Aguirre’s intentions may be good at heart, but how can you justify something like this? Telling a business that they cannot collect on debts owed to them is ludicrous. Here are a couple quotes from Aguirre that appeared in the Reuters article that speak to his reasoning:
"The Countrywide executives who originated these subprime loans were engaged in a massive fraud on homeowners, borrowers and investors. They enriched themselves by over $1 billion."
"We have the big stick of being found in violation of the law and the carrot of taking something that is a nonperforming asset, that all these houses are, and making it a performing asset by keeping the families in it."
Sure, some Countrywide executives may have cut some corners and performed some questionable acts, but surely he doesn’t think that all the executives at all those major banks did the same thing? Furthermore, the Reuters article states that Aguirre's lawsuit, brought in the name of the people of California, names four current and former Countrywide officers, including former CEO Angelo Mozilo, and alleges they personally profited from selling shares of the lender's stock while knowing its subprime loans did not comply with company policies. My question is, what does this have to with the homeowners in foreclosure? This sounds like an issue between Countrywide, the aforementioned executives and the investors. As long as homeowners were getting the loans they thought they were getting, this has little to do with them. If a bank wants to break their own rules in order to fund some loans, that is their prerogative. They were not breaking federal or local laws with these loans, but company rules and guidelines.
The bigger issue here is if Aguirre is successful in his suit, and with the information I have seen I can’t imagine he will be, how will banks react to future mortgage lending in the city? If a bank knows that they are going to have to put up with people like Aguirre, who strongly favor homeowners over businesses, is it really worth the trouble to even lend in the city? I know if I were a bank in this situation, I would wash my hands of San Diego and focus my efforts elsewhere. If the city is telling me I can’t go after debtors who don’t pay me back, then I would have to think long and hard before I lent there.
1 comment:
While the concept of a foreclosure sanctuary is ludicrous, the idea that the banks have conducted their business in legitimate ways that deserve the government's fiduciary duty is ludicrous as well. Yes, I would argue that most lending executives acted in negligent ways. Negligence does not deserve the same protection afforded those who follow legitimate business practices in executing their business. Just because everyone else was doing it or because that was how the market operated is not a legitimate excuse. Mortgage lenders can rot in hell as far as I am concerned and I'm glad they can't collect their fraudulent losses. I'm glad that their lazy investors who bought the structured securities around these mortgages are going to lose money hand over fist as well. Without these things, the necessary lessons will not be learned.
Post a Comment