Mortgage Settlement - Banks Get "Free Pass"

As the details of the Mortgage Settlement Agreement, the deal between 49 of 50 states and the U.S. on one side, and BanK of America, Wells Fargo, CitiBank, Ally Financial, and JP Morgan/Chase on the other, become analyzed, it a HUGE win for the Banks. The not only received a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card but are now assured that there will no jail and the cost will not hurt profits.

Quoting from the March 13, 2012 American Banker's article about the agreement

"The settlement includes releases from certain federal claims, including errors related to servicing conduct; origination; and errors specifically related to servicing loans for borrowers in bankruptcy

The claim "fully and finally" releases the company and any affiliated entities, from any civil or administrative claims and any civil or administrative penalties -- including punitive or exemplary damages--for:

Servicing claims under the: Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act; False Claims Act; the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act; Fair Credit Reporting Act; Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; Truth in Lending Act; Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act and certain sections of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Origination claims under RESPA, TILA, Fair Credit Reporting Act; and Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, and certain claims made under FIRREA.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau agreed to release servicers from any claims related to servicing or origination conduct that took place prior to July 21, 2011, when the bureau became an independent agency. But the agency reserved the right to obtain information related to conduct" (emphasis by this writer)

Perhaps the biggest issue for DEBTORS in the long term will be that Servicers and Lenders etc are released from any liability from servicing errors during a Bankruptcy. This is a huge WIN for the mortgage industry. Most servicers cannot keep track of payments for money owed before a bankruptcy and payments made AFTER the bankruptcy was filed. Pre and Post-petition debt transaction history is generally a nightmare. Even Gordion would not have a sword capable of solving his problem.

As with all such programs we will have to wait for the regulations. The settlement is one thing - the details of administration is another.

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq., March 2012

rii@isacofflaw.com

www.isacofflaw.com

Bigger & Fewer: "Banks" Rule

There is a new mosaic, or one that was just not recognized, developing in the Economy, and somewhat specifically in the mortgage area. Banks, systematically getting bigger and bigger, and fewer and fewer, are dictating the rules.

The Big 4 (or 4 1/2) BANKS have made it clear through their elected, and properly paid for members of Congress (politely referred to as "Lobbying"), that they do not want Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB) but in case she gets there (during a recess appointment), they want to emasculate (no offense Prof/Dr/Atty Warren) the agency first. The argument or rationalization: No agency should have the authority to enforce existing regulations that affect consumers or pass new regulations to fix really bad problems that hurt the economy as a whole. Even Hemp has more supporters than HAMP!

The same interests have been keeping Congress itself where it is possible, from passing enacting legislation that would force mortgage modifications and punish those who knowingly created, hyped and sold securities that they themselves bet against (hedges). These "Security Instruments", known as Mortgage Backed Securities and more generally categorized as Collateralized Debt Obligations were the mainstay of Lehman Brothers' (remember them?) profits; oh, and don't forget about Goldman Sachs! The play was that if enough mortgages were written, there would be enough good ones to overcome the bad ones: Quantity always wins but only if you are the creator/seller! As Phil McGraw, PhD, better known as "Dr. Phil" says "Well, how's that workin' for you now?" NOT SO WELL DOC!!!!

Wells Fargo is in Court in Tennessee and Maryland trying to avoid being convicted of "Reverse Redlining", the pernicious practice that promised lower income and less educated/sophisticated borrowers, usually minorities, the AMERICAN DREAM - Home Ownership but lied and cheated to make the sale. "Mrs. Jones, the payments will only be $300 per month - for the first month then the rate will equal the 6 month rate of the percentage, the denominator of which is 100 and the numerator is 10 plus no greater than 7% nor any less than 7%,. and, Mrs. Jones, that rate will be in place until the first change date after which the loan will float to the regular level for this type of loan".

"Don't worry Mrs Jones, we at "Fast Talking Mortgage" would never steer you wrong. Just check our rating at the BBB. Here is the telephone number 1-800-waitforever; and if you have any problem with the loan, one of our Loan Specialty Team (for borrowers who complain), will assist you - that telephone number is 1-877-waitforever". If it wasn't so real and so devastating, that kind of "pitch" would make a great Saturday Night Live spoof. People struggling to pay rent are told they can own a home; and then they end up on the street.

The Banks have uniformly maintained that the laws do not apply to them - state vs federal - and even if they do, the banks didn't make the loans, they are just the Trustee or manager or they sold the loan and had just acted as an intermediary, owning the loan for mere seconds. What's worse is that they have all of the money in the world (well not really but more than any Plaintiff does) and are willing to spend ten (10) times the amount needed to fix the problem in order to justify their actions.

In all seriousness, what can be more despicable than convincing low income struggling families that they can buy a home of their own, when the game is just to make a sale of a mortgage and not care whether it's affordable. In fact, most of these loans were granted where the Loan Originator knew the loan would adjust to a point where the borrower would not be able to make the payments. Once again, no one cared. No entity was "on the risk". No bank or mortgage company would lose $0.05, because the loans were sold into a pool - securitized with 2,500 other loans. Again, the thought was that quantity made up for quality and if not, so what! No one loses, except the homeowners and, as we have seen, the Economy.

Add to the mortgage mess - we have the "Interchange Rate" debate. Regulators (formerly called "Revenooers") are trying to force the price charged for each "swipe"/use of a credit or debit card down from an average of $0.44 to $0.12, at least for the big 4 1/2. That is a huge drop in Bank revenue but also a huge drop in what merchants, and therefore consumers, pay for use of the debit card. Folding money looks better every day. Maybe we should all buy stock in Crane & Co., the company that makes the paper for U.S. money.

Group 4 1/2 are fighting the change mightily as they stand to lose $hundreds of millions if the change takes place.

We can then move to the issues about whether a Bank,the kind where you can go and open a checking or savings account, should be allowed to directly make loans and Securitize pools of Loans themselves, avoiding the middleman. In 1974 we had 14,000 banks in the country. By 2017 the count is expected to be 2,500. If you realize that this represents 50 banks for each state, they "Hometown Bank" is dead. Even now, in a city like Pittsfield, MA which has a population of 40,000+/-, a merger of TWO (2) Savings Banks is taking place (thank you FDIC) - the rub is between them they have nearly 50% of the deposits in the entire County. The next largest entity is a Federal Credit Union.

Bigger isn't better, it's just bigger. And, bigger means more power - a greater ability to force laws on or off the books through trade organizations and their lobbyists. Is big bad? Not conceptually; but in practice?. As of Friday 5/06/2011, the ABA (American Bankers Ass'n) seemed to have changed its position regarding Elizabeth Warren and will support the nomination. The CEOs of Group 4 1/2 must be furious. Congress, especially the GOP side, is forcing a "recess appointment" .

There is no easy, or even difficult, answer to this issue. The consolidation of the Financial Services Industry is moving faster and faster. The was a time, not so long ago, when Banks and Insurance companies and Stock Brokerages all had to be separate. Now we have one stop financial shopping. Convenient, maybe. Dangerous - ABSOLUTELY

Author's Copyright by Richard I Isacoff, Esq, May, 2011

rii@isacofflaw.com
http://www.isacofflaw.com

Legacy Assets - Not Much Of An Inheritence

The Wall Street Journal in its February 5-6, 2011 edition had an article by David Benoit, entitled "BofA Sets Mortgage Cleanup Unit". The article about Bank of America was in the middle of the "B" section and drew little attention. In fact, there was no follow-up in the WSJ nor was it reported in the rest of the press. Certainly it did not make the nightly news nor the newscasts on the radio.

Okay, what did the title mean? Was BofA establishing a department of custodians/cleaners, or maybe street sweepers? Nothing that community minded. What BofA did was to establish a Business Unit to "monitor the Bank's 1.3 million delinquent loans". In addition, it will deal with foreclosures and INVESTORS wanting their money back for the bad loans in the Mortgage Backed Securities they purchased. The unit is named the "Legacy Asset Servicing" group.

Legacy, as in an inheritance? - well not really. Legacy as in " this is what we got stuck with when we bought Countrywide and made our own bad loans". A bit of math here - 1.3 million loans, averaging $100,000 each totals $130 BILLION of delinquent loans, and here delinquent does not mean 30 days late, but, rather, seriously late - nearing foreclosure.

There are 55,000 employees in this unit. BofA hopes to reduce the number to 35,000. Sounds great for BofA, but the reduction is only from eliminating redundant operations so BofA profits increase. What's another 20,000 unemployed workers matter? Harsh assessment - yes. But, we now have $130 billion in loans (1.3 million loans) where people may have their homes foreclosed.

Because of these loans, BofA's mortgage groups lost nearly $9 billion in 2010 and had to reserve, put in escrow and promise not to spend, another $4.1 billion. If the investors get their way, and force BofA to buy back the bad loans in the MBS the investors bought, it is reported that BofA could lose another $10 billion. What is staggering is that, while stockholders might not be thrilled and some executives might get fired, the $10 billion will be only inconvenient for the Bank. That should give you an idea of the size of the Bank.

What the article does not state, and what is not being reported, is the tens of thousands of homeowners who will be losing their homes. Do some "deserve" it for not paying the bills because of frivolous spending, or because they used the house as an ATM by constantly refinancing until payments were impossible? SURE! But the majority of homeowners facing foreclosure are victims of job loss, illness, mortgage sales people who outright lied and falsified documents (of that I have first hand knowledge), and the general economic collapse.

If this Legacy Asset Servicing group really takes charge of all of these loans, there is at least some hope that through regulatory oversight, private lawsuits, federal legislation (don't count on that one), and the new Consumer Finance Protection agency, there can be an examination of these loans - maybe to stop foreclosures and force modifications. Nowhere in the story is there even the hint of BofA taking steps to help homeowners with modification; to change its own policy of "if we don't have the documents and recognize that we do, you will lose you home".

The investors want their money back. Why should they get it? The level of sophistication of these "investors" equals that of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Many of them packaged the loans and some created the Mortgage Backed Security product. Why should they just demand their money and get it. Yes, they have a contract that protects them - HOMEOWNERS DO NOT!!

Bank of America is only the biggest of the entities taking this kind of action. Every "Bank" with a large mortgage portfolio, or those who sold loans into what became Mortgage-Backed Securities are doing the same. The fear is that all of the investors who lost, or may lose, money (it may just be the income stream from the investments) will demand that the Banks who sold these "toxic" loans repurchase them, ridding the potential losses from the securities, thereby protecting the investors. The irony here is that the Investors created the monster that is now threatening to "gobble them up" in losses.

Is there anything wrong with centralizing the work with defaulted loans. NO! It's the right way to process the work. BUT if this is being done to streamline the foreclosure process, and to mollify investors so they get their money back (why can the rest of us buy an investment that has a guaranty that you can never lose money), the entire SYSTEM must be revamped.

Banks, Foreclosures, and Deceit

In his article, in the Tuesday November 15th edition of the New York Times, about foreclosures, David Streitfield discloses the Banking/Mortgage industry’s callousness to the plight of homeowners across the country. Mr. Streitfield writes, referring to Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase "Both have maintained whatever missteps their personnel might have made... No one lost their house who should not have, the banks say". This arrogance is why we cannot fix the mortgage problem. Why did the homeowners end up in foreclosure? Perhaps the Banks and lenders did not follow the LAW about mortgage lending; so by their logic the mortgages should be discharged.

The technicalities that the Banks dismiss are the basis for the protection of property rights. If the foreclosure documents are forged or unverified, the Banks have no way to know if the borrower should have been foreclosed against. This is akin to law enforcement saying that the Miranda warnings given to suspects are not needed because the person would not have been arrested if he/she was not guilty. The same Banks, a mere 2 years ago, argued that they needed federal help to survive, while they really needed help to build profits. Can we hold them to the same standard in dealing with the substance of modifications - that they must grant a modification because the homeowner should have kept his/her house anyway, job loss and bad lending aside?

On the same day, the Times ran another article about the fact that Bank of America, the largest holder of mortgages, has the lowest percentage of Making Home Affordable or HAMP modifications, among the 5 major mortgage servicers/lenders. Maybe there is a mere technicality that will allow some Federal agency to force the mammoth B of A to follow the program in place for modifications, instead of arbitrarily denying such relief just because to paraphrase the Banks, No one will lose their house who doesn't deserve to lose it!

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, November 2010

rii@isacofflaw.com

http://www.isacofflaw.com/

Making Homes Affordable? It's Not Working!!

In a report released by the "Making Homes Affordable Program", only 9% of those mortgages eligible (estimated) for a modification are in the process. Essentially the lenders, mortgage companies, loan servicers, ARE NOT doing their jobs.

The information through the end of July shows that of an estimated 2.7 million mortgages, all of which are 60 days+ delinquent, only 235,247 (actual) have been offered a modification or are in the process of obtaining one. This does not necessarily mean a change in all terms, but could be nothing more than the lender allowing 3 payments to be moved to the end of the loan term, but as a modification.

The lenders doing the best job are 1. Saxon 2. Aurora (small number of loans) 3. GMAC 4. JP Morgan Chase -all having in process 20% or more of the estimated eligible loans. CitiBank has 15% being worked on. BUT American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc (AHMSI) has done 0%, Wilshire 1%, Wachovia 2%, Select Portfolio 3%, Bank of America 4%, OCWEN 5%, and Wells Fargo and Citizens 6% each.

Who's fault is it - primarily the lenders/servicers. They never got ready for the program and they prefer to try to wait out the bad times, thinking, it seems, that suddenly the housing and finance markets will turn positive.

IT IS CRITICAL TO NOTE that once a borrower has submitted the necessary paperwork for a MHA Loan Modification, and has passed the initial screening (see below) FORECLOSURE PROCESS MUST STOP! - 1. home is your primary residence 2. currently employed or have other regular income 3. default caused by a hardship or there has been a drop in income or increase in expenses 4. your mortgage payment including principal interest, taxes and insurance is more than 31% of your monthly GROSS income, and 4. your loan was current at the start of 2009, you qualify for the full analysis. (Go to http://makinghomeaffordable.gov/modification_eligibility.html

If you meet the basics and have filed for a modification, and you then get a letter stating that the foreclosure process will continue during the evaluation, send a certified return receipt requested letter to the address to which you sent the documents, and state that the law requires them to STOP foreclosure proceedings.

If you are having a problem, call a qualified Bankruptcy attorney in your area (you can find one at www.nacba.org), or, contact your local Bar Association for a referral to an attorney working to stop foreclosures. In Massachusetts for example, you can contact the Massachusetts Fair Housing Center, or any of the local housing authorities for a referral.

The program is a reasonable one. I am having excellent results for my clients, but it requires a great deal of patience. As always, contact my office if you have a problem finding help.

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, August, 2009

rii@isacofflaw.com

http://www.isacofflaw.com/

Credit Card Rules - Explained (sort of). What to Do Until Then

On June 11, 2009, I wrote extensively about the new credit card laws - the ones that do us no good at the moment but might as the varied effective dates arrive.

Attached/Linked title of this posting, and again at the end of this entry, is a video that goes through the major points of the new rules.

None of the rules will erase any debt that has already been incurred, regardless of how unfair the borrower believes the debt to be. Interest rates jumping to 30% , late fees of $39 on a balance of $100 with a report of late payments (over 30 days) to the credit agencies, with, of course the accompanying rate increase, and perhaps the most difficult for regular card users, the arbitrary elimination of the available credit/decrease in credit line, without warning or apparent reason.

The 2 real banks, and the 1 "investment bank" (see last post for that definition) that had record profits, Bank of America, CitiBank/CitiGroup, and Goldman Sachs respectively, are the worst offenders. Yesterday, in the Sunday edition of the New York Times, there was a story by David Streitfeld dealing with Bank of America specifically, but the industry in general. In it he describes a woman who could not keep up with the higher and higher interest rates being charged. After pleading with Bank of America to lower the interest rate on her account without success, she just stopped paying her monthly bill. A wise decision? - probably not! - except in this case it was born out of desperation. The result: Bank of America called her with "deals" so she could afford her payments.

Look at the video - read the article in the Times and think about your position. Are you able to go without Credit Cards? Can you pay the minimum payments PLUS 1% of the balance owed to lower the principal and actually pay down the debt? If you can, then you may be able to get out of debt.

Factor in all of your debt - especially the credit cards. IMPORTANT!! - Put together an accurate list of your regular monthly living expenses. Include such things as cigarettes (if you smoke), a reasonable amount for food, eating out if it's unavoidable, enough for gasoline and a monthly budget for car repairs (during the entire year), all of your insurances, clothing (include shoes and underwear), income taxes expected to be paid over and above payroll deductions, student loans, cell phone, cable, Internet, utilities, rent/mortgage, and everything else that you really need to spend or save for each and every month. After all of that, can you pay the minimum PLUS at least 1% of the outstanding balance on all debts, whether each is a credit card, a personal loan from CitiFinancial/HFC,HSBC,Beneficial, or from anywhere else.

If after doing that budget exercise you can make the payments GREAT!! Do not be late on one payment or your plan might become dust in the wind. BUT try. If you cannot, seek financial counseling - not from a TV advertiser promising to reduce your debt to "pennies on the dollar" for a mere $XXXX.XX per month and a non-refundable processing fee of $XXX.XX

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, July 2009
http://www.isacofflaw.com/
rii@isacofflaw.com

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2009/05/19/your-money/1194840368370/guide-to-new-credit-card-rules.html

They're Back!!! (With a Vengence)

Our favorite charities are back in business, but this time not asking for handouts - just taking the money from us. CitiBank/CitiFinancial/CitiGroup (well, you get the idea), Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Smith Barney (whatever the full name is now), and a cast of other "BANKS", reported huge profits for the 2nd quarter or 2009. That must mean that the financial crisis that threatened life on the planet is now past! Well, yes and no or maybe, but we are not at all certain yet.

It is true that there were record earnings at some of these banks and they all did great, but it is where that got there profits that is disturbing, more so than the fact that after pleading for a bailout, they are ready to give out huge bonuses again. Little of the profits came from "banking" as consumers and small to mid-size businesses understand the term. Bank of America and CitiXxx had huge one-time profits from the sale of assets and from "investment banking". Ah ha you say - "banking is how they made money"! Not so quick grasshopper.

"Investment banking" is to "banking" (as most of us understand the word) as Burger King(R) is to a cooking a barbecued hamburger in your back yard. Char-broiled but to a different scale. Buying and selling securities, selling short, trading in commodities, dealing in derivatives, buying other businesses - and selling its assets at a profit, is what investment banking is. Making loans to small and mid-size business, or to people (unclean) is what it IS NOT.

Keep in mind that Goldman Sachs was one of the top firms that put mortgage loans into packages (securitization) and sold them at huge profits. When the value of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) began to crash Goldman "sold short. They "gambled" that the price would go down FAST and that they would fill the order to sell MBSs at the lower price. They made a small fortune while the rest of us lost millions in our 401Ks, IRAs, and had all credit stopped.

So, almost none of the money received from the government and from other financial incentives given during the crisis, went to new home mortgages, was used to modify existing mortgages to stop foreclosures, was used to keep the "mom-and pop shops" in business, or was loaned to small and mid-size firms to help them through the cycle so they would not have to lay-off 50% of their staffs, creating a nearly 10% unemployment rate. The rate of job losses is slowing, but still increasing in numbers.

The promised home loan modification process is not yet functioning. Mortgage modifications are more difficult to get than they were a month ago. Businesses keep laying-off workers because they have no business because other companies have had to minimize operations and they have reduced staff which has caused more foreclosures which has killed the building trades which has caused bankruptcies which has prevented many companies from being paid which has...

There are those economists and financial types who say now - "see, the free-market system is working". They were many of the same experts who cried foul at the bailout of AIG and Bank of America and Citi. The "free-market system" needed some help because of the lack of regulation in the late '90s and through 2007 that led to the crash from which we are trying to recover.

We have reached the point that we now know you cannot put CheezeWiz(R) back into the can.

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq., July 2009

http://www.isacofflaw.com/
rii@isacofflaw.com