PNC & the feds: Who's the victim?
Details of the federal government's investigation into the mortgage-lending practices of PNC Financial Services Group are woefully few and far between. But if we were PNC, and based on the surface of what's been revealed about the probe, we'd be preparing for a vigorous defense against the kind of government cluster-clucking that has become standard operating procedure in the modern “victim” state.
PNC revealed in a federal regulatory filing last week that the Justice Department's civil rights division and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are investigating whether the Pittsburgh banking giant and National City Bank, which PNC acquired in 2008, priced home mortgages unfairly to “protected classes” of borrowers.
Other than what it divulged in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, PNC isn't talking, citing the “legal matter.” But the implication is that PNC and/or National City illegally charged minorities higher mortgage rates because they were minorities.
That, of course, would be reprehensible. But anytime the civil rights division of the Obama administration's “Justice” Department teams up with the new and suspect “financial protection” bureau, we see another attempt to turn “equal opportunity” into equal results — the now-quaint notion of financial wherewithal lost in the whoosh of the wind created by federal thugs wielding the social re-engineering cudgel.
If that's the case, PNC would do more than itself a favor by standing its ground. It would be an important step in ending such prosecutory and regulatory misconduct.
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.
- A chilly reception
- Saving RadioShack: Innovation vs. focus
- The medical device tax: An abject failure
- The truth about the VA: Rank dereliction of duty
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Saturday essay: Awaiting the peat
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- Education & entertainment