Reading between the lines of settlement proposals, the states attorneys general aren’t speaking the same language as the big banks. And struggling homeowners are paying the price.
By Abigail Field, contributor
FORTUNE — Over the past several months regulators have finally noticed what consumer attorneys have been saying for years: the big banks have routinely committed fraud in their foreclosure filings and their records of how much people owe are too often wrong. And the mortgage modification process, which was meant to help homeowners, has been exposed as an abject failure.
Many state attorneys general, federal law enforcers and regulators say they want big banks to pay for their fraudulent foreclosures and abusive mortgage servicing practices by reducing what borrowers owe them by some $20 billion. That’s theamount the banks allegedly savedby doing a lousy job servicing troubled mortgages. (That math is questionable at best,Yves Smith noted when that figure began making the rounds.)
But the solution to this problem is not a settlement with the banks that mandates principal write-downs. Principals on these loans should be reduced, but it should be done in the most efficient, effective way: Congress should give bankruptcy judges back a power they once had — the right to reduce the principal on a mortgage to the home’s current market value. In other words: Bring back the cram down.
It’s going to get really interesting to see how this all plays out with the AG’s role.
According to the New York Times, the the servicers, which violated state and local laws and regulations governing foreclosures, are agreeing to improve their methods in numerous ways. They will be required to have more layers of oversight and proper training of their foreclosure staff. The oversight will extend to third party groups, including the law firms that do much of the actual work of eviction.
[…]
The investigators reviewed the policies and procedures, structure and staffing of the top servicers, as well as their use of law firms and other third parties. They examined 2,800 foreclosures in various stages.
The banks examined were Bank of America, Citibank, GMAC, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo and nine others. The examination found critical deficiencies and shortcomings in foreclosure preparation and oversight, resulting in violations of state and local foreclosure laws, regulations and rules.
The servicers will probably be assessed fines at a later point.
Regulators including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Federal Reserve and Office of Thrift Supervision could announce the agreements with the banks and thrifts as early as next week, though a date wasn’t final, according to people familiar with the matter.
The regulators are likely to act ahead of state attorneys general, who are also in talks with the banks. Those discussions are moving at a slower pace amid disputes among several state officials.
Seriously, why aren’t they all working together? Lefty doesn’t know what the right is doing.
Here’s the banks’ counterproposal for a servicing fraud settlement. I can sum it up in two words: drop dead. Or two letters: F.U. This proposals is so pathetically thin that it’s not a good faith counterproposal. This document only deals with servicing standards–nothing in it whatsoever about penalties, modification quotas, etc. But even on servicing standards it is a bunch of empty promises to have internal controls and try harder.
The first point about this counterproposal is simply to note what’s absent from it:
(1) nothing about principal reductions
(2) nothing about second liens and conflicts of interest
(3) nothing about MERS (reserved for later)
(4) nothing about in-sourced vendor fees or force-placed insurance to affiliates. This makes the fees and force-place insurance sections pretty meaningless.
Read the excerpts below carefully… You’ll be screwed if you plan to wait on any reasonable settlement, just like “HAMP” left you waiting for your mod. Don’t expect miracles!
“We have a long way to go,” Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, who is leading the effort from the states’ side, said after the afternoon session broke up.
[…]
Lengthy negotiations work to the banks’ advantage, critics say.
“The banks’ strategy is to run the clock,” a Georgetown University law professor, Adam Levitin, said. “The chances of a settlement that meaningfully reforms mortgage servicing and makes the banks pay an appropriate price for illegal conduct are rapidly slipping away.”
“I am incensed that the FBI has not filed one criminal case,” Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) said, referring to the lack of prosecutions against major banking executives. “And I’m very worried that the game that’s being played here is to run out the statute of limitations.”
#
Oh and AG’s make sure the banks get barred from Deficiency Judgments in your settlement!
The document, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, is a response to a 27-page term sheet banks received earlier this month from state attorneys general that would require the servicers to consider reducing principal for troubled borrowers. The 15-page bank proposal, dubbed the Draft Alternative Uniform Servicing Standards, includes time lines for processing modifications, a third-party review of foreclosures and a single point of contact for financially troubled borrowers. It also outlines a so-called “borrower portal” that would allow customers to check the status of their loan modifications online.
But the document doesn’t include any discussion of principal reductions. Nor does it include a potential amount banks could pay for borrower relief or penalties. Government officials have discussed a settlement sum of more than $20 billion.
Recent Comments