Category Archives: Credit markets

Josh Rosner and Your Humble Blogger Discuss the Roots of the Financial Crisis on Radio Free Dylan

In addition to his weekday television show, MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan also has a regular radio/podcast. He interviewed Josh Rosner and yours truly on the origins of the financial crisis, which we both agreed started well before the housing bubble.

You can read the transcript at the site, but it has quite a few errors, and I’d recommending listening instead. Rosner is an emphatic, almost theatrical speaker, so I think you will enjoy the conversation.

Get the podcast here: http://www.dylanratigan.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/RFD-Ep-25-Rosner-Smith.mp3

How Servicer Junk Fees Push Borrowers into Foreclosure

A story at Huffington Post by Shahien Narisipour and Arthur Delaney, about how a couple lost their home as a result of the Administration’s HAMP program, actually serves to illustrate a broader issue, namely, how servicers’ dubious fees can put mortgage borrowers hopelessly under water.

It is critical to understand that it is not uncommon for borrowers to lose their homes thanks to servicer errors and abuses. And this bad practice has policy implications. Whenever we discuss “fix the housing mess” solutions that involve loss sharing, like giving viable borrowers a deep principal mod, some readers react that “deadbeat borrowers” are getting a free ride, and often will contend that they were irresponsible and need to take their medicine.

This black/white picture is simplistic and misleading.

FCIC Report Misses Central Issue: Why Was There Demand for Bad Mortgage Loans?

By Tom Adams, an attorney and former monoline executive, and Yves Smith

In common with other accounts of the financial crisis, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission report notes that mortgage underwriting standards were abandoned, allowing many more loans to be made. It blames the regulators for not standing pat while this occurred. However, the report fails to ask, let alone answer, why standards were abandoned.

In our view, blaming the regulators is a weak argument.

A much more sensible explanation can be found by asking: what were the financial incentives for such poorly underwritten loans? Why would “the market” want bad loans?

All the report offers as explanation is that the “machine” drove it or “investors” wanted these loans. This is lazy and fails to illuminate anything, particularly when there are other red flags in the report, such as numerous mortgage market participants pointing to growing problems starting as early as 2003. Signs of recklessness were more visible in 2004 and 2005, to the point were Sabeth Siddique of the Federal Reserve Board, who conducted a survey of mortgage loan quality in late 2005, found the results to be “very alarming”.

So why, with the trouble obvious in the 2005 time frame, did the market create even worse loans in late 2005 through the beginning of the meltdown, in mid 2007, even as demand for better mortgage loans was waning?

More Judges Pushing Back on Dubious Foreclosure Documents

Even though this example involves only three judges in Ohio, don’t underestimate its significance. The fact that judges of their own initiative have started insisting that all attorneys provide certifications of foreclosure-related documents, a standard now in effect in New York state, shows how much their credibility has fallen.

From the Columbus Dispatch (hat tip reader Lisa Epstein):

How Banks Influence People in High Places

This e-mail to Congressional staffers speaks for itself. I am probably being far too nice by omitting the RSVP details. However, I must note the ethics rules for Congress are more lax than those of some private sector companies. I had one client, a Fortune 25 company, that forbade all employees from taking gifts or entertainment of any kind from vendors, down to a cup of coffee. And that’s not as nuts as it sounds. Research by social psychologist Robert Cialdini verifies that a gift as small as a can of soda predisposes the recipient to a sales pitch.

From: The Financial Services Roundtable

New York Times’ Joe Nocera Blames Crisis on “Mania”, Meaning Victims

I often enjoy Joe Nocera’s take on Wall Street, but like some other well known financial writers, he has become overly close to his subjects. No where is this more evident than in a stunning little aside in an otherwise not bad piece on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commision’s report, which points out that it is long on potentially helpful detail, short on analysis.

Here is the offending section:

But I wonder. Had there been a Dutch Tulip Inquiry Commission nearly four centuries ago, it would no doubt have found tulip salesmen who fraudulently persuaded people to borrow money they could never pay back to buy tulips.

Daniel Pennell: Mortgage Shenanigans in Virginia (The Wall Street – Washington – Richmond Axes)

By Daniel Pennell, a systems expert who has testified before the Virginia House of Representatives on MERS

This week demonstrated how financial special interests have created an obscene and incestuous relationship with the leadership in the state legislature and the Governor’s office in Virginia. This cabal managed to kill off a bill (HB-1506) proposed by Delegate Bob Marshall, a bill designed to protect the integrity of the county property records and preserve the integrity of home owner’s title to their property. Simultaneously they attempted to alter the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) with HB-1718, such that any “record” (the previous version said document) signed or unsigned by a person they claim owed a debt would be good enough for the banks to win a legal judgment against a person. In other words a spreadsheet from a bank would be good enough to take someone’s home or report someone to a credit bureau.

FCIC Insider: “I Can’t Believe They Suborned Brooksley Born”

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission released its report yesterday and went into PR overdrive. Journalists and the public are still digesting the weighty document, and various tidbits, like the report that Goldman did indeed profit from the AIG rescue, are touted as news when the basic facts were already in the public domain.

What is troubling about the report is the manner in which it hews to conventional wisdom. Its ten major findings are hardly controversial, yet they are still insufficient to explain why the financial system seized up and appeared close to failure. And telling a familiar-sounding story assures that the status quo will remain unchallenged, and serves to validate the inadequate reforms now underway. After all, they are premised on the very same superficial beliefs.

I participated in a blogger conference call with FCIC commissioners Phil Angelides and Brooksley Born. I’m clearly not cut out for public life. It was disconcerting to hear them thumping their talking points.

But the stunning part were Angelides’ and Born’s answers to my questions.

Quelle Surprise! Goldman Profited From AIG Bailout Via Abacus Trades (You Read It Here First)

Shahien Narisipour at Huffington Post revealed that the FCIC report, due to be released officially tomorrow, shows that contrary to its pious assertions to the contrary, Goldman received funds for its own account from the AIG bailout, to the tune of $2.9 billion.

Why is this significant? Because Goldman maintained that the monies it received from the rescue were for customer trades, not for its own account.

And while this may seem to be news, it isn’t, except for putting a firm dollar value on what Goldman received for its own account. We posted on Goldman’s AIG exposures both as principal and agent on February 7, 2010, and specifically flagged that the Abacus trades that Goldman insured with AIG were principal positions, not client trades. We caught some flack for it by the time from various commentators who seemed more persuaded by Goldman’s PR that the extensive work done by Tom Adams, which we presented in a series of posts in early 2010 (see here, here and here for some examples).

From the February 2010 post:

US Bankruptcy Trustee Takes Interest in “Ta Dah” Documents Mysteriously Appearing in Foreclosures (aka Probable Fabrications)

One of the sorry reminders of the decline of the rule of law in the United States is the frequency with which incidents of what look like document forgeries take place in foreclosure cases. The fact that a now-shuttered subsidiary of Lender Processing Services, a vendor to the servicing industry, had a price list for creating mortgage-related documents out of whole cloth attests to the long-standing demand for this sort of product.

The reason for this activity is simple. As we’ve stressed in various posts, in so-called private label securitizations (the non-Fannie/Freddie type), a great deal of evidence indicates that the originators and packagers of these deals did not bother complying with the contracts they created to govern these transactions on a widespread, perhaps pervasive basis sometime after 2003. And their shortcomings only come to light in foreclosures, and then (possibly) if the foreclosure is contested. Given how low foreclosure rates were historically, this was a risk the securitization industry seemed willing to take, and it is now reaping the fruit of this short-sighted bet.

The big problem for servicers and trustees (the parties that are responsible for the trust that holds the assets of the securitization) is that the pooling and servicing agreement which governs the securitization required that the note (the borrower’s IOU) be transferred though a specific set of parties by a specified time not all that long after the deal closed. Increasingly savvy anti-foreclosure lawyers recognize that the party attempting to foreclose may not have the legal standing to do so.

A new development is that the US Bankruptcy Trustee, which is part of the Department of Justice, has started poking around the nether world of slipshod and possible made-up documents, and is asking banks to explain what they are up to. These inquiries may be paving the ground for broader-based action.

FCIC Insiders Say Report Gives Wall Street a Free Pass, Simply Sought to Validate Conventional Wisdom About Crisis

From the very outset, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission was set up to fail. Its leadership, particularly its chairman, Phil Angelides, was seen as insufficiently experienced in sophisticated finance. The timetable was unrealistic for a thorough investigation of a crisis this complex, let alone one international in scope. Its budget and staffing were too small. The investigations were further hampered by the requirement that subpoenas have bi-partisan approval along with Its decision to hold hearings with high profile individuals, including top Wall Street executives, before much in the way of lower-level investigation had been completed. The usual way to get meaningful disclosure from a top executive is to confront him with hard-to-defend material or actions; interrogations under bright lights, while a fun bit of theater, generally yield little in the absence of adequate prep.

So with expectations for the FCIC low, recent reports that the panel urged various prosecutors to launch criminal probes were a hopeful sign that the commission might nevertheless come out with some important findings. But correspondence from insiders in the last few days suggests otherwise. One, for instance, wrote, “I’m still in the process of getting the stink out of my clothes.”

These ideologically-neutral sources close to the investigation depict the commissioners as having pre-conceived narratives and of fitting various tidbits unearthed during the investigation into these frameworks, with the majority focusing more on the problems caused by deregulation and the failure of the authorities to use even the powers they had, while the minority assigns blame to government meddling, particularly housing-friendly policies.

These insiders see both sides as wrong, and want to encourage investigative reporters to challenge both the majority and dissenting accounts. They contend that both versions help perpetuate the myth that Wall Street was as much a victim of the crisis as anyone else.

One of these sources sent this document in an effort to question the notion that any of the reports coming out of the FCIC were the result of a fact-based investigative process…

Virginia Legislature Proves Who Really Rules: Pro Consumer Mortgage Bills Sent to Siberia

What is it going to take to end rule by banksters? If Virginia is any sign, voters may need to adopt a policy of “Leave No Incumbent Standing” until legislators get the message. The Virginia House effectively sidetracked several pro-consumer mortgage bills, including one that would have given borrowers more time to mount defenses in […]

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, Head of 50 State Investigation, Retreats From “Tough With Banks” Stance

We were early to warn readers that Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, who is heading the 50 state probe into mortgage abuses, was unlikely to take as tough a stand with banks as his early sabre-rattling suggested.

Now other close observers of the 50 state AG probe, like Marcy Wheeler of FireDogLake, have pointed out that expectations for this group were probably too high, given that some of the AGs had been opposed to the effort before, and they’d hobble the effort from the inside. But even though true, that observation still gives Miller more of an out than he deserves.

The fact is that Miller had decided, before any investigation was undertaken, that his group was not going to take any action that might allow investors to recover for losses. Why? Some of the parties in a position to recover would not be Americans. This came by e-mail before the December meeting at which Miller promised to “put people in jail” as well as obtain deep principal mods and compensation for defrauded homeowners:

The homeowners off to meet Tom Miller is a setup for a photo-op to imply buy-in.