Posts

Register of Deeds Curtis Hertel: “If you or I committed this kind of fraud, we’d go to jail.”

/17 Comments/in /by

In Lansing today, Ingham County (Lansing Area) Register of Deeds, Curtis Hertel and State Rep Jim Ananich presented a bill to introduce judicial foreclosure in MI.

As part of the press conference, homeowner Bill Donahue described how he almost lost the home he has lived in for 25 years because Fannie Mae, which had not claim to his loan, foreclosed on him as he was being processed for a HAMP modification (which he ultimately got).

Last May, he applied for a HAMP modification. After submitting a second round of paperwork in June, he was told in July he was in underwriting, which might take six months. During that period, Bank of America’s collection people kept harassing Donahue and his wife. By late summer, they received a foreclosure notice from Fannie Mae, which explained it was just a formality since he hadn’t made a payment in so long. BoA told him to ignore it, but it turned out his house was sold in a sheriff’s sale. In December, he got the HAMP modification, which cut their payment in half. Nevertheless, this April, a process server came to his house with a foreclosure notice. When Donahue showed him the document proving he had a mod, the process server congratulated him for being of the 5% or so who actually got mods. The server took copies. But in May, Fannie Mae sent a packet giving him 3 days to contest a foreclosure. Finally, by early June, Fannie dismissed the foreclosure. (I hope to have video from Donahue later.)

In his presentation explaining the importance of replacing MI’s current foreclosure by advertisement with judicial review, Hertel explained,

You can literally walk into my office and tell me you’re committing a crime and there is nothing I can do to stop you except report it. I still have to submit the documents.

Hertel later elaborated on this, revealing among other details that he recently received an FBI subpoena relating to foreclosures.

There were a few people at the press conference (including my own county clerk) who complained about the cost of instituting a judicial foreclosure system. Representative Ananich had the best response to those questions:

Due process isn’t a system that only works when it’s affordable or it’s convenient.

It’s nice to hear that sentiment from a few public figures.

Read more →

“A Public Service,” My Fannie

/10 Comments/in , /by

I wanted to juxtapose two stories about Fannie Mae. The first, from this WaPo story reporting that the Administration has decided to keep some kind of federal entity guaranteeing mortgages. The story itself is interesting–as are Dean Baker’s post criticizing the underlying decision.

What I found particularly interesting, though, were the comments from the usual suspects about the role they perceive Fannie and Freddie as playing.

Two top Obama advisers, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, think the government should maintain an outsize role in the housing market, administration officials said.

Donovan thinks federal support for housing fulfills a public service, while Geithner has been focused on the need for the government to have a way to keep the mortgage market operating during a financial crisis.

Other advisers, however, opposed a continued government role over the long run. Austan Goolsbee, who this month left his job as chairman of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, argued that the federal role in housing distorts the free market. By subsidizing mortgage investments, he argued, the government drives capital away from other types of investments — for example, those in companies developing environmentally friendly technology. He also warned that the government is putting enormous sums of taxpayer money on the line while conveying little actual benefit to home buyers.

In a meeting with the president, Goolsbee said that the government had finally brought Fannie and Freddie’s excesses to heel by taking over the companies and that it would be a mistake to let them loose in the market again, said a person familiar with the meeting. Goolsbee likened the companies to a villain held in a special prison who shouldn’t be freed just because he promises to help the poor, the source recounted.

Lawrence H. Summers, who was director of the National Economic Council until early this year, argued that, over the long term, it didn’t make sense to have a government-backed agency providing guarantees to the mortgage market but that Fannie and Freddie still play a crucial role.

“My position was that we needed to maximize activity in the short run to support the housing market,” Summers said in an interview. “Discussions of scaling down Fannie and Freddie were vastly premature under the circumstances of a collapsing housing market.” [my emphasis]

Compare those comments–particularly those favoring the GSEs from Donovan and TurboTaxTimmeh–with the description of the way Fannie Mae is fleecing the taxpayers and ruining communities by pushing servicers to foreclose even though homeowners are seeking a modification, an approach that violates Fannie’s own stated policy.

The documents show Fannie Mae has told banks to foreclose on some delinquent homeowners — those more than a year behind — even as the banks were trying to help borrowers save their houses, a violation of Fannie’s own policy.

Fannie Mae has publicly maintained that homeowners would not lose their houses while negotiating changes to mortgages under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP.

The Free Press also obtained internal records revealing that the taxpayer-supported mortgage giant has told banks that it expected them to sell off a fixed percentage of foreclosed homes. In one letter sent to banks around the country last year, a Fannie vice president made clear that Fannie expected 10%-12% of homes in foreclosure to proceed to sale.

[snip]

“Fannie just wants to clean up its balance sheet and get these loans off the books while taxpayers are eating these losses,” [Valpariso University Law Professor Alan] White said, referring to the multibillion-dollar federal bailout of Fannie Mae in 2008 and the rising cost to taxpayers.

“And Treasury and the FHFA are letting them get away with it. It’s a huge waste. Wealth is being destroyed, people are losing houses needlessly, and taxpayers are losing money.”

[snip]

According to White, the Valparaiso professor, foreclosing on a home typically costs Fannie Mae far more than a successful loan modification. But, he and others say, Fannie is willing to absorb higher losses because it knows taxpayers — not Fannie Mae — will eventually reimburse the loss.

In other words, even as Donovan and Timmeh appear to have won the argument on sustaining Fannie and Freddie (or something like them), what was implicitly clear (I’ve been hearing this accusation since 2009) has been proven: that the GSEs have been using their government backing to stiff taxpayers and ruin communities. (Kudos to Goolsbee who got it mostly right on this one: the taxpayer backing is providing little of value to taxpayers.)

It’s as if none of these folks overseeing Fannie know how badly it is screwing American communities. Or perhaps they don’t care?

Coming Soon to Your Hard-Hit Neighborhood: Government-Subsidized TBTF Slumlords

/21 Comments/in /by

I’m all in favor of creative ways to solve the foreclosure crisis. But I don’t think this is answer.

The government is soliciting ideas for ways to unload lots–big lots–of foreclosed properties currently owned by Fannie, Freddie, or FHA.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), in consultation with the U.S. Department of the Treasury and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), has announced a Request For Information (RFI), seeking input on new options for selling single-family real estate owned (REO) properties held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises), and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).

The RFI’s objective is to help address current and future REO inventory. It will explore alternatives for maximizing value to taxpayers and increasing private investment in the housing market, including approaches that support rental and affordable housing needs.

“While the Enterprises will continue to market individual REO properties for sale, FHFA and the Enterprises seek input on possible pooling of REO properties in situations where such pooling, combined with private management, may reduce Enterprise credit losses and help stabilize neighborhoods and home values,” said FHFA Acting Director Edward J. DeMarco. “Partnerships involving Enterprise properties may reduce taxpayer losses and meet the Enterprises’ responsibility to bring stability and liquidity to housing markets. We seek input on these important questions.”

Kevin Drum rightly wonders what the point of this is, given that investors can already buy as many REOs as they want.

The point is volume: basically, the government would share ownership of the houses for such time as it takes the new owner to make them profitable again. And in exchange, the investor would be able to buy a bunch more houses.

The idea is to facilitate investors buying up whole chunks of homes in a particular market.

the agencies look forward to responses from market participants that have the technical and financial capability to engage in large-scale transactions with the Enterprises and/or FHA involving the disposition of REO.
A specific goal is to solicit ideas from market participants that would maximize the economic value that may arise from pooling the single-family REO properties in specified geographic areas. Under the management of a third-party, a joint venture or some other structure may respond to local economic and real estate conditions more effectively than individual sales. For instance, there may be certain metropolitan areas (or some narrower geographic designation) with a substantial number of REO properties and a strong rental market. In such locales economic value in REO disposition may be enhanced (and real estate markets begin to be stabilized) by turning a large number of REO properties into rental housing.

Call me crazy, but it seems the only reason such a program would be lucrative would be because it allowed one investor to corner significant chunks of the housing or rental market in a given city or neighborhood. Which, it would seem to me, would make for really abusive landlords: people with no competitive need to keep up their properties, with market dominance sufficient to raise rents beyond what the economy really supported, and enough pull at city hall to avoid accountability for doing these things.

Now, Jared Bernstein says we shouldn’t worry about using government subsidies to create TBTF slumlords.

I’ve heard two arguments against the idea.

[snip]

Second, investors buying foreclosed properties in bulk make lousy landlords.  It’s a valid concern, but there’s a policy wrinkle in the FHFA/admin’s plan that should help: the proposal—the RFI noted above—should include requirements regarding property management and the Feds should reject proposals that aren’t convincing in that regard.

But really, the language purportedly protecting against TBTF slumlords is flaccid. It lists “address[ing] property repair and rehabilitation needs” as one of six objectives (after, it must be said, “reduc[ing] REO portfolios … in a cost-effective manner” and “reduc[ing] average loan loss severities.” It requires private partners take on “most or all day to day management and operations, including property maintenance and rehabilitation, rental property management, marketing for sale.” And it only requires proposed plans to address, “steps taken to ensure that the properties are well maintained and managed during the period” as item 7, after already emphasizing, as item 2, “a focus on maximizing returns.” Nowhere does it require these hypothetical landlords to charge reasonable rates for rents.

In other words, while this plan may include lip service to the upkeep of these properties, nowhere does it limit what kind of price gouging these TBTF landlords could engage in (indeed, it places more emphasis on financial return than on societal return).

And of course, as happens with most of these Third Way public-private partnerships (cf. health care reform and the Wall Street bailout), it deals away key enforcement mechanisms precisely by helping corporations avoid market forces and encouraging them to become so big they can’t be held to account.

Ultimately, this seems to be an effort to find a shortcut out of the housing crisis by engaging in more corporate subsidies. Plus, it’ll take several months to put the program together, whereas offering subsidies to everyone right now might be faster with less market-distorting effect.

If the government is going to be subsidizing turning these properties around anyway, why not subsidize the average people that have gotten so screwed over by TBTF corporations in the first place? Why not subsidize the people who create stable communities–actual community members–rather than asking corporations to restore communities? Why struggle again to limit market forces in a such a way that only the big boys benefit?

I know Obama likes to claim, falsely, that government can’t create jobs, and because of that claim he believes all government help must be laundered through corporations. But corporations can’t create communities, which is really what’s called for here.

Freddie Repossesses Its Files

/in /by

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had already suspended all their work with David Stern. But now they’ve officially severed all relations with him and Freddie has taken their files away.

Freddie Mac took the rare step of removing loan files after an internal review raised “concerns about some of the practices at the Stern firm,” a Freddie spokeswoman said.

“We have begun taking possessions of all files on Freddie Mac mortgages simply to protect our interest in those loans as well as those of the borrowers,” the Freddie spokeswoman said. A Fannie spokeswoman declined to elaborate.

Fannie and Freddie said they will move those files to other law firms in the state but that they hadn’t yet identified where they would be redistributed. The firms said they had notified Florida’s attorney general about the decision to remove the files and that the Stern firm had cooperated with the action.

Let’s see. It’s November 2. On October 4, 29 days ago, the former assistant of the woman who oversaw Stern’s robosigner division testified that 1) Stern’s firm would routinely reclassify Freddie Mac loans as some some other firm’s loans when Freddie came onsite for an audit to hide those files from the firm, and 2) sometime in August, Stern reportedly packed up an eighteen wheeler full of documents and took them to an unspecified office in Orlando.

I can’t imagine why Freddie would want to take possession of its files, can you?

Problem is, it may well be far too late to prevent Stern from tampering with Freddie’s documents. Though it’s nice of them to start worrying about protecting the interests of their homeowners.

Fidelity National Drops Nationwide Indemnity Requirement

/in /by

This whole title insurance thing is getting confusing.

Fidelity National Financial Inc., the largest U.S. title insurer, canceled a requirement for lenders to guarantee proper foreclosure procedures amid “heightened review” processes by banks.

The company won’t require an indemnity agreement before insuring individual foreclosed properties, according to a memorandum to employees yesterday. It will continue the arrangement with Bank of America Corp., the largest U.S. lender.

Fidelity National reversed course from a requirement put in place a week ago after institutions took steps to police foreclosure paperwork, according to the memo. Failure of other insurers to follow its lead also put the Jacksonville, Florida- based company at a competitive disadvantage, said Peter Sadowski, executive vice president and chief legal officer.

“Although competition was a factor, we wouldn’t take undue risk for competitive reasons,” Sadowski said in an interview. “We feel comfortable with the new process.”

But what I take it to mean is that, at least partly because other title insurers weren’t requiring Fannie and Freddie to indemnify their foreclosure sales, Fidelity National dropped the requirement that they (and other lenders) do so, too. But it’s not clear if, in lieu of this indemnity, Fidelity is going to require the lenders to actually prove they have standing to foreclosure.

Whatever the case, Fidelity National seems to be saying that a risk that was there just week ago, no longer exists.

Fannie and Freddie Near a Deal with Title Industry

/in , /by

As I noted in my last post on the move, led by Fidelity National, to require banks to warrant against “incompetent or erroneous affidavit testimony or documentation,” the move was largely about getting Fannie and Freddie on board and with them making this a standard practice in the industry.

So I’m not surprised by the report that that’s precisely what is happening. But I do find the description of Fannie and Freddie’s role in this process to be noteworthy.

The behind-the-scenes work illustrates how, as banks prepare to resume home repossessions, few entities have a greater interest in helping to put the foreclosure train back on track than Fannie and Freddie, which together own or guarantee half of all U.S. mortgages.

“They’re in a position to pursue good, straight, and solid answers. In that way, they play a quasi-regulatory role,” said Kurt Pfotenhauer, chief executive of the American Land Title Association, a trade group.

[snip]

Still, the foreclosure-document crisis is raising an age-old question that has dogged the mortgage firms: Should they play the role of regulator, or business partner, with the mortgage originators and servicers that are their customers?

On one hand, Fannie and Freddie need to make sure foreclosures are proceeding properly. But on the other hand, they want to move the process along as fast as possible because each day that they can’t repossess homes, they lose more money and ring up a bigger bill for taxpayers.

“Given their public purpose and the special advantages they have in the marketplace, Fannie and Freddie should be a model to the whole industry of how to make sure the foreclosure process is working properly,” said Julia Gordon, a senior policy counsel at the Center for Responsible Lending.

But the firms’ regulator, and the companies themselves, say that the onus is on servicers to fix any problems and vouch for the quality of their foreclosure processes.

Fannie Mae “is not in a position to be the determining body as to whether servicers are putting processes in place that comply with the law,” a company spokeswoman said.

This is basically the government–as the owner and guarantor of Fannie and Freddie–basically saying the banks should just fix their own practices. No wonder that line sounds so similar to what we’re hearing from the Obama Administration.

And couple this disinterested stance toward servicer problems with the news that the government has known, since sometime after May, that there was a,

significant difference in the performance of servicers, and in particular, information that shows us there is not compliance with FHA rules and regulations around loss mitigation.

Yet it has not done anything about the servicers that it knows (but will not name) which have not followed required practices to try to keep people in their homes.

Note too the reference in the linked article to Fannie’s institution of fines on servicers that didn’t churn through their foreclosures in timely fashion.

The past practice of Fannie and Freddie shows they have every intention of keeping foreclosures churning through the system and government regulators appear to have no intention of slowing that churn. Signing this title insurance agreement is part of that same process.

We, the taxpayers, have become the owners of a system that churns inexorably on to evict us from our homes.

Hysteria over a $15 Billion Loan, But Not $285 Billion in Takeovers?

/15 Comments/in , /by

Man, the NYT’s pathetically bad reporting on the auto bridge loan continues.

David Sanger writes a story purporting to be news that presents a loan to the auto industry–with conditions–as a crisis of capitalism of epic proportions.

But what Mr. Obama went on to describe was a long-term bailout that would be conditioned on federal oversight. It could mean that the government would mandate, or at least heavily influence, what kind of cars companies make, what mileage and environmental standards they must meet and what large investments they are permitted to make — to recreate an industry that Mr. Obama said “actually works, that actually functions.”

It all sounds perilously close to a word that no one in Mr. Obama’s camp wants to be caught uttering: nationalization.

Not since Harry Truman seized America’s steel mills in 1952 rather than allow a strike to imperil the conduct of the Korean War has Washington toyed with nationalization, or its functional equivalent, on this kind of scale. Mr. Obama may be thinking what Mr. Truman told his staff: “The president has the power to keep the country from going to hell.” (The Supreme Court thought differently and forced Mr. Truman to relinquish control.)

The fact that there is so little protest in the air now — certainly less than Mr. Truman heard — reflects the desperation of the moment. But it is a strategy fraught with risks.

The first, of course, is the one the president-elect himself highlighted. Government’s record as a corporate manager is miserable, which is why the world has been on a three-decade-long privatization kick, turning national railroads, national airlines and national defense industries into private companies.

The second risk is that if the effort fails, and the American car companies collapse or are auctioned off in pieces to foreign competitors, taxpayers may lose the billions about to be spent.

And the third risk — one barely discussed so far — is that in trying to save the nation’s carmakers, the United States is violating at least the spirit of what it has preached around the world for two decades. The United States has demanded that nations treat American companies on their soil the same way they treat their home-grown industries, a concept called “national treatment.” [my emphasis]

"Not since Truman," Sanger writes, "has Washington toyed with nationalization."

"Not since Truman," that is, so long as you ignore the very recent nationalizations of AIG, Fannie, and Freddie.

Read more →

Fannie and Freddie’s Turn at that Taxpayer’s Trough

/in /by

You know how, when I go off grid on vacation or something, corrupt Bush officials tend to resign? Well, it looks like CalculatedRisk has that same power, only with our economy. While CR was hiking in the Sierra (man am I jealous), Fannie and Freddie were diving off a cliff on Thursday and Friday. And now, just as happened with Bear Stearns, Hank Paulson seems to be crafting a taxpayer backed bailout of the mortgage giants.

US TREASURY secretary Hank Paulson is working on plans to inject up to $15 billion (£7.5 billion) of capital into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to stem the crisis at America’s biggest mortgage firms.

The two companies lost almost half their market value last week as rumours of a government bail-out swept the stock markets, hammering share prices around the world.

Together, the two stockholder-owned, government-sponsored companies own or guarantee almost half of America’s $12 trillion home-loan market and are vital to the functioning of the housing market.

The capital-injection plan is said to be high on a list of options being considered by regulators as a means of restoring confidence in the lenders. The move would protect the American housing market, but punish shareholders in both companies.

CR, now back from the Sierra, has more. 

Golly. $20 billion for Bear Stearns. $15 billion for Fannie and Freddie. Meanwhile we’re still struggling to pass a housing bill that will help actual, human taxpayer families stay out of foreclosure. I guess there’s just not the money for bailing out real people, huh?