Citizens Bank Settles Discrimination Lawsuit

Citizens Bank has agreed to settle a federal lawsuit over allegations that it systematically denied loans to African-American neighborhoods in Detroit. Under the settlement, the bank will spend $3.6 million on grants and loans to African-American households.

“This type of discrimination is part of the web of intolerable practices that stripped vast amounts of wealth from communities of color in the last decade,” Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said in a press release.

In a lawsuit, the Justice Department alleged that Flint-based Citizens Republic Bancorp, which operates as Citizens Bank, avoided giving loans in Detroit and the suburbs of River Rouge, Inkster and Romulus, all of which are predominantly African-American.

[Resource: Get your free personalized Credit Report Card]

“It’s good news the [Department of Justice] is cracking down on practices like this,” says Kathleen Day, spokeswoman for the Center for Responsible Lending, “but it’s very sad—and bad for everyone, whatever their skin color?—that this type of behavior persists.”

To settle the suit, Citizens bank agreed to invest $1.5 million in loans in areas around Detroit that are majority African-American. Another $1.6 million will go toward a neighborhood stabilization program that gives homeowners grants of up to $5,000 toward fixing up the exteriors of their homes. In addition, Citizens will spend $500,000 to promote these programs in the community and to run consumer financial education programs.

The settlement still must be approved by a federal judge.

Image: Brian Turner, via Flickr

A Subprime Pioneer’s Notes on the Financial Crisis She Predicted

HousingCrisis_Justus_Hayes_CCFlickrKathleen Engel started to notice something funny happening with home loans in 1999. She lived in Shaker Heights, Ohio, just a few blocks from the city of Cleveland. Out of nowhere, she’d found herself inundated with offers from loan brokers. They called on the phone, left flyers on her porch, sent her direct mail.

All the brokers were offering home equity loans. Engel’s neighbors were flooded with the same offers. When Engel called about the loans, she discovered a pattern: many loans offered low introductory interest rates that skyrocketed after just a few months; others contained costly balloon payments.

[Article: New Federal Rule Protects Benefits from Garnishment]

These loans were designed to fail, Engel realized. Within months, people on her block started losing their homes.

“I started asking, ‘Why are people making these loans?’ It didn’t make sense,” she says. “They were unsustainable from the get-go.”

Engel was a law professor at Cleveland State University. She became one of the first academics in the country to recognize the problem of subprime loans, the monster now known to be responsible for much of the 2007 recession, the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression.

[Article: Finally, Bank Villains Are Named]

Now Engel’s research has culminated in a new book, “The Subprime Virus.” It documents how Wall Street financial firms caused the subprime mortgage bubble, and the recession that followed, by allowing their short-term desire for profits and bonuses overwhelm concerns about the long term health of their own institutions, Engel found. They did it by controlling all aspects of the market, from individual loan officers all the way up to the investors in complicated securities swaps, and convincing Congress and federal regulators to look the other way.

“The investment banks like to portray themselves as just innocent middlemen,” says Engel, who is now a law professor at Suffolk University in Boston. “That’s just not true. They made the market. They were in control.”

The Early Days »

Image: Justus Hayes, via Flickr.com

New Rewards, Penalties for Mortgage Mods

Having trouble refinancing your mortgage, even though you meet all the requirements set by the federal government? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government-owned mortgage giants, announced recently that they will use cash to encourage loan servicers to modify loans, and impose new penalties against companies that break the rules.

Loan servicers that complete a modification application within six months of the borrower becoming delinquent will get $500. Those who miss the deadline will pay $500. After that, servicers that make a successful modification will get between $400 and $1,400, depending on how quickly they complete the process.

“This initiative will direct servicers to reach families earlier, communicate more frequently and clearly, and provide relief,” Michael J. Williams, president of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which oversees Fannie and Freddie, said in a press release.

The final rules will not be announced until the second quarter of 2011. They will include requirements that servicers respond to borrowers’ phone calls and emails within a certain time, and deadlines for how quickly servicers must give notice of delinquency and inspect houses facing foreclosure.

[Related article: Federal Agencies Push for More Mortgage Modifications]

Loan servicers act as middlemen in the mortgage process. They receive checks from homeowners, pay the taxes and insurance, and pass profits on to investors. Unlike investors and homeowners, however, servicers actually earn higher profits when a home slides into foreclosure, reducing their incentive to modify loans and keep homeowners in their houses, according to research and testimony by the Center for Responsible Lending, which we covered here.

The action by Fannie and Freddie is not the first attempt by the federal government to change servicers’ behavior. The Obama Administration hoped the Home Affordable Modification Program would encourage servicers to modify more loans. The program was a spectacular failure, mostly because its incentives were too small compared to how much money servicers continue to make from foreclosures, according to a Congressional Oversight Panel report covered here.

[Related article: Federal Fannie and Freddie Changes Likely Won't Come Soon]

Fannie and Freddie’s goals for their servicing initiative appear to be more modest by comparison. Gone is talk from the Obama administration of saving four million homeowners from foreclosure (at most, HAMP actually will prevent 800,000 foreclosures, the oversight panel found). Instead, the agencies hope homeowners will simply gain better information about where they stand in the process.

The initiative “should give homeowners a greater understanding of the process and faster resolution by requiring earlier contact, more frequent communication, and prompt decisions,” Edward J. DeMarco, the FHFA’s acting director, said in a press release.

Image: James Thompson, via Flickr

Strategic Default: The Real Cost of Walking Away from Your Mortgage

A University of Arizona law professor has raised eyebrows for urging homeowners who owe more than their houses are worth to act in their own self-interest by walking away from their mortgages. 

Professor Brent T. White argues that underwater homeowners could save hundreds of thousands of dollars defaulting on their mortgages in his academic paper titled “Underwater and Not Walking Away: Shame, Fear and the Social Management of the Housing Crisis.”  

To do so, they must overcome their moral qualms about refusing to pay their bills. White argues that this moral barrier was constructed by a variety of players, including the government, the financial industry, and social control agents like banks and media.  

The short-term costs of walking away -- including a negative hit to one’s credit score -- are outweighed by long-term financial benefits, he says. 

“While the actual financial cost of having a poor credit score for a few years may be hard to quantify, it is not likely to be significant for most individuals, especially not when compared to the savings from walking away from a seriously underwater mortgage,” he says.  

Which raises the question: When homeowners strategically default on mortgages -- that is, skip payments even though they can pay their bills -- what exactly happens to their credit? White cautions borrowers, telling them they can expect to take a 100- to 150-point hit to their credit scores, with additional hits for late payments. The total hit from late payments and a foreclosure could be as high as 300 to 400 points. Plus, it takes seven years for a foreclosure to disappear from one’s credit report entirely.  

However, he says that “one can have a good credit rating -- meaning above 660 -- within two years after foreclosure" by staying current with other creditors. And qualifying for a federally-insured FHA loan to buy another home can happen in as little as three years.  

But other people -- ranging from walkaway borrowers to lenders and credit experts -- say the hits you take are deeper and more long-lasting than White suggests.  

“A default will have a serious negative impact on a consumer’s credit score and make it more difficult to obtain future credit,” said Barrett Burns, president and CEO of VantageScore Solutions, a scoring company created by the three national credit bureaus, Experian, Equifax and TransUnion.  

“That negative impact will vary depending on what action the consumer takes to avoid further default.”   There are a number of other options, beyond defaulting, available to underwater homeowners: loan modifications, short sales, foreclosures, and bankruptcies. Those who are current on their payments and have a positive loan-to-value ratio may inquire about refinancing to seek better terms.  

Loan modifications reduce a borrower’s monthly payments by decreasing the interest rate, rolling late payments and fees into the principal, or extending the life of the loan. These strategies make the loan more affordable.  

However, the rate of re-defaults after a loan modification are quite high, according to an October report by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Office of Thrift Supervision.  

The report shows that a quarter of all borrowers who received loan modifications in the first quarter of 2008 re-defaulted three months later. And more than half who received loan modifications in earlier quarters re-defaulted after a year.  

An increasingly prevalent strategy is to lower the principal on the loan, according to the report. Principal reduction was used 3.1 percent of the time in the first quarter of 2009. That percentage jumped to 10 percent in the second quarter, statistics show.  

Loan modifications may have little effect on credit scores. A short sale, on the other hand, can adversely affect a score by 120 to 130 points, VantageScore has said. But it will have a less negative impact than a foreclosure, Burns said.  

“A consumer who has defaulted may face higher interest rates and/or more restrictive terms and conditions when borrowing in the future or may be prevented from obtaining credit altogether,” he said.  

Indeed, it will take a minimum of five years (not three, as White claims) to qualify for a federally insured FHA loan to buy a new home, officials at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac told Washington Post’s Kenneth R. Harney. Harney has reported that people who file for bankruptcy protection covering all of their debts (mortgage, credit cards, auto loans, etc.) will get hit with an average 355- to 365-point drop in their scores. Bankruptcies remain on borrowers' credit bureau files for 10 years.  

The Vantage credit score rates borrowers on a scale range of 501 (subprime, the highest risk) to 990 (super-prime, the lowest risk). It competes with the Fair Isaac Corp.’s FICO scoring system, which ranges between 350 and 850. In general, a FICO score of 650 is considered a “fair” credit score, while 750 or higher is considered “excellent.”     

Cristine Gonzalez — A freelance writer specializing in family and personal finance, Cristine has worked as a reporter and copy editor for The Oregonian in Portland, Ore., The Associated Press, and People magazine in New York City.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers