Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.)

By all accounts, Sen. Kay Hagan’s (D-N.C.) amendment to Sen. Chris Dodd’s (D-Conn.) financial regulatory reform bill was an excellent one. The first-term senator had a long-standing reputation in her home state for fighting payday lending, the $42 billion a year industry that offers easy-to-get short-term loans in exchange for hefty fees and annualized percentage rates of interest in the triple digits, as high as 650 percent in some states.

[Economy1]Hagan’s amendment — the Payday Lending Limitation Act of 2010, cosponsored by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) — capped the number of times a customer could get a payday loan to six per year. It also required payday lenders to offer borrowers extended repayment plans, letting them pay back their loans in smaller installments over longer periods of time. Payday loans are advertised as emergency stop-gap measures to help customers with sudden expenses. But the average payday loan rolls over between eight and 12 times. And more than 60 percent of payday loans go to borrowers that use them 12 times or more per year.

To illustrate how bad payday loans sometimes got, Hagan told the story of one of her constituents, Sandra Harris from Wilmington. “She had a job at Head Start and always paid her bills on time,” Hagan said on the Senate floor. “When her husband lost his job, Sandra got a $200 payday loan to pay the couple’s car insurance. When she went to repay the loan, she was told she could renew. Sandra ultimately found herself indebted to six different payday lenders, and paid some $8,000 in fees.”

Hagan’s amendment, without banning the financial service, would have stopped the industry’s worst practices — but also its most lucrative practices. Payday lenders make 90 percent of their business from repeat users. If payday loans were capped at six per customer per year, payday lenders could see their business fall by a third or half. Thus, the industry lobbied hard against Hagan’s proposal, as it had done against financial reform in both houses all year — spending $6.1 million on lobbying in 2009, more than double what it did in 2008.

The lobbying effort employed everyone from the grassroots — individual customers — to the highest-powered lawyers. David Lazarus of the Los Angeles Times reported that as Hagan’s amendment came up for a vote in Congress last week, one payday lender instructed his employees, “After a customer repays their loan, the customer then asks for a new loan. TELL YOUR CUSTOMER THAT YOU CAN’T LOAN TO THEM BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS PUT US OUT OF BUSINESS. That will get their attention. Then ask them to write letters or call their senator/congressman.” A flurry of letters written at check cashers or payday loan shops showed up in Congress.

On May 20, Hagan’s amendment came up in the Senate. Durbin stood up in support, calling payday lenders the “bottom feeders” of the financial industry. Then, as Dodd moved to proceed, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) — who in 2009 received more campaign donations from payday lenders than any other Senator — blocked unanimous consent to vote on the popular provision. (Shelby’s office did not respond to repeated requests for comment.) It died on the floor.

Hagan’s was the last of many such payday-lender-specific provisions to come up in the regulatory reform process. And it was the last to fail. There are no interest-rate or rollover caps in the Senate bill. And there are none in the House either.

Durbin argued for capping the maximum annualized percentage rate of interest a payday lender could charge at 36 percent, for instance, a measure supported by the Center for Responsible Lending and other consumer groups. It never made it into the bill, nor did Rep. Jackie Speier’s (D-Calif.) version in the House. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) — who has in the past advocated effectively banning payday lending — sponsored the Payday Loan Act of 2009, a series of reforms attached to the House bill. Consumer reform groups blasted the measures, which capped annualized percentage rates of interest at 391 percent. But even those very modest reforms did not make it in. And the most notable payday lender victory might have come from the work of Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who reportedly lobbied for and won a loosening of the Consumer Financial Protection agency’s oversight over small payday lenders.

One might think this would have consumer advocates incensed about the House and Senate bills’ ability to stop the worst practices in the payday lending industry. But, in fact, they argue that payday lenders spent millions to win numerous battles before ultimately losing the war.

Why? Payday lenders in both bills still come entirely under the rule-making authority and oversight of the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which consumer advocates are confident will consider tamping down on annualized percentage rates of interest and establishing rollover limits. There has been considerable confusion over the Senate’s payday lending language and possible loopholes. It ensures the Consumer Financial Protection Agency has oversight and rule-making authority over all payday lenders, with the CFPA enforcing rules against bigger lenders and the Federal Trade Commission enforcing rules against smaller lenders, Kirstin Brost of the Senate Banking Committee said. And the House language, simply having the CFPA have total authority over all payday businesses, as supported by the White House and Treasury, is likely to win out.

“In the end, it doesn’t matter much that Congress didn’t specifically regulate payday lenders,” Ed Mierzwinski, the consumer program director at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group explains. “For the payday lenders to call the defeat of the Hagan a win for them is a Pyrrhic victory — because both both the House and Senate bills include a strong new consumer financial protection agency and it will regulate them.”

And Kathleen Day, the spokesperson for the Center for Responsible Lending, which worked with Senators on crafting payday lending restrictions and has fought a longtime and vocal fight against the businesses, concurs. “The [CFPA] will be able to enact strong consumer protections that would apply to payday lenders. As long as those protections are in there, that’s the name of the game,” she says. “There’s going to be people that say they want to be specific, they want to have specific provisions in this law about payday lending. But the great thing about having this agency is that it will have broad overview to write fair laws and to make sure laws are fair.

“Of course, we’d love to have a 36 percent [annualized percentage rate of interest] cap. But that’s unlikely. And sometimes regulations can be too specific. We are confident [the CFPA] will be able to react to the market in a flexible, consumer-focused way.”

Indeed, behind the scenes, payday lenders — much like auto dealers who make car loans — fought hardest for an exemption from CFPA authority. That battle, they spent millions to lose. And it means that consumers might win down the road.

You might get a feel for how consumer protection would be handled under the Fed.

We were curious: During the boom, did former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan ever go to the meetings? Maybe rub elbows with consumer advocates who were sounding the alarms over high-rate subprime mortgages?

Our researcher, Rachel Hartman, got some limited info from the Fed. From 2000 to the end of his term in 2006, Greenspan never attended a single CAC meeting.

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.

Julio Angulo was evicted from his Virginia home last December. (American News Project)

It was last December when Julio Angulo ignored the bitter cold and sat on a rusted patio chair in the front yard of his foreclosed home in suburban Manassas, Va. He sighed, resting his hand on his knee. He stared despondently at the sky. His lender had foreclosed on his house in July. He had just been evicted.

[Economy1]Angulo, then 55 years old, had nowhere to go. His wife and two children already had returned to El Salvador. He had refused during the summer to accept a cash-for-keys transaction, in which he could turn the house over to the lender in exchange for a cash payment. Instead, he remained, alone, in the three bedroom townhouse, in a modest working-class neighborhood called Georgetown South, until a Prince William County Sheriff’s Deputy knocked on the door on Dec. 1, 2008 for the foreclosure eviction.

A house painter, Angulo couldn’t afford the market rents of $1,500 a month for apartments elsewhere in the neighborhood. Most of Prince William County’s shelters also were full that day.

A year later, Angulo is gone. A legal resident of the United States, he joined his family in his native El Salvador, to let a knee injury heal, and to recover from his lost dream of owning a home. With nowhere to go immediately after the eviction, he luckily ran into a neighbor that night who offered to rent him a room for two weeks. He went to a public health clinic, to see a doctor about the arthritis in his injured knee. Then he left for El Salvador.

The house he paid $280,000 for in July of 2005 sold for $69,900 on March 16, 2009, according to local real estate agent Keith Elliott Jr. Real estate investors bought it.

And a year later, the hopes of those who thought the government could come up with a plan to stop foreclosures and help keep people like Angulo in their houses seem in tatters as well.  The Obama administration’s signature effort remains its $75 billion Making Home Affordable program, which was set up to aid as many as 4 million homeowners. But Making Home Affordable has in most ways been a crushing disappointment, housing advocates say.

At the beginning of this year lenders on their own were doing far more permanent loan modifications than the government has been able to accomplish since rolling out its program in April, noted Diane Thompson, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center. Private lenders were completing 120,000 permanent loan modifications per month during the first quarter of this year. Under the Obama administration’s initiative, some 650,000 homeowners have entered into trial loan modifications, but only about 10,000 permanent loan modifications had been completed by the end of October, a Congressional oversight panel reported on Wednesday. Treasury Department figures released Thursday showed that only 31,382 permanent loan modifications had been completed under the government program as of Nov. 30.

Making Home Affordable’s loan modification effort is known as HAMP, or the Home Affordable Modification Program. The small number of permanent loan modifications so far is due in part to a new program getting established, and to the fact that borrowers in the government program have to complete three-month temporary trial loan modifications first, in order to qualify for permanent ones. Getting the permanent trial modification isn’t automatic — trial program borrowers must submit paperwork documenting their incomes to convert to permanent loan modifications, and they must make three months of payments under their trial agreements.

Treasury expects some 375,000 trial modifications to be finished by the end of this year, but it’s not clear how many will become permanent. Updated numbers are expected this week. But none of this fully explains the glaring lack of progress so far, Thompson said.

“We’re more than nine months into the program, and trial modifications account for only about 11 percent of all the seriously delinquent loans, and permanent modifications aren’t even on the radar screen,” Thompson said. “The HAMP servicer participation agreements do not provide for any penalties, other than termination from the program, for the failure to make modifications.  Until those agreements are revised, the administration has little recourse other than public shame to compel servicers to make loan modifications. Meanwhile, the number of homes seriously delinquent and in foreclosure continues to rise every quarter.”

This is hardly what Thompson expected, just a year ago.

“It’s been very distressing,” she said.

In testimony submitted to the House Financial Services Committee on Tuesday, officials from JP Morgan Chase reported that of every 100 homeowners who sought to have their loans reworked under the government’s program, just 15 have or will end up with, a permanent loan modification.

Thompson and others who follow loan modifications said they were aware from the beginning that the government program couldn’t prevent all foreclosures, especially as job losses mounted and even prime borrowers fell behind on their payments. Experts also knew there would be some slowdown under the administration’s new program, as servicers worked to convert temporary loan modifications into permanent ones.

Servicers and borrowers are pointing the finger at each other over the lack of more permanent loan modifications. Servicers contend borrowers aren’t coming up with the necessary paperwork, such as documenting their incomes, that is required for permanent loan modifications. But housing counselors say just the opposite — that borrowers supply servicers with pay stubs and other paperwork, only to have their servicers lose them, or sit on them so long they aren’t current.

Thompson said there are even bigger problems with the program that leave her feeling very differently about the effort today, compared to her optimism when it was first announced.

“I don’t yet see any of the work on HAMP by the administration addressing the core problems in the program–a lack of accountability and transparency–so I am not optimistic, although I do believe that some of the incremental changes to the program are helpful and may help tens of thousands of people,” she said. “The problem is that we need to help millions, not tens of thousands.”

Alan White, a Valparaiso University law professor who studies loan modifications, was even more blunt:

“If we don’t see more permanent mods soon,” he said, “it will look like the HAMP program is a failure. We’ve seen a net reduction in permanent loan modifications. That’s not good.”

The failure to get more permanent loan modifications done “should be considered a breach of contract” by servicers and lenders that have accepted taxpayer bailout money and are eligible for financial incentives from the government for reworking loans, White said.

He and others never expected things to end up like this. In November 2008, mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac announced a foreclosure moratorium for the holidays, beginning in Thanksgiving, to allow the government to work out the details of streamlined loan modification efforts. Hopes were high that many borrowers would stay in their homes.

In Angulo’s case, the help was too late. He was evicted regardless, because the policy applied only to new foreclosures, not those already in the pipeline.
Fannie Mae announced last month a new policy to allow qualified owners facing foreclosure to rent back their homes for as long as a year. But Angulo most likely would not have qualified for that help, either, had it been available a year ago, since he couldn’t afford market rents in the area, a requirement of the program.

Angulo had covered his mortgage by renting out some of the bedrooms. In the spring of 2008, his renters left and the monthly payment on his adjustable rate mortgage also jumped from $1,400 to $2,600. As a house painter, he earned $500 a week.

Angulo said at the time that he tried to contact his lender, Aurora Loan Services, a subsidiary of Lehman Bros. that specialized in Alt-A and interest-only loans. But the servicer wouldn’t help him, he said.

Since his eviction, his old neighborhood isn’t the only location were housing values have fallen. In November, Zillow, an online real estate service, reported that year over year housing values nationwide had declined for the 11th consecutive quarter.

In Georgetown South, since last December, the highest priced home that has been sold went for $120,000, and it most likely resulted from an investor flip, Elliott said. In Prince William County overall, the first-time homebuyer tax credit helped boost sales of bank-owned foreclosed properties – but that doesn’t mean the local housing market has recovered, he said.

“Banks are probably planning on trickling out these additional foreclosures slowly while the market continues to improve,” he said. “How big is the shadow market? Honestly, I think it’s anybody’s guess. The banks could be sitting on a whole bunch just waiting to trickle them out a few at a time.”

As neighborhoods like Georgetown South continue to absorb the effects of a collapsed housing market, NCLC’s Thompson noted that growing foreclosures are spreading damage throughout the economy, hurting neighborhood property values, and cutting into state and local tax revenues.

That’s why Julio Angulo’s story is much more than just the eviction of another former homeowner on a cold December day, a year ago.

“This isn’t just about homeowners who need help,” Thompson said. “Unless officials take forceful action on foreclosures, things will only get worse. I never thought, at this point, that foreclosures still would not be effectively addressed by the administration. If we don’t get foreclosures under control, and soon, they’re going to drag down the whole economy.”

Angulo, for his part, promised to call if he ever could make his way back to Virginia, to try again to find work, and to buy another home.

He hasn’t been heard from since he left.

This article was to include new Treasury Department loan modification figures released Thursday.

Read Mary Kane’s December 2008 article about Julio Angulo’s eviction here.

JumpStart Executive Director Laura Levine and Southeast Regional Director William Cheeks (jumpstartcoalition.org)

The JumpStart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy, a national nonprofit advocacy group that aims to improve the financial management skills of America’s youth, draws lots of attention for its surveys measuring how much kids really understand money. Last spring, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke even led a joint news conference to announce JumpStart’s most recent findings, calling it “a leader among organizations seeking to improve the personal financial literacy of students from kindergarten to the university level.”

The 180 corporations, government agencies and nonprofits that are partners and provide financial support to the coalition get prominent billing on JumpStart’s Website, and share in the prestige of a group that promotes national standards for financial literacy education in the country’s classrooms.

But also included in the coalition is CompuCredit, an Atlanta subprime lender that specializes in high-rate credit cards, payday loans, auto financing and debt collection, focusing on customers with poor credit scores. In December of last year, CompuCredit reached a $114 million settlement with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Federal Trade Commission, which had charged CompuCredit and two partner banks with deceiving hundreds of thousands of customers by failing to properly disclose upfront fees and credit limits on their cards, thereby sinking borrowers further in debt. In addition, JumpStart’s Southeast regional director, a paid consultant who serves as a liaison to the group’s state affiliates, also counts CompuCredit as a client of his private consulting firm.

JumpStart executive director Laura Levine said that she was aware that CompuCredit belongs to JumpStart’s coalition, and that the coalition’s Southeast Regional Director William Cheeks also works for CompuCredit as a consultant. But, she said, no questions had been raised about the situation until an inquiry from TWI. Levine said JumpStart staff would explore the matter.

“No one’s called it to our attention as a problem,” Levine said. “Now that we’ve talked about it we will look into it further.”

JumpStart is not taxpayer-funded, although government agencies like the FDIC and Freddie Mac are partners. Corporate partners pay $5,000 annual dues to the coalition, with lesser fees for government groups and nonprofits. Membership has to be accepted by the board of directors, Levine said. Businesses that only do payday loans would never be approved for membership, she said, but the situation “gets into a real grey area” when a company, like CompuCredit, offers a range of financial products.

JumpStart describes its mission as promoting financial literacy through advocacy, research, standards for financial literacy education, and educational resources.

It also maintains an online clearinghouse of approved personal finance materials for educational use. Its partners provide financial support, and JumpStart in turn offers guidance and resources to help member organizations with their own financial literacy efforts. It does not allow any coalition members to sell or distribute their own products through JumpStart.

Regarding Cheeks, Levine noted that he is a consultant, not an employee, and that JumpStart can’t dictate what clients his private firm might accept. “We’re a coalition of organizations and entities that share a commitment to financial literacy education,” Levine said. “We have a lot of financial services firms that may be competitors, or may have different positions from each other. They aren’t working for us. They came to JumpStart to share in our support of financial education and financial literacy efforts.”

But Irene Leech, president of the Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, said she found CompuCredit’s involvement with JumpStart troubling.

“I’m disappointed,” said Leech, who also specializes in consumer issues as a Virginia Tech professor. “It’s distasteful, and it doesn’t improve its efforts. I would have absolutely said no to both these situations, at a bare minimum. I have a pretty high expectation for a group like this. There are many professional and academic organizations that I belong to that are members, along with the consumer groups. They’re the entity that everyone is looking to when it comes to measuring financial literacy with a high degree of accuracy.”

Leech added that “I just wouldn’t have thought that their leadership would have wanted to go this way. I’m really sad they’ve gone this route.”

In Virginia, JumpStart’s state coalition was credited with helping require financial literacy education in school curriculums, and also is active in other states to promote financial literacy at a local level, Leech said. Next month, JumpStart will sponsor its first national educator conference for K-12 teachers, devoted specifically to personal finance education. FDIC Chair Sheila Bair is scheduled as the keynote speaker.

At last spring’s joint news conference, Bernanke said the regional Federal Reserve banks work closely with JumpStart state coalitions on financial literacy issues. And JumpStart is probably most well-known for its biennial financial literacy surveys, which usually receive wide press attention. The April 2008 survey found that graduating high school seniors still were struggling with financial literacy basics.

Regarding the coalition partners, Levine said that “Many of our partners conduct financial education or support financial education activities–JumpStart’s role is to support, in some ways, what the partners do. For example, if a partner has a financial education product, we list it in our clearinghouse to try to help users find it. So, we don’t specifically ask them to do things for us.  We ask them to base their materials on the national standards, to help advance the
mission of the coalition.”

“We generally recommend their participation in financial literacy activities and efforts,” Levine continued, “but we don’t specifically ask them to do things.  Partners support us financially for the effort that we do, generally, on behalf of all, such as publication of the standards, operation of the clearinghouse, (and) promoting Financial Literacy Month.”

Leech said JumpStart has been very successful, particularly at the state level, in getting more businesses to join the coalition. But while partners from Merrill Lynch to Experian sponsor JumpStart surveys, conferences and other activities, CompuCredit should be treated as a different case, she said. Subprime lenders often seek to align themselves with more mainstream organizations to deflect controversy over their practices, Leech noted. CompuCredit’s membership in the JumpStart coalition reminds her of businesses that create fake consumer groups with benign-sounding names as cover, she said, and there should be no grey area in determining whether the firm belongs in JumpStart.

“I’m not buying any of it. We all know that folks are being taken advantage of” by subprime firms and payday lenders, Leech said.

For his part, Cheeks, president of a Georgia fiscal management consulting firm, described himself as a retired Equifax executive whose main goal is consumer education. As to whether any conflict of interest exists by consulting for both JumpStart and CompuCredit, Cheeks said that “I consult with a lot of companies” and added, “I’m not going to get into that discussion.”

“I work to help consumers understand credit – how credit works, how to improve their credit,” said Cheeks, a former Vice President for Consumer Education at Equifax. “I do that for all of my clients. I am a consumer educator. That is exactly what I do. With JumpStart, my focus is kids. I want to get to students as early in life as a possible, so they can build a good credit history.”

He declined further comment regarding CompuCredit.

Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, which covers the subprime industry, said subprime lenders like CompuCredit usually have a problem when it comes to supporting financial literacy, since some basic lessons would be not to take out payday loans or to pile up debt on high-rate credit cards.

The FDIC, for example, said its charges against CompuCredit stemmed from a fee-based credit card marketed to consumers with low credit. The FDIC said the solicitations “failed to adequately disclose significant upfront fees and misrepresented the consumer’s initial available credit. The solicitations appeared to offer credit cards with a $300 credit limit; however, consumers were immediately charged as much as $185 in inadequately disclosed fees, leaving them with as little as $115 in available credit.”

CompuCredit did not admit or deny liability in the settlement of the charges. A company spokesman did not respond for comment.

Subprime lenders have been reinventing themselves since the mortgage crisis hit, turning to conducting mortgage loan modifications or offering foreclosure counseling, Cecala said. CompuCredit’s affiliation with JumpStart fits that mold, he said.

On its Website, CompuCredit says it provides a “much needed second chance” to consumers overlooked by traditional financial institutions. It also lists financial literacy among its philanthropic activities. The company also features a “financial wellness” section, which includes a financial literacy guide for consumers.

Levine said Cheeks has been a consultant for Jumpstart for about five years. CompuCredit has been a coalition partner since at least 2007, she said.

CompuCredit has been involved in controversy over its financial literacy efforts before. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference drew criticism for entering into a 2007 partnership with CompuCredit, with plans for joint “economic empowerment” workshops aimed at educating minorities borrowers about credit, and a co-branded credit card.

Smiley declined any comment for our story.  On Friday, he told Richard Prince, author of the Maynard Institute’s “Journal-isms” column, that he has severed all ties with Wells Fargo until charges that the company unfairly steered African American borrowers into costly subprime mortgages are resolved. “I cut everything off with Wells Fargo,” Smiley told Prince.

Prince noted that Smiley’s comments came as TWI’s story “circulated.”

Today, Smiley has a new posting on his Website regarding his business relationship with Wells Fargo, saying that he severed his ties to the bank earlier this year, and not in recent days.

In his latest statement, Smiley says he actually made that decision in “the first quarter of this year,” some time “shortly after the State of the Black Union” and announced it then in a statement he posted on his Website.

The undated pdf file, which was not issued as a press release, notes that “Wells Fargo currently is not a sponsor of TSG or Tavis Smiley Foundation programs or events and will not be a sponsor for SOBU for 2010.” Wells had sponsored the State of the Black Union 2009, which was held on February 27-28. According to C-SPAN footage, Smiley lauded the bank at the symposium, telling the predominantly African American audience that “Wells Fargo is your financial action planning guide to every stage of life.” Later that day Smiley praised Wells Fargo for its generosity and said, “This conference is free this year because of Wells Fargo. Give them some love.”

On Friday, Smiley told Prince that Wells Fargo sponsored Smiley’s radio show on Public Radio International, and underwrote the annual C-SPAN-televised “State of the Black Union” conference that Smiley organizes. Smiley’s foundation also distributed Wells Fargo materials to young people at foundation events, he told Prince. Smiley also said the move to end his relationship with Wells cost “a lot of money,” but he said he did not know how much.

In the new statement, Smiley says that “I addressed this issue months ago with a statement on my website during the first quarter of this year when allegations against Wells Fargo first surfaced.”

The NAACP filed suits against Wells Fargo and HSBC on March 13, alleging racial discrimination in lending.

TWI cited Smiley’s earlier statement regarding his relationship with Wells in its story last week. Smiley has declined any additional comment.

This post has been updated.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

Richard Prince reported Friday in his “Journal-isms” column that Smiley said he would sever all ties with Wells Fargo until charges that the company steered minorities into higher-rate loans are resolved.

Wells Fargo sponsored Smiley’s radio show on Public Radio International, and underwrote the annual C-Span-televised “State of the Black Union” conference that Smiley organizes. Smiley’s foundation also distributed Wells Fargo materials to young people at foundation events, he told Journal-isms.

“I cut everything off with Wells Fargo,” Smiley declared. He said the move cost “a lot of money”; he said he did not know how much.

Prince also noted that Smiley’s comments came as the TWI article circulated, which reported that Smiley was hired by Wells to be a keynote speaker at the seminars, which were advertised in the black media and launched in eight cities, including Baltimore, Chicago, and Los Angeles.

“I was never a spokesman for Wells Fargo,” Smiley said. “I hate payday loans. My role in these seminars was about financial literacy and wealth building.”

Smiley commented on his business partnership with Wells:

Smiley said his relationship with Wells Fargo was a “package deal.” In return for the company helping to finance his radio show, he went on the road for Wells Fargo. He said he owns his own radio and television show and while it frees him from network control, it also requires him to come up with his own financing.

TWI reported that the seminars appeared on the surface as a way to help black borrowers build wealth — but they were actually just the opposite. A  little-noticed explanation of the “Wealth Building” seminar strategy was contained in a lawsuit recently filed by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan.

According to the suit, Wells’ plan for the seminars all along was to target black borrowers for higher-cost subprime mortgages, not for wealth-building, the suit charged. And the seminars were a part of the bank’s overall illegal and discriminatory practice of steering black and Hispanic borrowers into riskier and more expensive loans, the suit said.

After TWI’s article on Thursday, The Root headlined a post: “Tavis, You Got Some ‘Splainin To Do.” Jack & Jill Politics ran a photograph of Smiley standing a podium during Smiley’s “State of the Black Union” event this year, surrounded by Wells Fargo logos, and offered this:

He has never said jack about predatory lending, and now, we have an idea WHY.

Wells Fargo has also been hit with  lawsuits from the city of Baltimore and the NAACP, alleging the banks targeted minority borrowers for higher cost loans. As TWI reported recently, lawsuits are winding their way through courts around the country, alleging discriminatory behaviors by banks and lenders. Wells has denied all charges in the suits, and has vowed to fight them.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

Tavis Smiley interviews Barack Obama in October 2007 (YouTube: BarackObamadotcom)

As the housing market began booming in the mid-2000s, Wells Fargo & Co. teamed up with prominent African American commentator and PBS talk show host Tavis Smiley and financial author Kelvin Boston, the host of “Moneywise,” a multicultural financial affairs show, to host something called “Wealth Building” seminars in black neighborhoods.

Smiley was the keynote speaker, and the big draw, according to Boston and Keith Corbett, executive vice president of the Center for Responsible Lending, who attended two of the seminars. Smiley would charge up the audience — and rattle the Wells Fargo executives in attendance — by launching into a story about how he hated banks, and how they used to refuse to lend him money for his real estate projects in Compton, Calif., and elsewhere. After Hurricane Katrina, Smiley also emphasized the importance of building assets and wealth, saying those who had done so were able to leave New Orleans, while people with nothing had to stay behind, Boston said.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

“My spiel was the financial planning process, how you want to be able to save and invest for the future, and to have a plan of action,” Boston said. “Then Tavis talked about his experiences with the banks, and how people should be thinking about some real estate.”

The seminars in some cities drew standing room only crowds, with numerous Wells Fargo representatives on hand, seated at carrels to meet one-on-one with potential borrowers who lined up after the speeches, which were usually held in hotels. The free, day-long events were heavily advertised in the black media, and launched in eight cities, including Baltimore, Chicago, Richmond, Va., and San Francisco.

But what appeared on the surface as a way to help black borrowers build wealth was actually just the opposite, according to a little-noticed explanation of the “Wealth Building” seminar strategy, contained in a lawsuit recently filed by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan.

Wells’ plan for the seminars all along was to target black borrowers for higher-cost subprime mortgages, not for wealth-building, the suit charged. And the seminars were a part of the bank’s overall illegal and discriminatory practice of steering black and Hispanic borrowers into riskier and more expensive loans, the suit said.

“According to a former Wells Fargo Home Mortgage employee, one of these ‘Wealth Building’ seminars held in Maryland was planned for an audience that would be virtually all African American,” the suit said. “The plan for the seminar was for Wells Fargo Home Mortgage employees to talk about subprime mortgages, although they were directed by Wells Fargo Home Mortgage to use the term ‘alternative lending’ when marketing these products.”

The former employee, who is white, was scheduled to speak at the seminar, but was told by a manager that she was “too white,” and that only black employees could make presentations, the suit said.

Wells Fargo, one of the nation’s largest mortgage lenders and a recipient of $25 billion in government bailout money, has denied all the charges in the Illinois suit, as well as other allegations of unfair lending. The bank did not respond to requests for comment on the seminars. Smiley, an author and advocate who hosts the late night talk show, “Tavis Smiley,” and who organizes the State of the Black Union symposiums each year, also declined comment.

Corbett pointed out that Wells’ outreach to the minority community through the seminars wasn’t unusual. Lenders sponsoring financial literacy sessions, holding wealth building seminars, or contributing to local minority advocacy organizations, became a common marketing strategy as the subprime market grew. Some of the efforts were genuine, aimed at finding new customers in minority neighborhoods once deprived of credit. But sometimes they were used instead as a cover to push predatory loans, Corbett said.

“The wealth building seminars are certainly needed,” Corbett said. “But, if, in fact, Wells was selling bad products out of them, it was totally wrong.”

Boston, for his part, described himself as the small player in the seminars, giving an opening talk before Smiley went on. Boston said he spoke in general terms about the need to save money and to invest. Neither he nor Smiley ever mentioned or discussed subprime loans, he said.

“Basically we were just speakers for hire,” Boston said. “We didn’t have any role or any control over what else happened. The main point is that we were not involved in any of their discussions or in anything they sold.”

Corbett said that after the speakers finished, bank employees and other financial experts were offering credit checks, real estate counseling, and other kinds of assistance. Corbett said he also believes some employees were signing up people for loan pre-approvals, on the spot, though he couldn’t be sure of what kind of loans they were. He said attendees lined up to talk to the Wells employees in both events. “If they weren’t actually selling loans, they were setting up borrowers for the kill,”  Corbett said.

Once their speeches were over, however, Boston said he and Smiley  had nothing to do with the workshops and counseling. He said he and Smiley together did about 15 seminars over a period of about two years. He declined to comment on how much he or Smiley were paid.

In 2005, before the subprime crisis, Boston said, the main worry in the black community over mortgage lending was the banks were lagging behind in their lending to minority neighborhoods. He said expressed his concerns about this to Wells Fargo. Smiley, he said, also later raised questions about subprime lending tactics with the bank. “Tavis definitely had some dealings with them on this issue,” Boston said.

Nonetheless, in hindsight and with the collapse of the subprime mortgage market, Boston said he has second thoughts about participating in the seminars.

“Were we probably used? We probably were,” he said. “If I had the chance to do it over again, would I do it in a different manner? Probably.”

“You look back now and you feel for the homeowner who could have qualified for a better mortgage and got the costly type of mortgage. That concerns me a lot, not just for Wells Fargo, but for everybody out there, Citigroup, Countrywide … they were all doing the same events.”

But at the time, Boston said, having a major bank doing outreach in the black community was considered an encouraging development, after so many years of redlining and restricted access to credit. “We all thought at the time that we were doing a positive thing,” he said.

Boston said he quit doing the seminars after his contract ended two years ago. Smiley, he said, continued to work with Wells Fargo, particularly on his annual State of the Black Union symposiums. On his Website, Smiley recently posted a statement regarding Wells Fargo that said, “in this economic climate, we continue to be reminded every day that there is no perfect company.”

Smiley said in the statement that his relationship with Wells began in 2005, as part of the bank’s  “commitment to increase financial literacy in the African American community.” He said that “the partnership with Wells Fargo focused on building personal wealth, which for most Americans begins with buying a house.”

According to the statement, Smiley also has had partnerships with other companies, but has never served as a spokesperson or representative for any of them, including Wells Fargo. The statement also said Wells Fargo will no longer be one of the sponsors of his Black State of the Union event in 2010, although the bank sponsored the event as recently as last spring.

“Given the fact that Wells Fargo has been an industry leader, they have partnered with many African American and Latino national civil rights organizations on various community initiatives,” the statement said.

The Illinois lawsuit against Wells is one of many such actions winding their way through the court system around the country, offering more details of alleged discriminatory tactics by lenders during the height of the subprime boom. As TWI reported last week, housing advocates call these lawsuits the “smoking guns” of the housing crisis, providing what they see as proof that lenders deliberately targeted minorities for high-rate and risky subprime mortgages, while white borrowers with similar incomes and credit scores received lower-cost loans.

In a city of Baltimore lawsuit against Wells, former employees charged that Wells Fargo loan officers referred to minority borrowers as “mud people” and called subprime mortgages “ghetto loans.” But some prominent black bloggers find the “wealth building” seminars just as egregious, and question why Smiley, Boston, and anyone else who participated in them hasn’t been called on further to account for their actions.

“If Tavis Smiley was white, Wells Fargo and ‘Ghetto Loans’ would be front page news,” wrote Genma Stringer Holmes, a Nashville, Tenn., business owner and blogger who has blasted out several posts on the seminars.

Holmes said Smiley should speak out more against discriminatory subprime lending practices – but he hasn’t been forced to, because the black media has been silent on the issue, she said. The scandal that remains is that the ads and seminars targeted the most vulnerable members of black community, according to Holmes. “People who follow Tavis will follow him off a cliff,” Holmes said.

Boston said he still does seminars and presentations pushing wealth building, but he focuses on avoiding foreclosures and helping with loan modifications. He recently wrapped up work on an upcoming show on helping homeowners facing foreclosures, he said.

This story has been updated for clarity.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.