A bruising legal fight pitting the country’s most powerful banks against the full force of the United States government began Friday, as federal regulators filed suits against 17 financial institutions that sold the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac nearly $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities that later soured.
The suits are the latest legal salvo fired at the banks accusing them of misdeeds during the housing boom. Investors fled financial shares Friday amid growing concern that the litigation could last for years and undermine earnings and balance sheets in the process. The complaints were filed just as the stock market closed Friday afternoon, but with word leaking out of the impending legal action during the trading session, shares of Bank of America fell more than 8.3 percent, while JPMorgan Chase dropped 4.6 percent and Goldman fell 4.5 percent. “The suits only add to the uncertainty that dogs the industry,” said Mike Mayo, an analyst with Crédit Agricole. “Banks should pay for what they did wrong, but at the same time they shouldn’t be treated as a big piñata that has the effect of delaying the housing recovery. If banks have to pay for loans they made five years ago, are they going to make new ones?”
After the savings and loan crisis in the late 1980s and early 1990s, years of litigation followed. The mortgage bust and the subsequent financial crisis have spawned a similar legal fight, said Jaret Seiberg, a financial policy analyst with MF Global in Washington. “It’s going to be exceedingly difficult and take years to play out,” he said. “There’s not much incentive for either side to settle.” The litigation represents a more intense effort by the federal government to go after the financial services industry for its supposed mortgage failures. Indeed, the cases were brought on the basis of 64 subpoenas issued a year ago, giving the government an edge in its investigation that private investors suing the banks lack.
The Obama administration as well as regulators like the Federal Reserve have been criticized for going too easy on the banks, which benefited from a $700 billion bailout package shortly after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in the autumn 2008. Much of that money has been repaid by the banks — but the rescue of the mortgage giants Fannie and Freddie has already cost taxpayers $153 billion, and the federal government estimates the effort could cost $363 billion through 2013. Even though the banks already face high legal bills from actions brought by other plaintiffs, including private investors, the suits filed Friday could cost the banks far more. In the case against Bank of America, for example, the suit claims that Fannie and Freddie bought more than $57 billion worth of risky mortgage securities from the bank and two companies it also acquired, Merrill Lynch and Countrywide Financial.
In addition to suing the companies, the complaints also identified individuals at many institutions responsible for the machinery of turning subprime mortgages into securities that somehow earned a AAA grade from the rating agencies. The filing did not cite a figure for the total losses the government wanted to recover, but in a similar case brought in July against UBS, the F.H.F.A. is trying to recover $900 million in losses on $4.5 billion in securities. A similar 20 percent claim against Bank of America could equal a $10 billion hit. In a suit that identifies 23 securities that Bank of America sold for $6 billion, the company “caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in an amount to be determined at trial.”
Within minutes of the filing of the suits, several banks responded with a preview of the legal arguments they will make in the coming months, namely that Fannie and Freddie were sophisticated investors who should have known the securities were not without risk, and that the losses were caused not by fraud or misrepresentation but by underlying difficulties in the housing market. In a statement, Bank of America said Fannie and Freddie “claimed to understand the risks inherent in investing in subprime securities and continued to invest heavily in those securities even after their regulator told them they did not have the risk management capabilities to do so.” In spite of that warning, Bank of America said, the government-controlled mortgage giants “are now seeking to hold other market participants responsible for their losses.”
Other large banks also assembled huge amounts of so-called private label mortgage-backed securities for Fannie and Freddie that declined sharply in value after the housing bubble burst in 2007. JPMorgan Chase sold $33 billion, while Morgan Stanley sold over $10 billion and Goldman Sachs sold more than $11 billion. A who’s who of foreign banks were also big bundlers and sellers of these securities, like Deutsche Bank with $14.2 billion, Royal Bank of Scotland at $30.4 billion, and Credit Suisse selling $14.1 billion. All were sued Friday. “We believe the claims brought by the F.H.F.A. are unfounded,” said Frank Kelly, a spokesman for Deutsche Bank. “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the epitome of a sophisticated investor, having issued trillions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities and purchased hundreds of billions of dollars more, often after hand-picking the loans they now claim should not have been included in the offerings.“
Buried in the filings themselves, however, is a damning portrait of the excesses of the housing bubble, when borrowers were able to obtain home loans without basic proof of income or creditworthiness, and banks appeared only too happy to mine profits taking the risky loans and assembling them into securities that could be sold to investors. In the complaint against Goldman Sachs, for example, the suit says that “Goldman was not content to simply let poor loans pass into its securitizations.” In addition, the giant investment bank “took the fraud further, affirmatively seeking to profit from this knowledge.”
When an outside analytics firm, Clayton, identified potential problems in the underlying mortgages Goldman was turning into securities, the suit said, “Goldman simply ignored and did not disclose the red flags revealed by Clayton’s review.” Goldman Sachs declined to comment, as did JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse and Citigroup.
Similar behavior in terms of warnings provided by Clayton transpired at Bank of America, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, RBS and UBS, according to the complaints.
Source: New York Times
No comments:
Post a Comment