Archive

Archive for December, 2009

Chase Told Me If We Miss One More Payment, They’ll Have To Foreclose

December 22nd, 2009

We tried to get a loan modification but were told by the bank we make too much money. We have missed 3 payments due to taxes, insurance and medical expenses. My husband has been on State Disability since January 2009. His State Disability will end in January 2010. He has already been approved for SSI and at this point he will get $763 per month until he has documention his SDI has ended. At that time we hope that his SSI payment will increase. As of December 23rd I will be unemployed because the company I work for is closing. I will apply for unemployment benefits. We were told by the collection department at Chase that if we misssed a 4th payment they would start the foreclosure process. How will each of the following affect! our State and Federal taxes? 1. foreclousure 2. short sale

Chris Miscellaneous

Company Wants To Buy My Home In A Short Sale and Then Sell It Back To Me!

December 22nd, 2009

I am about to go into a shortsell with a company called *********. What they do is I short sell to them, and they find out what my home is worth in today’s market. Than they go to my Mortgage Co and negotiate to buy it from them lower than market value and then sell it back to me. Their fee is a flat fee of $30,000. They take that fee and ad it to the end of the new loan. Then they ask 10 % up front for their work and cary the loan for 5 years. I am 60 yrs and I want to retire at 62. What should I do with new loan? Should I get out or stay? PS I don’t have the 10% to give them. Thank You

Chris Miscellaneous

3Q Numbers Released Today On Foreclosure Prevention Efforts

December 22nd, 2009

Press Releases
December 21, 2009
OTS 09-073 - OCC and OTS Release Mortgage Metrics Report for Third Quarter 2009
Joint Release

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Office of Thrift Supervision

For Immediate Release
December 21, 2009

——————————————————————————–

WASHINGTON — National bank and thrift servicers implemented more than 680,000 home loan modifications and payment plans in the third quarter of 2009 to avoid preventable foreclosures, according to a report released today by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision.

The OCC and OTS Mortgage Metrics Report for the Third Quarter 2009 showed that the number represented a nearly 69 percent increase in home retention actions from the previous quarter.

Despite progress in this area, the percentage of current and performing mortgages dropped for the sixth consecutive quarter to 87 percent of the servicing portfolio, serious delinquencies rose to 6.2 percent, and foreclosures in process surpassed 1 million mortgages, or about 3.2 percent of the servicing portfolio. Of particular note was the deterioration among prime mortgages, the largest category of mortgages. Serious delinquencies at the end of the third quarter increased to 3.6 percent of prime mortgages, up almost 20 percent from the previous quarter and more than double a year ago.

Although the volume of home retention actions increased in the third quarter and the most recent vintage of loan modifications had lower early re-default rates than older vintages, modified loans continued to re-default at high rates overall. More than half of all modified loans re-defaulted within six months of modification, with re-default defined as 60 or more days delinquent or in foreclosure.

Servicers implemented almost 274,000 trial plans under the Administration’s “Home Affordable Modification Program” (HAMP) during the quarter. They also assisted homeowners by providing more than 406,000 other home retention actions—loan modifications, trial plans, and payment plans—outside of HAMP that required no taxpayer-supported incentives.

Servicers implemented nearly twice as many home retention actions as new foreclosures and, for every two homes lost in foreclosure sales, servicers provided opportunities for nine other families to keep their homes through new home retention actions.

More than 80 percent of the loan modifications in the third quarter reduced monthly principal and interest payments.

The complete report can be downloaded from the OCC and OTS Web sites, www.occ.gov and www.ots.gov.

Chris Miscellaneous

Michigan’s Ross School of Business Say’s Politics A Factor in TARP

December 22nd, 2009

ANN ARBOR, Mich. — Banks with strong political connections were more likely to receive bailout money from the government — and more of it — in the past year than those with weaker ties, say Ross researchers.

A new study by Ross professors Ran Duchin and Denis Sosyura found that banks with connections to members of congressional finance committees and banks whose executives served on Federal Reserve boards were more likely to receive funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the federal government’s program to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector.

Further, their research shows that TARP investment amounts were positively related to banks’ political contributions and lobbying expenditures, and that, overall, the effect of political influence was strongest for poorly performing banks.

“Our results show that political connections play an important role in a firm’s access to capital,” said Sosyura, assistant professor of finance. “The effects of political ties on federal capital investment are strongest for companies with weaker fundamentals, lower liquidity and poorer performance — which suggests that political ties shift capital allocation towards underperforming institutions.”

In their study, Duchin and Sosyura focused on the Capital Purchase Program, the largest TARP initiative in terms of the number of participants and the amount of expended capital. As of late September, nearly 700 financial institutions had received about $205 billion under the program.

The researchers used four variables to measure political influence: 1) seats held by bank executives on the board of directors at any of the 12 Federal Reserve banks or their branches (the Federal Reserve is involved in the initial review of CPP applications from the majority of qualified banks); 2) banks with headquarters located in the district of a U.S. House member serving on the Congressional Committee on Financial Services or its subcommittees on Financial Institutions and Capital Markets (which played a major role in the development of TARP and its amendments); 3) banks’ campaign contributions to congressional candidates; and 4) banks’ lobbying expenditures.

They found that a board seat at a Federal Reserve Bank was associated with a 31 percent increase in the likelihood of receiving CPP funds, while a bank’s connection to a House member on key finance committees was associated with a 26 percent increase, controlling for other bank characteristics such as size and various financial indicators.

“Our findings also suggest that qualified financial institutions were more likely to receive an investment from CPP if they were bigger and had lower earnings and lower capital,” said Duchin, U-M assistant professor of finance. “This is consistent with an investment strategy seeking to support systematically important institutions experiencing financial distress.”

In addition, the study found the amount of CPP investments was strongly related to banks’ political contributions and lobbying expenditures. A one standard-deviation increase in political contributions to congressional candidates was associated with a $14.6 million increase in allotted CPP funds, while a one standard-deviation increase in lobbying amounts was associated with an additional $10.4 million in CPP funds.

Duchin and Sosyura say the amount of CPP investments was negatively related to capital adequacy, earnings and liquidity, and positively related to bank size.

“Collectively, these findings are consistent with an investment strategy seeking to increase the capitalization and liquidity of participating banks to an adequate level, but also highlight the importance of political connections in the choice of federal investments,” Sosyura said.

Chris Miscellaneous

According to American Banker Article

December 22nd, 2009

Of the portfolio loans, 41.7% re-defaulted after a year while 65.9% of government-guaranteed loans re-defaulted after a year and 61.3% of private loans re-defaulted after a year.

 

These numbers are actually trending better due to slightly better modification offers presented to consumers.  However, principle reduction remains the most talked about positive way to obtain true modifications that will last.

Chris Miscellaneous

Borrower Unclear If Home Was Foreclosed On

December 22nd, 2009

The bank issued a sale date of 12/07/2009. When I called the bank to follow up on 12/09/2009, I was told the home did not sell so there fore would revert back to the bank. When I asked for clarification they simply stated the house would know belong to the bank and I would receive all the paper work in the mail. 12/21/2009 I received a mortgage statement with my regular mortgage payment request along with year end information. 1 - If the house did not sell do I still have an opportunity to take other action or am I living in someelse’s home? 2 - What notifications should I be expecting next, since I have still to hear from the bank?

Chris Miscellaneous

Simon Johnson Is One Of My Favorites

December 19th, 2009

Here, in its entirety, is one of Simon Johnsons recent post. So you know, Simon is not only witty, but very, very smart and very well respected. He is a Economic Professor at MIT’s Sloan School of Business Management and worht paying attention to;

“It’s Certainly Not For A Lack Of Effort”

The fundamental divide in opinion regarding our financial system is: Are the people running “large integrated financial groups“ hapless fools, buffeted by forces beyond their comprehension and control; or do they know exactly how to ensure they get the upside and the awful, sickening downside is borne by society – including through high unemployment.

Some light was shed on this issue by Monday’s meeting at the White House or, more specifically, by who didn’t turn up and why. Of the dozen bank CEOs invited, Vikram Pandit was supposedly busy trying to extricate Citi from TARP and asked Dick Parsons to attend instead – a wimpy but smart move, as Parsons is close to the President.

However, three executives – Lloyd Blankfein, John Mack, and Dick Parsons himself – did not show up in person and had to join by conference call. Their excuse was bad weather (fog) in DC meant that they were able to fly in; Mack was quoted as saying, regarding their absence, “It’s certainly not for a lack of effort“.

But really there are three possible interpretations:
1.Pure bad luck. This happens to us all; even the best laid plans are for nought sometimes.
2.Bad management by the executives and their logistic teams – who are ordinarily the best of the best.
3.Wilful defiance of the government which, while not premeditated in this instance, means that the executives grabbed an opportunity to show disrespect and relative power.
We don’t know all the facts of how these executives planned to travel or exactly their routes on Monday morning – and I would be happy to be corrected on any details – but here’s what we can readily construct from the public record. (We do know they didn’t try to come down Sunday evening, because that would have worked.)

President Obama held a press briefing after his meeting with the bankers, starting at 12:36pm. The meeting itself lasted a bit over an hour. As we all like to start meetings, particularly important meetings, on round numbers, it seems fair to assume that the appointment at the White House was for 11am. Even VIPs need some time to clear security, so let’s assume that the CEOs were asked to arrive by 10:30am.

All three of the missing bankers were apparently coming from New York. There are many ways to make the flight, but US Airways is among the most reliable – flying from LaGuardia to National Airport, every hour on the hour, from 6am. The flight takes just over an hour, it’s easier to get to LaGuardia from Manhattan before 7am, and delays are common at LGA as air traffic builds up over the east coast. Any conservative banker, who really did not want to be the only person missing a meeting with the president, would aim for the 7am shuttle – putting him on the tarmac in DC at 8:10am, with a comfortable time cushion (and an opportunity to have coffee with his chief lobbyist).

There was thick fog in DC on Monday morning, but this did not descend in a matter of seconds during rush hour – it was evident already by 5am. Corporate jets could get through (Jamie Dimon came that way), but let’s limit ourselves to public transportation – remember that the Acela train service is not generally slowed by fog and on Monday ran almost on time.

So the question becomes: At what point did the CEO realize that there was a fog issue, and was there still time to come by train? The Acela leaves Penn Station every hour on the hour, with the 7am train getting to DC at 9:49am and the 8am arriving at 10:49am.

We can rule out explanation #1 (bad luck). These are experienced people who travel all the time, with first class support staff, and they are supposed to be the best in the timely information business. These executives don’t generally wander around airports trying to puzzle out flight information displays.

Is explanation #2 possible (bad management)? It is possible that at least one bank team wasn’t paying close attention and sent their boss to the airport for the 7am shuttle (although what are the odds that this would happen for 3 of our biggest and most dangerous banks?) An experienced traveller, who has checked in on-line, might aim to arrive at the airport at 6:30am – to discover the delays already in progress.

So then the question becomes: Can you get from LaGuardia to Penn station in 90 minutes early on a Monday morning? My experience is: Yes (if any New Yorkers know differently or if anyone saw John Mack pushing desperately through the crowds at Penn Station just before 8am Monday, please post or send that information in).

The implication is inescapable. These three bank executives did not plan on missing the meeting but, once they learned of the fog delay, they did not rush to the train station – which is what any other business traveller with a pressing commitment would have done.

These three executives – who were, in some sense, the primary audience for the president’s remarks – did not really want to attend. They do not see the need to show deference or even respect. They won big from the crisis and that is now behind them. As they move on (and up), there is nothing – in their view – that the executive branch can do to hold them back.

Even so, it wasn’t polite to behave in this fashion; showing disrespect to the President of the United States is always objectionable. But there is a pattern of behavior here, reflecting a deeper culture on Wall Street. This arrogance will eventually prove their undoing - no self-respecting White House can let this kind of repeated insult pass unaddressed.

By Simon Johnson

Chris Miscellaneous

Fannie Mae Say’s; No More Foreclosures Till Jan 3rd…

December 19th, 2009

Since I have not won the lotto here in California, I must refrain from writing what first came to mind when I read this News Release. Instead, here it is:

December 17, 2009

Fannie Mae Suspends Foreclosure Evictions

WASHINGTON, DC — Fannie Mae (FNM/NYSE) announced today that it is suspending all foreclosure evictions from December 19, 2009 through January 3, 2010. All owner-occupants and tenants living in foreclosed properties the company holds will not be subject to evictions during the holiday time frame. The company will also support the efforts of the servicers it works with that are taking similar actions.

“We’re taking this step in support of struggling families who have unfortunately found themselves facing foreclosure,” said Michael J. Williams, President and Chief Executive Officer. “No family should have to face the prospect of being evicted during the holiday season.”

Chris Miscellaneous

What Is Credit Bidding?

December 18th, 2009

The typical foreclosure sale involves a single bidder, the foreclosing lender, who acquires the property by “credit bidding” its debt.
By law, a foreclosure sale is a public auction of the property. The rights of the foreclosing lender prior to, during and following the foreclosure sale are governed by this concept of a public auction which is designed to bring the highest price for the property to satisfy the amount owed.

The foreclosing lender has the right to credit bid up to the full amount of its debt, including permitted foreclosure costs and attorney’s fees. All other bidders must bid in cash or a cash equivalent, such as cashier’s checks or checks drawn by a financial institution. The trustee holding the foreclosure may require each bidder to be “qualified” by showing the trustee his or her funds.
If the successful bidder is any party other than the foreclosing lender, the cash proceeds of the sale are paid first to the foreclosing lender up to the amount of its debt, including the costs of the sale, next to any junior lienholders to the extent of their debts, and any excess amounts to the borrower.

Chris Miscellaneous

At what point should a homeowner fire/ give-up on a modification lawyer?

December 17th, 2009

I am a realtor. A homeowner I know has been working on a mod. through a lawyer for 8+ months. First loan is through EMC. Lawyer claims original loan was illegal & grounds for modification. Home is a non-owner occupied rental. Homeowner is unemployed, but is living off of retirement account disbursements over $100K/year. Mortgages on rental has not been paid for nine months. NOD was filed 9/09. Reason to believe NOTS was just filed. I want to help the homeowner, please advise.

khseallen Miscellaneous