Liar Loans: Fanning the Flames of the Financial Crisis

66

By brad4l

Buying a new home can be very exciting and offers a number of advantages, both from a tax and monetary standpoint, but also from a psychological one. Since most people who want to buy a home do not have the funds to purchase the home outright, they use a mortgage.

A mortgage is basically a loan that uses the home and land as collateral. There has been much controversy in the housing and mortgage industry over the last few months, but the roots of this controversy go much deeper than only a year. Instead, a number of less scrupulous mortgage brokers and home buyers helped fuel the problems that we face today, with Liar Loans being one of the fans of this fire.

The Traditional Mortgage Process

In many cases when you first speak with your lender, they may simply take you at your word when you report your annual earnings, current debt load, and assets. It is very important to always be completely honest with your lender during this initial stage, because traditionally mortgage lenders have required physical proof of this information before they finalize the loan. As a result, artificially inflating your salary does not benefit the lender or the borrower.

For example, you might report your salary as $100,000 and the mortgage broker will print you up a letter saying you would qualify for a $300,000 mortgage. You can show this letter to prospective home sellers, which will help to show them that you are a serious buyer. However, when it comes time to apply for the mortgage, the lender will manually review your pay stubs and personal finances. If they determine the numbers you initially provided are not correct they might offer you a lower valued mortgage loan or even choose not to offer you a mortgage at all due to the breach of trust.

Traditionally, this has been the standard way that a mortgage is offered, but recently, more aggressive lending practices gave way to what are referred to as Liar Loans in the mortgage industry.

The Rise of Liar Loans

Liar Loans are not exactly new, but became very popular a few years ago and are in part to blame for our current financial situation.

A Liar Loan is basically an unverified loan where the mortgage lender does not verify the income, assets, or debt obligations of the borrower, instead taking them at their word. In the end, these types of loans not only hurt the lending institutions, but also the borrower who received a home loan that quickly became unaffordable.

One of the reasons Liar Loans became acceptable was due to the belief that a homes value would only increase and the housing market would continually grow. This was fueled by rapid home value increases during the 1990's in which a homes value would sometimes increase over 20% every year. This led investors to be much more relaxed about offering mortgages, because even if the person were to go into foreclosure, the belief was that the home could be quickly sold for a profit.

Liar loans were also brought about by how mortgages were packaged and sold to investors. A group of investors would pool their money and offer a number of home mortgages, packaging all of these mortgages together into a single fund. They would then sell this fund to other investors overseas, who were lulled by a false sense of confidence in the US housing market and promises of a very large return from their investment

From an investors standpoint these funds looked very solid and like a great deal. Over the course of a thirty year mortgage, the borrower usually pays several times the cost of the home, so a fund consisting of mortgages has the potential to pay off big

Transferring the Risk of Bad Mortgages

As a result of the way mortgages were packaged together and sold, the initial person that offered the mortgage might only hold it for a few months before they sold it to other investors. This meant that the people offering the initial mortgage had very little incentive to ensure that the individual was qualified for the loan. They would only be holding the mortgages for a relatively short period of time, so there was little risk that the borrower would foreclose while they were holding the loan. Instead, they would quickly sell the mortgage off and make a nice profit, leaving it as someone else's problem.

Many mortgage brokers quickly began offering mortgages to people who were completely unqualified and would have been rejected by the traditional mortgage approval process. As soon as they had enough mortgages packaged together, the investors would sell the mortgages as a single unit, which promised a big return for other investors looking to take advantage of the rapidly growing US Housing Market. Often, these mortgage bundles would be sold to overseas investors, which is why the financial crisis not only affects those in the US, but also people all over the World.

While Liar Loans are not the only cause of the current problems in our housing and financial market, they do share a large portion of the blame. However, it is important to note that it is not fair to only blame the people who were not honest about their financial situation or those who were offering the loans, because there are a number of factors which led to this being possible.

Comments

nicomp profile image

nicomp Level 6 Commenter 2 years ago

Much of the current credit crisis must be laid at the feet of Barney Frank, who obligated private lenders to offer loans to customers who did not qualify.

brad4l profile image

brad4l Hub Author 2 years ago

I think getting too caught up trying to find a single scapegoat or following partisan lines is rather misguided, because there are plenty of people and legislation from all sides of the fence that helped lead us to where we are today.

As far as your statement about private lenders being obligated to make bad loans, I think this greatly minimizes the role of greed in these dealings.

No legislation, the Community Reinvestment Act included, forced Lenders to make bad loans. The practice of making No Doc Loans or Liar Loans was fueled by greed and the insane profits that these mortgage investors were making.

nicomp profile image

nicomp Level 6 Commenter 2 years ago

Scapegoats? Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.

The Community Reinvestment Act was ill-fated from day it was signed because it was based on emotion rather than finances. The Act was also modified under the Clinton administration to rate banks by number of loans rather than veracity.

brad4l profile image

brad4l Hub Author 2 years ago

Well scapegoat singular, yes. Laying the blame squarely at the feet of Frank, Gramm, Clinton, Dodd, Bush, or Leach is disingenuous at best.

There are a whole lot of people from both sides of the isle, several significant pieces of legislation, our overall congressional process, a whole lot of private mortgage investors, and some very loose lending practices that all share a part of the blame. And, as is oft the case, behind all the anti-Democrat rhetoric, anti-Republican rhetoric, and the many talking points, greed rears its ugly head.

I agree that learning from our mistakes and history is important, but breaking out the blame stick and trying to pin this situation on a single person is rather short sited and does not facilitate learning.

In regards to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA,) I think it is unfair to paint it as based predominantly off of emotions, although like all of our bills,  emotions probably did play a role in its passage.

The purpose of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, however, was to address a very real financial problem called redlining, which resulted in discriminatory lending practices. Redlining is the process of not offering mortgages to people who live in certain areas, despite the individuals credit worthiness.

The CRA set out to stop this type of discrimination that made it very difficult for low income people to get home loans simply because of where they lived, which inevitably ends up predominantly targeting  minorities. However, the CRA specifically states that the mortgages should be offered “consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.”

So, to say that lenders were forced to make bad loans, or even that the majority of CRA loans were made to people that could not afford them, is simply not true. The premise of the CRA is simple: If a bank does business in a city or area, it should be expected to reasonably offer credit to this area.

Further, the time line and numbers do not support these allegations.

For example, statistically, not only were CRA banks less likely to offer subprime mortgages in the first place,  they were twice as likely to keep the mortgages in their portfolio than non-CRA banks(1). This is as opposed to private lenders and banks who would take a group of mortgages and divide them into mortgage based securities to sell to other investors. Also, in the 15 areas that were analyzed for this report, CRA banks made up only 25% of all loan originations(1.)

During 2005 and 2006, which is the peak of subprime lending, 55% of  subprime mortgages went to people of middle to upper incomes. Only 6% of subprime loans were CRA loans to low income individuals(2.)

Finally, in 2006 – 2007, as the real crunch was being felt and credit was drying up, it would stand to reason that if CRA loans were the root of the problem, then they too would quickly begin to dry up. However, the market share of CRA Home Mortgage loans actually increased 30% during this time(3.)

#1: newamerica.net/files/CRA%20Testimony%202-13-08.pdf

#2: dallasfed.org/ca/bcp/2009/bcp0901.cfm

#3: traigerlaw.com/publications/the_community_reinvestment_act_of_1977-not_guilty_1-26-09.pdf

//573 Words, I am going to have to have to rewrite this post and make it into a hub...

Iðunn 2 years ago

it's a predatory mindset that is american at heart. I don't think we can separate american capitalism from the situation we are in now and the mindset is that others are for using and greed is good.

in reality, adam smith never said that at all in the wealth of nations. he is widely misunderstood and had a serious concern for society at large. the rugged individual thing came from the puritans who founded our country and it is often mixed, to ill effect, on the american economic psyche.

AEvans profile image

AEvans Level 7 Commenter 2 years ago

Quite informative and you are absolutely concise on your information.:)

brad4l profile image

brad4l Hub Author 2 years ago

Thanks AEvans, I end up having a lot of fun researching an article sometimes!

Submit a Comment
You Must Sign In To Comment

To comment on this Hub, you must sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages account.

Please wait working