Mozillo did know better

“I wake up every day frightened that something is going to happen to Countrywide,” Mr. Mozilo said. ------------------------------------------------- ACT I “Countrywide’s future’s going to be great. You know, it’s always been great,” he told CNBC at the time. “So I think, down the line, this is going to be a better company, a more profitable company and a company that’s going to be a great... [more]

“I wake up every day frightened that something is going to happen to Countrywide,” Mr. Mozilo said. ------------------------------------------------- ACT I “Countrywide’s future’s going to be great. You know, it’s always been great,” he told CNBC at the time. “So I think, down the line, this is going to be a better company, a more profitable company and a company that’s going to be a great investment for shareholders as we continue down the line. Because the market ultimately will come to us. This is America. People want to own homes.” “I run into these guys on Wall Street all the time who think they’re something special because they went to Ivy League schools,” he told The New York Times in 2005. “We’re always underestimated. And we still are. I am. I must say, it bothered me when I was younger — their snobbery and their looking down on us.” ----------------------------------------------------- ACT II PRIVATELY, however, Mr. Mozilo had long been worried about some of the loans his company favored, as indicated by e-mails he sent to his deputies. And this gulf between Mr. Mozilo’s private views and his public proclamations went to the heart of the S.E.C.’s case against him. Beginning in 2005, for example, he fretted about lending practices at Countrywide, e-mail messages show. One target of his ire was the “pay-option adjustable-rate mortgage,” a loan that let borrowers pay a fraction of the interest owed and none of the principal during an introductory period. These loans put homes within many borrowers’ financial grasp — at least initially. When a borrower made only modest payments, the shortfall was added to the principal balance on the loan, meaning that the mortgage would grow in size. Given this arithmetic, borrowers could wind up owing more than their homes were worth. In 2004, pay-option A.R.M.’s accounted for 6 percent of Countrywide’s originations. Two years later, they accounted for 21 percent of its loans. The loans were moneymakers for Countrywide; internal company documents show that the company made gross profit margins of more than 4 percent on such loans, double the 2 percent generated on standard loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration. Countrywide pushed the lucrative loans hard. A sales document called “Pay Option A.R.M.’s Made Simple” asked rhetorically what kinds of customers would be interested in these loans. “Anyone who wants the lowest possible payment!” was one of the answers. But these loans unnerved Mr. Mozilo, as his e-mails indicate. In April 2006, for example, he learned that almost three-quarters of the company’s pay-option customers had chosen to make the minimum payment the prior February, up from 60 percent the previous August, according to the S.E.C.’s complaint. In an e-mail to Mr. Sambol, Mr. Mozilo wrote: “Since over 70 percent have opted to make the lower payment it appears that it is just a matter of time that we will be faced with much higher resets and therefore much higher delinquencies.” Two months later, and just one day after he talked up his company’s pay-option A.R.M.’s to investors at a Wall Street conference, Mr. Mozilo wrote an e-mail to Mr. Sambol predicting trouble ahead for many borrowers in these mortgages. They “are going to experience a payment shock which is going to be difficult if not impossible for them to manage,” he said. And in September 2006, Mr. Mozilo wrote an e-mail saying the company had no way to assess the risks of holding pay-option A.R.M.’s on its balance sheet. “The bottom line is that we are flying blind on how these loans will perform in a stressed environment of higher unemployment, reduced values and slowing home sales,” he wrote. Another Countrywide product that concerned Mr. Mozilo was its so-called 80/20 loan, named for the fact that the combination allowed a borrower to receive money covering 100 percent of a home’s purchase price. Mr. Mozilo had become worried about these loans in the first quarter of 2006, when HSBC Bank, a buyer of Countrywide’s 80-20 loans, began forcing the lender to repurchase some that HSBC contended were defective. “In all my years in the business, I have never seen a more toxic product,” he wrote to Mr. Sambol in an April 17, 2006, e-mail cited by the S.E.C. “With real estate values coming down ... the product will become increasingly worse.” Such e-mails suggest that by mid-2006, Mr. Mozilo had recognized how reckless some of his company’s lending had become. And just three months later, according to the S.E.C. complaint, he met with his financial adviser to increase the amount of Countrywide shares he could cash in under a planned executive stock-sale program. -------------------------------- Coda And on Friday, in the Los Angeles courtroom of John F. Walter, a federal District Court judge, representatives for Mr. Mozilo and for two of his top lieutenants — David Sambol, Countrywide’s former president, and Eric Sieracki, the company’s former chief financial officer — settled those charges. “Mozilo is agreeing to a permanent ban on serving as an officer or director of a public company,” said James A. Fanto, a professor at Brooklyn Law School and a specialist in corporate and securities law. “That is a significant punishment and does not look good for his legacy.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/business/17trial.html?pagewanted=1&ref=business [less]