Home > Mortgages > The Government Agency That Should Fine Itself

Comments 0 Comments

This just in from the “It Couldn’t Possibly Get Any Worse” Department: The first wave of checks from the bungled foreclosure abuse settlement landed in mailboxes around the country this week, but when people tried to cash them, a number of them bounced. I don’t know about you, but if someone who worked for me screwed up something like a $3.6 billion payout, I’d fire them.

Let’s face it. The biggest bank regulator in the U.S. is an abject failure. Worse, it’s costing us oodles of money, and not just from bounced checks. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency spent the past decade doing really dumb things (and in many cases nothing) while homeowners got hammered, our economy tanked and billions of taxpayer dollars were squandered.

Enough is enough. Memo to the OCC: Either earn your keep or face the consequences.

Bounced checks notwithstanding, the agency’s latest affront to taxpayers is of course the entirely inadequate foreclosure abuse settlement. Its failure to win justice for homeowners that were cheated out of their homes is unacceptable.

The problems began in 2010 with the “robo-signing” scandal, in which several large financial institutions instructed their employees to falsify thousands of documents every day to speed the foreclosure process.

There should have been an immediate criminal investigation, and there wasn’t. There should have been a perp walk at some point, but there wasn’t. Instead of pressing the U.S. Attorney to prosecute, the OCC and the Federal Reserve created an independent foreclosure review. The mandate of this review was “simple enough,” said Comptroller of the Currency Tom Curry: “fix what was broken and compensate those who were harmed.”

The review did neither. First the Comptroller’s office punted authority for the reviews to “independent” consulting firms, many of which had large contracts with the same banks they were supposed to review. The result: After blowing through nearly $2 billion in two years, the consultants still had millions of cases left to review, and no idea whether their findings were reliable, according to the Government Accountability Office.

Rep. Carolyn B Maloney (D-NY), no shrinking violet, was far too kind when she said, the final settlement was “too little, too late.”

Another way of characterizing the settlement: the big banks got away with it — yet again.

Effectively, after screwing around for more than 24 months, the Office of the Comptroller simply waived a white flag and acquiesced to a settlement in which 13 of the largest mortgage servicers agreed to pay $3.6 billion to homeowners. That may sound like a lot of dough, but it’s not.

Because Mr. Curry rubber-stamped a truly flawed process and then, under pressure to provide relief to aggrieved homeowners before the Second Coming, he stopped the process prematurely. As a result, we have no idea how many Americans were victimized. So instead of settlement dollars going only to real victims (which would be the equitable solution for both them and the banks), with a few exceptions, the reparations will be divided between all 4.2 million homeowners who were eligible for review. By my calculations, that’s less than a thousand dollars per (in many cases former) homeowner. It’s beyond insulting. It’s an outrage.

Some members of the U.S. Senate are not amused. First among them is Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who grilled the OCC during a recent hearing over the settlement’s paltry compensation.

“So I just want to make sure I get this straight. Families get pennies on the dollar in the settlement for having been the victims of illegal activities or mistakes in the banks’ activities,” she said.

Sen. Warren also criticized the OCC for essentially aiding and abetting the banks to cover up their conduct by failing to deliver evidence of wrongdoing to consumers who may be considering private lawsuits against the banks.

“You have made a decision to protect the banks but not to help the families who were illegally foreclosed on,” said Sen. Warren.

This type of behavior is nothing new for an agency that arguably played a crucial role in helping greedy financial institutions destroy the economy. Back in the early 2000s, state regulators began enacting laws and promulgating regulations banning predatory mortgages. These loans, effectively designed to fail, as has been amply documented, were highly profitable for banks, which reaped billions of dollars upfront in sales and securitization fees but had little interest (forgive the pun) in whether the loans were ever repaid.

The OCC then used its federal powers of preemption to supersede state laws. Whether or not the move was intended to protect bank profits, former Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Spencer Bachus’s (R-Ala.) statement comes to mind. Remember? He’s the one who said, “Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks.”

If that weren’t bad enough, the OCC conveniently failed to promulgate any meaningful rules against predatory lending of its own. Even after this failure fueled the fire of runaway mortgage speculation that caused the 2008 global financial meltdown, the OCC proceeded in 2011 to claim a blanket right to preempt state consumer protection laws, defying the intent of Congress as expressed in Dodd-Frank. The agency continued its war of obfuscation by forbidding banks from handing over meaningful foreclosure and modification data to state regulators.

What we have here bears many of the hallmarks of a rogue agency — or at best an incompetent one. Despite repeated claims by Comptroller Curry and others that the OCC has learned lessons from its countless mistakes and will improve in the future, it continually fails to protect consumers.

How many chances can we give the OCC? How long can we afford to spend $1 billion a year on an agency that seems to be resolutely committed to not doing its job?

Compare the OCC’s performance to that of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which already has a strong record of actually protecting consumers from fraud and promoting a healthier, more efficient banking system.

In less than two years of existence the CFPB has taken action against bank kickbacks to mortgage brokers and lenders, and made steps to more intelligently and effectively regulate payday, auto and student lenders, and debt collectors — not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars the agency has collected for consumers harmed by deceptive practices. And it has done all of this on a budget projected at $447 million next year — half of the OCC’s budget.

The CFPB has proven itself to be efficient, competent, responsive and smart in all the ways the OCC has been inefficient, incompetent, comatose and dumb. Both agencies receive their budgets from fees paid by the financial institutions they regulate, but only one is doing its job.

For more than a decade the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has floated in its own parallel universe, ignoring — or worse, failing to expose — evidence of lawbreaking by major banks. It seems to me that the best way to encourage them do a better job is to put some of their skin in the game. So perhaps the next organization the OCC should fine is itself — for the offense of failing to accomplish its core mission and in so doing, exposing the American consumer to great harm. Then, perhaps, we should take that money, and hand it over to the CFPB, which has a better shot at accomplishing what the OCC is either unable or unwilling to get done.

This is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not necessarily reflect the views of the company.

Image: Zoonar

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 sponsored content on Credit.com are Partners with Credit.com. Credit.com receives compensation if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any financial products or cards offered.

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.

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