<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;loans&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2010 14:02:30 PST</pubDate>
<title>BofA Tries To Foreclose On Home Despite Not A Single Missed Payment</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101229/02501412446/bofa-tries-to-foreclose-home-despite-not-single-missed-payment.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101229/02501412446/bofa-tries-to-foreclose-home-despite-not-single-missed-payment.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Perhaps rather than worrying so much about <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101220/00285712334/bank-america----thought-to-be-wikileaks-next-target----suddenly-tries-to-block-payments-to-wikileaks.shtml">Wikileaks</a>, or <a href="http://domainnamewire.com/2010/12/20/bank-of-america-wants-you-to-know-its-executives-dont-suck/" target="_blank">buying up hundreds of domain names</a> involving various combinations of their top executives along with "sucks" or "blows," Bank of America should get its actual banking house in order.  Consumerist has the story of how Bank of America <a href="http://consumerist.com/2010/12/bank-of-america-tries-to-foreclose-on-couple-that-has-never-missed-a-payment.html" target="_blank">tried to foreclose on a couple's home despite the fact that they'd never missed a payment</a> (and the foreclosure was targeted for Christmas Eve, no less).  The CT Watchdog site <a href="http://ctwatchdog.com/2010/12/24/bank-of-americas-christmas-present-foreclose-even-though-not-a-payment-missed" target="_blank">has all the ridiculous details</a>, which get more and more ridiculous as you read through them.
<br><br>
The short(ish) version is this: the couple applied to refinance their home mortgage, as many people have done recently thanks to low mortgage rates.  The plan was to use the refi to pay for some home improvements and to consolidate their debt by paying off whatever other debt they had.  They asked the BofA rep they were working with for "the cheapest option," and the BofA rep simply put them into a program used for <i>loan modifications</i> -- specially developed for people who are behind on their mortgages, even though this couple was not.  When they received the paperwork for this, they decided not to go with this program, because it had additional escrow costs and home insurance payments they didn't want -- so they instead decided they wanted a conventional mortgage.
<br><br>
What they didn't realize, was that as soon as the BofA rep put them into that particular "Making Home Affordable program," (even without the couple signing the documents) BofA immediately sent out a notification (without telling the couple) to the credit bureaus indicating that the couple wanted a loan modification due to financial difficulties.  Almost immediately, all of their creditors freaked out: they dropped their credit limit on credit cards, had other creditors close their account, and had other debt automatically shifted to the highest possible interest rate category.  Of course, this also killed any possibility of doing the refi, since their credit score no longer would allow a refi.
<br><br>
After many, many complaints to BofA, the bank apologized (in writing) and promised to remove the couple from being listed in the program and correct the credit report, but the couple was on their own in getting others to know about it.  Except this foreclosure notice came months <b>after</b> BofA apologized and promised to fix things (which it hasn't fully done yet).  The couple has been calling BofA to ask why and everyone they speak to notes that they've never missed a payment at all, but that the account is flagged as "under review."  No one can explain why the foreclosure was set in motion.
<br><br>
Yes, this is a situation where BofA didn't just screw up, but after finally admitting its original error and promising to fix it, it has made an even bigger and more egregious error.
<br><br>
<b>The TL:DR version</b>: BofA screwed up and ruined a couple's (previously fine) credit rating, destroyed their plans for a mortgage refinance, and then after apologizing and promising to fix everything, decided to foreclose on the couple's house despite the fact that they'd never been late on a single payment.
<br><br>
Not surprisingly, the couple is now planning to sue BofA.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101229/02501412446/bofa-tries-to-foreclose-home-despite-not-single-missed-payment.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101229/02501412446/bofa-tries-to-foreclose-home-despite-not-single-missed-payment.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101229/02501412446/bofa-tries-to-foreclose-home-despite-not-single-missed-payment.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>merry-christmas</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101229/02501412446</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 4 Nov 2010 12:27:57 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Does Capital One Offer Different Loan Rates Based On Your Browser Software?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101104/03394911719/does-capital-one-offer-different-loan-rates-based-on-your-browser-software.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101104/03394911719/does-capital-one-offer-different-loan-rates-based-on-your-browser-software.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Consumerist is pointing to the claims of a guy who noticed that Capital One <a href="http://consumerist.com/2010/11/capital-one-made-me-different-loan-offers-depending-on-which-browser-i-used.html" target="_blank">offered him really different car loan rates, depending on which browser he was using</a>.  He was using Firefox, and saw a rate of 3.5%.  That was different than a rate promised to him in an email, so he thought perhaps the calculator wasn't working properly in Firefox (since he was using the beta version of Firefox 4).  So he opened up Safari... and got a rate of 2.7%.  Then he checked chrome: 2.3% and Opera: 3.1%.  No word on how much more (and you know it would be more) you'd have to pay if you used IE.
<br /><br />
I just tried it myself and saw the same thing.  Here's the <a href="http://www.capitalone.com/autoloans/help-center/loan-rates.php" target="_blank">loan rate page</a> if you'd like to try for yourself.  For me, it's 3.5% in Firefox and 2.7% in Chrome.  I found an old machine that still has IE... and it's actually showing the same Firefox rate of 3.5%.  I also checked it out with Dolphin Browser on my Android phone... and got offered a 2.3% rate.  It's kind of strange.  A commenter on the Consumerist article suggests it's random -- saying that if you reload, you get different rates, but that doesn't appear to be the case for me.  It might be that the initial display is somewhat random however, though that does seem like incredibly misleading advertising from Capital One...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101104/03394911719/does-capital-one-offer-different-loan-rates-based-on-your-browser-software.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101104/03394911719/does-capital-one-offer-different-loan-rates-based-on-your-browser-software.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101104/03394911719/does-capital-one-offer-different-loan-rates-based-on-your-browser-software.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>give-IE-users-the-sucker's-rate</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101104/03394911719</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:33:56 PST</pubDate>
<title>Person To Person Lending Not Saving The Economy... Actually Looking Really, Really Bad</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/0314167831.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/0314167831.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've discussed peer-to-peer lending sites in the past, though mostly with respect to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080408/223932792.shtml">regulatory questions</a> revolving around their attempts to securitize the loans.  However, every time we mention those sites, we get comments or emails from people insisting that such sites are terrible and much riskier than they make out.  Right after the economy crashed back in 2008 the various P2P lenders all stepped up their PR campaigns, claiming that such P2P lending could step in and provide credit where the banks were pulling back.  Of course, now reports are starting to come out suggesting that, indeed, <a href="http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/money-trail/2010/01/18/you-are-unlikely-prosper?page=full" target="_blank">peer to peer lending is incredibly risky</a> with extremely high default rates:
<blockquote><i>
To look at the results of Prosper's loan marketplace, though, is to see not a solution to the credit crisis, but a microcosm of it. Loans to unqualified borrowers; reliance on mathematical models that turn out to be a lot less useful than they seemed; failed hopes that high interest rates could make subprime loans profitable; sky high default rates--Prosper has it all. Prosper's Web site advertises returns of 6 percent to 14 percent for lenders. But the reality is that the lenders who loaned $188 million through Prosper have not earned anything like these returns. On the contrary, the majority of them have lost money, as they've watched their loans go bad at shockingly high rates.
<br><br>
Much like the loans made by banks during the mortgage boom, Prosper's loans have gone into default at rates much worse than predicted by historical credit data.  In November, 2007, Larsen told the Associated Press that Prosper's default rate "hovered at around 2.7%." That, however, included many new loans that simply hadn't had time to go bad. Larsen refers to this obliquely in the AP story, noting that as more loans matured the rate would rise, but there's no hint of just how steep that rise would be. Prosper's data now shows that now shows that close to 36% of the loans made before Nov. 27, 2007--the date of the AP story--have ended in default, roughly thirteen times what a casual reader would have thought from Larsen's comments. That is close, coincidentally, to the total 39% (or roughly two in five) default for the Prosper loans that have reached the end of their three year term.
</i></blockquote>
The article goes on to highlight more and more ugly looking data concerning these sorts of loans -- noting that for those who try to counter the high default rate with higher interest rates, the default rate goes up sharply.  This is not a surprise -- it's basically how it should be based on your typical risk/reward tradeoff -- but when the default rate on certain types of loans is over 50%, that's not exactly a reliable investment strategy.
<br><br>
And from there, the article highlights how Prosper appears to mislead potential lenders with some sleight of hand:
<blockquote><i>
In other words, only by cutting out more than two-thirds of its loans, does Prosper manage to eke out the positive results for AA to E rated loans that prospective lenders see on Prosper.com. Or you can look at it another way and ask how many investors have actually gotten returns in the 6 percent or 14 percent range that would-be lender see blazed across the Prosper.com front page? Thanks again to Eric's Credit Community, we have a pretty good idea: Of investors with a portfolio of loans that are an average of at least two years old, folks who have lost money outnumber those who've earned 6 percent annual return by more than six to one.
</i></blockquote>
The article goes on and on in that vein, and it's really damning to the claims from some of these sites.  Given how many articles have praised such services as potentially "revolutionizing" how people raise money for things, it's definitely worth highlighting these questionable results.
<br><br>
<b>Update</b>: A few folks are suggesting that Prosper is <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/01/19/the-problem-with-peer-to-peer-lending/" target="_blank">different</a> than others in the space...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/0314167831.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/0314167831.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100120/0314167831.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>maybe-banks-are-on-to-something</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100120/0314167831</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:10:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>The Contrarian Banker Who Avoided Bad Loans... And Is Now Buying Up The Scraps</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090405/1746494394.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090405/1746494394.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While we've wondered why those who made such bad bets on Wall Street are <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090329/2207174296.shtml">getting bailed out</a> and even relied upon to save the economy, Forbes has found one of the guys who knew better: Andy Beal.  A banker in Texas who basically <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/03/banking-andy-beal-business-wall-street-beal.html" target="_new">stopped taking on any new loans</a> for years as he thought things were going out of control.  In fact, he barely worked at all -- stopping by just a few hours a day, playing board games with his staff, and even laying off about half of his employees.  He did this while waiting for the market to collapse, knowing that things were way out of control.  In return, he got investigated by regulators, who couldn't understand why he wasn't joining in the fun.
<br /><br />
Of course, now that things have collapsed, he's buying up distressed assets for pennies on the dollar, and wants to buy more, planning to become a huge bank.  Oh, and all that government money that's supposed to help those private companies who are buying up these assets?  He doesn't qualify for most of it (no more than a token amount that's not even worth taking).  Instead, it's really designed for the folks who screwed things up in the first place.  This guy -- who actually saw what was going on, and prepared for it, now has to compete against those who screwed up and are being handed billions by the government.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090405/1746494394.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090405/1746494394.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090405/1746494394.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>no-gov't-money-needed</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090405/1746494394</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 9 Apr 2008 14:13:48 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Turns Out P2P Lending Might Run Afoul Of Securities Law As Well</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080408/223932792.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080408/223932792.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <i>First off, a quick disclaimer.  Lending Club has offices in the same building as Techdirt, and we're actually right across the hall from them.  I'm also pretty good friends with some folks who work there (since even before they worked there), but I have no additional insight into what's going on at the company, other than that everyone I know there is very smart and capable.</i>  A few months back, we got into a discussion about attempts to take the peer-to-peer "lending" model and move it into venture funding.  At the time, we pointed out that this would raise <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080107/193457.shtml">serious regulatory problems</a>, as the public markets (regulated by the SEC) were already, effectively, a peer-to-peer venture capital system.  However, at the time we didn't think too much about the regulatory implications of peer-to-peer lending itself -- and, unfortunately, it appears that Lending Club may not have either.  Apparently, Lending Club has <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/04/08/lending-club-puts-moratorium-on-lending-activity/" target="_new">put all new lending activity on hold, as it needs to deal with certain regulatory matters</a>. 
<br /><br />
 The company won't provide any additional information on what's going on (even, I assume, to those of us across the hall), but the speculation is that its lending practices clearly fell on the wrong side of certain regulations, quite similar to the ones we discussed having to do with any attempt at a peer-to-peer venture offering.  The <a href="http://www.peer-lend.com/2008/04/08/lending-club-shuts-down-temporarily/">Peer-Lend blog</a> points to <a href="http://prosperhollowoak.blogspot.com/2008/04/deep-under-covers.html">this analysis</a> of the problem (though, that's for a competitor of Lending Club).  Basically, the question is who owns the loan itself, and how is it transferred.  Since the loan may be owned either by the company itself or by the lenders (the "peers") at some point the loan may be getting transferred around -- meaning that it's no longer a "loan" but a "security."  And, as we know, securities are regulated.  This could get even hairier as the government is suddenly quite concerned about "securtized" loans these days since (as you might have heard) some of the financial world's problems have something to do with such instruments.  This certainly isn't a problem that just faces Lending Club.  In fact, it's almost surprising that it happened to it first, rather than its larger competitors like Prosper and Zopa.  In the meantime, though, it's a good reminder that while web 2.0 startups can enable a lot of neat things, the folks back in Washington DC still have plenty of power over what certain businesses can and cannot do.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080408/223932792.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080408/223932792.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080408/223932792.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>oops</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080408/223932792</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>