Fed
Sidesteps CRA Protest to
Hancock Whitney Bid For
MidSouth Citing CFPB Which
Whitewashes Mortgage Data
By Matthew R.
Lee, Exclusive
SOUTH BRONX,
September 7 – Amid attacks on
the U.S. Community
Reinvestment Act this month
Inner City Press / Fair
Finance Watch has filed
comments under the CRA
opposing Hancock Whitney
Bank's applications to acquire
MidSouth Bank. The Federal
Reserve, which is complicit in
the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau limitation
of access to fair lending
information in the 2018 Home
Mortgage Disclosure Act,
recited in its approval that
Inner City Press / Fair
Finance Watch "objected to the
proposal on the basis of
alleged disparities in the
number of home mortgage loans
made by Hancock Whitney Bank
to, and in the rate of denials
for home mortgage applications
from, African Americans and
Hispanics as compared to
whites in New Orleans, based
on 2017 data that Hancock
Whitney reported under the
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
of 1975 (“HMDA”)... The Board
also considered Hancock
Whitney Bank’s supervisory
record with the CFPB."
And what
is that record? And how can
the Fed be prepared to close
comment periods with only
whitewashed HMDA data
available? See more here.
Here's some of the protest :
"This is a timely first
comment opposing and
requesting documents about and
an extension of the FRB's
public comment period on the
Application by Hancock Whitney
to acquire
MidSouth.
Fair Finance Watch has been
reviewing the Home Mortgage
Disclosure Act (HMDA) data for
2017 for Whitney and finds,
troublingly, that for home
purchase loans in the New
Orleans, Louisiana MSA in 2017
Whitney denied the
applications of African
American 3.35 times more
frequently than whites - and
denied Latinos a whopping 4.68
times more frequently than
whites.
Despite the demographics
including of home ownership in
the NOLA MSA, Whitney in 2017
made 507 home purchase loans
to whites and only 52 to
whites (and only 13 to
Latinos).
An evidentiary hearing should
be held and the 2018 data
should immediately be made
available, including through
the HMDA Explorer site and
format, which appears to be
being terminated by the
CFPB.
In support of the request for
an extension and a hearing,
"There is no word on whether
there will be any layoffs or
branch closings. Trisha Voltz
Carlson, spokesperson for
Hancock Whitney, said it is
premature to discuss branches
or employees at this
time. “While there is
some overlap in our footprint
with MidSouth, we are not
ready to discuss consolidation
of branches or costs at this
time,” Carlson said by email."
These must be disclosed and
comment allowed including at a
hearing.
On the current record, Hancock
Whitney's applications should
be denied." We'll have more on
this.
The US
Treasury Department is in a
process to try to weaken and
take the community out of the
1977 Community Reinvestment
Act. Docket file here.
The protagonist, akin to Scott
Pruitt when he was at the US
Environmental Protection
Agency, is Comptroller of the
Current Joseph Otting. On
September 12 Fair Finance
Watch (and on FOIA, Inner City
Press) commented to the OCC, here.
Now on October 11, more on
Otting's assault on the CRA
has become known. In April
2018 his OCC approved
an application by E-Trade
Saving Bank which Fair Finance
Watch had challenged
based on the bank having
no fewer than six states rare
"Needs to Improve" CRA
ratings. FFW noted
rare Needs to Improve ratings
for the entire states of
Arizona, Colorado, Florida,
Georgia, Michigan and Oregon,
and an undeserved
“Satisfactory” for New York.
Otting's OCC, after the
approval, helpfully contacted
E-Trade Bank to tell it that
upon (Otting's) reflection, it
was no longer even subject to
the Community Reinvestment
Act.
Back in
October 2018 Inner City Press
asked the OCC for documents
about this under FOIA - while
the OCC has sought to evade by
accessing fees, to this day.
But in May 2019 while
withholding 1000 pages the OCC
released to Inner City Press,
like a needle in a hay stack,
its June 16, 2018 letter from
Assistant Deputy Comptroller
for Midsize Bank Supervision
William Russell to E*TRADE's
Karl Roessner telling him that
E*TRADE's banks are exempt
from CRA, here.
We'll have more on this.
Inner City
Press on October 11 raised the
E-Trade (and another bank)
issue into the record on the
Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking. Many more are
resisting Otting, but Federal
Reserve Bank of Cleveland
President Loretta J. Mester on
October 3 said
that "the OCC, a part of
Treasury, has put out an
advance notice of proposed
rule-making (ANPR) seeking
comment on ways to modernize
the CRA regulations. The
Federal Reserve is also
undertaking efforts aimed at
ensuring that the CRA
regulations continue to meet
the goals of the legislation
amid the evolving financial
services environment" - with
these as her footnotes for
that: "Brainard, Lael,
“Community Development in
Baltimore and A Few
Observations on Community
Reinvestment Act
Modernization,” Baltimore,
Maryland, April 17, 2018a
and Brainard, Lael, “Keeping
Community at the Heart of the
Community Reinvestment Act,”
New York, NY, May 18, 2018b.
Both of those Brainard
speeches were before Otting's
proposals. And since? In the
docket file as of October 8
are 42 comments, now including
the President of First
National Bank & Trust in
Elk City, Oklahoma who writes,
"I firmly believe that this
form of oversite was meant for
metropolitan areas and banks
with multiple branches.
There’s got to be a better way
of monitoring and locating
those banks that aren’t
helping the population it
serves. I would be surprised
to find there are very many
banks that fail the CRA
examination." It's called
grade inflation. On September
29 The
Intercept has dug into
it, citing FFW's formal
request that Otting recuse
himself - and so here
now are some of the Freedom of
Information Act documents. On
October 2 in the Senate
Banking Committee, Otting
insisted he is not trying to
weaken the CRA; he called the
ANPR an "Advanced Notice of
Public Rulemaking" instead of
Proposed. He said he met with
1100 individuals - still
undisclosed - and expects five
to ten thousand comments on
the ANPR. (So far there are 33
listed but only 29 visible).
Senator Sherrod Brown began by
asking him indirectly about
the blogs at CFPB of Eric
Blankenstein. We'll have more
on this. And this - as
obtained by Inner City Press
and fellow NCRC
member CRC, here are more
of the documents, for
(this time) free download on Patreon.
On October
1 Inner City Press / Fair
Finance Watch
submitted the documents
obtained under FOIA into the record
before the OCC, stating that
"These documents, which must
be considered as part of this
ANPR and any subsequent formal
rulemaking, show that
fraudulent comments supporting
Otting's OneWest were
submitted to the OCC -
presumptively attributable to
Otting.
The documents show that the
OCC sought an explanation from
Otting's / OneWest's outside
counsel - and the OCC's and
Justice Department's response
to date reflect that no such
explanation was ever provided.
The OCC nevertheless approved
the merger and even gave
weight to the fraudulent
comments. On this record we
again insist that Otting be
recused from this ANPR and any
related rulemaking or
proceedings. We have other
substantive concerns about
this ANPR but view the
question of Mr Otting's
recusal (and of with whom he
has met, on which Inner City
Press has another long-pending
FOIA request) as threshold
matter than must be addressed
as quickly as possible."
The FOIA
document as provided by the
OCC and US Department of
Justice reflect that the OCC
never followed up on its lone
(and wan) question to Otting's
counsel as Sullivan &
Cromwell to explain the
fraudulent comments. Nor did
this counsel respond to
questions from The Intercept's
David Dayen, who reports:
"AFTER A YEARLONG effort to
obtain the information, which
included ongoing litigation,
the OCC made available 15
pages. They contain emails to
and from David Finnegan, an
OCC senior licensing analyst
who was a point of contact for
public comment on the merger.
Four individuals contended in
emails to Finnegan that they
never sent the comment letters
supporting the merger. “This
is to bring to your attention
that I received an email from
the office of OCC regarding a
subject I am completely
unaware of,” wrote one
individual (the OCC redacted
the emailers’ identifying
information). “I DID NOT send
the email below that you
responded to. This is a
fraudulent use of my email
account.” The other three sent
similar complaints.
The letter of support
attributed to these
individuals was identical to
the letter posted at the
OneWest Bank website.
Matthew Lee of Inner City
Press expressed outrage at the
fake comments. “There’s
nothing more offensive of
speech rights than
artificially presenting
someone as saying something
you don’t believe,” Lee said.
“You have the right to be
silent. It’s so beyond the
pale.”
FOIA
Finds: OneWest CIT Ban... by on
Scribd
Finnegan responded to these emailers,
thanking them for letting him know. He
also sent two emails to Stephen Salley,
an attorney with Sullivan &
Cromwell, who was representing OneWest
in the merger. “FYI and review. We would
appreciate any information you can
provide regarding this submission,”
Finnegan wrote to Salley on both
occasions.
Presumably, Finnegan reached out to
OneWest’s lawyer about the fake comments
because they featured the same form
letter that OneWest had written to
encourage public support. But the two
emails are the only record that OCC did
any investigation of the fake comments.
There is no reply from Salley or
Sullivan & Cromwell to the OCC, at
least not in written form. “By reaching
out to the attorneys immediately, it
suggests something serious, and yet
there’s no follow-up that’s apparent
whatsoever,” said Kevin Stein of the
California Reinvestment
Coalition...Olivia Weiss, a spokesperson
for CIT, forwarded a request for comment
to her colleague Gina Proia, who
declined to comment. Salley did not
respond when asked whether he or his law
firm responded to the OCC....In his
public comment for Inner City Press, Lee
asked for Otting to recuse himself from
the new rule-making, highlighting the
fake comment controversy. “Public
participation is key to CRA, on
performance evaluations and crucially on
bank merger and expansion applications,”
Lee wrote. He added that it’s unclear
whether the OCC has improved its
processes to prevent fake comments from
being submitted again in the CRA
rule-making. The public comment period
ends in November.
Otting is scheduled to appear at a
Senate Banking Committee hearing on
October 2, where his CRA push could be a
topic of discussion." We'll have more on
this Why didn't the OCC more seriously
look into this fraud? What has been
improved since? Shouldn't Otting be
recused, as Fair Finance Watch has
already timely requested? One analogy,
also noted by The Intercept, is to the
gaming of the FCC's process on net
neutrality, when even Senator Jeff
Merkley and Pat Toomey's identities were
borrowed, as reported
by the Washington Post's Hamza
Shaban. Unlike Otting to date, at
least the FCC's Ajit Pai responded, if
only to blame David Bray, as reported
by Adam Jacobson in RBR. Otting simple
refuses to answer - for now. From the
Fair Finance Watch / Inner City Press
comment: "Fair Finance Watch (and where
applicable Inner City Press) appreciate
the opportunity to comment on the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currencys
(OCC) Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPR) regarding the
Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). CRA
has leveraged significant amounts of
loans and investments for low- and
moderate-income communities.
We began enforcing the CRA in the South
Bronx then beyond starting in 1994, in
connection with the applications for
mergers or expansions on which banks'
records are considered. Numerous banks
excluded the South Bronx and Upper
Manhattan from their CRA assessment
areas even though, as we proved, they
collected substantial deposits from area
residents. We got six banks to open
branches and make lending commitments,
in the Bronx and beyond.
We concerned that the OCC's proposal
threatens to weaken CRA, see below. As
as relevant here, we commented along
with others on the CIT - OneWest
proceeding, and were concerned both by
OneWest's record under now-Comptroller
Otting and by what emerged as the gaming
of the system with pre-fabricated
comments Otting openly solicited. We may
comment in more detail on this later in
his ANPR proceeding.
For now we wish raise particular concern
about the approach signaled by Questions
21 and 15 and to emphasize that public
participate is key to CRA, on
performance evaluations and crucially on
bank merger and expansion applications.
Inner City Press, which often submits
FOIA requests to the OCC (which is,
frankly, slow), the Federal Reserve,
FDIC and even non-USA regulators many of
whom are faster than the OCC, emphasizes
that comment periods should never close
while information that is not
specifically exempt from disclosure
under FOIA is being withheld. Inner City
Press has pending with the OCC, but not
yet responded to, FOIA requests related
to this proceeding / process, that
should be responded to in full,
including any necessary appeal, during
this proceeding.
If the OCC proceeds to significantly
diminish the importance of assessment
areas on CRA exams, the progress in
increasing lending to low- and
moderate-income neighborhoods will be
halted. NCRC estimates that low- and
moderate-income neighborhoods could lose
up to $105 billion in home and small
business lending nationally over a five
year time period. We join in the
comments of NCRC, of which we are
members... We urge the OCC to go back to
the drawing board and develop reform
proposals with the Federal Reserve Board
and the FDIC.
And, for the reasons above and yet to be
submitted, we contend Comptroller Otting
should be recused from this process.
Thank you for your attention to this."
While Reuters blandly
noted that he is "a former
banker," the bank he headed,
OneWest, was accused of
predatory lending and when its
acquisition by the CIT Group
was challenged
by Fair Finance Watch, CRC and
others Otting arranged for
seemingly counterfeit or
compelled comments supporting
the merger. In this light,
Question 11 of his "Advanced
Notice of Proposal Rulemaking"
or ANPR
is noteworthy: "11. How can
community involvement be
included in an evaluation
process that uses a
metric-based framework?" How,
indeed. Here's what Otting
wrote as a banker, already
long public, in support of his
merger:
"From: Otting,
Joseph M [at] owb.com
Sent: Wednesday, January
07, 2015 5:00 PM
Cc: Haas, Alesia Jeanne;
Tran, Cindy; Kim, Glenn
Subject: Support For
OneWest Bank
Dear Friends,
We were excited to
announce on July 21,
2014, that IMB HoldCo
LLC, the parent company
of OneWest Bank entered
into a merger agreement
with CIT Group Inc. As
part of the applications
for regulatory approval
of the transaction, our
regulators are
interested in the
perspectives of the
public. We are writing
you to seek your support
of the Bank and pending
merger. This merger, if
approved, would create
the largest bank
headquartered in
Southern California with
a full suite of banking
products and services,
which will allow us to
better serve our
customers. We would
retain and grow jobs and
are committed to
continuing and expanding
our efforts to serve the
economic and development
needs of our community.
I would like to ask you
to take a moment to
click on the link below
and submit a letter of
support adding any of
your own words or
thoughts.
Please submit your
letter by clicking here,
or by visiting our
website at www.OneWestBank.com/merger-support (if
the link isn't clickable
or part of the link is
cut off, please copy and
paste the entire URL
into your browser's
address bar and press
Enter)
Thank you for your
support. Best
wishes for a successful
2015 and please call on
me if I can ever be of
assistance.
Joseph M. Otting
President and CEO
OneWest Bank N.A.
888 East Walnut Street
Pasadena, CA 91101"
There
will be fight-back, under
NCRC's TreasureCRA
campaign. Watch this site -
including on actual
enforcement of CRA. A bank
that was sued by the US
Justice Department in 2017 for
redlining and discrimination
is trying to sell itself to
Old National, and Fair Finance
Watch has formally challenged
it under the Community
Reinvestment Act in a filing
to the Federal Reserve on the
last day of the comment
period. From the filing: "This
is a timely first comment
opposing the Applications of
Old National Bancorp to merge
with Klein Financial, Inc.,
Chaska, Minnesota, and thereby
indirectly acquire KleinBank,
also of Chaska, Minnesota.
As an initial
matter, this is a request that
the FRS immediately send by
email to Inner City Press all
non-exempt portions of the
applications / notices for
which the Applicants have
requested confidential
treatment.
It was
only last year that
“the U.S. Justice Department
accused Chaska-based KleinBank
of redlining, the illegal
practice of denying mortgage
loans to minority residents.
Lawyers from the department's
civil rights division said
KleinBank engaged in
discrimination in Minneapolis
and St. Paul by failing to
market its services and open
bank branches in areas
dominated by minorities.
KleinBank, which operates 21
branches in mostly outer-ring
suburbs of the Twin Cities, is
one of Minnesota's largest
community banks. 'KleinBank's
discriminatory practices …
have been intentional and
willful, and implemented with
reckless disregard for the
rights of individuals on the
basis of their race and/or
national origin,' the
complaint said.”
Now,
attempting to cash in / out of
that discrimination, Klein
Bank seeks to sell, to Old
National which has its own
insufficient records. Fair
Finance Watch has been
tracking Old National:
In 2012 in its Evansville
(Headquarters) MSA for
conventional home purchase
loans back in 2012, Old
National Bank made only six
such loans to African
Americans. In 2016, the most
recent year for which data is
available, Old National made
only THREE such loans to
African Americans. In
Table 4-1, in 2012 it made
three such loans to African
Americans. In 2016 this fell
to one.
Old National has gotten worse.
It cannot be allowed to
acquire Klein so recently
prosecuted for discrimination.
(Separately, note that
in Evansville MSA in 2016, Old
National reported a 100%
approved and originated rate
for both African Americans and
Latinos, until in other MSAs -
this is not credible,
presumptively indicates
pre-screening and should be
investigated in connection
with this Klein proposal.)
For refinance
loans in Evansville in 2012,
Old National made eight such
loans to African Americans.
This fell to four in 2016.
For home
improvement loans in the
Evansville MSA, Old National
in 2012 made five such loans
to African Americans. This
fell to four in 2016.
For refinance
loans in Indianapolis in 2012,
Old National made 18 such
loans to African Americans.
This fell to a mere seven in
2016, when Old National denied
62% of applications from
African Americans (see
above).
Old National has gotten much
worse. It cannot be allowed to
acquire Klein so recently
prosecuted for discrimination.
Also troubling
regarding Old National is its
history of branch closings.
According to its hometown
newspaper the Evansville
Courier News & Press
"since 2004 Old National
has purchased 175 banking
offices, either through
acquiring smaller financial
institutions or buying
selected office locations. Old
National has also shed 140
banking offices by
consolidating 121 locations
and by selling 19 other
offices."
Old National is a bank
with a disparate lending
record that specializes in
buying and closing bank
branches - now it seeks to
acquire Klein Bank prosecuted
only last year for redlining.
ICP is requesting
evidentiary hearings and that
this proposed acquisition, on
the current record, not be
approved. There is no public
benefit." We'll have more on
this - and this: the US
Comptroller of the Currency
Joseph Otting, who said he's
never witnessed discrimination
and is poised to attack
the Community Reinvestment
Act, yesterday announced he'll
be giving out "fintech" bank
charters. CRA won't apply.
Instead, the announcement
vaguely says, "The
expectations for promoting
financial inclusion will
depend on the company’s
business model and the types
of planned products, services,
and activities." But what to
expect of the OCC of Otting?
When at OneWest, he arranged
for Astro-turf and even fake
public comments supporting its
acquisition by the CIT Group.
In other comment period news,
we like it when banks
challenge each others. Like
this, today: "The Independent
Community Bankers of America
(ICBA) today called on the
Federal Deposit Insurance
Corp. to deny Nelnet Bank’s
deposit insurance application
for its proposed industrial
loan corporation and impose a
two-year moratorium on future
ILC applications. Like the
since-withdrawn applications
of SoFi Bank and Square,
Nelnet’s is designed to avoid
the legal restrictions of the
Bank Holding Company Act, ICBA
wrote in a letter to the
agency. “The ILC loophole
allows commercial interests to
own full-service banks while
avoiding the legal
restrictions and regulatory
supervision that apply to
other bank holding
companies—threatening the
financial system and creating
an uneven regulatory playing
field,” ICBA President and CEO
Rebeca Romero Rainey said. “To
support a safe and sound
financial system and to
maintain the separation of
banking and commerce, the FDIC
should impose a two-year
application moratorium and
Congress should close the ILC
loophole for good. Our
deposit-insurance system was
created to protect
depositors—not commercial
firms.” Regulation under the
Bank Holding Company Act
entails consolidated
supervision of the holding
company by the Federal Reserve
and restricts the activities
of the holding company and its
affiliates to those that are
closely related to banking.
Because of a loophole in the
law, companies that own ILCs
are not subject to BHCA
supervision even though the
ILC charter is a full-service
banking charter. As a result,
companies that own
FDIC-insured ILCs are not
subject to consolidated
supervision and can engage in
non-banking commercial
activities. Citing several
previous moratoriums on ILC
applications, ICBA’s letter
notes that Nelnet Bank is
applying as an ILC—not a
commercial bank—so its parent
company can retain its
commercial activities. These
include investing in
start-ups, and maintaining
telecommunications, investment
and sports-software
businesses. Nelnet Inc. should
be subject to the same
restrictions and supervision
as any other bank holding
company, ICBA wrote."
Later on July 31 New York
regulator Maria T. Vullo
issued this: "The New York
State Department of Financial
Services fiercely opposes the
Department of Treasury’s
endorsement of regulatory
‘sandboxes’ for financial
technology companies. The idea
that innovation will flourish
only by allowing companies to
evade laws that protect
consumers, and which also
safeguard markets and mitigate
risk for the financial
services industry, is
preposterous. Toddlers play in
sandboxes. Adults play
by the rules. Companies that
truly want to create change
and thrive over the long-term
appreciate the importance of
developing their ideas and
protecting their customers
within a strong state
regulatory framework. DFS also
strong opposes today’s
decision by the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency to
begin accepting applications
for national bank charters
from nondepository financial
technology (fintech)
companies. DFS believes
that this endeavor, which is
also wrongly supported by the
Treasury Department, is
clearly not authorized under
the National Bank Act. As DFS
has noted since the OCC’s
proposal, a national fintech
charter will impose an
entirely unjustified federal
regulatory scheme on an
already fully functional and
deeply rooted state regulatory
landscape." Sounds good -- but
NYS DFS has for example
allowed First Republic Bank to
redline The Bronx, and hasn't
even confirmed receipt of a
timely comment opposing it.
We'll have more on this - and
on this: First Republic Bank,
which excludes The Bronx as
well as Brooklyn and Queens
from its assessment area while
funding outer borough
slumlords, has applied to New
York bank regulators to open
another branch in Manhattan.
Fair Finance Watch has filed
opposition, along with Inner
City Press, also citing FRB's
record of displacement in
California: On behalf of
Inner City Press / Fair
Finance Watch (ICP), this is a
timely comment opposing the
application by First Republic
Bank to open a new insured
deposit-taking facility at 329
Tenth Avenue, Borough of
Manhattan, City of New York
10001. First Republic Bank is
engaged in redlining. Its
branches in New York are
entirely in Manhattan, and
only in the most affluent
sections. It excludes from its
CRA Assessment Area, in their
entirety, the boroughs of The
Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and
Staten Island. This is an
outrage, and that ICP had
thought was no longer allowed
by regulars. (ICP previously
challenged and got changes
such exclusionary Assessment
Areas at Bank of New York,
HSBC, predecessors of Bank of
America and others).
Cynically, while excluding the
outer boroughs from its
assessment area, First
Republic Bank does business
with landlords who have been
described as slumlords, such
as Moshe Piller. See, e.g.,
Daily News, “Moshe Piller,
owner of the Hunts Point Ave.
building in the Bronx
where two children died when a
faulty radiator spewed steam
into their bedroom.” (ICP
also takes
note of the
San Francisco
analysis of
its fellow
NCRC member
CRC). Fair
Finance Watch has reviewed
First Republic Bank's most
recent publicly available HMDA
data for the NYC MSA and, for
home purchase loans, find that
FRB made 283 such loans to
whites, and only three each to
Latino and African
American applicants. Its
denial rate disparity is
astronomical: 20% denial rate
for African American, less
than 1% for whites. Again:
First Republic Bank is a
redliner. For all of these
reasons, First Republic Bank's
applications should be
denied." We'll have more on
this - and this:
People's
United Bank,
which has
applied to buy
Farmington
Bank in
Connecticut,
has become
more and not
less disparate
in its
lending, as
shown by
analysis of
U.S. Home
Mortgage
Disclosure Act
data by Fair
Finance Watch
submitted to
the US Office
of the
Comptroller of
the Currency
by Inner City
Press in
opposition to
the proposed
merger. From
the timely
July 27
filing: "This
is a timely
first comment
opposing and
requesting an
extension of
the OCC's
public comment
period on the
Application by
People's
United Bank to
acquire
Farmington
Bank.
In the
the New York
City MSA in
2014, People's
United made 82
home purchase
loans to
whites and
NONE to
African
Americans or
Latinos.
We note that
People's has
been in these
markets since
2010 -- NOT
“recently” --
and that New
York City is
not the “Lower
Hudson Valley.
Then we found
that in 2015
in the New
York City MSA,
People's
United made
110 home
purchase loans
to whites and
only ONE to an
African
American and
only four to
Latinos.
In
2016, the most
recent year
for which HMDA
data is
publicly
available,
People's got
even worse: in
the NYC MSA it
made 144 home
purchase loans
to whites
(more than in
2015) and
still only one
to an African
American.
For refinance
loans in the
New York City
MSA in 2014,
People's
United made 24
loans to
whites, 1 to
an African
American and
four to
Hispanics. By
2016, it was
again worse:
165 loans to
whites and
only two to
African
Americans.
This is
systematic
redlining;
this proposed
acquisition
could not
legitimately
be approved
and People's
United should
be referred
for
prosecution
for redlining
by the
Department of
Justice and
CFPB.
People's
United record
is hardly
sufficient in
the Hartford
MSA where it
now proposes
to acquire
Farmington
Bank. In 2016
in the
Hartford MSA,
People's
United made
162 home
purchase loans
to whites and
only 10 to
African
Americans and
only 14 to
Latinos.
Again,
this is
systematic
redlining;
this proposed
acquisition
could not
legitimately
be approved
and People's
United should
be referred
for
prosecution
for redlining
by the
Department of
Justice and
CFPB.
In this
context, the
comment period
should be
extended so
that public
evidentiary
hearings can
be held, and
the
application
should be
denied." Bank
of America has been sued for
failure to maintain properties
it forecloses on in
communities of color.
Nationwide, the lawsuit
contends, 45 percent of the
Bank of America properties in
communities of color had 10 or
more maintenance or marketing
deficiencies, while only 11
percent of the Bank of America
properties in predominantly
white neighborhoods had 10 or
more maintenance or marketing
deficiencies. 64 percent of
the Bank of America properties
in communities of color had
trash or debris visible on the
property, while only 31
percent of the Bank of America
properties in predominantly
white neighborhoods had trash
visible on the property. 37
percent of the Bank of America
properties in communities of
color had unsecured or broken
doors, while only 16 percent
of the Bank of America
properties in predominantly
white neighborhoods had
unsecured or broken doors.
49.6 percent of the Bank of
America properties in
communities of color had
damaged, boarded, or unsecured
windows, while only 23.5
percent of the Bank of America
properties in white
neighborhoods had damaged,
boarded or unsecured windows.
In
Milwaukee, for example,
recently profiled in the book
"Evicted," the lawsuit cites
134 Bank of America REO
properties. Of these 134 REO
properties, 74 were located in
African American
neighborhoods, 21 were located
in predominantly Latino
neighborhoods, eight were
located in predominantly
nonwhite
neighborhoods, and 31 were
located in predominantly white
neighborhoods. 83.9% of the
REO properties in
predominantly white
neighborhoods had fewer than
five maintenance or marketing
deficiencies, while only 21.4%
of REO properties in
neighborhoods of color had
fewer than 5 maintenance or
marketing deficiencies. 78.6%
of REO properties in
neighborhoods of color had 5
or more marketing or
maintenance deficiencies,
while only 16.1% of the REO
properties in white
neighborhoods had 5 or more
marketing or maintenance
deficiencies. 8.7% of REO
properties in neighborhoods of
color had 10 or more marketing
or maintenance deficiencies,
while none of the REO
properties in white
neighborhoods had 10 or more
marketing or maintenance
deficiencies. Some including
the Fair Finance Watch notice
similar disparities in
Milwaukee when it comes to the
placement of the Bublr bike
share program. Maybe Bank of
America will want to put its
name on the disparate network,
as Citibank has in New York
with disparately placed
CitiBike.
At the UN
on June 4, when Citigroup
managing director Michael
Eckhart appeared, it was to
talk about renewable energy
with the UN Environment
Program. Inner City Press
asked Eckhart about
Citigroup's role in the Dakota
Access Pipeline.
He paused and
admitted it was a lender, than
said that the outcry against
the pipeline, on indigenous
human rights and other issues,
was entirely unexpected. He
said they had not protested
early enough. Video here.
But what about free prior
informed CONSENT? Is silence
consent? Or, as is too often
the case, is the UN a place of
hypocrisy?
As Inner City
Press has shown, UNEP paid
money to Volvo Ocean Races,
and appears to have engaged in
pay-for-prize with MoBikes.
Inner City Press also asked
about the UN bribery scandal
in which China Energy Fund
Committee - oil money - bribed
UN President of the General
Assembly Sam Kutesa, but CEFC
remains in special
consultative status with UN
ECOSOC. Video here.
We'll have more on this - and
on Citigroup. Watch this site.
***
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
UN Office: S-303,
UN, NY 10017 USA
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2015 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com for
|