An ambitious plan to update the Carter-era Community Reinvestment Act that supporters hope to see signed into law in 2010 comes amid charges that this legislation was responsible for nothing less than the subprime crisis and the resulting collapse of the residential real estate market.

The plan, sponsored by Rep. Eddie Johnson (D-Tex.), would close some loopholes in the original act that let non-bank financial firms operate with relative impunity. It would levy negative ratings on a much wider array of institutions that practiced predatory or discriminatory lending, and it would require that non-bank entities like mortgage providers and insurance companies comply with all CRA tenets.

[Economy1] Why this piece of legislation is still such a lightning rod more than 30 years after its introduction is something both its supporters and detractors struggle to explain from their respective camps. “The idea that this was just some sort of carrot-stick regulation that didn’t work is a perception that goes very much in hand with a right-wing agenda,” said Jose Garcia, associate director for research and policy at advocacy group Demos. Demos is one of several progressive groups seeking to have the bill, the Community Reinvestment Modernization Act of 2009, made into law.

On the other hand, Mark Calabria, director of financial regulation studies at the Cato Institute, asserts that political pressure drives CRA support. “It fundamentally gets to some very emotional issues. [Supporters] see this as an issue of racism and social justice,” he said. The Cato Institute held a forum in November that was broadly critical of the CRA, asserting that the financial models at its core are faulty.

Federal Reserve chairman Benjamin Bernanke called the CRA a “catalyst” in 2007, although he touched on the trouble already brewing in the subprime mortgage sector as an imperative to revisit the Act in the wake of significant changes in the banking industry since its implementation.

At its heart, the CRA was created to try and legislate out some of the institutional discrimination in the financial services industry. It was conceived in a very different era from today’s world of global banking behemoths. In the wake of the civil rights movement, most banks were still small, often single-branch operations. Many would operate selectively in low-income and minority neighborhoods, accepting the deposits of local residents but only writing home or business loans in more affluent communities.

Regulatory changes in banking plus an agenda embraced by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to boost homeownership cracked the mortgage market wide open beginning in the 1990s, and the CRA was initially credited with higher rates of homeownership among low-income and minority Americans. According to Kathleen Day, spokesperson for the Center for Responsible Lending, “The purpose of the CRA is to go into underserved areas and look for credit-worthy borrowers you overlooked because of red-lining,” she said, referring to the bank practice of categorically refusing to lend in certain neighborhoods.

The result of reckless lending practices is by now apparent to everyone, although concerns were swept under the rug in the go-go years of the mid 2000s. CRA supporters say brokers and non-bank mortgage outfits wrote nearly 95 percent of the bad loans, while the Act took the fall when these loans turned out to be unsustainable.

“Nine out of 10 of the people who got bad loans already had homes,” said the Center’s Day. “Six out of the 10 were refinances and three were selling one home and buying another.”

Often, Day adds, the unscrupulous vendors that preyed on subprime mortgage candidates cloaked their malfeasance in the language of the CRA’s mission, a sleight of hand that muddied the waters and assigned undue blame on the regulation when mortgages — and the huge numbers of securities backed by them — began to sour.

Even Lawrence White, a New York University who wants to see the CRA scrapped, says it’s not to blame for the financial meltdown. “The CRA has very little to do with the subprime lending debacle,” he said.

Aside from mortgage lending, the other goal of the CRA is to provide basic banking services to low-income and minority citizens. In these locations, “Pawnshops and the like literally became the banking services,” said John Taylor, president and CEO of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, the organization spearheading the modernization of the CRA.

“In some communities there are no financial institutions,” asserted Demos’s Jose Garcia. Geographic impediments and language barriers create a two-tier system that leaves low-income Americans, minorities and immigrants without access to the banking and lending services the middle class takes for granted.

If the legislation were better-enforced — something the NCRC’s Taylor believes the modernization bill would facilitate — banks wouldn’t be able to do things like close branches in these communities without repercussions. But preventing closures would just be the beginning.

In a 12-page statement, the NCRC spelled out major features of modernization. Key among them are inclusion of non-bank financial firms under the umbrella of CRA oversight, and a greater emphasis on the neighborhoods in which institutions write loans, not just the locations where their branches or offices are located. This is partially due to the rise of online and branchless financial institutions, but Taylor says the switch will also prevent companies like subprime mortgage-peddlers from operating under the radar.

Advocates also want to see enforcement of the CRA transferred to the not-yet-created Consumer Financial Protection Agency. The CFPA, as its supporters envision it, would consolidate regulatory oversight and enforcement of banking and lending activities in a single agency, rather than the patchwork of regulators some say let ruinous business practices slip through the cracks.

The modernization effort isn’t without roadblocks, though. The current House bill has yet to progress to the Senate, although Taylor says the NCRC’s goal is to have the modernization signed into law sometime this year. The CFPA doesn’t even exist yet, and might never come to fruition. Last week, Senate Banking Committee Chair Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), the lawmaker who has championed the idea, indicated he may be willing to abandon the idea of a consumer protection agency.

In the end, it’s not clear what is ahead for the CRA. Some, like the Cato Institute’s Mark Calabria, think the need has run its course. “There was a logical raison d’être for the creation of the CRA at the time but that justification is no longer there,” he said. He admits that an outright repeal of the Act is unlikely, though. NYU’s Lawrence White also wants to get rid of the CRA, although he wants to replace it with a cap-and-trade system of credits similar to the protocol used to eliminate acid rain-causing sulfur dioxide in the 1980s.

Progressive and social-justice groups say that the CRA, while not perfect, needs to be improved, not thrown out. “We’re talking about trillions of dollars of private resources that could be available to low- and moderate-income neighborhoods,” said the NCRC’s Taylor. “We believe in banks. If we don’t have them active in these neighborhoods, it’s very unlikely they’re going to prosper. We want banks to see these neighborhoods as an important part of the economic future of this country and of their business plans.”

In the end, it might come down to that. If the notoriously profit-hungry banking industry sees economic potential in lower-income areas, this would go a long way towards keeping the predatory players out of the arena.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Tennessee, marshaled a raft of statistics to argue that Wells Fargo offered one lending reality for whites and another for blacks. In Shelby County, which includes Memphis, one of every eight Wells Fargo loans in predominantly black neighborhoods resulted in foreclosure, compared with only one in 59 such loans in white neighborhoods, the lawsuit said.

Such charges, if proven, amount to reverse redlining — marketing expensive loan products specifically to black customers.

For anyone who’s been following the reporting of TWI’s Mary Kane on Wells Fargo, this should come as no surprise. First, there was that Cleveland case in which Wells was found to be violating public nuisance laws by failing to clean up its foreclosed properties. Next came the charges from the state of Illinois that Wells had targeted Latino residents for subprime loans, even in cases when potential borrowers could afford less expensive options. Then came the California-based class-action lawsuit alleging subprime discrimination against the bank. And finally, Mary uncovered the bank’s alleged strategy of hiring high-profile black figures such as Tavis Smiley to lure potential black borrowers to “Wealth Building” seminars, where Wells employees would be waiting to sign attendees up for more expensive subprime loans, according to a lawsuit filed by the Illinois attorney general.

Almost seems like there’s a trend here.

Flickr: TheTruthAbout...

Just a year ago, the theory that poor and minority borrowers were to blame for the housing crisis took hold with a vengeance, and so did the belief that the government forced lenders to make subprime mortgages to meet affordable housing goals. The view took on greater prominence in the heat of a presidential campaign, and an obscure anti-redlining law known as the Community Reinvestment Act became a scapegoat for subprime lending and the collapse of the mortgage market.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Things have changed quite a bit since then, as the spotlight has shifted to lenders and their behavior during the boom. States and cities continue to aggressively pursue subprime lending discrimination suits, and judges across the country are signaling a willingness to move forward with some cases. As the lawsuits wind their way through the court system, more details and allegations about the inner workings of the subprime world are emerging. And as startling as some of the charges already have been — a former loan officer for Wells Fargo testified in one affidavit that employees regularly referred to minority borrowers as “mud people” and called subprime mortgages “ghetto loans,” — there’s even more ahead, said David Berenbaum, executive vice president of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition.

“The ‘smoking guns’ are coming out,” Berenbaum said, referring to possible evidence that lenders targeted minority communities and borrowers for higher priced loans. “And I expect more and more of these smoking guns to become apparent.”

In the latest development, a Superior Court Judge in Los Angeles recently certified a 2005 lending discrimination lawsuit against Wells Fargo as a class action case. The suit contends that area managers at the bank refused access in some minority neighborhoods to a software program that allowed for discounted prices on mortgage loans. Barry Cappello, a partner with Cappello & Noel in Santa Barbara, which represents some 10,000 to 20,000 borrowers in the suit, said he believes it is the first subprime lending discrimination suit in California to be classified as a class action.

According to Cappello, Wells Fargo introduced a program in 2002 called “Loan Economics,” which gave loan officers the authority to offer discounts to loan applicants. The savings on lower fees and interest rates could be significant, ranging from $500 to as much as $10,000 per loan. The suit claims that the Los Angeles area Wells Fargo manager refused to allow loan officers operating in certain minority neighborhoods to offer the program. Borrowers in predominantly white neighborhoods were given access to the software.

Cappello said the suit stemmed from complaints by black and Hispanic loan officers for Wells Fargo, who said they asked to use the software in their branches but upper management refused.

Wells Fargo is fighting the suit and has denied all the charges. In a statement, the bank said, “We are disappointed in this ruling and intend to vigorously defend this matter as the case proceeds. The decision does not indicate the court believes the underlying allegations have any merit. We feel the allegations represent a complete mischaracterization of our long-standing commitment to responsible lending and the pricing practices and tools we use. The policies, systems and controls we have in place ensure race is not a factor in the pricing or products we offer.”

The case could go to trial in about a year, Cappello said.

More lawsuits are expected in the near future over the treatment of Hispanic borrowers in Arizona and Texas, who were offered high-cost loans they didn’t understand at misleadingly low teaser rates, then refinanced into even more expensive loans than their initial mortgages, Cappello said.

Wells Fargo, the nation’s largest home lender,  also has been a target of lawsuits elsewhere. Last month, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan sued the lender, alleging that blacks and Hispanics were sold high-cost subprime loans more frequently than white borrowers with similar incomes. The suit contended loan officers were offered incentives by the bank to steer borrowers into the more expensive loans, and that white borrowers generally received the lower-cost prime mortgages.

Some borrowers thought they were getting prime loans from Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, the suit also charged. But their loans actually came from Wells Fargo Financial, the bank’s subprime unit.

In Iowa, two watchdog groups charged this week that minority homeowners in Des Moines were three times more likely to receive high cost subprime loans from Wells Fargo than white homeowners.

In June, the New York Times reported on affidavits from a 2008 lawsuit by the city of Baltimore against Wells Fargo over subprime lending, which charged that the bank targeted blacks in Baltimore and suburban Maryland for high-interest subprime loans. Former loan officers testified in affidavits about using terms like “mud people” and “ghetto loans.” The bank also had an emerging markets unit that pinpointed black churches as fertile ground for selling subprime loans, according to the former officers. And in March, the NAACP filed suits in federal court in California against Wells Fargo and HSBC, alleging minority borrowers were more likely to be issued higher rate subprime loans than white borrowers with similar credit scores and qualifications. Both banks have strongly denied the charges. The NAACP also has pending litigation against nearly a dozen other banks and lenders over subprime lending discrimination.

Should the charges in the lawsuits be proven, it would amount to massive violations of the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and other fair housing and lending laws, Berenbaum noted. Enforcing fair lending laws has been “an issue the government has failed to address over the past decade,” he said. Lenders could face criminal penalties from the government for violating fair housing laws, and they could be subject to punitive damages and fines from government lawsuits.

Big lenders like Wells Fargo and HSBC are obvious targets for suits because of their size and the amount of lending they did. In addition, many other lenders and originators of subprime loans have gone out of business, complicating efforts to address allegations of lending discrimination through lawsuits.

That leaves a major question regarding all the lending still unanswered, Berenbaum said: Where has the U.S. government been? The Federal Reserve reported in 2005 that an analysis of federal mortgage data found that blacks and Hispanics were more likely to receive higher interest rates on mortgage loans – and that it intended to examine the practices of 200 lenders as a result.

But nothing’s happened since that announcement, Berenbaum noted. Instead, as the years go on, and the government takes no action, allegations about price differences in mortgage loans based on the race of borrowers and their neighborhoods continue to grow.

You’ve heard the critics’ argument before: The CRA hasn’t so much empowered low-income borrowers as it has lowered lending standards, thus forcing banks to make the bad loans that led to the crisis.

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), the subpanel’s senior Republican, summed up the sentiment nicely Thursday when he claimed the downturn was caused not by predatory lenders preying on people, but by a predatory government preying on banks for political ends.

Never mind that no less an authority than the Federal Reserve’s director of consumer and community affairs said the CRA was “not one of the causes of the current crisis.” Instead, the Fed found that CRA-covered banks were responsible for just 6 percent of the risky, high-cost loans that sparked the financial wildfire.

Franks’ comments weren’t overlooked by Rep. William Delahunt (D-Mass.), who used most of his Q&A time debunking the myth, picking from witnesses statistics like those reported by the Fed. Not that he imagined the Republicans were listening.

“When you’re looking for whipping boys,” Delahunt said, “the CRA is just a prime target.”