Thursday, November 27, 2014

Financial Stars Behind Bars?

CHICAGO – Hardly a day goes by without a settlement between a bank and a US government agency or regulator. The latest one is between Bank of America and the government-backed mortgage underwriter Fannie Mae: $3.55 billion in cash; $6.75 billion in repurchases of bad mortgages that Countrywide, later acquired by BoA, sold to Fannie; and an additional $1.3 billion in cash to resolve Fannie’s servicing issues with BoA.

And yet, as in most settlements, BoA did not admit any fault. Was BoA tripped up by bad luck or sloppiness? Or did it and other financial institutions behave with intent to defraud investors?

As a result of the settlement, we will never learn the truth (at least the version that is established beyond a reasonable doubt in open court). In each settlement, the investigations are stopped, and whatever has been found is sealed.

Fortunately, academic research may be able to shed some light on this important matter. In a recent paper, the economists Tomasz Piskorski, Amit Seru, and James Witkin compare the characteristics of securitized mortgages as they were disclosed to investors at the time of sale with these loans’ characteristics as they were recorded in the banks’ proprietary databases. The data cover non-agency residential mortgages, which are not the same as those targeted by the settlement, and the data come from a pool of banks, so we do not know which banks were present. But their data are similar enough to enable us to learn a lot about what was going on.

If the massive wave of defaults on securitized mortgages was purely the result of bad luck, we would expect that the characteristics reported to investors would not differ from those recorded in the banks’ databases. This is especially true of characteristics that are relevant to default risk, such as whether the borrower was an owner or an investor, or whether there was a second lien on the property. In fact, the authors find that more than 6% of mortgage loans misreport the borrower’s occupancy status, while 7% do not disclose second liens.

Of course, any database contains errors. Are these errors large enough to be worrisome? And how can we be sure that the banks knowingly misrepresented this information, rather than that they merely were sloppy in reporting it?

The authors provide some interesting evidence in this context. They show, for example, that the misrepresentation is correlated with higher defaults down the line: delinquent payments on misreported loans are more than 60% higher than on loans that are otherwise similar. Thus, the errors do not seem to be random, but purposeful.

What the authors do not find is also interesting. The degree of misrepresentation seems to be unrelated to the incentives provided to the top management and to the quality of risk-management practices inside these firms. In fact, all reputable intermediaries in their sample exhibit a significant degree of misrepresentation. Thus, the problem does not seem to be limited to a few bad apples, but is pervasive.

This makes a solution more difficult to achieve. After all, if the financial industry’s leaders are misleading investors, it is the culture of the entire industry that needs to be changed.

Unfortunately, these giant settlements are unlikely to make a difference. They are paid by shareholders and taxpayers (most of these settlements are tax-deductible), leaving the people who were ultimately responsible not only to walk away, but to walk away very rich.

For example, Angelo Mozilo received almost $470 million during his tenure as CEO of Countrywide Financial. As far as I know, he paid nothing of BoA’s $11.6 billion settlement cost. Mozilo did settle with the SEC, but on different charges (insider trading). And he paid only $47.5 million of the $67.5 million settlement, owing to a $20 million indemnification agreement that was part of his employment contract.

Why have Mozilo and others been allowed to pay a relative pittance and avoid criminal proceedings? A few prominent criminal convictions have sent a powerful signal in the fight against insider trading. If the target is an industry-wide culture of deception, shouldn’t the criminal justice system be mobilized against banks’ mortgage fraud as well?

  • Contact us to secure rights


  • Hide Comments Hide Comments Read Comments (7)

    Please login or register to post a comment

    1. CommentedKen Presting

      It's instructive to read an article like in comparison to the libertarian/GOP leaning Prof. Boskin's "Taming Leviathan."

      According to the right, it's only government bureaucrats who cannot be trusted with public funds. The misdeeds of financiers are seldom mentioned by those authors.

    2. CommentedFrank O'Callaghan

      The criminals have been exempted from consequences. These settlements are a joke and both sides in the negotation are criminal in their conspiracy against the people.

    3. CommentedMark Pitts

      If we know about criminal activities at banks, the Justice Dept. and the President know as well. Yet there have been few prosecutions. This means those in the Obama administration are part of the criminal conspiracy.

        CommentedJames Edwards

        It seems that you put the blame on one person when it is the complicity of different roles that created this problem. For one it was the Republicans (when they were in charge) that put legislation that allowed much of the damage to continue unchecked despite hearings that exposed the problems from consumer groups.

    4. CommentedVenu Madhav

      Nice article Dr. Zingales. Coming from an Operations Research background I would lobby for empowering the Risk Management group and also make them directly responsible for any wrong doings in data collection and other related practices that can happen within the firm, thus not only they get empowered but more importantly will become the champions for a clean-up and hopefully avoid undesirable situations. How do you see the change if the Risk groups report to the BoD firm that way the Board takes the first blame?

    5. CommentedMK Anon

      Thank you Dr Zingales, very persuasive

      And now we can think also of the almost 1% of the american population who is in jail for petty crimes, stealing cell phones or shoplifting to feed.. We can also think of Julian Assange who is now political refugee for telling the truth... while those that steal huge amounts of money, decrease social welfare and put the system at threat while producing nothing end up extremely rich.
      They should be sent to jail.. and not only a few of them. All of them !! But there is no justice, we are not equal ... or rather some are more equals than others..

    6. CommentedPaul Mathew Mathew

      Excellent article. Throw a few of these crooks in jail and the message will get out loud and clear.

      Is that going to happen?

      I very much doubt it. The Corzine case was as open and shut as a case could be yet they did not even investigate.

      America is now a bastion of crony capitalism.