Citigroup settles subprime mortgage case for $7 billion
WASHINGTON — Citigroup has agreed to pay $7 billion to settle a federal investigation into its handling of risky subprime mortgages, admitting to a pattern of deception that Attorney General Eric Holder said “shattered lives” and contributed to the worst financial crisis in decades, the Justice Department said on Monday.
The settlement represents a moment of reckoning for one of the country's biggest and most significant banks, which is now accountable for providing some financial support to Americans whose lives were dismantled by the largest economic meltdown since the Great Depression.
In addition to a $4 billion civil penalty being paid to the federal government, the bank will pay $2.5 billion in consumer relief to help borrowers who lost their homes to foreclosure and about $500 million to settle claims from state attorneys general and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
The agreement does not preclude the possibility of prosecutions for the bank or individual employees, Holder said.
The $7 billion settlement, which represents about half of Citigroup's $13.7 billion profit last year, is the latest substantial penalty sought for a bank or mortgage company at the epicenter of the housing crisis. The Justice Department, criticized for not being aggressive enough in targeting financial misconduct, has in the last year reached a $13 billion deal with JPMorgan Chase & Co., the nation's largest bank, and also sued Bank of America Corp. for misleading investors in its sale of mortgage-linked securities.
Yet the settlement packages pale in size compared to the broader damages caused by the Great Recession. The unemployment rate spiked to 10 percent as millions lost their jobs and their homes, causing losses that totaled in the trillions of dollars. Public advocacy groups criticized the settlement as a sweetheart deal.
“In the context of the damage done, the damage even described by the attorney general, we're not even in the same ballpark,” said Bartlett Naylor, a financial policy advocate for Public Citizen, which represents consumer interests.
The settlement stems from the sale of toxic securities made up of subprime mortgages, which led to both the housing boom and bust that triggered the Great Recession at the end of 2007. Banks, including Citigroup, minimized the risks of subprime mortgages when packaging and selling them to mutual funds, investment trusts and pensions, as well as other banks and investors.
The securities contained residential mortgages from borrowers who were unlikely to be able to repay their loans, yet were publicly promoted as relatively safe investments until the housing market collapsed in 2006 and 2007 and investors suffered billions of dollars in losses. Those losses triggered a financial crisis that pushed the economy into the worst recession since the 1930s.
One Citigroup trader wrote in an internal email that he “would not be surprised if half of these loans went down” and said it was “amazing that some of these loans were closed at all,” the Justice Department said. Meanwhile, the bank increased its profits and share of the market.
“They did so at the expense of millions of ordinary Americans and investors of all types — including other financial institutions, universities and pension funds, cities and towns, and even hospitals and religious charities,” Holder said at a news conference.
Justice Department officials called the $4 billion component the largest civil penalty of its kind. It will not be tax-deductible.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Natrona Bottling Co. keeps soda pop operation small, putting effort into craft, taste
- PPG Industries to buy Westmoreland Supply paint store chain
- Large-scale batteries are integral in shift to renewable energy
- Open enrollment puts varied impact of health care law back in focus
- Plastics, tech sectors crucial to cracker plants
- Mortgage in reach despite few dings
- Energy Spotlight: Steve Anthos
- Questions to ask before renewing coverage
- Student loan debt presents paradox
- Small businesses plan for profitable winter