Mortgage Modification, Risky Lending, and U.S. Bank Policy
This paper examines three news articles to assess the current state of U.S. mortgage modification policy and its broader economic implications. It explores how firms like Lone Star and Caliber Home Loans have extended mortgages to borrowers with troubled credit histories, how the Federal Reserve has moved to ease annual stress test requirements for smaller regional banks, and how the nomination of Steven Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary raised concerns about conflicts of interest and predatory lending practices at Onewest Bank. Together, the articles suggest that loosening regulatory standards and extending credit to high-risk borrowers may recreate the conditions that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis.
- Introduction: Mortgage Modification in the United States: Overview of U.S. mortgage modification history and scope
- Lone Star, Caliber, and Subprime Lending: Goldstein article on risky lending to troubled borrowers
- Federal Reserve Stress Test Changes for Regional Banks: Fed eases stress test burdens on smaller regional banks
- Onewest Bank, Steven Mnuchin, and Political Influence: Mnuchin's Onewest Bank, bailout money, and foreclosure controversy
- Media Bias and Article Analysis: Critical assessment of bias across all three articles
- Conclusion: The Future of U.S. Mortgage Policy: Warning signs of potential repeat economic instability
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper synthesizes three distinct news sources into a coherent argument about the trajectory of U.S. mortgage policy, demonstrating the ability to connect separate journalistic accounts thematically.
- It balances content summary with critical evaluation, explicitly assessing the bias or objectivity of each article rather than simply reporting what each one says.
- The paper maintains a consistent analytical lens — short-term positive vs. long-term negative effects of policy decisions — that ties all three articles together logically.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates source synthesis paired with media critique. Rather than treating each article in isolation, the writer identifies how each source builds on the previous one thematically, culminating in a broader policy argument. The explicit attention to author bias and the distinction between factual reporting and opinion-driven framing shows a sophisticated reading strategy appropriate for undergraduate media or policy analysis courses.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a general overview of mortgage modification history in the United States, then moves through three articles in sequence: the Goldstein piece on Lone Star and Caliber, the Tracy and Ensign piece on Federal Reserve stress test reform, and the Mui and Merle piece on Steven Mnuchin and Onewest Bank. Each section combines summary, direct quotation, and critical commentary. The conclusion synthesizes the three threads into a warning about potential economic instability.
Introduction: Mortgage Modification in the United States
Mortgage modification has been practiced in the United States in some form or another for years. The process entails a change to the terms of a mortgage separate from the original contract agreed to by both borrower and lender. The United States government has provided Americans with various versions of loan modification to help borrowers make payments through reductions in interest rates or principal balances. However, several recent news articles suggest that the government's efforts have been largely in vain. The negative effects of mortgage modification have led to increasingly risky lending practices and the removal of annual stress test requirements for smaller banks, enabling some institutions to lend to borrowers with poor credit scores.
Lone Star, Caliber, and Subprime Lending
A New York Times article by Matthew Goldstein opens the discussion with an exploration of recent activity by Lone Star and Caliber concerning the mortgage market and the issuance of mortgages to borrowers with poor or troubled credit histories. The most notable aspect of the article is the acquisition of legacy loans from banks and federal agencies. As Goldstein (2016) notes, "Most of the subprime mortgages at Caliber are 'legacy' loans, those issued before the housing bust, which Lone Star acquired from banks and federal agencies." The fact that these loans were originally held by federal agencies demonstrates the government's decision to allow other organizations and banks to step in and manage mortgages and other kinds of loans.
In this context, mortgage modification appears on the surface to be a positive development — people receive loans. However, the negative consequence is that these loans go to individuals with poor or troubled credit histories, creating the potential for missed payments and increased debt problems for the lending institution. Lone Star's actions stem from an interesting background.
Founded in 1995 by billionaire investor John Grayken, Lone Star has brought to market mortgages backed by bonds. These loans, branded as Fresh Start Loans, require borrowers to demonstrate their ability to repay. The results have included some negative outcomes such as foreclosures and bankruptcies; however, Goldstein suggests that the overall likelihood of borrowers repaying their loans is positive. Lone Star and Caliber aim to reach borrowers with troubled credit histories rather than follow the approach taken by large banks, which typically favor wealthy borrowers with pristine credit records — an approach that accommodates only a few rather than the many.
While the long-term consequences of allowing borrowers with shaky credit to acquire mortgages remain unknown, the existence of this practice points to the difficulty the United States government has experienced in maintaining a beneficial mortgage modification program. While the article showed little to no author bias and presented relevant information, it lacked statistical data on the outcomes of banks extending loans to troubled borrowers. Small banks like Lone Star have gone to considerable lengths to manage the aftermath of the recession.
Federal Reserve Stress Test Changes for Regional Banks
Regional and small banks have all had to confront serious challenges during economic downturns and recessions. The United States government, specifically the Federal Reserve, began reviewing the stress-testing program to determine what could be improved and what requirements could be removed to ease the burden on smaller institutions. What officials discovered is that smaller banks feel they cannot reasonably be held to the same standards as larger banks. As Tracy and Ensign (2016) report, "Some of the smaller banks subject to the tests told the Fed the exams had become 'unduly burdensome,' Mr. Tarullo said, because the firms felt they needed to meet the same standards as bigger banks." In practical terms, this means regional and smaller banks would no longer be required to meet certain capital requirements in the qualitative sense. As seen with Lone Star, banks have become increasingly willing to modify mortgages and lend to risky borrowers.
The actions of the Federal Reserve aim to make such lending practices less subject to penalty, creating a negative long-term effect that is perceived as a short-term positive. The annual stress tests, and their modification, have thus created a potentially unstable economic environment should other banks follow Lone Star's example. Because the government is ensuring that smaller banks will not have to maintain capital requirements as strictly as in the past, there may be no safety net should those banks fail to accumulate sufficient capital. Bank stress tests were designed precisely to prevent such vulnerabilities, and relaxing them for smaller institutions represents a significant policy shift. The Tracy and Ensign article was informative and provided enough quantitative background to limit the appearance of bias, supplying the contextual framework needed to understand the relationship between regulatory policy and the lending environment described in the Goldstein piece.
Conclusion: The Future of U.S. Mortgage Policy
The United States has made attempts in recent times to modify loans or the environment that could lead to further loan modification. From small banks engaging in lending to risky borrowers to the Federal Reserve removing punitive measures against smaller banks that may lack capital, the stage has been set by the American government for what could turn into another potentially disastrous situation — at least, that is the picture Mui and Merle painted in their Washington Post piece.
Is the United States headed toward another period of financial peril? Will smaller banks follow the example of Lone Star and allow risky borrowers to take on mortgages? These are questions that require ongoing examination as policy continues to evolve. Mortgage modification policy has changed, and the direction it may take going forward appears to be a new one. Allowing risky borrowers to apply for mortgages and reducing the punitive measures applied by the Federal Reserve to small banks could produce either positive or negative outcomes for the American economy. Based on the current trajectory, however, the evidence suggests that negative outcomes may be more likely.
References
Goldstein, M. (2016). Caliber Home Loans embraces borrowers with spotty credit. Nytimes.com. Retrieved December 2, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/business/dealbook/caliber-home-loans-embraces-borrowers-with-spotty-credit.html
Mui, Y., & Merle, R. (2016). With Treasury candidate come possible conflicts. Washington Post. Retrieved December 5, 2016, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/candidate-for-treasury-secretary-helped-run-bank-that-is-accused-of-bias/2016/11/17/6c7dab5e-acd6-11e6-a31b-4b6397e625d0_story.html
Tracy, R., & Ensign, R. (2016). Fed to ease stress tests for regional banks. WSJ. Retrieved December 5, 2016, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-to-ease-stress-tests-for-regional-banks
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.