Consumer Law & Policy Blog

Times Articles on the Tort War, Illinois' Suit Against Countrywide, and Google's Marketing

Recent articles from the Times of interest:

Yesterday's edition contains "Google Tries Tighter Aim for Web Ads" about how Google uses what a consumer searched for a few minutes ago to target ads for that user.  Another article, "Post-Spitzer, A New Breed of Reformer," explores the differences between former New York Attorney General Eliott Spitzer's and the current New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo's approaches to bringing cases against the financial industry.

Here is Wednesday's report on the Illinois case against Countrywide, a case Alan White reported on yesterday.

Last Sunday's issue brought "To the Trenches: The Tort War is Raging On," about business's attempts to take on the trial bar.  Some excerpts:

Businesses count among the victories federal legislation passed in 2005 that made it harder to file class-action lawsuits in state courts, where judges and juries were often perceived as hostile to business. In state courts, where most civil litigation plays out, the number of suits involving auto accidents, allegations of medical malpractice and the like fell steadily from 1995 to 2005, according to the National Center for State Courts. The Chamber of Commerce says the number of megaverdicts for more than $100 million dropped to 2 last year, from 27 in 2000.

NEVERTHELESS, there are battles in individual states over judicial campaigns and legislative initiatives.  * * *

Strikingly absent from debates over who should be able to sue whom, when and for how much is any discussion of the fairest and most effective way to make sure that true victims are appropriately compensated for injuries and that people without authentic injury are not compensated.

“That’s not the conversation we’re having,” because the only voices heard belong to advocates of one side or the other, said Robert L. Rabin, a law professor at Stanford. “Those advocates reflect advocacy interests — that is, either defense-side interests or plaintiff-side interests — rather than some overview of global fairness.”

States going after Countrywide

By Alan White

Illinois, California and Washington all filed actions against Countrywide this week alleging a variety of deceptive practices and fair lending violations. The California complaint attacks a variety of origination practices, especially involving negative amortizing mortgages (so-called pay option ARMs) and hybrid ARMs. The Washington DFI's complaint proposes to revoke Countrywide's license to make mortgage loans in the state, based among other things on evidence of race discrimination in mortgage pricing. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan's particularly thorough and well-researched complaint focuses on unreasonable forecosure risk as a violation of consumer fraud and fair lending laws, but also challenges other origination and servicing practices.

North Carolina's Banking Department entered into a consent order with Countrywide last March, and Countrywide has surrendered a number of branch licenses in New York. It seems likely that other states will join, and perhaps organize a multi-state task force, as was done in the Ameriquest and Household Finance cases, among others. If any commenters are aware of other state filings I will be happy to add links to this post. (HT NY Post for the graphic.)

All this on the heels of the shareholders' approval of the merger between Countrywide and BankofAmerica. Approval by the Countrywide shareholders, that is.

UPDATE: The June 30 complaint filed by the FLORIDA attorney general is available here.

Times Pieces on Foreclosure Crisis, Predatory Lending, and Wachovia Telemarketing Case

Yesterday the Times published an editorial on the Bush administration response to the foreclosure crisis, with the noteworthy headline, "Saying No to Everything."  An excerpt:

Even before the House passed a new plan last week to prevent foreclosures, President Bush threatened to veto the bill, calling it “overly burdensome.” The bill is not burdensome enough.

* * *

When Mr. Bush hasn’t been busy saying no to worthy efforts, he has been endorsing Orwellian-named programs that have failed to address the problem effectively. Hope Now, the mortgage industry alliance that pledged a big effort five months ago to modify subprime loans, has barely made a dent. Project Lifeline, announced last February, has yet to release any results. The Times reported last month that another program much touted by Mr. Bush, FHA Secure, has helped fewer than 2,000 homeowners at risk of foreclosure.

The Times has also published a number of other articles in recent weeks that we haven't yet linked to on the blog.  For example, on May 6, the Times reported on a speech by Fed Chair Bernanke in an article headlined "Bernanke Urges Flexibility in Mortgage Regulation."  Some excerpts:

The variety of factors leading to foreclosures makes it more difficult for mortgage lenders to help ailing homeowners, Mr. Bernanke said, noting that “lenders and services will have to develop new and flexible strategies to deal with this issue.”

In response, Mr. Bernanke recommended that government agencies take a more innovative approach to ensure that only qualified buyers take out loans. He urged Congress to provide the Federal Housing Administration, which insures mortgage loans, with “greater latitude” in setting appropriate standards for owners seeking to refinance their mortgages, and to adjust interest rates according to the level of risk of the applicants.

In "Countrywide Admit Errors at Hearing," published May 7, Countrywide acknowledged that its loan officers made mistakes "from time to time" but disputed other charges.  Countrywide promised to hire an outside auditor to review its actions.  Professor Katherine Porter of Iowa testifed:

that mortgage companies and servicers had improperly sought payments without fully disclosing or documenting fees.

In some cases, she said, companies have sought to foreclose on homes even after borrowers discharged their debts through the Chapter 13 bankruptcy process, which allows debtors to keep their homes while working out payment plans.

“The upsetting reality is that the current bankruptcy system routinely forces borrowers to pay bloated amounts and permits mortgage servicers to misbehave without serious consequence,” she told the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on administration oversight and the courts.

Federal law preempts state predatory lending statutes as to federal institutions, but what about when state institutions lend in other states?  Here is an article about a pact New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania signed last month providing that state institutions are subject to the predatory lending statutes of their home states when lending in one of the other states that is a party to the compact. 

We  previously blogged here about the case involving Wachovia's allegedly allowing telemarketers to use its accounts to steal millions from depositors. Wachovia and the OCC have now settled the case.  The report is here; Wachovia, while neither admitting nor denying wrongdoing, will pay as much as $144 million.  A case brought by alleged victims of the fraud is still pending.  The settlement's terms have drawn criticism, as reflected in the following excerpt:

Some critics of the settlement’s structure — including Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat and a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee — complained that the agreement contained no guarantee that victims would be paid.

Under the terms of the settlement, victims will not automatically receive compensation from Wachovia. Instead, they will have to submit claims through a complicated bureaucracy. Because many of the victims are elderly or poorly educated, it is likely many of them will stymied by these obstacles, Mr. Markey said.

Much More on Proposed Federal Reserve Credit Card Rules

Earlier today, we blogged about a new Federal Reserve proposal to protect credit card users from predatory bank practices. You can go to the Federal Reserve's webpage on the proposal to find a ton of information, including the agency's press release, a synopsis of the proposed rules, and the proposed rules themselves. Happy reading!

Federal Reserve Proposing New Protections for Credit Card Consumers

The top story in the Washington Post this morning is this story entitled "Fed to Pursue Aggressive Checks on Credit Cards." The Federal Reserve, along with the Office of Thrift Supervision and the National Credit Union Administration, will issue proposed regulations today that seek to put a halt to certain credit card practices. This excerpt from the Post story provides an overview:

The proposed regulations, which could be finalized by year's end, would label as "unfair or deceptive" practices that consumers have long complained about. That includes charging interest on debt that has been repaid and assessing late fees when consumers are not given a reasonable amount of time to make a payment. When different interest rates apply to different balances on one card, companies would be prohibited from applying a payment first to the balance with the lowest rate.

We will post the proposal itself when it becomes available.

Elizabeth Warren's Financial Services Product Safety Commission Proposal

Last month Deepak mentioned Elizabeth Warren's proposal for a financial services product safety commission.  You can find her Harvard Magazine article, Making Credit Safer: The Case for Regulation here.  The entire article is worth reading, but here are some excerpts: 

It is impossible to buy a toaster that has a one-in-five chance of bursting into flames and burning down your house. But it is possible to refinance your home with a mortgage that has the same one-in-five chance of putting your family out on the street—and the mortgage won’t even carry a disclosure of that fact. Similarly, it’s impossible for the seller to change the price on a toaster once you have purchased it. But long after the credit-card slip has been signed, your credit-card company can triple the price of the credit you used to finance your purchase, even if you meet all the credit terms. Why are consumers safe when they purchase tangible products with cash, but left at the mercy of their creditors when they sign up for routine financial products like mortgages and credit cards?

The difference between the two markets is regulation. * * *

* * *

* * * Just as the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) protects buyers of goods and supports a competitive market, a new regulatory agency is needed to protect consumers who use financial products. * * *

* * *

* * * Lenders have deliberately built tricks and traps into some credit products so they can ensnare families in a cycle of high-cost debt.

Creating safer marketplaces is about making certain that the products themselves don’t become the source of trouble. This means that terms hidden in the fine print or obscured with incomprehensible language, reservation of all power to the seller with nothing left for the buyer, and similar tricks have no place in a well-functioning market.

How did financial products get so dangerous? Part of the problem is that disclosure has become a way to obfuscate rather than to inform. In the early 1980s, the typical credit-card contract was a page long; by the early 2000s, that contract had grown to more than 30 pages of incomprehensible text.* * *

* * *

So why not create a Financial Product Safety Commission (FPSC), charged with responsibility to establish guidelines for consumer disclosure, collect and report data about the uses of different financial products, review new products for safety, and require modification of dangerous products before they can be marketed to the public? The agency could review mortgages, credit cards, car loans, and so on. It could also exercise jurisdiction over life insurance and annuity contracts. In effect, the FPSC would evaluate these products to eliminate the hidden tricks that make some of them far more dangerous than others, and ensure that none pose unacceptable risks to consumers.

An FPSC would promote the benefits of free markets by assuring that consumers can enter credit markets confident that the products they purchase meet minimum safety standards. A commission could collect data about which financial products are least understood, what kinds of disclosures are most effective, and which products are most likely to result in consumer default. It could develop nuanced regulatory responses; some credit terms might be banned altogether, while others might be permitted only with clearer disclosure. * * *

Hat tip to Concurring Opinions.  An earlier version of the article appeared in Democracy.

PIRG Report on On-Campus Credit Card Marketing

Over at U.S. PIRG's Consumer blog check out this comprehensive post about PIRG's new report on marketing of credit cards on college campuses. The post links to a number of useful items, including the report itself, which you can also find here.

It's Time for Another National Commission on Consumer Finance

Back in 1968, Congress created a bipartisan National Commission on Consumer Finance.  See Pub. L. No. 90-321. The Commission reported and went out of business.  It's probably fair to say that the Consumer Credit Protection Act would be a very different statute had the Commission not existed, though of course it's impossible to know. 

We need such a commission now.  The truth is there's a lot we don't understand about the subprime meltdown specifically and the consumer credit system generally.  We need to know more about what caused borrowers to take out these loans, and what caused lenders to make them.  We need to know more about whether disclosures can prevent this type of crisis, and if so, what kind of disclosures, and if not, what alternatives we have.  Plenty of solutions to the problem have been suggested, and we might solve the problem by happenstance, but then again, we might not.  A long careful look at the problem would be more likely to prevent recurrences than a rush to action in the heat of the moment.

It's clear that the marketplace, existing laws, and existing regulatory structures were not up to preventing the crisis.  In that light, it seems unwise to depend solely on the marketplace or existing regulatory structure to prevent the crisis from happening again. 

Of course appointing a commission is sometimes a substitute for taking action.  I'm not suggesting a commission should be used to create the illusion of action: the members of the commission should be chosen to represent all the various constituencies and should be committed to working hard on the business of the commission.  The commission should also have subpoena power and enough financing to conduct a serious investigation.  We need a body that can cut across jurisdictional lines while giving us an overview of what happened and what to do.

Such a commission should not confine its acts to investigating the subprime crisis.  It should also take a long look at other ills affecting the consumer credit system.  Can more be done about identity theft?  What about predatory credit cards?  Is our structure for regulating consumer credit transactions the best we can do?  I'm sure readers of this blog can come up with plenty of other things for the commission to explore.

We face probably the worst consumer credit crisis in decades. It's been forty years since we stepped back to see how we could do better.  Now it's time to do it again.

The Law and Economics of Subprime Lending

Todd Zywicki and Joseph Adamson of George Mason have a new article at SSRN offering a conservative law-and-economics take on the subprime mortgage lending crisis. After a lot of back and forth, the paper's basic point is that policymakers shouldn't do anything in response to the current crisis until we know much more about how to "balance the cost and benefits" of subprime lending. Here's their abstract:

The collapse of the subprime mortgage market has led to calls for greater regulation to protect homeowners from unwittingly trapping themselves in high-cost loans that lead to foreclosure, bankruptcy, or other financial problems. Weighed against this catastrophe are the benefits that have accrued to millions of American families who have been able to become homeowners who otherwise would not have access to mortgage credit. Although the bust of the subprime mortgage market has resulted in high levels of foreclosures and even problems on Wall Street, the boom generated unprecedented levels of homeownership, especially among young, low-income, and minority borrowers, putting them on a road to economic comfort and stability. Sensible regulation of subprime lending should seek to curb abusive practices while preserving these benefits.

This article reviews the theories and evidence regarding the causes of the turmoil in the subprime market. It then turns to the question of the rising foreclosures in that market in order to understand the causes of rising foreclosures. In particular, we examine the competing models of home foreclosures that have been developed in the economics literature - the "distress" model and the "option" model. Establishing a correct model of the causes of foreclosure in the subprime market is necessary for sensible and effective policy responses to the problem. Finally, we review some of the policy initiatives that have been suggested in response to the crisis in the subprime market. Because new regulatory interventions will have costs as well as benefits, until the causes of the market‘s problems are better understood it may be that the best policy in the short-term is to do little until well-tailored regulatory approaches are available.

Huge Upswing in Credit Card Borrowing

by Christopher Peterson

New fed numbers are out showing Americans sucked down 6.9 billion dollars in new credit card debt, increasing outstanding consumer credit to $2.52 trillion during the month of January. This increase was double the $3.7 billion increase in the previous month of December--despite holiday sales.

This seems like a very ominous development to me. One suspects that this increase in borrowing is causally related to credit tightening in mortgage and home equity lending, and also that consumers facing foreclosure are turning to credit cards to stave off financial collapes. Distressed debtors that are shifting their living expenses into credit card borrowing are going to face high default interest rates and could be setting themselves up for a harder fall.

I hope the credit card lenders have their models figured out. As financial refugees from the mortgage market flee into the waiting arms of credit card lenders, it seems like there is the potential for subprime securitization problems to echo into credit card receivables. January's increase in credit card borrowing makes me wonder if the normally sophisticated credit card lenders' underwriting may finally come up short. Just a tip to all those Norwegian villagers, hedge fund managers, and investment bankers hoping to not look like Bear Sterns: Post-bubble vintage credit card recievable backed securities are a sucker bet.

Check out Patrick Deneen's interesting blog post for more thoughts.