Mar
17

Housing Market Sure to Double-Dip

Housing Market Sure to Double-Dip: Whitney

BANKS, BANKING, MEREDITH WHITNEY, FREDDIE MAC, FANNIE MAE, GINNIE
Posted By: Antonia Oprita | Web Producer, CNBC.com
CNBC.com
| 16 Mar 2010 | 07:16 AM ET

The US housing market will face another retreat while mortgage-backed securities and Treasurys are likely to go through a “material” correction, Meredith Whitney, CEO of Meredith Whitney Advisory Group, told CNBC Tuesday.

 

“The housing market surely will double dip,” Whitney told “Worldwide Exchange.”

Government programs to support housing have been “murky” and when the modifications caused by them come to an end, a lot of supply may come to the market and that’s when the real-estate market is likely to go down, she explained.

Hopes that an improvement in liquidity and continuing investment from China in US assets will prop up mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and Treasurys are exaggerated, Whitney also said.

“The asset classes of MBS and Treasurys are priced for a material correction in my opinion,” she said. “The only buyers of agency MBS are the Fed and banks so you see how precarious that market is.”

“If the Fed pulls back, that’s a really big deal… because there’s no substitute buyer.”

Banks Model Is Broken

The Federal Reserve can’t make banks start lending again because the business model financial institutions used before the crisis is broken, Whitney also said.

 

“I don’t think there’s much the Fed can do to get banks to start lending again. That’s a structural problem, the model is broken,” Whitney told “Worldwide Exchange.”

Before the financial crisis erupted in 2007 banks were able to offer customers low-priced mortgages because they were making money on securitizing these mortgages and selling them on, she explained.

But now that the securitization market is effectively closed, the prices of mortgages for consumers have not risen to compensate banks for that loss of revenue, so banks have been playing defense for the past two years, Whitney added.

The Federal Open Market Committee holds a meeting later Tuesday to decide on monetary policy. Fed officials have been saying that interest rates are likely to remain low for an “extended” period of time.

 

Whitney said she will be watching for anything regarding the Fed’s stance on buying mortgage-backed securities in the statement after the meeting.

“The Fed has been supporting the housing market, a third of the Fed’s balance sheet is tied to mortgages,” she said.

“The banks aren’t issuing anything (in terms of mortgages) to hold, they’re issuing everything to dump on” Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae, Whitney added.

 

Much of the profit banks made last year was due to their performance in capital markets and this is “unreplicable” this year, Whitney also warned.

“I think that people that expect an earnings handoff to a normalized scenario are going to be disappointed,” she said.

“Normal will not be what it has been over the last 20 years and there’s disappointment baked into that.”

© 2010 CNBC.com

URL: http://www.cnbc.com/id/35887306/

Mar
12

FBI Raids Offices of United Law Group – Seized and Shut Down Immediately

A notorious law firm, United Law Group, based in Irvine, CA was shut down today (March 11, 2010) by the FBI after a raid on their offices by the FBI, Irvine Police and other governmental agencies.

Apparently, this isn’t the first time one of the managing partners has been in trouble. The United Law Firm and its two attorneys, Robert Buscho, Bar No. 122556 and Sean Rutledge, Bar No. 255938 were under investigation by the California State Bar this past year. Rutledge later surrendered his law license under increasing pressure from the weight of the investigation.

Russell Weiner, California Bar Interim Chief Counsel said, “The number of attorneys using their law licenses to essentially take money from unwary but trusting consumers is astounding,” Weiner added. “There are literally thousands of victims who have lost money they could not afford to lose. Under the circumstances, the need for public information and protection is paramount.”

United Law Group was advertising loan modification, auditing and foreclosure rescue services. Unfortunately for the homeowners who have been scammed, United Law Group was taking money from people and not delivering on their promises. Very sad for all the homeowners who paid good money after bad.

I know a few people who had been referred to ULG and they were not getting returned calls and nothing had ever happened on their case as they reported. You’d think that an attorney would have a higher ethical standard but there a bad attorneys just as there are bad banks and greed seems to be highly pervasive these days. Buyer/homeowner beware. Ask lots of good questions before you part with your dineros.

California consumers having a problem with the attorney handling their loan modification may contact the State Bar at 1-800-843-9053 or visit the State Bar’s Web site at www.calbar.ca.gov to find a complaint form.

Feb
27

LPS Alerts SEC that trouble is brewing – Fraudulent Assignments Class Action

Lender Processing Services (LPS), a spinoff company from FIS (Fidelity National Information Services), who also happens to traffic in creating mortgage assignments out of thin air for the largest financial institutions and foreclosure fraud mills, has just put the SEC on alert in it latest 10K Filing that they cannot accurately assess the economic impact of a class action lawsuit it has been named as a Defendant in. The class action was filed last week in federal court in the Southern District of Florida. Click Here to read the complaint.

The radar screen of foreclosure fraud is starting to really light up with bogies… otherwise known as “bogus” mortgage assignments and un-authenticated affidavits. I think the bottom line is that Americans are just plain fed up with the fraud and trickery being perpetrated upon our communities, our country and its citizens by corporate America, as well as the executive and judicial branches of this country. Enough is enough is what I hear every day and I predict a meltdown of the corporate foreclosure machine very soon lest a total revolution breaks out in this country by the “astroturf” tea baggers and the like.

Click here to read the actual LPS 10K Filing but here’s the interesting excerpt…

Item 3 – Legal Proceedings

Litigation
 
In the ordinary course of business, we are involved in various pending and threatened litigation matters related to our operations, some of which include claims for punitive or exemplary damages. Often, these matters do not include a specific statement as to the dollar amount of damages demanded. Instead, they include a demand in an amount to be proved at trial. For these reasons, it is often not possible to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from these matters. Accordingly, we review matters on an ongoing basis and follow the provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 450, Contingencies, when making accrual and disclosure decisions. When assessing reasonably possible and probable outcomes, we base our decision on our assessment of the ultimate outcome following all appeals. We intend to vigorously defend all litigation matters that are brought against us, and we do not believe that the ultimate disposition of any of these lawsuits will have a material adverse impact on our financial position or results of operations. Finally, we believe that no actions, other than the matter listed below, depart from customary litigation incidental to our business.
 
Schneider, Kenneth, et al. vs. Lender Processing Services, Inc., et al.
 
On February 17, 2010 this putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In a single count complaint, the plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act relating to the preparation and use of assignments of mortgage in foreclosure actions. The defendants include two large banks, as well as LPS and our document solutions subsidiary. The complaint essentially alleges that the industry practice of creating assignments of mortgages after the actual date on which a loan was transferred from one beneficial owner to another is unlawful. The complaint also challenges the authority of individuals employed by our document solutions subsidiary to execute such assignments as officers of various banks and mortgage companies. Although we do not believe that our conduct falls under the provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, at this early stage we are unable to accurately predict the outcome of this matter.
 
Regulatory Matters
 
Due to the heavily regulated nature of the mortgage industry, from time to time we receive inquiries and requests for information from various state and federal regulatory agencies, including state insurance departments, attorneys general and other agencies, about various matters relating to our business. These inquiries take various forms, including informal or formal requests, reviews, investigations and subpoenas. We attempt to cooperate with all such inquiries. Recently, during an internal review of the business processes used by our document solutions subsidiary, we identified a business process that caused an error in the notarization of certain documents, some of which were used in foreclosure proceedings in various jurisdictions around the country. The services performed by this subsidiary were offered to a limited number of customers, were unrelated to our core default management services and were immaterial to our financial results. We immediately corrected the business process and began to take remedial actions necessary to cure the defect in an effort to minimize the impact of the error. We subsequently received an inquiry relating to this matter from the Clerk of Court of Fulton County, Georgia, which is the regulatory body responsible for licensing the notaries used by our document solutions subsidiary. In response, we met with the Clerk of Court, along with members of her staff, and reported on our identification of the error and the status of the corrective actions that were underway. We have since completed our remediation efforts with respect to the affected documents. Most recently, we have learned that the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Middle District of Florida is reviewing the business processes of this subsidiary. We have expressed our willingness to fully cooperate with the U.S. Attorney. We continue to believe that we have taken necessary remedial action with respect to this matter.

Game on folks… keep putting the pressure on every pressure point you can find in this corrupt system. Sooner or later, the knees of this system will buckle.

Feb
12

Let the In-Fighting Begin… HUGE case for Florida Homeowners

Fresh off the press of the 2nd District Court of Appeals, today the Fla. 2nd DCA issued a stunning shot across the bow of US financial institutions by reversing a trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of US Bank, NA.

CLICK HERE for a copy of the Final Order issued today, February 12, 2010.

What is absolutely hilarious about this case is that the homeowners were NOT involved in the case. Rather, BAC Funding Consortium Inc., who was the 2nd mortgagee in the case, appealed the trial courts decision and alleged that US Bank, NA did not have standing to foreclose. Oh the irony… we knew this would happen but it is certainly fun to watch it start to happen. Banks suing Lenders; Lenders suing Trustees; Investors suing Servicers. Much more to come… that’s a promise.

The essence of BAC’s argument? Summary judgment for the plaintiff in mortgage foreclosure action was premature where plaintiff had failed to establish standing to foreclose — Plaintiff moving for summary judgment before an answer is filed must establish that defendant could not raise any genuine issues of material fact if defendant were permitted to answer complaint — Because exhibit to plaintiff’s complaint conflicts with allegations concerning standing and exhibit does not show that plaintiff has standing to foreclose mortgage, plaintiff did not establish entitlement to foreclose mortgage — Incomplete, unsigned, and unauthenticated assignment attached as exhibit to plaintiff’s response to defendant’s motion to dismiss did not constitute admissible evidence establishing standing to foreclose note and mortgage.

The appellate court agreed and said,
“Despite the lack of any admissible evidence that U.S. Bank validly held the note and mortgage, the trial court granted summary judgment of foreclosure in favor of U.S. Bank. BAC now appeals, contending that the summary judgment was improper because U.S. Bank never established its standing to foreclose.

The summary judgment standard is well-established. “A movant is entitled to summary judgment ‘if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, affidavits, and other materials as would be admissible in evidence on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Estate of Githens ex rel. Seaman v. Bon Secours-Maria Manor Nursing Care Ctr., Inc., 928 So. 2d 1272, 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (quoting Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c)). When a plaintiff moves for summary judgment before the defendant has filed an answer, “the burden is upon the plaintiff to make it appear to a certainty that no answer which the defendant might properly serve could present a genuine issue of fact.” Settecasi v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Pinellas County, 156 So. 2d 652, 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963); see also W. Fla. Cmty. Builders, Inc. v. Mitchell, 528 So. 2d 979, 980 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (holding that when plaintiffs move for summary judgment before the defendant files an answer, “it [is] incumbent upon them to establish that no answer that [the defendant] could properly serve or affirmative defense it might raise” could present an issue of material fact); E.J. Assocs., Inc. v. John E. & Aliese Price Found., Inc., 515 So. 2d 763, 764 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (holding that when a plaintiff moves for summary judgment before the defendant files an answer, “the plaintiff must conclusively show that the defendant cannot plead a genuine issue of material fact”). As these cases show, a plaintiff moving for summary judgment before an answer is filed must not only establish that no genuine issue of material fact is present in the record as it stands, but also that the defendant could not raise any genuine issues of material fact if the defendant were permitted to answer the complaint.

In this case, U.S. Bank failed to meet this burden because the record before the trial court reflected a genuine issue of material fact as to U.S. Bank’s standing to foreclose the mortgage at issue. The proper party with standing to foreclose a note and/or mortgage is the holder of the note and mortgage or the holder’s representative. See Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Azize, 965 So. 2d 151, 153 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Troupe v. Redner, 652 So. 2d 394, 395-96 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); see also Philogene v. ABN Amro Mortgage Group, Inc., 948 So. 2d 45, 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“[W]e conclude that ABN had standing to bring and maintain a mortgage foreclosure action since it demonstrated that it held the note and mortgage in question.”). While U.S. Bank alleged in its unverified complaint that it was the holder of the note and mortgage, the copy of the mortgage attached to the complaint lists “Fremont Investment & Loan” as the “lender” and “MERS” as the “mortgagee.” When exhibits are attached to a complaint, the contents of the exhibits control over the allegations of the complaint. See, e.g., Hunt Ridge at Tall Pines, Inc. v. Hall, 766 So. 2d 399, 401 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (“Where complaint allegations are contradicted by exhibits attached to the complaint, the plain meaning of the exhibits control[s] and may be the basis for a motion to dismiss.”); Blue Supply Corp. v. Novos Electro Mech., Inc., 990 So. 2d 1157, 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Harry Pepper & Assocs., Inc. v. Lasseter, 247 So. 2d 736, 736-37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) (holding that when there is an inconsistency between the allegations of material fact in a complaint and attachments to the complaint, the differing allegations “have the effect of neutralizing each allegation as against the other, thus rendering the pleading objectionable”). Because the exhibit to U.S. Bank’s complaint conflicts with its allegations concerning standing and the exhibit does not show that U.S. Bank has standing to foreclose the mortgage, U.S. Bank did not establish its entitlement to foreclose the mortgage as a matter of law.

Moreover, while U.S. Bank subsequently filed the original note, the note did not identify U.S. Bank as the lender or holder. U.S. Bank also did not attach an assignment or any other evidence to establish that it had purchased the note and mortgage. Further, it did not file any supporting affidavits or deposition testimony to establish that it owns and holds the note and mortgage. Accordingly, the documents before the trial court at the summary judgment hearing did not establish U.S. Bank’s standing to foreclose the note and mortgage, and thus, at this point, U.S. Bank was not entitled to summary judgment in its favor.”
[END]

The part that I underlined is especially important to note… US Bank actually filed the original note in the record but the Note apparently lacked any endorsement in favor of US Bank, and, presumably did not have a blank endorsement either. The appellate court also did NOT accept the bogus assignment that US Bank filed – and we have certainly seen ALOT of highly questionable assignments flying off the desks of document production factories like LPS (Lender Processing Services), the Law Office of David J. Stern PA and FIS Foreclosure Solutions.

 

This is a fantastic case for attorneys and homeowners in Florida. There is a tremendous amount of legal ammunition in this case if you read the decision carefully and parse it out paragraph by paragraph.

UPDATE:

CLICK HERE to view the Class Action Lawsuit filed against Deutsche Bank, US Bank, LPS and DocX on Feb. 17, 2010 for committing fraud in foreclosure cases for creating unauthenticated mortgage assignments.

Feb
01

Important Florida Case – one way to get a foreclosure dismissed

There is a recent decision out of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in FL (Pinellas County) that I believe warrants focus and analysis for homeowners and their attorneys. In Wachovia Mortgage v. Matacchiero, the Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss (MTD) the case through her attorney. The basic premise of the MTD was that the Plaintiff lacked the “capacity to sue” the Defendant for foreclosure under Fla. Civ. Pro., Rule 1.120(a).

Most foreclosure attorneys are used to hearing (and arguing) the legal issue of “standing” and while standing is a very valid issue that should be questioned in every foreclosure case, the “capacity to sue”  is different. ‘Capacity to sue’ is an absence or legal disability which would deprive a party of the right to come into court.” Judge Rondolino, the presiding judge who signed the order granting the Defendant’s MTD, made the distinction right in his order.

In this case, the Plaintiff was, “Wachovia Mortgage FSB, F/K/A World Savings Bank.” The argument was simply that the Plaintiff failed to properly identify itself in the pleadings (complaint) and therefore the Defendant was deprived of knowing exactly who to answer or frame her responsive pleading to.

The Defendant’s argument: “Because the Plaintiff failed to “plead or specify in what capacity the Plaintiff brings suit and by failing to define or identify in any way the nature of its legal entity the Plaintiff has not plead that it has the capacity to maintain suit before this court.”

Notice point 4 of the Judge’s order where he specifically compares capacity to standing and note the differences.

The attorney in this case did a great job really analyzing the Defendant’s case and he obviously has a firm grasp on and working knowledge of the rules of civil procedure. He successfully attacked the legal deficiencies in this case and won on the merits of his well plead argument.

The majority of foreclosure cases are fraught with legal deficiencies. The problem I see is that few are truly analyzing the complaint, pleadings and allegations made by these institutional fraudsters to find these deficiencies and use them against the Plaintiffs. You know the old saying, “the devil is in the details.”

Hopefully, you’ll read the judge’s order and dive into the rules of civil procedure in your state and really learn something as to how “we should think” about foreclosure cases. The lesson here is to learn how to “frame” our thinking regarding foreclosure cases and to learn to look at the details. Look at what these Plaintiffs are truly alleging. The words they are using are not accidental and often we will find conflicting statements, inconsistencies and the like.

Use the rules of civil procedure as the guide and attack the missteps of these institutions. The rules define how the game is played. If a party fails to follow the rules they have a problem and if you have a rogue judge who doesn’t care about ensuring the rules are followed, these things need to be identifed, recorded and quantified so that you can set a case up for an appeal. The Appellate courts are in a position where they have to hold the parties (and judges) to following the well-established rules of civil procedure.

Now, what you are waiting for? If you need legal representation in a foreclosure matter (or even think you might), call Houk Law today to speak with us about all the reasons why you should consider retaining us to represent you… and why it makes complete economic sense as well!

We can be reached at 1-877-508-4848 ext. 0

Nov
20

Report: Obama Teleprompter Malfunctions at Dinner with Family

Well, we all knew it would eventually happen but geez, the poor kids! This guy simply can’t get it together! This time, his poor kids and Michelle were affected by the home teleprompter mishap.

Nov
09

Finally, a Judge Willing to Hold Lenders/Servicers Accountable!

I have to say that reading the below order from Judge Arthur Schack is refreshing. It’s also disappointing because there are so few judges out there today willing to do what he is doing. The majority of Florida judges are cowboys who don’t really care about legal standards and rules of civil procedure. They routinely grant motions for Summary Judgment even when there are clear issues of material fact in the case or even when there is still outstanding disovery that the Plaintiff servicer/trustee hasn’t complied with. They routinely hear a Motion to Dismiss AND a Motion for Summary Judgment on the same day/time! It’s ridiculous and despicable all at the same time.

The bottom line is that most judges in Florida and other states trample on the civil rights of homeowners and deny them due process because of their “personal views” on the issues of foreclosure. I highly encourage homeowners to organize in their communities and march on the steps of their local courthouse and protest what their elected judges are doing and not doing to uphold the law as Judge Schack is doing in this case.

Judge Schack also provides some great points that attorneys and pro se litigants should focus on in their case(s). Read carefully and learn the elements that he is stipulating because there are fine points of law that he his holding the plaintiff in this case to. Enjoy…

 

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Valentin N.Y.Sup.,2008. NOTE: THIS OPINION WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN A PRINTED VOLUME. THE DISPOSITION WILL APPEAR IN A REPORTER TABLE. Supreme Court, Kings County, New York.
HSBC BANK USA, N.A., as Indenture Trustee for the Registered Noteholders of Renaissance Home Equity Loan Trust 2005-3, Renaissance Home Equity Loan Asset-Backed Notes, Series 2005-3,, Plaintiff, v. Candida VALENTIN, Candide Ruiz, et. al., Defendants. No. 15968/07. Jan. 30, 2008. Vincent P. Surico, Esq., De Rose & Surico, Bayside, for Plaintiff. No Opposition submitted by defendants to plaintiff’s Judgment of Foreclosure and Sale. ARTHUR M. SCHACK, J. *
1 Plaintiff’s application, upon the default of all defendants, for an order of reference, for the premises located at 572 Riverdale Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (Block 3838, Lot 39, County of Kings) is denied without prejudice. The “affidavit of merit” submitted in support of this application for a default judgment is not by an officer of the plaintiff or someone with a power of attorney from the plaintiff.
Leave is granted to plaintiff, HSBC BANK USA, N.A., AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED NOTEHOLDERS OF RENAISSANCE HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 2005-3, RENAISSANCE HOME EQUITY LOAN ASSET-BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2005-3 (HSBC), to renew its application for an order of reference upon presentation to the Court of compliance with the statutory requirements of CPLR § 3215(f), with “an affidavit of facts” executed by someone who is an officer of HSBC or has a valid power of attorney from HSBC.
Further, the Court, upon renewal of the application for an order of reference requires a satisfactory explanation to questions with respect to: the assignment of the instant nonperforming mortgage loan from the original lender, Delta Funding Corporation to HSBC Bank; the employment history of one Scott Anderson, who assigned the instant mortgage to HSBC, yet in a case I decided last month, HSBC Bank, N .A. v. Cherry, 18 Misc.3d 1102(A), swore in an affidavit to be HSBC’s servicing agent; and the relationship between HSBC, Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB (OCWEN), Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs, who all seem to share office space at 1661 Worthington Road, Suite 100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 (Suite 100). Background Defendants, Candida Valentin and Candide Ruiz, borrowed $340,000 from Delta Funding Corporation, on June 23, 2005.
The note and mortgage were recorded in the Office of the City Register, New York City Department of Finance on July 14, 2005, at City Register File Number (CRFN) 2005000395517. Delta Funding Corporation, by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), its nominee for the purpose of recording the mortgage, assigned the note and mortgage to plaintiff HSBC, on May 1, 2007, with the assignment recorded on June 13, 2007 at CRFN 2007000306260.
Plaintiff’s moving papers for an order of reference fails to present an “affidavit made by the party,” pursuant to CPLR § 3215(f). The application contains an April 23, 2007-affidavit by Jessica Dybas, who states that she is “a Foreclosure Facilitator of OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, servicing agent and attorney in fact to the holder of the bond and mortgage sought to be foreclosed herein.”On that date, the note and mortgage were still held by MERS, as nominee of Delta Funding Corporation. For reasons unknown to the Court, MERS, as nominee of Delta Funding Corporation, or plaintiff HSBC failed to provide any power of attorney authorizing OCWEN to go forward with the instant foreclosure action.
Further, even if HSBC authorized OCWEN to be its attorney in fact, Ms. Dybas is not an officer of OCWEN. She is a “Foreclosure Facilitator,” a job title unknown to this Court. Therefore, the proposed order of reference must be denied without prejudice. Leave is granted to plaintiff HSBC to comply with CPLR § 3215(f) by providing an “affidavit made by the party,” whether by an officer of HSBC or someone with a valid power of attorney from HSBC. *2 Further, according to plaintiff’s application, the default of defendants Valentin and Ruiz began with the nonpayment of principal and interest due on January 1, 2007. Yet, four months later, plaintiff HSBC was willing to take an assignment of the instant nonperforming loan. The Court wonders why HSBC would purchase a nonperforming loan, four months in arrears?
Additionally, plaintiff HSBC must address a third matter if it renews its application for an order of reference. In the instant action, as noted above, Scott Anderson, as Vice President of MERS, assigned the instant mortgage to HSBC on May 1, 2007. Doris Chapman, the Notary Public, stated that on May 1, 2007, “personally appeared Scott Anderson, of 1661 Worthington Road, Suite 100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33409.”In HSBC Bank, N.A. v. Cherry, at 3, I observed that: Scott Anderson, in his affidavit, executed on June 15, 2007, states he is Vice President of OCWEN. Yet, the June 13, 2007 assignment from MERS to HSBC is signed by the same Scott Anderson as Vice President of MERS. Did Mr. Anderson change his employer between June 13, 2007 and June 15, 2007. The Court is concerned that there may be fraud on the part of HSBC, or at least malfeasance. Before granting an application for an order of reference, the Court requires an affidavit from Mr. Anderson describing his employment history for the past three years. Lastly, the court notes that Scott Anderson, in the MERS to HSBC assignment gave his address as Suite 100. This is also the address listed for HSBC in the assignment. In a foreclosure action that I decided on May 11, 2007 (Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Company v. Castellanos, 15 Misc.3d 1134[A] ), Deutsche Bank assigned the mortgage to MTGLQ Investors, L.P. I noted, at 4-5, that MTGLQ Investors, L.P.: According to Exhibit 21.1 of the November 25, 2006 Goldman Sachs 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission … is a “significant subsidiary” of Goldman Sachs…. [T]he January 19, 2007 assignment has the same address for both the assignor Deutsche Bank and the assignee MTGLQ Investors, L.P., at 1661 Worthington Road, Suite 100, West Palm Beach, Florida 33409.
The Court will not speculate about why two major financial behemoths, Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs share space in a West Palm Beach, Florida office suite In the instant action, with HSBC, OCWEN and MERS, joining with Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs at Suite 100, the Court is now concerned as to why so many financial goliaths are in the same space. The Court ponders if Suite 100 is the size of Madison Square Garden to house all of these financial behemoths or if there is a more nefarious reason for this corporate togetherness.
If HSBC seeks to renew its application for an order to reference, the Court needs to know, in the form of an affidavit, why Suite 100 is such a popular venue for these corporations. Discussion Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) § 1321 allows the Court in a foreclosure action, upon the default of the defendant or defendant’s admission of mortgage payment arrears, to appoint a referee “to compute the amount due to the plaintiff.” In the instant action, plaintiff’s application for an order of reference is a preliminary step to obtaining a default judgment of foreclosure and sale. (Home Sav. Of Am., F.A. v. Gkanios, 230 A.D.2d 770 [2d Dept 1996] ). *3 Plaintiff has failed to meet the requirements of CPLR § 3215(f) for a default judgment. On any application for judgment by default, the applicant shall file proof of service of the summons and the complaint, or a summons and notice served pursuant to subdivision (b) of rule 305 or subdivision (a) of rule 316 of this chapter, and proof of the facts constituting the claim, the default and the amount due by affidavit made by the party… Where a verified complaint has been served, it may be used as the affidavit of the facts constituting the claim and the amount due; in such case, an affidavit as to the default shall be made by the party or the party’s attorney. [Emphasis added]. Plaintiff has failed to submit “proof of the facts” in “an affidavit made by the party.”The affidavit is submitted by Jessica Dybas, “a Foreclosure Facilitator of OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, servicing agent and attorney in fact to the holder of the bond and mortgage sought to be foreclosed herein.” There must be an affidavit by an officer of HSBC or a servicing agent, possessing a valid power of attorney from HSBC for that express purpose. Additionally, if a power of attorney is presented to this Court and it refers to pooling and servicing agreements, the Court needs a properly offered copy of the pooling and servicing agreements, to determine if the servicing agent may proceed on behalf of plaintiff. (EMC Mortg. Corp. v. Batista, 15 Misc.3d 1143(A) [Sup Ct, Kings County 2007]; Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Lewis, 14 Misc.3d 1201(A) [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 2006] ).
Also, the instant application upon defendants’ default must be denied because even though it contains a verified complaint, the attorney’s verification is insufficient to meet the requirements of CPLR § 3215(f). The Court, in Mullins v. Di Lorenzo, 199 A.D.2d 218 [1st Dept 1993], instructed that “a complaint verified by counsel amounts to no more than an attorney’s affidavit and is therefore insufficient to support entry of judgment pursuant to CPLR 3215.”Citing Mullins v. Di Lorenzo, the Court, in Feffer v. Malpeso, 210 A.D.2d 60, 61 [1st Dept 1994], held that a complaint with not more than an attorney’s affidavit, for purposes of entering a default judgment “was erroneous and must be deemed a nullity.” Professor David Siegel, in his Practice Commentaries (McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3215: 16) explains that Mullins v. Di Lorenzo is in point here. Perhaps the verified complaint can do service as an affidavit for various purposes within the litigation while the contest is on … but it will not suffice to put an end to the contest with as drastic a step as a default at the outset.  It must be kept in mind that even an outright “affidavit” by the plaintiff’s attorney on the merits of the case-except in the relatively rare circumstances in which the attorney happens to have first-hand knowledge of the facts – lacks probative force and is usually deemed inadequate by the courts to establish the merits. A fortiori, a verified pleading tendered as proof of the merits would also lack probative force when the verification is the attorney’s. [Emphasis added ] *4 In Blam v. Netcher, 17 AD3d 495, 496 [2d Dept 2005], the Court reversed a default judgment granted in Supreme Court, Nassau County, holding that: In support of her motion for leave to enter judgment against the defendant upon her default in answering, the plaintiff failed to proffer either an affidavit of the facts or a complaint verified by a party with personal knowledge of the facts (seeCPLR 3215(f): Goodman v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. 2 AD3d 581 [2d Dept 2003]; Drake v. Drake, 296 A.D.2d 566 [2d Dept 2002]; Parratta v. McAllister, 283 A.D.2d 625 [2d Dept 2001] ). Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion should have been denied, with leave to renew on proper papers (see Henriquez v. Purins, 245 A.D.2d 337, 338 [2d Dept 1997] ). (See Hazim v. Winter, 234 A.D.2d 422 [2d Dept 1996]; Finnegan v. Sheahan, 269 A.D.2d 491 [2d Dept 2000]; De Vivo v. Spargo, 287 A.D.2d 535 [2d Dept 2001]; Peniston v. Epstein, 10 AD3d 450 [2d Dept 2004]; Taebong Choi v. JKS Dry Cleaning Eqip. Corp., 15 AD3d 566 [2d Dept 2005]; Matone v. Sycamore Realty Corp., 31 AD3d 721 [2d Dept 2006]; Crimmins v. Sagona Landscaping, Ltd., 33 AD3d 580 [2d Dept 2006] ). Therefore, the instant application for an order of reference is denied without prejudice, with leave to renew.
The Court will grant plaintiff HSBC an order of reference when it presents: an affidavit by either an officer of HSBC or someone with a valid power of attorney from HSBC, possessing personal knowledge of the facts; an affidavit from Scott Anderson clarifying his employment history for the past three years and what corporation he serves as an officer; and, an affidavit by an officer of HSBC explaining why HSBC would purchase a nonperforming loan from Delta Funding Corporation, and why HSBC, OCWEN, MERS, Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs all share office space in Suite 100.
Conclusion Accordingly, it is ORDERED, that the application of plaintiff, HSBC BANK N.A., AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED NOTEHOLDERS OF RENAISSANCE HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 2005-3, RENAISSANCE HOME EQUITY LOAN ASSET-BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2005-3, for an order of reference for the premises located at 572 Riverdale Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (Block 3838, Lot 29, County of Kings), is denied without prejudice; and it is further ORDERED, that leave is granted to plaintiff, HSBC BANK N.A., AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED NOTEHOLDERS OF RENAISSANCE HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 2005-3, RENAISSANCE HOME EQUITY LOAN ASSET-BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2005-3, to renew its application for an order of reference for the premises located at 572 Riverdale Avenue, Brooklyn, New York (Block 3838, Lot 39, County of Kings), upon presentation to the Court, within forty-five (45) days of this decision and order, of: an affidavit of facts either by an officer of HSBC or someone with a valid power of attorney from HSBC, possessing personal knowledge of the facts; an affidavit from Scott Anderson, describing his employment history for the past three years; an affidavit from an officer of plaintiff HSBC BANK N.A., AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE FOR THE REGISTERED NOTEHOLDERS OF RENAISSANCE HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 2005-3, RENAISSANCE HOME EQUITY LOAN ASSET-BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2005-3, explaining why plaintiff would purchase a nonperforming loan from Delta Funding Corporation and why plaintiff *5 HSBC BANK N.A., shares office space at Suite 100, 1661 Worthington Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33409, with Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, MortgageElectronicRegistrationSystems, Inc., Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. N.Y.Sup.,2008. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Valentin Slip Copy, 18 Misc.3d 1123(A), 2008 WL 239932 (N.Y.Sup.), 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 50164(U) END OF DOCUMENT

Aug
20

Mortgage Delinquencies Still Rising says MBA – More Americans Underwater

I have a lot of conversations with people about our economy, foreclosures and such… from clients to friends in business to attorneys. Everyone who’s asked me what I foresee coming I’ve told them that 2010 will be a very tough year and they better prepare now. We aren’t done yet folks… and the policies of the Obama Administration and our collective disaster we call Congress, are going to make things even worse – and very well will extend the recession quite painfully. I have told people to expect another wave of foreclosures. As long as you have no job creation and more job loss happening every day, this cycle won’t stop. It’s as simple as that.

And with that, I bring you fresh news…

Delinquencies Are Still Climbing and Threatening More Foreclosures on the Horizon, MBA Says

08/20/2009 By: Carrie Bay

More than nine percent of all mortgages in the United States are now delinquent, according to figures released Thursday by the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA).

The delinquency rate for mortgage loans on one-to-four-unit residential properties rose to 9.24 percent of all loans outstanding at the end of the second quarter, MBA reported. The new number breaks the record set in the first quarter of this year, when 9.12 percent of the nation’s homeowners were behind on their mortgage payments.

Important to note is that the biggest jump in delinquencies last quarter came from prime fixed-rate mortgages. These seemingly low-risk loans also accounted for one in three of the nation’s foreclosure starts in Q2. A year ago they were only one in five.

Like prime, Federal Housing Administration loans are generally thought to be “safe,” but foreclosure starts among government-insured mortgages jumped to 9.1 percent last quarter – a record-high for the agency.

The states of California, Florida, Arizona, and Nevada continue to drag down the national numbers. These four had 44 percent of all the nation’s new foreclosures in Q2. Rhode Island, Georgia, and Michigan also posted foreclosure start rates above the national average. All

other states in the country fell below the national benchmark, and roughly half even saw their new foreclosure numbers decline.

But then, there’s the not-so-sunny Sunshine State. Florida has cemented itself as the worst state in the union for mortgage performance. Twelve percent of all mortgages there were somewhere in the process of foreclosure at the end of June, and another 5 percent were more than 90 days past due and about to cross that threshold. Based on MBA’s numbers, Florida has the highest foreclosure and delinquency rates in the country, and MBA’s chief economist, Jay Brinkmann, says he doesn’t expect to see a turnaround in Florida’s housing market for a long, long time.

Some fortunate regional markets are faring better and offsetting Florida’s bad numbers because the nation’s total foreclosure starts during the second quarter actually dropped slightly. Foreclosure actions were initiated on 1.36 percent of the nation’s outstanding mortgages, compared to 1.35 percent during the first three months of the year, MBA reported.

Despite the leveling off of foreclosure starts, the fact that loans 90 or more days past due continues to climb in all categories suggests an overhang of foreclosure activity and engorged inventories of repossessed homes may be looming in the coming months.

So, when is the foreclosure problem going to crest? Brinkmann, points out that unemployment is currently the primary driver behind missed mortgage payments.

The number of jobless Americans is forecast to peak in mid-2010, and Brinkmann says he expects delinquencies to top out at about the same time. But because of the lag time associated with foreclosure proceedings, he doesn’t see a break in the upward trend of foreclosures until six months later, at the close of next year.

Aug
20

Bank of America loses in Federal Ruling – Judge says investors own the loans

The report of the ruling below by this Federal Judge has several implications:

  1. Mortgage modifications may come to a halt again
  2. Attorney’s and anyone supposedly “helping” with modifications should be very, very wary
  3. The federal court in Manhattan is recognizing a couple very important issues:
    1. Servicers are NOT the owners of the loans (in the case of a securitized loan)
    2. Investors own the loans
    3. Servicers MAY be liable to buy back modified loans (subject to the terms of the PSA)

This ruling could ultimately end up being the demise of ALL foreclosure actions involving securitized loans. One thing is clear in that the federal court identifies the investors as the owners of the loan and is so doing the court also recognizes that the servicer/intermediaries/pretender lender have no authority to do ANYTHING in the way of enforcement, modification, collection through legal means such as a  foreclosure action because they simply have no standing (the alleged debt is not owed to anyone other than the investors).

Just because a secret deal between Wall Street, servicers, banks and MERS occurred to obscure the ownership and the transfers of mortgages doesn’t mean their deal will hold up under the careful eye of diligent judge who understands AND cares about the law being upheld.


Source: Reuters
BofA’s Countrywide loses court ruling on mortgages

Thu Aug 20, 2009 7:37am EDT

* Federal judge lacks jurisdiction, moves case to states

* Loan modifications can hurt mortgage investors

NEW YORK, Aug 20 (Reuters) – A federal judge has ruled that Bank of America Corp (BAC.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) cannot have a lawsuit by investors seeking to force it to buy back mortgages heard in federal court, saying he lacks jurisdiction to decide the case.

Tuesday’s ruling by Judge Richard Holwell of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan means the case will move to state court. Holwell did not decide the merits of the case.

“Congress passed two statutes within a year of each other to address the mortgage crisis,” the judge wrote. “In neither of these statutes did Congress federalize the case.”

The ruling is a win for investors, to the extent that Holwell rejected a claim by the bank’s Countrywide Financial Corp unit that new federal laws to encourage loan modifications to help struggling borrowers stay in their homes govern this case.

Countrywide had argued that the laws negated obligations it might have had to buy back modified loans. In 2008, Countrywide agreed with some 11 state attorneys general to modify $8.4 billion of loans made to roughly 400,000 borrowers.

Investors who own mortgage securities typically receive interest and principal payments. If servicers modified the underlying loans to reduce borrower obligations, investors would be harmed because they would receive lower payments.

Holwell did rule that investors bear the burden of showing that pooling and servicing agreements for their loans, taken “as a whole,” require Countrywide to buy back the loans.

Bank of America could not immediately be reached for comment. A published report said a spokeswoman agreed that the court did not rule on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.

The current case was brought by two investment funds holding Countrywide mortgages, Greenwich Financial Services Distressed Mortgage Fund 3 LLC and QED LLC.

These investors complained they would be harmed if Countrywide shifted the burdens of loan modifications to 374 trusts into which loans had been repackaged and securitized.

These investors would rather Countrywide repurchase modified loans for the full unpaid amounts.

Countrywide had been the largest U.S. mortgage lender before Bank of America acquired it last July for $2.5 billion.

The case is Greenwich Financial Services Distressed Mortgage Fund 3 LLC and QED LLC v. Countrywide Financial Corp, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan), No. 08-11343. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel, with additional reporting by John Tilak in Bangalore)

© Thomson Reuters 2009. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world.

Thomson Reuters journalists are subject to an Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.

Aug
17

Bankruptcy Judges & DOJ Rip Mortgage Companies

Below is another story about Servicer abuses… At least some judges see the issues and are not allowing personal viewpoints or prejudices to cloud their assessment of how terrible the situation is for a homeowner in mortgage hardship or distress.

The servicers are also the main players in the massive foreclosure fraud that is occurring around this country.

One would think that at some point, the legal system is going to stop the train of abuses justice suffers because of the systemic fraud that is committed by servicers trying to foreclose on homes they have no financial stake in.

Bankruptcy Judges & DOJ Rip Mortgage Companies

by Karen Weise, ProPublica

“Systemic abuse.” “Extraordinary incompetence.” “Reckless.”  In a growing body of legal cases, judges and the Justice Department are breaking from legal jargon to starkly chastise mortgage companies.

As mortgage delinquencies rise, more and more homeowners are learning the central role that mortgage servicers play in their lives. The legal cases show that role can be distressing. Judges have found that major mortgages servicers regularly mess up basic accounting, improperly credit payments and charge unwarranted fees. They’ve “not done a very good job of keeping the records,” said Judge Samuel Bufford of California.

Mortgage servicers — typically either bank subsidiaries or independent companies — handle the day-to-day work with homeowners, ranging from collecting monthly payments to determining when to modify or foreclose. Problems with servicing often, but not always, occur once homeowners start having trouble making payments.

Complaints to the government about mortgage servicers have soared in recent years. They’ve risen from 31 percent of the complaints that the Department of Housing and Urban Development received in 2006 to 78 percent in 2008, according to HUD spokesman Lemar Wooley.

Problems Exposed in Bankruptcies

Many homeowners in bankruptcy have legal representation and must settle claims with servicers. As a result, the process has revealed and documented a slew of servicer problems.

In many rulings, judges have shown frustration and even outrage. They’ve ruled that servicers have attempted to collect unjustified fees, charged homeowners for unnecessary insurance, failed to properly credit homeowners’ payments and failed to provide evidence to back up fee requests. In most cases, judges demand that servicers fix the problems and unwind the unjustified fees; sometimes, judges award damages and attorneys’ fees.  In one extraordinary case, a judge issued $750,000 in emotional and punitive damages. (We’ve compiled five sample cases and rulings for you to see here.)

The Moffits with their grandchildren.

Take the case of Donald and Phyllis Moffitt of Arkansas.  In June 2008, bankruptcy Judge Audrey Evans issued a restraining order against America’s Servicing Company, a division of Wells Fargo, saying it  must stop attempting to collect payments that the Moffitts did not owe.  In a 41-page ruling (PDF), the judge wrote:

“The evidence supports the premise that ASC’s servicing procedures, as exemplified by the Moffitts’ account, are not organized to assure accuracy and accountability. … ASC misapplied these payments, failed to record the correct information even though Mrs. Moffitt constantly called and talked to ASC’s agents, failed to follow her written instructions, failed to communicate with the Moffitts, sent mortgage statements that were incomprehensible and frightening, began collection calls, and engaged in a litany of mismanagement of the Moffitts’ loan.”

Wells Fargo did not respond to a call for comment.

A 2007 study looked at a majority of Chapter 13 bankruptcy filings in 2006 and found that in 70 percent of the cases studied, mortgage companies claimed homeowners owed an average of $6,309 more on their loans than homeowners believed.

Problems with servicing are not limited to families filing for bankruptcy, Katherine Porter, an author of the study and an associate professor at the University of Iowa’s law school, testified before Congress last year. She said servicers commonly foreclose when they do not have the legal right to do so, impose unwarranted or illegal fees, and miscalculate how much families owe.

In several instances, judges have taken broad action to address persistent problems with a servicer. This May, Judge Elizabeth Magner in Louisiana said her review of multiple cases involving Ocwen Loan Servicing had shown the servicer regularly acted in “bad faith.” The judge said Ocwen had charged improper fees and attempted to collect bankruptcy-related fees after the court closed a case. In one of the cases, Ocwen took 10 months to provide a full accounting of fees.

The judge wrote that Ocwen’s “systematic abuse” required more than monetary sanctions, which had not stopped the behavior in the past, so Magner issued an order (PDF) forcing Ocwen to follow specific accounting procedures.  (We’ve noted before that Ocwen’s servicing procedures have raised eyebrows in the past).  Ocwen’s general counsel, Paul Koches, said the company disagrees with the ruling and is pursuing an appeal in U.S. District Court.

Justice Department Takes Action

The Justice Department’s United States Trustee Program is a watchdog over the bankruptcy process. Its 21 regional offices oversee more than 1,300 private trustees who mediate between debtors and creditors in individual bankruptcy cases.

The Trustee Program’s annual report said combating servicer abuse (PDF) was a top priority last year. The program initiated 68 actions (PDF) against what it calls “systemic abuse” by mortgage servicers, including 25 large servicers such as Countrywide, HSBC and JPMorgan Chase, according to public documents (PDF) and speeches (PDF).  The Trustee Program has sued Countrywide in at least six states.

Countrywide, now owned by Bank of America, is the largest participant in the federal Making Home Affordable program to modify troubled mortgages. A recent analysis by the Associated Press found that at least 30 of the 38 mortgage companies that have signed up for the program have been sued over their servicing practices.

In response to one U.S. trustee’s suit in Ohio, Judge Marilyn Shea-Stonum ruled in May (PDF) that Countrywide had charged fees with “no factual basis” and wrote: “Countrywide’s system is reckless. It appears to me designed to allow each actor in the process to act with indifference to the truth, and to rely solely on the limited information made available at each step. … [The errors in this case] evidence Countrywide’s disregard for diligence and accuracy.”

The judge is currently determining monetary and other sanctions.  Countrywide spokeswoman Shirley Norton said, “We are reviewing the ruling and considering our options.”

Private trustees have sued servicers as well. Debra Miller, a private trustee in Indiana, has been active in litigation where servicers haven’t complied with federal regulations. Typically, she said, private trustees try to obtain settlements that are more about changing practices than monetary compensation.  “Our job is to force mortgage companies to improve their systems,” she said.

Both the Justice Department and private trustees have stepped in to fill what they see as a regulatory void covering mortgage servicers, according to Andrea Celli, a private trustee in upstate New York.

Future Oversight Under Debate

Currently, a hodgepodge of agencies oversees mortgage servicing. HUD, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve all have partial authority.

Concern over mortgage servicing was part of the early discussions about the proposed new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, according to Eric Stein, the Treasury Department’s deputy assistant secretary for consumer protection.  The CFPA, as proposed by the Obama administration, would be the primary watchdog for servicer abuses.

Servicers are resisting the new consumer agency. Paul Leonard, a lobbyist for the Financial Services Roundtable, said his organization’s members believe that there should be better coordination among regulators and that existing agencies can handle the responsibility.

Tara Twomey, a lecturer at Standford Law School who co-authored the large study of bankruptcy cases, says that more regulation would help, but it would only be a “Band-Aid.”  “The more fundamental problem is one of market structure,” she said. “Borrowers don’t get to choose their servicer.”

Aug
12

Memories of Mussolini and the New ‘Corporate State’ Obama is Building

I don’t think Barack Obama is a democrat or a liberal… I think the best statist one could compare him to is Mussolini – who was a fascist; and with closer inspection, I think it’s safe to say we have a Fascist in the White House. Read below and then tell me this doesn’t describe Obama almost to a tee…

From Wikipedia:
Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology and a corporatist economic ideology.

Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in conflict against the weak.

Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state.

Fascist governments forbid and suppress criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.

Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalist liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept.

Fascism is much defined by what it opposes, what scholars call the fascist negations – its opposition to individualism, rationalism, liberalism, conservatism and communism.  In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a “Third Way” in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state communism.

This was to be achieved by establishing significant government control over business and labour (Mussolini called his nation’s system “the corporate state”). No common and concise definition exists for fascism and historians and political scientists disagree on what should be in any concise definition.
[End Wikipedia Reference]

To read more about Benito Mussolini in a new window, click here.

I find the similarities between Mussolini and Obama equally intriguing and disturbing. The sooner that Americans who voted in all these fanatics including Obama can accept that it was just a bad choice and that they allowed hype and media coverage influence their decision over rational, critical thinking, the sooner we as a country will recover.

The major objective we need to be advancing towards is a radical shift of leadership in the next elections. It is painfully obvious that Congress is tone deaf and they no longer feel that their main duty is representing the people who voted for them.

The only thing we can do is vote them all out of office as soon as possible and Nobama in 2012. Most Republicans are not the answer either. We need to see an emergence of new leaders – the constiutionalist kind – men and women who value the principles that have helped this country become the world leader we once were.

Meanwhile, Obama and his band of buffoons will continue to grab as much power as they can get their miser hands on. Raise your voices and flood your congressional representative’s office with your sentiments and your expectations… no more government in our business! Stay out of our lives and stay out of the private sector damnit!

If you think I’m alone in this thinking OR you want some other opinions on this topic, see below:

The Proud Political Junkies Gazzette

The FreeRepublic.com

The Economic Trends Journal

The American Spectator

Aug
09

Entering the Greatest Depression in History

The near trillion in Porkulus Bailout Bills, the massive government intrusion into the private sectors and the non-stop spending coupled with no tax relief or any real stimulus for the small to medium-sized businesses across the US is literally breaking this country’s back – now. I predict that this recession is NOT over and we will head deeper…

The government is absolute in its intent to sell the American people on the pitch that we must spend our way out of this, bailout industries and generally stick their nose into every facet of our lives. Now they want to spend some circa 1.8 – 3.5 TRILLION on Health Care. And we’re supposed to believe that they can do this better and more profitable than the private industry can.

I always maintain that the truth is what you see in front of you, not the illusion you hear on TV and especially what you hear from the Obama Administration or the liberals on Capitol Hill.

What I see happening all over this country is businesses boarding up, more people looking for jobs, more people hoping that unemployment benefits get extended and more people working harder than they ever have before for way less than they’ve made since they entered the work force full-time.

Businesses are not getting their receivables paid by other businesses and the essence of Trickle-Down Economics ensues.

Obama’s Economic Policy is: Shove it Down Economics vs. Trickle Down

Enter the Greatest Depression in U.S. History…

Article by Andrew Gavin Marshall

Introduction

While there is much talk of a recovery on the horizon, commentators are forgetting some crucial aspects of the financial crisis. The crisis is not simply composed of one bubble, the housing real estate bubble, which has already burst. The crisis has many bubbles, all of which dwarf the housing bubble burst of 2008. Indicators show that the next possible burst is the commercial real estate bubble. However, the main event on the horizon is the “bailout bubble” and the general world debt bubble, which will plunge the world into a Great Depression the likes of which have never before been seen.

Housing Crash Still Not Over

The housing real estate market, despite numbers indicating an upward trend, is still in trouble, as, “Houses are taking months to sell. Many buyers are having trouble getting financing as lenders and appraisers struggle to figure out what houses are really worth in the wake of the collapse.” Further, “the overall market remains very soft [...] aside from speculators and first-time buyers.” Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington said, “It would be wrong to imagine that we have hit a turning point in the market,” as “There is still an enormous oversupply of housing, which means that the direction of house prices will almost certainly continue to be downward.” Foreclosures are still rising in many states “such as Nevada, Georgia and Utah, and economists say rising unemployment may push foreclosures higher into next year.” Clearly, the housing crisis is still not at an end.[1]

The Commercial Real Estate Bubble

In May, Bloomberg quoted Deutsche Bank CEO Josef Ackermann as saying, “It’s either the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning.” Bloomberg further pointed out that, “A piece of the puzzle that must be calculated into any determination of the depth of our economic doldrums is the condition of commercial real estate – the shopping malls, hotels, and office buildings that tend to go along with real-estate expansions.” Residential investment went down 28.9 % from 2006 to 2007, and at the same time, nonresidential investment grew 24.9%, thus, commercial real estate was “serving as a buffer against the declining housing market.”

Commercial real estate lags behind housing trends, and so too, will the crisis, as “commercial construction projects are losing their appeal.” Further, “there are lots of reasons to suspect that commercial real estate was subject to some of the loose lending practices that afflicted the residential market. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s Survey of Credit Underwriting Practices found that whereas in 2003 just 2 percent of banks were easing their underwriting standards on commercial construction loans, by 2006 almost a third of them were relaxing.” In May it was reported that, “Almost 80 percent of domestic banks are tightening their lending standards for commercial real-estate loans,” and that, “we may face double-bubble trouble for real estate and the economy.”[2]

In late July of 2009, it was reported that, “Commercial real estate’s decline is a significant issue facing the economy because it may result in more losses for the financial industry than residential real estate. This category includes apartment buildings, hotels, office towers, and shopping malls.” Worth noting is that, “As the economy has struggled, developers and landlords have had to rely on a helping hand from the US Federal Reserve in order to try to get credit flowing so that they can refinance existing buildings or even to complete partially constructed projects.” So again, the Fed is delaying the inevitable by providing more liquidity to an already inflated bubble. As the Financial Post pointed out, “From Vancouver to Manhattan, we are seeing rising office vacancies and declines in office rents.”[3]

In April of 2009, it was reported that, “Office vacancies in U.S. downtowns increased to 12.5 percent in the first quarter, the highest in three years, as companies cut jobs and new buildings came onto the market,” and, “Downtown office vacancies nationwide could come close to 15 percent by the end of this year, approaching the 10-year high of 15.5 percent in 2003.”[4]

In the same month it was reported that, “Strip malls, neighborhood centers and regional malls are losing stores at the fastest pace in at least a decade, as a spending slump forces retailers to trim down to stay afloat.” In the first quarter of 2009, retail tenants “have vacated 8.7 million square feet of commercial space,” which “exceeds the 8.6 million square feet of retail space that was vacated in all of 2008.” Further, as CNN reported, “vacancy rates at malls rose 9.5% in the first quarter, outpacing the 8.9% vacancy rate registered in all of 2008.” Of significance for those that think and claim the crisis will be over by 2010, “mall vacancies [are expected] to exceed historical levels through 2011,” as for retailers, “it’s only going to get worse.”[5] Two days after the previous report, “General Growth Properties Inc, the second-largest U.S. mall owner, declared bankruptcy on [April 16] in the biggest real estate failure in U.S. history.”[6]

In April, the Financial Times reported that, “Property prices in China are likely to halve over the next two years, a top government researcher has predicted in a powerful signal that the country’s economic downturn faces further challenges despite recent positive data.” This is of enormous significance, as “The property market, along with exports, were leading drivers of the booming Chinese economy over the past decade.” Further, “an apparent rebound in the property market was unsustainable over the medium term and being driven by a flood of liquidity and fraudulent activity rather than real demand.” A researcher at a leading Chinese government think tank reported that, “he expected average urban residential property prices to fall by 40 to 50 per cent over the next two years from their levels at the end of 2008.”[7]

In April, it was reported that, “The Federal Reserve is considering offering longer loans to investors in commercial mortgage-backed securities as part of a plan to help jump-start the market for commercial real estate debt.” Since February the Fed “has been analyzing appropriate terms and conditions for accepting commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) and other mortgage assets as collateral for its Term Asset-Backed Securities Lending Facility (TALF).”[8]

In late July, the Financial Times reported that, “Two of America’s biggest banks, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo … threw into sharp relief the mounting woes of the US commercial property market when they reported large losses and surging bad loan,” as “The disappointing second-quarter results for two of the largest lenders and investors in office, retail and industrial property across the US confirmed investors’ fears that commercial real estate would be the next front in the financial crisis after the collapse of the housing market.” The commercial property market, worth $6.7 trillion, “which accounts for more than 10 per cent of US gross domestic product, could be a significant hurdle on the road to recovery.”[9]

The Bailout Bubble

While the bailout, or the “stimulus package” as it is often referred to, is getting good coverage in terms of being portrayed as having revived the economy and is leading the way to the light at the end of the tunnel, key factors are again misrepresented in this situation.

At the end of March of 2009, Bloomberg reported that, “The U.S. government and the Federal Reserve have spent, lent or committed $12.8 trillion, an amount that approaches the value of everything produced in the country last year.” This amount “works out to $42,105 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. and 14 times the $899.8 billion of currency in circulation. The nation’s gross domestic product was $14.2 trillion in 2008.”[10]

Gerald Celente, the head of the Trends Research Institute, the major trend-forecasting agency in the world, wrote in May of 2009 of the “bailout bubble.” Celente’s forecasts are not to be taken lightly, as he accurately predicted the 1987 stock market crash, the fall of the Soviet Union, the 1998 Russian economic collapse, the 1997 East Asian economic crisis, the 2000 Dot-Com bubble burst, the 2001 recession, the start of a recession in 2007 and the housing market collapse of 2008, among other things.

On May 13, 2009, Celente released a Trend Alert, reporting that, “The biggest financial bubble in history is being inflated in plain sight,” and that, “This is the Mother of All Bubbles, and when it explodes [...] it will signal the end to the boom/bust cycle that has characterized economic activity throughout the developed world.” Further, “This is much bigger than the Dot-com and Real Estate bubbles which hit speculators, investors and financiers the hardest. However destructive the effects of these busts on employment, savings and productivity, the Free Market Capitalist framework was left intact. But when the ‘Bailout Bubble’ explodes, the system goes with it.”

Celente further explained that, “Phantom dollars, printed out of thin air, backed by nothing … and producing next to nothing … defines the ‘Bailout Bubble.’ Just as with the other bubbles, so too will this one burst. But unlike Dot-com and Real Estate, when the “Bailout Bubble” pops, neither the President nor the Federal Reserve will have the fiscal fixes or monetary policies available to inflate another.” Celente elaborated, “Given the pattern of governments to parlay egregious failures into mega-failures, the classic trend they follow, when all else fails, is to take their nation to war,” and that, “While we cannot pinpoint precisely when the ‘Bailout Bubble’ will burst, we are certain it will. When it does, it should be understood that a major war could follow.”[11]

However, this “bailout bubble” that Celente was referring to at the time was the $12.8 trillion reported by Bloomberg. As of July, estimates put this bubble at nearly double the previous estimate.

As the Financial Times reported in late July of 2009, while the Fed and Treasury hail the efforts and impact of the bailouts, “Neil Barofsky, special inspector-general for the troubled asset relief programme, [TARP] said that the various US schemes to shore up banks and restart lending exposed federal agencies to a risk of $23,700bn [$23.7 trillion] – a vast estimate that was immediately dismissed by the Treasury.” The inspector-general of the TARP program stated that there were “fundamental vulnerabilities . . . relating to conflicts of interest and collusion, transparency, performance measures, and anti-money laundering.”

Barofsky also reports on the “considerable stress” in commercial real estate, as “The Fed has begun to open up Talf to commercial mortgage-backed securities to try to influence credit conditions in the commercial real estate market. The report draws attention to a new potential credit crunch when $500bn worth of real estate mortgages need to be refinanced by the end of the year.” Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Fed, and Timothy Geithner, the Treasury Secretary and former President of the New York Fed, are seriously discussing extending TALF (Term Asset-Backed Securities Lending Facility) into “CMBS [Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities] and other assets such as small business loans and whether to increase the size of the programme.” It is the “expansion of the various programmes into new and riskier asset classes is one of the main bones of contention between the Treasury and Mr Barofsky.”[12]

Testifying before Congress, Barofsky said, “From programs involving large capital infusions into hundreds of banks and other financial institutions, to a mortgage modification program designed to modify millions of mortgages, to public-private partnerships using tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to purchase ‘toxic’ assets from banks, TARP has evolved into a program of unprecedented scope, scale, and complexity.” He explained that, “The total potential federal government support could reach up to 23.7 trillion dollars.”[13]

Is a Future Bailout Possible?

In early July of 2009, billionaire investor Warren Buffet said that, “unemployment could hit 11 percent and a second stimulus package might be needed as the economy struggles to recover from recession,” and he further stated that, “we’re not in a recovery.”[14] Also in early July, an economic adviser to President Obama stated that, “The United States should be planning for a possible second round of fiscal stimulus to further prop up the economy.”[15]

In August of 2009, it was reported that, “THE Obama administration will consider dishing out more money to rein in unemployment despite signs the recession is ending,” and that, “Treasury secretary Tim Geithner also conceded tax hikes could be on the agenda as the government worked to bring its huge recovery-related deficits under control.” Geithner said, “we will do what it takes,” and that, “more federal cash could be tipped into the recovery as unemployment benefits amid projections the benefits extended to 1.5 million jobless Americans will expire without Congress’ intervention.” However, any future injection of money could be viewed as “a second stimulus package.”[16]

The Washington Post reported in early July of a Treasury Department initiative known as “Plan C.” The Plan C team was assembled “to examine what could yet bring [the economy] down and has identified several trouble spots that could threaten the still-fragile lending industry,” and “the internal project is focused on vexing problems such as the distressed commercial real estate markets, the high rate of delinquencies among homeowners, and the struggles of community and regional banks.”

Further, “The team is also responsible for considering potential government responses, but top officials within the Obama administration are wary of rolling out initiatives that would commit massive amounts of federal resources.” The article elaborated in saying that, “The creation of Plan C is a sign that the government has moved into a new phase of its response, acting preemptively rather than reacting to emerging crises.” In particular, the near-term challenge they are facing is commercial real estate lending, as “Banks and other firms that provided such loans in the past have sharply curtailed lending,” leaving “many developers and construction companies out in the cold.” Within the next couple years, “these groups face a tidal wave of commercial real estate debt – some estimates peg the total at more than $3 trillion – that they will need to refinance. These loans were issued during this decade’s construction boom with the mistaken expectation that they would be refinanced on the same generous terms after a few years.”

However, as a result of the credit crisis, “few developers can find anyone to refinance their debt, endangering healthy and distressed properties.” Kim Diamond, a managing director at Standard & Poor’s, stated that, “It’s not a degree to which people are willing to lend,” but rather, “The question is whether a loan can be made at all.” Important to note is that, “Financial analysts said losses on commercial real estate loans are now the single largest cause of bank failures,” and that none of the bailout efforts enacted “is big enough to address the size of the problem.”[17]

So the question must be asked: what is Plan C contemplating in terms of a possible government “solution”? Another bailout? The effect that this would have would be to further inflate the already monumental bailout bubble.

The Great European Bubble

In October of 2008, Germany and France led a European Union bailout of 1 trillion Euros, and “World markets initially soared as European governments pumped billions into crippled banks. Central banks in Europe also mounted a new offensive to restart lending by supplying unlimited amounts of dollars to commercial banks in a joint operation.”[18]

The American bailouts even went to European banks, as it was reported in March of 2009 that, “European banks declined to discuss a report that they were beneficiaries of the $173 billion bail-out of insurer AIG,” as “Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and a host of other U.S. and European banks had been paid roughly $50 billion since the Federal Reserve first extended aid to AIG.” Among the European banks, “French banks Societe Generale and Calyon on Sunday declined to comment on the story, as did Deutsche Bank, Britain’s Barclays and unlisted Dutch group Rabobank.” Other banks that got money from the US bailout include HSBC, Wachovia, Merrill Lynch, Banco Santander and Royal Bank of Scotland. Because AIG was essentially insolvent, “the bailout enabled AIG to pay its counterparty banks for extra collateral,” with “Goldman Sachs and Deutsche bank each receiving $6 billion in payments between mid-September and December.”[19]

In April of 2009, it was reported that, “EU governments have committed 3 trillion Euros [or $4 trillion dollars] to bail out banks with guarantees or cash injections in the wake of the global financial crisis, the European Commission.”[20]

In early February of 2009, the Telegraph published a story with a startling headline, “European banks may need 16.3 trillion pound bail-out, EC document warns.” Type this headline into google, and the link to the Telegraph appears. However, click on the link, and the title has changed to “European bank bail-out could push EU into crisis.” Further, they removed any mention of the amount of money that may be required for a bank bailout. The amount in dollars, however, nears $25 trillion. The amount is the cumulative total of the troubled assets on bank balance sheets, a staggering number derived from the derivatives trade.

The Telegraph reported that, “National leaders and EU officials share fears that a second bank bail-out in Europe will raise government borrowing at a time when investors – particularly those who lend money to European governments – have growing doubts over the ability of countries such as Spain, Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Britain to pay it back.”[21]

When Eastern European countries were in desperate need of financial aid, and discussion was heated on the possibility of an EU bailout of Eastern Europe, the EU, at the behest of Angela Merkel of Germany, denied the East European bailout. However, this was more a public relations stunt than an actual policy position.

While the EU refused money to Eastern Europe in the form of a bailout, in late March European leaders “doubled the emergency funding for the fragile economies of central and eastern Europe and pledged to deliver another doubling of International Monetary Fund lending facilities by putting up 75bn Euros (70bn pounds).” EU leaders “agreed to increase funding for balance of payments support available for mainly eastern European member states from 25bn Euros to 50bn Euros.”[22]

As explained in a Times article in June of 2009, Germany has been deceitful in its public stance versus its actual policy decisions. The article, worth quoting in large part, first explained that:

Europe is now in the middle of a perfect storm – a confluence of three separate, but interconnected economic crises which threaten far greater devastation than Britain or America have suffered from the credit crunch: the collapse of German industry and employment, the impending bankruptcy of Central European homeowners and businesses; and the threat of government debt defaults from loss of monetary control by the Irish Republic, Greece and Portugal, for instance on the eurozone periphery.

Taking the case of Latvia, the author asks, “If the crisis expands, other EU governments – and especially Germany’s – will face an existential question. Do they commit hundreds of billions of euros to guarantee the debts of fellow EU countries? Or do they allow government defaults and devaluations that may ultimately break up the single currency and further cripple German industry, as well as the country’s domestic banks?” While addressing that, “Publicly, German politicians have insisted that any bailouts or guarantees are out of the question,” however, “the pass has been quietly sold in Brussels, while politicians loudly protested their unshakeable commitment to defend it.”

The author addressed how in October of 2008:

[...] a previously unused regulation was discovered, allowing the creation of a 25 billion Euros “balance of payments facility” and authorising the EU to borrow substantial sums under its own “legal personality” for the first time. This facility was doubled again to 50 billion Euros in March. If Latvia’s financial problems turn into a full-scale crisis, these guarantees and cross-subsidies between EU governments will increase to hundreds of billions in the months ahead and will certainly mutate into large-scale centralised EU borrowing, jointly guaranteed by all the taxpayers of the EU.

[...] The new EU borrowing, for example, is legally an ‘off-budget’ and ‘back-to-back’ arrangement, which allows Germany to maintain the legal fiction that it is not guaranteeing the debts of Latvia et al. The EU’s bond prospectus to investors, however, makes quite clear where the financial burden truly lies: “From an investor’s point of view the bond is fully guaranteed by the EU budget and, ultimately, by the EU Member States.”[23]

So Eastern Europe is getting, or presumably will get bailed out. Whether this is in the form of EU federalism, providing loans of its own accord, paid for by European taxpayers, or through the IMF, which will attach any loans with its stringent Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) conditionalities, or both. It turned out that the joint partnership of the IMF and EU is what provided the loans and continues to provide such loans.

As the Financial Times pointed out in August of 2009, “Bank failures or plunging currencies in the three Baltic nations – Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia – could threaten the fragile prospect of recovery in the rest of Europe. These countries also sit on one of the world’s most sensitive political fault-lines. They are the European Union’s frontier states, bordering Russia.” In July, Latvia “agreed its second loan in eight months from the IMF and the EU,” following the first one in December. Lithuania is reported to be following suit. However, as the Financial Times noted, the loans came with the IMF conditionalities: “The injection of cash is the good news. The bad news is that, in return for shoring up state finances, the new IMF deal will require the Latvian government to impose yet more pain on its suffering population. Public-sector wages have already been cut by about a third this year. Pensions have been sliced. Now the IMF requires Latvia to cut another 10 per cent from the state budget this autumn.”[24]

If we are to believe the brief Telegraph report pertaining to nearly $25 trillion in bad bank assets, which was removed from the original article for undisclosed reasons, not citing a factual retraction, the question is, does this potential bailout still stand? These banks haven’t been rescued financially from the EU, so, presumably, these bad assets are still sitting on the bank balance sheets. This bubble has yet to blow. Combine this with the $23.7 trillion US bailout bubble, and there is nearly $50 trillion between the EU and the US waiting to burst.

An Oil Bubble

In early July of 2009, the New York Times reported that, “The extreme volatility that has gripped oil markets for the last 18 months has shown no signs of slowing down, with oil prices more than doubling since the beginning of the year despite an exceptionally weak economy.” Instability in the oil and gas prices has led many to “fear it could jeopardize a global recovery.” Further, “It is also hobbling businesses and consumers,” as “A wild run on the oil markets has occurred in the last 12 months.” Oil prices reached a record high last summer at $145/barrel, and with the economic crisis they fell to $33/barrel in December. However, since the start of 2009, oil has risen 55% to $70/barrel.

As the Times article points out, “the recent rise in oil prices is reprising the debate from last year over the role of investors – or speculators – in the commodity markets.” Energy officials from the EU and OPEC met in June and concluded that, “the speculation issue had not been resolved yet and that the 2008 bubble could be repeated.”[25]

In June of 2009, Hedge Fund manager Michael Masters told the US Senate that, “Congress has not done enough to curb excessive speculation in the oil markets, leaving the country vulnerable to another price run-up in 2009.” He explained that, “oil prices are largely not determined by supply and demand but the trading desks of large Wall Street firms.” Because “Nothing was actually done by Congress to put an end to the problem of excessive speculation” in 2008, Masters explained, “there is nothing to prevent another bubble in oil prices in 2009. In fact, signs of another possible bubble are already beginning to appear.”[26]

In May of 2008, Goldman Sachs warned that oil could reach as much as $200/barrel within the next 12-24 months [up to May 2010]. Interestingly, “Goldman Sachs is one of the largest Wall Street investment banks trading oil and it could profit from an increase in prices.”[27] However, this is missing the key point. Not only would Goldman Sachs profit, but Goldman Sachs plays a major role in sending oil prices up in the first place.

As Ed Wallace pointed out in an article in Business Week in May of 2008, Goldman Sachs’ report placed the blame for such price hikes on “soaring demand” from China and the Middle East, combined with the contention that the Middle East has or would soon peak in its oil reserves. Wallace pointed out that:

Goldman Sachs was one of the founding partners of online commodities and futures marketplace Intercontinental Exchange (ICE). And ICE has been a primary focus of recent congressional investigations; it was named both in the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations’ June 27, 2006, Staff Report and in the House Committee on Energy & Commerce’s hearing last December. Those investigations looked into the unregulated trading in energy futures, and both concluded that energy prices’ climb to stratospheric heights has been driven by the billions of dollars’ worth of oil and natural gas futures contracts being placed on the ICE – which is not regulated by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission.[28]

Essentially, Goldman Sachs is one of the key speculators in the oil market, and thus, plays a major role in driving oil prices up on speculation. This must be reconsidered in light of the resurgent rise in oil prices in 2009. In July of 2009, “Goldman Sachs Group Inc. posted record earnings as revenue from trading and stock underwriting reached all-time highs less than a year after the firm took $10 billion in U.S. rescue funds.”[29] Could one be related to the other?

Bailouts Used in Speculation

In November of 2008, the Chinese government injected an “$849 billion stimulus package aimed at keeping the emerging economic superpower growing.”[30] China then recorded a rebound in the growth rate of the economy, and underwent a stock market boom. However, as the Wall Street Journal pointed out in July of 2009, “Its growth is now fuelled by cheap debt rather than corporate profits and retained earnings, and this shift in the medium term threatens to undermine China’s economic decoupling from the global slump.” Further, “overseas money has been piling into China, inflating foreign exchange reserves and domestic liquidity. So perhaps it is not surprising that outstanding bank loans have doubled in the last few years, or that there is much talk of a shadow banking system. Then there is China’s reputation for building overcapacity in its industrial sector, a notoriety it won even before the crash in global demand. This showed a disregard for returns that is always a tell-tale sign of cheap money.”

China’s economy primarily relies upon the United States as a consumption market for its cheap products. However, “The slowdown in U.S. consumption amid a credit crunch has exposed the weaknesses in this export-led financing model. So now China is turning instead to cheap debt for funding, a shift suggested by this year’s 35% or so rise in bank loans.”[31]

In August of 2009, it was reported that China is experiencing a “stimulus-fueled stock market boom.” However, this has caused many leaders to “worry that too much of the $1-trillion lending binge by state banks that paid for China’s nascent revival was diverted into stocks and real estate, raising the danger of a boom and bust cycle and higher inflation less than two years after an earlier stock market bubble burst.”[32]

The same reasoning needs to be applied to the US stock market surge. Something is inherently and structurally wrong with a financial system in which nothing is being produced, 600,000 jobs are lost monthly, and yet, the stock market goes up. Why is the stock market going up?

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which provided $700 billion in bank bailouts, started under Bush and expanded under Obama, entails that the US Treasury purchases $700 billion worth of “troubled assets” from banks, and in turn, “that banks cannot be asked to account for their use of taxpayer money.”[33]

So if banks don’t have to account for where the money goes, where did it go? They claim it went back into lending. However, bank lending continues to go down.[34] Stock market speculation is the likely answer. Why else would stocks go up, lending continue downwards, and the bailout money be unaccounted for?

What Does the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Have to Say?

In late June, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the central bank of the world’s central banks, the most prestigious and powerful financial organization in the world, delivered an important warning. It stated that, “fiscal stimulus packages may provide no more than a temporary boost to growth, and be followed by an extended period of economic stagnation.”

The BIS, “The only international body to correctly predict the financial crisis … has warned the biggest risk is that governments might be forced by world bond investors to abandon their stimulus packages, and instead slash spending while lifting taxes and interest rates,” as the annual report of the BIS “has for the past three years been warning of the dangers of a repeat of the depression.” Further, “Its latest annual report warned that countries such as Australia faced the possibility of a run on the currency, which would force interest rates to rise.” The BIS warned that, “a temporary respite may make it more difficult for authorities to take the actions that are necessary, if unpopular, to restore the health of the financial system, and may thus ultimately prolong the period of slow growth.”

Of immense import is the BIS warning that, “At the same time, government guarantees and asset insurance have exposed taxpayers to potentially large losses,” and explaining how fiscal packages posed significant risks, it said that, “There is a danger that fiscal policy-makers will exhaust their debt capacity before finishing the costly job of repairing the financial system,” and that, “There is the definite possibility that stimulus programs will drive up real interest rates and inflation expectations.” Inflation “would intensify as the downturn abated,” and the BIS “expressed doubt about the bank rescue package adopted in the US.”[35]

The BIS further warned of inflation, saying that, “The big and justifiable worry is that, before it can be reversed, the dramatic easing in monetary policy will translate into growth in the broader monetary and credit aggregates,” the BIS said. That will “lead to inflation that feeds inflation expectations or it may fuel yet another asset-price bubble, sowing the seeds of the next financial boom-bust cycle.”[36]

Major investors have also been warning about the dangers of inflation. Legendary investor Jim Rogers has warned of “a massive inflation holocaust.”[37] Investor Marc Faber has warned that, “The U.S. economy will enter ‘hyperinflation’ approaching the levels in Zimbabwe,” and he stated that he is “100 percent sure that the U.S. will go into hyperinflation.” Further, “The problem with government debt growing so much is that when the time will come and the Fed should increase interest rates, they will be very reluctant to do so and so inflation will start to accelerate.”[38]

Are We Entering A New Great Depression?

In 2007, it was reported that, “The Bank for International Settlements, the world’s most prestigious financial body, has warned that years of loose monetary policy has fuelled a dangerous credit bubble, leaving the global economy more vulnerable to another 1930s-style slump than generally understood.” Further:

The BIS, the ultimate bank of central bankers, pointed to a confluence a worrying signs, citing mass issuance of new-fangled credit instruments, soaring levels of household debt, extreme appetite for risk shown by investors, and entrenched imbalances in the world currency system.

[...] In a thinly-veiled rebuke to the US Federal Reserve, the BIS said central banks were starting to doubt the wisdom of letting asset bubbles build up on the assumption that they could safely be “cleaned up” afterwards – which was more or less the strategy pursued by former Fed chief Alan Greenspan after the dotcom bust.[39]

In 2008, the BIS again warned of the potential of another Great Depression, as “complex credit instruments, a strong appetite for risk, rising levels of household debt and long-term imbalances in the world currency system, all form part of the loose monetarist policy that could result in another Great Depression.”[40]

In 2008, the BIS also said that, “The current market turmoil is without precedent in the postwar period. With a significant risk of recession in the US, compounded by sharply rising inflation in many countries, fears are building that the global economy might be at some kind of tipping point,” and that all central banks have done “has been to put off the day of reckoning.”[41]

In late June of 2009, the BIS reported that as a result of stimulus packages, it has only seen “limited progress” and that, “the prospects for growth are at risk,” and further “stimulus measures won’t be able to gain traction, and may only lead to a temporary pickup in growth.” Ultimately, “A fleeting recovery could well make matters worse.”[42]

The BIS has said, in softened language, that the stimulus packages are ultimately going to cause more damage than they prevented, simply delaying the inevitable and making the inevitable that much worse. Given the previous BIS warnings of a Great Depression, the stimulus packages around the world have simply delayed the coming depression, and by adding significant numbers to the massive debt bubbles of the world’s nations, will ultimately make the depression worse than had governments not injected massive amounts of money into the economy.

After the last Great Depression, Keynesian economists emerged victorious in proposing that a nation must spend its way out of crisis. This time around, they will be proven wrong. The world is a very different place now. Loose credit, easy spending and massive debt is what has led the world to the current economic crisis, spending is not the way out. The world has been functioning on a debt based global economy. This debt based monetary system, controlled and operated by the global central banking system, of which the apex is the Bank for International Settlements, is unsustainable. This is the real bubble, the debt bubble. When it bursts, and it will burst, the world will enter into the Greatest Depression in world history.

Notes

[1] Barrie McKenna, End of housing slump? Try telling that to buyers, sellers and the unemployed. The Globe and Mail: August 6, 2009:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/end-of-housing-slump-try-telling-that-to-buyers-sellers-and-the-unemployed/article1240418/

[2] Gene Sperling, Double-Bubble Trouble in Commercial Real Estate: Gene Sperling. Bloomberg: May 9, 2009:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=a.X91SkgOd8g

[3] AL Sull, Commercial Real Estate – The Other Real Estate Bubble. Financial Post: July 23, 2009:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpmagazinedaily/archive/2009/07/23/commercial-real-estate-the-other-real-estate-bubble.aspx

[4] Hui-yong Yu, U.S. Office Vacancies Rise to Three-Year High, Cushman Says. Bloomberg: April 16, 2009:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aegH6dXG8H8U

[5] Parija B. Kavilanz, Malls shedding stores at record pace. CNN Money: April 14, 2009:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/10/news/economy/retail_malls/index.htm

[6] Ilaina Jonas and Emily Chasan, General Growth files largest U.S. real estate bankruptcy. Reuters: April 16, 2009:
http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSTRE53F68P20090417

[7] Jamil Anderlini, China property prices ‘likely to halve’. The Financial Times: April 13, 2009:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9a36b342-280e-11de-8dbf-00144feabdc0.html

[8] Reuters, Fed Might Extend TALF Support to Five Years. Money News: April 17, 2009:
http://moneynews.newsmax.com/financenews/talf/2009/04/17/204120.html?utm_medium=RSS

[9] Francesco Guerrera and Greg Farrell, US banks warn on commercial property. The Financial Times: July 22, 2009:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3a1e9d86-76eb-11de-b23c-00144feabdc0.html

[10] Mark Pittman and Bob Ivry, Financial Rescue Nears GDP as Pledges Top $12.8 Trillion. Bloomberg: March 31, 2009:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=armOzfkwtCA4

[11] Gerald Celente, The “Bailout Bubble” – The Bubble to End All Bubbles. Trends Research Institute: May 13, 2009:
http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/2009/05/gerald-celente-bubble-to-end-all.html

[12] Tom Braithwaite, Treasury clashes with Tarp watchdog on data. The Financial Times: July 20, 2009:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ab533a38-757a-11de-9ed5-00144feabdc0.html

[13] AFP, US could spend 23.7 trillion dollars on crisis: report. Agence-France Presse: July 20, 2009:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iuL1HParBuO4WyHJIxw6rlOKdz-A

[14] John Whitesides, Warren Buffett says second stimulus might be needed. Reuters: July 9, 2009:
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressReleasesMolt/idUSTRE5683MZ20090709

[15] Vidya Ranganathan, U.S. should plan 2nd fiscal stimulus: economic adviser. Reuters: July 7, 2009:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE56611D20090707

[16] Carly Crawford, US may increase stimulus payments to rein in unemployment. The Herald Sun: August 3, 2009:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25873672-664,00.html

[17] David Cho and Binyamin Appelbaum, Treasury Works on ‘Plan C’ To Fend Off Lingering Threats. The Washington Post: July 8, 2009:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/07/AR2009070702631.html?hpid=topnews

[18] Charles Bremner and David Charter, Germany and France lead €1 trillion European bailout. Times Online: October 13, 2009:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article4937516.ece

[19] Douwe Miedema, Europe banks silent on reported AIG bailout gains. Reuters: March 8, 2009:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE5270YD20090308

[20] Elitsa Vucheva, European Bank Bailout Total: $4 Trillion. Business Week: April 10, 2009:
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/apr2009/gb20090410_254738.htm?chan=globalbiz_europe+index+page_top+stories

[21] Bruno Waterfield, European bank bail-out could push EU into crisis. The Telegraph: February 11, 2009:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/4590512/European-banks-may-need-16.3-trillion-bail-out-EC-dcoument-warns.html

[22] Ian Traynor, EU doubles funding for fragile eastern European economies. The Guardian: March 20, 2009:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/20/eu-imf-emergency-funding

[23] Anatole Kaletsky, The great bailout – Europe’s best-kept secret. The Times Online: June 4, 2009:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article6426565.ece

[24] Gideon Rachman, Europe prepares for a Baltic blast. The Financial Times: August 3, 2009:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b497f5b6-8060-11de-bf04-00144feabdc0.html

[25] JAD MOUAWAD, Swings in Price of Oil Hobble Forecasting. The New York Times: July 5, 2009:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/06oil.html

[26] Christopher Doering, Masters says signs of oil bubble starting to appear. Reuters: June 4, 2009:
http://www.reuters.com/article/Inspiration/idUSTRE55355620090604

[27] Javier Blas and Chris Flood, Analyst warns of oil at $200 a barrel. The Financial Times: May 6, 2008:
http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto050620081414392593

[28] Ed Wallace, The Reason for High Oil Prices. Business Week: May 13, 2009:
http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/may2008/bw20080513_720178.htm

[29] Christine Harper, Goldman Sachs Posts Record Profit, Beating Estimates. Bloomberg: July 14, 2009:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a2jo3RK2_Aps

[30] Peter Martin and John Garnaut, The great China bailout. The Age: November 11, 2008:
http://business.theage.com.au/business/the-great-china-bailout-20081110-5lpe.html

[31] Paul Cavey, Now China Has a Credit Boom. The Wall Street Journal: July 30, 2009:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574319261337617196.html

[32] Joe McDonald, China’s stimulus-fueled stock boom alarms Beijing. The Globe and Mail: August 2, 2009:
http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090802.wchina02/GIStory/

[33] Matt Jaffe, Watchdog Refutes Treasury Claim Banks Cannot Be Asked to Account for Bailout Cash. ABC News: July 19, 2009:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Politics/story?id=8121045&page=1

[34] The China Post, Bank lending slows down in U.S.: report. The China Post: July 28, 2009:
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/business/americas/2009/07/28/218141/Bank-lending.htm

[35] David Uren. Bank for International Settlements warning over stimulus benefits. The Australian: June 30, 2009:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25710566-601,00.html

[36] Simone Meier, BIS Sees Risk Central Banks Will Raise Interest Rates Too Late. Bloomberg: June 29, 2009:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=aOnSy9jXFKaY

[37] CNBC.com, We Are Facing an ‘Inflation Holocaust’: Jim Rogers. CNBC: October 10, 2008:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/27097823

[38] Chen Shiyin and Bernard Lo, U.S. Inflation to Approach Zimbabwe Level, Faber Says. Bloomberg: May 27, 2009:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=avgZDYM6mTFA

[39] Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, BIS warns of Great Depression dangers from credit spree. The Telegraph: June 27, 2009:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/2811081/BIS-warns-of-Great-Depression-dangers-from-credit-spree.html

[40] Gill Montia, Central bank body warns of Great Depression. Banking Times: June 9, 2008:
http://www.bankingtimes.co.uk/09062008-central-bank-body-warns-of-great-depression/

[41] Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, BIS slams central banks, warns of worse crunch to come. The Telegraph: June 30, 2008:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/2792450/BIS-slams-central-banks-warns-of-worse-crunch-to-come.html

[42] HEATHER SCOFFIELD, Financial repairs must continue: central banks. The Globe and Mail: June 29, 2009:
http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090629.wcentralbanks0629/BNStory/HEATHER+SCOFFIELD/

This originally appeared on Global Research.

Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is currently studying Political Economy and History at Simon Fraser University.

Aug
08

Loan Servicer Tactics… Foreclose don’t modify; lie, deceive, whatever it takes

As a citizen, please start asking tougher questions and demanding truthful answers of your elected officials. We MUST hold these men and women accountable to representing ‘we the people’ instead of their lobby pals.

Whatever you hear from the Administration or any of the large institutions via the drive-by media you can assume that it’s a lie or many shades of gray with dash or two of spin. Why? Well, of course, the truth is not going to get votes for politicians or more investors and account holders for any of these characters who operate in the shadows of financial institution corporate offices across America.

Let me give you a dose of truth serum in case you’re tempted to believe the drive by media reports on the foreclosures and the Making Home Affordable plan we’ve been told is going to rescue our economy and the housing market and the millions of families jobless and now facing foreclosure. You ready?

Here it is: the loan servicers don’t care about anything but money and the modus operandi is clear… foreclose as fast as possible on everyone in a mortgage hardship. Just modify enough loans to make everyone think we’re really on board with this. Make excuses for everything else. Lie to media about what’s really going on because mostly everyone believes what they hear anyway.

A deeper look into the numbers and statistics will leave you scratching your head though – and asking yourself the question, “but why?”

According to an article by Gretchen Morgenson from the New York Times, “Alan M. White, an assistant professor at the Valparaiso University law school in Indiana, analyzed data on 3.5 million subprime and alt-A mortgages in securitization pools overseen by Wells Fargo. The loans were written in 2005 through 2007; data on their performance is provided to the trusts’ investors. Mortgages handled by five of the nation’s largest loan servicing companies — Bank of America, Chase Home Finance and Litton Loan Servicing among them — are contained in the Wells Fargo data.

Mr. White found that mortgage modifications peaked in February and have declined in all but one month since. While servicers modified 23,749 loans in these trusts in February, they changed only 19,041 in May and 18,179 in June. This is exactly when servicers were supposed to be responding to the government’s loan modification urgings.

Foreclosures, meanwhile, keep rising. In June, 281,560 were in process, slightly above the 277,847 in May. Last January, there were about 242,000 foreclosures in the pipeline among the Wells Fargo trusts.”

Well, isn’t that interesting. You see, the numbers simply don’t lie. They tell the truth and expose the raw data of what is really happening. The report continues, “the most fascinating, and frightening, figures in the data detail how much money is lost when foreclosed homes are sold. In June, the data show almost 32,000 liquidation sales; the average loss on those was 64.7 percent of the original loan balance.”

Did you catch that? The AVERAGE loss on a house that a servicers takes to foreclosure sale is a whopping 64.7% of the original loan balance!!!! The average loan amount was $223,000. But in the liquidation sale, the property sold for $144,000 less, or a $79,000 sales price on average.

So any logical person goes, “why? Why would a servicer foreclose on the home instead of providing a loan modification for a homeowner who wants to pay but just needs a reduction in that payment?” I know I can’t be the only one who’s wondered that…

If you want to find the answer you just gotta follow the money… it’s that simple. And the answer does not shed any more favorable light on these servicers – who, by the way, are just subsidiaries of the main financial institutions. Example: Citimortgage is the servicer. They are owned by Citigroup. America’s Servicing Company is the servicer. They are owned by Wells Fargo.

So back to following the money. First, the pooling and servicing agreements governing these trusts, servicers and trustees usually contain “default servicing provisions” which provide the servicer which much higher fees when the loan goes into default. Then the servicer also gets all sorts of other fees reimbursed to them upon a liquidation sale such as BPO fees, inspection fees, legal fees, etc. These fees may get paid to the servicer right away but may not be reimbursed until the sale goes through. But, here’s the BIG reason…

Very often, if not most of the times, these servicers were paid in full for all these loans when they acted as the sponsor and sold the Notes (assets) to these trusts. The trust investors put up a lump sum amount to the servicer and the servicer agreed to collect the monies, manage the escrow accounts and in turn, made a guarantee of cash flow payments to the trust each month. The trust investors are most worried about one thing… their monthly payment on the cash flow. If they keep getting their monthly cash payment, do you think they’re going to be screaming bloody murder? Probably not. As long as the check keeps coming, I got no qualms. Stop the checks and I’m going to be gettin’ all in your business. Think about it… haven’t you noticed a peculiar lack of lawsuits being filed by MBS trust investors or the trusts themselves? One would think the federal courts would be littered with lawsuits by these trusts against all the institutions in the securitization chain for all sorts of allegations regarding the massive losses you’d think they’re realizing due to the defaults.

So, to keep the investors out of their “business” the servicer has to figure out a way to keep those cash flow payments going. Well, let’s say I’m servicing a pool of 1000 loans and the monthly cash flow on that pool is $1 million (or $1000 per loan average). But my default rate starts rising and now 10% of these loans are not paying. Well, that’s $100,000 per month less that I’m getting as the servicer. Shoot, how do I keep making the payment of $1 million per month if I’m only receiving $900,000?

Oh, I got it! If I can foreclose on a couple homes in default, take a 64.7% loss on it but I still get $79,000 in one lump sum from each home I liquidate, I can keep making that cash payment to the trust. All I need to do is liquidate about 1.2 homes per month on average, and, even though I take a huge loss on these homes, I can keep making that cash flow payment to the trust, keep my investors happy and better yet, keep them out of my business and away from asking all sorts of questions I really don’t want to answer. Note: this game can only carry on for so long. At some point the pied piper is going to pipe…

This my best stab at a simplified answer to “why” these servicers are ignoring the Making Home Affordable program and foreclosing as fast as they possibly can. Nothing else makes sense to me. If you have any other input, I’d love to hear about in the forum on this topic.

The kicker here is that these servicers don’t have legal standing to foreclose. They don’t own the Note in 80%+ of the cases – and that number is probably higher than 90% of the time. So they unlawfully seize a family’s home, sell it even though they don’t own it and in the process they also violate the servicing agreements they are governed by. These agreements mandate that the servicer act in a fiduciary manner with respect to the interests of the investors. I can tell you unequivocally that taking an average 64.7% loss on a trust asset is worse for the trust versus modifying the loan at a higher amount (still with principal reduction for the borrower) and recapturing the interest. There is NO WAY the current servicer model of foreclose and liquidate passes the NPV test for these trust assets – at least as far as I can see.

For reference and further context, here is the article written by Gretchen Morgenson at the New York Times.

So Many Foreclosures, So Little Logic

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON

LAST week, the stock market tumbled on news that housing foreclosures and delinquencies rose again in the first quarter. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency said that among the 34 million loans it tracks, foreclosures in progress rose 22 percent, to 844,389. That figure was 73 percent higher than in the same period last year.

But the comptroller’s office also said that amid the gloom, there was promising data about loan modifications: they rose 55 percent in the quarter. That growth came on a very low base, of course, but the move encouraged John C. Dugan, head of the comptroller’s office.

“As the administration’s ‘Making Home Affordable’ program gains traction and helps offset the impact of this very difficult economic cycle,” he said in a statement, “we should continue to see progress in future reports.”

A glimpse of second-quarter mortgage data, however, indicates that the progress Mr. Dugan and his colleagues in Washington are hoping for may take longer to emerge — raising questions about whether policymakers and banks are moving quickly or intelligently enough on the foreclosure problem.

Foreclosures remain one of the great financial ills for the economy. The Bush administration largely overlooked foreclosures affecting average homeowners, focusing instead on propping up elite, troubled financial institutions with taxpayer funds. The Obama administration has said it wants to wrestle the foreclosure issue to the ground by encouraging mortgage loan modifications, but its efforts have gotten little traction.

Loan modifications occur when a lender agrees to change terms of a troubled borrower’s mortgage; the most common approach is to reduce the loan’s interest rate. Cutting the amount of principal owed — an option that could be of more help to a borrower — is rare because it means homeowners pay less money back to the bank over time.

Lenders and their representatives, however, don’t like to modify loans through interest rate cuts or principal reductions because, of course, it reduces the income they receive from borrowers. No surprise, then, that loan modifications have been a trickle amid the recent foreclosure flood.

Enter the government, with the program it announced in March to encourage modifications. It offers incentives to loan servicers to change mortgage terms, providing $1,000 for each loan they modify. The program focuses on making payments more affordable through lower interest rates, but delinquent amounts and late fees are typically tacked onto the mortgage balance. “Making Home Affordable” does not compel lenders to reduce mortgage balances.

Servicers signed on to the program in April. The program’s early months were not covered by the O.C.C.’s first-quarter report. But other figures on modifications conducted in April, May and June are available. And they show a decline in modifications, not an increase as the government hoped.

Alan M. White, an assistant professor at the Valparaiso University law school in Indiana, analyzed data on 3.5 million subprime and alt-A mortgages in securitization pools overseen by Wells Fargo. The loans were written in 2005 through 2007; data on their performance is provided to the trusts’ investors. Mortgages handled by five of the nation’s largest loan servicing companies — Bank of America, Chase Home Finance and Litton Loan Servicing among them — are contained in the Wells Fargo data.

Mr. White found that mortgage modifications peaked in February and have declined in all but one month since. While servicers modified 23,749 loans in these trusts in February, they changed only 19,041 in May and 18,179 in June. This is exactly when servicers were supposed to be responding to the government’s loan modification urgings.

Foreclosures, meanwhile, keep rising. In June, 281,560 were in process, slightly above the 277,847 in May. Last January, there were about 242,000 foreclosures in the pipeline among the Wells Fargo trusts.

“I was hoping we would see some impact in June of the government’s program,” Mr. White said. “Is ‘Home Affordable’ working? My short answer is no.”

To be sure, the government’s data differs from that which Mr. White analyzed, and its loan modification figures for the second quarter may look better as a result. The O.C.C. includes prime loans as well as subprime, for example, while the Wells Fargo data contains no prime loans.

Nevertheless, Mr. White has collected the figures since November 2008, and he said that in the months since, the performance of the 3.5 million mortgages that he analyzes tracked the O.C.C. data pretty closely.

THE Wells Fargo data is illuminating. It shows that in June, 58 percent of modifications cut the payments that the borrower has to pay, a slightly smaller percentage than in April or May. The average reduction in June was $173 a month.

But the most fascinating, and frightening, figures in the data detail how much money is lost when foreclosed homes are sold. In June, the data show almost 32,000 liquidation sales; the average loss on those was 64.7 percent of the original loan balance.

Here are the numbers: the average loan balance began at almost $223,000. But in the liquidation sale, the property sold for $144,000 less, on average. Perhaps no other single figure shows how wildly the mortgage mania pumped up home prices. It also bodes poorly for the quality of the mortgage-related assets lurking in banks’ books.

Loss severities, like foreclosures, are rising. In November, losses averaged 56.1 percent of the original loan balance; in February, 63.3 percent.

Given losses like these, Mr. White said he was perplexed that lenders and their representatives were resisting reducing principal when they modify loans. His data shows how rare it is for lenders to reduce principal. In June, for example, 3,135 loans — just 17.2 percent of the total modified — involved write-downs of principal, interest or fees. The total loss from these write-downs was just $45 million in June.

And yet, the losses incurred in foreclosure sales involving loans in the securitization trusts were a staggering $4.59 billion in June. “There is 100 times as much money lost in foreclosure sales as there was in writing down balances in modifications,” Mr. White said. “That is not rational economic behavior.”

If banks have written down the value of these loans to the 40 cents on the dollar that they are fetching on foreclosures — the only true value for these homes right now — then why don’t they bite the bullet and reduce the loan amount outstanding for the troubled borrowers? That type of modification would be far more likely to succeed than larding a borrower who is hopelessly underwater with yet more arrears.

“You can reduce payments with a lot of gimmicks similar to those built into subprime loans — temporary rate reductions that defer a lot of principal, balloon payments,” Mr. White said. “To me that leads to a situation where American homeowners are paying 50 to 60 percent of their incomes for mortgages which reset in 2011 and 2012. That is not solving the problem.”

Certainly not for borrowers, that is. And because many of these losses will ultimately be passed on to taxpayers, it’s not solving our problem, either.

Aug
06

You’re rights are being stepped on… you gonna fight back?

Can I file a complaint against Obama for assault and battery? Don’t I wish…

I don’t know about you but I know those I talk to are really upset and there is a palpable rage growing that I know is real.

I have a fairly unique perspective in that I have regular business relationships with community leaders in at least 15 states. These men and women are very in touch with their communities and could pretty quickly give you some characterizations of how people are feeling… how things are going… what are people angry about… what people are happy about, etc. etc.

I’m going to be inviting all of them to come to this forum and share what’s going on from their perspective.

Why is this important? Well, I truly believe we are facing an all-out assault on our constitution. Like, it’s happening right now… I really believe we have to truly “get in the fight” right now or we will lose valuable ground to people who want to legislate and tax us to no end - their policies will absolutely lead to a diminished America.

I’m sure that those who fought our previous wars didn’t “want” to have to leave comforts of home or work hard, train long and ultimately “sacrifice” their life and the comforts of home but it became a crisis of moral necessity. Do not make the grave mistake of thinking that we can’t literally go back 200 years in short form from a freedom perspective. A revolution is what we need now. A peaceful one in hopes that a peaceful revolution will prevent a bloody one.

We are blessed that, at current, we do not literally need to bear arms and fight a bloody revolution because the oppression hasn’t grown to that level yet. If we are lazy, apathetic and simply choose to remain in this “fog of materialistic pleasure” and forget how much blood has had to be spilled to have these freedoms, well, if that happens, I believe these freedoms will disappear.

Please, do not let us as a nation, be ignorant of World History and American History. Don’t let us be the generation that history looks back on and says, “they just fell asleep at the wheel and didn’t stop it when it should have. Now look at all the pain and blood we’ve had to give to try and get what they had back.”

I pray we don’t convey that terrible price to our kids or grandchildren but that may become reality unless we do act; and we WILL.

So, get involved in this and in your communities. It’s that important that it demands you give “getting involved” some of your time. Make a conscious, daily effort to be a defender of liberty and our precious constitutional rights. Protect them vigorously.

YOU NEED TO WATCH THE VIDEO BELOW.

Aug
06

Attention Readers: New Forum here at the War on the Home Front

I have spent some considerable time upgrading the blog, the content and adding a lot new features. Hopefully, all of this work will benefit you, the reader. PLEASE check out my new FORUM feature and page…

My goal is to provide you with immense value on this blog. As you might have gathered, I am weaving a couple different themes through this blog.

Most importantly, I want you, the reader, to get involved. The more people who get involved, share their viewpoint and experiences, the better this resource will be for all of us concerned.

I am also aggregating information and news from some very good sources now and all of this can be found right here at War on the Home Front. You might consider subscribing to my posts via email or RSS/Feedburner.

Please get involved and please share this resource with those you care about.

If you have any suggestions, please feel free to let me know. Thanks!

Aug
05

Lehmans owes $627m tax bill says NYC Mayor Bloomberg

Well, well. I sent an official letter to Governor Charlie Crist about this in January. Finally someone’s catching on to all the taxes that these various financial institutions have been skipping on. Folks, its BILLIONS. MERS was created for this very purpose. Every time a mortgage/note are transferred through a true purchase and sale, there are mortgage transfer taxes that most states collect. The old way of keeping track of these changes in ownership was for there to be an “Assignment/Sale” of mortgage recorded in public records. This put everyone on notice that the mortgage had been transferred to a new entity.

Enter MERS. It was some of the major players at these institutions that actually started MERS. It was created to “track” all these transfers and sales to various entities in the process of lending, pooling, securitizing and offloading these notes and mortgages to a trust. As long as ownership could be tracked, no recording needed. No recording, no taxes to pay because who knows about the transfer? No one but those on the inside of this scam knew.

The case asserted below by New York City appears to be for corporate taxes and not the ones I describe above but I’m betting that this isn’t the last time we see this happen – hopefully.

The state and federal taxpayers are the victims. Everyone one them. We’re paying for the bailouts, we’re paying because these institutions haven’t and don’t pay their fair share and we’ll continue to pay until we start screaming daily at our elected officials at all levels.

Lehman Gets Huge Tax Bill From New York

August 5, 2009, 4:11 am

The administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has accused Lehman Brothers of shortchanging New York City of $627 million in corporate and other taxes, beginning in 1996. It is now trying to convince federal bankruptcy court in Manhattan that the city should jump closer to the front of Lehman’s long line of creditors, The New York Times’s David W. Chen and Benjamin Weiser wrote.

Ever since Lehman filed for bankruptcy last September, creditors have been lining up to get their share, from a $233 million claim from a former employee for deferred compensation to one for $160 for a bounced check from the American Red Cross in Millburn, N.J.

Add to that list the longtime friend and defender of former Lehman chief executive Richard S. Fuld Jr.: Mr. Bloomberg.

New York City’s claim is one of the largest among those who have so far sought money from the once-mighty investment house.

Though financial experts say the city stands a good chance of recouping at least some of the money, how much and when is anyone’s guess, given the size and complexity of the bankruptcy proceedings.

Even so, bankruptcy experts who have reviewed the claim — the largest the city has ever made in bankruptcy court — say they are flabbergasted by the size and time span of the allegedly unpaid taxes.

“How did the city get to the point where the city was looking at so many tax years, and so much money?” said Stephen Selbst, a corporate bankruptcy lawyer at Herrick, Feinstein in Manhattan who is representing several Lehman creditors. “It raises a lot of questions.”

Lehman, the city asserts, since 1996 had underpaid its general corporation tax by $615 million, roughly a third of which represents interest. The city also says the firm failed to pay $12 million in commercial rent taxes since 2001.

City officials explained that the claim stems from audits routinely conducted of large businesses. And though the city has discussed the tax shortfall with Lehman since the 1990s, officials dispute the suggestion that they have taken too long to try to collect the money. In fact, the city has stepped up its efforts in the last year to recoup back taxes from large taxpayers and to speed up the audits, said Sam Miller, an assistant commissioner at the Department of Finance.

Mr. Miller declined to provide specifics on what other firms owe in back taxes. But he noted that the auditing process typically nets the city hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Most cases are settled between the city and a company, but the Lehman case became public because of the bankruptcy proceeding.

Audits can be very complicated and take years to resolve, Mr. Miller added, particularly because of the complexity of state tax laws and sometimes because of extenuating factors like concurrent federal audits. But after Lehman declared bankruptcy last fall, the city faced a more urgent need to collect the taxes. The Finance Department filed its claim in bankruptcy court on June 1, well ahead of the Sept. 22 deadline for filing claims against Lehman.

“With bankruptcy proceedings under way, it is important to make sure the city is in a proper position to collect these funds,” Mr. Miller said. “This is the best and safest action we can take to protect the city’s interests.”

The city’s claim is one of many already submitted, according to a Web site that compiles Lehman claims. Some experts question whether the city was too lax in pressing Lehman to pay its taxes because Mr. Bloomberg has long been a staunch defender of the financial services industry.

“It makes you wonder whether there was a wink-wink-nudge-nudge arrangement because of how important Wall Street is to the city,” said David A. Skeel Jr., a professor of corporate law at the University of Pennsylvania. “It may have made sense for the city not to hold the reins too tightly.”

One New York State official familiar with the claim, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the litigation, added: “Obviously there could have been more action on this earlier. Someone wasn’t watching it.”

But Mr. Miller rejected such a notion. “We have vigorously pursued the taxes owed by Lehman and other financial-services firms,” he said. “Two years ago, after we clarified our audit rules, we closed seven audits of large financial-services firms and collected $581 million.”

Lehman has not yet responded to the city’s claim and Kimberly Macleod, a spokeswoman for Lehman, declined to comment, citing the litigation.

In bankruptcy cases, there are generally three classes of claimants. The first group includes those who have secured claims, like liens or mortgages. The second group includes so-called priority creditors, who usually have tax claims. The third group includes general creditors, with claims ranging from catering charges to utility bills. New York City is claiming that it belongs in the first (or, at worst, second) category. But bankruptcy experts say that the city’s claim could be undermined or even rejected based on any number of factors.

The city’s claim could be bumped down the line for instance, if another creditor objected to the city’s attempt to move up the line of creditors.

“I think people are going to look at it and say, ‘Look, we don’t want to see $700 million get paid out ahead of us,’ ” Mr. Selbst said.

Aug
04

Power Grab after Power Grab

The figureheads and czars of the Obama Administration are staging an all-out assault on our liberties and the checks and balances system long established in our country for good reasons. They are shameless in their approach to getting down and dirty and also seem to have no reservations about employing tactics of intimidation and fear promoting. Not that anyone is necessarily afraid of them but they are using these tactics. They are going for a major power grab and the fight is now. Lest we be lazy and think that we still have time. I’m sounding the horn and if you are reading this you need to go send an email to your state senators and congressman. Let them know that we the people will NOT allow this administration to completely undo the private sector and our liberties so painfully obtained.

Support those are challenging these power-mongers. Let them know that we are behind them. Like Sheila Bair at the FDIC. Marcy Kaptur in Ohio. Put pressure on your state reps and your governor. Let them start to feel the full wrath of the American people. This is how we shift power back to the people. It’s our country… don’t let someone take it from you.

Lane Houk

From the Wall Street Journal

By DAMIAN PALETTA and DEBORAH SOLOMON

WASHINGTON — Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner blasted top U.S. financial regulators in an expletive-laced critique last Friday as frustration grows over the Obama administration’s faltering plan to overhaul U.S. financial regulation, according to people familiar with the meeting.

The proposed regulatory revamp is one of President Barack Obama’s top domestic priorities. But since it was unveiled in June, the plan has been criticized by the financial-services industry, as well as by financial regulators wary of encroachment on their turf.

Mr. Geithner told the regulators Friday that “enough is enough,” said one person familiar with the meeting. Mr. Geithner said regulators had been given a chance to air their concerns, but that it was time to stop, this person said.

Among those gathered in the Treasury conference room were Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair.

Friday’s roughly hourlong meeting was described as unusual, not only because of Mr. Geithner’s repeated use of obscenities, but because of the aggressive posture he took with officials from federal agencies generally considered independent of the White House. Mr. Geithner reminded attendees that the administration and Congress set policy, not the regulatory agencies.

Mr. Geithner, without singling out officials, raised concerns about regulators who questioned the wisdom of giving the Federal Reserve more power to oversee the financial system. Ms. Schapiro and Ms. Bair, among others, have argued that more authority should be shared among a council of regulators.

“You are talking about tremendous regulatory power being invested in whatever this entity is going to be,” Ms. Bair told the Senate Banking Committee last month. “And I think, in terms of checks and balances, it’s also helpful to have multiple views being expressed and coming to a consensus.”

Treasury Sec. Timothy Geither scolded a group of financial regulators on Friday, in what’s been described as an expletive-laced tongue-lashing. Deborah Solomon reports.

Officials from the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, meanwhile, have questioned the creation of a new federal agency to oversee consumer regulations, a move that would take away powers from both institutions.

The government’s proposal would empower the government to take over and break up large financial companies, merge two bank regulators, and toughen oversight of mortgages, among other things.

Administration officials say they aren’t worried about the overhaul’s prospects, adding that there is consensus on key aspects, including the regulating of over-the-counter derivatives. Treasury officials say they expected a big debate over the complex legislation. The first piece, which addresses executive pay, passed the House Friday.

“The industry is already back to their pre-meltdown bonuses,” said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. “We need to make sure we don’t slip back to risky behavior where the institutions have all the upside and the taxpayers have all the downside, which is why we need regulatory reform.”

Neal Wolin, Treasury’s deputy secretary, said Mr. Geithner told regulators “they have the prerogative to express their views, but he wanted to make sure that, since everyone had agreed on the importance of achieving reform this year, everyone stayed focused on that goal.”

Government officials said Mr. Geithner had expected regulators to object to parts of the plan that threatened their power or authority, but Treasury officials appeared caught off guard at how much the criticism resonated with lawmakers.

Mr. Geithner wanted to tell the attendees they shouldn’t let turf battles get in the way of fixing a system that is clearly broken, Mr. Wolin said. He declined to comment on Mr. Geithner’s tone and language.

In addition to Mr. Bernanke, Ms. Bair and Ms. Schapiro, other attendees at Friday’s meeting were: Fed Governor Daniel Tarullo, Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan, Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler and Office of Thrift Supervision Acting Director John Bowman.

Spokespeople for all regulatory agencies represented at the meeting declined to comment.

At a House hearing last month, Mr. Geithner said it was “perfectly reasonable and understandable” that different federal agencies would balk at giving up powers. “Frankly, all arguments need to be viewed through that basic prism,” he told the House Financial Services Committee.

The administration’s proposal would give the Fed broad discretion to supervise any major U.S. financial company and would also create a “financial services oversight council” to coordinate policy and help resolve disputes among regulators.

How power would be balanced between the Fed and this entity has emerged as a flash point, one that administration officials debated. Ultimately, officials felt the regulatory structure needed a single point of accountability, arguing that one weakness in the government’s response to the financial crisis last year was clarity over which entities were in charge.

The administration has pushed for Congress to complete the overhaul by the end of the year. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) and Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.) have both said that remains the goal.

Both men, however, have suggested the overhaul could change from Treasury’s proposal. Sen. Dodd favors giving extra powers to an oversight council rather than the Fed. Mr. Frank said Monday lawmakers were still working on a way to “make sure you have a sufficient broad base of participation and input” and “to make sure you have effective authority.”

He said the flap several months ago over the Federal Reserve’s role in allowing American International Group Inc. to pay large bonuses to employees “damaged the Federal Reserve politically.”

The top Republicans on these committees, Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.) and Rep. Spencer Bachus (R., Ala.), have also expressed skepticism over ceding too much power to the Fed.

“A rush to judgment where they basically throw these things together without any consensus is going to be a disaster,” Rep. Bachus said.

Write to Damian Paletta at damian.paletta@wsj.com and Deborah Solomon at deborah.solomon@wsj.com

Aug
04

Taylor Bean Suspended From FHA Lending

This is no surprise. These guys were horrible to deal with and they’ve treated customers terribly. TBW is going down… Colonial Bank looks to be next along with Guaranty Bank. We’ll be on top of it for you… Check back frequently for automatic updates.

From the Wall Street Journal

By JAMES R. HAGERTY and LINGLING WEI

The Federal Housing Administration Tuesday suspended Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. from making loans insured by the federal agency, knocking out one of the biggest FHA lenders at least temporarily.

The FHA said the Ocala, Fla.-based lender failed to submit a required annual financial report and to disclose to the FHA “certain irregular transactions that raised concerns of fraud.” Taylor Bean has 30 days to appeal the suspension.

Taylor Bean was the 12th largest U.S. mortgage lender in the first six months of this year, according to Inside Mortgage Finance, a trade publication. Among originators of FHA loans, Taylor Bean was the third largest in May, with a market share of 4%, according to the publication. Only Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. were larger.

Taylor Bean’s woes are a major blow for hundreds of brokers and smaller mortgage banks that sell the loans they originate to the privately owned company. Those small mortgage companies will have to scramble to find new partners if they are to remain in the booming FHA lending business.

FHA loans have surged in popularity over the past two years as other sources of mortgage funding have dried up.

Lee B. Farkas, chairman of Taylor Bean, said in response to questions that he was unaware of the FHA action.

Ginnie Mae, a government agency that guarantees payments to holders of securities backed by FHA loans, said Taylor Bean is also barred from issuing securities backed by Ginnie. Ginnie said it will take control of nearly $25 billion of mortgage securities issued by Taylor Bean.

The moves came a day after federal agents raided the Florida offices of Colonial BancGroup Inc. and Taylor Bean. Taylor had been leading a group of investors that proposed to shore up Colonial by taking a stake in the Alabama-based bank but that transaction fell through last week amid heavy losses at Colonial.

Write to James R. Hagerty at bob.hagerty@wsj.com and Lingling Wei at lingling.wei@dowjones.com

Aug
04

Revive the BK Cramdown Bill?

The report below from Bloomberg.com demonstrates how bad we need a revival of the mortgage cramdown provisions proposed a few months ago. These corporate institutions are run by greedy bastards. They are elitist. They care nothing for people. They steal and they cheat and they commit fraud at will. Their attitude is “sue us, we don’t care that we violate federal law with regularity and we really don’t care about you or your kids. Just get out of the home you’re behind in payments on. Nevermind that we really don’t have a financial stake in this anymore since we were paid in whole on your loan years ago.”

I even love the name “cramdown.” This is exactly what homeowners and consumers need to do these institutions… cram it down their throats. Use the resources on this blog and elsewhere and fight. Give ‘em hell.

Also, important note. Bloomberg.com reports that Bank of America and Wells Fargo & Co. are the worst. There are PLENTY of really bad companies out there. Some that come to mind from first hand experience helping homeowners are:

  1. Taylor Bean and Whitaker (which also happened to be raided by the FBI yesterday in their corporate office in Ocala, FL)
  2. Suncoast Schools Federal Credit Union - considering that their client base is made up of teachers, nurses, police officers and the like, you’d think they be pretty good about working with their members who have run into difficulty. Think again. Suncoast is HORRIBLE! I would never have my bank account with them. Not in a million years.
  3. Countrywide – yes, it’s Bank of America now but you still have to deal with Countrywide people and these guys are nothing short of a disaster.
  4. Fifth Third Bank - Terrible. Bastards. If you have money in an account with them, I’d pull it. Exercise your right to NOT support an institution that simply does NOT care about people.

You have foreclosure rights if you’re facing foreclosure. Exercise those rights vigorously. Contact me if you need help…

Aug. 4 (Bloomberg) — Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. were the worst performers among the biggest U.S. banks in modifying loans for struggling homeowners, according to a Treasury Department report.

Bank of America began 27,985 trial loan modifications, or 4 percent of its eligible loans, under the government’s Making Home Affordable program started in March, the report today shows. Wells Fargo had a 6 percent rate, trailing JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s pace of 20 percent, and Citigroup Inc.’s 15 percent.

“Some of the servicers could have ramped up better, faster, more consistently,” Michael Barr, the assistant Treasury secretary for financial institutions, told reporters in a conference call today. “We expect them to do more.”

The government is trying squeeze better results out of its main anti-foreclosure program, which has put about 235,000 borrowers on the path to loan modifications out of the 4 million targeted for help. National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers has said the Treasury report is an effort to create transparency about which mortgage servicers are helping most.

“The biggest servicers certainly have the biggest ships to turn,” Seth Wheeler, a deputy assistant Treasury secretary for federal finance said in an interview yesterday before the report was released. “Some of the strongest performers are smaller servicers, but it’s not a uniform correlation.”

The report shows the levels of homeowner assistance for the 38 companies participating in President Barack Obama’s $75 billion loan modification program. The Obama administration said last month that it’s setting a goal of starting at least 500,000 trial modifications by Nov. 1.

‘A Little Nimbler’

Wachovia Corp., which San Francisco-based Wells Fargo acquired, had a rate of 2 percent, the data shows.

Many banks don’t yet have the capacity to process the volume of loan modifications being demanded, said David Sisko, the head of default management services for Deloitte & Touche LLP. He said modification specialists have gone from processing an average of 50 to 100 loans a month to 200 to 300.

“The smaller banks and servicers are probably a little nimbler,” Sisko said.

Pasadena, California-based Wescom Central Credit Union had a 28 percent rate for its 136 eligible loans, the best performer on the list. Morgan Stanley’s Saxon Mortgage Services had begun trials on 25 percent of 84,130 eligible loans, the second-best performance. Aurora Loan Services, a former unit of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., had started modifications for 21 percent of 72,838 eligible loans. GMAC Mortgage Inc. was at 20 percent.

Eligible Loans

Eligible loans are those that are at least 60 days past due, in foreclosure or bankruptcy, and originated prior to 2009. The underlying property must be owner occupied and conform to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loan limits, which can be as high as $729,750 in some areas. The data excludes Federal Housing Administration and Veterans Affairs loans.

The Making Home Affordable program requires banks that received federal aid from the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, as well as mortgage-finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lower the monthly payments for borrowers at “imminent risk” of default. Banks can lengthen repayment terms, lower interest rates to as low as 2 percent and forbear outstanding principal, among other methods.

“A lot of these modifications are very hard to do, it takes time and you can’t rush it,” said Paul Miller, a bank analyst for FBR Capital Markets in Arlington, Virginia.

Bank of America modified 150,000 loans through other programs in the first half “as we ramped up to make” Obama’s program operational, Dan Frahm, a spokesman for the Charlotte, North Carolina-based company, said yesterday.

Bank of America, Citigroup

“Just as you can’t judge a student’s performance for the semester by looking at their grade for one class, Making Home Affordable is one component of a comprehensive program Bank of America has in place to support homeowners,” Frahm said.

Citigroup is “pleased with our numbers and with what we have been able to accomplish in the past two months,” Mark Rodgers, a spokesman for the New York-based bank, said. “But we can, and want to, do more. We look forward to continuing to work with the government, industry participants, non-profits and others to help keep more distressed American borrowers out of foreclosure and in their homes.”

Citigroup and Bank of America each received about $45 billion from TARP, while Wells Fargo took $25 billion.

Faster Pace

Loan servicers send out bills, collect debts and keep records for mortgage lenders. A group of servicers met with Obama administration officials on July 28 and pledged to step up the pace of loan modifications to keep more homeowners from sliding into foreclosure, according to the Treasury.

JPMorgan Chase is happy with its progress so far, said Christine Holevas, a spokeswoman for the New York-based company.

“That always has to be tempered with the fact that the demand is great; we know that we have more to do,” Holevas said. “We believe we’ve made significant progress. We’ve ramped up, we’ve hired people, we’ve added office space, we’ve invested in technology.”

JPMorgan Chase said June 30 that it approved 87,100 loans for modification under the administration’s plan since April 6.

Under Pressure

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, assailed the administration at a hearing last month for the sluggish results from anti-foreclosure programs, while industry executives spoke of “confusion and delay” from how the government sets rules for the programs.

“The government is under a lot of pressure to react and they announce these programs where the infrastructure is not in place to service the program,” Miller said.

More than 1.5 million properties received a default or auction notice or were seized by banks in the six months through June, Irvine, California-based RealtyTrac Inc. said July 16 in a statement. That’s a 15 percent increase from a year earlier.

Barr said officials are seeing some “encouraging signs” that “our mortgage markets may be beginning to reach a point of stabilization.”

“It’s obviously still early to tell the nature of the mortgage markets what direction they may be headed,” Barr said on the conference call. “These encouraging signs are helpful, but it took a long time to create the financial crisis we are in and it will take a long time to get out of it.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Dawn Kopecki in Washington at dkopecki@bloomberg.net;

Aug
04

Bailouts continue to those who have nothing to lose anyway

Well, here we go again. More bailout money going out… more promises of helping homeowners in distress avoid foreclosure.

I know there is a group of people in our country who don’t have much sympathy, if any, for struggling homeowners. I also think that nearly every American is sick and tired of the government waste which really just boils down to power and control over us – and the insatiable desire to have more control over us.

The large bailouts aren’t helping anyone other than the miniscule few get their big bonuses and keep jobs they should have been fired from years ago. But when you have Tim, the tax cheat, Geithner and Hank, I yank for Goldmach Sachs, Paulson with the power to spend our money on whatever they damn well please, you’re just asking for a revolution.

Those with little sympathy are always the one’s who still have their job and still haven’t felt the totality of this recession. My only advice to those folks is just keep praying that you get to keep your job or that your job actually doesn’t evaporate like millions of other folks have experienced…

And, while you have that job, be thankful and try to show some empathy for the millions of people who have been downsized or outsized and are now in distress with their home. Which happens to be the roof over their heads. We don’t need to bailout investors who invested speculatively in real estate – or mortgage backed securities – for that matter. That was called market risk and you win some, you lose some. I know I lost a lot personally. Hey, it’s life and I have to deal with that as an investor. So do the people who invested heavily in stocks, bonds, GM, Bear Stearns, AIG, etc. etc.

Hopefully, the new changes to the HAMP program detailed below will start to really trickle down to the folks who really are desperate and need some help. The big boys have gotten their billions. We’re all going to pay for the sins of the Bush and Obama administrations. The least we can do is help our fellow citizens, families and neighbors.

By DIANA GOLOBAY

August 3, 2009 2:46 PM CST

The administration is taking on a new enemy to homeowners: home price declines that plunge borrowers underwater on their mortgages.

The US Treasury Department as part of its Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) designed a new Home Price Decline Protection (HPDP) program to add to its alphabet soup of lender and servicer incentive initiatives.

The new program aims to encourage lender and servicer participation in areas with recent home price declines by helping to offset incremental collateral loss on modifications that don’t succeed. HPDP servicer incentives are linked to the degree of home price decline in the area as well as the mortgage’s unpaid principal balance and mark-to-market loan-to-value ratio.

Treasury said the program ensures borrowers in areas with recent home price declines are able to stay in their homes, which should minimize foreclosures in the area and keep home values from becoming depressed.

“This is an important next step in our multi-faceted efforts to bring relief to struggling homeowners and stabilize the housing market,” said assistant secretary for financial institutions Michael Barr in a Treasury statement. “Home price decline protection can help homeowners who may not have been reached otherwise.”

Treasury allocated $10bn for the program, but the actual amount used depends on price trends. The program applies to all modifications made through HAMP after Sept. 1, 2009, but not to loans owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae (FNM: 0.58 0.00%) or Freddie Mac (FRE: 0.6002 -1.61%).

Jul
29

How does one person “get heard” today?

You know, if you’re anything like me, you’ve said to yourself a lot lately, “this country is changing before my very eyes – for the worse – and those who were elected to represent me are the one’s doing all the damage but I have no idea how I can make a difference or have my voice heard.”

If you feel that way some times, you’re not alone. Not by a long shot. The frustration is understandable. But the first best thing all of us can do is take responsibility for doing our part of allowing it to get this bad to begin with.

We’re all busy and we’ve all “busied” ourselves into un-American apathy when it comes to understanding issues, critically thinking about them and really vetting candidates. I also too think too few are really stepping up to the plate of leadership and we literally have allowed buffoons, criminals and all sorts of chronic liars to become our leaders. It’s only the power and money that has attracted it – and which is now abused so regularly our government and politicians look identical to their Wall Street collar criminals and mafioso counterparts.

It’s all one big “toxic” stew of leadership- ahem, if you will.

Back to responsibility… I am. You are. Yes, we all are, but really, we all have to take personal responsibility or we won’t change. Next step… make your vote count next time. Make sure you really follow common sense instead of the usual hype. Don’t let the media be your voting cue card. Inspect for yourself. I look at people and now commonly ask, “do they even have a remote understanding of me? Of regular people? Do they talk and carry themself like a regular person would? I mean, I listen to Barney Frank talk and I want to reach through the television and choke him. This guy is literally on another planet. My blood’s boiling right now as I type this. But this baffoon has a lot of power and influence and he’s just a complete idiot.

Anyway, your vote. My vote. These are precious moments folks. They go by quick. You’re in the voting booth, you’re out. You selected a few names for this post and that office. You’re done. But did you prepare? I know I haven’t done as much due dilignece as I should have in the past… you?

Especially when it comes to local and state officials. Man, we really blow by these votes so often. The name is familiar, their opposition’s isn’t. I don’t really know either of them so I vote for the one whose name is familiar. Next.

C’mon, you know it and I know it. These local guys and gals aren’t nearly vetted the way the President is. EVERY VOTE COUNTS and for every post and position of elected office. Every single one. Whether it be for your local clerk of court, local judge, congressman, mayor, senator, you name it. In Lee County, FL right now we’re experiencing the unwelcome results of votes for men who have no spine and will not fight for what is right for homeowners. Hey, it matters. Now, these guys are turning a “blind” eye on the foreclosure fraud happening in their system…

And a majority of Americans just ignored Barack Obama’s relationships with certain friends, pastors and former domestic terrorist associates. Really, that’s the most astonishing part for me with the whole thing.

The bible says, “Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.” – 1st Corinthians 15:33

Bible or no bible. This is just a simple universal truth. Candidates don’t have to be perfect. They never will be. We all have done things that we wouldn’t do again. That’s called life and learning and I believe what eventually becomes common sense and wisdom – if they’ve learned from their mistakes. This is what you look for in leaders. This is what you look for in candidates for EVERY level of office. If not, what’s left of this country can be kissed goodbye – and there’s not a lot of better places to go last I checked.

Mr. Obama’s “company” was partly bad. To elect someone to the office of President with so little experience along with what we know of some of his friends, mentors and associates is an absurdity and reprehensible. It tells you and I where we’re at as a country and how much work we have to do in the next couple of years if we ever want to see this ship “righted.”

So, to sum it all up… it’s all about our vote. That’s how we wield power in this country and we better all get on it when it comes to having talks with everyone we know at every possible opportunity about these issues and about how to really make sure we know who we’re voting for, why and ensuring that we truly wield this power of a vote in a precise and powerful manner the next time we get this incredible opportunity afforded by the freedoms we hold dear.

Jul
25

Fighting the Foreclosure War – Get the Media Involved

The chips are stacked against the regular folk who by the way are the backbone of our country. We are the majority and we do have power. It’s the regular people who are protecting our country and freedoms abroad. It’s regular people who take care of us in our local hospitals. Its the regular guy who fights fires, protects our neighborhood… and its these same regular people who are being abused by the system every single day. Who are being lied to by local, state and federal politicians who care more about the lobby that funds their re-election campaigns than you!

The war on foreclosures is really, in some ways, the epicenter of this larger fight for our rights as citizens. It’s the fight for representation because I really don’t see any elected official willing to fight for us no matter what it takes.

Getting attention of more and more people as to what is happening is one way to shift some of the chips in this game over to the regular folk. Getting the attention of the media is one way to create more awareness and put pressure on elected officials to actually do the JOB they were elected to do. That job is literally and truly – representation – of those in their community, state and country who ELECTED them in the first place.

Politicians (I call them elected officials) only have power because it was granted them by our vote. Our vote next time around is how we take power back. But that requires a majority and that requires attention… getting the attention of a majority as to what is really happening. So take your voice to the media as part of the way you fight this war!

I have done precisely that in our local community – Ft. Myers/Cape Coral, Florida. The Ft. Myers News Press is now running a series on foreclosure. Last Sunday, July 19th the News Press ran several articles on the foreclosure situation here to which I was a contributor. I followed that series of articles with a response to some comments our local Clerk of Court had regarding foreclosures. Those comments were featured in a Guest Editorial.

The articles and my guest editorial can be read by using the links below. I’m also including a video of a nice woman I helped as well. The News Press interviewed her. Linda’s message was simply, “You gotta fight…” I hope this encourages more of you reading this to take your fight, and your opinions, to your local media. Get  them to help you. The squeaky wheel gets the grease as they say…

“Still Hope for Homeowners in Foreclosure” – Ft. Myers News Press, July 19, 2009

“Foreclosures Create Human Drama” - Ft. Myers News Press, July 19, 2009

“Court Ordered Mediation can cut foreclosures” -  Ft. Myers News Press, July 19, 2009

“Comments by Lee County Clerk of Court Miss the Human Reality of Foreclosures” – Guest Editorial by Lane Houk, Ft. Myers News, July 22, 2009

Jul
24

N.Y. AG Files Lawsuit Against Collectors of Debt – “They used fraud to Collect”

 July 24, 2009

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Really. Lenders and Creditors violate the law with near impunity in their lending and collection activities. I’m sure there are some honest banks or lenders out there but they’re no dime a dozen. There is massive fraud being perpetrated in the collection of mortgage debt – which is essentially what foreclosure is. The lender/creditor/servicer is using foreclosure as their means of collecting on a debt they claim is due and which default on the contract (the Note) has happened.

Here in Lee County, Florida, I am seeing an enormous amount of fraud being used to illegally seize homes. So the New York case below is a great step to help other states attorney generals and other elected officials realize that this is just a common industry practice to defraud citizens who generally speaking don’t have the means or the knowledge to protect themselves. I know that no elected official could possibly believe that these practices were completely confined to New York citizens. The only question really is do Lee County, FL officials and Florida state officials have the backbone to do something as well. How about Texas officials? How about Nobama?

N.Y. Claims Collectors of Debt Used Fraud

By JONATHAN D. GLATER - story from the NY Times

Tens of thousands of New York consumers had money seized by creditors using court orders that had been obtained by fraud, the state’s attorney general said Wednesday — and the money should be returned.

According to a lawsuit filed on Tuesday in New York Supreme Court in Buffalo, lawyers and debt collectors obtained more than 101,000 court orders that were improperly issued, allowing them to seize, on average, $5,474 from each consumer.

The lawsuit asserts that consumers were never properly notified and were not given a chance to defend themselves in court; creditors won default judgments. The total amount of money seized exceeded $500 million, according to the attorney general’s office.

“Our legal system is defined by due process and the guarantee that every New Yorker will get the chance to defend him or herself in court,” Andrew M. Cuomo, the attorney general, said in a statement. Not providing notice of legal proceedings, “undermined the foundation of this system.”

The two collections agencies and 35 lawyers and law firms named in the lawsuit, which lawyers for Mr. Cuomo’s office filed on behalf of the state’s chief administrative judge, Ann Pfau, all used one company, American Legal Process, of Lynbrook, N.Y., to notify consumers of debt collection proceedings.

But American Legal Process did not give people proper notice and instead “repeatedly and persistently falsified” statements that it had, according to the attorney general. In thousands of cases, a lawyer for Mr. Cuomo’s office stated in a court filing, individual American Legal Process employees claimed to have delivered notices of collections proceedings to different people in different locations at the same time.

When consumers did not appear in court, lawyers for creditors obtained court orders allowing them to take consumers’ money directly from bank accounts or to garnish wages.

A lawyer for American Legal Process, Corey Winograd, did not immediately return calls.

The attorney general brought criminal charges against American Legal Process and its chief executive, William Singler, in April. Those proceedings are continuing, according to Mr. Cuomo’s office.

Jul
09

HOEPA Loans and TILA Mortgage Rescission

HOEPA Stands for the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act

HOEPA is an amendment to TILA that deals with the substantive abuses of creditors offering higher costing home loans to residents in certain geographic areas. The statute was enacted to ensure that consumers most vulnerable to abuse would be afforded a safety net without impeding the flow of credit altogether.

There are certain trigger points to determine if a loan is a “HOEPA or Section 32″ Home Loan.

Triggers for HOEPA Coverage

APR more than 10% above comparable Treasury security rate (8% on first-lien loans closing on or after October 1, 2002) on the 15th day of the month before the lender received the loan application. 12 C.F.R. 226.32(a)(1)(i); 66 Fed. Reg. 65,617 (2001).

“Points and fees” exceeding 8% of the “total loan amount.” 12 C.F.R. 226.32(a)(1)(ii).

Some examples of Points are:

All prepaid finance charges. 12 C.F.R. 226.32(b)(1)(i);

All compensation paid to mortgage brokers. 12 C.F.R. 226.32(b)(1)(ii);

All items paid to the lender or to a lender affiliate. 12 C.F.R. 226.32(b)(1)(iii);

Disclosure Requirements

A special HOEPA disclosure notice must be delivered to the consumer at least three business days prior to the closing of the loan. 15 U.S.C. § 1639(b); 12 C.F.R. 226.31(c). A signed statement to the effect that the consumer received the HOEPA notice creates a rebuttable presumption only. 15 U.S.C. § 1635(c).  The notice must inform the consumer that he/she need not enter into the loan, and that if he/she does enter the loan, he/she could lose the home and any money put in it. 15 U.S.C. § 1639(a); 12 C.F.R. 226.32(c)(1).

The notice must also include an accurate statement of APR, monthly payment and balloon payment amount, and maximum payment amount on a variable-rate loan. 15 U.S.C. § 1639(a)(2); 12 C.F.R. 226.32(c)(2)-(4); Official Staff Commentary 12 C.F.R. 226.32(c)(3)-2.

Prohibited Terms

The following terms or actions are prohibited (or limited) by the statute and Regulation Z: prepayment penalties, default interest rate, balloon payments, negative amortization, prepaid payments, negligent lending, direct payments to home improvement contractors. 15 U.S.C. § 1639(c)-(h); 12 C.F.R. 226.32(d). 

Remedies

Failure to deliver the required HOEPA notice or inclusion of a prohibited term triggers an extended (three-year) right of rescission (described above; also called TILA Mortgage Rescission). 15 U.S.C. § 1639(j); 12 C.F.R. 226.23(a)(3) n.48.;

In addition to regular TILA monetary damage remedies, HOEPA violations give rise to “enhanced” monetary damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a)(4), namely, all payments made by the borrower. 

PLEASE NOTE: Remember that if you have a HOEPA rescission case, this effectively gives you a double deduction– you get to deduct all payments made twice before getting to your “HOEPA-adjusted” tender amount (once in calculating the TILA tender amount, and once in calculating HOEPA damages). Also, if you’re beyond three years and can’t rescind, you can still raise a HOEPA claim and deduct all payments made in the nature of defense by recoupment.

As with any TILA violation, the rescission remedy runs against any assignee of the loan. 15 U.S.C. § 1641(c). In addition, where the loan documents demonstrate that the loan is covered by HOEPA coverage, assignees “shall be subject to all claims and defenses with respect to that mortgage that the consumer could assert against the creditor.” 15 U.S.C. § 1641(d)(1). This provision mirrors the FTC Holder Rule and creates assignee liability for all state and federal claims and defenses. For monetary damages claims under TILA, it provides an exception to general rule that violations must appear on the face of the documents. 

Statute of Limitations

  • 1 year for affirmative claims.15 U.S.C. § 1640(e);
  • 3 years for rescission.Beach v. Ocwen, 523 U.S. 410 (1998);
  • Unlimited as a defense to foreclosure in the nature of a claim in defense by recoupment
Jul
08

Beware of Scam “Forensic” Loan Auditors/Companies

Ok, here we go go again… now the scams have hit the loan auditing industry. Most of these fakers are ex-mortgage brokers who didn’t make it in the mortgage industry and are now looking for a new way to make money. There are a few good auditors out there who have really put in the time, effort and research to actually know the laws and know how to properly state the elements of these violations in a manner that can actually help a homeowner in a foreclosure matter (and can help an attorney bring these violations as affirmative defenses or counterclaims in a foreclosure case).

 TILA or supposed “Forensic” Audits that use standardized check-off lists without providing a mathematical determination of the TILA Disclosure Statement and amounts are NOT Forensic Audits.  A check-off list  or automated/software-driven TILA Audit describing potential violations as “Serious,” or “Moderate” is incompetent and useless.  A Forensic TILA Audit must provide accurate TILA; Regulation Z citations, case law precendent, as well as actual computation of all settlement service fees properly allocated in the TILA Disclosure Statement or the Audit will NOT withstand scrutiny by legal authorities.  Do not be fooled by imitations using standardized check-off lists.

There is absolutely nothing “forensic” about plugging loan data into some software and having it spit out a report. But that is exactly what most of these fakers are doing and they are charging anywhere from $395 to $995 based on what I have seen so far.

If the loan audit will NOT stand up to legal scrutiny then you have wasted your money and someone has scammed you into believing you were paying for something that would help you. Why would  you pay for a loan audit that would not stand up to legal scrutiny?

The software driven report serves a limited purpose and I use a popular banking compliance software for my audits as well but this software-driven report is only a small piece of my actual audit and findings report. A true forensic auditor examines every document relevant to the loan and looks at signatures, dates, parties on the documents, who provided those disclosures or documents and also obtains the story from the client because every loan is a story. It involved people and usually quite a bit of communication between the borrower and the indispensable parties to the transaction.

I have myself setup for Google Alerts on a number of search terms so I go to these other websites pretty frequently. I also get clients who have dealt with some of these fraudsters and now want my help to clean up the mess and the wasted money. Hopefully this post will cause those who read it to really do some good checking before they part with hard-earned money.

Bottom line is to make sure you follow your gut. Do your homework, ask questions, ask for references. A good auditor will most likely have attorneys they work for and consult for.

Feel free to contact me if you have any other questions on this topic or would like a sample of my audit reports. You’ll be able to see the true forensic nature of a good audit vs. these computer-generated reports.

Jun
28

Home on the Range…

For those of you who don’t own a gun or know how to shoot one, change that. We have a constitution still (last I checked) that affords every citizen the right to keep and bear arms. Express that constitutional right…

I recently purchase a new rifle. It had been over 15 years since I fired my M-16 weapon in the Army before I got out last weekend with my boys and brother-in-law (also former military). What a great time… and a great way to blow off some steam/stress too I might add.

There’s just something all-American about going to the gun range and yappin off 500 rounds in a couple hours. I got to sight in my new rifle and it wasn’t long before the “feel” came back from 17 years ago. There’s just nothing like peeling off 10 rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger.

The only thing that was better was teaching my 2 young boys (6 and8) how to shoot the rifle and Glock 23 I own. It was their first time. Dad’s gotta be there when his 2 boys lose their virginity you know…

In all seriousness, I was and have been serious with them about guns and they are learning the respect one must have for dangerous weapons. They are also learning not to be afraid of guns, just respect them and know how to shoot them for sport and for self-defense.

I think that the majority of us “men” in America have lost the sense of how our country was born and the raw grit that each of our ancestors had to have to survive and win the freedoms that we enjoy so much today.

Our freedoms have been paid for in blood. We are witnessing (and allowing) “girly men” in Washington and in our own backyards now legislate away many of our constitutional rights. Our new president and men on both sides of the aisle are simply ignoring our Constitution and creating new laws well outside of the constitutional limitations. The government is seizing capitalism by the throat and choking us all out in the process.

I think the ignorance (expressed in apathy) in this country has reached a critical mass. I also think that when the breach of our collective constitutional rights and freedoms hits a tipping point there will be a massive revolt. Not against democrats or republicans. Both. The wimpy, yet power-hungry politician who neither respects our freedoms or the lives that have been lost - and the blood that is still being shed to keep these precious freedoms cemented in our nation’s history.

So my thought for today is simple: teach a kid how to shoot a rifle, better yet teach 2 or 3. Enjoy your 2nd Amendment right. Fight for it, protect it and hope and pray that a real revolution in our country isn’t necessary again in the future. But be prepared for it, always.

Jun
17

Are you a Warrior Citizen?

Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence…
“…That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Warriors don’t all have historically warrior jobs.

Cops are no more a warrior because they wear a badge than a kid is a vampire on Halloween because he wears a mask.
Firefighters do not automatically become brave because they got their first paycheck. Soldiers become soldiers for a variety of reasons, most having very little to do with fighting and dying.

Warriors are citizens first. An employment choice, not generally associated with a warrior bent doesn’t preclude a citizen from adding warrior skills and mindset to their list of self development goals.

A citizen should take the warrior lifestyle seriously because he is a citizen, and not a subject. The power, in a constitutional republic, lies in the discretion of its’ citizenry.

Warriors exercise power with wisdom and restraint, using it at the best possible moment, with the right intention, and with all the might a warrior can muster. Citizens should exercise this power, this force, in defense of life, liberty and freedom.

The blood of a nation is the will that guides it. Will is demonstrated through force.
Voting is force. Physical combat is force. Speech is force. Force is what causes a thing to move. Exercise that force to move your country in the direction it should go.

Be a warrior mechanic, or trucker, or accountant, or nurse or whatever your vocation may be. Set your self at odds with anything that diminishes life and liberty. Sure it’s a fight, but you’re an aspiring warrior, it’s your birthright to defend the innocent and protect freedom…..millions of men died to give you that right. Have we forgotten the price that has been paid (and is still being paid) for our freedoms? Will we now let a federal government, or any form of government, now regulate these rights away? I think not. Not for me at least…

Be a warrior or be a “subject”…….it’s your choice!

May
07

TILA Mortgage Rescission – How to Stop a Foreclosure

If you want to know HOW to STOP a Foreclosure, a Truth in Lending Act (TILA) Mortgage Rescission is the key.

I was on the phone yesterday with a loss mitigation rep from Washington Mutual Bank. I was calling to get the specific address to send a “Notice of Rescission” to for WAMU. Every lender/bank/servicer has specific addresses for these types of correspondence.

I asked the lady in Loss Mitigation for the “address that I can send a rescission notice to.” At first, she said, “a what?” “A notice to rescind the loan” I said. “Sir, you can’t rescind a loan” she said. I said, “ma’am, please just give me the address I can send an official notice to rescind the loan to.” She says, “why? did you just close on this loan within the last three days because I’m pretty sure you can’t just cancel a loan.”

I said, “ma’am you most certainly can, up to three years from the date of closing actually if it’s a refinance loan of a primary residence and there are certain violations of the truth in lending act; but I’m not going to argue with you, just give me right address!”

This little back and forth madness just goes to show how even the banks don’t know the damn law! A legal right to TILA mortgage rescission can extend up to three (3) years out from the date of closing if:

  1. It’s a REFINANCE loan transaction
  2. It’s on your PRIMARY residence
  3. It was closed in the last THREE years
  4. A forensic loan audit reveals a MATERIAL disclosure violation

Many people ask me how to stop a foreclosure… folks, TILA mortgage rescission is a COMPLETE defense to foreclosure. In fact, it is the most POWERFUL foreclosure defense you could have. Why?

When you effect a TILA mortgage rescission, you are literally and legally canceling the loan. Here’s exactly what Regulation Z says,

12 C.F.R. § 226 et seq. (“Reg. Z”)
(a) Consumer’s right to rescind. (1) In a credit transaction in which a security interest is or will be retained or acquired in a consumer’s principal dwelling, each consumer whose ownership interest is or will be subject to the security interest shall have the right to rescind the transaction, except for transactions described in paragraph (f) of this section. 

(2) To exercise the right to rescind, the consumer shall notify the creditor of the rescission by mail, telegram or other means of written communication. Notice is considered given when mailed, when filed for telegraphic transmission or, if sent by other means, when delivered to the creditor’s designated place of business.

(3) The consumer may exercise the right to rescind until midnight of the third business day following consummation, delivery of the notice required by paragraph (b) of this section, or delivery of all material disclosures,48 whichever occurs last. If the required notice or material disclosures are not delivered, the right to rescind shall expire 3 years after consummation, upon transfer of all of the consumer’s interest in the property, or upon sale of the property, whichever occurs first. In the case of certain administrative proceedings, the rescission period shall be extended in accordance with section 125(f) of the Act.

48 The term “material disclosures” means the required disclosures of the annual percentage rate, the finance charge, the amount financed, the total payments, the payment schedule, and the disclosures and limitations referred to in §226.32 (c) and (d).
 
TILA mortgage rescission is real. But I haven’t explained to you yet WHY TILA mortgage rescission is a complete defense to foreclosure. Here’s what Reg. Z says, then I’ll explain:

 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(d)
(d) Effects of rescission. (1) When a consumer rescinds a transaction, the security interest giving rise to the right of rescission becomes void and the consumer shall not be liable for any amount, including any finance charge.

(2) Within 20 calendar days after receipt of a notice of rescission, the creditor shall return any money or property that has been given to anyone in connection with the transaction and shall take any action necessary to reflect the termination of the security interest.

(3) If the creditor has delivered any money or property, the consumer may retain possession until the creditor has met its obligation under paragraph (d)(2) of this section. When the creditor has complied with that paragraph, the consumer shall tender the money or property to the creditor or, where the latter would be impracticable or inequitable, tender its reasonable value. At the consumer’s option, tender of property may be made at the location of the property or at the consumer’s residence. Tender of money must be made at the creditor’s designated place of business. If the creditor does not take possession of the money or property within 20 calendar days after the consumer’s tender, the consumer may keep it without further obligation.

(4) The procedures outlined in paragraphs (d) (2) and (3) of this section may be modified by court order.

Don’t know if you caught that above but I bolded it for you. Yes, that’s right the mortgage (the security interest) becomes VOID. Further, the borrower is NOT responsible for ANY finance charge. That means any/all closing costs and interest paid on the loan from closing to current is refunded to the borrower as a credit against the original loan amount.

So, let’s get to the foreclosure defense issue… the mortgage gives the owner of the Note the legal authority to foreclose. If the mortgage is voided, there is no longer any legal instrument to foreclose on. The creditor becomes unsecured just like a credit card creditor. The security interest has been voided by operation of law. Foreclosure becomes a legal impossibility.

The lenders don’t just roll over and go away but folks, if they violated the federal law in your loan transaction, its black and white. It’s not some subjective he said, she said issue. It’s recognizable and quantifiable. You absolutely want a forensic loan audit done by a knowledgeable analyst. If you’d like to retain me for my audit services, go to my contact page and get a hold of me.

Hopefully, this short post will help you see that a valid TILA mortgage rescission is the best remedy and defense to foreclosure if you qualify for it!

May
05

Foreclosure Rights – What You Need to Know!

What you need to know about your Foreclosure Rights

by Lane Houk
May 5, 2009

Did you know that over 98% of all people who are served with a foreclosure suit or notice of default do NOTHING to defend themself in the process? That’s a fact.

If you were sued today by someone for $150,00 would you just ignore the lawsuit? No way! You’d run out, talk to an attorney and defend yourself against the allegations. But this is exactly what most people do when they get sued in foreclosure…NOTHING!

I think this happens because most people just don’t know they have legal rights, foreclosure rights. Yes they owe the money and they know that; and, a legal defense isn’t about denying that the money was borrowed. By now, the “Produce the Note” strategy has become more common knowledge; and, by all measures that’s a great piece of the puzzle but is by no means the entire enchilada in a comprehensive legal defense to foreclosure.

So let me simplify the message… you have Legal Rights in Foreclosure! Claim them! In Florida, if you don’t claim these rights in the first twenty (20) days, you automatically waive them. Ouch! Don’t do that. You also don’t want to waive them by pretending you know what you’re doing and writing your own defense. Pro Se foreclosure defense isn’t what it’s all cracked up to be. What are you going to say to a judge in a Summary Judgment hearing? What answer will you have for the first piece of foreclosure case law opposing counsel throws at you. Hire an expert foreclosure defense attorney. Trust me, it won’t cost you money, it will save you money – if you hire the right one.

Next, hire an expert to complete a forensic loan audit. You’re foreclosure rights are extended when violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Home Ownership & Equity Protection Act (HOEPA) and state law violations can be found and quantified in a well structured Forensic Audit Report. Beware of all the folks popping up on the radar doing this. Most of them are only software driven and thus, aren’t “forensic” in any kind of way. Remember a age-old golden rule… “don’t believe everything you hear” and “cheaper isn’t usually better.” A true forensic auditor takes a couple hundred documents and forensically analyzes them, looks for the idiosyncracies, the story if you will, and pieces the violations together to make a case. One a real, practicing attorney can use as evidence in court.

Your foreclosure rights are there… you just have to know what to do, where to go, who to see and why. Trust me, it will save you money, save your home and mitigate your liability.

If you have further questions, contact me.

  MSNBC.com

New foreclosure defense: Prove I owe you Homeowners demand lenders produce original documents – some can’t
The Associated Press updated 3:59 p.m. ET, Tues., Feb. 17, 2009

ZEPHYRHILLS, Fla. – Kathy Lovelace lost her job and was about to lose her house, too. But then she made a seemingly simple request of the bank: Show me the original mortgage paperwork.

And just like that, the foreclosure proceedings came to a standstill.

Lovelace and other homeowners around the country are managing to stave off foreclosure by employing a strategy that goes to the heart of the whole nationwide mess.

During the real estate frenzy of the past decade, mortgages were sold and resold, bundled into securities and peddled to investors. In many cases, the original note signed by the homeowner was lost, stored away in a distant warehouse or destroyed.

Persuading a judge to compel production of hard-to-find or nonexistent documents can, at the very least, delay foreclosure, buying the homeowner some time and turning up the pressure on the lender to renegotiate the mortgage.

“I’m going to hang on for dear life until they can prove to me it belongs to them,” said Lovelace, a 50-year-old divorced mother who owns a $200,000 home in Zephyrhills, near Tampa. “I’ll try everything I can because it’s all I have left.”

In interviews with The Associated Press, lawyers, homeowners and advocates outlined the produce-the-note strategy. Exactly how many homeowners have employed it is unknown. Nor is it clear how successful it has been; some judges are more sympathetic than others.

More than 2.3 million homeowners faced foreclosure proceedings last year and millions more are in danger of losing their homes. On Wednesday, President Obama will unveil a plan to spend at least $50 billion to help homeowners fend off foreclosure.

Chris Hoyer, a Tampa lawyer whose Consumer Warning Network Web site offers the free court documents Lovelace used to file her request, has played a major role in promoting the produce-the-note strategy.

“We knew early on that the only relief that would ever come to people would be to the people who were in their houses,” Hoyer said. “Nobody was going to fashion any relief for people who have already lost their houses. So your only hope was to hang on any way you could.”

 

Tom Deutsch, deputy executive director of the American Securitization Forum, a group that represents banks, law firms and investors, dismissed the strategy as merely a stalling tactic, saying homeowners are “making lawyers jump through procedural hoops to delay what’s likely to be inevitable.”

Deutsch said the original note is almost always electronically retained and can eventually be found.

Judges are often willing to accept electronic documentation. And lenders are sometimes allowed to produce other paperwork to establish they are the holder of a loan. Still, assembling such documents to a judge’s satisfaction takes time, which to homeowners is the point.

 

Lovelace filed her produce-the-note demand last fall after the bank acknowledged that her original mortgage document had been lost or destroyed. Since then, there has been no activity on the foreclosure – no letters from the lender, no court filings.

The law firm handling the foreclosure for the lender refused to comment.

A University of Iowa study last year suggested that companies servicing mortgages are often negligent when it comes to producing the documentation to support foreclosure. In the study of more than 1,700 bankruptcy cases stemming from home foreclosures, the original note was missing more than 40 percent of the time, and other pieces of required documentation also were routinely left out.

The first big success of the produce-the-note movement came in 2007 when a federal judge in Cleveland threw out 14 foreclosures by Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. because the bank failed to produce the original notes.

Michael Silver, a lawyer for two of the families in that case, said at least one eventually lost their home. Still, he considers that a success.

“From the perspective of the person who’s in the home, you may have kept them in the house another 10 or 12 months,” he said. “If I can get a result with economic benefits to a client, then I think I won.”

Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio endorsed the strategy in a fiery speech on the House floor during debate on the federal bank bailout last month.

 

“Don’t leave your home,” she said. “Because you know what? When those companies say they have your mortgage, unless you have a lawyer that can put his or her finger on that mortgage, you don’t have that mortgage, and you are going to find they can’t find the paper up there on Wall Street.”

April Charney, head of foreclosure defense for Jacksonville Area Legal Aid in Florida, said the strategy has been so successful for her that she now travels around the country to train other lawyers in how to use it. She said she has gotten cases delayed for years by demanding that lenders produce paperwork they cannot find.

“This is an army of lawyers getting out there to stop foreclosures so we can get to the serious business of creating solutions,” Charney said. “Nothing good is going to happen as long as we continue to bleed homeowners.”

© Lane A. Houk – 2009– All Rights Reserved

Apr
11

On Founding Principles

I don’t know about you but I am beside myself these days. I feel like I’m just watching our country’s greatness get flushed down a toilet. It feels like one of those really sickening, dreadful feelings – coupled with a sense of helplessness.

I know we’re not helpless. We actually have a lot of rights here in the United States because we have the Constitution. Thank God and our Founding Fathers for that… As I watch #44 apologize for our greatness and bow to kings while simultaneously spending our country into a grave of debt, I feel outrage, anger, frustration and responsibility.

I think that those of us who aren’t fanatical rights or lefts, democrat or republican, liberal or conservative but instead patriots have made some crucial mistakes. If you’re like me, you just put your head down each day, work hard and do your best to make a small positive difference in the world each day. You appreciate your freedoms but you’re just damn busy and trying to stay ahead of the curve.

Have you ever watched the news on one story or another and said to yourself, “my God, don’t people have a job? Where do they get the time to carry on with this nonsense?” – I say that to myself every time I watch that crazy woman Cindy Sheehan.

So the mistake  that I’ve made is that I’ve just taken it all for granted too much. I realize this now because I’m watching radical leftist fanatics that have taken power in crucial positions who are now taking  from me the things I treasure – or are attempting to. My constitutional freedoms are being legislated away, bit by bit by bit – and so are yours.

I think the biggest blessing of Obama is that he is trying to do too much, very quickly and it’s awakening the core of our country – who are mostly patriots – to what has been happening for decades… that slow erosion of our freedoms and the crawl toward socialism which is nothing more than a civil disease.

So what we all must do – if we’re patriots – is get off the sidelines. Get more informed and take actions. Yes, that’s plural. It’s not just one-time such as going to a tea party. Sounds great and I can’t wait for the one I’m going to attend but it’s going to be an all-out “war on our home front” folks. It’s going to be a long battle to take back what has been being taken from us for decades.

So I’m starting this new series as I continue to educate myself and react to what I’m seeing, hearing and doing. I’ve started refreshing myself with our nation’s  history and started research into our Constitution, our Founding Fathers and our Founding Principles. Our greatest strength is that we can fall back on our Constitution – our LEGAL rights – and not let what ground we’ve given up go any further. If we stand up now – collectively as patriots – we can stop the erosion of our freedoms by not giving one more inch of what the far left (and sometimes the far right) want to take from us. Enough is enough!

I hope you’ll follow along with me, send me your comments and thoughts and get in the game too. We simply cannot afford to stand by anymore with the excuse of being too damn busy anymore. That will most definitely prove to be the end of “American Greatness!”