This letter illustrates three major
characteristics of predatory lenders. First, they appeal to the hidden belief of
victims that somewhere out there is a tooth fairy who will solve their financial
problems. Despite the expressed skepticism of the letter writer, he wants to
believe there is a 1.25% mortgage for him. He believes enough to pay $49.99,
provide his personal financial information including a credit card number, and
change the beneficiary of his homeowner’s insurance policy.
Second, predators exploit the gullibility of
those who want to believe the tooth fairy has found them. "He said that he would
kick back $800 of the bankers fee to me if I made my decision at that time so
that he could meet his quota for the day." With no information provided on how
large the "banker fees" were before or after the discount, this is an absolutely
meaningless offer, yet the letter writer accepted it without challenge.
A third characteristic of predators is that they
work fast. The fictitious $800 discount was conditional on the victim making an
immediate decision "so that he could meet his quota for the day". The last time
I heard that line was when I was shopping for a carpet in a middle-east bazaar.
Predators work fast because they want to get the
deal done before the victim begins to ask questions they don’t want to have to
answer – questions that can give the game away. The question they least want to
hear is "How long does the 1.25% rate last?" The truthful answer – it lasts only
one month -- leads inevitably to the question of what happens to the rate in the
second and later months? And that in turn may cause the victim to wonder whether
the new mortgage is really better than the one he has.
[Of course, if there were no prey,
there would be no predators. For a discussion of the characteristics
of victims, see Avoiding Mortgage
Predators. The single most important rule for avoiding predators
is to select your loan provider
rather than allowing the loan provider to select you.]
My response to this potential victim was to
point out that the 1.25% rate lasted for just one month, that in month 2 the
rate would jump to the rate index plus a margin, which would almost certainly be
higher than the rate he is now paying.
Postscript: Curious as to the aftermath, I later
wrote the letter-writer again and received this reply.