| Mortgage Mess: Shredding the Dream; Major Fight over Enormous Losses Yet to Come Posted: 21 Oct 2010 03:04 PM PDT The foreclosure crisis isn't just about lost documents. It's about trust—and a clash over who gets stuck with $1.1 trillion in losses say BusinessWeek writers Peter Coy, Paul M. Barrett and Chad Terhune in a comprehensive 7 page article called Mortgage Mess: Shredding the Dream. The article kicks off with a high-profile case of Joseph Lents who has been in default for 8 years and is still living in his home because no one can come up with the note. Such cases are extremely rare, yet highly publicized as if they widely occur. The article continues with a discussion about MERS including this interesting comment: "The Florida Bankers Assn. told the state Supreme Court last year that in many cases the physical document was deliberately eliminated to avoid confusion immediately upon its conversion to an electronic file." Then there is the issue of LPS, America's biggest mortgage-and-foreclosure outsourcing firm. "LPS supplies much of the digital plumbing for the convoluted home-finance system. At the start of 2010 it said its computer programs were handling 28 million loans with a total principal balance of more than $4.7 trillion—or more than half the nation's outstanding mortgage balances." Because of robo-signings and other questionable practices the U.S. Attorney's Office in Tampa and the state of Florida are investigating whether LPS and affiliated companies have fabricated documents and faked signatures. LPS employees "seem to be creating and manufacturing 'bogus assignments' of mortgage in order that foreclosures may go through more quickly and efficiently," the Florida Attorney General's Office says in an online description of its civil investigation.
To keep the paperwork moving, LPS uses a variety of incentives. Top-performing workers receive monthLY "Drive for Pride" awards that sometimes include $500 in company stock and a spot in an underground parking garage. LPS also devised a coding system to grade outside foreclosure attorneys based on their speed in completing tasks. Fast-acting attorneys receive green ratings; slower lawyers are labeled yellow or red and may receive fewer assignments. "Bill will move quickly and expect you to be there to pull your weight," says Jerry Mallot, executive vice-president of the Jacksonville Regional Chamber of Commerce. "I wouldn't call the environment at his company kind and genteel." In yet another case involving HSBC ... Judge Sigmund, who has since retired, scolded one of HSBC's outside lawyers for being too "enmeshed in the assembly line" of managing foreclosures and ordered her to take extra ethics training. The judge instructed HSBC to remind all of its lawyers in writing not to defer excessively to computerized data systems. LPS, the judge added, did not deserve punishment because the outsourcer had merely provided tools that others misused.
McCollum, the Florida AG, suspects that in other cases LPS is more than an innocent facilitator. In April, he says, "a homeowner contacted us," alleging that LPS paperwork had been "forged in some way. Fraud investigations are now underway. Quoting unnamed sources, The Washington Post reported on Oct. 19 that the Obama Administration's Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force is investigating whether financial firms committed federal crimes in filing fraudulent court documents to seize people's homes. I hope these fraud cases result in high profile convictions but more than likely a few low-profile scapegoats are tossed to the wolves in an attempt to placate the public. High States FightNone of the above is what the real fight is about. The fight is all about who takes the hit for another $1-$2 trillion in losses that are coming. Even if the documentation problems turn out to be manageable—as Bank of America (BAC) and others insist they will be—the economy will still suffer long-term consequences from the loose underwriting that caused the subprime housing bubble. According to an Oct. 15 report by J.P. Morgan (JPM) Securities, some $2 trillion of the $6 trillion in U.S. mortgages and home-equity loans that were securitized during the height of the bubble, from 2005 through 2007, are likely to go into default. The report says the housing bust will ultimately cause losses of $1.1 trillion on those bonds.
Laurie Goodman, a mortgage analyst at Amherst Securities Group, said in an Oct. 1 report that if government doesn't step up its intervention, over 11 million borrowers are in danger of losing their homes. That's one in five people with a mortgage. "Politically," she wrote, "this cannot happen. The government will attempt successive modification plans until something works."
Wall Street's unspoken strategy has been to kick mortgage losses down the road until an economic recovery reinflates the housing market. The faulty-foreclosure crisis has forced the issue back into the present tense, triggering a fight over who will bear the brunt of those losses. The combatants—all of whom are trying to minimize their share of the damage—include homeowners, lenders and mortgage brokers, loan servicers and the underwriters of mortgage-backed securities, the buyers of those securities, title insurers, rating firms, and the federally controlled mortgage buyers Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRD). J.P. Morgan predicts that bondholders will absorb most of the estimated $1.1 trillion loss—but may succeed in foisting about $55 billion on banks. If the bank losses turn out to be steeper than J.P. Morgan and most other analysts expect, taxpayers may be asked to inject more capital into the financial institutions. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, already wards of the state, might require more capital as well.
Meanwhile, a high-stakes fight is breaking out between the banks that made loans and the investors who bought them. A shot was fired on Oct. 18 when a group of major investors claimed that Bank of America's Countrywide Home Loan Servicing had failed to live up to its contracts on some of more than $47 billion worth of Countrywide-issued mortgage bonds. The group said Countrywide Servicing has 60 days to correct the alleged violations, such as failure to sell back ineligible loans to the lenders. According to people familiar with the matter, the group includes Pimco, BlackRock (BLK), and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
For policymakers, the dilemma is this: Enormous losses will cause problems wherever they end up. They could further harm Fannie and Freddie, which insure the vast majority of the nation's mortgages and have already received nearly $150 billion in taxpayer support. Or, if Fannie and Freddie succeed in pushing the burden back to the banks, the losses could cripple some of the major institutions that have just emerged from a government bailout. Bank of America faces $12.9 billion in buyback requests, and mortgage insurers have asked for the documents on an additional $9.8 billion on which they may consider seeking repurchases, according to regulatory filings. (Bank of America has put aside $4.4 billion for buybacks, and CEO Brian T. Moynihan says the costs will be manageable.) "The Treasury is very aware that they can't push too hard on this because if you do push too hard it might put the companies in negative capital again," says Paul J. Miller, an analyst at FRB Capital Markets. "There's a lot of regulatory forbearance going on." A Point About FraudI have received several emails on the subject of fraud. Let me repeat something I have said many times because some seem to have missed it: I am well aware of the fraud issues and I hope those who committed fraud end up in prison.Regardless, fraud is not really what is driving this mortgage mess to the forefront. The Real BattleYves Smith at Naked Capitalism downplayed the takeback issue in More on Why the PIMCO, BlackRock, Freddie, NY Fed Letter to Countrywide on Putbacks Is Way Overhyped. I see it differently. We have already seen banks forced to do things at "Bazooka Point", and the fact that the NY Fed is involved in one suit against BofA tells me that something will happen. More than likely a determination of who can afford to take what losses will be factored into any settlement. If so, some big, but not necessarily lethal bank losses are coming. The fight now is how to allocate those losses. This is not an insignificant fight and I expect a "negotiated at bazooka point" solution that no one will be particularly happy with. A Look at Proposed SolutionsThe article dives into solutions, most of which simply do not work. Harry Reid SolutionOne option, opposed by the Obama Administration and most Republicans in Congress but favored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and others, is a national moratorium on foreclosures. It would last until regulators assure themselves that lenders have straightened out their foreclosure procedures. This option kicks the can down the road, does nothing to alleviate the foreclosure mess, and adds to bank losses. In short it is hopelessly flawed, so flawed that even Obama will not go for it. Goodman SolutionGoodman, the Amherst Securities analyst, says banks need to reduce the principal that people owe on their homes so they have an incentive not to walk away. "Ignoring the fact that the borrower can and will default when it is his/her most economical solution is an expensive case of denial," Goodman writes. If the home whose mortgage was reduced happens to regain value, 50 percent of the appreciation would be taxed, she says. Meanwhile, to discourage people from sitting tight in homes while foreclosure proceedings drag on, she would have the government tax the benefit of living in the home rent-free. Reducing principal has one significant flaw. I discussed that flaw in Why Do Lenders Foreclose Rather Than Make Principal Modifications?The Seen and Unseen
Lawler answered the question with two questions, but there is another factor at play that is far more important. I am surprised he did not mention it.
Here's the real deal: If lenders gave loan modifications to everyone who was seriously underwater, it would openly invite everyone who was underwater to stop paying their mortgages.
Thus, while it may appear to make economic sense to work out a principal reduction (the easily seen effect suggests the lender would lose less by working out an arrangement than opting for foreclosure then having to unload it at fire sale prices), it is highly likely to be a losing strategy in the long run because it creates a moral hazard of opening inviting everyone who is underwater to stop paying their mortgages.
It is important for lenders to maintain as many consequences as they can (foreclosure is a serious consequence), or they will encourage everyone who is underwater to stop paying their mortgages. Principal reductions would be a mistake from this point of view.
It is always important to consider the seen and the unseen effects of an action. It's also important to note that principal writedowns would be an immediate hit to earnings. As for the idea to allow homeowners to participate in some of the appreciation, I have to ask why wouldn't they just walk and participate in all of it? I do not see many takers of such an option. As for taxing the benefit of living in the home rent-free, I am in favor of taxing the missed mortgage payment as ordinary income after some reasonable length of time. That might even assist the next option. Citibank SolutionCitiMortgage is testing an innovative alternative based on the legal procedure known as "deed in lieu of foreclosure." The owner turns the deed over to the bank without a fight if the bank promises not to foreclose, lets the family stay in the house after the agreement for six months, and gives relocation assistance. I like that solution. It helps those foreclosed on for a period of time and ensures the homeowner will not trash the place when they leave. The caveat here is for the homeowner to make sure they get a full release of all liabilities or someone may come after them down the road for deficiencies. Please see Before Walking Away Consult An Attorney for problems pertaining to deficiencies. Harvard Economist Edward Glaeser SolutionOther ideas: In a New York Times blog post on Oct. 19, Harvard University economist Edward Glaeser suggested federal assistance to overwhelmed state and local courts, as well as $2,000 vouchers for legal assistance to low-income families that can't afford to fight foreclosures.
Good grief. Delays add expenses. Giving taxpayer money to help people add further losses to the banking system is simply inane. Pervasive Sense of InjusticeThe article concludes ... Speed is essential. The longer it drags on, the more the foreclosure crisis corrodes Americans' faith in their financial and legal systems. A pervasive sense of injustice is bad for the economy and democracy as well. Take Joe Lents. The Boca Raton homeowner hasn't made a mortgage payment since 2002, but he perceives himself as a victim. "I want to expose these guys for what they're doing," Lents says. "It's personal now." By the way, the article points out " Joseph Lents was accused of securities law violations by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Facing a little over $100,000 in fines and fees, and with his assets frozen by the SEC, Lents stopped making payments on his $1.5 million mortgage." Note that all of this happened because of securities law violations, before robo-fraud, before the big securitizations mess, etc. These isolated cases get lots of media attention, but the odds are overwhelming that anyone who tries that now will lose their house. There have been millions of foreclosures, how many cases like this are there? Joseph Lents is no hero. He is a model for everything that is wrong with the system, on both sides of the equation. He is also a perfect example as to why we need to clear the foreclosure backlog. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List 
|
| Obamacare Career Ending Votes; Republican Chance to Win Senate; Expect House Blowout; Stimulus Appetite Greatly Diminished Posted: 21 Oct 2010 09:49 AM PDT The public is still angered over Obamacare so much so that Dems Find Careers Threatened by Obamacare VotesSeven months ago, Speaker Nancy Pelosi spent a busy week rounding up votes to pass the Senate version of the Democrats' health care legislation.
It wasn't easy. She had to get Democrats who had voted no in November to switch to yes in March. And she had to get Democrats who had refused to vote for the bill in November without an anti-abortion amendment to vote for a bill in March that lacked that language.
What about the districts of the House Democrats who cast the key votes that made Obamacare law? So how are they doing?
Take Betsy Markey of Colorado 4, who in 2008 beat a Republican who seemed fixated on the same-sex marriage issue. Markey cast a late-in-the-roll-call no in November, then publicly switched to yes in the week before the March 21 roll call. She's currently trailing Republican Cory Gardiner by an average of 44 to 39 percent in three polls.
Consider John Boccieri of Ohio 16, who switched from no to yes in a TV press conference in which he said the bill would do great things for his constituents. Boccieri's district was represented by Republicans for 58 years until he was elected in 2008. It looks like it will be again next year. In three polls, Republican Jim Renacci leads Boccieri by an average of 46 percent to 36 percent.
Then there is Suzanne Kosmas, a longtime real estate agent who beat a Republican with an ethics issue in 2008. She announced her switch from no to yes late in the week before the roll call. She's now running behind Republican Sandy Adams by an average of 47 percent to 40 percent in three recent polls.
To put these numbers in perspective, it's highly unusual for an incumbent House member to trail a challenger in any poll or to run significantly below 50 percent. But these three Democrats are running 5 to 10 points behind Republican challengers, and none tops 40 percent. The article notes that Bart Stupak of Michigan 1 opposed the original bill over an abortion clause along with 5 others known as the "Stupak Five". Bart switched his vote when Obama promised to take care of the abortion issue by presidential decree. Since then, Bart has graciously bowed out of the election and four of the other "Stupak Five" appear headed for losses. Republicans Have Chance to Win SenateRasmussen Reports says the Senate Balance of Power: Dems 48 GOP 47 Toss-Ups 5Current projections suggest that the Democrats would hold 48 seats after Election Day while the Republicans would hold 47. Five states are in the Toss-Up category (California, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, and Washington). All five Toss-Ups are seats currently held by Democrats.
Republicans have the edge in four Democratic-held Senate seats--Arkansas, Indiana, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania.
At the moment, no Republican-held seats appear headed for the Democratic column. In the "edge" category I think only Pennsylvania is in play. Real Clear Politics Battle For the Senate has a different take with Kentucky, Washington, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania in the tossup category. Of the Rasmusen tossups, I think Illinois, Nevada, and Colorado go to the Republicans. If the rest of those tossups go Democratic (accepting the Rasmussen starting point) we have a 50-50 tie. However, I am not sure if that is the right starting point. Thus a range of 48-51 for the Republicans seems about right, with a smaller chance 52-53 or 47. To pick a number I will go for 50-50. One thing is sure, this Senate will have a vastly different makeup and the Republicans (or Democrats) can filibuster any legislation they want. Most Voters Oppose the Reelection of Anyone Who Voted for the Health Care Law, Auto Bailouts, Stimulus PlanRasmussen poll says Most Voters Oppose the Reelection of Anyone Who Voted for the Health Care Law, Auto Bailouts, Stimulus PlanIncumbents, beware: The major votes you've cast in Congress over the past couple years appear likely to come back to haunt you this Election Day.
Forty-three percent (43%) of all Likely Voters say someone who voted for the health care law deserves to be reelected. Fifty percent (50%) oppose their reelection.
Thirty-six percent (36%) say if their local representative voted for the taxpayer bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler, he or she deserves to be returned to Congress. Fifty-three percent (53%) say that person does not deserve reelection.
Similarly, 41% say their representative in Congress should be reelected if he or she voted for the stimulus plan. But 50% don't see it that way and say the individual should not be reelected.
The partisan divide is predictable since virtually no congressional Republicans voted for any of these measures. So Democratic voters overwhelmingly think those in Congress who voted for them should be reelected, while Republicans feel just as strongly that they should not be reelected.
But, tellingly, voters not affiliated with either party also feel strongly that supporters of the health care law, the auto bailouts and the stimulus should not be returned to Congress.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that most Likely Voters think their representative in Congress does not deserve reelection if he or she voted for the national health care law, the auto bailouts or the $787-billion economic stimulus plan.
Those votes also appear to be driving factors in the GOP's consistent lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot. Independents are the key to this election and independents have abandoned Obama and the Democrats in droves. House BlowoutBy now it should be clear that Democrats are going to get pounded in House elections. Real Clear Politics shows the Battle for the House to be 180 Democrat, 214 Republican, and 41 Tossups. The current makeup is 255 Democrat, 178 Republican, and 2 vacancies. My prediction GOP +50. That would make it 228 Republican, 207 Democrat, an enormous change from the current setup. If so, Obama will not be able to pass much of anything. From what we have seen so far, that would be a good thing. Once again, I want to point out I am not a Republican, but rather an independent with strongly Libertarian views. Lame Duck Session PushIn the lame duck session, there may be one more push for cap-and-trade, but probably not. However, there will likely be another Democratic push for forced collective bargaining and open union voting. Hopefully the Republicans block those expected attempts because more public unions and public union power is is the last thing the country needs. Appetite for Stimulus Greatly DiminishedI am hoping we see some real fiscal conservative take over as happened in the UK, (see Keynesian Nonsense Falls Out of Favor in UK - Thank God!), but I would certainly not count on that. Nonetheless, the new Congressional makeup suggests the appetite for stimulus, bailouts, and large projects will be greatly reduced. If so, that would not be a good thing, but a great thing. The US needs to get its fiscal act together, and there is no better time than now. Since some are bound to say it simply does not matter who wins the election. However, I strongly disagree. For details please see Gold Market on U.S. Elections: So What?
Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List 
|
| Severe, Life-changing, and Consciousness-Altering State Budget Cuts Coming Posted: 21 Oct 2010 12:40 AM PDT My friend "BC" pinged me with some interesting employment stats regarding the state of Oregon that apply in varying degrees to every state in the union, and arguably most countries in the world. "BC" Writes .... OR total payroll employment has not grown in 11 years, which is not unlike most of the rest of the US.
However, adjusting for OR population growth, payroll employment is back to the level of the early '90s.
But it's worse than that. Private payrolls are back to the level of '97, and adjusting for population there are fewer private payroll jobs per capita than the late '80s to early '90s.
And gov't payrolls over the past two decades have grown at twice the population/labor force growth rate.
Total OR employment is back to the levels of '04-'05 and '99-'00; however, adjusted for population/labor force growth, employment is down 10% from '00 and down 3.1% from '90.
Now that local and state employment is necessarily being cut along with no growth or continuing contraction of private payrolls, and were OR gov't payrolls to converge with the differential rate of growth to private payrolls and population/labor force growth, OR gov't payrolls will be cut by 30-31% over the coming decade, implying further a similar cut in local and state budgets.
Extrapolating further at the trend rate of population growth, the per-capita reduction in gov't payrolls and spending will be around 40%, matching what is likely to be the same decline per capita in oil production/consumption, bank lending (and overall value of US assets), and US GDP (and states' GSP) that otherwise would have occurred from the '00 peak rate had the long-term trend rate occurred.
Japan, parts of continental EU, and the UK and Ireland are moving, or soon inevitably will move, in this direction of public spending cuts with the predictable implications for household incomes, increasing household economic hardship, and social discontent/unrest. (Gov't spending cuts will not have a sustained stimulative effect on the private sector, however, as the gov't spending cuts are occurring because the private sector is not growing or contracting, and the cost of existing gov't as a share of the private sector will not fall much, if at all, especially if taxes are raised and net interest per receipts and per private GDP continue high or increase.)
Needless to say, the consequences for such a decline in overall private and public economic (or uneconomic) activity will be severe, life-changing, and consciousness-altering. The above comments stem from an analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Oregon Economy at a Glance statistics. Debt Overhang and Civilian Employment Population RatioThe following chart civilian employment-population ratio has declined to a point last seen in the early 1980's.  That population group is now responsible for supporting not only their own personal debt obligations (much higher than at any point in history), but also the demands of public union benefits on top of social security and Medicare promises to retirees. This turn of events has been an enormous shock to the system yet most people have not recognized these demographic changes. Everyone is so used to upward progress that we have a very hard time imagining anything else. Pension System is BankruptThe public pension system is bankrupt at every level: city, county, state, and federal. We cannot afford the pension promises and benefits made to public union workers. I reported on one such example the other day. In case you missed it, please consider Chicago Pension Funds Selling Assets to Meet Obligations; Needs to Double Property Taxes; Current Liabilities of $41,966 per Household. Pension plans in general are at least $3 trillion in the hole. Changing demographics seal the fate. Few are prepared for the sacrifices that must be made to bring the system back into fiscal soundness. Unfortunately, Keynesian clowns think government can spend our way to prosperity. It cannot and will not happen. We need to reduce government spending, not increase it. UK Leads the Way with Massive Public Sector CutsI talked about public sector cuts in the UK and public union strife in France yesterday in French Strikes Reach 7th Day; Japanese Economy at Standstill; China Hikes Interest Rates; Leaked Docs say 10% of UK Public Sector Workers to be FiredToday the New York Times discusses the UK at great length in Britain Details Radical Cuts in Spending, Citing DebtThe British government on Wednesday unveiled the country's steepest public spending cuts in more than 60 years, reducing costs in government departments by an average of 19 percent, sharply curtailing welfare benefits, raising the retirement age to 66 by 2020 and eliminating hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs in an effort to bring down the bloated budget deficit.
"There's a growing acceptance and public awareness that this is necessary, that these measures are needed," Helen Cleary, deputy political director for the Ipsos Mori polltakers, said in an interview. "But I don't think people will really understand what it all means until the cuts start to bite."
Mr. Osborne said that 490,000 public sector jobs would be lost over the next four years, some to attrition. At the same time, payments to the long-term unemployed who fail to seek jobs would be cut, he said, saving $11 billion a year. Additionally, he said, a new 12-month limit would be imposed on long-term jobless benefits, and that measures would be taken to curb benefit fraud.
Britain has about six million public-sector jobs, about one fifth of all jobs in the economy, according to the Office for National Statistics. Nobel Prize Winning FoolsOne quick look at the demographics in both the united states and the UK show the present path is not sustainable and the system is bankrupt. Yet noble prize winning economists like Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz cannot seem to grasp the simple reality of the situation. Economist Joseph E. Stiglitz argued that the government's plan was "a gamble with almost no potential upside" and that it would lead to lower growth, lower demand, lower tax revenues, a deterioration of skills among the unemployed and an even higher national debt.
"We cannot afford austerity now," he wrote in The Guardian newspaper. "Austerity converts downturns into recessions, recessions into depressions. The confidence fairy that the austerity advocates claim will appear almost never does, partly because the downturns mean that deficit reductions are always smaller than was hoped." Every day I ask myself how allegedly brilliant economists cannot see that continuing down the current path will lead to a situation like we recently saw in Greece. It is impossible to spend one's way out of a mess then the problem is unsustainable spending. For more on "Brilliant Idiots" please see Keynesian Nonsense Falls Out of Favor in UK - Thank God!None of these Keynesian fools ever address the question as to what happens when the stimulus is cut off. None of them can see that Japan has proven in spades that neither Keynesian nor Monetarist solutions did anything for Japan but increase debt. Unavoidable PathMy friend "BC" has it correct: " The consequences for such a decline in overall private and public economic (or uneconomic) activity will be severe, life-changing, and consciousness-altering. " However, the unfortunate reality of this economic mess is doing nothing or worse yet listening to Keynesian clowns will only make matters worse later. We know that by because ... - We have reaped the rewards of putting off the inevitable once too many times already. The Housing bubble and debt collapse is proof enough of what happens.
- Greece shows what happens when government spending runs amuck
- Japan has proven that all you get from Keynesian and Monetarist spending is more debt. Japan has squandered decades of trade surpluses building bridges to nowhere. As soon as interest rates in Japan turn up Japan will be bankrupt.
Yet "brilliant idiots" want to go back to the well "one more time" hoping the system will right itself by more spending even though it should be perfectly obvious that mathematically, demographically, and in actual historic practice, that more government spending cannot possibly work. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List 
|
Postări
