Bill Moyers | How Power and Influence Helped Big Banks Rewrite the Rules of Our Economy (VIDEO)
Pulling Back the Curtain: Exposing the 1% Behind the 2011 Big Bank Bonuses
A shrill SHILL | Diana Olick – “The bottom line is that the vast majority of the foreclosures were and are valid”
- Check It Out! Diana Olick of CNBC Gets It! Foreclosure Fraud: It’s Worse Than You Think
- Academic SHILL goes all SHRILL for the Banksters in Forbes Magazine | OP/ED It’s Time To Finalize The Robo-Signing Settlement
- The Homeowner’s Bottom Line | Baseline for a Strong Settlement Against the Big Bankers
A shrill SHILL | Diana Olick – “The bottom line is that the vast majority of the foreclosures were and are valid”
- Check It Out! Diana Olick of CNBC Gets It! Foreclosure Fraud: It’s Worse Than You Think
- Academic SHILL goes all SHRILL for the Banksters in Forbes Magazine | OP/ED It’s Time To Finalize The Robo-Signing Settlement
- The Homeowner’s Bottom Line | Baseline for a Strong Settlement Against the Big Bankers
LightSquared to FCC: Quit screwing around and give us the approval
Chutzpah.
The failure of LightSquared to demonstrate that their product won’t interfere with commercial, military, and aviation GPS may have damaged their bottom line, but it hasn’t dampened their chutzpah. Now, instead of claiming that they will refrain from interfering with millions of existing GPS units, LightSquared has sent the FCC a petition demanding approval for [...]
People Are Not Corporations, and Financial Journalists Are Not Ordinary People
It is getting really old, the exasperation of entitled financial journalists that ordinary folks are not walking away from their underwater homes as much as they supposedly should. The latest to sound this tired refrain is James Surowiecki in The New Yorker (Living By Default, Dec. 19, 2011), who also makes the clichéd comparison to corporate decisions to shed debt using chapter 11 bankruptcy. He calls on underwater homeowners to do "the smart thing" by walking away.
According to Mitt Romney, “Corporations are people.” Whether or not you agree with that proposition, what is empirically true when it comes to debt is that people are not corporations. People don’t view walking away from debts that they can afford as a no brainer if it improves the bottom line. They agonize. They feel bad. They care about their homes and neighborhoods. Walking away is extremely painful, not a simple financial calculation. And, oh by the way, the further down you are in the 99 percent, the more likely that the financial calculation is negative, given impact on credit reputation from defaulting on a mortgage when your income is low. (On the other hand, many people worry about their credit reputations way after they have hit bottom and bankruptcy could actually improve their access to credit, more evidence that people don't take bankruptcy or any other form of walking away lightly.)
Of course, a lot more people are walking away these days, but not necessarily in the sense of “strategic default,” a phrase referring to those who can afford to pay. Rather, people are most often walking away because they can’t afford to pay. We don’t have decent remedies for the over-indebted to stay in their homes by paying their value, something that deserves attention before we worry about strategic defaulters, too.“Moral hazard” has gotten a bad name from its cynical invocation by the mortgage industry, which created a Grand Canyon-sized pit of moral hazard by extreme risk-taking during the mortgage bubble (and subsequent bailout). Yet this industry dares to raise this concern about providing relief now that the bubble has burst, sweeping in even those who did not take risks but clearly cannot afford to pay their underwater mortgages in full now that the whirlwind not of their making has engulfed them.
If there were any seriousness about mortgage relief abroad in the land, we should already have had it in place two years ago, with Congress providing the ability to write down mortgages in bankruptcy. That approach would have addressed the risk of moral hazard, because debtors would have had to take the credit reputation hit of bankruptcy and also give up assets not covered by exemptions, if they had any.
So let’s stop the exhortations to the mortgage-afflicted to just walk away. I’d like to see someone who advocates this step publicly actually do it himself. Mr. Surowiecki, are you walking away on an underwater home you could afford to pay for and bragging about it, too? If not, maybe you should keep quiet about what others should do.
If we want mortgage relief to stabilize the housing market, there are lots of ways the government could accomplish that, given its control over of a vast number of troubled mortgages through its conservatorship of Fannie and Freddie. The Federal Housing Finance Agency could direct write-downs on underwater mortgages. But let’s not expect some uprising of ordinary folks who are underwater, and mostly feeling really bad about it, to lead us out of the current mess.
Proposed AG Settlement Helps Big Banks, Hurts Homeowners
- Federal Housing Finance Agency Action Regarding Court Consideration of Proposed Bank of America $8.5 Billion Settlement
- Victimless Crime | Banks, Obama Administration Pressure AGs on Fraudclosure Settlement
- Obama Administration Scales Back Proposed Homeowner Relief Effort Over Alleged Foreclosure Abuses
Pics and Video | Robin Hoods Storm Mortgage Banksters Conference in Chicago
- I Can’t Wait to See More! | Robin Hoods Storm Mortgage Bankster’s Association Conference – This Time by Kayaking Down the Chicago River
- The Moat Crossing Robin Hoods Return in Chicago to Invade the Mortgage Bankers Association Conference
- New Bottom Line | Handcuff Cookies and Chicago Foreclosure Report Greet National Meeting of States’ Attorneys General
I Can’t Wait to See More! | Robin Hoods Storm Mortgage Bankster’s Association Conference – This Time by Kayaking Down the Chicago River
- The Moat Crossing Robin Hoods Return in Chicago to Invade the Mortgage Bankers Association Conference
- New Bottom Line | Handcuff Cookies and Chicago Foreclosure Report Greet National Meeting of States’ Attorneys General
- Make a Stand America – Chicago Family Refuses to Leave Home After Foreclosure Fraud
Two Days/Two Summary Judgement Vacated/Two Sales Cancelled
It’s only Tuesday, but it has been a very good week already…I got two Summary Judgments vacated and two sales canceled! Now mind you, there was no way these two judgments should have been entered in first place, but that’s a whole other story. The bottom line is we worked very hard, briefed the issues it made it so absolutely clear that the court had no choice but to cancel the sales. I give the judges a lot of credit because they are working very hard and in these cases, they exactly what the law required them to do. My big concern however is how many other judgments out there should likewise be vacated?
I will say that in my experience, a properly briefed Motion for Reconsideration, heard by one of our elected judges, seems to do the trick. So keep that in mind when you get an adverse outcome and keep in mind that you can almost always ask for a reconsideration….that’s a powerful tool to keep in your arsenal! The message and the lesson are simple…
Tweet this!
Share and Enjoy:
Scridb filter
The Psychology and Politics of Foreclosure
This article originally ran in December 0f 2009, but I’m reposting it because maybe it will be read by someone who will find it even the least bit interesting.
Training personnel to properly interact with those losing homes to foreclosure is not only the right thing to do… it’s also likely to improve a mortgage servicer’s bottom-line.
Losing a home to foreclosure is something most people never forget. It’s an event likely to stay with you for the rest of your life. It’s certainly not something most people think will happen to them… until it does. And it can happen to anyone at any stage of life, young, old, rich, poor… all can find themselves at risk. As the off-color colloquialism says about life… stuff happens. Although many people might not readily agree, foreclosures are statistically a “there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-I” type of situation.
Of course, there are times when more stuff happens to more people, and today is obviously an example of such times. The economic conditions that we’re experiencing today are causing more foreclosures than at any time since the 1930s. When housing prices began to collapse a couple of years back, no one could have seen just how far things would go, and how difficult it would be to bring our economy back to life, as we’ve known it.
One of the causalities of our accelerating economic downturn has been a shared understanding of its cause. Some blame our politicians, some blame Wall Street’s bankers, some blame the Federal Reserve, and we’ve all heard that it was the sub-prime borrowers themselves that are the root cause of our recession.
Belief in a Just World
As human beings, we need to understand the causes behind events that negatively impact our world in order to feel safe. When we don’t understand how or why something happened, when something appears
to have been a truly random occurrence, it frightens us terribly because we can’t plan to protect ourselves from such an event.
Melvin Lerner is a prominent social psychologist. In his 1980 book, “The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion,” he argued that people want to believe in the inherent justice of the economic system in which they live, and want to believe that people who are suffering are responsible for their own situations. He conducted a series of experiments and provided empirical evidence showing that after an initial feeling of sympathy, people tend to develop negative views toward others who are suffering. And that’s the type of negative tendency that seems to be in play today.
So, perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that instead of having sympathy for homeowners that are losing their homes to foreclosure, many people are blaming the homeowners themselves for their predicaments. It’s just an example of the general tendency that was documented by Melvin Lerner and other social psychologists many years ago.
The Sanctity of Contracts
The other factor that comes into play involves the phrase: “sanctity of contracts.” We live in a nation with a capitalist economy that depends on the sanctity of contracts. Our founding fathers put the contract clause into the U.S. Constitution to make clear that people need to live up to the documents they sign. Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution states: “No state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.”
So, people have the tendency to view those losing homes to foreclosure as not living up to the contracts they’ve signed. They bit off more than they could chew, is a phrase often heard by those who lack sympathy for borrowers in foreclosure.
How do these factors manifest themselves in human terms? To understand, picture a line of moving trucks extending for hundreds of miles, taking the furniture of countless families to storage lockers. Picture the schoolchildren saying goodbye to their classmates, leaving the comfort and security of their own bedrooms. Picture the parents sitting up late at night looking through bills trying to figure out how they can save their home, or resigning themselves to the fact that they can’t make it. Picture the arguments, the crying, feelings of loss, of failure… picture the moment when all hope is lost.
Picture the day they must leave their home, getting in the car, pulling away from their home, the ones that turn to look back, the ones that force themselves not to look. The radios that aren’t turned on because no one wants to hear music at a time like that. These people you’re picturing aren’t going on vacation, they are being abruptly moved to the other side of town. They won’t have their own yard to play in. They won’t have their patio to relax on as they watch their children run and play. They’re losing their most prized possession… their home.
Yet, it’s also easy to take a stern view of this spectacle. The arguments go something like this: Foreclosure is not the end of the world. There are valuable lessons to be learned from such a life experience. They got themselves into this mess, now they have to pay the price for their own irresponsible actions.
The Price Paid by Children
Some of the hardest-hit victims of foreclosures are children. According to the Center for Responsible Lending, over the last two years: “Over 1.95 million youth have been affected by foreclosure.”
Brenda Jones Harden, Ph.D., wrote that “children exposed to violent, dangerous, and/or highly unstable environments are more likely to experience developmental difficulties.” Children hear more than most parents think they do, so parents’ stress is transferred to their children more than anyone might think.
Oftentimes, the kids come to feel that they are both a financial and emotional burden. They can begin making sacrifices for their families, wanting less, eating less. Some children are forced to quit teams they’re on, or stop taking music lessons simply because their parents cannot afford them. Even young children start taking on weekend jobs to help pay the family’s bills. Vacations are cancelled, and other normal childhood comforts are left by the wayside.
There are other enduring side effects as well. Being uprooted creates instability in a child’s life. They lose friends, teachers, teammates, social circles, perhaps most importantly, confidence. Being forced to change one’s lifestyle is both difficult and stressful for adults. For children, it can be a nightmare.
Children that are displaced by foreclosures often start bringing home lower grades. They exhibit behavior caused by lowered self-esteem. Behavioral issues often become common problems among kids because they feel that they don’t belong in their new setting. Frequently, families that lose their homes can’t afford to move into a neighborhood of equal socio-economic standing. The children can find themselves in new surroundings that may have more crime, inferior school systems, and fewer activities available for youth.
The Great Depression of the 1930s changed a generation. Those that lived through those difficult times altered the way they lived the rest of their lives. What will our nation experience a decade from now as a result of the millions of foreclosures our country continues to experience in these difficult times? No one can know the answer to that question, but it seems clear that there will be some discernable impact on segments of our population, and today’s children are certain to pay a price.
Exhibiting Anger
The crisis we’re experiencing is morphing as it continues, and we can expect continued changes that lead to further problems in our society as the recession lengthens and broadens in scope. One of the factors that’s changing is that the level of anger among foreclosed homeowners certainly appears to be rising, and lenders and mortgage servicers, faced with managing and marketing the volume of foreclosed properties, are increasingly seeing that anger in very tangible terms.
According to the National Association of Realtors, foreclosed properties already make up 45% of home sales, and the number is climbing. Home prices have continued to decline at record pace in 2009, and there are no signs of them stabilizing. Further price declines will undoubtedly result in even more foreclosures. Homeowners remain unable to refinance out of unaffordable adjustable rate mortgages (“ARMs”), and as the market continues its decline, more homeowners, realizing that they have little hope of building equity, will choose to walk away from their properties.
Homeowners losing homes to foreclosure have started advertising their home’s fixtures on Websites like craigslist.com. Some are stripping their home down to its wiring, destroying its plumbing, tearing out entire kitchens, and even removing roofing tiles. Garage doors are disappearing. Built-in cabinets are gone. Even furnaces and air conditioning units are up for sale by homeowners losing their homes to foreclosure.
Recently, the media reported that one homeowner in Monsey, NY, actually leveled his home with a bulldozer just a few days before the property was scheduled to be sold at auction.
Of course, not all homeowners experience that level of anger, or if they do, choose not to exhibit their anger in such extreme ways. But the trends are disturbing. More and more often homeowners are damaging their homes before being forced out as a result of foreclosure.
Communities Suffering
The large number of foreclosed homes on the market today means hundreds of thousands of homes sitting vacant. And vacant homes are magnets for partying teenagers, drug users, vandalism and crime. Broken windows, smashed plaster, huge holes punched in walls, graffiti on walls throughout the homes, debris, and much worse are becoming more commonplace, as more neighborhoods are seeing more foreclosed homes remain on the market for longer periods of time.
Abandoned homes from the foreclosure crisis have a direct impact on the rise in crime in numerous communities. Even when not the result of homeowners or local teenagers, thieves start breaking into these vacant houses, stripping them of valuables, and the destruction of property and vandalism is making the homes even more difficult to sell. Often, as a result, it requires more money to repair these homes than the homes would sell for in today’s market.
According to a recent study by Dan Immergluck of the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, and Geoff Smith of the Woodstock Institute in Chicago, “when the foreclosure rate increases one percentage point, neighborhood violent crime rises nearly 2.5 percent.” A study conducted in Austin, Texas last year, found that “blocks with unsecured buildings had 3.2 times as many drug calls to police, 1.8 times as many calls reporting theft, and twice the number of calls reporting violence as blocks without vacant buildings.”
According to a paper on the impact of foreclosures, published by NeighborWorks America:
“When homes are abandoned because of foreclosure, entire communities begin to deteriorate. Garbage, un-mowed lawns, pests and dilapidated roofs and porches are eyesores. The lack of care can change the entire atmosphere in a community. The people who remain may have feelings of loneliness, fear and frustration. To make matters worse, potential buyers find conditions like these unattractive, turning them away and cause the empty homes to remain on the market for months and even years.”
Neighbors Pay Too
According to the Center for Responsible Lending, “Foreclosures cost neighbors $223 billion.” The Center also cites that “Over 44 million homes in the United States will experience property devaluation as a result of foreclosures in their neighborhoods. Forty-two counties in the United States can expect to see their property tax base erode by more than $1 billion. And households located in proximity to lost properties could see the value of their property decrease by $5,000, on average.”
According to a story in USA Today, Vallejo, California, once a vibrant and flourishing place to live, recently had to declare bankruptcy when the collapsing housing market caused their local economy to go over the edge. “Vallejo cut 87 jobs and slashed funding for parks, a library, a senior citizens’ center and other public services, but it wasn’t enough to hold off the bankruptcy filing.”
Unfortunately, social programs and public services are often the first things to be cut from municipal budgets, and seeing the irony in this vicious cycle is unavoidable. The programs that are cut first are often the programs that exist to help those suffering from the crisis that caused the cuts in the first place.
Gimme’ Shelter
Of course, the question we should all be asking, with so many people losing homes, is where is everyone moving to? According to the National Coalition for the Homeless:
- 76% of displaced homeowners and renters are moving in with relatives and friends.
- 54% move to emergency shelters at some point.
- 40% are already ending up on the streets.
- 61% of state and local homeless coalitions say they’ve seen a rise in homelessness since the foreclosure crisis began in 2007.
Of course, many homeowners that lose their homes to foreclosure ultimately become renters, and the increasing demand for rentals has, quite predictably, led to rising prices. So, not only do foreclosure victims have a tough time qualifying for rental housing due to their damaged credit scores, but many are being priced out of the market as well.
And that’s not the end of the rental story. Foreclosures are affecting renters too. Many of the foreclosed properties nationwide are apartment unit buildings. According to the Furman Center: “60% of the 15,000 foreclosure filings in New York City last year were on multi-unit buildings.” And the result is families forced out of their apartments often with very little notice. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, “In the State of Nevada alone, 5,000 families have been evicted from their rental homes in the last 18 months.”
The coalition also reports that in suburban Los Angeles, a tent city of more than 200 displaced residents has emerged. Notoriously high rent payments in the LA basin are leaving many with no other option than to pitch a tent or live out of their car in settlements like this. At this settlement there is no electricity, no plumbing and no drainage. There is nowhere to properly store food. Clearly, the lack of plumbing and refrigeration poses serious health risks to the residents of this makeshift community.
Homeowners Attitudes About Banks Worsening
Lenders, mortgage servicers, hedge funds, and various real estate investors are all more than aware of the crisis and its ramifications. Yet, distressed homeowners continue to report their frustration and anger over the way they are treated by their bank. And for banks and mortgage servicers wondering about the outcome of this increasing homeowner dissatisfaction… well, the writing is on the wall.
In a November 2008 story, published by the Oakland Tribune (Oakland, California), customers of Countrywide, Wachovia, and Wells Fargo, among others, describe the banks as uncooperative, ineffective and rude.
“Countrywide says it wants to help people restructure? That’s baloney,” said Dawn Aguiar, who bought her Fremont home for $587,000 in 2005. “They have not been helpful at all.” She financed the purchase with a $586,000 mortgage from Countrywide, but homes in her neighborhood now sell for $450,000 to $500,000, so her house is “under water” – worth less than the loan. Her adjustable rate loan balance increases monthly, and she’s behind in her payments.
“One lady I spoke to was so rude, she had a real attitude,” Aguiar said. “She talked down to me like I was a deadbeat.”
The complaints from homeowners at risk of foreclosure about rude treatment by bank personnel are mounting in number and visibility. A quick check online yielded the following:
Mark Gagliardi about Countrywide: “They’re not proactive. No calls, no follow-ups. And when I call them, I get put on ignore.”
Sue Chai Spaulding about Bank of America: “They don’t want to help you. But they shouldn’t take this so lightly. These are people’s lives. They have been rude to me.”
Rachelle Gonzales about American Home Mortgage: “It’s so frustrating. They say they’ll help. Then they say no. They have called me names. They have called me a slime. This has been awful. Just awful.”
On one Website discussion about homeowners losing homes to foreclosure, the following discussion thread was easily found:
The first comment said: “The best way to ruin a house beyond repair is this… Get yourself a couple of bags of cement and mix a lot of water to make it a bit light… Drop it down every open pipe in your house (sink, toilet, bathtub, sewer pipes, main water pipe) then let it set. The repair will cost the bank more than the house… replacing every pipe in the house means they have to redo the house. They might be able to charge you tho… ha, ha.”
To which another replied: “Awww… the poor banks. Whatever will they do? Ain’t karma a bitch?”
And then another added: Yes they could, but, what can they get out of you when you have nothing to lose? Remember kids, fire cleanses everything.
And then another: “Great point. I hate banksters.”
And another: “Payback’s a bitch.”
And then another: “I think this is funny as hell. Everyone getting evicted should take all they want, then burn the place down.”
And another: “The bank may own the house but not the appliances! Of course they should take them – they are theirs. I can find NO sympathy in my heart for bankers or real estate agents – they’re right up there with tax collectors.”
And then another: “If the lender makes things hard, they get to live with the consequences. That house will be torn to shreds.”
And lastly: “If you ask for peace, prepare for war.”
The Cost of Foreclosing
The costs involved in foreclosing on a home are high and getting higher. Lost principal and interest payments, tax and insurance payments, maintaining the property, lost servicing fee income, costs of collection efforts/servicing, legal costs for handling the foreclosure, administrative fees, costs of restoring the property to saleable condition, real estate commissions… all play a role in negatively impacting a lender’s bottom-line.
According to estimates from Standard & Poor’s, published in 2008, the average cost to a lender, expressed as a percentage of the loan balance is 26%. The costs breakdown as follows:
Amount lost in interest payments: 13.6%
Property taxes paid by lender: 3%
Legal fees paid by lender: 1%
Real estate agent commissions: 6%
Home maintenance: 3%
With the housing crisis still in full swing, home prices still not at bottom, and many forecasting millions of foreclosures still to come, it’s clear that lenders will endure more pain over the next few years. What banks and servicers need to consider is how homeowner attitudes are likely to change for the worse as the crisis continues.
Our politicians have recently started to see how populist anger can make governing much more difficult. The outrage over the AIG bonuses provided an example of how close many of our nation’s citizens are to marching in the streets. One can only imagine how homeowners will feel a year or two from now, when many of those who thought they could make it through our economic downturn, find that they have not. No one can know for sure, but one thing seems certain: If they’re getting angry today, they’ll be that much angrier a year from now.
Loan Modifications
As the economy has deteriorated, the number of foreclosures has continued to increase, which places further downward pressure on home values, which in turn causes more foreclosures and does further harm to our economy. Today, we all realize that foreclosures benefit no one, although to-date, we have not united behind a solution to this very serious ongoing problem.
As a result of this dangerous, downward spiral, the cost of foreclosure in some parts of the country is reaching the level at which no one, including the investors that own the property, wants to foreclose.
One alternative is loan modification. If, by modifying the terms of an existing mortgage, the borrower can afford the mortgage payments and therefore remain in the home and avoid foreclosure, it’s often true that everyone, even the investors that hold the mortgage on the property, comes out ahead. For investors, it’s really a question of which alternative, foreclosure or modification, offers the greater financial return. There are several methods for determining the cost differential between the two alternatives, for example one could compare a present value calculation with the expected cost of foreclosure, factoring in variables like repairs and reconditioning, expected time on the market, and assumptions about trends in home prices.
It’s worth considering, however, that lenders and servicers continue to struggle with loan modifications, which are transactions that are particularly time and labor intensive and often produce unsustainable results. As an example, studies published last year indicate that when banks attempt to handle loan modification negotiations directly with a borrower, the end result is that 60% are back in default in six months.
The reasons for this are many, but the overriding fact is that negotiations between a bank and an individual homeowner at risk of foreclosure, are obviously not negotiations between equals, and that manifests itself
in high re-default rates in the first year.
By contracting with qualified and quality loan modification firms, banks may be able to increase the diameter of the pipeline and therefore modify more loans, keeping people in their homes where they’re supposed to be.
Cash for Keys
A number of lenders have adopted the practice of offering to pay a homeowner about to lose a home to foreclosure a cash payment for leaving the home undamaged. Lenders report offering payments of $1500-$3,000. But with the incidence of borrowers damaging their homes before they leave rising, offering three grand may only be keeping the already honest… honest.
For those angry enough to strip wiring out of a home, remove a garage door, or even sell the air conditioning unit, three thousand dollars is not likely to accomplish much.
The Best Way to Catch Flies
Lenders seeking to reduce their costs of foreclosures should consider the old axiom: You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.
As it relates to a lender’s loss mitigation and collection personnel, it means that training them to better understand the psychology of foreclosures, to feel more empathy for those losing homes, to identify with a parent with children in financial distress… and more… banks can expect to be repaid hundreds of times over.
People in foreclosure, and those at risk of going into foreclosure, are often scared, lonely, tired, insecure, and sometimes confused. They’re not thinking clearly and they’re on the edge. A little kindness at a time like that can go a long, long way. A little rudeness, on the other hand, can push someone into a rage. It’s not easy to work with distressed homeowners day after day. And even though some might feel like they’re not letting their true feelings come through, at times like these, that can be difficult, if not impossible to do.
Here are some ideas that I think bank management could consider to change the way their personnel behave toward distressed borrowers.
- Explain what distressed borrowers are thinking and how they are feeling. Give them the details. Ask them to imagine what they would do and how they would feel. By bringing them into this kind of discussion, you’ll force people to realize that others worry about the same things they do, and once they share their thoughts and feelings with co-workers, they’ll stop seeing those in trouble as getting what they deserve.
- Share the facts about the costs that neighborhoods, communities and society as a whole pay as a result of foreclosures. You can use some of the statistics presented earlier. People sometimes fail to see how something that hasn’t happened to them personally, affects everyone personally.
- Play the Foreclosure Game – Ask people to calculate what would have to happen to place them at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure. You can even create cards that describe various catastrophes that happen to people in life. For example: You are injured in a car accident that leaves you unable to work for three months; the driver that hit you is uninsured. A month later your spouse is laid off from work, and you have a tuition payment of $18,000 due in 90 days. You can’t take out an equity line on your home, nor can you borrow from the bank. And your retirement plan account has been reduced by 40% as a result of the latest market correction.
- Consider asking a borrower who already lost his or her home to foreclosure to come in as a guest speaker. Often times, it’s harder to harbor ill feelings about someone you’ve met face-to-face, and the personnel stories from people who have come through it, can have a lot of impact.
- Conduct role-playing exercises in which one person is the borrower and the other the bank manager. The borrower starts by explaining to the bank manager how they got in so much trouble. The rest of the group votes on the level of empathy and compassion the bank manager has communicated during the call.
- Review your personnel training manuals to ensure that they are not placing counterproductive restrictions or using guidelines that make it more difficult for your people to spend the time needed. For example, do your people try to spend less than a certain amount of time per call? If the answer is yes, you may want to consider either lifting that requirement, or lengthening it.
- Changing culture has to start at the top. Have all of your organization’s top managers speak at your training sessions. When your loss mitigation personnel hear the CEO talk about foreclosure victims with sympathy and caring… they’ll stop and listen.
- Clip and distribute articles that highlight the heartbreaking stories of people losing homes due to no fault of their own. Many people today, still have the impression that those that got in trouble did it to themselves. Show data on the number of prime loans that are now defaulting. Examples that destroy that perception help to open minds.
- Encourage your people to share stories with each other at regular meetings. This is not something you want to do just once and leave it alone after that. This is an ongoing program intended to make sure that the people you have on the phone aren’t causing someone to punch holes in their walls when they hang up from the call.
- Consider increasing the number of breaks your people take during the day. And consider providing some items “just for fun” in areas where breaks are taken. An Etch-a-Sketch, Slinky, or even Play-Doh, can all bring back happy memories and help to relieve stress, or on the more serious side, provide an exercise ball, weights, or even a treadmill or two… exercise kills stress.
Conclusion
Human beings have a need to see bad things that happen to someone as not being their problem. And because of how this crisis has unfolded, many people have come to believe that everyone losing a home is an “irresponsible sub-prime borrower”. This belief can color how someone interacts with a distressed homeowner.
Those losing homes today are going through very stressful times. Many have lost jobs, and are struggling to make ends meet. Many have young children. And many have lost all hope. It’s easy for someone under that kind of stress to become angry, and an angry homeowner losing a home to foreclosure is likely to damage the home before leaving.
Banks and servicers need to take a look at how loss mitigation personnel are trained to deal with homeowners at risk of foreclosure, because as the months and even years go by, the situation will only get worse. By helping personnel to better understand what’s happening and how these customers are feeling, they can spend a little extra time, or offer a kind word that can make the difference between a home left in decent condition, and one in need of thousands of dollars in repairs.
Most importantly, communicate with the people that interact with troubled borrowers on the phone every day. It’s a hard job and constant exposure to tragic situations and frustrated or angry customers can wear one down, even if the person doesn’t realize it.
Today, just like my mother used to say… It pays to be nice.
Mandelman out.
I must start by pointing out that not a single Wall Street executive has gonne to jail…and that’s wrong.
True and painful words. Words that make me furious. But I’m not just sitting aside typing away on my little old blog for a few (thousand) people to read.
I’ve rented out the Baywalk Theater in St. Petersburg on Saturday April, 2, 2011 for a private showing of the award winning documentary Inside Job.
I hope everyone will mark their calendars, and tell all your friends. The free attendance is on a first come, first served basis, but I want to see lots and lots of people there.
If there is demand for more than 400 people, I might expand the offering. Bottom line is I want everyone to see Inside Job. I especially want people who are in foreclosure or who are suffering the insanity of mortgage modification hell to understand how we’ve all been cheated and robbed….and how we’re still being robbed today.
Baywalk is a perfect venue. It was once a thriving retail community center. Today the only tenant left is this struggling movie theater. This will make a perfect venue to stage a very public protest to the crimes that continue to be committed in this country every single day.
Mark Your Calendar and Spread the Word, Saturday, April 2, 2011, St. Petersburg!
Tweet this!
Share and Enjoy:
Scridb filter
An Father’s Apocolyptic Message To His Sons
A friend shared a message with me that his father sent to him. My friend reads my blog so he knows I have great fear for what’s happening across this country and we talk about it often, but it took the following message from his father to really get his attention and get him to start thinking seriously about the kinds of issues that cause me such concern. Read on:
Good Morning Guys, I am going to be leaving and headed back to South America sometime in May. I would like to get together with either all of you together or singularly before I go. Other than just getting together, I would like to discuss with you the short term and long term future of our (your) economics and your families safety. I talked with John a few weeks ago but have not had the chance to talk with Mark or Allen.
As you may or may not know, I am trading daily. This places me in a position to be aware of what is going on, not only in this country but around the world from an economic stand point.
We have a situation now in this country and around the world that has never existed before. To attempt to cover the conditions that exist in a few short sentences would be impossible. But bottom line is in the future, and probably the near future, we are likely to have some major problems in this country. The dollar no longer being used as The Reserve currency will be the beginning of the total collapse of the dollar. And china, brazil, and India are all ready making plans to trade in their own currencies, not the Dollar. So basically the deflation of the dollar and eventual collapse has allready started. THE DOLLAR WILL COMPLETELY DEFLATE WHEN WE CANNOT PAY OUR DEBT WITH IT BECAUSE IT IS NOT ACCEPTED. IE IT HAS NO VALUE.
There are two kinds of people in the world, People who plan ahead and make preparations for what ever lies ahead and then those who just follow or wait until the inevitable happens and then attempt to deal with it. There is no way most of the public will be prepared. It is just not in their DNA. We all are creatures of habit.
The article above is just one of many (some a lot more detailed) I get every day in the process of researching stocks etc. There is not any one in the business of trading money or stocks that is not fully aware of what is going on not only in the US but in the world right now. These people have to deal with reality. And the reality is we are in the toilet. I would like to believe that a change in Washington in 2012 with a conservative group ofleaders would change things, However I believfe it is too late. There is too much damage and the ball is allready set in motion.
The old Boy Scout Motto, Be Prepared is something that my Dad tried to instill in me and I would feel remiss if I did not try to do the same withyou guys.
I mentioned to Allen briefly the possibility of you guys going together and purchasing a piece of land outside of any metropolitan area. Kind of a refuge. There are many things you can do in the next one, two, or three years. Be Prepared. Have a little cash on hand, Have good transportation, Have arms and ammunition, and know (practice) how to use them. And possibly have the ability to get food or have plenty of it stored. There are volumes of things to do to be prepared on the internet.
Believe me when I say this. It is not a question of if this economy will fail. It is only a question of When. Probably sooner than later.
I have my property in Guatemala, so I feel that I will be in goodshape. i also have two friends (americans) that are building next to me as I write this. I have to leave because I do not have the money to continue to live here. Plus I will be supervising the construction of one of the homes next to me.
Please try to remain a little liquid. Then you can last longer in a transitional period. I hope you don’t think that I am consumed with a dooms-day attitude, but you have your families to consider and your judgment is imperative. If it turns out that I am wrong, then your preparation will not have gone to waste. I f I am right, your preparation will certainly not have gone to waste.
Even though we don’t see much of each other I love you guys and want the best for you and your families, Just remember that and be prepared.
Love, Dad
Tweet this!
Share and Enjoy:
Scridb filter
The Pino Case- If The Court Considers Fraud on The Courts You’ll Create Chaos in The Courts.
The Pino Appeal is Florida’s Ibanez moment. The Florida Supreme Court will soon decide just how serious Florida courts are going to take systematic, repetitive fraud on the Courts of the State of Florida. The bottom line is this….
Will banks and foreclosure mills be given a free pass or will the Rule of Law be upheld in courtrooms across this state?
and
What will our courts do when confronted with evidence of widespread and systematic fraud on the court?
Here are the real issues, directly from the transcript:
MS. GIDDINGS: I’m urging you to consider this case in the grand scheme of things. If you allow courts to go back and open up all of these cases, when it’s clear on the face that there was no affirmative relief obtained, or that the affirmative relief would not have been material, then you’re going to create chaos in the court system.
JUDGE FARMER: So, are you suggesting that this fraud has been that widespread that it –
MS. GIDDINGS: Your Honor, I’m not acknowledging that any fraud occurred. I think that there is — we all know –
JUDGE FARMER: Why would we shrink — as a court system, why would we shrink, no matter how many cases it might involve, from looking out for attempts to defraud courts to publish and utter and use false
instruments? Why wouldn’t we be most vigilant?
JUDGE POLEN: These matters contained in Mr. Stern’s law firm are the subject of an investigation by the Attorney General, are they not?
MR. NIEVES: Yes, they are.
JUDGE POLEN: — to know that not just one, but perhaps dozens or hundreds of lawsuits filed in courts with fraudulent documents are being used as a basis to get foreclosures against people who don’t have the benefit of Mr. Nieves’ law firm to represent them.
JUDGE FARMER: Fraud on the Court is not material?
MS. GIDDINGS: Your Honor, fraud on the Court –
JUDGE FARMER: Publishing false documents is not material?
MS. GIDDINGS: Fraud on the Court did not occur in this case.
JUDGE FARMER: It didn’t.
MS. GIDDINGS: A document was filed, but nothing was ever heard before the Court. And if you look at the service expert’s case –
JUDGE FARMER: Let’s just confront that for a minute. I mean, to the extent that the cases that you talk about, Select, and the others talk about, and that is, achieving affirmative relief and all that stuff, I’m wondering if they’re not just talking about two different things as two separate grounds. In other words, obtaining or using voluntary dismissal after you’ve already gotten relief in some way may be one kind of piece of voluntary dismissal, but not under an entirely separate kind may be fraud or attempted fraud on the Court. I don’t know why we would adopt a rule of our inherent powers to deal with fraud in the Court, why we would engage in a reading that says only if the fraud proves to have been successful. And that is to say if the representee relied, to its detriment, on the fraud and changed their position and did stuff, only then would we allow relief of any kind. That strikes me as not –
JUDGE POLEN: I see a number of distinguishing factors, most important of which the alleged fraud that occurred in that case pertained to two affidavits which were filed by the appellee which the appellant suggested were fraudulent in furtherance of a motion for summary judgment, but only because they’re contesting the factual allegations and apparent inconsistencies that may have existed in those affidavits. Now, that may be considered some kind of fraud. But it’s not the kind of fraud on the Court that would be if the appellant here could prove their allegations, where documents filed in support of a mortgage foreclosure proceeding were fraudulently generated by employees of the attorney hired by your client.
And the bottom line:
To sum everything up, if this Court affirms the
Trial Court, it’s basically saying that it’s okay to
lie, cheat and steal, as long as, when you get
caught, you voluntarily dismiss the case. And that’s
what they’re trying to do, just allow the judges of
Florida to put a little sunshine in these issues, and
you can allow the courts to address the prevailing
fraud. By itself, that would deter a lot of these
abuses, when you empower our judges and allow them to
deal with the issues.
Pino_v._BNY_Mellon_Oral_Argument Transcript
Click below and watch the Oral Arguments
Tweet this!
Share and Enjoy:
Scridb filter
Foreclosed Properties Depress Housing Sales Value
Like other examples of mass hysteria or misinformation, it is a widely accepted mantra that we’ve got to churn through all these foreclosures to get our economy moving again. THIS IS FLAT OUT WRONG.
We need to fix the fundamental flaws in our economy which will allow people to go back to work so they can make modified mortgage payments in order to prevent homes from being sold in foreclosure. And yet there exists a profound lack of leadership at the state, national and local levels that are focusing on this.
Instead our leaders are focused on, “Damn The Torpedoes- Churn Through Foreclosures”. Now I can tell you this is great for attorneys because every foreclosed home is going to present potential title claims and legal work and the accumulated cases mean this work will continue for years….but this is not good for our country and it is not good for my state in particular.
Check out this video from Zillow for an explanation of this phenomena. The bottom line is people need to go back to work in order for any solution to the foreclosure crisis that grips this country to take hold. We need to stop proceeding with flawed foreclosures and work on solving the fundamental financial problems that exists and force the banks to start exercising more common sense in the foreclosure process.
ZillowResearchBrief_ForeclosureDelta_1
Tweet this!
Share and Enjoy:
Scridb filter
What Are You Afraid of Matt?
The stock market is up. Unemployment is “only” 10%. There are “only” 25 percent of homes in foreclosure. I just came back from New York City and things really are booming. The malls are full. Restaurants are packed. So Matt, why are you screaming that the sky is falling?
This is an argument I find myself frequently engaged in. Some of my closest friends don’t get at all where I’m coming from with my “paranoid delusions” and dire predictions of collapse. First, none of the numbers that are being quoted by anyone mean anything anymore. They’re all lies or fraud or hopelessly optimistic estimations or purposeful misstatements. I don’t trust one word coming out of anybody, especially anyone associated with our government at any level and I damn sure don’t trust anyone associated with Wall Street, the banks or institutions.
I’m not the only one that’s bubbling over with anger and rage….the word is out now and everyday Americans all over this country are becoming increasingly angry at what has been done to all of us. If you’re one of the few who are not yet angry, you’re just not getting it. You’re not reading. You’re not thinking. Because you need to be informed first, then angry, then ready to do something about it.
In the coming years we’re going to continue to be treated to more and more details of the Greatest Fraud That’s Ever Been Committed on a Society. One of the latest examples is the current Bank of America/Countrywide litigation. The bottom line is Bank of America/Countrywide sold millions of loans to institutional investors all around the world. The investors didn’t look at each loan, they relied upon the representations made in the prospectuses that were prepared by Bank of America/Countrywide. Now the investors have taken the time to actually look at the loans and they’re accusing Bank of America/Countrywide of lying in the documents…..
Please read the following link from ZeroHedge for details. The banks and institutions engage in widespread patterns of abusive behavior, lies, mistreatment and fraud….but not the first one has ever been prosecuted….not one has been put in handcuffs…..
SO MUCH FOR EQUALITY.
Tweet this!
Share and Enjoy:
Scridb filter
Foreclosures- The Florida Judicial System’s Cash Cow
My real advocacy in the foreclosure fight began when we went to Tallahassee to fight attempts by the banking industry to turn foreclosures into a Wild West, non-judicial foreclosure state…which operates like the repossession of a car…except that all of your life’s possessions are in that car….but that’s a whole other story.
The bottom line is while we were in Tallahassee fighting this bill an insider pulled me aside and re assured me….he said, The Non Judicial foreclosure bill is never going to pass….our courts would go broke without the foreclosure filing fees. In this current crisis environment and as we struggle to understand the deep, dark sinister forces that are pushing this mad rush toward foreclosures, we turn back to the old Maxim, “Follow The Money”.
So that’s the simple explanation….our courts need to keep the foreclosure machine humming along in order to keep the lights on….regardless of the larger societal impact. Have a little read at the Senate analysis below. Pay particular attention to the economic impact section….
Tweet this!
Share and Enjoy:
Scridb filter
CHASE NOT DEALING IN GOOD FAITH WITH BORROWERS (SURPRISE)
It will come as no surprise to anyone following the foreclosure wars to know that the lenders absolutely do not want to modify loans or work with borrowers. One need look no further than the September Hamp Numbers for specific facts to back this up, but the bottom line is the servicers are taking billions in taxpayer dollars (dollars that Congress now admits they are not entitled to in some cases), but they are not working with the very taxpayers that are funding their effort. That’s heaping insult on top of injury on top of obscenity…but then who really cares right?
It’s bad enough that they’re not being dealt with fairly, but below is proof positive from a lender that they are going to be actively working behind the borrowers back.
Chase Waiver Request (redacted)
This is an absolute license to negotiate in bad faith, provide false hope while at the same time, work hard to achieve the ultimate goal (take the home). Anyone need anymore proof that there are perverse, hidden motives here and that the lenders are not interested in keeping borrowers in their homes?
Tweet this!
Share and Enjoy:
Scridb filter
Why the REST Report and NPV Analysis is what you need for HAMP Loan Modification Approval
By Lane Houk
THE REST REPORT IS a report generated by the REST software platform, which is a loan disposition analysis system that, in limited different formats, is used by major banks and mortgage servicers with borrowers and properties that are in default, to run an NPV test and to determine qualification for a HAMP Loan Modification. Financial institutions use systems like REST to analyze the various options available when a loan is not being repaid as agreed by the borrower. The purpose of such analysis is to make sure that the bank can choose the path that offers the best financial outcome possible for the investor or owner of the loan; the servicer is simply the agent for the investor with whom most borrowers interface with on a regular basis. Usually, the investor/owner of the loan is unknown to the borrower and, in most cases, is a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) more commonly known as a “Trust.”
Although almost all financial institutions and servicers use loan disposition analysis software platforms, these systems are not made available to consumers. They are sophisticated systems only purchased and utilized by banks that have many thousands of loans that need to be analyzed so that outcomes may be determined and optimized.
When homeowners arrange to run a REST Report, the system produces an 11-page document based on the specifics of their property and their financial situation that shows, from the investor and servicer’s perspective, the various financial outcomes that would result from modifying their mortgage compared with the costs and bottom line result of foreclosure and distressed sale. A homeowner can then use the report by submitting it to his or her lender or servicer, along with the required supporting documents, when seeking to obtain a loan modification, or approval for a short sale.
Compare the approach of using an expert financial professional who knows how to use the REST Report to that of today’s homeowners applying for a loan modification without any assistance and without any negotiating leverage whatsoever. Some homeowners attempt to negotiate with their lender or servicer on their own and from a position of weakness, while others hire lawyers or other third parties to represent them, but in either case, all the homeowner ends up submitting to the lender or servicer is information about themselves, and nothing substantive about the possible dispositions of that loan from the bank’s perspective, or in the best interests of investors.
Law firms and other third parties, depending on the state you live in, all concentrate on helping homeowners submit the best possible application… or “proposal” to the bank. In general, that proposal includes the borrower’s information, various documents intended to verify income, a letter describing the hardship that has caused the homeowner to apply for a modification or short sale… all the information that the homeowner or attorney/representative hopes will paint a picture that the servicer will view as qualifying for a loan modification.
But, “hope,” should only be considered a negotiating strategy, when hope is all you’ve got.
When applying for a loan modification with the REST Report, borrowers still submit their application and supporting documentation, but in addition the borrower submits a report, generated by a loan disposition analysis platform that incorporates the same decision analytics used by lenders and servicers. The report clearly shows the servicer the investor’s financial outcome, in terms of net present value, in a range of scenarios, assuming such outcomes are possible, of course. In addition, the REST Report clearly quantifies a borrower’s eligibility for a HAMP Loan Modification and a HAFA short sale or deed in lieu of foreclosure alternatives.
In March 2009, the Obama Administration published detailed program guidelines for the Making Home Affordable (MHA) Program. Mortgage servicers were authorized to begin modifications under the HAMP plan immediately. With the assistance of several government agencies, GSEs, and servicers – this effort involved the development and refinement of servicer guidelines, modification documents, and data collection and modeling tools.
The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) was designed to help as many as 3 to 4 million financially struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure by modifying loans to a level that is affordable for borrowers now and sustainable over the long term. The program provides clear and consistent loan modification guidelines that the entire mortgage industry can use.
Borrower eligibility is based on meeting specific criteria including:
1) borrower is delinquent on their mortgage or faces imminent risk of default
2) property is occupied as borrower’s primary residence
3) mortgage was originated on or before Jan. 1, 2009 and unpaid principal balance must be no greater than $729,750 for one-unit properties.
After determining a borrower’s eligibility, a servicer will take a series of steps to adjust the monthly mortgage payment to 31% of a borrower’s total pretax monthly income:
First, reduce the interest rate to as low as 2%,
Next, if necessary, extend the loan term to 40 years,
Finally, if necessary, forbear (defer) a portion of the principal until the loan is paid off and waive interest on the deferred amount.
Note: Servicers may elect to forgive principal under HAMP on a stand-alone basis or before any modification step in order to achieve the target monthly mortgage payment.
The Home Affordable Modification Program was designed with good intentions, however, in reality, the servicers are denying thousands of homeowners who actually qualify for a HAMP Modification. There is an answer “why” but that’s another article for another time. In short, if you’re reading this, you are likely one of the tens of thousands of homeowners who have been denied a HAMP Modification even though you really qualify. The problem is that the servicers don’t usually tell the homeowner the specific reason(s) they were denied because, in reality, they should never have been denied. Let’s just say that the real reason for denial is that it’s just not in the servicer’s best interest to modify. They’d rather foreclose because they’ll make more money going that route. It may not make sense to you right now at face value but trust me; they make more money foreclosing than they do modifying a homeowner’s loan.
The simple fact is that when a servicer receives an application for a loan modification from a borrower, that servicer should conduct its own loan disposition analysis in order to determine which outcome, foreclosure or some form of modification or disposition, is in the best interests of the investor who owns the loan. So, when you apply with the REST Report, you provide that loan disposition analysis, causing the servicer to have to verify those numbers. When they find that the report’s analysis is correct, we are seeing modifications granted in situations, and in timeframes, that were unexpected.
Loans and loan modifications are like snowflakes… no two are alike. And while there are law firms or other mortgage professionals that may feel confident about their analysis, the REST Report unquestionably adds a degree of certainty that hasn’t been possible until now.
According to the latest HAMP report from the U.S. Treasury, dated April 30, 2010: Out of 1.2 million HAMP trial modifications there have been 277,640 trials cancelled… and 295,348 permanent modifications granted.
The latest Treasury HAMP Report shows the situation clearly. The number of trial modifications that have been cancelled, is about the same as the number of permanent modifications granted, which is not good enough if you find yourself among those that have been declined by HAMP. There are still 637,353 trial modifications awaiting an answer… thumbs up, or thumbs down. I have seen homeowners who have paid 6, 9 and even 12 trial monthly payments (which is outside the allowable guidelines) and they are still awaiting approval for their permanent modification. Still other clients have come to me having faithfully paid their 3 monthly trial period payments only to be denied a permanent modification and for no apparent or good reason.
The latest Treasury data did show some very encouraging trends as well. For example, as of June 1, 2010, borrowers will have to document their income before beginning a trial modification, and many servicers started implementing this policy in April, so there is data, and it is very encouraging in that it shows roughly twice as many homeowners being approved for a permanent modification after successfully completing the trial period.
Well, when it comes to loan modifications under HAMP, the REST Report runs NPV analytics that should fall within HAMP guidelines. So, when the report says you qualify for HAMP, there’s no one else, besides your servicer of course, that can be as sure you do, as the REST Report.
But, what if you don’t qualify for HAMP?
However, for homeowners that don’t qualify for HAMP, the REST Report can be every bit as helpful to the loan modification or short sale process as it is for those applying under HAMP. Perhaps the principal balance on your loan exceeds HAMP’s $729,000 limit. Or, perhaps you’ve been turned down for HAMP and don’t know why. Or, maybe it’s a mortgage on a second home that you’re trying to modify.
Whatever the reason for falling outside of HAMP guidelines, the loan disposition analysis report produced by the REST platform is proving itself invaluable in the negotiations between a homeowner and their lender or servicer.
Mortgage servicers are companies that are hired by investors to “service” mortgages they own. The servicers all work under a contract called a “Pooling and Servicing Agreement,” or PSA. And all PSAs require servicers to make decisions related to the loans they are servicing in the best interests of the investors for whom they work.
So, when you submit a REST Report to your lender or servicer, they don’t just receive information about you, they also receive an analysis of the financial impact to investors of the alternatives to foreclosure compared with the cost of foreclosing on your property.
If the net present value analysis shows that investors would be better off modifying than foreclosing, we’re seeing servicers responding to the report, and offering to modify loans in more cases than we expected.
It’s not that we believe that a servicer would accept the analysis shown in the REST Report at face value, they most certainly would not. But we do know that when they verify the report’s conclusions using their own internal systems, they will find the REST Report’s financial analysis to be accurate.
Does that mean that submitting an application for a loan modification or short sale along with the REST Report guarantees anything? No, no one can guarantee anyone that a lender or servicer will modify a loan, at the end of the day, both participation in HAMP, and their willingness to modify a mortgage internally, is strictly voluntary. And as anyone in the banking industry will readily tell you… banks only modify loans when it’s in their own best financial interest to do so.
And that, folks is precisely the point. When you can quantify and document that the modification (or short sale) is in the best interest of the investor, the servicer will be put in a very precarious position if they then still choose to ignore those findings.
Most importantly, when it comes to a HAMP Modification, the core component of a HAMP approval boils down to the NPV Analysis or NPV Test. NPV stands for “Net Present Value.”
The base NPV model provides consistency in NPV calculations for the Home Affordable Modification Program and was designed to help the mortgage industry move toward a more standard process for evaluating the NPV of mortgages for purposes of making modifications.
A participating servicer in the Home Affordable Modification Program must modify any loan that meets the program’s eligibility criteria if the modification tests “positive” for NPV. I hope you noted that point above. That word is “must.”
When mortgage modifications have a positive NPV, it is in the best interests of lenders, servicers, investors, and borrowers to modify mortgages to reduce the risk of foreclosure. The Home Affordable Modification Program increases the potential number of mortgage modifications that will have a positive NPV, resulting in more servicers modifying mortgages, and keeping more Americans in their homes. The Home Affordable Modification Program specifies a precise method for determining NPV and provides a base NPV model that any servicer can use or customize into a proprietary NPV model that satisfies all of the program’s methodological requirements.
Almost all servicers in the US have by now elected to participate in the Making Home Affordable program and have signed what is called a “Servicer Participation Agreement” (SPA) with the US Department of Treasury, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as compliance agent.
The SPA obligates the servicer to follow the HAMP guidelines. If the NPV Test comes back positive and the servicer still refuses to modify, it is likely that a claim for breach of contract could be brought against the servicer; and, there are already about a dozen lawsuits currently pending claiming just that… that the servicer breached their contract with Treasury by wrongfully denying homeowners for a HAMP Modification.
Now, if you are a homeowner who is frustrated beyond belief and looking for relief, I encourage you to pick up the phone and call us. We are one of the few firms around the country authorized to run REST Reports and help homeowners with the process of getting their ducks in a row and putting their best foot forward.
Call the National Institute of Consumer Advocacy at 800-985-4685 or by email at info[at]nioca.org
Debating Yield Spread Premiums: RU Talking to ME?
From Gregg Christoff, who apparently doesn’t like what I have to say and thinks I don’t know what I’m talking about —-
Ok, no offense but this Garfield has no clue what he is talking about in this article. Let me tell you how YSP actually work. Typically banks send mortgage originators (lender) rates every day. The lender then chooses which rate he is going to offer the client. Frankly the higher the rate above the raw rate the higher the yield spread premium. (Which translates to higher commission paid to the lender.) Obviously, the lender cannot offer the raw rate to the client because no profit will be reckonized unless the lender can charge for numerous fees. Normally, charging additional fees is challenging due to the competitive nature of mortgage lending. Therefore, most lenders make thier income from YSP.
When it comes to charging YSP frankly it depends on how much time is spent preparing the loan. If it is a quick and easy loan a minimum YSP can be “charged”. Therefore the loan rate should be close to the raw rate for that loan product. On the other hand, some loans can take months even up to a year to close. So obviously the YSP has to be higher to offset the time and overhead needed to prepare that loan.
The bottom line is no one can stay in business without collecting some type of profitibility. Do you know of any business that can survive without any income?
Like any business, there are always ones that act responsible and with integrity and those that don’t. There are a number of cases where people abused the mortgage industry as it was originally intended. These people have created a black eye for the industry.
But to say that YSP is used to lie to clients claimed by Garfield is utterly ridiculous. If it wasn’t for YSP, how was a mortgage company to stay in business?? Answer that Garfield………..[OK see below]
ANSWER: NO OFFENSE TAKEN, BUT I ALWAYS KNOW WHEN SOMEONE SAYS “NO OFFENSE” WHAT THEY REALLY MEAN IS THAT THEY DON’T WANT TO HEAR AN ANSWER THAT MAKES THEM LOOK FOOLISH.
- YIELD: The rate received by the lender on a loan adjusted for the effects of amortization, points and other factors. That is why the APR is different than the nominal rate quoted to the borrower. The actual yield is considered to be the percentage return that goes to the lender, taking into consideration the amount of money the lender advanced and measured against the amount of money the lender actually receives on an annual basis.
- If there was ONE YIELD there would be no YIELD SPREAD. And if there was no YIELD SPREAD there would be no YIELD SPREAD PREMIUM.
- A Yield SPREAD arises when there are two different possible yields for the same loan. One is better for the borrower and one is better for the lender.
- If the spread favors the lender, then a PREMIUM is paid to the one responsible for creating it — i.e., the mortgage broker or mortgage originator.
- YIELD SPREAD PREMIUMS for 2001-2008 ran 3-4 times higher than the figures you quote. In some cases, they were much higher than that because all the premiums and commissions were raised to keep mouths shut who knew that the appraisal would never stand the test of time — even one day worth of time.
- While it is possible that an argument could have been made for the old yield spread premium of 1-1/2%, it still amounted to a commission that paid for asymmetric information — i.e., the lender/broker knew more than the borrower or the borrower would not have paid it.
- In order to “earn” a yield spread premium, the broker or originator must convince the borrower to accept a loan which gives the lender a higher yield than the borrower could otherwise pay. If the borrower takes the bait (you come to the table with less money, you reduce the the monthly payments at first anyway, etc.) then the yield spread occurs and the premium is paid.
- In order to convince the the borrower to take the loan terms that give the lender a higher yield, the broker must downplay the negative aspects of making the switch and play up the apparent advantages of the terms that give more to the lender.
- To seal the deal, the broker pretends to be acting in the best interests of the borrower when in fact he is acting in the best interests of himself and the “lender.”
- Pretending means the broker is lying to the customer about who to trust. And the substance of the lie is that the loan that gives the higher yield to the lender is better for the borrower. This lie can only be accomplished in complex transactions like real estate purchases with one or more loans. Otherwise the borrower would see right through it.
- Thus I stand by my rendition of yield spread premiums and assert that you are counting the pits in the orange while someone is driving off with the grove — with your help.
Filed under: foreclosure
FLA State probes whether three law firms falsified foreclosure documents
Editor’s Note: The REAL BOTTOM LINE POINT is not some technicality wherein the paperwork wasn’t done right, which frankly is reason enough to deny the foreclosure, it is that this “technical” deficiency is “derived” from the fact that there is no note or mortgage or deed of trust that can be enforced. There might not even be any obligation at all if the creditor received payment in full.
LAWYERS TAKE NOTE: Go back to the law books. There are essential differences between the obligation that arises as a matter of law, the note that is offered as proof of the obligation, and the mortgage or deed of trust which is incident to the note.
Don’t dispute the obligation. It DID arise by operation of law. And by operation of law it may still exist, be partially extinguished or entirely extinguished. The documents signed at closing were only PART of the deal in a securitized residential loan. The borrower signs a note and the lender (investor) gets a bond (or evidence of a bond). [THE NOTE AND BOND HAVE DIFFERENT TERMS AND PARTIES BUT THE BOND REFERS TO SECURITIZATION DOCUMENTS THAT IN TURN DESCRIBE LOANS OF WHICH THE BORROWER'S LOAN IS ONE CLAIMED TO BE IN A POOL FORMING THE SOURCE OF REVENUE].
WITHOUT REAL DOCUMENTS SIGNED BY REAL PEOPLE WITH REAL AUTHORITY WITH REAL EFFECTIVE DATES, THE CHAIN IS BROKEN.
The borrower signs the note to a party whom the investor never heard of nor could the investor have uncovered the payee on the note because the information was withheld. The investor receives a bond which is an assignment of all right, title and interest to the receivables, but the security instrument is left where it always was — with the mortgage originator (the only one in county records with an interest). The lender (investor) doesn’t know the borrower and the borrower doesn’t know the lender, while each of them receives different terms and [promises from different parties.
But by operation of law, the originator’s interest is extinguished the moment it arises because it is in most cases a table funded loan in which the originator acted as a broker not a lender, and performed no underwriting tasks. So the legal obligation is extinguished at the same time that the legal obligation arises.
BUT that is not the end of the story.
The equitable powers of the court come into play to prevent unjust enrichment. So the next time a Judge says he doesn’t want the borrower to get a house for free, your answer should be you don’t want anyone to get the house for free. And if the Court wishes to exercise its equitable powers to allocate any equity in the home, after due consideration for the obligations of the borrowers and many others who promised to pay the bond holder then the party seeking affirmative relief must make a short plain statement of ultimate facts upon which relief could be granted and then prove their case.
What these law firms and fabrication mills are doing is fabricating and forging documents to create the illusion that those complexities don’t exist — a conclusion that every Judge would like to reach.
Ultimately, the die is cast — the Courts are required to consider the complexity and force the real party in interest, the party with standing to say they lost money on the deal and to show exactly how they did lose money — not merely point to the borrower’s non-payment.
The non-payment by borrower ONLY comes into play if the payment is due and the “creditor” can prove their standing and prove the obligation, complete with an accounting from beginning to end. The fact that the note SAYS the payment is due does not make the payment due — not if the payment was made or the obligation has been changed or satisfied.The note is evidence that must be proffered though the rules of evidence with authentication from competent witnesses or admission from the borrower. Don’t be so quick to admit that they have the note. Even if it is right in front of you, close examination may well reveal that it came off a color printer that morning.
The reason the die is cast is that ultimately this comes down to property law. The breaks in the chain of title render every title in whichever a securitized loan was involved susceptible to being identified as unmarketable or defective title. This threatens the entire marketplace. It is this issue that these firms and the large banks are continuing to finesse with their freshly color-printed “original” documents, indorsements, assignments and powers of attorney.
NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
August 10, 2010
Contact: Sandi Copes
Phone: 850.245.0150
Sandi.Copes@myfloridalegal.com
FLORIDA LAW FIRMS SUBPOENAED OVER FORECLOSURE FILING PRACTICES
——————————————————————TALLAHASSEE, FL – Attorney General Bill McCollum today announced his office has launched three new investigations into allegations of unfair and deceptive actions by Florida law firms handling foreclosure cases.
The Attorney General’s Economic Crimes Division is investigating whether improper documentation may have been created and filed with Florida courts to speed up foreclosure processes, potentially without the knowledge or consent of the homeowners involved.
The new investigations name The Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A.; Shapiro & Fishman, LLP; and the Law Offices of David J. Stern, P.A. The law firms were hired by loan servicers to begin foreclosure proceedings when consumers were in arrears on their mortgages.
Because many mortgages have been bought and sold by different institutions multiple times, key paperwork involved in the process to obtain foreclosure judgments is often missing. On numerous occasions, allegedly fabricated documents have been presented to the courts in foreclosure actions to obtain final judgments against homeowners.
Thousands of final judgments of foreclosure against Florida homeowners may have been the result of the allegedly improper actions of the law firms under investigation.
The Attorney General’s Office is also investigating whether the law firms have created affiliated companies outside the United States where the allegedly false documents are being prepared and then submitted to the law firms for use.
Subpoenas have been served on each of the law firms listed above, and the investigations are ongoing.
For an official, downloadable photograph, please visit http://www.myfloridalegal.com/picture.html. Also, follow the Attorney General’s Office on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/myfloridalegal
Filed under: CASES, CORRUPTION, Eviction, evidence, expert witness, foreclosure, foreclosure mill, GTC | Honor, HERS, Investor, Mortgage, Motions, Pleading, trustee
New HAMP NPV Analysis Service – Prove the Servicer Wrong!
For over a year I’ve known that the crux of the issue for homeowners trying to get a Loan Modification under the federal government’s HAMP program has been the shrouded mystery of the NPV Analysis. The Net Present Value (NPV) calculation is the KEY component of determining whether or not the homeowner gets a trial, and ultimately, a permanent loan modification under the HAMP program. That mystery is now GONE!!
The problem has been that the NPV calculation is a closely guarded secret of the major financial institutions and servicers. If they can keep this calculation a secret, then they can tell homeowners (and even judges) that the homeowner did not qualify for the HAMP modification and no one is the wiser or can prove them wrong; AND that is exactly what they have done for over a year. Here’s the bottom line: Servicers do NOT want to modify because it is simply not as profitable for them as default servicing is. Period. It has NOTHING to do with the homeowner qualifying or not qualifying for HAMP. The problem is enforcement of the HAMP rules and regulations and unless you can prove them wrong with documentation, you’re basically screwed by the secret information (NPV test) that only they possess… until now.
The Department of Treasury is the government entity responsible for determining the formula and the dataset for calculating the NPV on any given mortgage loan asset. The NPV Model formula has been revised several times since the initial launch of the HAMP program and all participants are now currently using NPV Model 3.1 (version) in their calculations.
Here’s a direct quote from the HAMP website from the Treasury, ” A participating servicer in the Home Affordable Modification Program must modify any loan that meets the program’s eligibility criteria if the modification tests “positive” for NPV.” – notice the word “MUST” in that sentence. Here’s a link to that entire report on the HAMP site.
Folks, this is an absolute requirement if a mortgage loan meets the eligibility requirements and the NPV analysis results in a “POSITIVE” then the loan MUST be modified under HAMP. If the Servicer fails to approve the modification under this scenario, they are in BREACH of their Servicer Participation Agreement and this is actionable on the part of the homeowner; meaning you can go on the offense once you have proof that you do qualify and the Servicer has wrongfully and willfully denied you of the HAMP modification.
MBS Analytics HAS ACCESS TO AN NPV MODEL PORTALTO RUN AN ACTUAL NPV LOAN DISPOSITION ANALYSIS FOR ANY HOMEOWNER. Basically they reproduce exactly what the servicer is supposed to do and then hit ‘em between the eyes with, well, let’s just call it a very compelling package and argument to “modify this loan under HAMP or face the consequences.”
Yes, you read that right. So here’s what MBS Analytics does…
- collect ALL of the required information and documentation to ascertain the data and information that needs to be inputted
- calculate the borrower’s actual monthly income and expenses
- calculate the proper monthly amounts for taxes and insurance
- run an AVM (short for automated appraisal) just like the servicer does to determine a FMV (Fair Market Value) for the property
- run a COMPLETE NPV ANALYSIS which tests for HAMP eligibility, NPV Positive or Negative, New Monthly Payment under HAMP and eligibility for Foreclosure Alternatives such as Short Sale, Deed in Lieu and non-HAMP modification alternatives
- compile the complete package in a very specific order and format
- draft a cover letter with a summary of the NPV findings and the Loan Disposition Analysis and which also states their legal position on the Homeowner’s qualification for a HAMP modification
- attach documenation to support the position and documentation which details the Servicer’s OBLIGATION to comply
- cover letter makes a demand to comply and to modify according to the HAMP program and in line with the calculations for the new monthly payment under HAMP
- send all of this certified mail to the servicer
Call MBS Analytics today if you are interested or have any questions or want to get started.
MBS Analytics at 1-800-985-4685
Mass Extinction of Pools Becomes Clearer
Our good friend “Anonymous” has piped up with more vital information and expressed it more succinctly than I did.
“The senior tranches have largely already been paid and closed. Since the junior tranches are paid only if there is left over current payment – after the senior tranches have been paid. Thus, junior tranches are paid nothing (this is evident in investor lawsuits – damages do not deduct foreclosure recovery). If anything remains today from the toxic mortgage loan securitizations, it is the residual tranche – which has likely been resecuritized into a separate Trust – that is not a current pass-through security – but, rather, synthetically derived from a dismantled original Trust structure. “
Editor’s Note: In other words, if you have a high quality loan wherein you have a high credit score and received relatively good terms, it was in the “senior tranches.” The senior tranches were paid and closed. They were paid from the meager proceeds of the junior tranches, from insurance, credit default swaps etc. Bottom Line: If you got one of those mortgages, it has almost certainly been paid in full. So why are they still collecting your payments? Because they can.
Your obligation has most likely been satisfied long ago without any rights of subrogation. If you are in foreclosure now with one of these loans, the “Trustee” is in actuality out of the picture because the “Trust” was closed out (IF IT EVER LEGALLY EXISTED). All of this leads to the politically incorrect conclusion that people gt their houses for “nothing.” But that is not true.
ALL THE MONEY THAT WAS OWED ON THAT LOAN HAS BEEN PAID. WHY SHOULD ANYONE COLLECT ANYTHING FURTHER?
More comments from “Anonymous”
This is a very important post. I have been aware of cases where the defendant is sent to mediation without first identifying the real creditor. Some here have stated that the real party issue is not relevant because eventually the plaintiff will get his “ducks in a row” and proceed with the foreclosure under the real party name.
Not identifying the real party in court is not only fraud but also deprives the defendant of direct and timely negotiation with the real party true creditor. Thus, damages accrue to the defendant.
Although real party, in my opinion, is the single most important issue, I am not seeing courts enforce discovery to ascertain the real party. Once it can be established that the real party is not before the court, all the produced documents are also subject to question. I have seen cases where the real party is at issue – but most of the cases simply state that the plaintiff does not have standing – without attempting to demonstrate why the plaintiff is not the real party.
Since foreclosure cases most often are indicative of securitization, knowing the chain of sale/assignment in a securitization is crucial. Also, knowing what the “investors” are entitled to is important. Again, while I think this post is very important – i disagree with “there is nothing left to pay the investors who advanced money into a pool from which some mortgages were funded” 1) any investors who indirectly funded a “pool” – did not directly fund mortgages and 2) tranche “investors” – for which there a limited number of tranches – were only entitled to current income pass-through – not foreclosure recovery (which is not current and not passed on to pass-through security investors. (However, the residual tranche is not a pass-through – and is usually held by the servicer – who may -or may not be the current creditor). 3) the Trust is likely dissolved.
The fact that mediation is being conducted without identification of the current creditor – in whose name any modification must be contracted – is simply additional fraud upon the borrower defendant. This fraud is akin to “loan modification” scams that are being currently investigated by some state Department of Justices.
How and why the courts are allowing this to happen – and actually promoting it – is beyond me.
Editor’s Note: Legally this puts us at the horns of a dilemma. If we want to travel the path of “PAID IN FULL” then we are treading on the thin ice of accepting or admitting that the loan was actually legally and correctly assigned and indorsed into the pool, in addition to the usual “free house” talk. If we travel the path of UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTED ASSIGNMENT then we get to the conclusion that the loan is still owned by the originating lender, who was PAID IN FULL at the time of the loan closing, but still is the owner of record. If we travel both paths, we are presenting a highly complex argument that most judges won’t understand. This is why the winners out there are not making big splashes with exotic legal arguments (even though they would be right), the winners are getting down to the details that any Judge would understand — SHOW ME THE TRUST DOCUMENT, SHOW ME THE NOTE, SHOW ME THE ASSIGNMENT, SHOW ME THE INDORSEMENT, SHOW ME THE ACCOUNTING, SHOW ME THE CREDITOR ETC.
MANY THANKS, ANONYMOUS!!!
Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, Eviction, evidence, expert witness, foreclosure mill, GTC | Honor, HERS, investment banking, Investor, MODIFICATION, Mortgage, Motions, Pleading, securities fraud, Servicer, STATUTES, trustee Tagged: creditor, fraud, mediation, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
JPMorgan Chase Blows Away Analysts’ Estimates, Lies Beyond Expectations
Last Thursday, I woke up extra early to hear Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase lie through his teeth about his mega-bank’s quarterly earnings. Analysts were expecting a lie of around 70 cents a share, but Mr. Dimon exceeded all expectations for lying, reporting earnings of $1.09 a share. Now, to be fair, some of that was made up of one-time items, and some of it was just plain made up. But even so, taking away the one-time events, JPMorgan Chase would have reported earnings of 87 cents a share. Fabulous, isn’t he? And handsome too.
To be entirely honest about the whole thing, it made me queasy for half an hour or so, and I had to get up and walk around. I didn’t need a part time job last week, I had more than enough on my plate as it was. And here was Dimon telling me I would soon have to spend a good six hours trying to figure out how to separate the wheat from the bank’s chaff.
I know what you’re thinking… “Oh, goodie… an accounting article… I just love these.” Yeah, well don’t worry, their not exactly my favorite kind to write either, but this one’s important.
JPMorgan Chase’s earnings report was all sunshine and flowers, the bank reported a drop in net revenue of 8%, which was in line with what Wall Street was expecting. But the bank’s investment banking and fixed income securities trading, both fell in Q2, as compared with Q1. So, where did all that money come from that allowed JPMorgan Chase to report such astonishing quarterly results?
It’s really quite simple… Dimon took $1.5 billion out of the bank’s account that’s labeled “reserves for future losses,” which is obviously supposed to be there in anticipation of future losses on bad loans, and called it “profits,” by taking it to the bottom line. Nice, huh? Losses… hmmm… now why on earth would anyone worry about losses at JPMorgan Chase at a time like this?
Actually, the whole thing was confusing because Dimon also cautioned analysts that the bank’s “losses from bad loans remain elevated.”
But, I suppose as long as Geithner doesn’t make the mega-bank write down any losses in the future, everything will work out just fine and dandy. What, me worry? No chance of that. Besides, I don’t know why anyone would have a hard time believing anything a bank said these days. I mean, these guys wouldn’t lie, right? Flourish the thought.
I’m not the only one that was skeptical about JP’s earnings. MoneyWeek’s David Stevenson also found the numbers hard to believe. You can see his analysis in his article: US banking recovery is a sham.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock didn’t buy it either. He points out that JPMorgan Chase’s earnings hese have now climbed right back to 2007’s high point, which he describes as being “nothing short of amazing.” He also points out that “it’s more than enough to get bank bulls quite excited again.”
Mish also explains JPMorgan Chase’s figures “aren’t as good as they first seem”. He explains:
“… the bank only turned in such a ‘good’ result because it slashed its “provision for credit losses” by two thirds, from $9.7bn to $3.4bn. In other words, all (and more) of JP Morgan’s latest profit was due to the bank making a much lower allowance for bad debts – loans that could go sour because the debtors can’t repay to the bank the money they’ve borrowed.”
Of course, that’s not all the bank has going for it in fantasy earnings land. Compliance with various accounting rules has been a thing of the past as far as our banks are concerned for some time now, and perhaps long enough for investors to have forgotten. Commercial real estate values have fallen by more than 40 percent, but Geithner and Bair are still not requiring the assets to be written down to market value, and FASB 157 still allows certain residential mortgages the same sort of treatment, so the actual value of a good portion of any bank’s assets is at least questionable in my mind.
Mish also explained another aspect of how FASB 157 is artificially inflating earnings related to how banks value and account for bonds sold by banks, and this one I did not know. Apparently, FASB 157 allows banks to “pretend” they’ll be buying back bonds they issued at current market rates, regardless of their true intentions. If the market value of the bank’s bonds falls, banks are now permitted to assume that they owe less to their creditors, booking the difference between the previous market price and the new lower price as a profit, even though such changes in the value of the bonds don’t affect how much the bank actually owes.
Mish, along with others that cover the banking industry, say to expect more of this sort of accounting witchcraft, with Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and Citibank all expected to take billions to their bottom lines as a result of what FASB 157 now allows.
Lastly, Housing Wire reported just yesterday that JPMorgan Chase’s REO (Real Estate Owned) assets, at least those insured by government agencies… have come close to tripling in value on their balance sheet since the second quarter of 2009, mostly because the bank had to buyback mortgage backed securities from Ginnie Mae. No further details as to why were offered by Dimon or Chase, but I think its safe to assume that most of what was bought back, was at least 60 days delinquent, and quite possibly longer.
I don’t know if its occurred to anyone else at this point, but none of this sounds like “banking.” Does it to you? All I see are accounting tricks and some bad federal policy. And in response to that sort of thing, it looked to me as if the market was just about ready to kiss Dimon’s ring, as he reported the good news last Thursday.
Well, as you might imagine, I am nowhere near ready to do any ring kissing. Dimon and his bankster pals are all expected to continue this emergent accounting slight of hand for a while … anything to keep the optics up and Wall Street feeling groovy.
I wish Jamie cared about his bank’s optics related to HAMP loan modifications. According to Treasury’s latest HAMP report, JPMorgan Chase has offered 880,000 loan modifications to homeowners, with roughly 245,000 having been approved… but, wait… get this… the banks says that just over 54,000 permanent HAMP modifications have been granted through the end of June. 54,000 vs. 880,000?
I just don’t understand it… how can they be so adept at accounting, and yet, when it comes to a modifying a loan, they lose paperwork, struggle to calculate income properly, data enter the wrong numbers, and find it impossible to explain to anyone why they’ve failed an NPV test?
Never mind… I don’t know why I even bother asking such questions anymore.
And all this is after Dimon essentially was given WaMu for $1.9 billion. Branches totaling 5400 in California, Washington and Florida, among other states, a sizable credit card operation, about $900 billion in deposits, the most of any U.S. bank, and roughly $90 billion in mortgages, and $60 billion give or take in servicing rights, if memory serves. All that for $1.9 billion? That’s less than two billion dollars for the whole package. Oh, and Bear Stearns wasn’t exactly over priced either. It’s impossible to tell from looking at the bank’s financials, but it seems to me that Jamie would have to have written some of these assets up, as opposed to down.
All I can say is this… our banking system is no longer a banking system… the toxic assets are right where they were in October of 2008… none make loans… none follows accounting rules… in fact, almost 100 percent of all of the major banks earnings last year came from their trading desks. And this year it looks like they’re pulling them out of their…
Mandelman out.
Bank of America Says $10.7 Billion of Trades Wrongly Classified
The bank transferred mortgage-backed securities to a trading partner with the idea of receiving different securities later and classifying the deals as sales, the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday. The securities the bank received were similar to those it got rid of, meaning the transactions can’t be considered sales, the newspaper said.
Bank of America had disclosed in a March 31 financial filing that “certain sales of agency mortgage-backed securities should have been recorded as secured borrowings rather than sales,” bank spokesman Jerry Dubrowski said. “The handful of transactions did not have a material impact on the company’s balance sheet or earnings. They need to be viewed in the context of our $2.3 trillion balance sheet.”
It sounds so benign, doesn’t it? What this means is that BofA was, as we all have been saying for years now, trading interests in mortgage backed securities (i.e., indirect or derived interests in the actual loans) for other mortgage backed securities. The real intent was to distance themselves from the original transactions. Who were they trading with? In all probability one of the other banks that wanted to do the same thing. Bottom Line: You can ONLY state with certainty that a pool exists that CLAIMS ownership of the loan and that the owners were at that point in time the investors who created the pool of money that was used to fund mortgages, along with enormous profits and fees that were both unearned and unreported. The current owners of the actual receivables from the loan payments, the receivables from insurance, credit defaults swaps etc., cannot be known without discovery or compliance with the QWR. These trades are not on any exchange where you can go look them up. They are secret.
And that is why the note, assignment and indorsements don’t show up until moments before a hearing. It is because they never existed up until that moment. And often the note is a color printout rather than the original. Look at the other side of the paper to see if there are any indentations. In plain language they said they were transferring the loan but never did. So if you have a performing loan, you’ll wait forever to see an assignment because they don’t want to create it, until some final resting place is required. They are keeping their options open until they MUST show the chain of ownership.
Bank of America Says $10.7 Billion of Trades Wrongly Classified
By David Mildenberg and Dakin Campbell – Jul 10, 2010
Bank of America Corp., the largest U.S. bank by assets, said it wrongly classified as much as $10.7 billion of short-term repurchase and lending transactions as sales from 2007 to 2009 to reduce its end-of-quarter assets.
Bank of America said the inaccuracies aren’t material and “don’t stem from any intentional misstatement of the Corporation’s financial statements and was not related to any fraud or deliberate error,” according to a May 13 letter released yesterday from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
“A $10.7 billion accounting error would be a material event for about 99.9 percent” of U.S. banks, said Cornelius Hurley, director of the Morin Center for Banking and Financial Law at Boston University School of Law. “It’s hard to see how the SEC can accept BofA’s rejoinder as being sufficient.”
SEC spokesman John Nester declined to comment.
The SEC sent letters to finance chiefs at about two dozen firms in March asking whether they employed accounting strategies like those at Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. The bankrupt securities firm was accused of using repurchase agreements called Repo 105s to move assets off its balance sheet to hide leverage, thereby improving its capital ratios.
$2.3 Trillion
Bank of America had disclosed in a March 31 financial filing that “certain sales of agency mortgage-backed securities should have been recorded as secured borrowings rather than sales,” bank spokesman Jerry Dubrowski said. “The handful of transactions did not have a material impact on the company’s balance sheet or earnings. They need to be viewed in the context of our $2.3 trillion balance sheet.”
In April, the SEC asked Bank of America to disclose whether its transactions were intentionally mislabeled, and to prove that the trades were immaterial. The Charlotte, North Carolina- based bank said in an April 13 letter that it stopped the transactions after the first quarter of 2009, the SEC said.
The Bank of America transactions involved six so-called dollar-roll trades completed during 2007, 2008 and 2009. The amount of the trades represented 0.1 percent of total assets in the December 2008 quarter and improved the company’s Tier 1 capital leverage ratio by one basis point, or one-hundredth of a percentage point, during the September 2008 quarter, the bank said.
Bank Review
The bank said in its May 13 letter it did an “extensive review” of repurchase agreements and similar transactions and didn’t find more errors. The mistakes didn’t affect credit ratings or management compensation, hide any failure to meet analysts’ consensus estimates, “mask” other trends or put the bank out of compliance with loan and capital requirements, the bank said.
Bank of America was led by Chief Executive Officer Kenneth D. Lewis from 2001 through the end of 2009, when he retired and was succeeded by Brian Moynihan. In January, Moynihan moved Joe Price, the chief financial officer since January 2007, to run the company’s consumer banking unit. In May, the bank hired former Northrup Grumman Corp. executive Charles Noski as CFO.
The bank transferred mortgage-backed securities to a trading partner with the idea of receiving different securities later and classifying the deals as sales, the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday. The securities the bank received were similar to those it got rid of, meaning the transactions can’t be considered sales, the newspaper said.
To contact the reporters on this story: Dakin Campbell in San Francisco at dcampbell27@bloomberg.net David Mildenberg in Charlotte at dmildenberg@bloomberg.net
Filed under: foreclosure


























