Category Archives: Regulations and regulators

The whole purpose of a settlement is that a party pays damages to rid themselves of liability, and the amount they pay (and “pay” can include the cost of reforming their conduct) is less than what they expect to suffer if they were sued and lost the case (otherwise, it would make more sense for them to fight).

But in the topsy-turvy world of cream for the banks, crumbs for the rest of us, we have, in the words of Scott Simon, head of the mortgage business at bond fund manager Pimco, in an interview with MoneyNews, lots of victims paying for banks’ misdeeds:

Dave Dayen pointed out how peculiar that the mortgage settlement propaganda website, www.nationalmortgagesettlement.com, is a .com and not a .gov. And it turns out the Department of Justice disavows its content (hat tip April Charney):

You know it’s bad when banks are the most truthful guys in the room.

A little birdie sent me some settlement details. You can see how much little your state got.

News stories in American Banker, the Wall Street Journal, and now Huffington Post all indicate that New York and California will join the so-called mortgage settlement deal. From Loren Berlin at Huffington Post:

The Administration, through the nominal head of the bank settlement negotiations, Iowa attorney general Tom Miller, has moved its final deadline for a deal yet again, this time to Thursday.

One event of the day was a non-event. New York AG Eric Schneiderman has scheduled a conference call to the media on the settlement for 6 PM, then postponed it indefinitely 10 minutes before the scheduled time. One can presume that whatever he had intended to say was rendered moot by events…but what events? The only thing one can infer is that he is presumably still negotiating. Per Reuters (hat tip Lambert):

The Administration had thrown its weight behind getting the mortgage settlement deal done shortly after the State of the Union address. Eric Schneiderman joining a Federal task force that seemed unlikely to accomplish much, given its staffing and the history of Federal investigations, seemed to secure it getting done, as Schneiderman, the de facto leader of the opposition, moved first into a neutral stance and then rejoined the talks over the weekend.

The deadline had been first set as February 6, then moved to the 3rd, then late last week moved back to its original date. There was no announcement of a pact today, which in and of itself would not necessarily mean that things might be going pear-shaped. After all, the participants could be wrangling over fine points.

A fresh Reuters report indicates that the Administration messaging and cheerleading (witness the Shaun Donovan interview reported by Dave Dayen and Shahien Nasiripour) may have been ahead of events.

Readers who missed the post over the weekend entitled “Schneiderman MERS Suit and HUD’s Donovan Remarks Confirm That Mortgage “Settlement” is a Stealth Bank Bailout” are advised to read it first, since it provides important background and context for this piece, which clarifies some issues I skipped over.

The New York Times reports that two attorneys general of states regarded as important for the Obama Administration to declare the mortgage settlement a success have rejoined the negotiations, which says they are likely to sign the pact.

Kamala Harris, the California AG, was widely seen as “political” and therefore was not seen as a solid holdout. I remain disappointed by the conduct of our attorney general Eric Schneiderman, who is also now participating in the talks. His decision to join a Federal task force undermined the opposition to the settlement and looks to have cleared the way for the Administration to craft a win on this deal (note it is still possible it will not get done, but the odds were low as of last week and appear to be sinking further).

In case you had any doubts about what the mortgage settlement was really about and why banks that were so keenly opposed to it are now willing to go ahead, the news of the last two days should settle any doubts.

As we had indicated earlier, one of the many leaks about the settlement showed that there had been a major shift its parameters. Of the $25 billion that has been bandied about as a settlement total for the biggest banks, comparatively little (less than $5 billion) is in cash. The rest comes in the form of credits for principal modifications of mortgages.

Let me stress: this is a huge bailout for the banks. The settlement amounts to a transfer from retirement accounts (pension funds, 401 (k)s) and insurers to the banks. And without this subsidy, the biggest banks would be in serious trouble