Obama Not Likely To Replace FHFA Puppet Master DeMarco W/Recess Appointment

Recess appointment of FHFA head not likely to happen

Jacob Gaffney, Housing Wire

FHFA Puppet Master Edward DeMarco

FHFA Director

As soon as the Department of Justice released a memo confirming the legality of President Obama’s decision to appoint Richard Cordray to head of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau while Congress is in recess, speculation started that the same may happen for a new head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

“This gives Obama the green light to appoint a new FHFA head before his State of the Union Speech,” tweeted Mike Bergen @BergenCapital on Twitter. (The president’s annual speech to the nation is set for Jan. 24, and Congress is back in session Jan. 23.)

It’s an excellent point, and while President Obama is free to do so, it’s a move not likely to happen.

Certainly the administration wants current FHFA head Edward DeMarco gone. His aversion to principal reduction at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac does not sit well in the housing ideology of the White House and Federal Reserve.

The upcoming departures of the government-sponsored enterprise CEOs — Mike Williams and Ed Haldeman, who are also staunch opponents of principal reduction — leave an opening for the appointment of administration-friendly replacements.

But while Obama has the green light, there are a few nagging points that make such an action unlikely.

Read more here

Share

TARP: The Biggest Con Job In The History Of Banking

The notion that without the $700bn bailout we would be reduced to bartering was a ruse by the banks to get taxpayers’ money

Dean Baker, UK Gaurdian

Bankers Got rich With Corporate WelfareTwo years ago, the top honchos at the Fed, Treasury and the Wall Street banks were running around like Chicken Little warning that the world was about to end. This fear-mongering, together with a big assist from the elite media (thatis, NPR, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, etc), earned the banks their $700bn Troubled Asset Relief Programme (Tarp) blank cheque bailout. This money, along with even more valuable loans and loan guarantees from the Fed and FDIC, enabled them to survive the crisis they had created. As a result, the big banks are bigger and more profitable than ever.

Now, the same crew that tapped our pockets two years ago is eagerly pitching the line that their bailout was good for us. It may be the case that the history books are written by the winners, but that doesn’t prevent the rest of us from telling the truth.

Let’s step back to where we were two years ago. The huge investment bank Bear Stearns had collapsed. So had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage giants. Lehman Brothers, the fourth largest investment bank had also gone down. AIG, the country’s largest insurer, had been put on life support by the government.

At this point, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, the three remaining independent investment banks, all faced runs that would quickly sink them without government intervention. Citigroup and Bank of America, two of the three largest commercial banks, were also almost certainly insolvent. Many other banks also faced insolvency, especially if they took big losses on their loans to other institutions that were about to go bankrupt.

This was when the Wall Street boys made their mad rush for the public trough. They enlisted everyone that mattered in the effort, including Treasury secretary Henry Paulson, Federal Reserve Board chairman Ben Bernanke, and Timothy Geithner, then the head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank.

The line was that the economy would collapse if congress did not immediately rescue the banks. They were prepared to make up anything to save the banks in their hour of need. Bernanke was probably caught in the biggest fabrication when he told congress that the commercial paper market was shutting down.

Read more here

Share

Fed Governor Says Fed Will Punish Mortgage Servicers

Raskin says Fed will fine mortgage servicers

Dave Clark, Reuters

Federal Reserve Governor Sarah Bloom Raskin on Saturday said the Fed must impose monetary penalties on banks who entered into an April agreement with regulators over how to fix problems in their mortgage servicing businesses.

“The Federal Reserve and other federal regulators must impose penalties for deficiencies that resulted in unsafe and unsound practices or violations of federal law,” Raskin said in remarks to the Association of American Law Schools. “The Federal Reserve believes monetary sanctions in these cases are appropriate and plans to announce monetary penalties.”

Raskin did not say when the penalties will be announced.

She said that “appropriately sized” penalties would “incentivize mortgage servicers to incorporate strong programs to comply with laws when they build their business models.”

Mortgage servicers, many of which are large banks, collect home loan payments and manage issues like foreclosures.

The servicing issue burst into public view last year when government agencies began investigating bank mortgage practices, including the use of “robo-signers” to sign hundreds of unread foreclosure documents a day.

In April, 14 mortgage servicers, including Bank of America (BAC.N) and JPMorgan Chase (JPM.N), entered into a settlement with the Fed, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the now defunct Office of Thrift Supervision on steps that have to be taken to correct and improve their servicing practices, such as providing borrowers with a single point of contact for questions.

As part of the agreement, these mortgage servicers have hired consultants to review foreclosures that took place in 2009 and 2010 to see if any were improper.

Read more here

Share

Fed Report Says Something Everyone Already Knows About Housing

Fed Says Foreclosure Not Best Solution For Housing Crisis

Jillian Berman, Huffington Post

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke

More than four years into the housing crisis, and after millions of Americans have lost their homes, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is finally taking a stand.

Bernanke sent a Federal Reserve paper to the leaders of the House of Representatives’ Committee on Financial Services arguing that relying heavily on foreclosures to deal with mortgage borrowers that can’t meet their obligations is “costly and inefficient” for the housing market because they can lead to deteriorating homes and weigh on the property values in the surrounding community.

Instead, the paper encourages lenders to “aggressively” pursue loan modifications and for servicers to be given more incentives to seek alternatives to foreclosure.

Foreclosures “can result in ‘deadweight losses,’ or costs that do not benefit anyone, including the neglect and deterioration of properties that often sit vacant for months (or even years) and the associated negative effects on neighborhoods,” the paper said. “These deadweight losses compound the losses that households and creditors already bear and can result in further downward pressure on house prices.”

The Obama administration has already pursued policies aimed at encouraging lenders to modify loans, although to very limited success. The Home Affordable Modification Program, which Obama announced in February 2009, had helped fewer than 700,000 homeowners as of October, despite promises that the program would encourage banks to modify the loans of 3 to 4 million homeowners.

The paper mirrors findings from regional Fed banks indicating that foreclosures can be detrimental to more Americans than just those who are losing their homes. Properties that are occupied, but in foreclosure, drive down the surrounding property values twice as much as vacant properties, an October study from the Cleveland Federal Reserve found.

And with millions of foreclosed properties already in the pipeline, the foreclosure process is already taking longer than in recent memory — a situation that may only be exacerbated if lenders don’t take the Fed’s advice. The average foreclosure process now takes 674 days, almost triple the time necessary in 2007.

Read more here

Share