There are lots of reasons why servicers are failing to make deep enough mortgage mods to salvage viable borrowers (ones who still have a decent level of income). One of the most troubling is that the parent bank often also has a large book of second mortgages, and writing down first mortgages would require them […]
Read more...If the ASF keeps this sort of nonsense up, it’s soon going to have the status of Pravda in the later stages of the Soviet Union, a mouthpiece of falsehoods that the officialdom is particularly eager to promote.
Read more...As readers may recall, the American Securitization Forum came out, in what it no doubt thought was guns-a-blazing style, to attack critics of securitization abuses. In particular, the ASF was taking aim at theories of the sort advanced on this blog, and later in Congressional hearings and in a Congressional Oversight Panel report, that the notes (meaning the promissory note, meaning the borrower IOU) in many cases, if not pervasively, had not been endorsed and conveyed as required by the pooling and servicing agreements, which are the contracts that govern mortgage securitizations. In other words, the industry had committed in contracts to investors to take some very particular steps to assure that the securitization complied with a host of legal requirements to assure that the investors got the benefits of the cashflows from the mortgages, and then proceeded to welsh on their deal.
Normally, this would not be such a big deal. Contracts are often breached; the usual remedy is to get a a waiver, which sometimes might involve a payment of some sort. But securitizations are particularly inflexible agreements. From the abstract of a 2010 paper by Anna Gelpern and Adam Levitin:
Read more...Bottom line: even thought the Supreme Court ruling in this Massachusetts case, Ibanez, was narrow, it still represents a major blow to the securitization industry, specifically, the argument made by the American Securitzation Forum and securitization law firms that have liability on opinions they provided on residential mortgage securitizations. It is also certain to fuel more challenges in court based on failures of the parties to securitizations to adhere to the requirements of their contracts.
Read more...As we’ve suggested, a not-well-recognized effect of the widespread publicity on robo-siging abuses and more recently, the widespread failure of securitization industry participants to adhere to their own agreements is more pushback in the courts. It takes a while for new information to trickle into courtroom strategies, but as the abuses get more press, it […]
Read more...Bloomberg has a bombshell today, that a case before the Massachusetts Supreme Court may invalidate certain types of mortgage transfers, a central process in mortgage securitizations. A ruling for the plaintiffs would render some past foreclosures invalid, raising the possibility that the borrowers could sue for damages. It would also have far reaching implications, since […]
Read more...I don’t want to jinx it, but the age of miracles may not be past. Huffington Post has been reporting on the split between the FDIC and other regulators on getting tough with mortgage, more specifically, securitization, abuses. The FDIC has been serious about putting serious securitization reforms in place; it launched a well-thought-out proposal […]
Read more...Not only has the gutting of regulation made it hard to win criminal prosecutions for financial fraud, but the Fed plans to eviscerate a key sanction against predatory lending. If you somehow still had any doubts as to whose interests are really being served by banking regulators, look no further than this latest largely under […]
Read more...Reader Doug T took note of the mention of the StopServicerScams petition on the Dylan Ratigan show today (a bit after the two minute mark):
Read more...I’m not exactly surprised at the bait and switch by Iowa’s Attorney General Tom Miller, who is leading the 50 state investigation by state attorney generals into mortgage abuses. Less than a month ago promised that he would “put people in jail” Now he’s apparently decided to adopt a “move along, nothing to see here” posture. Per Bloomberg (hat tip reader Duncan B, who also sent a copy of a stinging e-mail to his state AG):
Read more...Amherst Securities, whose mortgage research is well respected, published a new article on Monday which gives a sobering reading of the prospects for the housing market. It gives a detailed analysis of default rates among performing and non-performing mortgages, and concludes that the outlook is far worse than most investors assume.
Read more...We just e-mailed the following message, along with a spreadsheet of signatures and messages, to Timothy Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Mary Shapiro, Sheila Bair, Ed DeMarco, and John Walsh. Thanks for your interest and involvement in curbing bad practices in the mortgage arena.
Read more...I’ve said that the efforts to clean up mortgage abuses will not have gone far enough until we see some foreclosure mill attorneys disbarred, and better yet fined and/or put in jail. And that is harder than it ought to be.
One of the frustrating issues in trying to rein in fraud is the way that essential accessories, namely, accounting firms and law firms, are close to beyond the reach of the law. For instance, if a law firm clearly permitted perjury or engaged in document fabrication that led someone to have their house foreclosed upon when they were actually current on their mortgage, the wronged homeowner could not sue the law firm. It could only sue the party that was the plaintiff in the suit (presumably a trust). Perversely, the only parties to a transaction that can sue banks and accountants are their clients, even when those firms were integral actors in scams.
Read more...One of the most frustrating parts of the financial reform game is how powerless most of us really are, most of the time. Take this story:
Read more...Top policymakers at the Federal Reserve are fighting efforts to rein in widely reported bank abuses, sparking an inter-agency feud with the FDIC and the Treasury Department. The Fed, along with the more bank-friendly Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, is resisting moves to craft rules cracking down on banks that charge illegal fees and carry out improper foreclosures.
This post first appeared on July 13, 2008
For those looking for some concrete action (which was what many market participants hoped for), Paulson issued a statement that amounts to hand waving.
Read more...