Home > 2012 > Personal Finance

Bankers: Rethink Risk and Start Lending Again!

Advertiser Disclosure Comments 1 Comment

While a whole lot of folks are obsessed with what to do about, or to, the 1%, I would like focus on an issue involving the 90%. This isn’t about the wealth or income gap. It’s about the credit gap. It’s driving the Fed crazy and stifling the economy.

Here’s the problem. Right now, banks are lending the bulk of mortgage money to people who have great credit, but are less likely to spend the money they save. As the Wall Street Journal reported this week, the people who need credit the most — middle-class families who are the drivers of the American economy — get denied because banks consider them too risky.

“Last year, nearly 90% of all new mortgages originated went to households with high credit scores; before the financial crisis, it was about half,” the Journal reported.

The Journal also noted that the trend was ameliorating somewhat with respect to certain kinds of consumer debt, such as car loans and credit cards. Of course, that is precisely what you would expect given the fact that a lender’s return on car loans is much more attractive than the equivalent return on mortgages, and neither compare to the sky-high rates earned by credit card issuers. Furthermore, credit card limits are much lower and can be closed with little notice while car loans are pleasantly short-term, compared to the long-term and large-sized risk of a mortgage.

For generations of middle-class Americans, the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage has been the primary building block of wealth and economic stability. Unfortunately for millions, that superhighway to the Promised Land has now become a parking lot. The job loss, missed payments, foreclosed homes and trashed credit scores caused by the financial crisis have created a permanent, disenfranchised class. A significant swath of the American public is, in effect, separated from the benefits of a modern financial system — unemployed, little or no access to credit, home ownership threatened.

Even as this problem deepens, the government’s traditional method of increasing credit availability is already tapped out. The Federal Reserve is practically giving away money to institutions, keeping interest rates close to zero. The Fed has again confirmed that rates will stay that way through at least 2014. While I believe that policy is important to maintain, I don’t believe that it can or will have any impact on the credit gap as things stand now.

We need a meaningful private sector solution. Now I’m not advocating that banks lower their lending standards, which they did during the housing bubble to create fake demand and keep the spigots of mortgage fee revenue flowing. Rather, banks need to adopt new ways to recognize who is credit-worthy and who is not. That’s because current credit scoring models, based upon traditional credit report data sets, can’t help banks identify millions of potential customers who are perfectly trustworthy and deserving of credit.

Let’s face it, the Great Recession didn’t just hurt scammers who took out half-million-dollar loans for McMansions using no-document “liar” loans. Millions of innocent people were crushed and millions more are denied access to credit due to insufficient information and tighter restrictions.

If we are to get this nation moving again, we need to responsibly spread credit to borrowers with “thin” or Great Recession induced decimated files.

“Thin file” consumers simply don’t have sufficient payment history established in their credit files to get a credit score high enough to qualify for mortgages. This is a problem that credit bureaus are beginning to acknowledge. In the past few days, for example, the biggest credit bureau, Experian, unveiled a new credit score called the Extended View Score, which, as Credit.com reported earlier this week, “pairs data from rental agreements and public records with core credit information to generate a report for consumers with thin-to-no credit files.”

To mine these potential customers, banks need to speed up the process of integrating “alternate credit data” into their decision-making process. These models take into account information which demonstrates reliability, but isn’t included in traditional credit reports like consistent payment of rent, utilities and other recurring bills.

On June 20, in a Capitol Hill briefing, the President and CEO of the Policy and Economic Research Council (PERC) announced the results of a study supporting the proposition that alternative data represents a meaningful tool for lenders when assessing credit risk.

“Despite the Great Recession, the preponderance of evidence establishing the value proposition of alternative data is overwhelming and in-controvertible,” said Dr. Michael Turner, PERC president and CEO. “It is the single most powerful tool available to drive credit access, make consumer credit fairer and more inclusive, and help those with damaged credit rebuild their good credit standing,” added Turner.

A growing number of companies gather and report this alternate data, but banks are having trouble integrating it into their legacy systems. Speeding up this process will help both “thin file” consumers and the banks’ bottom lines.

Even more importantly, we must find ways to help people who — through no fault of their own — are saddled with bad credit. Maybe they were laid off during the Great Recession. Maybe they received an unexpected or devastating medical bill. Maybe the primary breadwinner for the household died. These people are not deadbeats. They are responsible, they had always paid their debts, and they simply need a way to prove it.

To that end, I propose the creation of a new banking industry initiative called NOBAR, which stands for Nonstandard Borrowers Alternative Resource. Its mission is to help responsible individuals with bad credit scores — where reasonable and appropriate — secure a new mortgage or refi.

NOBAR would provide a platform for banks to collaborate to create uniform standards for the inclusion of non-traditional credit data in the loan origination process. This would create a more complete picture of each individual’s creditworthiness, while maintaining agreed-upon industry-wide standards. I’d also advise them to consult with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as they devise these new standards.

The goal of NOBAR would be to provide borrowers with a mechanism to present lenders with information heretofore absent from credit reports. Things like crushing medical bills from the past, a guarantor or partial guarantor who can assist in repayment, a low loan-to-value ratio, or improving circumstances that have not yet manifested themselves in improved credit scores.

I believe there are many in the banking industry who would welcome a return to some form of lending that resembles the way things used to be — loans made by local bankers, based on rational criteria, to people they know and trust. Many bankers believe they can’t do it that way anymore because the cost of such a traditional process is prohibitive. NOBAR would streamline that process and standardize it.

Without it, banks stand to lose billions of dollars because of prolonged foreclosure backlogs and sinking home values due to low demand. Additionally, more revenue could be generated by shifting the mortgage fee structure away from upfront fees — which drove the housing bubble — towards a new system that rewards all institutional players for the long-term success of mortgages. Since banks can borrow at virtually no cost and folks who need an innovative solution are more likely to pay a tad more than an A+ borrower, the spread could pay fees to those who do the legwork to justify a particular mortgagee’s credit worthiness.

I believe that there are plenty of mortgage brokers and others out there who would be quite willing to forgo an upfront fee in favor of the prospect of an annuity lasting for as long as 30 years if they do their job well. Furthermore, the centralized nature of the process would enable efficient use of existing and planned government programs and guarantees designed to help people who need loans. Plus, NOBAR could be an excellent proving ground for innovative new mortgage products such as the shared appreciation mortgage, which I discussed in previous columns.

Of course there is no magic bullet to shrink the credit gap. Things like NOBAR take time to establish and certainly will not be able to provide help to everyone who deserves it. But I think it could work, and at least help to solve the problem. Of one thing I am certain — irrespective of the success of NOBAR, the banks who put it together could probably do nothing better to improve their public perception, something that should be important to all of them.

Image: Raymond Brown, 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.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

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.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

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