Mortgage Modification Overhaul Sought by States

Nelson D. Schwartz and David Streitfeld, NY Times

State attorneys general have presented the nation’s five biggest banks with a list of demands that could drastically alter the foreclosure process and give the government sweeping authority over how mortgage servicers deal with millions of Americans in danger of losing their homes.

Under the blueprint, banks would be prohibited from starting foreclosure proceedings while a borrower was actively trying to lower the interest rate or ease other terms of the home loan, a process known as a mortgage modification.

Any borrower who successfully made three payments in a trial modification would be given a permanent modification. When a modification was denied, it would be automatically reviewed by an ombudsman or independent review panel.

The proposed changes, which will be discussed by the attorneys general when they meet in Washington early next week, would compel the banks to treat each borrower in default individually.

It was the banks’ attempt to process foreclosures on a large scale that led to robo-signing, in which lawyers and bank officials signed thousands of documents a month after only a cursory review.

The ensuing furor over robo-signing, and other abuses like foreclosures that proceeded with missing documentation, prompted the attorneys general and regulators to begin a broad investigation last fall.

The blueprint from the attorneys general, obtained by The New York Times, is still just a draft, and weeks, if not months, of tough negotiations with the banks remain. Several big banks, including CitigroupBank of America and JPMorgan Chase, declined to comment.

The government’s current program to help troubled home borrowers, known as HAMP, continues to face fierce criticism. Both conservatives and liberals have found fault with the program, which aided far fewer homeowners than originally promised.

The latest proposal, delivered to the banks late Thursday, represents a significant expansion of powers for the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which government officials say has taken a more aggressive stance in the talks than some other banking regulators.

The big banks are already wary of the new bureau and its overseer, Elizabeth Warren, a former Harvard law professor who has been sharply critical of the financial services industry and has pushed for a separate financial penalty of $20 billion or more.

“This further cements the C.F.P.B.’s authority in the financial space and puts them at the top of the pyramid when it comes to the mortgage modification fight,” said Jaret Seiberg, a policy analyst at MF Global in Washington. “From the perspective of the banks, this is the last place you want to be.”

Read more here

Share

Obama Consumer Agency May Not Be Able To Oversee Mortgage Firms

Shahien Nasiripour, Huffington Post

The nascent consumer agency dedicated to protecting borrowers from abusive lenders, a cornerstone of the Obama administration’s efforts to reform the financial industry, will not be able to regulate the kinds of lenders that helped cause the crisis if the White House doesn’t meet a key deadline, federal auditors say.

Firms like New Century Financial, Ameriquest, Fremont General and Countrywide Financial — lenders that aren’t banks and fall outside the bounds of regular federal supervision — made the kinds of shoddy mortgage loans that ultimately led to the housing crisis. The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, currently led by Elizabeth Warren on an interim basis, is supposed to change that by putting them under the umbrella of a robust federal regulator.

But if the White House can’t get a nominee through the Senate by July, the bureau will lack the authority to supervise nonbank lenders, according to a Jan. 10 report by the inspectors general of the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve obtained by The Huffington Post. In six months, the agency officially assumes the power formally held by bank regulators. Bloomberg News first reported on the existence of the report Wednesday afternoon.

The dilemma poses a challenge to the Obama administration, which sold the agency to Congress and the industry in part based on the promise that it will help level the playing field between banks and nonbanks when it comes to government oversight. Banks have long been regulated by federal agencies and subject to regular audits. Nonbanks, like home mortgage and payday lenders, have been subject to sporadic oversight, at best. Such companies have been hit with billions in fines and legal settlements in response to accusations they engaged in abusive and predatory lending.

Read more here

Share

Mandelman’s Take On The Whole GMAC Controversy

Martin Andelman, ML-Implode

I’m sorry, but is GMAC… no, wait… Ally Financial… I keep forgetting they’re my “ally” now… run by a 40 Mule Team of morons?  Don’t answer that, it was clearly rhetorical.

Okay, so here’s the story… some attorneys representing homeowners in foreclosure noticed that GAMC was saying things that weren’t true, which is sometimes referred to as “lying,” and then in a deposition it came out that a middle manager at GMAC was actually signing 10,000 foreclosures a month without reading the paperwork like he was supposed to… or, one might consider… like any normal human being would do given they had a job signing 10,000 of anything each month.  I mean… what the… can you even imagine?

Well, here’s your job.  We’ll need you to sit here and sign your name roughly 10,000 times a month.  So, if there are 21.67 work days per month, which there are, according to Amswers.com, then that would mean signing your name about 462 times per day, or 58 per hour, assuming one were to work eight hours a day without breaks of any kind.  That’s one per minute, and it assumes there’s some sort of catheter involved.

No problem you say.  Except how will I be able to read what I’m signing? “Oh, no need for that, silly rabbit,” your boss says… “kicks are for trids.”  What in the world was going on here, pray tell?  Why, it’s time to play “Fraudulent Foreclosure Mill,” of course.  It’s the game where laws don’t matter and all the houses go back to the bank no matter what!  I’m not sure, but it sounds like something that might have been developed by Saddam Hussein, no?  Or, maybe Vikram Pandit and Jamie Dimon, I suppose.

NPR reported: “The company recently halted evictions in dozens of states, after news of the robo-signer came to light.”

Oh come on… I HATE it when people treat me like I’m six.  Is this “news” to GMAC, or any of the other banksters?  That’s what I’m to believe?  Really?  Well I don’t usually say what I’m about to say but this is my blog and I don’t work for anyone but me, so… GMAC… F#@k you.

I worked in corporate America for some 20 years, and quite a few of those years I even worked for banksters, including JPMorgan, and there’s absolutely NO CHANCE whatsoever that this is “news” to anyone there.  I absolutely guarantee you that there are secretaries at GMAC that know about this practice… they’ve been having meetings about it for years.  There are enough CYA memos floating about at GMAC that if you stacked them on top of each other they’d be taller than Shaquille O’Neal standing on Lord Blankcheck’s throat in a pair of 4” stilettos while on the roof of a Yukon, an image that I’d go pay-per-view to see, I don’t know about you.

No, it’s not “news,” although I guess I have to be happy that the lamebrain media has finally caught on that something might be amiss in Foreclosure Land.  And it’s about damn time.  As I recently said to a producer at American Public Television: “Thanks for coming, media people, you’re a little late, but come on in, there’s still plenty of food.”

No, even though NPR, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and just about every news site, publication and blog on the planet reported on the story, it’s not “news,” except that perhaps because it’s us the taxpayers that actually own most of GMAC, it is.  Yep, it’s “us” that are paying that robo-signer to sign his name a gazillion times a month, thus creating fraudulent documents that are then used by lawyers with fewer ethics than pond scum to throw “US” our of our homes illegally.

Read more here: http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2010/09/gmac-halts-evictions-related-to-foreclosures-in-23-states-when-news-of-forged-and-robo-signed-documents-comes-out/

Share

Jamie Dimon Is Afraid of Getting Beaten Up By A Girl

Stephen Gandel, Time Magazine

There are a lot of reasons to like the idea of a consumer financial protection agency. My colleagues Barbara Kiviat and Michael Grunwald have made the more substantive ones herehere and here. But I think I have stumbled across possibly the most telling data point yet on why the CFPA is likely a good idea: Jamie Dimon is scared of debating Elizabeth Warren on the topic. It’s not because Dimon is not passionate about the topic. Privately, Dimon and other JP Morgan exeuctives have been strongly making their case in Washington against starting a new agency, even one housed at the Fed, to monitor consumer protection in the banking business.

But when White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel called a top J.P. Morgan executive to ask for the bank’s support in creating a new consumer-protection agency, the executive—former Commerce Secretary William Daley—said no, according to people familiar with the conversation. His boss believed that sufficient consumer safeguards were already on the books.

Nonetheless, I have put some phone calls in and Dimon is unwilling to take Warren on in person and debate the topic. Dimon is a smart guy. So the fact that he is scared to debate Warren on the topic means that he knows he can’t win. Here’s why:

First a recap. Elizabeth Warren is a Harvard law professor that also heads up the Congressional Oversight Panel, which has monitored the TARP program with hearings and studies. A few years ago, after studying a number of abusive lending practices regularly engaged in by the nation’s largest banks, she came up with the idea of launching a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. In Warren’s vision, it would be federally funded and separate from other regulators. It’s only job would be to assess whether the loans and other products sold by banks are fair and safe for consumers. Much like the FDA does for drugs. Obama loves the idea. And so it has been batted around as part of the reform effort, and is included, in a weaker form, in Dodd’s reform bill. Here’s what FDIC chief Sheila Bair had to say about Warren and her proposal in the TIME 100 this week:

Elizabeth is at her best when she deploys that razor-sharp eloquence in defense of the American consumer. Some of her ideas are controversial, but we always listen because her powerful intellect and plainspoken articulation prove to be an irresistible combination. Of all the victims of the damage done in the past two years by the financial meltdown and the ensuing economic downturn, consumers have suffered the most. But that may soon come to an end if Elizabeth has her way and Congress establishes a new and independent consumer watchdog for financial products. I say high time.

This is also the woman that makes Jamie Dimon, the head of the largest bank in America, shake with fear at night. How do I know this? Because I called and asked. I tried to set up a debate on the topic between Elizabeth Warren and Jamie Dimon. My pitch was if you feel strongly about the topic just defend it in the pages of TIME magazine, and your side of the argument will be better for it. My proposal was that Jamie Dimon and Elizabeth Warren should go on a foreclosure bus tour together. Take a look at the damage that has been done by option ARM loans and 2/28 hybrids and then make the case why the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency would or would not have stopped the problems that led to the financial crisis.

Read more: http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/05/04/why-jamie-dimon-is-afraid-of-elizabeth-warren/?xid=huffpo-direct#ixzz0n5vA9Ipt

Share