Are Wells Fargo Executives Greedy Bastards Or Just Out Of Touch With Reality?

Wells Fargo Is Attempting To Evict A Grandmother Who Acted In Good Faith

Abigail Caplovitz Field, Reality Check

Wells Fargo evicting old womanWell DOERs, John Stumpf, CEO of Wells Fargo, is a schmuck.

CEO Stumpf knew (because DOERs told him) that the only reason grandma Patricia Martin faced foreclosure was because a Wells Fargo employee–Stumpf’s employee–lied to her daughter about late fees, and then rejected her for the loan modification it told her to apply for. Why did Wells reject Grandma Martin’s modification application? Well, given the facts, I see two possibilities. Stumpf’s company is incredibly incompetent or deadly sin-level greedy. Either way Stumpf’s Wells Fargo is vicious.

Vicious, Yes. Also Incompetent and/or Greedy.

Vicious because Wells Fargo is kicking Grandma and her family to the curb when the Martin family has acted properly and in good faith. As an added bonus, Stumpf’s employees were abusive and cruel. (See Mandelman’s original DOER alert and the update for the background.)

So besides vicious, is Wells incompetent or deadly-sin level greedy? The answer rests on whether Wells’s math errors were inadvertent (incompetent) or deliberate (greedy.) See, the key reason the mod failed is that Wells crunched the numbers using an inflated value for the house: $370k, instead of the $300k it was actually worth. Wells acknowledged it used the wrong number, and re-ran the numbers. But instead of using $300k the second time, they again used $370k. The inflated value meant taking Grandma Martin’s home would be worth more than modifying her loan. Garbage in, garbage out. But for doing the math wrong, the Martin mod would have been approved and the foreclosure averted.

If repeating the math error was an accident, then John Stumpf’s Wells Fargo is incompetent. True, other evidence suggests Wells is fundamentally incompetent; how else to explain what happened to the Bowers family, as recently reported by Reuters? But if failing Grandma Martin with bad math twice was deliberate, we’re talking deadly-sin level greedy because it means Wells didn’t want her money, it wanted her house. And taking her house hurts everyone except Wells. A home in foreclosure can be a profit center for a servicer like Wells.

Everyone Loses With a Foreclosure, Except Servicers of MBS

See, taking the house hurts the Martin family, because they lose their home of 44 years. Taking their home hurts the Martin family’s neighbors and community by lowering property values and damaging the tax base. (Note: Las Vegas and other jurisdictions are trying to limit the damage by forcing bankers to take care of the properties they evict people from.) Finally taking the home also hurts investors in the mortgage backed security Grandma Martin’s mortgage is in, because right now homes are lousy collateral.

Read more here

Share

Sloppy seconds: Feds Probe $150 Million Double Billing Scheme By Banks

Catherine Curan, NY Post

John Stumpf, CEO of Wells Fargo and others may start feeling the heat from the feds for double billing homeowners

Federal investigators are looking into allegations that banks have wrongly pocketed tens of millions of dollars from troubled homeowners by double-billing for mortgage escrow fees, The Post has learned.

Exactly how much in phony profits the banks may have pocketed from this alleged practice is not known, but an analysis by The Post of bankruptcy cases in 2011 shows it could range higher than $150 million for just the new cases filed this year.

The problem has gotten so out of hand that lawyers and accountants at the New York City office of US Trustee — charged with protecting the integrity of US bankruptcy courts — are poring over local Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases for evidence of wrongdoing.

The federal investigators were tipped to the alleged practice by metro area bankruptcy lawyers. Cases specifically involved Wells Fargo and GMAC Mortgage, but lawyers say most banks had double-dipped.

“It seems prevalent, and it’s a moneymaking machine,” David Shaev, a Manhattan bankruptcy defense lawyer, said of the banks’ double-dipping.

Westchester bankruptcy defense lawyer Linda Tirelli says 75 percent of her clients face escrow double-billing by their lender or mortgage servicer, for amounts up to $2,800.

Here’s how the double-dipping scam can be pulled off.

Many homeowners opt to pay part of their property taxes and homeowners insurance with their mortgage every month. The funds are then put into an escrow account and used to periodically pay the taxes and insurance.
Read more here:

 

Share

Wells Fargo Illegally Pushed Homeowners Into Sub-Prime Loans & Falsified Docs

Shahien Nasiripour, Huffington Post

Perhaps more than 10,000 Wells Fargo borrowers were inappropriately steered into more expensive subprime mortgages or had their loan documents falsified by bank personnel, the Federal Reserve said Wednesday.

The bank, the largest U.S. mortgage lender, agreed to pay $85 million to settle civil charges. On Tuesday, the company announced that it turned a $3.9 billion profit last quarter. It’s made $7.7 billion in profit thus far this year.

The fine is the largest the Fed has ever imposed in a consumer case, the central bank said. It’s also the first formal enforcement action taken by a federal bank regulator against allegations that banks steered borrowers into high-cost, subprime loans, it added.

Wells Fargo did not admit wrongdoing.

“The alleged actions committed by a relatively small group of team members are not what we stand for at Wells Fargo,” John Stumpf, the bank’s chief executive and chairman, said in a statement. The bank has already voluntarily compensated 600 customers, the statement said.

The fraudulent activity took place over four years from early 2004 to the autumn of 2008, according to the Fed. The bank must compensate borrowers for losses, some of whom could receive more than $20,000. At least 3,700 borrowers will be compensated, the Fed estimated. Wells Fargo has to review a subset of borrowers who took out subprime loans to determine whether they were illegally steered into more expensive mortgages.

Read more here

Share

Banks question mortgage pact

But Bank of America, Wells are reducing principal for some borrowers voluntarily.

Rick Rothacker, Charlotte Observer

Big banks continue to push back against a possible settlement that could require them to forgive billions in mortgage balances, even as they reduce principal through select programs.

Bank of America Corp. on Thursday announced a plan to assist borrowers in the military, days after executives raised concerns about the fairness and effectiveness of a regulatory settlement that could cost big banks $20 billion or more.

The military program makes principal reduction a first step for struggling borrowers who are leaving active duty, trimming a customer’s mortgage to as low as 100 percent of the home’s current market value. The bank will also reduce interest rates for some customers to as low as 4 percent.

Also Thursday, Wells Fargo & Co. chief executive John Stumpf told investors that principal reduction is “not always the answer,” while noting his bank has forgiven nearly $4billion in balances for former Wachovia Pick-A-Payment borrowers.

Banks are resisting a broad settlement with federal banking regulators and attorneys general for a number of reasons, experts said. In many cases, the lenders who service the loans don’t actually own the mortgages. There are questions about who deserves to receive principal reduction – distressed borrowers or borrowers working hard to make their payments. And then there’s the magnitude of the problem.

More than 11 million, nearly 25percent, of all U.S. residential properties are “underwater,” meaning the borrower owes more than the value of the home, according to research firm CoreLogic. Altogether, borrowers have negative equity of $750 billion.

“It’s the sheer size of it,” Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, said of the banks’ resistance.

Read more

Share