Tuesday, June 18, 2013
By CHRISTINA REXRODE The Associated Press
NEW YORK – The latest federal lawsuit over alleged mortgage fraud paints an unflattering picture of a doomed lender: Executives at Countrywide Financial urged workers to churn out loans, accepted fudged applications and tried to hide ballooning defaults.
The federal lawsuit underscores how Bank of America’s purchase of Countrywide just before the 2008 financial crisis backfired.
The Associated Press
COUNTRYWIDE MADE NEARLY 50,000 LOANS IN MAINE
State regulators say that Countrywide Financial was a major player in Maine's home mortgage lending business, issuing an estimated 40,000 to 50,000 loans from the late 1990s through 2008 when it was acquired by Bank of America.
"They were very active in Maine," said Will Lund, superintendent for the Maine Bureau of Consumer Credit Protection.
Lund said state regulators were unaware of lending problems because consumers were not complaining. Instead consumers were keeping quiet because they were getting approved for loan amounts from Countrywide that were beyond their financial means.
In Maine and across the nation, those loans became known as nina or "no income, no asset" mortgages, Lund said.
"No one was slowing the train down. We still see many, many Countrywide loans that are not affordable to Maine homeowners, who borrowed this money years ago," Lund said Thursday.
Lund estimates that of the mortgages that were issued in Maine by Countrywide, about three to five percent of mortgage holders defaulted on their loans. That percentage is reflection of what happened nationally.
A default does not necessarily mean that a lender foreclosed on a mortgage. It could mean the mortgage holder restructured the mortgage and continued to make payments.
A Bank of America spokesman did not return messages Wednesday.
– From staff reports
The suit, filed Wednesday by the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, also underscored how Bank of America's purchase of Countrywide in July 2008, just before the financial crisis, backfired severely.
The prosecutor, Preet Bharara, said he was seeking more than $1 billion, but the suit could ultimately recover much more in damages.
"This lawsuit should send another clear message that reckless lending practices will not be tolerated," Bharara said in a statement. He described Countrywide's practices as "spectacularly brazen in scope."
He also charged that Bank of America has resisted buying back soured mortgages from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which bought loans from Countrywide.
Bank of America spokesman Lawrence Grayson said the bank "has stepped up and acted responsibly to resolve legacy mortgage matters." He called the allegation that the bank has failed to buy back loans "simply false."
"At some point," Grayson said, "Bank of America can't be expected to compensate every entity that claims losses that actually were caused by the economic downturn."
Countrywide was a giant in mortgage lending, but was also known for approving exotic, even risky, loans. By 2007, as the market for subprime mortgages collapsed, Countrywide was anxious for revenue.
The lawsuit alleged that the company loosened its standards for making loans while telling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were buying loans from Countrywide, that standards were getting tighter.
Fannie and Freddie, which packaged loans into securities and sold them to investors, were effectively nationalized in 2008 when they nearly collapsed under the weight of their mortgage losses.
To churn out more mortgage loans, Bharara said, Countrywide introduced a program called the "Hustle," shorthand for "High-Speed Swim Lane." It operated under the motto, "Loans Move Forward, Never Backward."
The program eliminated checks meant to ensure that mortgages were being made to borrowers who could afford them, according to the lawsuit.
For example, loan processors no longer had to complete worksheets that helped them assess whether income levels that borrowers entered on their loan applications were reasonable.
If processors entered a borrower's information into a computerized underwriting program and the program raised flags, employees had incentives to change the numbers, the suit said.
It also said that bonuses were awarded based solely on the number of loans that an employee could generate, not on their quality.
The process led to "widespread falsification" of mortgage data, Bharara charged. And when Countrywide executives became aware of the dangerously high number of borrowers defaulting, it hid the problem, according to the lawsuit.
In early 2008, for example, Countrywide offered bonuses for employees who could "rebut" the high rate of defaults. The standards were low, according to the lawsuit: If a review found that the income a borrower listed on his application seemed unreasonable, an employee could rebut the finding "simply by arguing that the stated income was reasonable."
The lawsuit gives seven examples of mortgages made for homes in California, Alabama, Florida and Georgia in which the borrowers' income and other qualifications were falsified.
For example, one loan application, for a home in Miami, said that the borrower was an airline sales representative earning $15,500 per month, when the borrower worked for a temp agency and earned $2,666 per month. The borrower defaulted within seven months, the suit said.
The lawsuit accused Countrywide, and later Bank of America, of selling thousands of Hustle loans to Fannie and Freddie. The lawsuit says that that the Hustle program continued through 2009.
(Continued on page 2)