Features » July 16, 2007

The Subprime Bait and Switch

Under the guise of extending home ownership to all, predatory lenders undermine community reinvestment

By Alexander Gourse

At closing, subprime borrowers are often presented with terms that do not match those previously offered, and then pressured into signing documents they have not had time to review.

When the housing market began its rapid ascent in the mid-’90s, many observers waxed rhapsodic about the potential of high-interest, subprime loans to merge the financial interests of investors and low income and minority communities. The hope for subprime boosters was that such loans would allow the mortgage industry to continue business as usual while at the same time meeting government mandates for fair and affordable housing. As recently as April 2005, Alan Greenspan praised the deregulation of the banking and lending industries for having “vastly expanded credit availability to virtually all income classes.”

It’s true that the number of minority homeowners increased at a similar rate to that of all homeowners during the last decade, but the housing market’s recent slump has brought to light serious weaknesses in the subprime model, raising doubts about its viability as a tool for community reinvestment. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Greenspan’s zeal for deregulation may have caused him to turn a blind eye to predatory practices within the subprime lending industry, and consumer advocates are now predicting that nearly 20 percent of subprime mortgage loans made since 2005 will end in foreclosure, at a loss to the consumer of around $164 billion.

The home mortgage industry divides would-be borrowers into two basic types. Prime borrowers are those who have adequate income and good credit histories. Subprime borrowers are those with problematic credit histories and, often, less-than-adequate incomes. The loans are inherently risky for the lender, as such borrowers are more likely to default on payments, requiring higher interest rates to offset this risk.

Before the mid-’90s, subprime lenders operated on a limited scale, but the rapid growth in the housing market brought with it more mortgage companies that specialized in subprime lending. The subprime industry grew from a $35 billion per year industry in 1994 to more than $330 billion in 2003, and from 2004 to 2006 the volume of subprime loans nearly doubled to more than $600 billion.

“These loans keep being made because investors make a profit,” says Geoff Smith, research director at the Woodstock Institute, a Chicago-based nonprofit that specializes in issues of community economic development. “Investors can tolerate a certain number of losses, because failures are priced into the risk assessment. As long as investors are still profiting, mortgage companies will do whatever they can to make more loans, and to maximize the total sums loaned out.”

While industry representatives have lauded their own success in offering credit to financially underserved populations, recent studies suggest that subprime loans have only a marginal effect on homeownership rates. Original purchase loans comprise only a small portion of subprime mortgages, and an even smaller percentage—about 9 percent—go to first-time homebuyers. A majority of subprime loans are refinances, with homeowners looking to lower their monthly payments or to draw out the equity in their homes to pay off their consumer debt or other personal expenses. If foreclosure rates continue to rise as predicted, the Center for Responsible Lending estimates that though some people will become first time homeowners due to subprime loans, there will be significantly more borrowers that will lose their homes to foreclosure.

Industry representatives typically cite the poor credit histories of most subprime borrowers to explain increasing foreclosure rates. Consumer and community advocates, however, paint a darker picture. “Predatory lending is definitely a systemic problem within the subprime mortgage industry,” says Al Hofeld Jr., a litigation attorney and chair of the South Side Community Federal Credit Union in Chicago (SSCFU). “There are very few subprime lenders who will make a subprime loan where the interest rate actually reflects the risk involved.”

According to Smith, predatory lenders put borrowers into loans that they cannot afford. While blatant fraud, such as the falsification of a borrower’s income to justify a larger loan, is becoming less common, the misrepresentation of a loan’s characteristics, like the concealment of a fixed rate “teaser” period that adjusts upward after two years, is a growing problem.

Hofeld says subprime mortgage companies routinely use bait-and-switch tactics to lure in potential borrowers and maximize the amount of money loaned out. At closing, borrowers are often presented with terms that do not match those previously offered by the company, and then pressured into signing documents which they have not had time to review. Ameriquest Mortgage Company is currently facing hundreds of lawsuits which allege that they routinely baited potential customers by promising fixed interest rates, low or no fees, lower monthly payments, no prepayment penalties, or by representing to borrowers that they qualify for a particular set of terms.

In 2005, Betty and Tyrone Walker, a couple living in the Park Manor neighborhood on the south side of Chicago, took out a refinance loan with Ameriquest. “All we wanted to do was to make our house more livable,” says Walker, who is legally disabled and is raising a 12-year-old adopted daughter on her husband’s salary as a mail clerk at a local medical school. After being solicited by Ameriquest through the mail, the Walkers decided to use some of the equity in their home to refurnish their basement.

The Walkers requested information about the loan numerous times, and were confident that they knew what the terms of the loan would be when they went to sign the closing documents. “We just kept asking them whether we were going to remain on a fixed rate, and they just kept lying to us, telling us we’d get a fixed rate,” Mrs. Walker alleges in a lawsuit against Ameriquest.

As they later discovered, however, the terms of the loan were not as they expected. Not only did the loan have an adjustable rate that can go as high as 13.4 percent, but the Walkers allege that Ameriquest falsely told them that their home had doubled in value since they had bought it a few years earlier, thus qualifying them for a larger loan amount. Ameriquest didn’t give them copies of their loan documents at closing, and as a result the Walkers did not realize that the terms had been changed until well after the three-day period during which they could legally cancel the loan. They have since tried to refinance, but have been unable to find another lender willing to lend them the amount currently owed to Ameriquest; the artificially inflated appraisal value has in effect trapped them in a loan with a rising interest rate.

“I felt so stupid after I realized that I had been taken advantage of,” says Walker. “I made them a lunch! I’m always cooking, so I offered them food. I thought they were doing such a swell job of helping us that I cooked for these people, oh lord.”

The race factor

The Walkers’ story is all too familiar. Predatory lending is a particularly widespread problem in low-income and minority communities, where a complex history of housing discrimination, racial segregation and a lack of access to affordable credit have left borrowers with few options. Though redlining, blockbusting and other discriminatory practices were banned in stages between 1968 and 1977, most banks are reluctant to open branches in black neighborhoods, a vacuum that is filled by currency exchanges, payday lenders and now subprime mortgage companies.

“Subprime lenders,” says Smith, “are taking advantage of the fact that they’re the only game in town.” Individual brokers and loan officers make money by taking “points”—that is, charging percentage points of the loan amount, which are added to the borrower’s closing costs—giving them an incentive to maximize the loan amount, regardless of the borrower’s ability to pay for it.

According to “Paying More for the American Dream,” a joint report from six national housing policy organizations, in 2005, black borrowers were 3.8 times more likely than whites to be placed in a high cost loan, while Hispanic borrowers were 3.6 times more likely than whites to receive such a loan. Income disparities between white and minority communities account for some of this difference, but Smith says the disparity is too large to be accounted for by income alone. Low-income black borrowers in the Chicago area were four times as likely to be put in high cost loans than low-income white borrowers.

But the largest disparity was in the highest income bracket, where blacks were five times as likely as whites to be placed in a high cost loan. Foreclosure rates in heavily minority neighborhoods across the nation follow these trends, with black and Latino neighborhoods experiencing significantly higher foreclosure rates than their white counterparts.

Regulation and alternatives

Consumer fraud laws, including requirements that lenders disclose the terms of a loan and borrowers’ cancellation rights, have been important tools for attorneys fighting predatory lenders. But with thousands of lawsuits filed on behalf of subprime borrowers across the country, many consumer advocates are calling for government regulation of the subprime industry.

“Ideally, what we need is a federal law to make sure lenders are using appropriate qualifying standards so that borrowers can repay the loans,” says Smith. Groups like the Center for Responsible Lending have also supported a ban on prepayment penalties and a reform of the “perverse compensation incentives” for “hazardous” loan products.

Congress however is unlikely to pass comprehensive legislation that deals with predatory lending, says Smith. “Realistically, we should be focusing on the state laws currently under debate.” In 1999, North Carolina was the first state to regulate predatory lending practices and dozens of other states and municipalities have followed suit. This year alone legislation dealing with subprime and predatory lending has been introduced in 26 states.

Hofeld, however, sees regulation as only a partial solution. “Some of the laws regulating predatory lenders could be improved, but some of the problems we see are very difficult to regulate. You can’t control what salespeople tell prospective borrowers.”

What’s more, warnings from the mortgage industry that regulation will cut off credit to low income and minority neighborhoods have created a panic among some community leaders and politicians. In Illinois, a bill mandating credit counseling for borrowers in several Chicago zip codes was suspended due to fears that it was racist and would slow real estate sales in those areas.

The seemingly no-win choice between disinvestment in low-income communities or allowing predatory lenders to operate freely might not be as bleak as it appears. A network of Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) has emerged in some cities, providing affordable financial services to low-income individuals who might otherwise be prime targets for predatory lenders. Although their resources are limited, such institutions offer an alternative model for low-income community development.

“Our biggest problem is one of scale,” Hofeld says about the SSCFU. “We want to get to the point where we have a large enough number of deposits so that we’re making enough loans to be self sufficient.”

With around 1,800 members and $3 million in assets, the SSCFU serves 33 neighborhoods on the south side of Chicago with a population of approximately 854,000 people. A self-described “financial institution with a social mission,” the SSCFU is one of approximately 225 members of the National Federation of Community Development Credit Unions, a national organization working to establish a financial infrastructure in poor communities and empower low-income people through asset development.

While much of the capital required to operate the SSCFU has come from foundations and member deposits, federal money has been important as well. Established in 1994, the CDFI Fund within the Treasury Department has made resources available for community development to credit unions, banks and microenterprise funds.

“The CDFI Fund really is the single largest source of funding for these institutions,” says Cliff Rosenthal, the executive director for the National Federation of Community Development Credit Unions. “Though they can grow slowly on their own, the Fund is the only source of major investment that allows these institutions to make quantum leaps in their work.”

Since the Bush administration took office, however, the CDFI Fund has decreased by more than 50 percent. As a result, not only is funding harder to come by, but the maximum grants awarded by the Fund have decreased from around $3 million to $585,000.

Despite the lack of resources, community development credit unions like the SSFCU are proving that the usurious practices of predatory lenders are not a necessary evil in the fight for fair and affordable housing.

“The problems in the subprime mortgage industry should be framed as an affordable housing issue,” says Hofeld. “We often compartmentalize the way we think about issues, but I really think that predatory lending is something that is decreasing the supply of affordable housing. And the lack of access to mortgage credit on fair terms is something that prevents people from getting into homes.”

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  Let the buyer beware!

  There was a time when lenders were fewer and more cautious to whom they loaned. Their investors expected them to use disgression when loaning their money.

  When my wife and I bought our first home her income was not counted. Even though we were confident we could make the payments, my income was too low for us to qualify, so my Dad co-signed the mortgage.  We found a fifteen-year-old car with low miles and avoided buying other things until we had the cash. After six years we were able to sell and buy a larger, nicer one.
  Today not to count the wife’s income (due to the likelihood of pregnancy and income loss) would not be allowed.

  There are many other factors which contributed to this mess — some legitimate and ethical, some not —but the primary one is greed. Greed of the lending institutions, their agents, their investors, and also buyers who want things now whether they can afford them or not.
  —————————

  Think about these comments from the article:

  • “Congress however is unlikely to pass comprehensive legislation that deals with predatory lending, says Smith.”

  They will probaably make a show of some sort of legislative fix, but legislation is not the answer — self control and common sense are needed on the part of the buyers/borrowers.

  • “At closing, subprime borrowers are often presented with terms that do not match those previously offered, and then pressured into signing documents they have not had time to review.”

  They have not had the time to review?!?

  TAKE THE TIME to read the contract — if you don’t fully understand it — DON’T SIGN! (A good argument for learning English.) If there is pressure to sign — DON’T!

  • “These loans keep being made because investors make a profit,”

  That’s what lending is all about.  No profits — no loan company.
  • “...nearly 20 percent of subprime mortgage loans made since 2005 will end in foreclosure, at a loss to the consumer of around $164 billion.”  (A lot of investors are also getting burned by this — high returns are also high risk.)

  Have a lawyer, financial advisor, or savy friend look over the contract. Be honest and up front with him about your income and other expenses. Put off buying if the cost is more than sensible.

  • “Subprime lenders,” says Smith, “are taking advantage of the fact that they’re the only game in town.”
  This statement itself should be enough of a red flag to warn anyone.
  ———————————& ———————

  The following statement is a beaut!

  “The problems in the subprime mortgage industry should be framed as an affordable housing issue,” says Hofeld. “We often compartmentalize the way we think about issues, but I really think that predatory lending is something that is decreasing the supply of affordable housing. And the lack of access to mortgage credit on fair terms is something that prevents people from getting into homes.”

  Nonsense! (Hoefeld is also compartmentalising here.)

  Buying beyond your means is YOUR problem. If people won’t buy what’s available because it is too expensive, builders will be forced to build housing at a price which will sell. A house no different than any other product — food, a car, a sofa, or a pair of socks.

  Posted by whattheheck on Jul 16, 2007 at 3:28 PM

  Most “subprime” lendees i know AREN"T poor or minorities… they are mcmansioners.

  Posted by SekhmetSatRa on Jul 17, 2007 at 1:59 AM

  What responsibility do the homeowners have for signing for a loan they may not be able to pay for? 

  Perhaps it is the failure of the government-run publick edukashun system that many new homeowners do not understand how an amortized loan works and that an adjustable rate mortgage means the interest rate on the loan can adjust upward. 

    These ‘predatory lenders’ need customers who voluntarily sign on the dotted line.  Typically, those who need subprime loans are those who have existing credit risk due to their past circumstances, or because of their own poor decision making.  Thus, they do not qualify for a traditional loan.

  At some point, people have to take responsibility for their own actions.

  Posted by JT_Lancer on Jul 22, 2007 at 7:26 PM

  Here are the Top 10 Mistakes Mortgage Borrowers Make:

  1. Not knowing which mortgage fees the borrower can—and cannot—negotiate. Or how the lender actually makes money on you. Without this understanding, a smooth operator could bilk you out of thousands of extra dollars . . . in mere seconds, since you don’t actually write a check for these costs.  Remember, the loan officer is different from your friendly bank teller. The bank teller is probably paid a salary to be courteous and helpful. The loan officer’s job is to make money and is probably paid on commission.

  2. Choosing and trusting the first loan officer the borrower interviews. Just like you probably wouldn’t say yes if someone asked you to marry them on your first date. You are looking at a commitment here of the largest single investment you will ever make.  In fact, it will probably last longer than most marriages!

  3. Using an interest-only or “payment option” adjustable-rate loan primarily to qualify for a more expensive house than you could normally afford. In the current market of slowing appreciation and falling prices, such a loan could leave you with a mortgage balance that could be more than the value of your home. And if the payment adjusts from a below-market teaser rate, you may be paying hundreds or even thousands of dollars more per month or may even no longer be able to afford the mortgage. You may be looking at a foreclosure and the loss of your biggest investment.

  4. Thinking the interest rate is always the main thing. Most so-called astute mortgage shoppers think they should call around to shop rates. And rate envy is common, especially among male borrowers. But what closing costs will you need to pay to get that fabulous advertised rate? Do comparison shopping not just on the interest rate but on all of the loan costs.

  5. Not comparing the final fees listed on the closing documents to the up-front estimates to avoid the lender packing the loan with added-on fees without the borrower’s knowledge. It is relatively easy for the lender to do this because there will be a ream of forms that you will need to examine and sign at closing. A deceitful closing agent may also use various tactics to distract you from the inflated figures so you won’t even notice.  And never sign any forms with blank lines “to be filled in later.” 

  6. Not knowing if the mortgage has a pre-payment penalty - until it’s too late. Else you could find yourself in a Catch-22: You may need to refinance the mortgage so you can afford the monthly payment, but you may not be able to afford the prepayment penalty to allow you to refinance!

  7. Thinking that renting is always just throwing money away. At least in the short run, it can cost thousands less to rent. For instance, don’t buy a starter house. If you will be living in the area for less than five years or are unsure of how long you will be in your current job or marital status, you could potentially save thousands by staying in your apartment. Closing costs alone on a house (if you negotiate properly) may be $1,500 to $2,500. You may also be looking at a Realtor fee to sell your house of 6%. On a $200,000 house that’s an additional $12,000. And the moving van hasn’t even pulled up to your door yet!

  8. The borrower does not know if he or she is paying a back-end yield spread or Service Release Premium. These are fees paid to brokers and loan officers (the “kickback”) for upselling the interest rate to borrowers.

  9. Paying for mortgage life insurance, credit insurance or other expensive lender add-ons to increase the amount of kickbacks the lender can receive from various vendors.

  10. Paying hundreds of dollars to have a company set up a biweekly mortgage payment plan, something the borrower can generally do for herself or himself—for free.

  From “Kickback: Confessions of a Mortgage Salesman,” one of the best-selling books on mortgages on Amazon.com.

  Posted by tjanusz on Jul 23, 2007 at 8:13 PM

  I used to think that banks kept (were stuck with) the loans they made, but many loans are sold to pension funds etc. that are trying to chase higher returns to meet obligations to retirees.  The originators don’t need to care about the soundness of the loan.  They just want their commission.  The problem is that if (when) home prices fall, the value of the investment (collateral) disappears.  Its a catch-22.  If they don’t renegotiate the interest rate, more people will walk away from a home that is worth less than the amount they owe.  If they do renegotiate the loan, the return on the investment drops.
  Another problem is that if an institution that holds these loans sells them at a discount, it causes all other institutions that hold them to lose the value of their collateral (real free market value!).  If they are leveraged (using that collateral for debt), they must cough up cash to cover that lost value.

  Posted by cougars on Jul 25, 2007 at 4:12 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 6 posts.

Also featured Risking Everything for Europe
General Failure
Illegal Immigrants: Uncle Sam Wants You

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Alexander Gourse

• Old War on New Deal
  The new book Invisible Hands reveals how quickly conservatives organized to challenge New Deal liberalism. Posted on April 29, 2009
• History We Can Use
  The Lower Eastside Tenement Museum in New York City is a founding member of the International Coalition of Historic Sites of Conscience.Posted on October 20, 2006