Home > Mortgages > Feds: CEO’s Push for Risky Mortgages Killed IndyMac Bank

Comments 0 Comments

Customer run on IndyMac Bank in 2008

Even when he knew the economy was headed for the abyss, former CEO of IndyMac Bank Michael Perry “negligently” directed his company to sell $10 billion worth of risky mortgages that drove his company into bankruptcy, according to a lawsuit filed last week by the FDIC.

IndyMac was one of the largest mortgage lenders during the housing boom. Its bankruptcy in 2008 was the third-biggest banking failure in U.S. history at the time.

“Perversely, instead of enforcing credit standards, Perry chose to roll the dice in an aggressive gamble to increase market share,” according to the FDIC’s complaint, even though a responsible banker “would have suspended, limited, or stopped the production of these risky loans during this time of known, unprecedented, and escalating risks.”

[Article: Big Banks Offer Big Mortgage Mods, No Application Required]

This is the second federal lawsuit against Perry. In February the Securities and Exchange Commission charged him with securities fraud for allegedly misleading investors about IndyBank’s finances.

Perry’s lawyer, D. Jean Veta, said the FDIC’s lawsuit is “baseless.”

“Mr. Perry led IndyMac with integrity and intelligence. The FDIC’s belated claim that Mr. Perry was somehow ‘negligent’ is dead wrong,” Veta said in an emailed statement.

The case involves Perry’s decisions between April and October 2007, right when investors began to show reluctance about buying mortgage-backed securities because of growing concern that many homeowners might default on the underlying loans. That posed a serious problem for IndyMac’s business model, which was based on generated fees by selling mortgages to homeowners, and then packaging those loans and re-selling them to investors, according to the federal suit.

But instead of responding to investors’ concerns by tightening credit requirements and writing fewer mortgages, Perry doubled down, the FDIC says. During six months in 2007, IndyMac wrote $10 billion worth of new mortgages. Most of those loans were called “Alt-A,” which means they required less documentation from borrowers than traditional mortgages.

But that wasn’t even the riskiest part of the strategy. Ten percent of the mortgages, worth over $1 billion, were no-documentation loans, often called “liar loans,” since they didn’t require borrowers to provide any documentation at all about their income or their ability to repay. Others were “interest only,” in which borrowers pay only the interest on the loan for the first few years, with principal (and significantly higher payments) getting tacked on in later years.

[Related Article: Treasury: Top Three Banks Doing Poor Job at Mortgage Modifications]

To put this in perspective, this would be like Ford continuing to crank out millions of new SUVs during a gas price spike, when dealers’ lots were already filled to capacity with unsold vehicles. Oh, and some of those SUVs had a nasty tendency to explode as they were driving down the highway.

The result: IndyMac got stuck with $600 million in mortgages it couldn’t sell. When those loans began to fail, IndyMac did, too.

Perry told internal critics of his plan to get out of the way. When IndyMac’s risk management team raised concerns in 2005 that the company was taking on too much risk, Perry wrote in an email to senior managers that the risk management department  “will be far more effective, if they [sic] focus on the details and facts, not on excessive worry over what the future holds,” according to the FDIC complaint.

Three years later, Perry’s lack of concern about the future caused IndyBank to go bankrupt, the FDIC alleges. In October 2007, Perry gave a written statement to IndyMac’s board admitting his mistakes.

“This time the losses are 100% operating management’s fault (from me on down),” Perry wrote.

“Simply put, Perry negligently elevated his desire to increase the Bank’s market share over prudent risk management,” according to the FDIC’s suit.

Not true, Perry’s lawyers say. In an emailed statement, Veta and her co-counsel Benjamin Razi say the government is retroactively expecting Perry to foresee a financial crisis that “nobody else did,” including FDIC and other bank regulators.

“This lawsuit is another transparent ploy designed to deflect blame away from the FDIC for its own failures,” Razi said in the press release.

The lawsuit was filed July 6 in U.S. District Court in Central California, where IndyMac was based. The suit asks that Perry be forced to pay a fine of $600 million.

[Resource: Get your free Credit Report Card]

Image: Zoli Erdos, via Flickr.com

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team