Recent Items

The Bizarre Mortgage “Settlement” Negotiations

Posted on by

We are getting only odd tidbits out of the so-called settlement negotiations among the fifty state attorneys general, various Federal banking regulators, and mortgage servicing miscreants (meaning all of them). As Matt Stoller pointed out last weekend, the lack of transparency is troubling. Nevertheless, certain things are apparent.

1. There has not been anything even remotely resembling an investigation. As we have said earlier, the eight week Federal exam was a joke. As Adam Levitin noted:

…we don’t actually have a tally of servicer malfeasance. Neither the AGs nor the federal regulators have done the sort of investigation necessary to really know the full extent of servicer wrong-doings. Servicers might downplay the harms, but we just don’t know. This isn’t just robosigning. The banks forfeited their ability to make the “trust me” argument some point in fall of 2008.

How can you possibly settle when you don’t know the extent of the abuses? Yes, I know this is intended to be a whitewash, but in the stress tests, the Administration engaged in a lot of persuasive-looking theatrics to somewhat disguise the fact that the end result was pre-determined. This time, they aren’t even bothering to make the cover-up look credible. This is yet another sign of how the banks are effectively beyond the reach of the law.

2. The fact that the AGs and the Federal regulators have joined forces is another sign that no one has the guts to administer anything more than a slap on the wrist relative to the damage done. I should have realized Tom Miller, the Iowa AG who is acting as the leader of the AG effort, when he spoke warmly of the cooperation he was getting from Treasury in Congressional hearing last November.

The state and Federal issues are very different. It is one thing to coordinate, another to combine forces. The reason a joint effort is less powerful is that each group has the ability independently to do considerable damage to the banks. An effort with participants this disparate (the 50 AGs already have divisions within the group as to how tough to be on the banks, as do the Federal regulators) almost assures lowest common denominator, meaning less ambitious, demands.

3. The latest sign of the weak stance being taken by the supposed enforcers is that they have offered an outline of standards separate from an economic deal. From the Wall Street Journal:

U.S. banks received a 27-page proposal late Thursday from state attorneys general and several federal agencies that could require them to reduce loan balances of troubled mortgage borrowers, according to people familiar with the matter.

The document, sent to the nation’s largest mortgage servicers, doesn’t specify penalties or fines but instead represents a detailed code of conduct for how they must treat borrowers throughout the loan-modification process, these people said….

The proposal outlines formulas that would force banks to consider offering loan write-downs to troubled borrowers more regularly during the modification process. Banks have resisted reducing loan balances in part because of concerns that it could encourage more borrowers to stop making payments in order to receive smaller loan.

This is not normal negotiating process. You put all your demands on the table at once. And as much as the banks might howl, the authorities have the upper hand. Their timidity has very little to do with what could or should be extracted from the banks and everything to do with the authorities being reluctant to inflict much pain (or in the case of the OCC, being completely captured by the banking industry). This posture, that the powers that be cannot ask too much of those fragile banks, is completely contradicted by the fact that the banks have apparently gotten the New York Fed to agree that they are in such robust health that they should be permitted to increase dividends.

So you might still ask, why is it bad to put this part of the deal out first? Aha, see what is at work. The enforcer types have said “This is what we want you to do.” They might fight over details, but the next step is the banks will say, “That is gonna cost us $X.” That will then be traded off against any settlement amount that this group had in mind.

Of course, given how terrible the bank compliance was with HAMP and the failure of Treasury to set goals, supervise properly, and claw back payments to servicers, any “$X” that the banks say they will lose as a result of any new programs will wind up being much larger than the costs they actually incur.

Frankly, the best we can hope for is that no deal results. The Arizona Senate, by a 28 to 2 margin, passed a bill that would void foreclosure sales that lacked a full title history. The language is draconian:

ANY PERSON WITH AN INTEREST IN THE TRUST PROPERTY MAY FILE AN ACTION TO VOID THE TRUSTEE’S SALE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS SECTION AND IS ENTITLED TO AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES AS WELL AS DAMAGES AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW IF THE PERSON SUBSTANTIALLY PREVAILS, INCLUDING AN AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES FOR ANY INJUNCTION OR OTHER PROVISIONAL REMEDIES RELATED TO THE CLAIM.

The award of attorney’s means servicers have a lot to lose (sadly, the losses on the inability to foreclose are borne by the investors, not the servicer). If the failure to convey notes to trusts is as widespread as we believe it to be, having one or two of the epicenters of the foreclosure crisis effectively halt foreclosures (by only letting servicers that really do have standing to proceed), investors are not likely to take that sitting down. This may force them to pull the trigger and take action against trustees for falsely certifying that notes had been conveyed to securitization trusts in accordance with the terms of the pooling and servicing agreement.

Thus you could expect the banks to start offering mods if they had the sort of pressure on them that this legislation would provide, and indeed that might be happening. A reader in comments said Bank of America had suddenly gotten religion about offering mods. And having banks offer mods quietly, on a case by case basis, is less likely to produce resentment by other homeowners than a highly visible program. Of course that assumes the banks become competent at doing mods. They’ve had every reason to be bad at them, since saying they can’t possibly work operates to their advantage.

So we can hope that the banks overplay their hand, and that it results in no deal, but the Administration and the attorneys general are not doubt very eager, in classic Vietnam “peace with honor” fashion, to declare victory and go home. So the next best hope is that some of the AGs break rank with this “settlement” and declare it to be the farce that it so patently is.

Print Friendly
Twitter33DiggReddit0StumbleUpon0Facebook7LinkedIn8Google+0bufferEmail

46 comments

  1. Daniel Pennell

    I feel you Yves.

    This stinks. Miller made a mistake over selling what he was setting out to achieve and I think he will see a major backlash if the deal is too weak.

    I sense that everyone has been dragging this out in hopes that the public furor would go away. I’m pretty sure that is not working and the political price could be substantial if they fail to reach anything like an even moderately pro-consumer settlement.

  2. Leviathan

    Yves,
    Honest question here: what is to prevent the banks offering small principal reductions (say, ten percent of the underwater amount) to get the authorities off their backs?

    Are there any formulas that are begin discussed, or is everything to be done (if at all) on a “because I say so” basis?

    Thanks.

    1. ScottS

      To a servicer, any mod is a problem. 10% might as well be 90%.

      The problem with a mod, to a servicer, is:
      1. The second mortgages on the servicers’ books gets marked down to nothing.
      2. The mod itself isn’t complicated, but takes long, drawn-out work figuring out who is a viable recipient and how much they can really afford. None of this is cheap for the servicer.
      3. Foreclosures are preferable because they generate lots of fees that are guaranteed to be paid out of the foreclosure sale. Also, it’s a way of laundering the broken chain of title.

      As long as servicers can bully around home “owners” and the investors, they can get away with the foreclosure fraud. Mod programs suck for servicers unless they can use it to game more money out of home “owners” a la HAMP.

      My question is: do the seconds get marked down to nothing in a foreclosure?

      1. Leviathan

        Thanks.

        I find it interesting that everyone always assumes the problem is the second. I sometimes feel like the only people in the country who put down a big down payment, didn’t take out a second, and still lost their house.

        There have to be more of us out there.

        1. ScottS

          I don’t have a second. Or a first. I chose not to buy, seeing the obvious bubble and then had to listen to people tell me what a fool I was for not getting on the money train of interest-only ARM home mortgages.

          I suppose I should be screaming bloody murder about the “free-loaders” who are getting “free” houses, but I don’t much care. Personally, I just want to see housing prices align with inflation and stay that way. This nonsense about houses being an investment is just a scam for realators, banks, home improvement companies, retail merchandizers, etc. who all profit on the insane leverage a home gives you.

          Then there are the property law issues involved with buying a house now. The idea that any idiot can “foreclose” on me and the property management company will change the locks on me whether I’m home or not, then the sheriff will auction it off — all without any legal recourse or accountability — is nuts.

          How can I pour money down the well that is a home with zero guarantee of seeing it again? All just to “lock in” a payment rate that is higher than rent for about a decade. It’s absolute madness.

  3. ian

    Yves,
    I would begin by referring to any lowering of principal owed as principal correction,not principal reduction. Calling the removal of part of the illegally-appraised purchase or refinance price a “reduction” obscures the truth. We all know that appraisers nationwide were told to “hit the number” so that the transaction would close and the broker would make their commission,also the originator had to keep the MBS pipeline full. And of course the large listed tract builders did their part by selling the first couple homes in a subdivision to themselves or related entity in order to give the appearance of “demand” at bloated prices. In Davies v. onewest you will see that the builder recieived a $25,000 fee when the homebuyer financed through a certain mortgage co. That is more than they netted on each home they ;built. Find out where THOSE loans went and you’ll have a story.

  4. Richard Kline

    To me, this isn’t evidence that no one has the guts to do anything. It’s further evidence of the soft coup we had whereby the financial industry took over effective control of the government. I’m not saying that in the paranoid sense but in the practical sense of looking at the facts on the ground. The financial industry refuses to be regulated. We have laws to the contrary. Those charged with applying those laws go to negotiate, when they should investigate—and then surrender. That is a direct indication that those charged with the institutions of government have abandoned the law to accept whatever is given them in its place. The citizens who were wronged? Not within hundreds of miles of the ‘surrender documents’ being negotiated.

    And the amazing thing is that the finacial industry has so little direct power. No secret police. The public isn’t fooled or on their side. But our political parties: they’ve abandoned the public to grovel before the banksters. Sure looks like we need a revolution to me . . . .

    1. Allen C

      The banksters effectively have everyone over a barrel. The US has collectively made a deal with what appears to be a criminal organization.

      1. Bill Bergren

        “Criminal Organization” is exactly the correct description, Allen. The crisis of Capitalism has required that it protect its profits through massively institutionalized theft.

        1. psychohistorian

          I just want to keep the focus here…..

          Who owns the banks and sets their social/economic policy?

          These are the people we need to remove from power…..with prejudice at this point.

    2. zadoofka florida

      I’m with you on the revolution front.

      Seems like Obama and his minions have elevated “caving” to an art form.

  5. Alice

    This is crazy. It’s a repeat of HAMP. Treasury had all the leverage in early 2009 when the program was set-up, and they completely missed any chance to hold servicers accountable.

    And on another note, what about the threat of an investigation into the REMIC status of these loans? That seems like the best federal leverage there can be.

  6. Wild Bill

    Oh, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is key to the bankster’s scheme. The one guy who didn’t get fired in the aftermath of the bank bailouts was John Dugan, because — let’s face it — he had done his job to the best of his ability. Anyone who doesn’t believe he was a plant by the directors of this scheme better check Dugan’s resume:

    Dugan served as Comptroller of the Currency from 2005-2010, heading the agency that supervises more than 1,500 national banks and federal branches that hold nearly two-thirds of the commercial banking system’s assets. He also served on the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Before his appointment as Comptroller, Dugan was a partner in the law firm of Covington & Burling, where he chaired the firm’s Financial Institutions Group and specialized in banking and financial institution regulation. He previously served as Assistant Secretary for Domestic Finance at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and as Counsel and Minority General Counsel for the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

    Fox in the henhouse. When the revolution comes, there will be a high-value playing card with his name and photo on it.

    1. monday1929

      “the one guy who didn’t get fired”……

      The ONE guy?????????

      Looking forward to collecting the cards.

  7. steve from virginia

    In the old days an economic recovery was the outcome of a new and better way to waste resources profitably. Cheap money was lent into existence, some new roads and shopping centers built, some (lots of) jobs exported to China, a new oil field brought on line and it became morning in America, again!

    Once resource waste became unprofitable due to high and rising costs an innovation was needed to propel recoveries in its place.

    What fell to hand is fraud and outright theft from economic participants. The question is whether this dynamic can effectively replace nature- raping or whether it is self- limiting. After all, fraud and theft have to generate greater money flows than does nature raping.

    This is problematic since nature never complained about being raped while theft victims do so after awhile.

    Since the theft model is a copy of the nature rip-off model both are subject to the same limitations. At some point there is nothing left to economically ‘remove’. The costs of ripping off people rises alongside the costs of ripping off nature.

    Obviously, the new economic model is defective. To paraphrase Lincoln, it is possible to rob some of the people all the time and all of the people some of the time buy not rob all the people all the time. At issue is relief.

    Folks in Wisconsin have given notice that the robbery meme is defective. Who cares @ this point what state AGs and Treasury officials think? Screwing the pooch means at some point people will simply walk away from their ‘obligations’ and give the banks the finger in the process. The robbery ‘opportunity costs’ will be systemic lending system failure.

    Ha ha ha!

    Looks like the recovery does not have much life left.

  8. citizendave

    I’m not qualified to make a serious contribution on this subject, so I’m going to offer science fiction instead. The Financial Crisis has resulted in nearly zero indictments or prosecutions. Whether or not laws were broken seems to remain unclear to many of us. At the very least, surely there was unethical behavior. One gets the impression that there is a wide swath of the population guilty of malfeasance, or misfeasance, or of saying or doing nothing when witnessing improprieties. One can’t help but wish for some sort of (retributive) justice.

    So instead of prosecuting every person who either committed unethical financial acts, or who observed such acts and said or did nothing, we could punish them via taxation. We could devise an instrument akin to the Alternative Minimum Tax, with no room to weasel out of some considerable financial pain. The purpose would not be to confiscate all their assets, but to force them to confront their misdeeds. And it should last for more than one year. If done well, it could help to defray our looming budget deficit.

    One obvious problem is how to decide who deserves to have their tax rates elevated. Another problem would be how to move this bill through Congress. But in my science fiction dream world, nothing is impossible.

  9. Bravo

    The fact is that government and regulator credibility is at an all-time low with regard to their willingness to take action that does anything other than benefit the banking industry. There should be no deal whatsoever until the banking industry and MERS consent to a third party (not regulator) audit of the MERS data base AND the parties who are supposed who are supposed to be holding the properly endorsed notes and assignments of collateral documents on behalf of the trusts. The media needs to help build public pressure by getting the message out with more headlines like “Do you know who really owns your mortgage? If you don’t, your investment in your home could be at risk, or “What is the government really doing to protect what’s left of your already diminished home equity? Are they helping you, or helping the banking industry?” That would get the public’s attention and get them to understand that this is really about prospective damage done to their interest in their property, not about robosigning. Take advantage of the current focus on state and county budget shortfalls with headlines like “Would your county be in such dire financial straits if the banking industry had not circumvented the land title recording system in this country for so many years?” This is a soundbite society and this is a complex issue, the challenge is to bridge that gap. What we desperately need is for the main stream media to focus the public’s attention on its RIGHT TO KNOW just what the banking industry has really done with regard to land title records in this country, before any deal is made. Get the public to grasp that concept first and foremost and then let shows like Sixty Minutes delve into the details for them. Make the deal after the true extent of the damage is determined by an INDEPENDENT (non-government controlled) third party.

    1. Paul Repstock

      Bravo said, “The media needs to help build public pressure by getting the message out with more headlines like “Do you know who really owns your mortgage?”

      Which media might do that? Print and Broadcast media are captives of the corporate and government spheres of influence. Their very existence is so subsidized that there is no possibility of independant sources gaining market access. Haven’t you wondered how newspapers could go on loosing money year after year?

      Isn’t it odd how in this state of free enterprize and competition, that a broadcaster like Al Jazzeera is not carried by major networks and cable companies?

      1. salesanalyst

        Why not use those darlings of social media, Twitter and Facebook to get the message out? A team of econ-guerillas could generate a lot of noise sending out daily blasts using those provocative headings along with links to sites such as Naked Capitalism, Calculated Risk, or The Baseline Scenario…

    2. LillithMc

      Exactly Bravo. Bravo to you. The government is captured and also blackmailed because the extent of the fraud would bankrupt the financial industry and they all know it. Somehow we need to by-pass them all not because I want bankruptcy of the financial system, but because I want enough justice to protect the American people.

    3. YankeeFrank

      Fat chance. The MSM is a wholly owned subsidiary of the corporate/finance industrial complex. Not one of our MSM “journalists” including Rachel Maddow mentioned Charles Ferguson’s comments and Inside Job’s winning at the Oscars. Maddow was relentless on the Wisconsin public sector union thang… I guess that was the quo to the Wisconsin quid with her corporate masters.

      1. LillithMc

        Sorry Frank. Maddow is the best and does not bend to her corporate masters. Her report on Walker’s behavior as Mayor of Milwaukee was major and not covered elsewhere.

  10. Paul Repstock

    -”How can you possibly settle when you don’t know the extent of the abuses?”-

    Sadly, I think this is an acceptance by the investigators and the regulators, that the ‘problem’ is beyond resolving. This is most likely just payolla round 6.02. The banks will keep paying with taxpayers money, hoping that the system collapses soon. And the AG’s and other regulators will keep collecting as long as they can convert the money to solid assets. In other words selling the money to ‘The Greater Fools’ who still think money is worth something..:(

    1. Paul Repstock

      I read someone the other day, who had calculated that ‘one trillion dollars’ in 100 dollar notes, would be a 9 foot high stack, covering @5 acres (or @2 standard city blocks).

      Governments and central banks are throwing ‘trillions’ like confetti.

      Now tell me; Is money worth anything? Or are we just the Greater Fools for believing it is?

    2. Bill

      Any fines the bank pays will come directly from tax payer money. That fact gets overlooked alot.

    1. Paul Repstock

      I am 100% certain that all the seats were sold, before the ‘event’ was announced. You paid for them. One wonders why they even bother with these charades,; just cut a cheque.

      1. Leviathan

        Must be the kickoff to her Governor run, 2014. After they wheel out the body of Jello Quinn. It’s so much better when you just accept that you have no say in any of this.

  11. MindQuestions, Colorado

    On this, and the industry:

    Dear Mr. Madoff,

    The 2 March 2011 Guardian article “Bernhard Madoff, the financiers’ fall guy”
    inspired me to undertake this unusual activity of writing a letter to you, whom I have never met in person, nor expect to in the future either.

    Thinking about your situation, I have come to the conclusion that you are in a uniquely fortunate situation: In contrast to your peers in the financial industry, you are actually free. No, I am not being sarcastic, so let me explain:

    We could start with “freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose” (Baez) – you would probably agree. But let’s go a bit further here: On a deeper level, you are now free from the need to pretend, the house of cards has fallen, and you are still standing. You are also free from scrambling for status – no-one expects an ageing man in prison to fight for a top spot in society. Isn’t that a relief? You are even free from the worries that millions of Americans have about their retirement: You know that your lodging, food and even some measure of healthcare will be taken care of for the rest of your days. That your basic needs will be met is as close to guaranteed as any matter of human affairs can be. In this, you are way ahead of your peers and most of the population: You are truly economically worry-free. Isn’t that an interesting turn of events after striving for riches most of your life?

    You seem to also be freed from the peer-pressures of the industry, whose rules you both followed and exploited: It has cast you out as the “fall man”, so in turn you are free from the loyalties, silences and alliances that you were committed to for most of your life.

    While your former peers may think that they got a lucky break, I think you have come out way ahead of the curve, with an opportunity to re-claim your humanity, freedom of thinking and a release from the bondage to system rules (as well as a release from the delusion of their mastery on your part).

    What are you going to do with your new freedom? Are you still thinking about what your legacy may be?

    Freedom tends to make people fearless. Maybe you are now fearless enough to speak.
    Maybe you are thinking about working towards bringing into existence a non-profit group, something like “You, too, deserve this” (a group for the rehabilitation of financial individuals, led by those who know what it takes; maybe the former trader from Behring Bank, Hong Kong, would be interested, too).

    With kind thoughts,

    1. Dan G

      Actually, they are letting him out in an early release work study program. He will be heading up the SEC part time, and the rating agencies in hia spare time. These are jobs where the less you do the more that you are appreciated. He needs some love.

  12. chunga

    The whole thing is just another hoax. By now everyone with half a brain knows this isn’t a bunch of “mixed up paperwork”.

    It’s time to fight back…with an attitude.

    http://4closurefraud.org/2011/03/02/foreclosure-fight-club-george-babcock-to-mark-harmon-send-your-minions-that-i-may-lay-waste-to-them-before-me/

    $nip>

    Harmon Law Office, PC
    150 California Street
    Newton, MA 02458
    ATT:MARK HARMON, ESQUIRE

    RE: TIMOTHY CONLEY
    87 RIVERSIDE DRIVE, SOUTH KINGSTOWN, RI

    Dear Mr. Harmon,

    Please be advised that I have been retained by Mr. Conley regarding the notice of illegal foreclosure you mailed to him on February 4, 2011. The chain of title to this property and the note is like a walk down the yellow brick road. Is Harmon Law the Wizard of Title? You display extreme indifference to the law by noticing a foreclosure on this property. As you know, I take great pride in defending my clients against the evil forces that guide your actions.

    Mr. Conley is a personal friend. It is my intention to be even more pugilistic in this matter. It is disgusting and I will make sure that whoever violates his property rights is knocked out of the ring.

    No TKOs will be accepted.

    A full fledged, right cross to the chin of the beast.

    I look forward to a response although I am quite certain you will not engage me as is your habit. Send your minions that I may lay waste to them before me.

    I hope that this letter is circulated as has been your habit in the past. I like my enemy to know that I am at its doorstep.

    Very truly yours,

    George E. Babcock, Esquire

    Sent via certified mail # ____________________________

    ccForeclosure Hamlet

    $nip>

  13. Dan G

    My understanding about the present HAMP program is that there were no principle reductions. I imagine every HAMP recipient will be applying for any principle reduction program offerred in additon to those facing possible foreclosure who qualify, and potential new HAMP applicants . Would the new program take the place of HAMP, or be an additional program? If people get rejected from the program they will probably just say adios to their underwater home and mortgage, and live free until foreclosure.

  14. Doug Terpstra

    You’re right Yves; this is a sham. Tentative negotiations to “force banks to consider offering loan write-downs” is sure to have the banksters shaking in their Guccis. How long are they required to “consider” the unthinkable, and how large would principal corrections be, 5%?

    Good for the Republican-dominated Arizona Senate for requiring banks to produce valid chain of title and notes for foreclosure, in other words, to comply with existing laws. Naturally, the Bankers and Trustees are threatening the usual, to withdraw their government-sponsored loan-sharking services. We’ll see now if SB-1252 passes the house and if Gov Brewer actually signs it.

    Meanwhile, Arizona’s AG Terry Goddard (D) yesterday filed suit against Bank of Amerika.

    “Bank of America proceeded with foreclosures while borrowers’ requests for modifications were pending, a violation of a 2009 agreement with Arizona to help borrowers facing the loss of their homes”, Terry Goddard, said yesterday in a statement.

    About which Dan Frahm, a Bank of America spokesman, said in an e-mail “’We are disappointed that the suit was filed at this time,’ referring to the Arizona suit. ‘We and other major servicers are currently engaged in multistate discussions led by Attorney General Miller in Iowa to try to address foreclosure related issues more comprehensively.’”

    Hopefully, AZ AG Terry Goddard has greater testicular virility than Iowa’s AG Tom Miller

    http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1376-LDL8G70D9L3501-6HJRMS0SANCQF18QIVAADU1S3J

    1. Paul Repstock

      Doug, do not expect any progress on negotiations. When their balance sheets cannot withstand the ‘stress’ of writing off the seconds (which are less than 10% of the liability), and it appears that the seconds would need to be written off before any principal reduction, then it won’t fly. If by some miracle a regulator found the courage to say “enough, lets get it over with”, then we would be starting over everything the next day. This will not happen. Rather, there will be endless deferals and studies of the situation, while civilization grinds to a halt.

      The sudden stop would be much less damaging. The machinery of civilization would be intact, the population would retain it’s skills, and our infrastructure would still be in fair condition. But, no. Like everyone else, the regulators can exercise expediency, only if it affects other people. So expect our world to degenerate till even the wealthy don’t want to live in it…:(

      1. Doug Terpstra

        Right, another can-kicking exercise … until the can disappears into a giant sinkhole or over a collapsed bridge.

        We seem to be drawing our inspiration from Mexico. Most most people there own their shanties free and clear … until needed and appropriated by the plutocracy, of course. I marvel at how long suffering the Mexican people have been; the place seems ripe for next revolution.

  15. Bravo

    Sales Analyst, you’re on the right track. If the events in Middle East have taught us anything, it’s that the social media darlings are the new found tool of the common people to affect change. Linking attention getting headlines to concise layman friendly summaries written by Yves and Adam Levitin could change the national conversation, before the sell out occurs. Maybe Yves could solicit a reader collection of potential headlines such as “Think you’ll have clear title to your house when you pay off your mortgage?……think again”. Pick the best headlines and canvass social media with them. The message needs to be obvious to the reader………are you with the big banks, or are you with the people? The government will follow if the noise gets loud enough.

    1. Bill

      shhhh, dont mention the 10,000 pound gorilla sitting at the closing table, if you ignore him, he will go away.

  16. YankeeFrank

    What I don’t get is what does a principal mod ultimately provide on a mortgage with no clear owner? If the owner cannot be proven, who will have standing to alter the terms of the mortgage/note?

  17. 60sradical

    As I’ve said on this site several times. The sitation is hopeless. We have indeed experienced a finacial coup and are living in a soft fascist state. Fraud, corruption and lies pervade the entire contolling class of not only America, but the entire globe. Does that mean we should stop the struggle? Hell no!!!
    Human life, per se, is an absurdity. Isn’t that clear by now to most of you? We exist in a deep mysterious absurdity, little understood by the “experts” and are faced with embedded criminal absurd behavior. We still must carry on, albeit absurd. Reread your Camus.

  18. 3032oak

    Attorney Generals should NOT have to spell out the law to the fraudsters…the mortgage fiasco as it stands now and since it was first uncovered should be punishable by severe criminal sanctions to all those that participated…in fact to all those that developed and encouraged the continuance of the fraud…but that is not how our government works, hence former Countrywide CEO, Angelo Mazilo would not be out enjoying the many millions he reaped in bonuses while bringing Countrywide to financial collapse. Please NOTE that this is what is being DEMANDED, not what has been AGREED upon…by the time the REAL people in POWER (the banksters) get their way…the entire demand list will most likely be whittled away to a slap on the wrist. Let’s hope I’m wrong!!!!

  19. Bankrupt Voter

    Obama gonna save my house!

    Next up, Obama gonna pay for my gas!

    Praise Obama, he givin’ out all this FREE MONEY! All I gotta do is vote for him!

  20. Bankrupt Voter

    Obama gonna save my house!

    Next up, Obama gonna pay for my gas!

    Praise Obama, he givin’ out all this FREE MONEY!

Comments are closed.