Skip Navigation
Daniel Indiviglio

Daniel Indiviglio - Daniel Indiviglio was an associate editor at The Atlantic from 2009 through 2011. He is now the Washington, D.C.-based columnist for Reuters Breakingviews. He is also a 2011 Robert Novak Journalism Fellow through the Phillips Foundation. More

Indiviglio has also written for Forbes. Prior to becoming a journalist, he spent several years working as an investment banker and a consultant.

Why Haven't We Thrown Any Of the Scoundrels In Jail?

By Daniel Indiviglio
Jun 18 2009, 12:30 PM ET Comment

Anal_yst commented on a piece I wrote yesterday about Obama's financial regulatory suggestions saying:

None of the "solutions" proposed thus far address the lying and fraudulent behavior in the mortgage market, from both the borrower and originator (broker) level.


Good point. But fraud is already illegal, so in theory, you shouldn't need additional legislation or regulation to stop it. You just need Johnny Law to roll in and start handcuffing people. So why hasn't that happened?

On the borrower level, my guess is that it's too widespread to begin to try to prosecute everyone who has done it. But that doesn't mean the authorities shouldn't try. If you had people signing statements that indicated their net worth or other underwriting criteria were straight-up lies, those people should be arrested for fraud. So if the authorities don't have the manpower to go after these people, then perhaps a new department of the FBI with greater resources at its disposal to detect and enforce consumer credit fraud would make sense.

On the originator level, fraud is probably a little more difficult to prove. Frankly, it's pretty easy to take advantage of unsophisticated consumers with fancy finance. That's why transparency is so important. I hope Obama's proposed "Consumer Protection Agency" will take on the task of making certain borrowers understand exactly what they're getting into. Sure, we've got a truth-in-lending disclosure, but that doesn't explain that payments on your adjustable-rate mortgage could spike by hundreds of dollars when it resets.

So for originators to be guilty of fraud, I would imagine it was on the sell-side, i.e. when they sold bad mortgages to banks. Even then, however, I'm a little unconvinced that there needed to be much fraud. Banks had become so comfortable buying giant pools of ugly mortgages, they did minimal due diligence. Some banks knowingly bought pools of mortgages where no income verification was done when the mortgages were created. Originators don't need to knowingly report false borrower incomes if the bank doesn't care about the information anyway.

Still, there must be some originator fraud out there. And again, some government agency with enforcement authority should be examining some of these pools of bad mortgages to see if originators made false representations about the mortgages they contained. Like in the consumer case, if no such department exists, create one.

Presented by

More at The Atlantic

The Sorry Six-Day History of Facebook, Inc: A Glitch, a Snitch, and a Tumble The Sorry Six-Day History of Facebook, Inc.
The Remote Control as Subversive Technology Interactive Media Began With the Remote Control
Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Used TV? Have You Ever Tried to Sell a Used TV?
It's Not Just Porn: Why Ultra-Orthodox Jews Fear the Internet Why America's Ultra-Orthodox Jews Fear the Internet
The Bee Gees Are Disco Icons, but Robin Gibb Was Pure Pop The Bee Gees Are Disco Icons, but Robin Gibb Was Pure Pop

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.
blog comments powered by Disqus
View All Correspondents

The Biggest Story in Photos

One Year Since the Joplin Tornado

May 23, 2012

Subscribe Now

SAVE 59%! 10 issues JUST $2.45 PER COPY

Facebook

Newsletters

Sign up to receive our free newsletters

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)