bankruptcy

Marketwatch…

WATERDOWN, ONTARIO–(Marketwire – Feb. 23, 2012) – Regulus Resources Inc. (“Regulus”) (TSX VENTURE:REG) and Pachamama Resources Ltd. (“Pachamama”, PMA TSX.V) are pleased to announce, further to the press release dated February 8, 2012, the signing of an arrangement agreement dated February 22, 2012 (the ” Arrangement Agreement “) that provides for a merger of the two companies (the ” Merger “). Regulus and Pachamama each own a 50% interest in the Rio Grande copper-gold porphyry project in Salta Province, Argentina.

See the original post here:
Regulus and Pachamama Announce Signing of Arrangement Agreement

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

Bookmark and Share

Marketwatch…

ENGLEWOOD, CO–(Marketwire – Feb 15, 2012) – DISH Network Corporation ( NASDAQ : DISH ) issued the following statement today regarding final bankruptcy court approval of TerreStar Networks’ reorganization plan:

Here is the original post:
DISH Network Statement on Bankruptcy Court Approval of TerreStar’s Reorganization

Find our Weekly Commercial Real Estate, Private Equity and Fund Newsletters at www.WeeklyBrief.net

Bookmark and Share

CDEX Inc. Commences Debt Restructuring to Strengthen Company’s Future Competitiveness

February 11, 2012

Will Continue to Operate Without Interruption

Read the full article →

Cougar Oil and Gas Canada Enters Into Creditor Protection Following Failure of Purchaser to Complete an Asset Acquisition

February 3, 2012

The Energy Resources and Conservation Board Shutting in Production for the Resulting Insufficient LMR Deposit Requirements

Read the full article →

Timminco Announces Extension of CCAA Stay Period

January 30, 2012

TORONTO, ONTARIO–(Marketwire – Jan. 30, 2012) – Timminco Limited (TSX:TIM) and its wholly-owned subsidiary Bécancour Silicon Inc. (collectively, the “Company”) announced that, at a motion heard on January 27, 2012, in connection with proceedings commenced by the Company under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA Proceeding”), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial Division) (the “Court”) has granted an order extending the CCAA stay of proceedings to April 30, 2012. The extension provides additional time for the Company to conduct a thorough marketing process for the sale of the business and assets of the Company, or for the sponsorship of a plan of arrangement in respect of the Company, subject to Court approval of such process.

Read the full article →

Video: Becker Says Delta, AMR Would Gain From a Merger

January 20, 2012

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — Helane Becker, an analyst at Dahlman Rose & Co., and Nancy Havens-Hasty, president of Havens Advisors LLC, talk about the bankruptcy and potential buyers of AMR Corp., the parent of American Airlines. They speak with Pimm Fox on Bloomberg Television’s “Taking Stock.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Ex-Marketing Chief Hayzlett Discusses Kodak Bankruptcy

January 20, 2012

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — Jeffrey Hayzlett, former chief marketing officer at Eastman Kodak Co., talks about Kodak’s filing for bankruptcy protection. The photography pioneer that introduced the Brownie Camera more than a century ago filed for bankruptcy after consumers embraced digital cameras. Hayzlett speaks with Cory Johnson on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Kodak to Emerge `Much Smaller’ From Bankrupcy

January 19, 2012

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — Don Strickland, a former vice president for digital imaging at Eastman Kodak Co., talks about the company’s bankruptcy filing. He speaks from Dallas with Andrea Catherwood on Bloomberg Television’s “Last Word.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Video: Kodak Files for Bankruptcy Amid End of Era for Film

January 19, 2012

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — Eastman Kodak Co., the photography pioneer that introduced its $1 Brownie Camera more than a century ago, filed for bankruptcy protection from creditors after consumers worldwide moved from film to digital technology. Olivia Sterns reports on Bloomberg Television’s “On the Move” with Owen Thomas.

Read the full article →

Process Capital News

November 23, 2011

TORONTO, ONTARIO–(Marketwire – Nov. 23, 2011) –

Read the full article →

Court Enters Order Restricting Trading in Stock or Options of Syms Corp

November 23, 2011

SECAUCUS, NJ–(Marketwire – Nov 23, 2011) – The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has entered an Order that imposes substantial restrictions on trading in equity interests (and the holding, creation or issuance of options in respect of equity interests) in Syms Corp. A copy of the Order may be found at the following internet address: http://kccllc.net/filenes ; questions regarding the Order may be directed to representatives of the debtors at the following telephone number: (877) 606-7510.

Read the full article →

Sterling Shoes Announces Extension of CCAA Order

November 18, 2011

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA–(Marketwire – Nov. 18, 2011) – Sterling Shoes Inc. (TSX:SSI) announces that today it and Sterling Shoes GP Inc. (general partner of Sterling Shoes Limited Partnership) (collectively, the “Company”) obtained an order (the “Order”) from the Supreme Court of British Columbia under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) (the “CCAA”) extending the stay of proceedings granted pursuant to the previously announced Initial Order obtained by the Company on October 21, 2011.

Read the full article →

Deans Knight Income Corporation Announces Normal Course Issuer Bid for Common Voting Shares

November 15, 2011

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA–(Marketwire – Nov. 15, 2011) – Deans Knight Income Corporation (the “Company”) (TSX:DNC) is pleased to announce that the Toronto Stock Exchange (“TSX”) has accepted the Company’s Notice of Intention to make a normal course issuer bid (the “NCIB”). Management of the Company believes that, from time to time, the market price of the common voting shares of the Company (“Common Shares”) may not fully reflect the underlying value of the Common Shares and that at such times the purchase of Common Shares would be in the best interests of the Company. Such purchases will increase the proportionate interest of, and may be advantageous to, all remaining shareholders.

Read the full article →

Desmarais Files a Notice of Intention Under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act

September 27, 2011

CALGARY, ALBERTA–(Marketwire – Sept. 26, 2011) – Desmarais Energy Corporation (TSX VENTURE:DES) (the ” Corporation ” or ” Desmarais “) announces that today it has filed with the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy a Notice of Intention to File a Proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (” BIA “). As a consequence of such filing, any and all recourses of the Corporation’s creditors are stayed for an initial period of thirty (30) days. Desmarais has taken this action in light of recent enforcement actions taken by its largest unsecured creditor, whereby that creditor has seized Desmarais’ cash balances, leaving Desmarais unable to meet its day to day obligations as they come due. Although this enforcement action and the underlying claim of the unsecured creditor is disputed by Desmarais, the Corporation has taken this action under the BIA as the most expeditious and economical manner of addressing the interests of its creditors and allowing it to carry on its operations. Desmarais expects to file a formal proposal under the BIA, setting forth a comprehensive plan for payment to Desmarais’ creditors in due course. This filing has been taken by Desmarais with the full support of its secured creditor. The trustee named in the notice of intention is Hardie & Kelly Inc., of Calgary, Alberta.

Read the full article →

Fortress Energy Inc. Announces CCAA Protection Extension and Continues to Dispute Its CRA Claim

May 30, 2011

CALGARY, ALBERTA–(Marketwire – May 30, 2011) – Fortress Energy Inc. (” Fortress ” or the ” Company “) (TSX:FEI) announced that its application to the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta for an Order under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Ac t (Canada) (” CCAA “) to extend its CCAA protection has been granted, allowing the Company to continue to prepare a plan of arrangement for its creditors if necessary, and staying all claims and actions against the Company and its assets. The extension under the Order granted will be in effect until June 30, 2011, at which time the matter will be reviewed by the Court.

Read the full article →

Video: Vaidya Says Toyota in Danger of Slipping Behind GM, VW

May 4, 2011

May 4 (Bloomberg) — Vivek Vaidya, automotive and transportation director at research company Frost & Sullivan, talks about the global auto industry. General Motors Co., less than two years after declaring bankruptcy, is poised to reclaim the global auto sales lead this year from Toyota Motor Corp., Japan’s automaker rattled by natural disasters and reports of slipping quality. Vaidya speaks from Singapore with Rishaad Salamat on Bloomberg Television’s “On the Move Asia.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

La Fabrique d’Images ferme ses portes

April 26, 2011

MONTRÉAL, QUÉBEC–(Marketwire – 26 avril 2011) – Après 39 ans d’existence, La Fabrique d’Images a été contrainte de mettre un terme à ses activités. Les quatre dernières années ont été particulièrement difficiles pour la production de commerciaux télévisés, notamment en raison de l’exode de la production vers Toronto, des ententes d’exclusivité de certaines agences publicitaires avec quelques maisons de production, et des réseaux de télévision qui produisent directement avec d’éminents annonceurs sans se soumettre aux normes de L’AQTIS (Alliance québécoise des techniciens de l’image et du son).

Read the full article →

Video: Zinterhofer Calls Dish’s Blockbuster Buy `Opportunistic’

April 8, 2011

April 8 (Bloomberg) — Eric Zinterhofer, founder of Searchlight Capital Partners, discusses the outlook for AT&T Inc.’s proposed purchase of Deutsche Telkom’s AG’s T-Mobile USA Inc. and Blockbuster Inc.’s bankruptcy sale to Dish Network Corp. Zinterhofer talks with Deirdre Bolton and Erik Schatzker on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack.” Robert Wolf, chairman of the Americas at UBS AG, also speaks. (Source: Bloomberg)

Read the full article →

Chantiers Davie conclut une entente d’exclusivité avec Fincantieri et DRS Technologies Canada

March 31, 2011

LÉVIS, QUÉBEC–(Marketwire – 31 mars 2011) – Chantiers Davie (« Davie » ou la «Société») a annoncé aujourd’hui qu’elle a conclu une entente d’exclusivité avec Fincantieri – Cantieri Navali Italiani (« Fincantieri ») et DRS Technologies Canada («DRS»), une entreprise de Finmeccanica, afin de négocier l’acquisition potentielle du chantier par le biais d’une entité détenue majoritairement par Fincantieri. Afin de poursuivre ce processus, Davie a obtenu une ordonnance de la Cour supérieure du Québec (la « Cour ») pour prolonger la période de suspension ordonnée par la Cour en vertu de la Loi sur les arrangements avec les créanciers du Canada (« LACC ») jusqu’au 19 mai 2011.

Read the full article →

Davie Yards Enters Into an Exclusivity Agreement With Fincantieri and DRS Technologies Canada

March 31, 2011

LÉVIS, QUÉBEC–(Marketwire – March 31, 2011) – Davie Yards (“Davie” or the “Corporation”) announced today that it has entered into an exclusivity agreement with Fincantieri – Cantieri Navali Italiani (“Fincantieri”) and DRS Technologies Canada (“DRS”), a Finmeccanica company, to negotiate the potential acquisition of the shipyard by an entity that will be majority-owned by Fincantieri. In order to continue this process, Davie has obtained an order from the Québec Superior Court (the “Court”) extending the stay of proceedings ordered by the Court to May 19, 2011, the whole pursuant to the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“CCAA”).

Read the full article →

AuRo Resources and White Gold Corporation to Enter Into Business Combination

March 9, 2011

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA–(Marketwire – March 9, 2011) – AuRo Resources Corp. (the “Company”) (TSX VENTURE:ARU) is pleased to announce that it has entered into a binding letter of intent to acquire all of the issued and outstanding securities (the “Target Shares”) of White Gold Corporation (“White Gold”), an arm’s length private Alberta corporation, engaged in gold exploration in Colombia, South America. The combined AuRo Resources and White Gold will possess a large and diverse strategic property portfolio of approximately 70,000 hectares within Colombia’s most prolific gold, silver and copper exploration and mining regions.

Read the full article →

ISE Assets Sold in Court-Approved Bankruptcy Sale

March 8, 2011

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA–(Marketwire – March 8, 2011) – ISE Limited (TSX:ISE) announced today that substantially all of the assets of its principal operating subsidiary, ISE Corporation (a California corporation), were recently sold to a group of purchasers unaffiliated with and unrelated to ISE or any of its directors, officers or stockholders, following a public auction and competitive bidding process overseen by the bankruptcy court presiding over ISE Corporation’s previously-disclosed bankruptcy case. The aggregate gross proceeds received by ISE Corporation pursuant to the winning auction bid were US$3,721,000. The bankruptcy court has approved the sale. Proceeds of the sale will be distributed pursuant to the priority scheme of the bankruptcy laws, subject to any further orders of the bankruptcy court. Generally, proceeds are applied first against bankruptcy administrative and priority expenses and the

Read the full article →

Canadian Lender Appoints Receiver Pursuant to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. (1985) ch. B-3

February 21, 2011

LAVAL, QUEBEC–(Marketwire – Feb. 21, 2011) – LAB Research Inc. (“LAB Research” or the “Company”) (TSX:LRI), a Canadian-based global non-clinical contract research organization, today announced that its main Canadian lender (the “Lender”) has obtained an Order from the Commercial Chamber of the Superior Court of Laval appointing Samson Belair Deloitte and Touche (“SBDT”) to act as Receiver pursuant to section 243 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act , R.S.C. (1985) ch. B-3 (the “Receiver Order”). Further to the Receiver Order, the remaining directors of the Company resigned and SBDT took control of the operations of the Company. According to the motion filed by the Lender in support of the Receiver Order, the Receiver intends to solicitate/entertain offers on the assets of the Company with a view to complete a transaction with a potential acquirer/investor in the best delay, preferably on a going c

Read the full article →

High River Provides an Update on the Bankruptcy Procedures of Prognoz Silver LLC

February 18, 2011

TORONTO, ONTARIO–(Marketwire – Feb. 18, 2011) – High River Gold Mines Ltd. (” High River ” or the ” Company “) (TSX:HRG) was informed that Prognoz Silver LLC (” Prognoz Silver “) repaid part of an outstanding debt due under the contract for exploration work on the Prognoz silver project to OJSC Buryatzoloto (” Buryatzoloto “). High River holds a 50% indirect interest in Prognoz Silver, which operates the Prognoz silver project in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Russia. The repaid amount was approximately US$18 million. Prognoz Silver’s debt originated from the inability of its shareholders, other than High River, to finance their share of expenditures at the Prognoz silver project.

Read the full article →

Updated: Borders Plans To Close 30% of its Stores

February 16, 2011

Borders Group Inc. a leading operator of book, music and movie superstores and mall-based bookstores, filed for bankruptcy reorganization this morning. Borders reported earlier this month that, as part of its refinancing efforts, it had delayed payments to its vendors. Subsequently, the company has been in discussions with vendors and landlords on restructuring its financing arrangements. [Editor’s Note:This story was updated at 11:30 am Wednesday…

Read the full article →

Updated: Borders Plans To Close 30% of its Stores

February 16, 2011

Borders Group Inc. a leading operator of book, music and movie superstores and mall-based bookstores, filed for bankruptcy reorganization this morning. Borders reported earlier this month that, as part of its refinancing efforts, it had delayed payments to its vendors. Subsequently, the company has been in discussions with vendors and landlords on restructuring its financing arrangements. [Editor’s Note:This story was updated at 11:30 am Wednesday…

Read the full article →

Updated: Borders Plans To Close 30% of its Stores

February 16, 2011

Borders Group Inc. a leading operator of book, music and movie superstores and mall-based bookstores, filed for bankruptcy reorganization this morning. Borders reported earlier this month that, as part of its refinancing efforts, it had delayed payments to its vendors. Subsequently, the company has been in discussions with vendors and landlords on restructuring its financing arrangements. [Editor’s Note:This story was updated at 11:30 am Wednesday…

Read the full article →

Dan Solin: Investing Charlie Sheen Style

February 16, 2011

Even die-hard Charlie Sheen fans must have been appalled at news reports that he asked a porn star to babysit his two young daughters. His ex-wife, Denise Richards, expressed the views of most of us when she twitted that “no adult film star will be babysitting our kids.” Don’t be too quick to criticize Mr. Sheen’s appalling judgment. Most of you are not doing any better when you pick an investment adviser. Jay Franklin brought home this point in a thoughtful recent blog. Mr. Franklin finds it odd that you would entrust your life savings to firms with a demonstrated history of ethical and moral (if not literal) bankruptcy. He supports this position with the following examples, which are a modest sampling of the indefensible conduct passing for another day at the office of significant players in the financial world: 1. Merrill Lynch paid $10 million to settle claims it used order flow from its customers to trade and profit for its own account ; 2. The Bank of New York allegedly overcharged a Virginia pension plan according to allegations in a complaint filed by the state. It is alleged to have done so by converting $12.5 million of pension money to Canadian dollars at the highest exchange rate and then passing on the proceeds to the pension plan at the lowest exchange rate, and (of course) pocketing the difference. A very slick move, if proven. 3. Similar allegations against Bank of New York are being investigated by the Florida state pension plan. California has commenced its own investigation into foreign currency practices of State Street. The defendants deny all charges. 4. J.P. Morgan must be one of the few winners who dealt with Bernie Madoff. It quietly withdrew $276 million in profits shortly below Madoff’s collapse. It is now the defendant in a $6.4 billion lawsuit, filed by the tenacious trustee for the Madoff mess. The lawsuit alleges that J.P. Morgan was “thoroughly complicit” in Madoff’s fraud. J.P. Morgan denies the allegations. I join Mr. Franklin in wondering why investors deal with firms that have conducted business in this manner. It should be enough that they lack the ability to intelligently manage money (their own or others). You would think the total lack of a moral compass — standing alone — would cause you to flee from their offices. There is no evidence this is happening. Before you judge Mr. Sheen, take a hard look at the way you invest. You may find your judgment is no better than his. The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog.

Read the full article →

Federal Budget Proposal Reflects Record-Low Tax Revenue

February 14, 2011

As President Barack Obama unveils his plan for the coming year’s federal budget, he confronts a revenue stream that is the weakest its been in decades. With the recession’s legacy dragging down payrolls and with a federal deficit ballooning, the Obama administration is trying to accomplish two difficult tasks: jump-starting economic growth while simultaneously cutting spending. Federal tax revenue, measured as a percentage of economic output, is the lowest it has been since the mid-1970s, according to a new report from Credit Suisse. That figure, 15.1 percent, is slightly recovered from what it was during the recession, but it’s still more than two percentage points below the 50-year average of 17.5 percent. In mid-2009, when the economy had been shrinking, tax revenue was the lowest it had been in at least half a century. “There were very severe job losses and income losses associated with the recession,” said Neal Soss, chief economist at Credit Suisse and an author of the report. “If you don’t have income, then you don’t have tax revenues.” Obama’s proposed budget, which outlines cuts to programs that help the working poor and the middle class, reflects a move to trim the federal deficit, which has reached a record high. Currently, federal expenditures outpace revenue by more than $1.3 trillion. The White House expects that figure to increase beyond $1.5 trillion in the coming year. The nation cannot simply grow its way out of debt, Atlanta Fed president Dennis Lockhart said last week, according to Reuters. As the government continues to borrow money to pay for its obligations, lawmakers and economists worry that accumulating too much debt could harm the economy. “What I am concerned about is the structural imbalance between taxes and spending, which means the U.S. government is out there borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars every year,” said Gus Faucher, an economist at Moody’s Analytics. If interest rates rise, he added, “it’s going to make the government’s problem even worse.” Much of the tax drought stems directly from the recession. On the state and local level, the real estate slump has strained government budgets, as property tax collection in some cases has fallen. In cities across the nation, governments have had to slash spending to compensate. But on the federal level, it’s the jobs crisis that has taken a devastating toll on revenue. As nine percent of the workforce is unemployed, and as millions more workers have given up looking for jobs, fewer employees are paying personal income taxes. Since the December 2007 peak in revenue, this taxpayer base has dropped by about 7 million workers, the Credit Suisse report notes. Moreover, a drop in personal tax revenue accounts for about two-thirds of the total decline in tax revenue since the recent peak. “The economy is a lot smaller than it ought to be, given the capacity to produce,” said Gary Burtless, a former Labor Department economist and a current fellow at the Brookings Institution, in Washington. “There’s an automatic decline in the revenues going to the federal government.” Even as some sectors of the economy show signs of recovery, U.S. companies have demonstrated continued reluctance to hire workers. Apparently padding their defenses against future losses, corporations are hoarding cash to a historic degree. In the third quarter of last year, corporations increased their cash holdings 7.3 percent, setting a new record with $1.9 trillion in liquid assets, according to Federal Reserve data. Relative to their short-term liabilities, U.S. corporations haven’t been sitting on this much cash since 1956. In a speech this month before the Chamber of Commerce , the nation’s most powerful business lobby, president Obama urged the business world to use that money to increase payrolls, encouraging businesses to “get in the game.” Coupled with a lackluster employment situation, the recent series of tax cuts has further eroded revenue. After two pieces of tax cut legislation were passed during George W. Bush’s first term as president, Americans received a tax rebate in 2008. Under president Obama, most Americans saw their taxes shrink in 2009, and again in 2010. In less than a decade, a budget surplus turned into a trillion-dollar deficit. These tax cuts inflicted a revenue drop that was “above and beyond those tax reductions that would have occurred just because the economy shrank,” Burtless said. With the economy in the grips of recession, dwindling corporate revenues also affected federal tax income. Wounded bottom lines translated into depreciated taxes, contributing about 28 percent of the drop in tax revenue, the Credit Suisse report notes. As the economy recovers, these sources of revenue will likely improve. But a robust economy on its own might not be enough to resolve the deficit. “The long-term budget problems require massive spending cuts. There’s no other way around them,” Glen Hubbard, dean of Columbia University Business School, said. “You couldn’t raise taxes enough to cover that, without completely killing the economy.”

Read the full article →

Former IndyMac Execs Charged With Fraud By SEC

February 13, 2011

WASHINGTON — Federal regulators filed civil fraud charges Friday against three former executives of the parent of IndyMac Bank, accusing them of misleading investors about the mortgage lender’s finances before it collapsed in July 2008. The Securities and Exchange Commission announced the charges against Michael Perry, former chief executive of Pasadena, Calif.-based IndyMac Bancorp, and former chief financial officers, Scott Keys and Blair Abernathy. Abernathy agreed to settle, paying a $100,000 fine and $26,592 in restitution plus interest. In addition, Abernathy will be barred from practicing as an accountant for any public company for two years; after that time he can apply to be reinstated. He neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing but did agree to refrain from future violations of the securities laws. Perry and Keys, through their lawyers, disputed the charges pending against them and said they will contest them in court. The SEC said the three executives took part in filing false and misleading public reports about the financial stability of IndyMac Bank and the holding company, which filed for bankruptcy protection after the bank failed. Perry, Keys and Abernathy regularly received reports in 2007 and 2008 about the deteriorating finances but failed to ensure adequate disclosure of the condition to investors even as IndyMac Bancorp sold millions of dollars in new stock, the SEC alleged. “These corporate executives made false and misleading disclosures about IndyMac at a time when the company’s financial condition was rapidly deteriorating,” Lorin Reisner, deputy director of the SEC’s enforcement division, said in a statement. The collapse and seizure by the government of IndyMac Bank, with about $30.2 billion in assets, was one of the biggest bank failures in U.S. history. It also was the costliest failure in the current wave for the federal deposit insurance fund, with an estimated loss of $12.7 billion. IndyMac Bancorp’s bankruptcy filing also was one of the largest on record. Perry’s lawyer, Jean Veta, called the SEC’s lawsuit “completely meritless.” “It represents the worst kind of Monday-morning quarterbacking of business decisions,” Veta said in a statement. “Mr. Perry did nothing wrong, and he looks forward to proving it in court.” “At the same time that the SEC claims Mr. Perry intentionally failed to disclose certain obscure details to investors, Mr. Perry was investing millions of dollars of his own money in IndyMac stock,” Veta said. “He believed in IndyMac and did not sell a single share of IndyMac stock since 2005.” Keys’ attorney, Gregory Bruch, said “Scott Keys did not defraud anybody; Scott Keys did not make any money during this period at IndyMac.” Nor did he sell any stock, Bruch said. He said Keys “didn’t mislead anyone.” “There were no rosy projections in February 2008,” he said.

Read the full article →

Odyssey Petroleum Corp.: Corporate Update

February 10, 2011

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA–(Marketwire – Feb. 10, 2011) – Odyssey Petroleum Corp. (TSX VENTURE:ODE)(FRANKFURT:YQN) has made a final application to the TSX Venture Exchange and is waiting for its acceptance for reinstatement to trading. Upon confirmation from the Exchange that ODE may resume trading, as announced in ODE’s Press Release dated January 21, 2011 the Company intends to continue preparation of required documentation to consolidate its share capital on a 20:1 basis, and to change its name to Petrichor Energy Inc., subject to receipt of regulatory acceptance. A further News Release will be disseminated once regulatory approval has been received and an Effective Date has been set.

Read the full article →

Odyssey Petroleum Corp.: Corporate Update

February 10, 2011

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA–(Marketwire – Feb. 10, 2011) – Odyssey Petroleum Corp. (TSX VENTURE:ODE)(FRANKFURT:YQN) has made a final application to the TSX Venture Exchange and is waiting for its acceptance for reinstatement to trading. Upon confirmation from the Exchange that ODE may resume trading, as announced in ODE’s Press Release dated January 21, 2011 the Company intends to continue preparation of required documentation to consolidate its share capital on a 20:1 basis, and to change its name to Petrichor Energy Inc., subject to receipt of regulatory acceptance. A further News Release will be disseminated once regulatory approval has been received and an Effective Date has been set.

Read the full article →

Retail Watch: Ultimate Electronics Decides To Press Delete Button

February 10, 2011

Ultimate Acquisition Partners LP, the parent company of retailer Ultimate Electronics, has hired Gordon Brothers Retail Partners as consultant for the liquidation of its stores as part of its Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization. The company plans to begin closing sales immediately at all 46 of its stores. Prior to the commencement of its bankruptcy case late last month, Ultimate Electronics said it faced a variety of negative factors including…

Read the full article →

Dr. Philip Neches: Resolving the Mortgage Mess

February 8, 2011

Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) announced last Friday that they were creating a new subsidiary, Legacy Asset Servicing, to handle their 1.3 million troubled mortgages. They hoped that their announcement would get buried under the snow — and news about Egypt and the Super Bowl. Their wish seems to have come true. What does this move really mean? Permit me a somewhat cynical view, based on sad personal experience with corporate bankruptcy — as a director and investor. Usually, the hardest part in a bankruptcy is for the broke party to recognize the situation, much less admit to it. Every bankruptcy candidate bitterly resists even thinking about the process. You would think that near or actual catastrophe would overcome this reluctance. But that is a logical, not a human, analysis. BAC, like all of its fellow large banks, still cannot admit publicly the magnitude of their problems and how close to ultimate disaster they came in the fall of 2008. Most corporate bankruptcies start by trying a process known as reorganization under Chapter 11, after the part of the bankruptcy law involved. The company tries to make a plan that lets it continue in business, and gets temporary financing and relief from some of its obligations under the supervision of the bankruptcy court. During Chapter 11, the company has three goals: fix the problems that got it in trouble, stabilize its operations, and reposition itself to be a going concern after it emerges from the bankruptcy process. The TARP process was the equivalent of Chapter 11, with the Federal Reserve and the Treasury acting as both the “debtor in possession” lender and the bankruptcy judge. When put that way, the flaw in the idea becomes immediately obvious: the roles of lender and supervisor are inherently in conflict with each other. The lender, seeking to minimize its risks, pushes for strict controls over the operation of the bankrupt party; the supervisor has to balance the demands of all parties, including other creditors, employees, customers, and public. TARP clearly succeeded at one of the three goals of Chapter 11: stabilize operations. It did not, however, achieve the other two goals: fix the problems and reposition for the future. While the banks and the administration would like to declare success and move on, no bankruptcy judge would discharge the case at this point. Often, Chapter 11 does not succeed: the problems are too big and there is not enough time, money, and good will available. Could this be the case with BAC? Here’s a back-of-the-envelope analysis. Suppose that the average balance of the 1.3 million troubled loans is $200,000. Suppose that the best that can be done is to realize 50% of the nominal value of the loan. Suppose that every one of the remaining 13 million mortgages is perfectly good. Do the math, and that comes to a loss of $130 billion, just a whisker short of BAC’s $144 billion market capitalization. So what is this about? It could be the process of liquidation, which if it were done in bankruptcy court would be called Chapter 7 (again after the statutes involved). Chapter 7 is a complex set of rules, but it boils down to a few steps: Step 1: separate good assets and obligations from bad ones. Step 2: sell the good items for as much as possible. Step 3: write the rest down to zero. Step 4: disburse the proceeds, if any, as fairly as possible, Step 5: close the doors. BAC is doing Step 1. Clearly, they hope to survive the process, so that it is not Bank of America that will land at Step 5 and close its doors. This means that they are preparing to separate the Legacy Asset Servicing business from the BAC holding company at some future date. The bet is that some investor or group of investors will buy the “bad bank”, even if it’s just for $1. The benefit for the remaining “good bank” is obvious: it now has clearly positive net worth and is better positioned for the future. Chapter 11 success, at last. But what about the folks who buy the “bad bank”? The bet they would make is that they can manage the portfolio of troubled loans, foreclosures, personal bankruptcies, lawsuits, and claims better than BAC was doing. Just losing 49% instead of 50% on the portfolio would be an enormous upside. Of course, losing 51% instead of 50% would be an enormous loss, so this is not an adventure for the faint of heart or light of pocket. However, considering the low reputation Bank of America created for itself and its management prowess, this might be a really good bet for the right someone(s). All this seems like a constructive resolution of a problem so huge that it threatens not only BAC’s survival but the ability of the US economy to ever fully recover. BAC’s announcement left me wondering: Why hasn’t every other major bank already done this? Why is Bank of America leading what should be a parade? Why didn’t regulators, shareholders, and boards of directors force this action two years ago? Inquiring minds want to know. Disclosure: the author has been a Bank of America account holder since he was 6 years old and currently has a mortgage serviced by BAC. It is one of their good ones.

Read the full article →

Richard Gaudreau: Foreclosure Sale — Buyer Beware!

February 8, 2011

Buyers of property at foreclosure are looking for a bargain, but that risk now must include the possibility that the title will be defective. One unsuspecting family purchased a home at foreclosure, intending to sell it to their daughter, only to have a title company question whether they acquired good title after they’d already invested $100,000 in renovations. ( Nightmare in Land Court, Mass. L.J. ) In the wacky world of securitized mortgages, who owns the mortgage is a ‘shell game’ worthy of the most accomplished back-street hustler. How securitized mortgages caused the collapse of the American economy is an oft-told tale that needn’t be repeated here. Suffice it to say that during the housing bubble lenders packaged thousands of mortgages together into each securitized trust, selling shares off to Wall Street investors much like selling shares of stock. Since banks no longer intended to hold their own mortgages, the incentive to avoid ‘bad mortgages’ gave way to greed because these now would be someone else’s problem. The days when your local bank owned your mortgage and had an incentive to work with you to save you both from a foreclosure are, by and large, over. Given the preference of lenders for foreclosures instead of loan modifications, one can only assume that lenders view a foreclosure as a cleansing process that purges a bad mortgage from the books and provides some sort of closure. The recent case of US Bank National Association v. Ibanez demonstrates that foreclosures aren’t the end of a bad loan, and that securitized mortgages can be as hard to kill as cockroaches in a rundown apartment. In Ibanez , Massachusetts’ highest court voided a foreclosure sale, finding that US Bank never owned the note and mortgage at the time it conducted the foreclosure sale, and, therefore, never acquired good title. The mortgage industry was so concerned about this type of problem that in the Fall of 2010 it took the extraordinary step of trying to ram through Congress a bill that would have validated foreclosures by ‘ rubber stamping ‘ the shoddy documentation behind securitized mortgages. President Obama vetoed that legislation. US Bank was supposed to have been assigned the Ibanez mortgage years earlier as trustee of a securitized trust, but amidst the thousands of mortgages changing hands every day, that little detail was overlooked. Realizing its chain of title was flawed, US Bank attempted to ‘paper over’ the problem by executing an assignment of the mortgage 14 months after the foreclosure sale. The Massachusetts Real Estate bar association filed an amicus brief, declaring the corrective assignment met local title standards, admitting this problem was in fact very common. While obviously intended to be helpful, one can only wonder at the arrogance of a position that attempts to justify an error by pointing out how often it occurs. The court remained unpersuaded, and the rejection of this title standard calls into question the legitimacy of innumerable other foreclosure sales. The Ibanez holding has left banks wondering whether it’s even possible to correct this type of problem, particularly if one of the assignors has filed bankruptcy. In my bankruptcy practice, it is not at all unusual to see lenders file a corrective assignment prior to commencing a foreclosure action trying to ‘paper over’ the problem. Indeed, the New Hampshire Bankruptcy Court now requires mortgage holders to include written proof of assignment as part of a lender’s request to foreclose. A big culprit in this convoluted mess is MERS, an organization created by various lenders, and one of the foundational blocks of the securitized mortgage market. MERS operates a private recording system where lenders can assign a mortgage outside of the chain of title in county land records, thus, avoiding recording fees. By avoiding the transparency of the public recording system, MERS makes it difficult to follow the chain of title of who has acquired your note or mortgage. Since the typical securitized transaction involves the transfer of a mortgage several times to insulate the trust from liability, MERS lawsuits nationwide have challenged its legitimacy, particularly the intentional avoidance of local recording fees. MERS claims to register more than 60 percent of the mortgages in the United States within its system. The Ibanez problem may be just the tip of the iceberg. The FDIC Chairman recently warned mortgage servicers not to let MERS conduct foreclosures, a common practice in years past. He also advised mortgage servicers to disclose the full chain of mortgage assignments in any Notice of Default sent to a homeowner prior to a foreclosure. If you have a MERS mortgage and are looking for information, you can find it at the MERS Servicer Identification website . If you no longer know who owns your mortgage because your mortgage has been transferred several times, your servicer is required to provide you that information upon written request under the Truth in Lending Act. Send a request for this information to your mortgage servicer pursuant to Section 131(f) of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 USC 1641(f), requesting the name, address and telephone number of the owner of the promissory note signed by you and secured by your mortgage loan. Finally, for the overly ambitious who have a securitized mortgage and want to view the legal requirements for transfer of the note and mortgage to the trust, you can generally find that information in Section 2.01 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (“PSA”) at the SEC’s Edgar database . Be forewarned that the length of the typical PSA caused one judge to jokingly warn me that if I made him wade through the hundreds of pages of fine-printed legalese, I might regret it someday. The above is not intended as legal advice for your particular situation. Questions should be addressed to attorneys admitted to practice within your state. Richard Gaudreau is a consumer bankruptcy lawyer admitted to practice in New Hampshire (NH) and Massachusetts (Ma) and may be reached through his website at attorneygaudreau.com, by email at Richard@attorneygaudreau.com, or by calling 603-893-4300.

Read the full article →

Mike Lux: Obama’s Chamber Speech: The Debates About Regulation and the Social Contract

February 7, 2011

It was hard for this old progressive warrior to see President Obama go give a speech to the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber was always conservative, but for the last 16 years (since a takeover in 1994 by a hard-right faction), it has become one of the worst institutions in America. With its tens of millions in anonymously funded and blatantly partisan attack ads; its far-right positions on health care, global warming, and taxes; and its blatant selling of its lobbying services for any company that wants to attack legislation but needs a front group, the Chamber has soiled its reputation almost beyond repair. Having said that, I also think the president is the president for the entire country, and I have no problem with him meeting with anyone, even his political opposition. If I have no problem with Obama meeting with Boehner and McConnell — which I don’t — I can’t see why he shouldn’t go give a speech to the Chamber. As long as he understands who they are, and how much damage they want to do to him in most other circumstances, speaking to them is no problem. The other thing is that speaking to them also gives him a chance to challenge them. Did he do that enough in his speech? Not to my tastes, of course. I wish he would have banged on them — directly challenging them on things like all the anonymous ads they ran in the 2010 cycle — a lot more than he did. And I couldn’t disagree more with Obama in his extended embrace of “free trade” deals that do damage to American workers and jobs. But there were two important times when Obama did make at least a nuanced argument in direct opposition to the Chamber’s ideology. On neither point did he say enough, but I thought both were interesting. The first is on the debate over regulations. Obama reached out to the Chamber on the issue of regulatory overhaul, but as in the State of the Union, he gave a relatively strong defense of some government regulations as being both necessary and actually helpful to the economy: So we were just talking about regulations. Even as we eliminate burdensome regulations, America’s businesses have a responsibility as well to recognize that there are some basic safeguards, some basic standards that are necessary to protect the American people from harm or exploitation. Not every regulation is bad. Not every regulation is burdensome on business. A lot of the regulations that are out there are things that all of us welcome in our lives. Few of us would want to live in a society without rules that keep our air and water clean; that give consumers the confidence to do everything from investing in financial markets to buying groceries. And the fact is, when standards like these have been proposed in the past, opponents have often warned that they would be an assault on business and free enterprise. We can look at the history in this country. Early drug companies argued the bill creating the FDA would “practically destroy the sale of… remedies in the United States.” That didn’t happen. Auto executives predicted that having to install seatbelts would bring the downfall of their industry. It didn’t happen. The President of the American Bar Association denounced child labor laws as “a communistic effort to nationalize children.” That’s a quote. None of these things came to pass. In fact, companies adapt and standards often spark competition and innovation. I was traveling when I went up to Penn State to look at some clean energy hubs that have been set up. I was with Steve Chu, my Secretary of Energy. And he won a Nobel Prize in physics, so when you’re in conversations with him you catch about one out of every four things he says. (Laughter.) But he started talking about energy efficiency and about refrigerators, and he pointed out that the government set modest targets a couple decades ago to start increasing efficiency over time. They were well thought through; they weren’t radical. Companies competed to hit these markers. And they hit them every time, and then exceeded them. And as a result, a typical fridge now costs half as much and uses a quarter of the energy that it once did — and you don’t have to defrost, chipping at that stuff — (laughter) — and then putting the warm water inside the freezer and all that stuff. It saves families and businesses billions of dollars. So regulations didn’t destroy the industry; it enhanced it and it made our lives better — if they’re smart, if they’re well designed. And that’s our goal, is to work with you to think through how do we design necessary regulations in a smart way and get rid of regulations that have outlived their usefulness, or don’t work. I also have to point out the perils of too much regulation are also matched by the dangers of too little. And we saw that in the financial crisis, where the absence of sound rules of the road, that wasn’t good for business. Even if you weren’t in the financial sector it wasn’t good for business. And that’s why, with the help of Paul Volcker, who is here today, we passed a set of common-sense reforms. The same can be said of health insurance reform. We simply could not continue to accept a status quo that’s made our entire economy less competitive, as we’ve paid more per person for health care than any other nation on Earth. Nobody is even close. And we couldn’t accept a broken system where insurance companies could drop people because they got sick, or families went into bankruptcy because of medical bills. That is not someone apologizing for the need to regulate just a wee little bit; that is a fairly robust argument in favor of an active regulatory role for the federal government. At a time in our country’s history when Republicans and most business executives think of regulations as the ultimate dirty word, and a time when one of the biggest bank’s spokesperson brags that “the bank CEOs have been collaborating with the Fed” on their regulatory policy, for the president to give that kind of vigorous defense in terms of the need for regulations in front of the Chamber is a very positive thing. By the way, in case you didn’t think you were reading that quote right because a bank spokesman couldn’t possibly be that arrogant, or that perhaps I was taking it out of context, you are wrong. The Bank of America and their CFO Charles Noski really did happily admit that the biggest bank CEOs “collaborate” with regulators on their regulatory policy, in this case on the swipe-fee issue, an issue I have been following closely while working with retailers and consumer groups. Hopefully the Fed will “collaborate” just as closely with all the small businesses and consumers impacted by swipe fees as they are doing with bank CEOs. This is the environment we are in right now, though; bankers feel no need to hide their blatant attempts to seduce and capture regulators. Given that environment, the president standing up for certain strong regulations is a very positive thing. The second area of the president’s speech that I loved was about the social compact. When I first heard that Obama would be speaking to the Chamber, as soon as I stopped cursing, my first thought was this: I hope he makes the case for the social contract, or as he called it, compact. That old but still central idea, totally rejected by the kind of selfishness-is-a-virtue, Ayn Rand conservatives who dominate in too many corporate board rooms and the modern Republican Party, is that there is contract between our country’s citizens, government, and private sector, that much is given to each of us but much is required in return. As President Obama said: But we have to recognize that some common-sense regulations often will make sense for your businesses, as well as your families, as well as your neighbors, as well as your coworkers. Of course, your responsibility goes beyond recognizing the need for certain standards and safeguards. If we’re fighting to reform the tax code and increase exports to help you compete, the benefits can’t just translate into greater profits and bonuses for those at the top. They have to be shared by American workers, who need to know that expanding trade and opening markets will lift their standards of living as well as your bottom line. We can’t go back to the kind of economy and culture that we saw in the years leading up to the recession, where growth and gains in productivity just didn’t translate into rising incomes and opportunity for the middle class. That’s not something necessarily we can legislate, but it’s something that all of us have to take responsibility for thinking about. How do we make sure that everybody’s got a stake in trade, everybody’s got a stake in increasing exports, everybody’s got a stake in rising productivity? Because ordinary folks end up seeing their standards of living rise as well. That’s always been the American promise. That’s what JFK meant when he said, “A rising tide lifts all boats.” Too many boats have been left behind, stuck in the mud. And if we as a nation are going to invest in innovation, that innovation should lead to new jobs and manufacturing on our shores. The end result of tax breaks and investments can’t simply be that new breakthroughs and technologies are discovered here in America, but then the manufacturing takes place overseas. That, too, breaks the social compact. It makes people feel as if the game is fixed and they’re not benefiting from the extraordinary discoveries that take place here. So the key to our success has never been just developing new ideas; it’s also been making new products. So Intel pioneers the microchip, then puts thousands to work building them in Silicon Valley. Henry Ford perfects the assembly line, and then puts a generation to work in the factories of Detroit. That’s how we built the largest middle class in the world. Those folks working in those plants, they go out and they buy a Ford. They buy a personal computer. And the economy grows for everyone. And that’s how we’ll create the base of knowledge and skills that propel the next inventions and the next ideas. The president didn’t challenge the Chamber, or the American business community, enough in his speech. I sure would have banged on them some for sleazy anonymous attack ads paid for by secretive, and possibly foreign, corporations. I would have been more direct in my criticism of too many companies not creating more jobs while making record profits last year, and in outsourcing jobs and escaping taxes through phony offices in foreign countries. But it was good to see him make a strong case for the role of regulation, and for the importance of the social contract. To go before a group like the Chamber and make those arguments required some guts, and I appreciated that he did it.

Read the full article →

Credit Cards Horror Stories: ‘My Credit Card Had A 79.9% APR’

February 7, 2011

Toni Riss had a credit card with a 79.9% interest rate. The 58-year-old woman from Texas thought she struck gold when she found the First Premier card, which is aimed specifically at consumers with poor credit. “I had an accident on a motorcycle, went through bankruptcy to pay for medical expenses and my credit went to hell in a hand basket, so I was looking for credit cards for people with bad credit” Riss said.

Read the full article →

Sitebrand Inc. Announces Bankruptcy of Its Subsidiary

February 7, 2011

GATINEAU, QUEBEC–(Marketwire – Feb. 7, 2011) – Sitebrand Inc. (TSX VENTURE:SIB), a player in online marketing solutions today announces that its wholly owned subsidiary, Sitebrand.com Inc., has made an assignment in bankruptcy under the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. 

Read the full article →

Robert Lenzner: JP Morgan May Be Complicit in Madoff Scam

February 4, 2011

JP Morgan could be “complicit”, i.e. aiding and abetting the Madoff Ponzi scheme, by omission — that is not fulfilling its duty as a fiduciary — as well as by commission, according to white collar lawyers I have consulted today. It did not have to be an active partner in the Ponzi Scheme to be found guilty of a civil liability, lawyers say. Rather, the bank’s omission would be ignoring several red flags — troublesome signs of potential fraud — and never investigating their accuracy or meaning. The bank did not fulfill its requirement to investigate Madoff fully and so could be found to be compliant in the scam. Nevertheless, JPM denies being a party to the fraud and tries to defend its role by insisting that Madoff was not a major client of the bank. It apparently received many signs of trouble, but generally ignored or neglected these signs, according to the complaint filed yesterday. The suit alleges that JP Morgan earned approximately $500 million from servicing Madoff. There were numerable red flags, starting in 2002, that the bank never sought to pin down. Once the bank believed that Madoff’s performance figures were not possible in 2002, when the stock market was down 30%, JP Morgan Chase had a duty to cease its banking services and report Madoff to the authorities, some lawyers believe. JP Morgan, which was Madoff’s main banker, never investigated the reasons for hundreds of millions of dollars being transferred from Madoff’s account in New York to one in London — and then back to New York again. At the very least, JP Morgan was lax in not reporting these movements of cash to authorities under the requirements of regulations covering the issue of money laundering, say lawyers. In another instance, there were serious doubts about the due diligence done by a feeder fund to Madoff’s operation. In other words, the nation’s second largest bank, heretofore relatively unscathed, may be forced to settle the $6.4 billion suit brought against it by the bankruptcy trustee for Madoff’s firm, Irving Picard. In fact, it was not until 2008 — several months before Madoff came clean about the scam, that JP Morgan told Britain’s Organized Crime Agency that Madoff’s investment performance appeared to be “too good to be true.” This move came only after a bank employee in London had been threatened with physical injury by an officer of Swiss-based feeder fund Aurelia, who was trying to withdraw money from the Madoff fund in London. That is a shockingly long time for the bank to wait before informing the authorities. Mind you, JP Morgan did not then or any other time inform either the SEC, the Justice Department or the Treasury about its suspicions about Madoff. Not a particularly impressive performance by the House of Morgan. Better clean house of those patsies, Jamie.

Read the full article →

NY Mets Owners Hit With $300 Million Madoff Lawsuit

February 4, 2011

NEW YORK/DETROIT (By Jonathan Stempel and Ben Klayman) – The owners of the New York Mets turned a blind eye to Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme and should give up roughly $300 million of fictitious profits tied to the now imprisoned swindler, a lawsuit charges. Irving Picard, the court-appointed trustee recovering money for Madoff’s victims, claims the partners at Sterling Equities, including the Mets’ Fred Wilpon, “were simply in too deep — having substantially supported their businesses with Madoff money — to do anything but ignore the gathering clouds. “Despite being on notice and having every resource at their disposal to investigate the litany of legitimate questions surrounding Madoff,” Picard said, “the Sterling partners chose to do nothing.” In his sweeping 365-page complaint unsealed on Friday, Picard also said the baseball team itself had 16 Madoff accounts from which it withdrew more than $90 million of bogus profits to fund day-to-day operations. The litigation has cast its own cloud over the immediate future of the Mets, which has had two straight losing seasons despite having one of the highest payrolls in Major League Baseball. Attendance at its two-year-old ballpark Citi Field fell 19 percent last year. Wilpon, a co-founder at Sterling, repeated that he may sell part of the Mets as a result of Picard’s litigation. The Mets also own a majority of SportsNet New York, better known as SNY, which broadcasts their games, with Time Warner Cable Inc and Comcast Corp also owning stakes. “OUTRAGEOUS STRONG-ARM EFFORT,” WILPON SAYS In a joint statement, he and Sterling co-founder Saul Katz, who is Wilpon’s brother-in-law, called Picard’s lawsuit “an outrageous strong-arm effort” to coerce a settlement and ruin their reputations and businesses. “Not one of the Sterling partners ever knew or suspected that Madoff ran a Ponzi scheme,” they said. “We thought that Madoff was a friend for 25 years. That is why his betrayal was so painful. We should not be made victims twice over — the first time by Madoff, and again by the trustee’s actions.” A Major League Baseball spokesman declined to comment. Madoff’s estimated $65 billion Ponzi scheme was uncovered on December 11, 2008. Now 72, Madoff later pleaded guilty and is now serving a 150-year prison sentence in North Carolina. Picard filed the lawsuit under seal in December. Wilpon had opposed making it public while settlement talks with the trustee were ongoing, but agreed to an unsealing after the talks broke down. OTHER MADOFF LITIGATION According to the complaint, Picard is seeking $295.5 million of fictitious profits from Sterling partners, family members and affiliates; $14.2 million of principal withdrawn in the 90 days prior to the collapse of Madoff’s firm; and $12 million of other “fraudulent” transfers. The lawsuit came one day after Picard unveiled embarrassing accusations in his $6.4 billion lawsuit accusing JPMorgan Chase & Co, once Madoff’s main banker, of turning a blind eye to and being “thoroughly complicit” in Madoff’s fraud so it could do more business with him and protect its investments. Picard has recovered roughly $10 billion from various parties to repay former Madoff clients. Wilpon has said he might sell 20 percent to 25 percent of the Mets, while retaining a majority stake [ID:nN28107090], but a big settlement could force a change in ownership. “Any time you have this kind of noise around a sale, you start at 25 percent, then you sell 50 percent with an option to buy the rest; it seems to be heading in that direction,” said a sports banker who asked not to be identified, citing a lack of authority to discuss specific teams. “At the end of the day, anyone coming in is going to want some kind of voice, is going to want a piece of the whole pie,” the banker added. The case is Picard v. Katz et al, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, No. 10-ap-05287. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York and Ben Klayman in Detroit; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn, Phil Berlowitz) Copyright 2010 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions .

Read the full article →

For-Profit College Students Face Financial Woes

February 4, 2011

A quarter of all federal student loan borrowers at for-profit colleges defaulted on their loans within three years of beginning to repay them–more than twice the rate of their counterparts at non-profit institutions, according to new data released today by the Department of Education. In addition, students taking out loans at for-profit schools were responsible for nearly half of all federal student loan defaults within the three-year timeframe, even though students enrolled at such institutions made up less than 15 percent of college students nationwide. The findings released by the Department of Education come as the for-profit college sector faces heightened public scrutiny over questionable outcomes for students, many of whom leave the schools with debts they cannot repay. Average tuition at for-profit schools is nearly twice that of the in-state tuition at four-year public colleges, and more than five times the average tuition at community colleges, according to a Senate report released last year. The data released today is essentially a snapshot in time: The Department of Education analyzed students whose loans began coming due between October 2007 and September 2008, and tracked those students through last September. Overall, nearly 14 percent of students analyzed at all colleges nationwide went into default within the three years. But the numbers are particularly noteworthy for the for-profit sector, which at 25 percent had the highest default rate of any segment in higher education. Public non-profit schools had about 11 percent of borrowers defaulting in the three-year window, while students at private non-profit schools defaulted at a rate of less than eight percent. Though there is flexibility in repayment plans, federal student loans are among the most difficult debts to discharge. In most cases, the debt persists even after someone declares bankruptcy. Student loan default rates are a key factor in a college’s eligibility for federal student aid dollars. In the case of for-profit colleges, access to higher education grants and loans is essential to the industry’s survival. Many for-profit schools derive upwards of 80 percent of revenue from federal student aid. The three-year rates released by the Department of Education today won’t have a direct impact on student aid eligibility, but the same data in coming years will figure heavily into whether schools could face restricted access to higher education grants and loans. Currently, schools are graded on a two-year timescale for student loan defaults. Schools that have more than 25 percent of borrowers going into default within two years could face sanctions and limitations to federal student aid dollars. But Congress changed the rules in 2008, requiring an additional year of analysis to better gauge students’ ability to repay their loans. There have been concerns in Congress and among student advocates that some for-profit schools actively managed their default rates by placing students into loan deferment plans or other agreements that prevented defaults until the two-year window had passed. Comparing the two-year default data to the three-year default data sheds some light on how much one year can change the statistics. For the for-profit sector, the two-year student loan default rate was 11.6 percent, but by adding one more year of analysis, the default rate ballooned to 25 percent. The shift in defaults from the two-year to the three-year window was much less drastic at non-profit colleges. Public non-profit schools increased from a six percent two-year default rate to a 10.8 percent three-year default rate; private non-profit schools went from a two-year rate of four percent to a three-year rate of 7.6 percent. “You would expect the three-year default rates to be somewhat higher because students have a longer period of time in which to default,” said a Department of Education official who discussed the default data with reporters before it was officially released. “But if the three-year rate seems disproportionately high compared to other sectors, then that may be a sign that institutions in that sector or a particular institution is managing its default rate aggressively.” Schools are still officially transitioning from the two-year window to the three-year window in measuring loan defaults. The first year in which a college could be sanctioned based on the three-year loan data is 2014. Schools must have more than 30 percent of students default on loans within the three-year timeframe, in three consecutive years, to be restricted from federal student aid.

Read the full article →

Zannah P. Becker: Walking Away: My Story

February 3, 2011

It has been a year since we decided to walk away from our mortgage on a condominium that was underwater financially, but also was saddled with the additional burden of a construction defect lawsuit. Our foreclosure went fairly quickly, thankfully, and it was eight months between the last payment we made and the auction date. The hard facts: We stopped paying our mortgage in December 2009 and the foreclosure went through in August 2010. We owned condominium so we continued to pay our monthly dues and our property taxes. We checked our credit score this January 2011 and the score had gone from the 700′s to 615. During the time we were in foreclosure we received twice weekly phone calls from Chase- none of which did I answer. When the first call came in I let it hit voice mail, checked the message and added that number to my phone so I always knew when they called. I received numerous letters of collection from Chase. We actually received one from the mortgage insurance company at the end of our foreclosure process urging us to make our mortgage payments. I assume this is because they did not want to have to pay the bank for the insured mortgage. I thought it was pretty funny and added their letter to the shredding pile. We attended our foreclosure proceeding, which was held outside of an office building at a picnic table. Fifty or more real estate agents with property lists and stacks of cashier’s checks circled like vultures waiting for the prime properties to be read off. Ours was not a prime property so it reverted to the bank. It was an interesting process to see in the flesh. Our foreclosure was on a Friday and on Monday a Fed-ex letter arrives from Chase again urging us to make payments. Again I thought this was pretty funny as the foreclosure was now done and over with. I mailed keys into the real estate agency that took over the management of the property from- Not Chase- but now Fannie Mae- our mortgage had been sold at some point- we were never notified. A week or so later I received a letter from an attorney- many attorneys sent us letters along with real estate agents all claiming they could help us. This letter stated if we were tenants of the unit we needed to send in our lease. Since we had moved out I sent no paperwork and ignored their letter. The next week I received another letter saying I was being taken to court for not vacating the premises and had to send a letter to them and the court by said date or face paying legal and court costs. Furious as I was considering I had sent keys to the real estate agent managing the property and had moved out in March, I filed a letter with documentation with the court and sent the same letter to the attorney. I never heard from them again so I assume it was finalized and no one had to waste any further time on the matter. We did not have difficulty renting a home during our foreclosure and have not suffered any recriminations from our creditors at this point. One credit card which ironically we had closed already and are paying off sent us a letter telling us they were lowering our credit limit. Again we thought this somewhat humorous and added it to the shred pile. I just received a tax document in the mail, which has to do with our walking away from our mortgage. I have yet to do our taxes and am hoping that it will not penalize us financially. We shall see. The condo: Our mortgage was a zero down, fixed interest rate loan from Washington Mutual with whom I had been a customer for five years or more at that time. We purchased a property that was less than the approved amount they gave us for a home loan. We sat down and did the math and figured with our debts and wanting to eat more than rice and beans what amount we could actually afford for our monthly housing payment. I was excited to finally own a piece of property, my own home, even if it was just 1,023 sq ft and a condominium to boot. My husband had wanted to keep renting but I just wanted out of that feeling of being beholden to some random landlord and their whims. Somehow being beholden to a faceless corporation did not bother me at the time. Perhaps because of my living with credit debt so long I was just used it and it was comfortable to me. Also rental rates in the area we lived in at the time were sky high as people were demanding a lot for very little. I felt we would get just as tiny an apartment renting as we would buying a place. Ideally I wanted a house but the cost was too great for us to attempt. I had also just lost my maternal grandmother who raised me, to a year long struggle with Congestive Heart Failure. I cared for her during her illness and was there with her when she passed. I was also caring for my then two year old daughter. I craved stability and a safe shelter out of the storm my life had become. At first we were fairly happy, the space was very small for us, a family of three, but it was alright. For a long time I clung to the idea it was my house, I owned it, and somehow finally I was one of those people that was not a “renter”. A respectable homeowner- that nod of approval you receive from banks, and other financial institutions when you go in to apply for a loan, buy a car, or even get a cell phone with family plan at AT&T. Somehow you are suddenly worth more in the eyes of the world. I was not a different person in any way except I paid an obscene amount of money every month on a mortgage that included mortgage insurance. Since we lived in a condominium we paid dues each month as well so we were at around $3K a month for a tiny little place in the heart of a busy neighborhood that was honestly never quiet. In the first six months of our moving into the building the condominium board had hired an attorney to proceed with legal action against the developer of the building. I was on the board and was privy to what was going on with regard to the lawsuit and the construction defects. It was then that somehow my bubble burst over my head and I thought what have we done? What have I done? What can we do to get out of this mess? Should we stick it out? Should we try to sell or rent our place? I researched our options with a feeling of dread building in my stomach. I contacted several real estate agents that told me a property in litigation has zero chance of being sold. I listed our unit for rent for several months without as much as a nibble. About this time the credit card companies started raising interest rates on customers to unjustifiable amounts. Again we always paid on time and were never late. We carried a balance, fairly high, but always we paid and on time. When the letters came out with the either or option; either you close your account and keep your lower rate and pay us off, or you pay a higher interest rate and keep using the card- we closed the accounts. It was painful because that crutch of credit we had always had available to make up the difference in expenses for groceries or needed items suddenly vanished. A crutch we should have never depended on but I am being honest here it was there and we used it, we had to eat. It was not long after the credit card rate hikes that I reviewed our property value assessment from the tax office and noted our value had dropped by about 10K The second year in the condo was the year I started getting sick. I would have bronchitis and be treated with antibiotics and be back after a day or so of being off the medication with another bout of bronchitis. I went through five of these in a row, I also had tracheitis, and severe sinus infections too numerous to count. I finally decided it was the environment I was living in since the doctors could find nothing wrong with me through blood tests and the fact that I don’t smoke or spend time around cigarette smoke. One of the owners in the building found mold in his walls when he was remodeling his unit. They found mold in a few other areas of the building but lawyers did not want to pursue this as part of the lawsuit. Financial Background : At first it was liberating to have a month, particularly being December as we celebrate Christmas, which we did not have a huge mortgage payment and little else left over. We did not spend extravagantly on gifts as some might assume. I paid bills that were due but that had been piling up a bit over the last few months, not credit debt, but those additional fees that one owes from doctor visits and other medical related expenses. It was a relief to my ever acid churning gut to put checks in the mail and get those nagging invoices out of my To Be paid file. I bought groceries and not just a few bags but the liberating feeling of filling ones pantry for a change. I did not have to walk to the market with calculator in one hand and coupons in the other and make choices between what we had to have to get by and a few simple extras like a bottle of diet soda for my husband or a small treat for our daughter. Not to say that I did not use my coupons, watch for sales and shop other stores for lower prices. Being strapped for cash for so long starts to leave a mark on you psychologically. You get in the habit of not having funds to spend on much of anything, food or otherwise. Pinching pennies becomes a way of life to the extreme. While we did get Christmas gifts it was nothing expensive, we bought things like new socks and underwear because our essentials were getting a bit threadbare. A new pair of shoes for my husband because he had worn his shoes down walking 25 minutes to and from a free park & ride, rain or shine, every day to save money on parking expenses. I can’t recall how many birthdays and other gift type holidays we skipped as far as gifts go, and how many times we had to postpone a birthday dinner for ourselves indefinitely because the funds were just not available for anything accept our debts and mortgage expenses. Neither my husband nor I grew up with much in the way of money. My family, consisting of a mother, grandmother and myself never owned anything with regard to real estate. We never even had a car when I was growing up; we took the bus or walked. I stood in food lines with my grandmother as a small child observing at that time that most of the people in line were elderly and looked just like everyone else. We all received a large block of orange Government Issue cheese, sometimes the white labeled can of mystery meat and a few other staples. Oddly I did not feel humiliated in any way. I was just there observing what went on and how people survived. We canned our fruits and vegetables, used coupons, scrimped to get by and never had any savings because there was never anything left to save. My grandmother was on disability; my mother worked full time and went to school at night. There was no support from my father. We paid the rent, utilities, grocery bills, and daydreamed because that was all we could afford to do. Actually we were really great library patrons during those years. I love to read and libraries were free. We had no credit debt at that time in my life. The experience of eviction because we could not pay the ever increasing rent fees demanded of us, the poor treatment that we received because we were “renters” and could not supply proof of income that could pay double the monthly rent and also have enough saved for first, last and deposit left a mark on me. I hate renting! I hate leasing! I hate being beholden to someone’s idea of what a good person is and that means having money. If you don’t have lots of it in savings or on your balance sheet then somehow you are less of a person than someone who does. We moved a lot — 21 times by the time I was 20. I have moved a few times since then of my own volition. I wanted to own my home for as long as I can remember. The idea was that it was mine and that I could live there safely without fear of eviction or persecution from a landlord that decided that he wanted to double the monthly rent telling us we had 30 days to get out or pay up. The truth is in this country if you are a home owner then you are an established respected individual versus the poor schmuck that has little to their name in assets, even if they are just as hard working and decent as the person who owns property. As I grew older finances in our lives improved some but we always rented apartments and never had a car. My mother got into credit debt when I was about nine years old. She did what she thought was the more responsible thing and went Chapter 13 instead straight bankruptcy. I hated her for that since again we had no money. Every month we made a trek downtown to the offices of Paul Wolf (yes that was his name and I remember it well) and made her debt payment. Trust me any time I asked for anything, dance classes, new clothes, a trip to a nearby city, a weekend matinee movie, I was always reminded where every single penny of our extra money went- to Paul Wolf and my mother’s misguided ideas of doing the right thing. She would even whip out the checkbook and show me what money we did not have and what money we had and where it was spent. I started working early, volunteer work at first, and then paid work at 16. At 17 I was standing on my own pretty well and working full time at a now defunct retailer. I was offered a credit card by Citibank. I applied for it thinking I might get $500 which would be nice as I was starting college early while I worked retail. In the mail arrives a $10,000 Visa and I thought I had hit the lottery. My grandmother had counseled me closely on finance and how I had to pay off my credit card each month, how I should save money for my future, that I should always pay my bills on time and always maintain a good credit score as this was the key to opening doors for my future financially. If I wanted a home, a car, loans, etc I had to have an excellent credit score. Well I listened to two of those pieces of advice; I listened to all of it, but ended up only following through on two items. I always paid my bills on time and always maintained a high credit score. That $10,000 was just the beginning because other credit cards seemingly appeared in my hands like magic. Not one of them had a limit under $1,000. I had reported my income honestly, which was a retail hourly income in the 1990′s. No way did I make enough to actually qualify for any of this money but there it was and here I was finally being able to buy things I wanted like new clothes more than a couple of times a year. I became like many people, a slave to my credit cards, my entire income went to the credit card payments and I lived off the available credit. A nasty hamster wheel of a cycle to live in but once you are there, there is no way out. I did not want to throw in the towel and file bankruptcy. I made the bills and felt like somehow someway I would earn the money to pay it off. I went to college at night and worked full time during the day and after eight long years earned an AA degree and managed to work my way up from a phone operator to a manager in the finance department. My debt traveled with me and I finally got to a financial point where I could start getting rid of my debts. Slowly I started paying some off and always if there was a tax refund a credit card got paid off or down. When I met my husband I was 40K in debt but managing the payments, although I had nothing in savings. I wanted to save but there was no chance of that with my bills. I went to a branch of Washington Mutual- now Chase and applied for a loan for the full amount of my debt. I wanted to pay them $800 a month on the debt and close all my credit accounts, and pay off my debt in about five years. They refused to even consider it since I had no collateral, I had not purchased a car or bought a home, but they offered me a line of credit instead. I took the line of credit and moved a higher interest amount onto it and continued to pay my bills. I paid faithfully on these debts I made for years; I still pay them every month without fail. I have never been late and never once defaulted. I made those debts and it is my responsibility to pay it off. Financial Truths: My husband purchased and read through a book entitled “Web of Debt” by E. H. Brown and wow what an eye opener it was for us. While I don’t propose to endorse the entire book and its contents, since I was never a student of economics, but the base facts of who controls our currency and the history thereof remain invaluable. We are taught to trust that banks have the funds to loan us for homes, cars and lines of credit. We are taught that they have assets that have value and that somewhere in the country is a big vault full of actual currency that belongs to the bank. When the truth is they create money out of thin air. When we opened our mortgage account with Washington Mutual they simply added an account with a dollar entry under our name. They never removed that amount of money from an existing account of available funds they had to loan. There is not enough actual physical currency circulating in the country to cover the amount of debts that are out there. It is an odd realization to find that the Federal Reserve is not a Federal Government institution. The Federal Reserve is a private corporation owned by some of the largest banks in our country. It is rather ironic that we have spent so much time and money bailing out banks that are part of the Federal Reserve, the private corporation which dictates how much money is available to us as a country and at what rate of interest we must pay for the privilege of using said currency. We are taught to feel we owe our loyalty to the financial institutions we do business with because they care about us as consumers, even as people. What I learned from my experience of homeownership and walking away from our mortgage was that it was all lie. The bank was not interested in us as consumers or as people. Even with a high credit score in the 700′s they would not consider lowering our interest rate. Somehow we did not qualify but then I don’t think there really is an average person who qualifies for the best interest rate available. To me the system as it was based on credit scores, homeownership, and responsible debt management has to be reevaluated. I have heard financial analysts try and convince people that things are like they used to be. That credit scores matter, that homeownership means something, that we should save our money and pay off our debts. Am I irresponsible for walking away from a money pit that I could never sell and could not live in and be healthy? No I am not! I chose life instead of being owned by a thing. For a brief period it gave me a false sense of security and of self worth financially. Now I look back and see the illusion that we are taught to buy into as consumers. Do I still pay our monthly credit debts? Yes I pay them their minimum payment amount every month and they can have just that until they finally go away. I am in no hurry to pay them off. Will we pay more interest over time doing this? Of course we will but then again in this economy if I take the extra we have and pay off a debt, if my husband loses his job next month then I will have nothing to live on at all. You can’t trust your credit cards to be there and you certainly can’t expect empathy from them if you are out of a job and need a month or two leniency. Do I blame the banks that gave me credit for my credit card debt? The error I see in their actions was this: giving a 17 year old a credit card for $10,000 and then other companies for sending me cards without my having solicited their product. Is it my fault I went into credit card debt? – Absolutely. Without hesitation I take full responsibility and still comply with my end of the agreement by always making my monthly payments. Credit cards gave me the means to pay for a college degree when I could not have paid it otherwise. The naysayers out there will wag their fingers, and shake their heads. “You could have saved for it,” they would say. Certainly I could have remained in a low paying job, barley getting by and tucked my pennies under my mattress hoping one day I might be able to attend college and better myself. “Student Loans,” I hear people shout at me. I considered it and even filled out the paperwork but then shredded it. Why? Because I was struggling to an AA degree paid for. I had yet to even make it to an actual University and I was contemplating taking out student loans? I thought it foolish and decided that using my credit cards was a better option. Save student loans for a bachelor’s degree at a University where the fees are truly out of reach. You ask me: I am willing to pay off my credit debt but not my mortgage why? Because I could actually pay off the credit debt and because I received something for the debt I created. I paid for my college education with those credit cards because I could not get financial aid outside of applying for student loans. With the mortgage debt I feel like the bank came out even and then some. They have the property back in excellent condition and they made money on what was basically a rental for over two years from us. They can sell that property again when the market rebounds or rent it in the interim. Plus they had us paying mortgage insurance on the property so they get payment from that as well. To me the differences in walking away from a mortgage and paying off credit debt are quite clear. I honestly see no changes in finance for our future as country. We have a definite division of class now, rich and poor. Few of us live in the middle any longer and those that do; we hang on by a thread and prayer.

Read the full article →

Learning To Walk: Fear, Shame And Your Underwater Mortgage

February 3, 2011

WASHINGTON — Nearly one in every four homeowners across the country owe more on their home than it’s worth. Once a month, those 10.8 million are faced with a question that cuts to the core of the American Dream and offers a confusing collision between a deep-seated sense of personal obligation and a cold, simple business calculation: Should I pay my mortgage? For decades, there was only one answer for most people: Of course I should keep paying, it’s the right thing to do. Besides, the argument went, a home is a great investment. Today, in the wake of the most seismic housing collapse in the nation’s history, that logic has increasingly been challenged by homeowners despondent about their lack of options. Although researchers find that some underwater borrowers who could continue paying their mortgages strategically default anyway, the vast majority continue to pay. Many homeowners, out of a combined sense of fear, shame, courage and morality, resist making what is otherwise a logical financial decision. Walking away from a home, however, is more than the sum of a few business decisions. For many homeowners, it’s either an act of civic defiance against a system they no longer buy into or the end result of being shuffled around by institutions that don’t help them solve their financial problems. While walking away is a frightening and dangerous step into the unknown, millions have beaten the path in the past few years. To find out what it’s like to walk away, The Huffington Post asked readers who were considering making the move, or who had already done so, to write in and share their stories. That was in January 2010. A year later, we followed up with them to see how they reflected on the experience. We initially heard from 58 people from all over the country who fit the criteria. Ten of them have become unreachable over the past year, but the remaining 48 were eager to share their stories. A year later, only eight of them are still paying their mortgage. Some requested anonymity because of the shame associated with foreclosure; others requested it because they don’t want to draw retribution from the banks. But there were those who were happy to share their tales on the record. Almost universally, the homeowners we spoke with took personal responsibility for their situations, declining to blame the banks or politicians. Yet nearly all of them faced similar struggles in their attempts to work with their banks: lost paperwork and little interest in finding a financial compromise. The hostility people felt from their banks made the decision to walk away easier for many, and some now even revel in it, celebrating a break from a system they see as rigged against them. “We get daily calls from creditors and banks that threaten this and that, and I just laugh knowing I am helping to bring down the system that has brought us all down and continues to reap giant profits at the expense of the little guy,” said one. Others are still haunted with shame by the decision. Most said they felt a mix of both. Many of the homeowners said they felt alone and powerless in their interactions with the banks and were curious to hear what other people in similar situations had to say. “There should be support groups for people who have to deal with these banks,” said Richmond Burton, 50, a soon-to-be-former resident of Long Island’s East Hampton. “It can drive you crazy. I’m very good at dealing with pressure, and they made it feel like you’re at their mercy.” Following Burton’s suggestion, HuffPost contacted Meetup.com and set up the infrastructure for underwater homeowners to do just that. This coming Tuesday, homeowners across the country can use Meetup’s tool to organize small gatherings of homeowners who have walked away or who have considered doing it. Often, the best advice comes from a neighbor. Burton’s effort to get out from under his home became a second job, he said. “I never would have thought that the American Dream was to not own a home, but that’s what mine became. I’m not ever going to take another mortgage. If I can avoid it, I’m not ever going to borrow money again,” said Burton. After years of failing to get approval for a “short sale” of his home, or even a decent mortgage modification, Burton said he stopped paying in August 2009 to help himself financially and to get his bank’s attention. (A short sale occurs when lenders accept a sum less than the outstanding value than a mortgage loan, in lieu of forcing a borrower into foreclosure.) He contacted HuffPost several months later and said he was still trying to get a short sale approved or persuade the bank to take the house in exchange for simply letting him walk away. The bank was refusing. When we reconnected a year later, he said he had just signed documents that would let him walk away without a penalty, but he was forfeiting his $120,000 down payment. What did it feel like to walk away from that much money? “It feels great,” Burton said without hesitation. “I’m starting again. I’ve still got my talent, I’ve got my intelligence. I’ve got my health. At least I’m free of the enormous amount of stress that I had and the frustration of doing the best I could and it wasn’t good enough. It wasn’t working. Ultimately, I made a decision that my physical and mental health was more valuable than this house and my investment in it.” Burton went more than a year without paying his mortgage before persuading the bank to accept a short sale. “The mortgage company was not wiling to work with me. The businesses that we have created to serve us are enslaving us. They’re not listening to us, they don’t even pretend to care about us. Really, our only option is to do what I’m doing, which is to fire them all. I’m doing everything I can to remove them from my life,” he said. Lenders and servicers say such decisions will destroy borrowers’ credit record and render them non-entities in the U.S. economy. Burton said that when he bought his Long Island home in 2000, his credit score had been somewhere in the 600s, an average figure. He allowed HuffPost to run his credit score through Equifax, one of three major credit-monitoring bureaus. As of Tuesday, after his ordeal of three years, his score is 614 — below average, but not savaged. A few months ago, he had no trouble buying an iPhone. He ignores the many credit card solicitations that come his way. The purpose of HuffPost’s investigation was not to determine who or what was to blame for the predicament that the homeowners found themselves in or whether they are deserving of sympathy — twin concerns that dominate the foreclosure discussion and will no doubt continue with ferocity in the comment section below this story. Our question was more direct: What are the costs and benefits of walking away from an underwater mortgage — not for the banks or the neighborhood or for society as a whole, but for the real people making the decision? MORAL STRUGGLE When Ernie Soto first wrote HuffPost, his mechanic business was falling apart and he was behind on his mortgage. Efforts to modify his loan had gone nowhere and he was considering filing for bankruptcy, walking away and buying a mobile trailer for his family to live in. “We laugh about it now, but we went through hell and back and back to hell,” he said a year later, after filing for bankruptcy and telling the bank it could have the house. Rock bottom came when he drove to the local vet to have his dog put to sleep. The repo man was in the parking lot. “I can’t leave until I take your truck,” he told Soto, 47. “It was just another low moment in our lives,” Soto said. Soto drained his savings paying the mortgage so he could keep his credit score high and maintain hope that a loan would come through for his small business. But it never did. Shortly after writing to HuffPost at the beginning of 2010, he and his family walked away. “We’d had enough. We moved to a trailer park, a mobile home. We bought my dad’s RV, figured we’ve gotta live somewhere.” Technically, Soto still owns his home and he routinely finds gigantic bills in his mail. At this point, he says, he can only chuckle darkly at the letters. The bank doesn’t seem to understand that he has walked away, that he’s done with them. Had he realized it would take his bank so long to foreclose, he said, he could have stayed in his house for free, but he was afraid that his bank would move faster than the guy who repossessed his truck. And didn’t want to put his family through the trauma of an eviction. “I was in unfamiliar territory. I don’t lose houses every so often,” he said. “I was thinking it’d be like the car, they’d come throw me out in three months.” Soto, a conservative Republican, said he has come to terms with his choice. “It was a tough decision. We thought about it and thought about it. I want to do the honorable thing, but wait a minute here — I didn’t get respect from the mortgage companies when I was asking for help. I didn’t get respect from the banks when I was asking for help. Now here we are, we bailed everybody out,” he said. “Am I just supposed to be the good Samaritan and just stay there? I asked the mortgage company, ‘What’s gonna keep me from giving you the keys?’” Banks are responding to that question by using their power in Washington — influence purchased with the checks people send to their banks each month — to make it financially tougher to liberate oneself from an underwater mortgage, just as millions are on the brink of making their break. ‘THERE IS SUCH A THING IN THE BIBLE’ Shelley Kluz said she saw a house in her neighborhood just like her own selling for $90,000. “It made me sick to my stomach, because we were already house-poor,” she said of the place she and her husband paid $325,000 for in 2004. Her husband, she said, wanted to cling to the house, but she wanted out, with three kids in a 960-square-foot home in Vacaville, Calif. “It was a big moral decision for us. We talked to our pastor, talked to our parents and had a really hard time coming to grips with the idea that we might not pay our mortgage, because we were always the people who paid their bills,” she said. The pastor said that if making the payments was harming the family, it was okay to walk away. “There is such a thing in the Bible as debt forgiveness,” she said. “We didn’t want to get in bad with God, doing something morally He thinks is awful.” In July 2009, on the informal advice of a bank representative, the Kluzes stopped paying their mortgage to encourage their bank to approve a short sale. The bank initially accepted a short sale offer, but the couple was told that investors had later rejected it. The bank suggested Shelley Kluz apply for a modification, apparently unaware she’d been trying for the past year. She did so anyway and was rejected. The family was still in the house when she wrote to HuffPost in early 2010. “We are in a weird limbo state of waiting. So, long story short, we are walking away. We are so fed up with this whole process,” she wrote at the time. Six months later, she and her family moved out, a year after they stopped paying. For $1,550, she said, they now rent a three-bedroom, two-bath home with a yard in the front and back — a feature their first home, with a monthly mortgage payment of $2,250, did not have. The new home is twice the size of the old one with twice as many bathrooms. Their old home was foreclosed upon a month after they left and, Shelley Kluz said, is still on the market for $142,000. They only moved five minutes away, she said, and she still drives by it occasionally. Her 7-year-old has taken it the hardest, having known no other home, she said, followed by her husband. “I think that’s just a guy thing,” she said. “I think he was more emotionally invested in the house because he spent a lot of his free time fixing it up. And then there was the whole stigma of being part of the foreclosure crisis.” “The American Dream, I don’t think that that’s really something that everyone should aspire to. There’s more to life than owning a home,” said the 37-year-old mother of three children. “This teaches you, what do you place value on? A piece of property? What things are really important?” Her family, she said, felt guilty about not upholding their end of the contract. “But that said, it was the best thing we could have done. Since we walked away, our house has only dropped further and we had no hope of getting out from under it,” she said. Now, “We actually have available spending money to do fun things with our family, we pay less money for a completely finished house, my kids have a backyard with grass, and best of all, we can breathe.” ‘PEOPLE SHOULDN’T FEEL ASHAMED’ Del Phillips stopped paying on his Chicago condo in November 2009, two months before he contacted HuffPost and 10 months after he lost his job. His short sale efforts were rejected and he was denied a modification because, according to a letter sent to him by his bank, his “unemployment is not of a permanent nature.” He was also rejected by Obama’s Home Affordable Mortgage Program, he said. He took his story to the local press and was stunned at the vicious response from readers. “We encourage people to work hard, get an education and strive for things. But, when there’s a bump along the way and we need a helping hand for a short time, we’re spit at without any support,” he said. “For a country that touts its devout following of Christianity — which is rooted in the teachings of a Jesus who said to love thy neighbor and help thy brother and sister — it was really a fun lesson in hypocrisy.” And the reality was that every institution Philips dealt with — from the government to his bank — offered him no choice but to walk away. Phillips filed for bankruptcy and plans to move out in March, knowing he could be foreclosed on any moment. More than 15 months of paying only the condo association fees helped him get by during his jobless stretch. And the bank was right: his unemployment was not permanent. He found a job in October that will pay enough for him to afford to rent when he moves — this coming Saturday, 16 months after he stopped paying his mortgage. “I feel like we have a stigma on things like bankruptcy, but those people shouldn’t feel ashamed,” Phillips said. “Yes, some people abuse, like Teresa on ‘Real Housewives,’ but I’m hoping everyday people who are going through this can find some strength in what I’ve done and ask, ‘Why should I care about the bank if the bank doesn’t care about me?’” Despite his bankruptcy, he said, he has more offers for credit cards than he can handle. HAPPIER, BUT NOT PROUD Andrea of Oakland, Calif., who let her property go into foreclosure last year, says it was “clearly financially the thing to do.” After buying her first condo in the Oakland foothills, her property’s value dropped from $440,000 to $250,000 in just three years, and her marriage fell apart. “In terms of quality of life and emotional pressure, I’m much happier now,” said the 38-year-old Andrea, who didn’t want her last name used in this story. Now she pays $1,500 a month for an apartment in Rockridge, one of the East Bay’s most coveted areas. Its leafy streets and atmospheric cafes make it a particularly desirable neighborhood for singles. In some cases, the mortgage money not going to banks finds its way into the local economy and gives walk-aways an ability to breathe easier. “I bought groceries and not just a few bags, but the liberating feeling of filling ones pantry for a change,” says Zannah Becker, who stopped paying her mortgage in Seattle. “I did not have to walk to the market with calculator in one hand and coupons in the other and make choices between what we had to have to get by and a few simple extras like a bottle of diet soda for my husband or a small treat for our daughter.” Having worked as a loan assistant, Andrea told HuffPost she initially thought she’d be able to navigate the system. “I figured I would be well-equipped in my knowledge from my previous job about how to figure it out,” she said, “and I was shocked honestly at their level of disinterest — it was either disinterest on their part in working it out, or lack a of just being organized. But to me, them not being organized to work it out was a symptom of there not being a financial incentive for them to work it out.” When the bank finally foreclosed on her, Andrea said she just let it happen — she felt there was nothing else she could do. “I had gotten in over my head, and I had gone through a divorce, and I was struggling to re-balance my life financially,” she said. When asked if she had advice for homeowners in similar situations, she said people shouldn’t be afraid of walking away. “I think if someone is being responsible and trying to work it out, and they give it everything they can, then it’s okay to do what you have to do, like a business would,” she said. “A lot a lot of people are going through it right now, so maybe five or 10 years down the road, there won’t be so much stigma.” Still, she asked HuffPost to keep her full name a secret. “To be honest, it’s just embarrassing and not something I’m proud of,” she said. Shaming homeowners is one option for a bank dealing with someone who has made the calculation that they are better off walking, and that’s part of the pressure to stay that homeowners we spoke to felt. Homeowners also say they’ve felt little support from the federal government, particularly through its highly-touted, and largely ineffective, Home Affordable Mortgage Program, or HAMP. The Obama administration set up the program to help homeowners modify their mortgages but very little modification has occurred. In fact, HAMP may have been more helpful to banks than to homeowners A group of senior Treasury officials, which included Secretary Tim Geithner, admitted as much to financial bloggers at a meeting this summer. “Officials pointed out that what may have been an agonizing process for individuals was a useful palliative for the system as a whole,” wrote one blogger of the meeting. “Even if most HAMP applicants ultimately default, the program prevented an outbreak of foreclosures exactly when the system could have handled it least…The program was successful in the sense that it kept the patient alive until it had begun to heal. And the patient of this metaphor was not a struggling homeowner, but the financial system, a.k.a. the banks.” Politicians and the media tag-teamed homeowners thinking of walking away last summer. Republicans cited the Wall Street Journal in successfully pushing language through the House that would punish strategic defaulters. “The Wall Street Journal has reported on families that have chosen to stop paying their mortgage and instead use the extra money they are saving each month to ‘buy season tickets to Disneyland…take a Carnival cruise to Mexico…’ and go out to dinner more often,” reads an email from a top House floor staffer GOP offices. House Republican leadership in an e-mail to colleagues explaining the anti-strategic-default effort. The legislation didn’t become law, but it sent a signal. Fannie Mae, the government-owned titan of the mortgage industry, has also been ready to warn homeowners about their financial duties. “Walking away from a mortgage is bad for borrowers and bad for communities and our approach is meant to deter the disturbing trend toward strategic defaulting,” Terence Edwards, a Fannie executive, said in a June statement . Edwards said homeowners who strategically default or fail to work “in good faith” to avert foreclosure would be ineligible for new Fannie Mae-backed mortgages for seven years. Freddie Mac, Fannie’s government-owned counterpart, has adopted the same policy. Fannie, in its statement, also warned it would pursue “deficiency judgments” in court that would allow it to recoup from borrowers the difference between the value of a home in foreclosure and the outstanding loan a bank still has on its books. After inflating the bubble until it burst, banks essentially now want to be insulated from their mistakes by dunning borrowers for every last penny. Deficiency judgments are allowed in 39 states and were a nagging concern to many of the homeowners we spoke to. The IRS may also loom over homeowners who walk away. Under current law, thanks to a measure spearheaded by Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) in 2007, the IRS cannot come after homeowners after they walk away. Before that law took effect, if a bank took, say, a $200,000 hit on a foreclosed home and “forgave” the debt, that forgiveness would be counted as taxable income for the former homeowner. A note to the fence-sitters: Miller’s law expires at the end of 2012. FAMILY VALUES Ray Scott, 45, lives with his wife and two kids in Ferndale, Mich., a suburb of Detroit, where the house he bought for $140,000 five years ago is now worth $90,000. “Last year we were trying to figure out whether it would make sense to walk away from the house or not, considering we’re never going to make it back — at least not in my lifetime — the equity that we already lost,” he said. Scott mulled many options, including foreclosure and a short sale, but the bank wouldn’t approve a short sale and he feared walking away would ruin his credit. Scott said he ultimately decided it was in the family’s best interest to stay. With his wife in nursing school, she needed a good credit rating to qualify for student loans. “If we’d decided to let the home go into foreclosure, or tried to go through with a short sale, that would have had an immediate negative impact on her credit rating, and it would have made it really difficult for her to qualify for student loans,” Scott said. “I didn’t want her to be in that position, where she wouldn’t be able to finance her education.” Further, with both his sons recently diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, Scott felt staying put and having a stable place for his kids was important. “We live in a good community,” he said. “There are good schools, good people, we know all our neighbors. People look out for each other here.” If not for the family concerns, Scott said he would have walked away in a heartbeat. “If it had just been myself and my wife, if the kids hadn’t been involved and she’d been all done with school, it would have been a really easy decision to make to walk away,” Scott said. “We’re so far under, we’re never going to recover the amount of money that we’ve already lost.” HOME IS HOME Kirk Arthur, a 43-year-old software sales manager from Miami, bought his house for $285,000 in 2008. At the time, he thought it was a steal: the house had been on the market for $450,000 only a year earlier. Now he estimates it’s worth just $150,000. “We figured the price couldn’t drop much lower,” Arthur told HuffPost. “Now we can’t foresee our condo appreciating even close to the $285,000 we paid for it two years ago.” Fortunately, Arthur said, he and his husband were able to negotiate with the bank to refinance their mortgage loan to a 4 percent interest rate, reducing their payments by $500 per month. He feels like things have turned out all right. “At the end of the day we were never in any danger of being homeless or even losing our home,” Arthur said in an email. “Yes, one of us lost our job during the hard times (me), but we managed through … I found a job within two weeks of getting laid off — twice. The job I have now is in line with my salary requirements. It’s sort of a happy ending.” Though the value of his home continues to drop, Arthur says he’s not interested in moving. It was hard to find a home that fit his needs and budget in an area where he wanted to live, Arthur said, and moving again would be expensive. “I’m not 25 years old, I’m 43,” he said, “I’ve got stuff.” What’s more, Arthur says that while property values in the area have dropped, the price of rentals has risen, minimizing any potential walkaway savings. But more than anything, it’s the idea of home that Arthur is unwilling to relinquish. “It comes from my parents,” he said of his desire to own. “Your home, your house is such a symbol of status, an important indication of where you are in life,” he added. “You can paint it, express yourself, make it your own … We’re happy in Miami.” FORECLOSURE AS THE NEW DIVORCE Jon Maddux is CEO of You Walk Away, a California-based company that helps homeowners navigate foreclosure. Founded in 2007, the company has assisted more than 4,000 people navigate foreclosure, according to its website. Maddux told HuffPost that fewer and fewer people are sobbing when they call for help. He said that’s because of growing cracks in the old chestnut that foreclosure victims are “financially irresponsible” or “deadbeats.” Same as what happened with divorce, he said. “People thought of it as horrific if someone was to get a divorce,” said Maddux. “And then, over the years, it was like, well, okay, they got divorced. It’s understandable because that’s what a lot of people do.” Some 60 to 70 percent of You Walk Away’s clients actually can afford their mortgage payments, Maddux says; most people just need assistance in handling an exceptionally-bad property investment. Maddux thinks renting is the future; statistics bear that out. According to U.S. Census data released this week, homeownership rates have dipped to their lowest level since 1998. “You can do whatever you need to do,” said Maddux of renting. “It’s important to be able to move if you find a job … in another city.” TRAPPED ON AN ISLAND Brian Shiro, 32, lives with his wife and 3-year-old son in Ewa Beach on Oahu, where he said the house he bought for $411,000 in October 2005 is now worth only around $250,000. Shiro, who said he earns a six-figure salary working as a geophysicist, says he can afford his mortgage, but half of his income goes to making the monthly payments. The bigger problem though, is the lack of freedom. He’d like to pursue other career opportunities, he says, but stands to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars if he moves now. Shiro bets that in 10 or 15 years, his home will recover its value, but even that assumption is a gamble. In the meantime, he’s unhappy being trapped on the island. “I’ve had to turn down some job offers, I’ve had to reconsider educational opportunities,” says Shiro, who recently applied to a doctoral program in civil and environmental engineering in the San Francisco Bay Area. “All sorts of things that would advance my career would require relocation,” he said. What’s more, his wife is pregnant with their second child, and Shiro feels his family has outgrown the space. “A four-member family in a small town home is a little cramped,” he said. “It’s an aspect you don’t hear talked a lot about too is people who are playing by the rules, making the payments, but for whatever reason just want to try to get on with their lives and can’t because they’re stuck in a holding pattern.” PEER PRESSURE When he contacted HuffPost last year, Wayne King said he was trying to do a short sale on his house in Columbus, Ohio, which he’d bought in 2002 for $128,000. Six years later, in 2008, he left his job as a professor at Ohio State University for a new gig at a software company outside of Boston. The short-sale process hadn’t been going well, despite the new floors and carpets King said he and his wife had installed. “When I owe $107,000, I can’t afford to take $80,000,” he wrote, referring to the lowball offers he’d received. “I am up-to-date on my mortgage, but I don’t know how long I can afford to keep paying the mortgage along with utilities and upkeep in one state and rent in another state.” By then, King had already soured on the folk wisdom about homeownership. “People are fed this storyline that buying a home is the best investment you can make,” he wrote. “Something that will always appreciate and never lose value, but buying a home has been the worse investment I have ever made.” His attempts at a short sale didn’t pan out. King said this year that his lender appraised the home at a level nobody would pay. He said he looked into renting the place out, but discovered that at the going rate for rents, he’d still be losing money. He can afford to continue paying the mortgage, but doing so would squeeze the family finances — he said he and his wife just had a baby — so now he’s ready to walk away. King is trying to do a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, which is a process similar to a formal foreclosure but widely believed to be less damaging to a homeowner’s credit. His understanding, after speaking to his bank and to counselors from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, is that he needs to be delinquent by at least one month for this to work. Then, he said, his bank told him it will take five months or more for the process to finish up. (HUD’s guidelines say a DIL should not take more than 90 days and that current borrowers can still be eligible.) “It’s this hopeless situation where there’s nothing I can do except sit on my hands while these four or five late payments end up on my credit report,” he said. Every month the deed-in-lieu process continues, the Big Three credit-monitoring bureaus will hear from the bank that King is delinquent, and they’ll plug that info into their proprietary algorithms for determining his credit score, which will sink lower and lower. King, a mathematician who works for a company that creates algorithms, is frustrated that his credit score is calculated in a secret way and that it’s impossible for him to know exactly how much lower the score will go. King’s algorithmic background makes him particularly sensitive to the vicissitudes of his credit score, but everyone else in the pack also spoke either with concern about their score or relief that they had been able to let go of it — like a Taoist on the path to a higher state of being. There’s a practical reason for that: a low score makes credit harder to access and life harder to live. But it’s also part of the reality that a low score will destroy someone’s personal finances. A spokeswoman for Experian, one of the Big Three credit reporting bureaus, said there’s no way to know exactly how badly any given financial decision will hurt a person’s credit score, or even if a deed-in-lieu will be better than a foreclosure. “There are hundreds of different credit scores out there in the marketplace,” the spokeswoman said. “Credit scores analyze the information from an individual’s credit report, and no single factor can be considered in isolation. For that reason, any given item can have a different point impact for each individual, even when the scoring system used is exactly the same. It’s not a formula, such as ‘Two delinquencies plus a foreclosure plus seven accounts all in good standing equal this score.’ It’s much more complex, and that’s why we really can’t provide an exact point value for a deed-in-lieu-of-foreclosure, a short sale, foreclosure or a bankruptcy.” Meanwhile, King’s ongoing mortgage mess is an occasional topic of water cooler discussion at the office. “It’s embarrassing for me because I have to work in a very educated, more well-off environment, because most of the people I work with have Ph.D.s and probably make far above the median income,” he said. “So to be in the position where you’re — they’re constantly asking about the house. They all knew I had a house I was trying to sell.” While concerned about his credit score, King doesn’t want to feel like a deadbeat, either. “I’ve always paid my debts. It’s something that’s instilled in you,” he said. “You get it from the media. I was just watching Kudlow not that long ago and he was harping on the obligation to pay your debts. It just kind of permeates.” LET THEM EAT CAT FOOD CNBC anchor and noted oligarch Larry Kudlow articulated the mainstream position against strategic defaulters in a May column on CNBC.com. “[J]ust because a home loan is ‘underwater’ — meaning its value is lower than today’s current market price — why should a responsible person whine about it and walk away?” Kudlow wrote. “Why not service this loan for the longer term and wait for prices to improve? That’s called personal responsibility.” This is in keeping with received wisdom about the evils of foreclosure. As Brent White of the University of Arizona’s law school noted in an October paper, “the predominant message of political, social, and economic institutions in the United States has functioned to cultivate fear, shame, and guilt in those who might contemplate foreclosure.” One can think of keeping the strategic default rate low — White’s paper put it between 2.5 percent and 3.5 percent — as a slow-drip bank bailout. With rescued banks now profitable yet refusing to modify underwater mortgages, the widespread fear that prevents more strategic defaults “has led to distributional inequalities in which individual homeowners shoulder a disproportionate financial burden from the housing collapse,” White wrote. In other words, homeowners who shy from strategic default are collectively doing Wall Street and the banking system another favor — beyond just footing the bank-bailout bill as taxpayers. Yet the moral argument is out of sync with some basic financial logic. As White sees it, plummeting home prices mean: “Millions of U.S. homeowners could save hundreds of thousands of dollars by strategically defaulting on their mortgages.” Data suggest that wealthier Americans, not those with lower or mid-range incomes, have a greater proclivity for punting their mortgage obligations by embracing strategic defaults. The New York Times reported in July that more than one in seven homeowners with loans of more than $1 million are seriously delinquent, compared with one in 12 homeowners who owe less than $1 million. It’s a stat analysts chalk up to strategic default. “The rich are different: they are more ruthless,” Sam Khater, CoreLogic’s senior economist, told the Times. So are some big, well-heeled corporations. For example, investment bank and bailout recipient Morgan Stanley walked away from five San Francisco office buildings at the end of 2009. Real-estate company Tishman Speyer — which also leases space to HuffPost for its Washington, D.C. office — strategically defaulted on the biggest residential property deal ever in January 2010, around the same time Wayne King and others were pulling their hair out over whether they should do the same. And the Mortgage Bankers Association, lobbyists for mortgage lenders, walked away from their own headquarters in Washington, D.C. in February 2010. (The MBA did not respond to requests for comment for this story.) Peter Fredman, a foreclosure defense attorney in California, said he was getting so many calls from people who wanted to sue over their exploding interest-only mortgages that he decided to set up a “strategic default” calculator online as a public service. Instead of suing some penniless broker, he kept having to suggest, why not just walk away? “Ironically, a lot of people who feel that special obligation [to pay a mortgage] are the people in the worst position,” Fredman said. “Upper-class people, they have no problem with what’s going on. They have bigger considerations.” Fredman’s website puts it like this: “From the institutional lenders’ point of view, you should eat cat food and take your kids out of school before you stop making your mortgage payment. But that is because institutional lenders don’t eat or have kids. They are fictitious entities, constitutionally dedicated solely to the pursuit of money. Repaying your debts may be a matter of personal integrity that you may or may not be able to afford. But you have no moral obligation [to] the financial institutions because they do not operate in a moral universe.” ‘WE KNEW THESE PEOPLE’ Howell Ellerman teaches real-estate classes at Folsom Lake College in Folsom, Calif. Last fall, a student in his thirties asked Ellerman about the meaning of financial responsibility and the hard realities of home ownership in the wake of the housing meltdown. “He’s in a house that is $500,000 underwater. I think they bought it for $1 million,” recalled Ellerman, 51. “He asked me in front of the whole class, ‘Should I walk away from my house?’” “I can’t give you advice,” Ellerman said he told his student, “but in the world we live in, there isn’t a better time to walk away. You shouldn’t feel any compunction.” Ellerman himself had been prepared to walk away from the home where he and his wife and kids had lived for 12 years. They wanted to buy a bigger house 10 miles away asking $595,000 as a short sale after initially listing at $1.5 million. “We made an above-asking price offer and are now in contract to buy the house and move with our five kids there,” Ellerman wrote. “The question is what do we do with our current house, which we love and have taken great care of.” He wrote that they wanted to sell or rent out the previous house but were willing to walk away and take the credit hit if the bank wouldn’t cooperate. It didn’t — Ellerman said the bank initially approved them on a loan for the new house but then decided to foreclose on it instead, so they’re still in their old house. It sits on a cul-de-sac with 10 others. Ellerman said four emptied in the past few years. He’s certain two are foreclosures. He has no idea where any of the families went; he figures they couldn’t handle the shame. “Seriously, we knew these people. They’d been over for Christmas, and then all of a sudden we see the U-Haul truck pull up,” he said. “When people leave their houses they don’t even say goodbye. They leave like in the cloak of darkness in a U-Haul truck and you don’t even know where they go.” THE AMERICAN DREAM When Bob Balint of Sarasota, Fla., wrote to HuffPost last year, he was asking for advice rather than looking to tell his story. We told him to consult with a lawyer — good advice to anybody thinking of walking away — and he did. Balint, 55, a father of two, is a dispatcher for the local transit system, and his wife teaches young children. He said their combined income of $51,000, boosted by occasional overtime, was enough to make their mortgage payments. But overtime has given way to furloughs and their house, which they owe $225,000 on, is falling apart. Balint lives in a part of the country particularly ravaged by the housing collapse and similar houses nearby are going for as little as $40,000, he said. “It’s like buying a Lexus,” he said. “You can almost come up with that in cash. Gimme two years without paying every Tom, Dick and Harry that I owe and I’ll have it.” The Balints were late on a few payments through 2010 but made them up each time. “We’re hanging in there by hook and crook,” he said. After a year of wrestling with the decision, however, the Balints are finally pulling the ripcord. This January, they made their last mortgage payment. They’re walking away from the home they’ve lived in since 1994 to rent a better, cheaper place. He’s looking forward to the freedom that will come with renting. “You’re almost better off not owning. If you’re company buckles up, you’re stuck, you can’t move to the jobs,” Balint said. “The American Dream is for shit.”

Read the full article →

Lawrence G. McDonald: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s Days Are Numbered, But It’s a Big Number

February 3, 2011

In my New York Times Best Selling book, A Colossal Failure of Common Sense — The Inside Story of the Collapse of Lehman Brothers , I make a strong case. Our government allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to become a giant mortgage backed security hedge fund, complete with 70-1 taxpayer funded leverage. They had sub Libor financing, meaning the luxury of borrowing money at one of the lowest interest rates in the world, all risks backed by the US taxpayer. To understand this kind of leverage imaging walking into the most profitable casino in Las Vegas, all you have is $100 in your pocket. Yet, because of your good credit, the casino allows you to play blackjack with $7000 at risk on the table. The slightest loss and your equity is wiped out. That’s exactly what happened to Fannie and Freddie and today the US taxpayers have lost well over $360 billion in this reckless risk taking bonanza. That’s over half the cost of the entire war in Iraq. It wasn’t always this way but as Samuel Johnson once said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In the 90′s Fannie and Freddie only used 30-1 leverage but the great enabler, US Congress, was there all they way either ignoring or clueless as to the real risks lurking below the surface. I know a thing or two about risk and leverage. My former employer was levered 40-1, that was before we filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Uncle Sam chose not to save Lehman yet letting her fail cost the taxpayer dearly. When that $660 billion domino fell, she obliterated the value of Fannie and Freddie’s $5 trillion mortgage portfolio, crushing the US taxpayer in the process. Thank you Hank Paulson. Where We Stand Today The recent conferences in Washington debating reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are filled with political mud slinging, it’s the ultimate blame game. Last week’s release of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission’s (FCIC) Report and Dissents are making big headlines. Yet, the story within the story is how political infighting tore this dysfunctional commission apart, ten million dollars spent and we have very little to show for it. I am outraged that President Obama has not stepped in here. I think he blew a golden opportunity to lead and protect billions of US taxpayer dollars at stake. The FCIC report is a joke, it’s the rehash of all rehashes. It looks like my book, Andrew Ross Sorkin’s Too Big to Fail and Michael Lewis’ The Big Short . All thrown into one 700 page document. Is there anything new we have learned in the Commission’s report? Are there clear recommendations that will help prevent another financial crisis? No. The commission was divided by politics and their conclusions are as messed up as a Brett Farve retirement party, his 7th one no less. Ironically the most hapless part of the commissions report is probably the most important. What really went wrong with Fannie and Freddie and how do we fix them? The real battles are being fought within the Obama Administration, among regulators over smaller related housing issues, and between Republicans in the new Congress. The next few weeks will show significant developments in some of these areas, but the process for reforming Fannie and Freddie, the housing finance system more broadly, lags far behind the deficit and job creation in the minds of Congress and the Obama Administration. It’s a shame but look for this battle to take years, not months, dragging out the uncertainty and sclerosis which has plagued the housing markets for the past several years. The Obama Administration has recently leaked reports to the press that their report outlining suggested reforms to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, will be delayed till mid-February, from the statutory due date of January 31. The Deadly Divide? My friends at DCTripwire [firewalled] tell me the likely causes of this delay are twofold: (1) A lack of senior staff at Treasury and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA)–the same over loaded team responsible for implementing many of the rules and regulations of the Dodd-Frank Act. Guess what? They’re also in charge of Fannie and Freddie reform. (2) The fact that there is a divide within the Obama Administration, both substantively and politically on any reform efforts. One side is determined to maintain some sort of government (and hence taxpayer) guarantee of mortgage securities, providing support of middle class homeowners. The other side seeks to remove the government from having either an explicit or even implied guarantee. Instead they hope to trade this removal of the government from the market for the creation of a fund to assist low-income citizens in attaining affordable rental housing. We all know President Lincoln once said “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Well, this one can’t even roll over. Why? Because Treasury Secretary Geithner (and former National Economic Council Director Larry Summers) are in the former group, while Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Shaun Donovan and other progressive members of the Administration are in the latter. This might explain President Obama’s silence over the politically handicapped Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. Even with the Administration’s move back towards the political center, I think the President’s chum Tim Geithner wins and their report, whenever it is issued, will maintain some government role in the mortgage market. I’m told the report will also spell out several options for housing finance reform, in very broad terms, and will not be in legislative language. The Obama Administration wants this report to add to the discussions on Fannie and Freddie, but for political reasons, they want to allow Republicans in the House of Representatives to launch the first salvo in this legislative battle. Inside the Reform Process Despite the lack of concrete action by the Administration, there are several regulatory actions that are being discussed or implemented at present. The first actions have been taken internally by Fannie and Freddie. They each have improved their balance sheets since conservatorship began. Credit standards have been raised, and both they are refusing to purchase mortgages from borrowers with poor credit scores. Fees that each entity charges to banks to guarantee their loans have also been increased and this income has helped to rebuild their balance sheets. Fannie and Freddie still owe a substantial quarterly payment to the Treasury Department in the form of a 10% dividend on the Treasury’s preferred stock. If this dividend was lowered, it would allow the them to begin to repay the billions in taxpayer support and simplify any future restructuring. Any change to the dividend would need to be approved by both Treasury and the Federal Housing Finance Administration (FHFA) which is the GSEs conservator. Expect that any changes will be subjected to heavy Congressional scrutiny. In a move I support, Fannie and Freddie are contemplating is a shift in the ways that servicers are compensated. This is crucial because the incentives in the mortgage servicing business are all screwed up and have hurt the foreclosure process. According my DCTripwire, a Federal Housing Finance Administration / HUD study is being made of future mortgage servicing structures and compensation for single-family conforming mortgage loans. Servicer compensation at present is based on a minimum servicing fee that is included in the mortgage rate, and thus decreases the flexibility of servicing non-performing loans, which has the potential to affect negatively both borrowers and guarantors. Democrats will continue to hammer on mortgage servicers and the lack of investigation and sanctions by the Obama Administration on servicers. Special Inspector General for TARP, Neil Barofsky has assured the Congressional Oversight Committee that criminal investigations and audits of the largest servicers are currently underway, in addition to the 50 state attorneys’ general investigation, though he also emphasized that the Administration could and should do more in this area. Fannie and Freddie Reform Efforts in Congress After the release of the White House report on options for the future of housing finance, look for Congress, especially Republicans in the House of Representatives, to take the lead in proposing GSE reforms. The House Financial Services Committee has already scheduled four hearings on housing and GSE-related topics. When following these developments, it is important to note that the Committee’s rules have reverted to “regular order” whereby the Subcommittee Chairs will hold all, or nearly all, of the hearings on individual topics and investigations , leaving the full Committee hearings, led by Chairman Spencer Bachus (R-AL), for marking up legislation and receiving prominent figures, such as Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke. Reading between the lines, in my opinion I don’t think House Speaker Boehner and House Finance Committee chair Bachus are all that close these days, especially on reform of Fannie and Freddie. Boehner’s Boys This Subcommittee move is significant change and will introduce important new names and characters into the contentious world of housing finance, including the Rep. Neugebauer (R-TX); Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Committee Vice-Chair; Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets & GSEs (Fannie and Freddie). The list of hearings shows that housing finance and GSE reform are the main focus of the Committee, save Dodd-Frank oversight and macroeconomic policy. What has also become apparent is that Committee Republicans are no further along in devising a credible plan for reform of the GSEs than they were during Dodd-Frank Act negotiations. After conversations with House staff, it is likely that Vice-Chairman Hensarling’s bill from the 11th Congress remains the starting point for Republican legislative reforms. The bill was widely derided in the 111th Congress as “unserious,” since it remains ideologically pure, and refuses to acknowledge the fact that the GSEs currently represent nearly 100% of the mortgage securitization market, alongside an extremely weak housing market. With this in mind, look for the Obama Administration, despite their internal disagreements, to acknowledge this reality and allow Republicans to take the lead in this contentious area as part of a delaying tactic, hoping to push reform off for as long as possible. As mentioned earlier, House Republicans have painted themselves into a corner, consistently and eagerly proclaiming that any government guarantee or involvement in the housing finance markets, save perhaps the Federal Housing Administration and Veterans Administration (for providing assistance to first-time moderate income homebuyers), is unacceptable. Look for any House Republican bill to draw heavily from the work of Peter Wallison, who along with Alex Pollock and Edward Pinto, have recently released a White Paper entitled : “Taking the Government Out of Housing Finance: Principles for Reforming the Housing Finance Market.” Rep. Garrett, who is expected to lead the way on this issue, has been quoted this past week saying definitively, “There can’t be any explicit guarantee. The main problem has been that the taxpayer has been on the hook for this credit risk for a long time. We are adamant there should be no more bailouts.” This will make any compromise with the Democrat-controlled Senate very difficult, if not impossible, let alone with the Obama Administration. Although Garrett and his fellow House Republicans are often portrayed as sympathetic to the financial services industry, the Congressman has also been quick to pour his scorn on an industry proposal, from the Financial Services Roundtable, which proposes to replace the GSEs with several privately capitalized firms that would package mortgage-backed securities, while the federal government would guarantee the interest and principal for investors. In theory the very same entities securitizing nonconforming and private label securities would also be the co-owners of the guaranteeing entities, but these would only be allowed to work with traditional, conforming, 30 year mortgages. The Federal guarantee would not apply to the new entity itself, or any debts or securities issued by them to cover the costs of their operation. The Long Road Ahead The problem for Garrett and other Republicans will be the presence of a “federal catastrophic insurance fund,” similar to that which was put in place after 9/11 for terrorism reinsurance. This fund would support the guarantee only if one of these firms fell into financial trouble. The guarantee firms would contribute to the insurance fund and several layers of capital would need to be used up before the government was responsible. Even this level of taxpayer exposure is unacceptable to many Republicans. Instead of any government support, the Republican school of thought espouses a housing finance sector where the government operates only on the margins, by setting and enforcing standards for what types of mortgages can be securitized, what are appropriate servicing standards and procedures, and potentially by explicitly offering rental assistance for affordable housing. Most plans for privatization of the GSEs are implemented chiefly through the gradual reduction in the size of the conforming loan limit (at a rate of around 20% per year), so that in theory, the private sector is able to securitize more and more newly originated mortgages, and/or an alternative such as covered bonds are introduced. Due to the problems that may result from such a plan, it is likely that the Senate Banking Committee will proceed on GSE reform at a far more deliberate pace than the House akin to the recent Dodd-Frank Act preparations. The Senate Committee (which has yet to hold its first organizational hearing) also will have several new personalities, including a new Chairman, Tim Johnson (D-SD). Its increased Republican presence, which is increasingly made up of conservative-leaning members, will likely echo the House Republicans. Two Senate Republicans are likely to emerge as key thought-leaders in this debate, Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) and Bob Corker (R-TN). Early indications are that although they each consistently show concern for taxpayers, they both recognize the inherent risks of rushing though a privatization of the GSEs with a weak housing market and without deep and serious reforms of the other aspects of housing finance, such as the rules regarding securitization (including servicing standards, representations and warranties.) It is doubtful that any substantive legislation will be introduced before the summer and even then, it will likely only be in the House, with the Senate months, if not nearly a year behind. For more info go to www.lawrencegmcdonald.com or www.dctripwire.com

Read the full article →

‘We Couldn’t Cut Enough’: Newark Mayor Cory Booker

February 3, 2011

Since he became mayor of Newark in 2006, Cory Booker has had to make cuts that previously seemed unthinkable. Under his watch, the city closed libraries , imposed furloughs on employees and, late last year, laid off about 13 percent of its police force. While the police department says there are no fewer officers on patrol — thanks to reassignments within the force — a spike in crime in the two months since the layoffs has left some residents worried about safety. Newark isn’t alone. After the worst financial crisis since the Depression, cities across the nation have seen revenue wither . As they struggle to get their books in order, cities are increasingly finding that they don’t have the money to fund even the most basic of services. But while Booker faces a common problem, his strategies for dealing with it are unusual. He spoke with HuffPost about how he navigates the budgeting process, and why he has hope for the city of Newark. HuffPost: A trailer for the new season of Brick City starts with a quote from you, on the screen, where you say, “Squeeze everything else but police and fire.” But late last year, the city laid off 164 officers, about 13 percent of the force. How did it come to that? Booker: Look, budgets across the country — 60 percent of American cities have had reductions in their forces of public safety. And, so, this is not something that’s unique to Newark. In fact, right now it’s plaguing major cities in New Jersey. Camden has had major layoffs. Paterson is facing layoffs. Atlantic City. Jersey City. We’re facing, literally, the worst economy of our lifetimes. So, we have dramatic losses in revenue. And public safety, frankly — police and fire — make up the significant majority of our budget. We were squeezing and starving every other area of our city. Furloughing employees, cutting staff. But it came to a point where we couldn’t cut enough to make up for the tremendous budgetary shortfall. Challenges demand creativity. I’m grateful that the police director and my team really came forward with a substantive plan to make sure that the loss of those police officers didn’t affect the progress we were making in the street. And, look, it’s been a difficult adjustment. We had really some challenges in the month of December. But now, as we’re going through January, things are really getting back on track. And I’m really encouraged. Remember, the first three years in office, we led the nation in percentage reduction of shootings and murders. And I’m really confident that now we’re beginning to get back to that nation-leading pace. HP: I’ve heard that there are the same number of officers patrolling the street. But I also have heard from some of the union officials that in order to accomplish that, older officers have had to be re-deployed: People who were looking at retirement are now on street patrol. Are you concerned about officer safety? CB: I’m always concerned about officer safety. I think when you are the leader of men and women who put their lives on the line — whether it’s firefighters and police, or national guard members in the military — that’s the most horrific thing, I think, for an executive, when guys who put their lives on the line get hurt or injured. That’s a concern that hasn’t changed as a result of the layoffs. But in many ways, we have more experienced officers on the streets. Guys with more years under their belts, not people that are six months out of the academy. It’s a give-and-take in many ways. Look, I’m very happy: We have our chief, who used to be doing other jobs, now in precincts, running our precincts. In many ways, we have the best talent of the agency closer to the street and closer to the ground on a daily basis. HP: The city has also laid off other workers. How deep can the city cut before it just stops to function? CB: Money is a necessary but not sufficient resource with which to get the job done. And I found out when I first came in — we were dialing down our budgets every year that I’ve been in office. What I’ve been finding is, if you are more creative, if you bring more resources to the table from outside your taxpayer base — you know, we’ve raised well over $200 million in private philanthropy for our strategic needs here in the city of Newark — it’s if you bring people together to volunteer, and do things that they weren’t doing before, you can still make tremendous progress. A lot of our best innovations since I’ve been mayor have been public-private partnerships. Whether it’s our ex-offender reentry programs, or even the camera system that we put up all around the city — all paid for by philanthropy — Newark is creating a real good model for government effectiveness and advancement, based on its partnership with non-profits and the private sector. HP: Does that include your own involvement in citizens’ lives? Especially via your Twitter feed? CB: Today’s a great day. We got out early this morning. I’ve been myself inspecting streets, but I’ve got now thousands of more eyes on my streets, and people tweeting me about what’s wrong. In the last month alone, my Twitter feed has helped me get water main breaks addressed before I even knew they existed — to even traffic lights, to even bigger things, like people that are in need of emergency services but can’t get through. Government in the 21st century in America is going to change dramatically. We’ve seen government obligations mushrooming, like pension costs and health care costs. It’s gonna squeeze out a lot of the other things that we expect from government, unless we get more creative and change the way government does business. This is what Newark is trying to do. Under tough circumstances, in the worst economy of a lifetime, we’re actually making strides in areas, from affordable housing, to re-entry services, to grassroots financial empowerment and literacy, to public safety efforts. We’re able to make some strides, even though this is such a tough time, because we’re thinking creatively. We’re bringing in new partnerships, we’re introducing technology. It’s not easy — we’re stumbling and falling, and we’re occasionally being set back. But all in all, if you look at Newark compared to five years ago, our shootings are dramatically down, murders are dramatically down, our population is dramatically up. There’s a lot of hope in Newark. The arena, and the arts culture in Newark, is booming. There’s more basketball games — college and professional — played in Newark right now than any place in America, except for the Staples Center and Madison Square Garden. So much is happening in Newark right now that’s making me downright proud. But every day, every inch of ground you’ve got to earn. It’s tough, it’s hard, but I’ve got great partners helping me in and outside of government. HP: How do you make these budget decisions? How do you determine whether to close libraries, or lay off workers? Or cut toilet paper from the city offices? CB: Well, the toilet paper never got cut. [Laughs.] It is tough decisions. I often joke that the decisions we had to make last year were between awful and godawful. But at the same time, that’s what you’re elected for. I would rather be in a game where you’re 20 points behind than 20 points ahead, because we can rally people together to do what other people don’t think we can do. If we’re willing to make the tough decisions, but at the same time be humble enough to reach out for help and engage others, we can make strides where other people can’t. If you walk around the city of Newark today, you will see at least two dozen new parks all over the city that were built during this worst economic downturn. That’s because we’re bringing people together to do things other people can’t do. Literally, the largest parks expansion our city has had in over a century has happened in the worst economy, because of all the partnerships that we’ve been bringing together. That’s how you have to get things done now. You have to find creative coalitions. We had a horrible spike in car-jackings in December. What we did was we brought together a state, Federal, local coalition, and we beat it back within weeks. It was amazing. The law enforcement community in New Jersey rallied together in a way that left me humbled and inspired.

Read the full article →

Investigators Accused Of ‘Malpractice’ In Report On For-Profit Colleges

February 2, 2011

A lobbying group representing the for-profit college industry filed a lawsuit today accusing federal government investigators of “professional malpractice” after issuing a report last summer that documented aggressive and misleading recruitment at several for-profit institutions. The undercover investigation by the Government Accountability Office, which involved four investigators posing as fictitious prospective students, found numerous examples of deceptive statements made by admissions officers and other employees at 15 for-profit colleges. The findings included overstated promises of potential salaries after graduation and high-pressure tactics that pressed applicants to enroll before receiving information about financial aid. The for-profit college industry in recent months has seized on revisions made to the report in November – changes that in many cases represent technical tweaks and elaborations, but that the industry says have “cast serious doubt on the credibility and objectivity of the GAO’s analysis.” The report garnered great attention when it was released last August, causing stock prices to plunge at many of the publicly-traded corporations that own for-profit schools. The for-profit college sector includes a diverse array of schools, ranging from specialized institutions such as ITT Technical Institute to mostly-online colleges such as the University of Phoenix and Kaplan University. Chuck Young, a spokesman for the GAO said the revisions in no way undermine the overall message of the report, and that the agency stands by its findings. According to Young, an independent GAO review team examined the report after it was published and “found no material flaws in the evidentiary support for the overall message.” The lawsuit — filed by the Coalition for Educational Success, represented by Washington lobbyist Lanny Davis — is the latest example of an intense campaign the for-profit colleges are waging against new federal regulations that could restrict their access to lucrative federal student aid dollars. Industry groups have filed a flurry of lawsuits against the Department of Education and conducted an advertising blitz accusing the government of trying to prevent students from going to college. Davis, a former special counsel to President Bill Clinton, began representing the for-profit college sector last year. He has faced criticism in recent years over his paid representation of controversial international figures, including Laurent Gbagbo, the Ivory Coast dictator who refused to step down after losing an election last year. Davis dropped Gbagbo as a client soon after taking him on in December, following complaints from human rights groups. The for-profit college industry faces increased scrutiny as evidence mounts of its students leaving with debts they cannot afford to pay, given the low-wage jobs they tend to attain after graduation. For-profit schools enroll about 12 percent of students nationwide, yet the sector takes in nearly 25 percent of all student aid dollars and is responsible for 43 percent of student loan defaults. A number of the alterations to the GAO report cited in the lawsuit involved wording changes and statements made by recruiters to the fictitious students that were omitted from the first report. For example, in the original report, the GAO noted how a representative at a two-year college in California told the undercover applicant getting a job is a “piece of cake” and graduates of the computer drafting program could make more than $120,000 per year. The revised report added that the employee also said in the current economic environment, the job applicant could expect a job earning $15 per hour, if lucky. However, during the same interview, the representative also encouraged the student to falsely fill out a federal student aid form in order to qualify for Pell Grants. There were no revisions to that conclusion. In another case, the original report said a recruiter at a publicly-traded four-year college in Pennsylvania told an applicant she “should” take out the maximum in federal student loans, even if she didn’t need all of the money for tuition. The revised version of the report changed the wording to “could.” The lawsuit names a series of other tweaks made to the report, suggesting that “pervasive and one-sided errors resulted from the intentional bias driving the investigation, in violation of the GAO’s protocols.” GAO has not discounted any of the conclusions of its report, and the vast majority of the findings required no tweaks or revisions. Some of the more misleading statements included a recruiter in Washington, D.C., telling an applicant a barber can earn between $150,000 and $250,000 per year, even though the Bureau of Labor Statistics pegs 90 percent of barbers’ salaries below $43,000 per year. Another employee at a college in Florida sat coaching an undercover applicant while she took a proficiency test. The same recruiter implied a student did not have to pay back student loans, even though federal student aid is a debt that often cannot be discharged even in bankruptcy. The lawsuit notes that the GAO’s “malpractice and negligence” with the report forced the group to take on “substantial costs and expenses” to set the record straight. The Coalition for Educational Success has been pursuing a separate lawsuit against the Department of Education over access to e-mail records discussing proposed industry regulations. Another group representing the industry, the Association for Private Sector Colleges and Universities, filed a lawsuit last month against the Department of Education seeking to undo consumer protection regulations approved last fall. The disputed rules included guidelines meant to prevent misleading and deceptive pitches by recruiters and measures prohibiting bonuses awarded to recruiters based on the number of student enrollments they secure.

Read the full article →

Raymond Schillinger: Lehigh Acres, Florida: A Parable of the American Dream Gone Bust

February 2, 2011

If you were to drive due east of the warm, coastal snowbird capital of Fort Myers, Florida, you’d soon find yourself in the midst of a sprawling grid of unadorned streets and quarter-acre lots collectively known as Lehigh Acres. Welcome to ground zero of the foreclosure crisis. Properties that sold in 2007 for hundreds of thousands of dollars are now being shuffled in and out of auctions for tens of thousands. Unemployment tops the national average by a few percent. Crime has surged. Abandoned homes have become havens for drug labs and illegal squatters. Lehigh, in terms of land size, is relatively large. I’ve been told anecdotally that it has more streets than New York City. But when I first passed through Lehigh in 2008 while working for a local political campaign, I couldn’t help but notice that the place felt like a bona fide ghost town. Our door-to-door voter outreach was essentially a waste of time, given that on some streets only one or two houses were actually occupied. Three months after the elections ended, I returned to Lehigh, armed with a camera and two friends to help capture in more detail what I had witnessed. What we uncovered was startling and intriguing: The seeds of Lehigh’s demise had been planted far longer ago than any of us had imagined. In the early 1950s, a marketing tycoon named Lee Ratner, who owned nearly all of the undeveloped land east of Fort Myers, decided to transform his sprawling ranch into one of Florida’s first major real estate developments. Working closely with his friend and marketing protégé Gerald Gould, Ratner launched one of the most brilliant land schemes in Florida history. Catering mostly to middle-class, post-World War II families in the American Midwest, the extensive advertising efforts of Lehigh Development Corporation earned the company swift success. Beautiful color brochures introduced cold-climate readers to a world of tropical sun and sport. For the rock-bottom price of $10 down and $10 a month, you too could own a parcel of Floridian soil. Despite the early consumer enthusiasm and rapid sales of land, no one on the original development team had actually expected people to move to Lehigh. After all, the town was unincorporated (and remains so until today). Basic utilities, including power, water and drainage, were simply non-existent. Two-way streets had been provisioned in an incomplete grid, mostly so prospective buyers could visit their own plots. The gilded shimmer of Lehigh’s original plan wore thin as the years progressed. Soon, profits were disappearing into the cavernous black hole of marketing expenses, and it was discovered (perhaps to no one’s real surprise) that $10/month was not enough of a revenue stream to keep a corporation afloat. Lehigh Corp. was sold and re-sold to avoid bankruptcy until finally disappearing in the late 1980s. By the 1990s, Lehigh had devolved into a calm shadow of its former self. Many of the baby boomers who had inherited the parcels of land purchased by their parents during the 1950s and 1960s discovered that the decades-old deeded land in their possession was worth less than the annual taxes on the parcel itself. The vast stretches of pre-planned neighborhoods proved to be kindling for the fire that was sparked by the sudden availability of subprime mortgages in the early 2000s. Fueled by a sudden boom in construction, property prices began to surge overnight. Soon everyone jumped in on the real estate flipping game. If you could sign a dotted line, you were handed the keys to a brand new house in Southwest Florida. By 2006 and 2007, however, the tide had abruptly turned. New construction was sliding to a grinding halt, as investors began to back away from some of the riskier ventures they had pledged to support. Buyers were suddenly finding themselves stuck with properties for which they had paid top-dollar, only to discover that no one was interested in paying that price — or any price. Fear reigned, and panic ensued. By 2008, the financial meltdown went global, and the rest is history. The tragic fall of Lehigh Acres lacks the glitz of the analogous real estate market catastrophes in Las Vegas or Miami; there are no empty high-rise condos here among the sea of hastily constructed and visually monotonous one-, two- and three-bedroom houses. Only a handful of the now bank-owned lots are well-kept; the rest could double as elaborate dioramas of local flora. As for the inevitable day when the housing market finally comes around, it is hard to imagine there will be any significant demand for property in this somewhat rural, landlocked, and unincorporated swath of Floridian swampland. The faces and voices that make up my film, Dreams for Sale , are of the citizens of Lehigh and its neighboring communities who have braved the eye of the storm and lived to tell about it. They will be responsible for shaping Lehigh Acres in its next half-century, and their commitment to that future is the only hope for bringing Lehigh back from the brink of catastrophe. Dreams for Sale is available for free for a limited time online at www.dreamsforsalemovie.com .

Read the full article →

Jonathan Tasini: Wall Street Pay ‘Vaults to Record Altitude’

February 2, 2011

Sometimes, I wonder whether we all live in a grand farce. But, actually, it’s a real-life story about a robbery of the people that continues every day — and today is no different. The robbers grow richer. From the Wall Street Journal , a story headlined: “On Street, Pay Vaults to Record Altitude”: When it comes to paychecks, Wall Street’s law of gravity is back in full force: What goes down must come back up. In 2010, total compensation and benefits at publicly traded Wall Street banks and securities firms hit a record of $135 billion, according to an analysis by The Wall Street Journal. The total is up 5.7% from $128 billion in combined compensation and benefits by the same companies in 2009 . The increase was fueled by a revenue rebound as the financial crisis recedes in the rearview mirror … “Things are shifting back to where they were before,” said J. Robert Brown, a law professor at the University of Denver who studies compensation and corporate-governance issues.[emphasis added] And: Bank of America Chief Executive Brian Moynihan got a 67% bump in his total compensation for 2010, the company said Monday. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. tripled the salary of Chairman and CEO Lloyd C. Blankfein and increased his stock-based bonus 40% to $12.6 million. In some respects, this is reaffirming news — reaffirming in that, for those of us who have argued that nothing much has changed, this is concrete evidence. Let me make three points here. First, the notion that the “financial crisis” has receded is a perspective that millions of Americans do not share, and do not live. Those people are still coping with joblessness and homelessness and bankruptcy precisely because of the crisis caused by many of the people who are now being rewarded. Rather than jailing a lot of these folks, or at least firing them, the financial “community” rewards them. Second, the escalating pay serves notice that we are back to business as usual. The next bubble is just over the horizon. Third, and maybe most important, any “reforms,” particularly those in the Dodd-Frank bill, are honestly toothless for this reason: we have not truly made an effort to SHRINK the size of Wall Street and its influence on our economy. Remember, in the “good days” of Wall Street, when the Street said “cut your labor costs”, CEOs, always attentive to the level of their share price (which effected the stock options CEOs held), would go ahead and slash thousands of jobs — not because it necessarily helped the company’s overall performance but because the stock price might improve because well, Wall Street would be happy. Much of the financial sector’s money was tied up in leveraged buy-outs and corporate takeovers — this is precisely the kind of behavior, along with foolish so-called “free trade” deals and union busting, that has undercut the middle-class and set us on a course of a declining standard of living. None of that mindset has changed as we embark on that mission to “win the future.” That is the more dangerous message from the pay hikes: NOTHING HAS CHANGED . Seems to me that the next Tahrir Square should be around the Wall Street bull on lower Broadway in Manhattan.

Read the full article →

Goldman’s Cynical Assurances Notwithstanding, The Decade is Lost Already

February 2, 2011

Step back from the ledge, America. Scotch the gloomy talk of a Japan-style Lost Decade in which we sink into decline and marinate morosely there for years. We’re back, baby! So says a cheery depiction of these times from the wizards at Goldman Sachs (a firm that, come to think of it, played a starring role in trashing our economic security). The report from Goldman’s Investment Strategy Group, and served up here as evidence of happy times by the credulous folks at Politico’s Morning Money, dismisses suggestions that the American economy might yet confront substantial problems. “The U.S. Will Not Face a ‘Lost Decade,’” declares a subheading in the report, which later calls the odds of that prospect “very remote indeed.” Instead, “America’s structural resilience, fortitude and ingenuity will carry the economy and financial markets in 2011 — and beyond.” Lest this hyperventilating prose fail to provoke the intended response, that last clause sits beneath a picture of George Washington crossing the Delaware. (Hats off to the creative geniuses inside Goldman’s public relations machine, who apparently aim to redefine doubts about the economy — and Goldman’s lucrative cheerleading — as downright un-American.) But one problem with all this soothing talk: As millions of ordinary people can readily attest, we are already deep into a Lost Decade and then some. Rescuing ourselves from this era of diminished expectations is going to require far more than disseminating rosy projections about this year’s stock market while touting the innate power of American business. It demands a serious-minded plan to get people back to work so we can wean ourselves off the investment fantasies propagated by Goldman and its Wall Street cohorts. A brief consideration of reality comes in handy here. The U.S. economy slipped officially into recession in December 2007 and remained there until June of 2009, not for nothing earning the moniker “the Great Recession.” During those 19 brutal months, the economy lost a net 7.3 million jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In the year and a half since, the economy has gained back a grand total of 72,000 jobs — not even half what most economists say we need in a single month just to absorb new entrants to the labor force. And that concentrated period of pain landed on top of a so-called economic expansion that was as weak as any on record. In 2000, at the tail end of the last so-called boom, the median American family claimed annual earnings of about $61,000, according to federal data. By late 2007, as the Great Recession began, that same median family had seen its earnings dip to $60,500. Never before in the half-century during which the government has tracked such figures had the data offered up such clear evidence of declining fortunes: An expansion had run its course with the typical American family rolling backward. Add this up: Seven years of times so lean that lowered incomes became the American norm, followed by a year and a half of terrifying decline — with millions of foreclosures and trillions of dollars in lost wealth — followed by a similar interim of tepid economic growth leaving the unemployment rate above 9 percent. That’s a Lost Decade right there. Set aside the fluctuations that have made the economy manic in recent time — a technology bubble propelled by Wall Street financiers and Silicon Valley venture capitalists; the real estate bubble, pumped up by banks that turned mortgages into casino chips — and focus instead on what matters most to ordinary people: What do we bring home from work? In that context, “Lost Decade” seems like a mild description of the American experience. The data offers up the Lost Three Decades. At the end of 2010, the average weekly earnings for American rank-and-file workers sat at roughly the same level as at the end of 1979 in inflation-adjusted terms. (Have a look at the raw Labor Department data here .) A lot of caveats go into absorbing that number. Large numbers of women and immigrants entered the labor force in those years, which has tended to pull down average wages. But a central truth cannot be dismissed: More than a quarter-century has gone past — a sweep of history that has seen the personal computing revolution, two wars in the Persian Gulf, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, the integration of China into the global economy — and yet the average American worker has gotten nowhere. This while the costs of health care, education and housing have skyrocketed. You won’t encounter any of this sort of analysis in Goldman’s delightful report, which is aimed not at people who work for a living, but people who are inclined to conflate the stock market and the real economy. And the stock market, according to Goldman, is poised for a boffo 2011. Who can argue with that? Savvy U.S. corporations are making enormous sums of money by boosting their sales abroad and keeping a lid on their costs — which is to say, by not hiring people. Companies like General Electric, whose chief executive Jeffrey Immelt was just named to head a task force that is supposed to encourage job growth, have netted record profits by selling product overseas and laying off workers at home. This formula pretty much describes how the economy has grown robustly for most of the last three decades, while opportunities for working people have withered. Its perpetuation fairly ensures no need to worry about a Lost Decade if you are an executive at a multinational corporation, a shareholder seeking hefty dividends, or a Wall Street chieftain counting on a bonus. But the words at the top of Goldman’s report — “Stay the Course” — amount to a threat for the rest of the nation. The course is untenable. For most people, it leads to credit card debt, ulcer medication and, perhaps, bankruptcy. Japan imploded and then stagnated at the messy end of the real-estate speculation that filled out the 1980s by dithering about the needed fix. Tokyo tried modest stimulus spending packages, then austerity, then public works spending and then export-led growth — always too late, always inadequately and usually amid political discord over how to proceed. Here in the United States, the most striking similarity with Japan’s years of decline is the way in which political dysfunction continues to be a powerful barrier to needed action, rendering impossible the muscular investments required to pull us out of the ditch — investments in renewable energy, education and infrastructure. Goldman’s dismissal of Lost Decade fears is brazenly self-serving. When people are afraid, they tend not to hand their money to Wall Street gamblers to manage. Worse, its words heap fresh disinformation and a false dose of reassurance into a conversation that ought to be centered on an honest reckoning about where we are and how to claw our way back. We are very much lost, and have been for decades. And we will remain so for as long as influential people pay attention to the cynical assurances of Goldman, which has mastered the art of digging us deeper into a hole, all the while selling us the shovels.

Read the full article →

Adam Guild Sells Winstar Interactive, Joins Hungry? City Guides as President and CEO

February 2, 2011

LOS ANGELES, CA–(Marketwire – February 2, 2011) – Adam Guild, who brought online publisher rep firm Winstar Interactive out of bankruptcy and drove sales to nearly $20 million annually, has sold the firm to current employees and accepted the position of President and Chief Executive Officer of Los Angeles-based Hungry? City Guides, publishers of print urban dining and drinking guides.

Read the full article →