The Real Reason Banks Won’t Modify Your Loan and It Involves Grandma’s Pension

Steve Dibert, MFI-Miami Exclusive

Banks taking money from pension fundsI began working on this project last year at the peak of the modification frenzy and finished it about a month ago.  I originally planned on posting it last week on the eve of the Mortgage Servicers Convention in Dallas.  I decided to hold off because I didn’t want to ruin the fun of the champagne fueled Conga lines or the Mad Men style skirt chasing that usually goes on at conventions sponsored by the financial services industry.

The findings of my year-long investigation would have put everyone into a panic mode and stopped the flow of the Dom Perignon for the Conga lines and the awkward moments at the water cooler this week and replaced it with Tums and Roll-Aids.  So in the spirit of not being a party pooper and in an effort to create a distraction for those employees who may have had “too much fun” I decided to wait.

What have I discovered that would create so much anxiety? Well, mortgage servicers are ripping off not only homeowners but the pension funds and hedge funds who have invested into Mortgage Backed Securities.  What they’re doing is reminiscent of what was portrayed in the Martin Scorsese film, Casino, where the local mob Capos would “skim” large sums of money off the top of the casino revenues before they were counted and sent to the bosses in the mid-west.

Before we get into that, we need to hop in the Way Back Machine like Peabody and Sherman from the Bullwinkle cartoons and go back in time.  Back to a time when cops were beating up hippies, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were challenging us as a nation to be better people, men were going to the moon and Jon Voight was playing a gay gigolo on the big screen.

Back then, President Lyndon Johnson had a great idea.  Well, it seemed like a great idea at the time anyway, to make homeownership a birth right for every American.  In those days of Prediluvian America, those who owned the loan also evaluated the risk, collected payments and would adjust payments or terms as circumstances warranted.  Using this business model, lenders made money by writing loans they knew would perform and borrowers had unmediated access to decision makers at the bank that could modify the terms of the loan.  This guiding principal behind this practice was transparency of all parties involved.

This sounds like a great business model and it was.  It helped George Bailey survive the Great Depression in “It’s a Wonderful Life” and it helped many real life banks survive the Great Depression. However, expanding homeownership under that business model would have driven the federal budget deficit not only through the roof but to rings of Saturn.  Imagine if you will today’s national debt numbers in 1967 dollars.  If converted to 2010 values the numbers would be so large it would blow out a circuit on the speech synthesizer Stephen Hawking uses on his wheelchair.

Being this was the height of America’s period of ingenuity and optimism, President Johnson and his Mortgage Finance Task Force didn’t let a small problem of a sky rocketing national debt prevent them from coming up with a plan.  Remember, these were the same people who built a space program from nothing and put a man on the moon within 9 years while fighting the war in Vietnam.

This group of financial wizards devised a scheme to auction off mortgages owned by the federal government and the scheme they developed would eventually turn mortgages from long-term commitments that only financial giants like governments, banks and insurance companies were willing to own, into a commodity that any investor could buy and sell. The loans are put into pools are traded like baseball cards on the commodities market.  This is also when the federal government privatized Fannie Mae and created both Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae.

The first mortgage backed security was sold in 1970 and with this business model came positive results.  Lenders expanded and morphed this model to where home loans were turned into commodities where ownership and accountability diffused.

Today, the vast majority of loans are originated with the intent of selling them on the secondary market packaged together in pools called special purpose vehicles or trusts by underwriters who represent government sponsored enterprises, investment banks or commercial banks.  These special purpose vehicles are then repackaged and re-disbursed to investors all over the world.    Bonds are issued for the different categories of payments, including interest payments, late payments, principal payments and prepayment penalties.  Different groups of investors or tranches may get paid from different categories and in a different order.

Tax and accounting rules were set up to govern these trusts or Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits (REMICs) and they were set up to ensure that the assets of the trust are passively managed.  This means they are handled by someone else usually a servicer.  This type of management is required because the trusts receive preferential tax treatment.  So as long as the trust complies with these management guidelines, the trust is not required to pay tax on its income, thus increasing the profitability of the trust.  Compliance also allows investors insulation from the bankruptcy of the entity that transfers the mortgages into the securitized trust.  Without this protection, creditors from the originator could seize mortgage loans from the trust to satisfy debts incurred by the originator.  This business model morphed into what is essentially a legally run multi-trillion dollar tax-free Ponzi scheme.  This scheme is so large it makes Bernie Madoff’s empire look like a kindergarten production of the movie, Wall Street.

The only problem was the guys at Treasury, the Federal Reserve and the banks never consulted with the guys at NASA about Newton’s theories of gravity when they set this up.  Who can blame them, they were bankers not rocket scientists.  The bankers neglected to consider the idea that what goes up must come down. In 2007, housing which had survived 40 years of double digit interest rates, the S&L crisis, and three recessions was dealt a coup de grace by investors worldwide when they stopped buying mortgage backed securities and Newton’s theory was proven correct.  The debate is still out as to what created this.

Wall Street conspiracy theorists like claim that it was a planned bust out by the mega-wealthy.  They claim the investment houses did sort of like what Tony and the boys did when someone owed them money on The Sopranos.  They went in ravaged through everything of value and maxed out the guy’s credit with no intent of paying it back.  The only difference, they claim, was that the banking bust out was legal because it was done by “respectable society”.  They claim that Bear Stearns and other investment houses pre-sold these securities and needed to fill them as quickly as possible which is why you had so many exotic mortgages such as Option-ARMs, No-Doc and NINJA programs.

Once investors stopped buying mortgage backed securities, this created a domino effect across credit markets and eventually reached the homeowner. People stopped buying homes and property values plummeted faster than contestants on a Japanese game show.  Overleveraged homeowners now owed more on their mortgages than their house was worth.

The rise of the MBS industry has created a new generation of loan servicers.  Up until the meltdown, loan servicers were like an Asian wife.  They were dutiful and passive in public, but yet behind closed doors yielded great power.

The sole purpose of these servicers was to collect and process payments on mortgage loans. While some specialize in subprime loans, some servicers specialize in loans that are already in default (so-called special servicers). There are companies that contain entire families of servicers: prime and subprime, default and performing. Some of these servicers are affiliated with the originating company.   Nearly half of all subprime loans are serviced by either the originator or an affiliate of the originator.  However even when the servicer is affiliated with the originator, it no longer has exclusive control over the loan or an undivided interest in the loan’s performance. Servicers are usually collecting the payments on loans someone else owns and then pay the Trustees on a quarterly basis and this relationship is governed by the Pooling and Servicing Agreement or PSA.  The PSA is essentially the agreement between the servicer and the trust which details the responsibility of both parties.

Servicers receive their revenue two ways. First, they receive the majority of their revenue from acting as an automated pass-through accounting entity whose mechanical actions are performed offshore or by a computer system. Second, servicers generally profit from servicing fees based on a fixed percentage of the total unpaid principal balance of the loan pool and interest income on homeowners’ payments held by the servicer until the service has to make payments to the investor. They then deduct any pay outs at an inflated rate for taxes and insurance or any affiliated business arrangements from the payments to the investor.

After the meltdown, mortgage servicers were no longer willing to play a passive role in public and moved from the proverbial bedroom to the boardroom faster than when O-Ren Ishii cut off Boss Tanaka’s head with her samurai sword in the movie, Kill Bill.

Like O-Ren Ishii, the servicers were smart and they quickly figured out that if they acted quickly they could profit from the financial chaos around them.  Servicers were flooded with requests for modifications from upside down homeowners.  They quickly seized on the idea that they could exploit their ability to skim off the top of the payments to investors by exaggerating their cost estimates and by increasing the outstanding balances of the loans in the trust.   There was one problem with that idea; most homeowners in late 2007 early 2008 were not yet behind on their payments.

What servicers began doing next is shocking! They began to tell homeowners they would not negotiate a modification unless they were 90 days behind on their payments.  Publicly the excuse was because they needed to rescue as many homeowners as possible before moving on to stable homeowners.  This wasn’t entirely true.  Let’s be honest, this was a blatant lie.  What they weren’t saying is how much their profit margins increased by encouraging people to go into default.  The longer someone stays in default the more profit they made by misleading both the trustee and the homeowner.  This gave the servicers incentive to push homeowners into delinquency and keep them there indefinitely with or without a pending modification.

When the homeowner would submit the application for the modification, the lender would drag out the approval process by repeatedly claiming they lost the paperwork.  Again, this all goes back to their profit margin on loans in default and the outstanding balances of the pool. This is why when HAMP was announced in 2009, servicers were included into the program.  HAMP was intended to encourage servicers to modify loans but the cash incentives offered by the federal government were not large enough to entice the servicer to abandon the profitable business model of skimming off the top.

Another misleading statement made by servicers is that they need approval from the trustee to approve a modification.  This is another lie.  Due to the passive management requirement of the trust under REMIC guidelines, investors have little control and seldom influence the servicer’s actions when it comes to modifying a homeowner’s loan and thus have full discretion to negotiate a modification of a loan for the homeowner.  Most PSA also impose no meaningful restrictions against servicers who negotiate modifications and actually authorize modifications.  In most cases, the PSA immunizes the servicer from litigation from investors when they do modifications.

Servicers also use the excuse that REMIC guidelines penalize them from doing loan modifications.  This is also not factual accurate.  REMIC rules offer an “escape” clause.  REMIC rules state that a loan can be modified when it is in default or a default is reasonably foreseeable.

So now my friends, you now know what would have turned off the flow of Champagne for the Conga lines and put a stop to the reckless sexual abandonments at the conference last week.  The Lending Industry’s dirty secret and the trail of public betrayal that they hid from homeowners and investors.

The shocking thing about this whole scheme is its not independent companies doing it.  It’s the major banks.  Wells Fargo, JP Morgan-Chase, Bank of America, HSBC, they all do it.  That’s right. These banks who received corporate welfare checks in the billions of dollars are now pocketing money from some sweet old grandmother’s pension fund.  So while grandma is forced to eat cold oatmeal because she can’t afford to heat it up, banking executives from Citibank and JP Morgan-Chase go in front of congress and claim they had nothing to do with it.

Share

Debunking the Gospel of Garfield

Since starting MFI-Miami almost 2 years ago, I have received some pretty strange calls from people. I’ve had real estate agents call me who have bought 15 income properties and then try to claim they are victim of Predatory Lending. I’ve had people who have bought investment properties who thought because they watched two episodes of The Apprentice they’re as smart as Donald Trump. I have gotten calls from the conspiracy theorists who think the Obama Administration wants their property so they can build an internment camp on it when the armed UN hovercraft come skimming over the Everglades. These are some of the more interesting calls.

However, the most interesting calls I get are from Pro Se litigants. What are Pro Se litigants? Pro Se litigants are homeowners who represent themselves in court and usually have no training as a lawyer. They are usually people who think they know more than everyone else or have the attitude of “Why should I hire a lawyer when I can do it myself.”

As the saying goes, “An attorney who represents themselves has a fool for a client.” Here’s a case in point. I had a foreclosure client when I started MFI-Miami, who filed an answer to his foreclosure that he copied and pasted off Neil Garfield’s website, Living Lies. My client then tells me he was going file a federal civil RICO case against his lender because his wife’s “forged” signature violated interstate commerce laws which is a RICO predicate. When I asked him who told him he could do that, he claimed he read he could do it on Garfield’s site. I have since received dozens of calls from people asking me for free advice based on what they read by Neil Garfield.

I have received at least 6 calls in the past week from Pro Se litigants claiming that they don’t know what to do because their Florida judge laughs at them for demanding the wet inked copy of their note. This is one of those misconceptions out on the blogosphere that had its origin from the Living Lies site. The misconception is that if the servicer or the Trustee cannot produce the original wet inked note, then they lack legal standing to execute a foreclosure and therefore the debt obligation is now nullified. This is absolutely false. In Florida, the transfer affidavit or note must officially be on record with the county 60 days prior to a servicer or Trustee filing the initial foreclosure complaint. When the attorney files the foreclosure complaint, all they are required to do is attach a copy of the original note.

For those you who don’t know who Neil Garfield is, he is a self-proclaimed Foreclosure Expert who holds seminars across the country for lawyers and Pro-Se litigants helping them fight foreclosures. According to his biography, was an Economist, Accountant and he is a “Chairman Emeritus” of a consortium of financial service companies and claims to be the “ultimate insider” on Wall Street. (Page 4, Garfield Continuum Handbook) Yet, he never mentions which companies he has worked with or the positions he held. The state of Florida also has no license on file for him being an accountant.

If he was a Wall Street “Insider,” he was like Lon Chaney aka The Man of Thousand Faces because friends of mine in the media who cover Wall Street had never heard of him until he started doing seminars. He was a trial attorney in Florida from 1977 until 1993 and by his own admission to me when I attended his seminar in Orlando last May, has not done any litigation work since then.

He preaches that, “homeowners can walk into a foreclosure hearing and walk out owning their house free and clear.” (Page 5, Garfield Continuum Handbook)

He even preaches this on his website and it is over-simplified comments like this that draw people to his website looking for easy answers. Like a late night televangelist, Garfield delivers a lot of what on the surface appears to be easy solutions but in reality are very complex legal arguments. Unfortunately, for the homeowner, foreclosure defense is not easy. It is a lot of painstaking detective work and TILA rescissions happen in only one of out of 50-75 loans.

Neil Garfield’s theories make for great legal debate and table talk for foreclosure defense junkies and conspiracy theorists. However, in reality his theories are impractical for the average homeowner due to the astronomical fees of legal research and litigation that they would require. What Neil Garfield fails to understand or express to his seminar participants is that judges do not like going out on the proverbial limb and therefore will not make precedent making decisions.

In other words, Neil Garfield is great at talking the talk but is a little short on walking the walk. He lacks the practical litigation experience to transform his theories into reality. Even now if you read his blogs, attorneys as well as Pro Se litigants who are frequent contributors phrase their comments as if expressing opinion instead of fact.

Garfield has created a problem in judicial foreclosure states such as Florida. He has unleashed an army of Pro Se litigants who have clogged the courts trying to argue their foreclosure cases using theories they barely understand. They lack not only legal expertise but lending expertise. They are totally unprepared to argue their own cases and fail to learn or obey court procedure. Many of them go in to court trying to argue constitutional law or TILA and find themselves summarily dismissed by a judge. They then write comments on the blogosphere claiming the judicial system is corrupt and that corruption is a result of some mass government conspiracy.

What the Garfield seminars fail to express to these litigants is that foreclosure laws vary from state to state and if you are fortunate enough to live in a judicial state like Florida or New York, judges want to hear state statute not federal statute unless it is relevant to your case.

This also creates another problem for the court system. The problem consists of the homeowners who have been successful in getting their foreclosures postponed. Fed by what they read on Living Lies, these pro se litigants begin having delusions of grandeur and begin believing they are the next Alan Dershowitz or Gerry Spence. They begin dispensing legal advice on the internet. The reality is, it was not the Gospel of Neil Garfield or the Pro Se litigant’s superior linguistic or legal abilities that got the foreclosure postponed but forces beyond the homeowner’s control.

In his 683 page handbook which is riddled with errors, he claims, “Neil has come out of retirement with one purpose in mind – to do all he can to counter the effects of the mortgage meltdown and save the people and the country from the disaster of created by free money using derivative securities that not even experts understood and targeting the least sophisticated members of society.”

This may sound charitable, but don’t believe the hype. At the end of the day, it’s all about the Bejamins. Garfield and his partner Brad Keiser use these seminars to market future consulting work and forensic audits from law firms and Pro Se litigants that attend their conferences.

Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with people making money and I don’t have a problem with the fees Garfield and Kaiser charge their clients, I do have an issue with what they preach and how they manage the expectations of what they preach to the average homeowner. This industry is filled with enough wannabe Elmer Gantrys or messianic types with no practical mortgage industry experience and the last thing it needs is to encourage more unqualified “healers” to come into this business which is what Garfield and Keiser are doing.

Share

Bank Lobbyists Fought For Very Thing They Now Want To Kill, Says Elizabeth Warren

Shahien Nasiripour, Huffington Post

Bank lobbyists are fighting to derail a key element of consumer protection which they fought to preserve just four years ago, threatening to kill financial reform and harm the families that would be protected by it, argues bailout watchdog Elizabeth Warren in a forceful opinion piece published Tuesday.

“Banks or families?” Warren, a Harvard Law professor and chair of the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel, asks rhetorically in an op-ed in Politico. “For almost a year, the big banks and the American Bankers Association (ABA) have presented that choice to Congress. Lobbyists argue that meaningful consumer protection will jeopardize the safety and soundness of banks, telling lawmakers that they must decide between the two.”

Indeed, bankers and federal bank regulators — with the exception of Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair — argue that shifting consumer protection to a new agency, solely charged with protecting borrowers from abusive lenders, would irreparably hurt the nation’s banks. Their argument is that by protecting consumers from particular products the new agency could have a detrimental effect on bank profitability, hurting the very lenders whose health is key to the economic recovery, according to bankers and their allies.

“ABA lobbyists now aggressively insist that separating consumer protection and safety and soundness functions would unravel bank stability,” Warren writes. “Yet just a few years ago, they heatedly argued the opposite–that the functions should be distinct.

Read more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/30/bank-lobbyists-fought-for_n_517982.html

Share

Behind Consumer Agency Idea, a Fiery Advocate

Jodi Kantor, NY Times

Ask Elizabeth Warren, scourge of Wall Street bankers, how they treat consumers, and her no-nonsense bob will shake with indignation. She will talk about morality, about fairness, about what she calls their “let them eat cake” attitude towards taxpayers. If she is riled enough, she might even spit out the Warren version of an expletive.

“Dang gummit, somebody has got to stand up on behalf of middle-class families!” she exclaimed in a recent interview in her office here.

Among all the dramatis personae of post-financial crisis Washington, there is no one remotely like Ms. Warren, 60, who has divided the town between those who admire her and those who roll their eyes at her. She is an Oklahoma native, a janitor’s daughter, a bankruptcy expert at Harvard Law School and a former Sunday School teacher who cites John Wesley — the co-founder of Methodism and a public health crusader — as an inspiration. She brims with cheer, yet she is such a fearsome interrogator that Bruce Mann, her husband, describes her as a grandmother who can make grown men cry. Back at Harvard, Ms. Warren’s teaching style is ”Socratic with a machine gun,” as one former student put it. In Washington, she grills bankers and Treasury officials just as relentlessly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/25warren.html?src=twt&twt=nytimesbusiness

Share