Trying to Put a Price on Bank Errors

Gretchen Morgenson, NY Times

KUDOS to the Congressional Oversight Panel for publishing a thoughtful and thorough report last week on the mortgage documentation mess. It argued that, yes, in fact, these paperwork problems may have significant implications for banks, investors and the stability of the financial system.

Since mortgage paperwork flaws became front-page news this fall, the banks caught in the glare have characterized the problems as technicalities that are easily remedied.

Their responses sound a lot like Mike Wazowski, the assistant scarer in “Monsters, Inc.,” who is reprimanded for not turning in his daily reports. “Oh, that darn paperwork,” he tells his supervisor. “Wouldn’t it be easier if it all just … blew away?”

But the mortgage paperwork problems aren’t blowing away, and the panel report analyzes their implications in fine detail. It also questions the view, held by some overseeing the Treasury Department’sloan modification effort, that mortgage documentation errors have no impact on the program.

Phyllis Caldwell, chief of the Treasury’s Homeownership Preservation Office, articulated the Treasury’s view in her testimony before the panel, according to the report. She said false affidavits and other processing flaws weren’t problematic for the government’s modification plan, known as the Home Affordable Modification Program or HAMP.

Because loan modifications don’t require physical production of a mortgage and note, the Treasury has not been examining whether document flaws have an impact on its efforts, she said.

Ted Kaufman, the former Delaware senator who leads the panel, saw it differently on Thursday. “Financial institutions all say everything is fine, but prudence would dictate that we make sure,” he said. “Not that we don’t trust the banks, but let’s take a hard look at this thing.”

In an interview on Friday, Tim Massad, acting assistant Treasury secretary for financial stability, clarified his agency’s position. “We weren’t saying these problems aren’t serious,” he said. “They are extremely serious, they are clearly widespread, they do pose dangers and they need to be fixed. But based on the evidence today, we didn’t see a systemic risk to financial stability.”

STILL, the oversight report points out problems that arise if servicers modify mortgages under HAMP when they don’t actually have the right to do so.

First, the report said, borrowers may either be granted or denied modifications improperly. And paperwork errors may mean the government is paying modification bounties of $1,500 a mortgage to the wrong banks.

Treasury officials told the oversight panel that if ownership of the mortgage was not properly transferred, the government could claw back incentives paid to the wrong institution.

But such a solution may not be feasible, the report concluded. And even if the Treasury chased down a loan servicer to return the incentive money it received in error, the government would have essentially handed that bank an interest-free loan for the period it kept the funds.

Read more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/business/21gret.html?_r=1

Share

‘Vultures’ Save Troubled Homeowners

James Hagerty, Wall Street Journal

Anna and Charlie Reynolds of St. George, Utah, were worried about losing their home to foreclosure last year. Then they got a lucky break—from an unlikely savior.

Selene Residential Mortgage Opportunity Fund, an investment fund managed by veteran mortgage-bond trader Lewis Ranieri, acquired the loan at a deep discount and renegotiated the terms with the Reynolds. The balance due was cut to $243,182 from $421,731, and the interest rate was lowered. That reduced the monthly payment to $1,573 from $3,464, allowing the family to stay in their home despite a drop in Mr. Reynolds’ income as a real-estate agent. “It was a miracle,” says Ms. Reynolds.

But Mr. Ranieri isn’t your typical miracle worker. As a fund manager who was once vice chairman of the bond-trading firm Salomon Brothers, he’s a member of the Wall Street crowd that is often pilloried for helping inflate the housing bubble, though he sat out the excesses of recent years. The 1989 book “Liar’s Poker” made him famous for billion-dollar trades in mortgage bonds and junk-food “feeding frenzies” with his trading-desk buddies.

As the nation struggles with the worst foreclosure crisis since the 1930s, Mr. Ranieri’s investment fund and others like it are emerging as the best hope for the roughly seven million U.S. households behind on their mortgage payments. Nimble, flush and willing to strike deals with borrowers, these funds have an edge over banks and other lenders that can be mired in bureaucracy and hampered by government rules about which loans can be renegotiated and how.

Borrowers less lucky than the Reynolds family must work with middlemen—loan-servicing firms that don’t actually own loans, but represent banks and investors, and collect mortgage payments on their behalf. These firms follow often-ambiguous rules set by the owners of the loans. In cases where a loan has been bundled into a security, it might have thousands of owners scattered around the world, making it impossible to know all their preferences.

By contrast, Mr. Ranieri’s Selene is the sole owner of its loans and has a servicing affiliate that can negotiate directly with borrowers. “Every case is individual,” Mr. Ranieri says. “There’s no template.”

But the main reason Mr. Ranieri can strike deals with borrowers is that his firm buys loans, mostly from banks, at steep discounts to the balance due. If his fund pays $50,000 for a loan with a $100,000 balance due, for example, it can make a profit even if the borrower ends up paying back only $70,000.

Read more here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704720004575377022447064474.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

Share

Sheila Bair, FDIC Chair, Calls For Better Lending Standards

John Milburn, Huffington Post

The head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said Monday that the U.S. needs better lending standards and greater transparency in the markets to avoid a recurrence of the 2008 financial crisis.

FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair, speaking to an audience at the University of Kansas’ Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics, said the U.S. needs to return to the sort of monetary values she learned while working at a Lawrence savings and loan after graduating from the university. She recalled that customers weren’t taking on too much debt, took pride in repaying their loans and saved for a rainy day.

“Those were great days in banking. I hope that when we come out of this crisis we reacquaint ourselves with those values,” Bair said in a question and answer format presentation.

Bair, a native of Independence, Kan., said the financial crisis had its origins in the shadow credit markets that went unregulated despite their risk, preying on vulnerable Americans who quickly became in over their heads. Larger institutions abandoned their traditional lending and investment values, Bair said, hoping to recapture some of the market share they were loosing to the shadow lenders.

Bair said she saw the evidence of such questionable practices in 2001 when lenders in Baltimore made mortgages that led homeowners quickly toward foreclosure. The homes where then snatched up at a low rate, she said, and resold at profit.

Credit was extended to individuals based their home equity, she said, meaning the more the home was worth, the bigger the loan and the more profit for the finance and mortgage firms. The cycle eventually burst, leading to the collapse of the housing market and recession.

Share

Chase Sued: Allegedly Told Homeowner To Stop Payments, Then Foreclosed

Arthur Delaney, Huffington Post

JPMorgan Chase told a California couple to quit making mortgage payments in order to qualify for a loan modification but then foreclosed on their Sacramento home, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court.

Faiz and Khadija Jahani called Chase in December 2008 because they were having trouble making their mortgage payments. According to the suit, they were told that they wouldn’t qualify for a modification without being delinquent and that they should stop making payments for three months.

At the beginning of June, the Jahanis claim that they were told they qualified for a modification that reduced their monthly payments. Three weeks later, they received a letter telling them the bank intended to foreclose. This confusing back-and-forth continued for months, with Chase repeatedly asking them to resend paperwork, according to the complaint filed in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California/Sacramento Division, which was first reported by Courthouse News.

The couple is demanding damages of $150,000 for breach of contract, fraud, predatory lending and violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

In October, a real-estate investor knocked on the Jahanis’ door and asked them about buying the house, telling the couple that it was a bank-owned property. When the Jahanis called Chase to find out what was going on, they claim they were reassured that the bank had not foreclosed on the house.

Read more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/06/chase-sued-allegedly-told_n_527031.html

Share