Thomson Reuters News & Insight
Featured Content from WESTLAW

Legal

  •  
  •  

It's alive! Dexia's $775 mln MBS case vs JPMorgan back from the dead  read more »

Wal-Mart's whistle-blower problem: Public revelations trump privilege  read more »

The elephant in the (court)room: Amazon and the Apple e-books case  read more »

Marketing Popup

The only regulator with history of policing MBS issuers? FINRA!

5/22/2012 COMMENTS (0)

While we wait (and wait) for the Securities and Exchange Commission to expand its docket of mortgage-backed securities enforcement actions beyond the Option One case and for the Justice Department's joint MBS task force to file any case at all, here's something to contemplate. Tuesday's $3.5 million fine against Citigroup Global Markets for posting inaccurate data about mortgages in underlying MBS loan pools marks the fifth time the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has taken on a major MBS issuer. Yes, the private agency FINRA has a more robust enforcement record against banks in the MBS biz than any state or federal authority. FINRA's MBS actions began with a $7.5 million fine for Deutsche Bank in July 2010 and continued with a $4.5 million action against Credit Suisse, a $3 million case against Merrill Lynch in May 2011 and a $3 million sanction of Barclays last November.

All of the cases involved failures by the banks to comply with a FINRA regulation that requires asset-backed securities issuers to post accurate and up-to-date performance data on the underlying assets. The rule was supposed to give MBS investors information about the loans bundled into the banks' mortgage-backed note offerings as well as the historical performance of similar offerings. The banks, according to FINRA, received or had access to monthly reports containing the necessary data but didn't take adequate care to assure the accuracy of the information posted on their sites.

Citi, for example, received numerous reports indicating that it was understating delinquencies, foreclosures and borrower bankruptcies, according to FINRA. Nevertheless, the bank "failed to investigate to determine whether it had posted inaccurate performance data." (Citi and the other banks did not admit or deny the allegations as part of their settlements.)

The FINRA regulation has no analog in federal securities law, so we can't blame the SEC for neglecting to bring such relatively simple disclosure cases. (Private investors who wanted to sue based on the FINRA-mandated disclosures, moreover, would have to be able to show that they relied directly on the banks' posted MBS data to make investment decisions.) But we can hail FINRA staffers, who have no subpoena power because they're a private regulator, for having the ingenuity to hold MBS issuers accountable.

"I'm proud we've been able to do what we've been able to do," said FINRA enforcement chief Brad Bennett, who added that his staff worked hard to establish that what the banks posted about their mortgage-backed notes was not accurate information. "It's essential that investors, in deciding whether to purchase mortgage-backed securities, have a complete and accurate picture of data relating to the performance of the underlying mortgages," Bennett said. "Otherwise, it's like buying a car with an erroneous vehicle history report."

I'm glad FINRA found a way to bring MBS actions against banks that allegedly mislead MBS investors. Here's hoping that it soon has regulatory company.

(Reporting by Alison Frankel)

Follow us on Twitter @AlisonFrankel@ReutersLegal  | Like us on Facebook 


Register or log in to comment.

© 2013 Thomson Reuters