Home > Personal Finance > Who’s Behind the Latest Bank Giveaway?

Comments 0 Comments

Last week offered a very good snapshot of the state of things in the wake of mortgage crisis. On the one hand, there was news of a woefully inadequate $8.5 billion settlement as “remedy” for irresponsible (and worse) behavior by mortgage servicers. On the other, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced regulations that might help stop such abuses from happening again.

The two news items underscore the marked difference between a government agency that stands down and one that stands up.

First up: the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Approximately 18 months and $1.5 billion ago, the OCC created an Independent Foreclosure Review to investigate big banks’ well-documented mortgage abuses. These abuses included the infamous robo-signing scandal, in which bank-owned servicing companies used forged documents to foreclose on people illegally and force families out of their homes.

But that was just the tip of the iceberg. Servicers told homeowners they qualified for modified mortgages and allowed them to apply while simultaneously initiating foreclosures — evidently open to whichever panned out first (rooting no doubt for foreclosure, since that’s where the money is). Years after the mortgage bubble burst, servicers failed — and in many cases continue to fail — to hire enough customer service representatives to handle the crush of phone calls and paperwork, making it next to impossible for homeowners to get straight answers and very difficult for them to do what they need to do to save their homes.

Instead of investigating the mess itself, the OCC outsourced the job of identifying homeowners that had been wounded by servicer malfeasance. Private contractors who already worked for the big banks got the gig. No conflict of interest of epic proportions there, eh? After fiddling around for a year and a half, and sucking up $1.5 billion in fees, these “investigators” managed to review — shock! — only one third of the loan files they were given.

Last week, however, the OCC announced a settlement that will finally shut this fiasco down. At first glimpse, it looks like a great deal for consumers, with the servicing arms of megabanks including JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and six others agreeing to pay an eye-popping $8.5 billion.

Unfortunately, first glimpses can be deceiving.

“Did we drive a hard bargain? I think yes,” Morris Morgan, a deputy comptroller at the OCC, told ProPublica.

I think not Mr. Morgan. Most of that money will pay for things the servicers are doing anyway, including loan modifications. Only $3.3 billion will go to homeowners, and that will be divided between 3.8 million borrowers. For those without a calculator handy, that’s an average of $870 each. Be still my heart.

To someone who lost his house to mortgage servicer incompetence or malfeasance, that’s not restitution. It’s an insult. “The capped pool of cash payments is wholly inadequate in light of the scale of the harm,” says Alys Cohen, staff attorney for the National Consumer Law Center.

Because the private contractors failed to do their job, no one really knows right now who among those 3.8 million actually got hurt by bad practices. So the settlement will be shared among people who were hammered as well as those who suffered little or no harm at all.

The OCC’s “hard bargain” is yet another sweetheart deal for the banks. The first one, you may recall, was made back in 2003 when the OCC used its federal preemptive power to block states from enacting laws that would have stopped banks from earning record profits from the predatory subprime loans that caused the mortgage markets to overheat and the economy to crash.

A decade later, millions of families who have lost their homes or who remain mired in the foreclosure process are well aware of the mess the OCC helped to create. It remains a daily nightmare. And after raising hopes that some defrauded homeowners may finally see justice, the agency’s bungled investigation and rushed settlement only managed to twist the knife deeper. Simply put, it’s a travesty and still, no one goes to jail.

The same week that Comptroller’s Office was busy committing this epic fail for American consumers, another agency scored what could well be an epic win.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued new rules last week clamping down on mortgage servicer abuses. It’s a work in progress, but nonetheless it is real progress.

Instead of rushing to court on the first late payment, servicers must now wait four months after a loan goes delinquent before filing a foreclosure proceeding. Also banned: Dual tracking, in which servicers try to modify and foreclose upon the same mortgage at the same time.

Now, the CFPB will require that servicers do a better job communicating with borrowers, as well, so that informing them about other ways to save their homes will now be part of the job. And servicers can no longer use tricks such as “lost” payments and computer errors to reap the fees associated with pushing people into unnecessary foreclosure. They are accountable to the CFPB.

The bureau even will force banks to maintain accurate records that are easily accessible by borrowers, forcing the companies to clean up the paperwork debacle that was the most immediate cause of the robo-signing scandal.

“For many borrowers, dealing with mortgage servicers has meant unwelcome surprises and constantly getting the runaround. In too many cases, it has led to unnecessary foreclosures,” the bureau’s director, Richard Cordray, said when the rules were made public. “Our rules ensure fair treatment for all borrowers and establish strong protections for those struggling to save their homes.”

The bureau’s new rules balance the ballast on a badly listing ship, putting the “service” back in the mortgage servicing industry. The big banks that own the servicers have resolutely refused to do it. And for the last decade, the Comptroller’s Office has proven to be so thoroughly overwhelmed by the industry it is charged with regulating that it can’t even run a proper investigation when its own reputation is on the line.

Our government fell down last week. Then it got back up. While the bad news is that millions of people who’ve already been hurt by messy and fraudulent mortgage servicers may only receive a fraction of the justice they deserve, the good news is that for generations of consumers to come, mortgage servicers will be there to serve them, not the other way around.

This story is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not represent the views of the company or its affiliates.

Image: 401kcalculator.org, via Flickr

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