Looking Back at One Media Story about the Foreclosure Crisis

You wake up in the morning hoping and praying that some justice will be meted out to the giant foreclosure industry for the crimes they have committed. In that hope is mixed the great sorrow for all the people who have suffered the loss of their homes in this foreclosure crisis.

Now, let’s go back a little in time and see how the crisis was treated by the public’s stalwart defenders in the press. Obviously, once the stories of owned foreclosed, shabby procedures and busted paperwork trail, the press was eager to fight for the public.

Not exactly, more of a yawn and a condemnation of the homeowners who owed too much.

In mid 2010, the beltway press knew it was all overblown. It has become a bit overblown in some tellings.“ You see, “there’s little evidence that this has resulted in improper foreclosures..” You see, “Anectdotally, these things do seem to have happened…” At that time we had only heard the occasional, once in a while, sort of, story about some poor schmuck losing his property.

This is from the Atlantic Monthly, an article called – The Real Scandal of the Foreclosure Mess – October 8th, 2010 – by Megan McCardle –

The story on the foreclosure mess has become a bit overblown in some tellings. It’s clear that banks have been taking some shortcuts in preparing their foreclosure documents. The banks are obviously overwhelmed with the volume of foreclosures, and the (apparently) many instances in which sloppy securitization has resulted in lost paper trails, obscuring who, exactly has a right to foreclose. Rather than seeking legislative or judicial clarification, they’ve resorted to dubious practices that seem (to my non-legally-trained eye) illegal.

That is bad. But as Arnold Kling points out, there’s little evidence that this has resulted in improper foreclosures: evicting people who’ve paid, or who never had a mortgage with your company. Anectdotally, these things do seem to have happened, but there’s no evidence that they’re frequent, or that they are connected to the procedural irregularities that we’re now discovering with foreclosure documents.

Arnold says that the real scandal is our antiquated title system:

The real scandal is that the process of recording property title is so antiquated, and there are so many interest groups that resist modernizing it. The MERS mortgage database shows what a modern system could look like. But all of the counties that charge fees for title recording, the title “insurance” companies that shake down home buyers to buy “protection” from getting sued to prove that they own their property–these interest groups want to keep the title recording system as expensive and unreliable as possible.

. . . and that it’s taking so long to get people out of homes they can’t afford.

These are my comments on the Atlantic web site –

What!? You don’t see much but “anectdotal” evidence? What were you going to see? No one knew to look until now. You can’t have statistical evidence until you know there is a problem and can look at the numbers.
Anecdotal evidence is the beginning of discovery. Sometimes it turns out that the stories lead nowhere. This time they scored big. And now, and only now, can we find out how big the problem is.
“Only anecdotal evidence” Oh, PLEASE!

And then, about five minutes later, when I got even more angry –

The saddest thing about this article is that in two years after this disaster, this legal catastrophe, when the facts and the numbers are available, no one is going to pull this article out of their Windows’ recycle bin, and wonder what in the hell possessed the author to write it.

According to the article, the “real” scandal of the mortgage crisis is 1) our antiquated title system and 2) “. . . and that it’s taking so long to get people out of homes they can’t afford.” Now, Ms. McArdle is all in agreement with Arnold Kling on the the title system being the real scandal but on the second statement (getting the people out of homes…) she disagrees. I give her full credit for disagreeing with the second statement and therefore my scorn for her writing is only for the first statement.

What?!, the antiquated title system is the real scandal? I cannot generate enough invective for this statement. The world is too short of obscenities for me to throw at it. Let’s just go to the next one.

“… and that it’s taking so long to get people out of homes they can’t afford.”

Let me tell you a story… About ten years ago, housing prices began to go up but strangely the ease of buying them multiplied. Banks began to demand less and less evidence of credit history and salary down to the point where they eventually just filled in the blanks. This lack of oversight was because the great financial institutions of this nation were packaging mortgages as securities and using them as chips in the great game of casino capitalism. It was a strange time, in which the Internet was utterly blanketed by ads calling upon you to refinance your credit card debts – mortgage your home or to refinance your home for a lower rate. By about 2005, that something was terribly wrong was becoming clear. But the the regulatory agencies, the Congress, the Presidency, the financial press or the “Fed” did nothing about it. The selling if anything became more frenzied. Banks hired celebrities to participate in sales meetings in the black communities. Phone banks and mailings to those who rented and those who owned their own homes or even to those who were about to finish paying their mortgages proliferated. The messages was always the same, re-mortgage for lower rates, re-mortgage to pay off debts and the best one, buying a home is cheaper than rent. Many of the ads were carefully aimed at first time home buyers counting on their lack of financial sophistication to smooth the process. In 2006, the boom was pretty much exhausted, but the great financial institutions nursed it along for the next year by trading securities based on mortgages to the foolish as good investments and to each other simply to keep the market going. And then it all fell down.

“… and that it’s taking so long to get people out of homes they can’t afford.”

Simple statement. Factually correct.

They signed the contract, didn’t they? They’re adults. They got in too deep. They have to pay the price.

That is what it looks like if you live in a skycastle. “Skycastles,” that’s where people live so high and so far above the common herd, that they and only they can see what’s real, where the air is clear and the thoughts razor sharp.

From there they watch the little people like bacteria on a petri dish and wonder why God made so many, unless their cold hard intellects have freed them from religious delusions.

I’m down here with the other inconsequential. I say that these people were victimized and deserve mercy. These people did what the government, the media, and the financial industry told them was the intelligent, the correct and the best decision. These people were generally misled, lied to directly and were often the victims of fraud.

But I don’t live in a skycastle.

James Pilant

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sign a Petition; Stop a Foreclosure

Scrooge and Bob Cratchit illustrated by John L...

Image via Wikipedia

Lauren Bloom writing in her blog is asking her readers to help a disabled woman keep her home. I join in this effort and ask you to sign a petition in the woman’s behalf.

Note to First Mortgage – don’t be a Grinch!

Ms. Chappell has posted a petition on Change.org asking First Mortgage Corporation to do the decent thing and let Ms. Bourchard pay off some of her mortgage through the Hardest Hit State Fund. It’s not as though First Mortgage Corporation wouldn’t get paid, folks – it just means that the company would have to do a little more paperwork. HUD currently has First Mortgage Corporation on hold while everyone works to find a more compassionate solution. Come on, First Mortgage! It’s Christmas, for pity’s sake – have a heart and don’t evict a disabled schoolteacher from her home. Even Ebenezer Scrooge would know better.

If you agree with me that Ms. Bouchard deserves the opportunity to stay in her home, you can sign the petition by clicking here.

Note to First Mortgage – don’t be a Grinch! | The Business Ethics Blog

Enhanced by Zemanta

Pepper Spray Cop’s Lament

Pepper spray Demonstration; U.S. Marine Corps ...

Image via Wikipedia

Now for the serious side of pepper spray. This is from wikipedia.

Pepper spray typically comes in canisters, which are often small enough to be carried or concealed in a pocket or purse. Pepper spray can also be bought concealed in items such as rings. There are also pepper spray projectiles available, which can be fired from a paintball gun. It has been used for years against demonstrators. Many such canisters also contain dyes, either visible or UV-reactive, to mark an attacker’s skin and/or clothing to enhance identification by police.

Pepper spray – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Telephone Wall

Info from the English WP http://en.wikipedia.o...
Image via Wikipedia

I was watching Gasland, the Josh Fox documentary with my class a few days ago. There were two scenes in the film that struck me. Fox tries to call a gas company for comment and gets the run around, a vigorous spirited run around. It gave off a scent of “We don’t have to tell you little people anything, ever.”

But don’t we get that treatment all the time? We call our bank, we call our computer company, we call the cable company, and we call and we call, and we find ourselves enmeshed in a web of partial answers, refusals, and promises to call back later. I hate promises to call back later, they always come when I’m in the middle of something (like teaching class) or they don’t come at all.

It is certain that some organizations, some companies, have these telephone walls, merely to channel messages or discourage the unnecessary message. However, with the giant corporations in this case the gas companies, these phone walls have a more sinister purpose, that is, to deny the public the interviews, the information that would place the companies in a bad light. After all, there is a strong implication that having lobbied successfully to evade federal regulations, even the most mundane studies, that you are doing something wrong.

Of course, it’s hard to imagine a great corporation accessible without going through a gaggle of public relations minions and the occasional attorney. But we are not yet a complete oligarchy of corporations, corporate clients and a compliant government manipulating a passive, electronically entranced populous, American citizens still have responsibility to other citizens. I happen to believe that when you are a corporate citizen and are building a nation wide infrastructure of gas wells, you have a responsibility to give an occasional interview.

James Pilant

Enhanced by Zemanta

Bank of America’s Shifts Derivatives Risk to Taxpayers | The Charlotte Observer Newspaper

Bank of America’s Shifts Derivatives Risk to Taxpayers

Let’s make this simple. Derivatives are speculative instruments used to gamble on the success or failure of some monetary enterprise. Bank of America took these derivatives from one division (uninsured) to another (federally insured). They took a essentially a speculative gamble and moved it into a federally insured institution so that any losses will be born by the federal government.

Isn’t that just sweet?

– Well, it is if you are Bank of America

James Pilant

Lawmakers are criticizing Bank of America Corp. again, this time over the reported transfer of financial instruments from Merrill Lynch into the bank’s deposit-taking arm.

It’s a move the lawmakers say could put taxpayers on the hook for big losses – three years after the bank received billions in bailouts from the federal government.

Lawmakers criticize Bank of America’s transfers | CharlotteObserver.com & The Charlotte Observer Newspaper

Enhanced by Zemanta

CEOs Compensated Correctly, Vast Majority Of Shareholders Say

Nonsense.

They are saying nothing of the kind, and unless the author is dumber than a stone, that author is deliberately coming to a dishonest conclusion.

Shareholders are summoned at intervals usually once a year to vote on the board of directors and any policy changes. These votes are in almost all cases pre-ordained in their outcomes.

Shareholders under American law are almost powerless. Only large shareholders can build substantial building blocks of votes to challenge a current board. So, most shareholders are simply silent or agreeable.

What the vast majority of shareholders said was, “There was nothing that could be done, the board of directors is too entrenched to challenge and they have been almost to a man selected by the CEO. A no vote would be a waste of my time and could make enemies down the road.”

I don’t like this kind of misleading nonsense. “All is well, the money is well earned, compensation follows the free market, etc.”

What the shareholders would do if actually given the power they are supposed to have under the laws of property is unknown but I find it unlikely they would like to see their dividends diminished to reward CEO’s regardless of their performance and far in excess of CEO salaries in other nations.

James Pilant

CEOs Compensated Correctly, Vast Majority Of Shareholders Say

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Wall Street Protests – “This has the feel of something very big happening.”

Is ‘Occupy Silicon Valley’ next?

This is an article from Reuters written by Connie Loizos. It is in large part an interview with Paul Saffo, a futurist.   I call your attention to this paragraph. –

Saffo doesn’t know where all of this economic dissatisfaction will lead, but he is worried. “I think there’s a sea change afoot that’s going to sweep over everything the same way,” he says. “I still think there’s a lot of uncertainty, but all my instincts as a forecaster tell me this has the feel of something very big happening. I’m standing on the beach and noticing the water heading back out toward the horizon.”

I feel the same way. It’s possible this is all just smoke and mirrors but I don’t think so.

James Pilant

Enhanced by Zemanta

Are Lion Burgers in Poor Taste?

Sometimes something happens that catches your attention. This is it.

I laughed when I first heard this. Why the fuss, I thought, calling a fancy burger, a lion burger is hardly crime. Then I read the article. The burgers are 80% lion meat. I didn’t know you could get it. I can’t figure out why you would want to get it.

So, my second thought was, well maybe, a lion killed his sister and this is revenge. Not a good reason to eat lion, but better than nothing. Nope, no family losses to lions. What does that leave? Is he allergic to cats?

This is just a bad idea. Get a regular burger, call it a lion kill burger, a lion victory over some beefy animal. We have lots of beefy animals and very few lions.

I suppose we should ask at some point – is it ethical to eat lion meat or to sell it? If you believe that meat eating is okay, eating lion is probably okay save from an aesthetic point of view. Currently the lion is not an endangered species although I have confidence that human greed and incompetence will eventually get it there.

James Pilant

Enhanced by Zemanta

Ethics Roundup, October Second, 2011

I have four entries in the Ethics Roundup this week. I hope you enjoy them.

James Pilant

1. The Ethics Sage has a new post out called –

Deloitte Sued for $7.6 Billion, Accused of Missing Fraud

Steven Mintz writing as the Ethics Sage is appropriately outraged. Let me quote his concluding paragraph –

Are auditors finally going to be held accountable for their role in the financial meltdown? Time will tell but there can be no doubt some must have missed the red flags and, more important, ignored the changing business model and risks inherent in dealing with financial instruments such as sub-prime mortgages and credit default swaps. Auditors are supposed to understand the environment in which their clients operate and use that knowledge and related risk assessment to determine proper audit procedures. It appears that Deloitte failed to do so and there may be other cases waiting in the wings.

2. Chris MacDonald writing in the Business Ethics Blog has a new post called –

Corporations as “People” vs. Corporations as “Persons.”

In this essay, Professor MacDonald explains corporate personhood in its two very different forms.

3. Lauren Bloom writing in her blog, deals with the downside of Henry Ford‘s creations.

Entitled – It’s amazing what can happen in 103 years.

Here’s my favorite paragraph –

Now, just a little over a century later, Americans take for granted the right to cross our country in the comfort of their automobiles, and we can make trips in hours that used to take days. That’s the good news. The not-so-good news is that our nation is crisscrossed with roads and bridges that require regular repair, millions are killed or injured annually in autmobile accidents, our cars are eating up the ozone layer with their toxic emissions, Americans drive instead of walking and, as a result, suffer from record levels of obesity and associated diseases, and traffic jams have become a daily nightmare. (Living in a city that’s earned the dubious distinction of having the worst traffic in America, I should know.)

4. Josephson on Business Ethics and Leadership has a fascinating article up on doctors’ conflicts of interest.

Dollars for Docs – How Industry Dollars Reach Your Doctors.

Best paragraph –

Even though such payments are legal, most medical policymakers agree that they are not ethical.  Special trips, meals, and “educational opportunities” are very common strategies that companies use to create stronger bonds with their clients, and to achieve the basic goal of any business — to sell more. In most industries, such gift-giving doesn’t raise any particular ethical red flags. But in medicine, the person getting the gifts isn’t the person taking the drugs. The person taking the drugs is you. And if your doctor has prescribed you that drug when a different drug – or no drug at all – might be the better choice, then it’s likely you’d want to know about it.

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta