What are common characteristics of abusive loans? Who is most likely to be targeted? What are the costs? Finally, we also look at why predatory lending matters beyond its impact on individuals who are harmed.
    [Show full text]
  • Maintaining Stability in a Changing Financial System
    The Panic of 2007 Gary B. Gorton I. Introduction With a full year elapsed since the panic of 1907 reached its crisis among this country’s financial markets, its banking insti- tutions, and its productive industries, it ought to be possible to obtain an insight into the nature of that economic event such as could not easily have been obtained when the phenomena of the crisis itself surrounded us. —Alexander Noyes, “A Year after the Panic of 1907,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, February 1909. We are now about one year since the onset of the Panic of 2007. The forces that hit financial markets in the U.S. in the summer of 2007 seemed like a force of nature, something akin to a hurricane, or an earthquake, something beyond human control. In August of that year, credit markets ceased to function completely, like the sudden arrival of a kind of “no trade theorem” in which no one would trade with you simply because you wanted to trade with them.1 True, thousands of people did not die, as in the recent natural disasters in Asia, so I do not mean to exaggerate. Still, thousands of borrowers are losing their homes, and thousands are losing their jobs, mostly bankers and others in the financial sector. Many blame the latter group for the plight of the former group; ironic, as not long ago the latter group was blamed 131 08 Book.indb 131 2/13/09 3:58:24 PM 132 Gary B.Gorton for not lending to the former group (“redlining” it was called).
    [Show full text]
  • Eliminating Racial Discrimination in the Subprime Mortgage Market: Proposals for Fair Lending Reform
    Brooklyn Law School BrooklynWorks Faculty Scholarship 2009 Eliminating Racial Discrimination in the Subprime Mortgage Market: Proposals for Fair Lending Reform Winnie F. Taylor Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/faculty Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, and the Housing Law Commons ELIMINATING RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN THE SUBPRIME MORTGAGE MARKET: PROPOSALS FOR FAIR LENDING REFORM By Winnie F. Taylor* INTRODUCTION Lending discrimination has been a national problem for decades. Before Congress enacted the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) in 1974 to combat it, lenders routinely denied credit to potential borrowers because of their race, gender, age, marital status and other personal characteristics unrelated to creditworthiness standards.' For instance, some creditors based their lending decisions on stereotypical assumptions about whether women in certain age groups would have children or return to work after childbirth.2 Others excluded minority communities from their lending areas by literally drawing red lines on maps around neighborhoods where mostly African Americans and Hispanics resided.3 The ECOA is a fair lending law that proscribes lending practices that impede credit opportunities for women, racial minorities and others who have * Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School. I am grateful to Bethany Walsh, Dylan Gordon, and Adrienne Valdez for their helpful research assistance. I also thank the Brooklyn Law School faculty research fund for its support. See Winnie F. Taylor, Meeting the Equal Credit Opportunity Act's Specificity Requirement: Judgmental and Statistical Scoring Systems, 29 BUFF. L. REV. 73, 74-81 (1980). 2 See NATIONAL COMMISSION ON CONSUMER FIN., CONSUMER CREDIT IN THE UNITED STATES, 151, 152-53 (1972).
    [Show full text]
  • Race, Power, and the Subprime/Foreclosure Crisis: a Mesoanalysis
    Working Paper No. 669 Race, Power, and the Subprime/Foreclosure Crisis: A Mesoanalysis by Gary A. Dymski University of California, Riverside Jesus Hernandez University of California, Davis Lisa Mohanty* TUI University May 2011 * Correspondence: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]. The Levy Economics Institute Working Paper Collection presents research in progress by Levy Institute scholars and conference participants. The purpose of the series is to disseminate ideas to and elicit comments from academics and professionals. Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, founded in 1986, is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, independently funded research organization devoted to public service. Through scholarship and economic research it generates viable, effective public policy responses to important economic problems that profoundly affect the quality of life in the United States and abroad. Levy Economics Institute P.O. Box 5000 Annandale-on-Hudson, NY 12504-5000 http://www.levyinstitute.org Copyright © Levy Economics Institute 2011 All rights reserved ABSTRACT Economists’ principal explanations of the subprime crisis differ from those developed by noneconomists in that the latter see it as rooted in the US legacy of racial/ethnic inequality, and especially in racial residential segregation, whereas the former ignore race. This paper traces this disjuncture to two sources. What is missing in the social science view is any attention to the market mechanisms involved in subprime lending; and economists, on their side, have drawn too tight a boundary for “the economic,” focusing on market mechanisms per se, to the exclusion of the households and community whose resources and outcomes these mechanisms affect. Economists’ extensive empirical studies of racial redlining and discrimination in credit markets have, ironically, had the effect of making race analytically invisible.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Subprime Mortgage Markets
    16 REVIEW OF BANKING & FINANCIAL LAW Vol. 31 III. The Future of Subprime Mortgage Markets A. Introduction Largely believed to be a significant cause of the recent U.S. financial crisis, subprime mortgages remain a contentious subject of litigation and regulatory action nationwide. Subprime mortgage lending increased from six percent of all mortgage originations in 1996 to twenty percent in 2006.1 From 2004 until 2007, subprime delinquency rates were significantly higher than prime delinquency rates.2 Since then, prime loan delinquencies have surpassed subprime loan delinquencies.3 These numbers suggest that although subprime loans initiated the mortgage crisis, the effects have spread throughout the rest of the housing market. The response to the role of subprime mortgages in the crisis has been two-fold: litigation against originators and securitizers of subprime loans and regulatory responses attempting to stem the crisis’ effects and prevent it from happening again. B. Litigation: The Threat of Enforcement Over one trillion dollars of risky mortgage bonds remain outstanding, meaning the market is still saturated with “disgruntled 1 See KATALINA M. BIANCO, THE SUBPRIME LENDING CRISIS: CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF THE MORTGAGE MELTDOWN (CCH) 6, available at http://business.cch.com/bankingfinance/focus/news/Subprime_WP_rev.pdf (reviewing the rise of subprime lending in the United States in the context of the overall housing market). 2 See Gene Amromin & Anna L. Paulson, Default Rates on Prime and Subprime Mortgages: Differences and Similarities, PROFITWISE NEWS AND VIEWS 2 (Sept. 2010), available at http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_ assets/publications/profitwise_news_and_views/2010/PNV_Aug2010_ReEd _FINAL_web.pdf (depicting default rates of prime and subprime loans each year from 2004-2007 in terms of months since the mortgage began).
    [Show full text]
  • Avoiding Predatory Lending
    California Department of Real Estate Avoiding Predatory Lending Protect Yourself in the Loan Process Don't fall prey to predatory lending! If you are in the market for a new loan to purchase real property or a loan to refinance an existing mortgage, the mortgage market place offers numerous types of loan products. Being knowledgeable about the loan process will help you find the most desirable loan product and avoid the pitfalls of predatory lending. About Predatory Lending The term "predatory lending" encompasses a variety of home mortgage lending practices. Predatory lenders often try to pressure consumers into signing loan agreements they cannot afford or simply are not in the consumers' best interest. Often, through the use of false promises and deceptive sales tactics, borrowers are convinced to sign a loan contract before they have had a chance to review the paperwork and do the math to determine whether they can truly afford the loan. Predatory loans carry high up-front fees that are added to the balance, decreasing the homeowner's equity. Loan amounts are usually based on the borrower's home equity without consideration of the borrower's ability to make the scheduled payments. When borrowers have trouble repaying the debt, they are often encouraged to refinance the loan into another unaffordable, high-fee loan that rarely provides economic benefit to the consumer. This cycle of high-cost loan refinancing can ultimately deplete the homeowner's equity and result in foreclosure. Predatory lending practices specifically prohibited by law include: • Flipping - the frequent making of new loans to refinance existing loans, • Packing - the selling of additional products without the borrower's informed consent, and • Charging excessive fees.
    [Show full text]