Tag: mortgage

Mortgage Foreclosure Lies

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, Economic measurement, ethics, Government Failure, Philosophy of Business4 Comments

Telling judges across dozens of states that documents are accurate and have been reviewed when you don’t know and haven’t done it, is just a pack of lies. Running thousands of foreclosures through the court system without enough staff to actually do the work isn’t just cost cutting it’s stealing from homeowners who do not owe the sums reported or are trying to prove fraud in the process. The banks essentially said, “Our documents show you are just wrong, suck it up.” All this when they had little or no assurance that the documents were correct.

In an article written by Arthur Delaney, he writes –

The paperwork scandal that has prompted several banks to halt evictions and review their foreclosure procedures is reminiscent of the predatory lending scheme that inflated the housing bubble.

“It’s the same process, falsifying documents to make them look acceptable to someone,” said Tom Domonoske, a lawyer and consumer advocate in Virginia. “They’re falsifying foreclosure documents so judges will look at them and say, ‘Here’s an affidavit. It’s signed.'”

Now, get a load of this – (further down in the article)

The bogus loans and bad foreclosure paperwork are both the result of Wall Street’s massive appetite for mortgages during the housing bubble, experts say, as banks repackaged mortgages as asset-backed securities and sold them to investors. As mortgages repeatedly changed hands, servicers in many instances lost track of who owned them. In states where foreclosures need a court’s approval, servicers now find themselves unable to prove they have a legal right to foreclose.

That’s right, they’ve been foreclosing on homes they weren’t sure they owned. (By the way, the sentence explaining that when they need a court’s approval, they don’t get to foreclose if they can’t prove ownership is nonsense. It is only when you contest ownership, usually with a lawyer, can you stop the process. There is no doubt in my mind that thousands of homes were foreclosed on, with no small profit to the bank, that the bank had no ownership rights to.)

What are we going to do? Banks have had a good reputation in the past with foreclosures. It was unpleasant for the bank and for the customer. They did their process and the home shifted possession. Because of this good reputation the law accepted the bank’s statement as to ownership and money amounts without demanding proof.

It would have cost a lot of money for banks to have to prove the facts in dozens of what were largely routine cases. So, the legal system streamlined the process. The bank’s paperwork was accepted as accurate as long as an attorney signed that he had personally reviewed the documents.

What have we learned? First, we can learn that the processes under which we gave financial institutions the benefit of the doubt have to be modified so that these institutions have to prove their case. Yes, it will make mortgages more expensive to forclose. Yes, it will make the process more complex and longer. But what choice do we have when the banks have deliberately and calculating lied for years in tens of thousands of cases? At what point do you stop giving them the benefit of the doubt?

Now.

They have proven that they cannot be trusted. Anyone who says otherwise is ignoring the hard, cold, unpleasant, unyielding facts.

James Pilant

Mortgage Companies Flout The Law – 56,000 Foreclosures Suspended

On By southwerkIn business ethics, Capitalism, Corporate Social Responsibility, ethics, Government Failure, Philosophy of Business

When you file a foreclosure the law favors the bank. All the bank has to prove is that they have personal knowledge of the case. This eliminates the need for proving each individual mortgage.

So all they had to do to meet their legal requirements was to have someone review the file. Guess what? In their hurry to foreclose on as many homes as possible (tens of thousands), they just didn’t do it. Since they didn’t do it, there is no way to know how many homes they took wrongly, or if the amounts were right, etc.

This isn’t just sloppy work, it’s a case where these large companies, in particular, GMAC and Chase, violated the law by asserting that they had fulfilled their legal requirements when they had not. But to them that wasn’t important only that they close the cases by thousands a month. Can you conceive of anything more contemptuous of the law?

I’d been reading reports of homeowners who owned their homes outright being foreclosed on by these companies and having to hire attorneys to get it stopped. I just thought they fouled up here and there. No, they didn’t even try to do what they were supposed to do and as long as the courts accepted that they had “personal” knowledge, the machinery of foreclosure went on whatever the actual circumstances were.

If you want to know why people have been unable to renegotiate their mortgages, look no further. The bank suffered little or no expense from a high speed unwitnessed foreclosure. Renegotiation would have required work, personal knowledge and a concern for the customers. Those three things were not about to happen and I believe will not happen.

From the New York Times article –

The missteps stemmed from the affidavits the lenders file as they seek a quick or summary judgment in thousands of foreclosure cases. The affidavits state certain facts about the case, including the amount owed, which the signer indicates he has personal knowledge of. Without the affidavit, the lender would have to prove the facts at trial.

In depositions taken by lawyers for homeowners, executives at GMAC and Chase said they or their teams signed 10,000 or more affidavits and related documents a month. That did not give them time to review the cases.

Defense lawyers say the disclosures are symptomatic of the carelessness, if not outright fraud, that lenders have been exhibiting for years in their rush to file cases. Many necessary documents have disappeared, with defense lawyers saying the lenders often do not even have standing to foreclose.

Callousness, cruelty, pure injustice, contempt for the law, an apparent total complete lack of concern for the hundreds of thousands of mortgage holders – this is all here.

Now, the big question, are they going to be penalized? And I don’t mean that they have to do the mortgages over again, I mean contempt citations, I mean state’s attorney generals filing lawsuits to recover the sums illegally taken from homeowners, I mean a forced reconsideration, re analysis of every single mortgage, these blackhearted villains did.

You say, James, calm down, they just messed up on their procedure. No, they took thousands of people to court based on NO knowledge of the case. They didn’t know what the people owed, the history of the loans or, in fact, whether they owned the home or not!

And get a load of this – their attorneys signed on to it, put their names on it. Let’s see a little action there. Let’s see what the state bar associations think about this.

There’s a lot more to say and I want to get this up, so more later. People have to know.

James Pilant

Risky Lending and Lobbying – Connection?

On By southwerkIn business ethics

 

Risky Lending and Lobbying – Connection?

An International Monetary Fund report entitled: A Fistful of Dollars, Lobbying and the Financial Crisis, reports that those lenders pursuing high risk lending practices did the most lobbying.

The actual report is found here: http://www.dnb.nl/binaries/Deniz%20Igan_tcm46-223260.pdf

Perhaps we should think of the risky lenders on Wall Street less like ivy league educated scum individuals and more like bold Western heroes. Here let me provide some music.

However, some of you may not feel that the mantle of Western hero does not fit them well. How about this one?

Well, now that I’ve got that off my chest. Let’s discuss the issue. First a quote from the actual study:

We find that, after controlling for unobserved lender and area characteristics as well as changes over time in the macroeconomic and local conditions, lenders that lobby more intensively (i) originate mortgages with higher loan-to-income ratios, especially after 2004; (ii) securitize a faster growing proportion of loans originated; and (iii) have faster growing mortgage loan portfolios.

This is research language, an arcane format similar in many ways to spell casting in Lord of the Rings. Let me translate: We worked hard to do a fair study and we discovered that lenders who did a lot of lobbying made stupid decisions.

So, here we come to the meat of the matter. The more lobbyists you hire, the more money you spend on influencing the government; the more likely you are to take risks.

Of course, you could turn it around. The more money and lobbyists financial institutions send to Washington, the more Washington protects them from laws and regulations while simultaneously shielding them from the effects of their ridiculous decisions.

We all learned in civics class that bankers and financiers are careful to protect their investors from loss while our Senators, Representatives and President would never fail to protect us from financial sector decisions that could destroy millions of jobs and damage the economic fabric of the planet.

We all know that a new Democratic President wouldn’t appoint all of his economic advisors from the very firms receiving bailout money. We all know that no Congress would give hundreds of billions of dollars of loans to private companies without setting up a mechanism to get the money back. We all know that should by some mischance all our protections fail and our financial system comes within a matter of minutes of total collapse that new rules and regulations would be put in place to stop that from happening again.

I guess I’m just cranky. I am getting older. Of course, I do teach Business Ethics and watching these event unfold hits me in the gut. It’s like teaching medicince in a place where they just kill the patients to save money.

But I’m probably just cranky.

James Pilant