The nation’s largest mortgage companies are operating on the assumption that they will have to pay as much as $20 billion to resolve claims of widespread foreclosure abuse, an amount four times what they had originally proposed, the top federal official overseeing the discussions told state officials Monday, according to people who participated in the conversation.
Associate U.S. Attorney General Tom Perrelli told a bipartisan group of state attorneys general during a conference call that he believes the banks have accepted the realization that a wide-ranging settlement to the months-long probes will cost them much more than the $5 billion offer they floated last month, according to officials with direct knowledge of the call. Perrelli said he’s basing his belief on his recent conversations with representatives of the five targeted firms: Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial.
Mr. John Walsh
Acting Comptroller of the Currency
Comptroller of the Currency
Administrator of National Banks
Washington, D.C. 20219
The Honorable Ben S. Bernanke
Chairman
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Washington, D.C. 20551
Mr. John E. Bowman
Office of Thrift Supervision
Department of Treasury
Washington, D.C. 20552
The Honorable Sheila Bair Acting Director
Chairman
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Washington, D.C. 20429
Dear Acting Comptroller Walsh, Chairman Bernanke, Acting Director Bowman, and Chairman Bair:
I am writing to request copies of “engagement letters” concluded between 14 mortgage servicing companies and the private consultants you directed them to hire to conduct reviews of their widespread foreclosure abuses. Pursuant to consent orders issued by your offices on April 13, 2011, today is the date by which your offices were supposed to have approved these engagement letters.
Findings of “Critical Weaknesses” and “Widespread Risk”
On April 13, 2011, your agencies announced that you had completed an “Interagency Review” of widespread foreclosure abuses by 14 mortgage servicing companies. You issued a public summary of your review with the following conclusions:
The reviews found critical weaknesses in servicers’ foreclosure governance processes, foreclosure document preparation processes, and oversight and monitoring of third-party vendors, including foreclosure attorneys.
Your public summary also found:
[T]he weaknesses at each servicer, individually or collectively, resulted in unsafe and unsound practices and violations of applicable federal and state law and requirements. The results elevated the agencies’ concern that widespread risks may be presented—to consumers, communities, various market participants, and the overall mortgage market. The servicers included in this review represent more than two-thirds of the servicing market. Thus, the agencies consider problems cited within this report to have widespread consequences for the national housing market and borrowers.
Finally, your public summary stated:
[E]xaminers did note cases in which foreclosures should not have proceeded due to an intervening event or condition, such as the borrower (a) was covered by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, (b) filed for bankruptcy shortly before the foreclosure action, or (c) qualified for or was paying in accordance with a trial modification.
Order to Hire Private Consultants to Conduct Further Review
To address these major systemic deficiencies, your agencies issued “consent orders” that required these 14 mortgage servicing companies to hire private consultants to conduct a more thorough review of the files of affected homeowners. Rather than conducting these reviews yourselves, you directed each mortgage servicing company to “retain an independent firm to conduct a review of residential foreclosure actions that were pending at any time from January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2010.”
According to your agencies, these more comprehensive reviews were necessary because your Interagency Review covered a “relatively small number of files.” These more thorough reviews by private consultants are supposed to “identify borrowers that have been financially harmed” and “provide remediation to these borrowers.” Specifically, you directed the mortgage servicing companies to “determine any financial injury to borrowers caused by errors, misrepresentations, or other deficiencies identified in the review, and to remediate, as appropriate, those deficiencies.”
As part of this process, your agencies permitted the mortgage servicing companies and their private consultants to propose “the methodology for conducting the Foreclosure Review,” the “selection of criteria for cases to be reviewed,” and “any proposed sampling techniques.”
In response to critics of your decision to allow the mortgage servicing companies to hire their own consultants to conduct these reviews, your agencies asserted that you would “ensure that the reviews are comprehensive and the results are reliable.” As part of this oversight effort, you directed all 14 mortgage servicing companies to submit for your approval “engagement letters” establishing the terms of the review and the methodologies to be used. These engagement letters were due within 45 days of the date of the consent orders.
Request for “Engagement Letters” with Private Consultants
Today is the date these engagement letters are due. I request that you provide copies of all engagement letters by Friday, June 3, 2011. If any of the 14 mortgage servicing companies has not concluded an engagement letter with a private consultant, please provide an explanation of the current status of the engagement letter.
When producing documents, please deliver copies to the Minority Staff in Room 2471 of the Rayburn House Office Building and the Majority Staff in Room 2157 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The Committee prefers, if possible, to receive all documents in electronic format. If you have any questions about this request, please contact Justin Kim at (202) 225-5051 (202) 225-5051. I appreciate your cooperation with this matter.
Sincerely,
Elijah E. Cummings
Ranking Member
cc: The Honorable Darrell E. Issa, Chairman
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
U.S. banks and state attorneys general, seeking to avoid $17 billion in court claims over faulty foreclosures, are discussing a settlement framework that may let firms choose from a menu of options for helping borrowers, two people briefed on the talks said.
Under the proposal, Bank of America Corp. (BAC), Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC), JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), Citigroup Inc. (C) and Ally Financial Inc. would pay penalties and pledge billions of dollars in relief to home buyers, one of the people said, asking not to be named because the talks are private. Firms may fulfill obligations to borrowers over time, choosing among options such as reducing loan principal, cutting fees or paying moving costs, the people said.
NOTE: We’ll take the $17 Billion over the AG’s “settlement”!
If settlement happens, they SHOULD prohibit any of them from coming at you with a deficiency!
WSJ-
State attorneys general told the nation’s five largest banks on Tuesday they face a potential liability of at least $17 billion in civil lawsuits if a settlement isn’t reached to address improper foreclosure practices, according to people familiar with the matter.
The figure doesn’t cover additional billions of dollars in potential claims from federal agencies such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Justice Department. State and federal officials haven’t proposed a specific comprehensive settlement figure, but Tuesday’s …
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency met with the 14 mortgage servicers Friday over details in the recently signed consent orders, sources familiar with the matter confirmed.
The orders are meant to settle recent foreclosure investigations. According to the orders, servicers must retain an independent firm to review foreclosure actions pending between Jan. 1, 2009 and Dec. 31, 2010. The review will be conducted to determine any financial injury to borrowers caused by the errors, misrepresentations or other deficiencies.
ATTORNEY GENERAL GEORGE JEPSEN
STATEMENT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL GEORGE JEPSEN
CONCERNING MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE INVESTIGATION
For immediate release ……………………………………..TUESDAY MAY 17, 2011
“The multistate investigation of the nation’s largest mortgage servicing companies confirms what my office has been told by thousands of Connecticut consumers, that these banks have done an incredibly poor job in dealing with the mortgage foreclosure mess they were instrumental in creating. As a result, millions of families have needlessly suffered, homeowners have lost billions of dollars in equity, and the real estate market continues to stagnate. Time is of the essence to fix this problem.
“Thus far, the national servicers have been unwilling to step up to the plate with the money necessary to address the full scope of the problems they themselves created. I believe they face substantial legal liability for their clearly illegal behavior should states be forced to sue. After being bailed out by American taxpayers, the banks owe those same taxpayers a real effort to partner with state and federal officials to clean up this mess.”
Attorney General Jepsen is a member of the National Association of Attorneys General multi-state task force seeking resolution of the mortgage foreclosure crisis
Mistakes happen, of course. And loan servicers like to contend that if errors occur, they are rare and honestly made. But after sifting through the data produced by this investigation, Mr. White disagreed that problems are rare. “In Senate testimony, an executive from Countrywide said its error rate was 1 percent,” Mr. White recalled. “The mortgage servicer industry error rate might be 10 times higher, based on the number of cases we are looking at.”
“There are continued flaws in the process, and they are not merely technical,” Mr. White continued. “Those flaws undermine the integrity of the bankruptcy system. Many homeowners have been harmed, including where the lender has come in and said ‘we want to lift the stay and go back into foreclosure proceedings,’ even though they lacked a sufficient basis to do it.”
The investigation conducted by the OCC and the Fed included a review of just 100 foreclosure files.
Housing Wire-
When mortgage servicers signed consent orders with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve, these companies were required to hire outside firms to conduct “look back” evaluations of questionable foreclosure practices.
But these reviews will not be made public, according to an OCC spokesman.
Warning: This is a long blog post. But if you follow mortgage servicing, I think you’ll find it worth reading. Despite lots and lots of media coverage of the servicing fraud settlement, nobody seems to understand the real story that’s going on. I think that this post will explain a lot.
Let’s start by recapping what we know. Back in March we started hearing media reports of a proposed penalty for servicers in the $20-$30B range. Then the American Banker published a 27-page term sheet from the AGs for servicing standards. Next, Huffington Post published a 7-page CFPB powerpoint presentation. Then came the draft C&D orders and then in April, the final C&D orders (which eliminated the ridiculous “single point of contact which need not be a single person” and replaced it with “single point of contact as hereinafter defined” and then failed—quite deliberately—to define it anywhere in the document).
Now there’s another round of activity and conflicting reporting. The American Banker reported that there was a new AG term sheet proposed and that principal reductions were off the table. That turns out to be incorrect, as Shahien Nasiripour reported in the Huffington Post. The new AG term sheet that the American Banker referenced deals only with servicing standards. The American Banker assumed that this mean that principal reductions were off the table because they weren’t referenced in the term sheet. In fact they are still very much in play. They’re just in a second, separate term sheet. So now there are two separate term sheets–one covering servicing standard and another covering monetary issues/principal reductions. (Recall that the original AG term sheet did not cover the monetary issues—that was clearly for a separate document.) We are also hearing news reports that the banks are offering to settle for $5B and won’t go above $10B.
For those of you that disagree, please read this post to understand why this makes perfect sense…
HuffPo-
The nation’s five largest mortgage firms may be forced to reduce loan balances for distressed homeowners as part of an agreement with state attorneys general and the Obama administration to settle claims of faulty mortgage practices, a top state official involved in the negotiations said Tuesday.
This Special Foreclosure Edition describes lessons learned from an interagency review of foreclosure practices at the 14 largest residential mortgage servicers and includes examples of effective mortgage servicing practices derived from these lessons.
First of all, the problems we found were extensive. Our reviews found significant weaknesses in foreclosure governance and document preparation: improper affidavits were submitted and documents were notarized improperly. Servicers devoted insufficient financial, staffing and managerial resources to foreclosure processing. Third party providers of foreclosure-related services, including outside law firms, were not adequately supervised, and, in a limited number of cases, servicers failed to ensure proper endorsement of promissory notes or mortgage documents.
“We’re not happy” with the time it takes to give borrowers an answer, said Christine Larsen, head of operations for retail financial services at J.P. Morgan, who is responsible for implementing the consent orders. The bank is trying to speed response times by setting new customer-communication deadlines.
Regulatory agencies exist to protect the public, not the corporations they regulate. The head of the Office of Comptroller of the Currency doesn’t seem to understand that. But that’s not why John Walsh needs to resign.
The OCC was created to stabilize the economy, make it easier to conduct trade, and protect people’s savings. It didn’t do that. In fact, it ignored the warnings raised by others. But that’s not why John Walsh needs to resign.
Judging by last week’s performance, it sure looks as though the country’s top bank regulator is back to its old tricks.
Though, to be honest, calling the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency a “regulator” is almost laughable. The Environmental Protection Agency is a regulator. The O.C.C. is a coddler, a protector, an outright enabler of the institutions it oversees.
It may take at least two months to reach a final agreement, said the person, who declined to be identified because the talks are private. An accord remains out of reach because states want principal reductions for borrowers, which is more than banks agreed to in deals reached with U.S. regulators last week, said Allison Schoenthal, a lawyer at Hogan Lovells in New York.
“Principal reductions I don’t think are going to be agreed to by banks, and I don’t think the banks see a need for a penalty when, in their view, they haven’t done anything wrong,” said Schoenthal, who represents lenders and servicers and isn’t involved in the talks.
Take this home for example. It was originally sold for $289,000.
Prior to Final Judgment, property had two (2) assignments of mortgage for two entities same robo-signer for both via MERS.
At auction it was sold for a MAJOR discount at approx. 75% off. to Indymac via LPS Minnesota address in 2010. We know Indymac has been shut down way before this time.
Why couldn’t they work a deal like this when this person whom I personally know tried over and over to get a modification AT THE TIME?
They had a good job then and still have a good job today.
So why do they not want to work with the borrowers and reduce the principal to reflect today’s REAL and TRUE appraisal of the property?
Make sure you follow the transactions to understand what happened and why it makes no sense where this goes.
Now Here comes more funny business:
Still following?
Property was Quit Claimed/Transferred To Freddie Mac for $100.00 (prepared by David Stern) but consideration shows only $10.00.
Property then sold for $3900.00 more 13 days later $78,000
SAME day flipped for $150,000
Previous records are all gone [compare both images]
Dylan Ratigan with special guest New York Times’ Louise Story, discussing the 600+ page report uncovering Goldman Sachs scheme to defraud investors. According to Bloomberg, The U.S. Justice Department and regulators will have to determine whether employees and executives of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. violated any laws when they traded securities tied to the housing market and testified to Congress about the transactions, Senator Carl Levin said.
While the attorneys general proposed many similar terms last month, banking regulators didn’t include any requirements for lowering mortgage debt. That may hinder Iowa Attorney General Thomas J. Miller as he leads a group of state officials working with the administration to require lenders to evaluate loan cuts for some borrowers whose homes are worth less than their mortgages.
“I have always been pretty skeptical about the ability of principal reductions to get you much,” said Mark A. Calabria, director of financial-regulation studies at the Cato Institute, a public-policy research group in Washington. “I think we will look back and say this was the death knell.”
Question: Wonder what the regulators thought of when they watched 60 Minutes broadcast of LPS, DOCX and Servicer fraud on national tv with over 12 million viewers?
Just see what the number one popular post has been on this site since the airing of it or do a simple google search like 60 Minutes Docx or 60 Minutes LPS and you’ll see SFF is the first site that comes up. We’re no fools and believe me the entire globe has tuned in, including the regulators.
The nation’s 14 largest mortgage firms must compensate wronged homeowners after federal bank regulators determined the companies broke federal and state laws by improperly foreclosing on an incalculable number of distressed borrowers. The agencies announced such penalties Wednesday, the first in what is likely to be a series of enforcement actions targeting the country’s biggest banks and costing them billions.
Lenders like Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial systematically broke rules and took shortcuts when foreclosing on homeowners last year, the regulators said. Their three-month review launched after documents and videos of so-called robo-signers — people who signed thousands of foreclosure documents a day without reading them or knowing what was in them — surfaced, leading the biggest banks to halt home seizures.
Bank examiners found the firms employed practices that “failed to conform to state legal requirements.” In other words, they broke the law.
The 14 largest U.S. mortgage servicers must pay back homeowners for losses from foreclosures or loans that were mishandled in the wake of the housing collapse, according to a consent decree released today.
The agreement between the servicers and U.S. regulators imposes more substantial penalties than early reports of the deal indicated. It could also help the U.S. Justice Department determine the size and scope of any future fines for the flawed practices, regulators said.
The banks didn’t admit or deny regulators’ findings, according to the orders.
From Fed Press Release:
The Federal Reserve will closely monitor progress at the firms in addressing these matters and will take additional enforcement actions as needed.
In addition to the actions against the banking organizations, the Federal Reserve on Wednesday announced formal enforcement actions against Lender Processing Services, Inc. (LPS), a domestic provider of default-management services and other services related to foreclosures, and against MERSCORP, Inc. (MERS), which provides services related to tracking and registering residential mortgage ownership and servicing, acts as mortgagee of record on behalf of lenders and servicers, and initiates foreclosure actions. These actions address significant compliance failures and unsafe and unsound practices at LPS and its subsidiaries, and at MERS and its subsidiary. The action requires LPS to address deficient practices related primarily to the document execution services that LPS, through its subsidiaries DocX, LLC, and LPS Default Solutions, Inc., provided to servicers in connection with foreclosures. MERS is required to address significant weaknesses in, among other things, oversight, management supervision, and corporate governance. The LPS action is being taken jointly with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of Thrift Supervision, while the MERS action is being taken jointly with those agencies and the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
The Federal Reserve Board based its enforcement actions on the findings of the interagency reviews of the major mortgage servicers, LPS, and MERS. A summary of the findings from the reviews of the mortgage servicers is available in the Interagency Review of Foreclosure Policies and Practices,which is simultaneously being released by the Federal Reserve Board and the other agencies.
Recent Comments