Will Congress Save The Banks By Dismissing The Ownership Rights Of Homeowners? – Senior Editor, John Carney Says They Will

I’m cynical. You can’t have much to do with the field of business ethics and be anything else. I was outraged for days after Congress passed the act that would have legalized much of the mortgage industry’s wrong doing. When Obama vetoed it, I had a rare moment of gratitude. But I’m still cynical always waiting for the knife in the back, a sell out, a deal behind close doors … There is always someone waiting to make a deal no matter what crawling excreted maggot they have to deal with. Always someone.

But this guy is more cynical than I am. And he might be right. John Carney in an article entitled, “Sorry Folks, The Put-Back Apocalypse Ain’t Gonna Happen,” says that Congress will not let Bank of American get in real trouble.

Here’s an excerpt from this article –

But Bank of America’s recent decline—down almost 10% this week—is driven by fears that the bank could be hit with huge liabilities for faulty mortgage pools. And I’m pretty sure that is not going to happen.

Why not?

Because the politicians will not let the financial stability of the largest bank in the nation be threatened by contractual rights. Not when there’s an easy fix available that won’t cost taxpayers a dime.

Here’s what is going to happen: Congress will pass a law called something like “The Financial Modernization and Stability Act of 2010” that will retroactively grant mortgage pools the rights in the underlying mortgages that people are worried about. All the screwed up paperwork, lost notes, unassigned security interests will be forgiven by a legislative act.

He may be right. I’ll bet the other way. Fifty state Attorney Generals and countless other officials are on the prowl right now and bad stuff is coming out every minute. The Public is in a bad mood. Saving the banks under these circumstances could delegitimize our system of government in a way we haven’t seen before. It is true that people have virtually no faith in Congress and only somewhat more in the President. But that is different from active hate. It’s different because the government will essentially be putting a sign on its front lawn, “You have a dispute with a bank and you’re right – WRONG, bank wins. You’re less than nothing. Go home and suck it up.”

I don’t think that’s going to go over well. Further, I don’t think it will go away in time for 2012.

We’re about to see how much power public opinion has. John Carney says it does not have the power to stop Congress from saving the bank by abrogating their legal rights. Carney hopes he’s wrong about this. From his work, it is easy to see that he is no defender of the banking industry and, is probably, one of those people I speak of as a ally in the “good fight.” But I hope he is wrong too.

The possibilities of the results of such an action by the federal government offer only two possibilities, acceptance by the public or another kind of response. I am not happy with my speculations on what that response might be.

James Pilant

Banks Could Lose $80 Billion

Analyst Dick Bove says the mortgage foreclosure crisis could cost the banks as much as $80 billion dollars. He is quoted in an article by Jeff Cox from CNBC.

Banks could face losses of over $80 billion from the foreclosure mess—not so much from the moratorium on home seizures but from the flood of homeowner and investor lawsuits likely to follow, analyst Dick Bove said Friday.

The lawsuits are likely to focus on “fraud at every level of the process”—from packaging mortgages into bonds to selling them to investors, the Rochdale Securities analyst said in a note to clients.

The legal fallout could cost the industry more than $80 billion, about 10 times the amount that Bove sees banks losing from the foreclosure halt itself.

I really like that phrase, “fraud at every level of the process.” It’s a beaut. It also sums up what has been going on for the last two years, and industry run amok.

James Pilant

Hotel Throws Couple Out After Accusing Them Of A Negative Online Review

From USA Travel

A British couple says they were kicked out of their hotel after the hotel manager accused them of writing a negative review on TripAdvisor and called the police.

Adrian Healey, 33, tells the Blackpool Gazette that earlier this month, he’d booked a room a hotel in the seaside resort of Blackpool, England, to take his first vacation with his girlfriend Sherrie Andrews, 33, since being diagnosed with cancer 18 months ago.

But the Golden Beach Hotel’s manager asked them to leave two days into their paid, three-night stay, they told the Gazette, adding that the manager stormed into their room, accused them of writing an online review and called the police.

Is this the future? Google has suggested and apparently believes that all online users should have their identities clearly labeled as they travel the web. In this case, the hotel was guessing. What are you going to do when services like hotels can examine your postings to see if they want to serve you?

James Pilant

4 things buyers need to know about robo-signing and the foreclosure freeze (via Keyproperties’s Blog)

I really like the advice this web site gives. Its explanations are wonderfully clear. Some of you may be thinking of buying homes or have purchased a home that has been foreclosed on. You’ve got some questions and their answers seem to me intelligent and well phrased. So give them a look!

James Pilant

from Tara @Trulia.com NOTE: This post will be continually updated, below, as more foreclosure freeze news breaks. I double-dog dare you to watch a TV news show or spend more than 5 minutes on the web without hearing about the massive "robo-signing" foreclosure scandal that is rapidly encompassing the biggest banks in the country. Here are 4 things home buyers need to know about this breaking real estate news, and how it impacts them. (Hint: I thr … Read More

via Keyproperties's Blog

What I’m Beginning To Suspect About The Mortgage Fiasco?

At the moment, the mortgage crisis occupies a considerable amount of space on the web and the regular news, both popular and financial. I have been observing problems in the process for a long time.

The first thing that I observed was that banks were almost never re-negotiating their mortgages which struck me as extremely odd. Since the homes were priced during the housing bubble, the bank made much, much more money extending the loan then they did foreclosing, when they could only resell the house at its current market value.

The second thing was a constant drumbeat of stories where the banks were making foolish mistakes, foreclosing homes they didn’t own, or re-negotiating home mortgages and having done so, then foreclosing the house. Pretty strange stuff to see from well financed and lawyered up organizations.

As the crisis began to develop, I noticed that the high speed processing involved lying to judges perhaps several million times with false affidavits. I pointed out in postings that it would be hard to get lawyers to sign off on these things, Judges being the way they are. Then, of course, we found that they had hired every kind of person to sign off on these documents. Why would you want to do that?

I recognized that speed increased profits but you can get speed without incompetence. Considering the threat of later lawsuits and the chances of getting caught, we’re back to the question, “Why would you want to do that?”

One of the background issues that has been reported on a good number of times is that a high proportion of these mortgages were created at the height of Wall Street speculation in mortgage based securities. It was pointed out that in some of the reported cases, when challenged for the actual documents showing ownership, the banks have on occasion, been unable to do so.

Look guys, only a very small proportion of mortgages have been challenged in court. If you’re getting hits in those few cases (you’re finding properties without actual ownership documents), you are looking at the very tip top of the iceberg.

My suspicion is that the banks don’t have proof of ownership not in dozens, or hundreds or thousands of cases but in the tens of thousands. I am beginning to believe that all these bank assurances that the process would not have been any different if they had done their work is PR staving off inquiries as long as possible.

I believe the banks are desperate to get these matters settled before the deluge, to get as many foreclosures out of the way as possible so that when the eventual revelation occurs they can claim that the damage to the larger economy does not merit prosecution.

I suspect we are about to go into a second banking crisis similar to the one in 2008.

I hope I am just over suspicious and jaded.

If my scenario is accurate, we and the economy are in for a rough ride.

James Pilant

WSJ Writes Balanced, Intelligent Article – End Of World Imminent

Since the purchase of the Wall Street Journal by Rupert Murdoch, I consigned it to the ash heap of history. I was doing my usual research into the crimes and misadventures of the banks in this foreclosure crisis. Suddenly, there was this article. I read through it and decided to post it. Imagine my surprise when I got to the top of the page and found where it came from.

Isn’t this the newspaper that just a few days ago told the world that lying to judges with false affidavits was just a matter of “paperwork?” Aren’t these the guys who honor the basic right of property ownership to the death just as long as an average American doesn’t attempt to assert it?

There is no explaining this. There must be some cognitive dissonance at the Journal. I hope no one on the editorial board dies of shock having seen a fact for the first time.

Well, give this article a read, it’s a good account of the current crisis in mortgage forclosures.

James Pilant

Is A College Education Worth $800,000?

The number, 800,000 dollars, has been used often to describe the advantage of a college education over a high school diploma. However according to new data, the actual value is $450,000 dollars. If that isn’t bad enough, according to the American Institutes for Research, it’s only worth $279,893.

Let’s figure it up. The number of working years used is forty. So if we divide 800,000 by forty, we get 20,000 dollars a year in advantage over someone with a high school diploma. Now let’s look at the revised figures. At 450,000 dollars, a college degree adds 11,250 dollars, which is much less impressive than 20,000 dollars. But if the American Institutes for Research is correct, it is only worth about 7,000 dollars.

Now, none of this takes into consideration, the costs of college itself, in particular the burden of paying off students loans which can easily get into the tens of thousands.

Am I discouraging you from pursuing a higher education? Certainly not, there are many advantages, intellectual and otherwise for going to college. I do want you to be aware that we might want to contemplate some kind of structural change in how we pay for education and how education is rewarded in the job market.

And be cautious about these kinds of statistics. The first decade of the twenty first century was cruel to the middle and lower classes. They lost a lot of economic ground. One of the things that was hit hard was earning power. Whole classes of jobs disappeared. The very, very few new jobs carried much lower salaries and reduced benefits.

Take a look at this film on college costs:

James Pilant

(This is a repost of a column I wrote some months ago.)

The Human Touch

The word, home, has powerful meanings for Americans. Who can forget, Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, saying over and over, “There’s no place like home.” How many of us “want to go home?” How many of us when overseas, look back at the U.S. and think about going “home.”

Home is a human concept life love, caring, kindness,.. those kinds of things.

It’s hard to quantify.

For most of American history, homes were very simple, often one room, generally little more than shacks. But as time went by and with urbanization, homes became larger and more complex … and more expensive.

For most Americans, purchasing a home all at once became impossible. A market for mortgages developed and people bought their homes over time.

Banks were small and deeply embedded into the fabric of the community. Social fabric is a fancy word for multiple relationships. A local bank with small resources depended heavily on the success of its loans, even the smallest, for its continued success. So, the bank exploited its connections, it knew a great deal about a creditor, may have known him personally, probably his family as well. They knew what he did for a living, not in the sense of the job title on the application, they knew what he did.

The bank was also well known. It’s officials were church goers, customers, friends, etc. The locals knew the bank by its continuously developing reputation.

Thus, there was social pressure both ways. For the homeowner, it was a disgrace to fall behind on payments. For the bank, it was dangerous to its moral authority to foreclose without consideration of many factors. Generally, speaking there was a great deal of pressure, rightfully so, to work out the problem rather than seize the home.

That’s gone. Beginning roughly in 1999, banks began selling their loans as assignments to investment banks to be bundled into “securities” to be sold to the foolish and the more foolish.

There is no knowledge of the community or the borrower beyond the thinnest veneer of computer data. The bank might as well be orbiting Pluto for all the effect of public opinion.

Human and business are both relegated to key strokes.

This limited knowledge is probably entirely adequate for “World for Warcraft.”

Taking a process developed from a community developed series of relationships has been disastrous. Banks were given the benefit of the doubt because as community citizens they could be trusted. This made the process of mortgage foreclosure easier for the banks, streamlining a difficult problem in the community to be as painless as possible.

Maintaining that level of trust in bank integrity has been disastrous in an age where banking has become more a world of bonus obsessed, financial buccaneers than respectable community bankers.

The human recipients of the mortgages have suffered terribly. They have very often expected that their loans could be modified as since they were making what in the past were reasonable offers only to be tossed from “the gates of the temple.” What was reasonable no longer mattered. What was the best decision no longer mattered.

The only thing that mattered was the process. Humans need not apply.

We can no longer pretend that banks are reasonable, that they will act intelligently, or that they have the interest of the community or their nation in mind, when they make decisions.

James Pilant

Foreclosure Speed Made Loan Modifications Impossible

Why would a bank modify a loan rather than foreclosing? Loan modification is usually more profitable.

Let me explain. Take a typical home mortgage that has run into trouble. The purchaser owns a home that he bought at a price of 350,000 dollars in early 2006. He has fallen behind on the mortgage. He can pay each month but not as much as the mortgage is worth. However and it is a big however, the real estate boom has collapsed. The home valued now is worth only 270,000 dollars. His mortgage payments, his salary and the other facts point to him being able to pay a mortgage of that size. So, the bank would accept a loss on the mortgage reducing it to 270,000 in value. The bank now has a workable agreement with the homeowner. He can now pay on the loan regularly.

There is a 80,000 dollar loss for the bank. That would be a big deal if the bank had any way of getting it. If they foreclose on the house, they will be attempting to resell quickly a home now valued at 270k, and at the additional expense of the time and money of the foreclosure process. That 80,000 is not recoverable. Why not renegotiate a lower mortgage with the current owner who is already making payments?

This key questions here are, “How much is this property worth?” and “Can I get as much by foreclosure as I can by modifying the mortgage?”

Everyone watching the process of foreclosures over the last few years has been struck by one fact – there have been very few loan modifications. Almost every homeowner was foreclosed on. It did not seem to matter whether a modification was profitable or not.

As a society, we had never seen that before. People had been foreclosed on before in every kind of economic crisis. But in all these situations if the banks profited more by modifying the mortgage, the mortgage got modified. Now, it doesn’t matter if the bank profits from a loan modification or not. It’s easier and quicker to foreclose.

Also, it was easier to measure success by foreclosure rather than by re-negotiations. You could count the scalps on the wall. Negotiations that resulted in greater profits over longer periods of time didn’t count well.

The system is tilted against homeowners. The speed and number of foreclosures made it impossible for lenders to renegotiate.

From the Washington Post

The financial incentives show that the problems plaguing the foreclosure process extend well beyond a few, low-ranking document processors who forged documents or failed to review foreclosure files even as they signed off on them. In fact, virtually everyone involved – loan servicers, law firms, document processing companies and others – made more money as they evicted more borrowers from their homes, creating a system that was vulnerable to error and difficult for homeowners to challenge.

“This was a systemic problem. It’s not like a few renegade employees made mistakes,” said lawyer Peter Ticktin, who defends Florida homeowners facing foreclosure. “It was industry-wide and pervasive, and everyone knew about it.”

The need for speed neutralized any attempt at judgment. No human intelligence could be allowed to interfere with number and speed, a total victory of the abstract over the concrete and real. Loan modifications are better for long term profits but they are not fast.

Understand this. In any long term profit making analysis, you have to apply human judgment, and from that you can maximise profit. The foreclosure system we have now does only one thing well – foreclose quickly. Everything else is does badly.

James Pilant

Do Individuals Matter?

Sometimes.

Look at this story of two citizens who took on the behemoth of the foreclosure industry and gave it a mauling it won’t soon forget.

More than a year before lenders, law firms and document companies began owning up to widespread paperwork problems with their foreclosure filings, Lisa Epstein and Michael Redman already knew that something was wrong — very wrong.

Redman, a former online automobile consultant, got his first taste of the problem in early 2008, when he tried to help a relative who was facing foreclosure.

As he tried to determine which of three or four supposed lenders held the note, Redman, 35, realized that not only did he not know the answer, neither did any of the companies that were asking for payment.

Epstein, a nurse who cares for cancer patients, also is going through foreclosure. She got her baptism in the world of shoddy foreclosure paperwork in the summer of 2009, however, when she tried to help a brain tumor patient keep her home.

Warms your heart, doesn’t it.

James Pilant