Home foreclosure protestAs the foreclosure crisis has escalated over the past several months, one overarching debate has been about who bears the most blame: homeowners or banks?

After everything I've learned and written about the foreclosure mess, my verdict is: The banks are responsible for 90% of the problem, troubled homeowners 10%.

Yes, every foreclosure involves a homeowner not paying his mortgage. But every foreclosure also involves a bank that made the loan. And usually another bank, or several more, that profited from securitizing the loan. And still another bank, or several, that profited from servicing the loan. Together, those banks have done three things that created the massive glut of foreclosures choking America's legal systems and laying waste to its real estate markets:

  • They knowingly made millions of loans doomed for foreclosure as soon as the check was written.
  • They deliberately and/or incompetently failed to modify many salvageable mortgages.
  • They were so careless with their paperwork and processes that they've undermined the rule of law, clouded the title to untold numbers of properties and complicated the processing of the massive backlog of foreclosures that hurts the economically crucial real estate market.
Let's take a closer look at each factor.

What Happened to Underwriting?

Getting a mortgage isn't supposed to be as easy as getting cash from an ATM. Banks are supposed to make applicants prove they can repay loans before giving them. The process is called underwriting, and it's one of the most basic in banking.

Yet during the housing bubble, banks largely stopped underwriting in any reasonable way. Indeed, if the banks had been underwriting throughout, the bubble could never have inflated so much.

If you want to get a vivid and entertaining overview of the dynamics that eliminated underwriting, listen to Planet Money's interviews of people at every stage of the process, from making the home loan through its ultimate securitization.

The mortgages made without underwriting have lots of names: Low-doc loans (the borrower stated her income without proof, but proved the assets she claimed to own, or vice versa), no-doc loans (borrower stated both income and assets without proving either), NINJA loans (no proof of income, job or assets). They're all known as liar's loans. According to a recent Forbes article, in 2006 and 2007 liar's loans accounted for 40% of new mortgages, and more than 50% of new subprime mortgages.

The Banks Knew Mortgage Applications Were Fraudulent

Now here's the thing: No one forced the banks to make those loans, even if the applicants were lying about their ability to repay.

People shouldn't be sympathetic to banks that effectively say: "Hey, we knew the applicants were lying and wouldn't be able to repay the loans. We didn't care because we didn't hold onto the loans. We offloaded the risk to investors through the securitization process. But so what? Blame the deadbeat borrowers for the volume of foreclosures today."

Why is it fair to say the banks knew they were being lied to? Well, beyond the obvious -- everybody in the business used the term liar's loan -- the FBI warned about mortgage fraud back in 2004. And take a look at this 2006 fact sheet from the Mortgage Brokers Association for Responsible Lending that analyzed data from 2004 and 2005. By doing a quick check, the group found that 90 out of 100 stated-income loans exaggerated the applicant's income, and 54 of those loans inflated it by more than 50%.

Or consider this Chase loan officer's email acknowledging that he had made up an inflated income amount to make a borrower's debt-to-income ratio "work."

By 2007, the FBI reported that industry insiders -- loan officers, mortgage brokers, real estate agents, appraisers and lawyers -- not wannabe homeowners -- were involved in some 80% of mortgage fraud. The FBI calls that "fraud for profit" as opposed to "fraud for housing," which is when a homeowner lies to get a house he can't afford. As Calculated Risk's Tanta showed in 2007, that distinction started breaking down as the absence of underwriting by the banks enabled both types of fraudsters to join forces.

Tanta also explained that in addition to being directly complicit in mortgage fraud, lenders engaged in massive cost-cutting efforts that gutted their ability to underwrite loans:
So many of the business practices that help fraud succeed -- thinning backoffice staff, hiring untrained temps to replace retiring (and pricey) veterans, speeding up review processes, cutting back on due diligence sampling, accepting more and more copies, faxes, and phone calls instead of original ink-signed documents -- threw off so much money that no one wanted to believe that the eventual cost of the fraud would eat it all up, and possibly more.
Beyond the idea that the banks knew, in real time, that they were making loans that couldn't be repaid, evidence shows that banks went a step further and tried to conceal that information from others.

Banks Hid Fraud by Shopping for AAA Ratings

Banks weren't the only entities to stop evaluating risk. Their key allies were the big three ratings agencies, Moody's, Standard & Poor's and Fitch. The ratings agencies put AAA ratings on securities that didn't come close to deserving that golden grade, in part by using outdated risk models that their own analysts complained inflated ratings. But why weren't the agencies worried about their professional reputations?

In 2009, professor and former financial regulator William K. Black used a paper from S&P to discuss how the banks and the raters chose not to look at the documents used to make the loans they were securitizing. Then Black cited a 2007 paper from Fitch to show why it mattered that no one was looking at the loan files, why it was at minimum willful blindness. (Willful blindness is trying hard to not know that the law holds you accountable for knowing.)

What was going on? According to 2010 testimony from former ratings agency executives and their emails, the agencies capitulated to demands from banks for AAA ratings on mortgage-backed securities even though they knew those ratings weren't deserved.

The banks had the leverage to get the AAA ratings they wanted because rating "structured finance products" -- mortgage backed securities and the like -- had become really profitable for the ratings agencies, and compared to other types of rated securities, very few clients issued them. So if those clients -- the big banks -- weren't pleased, they could simply "ratings shop" -- that is, go from one agency to another until they got the desired rating.

In short, a large proportion of the foreclosures drowning the courts and the real estate market are a direct consequence of the banks' failure to effectively underwrite loans during the bubble. Those borrowers should have had -- and today would have had -- their loan applications rejected.

Servicers Get Paid to Foreclose, Not Modify

But wait, you might point out, it's not just the dodgy liar's loans going bust. Foreclosures have spread widely throughout the "prime" mortgage market as well. Surely, the Great Recession, not the banks, is to blame for many of those foreclosures.

You'd be only partly right.

What's generating many recession-induced foreclosures is the relatively new model of mortgage servicing. Prior to the mass securitization of mortgages, the bank that made a mortgage was the same bank that serviced it. As a result, the servicing bank made its money from the mortgage interest, and the long-term repayment of the mortgage was key to its profit. So, a bank was typically willing to work out a mortgage modification with the homeowner to keep that income stream intact.

Of course, sometimes the homeowner was in such trouble that foreclosure made more sense. Foreclosures do happen even in real estate markets filled only with solidly underwritten loans serviced by the bank that made the loan. That's because bad things do happen to prevent a once-creditworthy borrower from repaying.

But what's happening now is that modifications that do make sense aren't being done. That's mainly because the servicers of securitized mortgages make more money by doing foreclosures than modifications. But incompetence is to blame, too, due to banks' efforts to do everything on the cheap. As a result, they've lacked the staff and processes to do modifications well. They can't even keep their numbers straight, despite their insistence that their loan files are accurate.

How many forecloses result from financial incentive and how many from incompetence isn't clear, but it's also irrelevant. The point is that a good chunk of foreclosures shouldn't happen because modifications make more money for the people the mortgage is owed to (usually, the investors in the mortgage-backed securities).

Simply put, if the banks had kept up normal underwriting and had modified mortgages (or approved more short sales) every time it made sense to do so, we wouldn't have the foreclosure volume, and thus delays, that we currently face.

The "Paperwork" Problems Aren't Meaningless

Now you might ask, in addition to volume-related delays, with so many foreclosures in the system, aren't defaulted homeowners to blame for gumming up the process? Aren't they just citing meaningless problems with the banks' paperwork so that they can stay in their homes for free, hurting everyone else in the process?


While it's true that foreclosure defense attorneys want to slow the process to give their clients more time to relocate, that doesn't mean the "paperwork" problems they're raising are meaningless.

For example, the banks' carelessness with the securitization of Massachusetts mortgages has clouded the title to thousands of properties. Foreclosure attorneys' use of nonlawyers in Pennsylvania may have clouded the title to thousands more. The use of a private, electronic database (called MERS) to track mortgages instead of recording them in government land records may have clouded yet millions more. And in any case, MERS is a legally problematic cost-savings strategy that has created only more confusion and delay.

Even homeowners who are capable of curing their default sometimes can't because banks' inaccurate record-keeping about how much the homeowners owe precludes the possibility. More outlandish problems have surfaced too: from multiple banks trying to foreclose on the same property, to banks foreclosing on homes bought with cash, to banks breaking into homes they haven't foreclosed on, to a bank ignoring its court-approved agreement to foreclose and demanding the money instead.

What Revelations Are Still to Come?

These cases are probably just the leading edge of a paperwork-problem tsunami. Even though these issues have been in the news for months, the official investigations and litigation are still in relatively early stages. Millions of foreclosures in nonjudicial states haven't gotten the scrutiny they deserve (except presumably as part of the 50-state attorneys general investigation), so who knows what will yet surface?

As major judiciaries force a closer look at bank documents, what will they find? The fact that all the major law firms advising on "typical" securitization deals didn't know that "assignments in blank" violated Massachusetts law is chilling. How many other states' laws were broken by the "typical" deal?

Moreover, everything we're seeing suggests the banks' papers for securitized loans are in total disarray. The note is in one place (theoretically), the record of payments on the loan (inaccurate as it may be) is in another, and the ownership of both the note and the mortgage may or may not be the same. When asked to produce securitization documents, banks frequently submit drafts and contracts without attachments. The attorneys doing the foreclosures are buried in volume, cutting corners themselves, and are unable to meaningfully communicate with their bank clients. Indeed, it may not even be attorneys doing the foreclosures.

Signs of this chaos abound, whether it's dead financial firms signing documents, banks changing their minds about who owns the loan in the middle of court proceedings, or attorneys unable to certify that the information in foreclosure complaints is true.

And What's the Fate of Mortgage-Backed Securities?

The banks also have a different type of mortgage "paperwork problem" relating to mortgage-backed securities. Will the banks discover that millions of mortgages they thought they had securitized instead stayed with them because they screwed up the paperwork to transfer the mortgages?

Massachusetts will be a leading indicator on that question because the "assignment in blank" problem may have prevented most of those Massachusetts mortgages from being securitized. Or if the securitizations technically succeeded, will investors still win suits against the banks or force them to buy back large volumes of securities because the papers the banks used to sell the securities were fraudulent?

The foreclosure paperwork problem damage the banks somewhat and the broader economy even more so, but the paperwork problem with mortgage-backed securities has the potential to trigger Bank Bailout II.

No One Is Above the Law

But imagine for a second a world that doesn't exist -- one in which the banks' foreclosure documents were all accurate, and their problems were simply a failure to abide by the rules that apply to everybody else? Shouldn't we blame the deadbeats for gumming up the system then? Many readers make comments to that effect on some of my reporting.

Let's flip the question: Why is it OK for the banks to ignore the rules? The rich and powerful and the ordinary Joe are all supposed to play by the same rules. No one is supposed to be above the law.

No matter whether it's America's real estate market getting crushed by millions of foreclosures that didn't need to be, or our real property records getting shredded through clouded titles, or citizens' tax dollars being used to bail out banks again, we're all paying for the banks "paperwork" problems.

And remember: We don't know yet just how big that bill is ultimately going to be.

Increase your money and finance knowledge from home

Building Credit from Scratch

Start building credit...now.

View Course »

How much house can I afford

Home buying 101, evaluating one of your most important financial decisions.

View Course »

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum


Filter by:

Great, really it is a best mortgage blog. Thanks for share this.


November 28 2013 at 2:29 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Sorry Abigail, regardless how you spin it, the Government is 96% to blame for the crisis. Without imposition of the Big Government, Nanny State, redistribution policies you worship,none of the secondary occurrences you mention could have transpired.

February 08 2011 at 4:28 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Every fraudulent loan that was made was also fraudulent on the borrower's side.

January 25 2011 at 8:53 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Did'nt homeowners knew what they were getting into when they signed up and agreed to pay a Mortgage they can afford ? Hey they wanted to stop paying rent and own their own stuff,dont blame the Banks ,they agreed with you.

January 25 2011 at 9:07 AM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply

this excerpt may shed a little light on the roles banks and investors played in the economic crisis. The following is a short transcript from "This American Life Episode Transcript Program #355 The Giant Pool of Money WBEZ, which originally aired on 5/9/08
"Adam Davidson: An interesting fact, here. Mike Garner's bank did not care how
risky these mortgages were. This was the new era: banks didn't have to hold on to
these mortgages for 30 years. They didn’t have to wait and see if they’d be paid
back. Bank's like Garner's just owned them for a month or two and then sold them
on to Wall Street. Wall Street would sell them on to the global pool of money.
Alex Blumberg: Which is how we get half-million dollar, no income, no asset loans.
Adam Davidson: And loans to dead people. So there's another thing going on:
housing prices were rising, fast. Lots of people in the mortgage industry had this
faith that housing prices, in the US, simply never go down. So, from the bank's
perspective, even if the worst happens and someone defaults, the bank would then
own the house which is now worth even more than when they gave out the loan.
So, All Mike cared about was whether or not his customers--the Wall Street
investment banks--would buy those mortgages from him. And he was under
pressure to approve more and more loans. Because other guys in his company--the
actual guys cruising strip malls all across Nevada buying mortgages from brokers,
their commission depended on selling more loans. And occasionally, those guys
would hear about some loan that some other mortgage company offered that they
weren’t allowed to offer. And they'd complain to Mike."


January 24 2011 at 11:38 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply

You said Banks are 90% responsible, and home-owners, 10% for the mortgage mess.
It would be interesting to hear how you arrived at that.
If you will do your homework, I beliwve you will find that it had its roots back in LBJ's "Great Society", and has been growing on probably every President's watch since then, more popular with Democrats, what want to "redistribute the wealth" .
And you should not forget that it was our FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that coerced the Banks into making these "easy loans" available to people with little or no credit, because, after all, it is the right of all Americans to have a part of the "American Dream". This is why we had millions of people with bank loans who were never a good credit risk!
So, put the blame where it really lies, squarely at the feet of the US Government, those omnipotent ones responsible for overseeing the Post office, Medicare, and Social Security, and others, all running billions of dollars in deficits, and in the case of Social Security,the money having been raided from the Trust Fund and used for general revenues to fund their voracious over-spending habits .

January 24 2011 at 11:13 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
Doris Kabureck

Yes, someone did force the banks to make those loans. Ever since
Jimmy Carter's CRA, the government has forced banks to make bad loans
by requiring that a certain percentage of their loans be made in
specified areas whether or not there were enough qualified applicants
to receive those loans. Banks were punished for lack of compliance
by the government's withholding approval of necessary activities,
and gag orders were issued to hide the government's actions.

The government's effort to move everyone into a house, regardless of
ability to afford a house, and its support of mortgage-backed securities
to keep the banks able to make new mortgages played a huge role in
the current crisis. It would be interesting to know what strictures
the banks are operating under now.

January 24 2011 at 9:47 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Doris Kabureck's comment

Regurgitated Rhetoric. READ PLEASE. This entire article spells out dozens of atrocities that were perpetrated on our citizens and you didn't READ about them? Fraud runs rampant in this industry and is spelled out in the article. READ PLEASE! Fraudulent documents are being used as a means to foreclose on properties! When has our judicial system EVER allowed fraudulent documents to be considered in our courts of law? READ PLEASE!!! How can anyone who has READ this article NOT understand that it is NOT LEGAL TO COMMIT FRAUD? Criminal Acts vs. Ill-advised, non-Elucidated Homebuyers.....WHO DO YOU THINK HAD THE EDGE IN THIS EQUATION?

January 24 2011 at 11:04 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply

Thieves in suits. I want to see some of these cretins serve prison time for defrauding most of us of a large percentage of our investments and savings.

January 24 2011 at 4:15 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply

Mortgage finance is far more complex than the author is apparantly able to comprehend. It's too bad that just because somebody has the title of "attorney" that other people are willing to simply accept what they say as fact.

Unfortunately, what Ms. Caplovitz-Field fails to do is ALSO examine other players in the game. How about realtors who would push buyers into homes they couldn't afford with the advice of "if you can't afford it, don't worry about it, just turn around and sell it for $100k more than you paid for...you can't lose"?,
How about appraisers who would assign ridiculous amounts of appreciation to a property in a relatively short amount of time with no evidence of any improvement whatsoever to the properties they appraised?

Can you seriously lay the blame solely on the banks when the banks were following Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guidelines? Banks were closing loans because there was a market for the loans. If the loan met guidelines, it would be bought. Is that really the banks fault?

Blaming banks for "incompetently failing to modify loans" shows ignorance for the complexity of loan servicing. Banks did the loan it's true, but then sold the loan to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, who in turn bundled the loans into behemoth investment packages.

Bottom line, THIS is a prime example of what happens when the federal goverment involves itself too deeply in what should be a private market, in order to make "home affordability" possible for people who really can't afford a home (I feel bad for them) or investors who got greedy and bought multiple houses (I don't feel sorry at all for you....you risk your money, you might win or you might lose...but THATS all on you)

January 24 2011 at 1:16 PM Report abuse +4 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Nuff_Said's comment


Way to start a real dialog. That's what we're missing in almost every discussion about this topic.

I'd like to make a clarification prior to continuing this response because I will use the terms bank/lenders/investors as one entity primarily because, although their roles were different, the anticipated outcome of their machinations were pretty much aligned with each other, regardless of the fact that one's goals were realized while the other's tanked in many ways.

Let's just suppose that we attribute another 10% to the others that you lumped into the blame-pot. Therefore, let's use 80% blame to lenders/ 20% blame to homeowners. (It might have been way more interesting to use actual dollar amounts in terms of loss vs. gain for banks/investors vs. homeowners. I suspect those figures would paint quite the interesting picture to those of us who have difficulty with the written word and could not even fathom understanding the "complexities of the loan servicing" business.) I don't necessarily place the majority of the blame on just one entity - the banks. I prefer to include the investor's greed as well as the bank's greed because neither entity could get these mortgages securitized fast enough to the point where there was an horrific lack of paper trail to cover one of the most basic tenets of our founding fathers: the right to hold quiet title to property!

Fannie & Freddie jumped on the band wagon rather late in the game in order to stay competitive only AFTER investors started grabbing the golden ring. Would you not agree that selling these bundles of loans knowing full well that they contained mortgages with less than stellar ratings might have made a contribution to this mess? (oopppsss...which side of this equation should we add the rating entities and how much did they make by cow-towing to the banks/investors's needs?) Investors were begging Banks to CREATE loan packages that were attractive to buyers knowing full well that they would wind up in default!! (buyer's fault vs. bank's fault? Feel free to weigh in.) This is a prime example of what happens when the greedy get greedier then pull the strings in every direction to the point where our government officials are doing barely more than mop up after the party!(Can we add the Federal Reserve in here somehow? Let's REALLY choose to use REAL dollars vs. percentages of loss/gain here because I really wanna see if the educated among us could instruct the rest of us ill-informed (in numbers we can understand and relate to) as to how those villainous homeowners really pulled one over on the trustworthy, good-hearted folks at the banks and investors who failed to invite us to the bonus parties because we didn't have the proper attire to attend.

BTW.... banks got federal funds for TARP and to assist homeowners in HAMP & HAFA, etc. maybe you could throw in a few coins from the tax payers bill for that, as well. Please do impart your wisdom as to how many loan mods/short sales-deeds in lieu were successfully completed vs. how much money the banks received from the govt.

Our "government" is torn asunder by ideological parties that will see/hear/do nothing if it sounds different from their party's line. Ergo, our government is quagmired in inertia! So afraid, are we, that our beloved banking institutions (got any idea yet what these actual money totals are at this point?)will fail and our economy will collapes, that no one seems to want to stand up to these greedy folks who knew damn well they were taking a risk; knew the cost of those risks; and continued to perpetrate their get-rich-quick scheme on the American public. Can you spell F-R-A-U-D?? (criminal offense alert!)

Woe is me. I'll share my tears with the next homeowner I talk to who has been screwed over when he lost his job of 24 yrs or her husband was diagnosed with cancer,which sorely affected their 800 FICO scores. Good, honest, God-fearing members of our society who are suffering merciless at the hand of almighty GREED!

In closing, I don't want you to feel sorry for me or anyone of my "ilk". I want you to READ with your eyes open. I want you to READ something that differs from your political ideology to make sure you're getting the correct information and not some sensationalized BS that's out there making millions of dollars in revenue that can be actualized by scaring people half to death.


January 24 2011 at 10:45 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply

There's lots of blame to go around. The pushed loans that couldn't be paid back, but the borrowers lied on their loan applications and took out loans that they could only pay back if they sold the property at a higher price. And yes, the government was encouraging all that, trying to use housing to pump up a weak economy. Preventing the foreclsures is just delaying the recovery process, and if carried to extremes will kill the houseing market because mortgage money will dry up if the houses can't be depended on as security.

January 24 2011 at 8:32 AM Report abuse +5 rate up rate down Reply