About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

WSJ editorial falsely claimed Obama bought "property at a discount ... from Tony Rezko"

June 11, 2008 4:49 pm ET
image

SUMMARY: The Wall Street Journal asserted in an editorial that Sen. Barack Obama bought "property at a discount ... from Tony Rezko." However, according to documents posted on the Obama campaign website, Obama paid $104,166 for the piece of property in question -- well above its appraised value of $40,500.

17 Comments

In a June 11 editorial, The Wall Street Journal asserted: "[Sen.] Barack Obama may have come up with a creative way to solve the housing recession: Let everyone buy property at a discount the way he did from [convicted Chicago businessman Antoin] Tony Rezko, and give everyone in America a discount mortgage the way [CEO] Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide did for Fannie Mae's [former CEO] Jim Johnson." In fact, contrary to the Journal's assertion that Obama "b[ought] property at a discount ... from Tony Rezko," according to documents posted on the Obama campaign website, Obama paid Rezko $104,166 for the piece of property in question -- well above its appraised value of $40,500, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted. Moreover, while the Journal stated as fact that Johnson, appointed by Obama to vet potential running mates, received "a discount mortgage" from Countrywide Financial Corp., and noted that "Journal reporters Glenn Simpson and James Hagerty broke the story this weekend," Simpson and Hagerty actually reported (subscription required) on June 7 that it is "impossible to tell for sure from public documents" whether Johnson received the mortgages at "preferential rates."

After writing that Johnson received "a discount mortgage" from Mozilo, the Journal further asserted:

Despite an exhaustive federal inquiry, Mr. Johnson managed to avoid disclosing one very special perk: below-market interest-rate mortgages from Countrywide Financial, arranged by Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo. Journal reporters Glenn Simpson and James Hagerty broke the story this weekend.

In fact, in the June 7 news report to which the editorial referred, Simpson and Hagerty did not report as fact that Johnson had received such a "perk" from Mozilo. Rather, they wrote that "it's impossible to tell" whether Johnson received mortgages from Countrywide at "preferential rates." Simpson and Hagerty further reported that "[a]n array of other factors also can account for lower-than-average rates, including a borrower's income, total assets and credit score; how big the loan is compared with the home's value; and how many 'points' a borrower may have paid upfront in order to get a lower rate." From the June 7 Journal article:

A comparison of the Fannie Mae officers' terms with interest rates prevailing when they got their loans raises the possibility Countrywide gave them preferential terms. But it's impossible to tell for sure from public documents. An array of other factors also can account for lower-than-average rates, including a borrower's income, total assets and credit score; how big the loan is compared with the home's value; and how many "points" a borrower may have paid upfront in order to get a lower rate.

One former Countrywide executive said the mortgage lender, the nation's largest, sometimes granted "moderate" concessions on rates for customers whose loans were handled by Mr. Mozilo or other top officers. These loans were reviewed by others at the company, the former executive said, and occasionally Mr. Mozilo had to be told the terms he had promised someone couldn't be granted.

[...]

Property records show Mr. Johnson has received more than $7 million in loans from Countrywide since 1998, the first coming in the waning days of his Fannie Mae tenure. He borrowed $392,950 on a row house in Washington's Dupont Circle neighborhood, with the rate set for the first five years at 6.375%.

At the time, initial rates for such loans ranged from about 6.2% to 6.5%, according to data compiled for The Wall Street Journal by HSH Associates Inc., which surveys lenders. Rates depend partly on how much borrowers pay in points, if any, to lower their interest charge. Records don't show whether Mr. Johnson paid points or if so how many.

Mr. Johnson returned to Countrywide several times to finance his growing real-estate holdings. In November 2001, he received a Countrywide loan of $1.3 million for a home in Palm Desert, Calif. The rate was 5.250% for five years, then became adjustable. Rates on such loans averaged about 6% to 6.2% about that time, HSH says.

In June 2003, Mr. Johnson obtained a $971,650 mortgage on a house in upper northwest Washington, D.C., with a rate of 3.875% for the first five years. About that time, the market average was about 4.3% to 4.9%, according to HSH.

In January 2006, Mr. Johnson got a $5 million home-equity line of credit from Countrywide on a residence in Ketchum, Idaho, near the Sun Valley ski resort. And in December 2007 he received a Countrywide home-equity line of credit for $1.01 million and executed a $1 million promissory note in connection with that home.

Asked about the loans, a lawyer for Mr. Johnson, Brian Brooks, wrote that "it appears that the arrangements you cite are well within the band of standard industry practices with regard to price and structure of loans to borrowers of Mr. Johnson's background." Mr. Johnson is now vice chairman of Perseus LLC, a merchant bank with offices in Washington and New York.

On June 11, Johnson resigned as chairman of Obama's vice presidential search committee.

From The Wall Street Journal's June 11 editorial:

Barack Obama may have come up with a creative way to solve the housing recession: Let everyone buy property at a discount the way he did from Tony Rezko, and give everyone in America a discount mortgage the way Angelo Mozilo of Countrywide did for Fannie Mae's Jim Johnson. Team Obama's real estate and mortgage transactions are certainly a change from business as usual. They suggest old-fashioned back-scratching below even current Beltway standards.

A former CEO of mortgage financing giant Fannie Mae, Mr. Johnson is now vetting Vice Presidential candidates for Mr. Obama. But he is also a textbook case for poor disclosure as regulators sifted through the wreckage of Fannie's $10 billion accounting scandal. Despite an exhaustive federal inquiry, Mr. Johnson managed to avoid disclosing one very special perk: below-market interest-rate mortgages from Countrywide Financial, arranged by Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo. Journal reporters Glenn Simpson and James Hagerty broke the story this weekend.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Limit Corp. Ownership (June 11, 2008 4:56 pm ET)
         

      Boy, Mur-dick has really got it going now!!

      Does O'Reilly or Hannity have their own WSJ column yet?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by JLyons (June 11, 2008 4:57 pm ET)
           
        I am sure that will happen shortly.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (June 11, 2008 5:04 pm ET)
           

        Does O'Reilly or Hannity have their own WSJ column yet?

        Hannity is still trying to figure out why the WSJ doesn't have any comic strips.....

        Report Abuse
        • Author by historygeek001 (June 11, 2008 5:20 pm ET)
             

          I wonder if Hannity will hire a ghost for his column, too...

          Report Abuse
    • Author by Dem02020 (June 11, 2008 5:53 pm ET)
         

       

      I have a bold suggestion: rather than for the media such as rupert murdoch's WSJ, or rupert murdoch's Fox News Channel, to keep implying in obscure ways that Sen. Obama has done something inappropriate in this matter... rather than continue to pick gnat chit out of the pepper, let these media call on John McCain's campaign to confront Mr. Obama in this matter... let the WSJ or Fox News Channel or rupert murdoch himself, scream at the top of their black lungs, that John McCain and his campaign should charge prosecute sentence and horse whip Sen. Obama, for whatever it is they're implying he has done...

      Otherwise they should just shut up about it, because it's boring, and it's a waste of rupert murdoch's time money and media, to keep prattling on about it.

       

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (June 11, 2008 7:44 pm ET)
         

      Every time Rezko is mentioned, we should bring up the 'Keating 5'

      After all, isn't this just the guilt by association game again?  There was NO evidence of wrongdoing in either case.

      ..at least Obama's buddy didn't cripple the American economy for years. 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by SFnomad (June 11, 2008 8:45 pm ET)
           
        Yeah, but in the case of the Keating 5, that's not just guilt by association, it's guilt by his own actions.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (June 12, 2008 8:16 am ET)
           

        Every time Rezko is mentioned, we should bring up the 'Keating 5'

        And we should also ask what Gramps McCain is hiding by not releasing Cindy Lou's complete tax returns.  The "summary" gives no indication of her investments or business dealings, or whether she has benefitted personally from any legislation pushed through by Gramps.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by jmh (June 11, 2008 9:47 pm ET)
         
      I am not sure I get this story anyway.

      As I understand real estate (which is not that much) the only way this story would have legs is if Obama purchased some property at well below Market value.

      Property appraisals are _usually_ below market values.

      It is not uncommon, in some states, for the market value of homes to

      be three to ten times the "appraised" value.

      So if Obama purchased a property for $104,000 and its

      current Market value was, say, $390,000 _that_ would be a story.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (June 12, 2008 11:14 am ET)
           

        The payoff is that he paid much more than 'market value' for that strip of property after Rezko was indicted. It could be construed as a partial payback for Rezko's wife ponying up the original $600K to buy the vacant lot so Obama could pay $300K below asking for the house. 

        A classic case of back scratching.  

        Report Abuse
        • Author by wzwriter (June 12, 2008 2:17 pm ET)
             

          A classic case of back scratching.

          And even MORE classic case of the right trying to make something out of nothing, because nothing is all they've got to offer this year.

          GO OBAMA!!!!

          Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (June 12, 2008 8:19 am ET)
         
      How difficult is it for the WSJ and other media outlets to at least get the facts straight? Their problem here is that they are unable to connect any dots to show that Barack Obama did anything wrong...so they distort facts in order to create questionable conclusions. Even if Barack Obama got a good deal on his property has anyone ever presented one shred of evidence that Obama used his political powers to do something illegal or unethical for anyone in return?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (June 12, 2008 9:23 am ET)
           
        It would appear that the WSJ is part of a GOP pincer movement to confuse and distract voters with vague notions of "corruption" involving people known by or working with Obama. According to this article, the James Johnson "scandal" isn't all that scandalous.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer/how-the-wall-street-journ_b_106600.html

        Since the Repugs don't have any issues on their side, they'll have to try and paint Obama as a corrupt secret Muslim. Given the stupidity of a large number of voters, it might work.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by commonsenseliberal (June 12, 2008 11:51 am ET)
           

        Actually, if a conservative saves a load of money on the purchase of land, it's a good business deal and a sound investment.

        If a liberal pays well-below market value and saves a load of money on the purchase of land, it's scandalous...

        Double standard, anyone?

        Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 13, 2008 11:09 am ET)
           
        Wouldn't want the facts to get in the way of good story now would we?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by dunman1 (June 12, 2008 8:54 am ET)
         
      Why is Murdock here? Did he get thrown out of Australia? Is the gop really just a subsidiary of some rich irresponsible Australian money culture?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (June 12, 2008 12:05 pm ET)
         

      Who owns the WALL STREET JOURNAL? Oh yeah, RUPERT MURDOCK, same far RIGHT WING NUT  that owns the FALSE NEWS CHANNEL . Case closed

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.