From The Bowels Of Academia Rises Lady Sterculius

One Of The Most Asinine Editorials On Housing I Have Ever Read

Steve Dibert, MFI-Miami

Five years ago, most people had never heard of Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard Professor who lectured about consumer affairs.  After the market crash in 2007, she became a regular talking head on cable news talking about the financial crisis.  She tried to claim that this whole crisis was the fault of unscrupulous mortgage brokers doing dastardly things to unsuspecting homeowners.  What she wasn’t doing was blaming Wall Street and as we later learned, Wall Street was behind this $70 trillion Ponzi scheme.

Warren’s arguments were later proven wrong but that wasn’t before for she used her influence as a Harvard Professor with key members of Congress to perform her version of “Sherman’s Marchon the wholesale lending industry.

Five years after Elizabeth Warren burst on the scene with her crazy claims dreamt up at the Harvard Faculty Club while being serenaded by the Harvard Mens’ Choir singing Fair Harvard, another whacked out academic type is emerging from that same bubble.

This new Warren-wannabe is Erika Christakis who some how convinced the fine editors at the Financial Times in London to let her write an op-ed piece in yesterday’s edition about how home ownership is bad for Americans because it fosters a sense of hate and despair.  Her logic is if you buy a house and hate the people in your neighborhood you’re screwed.

She writes:

“First, why, in the face of overwhelming reasons for selfishness, are humans altruistic and co-operative? Second, how do groups stay co-operative when confronted by people in their midst who don’t want to co-operate?”

It’s apparent her parents never let her watch Sesame Street as a kid because any American who grew up watching Sesame Street can still recite the words to “Who Are The People In Your Neighborhood?”

Like Bob and the Muppets tell us that if we talk to our neighbors, even the grumpy ones, we can live and work to make our neighborhoods a community.

Ms. Christakis’ cynical response to this is that Americans only communicate out of their own self interests.   It appears instead of watching Sesame Street, her parents brainwashed her with Ayn Rand novels.

After reading her editorial, its pretty clear Ms. Christakis never worked in lending or real estate.  It also appears that like my 50 year old friend who still lives at home with his parents, she has never left the warm comfy bed of academia.   According to her biography on her blog, she is a:

During my time researching her, I found that other than writing uninformed and asinine editorials about real estate, she penned a whacked out neo-feminist editorial for Time Magazine that read like a treatment for a Lifetime movie.  In that piece, she used her same inept logic to claim that men who hated the Twilight movies are sexist and bigoted because they want to deny women their right to fantasize.

The big difference between Elizabeth Warren and Erika Christakis is Elizabeth Warren actually had some knowledge of what she was talking about and would later educate herself enough to learn that mortgage brokers weren’t the reason for the housing crisis.  Erika Christakis on the other hand is more like Mel Brooks’ character Comicus in “History of the World, Part 1″:

 

 

 

Share

I, Robosigner… A three act play about affidavit fraud in AG Masto’s Nevada

Martin Andelman, ML-Implode

ACT ONE – The shot across all bank bows

As the month of August came to a close, Nevada’s attorney general, Catherine Masto, filed her second amended complaint against Bank of America and friends.  Yves Smith provided the analysis in her post on Naked Capitalism,Nevada Lawsuit Shows Bank of America’s Criminal Incompetence, and all I can tell you is that it reads like a John Grisham or even a Robert Ludlum novel, I don’t know if it quite rises to the level of a John le Carre, but it’s a great read.  Oh, and spoiler alert… there’s going to be a sequel.

She says that the litigation by the attorney general is “significant not merely due to the damages and remedies sought, but because it paves the way for private lawsuits.”  So, that I like the sound of that… private lawsuits are good where Bank of America is concerned.  Here’s what she had to say about the complaint itself…

And make no mistake about it, this filing is a doozy. It shows the Federal/state attorney general mortgage settlement effort to be a complete travesty. The claim describes, in considerable detail, how various Bank of America units engaged in misconduct in virtually every aspect of its residential mortgage business.

The complaint describes abuses from the very outset of the securitization process: how borrowers were mis-sold mortgages (it describes how entire products were effectively predatory), how investors were misled as to their quality, how they were not conveyed properly to securitization trusts, how borrowers were subject to abusive servicing (as in charged improper and impermissible fees), how promises made under the old consent decree regarding mortgage modifications were violated (for instance, even though interest rate reductions were promised, instead modifications often resulted in HIGHER interest rates), and the filing of fraudulent paperwork to execute foreclosures.

Metaphorically, this complaint was a shot across all the bank bows.

ACT TWO – A robo-felony is born

Next, on November 7, 2011, the Wall Street Journal, in its article titled: Nevada Foreclosure Filings Dry Up After ‘Robo-Signing’ Law, described a new felony law that Nevada’s state Assembly passed and that took effect on October 1, 2011, that’s designed to crack down on “robo-signing.”  That’s what we call it when bank employees sign off hundreds of thousands of legal filings, lying about having personally reviewed each case.

The new law holds individuals criminally liable for such false representations and provides for civil penalties of $5,000 for each violation.

Early results say the law is working. In fact, during the first month after the law took effect, notices of default fell from 5,380 to just over 600, a drop of 88 percent, according to data tracked by ForeclosureRadar.com.

The new law also bans trustees from handling foreclosures if a subsidiary of the foreclosing bank, which means that Bank of America’s use of subsidiary, Recon Trust, in Nevada, is no longer allowed.  And ReconTrust didn’t file any NODs in October, about which a Bank of America spokesliar declined to comment.

Of course, the banking lobby is going with the SOP, claiming that the law is going to slow foreclosures, which we all know, hurts everyone.  And then I’m sure there was something about how there’s going to be no lending in Nevada in the future, and stuff like that.

Those behind the bill cleverly, if transparently, say that it’s not about stopping foreclosures, it about guarding against potential title defects that can lead judges to later invalidate foreclosures, as has happened in both Michigan and Massachusetts.  Tisha Black Chernine, a real-estate lawyer in Las Vegas who helped draft the bill, was quoted by the WSJ as having said the following when talking about healing the housing markets…

“This is not at all about preventing foreclosures. It is about helping end users.  We need to make sure foreclosures are done properly.  People taking title pursuant to a bad foreclosure run the risk of having no title at all.”

Okay, so that her story and she’s sticking to it, I suppose.  And if people are buying that, and it’s working with the bank, then I’m in favor of saying it.  Heck, I’d tell BofA scary bedtime stories about all sorts of thing every night all year if I thought it would get them to do a Scrooge-like turnaround as far as the foreclosure crisis is concerned.

So, while Nevada’s NODs dropped by 88 percent, foreclosures picked in the other 49 states.  Looking at loans bundled and sold as mortgage-backed securities without any government guarantees, Fitch ratings attributed the spike in foreclosures to making up for time lost pretending to investigate robo-signing, which started during the fall of 2010, and caused intermittent delays for several months.

Read more here

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share

The Woman Who Makes Republicans Cry Like Little Girls

Joe Nocera, NY Times

The piñata sat alone at the witness table, facing the members of the House subcommittee on financial institutions and consumer credit.

The Wednesday morning hearing was titled “Oversight of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.” The only witness was the piñata, otherwise known as Elizabeth Warren, theHarvard law professor hired last year by President Obama to get the new bureau — the only new agency created by the Dodd-Frank financial reform law — up and running. She may or may not be nominated by the president to serve as its first director when it goes live in July, but in the here and now she’s clearly running the joint.

And thus the real purpose of the hearing: to allow the Republicans who now run the House to box Ms. Warren about the ears. The big banks loathe Ms. Warren, who has made a career out of pointing out all the ways they gouge financial consumers — and whose primary goal is to make such gouging more difficult. So, naturally, the Republicans loathe her too. That she might someday run this bureau terrifies the banks. So, naturally, it terrifies the Republicans.

The banks and their Congressional allies have another, more recent gripe. Rather than waiting until July to start helping financial consumers, Ms. Warren has been trying to help them now. Can you believe the nerve of that woman?

At the request of the states’ attorneys general, all 50 of whom have banded together to investigate the mortgage servicing industry in the wake of the foreclosure crisis, she has fed them ideas that have become part of a settlement proposal they are putting together. Recently, a 27-page outline of the settlement terms was given to banks — terms that included basic rules about how mortgage servicers must treat defaulting homeowners, as well as a requirement that banks look to modify mortgages before they begin foreclosure proceedings. The modifications would be paid for with $20 billion or so in penalties that would be levied on the big banks.

Read more here

Share

Top Senate Republican blasts proposed foreclosure settlement as a “regulatory shakedown”

Jim Puzzanghera, LA Times

Alabama Republican Sen. Richard Shelby on Wednesday blasted efforts by federal and state officials to reach a settlement with mortgage servicers over botched foreclosures as a “regulatory shakedown” by the Obama administration that goes far beyond rectifying the damage caused to homeowners.

“This proposed settlement appears to be an attempt to advance the administration’s political agenda, rather than an effort to help homeowners who were harmed by a servicer’s actual conduct,” Shelby said at a Senate Banking Committee hearing about the housing market.

Attorneys general from all 50 states and federal regulators are working to settle a broad investigation into problems in home foreclosures by leading mortgage servicers. Last week, officials from the states and the U.S. Justice Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Trade Commission and the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau presented the banks with 27 pages of demands for changes in mortgage servicing procedures.

The government officials also are pushing for financial penalties of $5 billion to $20 billion or more.

But Shelby said the attempt to help people harmed by botched paperwork and other foreclosure problems was being “hijacked” by some state and federal officials intent on circumventing Congress to provide more assistance to troubled homeowners.

Read more here

Share