This paper examines the ethical and legal dimensions of subprime mortgage lending in the United States, arguing that blame for the financial meltdown has been wrongly placed on vulnerable borrowers rather than on the lenders who exploited them. The paper traces the origins of the subprime crisis, explains how adjustable-rate mortgages harmed low-income and minority borrowers, and critiques the injustice of taxpayer-funded bailouts for the very institutions responsible for the collapse. It further raises alarm over the resumption of subprime lending practices and concludes by drawing on business ethics scholarship to identify foundational moral principles — transparency, fiduciary responsibility, and risk accountability — that must guide financial markets.
The paper demonstrates the technique of layered ethical analysis: it begins with an empirical account of the crisis, moves to an examination of which groups were harmed and how, and then applies a structured ethical framework (transparency, fiduciary duty, risk and return) to evaluate the behavior of lenders. This progression from description to normative evaluation is a hallmark of applied ethics writing.
The paper is organized into seven sections. The introduction establishes the central argument and its ethical stakes. Two sections then provide economic and social context — explaining how the meltdown began and which groups were disproportionately harmed. A fourth section addresses the double injustice of austerity cuts following bailouts. A fifth section raises the alarming prospect of renewed subprime lending. The sixth and longest section applies business ethics theory to the crisis. The conclusion synthesizes the argument and calls for ethical reform alongside legal remedies.
This paper examines the ethical and legal issues regarding subprime mortgage lenders. Unfortunately, the focus has been inordinately placed upon the poor individuals who were exploited by accepting these predatory loans (Goolsbee, 2007). Simplistically, they have been blamed for the recent U.S. financial meltdown. The emphasis instead needs to be focused upon the mortgage lenders themselves. While exploitation of such individuals is bad enough, matters are made worse by placing the entire economic collapse on their shoulders. This is not only unfair, but inaccurate.
The holders of subprime loans did not devise the system of bundling whereby their loans were wrapped together with regular loans and risky non-mortgage products. The regular mortgage loans camouflaged the risky assets. Worst of all, the victims of subprime loan exploitation who lost their homes and their jobs now face the loss of government benefits, while the very investment bankers who exploited them are bailed out at taxpayer expense.
The harbinger of the U.S. financial meltdown was the collapse of the subprime real estate mortgage market. The reason it hit the U.S. economy so hard was that real estate had been the engine of recovery from the recession brought on by the collapse of the 1990s high-tech bubble in 1999 and 2000. Beginning in 2005 and 2006, delinquencies and foreclosures doubled in the subprime loan market. As the tide of red ink increased, the securities backed by these investments also plummeted (The State of, 2008, 4).
Lower-quality subprime mortgages rose from a historical low of 8% or below to approximately 20% in 2004–2006, with some parts of the United States running considerably higher. Subprime mortgages were linked to an inordinate percentage of adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) — over 90% in 2006. These two changes were part of a much broader trend of lowered lending standards and higher-risk mortgage products that spread throughout the entire U.S. real estate market (Zandi, 2008, 255).
United States capital markets and capitalism in general operate on the basic premise of risk balanced against reward. Investors take a risk on a stock offering expecting a rate of return greater than what they would receive from lower-yield, risk-free U.S. Treasury bills backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Loans are no exception. Less-than-prime borrowers — hence the term subprime — represent a bigger gamble. To counter this risk, creditors charge them higher interest rates than a prime borrower would pay for the same loan (Gad, 2007).
Weak borrowers who make up the subprime population frequently opt to avoid the initial burden of higher payments by taking out ARMs that offer a teaser rate as low as 4%. However, annual adjustments can add up to 2% more per year, with such loans typically reaching as high as 10% over time. As an illustration, a $500,000 loan at 4% interest over 30 years equals a monthly payment of approximately $2,400. An equivalent loan at 10% for 27 years — after the ARM adjusts — translates into a payment of $4,470. That 6% rate increase produces a payment increase of just under 100%. Profits are substantial, which is precisely what lures investors (Gad, 2007).
While housing prices are rising, the system functions. However, once the housing market declined, it sent the entire U.S. credit market and economy into a tailspin. After U.S. housing prices peaked in 2006 and began their precipitous decline, refinancing became increasingly difficult. As ARMs reset to higher interest rates, monthly payments surged. In the wake of this, delinquencies and foreclosures soared. Securities backed by mortgages — including subprime mortgages — widely held by financial firms lost most of their value. Global investors also drastically reduced purchases of mortgage-backed debt and other securities, reflecting a decline in the capacity and willingness of the private financial system to support lending. Concerns about the soundness of U.S. credit and financial markets led to tightening credit around the world and slowing economic growth in both the U.S. and Europe (Zandi, 2008, 9–10).
In popular parlance, the typical "poster child" for subprime loans is the poor borrower with little or no income and poor credit. However, this characterization is inaccurate. In fact, subprime loans became an increasingly significant facet of the U.S. mortgage market as people who would not previously have pursued such options entered this market due to their overall indebtedness. The ratio of personal debt to disposable personal income rose from 77% in 1990 to 127% by the end of 2007. Most of this increase was mortgage-related, particularly in the subprime sector (Jeffries, 2008).
It is true, however, that minorities were overrepresented in the subprime market. According to data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, even individuals in upper-income African-American neighborhoods were one-and-a-half times more likely to hold a subprime loan than those in low-income white areas. African Americans were not the only group hard hit. Hispanics were 1.5 times as likely as the national average to hold a subprime mortgage. This trend has been attributed to subprime lenders engaging in deliberate marketing to minority communities — a practice known as reverse redlining ("Subprime Lending," 2010).
The blame for the U.S. financial meltdown has unfortunately unfolded in a racist and unfair focus on the poor victims of predatory subprime loans, who have been simplistically blamed for the crisis. As this paper has shown, the emphasis needs to be directed at the mortgage lenders themselves. The holders of subprime loans did not devise the system of bundling whereby their loans were packaged with regular loans and risky non-mortgage products. Legal fixes and other solutions must be put into place, but beyond these, the teaching of moral ethics has never been more important. Restoring trust in markets so that capitalism can function normally depends on exactly this kind of ethical reckoning.
You’re 47% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.