BuzzFeed:
The company is controlled by Warren Buffett, one of world’s richest men, but its methods hardly match Buffett’s honest, folksy image: Clayton systematically pursues unwitting minority home buyers and baits them into costly subprime loans, many of which are doomed to fail, an investigation by BuzzFeed News and the Seattle Times has found.
Clayton’s predatory practices have damaged minority communities — from rural black enclaves in the Louisiana Delta, across Spanish-speaking swaths of Texas, to Native American reservations in the Southwest. Many customers end up losing their homes, thousands of dollars in down payments, or even land they’d owned outright.
Over the 12 years since Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway bought Clayton Homes, the company has grown to dominate virtually every aspect of America’s mobile-home industry. It builds nearly half the new manufactured homes sold in this country every year, making it the most prolific U.S. home builder of any type. It sells them through a network of more than 1,600 dealerships. And it finances more mobile-home loans than any other lender by a factor of more than seven.
In minority communities, Clayton’s grip on the lending market verges on monopolistic: Last year, according to federal data, Clayton made 72% of the loans to black people who financed mobile homes.
The company’s in-house lender, Vanderbilt Mortgage, charges minority borrowers substantially higher rates, on average, than their white counterparts. In fact, federal data shows that Vanderbilt typically charges black people who make over $75,000 a year slightly more than white people who make only $35,000.
Through a spokesperson earlier this month, Buffett declined to discuss racial issues at Clayton Homes, and a reporter who attempted to contact him at his home was turned away by security. (read more)
For those of you who are not following politics too closely...
Warren Buffett is a big time democrat donor. Warren Buffett also
benefited from Obama's killing of the Keystone pipeline. There is no reason to believe his cozy arrangement with Obama would change under a Hillary White House.
7 comments:
I suspect this is probably just as it seems: greed and hypocrisy, but it doesn't prove racism. Could there be something statistical about minority borrowers that makes them a greater risk regardless of income level? Let's not adopt the typical leftist mistake of confusing correlation with causation, but that works both ways. I have no idea, but it could be that statistics (which is all a lender should have to consider) might show that minority borrowers are more likely to default across all income levels. If so, should a lender be able to use race as a factor? If everyone named Smith happened to have a much higher default rate, should the lender be able to charge for that higher risk? A person's race or name may not be a cause for their poor risk, but if it correlates with a higher failure rate, shouldn't it be fair to use that? Either way it's unfair to someone, either the lender is forced to lend to a higher risk group at the same price, or the responsible borrower who just happens to posses the statistically dangerous factor pays higher than what's fair to them individually. I would say that if the correlation is there, then it can be used as a factor. Nobody knows if the correlation shows some unseen causation or not, but the risk is till higher, and the lender should be allowed to assume it.
In a free market world, a smart lender would offer reduced rates to members of the poor risk group who otherwise show good risk and take advantage of a lucrative market niche.
He supports Hillary. If you support HIllary, you support corruption.
Hillary, like Obama is proving to be untouchable. Why else would Warren Buffett donate to them?
Clayton Homes offers mobile units for purchase or lease.
Sublets available for low daily rates.
Utilities not provided.
Clubhouse not available at this time.
Pets not allowed.
No smoking.
Isn't this like a slumlord? Or worse?
The question is not what is charged but what's the rate of return on their capital.
Ask about profits not the price.
If the profits aren't out of line, the price is right.
The assumption ought to be that the price is right, or the market would compete the profit out of it with a lower price.
So it's a hit piece.
Apparently Buffet is in favor of Keystone.
Post a Comment