A Look at the Evidence: Predatory Lending, Borrowing, and Jack Cashill
The opening chapter of Jack Cashill’s Popes and Bankers relates his version of the tale of Melonie Griffith-Evans, a woman who in 2004 borrowed her way to losing her house. Ms. Griffith-Evans accepted loans in order to buy a house priced at $470,000 that resulted in her having to pay “roughly $3,500 a month.” Of course, she ends up not being able to pay those loans, and—since ex post is ex ante—the result must be All Her Fault. Mr. Cashill allows as to how a “traditionalist” might “if feeling churlish, talk of Griffith-Evans as a ‘predatory borrower.’ ”
Working solely from the information as provided by Mr. Cashill, let us test the validity of his hypothesis, assuming the “traditionalist” were sane.
Taking Mr. Cashill at his word on that “roughly $3,500 a month” and assuming that the ancillary loan is described correctly, Ms. Griffith-Evans would have to have taken out the following loans to buy the house for $470,000:
- A $ 94,000 (20% of the price of the house, an amount Ms. Griffith-Evans did not have in savings) loan. This loan—which I’m guessing was for 30 years was offered at the rate of 12.5%. (Mr. Cashill stipulates this.) Presumably, it was not secured by the property itself.
- This would produce a payment due of approximately $1,000 per month.
- A $376,000 (80% of the price of the house) 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, securitized by the property, at 7.00%
- This is the only way to total $3,500 per month if we assume Ms. Griffith-Evans borrowed the entire 20%, which seems to be Mr. Cashill’s contention. Otherwise, she only borrowed around $57,000 and made a down payment of around $35,000—certainly not the actions of a “predatory borrower.”
All of this excludes the closing costs or title searches or inspections or any of the other minutiae that is required before such loans are approved. But the process is transparent in Mr. Cashill’s tale, so we should assume that is the way he wants it to be.
Strangely, the details Mr. Cashill offers do not jibe with that. He claims that Ms. Griffith-Evans “took out a fairly standard 8.5% loan on 80% of the purchase price.” And—in a case of poor writing that betraying poor thought—he collaterally notes that the $3,500 payment due was “increasing as the loan was adjusted.” This would lead to an initial combined payment of approximately $3,900 a month—more than 10% higher than “about $3,500,” though still significantly below the rental costs of “about $5,000 to $6,000 per month” for apartments that, per Mr. Cashill, “suited her fancy.”
Mr. Cashill is determined to argue that the loan Ms. Griffith-Evans took out was not “predatory,” but was an 8.5% mortgage rate “fairly standard” in 2004?
It doesn’t seem to be. Even the highest rate for conventional mortgages in 2004—6.29%—is more than 220 basis points (2.20%) below the rate of Ms. Griffith-Evans’s loan, and that is excluding whether her rate was itself adjustable. (It is unclear from Mr. Cashill’s account whether the 8.50% mortgage, the 12.5% additional loan, or both were adjustable.) Or, to put it simply, the lender was charging Ms. Griffith-Evans more than a 35% premium for her loan. Quite a premium to accept if one wants to be a “predatory borrower,”
One might fairly wonder why she was not offered a loan for the entire amount at a fixed rate that would produce a loan payment due of about $3,500 a month, eliminate the risk to the second, unsecured lender, and leave the primary mortgage lender with a less encumbered “owner.” (That rate would be 8.10% for a $3,500 per month payment, or—given Mr. Cashill’s figures—a loan of 9.30% for the entire amount.) Certainly, if the primary lender honestly believed the property was worth $470,000, they would have been willing to offer a loan for such an amount, with the attendant Mortgage Insurance.
Mr. Cashill wonders about none of those actors, either, however. Tis Ms. Griffith-Evans who is wholly at fault, from the Very Christian perspective presented. Somehow, it was venal of her to elect to pay $3,500 a month for a house for her family, instead of half again more for an apartment.
I raise the possibility that the primary lender didn’t believe the house was worth $470,000—or even anything beyond $375,000—solely because the evidence runs that way. There is first the fact that the lender was not willing to loan Ms. Griffith-Evans the entire amount—or even within 20% of it—against the value of the property. (We can safely conclude this because the alternative is to believe that she, given the choice between paying 8.5% and paying 12.5%, honestly preferred the latter.) The second piece of evidence comes from Mr. Cashill, who declares that the lender was “embarrassed” into allowing Ms. Griffith-Evans and her children to stay in the house—“presumably free of charge” (quite the presumption, that)—“while she tried to find a buyer.” (Those of us who do not understand this behavior from a “predatory borrower” probably don’t understand Christianity either.)
Do I need to note that she failed to find a buyer? And that the lender clearly didn’t have one either, for—as Mr. Cashill continues—“When she failed to find one, the lender gave her still more time to find an apartment.” The benevolence of lenders is legendary, to be certain, but this one is clearly destined for sainthood.
The world in which I live—clearly one with a different color sun than that of Mr. Cashill in this chapter—is one in which businesses make decisions based on revenue and cash flows. So when the seller of the house accepted Ms. Griffith-Evans’s original bid, even with its dodgy financing, during the peak of the housing market, we must presume that they did so because they expected to receive more net money, easier, from that sale than from any other bid. And we must presume the lender was fully aware of what they were doing—and charged usurious interest rates (compared to the market) accordingly.
So we have a situation in which, ex ante, all parties got the best deal they could, given the information they had. Ms. Griffith-Evans paid around $1,000 a month less than she would have paid in rent, even before any tax benefits. The seller received a price to which they agreed, and which they represented as fair market at the time—with a lawyer doing a title search, a home inspector, and a home appraiser all corroborating that the property and the structure were as represented, and that the price was reasonably on the market (even if it wasn’t, or soon thereafter was not), all of whom were paid for their expertise and conclusion. The lender received a significantly higher interest rate than they would have from another buyer, which presumably compensated them for their additional risk—and they had the property in reserve.
In the world in which the sun is yellow and Ms. Griffith-Evans is a single mother—not General Zod—economic agreements were reached consensually among the parties and of whom except Ms. Griffith-Evans were compensated professionals. Strangely, in the “traditionalist” world of Mr. Cashill, the one person in the entire series of transactions who is most likely to have been deprived of information is the one who should be described as “predatory.”
After a start like this, I can’t wait to read the rest of the book.
Methinks Ms. Griffith-Evans wouldn’t score real high on a standardized IQ test, and it would be interesting to have Colbert interview her and get her side of the story.
However, in the old days we had a saying, “The easiest job in the world is giving money away.”
We also had jokes like:
Q: What’s the definition of a banker?
A: Someone with short arms and deep pockets.
You can imagine the fits of laughter that caused.
But today, somehow, giving money away became the highest paying job.
Maybe if we wait long enough someone will publish a book about how that can be so profitable.
The fact that alternative apartments went for 5k plus a month, suggests that unless she was making 150k or more a year her wallet did not match the size of her desires. Welcome to the real world!! (At 3500/month and the old time dti of .31 it about 135k/year but if you added taxes and insurance the house in the old days would have needed 150 to 180k/year to qualiy. Not having an idea of her income it becomes less clear but likley again would not qualify. If the broker had had a fiduciary duty to the borrower, then the broker would have been required to say “you can not afford that sorry” Given the rampant innumeracy of the populace and ignorance of little things like compound interest etc, perhaps predatory lending is really defined as not telling someone the facts of life economically.
One way would be to say that above x% debt to income to qualify for a loan you must visit a budget consultant to help you set up a budget.
If one watches till debt do us part you see a bunch of people who don’t know how much they are spending each month, and how they are well on the road to bankruptcy court.
Now it may be that if everone was responsible would have a depression but that is not clear.
Jack Cashill should make no one’s cut as anything of a serious thinker or commentator. Close the book and utilize the time for someone who offers a little more substance that Cashill’s soggy white bread variety.
Ken,
Sorry she’s an idiot. She bought at teh height of the bubble and borrowed way, way more than she could afford. $470K – that means she was making $160,000/year salary to afford that. I bet she wasn’t. She was doomed from the start, predatory or not, she could NOT afford the home.
Lyle is right.
Islam will change
“since ex post is ex ante”
Does anybody know what this means?
And I’m sorry, but who rents an apartment for $5,000 a month?
And what’s with all the “Very Christian” business?
The article indicated she was a young single mother. We know we shouldn’t profile, but it’s unlikely she would be in an income bracket shared by only a few percent of the population.
And who here has ever payed $5000/month for rent anyway? That would be my clue that I needed to move.
Got to add my bit to say I am not terribly sympathetic to this woman’s “problem”. Surely she has a responsibility for her actions? And it is not so much she lost “her” house – it was never hers – but rather she got to stay in a nice-ish one she would not otherwise have managed to.
I’m having trouble following the apparent argument that lack of financial sophistication by borrowers is mutually exclusive with determining that lenders engaged in fraud or at the very least usury.
On the planet I live on this woman was first and foremost a customer. One who was poorly served by multiple parties all of whom extracted handsome fees for the disservice they did her. Are the people in this thread attacking this woman’s intelligence or judgement really willfully blind to the incompetence and greed of the lender and other parties to these transactions? Have they failed to notice how the professionals involved in defrauding her did significant damage to their own employers?
And the Very Christian business makes sense to me at least inasmuch as the old testament proscribes usury and bearing false witness. I’m genuinely bothered by how few people seem to understand that these practices used to be illegal and it was widely understood that those proscriptions had a place in any decent civilized society.
We’re bringing back Old Testament morality? As long as I get to stone people that’ll be okay. Where do I line up to stone Tiger Woods?
The “Very Christian” comment came in a discussion about finance and real estate and it came, to me at least, from left field. Makes me wonder what makes Ken tick, or at least what pisses him off. The comment was off base and weird.
If the capacity to judge and punish is a priority you’re already there. Mazel tov.
I judge and punish, huh? Amateur, you’re the one who brought up the Old Testament, not me. I didn’t mention punishment at all in my comments except for the plainly unserious comment about stoning people. Lighten up.
Ken,
Taking advantage of idiots does not make the lender evil or predatory. It makes the lender good at buisness and makes the borrower an idiot.
Get over It!
Now we’re getting somewhere: Business is a game of conning the rubes and the winners scam the losers!
Clarity!
If – conjunction. Introducing a conditional clause. Now who needs to lighten up?
The crisis is related to moral failure, but not on the part of bankers or borrowers. The moral failure belongs to the Federal Reserve. The Feds reduce interest rates for a reason: they want people to borrow more. If people refuse to borrow at the current rates, the Fed lowers interest rates until people start borrowing more. They frequently lower rates to 0%. With such low interest rates, why is anyone shocked that people borrow money? That was the Fed’s intent.
BritainLoans.co.uk