mortgage

Driven To Violence: Are Big Banks To Blame For Repossessions Gone Wrong?

March 22, 2012

As auto repossessions go, the case of the 2004 Dodge Ram looked to be an easy one. The assignment was what industry insiders call a “voluntary repo,” meaning the owner had agreed to give up his pickup truck without a fight. No sleuthing, no hide-and-seek. All the repo man had to do was show up at the appointed time, hook the Ram up to a tow truck and haul it away for the lender. Nobody should have been hurt, let alone killed. Three years ago, a repo company dispatched Michael Faron Brown, a 27-year-old South Carolina newlywed, on a rare trip across state lines into Georgia to return a few cars to debtors who were back in their lenders’ good graces. Brown worked on contract for a subsidiary of a national repossession company called Renovo Services LLC, and his boss asked him to also handle a few repossessions for a colleague who had bailed on his assignments. That’s how Brown picked up the account for Lidie “Joe” Clements. Clements, a paint contractor near Augusta, Ga., was having a hard time finding jobs due to the sour economy, so he’d fallen behind on the payments for his Ram. He tried to work out a payment plan with his lender, Nuvell National Auto Finance, then a subsidiary of the massive home and auto lender GMAC. According to trial court records, once it became clear that Clements couldn’t make good on his bills, he told Nuvell that he would voluntarily surrender his truck, which, as is custom, would likely be sold or auctioned off to cut Nuvell’s losses. Brown apparently showed up at Clements’ home a day early for the scheduled repo — with his pregnant wife, Victoria, in the passenger seat of the tow truck. According to court records, once they were outside Clements’ house, the newlyweds called him on their cellphone. The conversation quickly turned combative. Clements said he wasn’t home and demanded they not take his truck until the following day, once he’d had a chance to clear out his belongings. But Brown didn’t leave. Under the aggressive incentives that many financial institutions and their repo contractors now force on agents, industry veterans say a repo man like Brown would have been eager to get the truck right then and there. In a system that’s fast becoming industry standard, Brown was working on a flat-rate contingency basis: If he didn’t repossess the vehicle, then nobody owed him a dime for his efforts. If he waited until the following day, he’d be sinking more time and gas money into the assignment. In the topsy-turvy repo world, it was also in Brown’s financial interests to have a reluctant target. According to his payment plan, Brown was earning $70 for each involuntary repo he completed and a mere $30 for each voluntary one. If Clements was no longer surrendering his truck by choice, then Brown stood to earn more money. According to the version he later told in court, Brown called his office seeking advice. The woman handling the Clements account told him to proceed, he testified. “If you see the unit, get it,” she allegedly told Brown. It didn’t matter that a friend of the Clements’ had parked her van in the driveway behind the pickup, blocking it in almost entirely. As Brown would later say in court, “I was always up for a challenge.” So he backed his truck into the Clements’ driveway, maneuvering his tow in the narrow space between the van and the house. Chaos ensued. Joe Clements and his friend Bill Jacobs returned to the house just as Brown was trying to drive off with the pickup. According to Clements’ version, Brown clipped the van repeatedly as he tried to thread the pickup between the van and the house. The van belonged to Jacobs and his wife, Pamela, who had been inside the house with Clements’ wife, Cindy. Joe Clements would later tell police that he pleaded with Brown to stop damaging the van — he was giving the truck up voluntarily, he said, and he just wanted to remove his tools first. “Stop! You’re hitting the van! Stop! We’ll give it to you!” he allegedly said, according to court records. Brown dropped the pickup from the tow. Bill Jacobs confronted him on the driver’s side of the tow truck, while Cindy Clements confronted Victoria Brown on the passenger side, according to court documents. Brown later claimed Jacobs was acting overtly hostile. Whatever the case, Jacobs was knocked to the ground during the commotion, falling in front of the tow truck. Brown drove over Jacobs, through the yard and down the street. Brown would later say he never meant to run over Jacobs, that it was all an accident. “Them tires don’t have a conscience,” he said in court. When Pamela Jacobs came outside, her husband was lying in the street; she lay down with him. His pelvis and abdomen had been crushed by the truck tires, according to a doctor who later examined him. His ribcage had been fractured, his broken ribs puncturing his lungs. His chest and bowels were filling with blood. The 64-year-old would be pronounced dead an hour later. As Jacobs lay dying, Michael and Victoria Brown fled the area. It isn’t clear whether the repo man knew he’d just killed someone — although it wasn’t long before the gravity of the situation set in, and the Browns realized they were fugitives. The following day, they wrote on the wall of their joint MySpace account, “ready to stop repoing. When you have to worry about criminal charges … I say that is enough!” “Stressing the f**k out,” they wrote a short time later. “Why did we have to go to GA to repo yesterday?” Wanted for murder, the Browns turned themselves in to the police five days later. ‘WHERE THE RECESSION AND THE FINANCE WORLD COME RIGHT INTO THE FRONT YARD’ Clements lost his truck during a boom time for auto repossessions. Just like the housing market, the auto finance industry — which ranges from big banks (like Bank of America and Santander) to major auto loan specialists (like Ford Motor Credit, Toyota Motor Credit, and Ally Financial, formerly GMAC) to thousands of smaller credit unions — had experienced its own subprime-fueled credit binge during the last decade. When the economy finally cratered, a record number of car owners were unable to pay their bills. Many borrowers had taken on more debt than they could handle or, like Clements, suddenly had a hard time finding steady work. In many cases, their auto loans had been securitized and sold off to investors, &agrave la the mortgage debacle. More recently, the number of auto repossessions has fallen dramatically, due to tightening credit standards. Of the estimated 1.3 million repossessions performed last year, the overwhelming majority ended peacefully. But plenty of repos have gone bad since the economy went south. According to the industry website CUCollector, which recently started tracking repo-related violence, press accounts indicated there were at least 16 shootings and five deaths stemming from repossessions in 2011. Often it was the repo man who was hurt. In 2009, the same year Jacobs died, two Alabama repo agents were shot and killed. In some ugly cases, you might blame the ill will of debtors. In others, the carelessness of bad-apple agents. In many cases, however, industry insiders trace the problems back to decisions by lenders at the top. According to insurers, lawyers and longtime repo agents, the big-time financial institutions as a group are paying less than ever to have vehicles recovered in the event of default. In the minds of many repo agents, the penny-pinching by lenders has pitted them against one another, as reputable firms struggle to do the job on thinner margins and less-reputable agents willingly take on the cheaper work. “This is where the recession and the finance world come right into the front yard,” says Kevin Armstrong, a former repo man who is now a collections manager and runs CUCollector on the side. Mary Jane Hogan, president of the national trade group American Recovery Association , believes that lenders’ push to cut costs at the expense of repo agents is ultimately lowering standards in her industry. “I’ve been in this since the day the cars were hotwired, and the difference is just unbelievable — the way things have changed, the way repossession agents are treated by clients,” says Hogan. “The clients at this point in time, all they want to know is the price, who’s the cheapest. They call for a quote, and they don’t care what the job involves. They want a flat rate.” The squeeze has been gradual over the past decade. One of the first things repo companies lost was reimbursement for mileage. Lenders used to cover the cost of travel, making long-distance repos more feasible. No more, agents say. Lenders used to cover the repo agency’s cost of holding onto a repossessed car until it could be auctioned off. Now all too often, the agencies are storing those cars for free. Also gone are the payments many repo companies received for cutting keys for the cars they repossessed. Now, many lenders demand that the companies cut keys gratis — even though modern electronic keys can run several hundred dollars apiece. Most controversially, many repo agencies have taken work on a contingency basis, which has driven other agencies to work on contingency as well if they want to stay in business. “It doesn’t make a hell of a lot of sense,” says Joe Taylor, a repo expert in Florida who developed one of the few certification programs for the industry. “It’s bad enough to have these inherent risks associated with repossession. But then if I don’t get this car, then I don’t get paid. And then I don’t feed my family. So you’re willing to take chances that an intelligent person wouldn’t take. The result is violence.” “It’s turning good people into bad, making them do things they wouldn’t normally do,” says Debra Durham, owner of Midwest Adjusters, a repo outfit in Springfield, Mo. Although there remain financial institutions that don’t require repo contractors to work on contingency — notably, many smaller credit unions — it’s becoming the rule rather than the exception, according to veteran repo agents and industry experts. It isn’t always clear who’s actually putting the work out on contingency — the banks or the growing number of middlemen they contract with. Several lenders with large auto loan portfolios, including Bank of America, Santander, Ford Motor Credit and Toyota Motor Credit, declined to discuss how they carry out repossessions when contacted for this story. Sometimes big lenders have wound up on the hook for repos gone awry. This past fall, Ford Motor Credit, a tow company and a private investigation firm agreed to pay a total of $1.2 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the widow of a debtor killed during a repo-turned-catastrophe in upstate New York in 2007. According to press accounts, a repo man ran over Edward Kosloski, 44, in plain view of his three children. Kosloski had climbed onto the back of the flatbed truck that was hauling away his Ford Excursion in order to remove his tools, according to witnesses. The repo man apparently feared Kosloski might become hostile and tried to speed away, causing Kosloski to fall beneath the truck tires. Joseph Granich, the lawyer who sued on behalf of the Kosloski family, can’t comment directly on the case due to the settlement, but he describes the broader problem as poorly trained agents who aren’t invested in the work — and who are paid on contingency. “It’s my opinion, irrespective of this case, that that’s the problem,” he says. “You’ve got six-gun repo guys out there. The law goes out the window because they’re not going to make seven attempts to get a car for 150 bucks.” “Something has to change,” Granich says. “It’s one of these cases where it will take a couple more high-profile deaths until one of these companies gets hit with an excessive verdict and then decides to change their internal policies.” ‘HE HAS A LICENSE TO STEAL AND WILL JACK YOUR S**T’ The bar to entry into the repo business is extremely low. Most states don’t require special licensing or training to carry out a repossession, and states where licensing exists have set minimal certification requirements, according to an analysis by the National Consumer Law Center , a consumer advocacy group. Repo agents could be trained, for example, in dealing with hostile debtors and the finer points of debt collection law. But the certification programs offered by a handful of trade groups are, for the most part, voluntary. Certified veterans like Hogan and Taylor are frustrated that more agents don’t bother with formal training, which, of course, requires time and money. Judicial oversight of auto repossession is also minimal. In most cases, lenders don’t need a court order to repossess a car, as they often do if they wanted to foreclose on a house. Hence the term “self-help repossession”: When the borrower stops making payments, the lender simply helps itself to the car, via a repo agent. In the Georgia case, the defendants named in a suit brought by Pamela Jacobs — GMAC subsidiary Nuvell, Renovo and agent Brown — were recently found liable for Bill Jacobs’ death to the tune of $2.5 million . (The judgment has been appealed, and a lawsuit filed by the Clements family against the same parties has not yet been resolved.) A spokesperson for GMAC successor Ally said the company “requires its third party repossession agencies to follow certain procedures and all applicable laws when recovering a vehicle. The safety of the parties involved is of the highest importance to Ally.” The Jacobs’ lawyer was nonetheless able to convince the jury that Brown, Renovo and Nuvell had acted negligently and that Brown may have had no business repoing cars to begin with. Although Brown had worked for his father’s repossession company before joining Renovo, his criminal history might have overshadowed his employment history in the jury’s eyes. According to South Carolina records, Brown had been charged three separate times with criminal domestic violence, pleading guilty twice. He had also pleaded guilty to assault and battery in a separate case. On the MySpace page he kept with his wife, Brown’s bio read in part, “HE IS THE REPO MAN AND SO IF YOU DONT PAY YOUR CAR PAYMENT HE HAS A LICENSE TO STEAL AND WILL JACK YOUR S**T :) ” Brown responded to a Craigslist ad and signed a contract with Renovo two months before the fatal incident, according to court documents. He later said he didn’t realize it, but Brown, who didn’t finish high school, wasn’t working as a direct employee. He signed an agreement saying that he would carry his own insurance, although he didn’t purchase coverage and later said in court that he didn’t know it was his responsibility. His training consisted of a few days riding around with another agent, he said. He was leasing the truck he used from the company, paying it a fee for every car he repossessed. Kevin Flynn, the chairman and chief executive of Renovo, says that the Georgia tragedy couldn’t have been prevented by Renovo. Brown testified in court that Jacobs had acted like “Mr. Billy Bad Ass” and had “caused himself to get run over,” a version of events to which Flynn ascribes as well. Flynn says that the agents with whom Renovo contracts are trained professionals, and he insists that the contingency payment system had nothing to do with Jacobs’ death. “I don’t know what training or pricing or lenders’ desire could have done to avoid that tragedy,” says Flynn. “You do something two million times, the one-in-a-million thing is going to happen twice. All the prudence in the world isn’t going to stop that. If we were talking about pizza delivery men, the danger is significantly greater.” ‘WANT TO BE A REPO MAN?’ It would seem that just about anyone can become a repo man — like this reporter, for instance. Much like Michael Brown, I once responded to a job ad on the Internet that carried what I considered an irresistible subject line: “WANT TO BE A REPO MAN?” I was working as a freelance writer at the time, and I figured repo work could give me some insight into a little-seen facet of the finance industry. I also badly needed money. My bank account empty, I hadn’t had an interview for a journalism job in months. Unlike the many editors I’d emailed seeking employment, the repo guy responded to my query almost immediately. I met with him the following day. I thought I’d get schooled in the hard times of the recession’s debtors. Instead, I learned how difficult the repo man’s job could be. My boss, who I’ll simply call “T,” had come to the East Coast to open a new office for a repossession company. (Because I signed a non-disclosure agreement as a condition of employment, I won’t be naming the firm.) T was an affable if slightly intimidating man who looked upon his job dispassionately, viewing himself as a necessary cog in the greater financial infrastructure: People default on their loans; they have to give up their rides, however sad their personal circumstances may be. I liked T, and he seemed to like me — particularly my background as a crime reporter, which meant I knew how to track people down. What industry types call “skip tracing” is the hallmark of a good repo agent. Still, T wondered if I had the requisite nerve to do the job. “You’re either going to kick ass at this,” he told me, “or you’re going to fall on your face really, really fast.” My formal training was briefer than Michael Brown’s was. It consisted of an afternoon on the road with T, making what I recall to be three stops. The first two yielded no vehicles and no useful information on the debtors. The third ended in a successful repossession, the sad sack watching from his front porch as his sedan was hooked up to the tow truck and hauled out of sight. With that, I was part of the repo team. My job was to locate cars whose owners had fallen two months or more behind on their payments and then call our tow truck drivers to have the cars taken to the lot. I can’t remember whether I was walked through the details of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act , the federal law that lays out what’s fair game and what’s abusive as agencies pursue debtors and their assets. I had only a vague handle on what was legal and what wasn’t, although I was encouraged to be creative. T told me he had a favorite ruse: Sometimes, when he was trying to confirm that a debtor lived at a certain address, he would knock on the door posing as a local pizzeria employee who was doling out free pies to lucky recipients. Even wary debtors, T told me, would let their guard down. I asked him why pizza. “Everyone loves free pizza,” he shrugged. By almost any standard, my arrangement with the repo company was a crummy one. For starters, my contract stipulated that I wasn’t an employee but an independent contractor — the same arrangement Brown had with his firm. That way, I wasn’t protected by the basic minimum wage and overtime laws that apply to most employees. Nor did the company provide me with health insurance benefits. Rather than earn a set hourly wage, I was to be paid a flat fee of $75 per auto I recovered, earnings on which I would eventually have to pay taxes out of pocket. I had to borrow a Windows-based computer from a friend to access the company’s network. I wouldn’t be reimbursed for gas and wasn’t given a vehicle, meaning that on certain assignments I’d be lucky to break even — assuming I actually found the debtor’s car. The way old-school repo agents see it, I was part of the new crop of fools who are willing to work for next to nothing, whose desperate need to complete the repo can endanger themselves as well as the debtors. It wasn’t easy work. Each morning the queue on my computer filled with cases of late-model cars that I found nearly impossible to track down on cluttered urban side streets. It didn’t help that the banks’ loan documents provided what was often outdated information on the debtor’s whereabouts. Many times with a simple fee-paid database search — I had access to Nexis at the time — I was able to find more accurate address information than what was listed on the loan. After two weeks on the job, I had netted no repossessions, and my own car was starting to break down. The last straw came when I successfully tracked down a Honda CR-V slated for repossession. Unfortunately, it was parked in a driveway next to an identical CR-V. The repo agency had been too cheap to pay to check the license plate number, so I didn’t know which vehicle was the right one. The debtor drove away in one CR-V while I hung back with the other. Once the agency finally ran the plate number, I found out I’d chosen the wrong CR-V. When I told T how frustrated I was, he pleaded with me to keep trying. He had a hard time finding prospects who were willing to venture into more dangerous urban neighborhoods for a highly uncertain paycheck. Having lost money on my boondoggles, I told him I didn’t understand how the work was supposed to be viable. I quit without having made a single repo. ‘A THINKING MAN’S GAME’ To find repo-related violence, Americans need look no further than cable television. Every Wednesday night at 9 p.m., Turner Broadcasting-owned truTV airs a program called ” Operation Repo .” Shot in the style of cinema verit&eacute, the program shows scripted scenes of California’s delinquent borrowers losing their cars to a family-run repo agency and getting violently in the process. The documentary feel no doubt leaves some viewers with the impression that everything on the show is real and that most repossessions devolve into mayhem. Set props have included baseball bats, guns and pepper spray. After lamenting lenders’ shrinking payments, “Operation Repo” is often the next exhibit presented by repo agents making a case for their troubles. “They’re a nightmare, the TV shows,” says Hogan, the American Recovery Association president. “You go and you knock on the [borrower's] door and you’re professional. They open the door and people have this horrified look on their face, like you’re going to knock them out or drag them through the yard.” “Operation Repo” is the brainchild of Lou Pizarro , a repo agent and former Marine who years ago began shooting video of his assignments as a way to indemnify himself in cases where the debtor grew hostile. The show started out as “Operaci&oacuten Repo” on Spanish-language Telemundo, where it’s been highly rated. Although most real-world repossessions end without incident, Pizarro makes no apologies for his show’s sensationalism. “The show is entertainment,” Pizarro says, adding that the scenes are based on his own experiences. “The repossessors who say we’re giving them a bad name — maybe they need to work harder. … This is a thinking man’s game. It’s not about brute strength. It’s about being smarter than the next guy.” Though the show may unsettle debtors, it certainly seems to inspire would-be repo agents turned on by the excitement. “After each show, I get a flood of emails from people telling me, ‘What do I need to do to get into the business?’” Pizarro says. “I tell them where to go, what to do, and I wish them well.” No entity has done comprehensive long-term tracking of injuries or violence within the repo industry, be it against debtors or agents, but one indicator of industry trends might be the cost of insurance for repo agencies. According to Ed Marcum, CEO of Recovery Specialist Insurance Group (provider of accidental death and dismemberment coverage, among other foreboding policies), insurance rates for repo agencies have shot up by about 70 percent over the last decade. “I think there’s a lot more violence toward the repossessor than there was years ago. Ten years ago, you heard of two or three in a year, and that was a lot. Now it’s three or four or five or six a month,” says Marcum. A former repo agency owner and insurance investigator, Marcum, too, attributes many of the recent mishaps and disasters — and, ultimately, the rising insurance premiums — to the narrowing profit margins for repo operators and the accompanying pressures. “A lot of the violence is strictly due to the fact that they have to get cars,” he said. “There’s a lot more risk. You have guys out here now, if they’re not successful, they don’t eat. There’s no doubt in my mind that the contingency adds a lot of liability. So they’re paying for it more.” A 2010 report from the National Consumer Law Center detailed a rash of repo-related violence that it attributed to the financial pressures applied by lenders and the light regulations governing the industry. In the three years leading up to the report, at least six people had been killed, dozens had been injured or arrested, and three children under the age of nine had been hauled away in repossessed cars. The way the National Consumer Law Center sees it, state laws protecting automobile owners haven’t evolved to reflect the importance of cars, and too few states require certification to repossess. Debtors facing repossession are often in dire financial straits. Even a highly professional repo agent might incite a borrower whose livelihood depends on his car. “With most repossessions occurring without the involvement of law enforcement, parties often assert their rights in a sort of vigilante justice,” the report noted. “The current system, unfair to families subject to repossession, also endangers repo agents.” Smaller, independent repo agencies bemoan the recent rise of large “forwarding” companies within the industry. Forwarding companies essentially act as middlemen, picking up large numbers of accounts from lenders and then distributing them, often on a contingency basis, to repo agencies, some of which may be subsidiaries of the forwarding companies themselves. Big lenders like the system because it’s convenient: They can unload all their accounts to a one-stop shop that takes care of finding agents and, in some cases, even auctions off the repossessed autos, all at a low price. Which is why long-time repossession pros like to blame forwarding houses for depressing wages in the business. Many independent agencies that used to deal directly with lenders now find themselves picking up jobs from the forwarders instead. “They all hate it, every one of them,” says Marcum, the insurance group CEO. “I know guys who’ve been in the business 50 years, and they’re having to take the work from forwarders. Why? They say, ‘I have to have income.’ “It really shows you how the little man basically gets manhandled by the large corporations, all for investor dollars,” he says. “This business model endangers consumers. I truly believe it does,” says Patrick Altes, a repo agency owner and private investigator in Florida. “If you don’t pay an agent for anything but getting the car, it liberates you from having to provide good information. There’s nothing that motivates them. They can assign it to five or six agents, pull up a credit report and assign it to a whole bunch of them. It’s a free-for-all, and the only one who gets paid is the one who comes up with the car.” ‘DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO PICK UP MORE CARS’ The focus of many critics’ ire is Chicago-based forwarding company Renovo , whose subsidiary had a contract with Brown, the agent involved in the Georgia death. On its website, Renovo calls itself the repo world’s “most fully integrated single source solution to the financial services industry.” With its growth in the last few years, it has all but revolutionized the repo industry and now finds itself competing with similar companies that have adopted its one-stop-shop model. Flynn, Renovo’s CEO, was in the casino business before shaking up the repo world. He says that Renovo has won such a large share of the market because it was willing to “standardize and professionalize and build a national brand that it seemed the lenders were really looking for.” He also says the idea that Renovo has been driving down prices and abetting the spread of contingency work is nonsense. Renovo, too, has struggled as lenders have come to expect more for less, he says. “I’ve had eight of our largest 10 customers reduce price in the last two years,” Flynn says. “Lenders are really driving the pricing. Our margins have been squeezed tremendously. … Lenders expect more efficiency than ever now.” Renovo’s detractors point to a handful of incidents in which its contractors have wound up in the police blotter. In addition to the Georgia death, an agent working for a Renovo-owned firm shot and killed an Alabama debtor whose car he was repossessing in the middle of the night in 2008. Jimmy Tanks apparently came outside with a gun as the agent, Kenneth Alvin Smith, was trying to make off with his Chrysler Sebring, but the agent had a gun of his own. In other cases, Renovo’s contractors have landed the company in court after less disastrous repossessions. Preston Shaw of Nashville, Tenn., sued Renovo and Toyota Financial Services after an agent allegedly dragged Shaw’s Lexus out of his garage without his permission. Shaw said in court filings that he was in bankruptcy proceedings at the time and that the lender had no right to reclaim the car. Shaw’s two young daughters, one of whom is blind, were home alone during the commotion. The girls ran upstairs after a repo agent began banging on the door, according to Shaw. “It freaked them out, especially my blind child. For a while, we couldn’t leave my oldest daughter home alone,” the 41-year-old Shaw says. “There were drag marks going out of the garage and into the driveway and into the street. You can still see them.” Shaw’s case was settled for an undisclosed sum. Renovo has also squared off in court with its own employees. In a 2007 class action, a group of repo agents sued Renovo for allegedly misclassifying them as independent contractors rather than employees and violating overtime laws. In an email that surfaced in the lawsuit, one manager told agents, “The trucks simply need to roll more hours, and pick up more units. Each of you have the ability to do WHATEVER it takes to pick up more cars. Having an ‘Apprentice’ or two or three is the best way.” The case was also settled for an undisclosed sum. Flynn says a lot of the criticism leveled at Renovo is little more than sour grapes coming from smaller competitors who are losing their market share. Those firms, he says, need to accept the industry’s new paradigm. “I understand there are detractors, but I can tell you we run a professional operation,” he says. “I think that everyone is going to have to get efficient. I’m not sure economics will allow it to go any other way. The most efficient and progressive companies will remain in business, the ones who adapt to market conditions. You can complain or you can adapt.” ‘HE BLAMED HIMSELF FOR BILL’S DEATH’ Shortly after Bill Jacobs died in Georgia, Michael and Victoria Brown were charged in his death. Michael pleaded guilty to first-degree vehicular homicide and criminal property damage, receiving a prison sentence of 20 years. Victoria pleaded guilty to reduced charges of property damage and simple battery, receiving two years in prison and another four years of probation. In a civil trial, Pamela Jacobs tried to explain what she’d lost with her husband. “He still took very good care of me and really was in love with me, and I really loved him,” she said. “And I miss him very much.” Devastated by Bill Jacobs’ death, Joe Clements didn’t live much longer than his friend. Just six weeks after the fatal incident, Clements died of an undisclosed illness. In the lawsuit filed by Cindy Clements against Renovo and Nuvell, his family blamed the horror in his front yard for the quick unraveling of Joe Clements’ health. “From the time of the incident until his death, Mr. Clements began a severe downward spiral to depression,” having witnessed “the traumatic death of his friend and work colleague,” the complaint read. According to Cindy Clements, her husband held himself partially accountable for what had happened to his close friend. After all, Brown was there on a repo assignment only because Clements could no longer make the payments on his truck. “He would just sit and think,” Cindy Clements said in a deposition, describing her husband’s behavior after the tragedy. “He blamed himself for Bill’s death. And it just ate on him.” The Clements had been married since 1975. According to court filings, Cindy Clements moved out of the house she had shared with her husband, saying it was too emotionally difficult to stay there after he died. She bounced around to different addresses and different jobs. She could not be reached to comment for this story. Pamela Jacobs still lives in the Augusta house she shared with her husband. When I showed up unannounced on her porch recently, she apologized and said she wouldn’t be able to talk about his death. She explained that she wasn’t comfortable commenting because of all the litigation. All she would say, as she choked back tears, was that it was a shame so many lives were destroyed over $70.

Read the full article →

Multifamily Mortgage Activity Enjoys Upswing after 3-Year Slump

March 22, 2012

The multifamily mortgage market continues to experience an increase in lending activity from a variety of participants. Although the GSEs and FHA have been the primary participants, there has also been renewed interest from portfolio lenders, banks and thrifts and commercial mortgage-backed securities issuers, according to new research from Fannie Mae. Based on publicly-available company reports, Kim Betancourt, director multifamily economics and…

Read the full article →

Jed Kolko: Why Location Matters If You’re on the Fence About Renting vs. Buying

March 22, 2012

Time to buy? Since the housing bubble burst, prices have fallen so much that it is now cheaper to buy than to rent in 98 of the 100 largest U.S. metropolitan areas. That’s even true in many pricey real estate markets such as New York , Los Angeles and Boston , according to Trulia’s Winter 2012 Rent vs. Buy Index . With this Index, we track whether it is more affordable to rent or to buy a home by looking at asking prices for similar rentals and homes for-sale in similar neighborhoods on Trulia.com , while factoring other costs like taxes, insurance, maintenance and so on. Marking a big shift from the boom years, the cost of buying relative to renting has fallen a lot. But just because prices dropped and rents held steady or rose in most places, does that make now a great time to buy? The answer depends on you and on where you live. For starters, deciding whether to rent or buy a place is never easy. Even before looking at how much it’s going to cost you where you live, ask yourself this: have you saved enough for a down payment and can you qualify for a mortgage ? If not, then owning is probably not an option for you in the first place. Next, ask yourself if you’re ready to make a long-term commitment and stay put for at least five years? If not, then you probably should stick to renting because homeownership involves big upfront costs that only make sense if you don’t plan on moving again for a while. But if you answer yes to both of these questions, then it’s time to look at the numbers. Buying a home is more affordable than renting where our price-to-rent ratio is under 15 (see note below tables). The only places where this ratio is above 15 are Honolulu and San Francisco , which means renting might be more affordable than buying there depending on your personal circumstances, such as how much you benefit from the mortgage interest deduction. Top 10 Metros To Buy vs. Rent # U.S. Metro Price:Rent Ratio 1 Detroit, MI 3.7 2 Oklahoma City, OK 4.3 3 Dayton, OH 4.8 4 Warren – Troy – Farmington Hills , MI 5.4 5 Toledo, OH 6.0 6 Grand Rapids, MI 6.1 7 Cleveland, OH 6.2 8 Atlanta, GA 6.5 9 Gary, IN 6.7 10 Memphis, TN -MS-AR 6.8 Top 10 Metros To Rent vs. Buy # U.S. Metro Price:Rent Ratio 1 Honolulu, HI 17.0 2 San Francisco, CA 15.5 3 New York, NY -NJ 14.5 4 San Jose, CA 14.3 5 Orange County, CA 13.5 6 Los Angeles, CA 13.0 7 San Diego, CA 12.7 8 Colorado Springs, CO 12.0 9 Boston, MA 12.0 10 Albuquerque, NM 11.9 NOTE: The lists above rank the major metros where renting a home is most expensive relative to buying, and vice-versa. Price-to-rent ratios that are 15 and under indicate buying is less expensive than renting, while ratios that are 20 or higher indicate renting is less expensive than buying. Between 15 and 20, the rent-versus-buy calculation depends on tax deductions and other personal circumstances. In addition to Honolulu and San Francisco, New York and other California metros have relatively high price-to-rent ratios. At the other extreme, buying is very cheap relative to renting in Detroit and several other markets in the Midwest and South. Why is buying a much better deal in some places than others. Contrary to what you might think, the reason for this actually has little to do with the housing bust. Of the top 10 markets where buying is cheapest relative to renting , NONE are in Florida , Arizona or Nevada , which are the states where home prices fell most after the bubble. In fact, the price-to-rent ratio has much more to do with long-term factors, like economic growth and density. These long-term factors matter because people will pay more for a home if they expect prices to rise eventually and give them a better return on their long-term investment. Markets where buying is expensive relative to renting tend to have stronger economic growth over many years and little room to build new homes, like Boston and the San Francisco Bay Area: there, people expect home prices to increase over time. Buying is much cheaper than renting in slow-growing places with high vacancy rates and land to spare, like Detroit and Cleveland, where prices are unlikely to improve much in the future. So if long-term factors explain why the price-to-rent ratio is higher in some places than others, what does it mean for you if you’re on the fence about renting or buying right now? First, if buying in a local market looks like a good deal today, it will be a good deal tomorrow: The rankings won’t change much since they’re based on long-term factors. San Jose will have much higher price-to-rent ratio than Oklahoma City for years to come. Second, if you plan to stay put in your next home for a long time, think about what might happen to local home prices. Homeownership could turn out to be a much better deal than you think if local home values rise, even if buying looks expensive today. In deciding whether to buy or to rent, always take the long view.  

Read the full article →

Goldman’s Reputation Hits Crisis-Level Lows

March 21, 2012

Goldman Sachs is looking even worse than it did during the financial crisis. The investment bank’s reputation plunged to levels below the lowest level it reached during the financial crisis, according to YouGov’s BrandIndex. The drop comes in the wake of former Goldman worker Greg Smith’s op-ed in The New York Times in which he criticized the firm’s “toxic” environment and then resigned. Still, Goldman’s reputation has yet to hit the lows it reached in the spring of 2010, when the Securities and Exchange Commission charged the bank with $1 billion fraud , alleging that Goldman workers didn’t disclose that the firm was betting against subprime mortgages being sold to clients as worthy investments. YouGov compiles the index by asking survey participants, “would you be embarrassed to work at this brand?” And apparently Goldman is one of the most embarrassing big banks to work for. The firm’s rivals have a combined score that is 32 points better than Goldman’s . If it wasn’t for Smith’s op-ed, Goldman might have been on its way to getting back in America’s good graces (albeit at an extremely slow pace). The firm was one of YouGov’s most improved brands , according to a survey the group released earlier this year. But it’s not like Goldman was exactly in good company; other most improved brands included British Petroleum, the oil giant notorious for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico. It may take a while for Goldman to recover from its recent reputational blow with voices from all over the finance world agreeing with Smith in the aftermath of his op-ed. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and ex-AIG CEO Hank Greenberg said last week that Goldman’s culture changed to the detriment of its clients when it went public in 1999. People more closely connected to Goldman have expressed similar sentiments. An heir to one of the founders of the firm told Business Insider last week that Smith’s op-ed was “spot on,” and an ex-Goldman partner also wrote on her blog that the firm’s culture shifted in the years since she left. Here is a chart illustrating Goldman’s brand index:

Read the full article →

11 Iconic Companies Less Profitable Than The Federal Reserve

March 21, 2012

Having a lender of last resort apparently pays off. The Federal Reserve now is one of the most profitable institutions in the country, and it is giving away most of that profit to taxpayers. The central bank announced on Tuesday that it earned $77.4 billion in profit in 2011 , far more than big-name companies like Apple, Google, and Goldman Sachs, the last of which, for example, took home just $4.44 billion in 2011. Google earned $9.74 billion . The Fed’s big profit is a bit of help for a country facing an enormous national debt. The central bank paid the Treasury Department $75.42 billion for 2011: the vast majority of its profit. Indeed, this is the second-highest amount that taxpayers have ever received from the Fed since its all-time record in 2010. That the Fed gives away its extra cash stands in contrast to the many corporations that use profits to pay out higher bonuses. Goldman Sachs paid its employees $12.22 billion in salaries and benefits in 2011, more than four times the Fed’s $2.81 billion in salaries and benefits for its employees, which has barely changed since 2008, when the Fed was much less profitable and paid its employees $2.18 billion . Though it may seem counterintuitive, the Fed’s drastic measures during the financial crisis are actually what helped to give it a boost in profit, and the institution is far more profitable now than it was during the housing boom. The Fed made $81.74 billion in profit in 2010 and $53.42 billion in profit in 2009. In contrast, the Fed earned just $21.33 billion in 2003. That extra income was earned primarily because of interest on a larger amount of securities. Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities backed by government-sponsored enterprises netted the Federal Reserve the most income from interest : $42.26 billion and $38.28 billion, respectively. In its aim to help send the economy on a path towards recovery, the Federal Reserve bought hundreds of billions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities and Treasury securities starting in 2008. In fact, it expanded its balance sheet to $2.92 trillion , or more than three times the size of its balance sheet before the financial crisis. The Fed’s critics have grown louder since the financial crisis, demanding that the Federal Reserve print less money. Congressman Ron Paul, the leader of the End the Fed movement, claims that the Fed is devaluing the currency. And as a presidential candidate, Paul is positioning himself to push the Republican Party to weaken the Fed. Here are other companies that took home less than the Fed last year:

Read the full article →

WATCH: Protestors Tell Issa To ‘Stop Fighting For Wall Street’

March 20, 2012

California Republican Darrell Issa may think twice before coming to Brooklyn again. The Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee faced a wave of protesters at a field hearing on foreclosure abuse held Monday at Borough Hall in Brooklyn, a video from Raw Story shows ( h/t ThinkProgress ). Issa has favored an enforcement route that would focus on investigating loans originating from government-sponsored mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac , instead of pursuing private-sector lenders accused of fraud, according to Think Progress. Apparently, Issa’s stance isn’t popular among activists from Occupy Wall Street, United New York, New York Communities for Change and the Working Families Party who attended the hearing, NY Daily News reports . “Stop fighting for Wall Street and fight for the people that elected you!” one man can be heard yelling on the raw story video. “It is not right for homeowners to lose their house, and children are homeless on the street,” another woman shouted. Issa’s public hearing comes a little more than a month after the government reached a $26 billion settlement with five banks accused of illegal foreclosure practices . Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, CitiGroup and Ally Financial will pay varying chunks of the controversial settlement and the money will be used to aid homeowners affected by foreclosure at the height of the crisis. Many of the same banks in the deal had representatives at the Issa hearing , but there was only one person there representing homeowners, according to AlterNet . Issa reportedly continued to make jokes about the protests throughout the hearing, while implying that homeowners were partly to blame for banks’ reliance on robo-signing — a practice of rushing through home loans that banks used heavily in the lead up to the foreclosure crisis. Still, Issa at least seemed tolerant of the protesters’ right to have a voice. “I will ask that please from here on, understand that exactly the protesters’ sentiment is why we’re here today,” he said according to Capital New York . Adding, ” this is Democracy at work. ”

Read the full article →

Foreclosure Activist Says $18 Million Doesn’t Make Up For Homeowners’ Harms

March 20, 2012

The last four years have not been easy for Lynn Szymoniak. Since early 2008, she has waged a seemingly endless series of legal battles against some of the nation’s biggest banks in an effort to save her Palm Beach County, Fla., home from foreclosure. But Szymoniak is about to get some help — a check for $18 million for her role in uncovering evidence of massive bank fraud. It’s a significant win for the foreclosure fraud activist, but in an interview with HuffPost, she emphasized that the settlement now does not undo the damage done to homeowners who were improperly evicted. “It’s very satisfying to have recovered this money for the government,” Szymoniak said. “Would it have been more satisfying to have recovered it for homeowners? Possibly.” Szymoniak’s own battle to save her home is one that very few homeowners in Florida ultimately win. Local courts are swamped with foreclosure cases, and judges are profoundly reluctant to rule against banks. In some ” rocket docket ” courts that specialize in foreclosures , judges issue judgments quite literally within seconds — and they almost never pose problems for Wall Street. When Szymoniak’s bank attempted to raise the interest rate on her mortgage in the spring of 2008, she refused to pay the higher rate on the ground that the increase violated the terms of her mortgage and began researching the documentation practices being carried out in Deutsche Bank’s name. What Szymoniak, a lawyer who focuses on white-collar crime, found was a pattern of forged signatures and fabricated documents in tens of thousands of cases — a pattern that seemed to have become standard operating procedure at the nation’s largest banks. The $18 million is going to Szymoniak because she gathered evidence central to the federal government’s recovery of $95 million in allegedly ill-gotten gains that big banks wrangled from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The money comes from the partial settlement of two cases — one in North Carolina, the other in South Carolina. The check has not yet arrived, but Szymoniak is already planning which charities to shower with her newfound wealth. She’s picked housing-related efforts, from We Soldier On , which helps homeless veterans become homeowners, to the Hole in the Roof Foundation , which provides funding to churches that shelter the homeless, to Operation Hope , a nonprofit devoted to financial literacy and economic empowerment. “That part is very exciting,” Szymoniak said. “I’m very psyched about all that and have been visiting some of the agencies I want to help. I can’t wait for that to begin.” Just a few months ago, Szymoniak had little hope of even remaining in her own house, much less being able to give millions of dollars away to charity. Her investigations into forged signatures in the foreclosure process had ignited a firestorm of media attention, culminating in a lengthy feature segment with Scott Pelley on CBS’ “60 Minutes” in April 2011. But the blowback from Wall Street was furious. In Florida, attorneys Theresa Edwards and June Clarkson say they were forced to resign by state Attorney General Pam Bondi, a Republican, after investigating Szymoniak’s claims and subpoenaing documents based on her findings. The pair had compiled an alarming PowerPoint presentation detailing obvious differences in signatures on key foreclosure documents. In identical letters of resignation, Edwards and Clarkson argued that their work did not always line up with the “philosophical and political views of Tallahassee.” Shortly after appearing on “60 Minutes,” Szymoniak won a victory in her own foreclosure case. The court found that Deutsche Bank was unable to demonstrate ownership of her mortgage and threw out the case, although the bank was permitted to refile if it could obtain proper documentation. In May 2011, the bank did so, naming Szymoniak and her son as co-defendants — even though he had no interest in the house or the mortgage. When asked about the case, independent foreclosure experts accused Deutsche Bank and its mortgage processing partner, American Home Mortgage Servicing, of retaliating against Szymoniak for going to the media. Deutsche Bank has long said that although the Szymoniak case is being pursued in its name, all actual decisions are being made by American Home. American Home, in turn, insisted it was not trying to intimidate Szymoniak, claiming to believe that her son was a tenant in the house. Her son has not lived there for seven years, however, and American Home eventually dropped his name from the case . Beyond the specifics of Symoniak’s case, the banking industry has repeatedly insisted that the foreclosure irregularities Szymoniak and other activists uncovered were mere “technicalities.” A recent investigation by the HUD Inspector General, however, found that banks repeatedly rammed through foreclosures without knowing key details, including the amount the borrower actually owed . These were not the deeds of just a few rogue employees. The inspector general found that shoddy practices were institutionalized by bank managers and enforced through the employee evaluation process. Astoundingly, banks are still relying on many of those same documents to move foreclosures through the pipeline. “It’s also very frustrating that the same documents that have been deemed unacceptable in HUD cases are still being used in foreclosures, including my foreclosure,” Szymoniak told HuffPost. That may change as a result of the recent $25 billion settlement, although Abigail Caplovitz Field, a lawyer and HuffPost blogger, has argued that widespread abuse is still possible under the terms of the deal , should banks wish to engage in it. Szymoniak is conflicted about actually ending her own mortgage problems. The easiest way out of her current foreclosure difficulties is to abandon the case against the banks that have been making her miserable for four years and simply pay off the loan. She keeps the house, but the banks she believes have been trying to rip her off will get paid in full, plus fees and penalties. “I have a lot of qualms about it, but I’m a realist. If something changed in Palm Beach County courts, I’d be more than happy to change my position on that,” Szymoniak said. “But probably the situation is such in Palm Beach County that I should settle this, and I would tell most homeowners to do the same thing. Most homeowners are experiencing the same thing — they can have a handful of documents that are fraudulent, and it doesn’t mean anything in foreclosure courts.” WATCH Lynn Szymoniak explain foreclosure fraud on “60 Minutes”:

Read the full article →

Ex-Goldman Partner: Firm’s Changes Break My Heart

March 20, 2012

Another former Goldman Sachs employee has come forward to give her two cents on what has changed on Wall Street and at the firm. Jacki Zehner, the first female trader to be promoted to partner, wrote a post on her blog about the cultural changes that took place during her 12-year career at the firm and more generally on Wall Street. Zehner pays particular attention to the subprime mortgage bond crisis, which she says is indicative of an industry that has “lost its way.” “When you create toxic waste and market it as if it is was not, you are indeed harming your moral fiber,” she wrote . But even before the mortgage mess, Zehner says that Goldman was already losing sight of the environment for which it had once been so famous. “The Goldman Sachs I joined in 1988 was not the same one I left in 2002 from a culture perspective,” she wrote . “I cannot tell you the number of times I have heard ‘Goldman is not the place it was’ and that truly breaks my heart.” Zehner’s post was, of course, a response to Greg Smith’s op-ed in The New York Times last week in which the former Goldman worker resigned and accused the firm of promoting a “toxic” environment and valuing profit above all else — particularly customers. “I will tell you from personal experience that the vast majority of people I worked with cared deeply about our customers, and, if you were heard calling customers any of the things Mr. Smith mentioned, you would be in big trouble. BIG,” she wrote in her post . But Zehner, who left Goldman in 2002, goes on to say: “That was 12 years ago. The questions now are: has the business changed and has the firm changed? I think the answer to both is yes.” Zehner is one of many current and former financial industry players jumping at the opportunity to discuss cultural changes on Wall Street and at Goldman Sachs since Smith’s op-ed rocked the business world last week. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker , ex-AIG CEO Hank Greenberg and the heir of one of the founders of Goldman Sachs all spoke out last week saying that the firm had changed for the worse. Zehner cites shifts in the way Wall Street functions, including that banks are now taking bigger proprietary positions than ever before, which has the potential for conflicts of interest is clients also serve as competitors. In addition, Zehner says that customers are generally much bigger than they used to be and do bigger trades — a situation that can often lead to confusion over who the client really is.

Read the full article →

Ex-Exec At Disgraced Mortgage Lender Pleads Guilty To Huge Fraud

March 20, 2012

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The chief financial officer of what was one of the nation’s largest private mortgage companies has pleaded guilty to his role in a $3 billion fraud scheme. Delton de Armas of Carrollton, Tex., was CFO of Florida-based Taylor Bean and Whitaker up until its collapse in 2009. On Tuesday, the 41-year-old de Armas became the eighth person convicted in one of the biggest fraud schemes to emerge from the nation’s housing crisis. He faces up to 10 years in prison after pleading in federal court in Alexandria to conspiracy to commit fraud and making false statements. The company hid billions of dollars in debts with phony accounting and by double and triple selling mortgages it held to various financial institutions. Taylor Bean’s collapse also helped bring down Alabama-based Colonial Bank.

Read the full article →

House GOP To Release Budget Blueprint

March 20, 2012

WASHINGTON — Conservative Republicans controlling the House unveiled a budget blueprint Tuesday that combines slashing cuts to safety net programs for the poor with sharply lower tax rates in an election-year manifesto painting clear campaign differences with President Barack Obama. The GOP plan released by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan would, if enacted into law, wrestle the deficit to a manageable size in short order, but only by cutting Medicaid, food stamps, Pell Grants and a host of other programs that Obama has promised to protect. To deal with the influx of retiring Baby Boomers, the GOP budget reprises a controversial approach to overhauling Medicare that would switch the program – for those under 55 today – from a traditional “fee for service” framework in which the government pays doctor and hospital bills to a voucherlike “premium support” approach in which the government subsidizes purchases of health insurance. Republicans say the new approach forces competition upon a wasteful health care system, lowering cost increases and giving senior more options. But Democratic opponents of the idea say the new system – designed by Ryan and liberal Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon – cuts costs too steeply and would provide the elderly with a steadily shrinking menu of options and higher out-of-pocket costs. The GOP plan doesn’t have a chance of passing into law this year but stands in sharp contrast to the budget released by Obama last month, which relied on tax increases on the wealthy but mostly left alone key benefit programs like Medicare. The resulting political battle is sure to spill beyond the Capital Beltway into the presidential race and contests for control of the House and Senate this fall. As if to underscore that reality, Ryan released a campaign-style video Monday evening telling viewers that “Americans have a choice to make” in a none-too-subtle appeal to voters. “It’s up to the people to demand from their government a better budget, a better plan, and a choice between two futures,” Ryan said. “The question is: which future will we choose?” The Budget panel is slated to debate and vote on the measure Wednesday and in hopes of a vote by the full House next week. The Senate has no plans to debate a budget and will instead rely on last summer’s bipartisan budget and debt pact to govern this year’s round of spending bills. The annual budget debate in Congress plays out on an arcane battlefield of numbers and assumptions, often difficult to understand even by Capitol Hill veterans. Basically, however, the so-called budget resolution sets broad parameters for follow-up legislation. Sometimes that is just a round of agency budget bills; other times lawmakers take on taxes and benefit programs like Medicare whose budgets otherwise run on autopilot. The lower deficit figures build on cuts to annual agency budgets imposed last year and rely on new savings comes from benefit programs outside Social Security and the costly Medicare and Medicaid health care programs for the elderly and the poor. That means big cuts to food stamps, student loans, welfare, farm subsidies and other programs whose budgets now mostly run on autopilot. On taxes, the measure calls for eliminating a host of tax deductions and credits in order to produce a far simpler income tax code with just two rates for individuals: 10 percent and 25 percent. But Ryan doesn’t say the income levels at which the new rates would apply, nor does he specify which popular tax breaks – like the child tax credit or the mortgage interest deduction – might be spared. Medicaid would be sharply cut and awarded to states as a flexible block grant. Just as Obama’s budget was dead on arrival last month with Capitol Hill Republicans, the House GOP plan is a nonstarter with Democrats controlling the Senate. On Monday, two powerful Senate committee chairmen sent top House GOP leaders a letter protesting a GOP plan to cut agency operating budgets funded annually by Congress below levels negotiated just last summer. Instead of going with a $1.047 trillion cap on agency budgets as called for under last summer’s debt and budget pact, the House panel is looking at cutting domestic agencies by $19 billion more. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, warned that breaking with the agreement only guarantees delays later this year and “represents a breach of faith that will make it more difficult to negotiate future agreements.” Also at issue, though, are across-the-board spending cuts set to take effect in January, punishment for the failure of last year’s supercommittee to come up with a new package of $1.2 trillion in deficit cuts over the next decade as part of last summer’s deal to let the government keep borrowing. Those cuts, including $55 billion from defense accounts and $43 billion from non-defense accounts approved by lawmakers each year, are universally opposed by defense hawks and liberals alike. The GOP plan would reverse the cuts by requiring various committees and try come up with other savings, including curbs on federal employee pensions, and further cuts to federal health care programs. “The country wants to be spoken to like adults, not pandered to like children,” Ryan said Tuesday on “CBS This Morning.” The Wisconsin Republican said, “If you want to save Medicare and keep it from going bankrupt, you must reform the program, and that’s what we intend to do.” Ryan said he has grown weary of the GOP being accused of endangering the benefits that senior citizens have come to expect. “We preserve the program for people in and near retirement,” he said. “We want to take all the empty promises our government is making and make sure they’re not broken promises.”

Read the full article →

U.S. Treasury Completes Sales of Mortgage-Backed Securities

March 20, 2012

(MENAFN – Saudi Press Agency) The U.S. Treasury has sold its final portion of $225 billion in mortgage-backed securities it bought during the 2008 financial crisis, the government said …

Read the full article →

Fed Fines Big Banks For Alleged Foreclosure Abuse

March 19, 2012

WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve said Monday that it plans to fine eight additional U.S. bank holding companies for improperly foreclosing on homeowners. The financial firms – EverBank, Goldman Sachs Group, HSBC Holdings PLC, PNC Financial Services Group, MetLife, OneWest Bank, SunTrust Banks and U.S. Bancorp – were not part of last month’s settlement over alleged foreclosure abuses. Suzanne G. Killian, a senior associate director at the Federal Reserve, called the fines “appropriate” during a congressional hearing in Brooklyn, N.Y. Killian offered few details about the size of the fines or when they will be levied. The nation’s five biggest lenders – Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Ally Financial – last month agreed to a $25 billion settlement with state and federal government agencies last month after a 16-month probe. As part of that settlement, the five banks agreed to reduce mortgages for about 1 million homeowners. They also will pay into a fund that will send $2,000 to 750,000 homeowners who were improperly foreclosed upon. Separately, government regulators last April ordered 14 mortgage lenders and servicers to reimburse homeowners who were improperly foreclosed upon. Since then, letters have been sent to 4.3 million borrowers who were at risk of foreclosure during 2009 and 2010. The deadline for borrowers to seek money under the orders is July 31. So far, nearly 122,000 homeowners have asked for an auditor to review their foreclosures.

Read the full article →

Are You Taking Advantage Of These Tax Breaks?

March 19, 2012

By Amy Feldman NEW YORK, March 19 (Reuters) – It’s too bad colleges don’t offer a class in “advanced tax strategies” to all freshmen, along with those study skills, health and diversity sessions. That extra expertise would come in handy for anyone trying to sort through the profusion of education credits and deductions that can help offset college costs. With the annual cost of board and tuition topping $50,000 at some private colleges, and expenses dramatically rising at public universities, it’s worth learning how to maximize those breaks. Here’s a brief guide: There are three main educational tax breaks, as follows: (1) the tuition and fees deduction allows you to deduct up to $4,000 from your taxable income; (2) the lifetime learning tax credit allows you to reduce your taxes by up to $2,000 per return; and (3) the American Opportunity Tax Credit offers a $2,500 tax credit per student. The catch is that you have to choose which one to take: CHOOSE THE BEST BREAK Since you cannot take more than one of these tax breaks per student, apply them in this order: First, the American opportunity credit, then the lifetime learning credit and finally the tuition and fees deduction. That’s because, in general, a credit is more valuable than a deduction since it reduces your taxes, while a deduction merely lowers the amount of income that is taxed. In the 28 percent tax bracket, both the $2,000 and $2,500 credits trump the $4,000 deduction (which will lower your federal tax bill by just $1,120). For those who have saved in a 529 college savings plan — which, when used for qualified education expenses, is free of federal tax — there’s the added complication of coordinating those 529 plan withdrawals with these education tax breaks. The basic rule is that you can’t count the same educational expense twice, so if any part of it was already covered by tax-free scholarships, Pell grants, or these tax credits, using money from a 529 plan to cover the same expenses may trigger a tax on that withdrawal. Here’s one scenario. Say that you have one child in college, and you incur total qualified educational expenses of $21,000. First, you’d reduce that figure by any tax-free assistance, such as scholarships, fellowships and Pell grants; if you got $12,000 in tax-free assistance, you’d now have $9,000 in educational expenses remaining. You could then claim the American opportunity credit. It works on a formula in which you get 100 percent of the first $2,000 in expenses, but only 25 percent of the next $2,000, for a total of $2,500 in credits for $4,000 in expenses. So you would then subtract $4,000 (of eligible expenses) from the $9,000 figure. Do the math, and what you have left is $5,000 of expenses that you have paid and for which you have not received any tax breaks. That is the amount you can take out of your 529 plan tax-free. If you go above that amount, you’ll owe tax on the earnings, but not on the principal, of that withdrawal; you’ll see those numbers on your 1099-Q, the tax form you’ll receive for taking money out of a 529 plan. Whether or not it’s worth taking that tax hit depends, in part, on whether you are burning through your 529 balance quickly or you expect to have cash left over once your kids are all done with school. Lower-income taxpayers can qualify for an education tax benefit even if they owe no tax. In fact, the American Opportunity Tax Credit is particularly valuable to low-income taxpayers because it is partially “refundable,” as it’s known in tax lingo, meaning you can claim a piece of it regardless of whether you owe tax or not. That’s unusual — most credits are only available if you owe tax. AFTER SCHOOL, THE WRITEOFFS CONTINUE Once you’re out of school — and repaying those student loans — there’s an additional tax benefit. While personal interest payments (other than for your mortgage) are generally not deductible, student loan interest of up to $2,500 is. The caveat here, again, is the income limitations; to claim the deduction, your modified adjusted gross income must be below $75,000 if you’re single, or $150,000 if you’re married filing jointly. The deduction can only be taken by the person legally obligated to make the loan payments. Most new graduates paying off loans would qualify based on those income limits, and even those who don’t itemize can claim it since it’s technically taken as an adjustment to income rather than as a deduction on Schedule A. Even if the new grad repays the debt with a gift from her parents or grandparents, she could take the deduction — but if her parents continue to claim an exemption for her on their tax return, neither could take that break. While there are no changes for this tax season, the tuition and fees deduction expired at year-end 2011, and the American opportunity credit is slated to expire at the end of 2012, though President Barack Obama’s budget calls for making that credit permanent. That means if you’ve got a high school student in your house this year, you’ll need to save a little more than you were planning to — unless Congress extends those breaks at the last minute, as it so often does.

Read the full article →

Joseph A. Palermo: Breaking the Code of Omertà at Goldman Sachs

March 19, 2012

“It makes me ill how callously people still talk about ripping off clients,” the Goldman Sachs whistleblower, Greg Smith , wrote in his March 14th public resignation letter. The 33-year-old executive who quit the company’s London office where he ran its derivatives shop reinforces the public perception of Goldman Sachs less as a venerable Wall Street banking firm and more as an old-school mafia family. The amazing thing about Mr. Smith’s decision to break the code of omertà at Goldman was the fact that an employee existed there at all who was still capable of making a moral or ethical judgment and could even express something resembling remorse . Mr. Smith apparently could no longer bear the moral turpitude that each day’s work required of him at Goldman. Unlike his co-workers, he began to have second thoughts. According to Smith, Goldman Sachs traders routinely baked into their financial “products” all manner of rents, hidden risks and time bombs with the aim of “gouging out the eyeballs” of their clients. No wonder there’s been a mad dash by spokespeople for the .001 percent, like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg , to try to smother Smith’s embarrassing story. The culture Mr. Smith exposed at Goldman Sachs signifies the Enronization of Wall Street. The nicknames that Goldman sharks tagged on their marks — “muppets” and “hunting elephants” — is reminiscent of Get Shorty and the Star Wars -themed nicknames that Enron crooks used as code for their swindles and “special purpose entities” (whose only “special purpose,” it turned out, was to rip off employees, defraud investors and bilk consumers). Everything that Enron or Worldcom did, they did with the active assistance of big investment banks. Even when some executives go to jail, like Jeffrey Skilling or Bernie Ebbers, the bank mafiosi always get away scot-free. Like some of the big-time mafia families of days gone by, these financial conglomerates are “too big to fail” primarily because they were allowed to merge into behemoths, outspend every other Washington special interest group in campaign and lobbying cash, buy off politicians, and capture federal regulatory bodies. What’s more, we got no Pecora Commission , only a toothless “investigation” run under former California state treasurer Phil Angelides. There were no concrete changes to the laws and regulations governing the kinds of abhorrent practices Mr. Smith exposed at Goldman Sachs. And you can forget about Dodd-Frank. That set of reforms was watered down before the ink was dry on Obama’s signature. And the Wall Street lobby continues to spend millions to gut its key provisions, especially the Volcker Rule. Dodd-Frank isn’t going to do a damn thing about “too big to fail,” or bring down the hammer on the egregious practices Mr. Smith revealed. Underwater mortgage holders? They’ve been hung out to dry and the Obama Administration has shown it cares about as much about their plight has did the Bush Administration. Can’t some prosecutor somewhere dust off the RICO statute and prosecute some of these wayward bankers like they did in the late-1980s with the Savings and Loan scandal? Gretchen Morgenson of the New York Times (one of the few business reporters who’s worth reading) points to Mr. Smith’s resignation as “provid[ing] yet another reminder of why it is crucial that we remake our financial markets so that they are safe for investors and taxpayers.” Yet that’s easier said than done. The high-profile Goldman defection, and the hostile response from representatives of the .001 percent, like Mayor Bloomberg, remind us that the desperately needed top-to-bottom overhaul of the corrupt oligopoly that dominates high finance in this country (and the world) has yet to take place. The totalitarian political clout of the big banks enables a relative handful of morally challenged cardsharps and grifters to strangle the “real” economy in a million different ways. When the nation’s dominant “financial services” corporations grow accustomed to operating like a racket of an organized crime family we can count on more thievery, more bailouts, more austerity, and more conflict and pain for the rest of society. One of the linkages that the elites want to paper over more than anything else is the fact that the austerity that is being shoved down our throats and across the globe is a direct consequence of the vast transfer of wealth from ordinary people to the investing class. The bailouts and legalized larceny, such as looting public pensions and wrecking the housing market, have continued unabated through both Republican and Democratic congresses and administrations. No matter how far the political winds shift, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase and the other members of the financial La Cosa Nostra always come out smelling like roses. The legitimacy crisis continues unabated because these banks have not changed their ways. If anything, they’re more corrupt today than they were at the time when the Congress bailed them out. They’re certainly more concentrated and politically powerful, and still too big to fail. The only good news from the “Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free” card the banks hold is that it rubs most people the wrong way, tarnishing their “brand,” and will serve to energize the Occupy Wall Street movement. Until there is a semblance of justice meted out to the kinds of bankers Mr. Smith describes the crisis will continue. They’re like a fast food chain that serves tainted meat. They might be able to have their PR people spin it away the first time, but after the hundredth time, even the slickest liars can’t put the toothpaste back into the tube. “Fast Eddie” DeMarco, a Wall Street holdover from the Bush years who heads the Federal Housing Finance Agency, is doing everything in his power to make sure there is no substantive government relief for the millions of underwater mortgage holders. In part, this strategy is designed to try to reap maximum damage on the incumbent president. The foreclosure carnage promises to continue unabated wreaking havoc with the real economy while transferring more assets to banks like Goldman. Fewer and fewer people are going to be saying nice things about American capitalism if it is going to be abused in this way in behalf of the ever-shrinking super rich. Greg Smith violated the ancient code of all mafia organizations: he spilled the game to the public. His former colleagues at Goldman Sachs no doubt now see him as a “rat.” He better watch his back. He might awake in the middle of the night with a surprise in his bed.

Read the full article →

Goldman Randomly Picks This Week To Review Its Conflict-Of-Interest Rules

March 16, 2012

Perhaps aware that everyone in America is paying it attention this week, Goldman Sachs is reviewing its policies on employee conflicts of interest , according to The Wall Street Journal . Goldman, the fifth-largest U.S. bank by assets and recently the subject of a scathing New York Times opinion piece written by a former employee, told the WSJ that it is revisiting the rules it has in place regarding employee disclosures when advising on business deals . The review — one of many currently taking place in the financial world — appears to be the result of a recent case where Stephen Daniel, a Goldman banker, acted as an advisor to the energy firm El Paso while El Paso was in the process of being acquired by the company Kinder Morgan. The problem there was that Daniel owned about $300,000 in Kinder Morgan stock, representing what a judge called a “real and potent” conflict of interest for Goldman, according to Bloomberg. Though Daniel’s actions are being cited as the reason for this review, it’s possible that the NYT editorial, by former Goldman executive director Greg Smith, has also acted as a catalyst, due to the way it focused public attention on the firm. One of Smith’s accusations against Goldman is that bankers are encouraged to maximize company profits even when it’s not always in the best interests of clients — a charge that has sparked renewed discussion among lawmakers about the Volcker rule, an embattled section of the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory act currently under review. This isn’t the first time Goldman Sachs has been embroiled in a conflict-of-interest case either. In 2011, a Senate investigative panel accused Goldman of repeatedly misleading clients as to the value of certain mortgage-backed securities that Goldman employees privately considered bad investments. And in 2010, Goldman agreed to pay a $550 million fine to the Securities and Exchange Commission over similar accusations. The bank was also the subject of scrutiny last year when it was revealed that former Goldman vice president Neil Morrison advised Massachusetts state treasurer Tim Cahill during Cahill’s 2010 run for governor. In one case, according to The Boston Globe , Morrison e-mailed Cahill’s office with campaign suggestions and included in his message the instruction to ” please delete this e-mail .”

Read the full article →

Donovan To States: ‘Do The Right Thing’ With Mortgage Settlement

March 16, 2012

Alarmed by reports that states may divert mortgage settlement money intended to help homeowners, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan said Friday that he is calling governors and attorneys general to urge them to “do the right thing with the money.” Under the $25 billion settlement announced last month, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial agreed to pay state governments $2.5 billion in fines. The framers of the settlement intended for states to use the money to fund a range of foreclosure prevention programs, including aid to housing counseling agencies, which have suffered from cuts in federal funding. But the states are ultimately free to do what they want with the money, which has led some to fear that states may use it to patch holes in general revenue, which is where much of the aid earmarked under the massive tobacco settlement for smoking cessation programs ultimately ended up. In Wisconsin, Governor Scott Walker and state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen announced plans last month to use $25.6 million of the settlement money (about 18 percent of the $140 million Wisconsin will get in total) to plug holes in the state’s budget. Meanwhile, in Missouri, state Attorney General Chris Koster said that he plans to put $40 million of Missouri’s settlement money (about 20 percent of the total $196 million) into the general state fund. Donovan’s comments came in a conference call with reporters. He said that the attorneys general of Illinois and Indiana have told him that they plan to use their shares of the settlement to assist homeowners. He acknowledged that he had no direct control over what states do with the money. As The Huffington Post previously reported , housing counseling agencies say additional funding is badly needed. Last year, Congress eliminated about 500 agencies’ main source of federal funding, an $88 million grant program administered by HUD, a move that forced some agencies to lay off staff and others to freeze salaries and benefits. Congress later restored about $45 million for 2012. During the conference call, which was arranged to announce the disbursement of HUD money to counseling organizations, Donovan described the allocation as “not adequate” and said that President Obama had requested $55 million for 2013. In 2010, West Tennessee Legal Services received a $1.1 million HUD grant to pay its staff and also to support 25 other rural legal aid groups throughout Appalachia and the Mississippi River delta. In 2011 they received nothing, upon Congress’ elimination of the grant. Steve Xanthopolous, the executive director, said he was “relieved” to learn that his agency would receive $672,000 from HUD for 2012 — enough money, he said, “to preserve core services.” But belt-tightening at the nonprofit will continue, he said. Xanthopoulos said he didn’t know yet whether his agency would receive funding from Tennessee’s cut of the mortgage settlement. Housing counselors help homeowners navigate the thicket of government loan modification programs, filling out forms and ensuring they are received. They often know who to call at the institutions that service the loans in order to ensure a successful modification. They also know when to involve a foreclosure lawyer. Difficult cases may require dozens of hours of their time. About six million people have received some kind of housing counseling over the past three years. An unpublished study by the Furman Center for Real Estate Policy from April 2011 found that borrowers who had received counseling in New York City were about 30 percent more likely to receive a modification than homeowners who had not consulted a counselor. Donovan said other studies had found that 9 in 10 families who got counseling lived in their homes 18 months later, and that homeowners who visited a counselor were twice as likely to get a loan modification than borrowers who did not.

Read the full article →

Why Goldman’s Quitting Exec May Have A Point

March 14, 2012

An executive at Goldman Sachs left the firm today with a bang, penning a New York Times op-ed accusing the company of increasingly putting profits ahead of clients . Greg Smith started as an intern 12 years ago and last headed a derivatives department. Not surprisingly, Goldman quickly and strongly disagreed with his take. There have obviously been plenty of unflattering headlines about Goldman in the past few years. We decided to look at just one aspect of their record: SEC charges levied against Goldman and its employees over the past decade. April 2003: SEC charges Goldman Sachs over conflicts of interest among its research analysts. The company eventually settled for $110 million in fines and disgorgements. November 2003: Former Goldman economist John Youngdahl pleads guilty to insider trading . The firm had to pay the SEC $4.2 million over profits it gained from the illegal dealings. July 2004: Goldman settles with the SEC for $10 million over charges it improperly promoted a stock sale involving PetroChina . January 2005: Goldman settles with the SEC for $40 million over charges that it violated securities law in promoting initial public offerings. April 2006: Two former Goldman employees are charged with running an international insider-trading ring while they were at the firm. Eugene Plotkin and David Pajcin, both in their 20s, paid off insiders at other firms and stole early copies of Business Week to get an edge . They also tried (unsuccessfully) to use strippers to get information. Both eventually served jail time . March 2007: A Goldman subsidiary, Goldman Execution and Clearing, settles with the SEC for $2 million over allegations that faulty oversight that allowed customers to make illegal trades . March 2009: Goldman Execution and Clearing settles with the SEC for $1.2 million over improper proprietary trading by employees. July 2009: The SEC charges a former Goldman Sachs trader Anthony Perez and his brother with insider trading based on information Anthony Perez obtained through his job at Goldman Sachs. He was fined $25,000 and his brother more than $150,000. May 2010: The SEC hits Goldman Execution and Clearing with a $225,000 fine for violating a rule aimed at regulating short selling . July 2010: Goldman settles with the SEC for $553 million over allegations that it misled investors about the collateralized debt obligation ABACUS 2007-AC1 by not disclosing the involvement of a hedge fund in its creation, or the fact that the hedge fund stood to benefit if the CDO failed. Goldman executive Fabrice Tourre was also charged. March 2011: The SEC charges Goldman board member Rajat Gupta with insider trading. Gupta allegedly passed on information he learned as a board member to the hedge fund Galleon Group. In October, 2011, he was arrested and hit with criminal charges by the FBI. The case is pending . September 2011: The SEC charges a Goldman employee , Spencer Midlin, and his father for insider trading based on information Spencer Midlin gained from his position at Goldman Sachs. The two men were ordered to pay $92,000 . February 2012: Goldman Sachs receives notice from the SEC that the agency may bring charges related to mortgage backed-securities.

Read the full article →

Big Banks To Pay Millions In Settlement With NY Over Mortgage Practices

March 14, 2012

* JPM, BofA and Wells Fargo partially settle NY lawsuit * Citi, Ally Financial also part of $25 mln deal * Banks did not admit any wrongdoing * NY state warns of future lawsuits By Basil Katz and Karen Freifeld NEW YORK, March 14 (Reuters) – Five major U.S. banks have agreed to pay $25 million to New York State over their use of an electronic mortgage database that the state said resulted in deceptive and illegal practices that led to more than 13,000 foreclosures. JPMorgan Chase & Co, Bank of America Corp and Wells Fargo & Co each agreed to pay $5.9 million in order to partially settle a lawsuit over their use of the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS), Two other banks, Citigroup Inc and Ally Financial, also agreed to pay $5.9 million and $1.25 million respectively although they were not named in the Feb. 3 lawsuit. It was not immediately clear why Citi and Ally opted to participate in the settlement, although they are in the process of settling other similar claims. All five banks in February reached a settlement with 49 states and federal agencies to pay $25 billion to resolve government lawsuits over faulty foreclosures and the handling of requests for loan modification. In the New York settlement in February, none of the banks admitted nor denied the MERS allegations, the agreement said, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters on Tuesday. MERS is an electronic database created in the mid-1990s for tracking mortgage ownership. New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in his lawsuit that the system was plagued by inaccuracies. In exchange for the $25 million, New York State has agreed to drop some specific MERS claims. The state will use the money to address housing issues, such as mortgage defaults and foreclosures and further investigation and prosecutions. Citigroup, JPMorgan and Ally declined to comment on the settlement, while spokespeople at the other two banks were not immediately available. FUTURE LAWSUITS Other allegations in the New York lawsuit have not been resolved and the state said it will still pursue claims for damages incurred by New York borrowers and homeowners. “We intend to aggressively litigate this case to finally prohibit the widespread illegal and deceptive practices of the banks set forth in our complaint,” Danny Kanner, a spokesman for Schneiderman, said in an email on Tuesday. “The significant sum of $25 million obtained by this office does absolutely nothing to limit the aggressive posture we will continue to take to protect homeowners and borrowers.” The lawsuit said the use of MERS resulted in the filing of improper NY foreclosures and created “confusion and uncertainty” over property ownership interests. Over 70 million mortgage loans, including millions of subprime loans, have been registered in the MERS system, rather than in local county clerks’ offices, according to the lawsuit. Nearly 11 million Americans owe more than their homes than they are worth, after home values fell 33 percent from a 2006 peak fueled by generous loans, often to people with dubious credit records. The earlier $25 billion housing settlement gives President Barack Obama, as he seeks re-election in November, a chance to show he is willing to get tough with big banks to help ordinary Americans survive the pain of the nation’s foreclosure crisis. The deal, to be spread out over three years, requires the banks to cut mortgage debt amounts and extend $2,000 payments to borrowers who lost their homes to foreclosure. But the banks still face a host of other potential government enforcement actions and investor lawsuits related to their packaging of home loans into securities, and other mortgage-related activities. In January, Obama announced the creation of a new working group to coordinate inquiries into abusive home-loan lending and the pooling of risky mortgages that sparked the housing crisis. Schneiderman was tapped to help lead the group.

Read the full article →

Why Angry Investors May Be Getting Angrier

March 14, 2012

* Lowest settlement totals in a decade – Cornerstone * Pickup in SEC enforcement may spur more payouts By Jonathan Stempel March 14 (Reuters) – Angry investors are seeing far fewer financial benefits from lawsuits accusing corporate America of securities fraud, but may be on the cusp of a turnaround. The number and size of securities fraud settlements that won final U.S. court approval fell in 2011 to the lowest in a decade, amid a drop in cases linked to accounting problems and U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission enforcement activity. According to a study being released on Wednesday by Stanford Law School and Cornerstone Research, courts in 2011 approved 65 such settlements totaling a mere $1.36 billion, down from 86 settlements totaling $3.21 billion a year earlier. The dollar amount is less than half the $2.78 billion recovered in 2003, which had been the lowest since the adoption the prior year of the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate governance law. Still, Laura Simmons, a business professor at the College of William & Mary and co-author of the study, said large settlements involving American International Group Inc and other companies, as well as increased SEC enforcement activity, may make 2012 a more rewarding year for investors. “As we look at the potential impact of whistleblower lawsuits, we expect a further increase in SEC activity, which could result in a greater amount of private settlements,” she said in an interview. Last year, the SEC filed 735 enforcement cases, up 8.6 percent from 2010 and the most in its history, according to the regulator’s annual report. The largest 2011 settlement in Cornerstone’s study was a $208.5 million accord by officers, directors, underwriters and an auditor for Washington Mutual Inc, the largest U.S. bank or thrift to fail. “Lawyers will debate whether this decline is a result of plaintiffs having brought weaker claims or pro-defendant changes in the legal regime, or some combination,” Joseph Grundfest, a Stanford University law professor who works with Cornerstone, said in a statement. “The really big litigation bucks were not in the class-action securities fraud market in 2011.” Simmons said the drop in accounting-related cases may stem from fewer restatements, which in turn may be attributed in part to improved corporate governance under Sarbanes-Oxley. She also said that some plaintiffs’ lawyers may have focused more in recent years on housing-related litigation, including the sale of risky mortgage-backed securities, rather than more traditional securities fraud cases. Cornerstone’s study excludes settlements challenging mergers. Such cases accounted for 43 of the 188 new securities fraud lawsuits filed last year. Settlement totals for 2012 will include AIG’s $725 million settlement to resolve claims accusing the insurer of accounting fraud and stock price manipulation. Other accords topping $100 million that may also be included are with Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc; wireless equipment company Motorola Solutions Inc ; National City Corp, a bank now owned by PNC Financial Services Group Inc ; and private education company Apollo Group Inc. The peak years for settlements were 2005 and 2006, when settlements over WorldCom Inc’s and Enron Corp’s collapses contributed to respective total payouts of $10.5 billion and $19.19 billion, Cornerstone said.

Read the full article →

Real Estate Deals A Double Blow To Small Businesses

March 13, 2012

Randy Truckenbrodt has just as many headaches as he does properties. The co-owner of Randall Industries, an Elmhurst, Ill.-based company that rents and sells construction equipment , has spent more than 20 years acquiring personal, investment and business real estate, including a home in Indian Head Park, Ill., an investment property in New Buffalo, Mich., two small farms in Lockport, Ill., and three business properties in Florida. This growing empire has become not an asset but a drag on his business as many of these properties are now underwater, with some vacant and others tied up in major disputes with banks. Like many small-business owners, Truckenbrodt has used his properties to leverage his business, and since his assets have lost value, he’s unable to rent them out to raise money for his business. “What affects me personally affects the company,” Truckenbrodt said. In recent years his company’s employee count has dropped from 195 to about 115. The proceeds from his Florida business property rentals have declined from $15 million in revenue four years ago to $3.5 million. Entrepreneurs like Truckenbrodt who own small businesses and real estate may be suffering from a one-two punch following the Great Recession, with declines in both their companies’ income and their real estate’s value. Many of these small-business owners might experience financial difficulty until the real estate market recovers. And this involves a large majority of entrepreneurs. About 92 percent of small-business owners own some form of real estate, according to a study last month by the National Federation of Independent Business . About 89 percent of small-business owners own a home, while more than 20 percent own their place of business and 35 percent own investment properties, according to William J. Dennis, a senior research fellow at the federation and author of the report. “What [entrepreneurs] have frequently done in the past is either mortgaged the proceeds and put that back into the business or collateralized it for business purposes,” Dennis said. “When the housing market fell apart … they took a huge nosedive. They lose an enormous amount of value, which means not only can’t they borrow on it, but there’s also a wealth effect, in that you tend not to spend when you don’t think you have anything to back it up.” Truckenbrodt is feeling the pain. “Instead of investing in my business, I’m doing everything I can to pay debts down,” he said. “I used to leverage [these properties] for business, and now I’m just trying to get out of the grasp of these banks.” Their grip has tightened as Truckenbrodt has tried to get a new mortgage on his home and keep up with his existing property loans through the recession. Though he previously owned his home outright, he wanted to take out a new mortgage but was turned down as a result of his company’s losses. “They almost do a strip search to get a loan approved on a mortgage,” Truckenbrodt said. “It’s unbelievable the information they’re asking when you think just a few short years ago, people were walking in off the streets with virtually no verification of employment. It’s gone totally in the other direction.” And the decline in real estate value and demand pose a huge burden. Truckenbrodt’s commercial buildings were assessed at half the amount he bought them for four years ago. “We have an empty building,” he said. “There are empty buildings everywhere.” Perhaps the most frustrating situation Truckenbrodt has encountered was when a bank wanted to charge him $85,000 in fees for a fairly standard loan covenant waiver and, when he balked, said it would raise the interest rate to 13 percent on his $5.5 million loan instead. Though the bank eventually backed down, Truckenbrodt claims that being a business owner who meets his financial obligations in a punishing real estate market is a challenge. “The banks are coming in and whacking anyone who can pay their bills. If you can show any hint of staying power, they’re going to come after you, raise your rates, try to hit you with penalties,” he said. “Banks have seen a lot of pressure from the regulators to address underperforming or underwater loans,” said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs for the Financial Services Roundtable, a trade association representing 100 of the largest financial services firms. That pressure from regulators is part of the reason why banks are toughening their standards, he said. “The reality is real estate, whether it’s your home — or the land on which your business is built — has declined, and this decrease in assets makes it harder to get access to credit,” Talbott said. “Financial services firms are working harder to help homeowners and business owners deal with the decrease in real estate, primarily through loan modifications.” When it comes to helping small businesses recover fully, politicians and bankers need to look at broader economic issues raised by the recession, said Dennis of the National Federation of Independent Business. “This is all tied together, and any single-minded approach really misses the point.”

Read the full article →

These Guys Just Can’t Cut It

March 13, 2012

Four of the biggest U.S. banks failed the latest round of Federal Reserve stress tests, meaning they can’t give more money to their shareholders without first bulking up their financial strength enough to survive another financial crisis. The Fed said on Tuesday that the financial plans of Citigroup, Ally Financial, SunTrust and MetLife left those banks without enough of a cash cushion to survive a severe economic downturn. That means Citi, the third-biggest U.S. bank, won’t be able to raise its dividend or buy back more of its stock from shareholders without first raising more capital. Fifteen other banks passed the Fed’s test, however, including the biggest U.S. bank, JPMorgan Chase, which earlier on Tuesday announced it planned to raise its dividend and boost a share-buyback program — essentially declaring to the world that it had passed the Fed’s stress test. JPMorgan’s announcement boosted its stock price and lifted the shares of other banks and the entire stock market — which apparently assumed that every other bank must have passed the stress tests, too. The Dow Jones Industrial Average finished the day up 217.97 points at 13177.68, its highest close since 2007. The Nasdaq blasted to 3039.88, its first close above 3000 in 11 years. JPMorgan’s announcement also seems to have forced the Fed into hurrying up its announcement of the stress-test results, which was originally scheduled for Thursday. The Fed’s revelation that Citi and the other banks had failed the stress tests sent the shares of those four banks sharply lower in after-hours trading. Shares of the other 15 banks were flat after hours after jumping in regular trading. MetLife, in a press release , blasted the stress-test results, arguing it was unfair to compare an insurance company to commercial banks: “MetLife is financially strong and well positioned for both the current environment and a potential further economic downturn,” the company wrote. “We are deeply disappointed with the Federal Reserve’s announcement.” Ally Financial said it took issue with some of the assumptions in the Fed’s tests, including what it called “dramatically” overstated mortgage losses. “Ally continues to have ongoing constructive discussions with its regulators surrounding these matters, and the company will submit a revised capital plan in the near future,” the company wrote. “Further, the Federal Reserve has not objected to the ongoing payments of preferred dividends and interest on the trust preferred securities and subordinated debt. The Wall Street Journal’s Deal Journal blog is compiling the responses of the other banks — so far, neither Citi nor SunTrust have responded. Meanwhile, the major banks that passed the stress tests hustled to tell the market they planned to do shareholder-friendly stuff like raising dividends and buying back shares. Goldman Sachs, for example, said it plans to buy back stock and might raise its dividend. Wells Fargo plans to raise its dividend to 22 cents from 12 cents a share. The Fed tested bank capital-management plans under a set of extreme economic conditions, including 13 percent unemployment, a 50 percent collapse in the stock market and a new 21 percent drop in home prices. The goal was to see how well banks were prepared to survive another crisis like the one in 2008. The Fed’s previous round of stress tests were arguably not all that stressful, allowing some big banks to give money back to shareholders over the objections of then-FDIC chair, Sheila Bair, ProPublica has reported . The latest round of stress tests at least appears to be somewhat more deserving of the name. Citi’s failure comes as a particular surprise. Market hopes had risen lately that the bank would get the Fed’s OK to raise its nominal dividend of a penny per share. In contrast, Bank of America, which has more famously been saddled with bad mortgages after its purchase of Countrywide during the financial crisis, passed the stress test. Still, SunTrust, Ally Financial and MetLife joined Citi in failing to meet the test’s minimum capital requirements. The Fed reviewed the bank balance sheets to determine whether they could withstand a crisis that sends unemployment to 13 percent, causes stock prices to be cut in half and lowers home prices 21 percent from today’s levels. Citi’s failure came as a shock. Analysts were expecting the bank to pass, especially after it reported two years of profits. Some analysts expected the bank to be able to increase its dividend to 10 cents a share and even buy back stock. Citi’s stock fell 4 percent in the after-market. For those banks that failed, the Fed can stop them from paying stock dividends or buying back their own stock. The Fed can also force them to raise money by selling additional stock or issuing debt. Last year, the Fed allowed some banks – including JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo – to raise their dividends because they were deemed healthier. The Fed has conducted the stress tests each year since 2009. This was the first time since then that the results have been made public. The Fed released the results two days earlier than planned after JPMorgan sent out a press release saying it had passed the test. After the first round of tests, in 2009, the Fed ordered 10 banks to raise a total of $75 billion. Bank of America alone was told to raise $34 billion. This year’s test is more rigorous than earlier tests because the Fed wanted to be assured that the industry is prepared to meet more stringent international banking rules that go into effect in 2013. It is also looking more closely at projected loan losses from credit cards and mortgages in an economic downturn because the Fed is worried about how another crisis would affect Americans. The Fed wants banks to show they could not only withstand the crisis but keep lending to Americans and businesses. Restricting lending during a crisis, as the banks did in 2008, makes the economic toll worse.

Read the full article →

Citibank, 3 others fail Fed stress test; 15 pass

March 13, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) — Four major U.S. banks failed to show they have enough capital to survive another serious downturn, the Federal Reserve said Tuesday. The list included Citigroup, the nation’s third-largest bank. The Fed said 15 of the19 major banks tested passed. The Fed noted that all 19 banks are in a much stronger position than immediately after the 2008 financial crisis. Still, SunTrust, Ally Financial and MetLife joined Citi in failing to meet the test’s minimum capital requirements. The Fed reviewed the bank balance sheets to determine whether they could withstand a crisis that sends unemployment to 13 percent, causes stock prices to be cut in half and lowers home prices 21 percent from today’s levels. Citi’s failure came as a shock. Analysts were expecting the bank to pass, especially after it reported two years of profits. Some analysts expected the bank to be able to increase its dividend to 10 cents a share and even buy back stock. Citi’s stock fell 4 percent in the after-market. For those banks that failed, the Fed can stop them from paying stock dividends or buying back their own stock. The Fed can also force them to raise money by selling additional stock or issuing debt. Last year, the Fed allowed some banks — including JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo — to raise their dividends because they were deemed healthier. The Fed has conducted the stress tests each year since 2009. This was the first time since then that the results have been made public. The Fed released the results two days earlier than planned after JPMorgan sent out a press release saying it had passed the test. After the first round of tests, in 2009, the Fed ordered 10 banks to raise a total of $75 billion. Bank of America alone was told to raise $34 billion. This year’s test is more rigorous than earlier tests because the Fed wanted to be assured that the industry is prepared to meet more stringent international banking rules that go into effect in 2013. It is also looking more closely at projected loan losses from credit cards and mortgages in an economic downturn because the Fed is worried about how another crisis would affect Americans. The Fed wants banks to show they could not only withstand the crisis but keep lending to Americans and businesses. Restricting lending during a crisis, as the banks did in 2008, makes the economic toll worse.

Read the full article →

Why You Should Buy American

March 13, 2012

Home decor arrives on Capitol Hill Tuesday, when Newell Turner, editor-in-chief of House Beautiful , and Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) will hold a Washington press conference to encourage consumers to buy American-made home products in order to stimulate the economy and boost job growth. Though 227,000 jobs were added to the economy in February, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics , the national unemployment rate still stands at a staggering 8.3 percent. Turner, Hagan and leading members of the furniture manufacturing industry hope to expand the American-made home furnishings business to create more U.S. jobs. Worldwide, home decor is a multibillion-dollar market. The domestic furniture industry itself is relatively small, but Hagan says it has a notable impact on American jobs, especially in her home state of North Carolina. “Our state has a rich history in the furniture industry, and I am working to do everything I can to support and keep those jobs here in America,” Hagan tells Stylelist Home in an email. “Many Americans buy American products as a way to support our economy as it recovers, and furniture is no exception.” “There’s no better time than ever to promote American industries,” Turner says. Moreover, he adds, “There’s nothing more important than creating a home that makes you feel good and safe.” To strengthen his call for American support of domestic products, Turner is planning to discuss the findings of a new survey conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, which questioned 1,000 adults about their furniture preferences and shopping habits. Some 91 percent of participants said they would choose to buy American-made furniture over products manufactured abroad. However, almost half of those surveyed either had recently bought foreign-made products or were unsure of their purchased item’s origin. These findings suggest there is huge potential for growth for the American furniture industry. With international retailers like IKEA offering competitive low prices, we understand why buyers might still opt for non-American-made products. Plus, international retailers employ a substantial number of U.S. workers. But Turner says there are affordable options made right here in the United States. Additionally, there is the “strong unquestioning level of quality” of American furniture ensured by federal safety regulations, Turner argues, noting that even the Chinese want American-made furniture “because they know the quality is guaranteed.” If the quality and accessibility of American furniture have not persuaded you, there’s also the environment to consider. “From a green perspective, you’re lowering the carbon footprint of things,” Turner says because U.S.-made furniture doesn’t have to travel as far to your home. Turner’s efforts for American-made furniture don’t end with the Tuesday press conference. The April issue of House Beautiful features the growing furniture and design sector in Southern California, with brands like Cisco Brothers , Elite Leather and William Haines Designs (the company founded by a former silent movie actor) shipping products across the country. Although we agree that buying American-made anything is important to our economy, we believe the largest obstacle to buying locally remains the price. Budget is often the single biggest factor when it comes to choosing furniture. So although we may want the gorgeous coffee table handcrafted in California and made with locally harvested wood, if our budget doesn’t allow it, we may just stick to our $20 Ikea Lack table … for now. Have something to say? Be sure to check out Stylelist Home on Twitter , Facebook and Pinterest .

Read the full article →

Mortgage Settlement: The Deal That Divided The Democrats

March 13, 2012

Top law enforcement officers from most of the 50 states gathered last week in Washington, D.C., for the annual spring meeting of state attorneys general, where the hot topic was the $25 billion foreclosure settlement finally filed in federal court on Monday. More than a dozen state and federal officials who crafted the deal, which resolves charges that banks wrongfully foreclosed on homeowners, say it is the most ambitious of its kind ever reached, far outstripping the complexity and political machinations of the decade-old case against the giant tobacco companies. But instead of high-fives and fist-bumps, officials, who had sniped at each other — and at the deal — for the better part of a year, tried to come to grips with the aftermath. The deal had to overcome disagreements between the banks and government officials, and between liberal Democrats and Tea Party-backed Republicans. “It was like the Battle of Verdun, every square inch was fought over,” said George Jepsen, the Connecticut attorney general, of the 16 months of negotiations between federal officials, state attorneys general and five major financial institutions — Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial (formerly GMAC) — over the foreclosures and a host of other nasty “servicing” abuses. But the most rancorous split was between a group of mostly Democratic attorneys general led by Iowa’s Tom Miller and a breakaway group primarily of other Democrats, led by New York’s Eric Schneiderman. Schneiderman, who fought hard to change the terms of the settlement, contended that the unfolding agreement would go too easy on the banks. But Miller’s contingent claims Schneiderman’s revisions were all but meaningless and that they served as a smokescreen for his real agenda: to roll the investigation into a broader probe into the roots of the financial crisis. To some degree, this is a fight for bragging rights, though some critics say there is little to brag about here. The banks have agreed to provide about $5 billion to the states and $20 billion in homeowner assistance, but most homeowners don’t qualify because their loan is owned by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or other group that is not participating in the settlement. The deal also requires banks to make make small payouts of about $2,000 to customers who lost a home to foreclosure. Still, as Schneiderman steps into a new role leading a high-profile mortgage fraud task force set up by President Barack Obama, it seems likely that some of the states he might wish to count on for support now want nothing to do with him. New York and other holdouts like Delaware argue that it was only because of their insistence that critical changes were made to the deal. Those changes preserve states’ rights to sue the banks for a range of issues directly related to the packaging, or “securitization,” of rotten home loans that later sparked the financial crisis. “We preserved all the different claims that led to the housing bubble and crash,” Schneiderman said in an interview with The Huffington Post. Officials in the Iowa-led contingent, which did the bulk of negotiating with the banks, said they planned from the very start to grant the banks only a narrow legal release from future lawsuits — and they maintain that they would never have given the banks a free pass on securitization abuses. “The releases were narrow from Day One,” said Rob McKenna, the Washington attorney general and part of the team that negotiated under Miller’s leadership. “If you look at the original language, it covers everything that’s in the release as it stands now, it’s just got a hell of a lot more words to it.” Officials from the group of eight states that negotiated directly with the banks say Schneiderman — who was not a member of that group — enlisted left-wing activist groups and travelled to Illinois and California as part of a campaign to blow up the deal in order to pursue his own political goal: to combine the mortgage servicing investigation with a broader probe into the sale of bonds stuffed with rotten loans. They say combining the investigations would have been unmanageable and ultimately would have delayed relief to struggling homeowners. In interviews with The Huffington Post, representatives of those states said that New York did not have to go along with the settlement, but that they had never witnessed an attorney general try to ruin a deal for everyone else. Schneiderman’s view, according to officials familiar with his thinking: better to bruise some feelings than to live with a deal that would let the banks off the hook for their role in causing the greatest financial catastrophe since the Great Depression. BANKS FALSIFYING DOCUMENTS Banks have proved remarkably inept at handling the millions of troubled loans that spilled into their laps after the housing bubble popped in 2007. The long list of well-documented complaints from homeowners and their advocates includes wrongful fees slapped onto loans for “services” like property inspections that were never conducted, charges to homeowners for “force-placed” home loan insurance, and improperly applying payments of late fees before principal, in direct violation of servicing guidelines. Still, no one in the government seemed to be paying much attention until widespread reports began to emerge in 2010 that banks were “robo-signing” mortgage documents — using low-paid employees to forge thousands of signatures in a single day — in order to speed foreclosures. The states soon banded together to investigate these and other loan servicing practices at the biggest banks, joined by more than a dozen federal agencies. Miller, the long-serving Iowa attorney general and an experienced negotiator of multi-state deals, was tapped to head the group. To some surprise, the outgoing attorney general of New York, Andrew Cuomo, elected to join in. (New York has much broader powers than most states to pursue financial crimes, and as such often flies solo on financial investigations.) Schneiderman succeeded Cuomo at the beginning of 2011 and began to signal that he was interested in a broader probe into the roots of the financial crisis. In the late spring and early summer, New York subpoenaed most of the major Wall Street banks, including Goldman Sachs, for information about bundling home loans into securities. Schneiderman began investigating the banks’ use of MERS, an electric database that tracks ownership of mortgage loans. Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden also launched an investigation. Relations between New York and the negotiating states began to break down around the same time. In early June, New York effectively dropped out of the direct talks over servicing misconduct when it declined to join the smaller group of states leading negotiations with the banks. New York officials said they still kept close tabs on the progress of those talks through direct talks with the federal government and the banks. New York officials wanted assurances that they would be able to sue the banks for any misconduct they discovered as a result of their investigations. But they felt they were being rushed to sign on to a deal that was heading to completion and one that simply wasn’t good enough. They said they feared that the deal would resolve charges that had not been properly investigated. But the Iowa, Washington and Connecticut attorneys general all said they never contemplated giving the banks a release from future securitization lawsuits — though the banks certainly asked for a waiver. “It’s absolutely true that the banks asked us to release all these claims,” said Patrick Madigan, an assistant Iowa attorney general who worked closely on the deal. “They wanted us to release everything under the sun and maybe a little more. Is it true that we told them no? Yes, it is true. I personally told them no on many, many, many occasions. I told them, ‘You are not going to get that. You will never get that. You need to stop asking us for that.’” “Clearly, banks would have liked to get complete immunity,” said Shaun Donovan, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, who helped lead negotiations on behalf of the federal government. “Drafts that they circulated included everything, and were misperceived as having the approval of some of the A.G.s. But [liability releases] were never as broad as some people feared.” Documents obtained by The Huffington Post that circulated among these state attorneys general in early summer back up the claim that a broad release for liability was not contemplated. “It is imperative to insulate these [securitization] claims and investigations because they are unrelated to servicing,” read a line from one email written by a state official working with the Iowa contingent on June 7, 2011. A few weeks later, draft language about releases was circulated for the first time among the negotiating states. There will be no release or waiver of claims “concerning the securitization of mortgage loans and/or the purchase, transfer, assignment or sale of mortgage loans in any form on the secondary market,” the document reads. By this time, Schneiderman’s team was no longer a part of the direct talks. The New York attorney general’s skepticism had hardened into opposition. Soon, he was meeting with housing activists and other progressive groups, urging them not to support a settlement. In August, in a largely symbolic gesture, Miller kicked Schneiderman off a broader executive committee of states working toward an agreement, saying that he had “actively worked to undermine the negotiations.” The Schneiderman camp is proud that it won the support of organized labor and progressive groups like MoveOn, which helped lead a successful campaign to sway opinion in liberal circles against the deal that was taking shape. They were also still trying to make it bigger. In an interview with The New York Times in August, Donovan characterized the disagreement as one over whether or not to wrap the robo-signing and servicing probe into Schneiderman’s burgeoning securitization investigation. By last fall, Schneiderman had won support for his cause from attorneys general in Delaware, Nevada, Massachusetts and Minnesota, some of whom launched their own investigations into securitization misconduct. But he knew he needed another big state to join his rebellion, said a source familiar with his thinking. On September 30 he got his wish. Kamala Harris, the California attorney general, announced she was dropping out of the talks in part because she felt the release of claims contemplated under the deal was too broad. With California, one of the states hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis, and New York, the nation’s financial epicenter, both out of the talks, the banks were less motivated to continue negotiating a national deal, according to several negotiators. Donovan stepped in to break the stalemate. BROKERING THE DEAL In September, Donovan began talking directly to Schneiderman. The goal was to reach an accommodation in which New York and other holdouts would give up trying to wrap together robo-signing and securitization claims in exchange for a narrower liability release that would preserve their ability to sue the banks for other mortgage-related misdeeds. Meanwhile, the banks and the other states, along with Donovan and officials at the Department of Justice, were figuring out a way to proceed should New York and California remain out of the deal. Just before Christmas, negotiators developed a sliding scale of payments by the mortgage companies to the government, contingent on which states signed onto the deal. Without California, for example, the total dollar value (including money pledged to principal write-downs and other loan modifications) would have been $19 billion, rather than the ultimately agreed-upon $25 billion. The Iowa-led contingent says that fear of getting left out of a deal that was rushing to completion — not any big concession on the part of the banks — was what ultimately convinced the reluctant states to join in. On the afternoon of January 23, Donovan’s talks with Schneiderman paid off. The Obama administration asked him to co-chair a new task force to investigate a range of Wall Street abuses. Schneiderman accepted and scored a plum spot for the State of the Union speech in Michelle Obama’s private viewing box that evening, during which the president called attention to the new initiative. “The president elevating this issue to the State of the Union was the culmination of a long process,” Schneiderman said. “It was a message to me and everyone else that the president has made a commitment to this.” Schneiderman said that the announcement signaled to the negotiating parties that New York would get what it wanted: the chance to push back on the behavior by banks that sparked the financial crisis, specifically, the packaging and selling of millions of rotten home loans to investors. After that, the deal sped to completion. On Feb. 6, Miller and other Iowa officials gathered in an office in Des Moines to began the final round-up of support from their colleagues in other Democratic states. A similar scene was unfolding in Denver, where Colorado’s John Suthers was calling his fellow Republicans. “I felt like a college football coach on signing day,” Suthers said. “I had to convert verbal commitments into letters of intent.” Three days later, federal officials announced they’d reached a deal with the banks. New York was one of the last holdouts. So what did New York get in the end that wouldn’t have otherwise been in the document? Among the specific releases the New York contingent won is the ability to use the facts obtained in a foreclosure case in future lawsuits; the deal otherwise protects the banks from most foreclosure-related federal or state litigation. New York also won the right to sue the trustees that manage the giant pools of securitized loans. And New York can specifically sue banks for their use of the MERS mortgage-tracking database. Donovan said this is important. “It is wrong to say Schneiderman and other A.G.s didn’t impact and move the releases in a significant way,” he said. Some officials from the negotiating states said that these could prove valuable concessions, but said there was no need for Schneiderman to start a civil war in order to win them.

Read the full article →

We’re Drowning (PHOTOS)

March 13, 2012

What does it mean to be an underwater homeowner? “I paid $245,00 and now [my home] is worth $117,000,” writes a senior citizen living in Phoenix, Ariz. “I will have to work until I am 95 to pay off my loan,” writes another homeowner. These are the stories that some Americans are sharing on a new Tumblr blog called America Underwater , which aims to chronicle the lives of people who are living in homes that have radically declined in value. These people now owe more on their mortgage than their homes are worth. The Tumblr was launched this week by two advocacy groups: The New Bottom Line and Rebuild the Dream . Both are calling on President Obama to fire Federal Housing Finance Agency Acting Director Edward DeMarco . They recently launched a Tumblr blog, America Underwater , to bring faces to the housing crisis. The site invites readers to share photos and stories of how they’re being affected by their underwater homes. As the country still struggles with the fallout from the financial crisis, increasing numbers are finding themselves in this position. Nearly a quarter of homes with a mortgage were underwater at the end of 2011 . We’ve teamed up with the New Bottom Line and Rebuild the Dream to solicit your stories. Please view the slideshow below, and if you’re one of the 11 million Americans who are underwater, tell us . You must be over the age of 18 to make a submission. By submitting your photograph(s), you are granting AOL and America Underwater an irrevocable gratis perpetual license to use your photos on their websites, products and services. This permission includes permission to crop, color correct, reformat and otherwise manipulate the photographs for display by AOL or America Underwater without your review or approval. Further, by submitting a photograph, you are warranting and representing that the materials submitted do not violate the rights of any third party and that you have the right and authority to grant these rights and license. In collaboration with:

Read the full article →

Mortgage Lenders Aren’t The Only Ones Accused Of Robo-Signing

March 12, 2012

Apparently robo-signing might not be a practice reserved solely for the foreclosure crisis. West Virgnia’s attorney general is suing two units of a debt collection company, Encore Capital Group, alleging that they robo-signed affidavits when they were trying to get default judgments against West Virginia borrowers, according to Bloomberg. For their part, Encore officials said that the lawsuit came as a “surprise,” according to the West Virginia Record . As the economic downturn pushed more Americans deeper into debt, the debt collection industry has boomed, and the sector is coming under increased scrutiny. Consumer complaints to the Federal Trade Commission about debt collectors rose 17 percent in 2010, according to USA Today . The agency last year filed a complaint against another debt collection company , this one based in California, alleging it used aggressive tactics to get borrowers to pay up — even when they didn’t owe any money. In addition, the FTC announced in January that a Michigan-based debt collection agency is paying $2.5 million to settle charges of misconduct . The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — another consumer watchdog — may also be pursuing debt collectors as part of a larger effort to crack down on alternative lenders, according to a January report from TIME . The boost in enforcement could be because debt collectors are becoming a presence in the lives of many Americans. One in seven consumers are being pursued by a debt collector , according to Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. That’s a good deal more than the number of U.S. households facing foreclosure — more than 80 times more, in fact . And since even that much smaller foreclosure percentage caused a complete robo-signing crisis, there is cause for concern. Indeed, the nation’s five largest lenders recently signed an agreement with the U.S. government to pay $25 billion to settle allegations of questionable and illegal lending practices, with robo-signing among them.

Read the full article →

Supreme Court Looking At NY Rent Control

March 5, 2012

Do you still think it’s totally unfair that that West Village dude pays $331.76 a month for that beautiful four-bedroom apartment ? Well, it turns out the United States Supreme Court understands how you feel (that is, unless you are paying $331.76 a month for a beautiful four-bedroom apartment). The highest court in the land is at long last taking a look ( PDF ) at New York rent control. As we wrote before, Upper West Siders James and Jeanne Harmon are required to charge 60 percent less than the market price for 3 of the 6 tenants at their 32 West 76th Street brownstone. One tenant, Nancy Wing Lombardi, pays only $1,000 for her one-bedroom apartment, even though she also owns a house in the Hamptons . She’s lived in the Harmon’s building since 1976. The Harmons filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the rent regulation law. It lost in U.S. District Court and the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but now the US Supreme Court is interested and has asked that New York City and the state of New York have briefs stating their position on the issue prepared Monday. “Contrary to popular myth, the rent stabilization law is not targeted to help the needy,” the Harmons said in their Supreme Court petition, according to The Wall Street Journal . “The Harmons effectively have been financing the approximately $1,500 monthly mortgage payments on the Long Island home of one of their rent stabilized tenants.” And James Harmon told the Daily News in January, “The issue is whether the Constitution allows the government to force someone to take strangers into their home and to subsidize them for the rest of their lives.” The constitutional debate surrounding rent control revolves around the ” takings clause ” of the 5th amendment which reads, “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Whereas rent-stabilization does provide housing for the poor and needy in New York, it also gives devilishly good deals on apartments to people who could afford them anyway (hi, Faye Dunaway !) . From The Wall Street Journal : Andrew Scherer, a Columbia University scholar and landlord-tenant expert who supports the regulations, called it “an imperfect system.” But he added: “Unless we’re going to replace it with something that directly addresses the enormous need for affordable housing, we have to live with it and make the best of it.” Mr. Scherer said the Supreme Court’s interest in the case was “surprising.” “I thought this was a well-settled question of law for the better part of the century,” he said. About 50 percent of New York’s rental market is affected by rent control or rent stabilization. There are about one million affordable housing units in the city.

Read the full article →

Ted Kaufman: Too Big to Fail and the Volcker Rule

March 5, 2012

When I was in the Senate back in 2009-2010 there were disagreements about virtually every element of Wall Street reform. But everyone, Republican or Democrat, agreed that the American taxpayer should never again have to bail out a bank because it was “too big to fail”– so large and so intricately a part of our financial system that if it wasn’t bailed out it could cause another economic meltdown. Many of us, led by Senators John McCain and Maria Cantwell, believed that the only foolproof way to do away with TBTF banks was to reinstate the Glass Steagall Act of 1933. For the next 66 years, Glass Steagall separated commercial banks, whose deposits were federally insured, from investment banks, which were free to engage in riskier investment strategies. But Glass Steagall was repealed in 1999. Wall Street banks took greater and greater risks, including credit default swaps and mortgage-backed securities. The result of this seems, in retrospect, to have been inevitable. Our attempt to reinstate Glass Steagall went nowhere. Instead, what I have always thought of as a fig leaf — the so-called Volcker Rule — was attached to the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform Act, which became law in July 2010. The can was kicked down the road; the Act left it up to regulators to write rules that would prevent banks from making the risky investments that led to the bailouts. What we are seeing happen right now proves that universal agreement on a goal — no possibility of a future bank bailout — doesn’t necessarily mean that goal will be achieved. Our major banks are still too big to fail. In fact they are bigger than they were back in 2008 before the wave of forced mergers where the big banks gobbled up Wachovia, Merrill Lynch, Washington Mutual and more. You would be hard pressed to find an independent economist or business writer who doesn’t agree with that TBTF assessment. “Independent” is the key word here. There are any number of economic voices associated with the Wall Street banks’ relentless public relations campaign to protect them from “the cost of federal regulation.” They want us to forget what the lack of financial regulation cost the U.S. economy back in 2008 — in terms of jobs, lost homes and a ballooning deficit. The lobbying campaign over the past few months to influence the regulators in charge of implementing the Volcker rule has been something to behold. A study conducted by Duke Law School Professor Kimberly Krawiec shows that between July 26, 2010 and October 11, 2011, 93.2 percent of those who visited with Securities Exchange Commissioners or staff about the Volcker amendment were financial institutions, law firms, accounting firms, trade associations, lobbyists or policy advisors who represented financial institutions. The remaining 6.8 percent represented public interest or union groups. October 2011 was the month the regulators released a 300+ page draft proposal about implementing the Volcker rule. It included 1,300 questions, asking for public input. Has there been input since then? You bet. Press reports make it clear that the imbalance in lobbying cited by Professor Krawiec has gotten worse. In the past three months, Goldman Sachs alone has met with the regulators six times. When the February 13 deadline for comments was reached, an avalanche of mail from the Wall Street banks and their supporters poured into the SEC. Given the one-sided input the regulators have received, it is difficult to imagine implementing a Volcker rule with real teeth. My initial reaction, that it was a fig leaf, is about to be proven true. In just one year’s time, a rule that was supposed to confront the very real problem of banks making high-risk bets with government-insured deposits will have evolved into a watered-down version that will do little to solve our continuing TBTF problem. Here’s just one reminder about what that problem would entail. More than three years after it declared, we still have not resolved the relatively simple Lehman Brothers bankruptcy, mainly because of the lack of resolution authority across international lines. Can you imagine how long it would take to resolve a Citibank bankruptcy — involving over $2 trillion in assets and hundreds of international relationships? The impact on the world’s financial markets would be catastrophic. Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. You don’t have to be an Einstein to recognize this TBTF insanity for what it is.

Read the full article →

Banks Are Still Trying To Charge You Those Pesky Fees

March 2, 2012

NEW YORK — Big banks, facing declining revenues and a regulatory climate that leaves them fewer creative ways to make money, are quietly introducing or experimenting with fees that are sure to outrage customers. Bank of America was shouted down by angry customers last fall when it tried to impose a $5 monthly fee for using a debit card. JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo backed off plans to impose their own fees. But the major banks have imposed or are testing other fees: _ Since November, Wells Fargo has charged $15 a month for some checking accounts unless customers have three accounts with the bank, maintain a minimum balance of $7,500 or have a Wells Fargo mortgage. _ Some Citibank customers are being charged $20 a month unless they keep $15,000 in their accounts, up from $6,000 before December. They’re also being dinged with a $2 fee for using non-Citi ATMs if their balance falls below the minimum. _ Bank of America, even after a backlash last fall when it tried to impose a $5 monthly fee for debit card transactions, is testing a menu of checking accounts in Georgia, Massachusetts and Arizona with monthly fees of $6 to $25. Banks aren’t charities, and they say they need to make money, or at least cover the cost of doing business. Consumer groups – and customers, too, it’s safe to assume – have a less forgiving view. “Banks have a short-term memory,” says Norma Garcia, senior attorney at Consumers Union. “These fees affect all consumers, but particularly impact the most vulnerable, who have the least capacity to meet minimum balances and avoid the fees.” Nothing in banking is free anymore. All of the largest banks in the United States offered free checking with no strings attached until 2009, and almost none do today, says Mike Moebs, the founder of Moebs Services, a financial research company. And what wasn’t free before costs a lot more these days: Moebs’ research shows that cashiers’ checks that used to cost $3 now cost as much as $12, and the cost to get money orders has doubled to $2 at the largest banks. The big banks are public companies and are expected to make a profit somehow. And it’s not as easy as it used to be. Historically, banks have made money off of something called interest rate spreads. They borrowed money cheaply, loaned it out at higher interest rates and pocketed the difference. But interest rates are at historic lows, making it harder for banks to charge high rates when they lend and squeezing their profits. Regulatory rules since 2009 have also curtailed traditional bank fees, costing them billions of dollars. Banks were barred in 2010 from automatically enrolling customers in a service that charged them as much as $35 for overdrafts on their checking accounts. Another law barred banks from charging fees and changing interest rates on credit cards without notifying customers. Banks’ revenues have dwindled since these laws came into effect. Bank of America’s revenue last year was $93 billion, compared with $121 billion two years before. Wells Fargo took in $81 billion last year, down from $89 billion in 2009. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, told an investor conference earlier this week that it costs the bank an average of $300 a year to maintain a bank account. About 85 percent of customers of the two largest banks in the U.S. – JPMorgan Chase and Bank of American – still qualify for free checking. Banks are trying to figure out how to make up that cost. But their fees are landing hard on customers in a country with 8.3 percent unemployment, some of whom point out that it was taxpayers who bailed out the banks less than four years ago. The $5 debit card fee that Bank of America announced on Sept. 29 became a flashpoint of anger, including for protesters in the Occupy movement. The bank said it was triggered by a federal law championed by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., that went into effect Oct. 1. It capped what banks charge stores for debit card transactions at 24 cents, down from an average of 44 cents. The law cut into quarterly revenue at Bank of America by $475 million, at JPMorgan Chase by $300 million and at Wells Fargo by $250 million. Nevertheless, after public outrage, those three banks, plus SunTrust Banks Inc. and Regions Financial Corp., all backed down from plans to charge monthly fees for debit card purchases. Bank of America says it is “not planning to increase checking account fees with our existing customers.” Of the tests in Arizona, Georgia and Massachusetts, it says it is “continuing to learn” from them and has made no decisions. Some bank executives say the political environment has made it difficult for them to charge for their services. Todd Maclin, head of consumer banking at JPMorgan Chase, points out that banking is cheaper than a cellphone, a cable TV or a gym membership. “But still we don’t expect that you’re going to be able to increase in this environment,” he says, referring to prices. Still, Chase and the other large banks have increased monthly fees by an average of $10 for checking accounts in the last two years. They also introduced fees of $2 and $3 for small services like printed statements and canceled checks. Consumer advocates say they worry that the fees will push people out of banking and toward more expensive services, like payday lenders and loan sharks. “A significant part of the population will be squeezed out of banks because they can’t afford it,” says Nancy Bush, founder of banking research group NAB, and columnist at SNL Financial, “and that is absolutely wrong.”

Read the full article →

Let’s All Panic!

March 2, 2012

Thing One: Let’s All Panic About Oil: The oil market is as jittery as Rick Santorum in sex-toy shop. Case in point: Yesterday a sketchy “news” report flashed around the Interwebs that an oil pipeline in Saudi Arabia’s restive Eastern Province had exploded. The oil market did not wait to find out if this was true. It promptly jumped on a chair and started shrieking and did not stop until long after Saudi Arabia denied the report. Crude oil prices surged to more than $110 a barrel in New York, and Brent crude oil prices in London jumped to a gasp-inducing $128 a barrel, the highest since their record of $147.50 back in 2008, writes the Financial Times . By the logic of the drill-baby-drill crowd, higher oil prices should not be happening, or should not matter. The U.S. is fracking and drilling its way to a glorious energy independence, where we can put flammable drinking water in our gas tanks and drink cheap oil instead. U.S. oil imports fell to a 12-year low last year, the FT writes , thanks to all this fracking and drilling. And yet! Gasoline prices are on their way to $4, maybe $5 a gallon. Why? Because we cannot frack and drill enough to avoid seismic upheavals in the global oil market, like anxiety in the Middle East and rising demand in emerging markets. Even bringing that ballyhooed Keystone pipeline down from Canada won’t help — in fact, it may hurt for a while, writes my former softball teammate Jonathan Alter at Bloomberg View . Meanwhile, there’s also reason to cheer soaring oil prices: Maybe that will help us use less of the stuff. As it is, our carbon emissions have oceans acidifying at the fastest pace in 300 million years, Bloomberg writes , meaning my children might be some of the last humans to see coral reefs with their own eyes. If they’re lucky, and the whole food chain doesn’t collapse. As Charlton Heston once put it, God damn you all to hell. Thing Two: Let’s Also Panic About China: OMG, everybody, China is diversifying its foreign-currency reserves. That means it might be buying fewer U.S. Treasury bonds, which means that U.S. interest rates might some day skyrocket, which means that we might some day all have to live out of our rusting cars for a few decades. That’s the fear beneath a front-page Wall Street Journal story today, but even the story doesn’t seem to really believe the hype. China is still buying dollars — it’s just buying other currencies, too, a rational investment decision. And we don’t even truly know what the heck China is buying because it’s also buying dollars via proxies in London, Hong Kong and the Caribbean. Meanwhile, Japan is buying so much Treasury debt that it more than makes up for any slowdown in China’s purchases. The U.S. government’s borrowing costs are the lowest in decades. The idea of a Chinese Treasury-buying strike is an ancient fear in markets, and in the media. The WSJ story points out we’ve been afraid of China not buying our debt for three years now. It always gets people excited. And yet it continues to not really happen. Thing Three: Take This Dow And Shove It: Speaking of buying strikes, individual investors continue to resolutely not care about the Dow Jones Industrial Average being back at 13,000 or the fact that the Nasdaq Composite index is about to hit 3,000 for the first time since the tech bubble popped more than a decade ago. Joe Light writes in the Wall Street Journal : “According to mutual-fund flow tracker EPFR Global, individual investors have pulled $8.3 billion out of U.S. stock funds since the beginning of the year and sunk almost $10.6 billion into bond funds.” This despite near-daily admonitions from Warren Buffett and an endless army of stock-market cheerleaders on the TV insisting they’re throwing their money away on bonds and missing out on the opportunity of a lifetime. People may be missing out, but can you blame them after everything that’s happened in the past 12 years? Thing Four: No Data For You! AT&T and other wireless operators are putting the brakes on unlimited data usage to spare what they say are overtaxed networks, writes Brian Chen of the New York Times . You can still get the data on your miraculous little handheld device, but you’re going to have to wait for it a little bit, unless you want to pay more. This has led to grumbling from some heavy data users, in a classic example of what’s known as a “first-world problem.” Thing Five: More Waiting In Greece: Euro-zone leaders have decided to delay giving Greece about half its latest wad of cash while it waits for Greece to enact its latest wad of economy-crushing austerity measures, the Financial Times writes. In other signs all is perfectly well in Europe, Barclays copped to borrowing more than 8 billion euros in the ECB’s latest free-cash party, and banks parked a record amount of cash overnight at the ECB . Everything’s just fine! And European stocks are higher. Thing Six: The Wide-Ish Net Of Justice: A Justice Department inquiry into the slicing, dicing and bundling of mortgages into securities appears to be wider in scope than another SEC inquiry into the same thing, Reuters reports. The DOJ inquiry covers more years of activity and includes Fannie and Freddie mortgages, which the SEC’s inquiry did not. Of course, these are civil, not criminal inquiries. You wouldn’t expect anybody to go to jail over this stuff, would you? Thing Seven: Geithner’s Wife Can’t Believe You People: Tim Geithner, in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal , says his wife can’t believe it when she hears bankers whining about financial reforms, because she had to field their panicky phone calls in the middle of the night just a few short years ago. Thing Seven And A Half: Obama Versus BS: President Obama sat down with ESPN/Grantland.com’s Bill Simmons to talk about the important things in life: Basketball, his favorite character on “The Wire,” his early role in the Jeremy Lin phenomenon, the stress of throwing out the first pitch at a baseball game, and also basketball.

Read the full article →

Rob Goodman: How Romney’s Wealth Can Shake Up American Politics

February 29, 2012

Here is Mitt as Everyman: tucked behind the wheel of a Chrysler, taking a leisurely drive through Detroit, asking the camera how the liberals and the unions have managed to bring this once-proud city so low. The ad , one of his latest, cuts from Mitt Romney in the driver’s seat, to derelict houses, to Technicolor footage of workers pouring out of auto plants in happier times. It ends on a black-and-white photo of a twentysomething Romney and his wife at the window of a modest suburban home, their station wagon just visible out the window. Every candidate for president carries the burden of appearing average. But on Romney, the burden rests heavier than on most. The man in the Chrysler is, after all, among the wealthiest candidates for president we’ve ever seen, owner of a fortune so big that it can only be estimated: “between a $150 and about $200 and some odd million,” as Romney put it. Whether or not voters ought to care about that kind of wealth in a potential president, they clearly do. In 2008, John McCain’s campaign was crippled when he confessed that he couldn’t remember how many houses he owned. And in this Republican primary, every reminder that Romney can buy and sell the candidates sharing a debate stage with him — the unscripted aside that his wife drives “a couple of Cadillacs,” the spontaneous $10,000 bet offered to Rick Perry, the revelations of his offshore bank accounts, the claim that $374,000 in one year’s speaking fees added up to “not very much” — has put a new dent in his inevitability. As long as Romney’s wealth stands in the way of his connection with voters, he has two options. He can pretend it doesn’t exist. Or he can own it. For Mitt’s sake — and more importantly, for ours — I hope he owns it, proudly and forthrightly. It’s the only way we’re going to have an overdue debate about the ways in which public office is increasingly becoming the preserve of the wealthy. It takes a special sort of politician to convincingly play Average Joe Millionaire. George W. Bush pulled it off, with the help of a Texas accent and plentiful footage of brush-clearing. Romney, by contrast, seems palpably uncomfortable in the role: as often as he mentions his love for McDonald’s or flying Southwest, he’s much more at ease when he lets the cultural populism drop, asserting that yes, he is a charter member of the 1%, and no, we shouldn’t have a problem with that. Here’s how Romney put it at a Republican debate last month: I know that there may be some who’s try to make a big deal of that…. But I think it’s important for people to make sure we don’t castigate individuals who’ve been successful, and…by innuendo suggest there’s something wrong with being successful and having investments. Let’s put behind this idea of attacking me because of my investments or my money. And let’s get Republicans to say, you know what, what you’ve accomplished in your life shouldn’t be seen as a detriment. It should be seen as an asset to help America. A Romney advisor called that one of Mitt’s “strongest moments” of the campaign. But an even more telling defense of the independently wealthy candidate came in a debate earlier that month, when Romney approvingly quoted some advice from his father, the former governor of Michigan and president of American Motors: “Never get involved in politics if you have to win election to pay a mortgage.” That thought deserves more attention than it’s gotten, because it’s among the most conservative things Romney has ever said. It’s not simply a claim that wealth shouldn’t matter. It’s an argument that a rich man is uniquely qualified to serve in office, because he is uniquely disinterested. Secure in his position, beholden to no one, stripped of the normal incentives to pander and demagogue to remain in power, the independently wealthy politician is ideally qualified to make difficult decisions in the public interest. We sometimes hear claims like that from self-financed independent candidates, like Ross Perot — but rarely, if ever, do we hear it put so directly by the prospective nominee of one of the two major parties. That’s too bad, because Romney’s point — that wealth correlates with good political judgment, and relative neediness correlates with bad or nakedly self-serving judgment — has a long and influential history in western political thought. It decisively shaped our nation and its Constitution, from its toleration of property qualifications for voters, to its placement of the choice of president in the hands of an Electoral College insulated from the public, to its indirect election of senators (a provision that much of the Tea Party right wants to bring back). Many of the Constitution’s framers openly equated wealth and public spirit. John Dickinson called the restriction of voting rights “a necessary defense against the dangerous influence of those multitudes without property and without principle” — taking it as a given that principle demanded property. His Pennsylvania colleague Gouverneur Morris, who wrote the Constitution’s Preamble, took up the same theme: “The time is not distant when this country will abound with mechanics and manufacturers who will receive their bread from their employers. Will such men be the secure and faithful guardians of liberty?” Dickinson and Morris were simply stating the conventional wisdom: in the struggle for self-interest that is politics, the only impartial arbiters — the only ones who can afford principle — are those whose needs are already met. No one put the case more eloquently than Edmund Burke, a conservative British thinker of the same era. He described at length the political virtues that belong to the propertied “gentleman”: To be bred in a place of estimation; to see nothing low and sordid from one’s infancy; to be taught to respect one’s self; to be habituated to the censorial inspection of the public eye; to look early to public opinion; to stand upon such elevated ground as to be enabled to take a large view of the widespread and infinitely diversified combinations of men and affairs in a large society; to have leisure to read, to reflect, to converse…to be led to a guarded and regulated conduct, from a sense that you are considered as an instructor of your fellow-citizens in their highest concerns… to be amongst rich traders, who from their success are presumed to have sharp and vigorous understandings, and to possess the virtues of diligence, order, constancy, and regularity…. Each of these 18th-century figures supported the American Revolution — but they also considered it their responsibility to check the egalitarian tendencies of a revolutionary age. They believed that they were reasserting an enduring and self-evident truth about politics, one informed by their deep grounding in classical history. When they picked up the Greco-Roman historian Plutarch, they read stories of the ceaseless conflict between “the multitude,” out for itself at the expense of the state, and “the best citizens,” the aristocratic factions with the state’s interest at heart. When they picked up Aristotle’s Politics , they found the philosopher questioning whether an artisan or a farmer could ever develop the virtue, or even find the leisure, to exercise power wisely. So when Mitt Romney talks about his wealth as a qualification for office, he’s expressing an idea that’s been in the mainstream of political thought for a very, very long time, an idea with some eminently respectable advocates. Of course, we can write those advocates off as privileged men cynically defending their own position with any argument at hand. But I think that response misses the deep appeal of their idea. It’s the promise that there actually is an impartial point outside the zero-sum fight of politics, that it’s possible to be governed by someone who’s simply beyond caring about grubby realities like the next election, or the top donors, or the emotional state of the party base. But I don’t believe that that point, or that politician, has ever existed. We don’t have to look any further than Mitt Romney to see why. If the picture painted by Dickinson, Morris, and Burke were true to life, Romney would be an absolutely fearless candidate. His attitude toward the presidency would be “take it or leave it.” Liberated from any need to win, he’d be free to swear off pandering, to confront his party’s base when it came into conflict with his own more moderate tendencies, to do a campaign-trail impression of a loose-tongued, retiring politician serving out the last few months of a term. Of course, that’s a fantasy compared to what most campaign observers see in the actual Romney, from his opportunistic repositionings on abortion, the auto bailout, global warming, and more; to his severely negative campaign tactics; to his maddeningly content-free stump speech. Romney seems characterized by a desperation to win. That’s not a surprising trait in a high-level politician — but if wealth were a political virtue, it’s a trait we wouldn’t expect to find in Mitt Romney. One exception doesn’t disprove the entire, age-old case, but Romney’s example does point to something more substantial. With all the money in the world, there’s still no getting “above” politics. In a democracy, winning and keeping political power means being beholden to people and interests beyond one’s own impartial judgment. There’s no alternative to the occasional ugliness of coalition-building, interest-group pandering, favor-trading, and all the rest. So if I don’t agree that Romney’s wealth somehow exempts him from the ordinary indignities of politics, why do I want him to keep arguing that it does? Because this is a conversation that we desperately need to have. Founding fathers who insisted that the mass of Americans were “without property and without principle” may sound hopelessly backward to our more egalitarian ears. But at least they made a principled case that the economic elite should also be the political elite. Today, they seem to have gotten their wish — yet we’re far less likely to hear a clearly-stated reason why that should be so. Almost half of the members of Congress are millionaires . In the Senate, it’s practically a requirement: that body’s median net worth is $2.63 million. And over the past decades, the unrepresentative nature of Congress has exploded along with America’s income inequality: since 1984, the median net worth of House members has almost tripled. It goes without saying that Americans will be voting for a millionaire president in November: from the leading Republican candidates to President Obama (net worth: $5 million), there isn’t a non-millionaire in the bunch. Is that irrelevant? Does it produce a government of bipartisan public spirit? Does it produce a political establishment out of touch with ordinary Americans’ struggles? The answer is clear enough to me. But what is special about Romney’s candidacy is his rare willingness to even broach the topic of government by the rich and its consequences. He thinks it’s a good thing. Whether or not we agree, Romney’s tendency to flirt with the topic should be encouraged, in the interest of an election debate of more substance, and more importance for Americans’ lives, than, say, whether President Obama “apologizes for America.” Romney’s liberal critics can try to confine the conversation about his wealth to his “relatability”; they can treat his every mention that he is, in fact, rich as an embarrassing “gaffe.” That might be the lower-risk strategy. But if liberals really have a problem with a Congress and a presidency of millionaires, they ought to take Romney’s talk about his wealth at face value and engage it seriously. If Romney’s candidacy shakes more Americans out of indifference toward government by the 1%, that would be a public service more valuable than anything contemplated in his campaign platform.

Read the full article →

J.D. Roth: Ask the Readers: How Much Do You Spend on Housing?

February 29, 2012

Over the past few months, I’ve occasionally used the “Ask the Readers” feature at Get Rich Slowly to poll people about their budgets and spending habits. So far, I’ve asked folks to share their spending on food , clothes , gifts , and health insurance . Now I want to look at a bigger item in your budget — probably the biggest. Let’s talk about how much you spend on housing. More than other expenses, your housing costs are influenced by where you live. Some parts of the country — and some parts of the world — are much cheaper to buy a home or to rent an apartment. It’s cheaper to live in Boise, Idaho, for instance, than to live in New York City. Generally, however, there are reasons for these price disparities. Most people are willing to pay more to live in New York than in Boise, and that drives prices higher. It’s a trade-off. I’m a firm believer in the Balanced Money Formula , which says that if you pay too much for housing, you’ll have less to spend on other wants and needs, and you’ll always feel pinched, as if you can’t afford anything. On the other hand, if you limit your housing expense to below 25 percent of your take-home pay, you should have lots of breathing room. For my own part, I pay a little more than I ought to for housing. After a few years of spending $0 per month (because we paid off the mortgage after selling the blog ), I’m now paying $950 for my apartment in Portland. That’s 36 percent of my take-home pay, and a fine example of not practicing what I preach. But I’m able to get away with this because: I’m still saving more than 20 percent of my income. I have ample emergency savings. The rest of my spending on needs is low. My spending on wants is extremely low, and my relatively high housing expense doesn’t make me feel pinched. As I mentioned before, this $950 per month figure seemed high to me until I started comparing notes with other Portland renters. Yes, there are places that cost less, but they all involve compromises I’m unwilling to make right now. (The biggest compromise? Location. I want to be able to walk almost everywhere, and I can do that from this apartment. That’ll help me save money on auto expenses, which balances things a little.) What about you? Where do you live and how much do you pay on housing? What percentage of your budget does this represent? Does your housing payment cramp other parts of your life? Or have you intentionally kept it low so that you can afford to spend on other things? If you were to start over again from scratch, what sorts of housing choices would you make? Would you rent? Would you buy? Would you move to another part of the country (or the world)? Reminder: I’m not one of those who believes that buying a home is always best. Nor do I believe that renting is always best. Either can be a fine choice, but you have to be clear on your financial goals and you have to take into account your local real-estate market. To help make an informed choice, use something like the New York Times rent or buy calculator . In my case, I opted to rent. The original article can be found at GetRichSlowly.org : ” Ask the Readers: How Much Do You Spend on Housing? ”

Read the full article →

Bill Bartmann: The Other Sort of Domestic Abuse

February 28, 2012

Domestic abuse often goes unseen and undercounted. In the last few years, another form of domestic abuse has exploded in scale and it’s every bit as destructive and hidden as the type you normally think of. This other form is perpetrated on entire households across America by debt collectors, and it’s time we shed more light on it. Buried in government documents are statistics that should make anyone retch: The Federal Trade Commission received over 164,000 complaints about debt collectors in 2011 — more complaints than for any other category of business including mortgage lenders and used-car salesmen. Those complaints didn’t even count the ones made to the Do Not Call Registry, though debt collectors have been known to call a target as many as 50 times a day. For every complaint, how many people did not complain because they felt ashamed about their debt, scared about the consequences of complaining, or simply thought that nothing would happen if they reported the abuse? Next, consider how the entire family suffers when one person in a household is victimized by an abusive debt collector: One debt collector called and identified himself as an officer. The person answering the phone was the 10-year-old daughter of the target. The “officer” told her: “You better kiss your daddy goodbye. He’s going to be arrested tomorrow or the next day.” A man made more than 2,000 in payments to a debt collector and surrendered title to his car, even though it wasn’t his debt. He was afraid the debt collector would put his 73-year-old mother in jail over funeral expenses for her husband. A woman was late in paying $362 on a car loan. The debt collector not only contacted her by phone and text messages, but also talked with neighbors and sent a courier to deliver a letter to her workplace. Because that was not enough embarrassment, he then sent messages to her and her family through Facebook, asking to have her call the agency about the debt. Antiquated telecommunications laws work to the benefit of the abusers. In twelve states including California and Florida, the abused consumer must get permission from the perpetrator in order to record the abusive calls, or else the consumer is the one risking prosecution. These facts are bad enough, but the sad truth is that they don’t even include a much larger group of injustices that are currently legal but nonetheless immoral. For instance, debt collectors are legally allowed to charge outrageous amounts of fees and interest on delinquent debt. A Minnesota woman paid off a $260 debt, but the credit card company neglected to record that fact. Instead, interest charges began to pile up until they reached $5,818 in the decade it took for her to get the harassment to stop. In another case, a telephone bill for 11 cents grew to $4,000 over seven years. Debt collectors know full well that when customers have enough trouble paying the initial balance, this perverse “miracle of compound interest” will only serve to compound the misery. Then there are the grim reapers. Their specialty is to contact the survivors of deceased borrowers. Of course, if a loan was taken out jointly or if someone else co-signed a credit-card account, then there are legal grounds for asking the surviving spouse to pay. That’s not the focus of this mutant breed of debt collector. Instead, they go after the relatives who have no obligation to pay the debt. One example was a 68-year-old woman whose husband died from colon cancer. Even though she was not legally obligated to pay her late husband’s credit card bill, that detail did not deter the debt collector from calling her as often as ten times a day. Consumer-rights attorney William Howard says : “Collectors are starting to realize just how much money you can get from someone when they are at their most vulnerable.” It’s no wonder that Richard Cordray, head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has wasted no time in putting the biggest debt-collection companies under the microscope — companies that have made a science out of perpetrating this form of domestic abuse. Still, Cordray can’t do it alone. It’s up to state and federal lawmakers to eliminate the legal-but-immoral tactics that create more victims every day. Bill Bartmann is CEO of CFS II, a debt-collection company. His companies have helped to settle debts of more than 4.5 million people without ever filing suit against a customer.

Read the full article →

Ellen Brown: New State Bank Bills Address Credit and Housing Crises

February 27, 2012

Seventeen states have now introduced bills for state-owned banks, and others are in the works. Hawaii’s innovative state bank bill addresses the foreclosure mess. County-owned banks are being proposed that would tackle the housing crisis by exercising the right of eminent domain on abandoned and foreclosed properties. Arizona has a bill that would do this for homeowners who are current in their payments but underwater, allowing them to refinance at fair market value. The long-awaited settlement between 49 state attorneys general and the big five robo-signing banks is proving to be a major disappointment before it has even been signed, sealed and court approved. Critics maintain that the bankers responsible for the housing crisis and the jobs crisis will again be buying their way out of jail, and the curtain will again drop on the scene of the crime. We may not be able to beat the banks, but we don’t have to play their game. We can take our marbles and go home. The Move Your Money campaign has already prompted more than 600,000 consumers to move their funds out of Wall Street banks into local banks, and there are much larger pools that could be pulled out in the form of state revenues. States generally deposit their revenues and invest their capital with large Wall Street banks, which use those hefty sums to speculate, invest abroad, and buy up the local banks that service our communities and local economies. The states receive a modest interest, and Wall Street lends the money back at much higher interest. Rhode Island is a case in point. In an article titled “Where Are R.I. Revenues Being Invested? Not Locally,” Kyle Hence wrote in ecoRI News on January 26th: According to a December Treasury report, only 10 percent of Rhode Island’s short-term investments reside in truly local in-state banks, namely Washington Trust and BankRI. Meanwhile, 40 percent of these investments were placed with foreign-owned banks, including a British-government owned bank under investigation by the European Union. Further, millions have been invested by Rhode Island in a fund created by a global buyout firm… From 2008 to mid-2010, the fund lost 10 percent of its value — more than $2 million… Three of four of Rhode Island’s representatives in Washington, D.C., count [this fund] amongst their top 25 political campaign donors… Hence asks: Are Rhode Islanders and the state economy being served well here? Is it not time for the state to more fully invest directly in Rhode Island, either through local banks more deeply rooted in the community or through the creation of a new state-owned bank? Hence observes that state-owned banks are “[o]ne emerging solution being widely considered nationwide… Since the onset of the economic collapse about five years ago, 16 states have studied or explored creating state-owned banks, according to a recent Associated Press report.” 2012 Additions to the Public Bank Movement Make that 17 states, including three joining the list of states introducing state bank bills in 2012: Idaho (a bill for a feasibility study), New Hampshire (a bill for a bank), and Vermont (introducing THREE bills–one for a state bank study, one for a state currency, and one for a state voucher/warrant system). With North Dakota, which has had its own bank for nearly a century, that makes 18 states that have introduced bills in one form or another–36% of U.S. states. For states and text of bills, see here . Other recent state bank developments were in Virginia, Hawaii, Washington State, and California, all of which have upgraded from bills to study the feasibility of a state-owned bank to bills to actually establish a bank. The most recent, California’s new bill , was introduced on Friday, February 24th. All of these bills point to the Bank of North Dakota as their model. Kyle Hence notes that North Dakota has maintained a thriving economy throughout the current recession: One of the reasons, some say, is the Bank of North Dakota , which was formed in 1919 and is the only state-owned or public bank in the United States. All state revenues flow into the Bank of North Dakota and back out into the state in the form of loans. Since 2008, while servicing student, agricultural and energy– including wind — sector loans within North Dakota, every dollar of profit by the bank, which has added up to tens of millions, flows back into state coffers and directly supports the needs of the state in ways private banks do not. Publicly-owned Banks and the Housing Crisis A novel approach is taken in the new Hawaii bill : it proposes a program to deal with the housing crisis and the widespread problem of breaks in the chain of title due to robo-signing, faulty assignments, and MERS. (For more on this problem, see here .) According to a February 10th report on the bill from the Hawaii House Committees on Economic Revitalization and Business & Housing: The purpose of this measure is to establish the bank of the State of Hawaii in order to develop a program to acquire residential property in situations where the mortgagor is an owner-occupant who has defaulted on a mortgage or been denied a mortgage loan modification and the mortgagee is a securitized trust that cannot adequately demonstrate that it is a holder in due course. The bill provides that in cases of foreclosure in which the mortgagee cannot prove its right to foreclose or to collect on the mortgage, foreclosure shall be stayed and the bank of the State of Hawaii may offer to buy the property from the owner-occupant for a sum not exceeding 75% of the principal balance due on the mortgage loan. The bank of the State of Hawaii can then rent or sell the property back to the owner-occupant at a fair price on reasonable terms. Arizona Senate Bill 1451, which just passed the Senate Banking Committee 6 to 0, would do something similar for homeowners who are current on their payments but whose mortgages are underwater (exceeding the property’s current fair market value). Martin Andelman calls the bill a “revolutionary approach to revitalizing the state’s increasingly water-logged housing market, which has left over 500,000 of Arizona’s homeowners in a hopelessly immobile state.” The bill would establish an Arizona Housing Finance Reform Authority to refinance the mortgages of Arizona homeowners who owe more than their homes are currently worth. The existing mortgage would be replaced with a new mortgage from AHFRA in an amount up to 125% of the home’s current fair market value. The existing lender would get paid 101% of the home’s fair market value, and would get a non-interest-bearing note called a “loss recapture certificate” covering a portion of any underwater amounts, to be paid over time. The capital to refinance the mortgages would come from floating revenue bonds, and payment on the bonds would come solely from monies paid by the homeowner-borrowers. An Arizona Home Insurance Fund would create a cash reserve of up to 20 percent of the bond and would be used to insure against losses. The bill would thus cost the state nothing. Critics of the Arizona bill maintain that it shifts losses from collapsed property values onto banks and investors, violating the law of contracts; and critics of the Hawaii bill maintain that the state bank could wind up having paid more than market value for a slew of underwater homes. An option that would avoid both of these objections is one suggested by Michael Sauvante of the Commonwealth Group, discussed earlier here : the state or county could exercise its right of eminent domain on blighted, foreclosed and abandoned properties. It could offer to pay fair market value to anyone who could prove title (something that with today’s defective title records normally can’t be done), then dispose of the property through a publicly-owned land bank as equity and fairness dictates. If a bank or trust could prove title, the claimant would get fair market value, which would be no less than it would have gotten at an auction; and if it could not prove title, it legally would have no claim to the property. Investors who could prove actual monetary damages would still have an unsecured claim in equity against the mortgagors for any sums owed.

Read the full article →

Jed Kolko: Misery Loves Campaigning: The Housing Misery Index and the 2012 Election

February 27, 2012

The housing crisis hurt some states especially hard. In those states, like Florida and Nevada, the Republican presidential candidates couldn’t ignore housing. But in states that weathered the housing crisis better, the candidates won’t spend precious money and attention on housing policy. To see which states are suffering most, we created a Housing Misery Index. Like the original Misery Index , which adds together unemployment and inflation, our Housing Misery Index takes two important indicators of a state’s housing market and simply adds them together. For every state, we add (1) the percentage change in home prices from the peak until today, from FHFA , and (2) the percent of mortgages either severely delinquent or in foreclosure, from CoreLogic . Why these two indicators? First, big price drops lead to more underwater borrowers and less household wealth, which hurt the housing market and hold back economic recovery. Second, defaults and foreclosures damage consumer confidence in the housing recovery, and foreclosures cause pain not only for people who lose their homes but also for their neighbors. States That Are Most Miserable When It Comes To Housing State Housing Misery Index Nevada 73 Florida 62 Arizona 55 California 54 Michigan 37 Idaho 35 Rhode Island 34 Georgia 34 Washington state 33 Maryland 32 Note: Index is sum of peak-to-2011Q4 price decline (FHFA) and 2011Q4 delinquency (90+ days) plus foreclosure rate (CoreLogic). Top 10 states ranked by the housing misery index are shown. Nevada, Florida, Arizona and California top the housing misery list: they all had huge price declines and lots of foreclosures. The gap in the index between California at #4 and Michigan at #5 is big, so the top four states are much more miserable than the rest. States with bigger price declines tend to have more delinquencies and foreclosures. However, some states have delinquency and foreclosure rates that are out of line with price declines: Florida, New Jersey, New York, Illinois and other states where foreclosures must  go through the courts have more homes stuck in foreclosure than states with similar price drops, boosting their misery index scores. What does the housing misery index mean for the election? If candidates want to talk about what voters want most, they should focus on housing issues where it’s clearly a pain point for voters. This means that after next week, we probably won’t hear much about housing from the presidential candidates again until the summer. This chart presents the housing misery index for all states, in order of the Republican primary and caucus calendar: The 2012 Republican Primaries and the Housing Misery Index Note: Index is sum of peak-to-2011Q4 price decline (FHFA) and 2011Q4 delinquency (90+ days) plus foreclosure rate (CoreLogic). Missouri’s caucus is March 17 even though its primary was February 7. Texas’s primary is scheduled for April 3 but could be delayed. Idaho’s caucus is March 6 even though its non-binding primary is May 15.   In the two most miserable states — Florida and Nevada — the Republicans have come and gone: there they argued about housing without presenting bold new ideas. The third most miserable state — Arizona – votes next Tuesday (along with Michigan), and the last of the top four — California — doesn’t vote until June 5. That’s a long quiet period between Arizona and California if the candidates choose to pipe up about housing only in the states where the market is really hurting. If one of the Republicans wakes up with a great new housing idea in March, when and where will we hear about it? Any housing speeches for Super Tuesday (March 6) should be given on the trail in Idaho or Georgia, which have the highest housing misery index of the many states voting that day. Among states voting in April, Rhode Island and Maryland has the highest misery index; in May, it’s Oregon. Those are where candidates should deliver their springtime housing speeches. But if candidates save their housing ideas for the most miserable states, next week’s Arizona primary could be the last time we hear about housing until June in California.

Read the full article →

Football Star Faces Multiple Foreclosures

February 27, 2012

Just because football star Terrell Owens has earned $80 million over the course of his career doesn’t mean he’s immune to foreclosure. Owens, the star wide-receiver notorious for his off-field antics , is facing foreclosure on two of his Dallas condominiums, according to RealtyTrac , a real estate site that tracks foreclosure filings. The two upscale condos, which are less than three miles apart, will be auctioned on March 6, according to RealtyTrac. One of the condos is at the luxury Azure Condominiums , and the other is at 3701 Commerce Street, according to RealtyTrac . Owens isn’t the first athlete to fall on tough financial times . More than three-fourths of retired NFL players lose their fortune within two years, and sixty percent of NBA players become financially insolvent within five years of quitting. Owens has lost nearly all of his money due to bad investments and steep child support payments, according to a recent profile in GQ . In addition, expensive mortgage payments on his multiple properties have become unsustainable. Owens’ property in Atlanta is on the market, and he sold a place in south Jersey for less than half the amount that he had paid for it, according to GQ . Exacerbating his financial troubles, Owens, who has had an NFL career that includes stints in San Francisco, Dallas , Cincinnati, Philadelphia and Buffalo was unemployed in 2011 because he needed to recover from a surgery on his left knee . But Owens has a job in football again. He scored three touchdowns on Sunday night in his first game for the Indoor Football League’s Allen Wranglers, according to Yahoo! Sports. Though Owens may be one of the most notable Americans facing foreclosure, he’s not alone. About 1.4 million homeowners are in the foreclosure process, according to CoreLogic. And approximately one in five homeowners owe more on their homes than they are worth, according to CoreLogic. But substantial help for these homeowners doesn’t appear to be arriving any time soon. Though some troubled borrowers will receive money and principal reductions thanks to the recent national mortgage settlement, the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which hold or guarantee nearly half of all outstanding mortgages — refuse to consider partial loan forgiveness to allow troubled borrowers to stay in their homes.

Read the full article →

Ellen Brown: How Greece Could Take Down Wall Street

February 21, 2012

In an article titled “Still No End to ‘Too Big to Fail,’” William Greider wrote in The Nation on February 15: Financial market cynics have assumed all along that Dodd-Frank did not end “too big to fail” but instead created a charmed circle of protected banks labeled “systemically important” that will not be allowed to fail, no matter how badly they behave. That may be, but there is one bit of bad behavior that Uncle Sam himself does not have the funds to underwrite: the $32 trillion market in credit default swaps (CDS). Thirty-two trillion dollars is more than twice the U.S. GDP and more than twice the national debt. CDS are a form of derivative taken out by investors as insurance against default. According to the Comptroller of the Currency, nearly 95 percent of the banking industry’s total exposure to derivatives contracts is held by the nation’s five largest banks: JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, HSBC, and Goldman Sachs. The CDS market is unregulated, and there is no requirement that the “insurer” actually have the funds to pay up. CDS are more like bets, and a massive loss at the casino could bring the house down. It could, at least, unless the casino is rigged. Whether a “credit event” is a “default” triggering a payout is determined by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA), and it seems that the ISDA is owned by the world’s largest banks and hedge funds. That means the house determines whether the house has to pay. The Houses of Morgan, Goldman and the other Big Five are justifiably worried right now, because an “event of default” declared on European sovereign debt could jeopardize their $32 trillion derivatives scheme. According to Rudy Avizius in an article on The Market Oracle (UK) on February 15, that explains what happened at MF Global, and why the 50 percent Greek bond write-down was not declared an event of default. If you paid only 50 percent of your mortgage every month, these same banks would quickly declare you in default. But the rules are quite different when the banks are the insurers underwriting the deal. MF Global: Canary in the Coal Mine? MF Global was a major global financial derivatives broker until it met its unseemly demise on October 30, 2011, when it filed the eighth-largest U.S. bankruptcy after reporting a “material shortfall” of hundreds of millions of dollars in segregated customer funds. The brokerage used a large number of complex and controversial repurchase agreements, or “repos,” for funding and for leveraging profit. Among its losing bets was something described as a wrong-way $6.3 billion trade the brokerage made on its own behalf on bonds of some of Europe’s most indebted nations. Avizius writes: [A]n agreement was reached in Europe that investors would have to take a write-down of 50 percent on Greek Bond debt. Now MF Global was leveraged anywhere from 40 to 1, to 80 to 1 depending on whose figures you believe. Let’s assume that MF Global was leveraged 40 to 1, this means that they could not even absorb a small 3 percent loss, so when the “haircut” of 50 percent was agreed to, MF Global was finished. It tried to stem its losses by criminally dipping into segregated client accounts, and we all know how that ended with clients losing their money… However, MF Global thought that they had risk-free speculation because they had bought these CDS from these big banks to protect themselves in case their bets on European Debt went bad. MF Global should have been protected by its CDS, but since the ISDA would not declare the Greek “credit event” to be a default, MF Global could not cover its losses, causing its collapse. The house won because it was able to define what ” winning” was. But what happens when Greece or another country simply walks away and refuses to pay? That is hardly a “haircut.” It is a decapitation. The asset is in rigor mortis. By no dictionary definition could it not qualify as a “default.” That sort of definitive Greek default is thought by some analysts to be quite likely, and to be coming soon. Dr. Irwin Stelzer, a senior fellow and director of Hudson Institute’s economic policy studies group, was quoted in Saturday’s Yorkshire Post (UK) as saying: It’s only a matter of time before they go bankrupt. They are bankrupt now, it’s only a question of how you recognise it and what you call it. Certainly they will default… maybe as early as March. If I were them I’d get out [of the euro]. The Midas Touch Gone Bad In an article in The Observer (UK) on February 11 titled “The Mathematical Equation That Caused the Banks to Crash,” Ian Stewart wrote of the Black-Scholes equation that opened up the world of derivatives: The financial sector called it the Midas Formula and saw it as a recipe for making everything turn to gold. But the markets forgot how the story of King Midas ended. As Aristotle told this ancient Greek tale, Midas died of hunger as a result of his vain prayer for the golden touch. Today, the Greek people are going hungry to protect a rigged $32 trillion Wall Street casino. Avizius writes: The money made by selling these derivatives is directly responsible for the huge profits and bonuses we now see on Wall Street. The money masters have reaped obscene profits from this scheme, but now they live in fear that it will all unravel and the gravy train will end. What these banks have done is to leverage the system to such an extreme, that the entire house of cards is threatened by a small country of only 11 million people. Greece could bring the entire world economy down. If a default was declared, the resulting payouts would start a chain reaction that would cause widespread worldwide bank failures, making the Lehman collapse look small by comparison. Some observers question whether a Greek default would be that bad. According to a comment on Forbes on October 10, 2011: [T]he gross notional value of Greek CDS contracts as of last week was €54.34 billion, according to the latest report from data repository Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC). DTCC is able to undertake internal netting analysis due to having data on essentially all of the CDS market. And it reported that the net losses would be an order of magnitude lower, with the maximum amount of funds that would move from one bank to another in connection with the settlement of CDS claims in a default being just €2.68 billion, total. If DTCC’s analysis is correct, the CDS market for Greek debt would not much magnify the consequences of a Greek default — unless it stimulated contagion that affected other European countries. It is the “contagion,” however, that seems to be the concern. Players who have hedged their bets by betting both ways cannot collect on their winning bets; and that means they cannot afford to pay their losing bets, causing other players to also default on their bets. The dominos go down in a cascade of cross-defaults that infects the whole banking industry and jeopardizes the global pyramid scheme. The potential for this sort of nuclear reaction was what prompted billionaire investor Warren Buffett to call derivatives “weapons of financial mass destruction.” It is also why the banking system cannot let a major derivatives player — such as Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers — go down. What is in jeopardy is the derivatives scheme itself. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal on January 20: Hanging in the balance is the reputation of CDS as an instrument for hedgers and speculators — a $32.4 trillion market as of June last year; the value that may be assigned to sovereign debt, and $2.9 trillion of sovereign CDS, if the protection isn’t seen as reliable in eliciting payouts; as well as the impact a messy Greek default could have on the global banking system. Players in the future may simply refuse to play. When the house is so obviously rigged, the legitimacy of the whole CDS scheme is called into question. As MF Global found out the hard way, there is no such thing as “risk-free speculation” protected with derivatives.

Read the full article →

One Major Reason To Be Skeptical Of Mortgage Settlement’s New Rules

February 21, 2012

Even as government officials prepare to unveil new standards this week for how banks treat millions of Americans facing foreclosure, housing advocates and homeowners are skeptical the rules will be able to do something past efforts have not: provide a beleaguered borrower with one individual to help them navigate the mortgage maze.

Read the full article →

UK’s mortgage lending rises 10% in Jan

February 21, 2012

(MENAFN) UK’s Council of Mortgage Lenders (CML) said that mortgage lending in the country rose 10 percent last month from 2011′s USD15 billion, reported Xinhua News. However, the CML added that …

Read the full article →

J.D. Roth: Ask the Readers: Basic Financial Frameworks?

February 21, 2012

One common request from new GRS readers is some sort of central location where they can find a list of introductory articles to guide their progress. This is a great idea, and I’m working on it. Some of the GRS elves are working on a “Guide to Money” that will provide some of this info, but I envision a single page that collects all of the relevant articles for folks starting out. In the meantime, folks like Ashley are hoping they can get some help now . Ashley writes: I’m a new reader to the blog and just wanted to say thanks for presenting often overwhelming information in a digestible manner. As someone whose former financial philosophy was “ignorance is bliss”, GRS has played an integral part in my transformation from 30 year old faux-dult to real, live adult, at least in the personal finance category. My question is this: What does a generally healthy personal financial portfolio look like? What are some must-haves for everyone and in what order should I work on getting them? It seems like a simple question, I know, but I’m picking myself up from living paycheck to paycheck and struggling with debt and I want to set some goals: savings, debt, retirement, investments (gulp). I realize it’s hard to generalize, but what does a good adult’s finances look like? Ashley’s right: It is hard to generalize. Everyone is different, with different strengths, different weaknesses and different goals. Still, it’s possible to make a few recommendations. There’s a core group of financial structures that I believe are important to everyone. And there are many ways to customize a “personal financial portfolio” (as Ashley calls it) in order address you own personal aims. Building a Base When I talk with people about how they should set up their finances, I generally recommend the following: Carry no debt — except maybe a mortgage. Though there are a handful of exceptions to this rule, I believe that most of us shouldn’t carry non-mortgage debt. We should avoid credit cards, car loans and other consumer debt. Sure, that means we have to wait and save. It may mean that we drive used cars. (I drive an eight-year-old Mini Cooper!) But avoiding debt allows us to reach big goals while others are barely getting started with the small stuff. Build adequate emergency savings. What is “adequate” savings? That’s tough to say. When you’re just starting out — especially if you’re carrying debt — adequate savings might mean simply that you have $100 in the bank. But as time goes on, you’ll want to build a buffer in the bank. It’s an amazing feeling to know that were your job to vanish, you can still get by for six months before falling into debt. Fund your retirement. When you begin saving for retirement, you won’t have much. Plus, retirement will seem as if it’s decades away. Because it is. But just because you have 45 years before you’ll be eligible for retirement benefits, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t start. The biggest factor in retirement savings is how much you contribute. The second biggest factor is time . If you start socking money away in a Roth IRA or a 401(k) when you’re just 20 years old, you’ll be light years ahead of your peers. (And that’s when you’re 35, not even when you’re 65!) Be insured. Some people think they’re above the law of averages, above forces of nature, and they choose not to carry adequate insurance on the important things in their lives — such as their car and their home and their body. But as most of us here can testify, bad things happen. And when they do, costs add up. You can mitigate the expenses by carrying adequate insurance, by which I mean the right insurance (and the right amount of insurance) for your circumstance. What type of insurance (and how much) is that? The answer’s different for everyone, but it’s not difficult to learn. Develop a budget — even if it’s just a loose guideline. When you have a budget, you’re telling your money where to go. You’re in control. Without a budget, it’s easy to lose track of what you’re spending where. A proper budget doesn’t have to be super detailed (thought it can be if that works for you). Instead, it simply has to guide your spending in a way that keeps you from losing control. Boost your income. There are two camps when it comes to increasing income: Those who think it’s irrelevant (or impossible) for their situation, and those who know it’s difficult but do it anyhow. I’m convinced that those who work to make more money , despite the obstacles in their lives, have more financial success. These are some of the basics, though not all of them. These core skills and habits can help almost anyone get started on the path to prosperity. Customizing Your Course Once you’ve become accustomed to the basics, it’s important to customize your financial habits and structures to reflect your personal skills, goal, and psychology. For instance, some folks are opposed to debt in all forms. These people avoid credit cards, certainly, and often try to avoid mortgage debt as well. Other GRS readers love credit cards. They never abuse them, never carry a balance, and never pay any sorts of fees. And some are eager to carry a low-rate, long-term mortgage because they figure they can put that money to work elsewhere to earn a better return. Another example is automation. For most people, automation is liberating. By creating a system whereby you make automatic contributions to saving, to your retirement plan, and to your bills, you take the weakest link — you — out of the chain. But for a few people, automation actually creates problems. For these folks, it’s important to do things manually. So, you see, once you have a solid financial base, you begin to build a customized financial framework based on your personal needs. And these needs are determined by your goals. Until you have personal financial goals, you can’t really know what’s “healthy” for you. Emergency funds are a great example. Some folks — such as Trent at The Simple Dollar — don’t feel comfortable unless they have a sizable emergency fund, such as a year (or more) of monthly income. I, on the other hand, am OK with six months worth of expenses in savings. Based on my psychological make-up and my personal goals, this is plenty. Reader Response My own financial profile? Let’s see if I can summarize it quickly: I carry no debt, but I do use credit cards. I repay the balance every month and pocket the 1 percent cash-back rewards. I have six months of expenses in emergency savings. I fully fund my retirement plans every year, meaning I fund them to the maximum that the law will allow. I invest in low-cost index funds instead of trying to beat the market through guesswork. I carry adequate insurance, but employ high deductibles to reduce my costs. I use targeted savings to pursue other goals, such as travel. By using multiple savings accounts, I’m able to save for the things I want without losing track of my larger goals. I use the balanced money formula to keep my spending on track. This isn’t a strict budget, but it’s a loose framework to guide my financial decisions. I like it. There’s more to it than this, of course. That’s where you come in. Until I’ve had a chance to compile a beginner’s guide to personal financial mastery, Ashley’s best bet is to listen to the advice of GRS readers. What do you think? What advice do you have for Ashley? Is there such thing as a one-size-fits-all starter financial portfolio? If so, what does it look like? How does it change with time? If not, then what do you think different people should do (and have) at different stages in life? The original article can be found at GetRichSlowly.org : ” Ask the Readers: Basic Financial Frameworks? ”

Read the full article →

Stunning Change Of Heart By Wall Street Trader Made Famous By Crisis

February 19, 2012

Some Wall Street investors made money as the mortgage market boomed; others profited when it fell apart. Having reaped big gains during both of those turns, Greg Lippmann, a former star trader at Deutsche Bank, is now catching the next upswing: buying the same securities built from mortgages that he bet against before the financial crisis erupted.

Read the full article →

Mortgage Fraud: Local Officials Step Up To Uncover Document Fraud

February 18, 2012

In the absence of state and federal research about how the nation’s largest mortgage companies are forging mortgage documents and wrongfully foreclosing on borrowers, local officials are stepping up. Earlier this week, San Francisco assessor-recorder Phil Ting released a report concluding that 85 percent of nearly 400 audited foreclosures had serious problems or were outright illegal, providing a rare glimpse into the specifics of foreclosure fraud in America. “We really wanted to take a look at what the documents would tell us and whether or not it was something systemic,” Ting said. “We had a lot of anecdotal information but never knew if the problems represented 5 percent or 20 percent or 80 percent of the cases. What we have for the first time is hard data about the level of systematic problems going on in the mortgage industry.” Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called on U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to follow up on the report’s findings and launch an investigation to determine if federal laws were broken. Five years into the country’s unprecedented foreclosure crisis, hard data about the exact nature of the mortgage companies’ abuses remains in short supply. Though federal officials insist they have investigated the problems, they haven’t released their findings, leaving the public to piece together the situation from individual stories of struggling homeowners. Ting joins a very short list of local officials who are trying to fix that. Last year, John O’Brien, the register of deeds for Massachusetts’ Southern Essex District, released a report stating that of the 473 audited mortgage loans — all of which were filed with his office in 2010 — 83 percent included erroneous documentation that made it impossible to know which mortgage company owned the loan. The ownership data is key because only a loan’s legal owner has the right to foreclose. More than 60 percent of the problem documents were fraudulent or included forged signatures. So incensed was O’Brien with the findings that in June his office announced it would not accept paperwork from any person or company known to engage in document fraud. “We published a certified list of people known to have forged signatures or signed documents they knew weren’t truthful,” said Kevin Harvey, first assistant register of deeds in the Southern Essex District office. “They’d come in and we’d tell them they can sign an affidavit attesting to the fact that they are who they say they are on these documents. Take a wild guess at how many affidavits have been signed. Zero! Zero!” Jeff Thigpen, register of deeds for North Carolina’s Guilford County, released similar data. His office conducted a study of 6,100 mortgage documents issued from January 2008 to December 2010. According to Thigpen, 74 percent had problems involving forged signatures and fraudulent documents. He has published on the office website a list of known offenders. “When I looked at my data, I began to wonder if my land records office had become a warehouse of stolen property,” Thigpen said. “And the great big question mark is if this will come back to bite the homeowner. A lot of the borrowers are still in their homes. But what happens if they try to sell it at a later date or end up in foreclosure, and the paperwork is messed up. What happens then?” Last week, the Obama administration and 49 state attorneys general announced a $25 billion settlement with five of the nation’s largest banks over allegations that the companies committed document fraud and wrongfully foreclosed on homeowners. To arrive at the settlement, federal officials conducted more than 10,000 hours of research and poured through more than 2 million documents. Yet none of the findings have been released. “Some documents related to the investigation will be made available upon the filing of a consent order in a federal court,” said Derrick Plummer, a spokesman for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, one of the agencies that investigated the fraud and negotiated the settlement. In the meantime, a handful of local officials continue to do their best to address a crisis that is nationwide. “What’s going on in Essex County, in San Francisco, in Guilford County are the same things going on all over the United States,” Harvey said. “And part of the reason why we don’t have more loan modifications for borrowers is because the banks don’t know if they own that mortgage because the documents are messed up. It’s all one big viscous circle. And until a major bank executive goes to jail over this, this will continue to occur all over the country.”

Read the full article →

An FDA for Wall Street’s Risky Business

February 14, 2012

Are exotic financial derivatives as risky as untested prescription drugs? Two University of Chicago economists say possibly. As noted by economist Steve Levitt in his Freakonomics blog , professors Eric Posner and Glen Weyl proposed in a recent white paper the creation of a regulatory body that could prescreen financial products — like the subprime-asset stuffed securities that nearly brought down the U.S. economy — before they’re sold to other banks or investors. In other words, an FDA for CDO s. “A large part of what contributed to the financial crisis were innovative financial products that introduced a large amount of risk to the system and concentrated it in the hands of people who were least able to understand them,” Weyl told The Huffington Post. “What we’re proposing is something similar to the role the FDA plays in the approval of new medicine.” Weyl and Posner said that their proposal would entail the creation of a new regulatory arm, perhaps an offshoot of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — comprised of financial experts who would evaluate each new product for potential systemic risk. So every new collateralized debt obligation would get their vetting before being unleashed to the public. “Imagine an investment bank comes up with a new derivative,” Posner told HuffPost. “[Under our proposal], before they can actually sell that derivative, they’d have to go to an agency and get its permission. And the agency at thus point would say, ‘Give us all the information that you use to decide if this is a good way to make money.’” Part of what shook the foundations of the U.S. financial system during the crisis was the massive trade in complex financial instruments backed by faulty mortgages that even the banks themselves didn’t fully understand. But what about those products whose risks can’t be totally foreseen in the long run? “One can’t know all the long-term implications of a new financial instrument,” Weyl conceded. But, he said, something has to be done to protect the economy from dangerous financial products. “The next crisis will not be from CDOs. I think people have basically figured out the story of those. The problem is, there’s a constant innovation to stay one step ahead of what people understand. You have to fight the next war.”

Read the full article →

Marty Robins: Mortgage Settlement: Really? For Whose Benefit?

February 12, 2012

If the ‘settlement’ involving mortgage foreclosure practices is supposed to be good news for the country, I must have missed something. To me this is economically detrimental, manifestly unfair to those who did not take on unaffordable mortgages, and a thinly disguised attempt to buy votes (with banks’ money) for incumbent politicians. The unfairness seems quite evident. Persons who were never subject to foreclosure because they never had a mortgage or met their obligations, get nothing in return for their prudence. All of the benefits go to those who failed to meet their obligations. On another level, the unfairness arises because the root cause of the settlement — lenders’ practices regarding foreclosure documentation — had nothing to do with whether borrowers met their obligations. The original impetus was to hold banks to account for engaging in robo-signing. Bad as it was, however, it was a mere handmaiden to the easy credit and eager borrowing that led to financial disaster. Robo-signing marred the foreclosure process at the heart of the settlement. But by itself , it didn’t cost anyone his or her home and savings. If someone at a lender lied about their review of documents or otherwise under oath, they should be prosecuted for perjury. However, this should not obscure the age old legal standard imposing consequences on those who fail to meet their obligations. I have yet to see reported a single case where someone was evicted from their home despite having met their obligations. If any such cases exist, compensation should be provided to those impacted, but not to provide a windfall to those who simply did not pay what they owed. An apt summary of the impact from the preceding source in an editorial entitled “Help for a Lucky Few”: “The limited scope of this deal is likely to draw complaints about fairness. A small number of winners, and not necessarily the homeowners who have the greatest claims that they were victims of banks.” The economic detriment is a bit less evident but probably more significant. Credit availability is going to be reduced. Lenders have always been admonished to make credit decisions based upon the capacity of the borrower to repay on schedule, and value of proposed collateral, if any. Now, we have introduced an element of uncertainty as to repayment by making the obligation subject to review of the lender’s practice regarding enforcement. Even where a lender makes a good decision in traditional terms and should not suffer a loss, they are subject to punishment if their collection practices are deemed inappropriate. By definition, this makes repayment of a loan portfolio less likely and requires an increase in underwriting standards and pricing. This is bad for our economy at this time in that it reduces aggregate demand at a time when we still have greatly underutilized capacity, especially labor. As we have seen, it is hard enough for lenders to make sound credit decisions. When we tell them that even when they do so, they may still suffer losses because of how they run their businesses on unrelated fronts, they have every incentive to avoid consumer lending and deploy funds elsewhere. It is also bad for the economy in a more subtle manner in that creditworthy borrowers and even cash buyers of real estate are likely to refrain from such transactions because of the random or lottery element which has been introduced. When one behaves in a prudent manner but sees special favors being dispensed to those who failed to do so, one may well lose confidence in the entire process and simply ‘stand pat’ rather than having the confidence to take action. It is basic economics that a viable legal system which enforces contracts is fundamental for economic development. When one makes repayment of loans subject to examination of the lender’s conduct, they greatly deviate from this principle. If this were just typical election year populist posturing by the President, state AG’s and the like, it would be easy enough to dismiss it as such. However, this ‘settlement’ is likely to have lasting, material economic impact at a time when we can least afford it. I suggest that those who value a strong economy, make their feelings known at the polls this November in all races involving officials who brought about this solution, starting with President Obama and including pertinent state AG’s. Private actors have done their share to mess up our economy. Let’s make sure government doesn’t compound the problems.

Read the full article →

The Faces Of The Long-Term Unemployed

February 12, 2012

— J.R. Childress is up before the sun, bustling about in the French colonial brick house he built. He helps pack his wife’s lunch, downs some eggs or cereal for breakfast, pores over online and newspaper job listings and hopes – even prays – this will be the day when his fortunes turn around. He’s determined to stay busy, job or no job, for sanity’s sake. Maybe he’ll help a neighbor. Exercise. Or check out computer blueprints of construction projects around Winston-Salem, N.C., to stay connected to the world where he thrived for three decades. Childress has been laid off twice since late 2009, most recently for 10 months. “Every day is a struggle,” he says in a soft drawl. “The struggle is the unknown. You’ve worked your way up the ladder and you get to a point in life and a position in work where you’re comfortable … then all of a sudden everything goes away. It’s like being thrown into a hole and you’re climbing to get up, but it’s greased. There’s no way of getting out.” The frustrations of one 53-year-old North Carolina man are multiplied millions of times over across time zones and generations in a country still gripped by economic anxiety, despite increasing signs of recovery. And they resound in a presidential campaign pitting an incumbent defending his economic record against GOP opponents who are attacking it. Unemployment in January was at its lowest level in three years – 8.3 percent – and 1.8 million jobs were added last year, compared with about 1 million in 2010. But there’s still a long way to go: There are 5.6 million fewer jobs than there were when the recession began in late 2007. About 12.8 million people are out of work and what’s especially troubling, according to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, is the large number of long-term unemployed – more than 40 percent have been jobless more than six months. The long-term unemployed don’t fit into any neat category. They’re young and old. They have high school diplomas and master’s degrees. Some become so discouraged, they stop looking for a time or become mid-life college students. Others find temporary jobs, then return to the jobless rolls for long stretches. In 2011, the average length of being out of work was 39 weeks – about nine months. But statistics tell only part of the story. They don’t gauge the despair of a thirtysomething office manager who has stopped counting how many resumes he’s sent out. Or the apprehension of a 60-ish tool-and-die maker who lost his job, returned to school, but still can’t find work – and doubts he ever will again. Or the rejection J.R. Childress feels, declaring that unemployment “makes you feel you’re not a part of society because you’re not earning your way.” Childress started working after high school, first in factories, then in construction, eventually earning a six-figure salary as vice president of operations at a company. In October 2009, he was laid off when road construction and building projects came to a near halt. After a year without work, Childress took a huge pay cut to be a construction foreman, but that job ended last April. He’s convinced he has two strikes against him: his age and lack of college degree. “I’m putting out resumes, but they’re going into a black hole,” he says. Prospective employees, he says “want 33, not 53. … They say, `We really like you, but if we spend our time training you, when construction comes back, you’re going to leave.’” He pauses, and adds: “That’s not paying my bills.” Childress’ wife works and their 24-year-old twins are out of college so that eases their financial burden, but he says he asks himself: “`Am I going to be 75 or 80 and not be able to retire? … What did I do to deserve this? When is it going to turn around for me?’” ___ Jerome Greene doesn’t mince words when he describes life without a steady paycheck for more than three years. “It’s been like hell,” he says. “It’s very hard to see people leave and go to work in the morning and come home every night. It’s hard to see people spending money, going out and having fun and you can’t. It’s very stressing. But there are people in worst situations than I have and I feel sorry for them.” Greene, about to turn 50, worked for 16 years as an Oracle software developer, most recently at a Pennsylvania company that made electronic components for cars. When he was laid off in June 2008, the recession was just taking hold, and he still had job interviews. By fall, with the economy in free fall, his phone stopped ringing. Greene hoped the downturn would be brief and he’d weather it with unemployment benefits. But the jobless rate hovered above 9 percent and Greene’s 99 weeks of unemployment expired. He had trouble sleeping. Depression set in. Without health insurance, he took precautions – carrying hand sanitizer and his own pen when doing errands to avoid getting sick and having to pay $65 for a doctor’s visit. “There’s no room for error,” he says “There’s no extra money.” At the same time, Greene, who is single and lives outside of Pottstown, Pa., has become an active social networker, online and in person. He participates in several groups, looking for job tips, sometimes doing presentations himself, perfecting his “elevator speech” – the 30-second pitch to prospective employers. “Emotionally, it helps,” he says. “You see that you’re not alone. … I guess you can say misery loves company. But there are positive people, too.” Mingling has other benefits, too. One holiday party led to freelance work on web development projects. Greene is encouraged by the improving economy and has been getting calls for interviews, though they’re outside the Pennsylvania area and he’d prefer to stay put. “Maybe,” he says, “there is an end to this.” No matter, the experience has changed his outlook. “It has made me very cynical when it comes to the work environment,” he says. “People have to take charge of managing their careers. They should prepare for the next round of layoffs … The rest of the world is beginning to catch up with the U.S. Companies are going to continue to outsource, they’re going to continue to do stupid things … and I don’t think recessions are ever going to go away. Having a job just interrupts a job search.” ___ The memory stings even now for Jon Creek, all these years after the job interview. He’d applied to be a bookkeeper at a property management company when one of the owners caught him off guard: “He said, `You’ve been out of work for a year now. You can only clean the garage so many times. Why can’t you get a job?’” Creek recalls. “My answer was, `I’m trying to get a job now,’” he says. Creek, who lives in Mason, a suburb of Cincinnati, was a construction company office manager until he and almost everyone else at the firm were laid off in December 2007. He’d known the business was in trouble and says he actually turned down another better-paying job earlier, out of loyalty. It took 18 months to land part-time work as an insurance agent’s assistant at $240 a week – a dollar less than his unemployment checks. A year later, Creek was stunned when a certified letter arrived with his final paycheck and notice that his job was over. Again, it was the economy. To add to the injury, his boss had posted the news on her Facebook page before telling him. “Everybody knew but me,” he says. And since she hadn’t done the proper paperwork, he couldn’t file for unemployment. That was August 2010. Creek – who holds a bachelor’s degree in business administration – has been looking since, worried that as time passes, someone unemployed for, say, six months may seem more appealing. “I worked hard. I did everything right,” he says. “Now I’m at the point of asking myself, `Will I ever be able to get anything?’ It’s not just about a salary. It’s about being able to go out and say, `I do this. This is my identity.’” On occasion, Creek, now 35, has become so discouraged, he’s temporarily quit looking. “If you send out your resume so many times, every employer in the city has it,” he says. “If you take it out of the mix for a while, perhaps you’ll get noticed next time.” Being unemployed not only hurts financially – Creek has an $11,000-plus student loan – it leaves emotional scars, too. “The only people I talk to during the day are my wife, my dogs and service people,” he says. “It’s very isolating, very lonely.” His wife, Leslie, a financial analyst, is a constant comfort. “She tells me I’m smart, that I have a lot to offer,” he says. Creek is considering returning to school this fall to get a master’s degree in accounting. “Sometimes you feel like playing the victim card,” he says, “but you really don’t want to. It tells the employer you’re not very confident. I tell myself good things are to come … but it’s hard to remain hopeful.” ___ Jean Coyle knows it’s ironic that long ago, she taught college classes about retirement planning. As a tenured professor at universities in Illinois and New Mexico, she lectured on gerontology, age discrimination and women’s issues. When she was 52, she made a life-changing move, entering the seminary and leaving with two masters’ degrees. In 2002, she was ordained as a Presbyterian minister. As an associate pastor at a Presbyterian church in Washington, D.C., Coyle did crisis work, visiting homes and hospitals, counseling and preaching, conducting funerals. She expected a long career but in 2007, she lost her job in a church budget cut. At 62, Coyle – who holds five degrees – thought she had much to offer. She applied to hundreds of churches and organizations around the country. “I don’t know if I was really naive or not, idealistic or not,” she says. “I just believed I was supposed to be doing this and something would happen. There would be an opportunity.” She hoped her past dealing with the sick and dying would prove especially valuable. “I think you might find a 26-year-old seminary graduate with that experience but not often,” she says. “Churches say, `We want someone who’s going to be there 20 years.’” Coyle found a temporary staff job with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A) but after three years of looking for a pastoral position, she reluctantly retired in 2010. “I’m literally sitting in the midst of job search files that I’m finally throwing away,” she says, from her home in Washington’s Virginia suburbs. “I know I’m never going to be interviewed again. This is a major thing for me. It’s hard to say. I’m a type-A person. I love working. I want to work until I drop and collapse at my desk. That wasn’t meant to be. It’s very painful, very difficult. … The positive part is to be able to say I’m retired rather than I’m unemployed. But people often turn away and say, `Oh you’re retired.’ You feel discarded. You feel invisible.” Coyle stays busy by filling in for pastors when they’re on vacation or ill and participates in 13 volunteer activities – everything from pet therapy to neighborhood watch to usher at a college theater. “I always used to tell my gerontology students,” she says, “that the saddest thing in the world is to have the answers and no one is asking you the questions anymore.” ___ Ted Casper figured the path to a paycheck would pass through the classroom. When he was laid off at a semitrailer plant in southern Wisconsin in spring 2009, he initially thought he’d rebound quickly. He was a skilled tool-and-die maker and had never been unemployed for more than a few days. “I thought I’d spend a week filling out applications,” Casper says, “and I’d spend my next week deciding which of the three or four jobs I would take.” He soon discovered he had misjudged. “It was a real eye-opening experience,” he says. “I started looking for work and no one was looking back.” It wasn’t just that he had no prospects. His wife, Gail, who has diabetes and Addison’s disease, a hormonal disorder, had already lost her job at an auto dealership. And they were in the final stages of foreclosure, no longer able to make their $900 monthly mortgage payments. Their annual income had plummeted from $90,000-$100,000 to about $23,000 – mostly his unemployment checks. Casper, then in his late 50s, followed a familiar route for unemployed blue-collar workers. He returned to school, enrolling at Blackhawk Technical College in Janesville, Wis. Two years later, he had an associate degree in industrial engineering technology. But he was 60, and competition was fierce – and younger – with thousands of unemployed factory workers in the area, many from a recently shuttered General Motors plant. “I got zero responses,” says Casper, of Edgerton, Wis. “I literally didn’t even get the form letter that goes along with the `thank you but no thanks.’” So last summer, Casper returned to Blackhawk to study business management. “I kind of accepted the fact there’s no employer out there that will hire me,” he says wearily. He’d like to start a business – making furniture is a possibility. Casper is philosophical about his fate. “There are times when you realize a lot of this is my fault,” he says. “There were times when I was working and wasn’t saving. … On one level, it feels like someone should be taking care of me. On the other level, I feel I should have been doing it on my own.” He just received his first Social Security check, but still hopes for another career. “If you can’t find a job,” he says, “maybe you’ve got to go out and create one. … There’s always something ahead. You just have to reach out for it.” ___ Dennis Hansen sometimes wonders whether all his schooling was worth it. An aquatics biologist, Hansen has taught college, had his research published in scientific journals and spoken at conferences from New York to Hawaii, but in recent years, he’s bounced from no job to a temporary job to taking any job for a paycheck. In late 2009, the Duluth, Minn., lab where he worked as operations manager, testing the toxicity of chemicals (and the impact on fish and water), closed because of declining business. Much of its work had come from Department of Defense contracts. After a year without work, Hansen, 32, was hired to monitor Lake Michigan and Lake Superior water for the state and federal governments over two summers. He also had short stints as a census worker and as an extra post office hand during one holiday crush. It hasn’t been enough: Hansen says he has a $13,000 credit card debt and that’s just for basics – his $600 monthly mortgage, heat and food. “It’s definitely a roller coaster,” Hansen says, with the ups coming when he’s done well in a job interview and the downs when there’s a rejection: “That’s when I’m frustrated, angry and wondering why I went to college for 10 years.” Hansen is resourceful and versatile: In college, he stocked grocery shelves, put motors in yachts and worked as a valet. Since 2009, he’s applied for everything from oil field worker in Williston, N.D., to chemist in Iraq for a government contractor. “The more money they offer,” he says, “the farther I am willing to go.” Hansen says he never expected to be out of work so long, figuring his experience and research would make him a shoo-in for a job. In December, he had an interview but lost out to someone with a Ph.D. “I was beat out by someone even more overqualified than I was,” he says. In January, another rejection. His marriage plans are on hold – “I don’t want to have a potluck welfare wedding,” he says – and his joblessness casts a shadow over his relationship with his girlfriend. “We were watching the news when there was a report that the economy is getting better,” he recalls. “She said, `When is OUR economy going to get better?’ That’s just crushing for a guy.” ___ In North Carolina, J.R. Childress spends Thursday nights at his group, Professionals in Transition, where the underemployed and the jobless meet to share tips, review resumes and support one another. Childress is casting a wide net in his job search and having learned to live on a quarter of his former salary, he says, if a new position offered “half or better, I’d consider that a bonus.” He recently had promising news – he was interviewed to be a contractor selling state license plates. “You hope that just around the next corner or the next person you talk to is going to have something,” he says. “I pray. I say show me the way. … But you’re no longer planning ahead. You’re planning to get through the next day.” ___ Online: ___ EDITOR’S NOTE – Sharon Cohen is a national writer for The Associated Press, based in Chicago. She can be reached at features(at)ap.org.

Read the full article →

Missing Final Document Raises Doubts On $25B Mortgage Settlement

February 11, 2012

Some who talked to American Banker said that the political pressure to announce the settlement drove the timing, in effect putting the press release cart in front of the settlement horse. Whatever the reason for the document’s continued non-appearance, the lack of a public final settlement is already the cause for disgruntlement among those who closely follow the banking industry. Quite simply, the actual terms of a settlement matter.

Read the full article →

The Woman Some Are Dubbing ‘The Female Barack Obama’

February 10, 2012

By Tim Reid and Aruna Viswanatha Feb 9 (Reuters) – California Attorney General Kamala Harris, a veteran prosecutor with acute political instincts and a reputation for thick skin, gambled big in the settlement negotiations with banks over illegal foreclosures. It’s a gamble that appears to have paid off spectacularly. Harris, whose state has been one of the hardest hit by the U.S. foreclosure crisis, pulled out of talks with the banks last September, saying what they were offering was grossly insufficient. At the time, her office said on Thursday, California was being offered between $2 billion and $4 billion. The gambit carried significant risks. California is a non-judicial foreclosure state, meaning foreclosures can happen outside the court system. Thus there are no court files filled with the notorious “robo-signed” documents, leaving Harris with less leverage than other states in negotiating with the banks. Yet on Thursday, Harris held a press conference in Los Angeles to herald a deal that looks exceptionally favorable to California. Out of the $40 billion in total benefits that are expected to flow from the $25 billion settlement that the banks agreed to pay, California is set to emerge with some $18 billion. Harris wrung a commitment from the banks to reduce loans to distressed homeowners by $9 billion, and to provide $3 billion to assist short sales. Another $6 billion will fund restitution and anti-blight programs, among other things. There are also enforcement and penalty provisions unique to California that Harris said will make sure the banks comply with the terms of the settlement. Harris’ hardball tactics reflect a woman who has prospered in the rough and tumble politics of the Golden State. Born in Oakland, California, she is the daughter of a Tamil mother, a breast cancer specialist who emigrated to the United States in 1960, and a Jamaican American father, a Stanford University economic professor. Her parents divorced when she was a toddler and her mother raised Harris and her sister to be proud African Americans during the tumult of the Civil Rights era. By virtue of her gender and her parentage, Harris is the first female, the first African American and the first Asian American attorney general in California, and the first Tamil American attorney general in the United States. A career prosecutor, she was elected district attorney of San Francisco in 2003 after defeating two-term incumbent Terence Hall. She was re-elected unopposed in 2007. Convictions in San Francisco increased sharply during her tenure. But her unshakeable opposition to the death penalty led to a bitter stand-off with the city’s police department when, just four months into the job, a police officer was gunned down and killed by a gang member and Harris declined to seek the death penalty. She also came under fire when a scandal engulfed the San Francisco crime lab, resulting in the mass dismissal of drug cases. Yet she remained a highly appealing political figure, dubbed “the female Barack Obama” by some wags. In 2010, she prevailed over a weak field to win the Democratic nomination for attorney general, and then barely edged her Republican rival, Los Angeles district attorney Steve Cooley, in the general election. Harris is widely considered to be a likely future candidate for higher office; if the mortgage settlement proceeds as planned, it could ultimately help more than just the troubled homeowners. (Reporting By Tim Reid and Aruna Viswanatha; Editing by Jonathan Weber and Richard Chang)

Read the full article →

SEC May Target Big Banks In Lawsuit Over Mortgage-Backed Securities

February 9, 2012

Regulators may be preparing a lawsuit against some of the country’s largest banks in order to probe their role in the acceleration of the financial crisis. The Securities and Exchange Commission is planning to formally warn a number of firms that sold mortgage-backed securities in the years leading up to the meltdown of an impending enforcement action, the Wall Street Journal reports. At issue is whether banks knew at the time that the mortgages backing their securities were of poor quality — and whether the banks nevertheless presented a picture of the loans that was misleadingly reassuring. Mortgage-backed securities are generally believed to have played a central role in the near-meltdown of the national banking system a few years ago. The country’s largest financial firms repeatedly bundled subprime mortgages and used them to guarantee securities that were sold to investors. When those mortgages proved unsound, it triggered a series of financial failures that dealt a severe blow to the national economy. If such a lawsuit does come to pass, it would be part of a broader effort on the part of the federal government to assign responsibility for the financial crisis — and to better regulate hazardous trading practices and high-risk financial instruments in the hopes of preventing another one. At the same time, the SEC has been criticized for not doing more to stamp out misconduct. In 2009, one prominent whistleblower called the agency ” captive to the industry it regulates .” Multiple lawsuits and inquiries have already raised the issue of whether banks misrepresented the health of mortgage-backed securities during the housing boom. JPMorgan Chase faced one such suit last year, as did Washington Mutual and Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch division . Goldman Sachs is currently facing a potential class-action suit from investors over whether it purchased a number of mortgage-backed securities in 2005 without first examining their health. Goldman was also accused last year, by an investigatory Senate panel, of misleading Congress and investors as to the safety of the mortgage-backed securities it was selling. News of the possible suit comes at a moment when banks are already being called to account for their handling of another result of the collapsing housing market: the foreclosure crisis. On Thursday, the government announced that it had reached a $25 billion settlement with some of the country’s largest financial firms — among them Citigroup, Ally and BofA, all said to be targets of the SEC investigation — over charges that the banks engaged in systematic and widespread mortgage fraud. No major bank executives have yet to face prison over their role in the worse financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Read the full article →

National Mortgage Settlement All But Inevitable As California, New York Join Deal

February 9, 2012

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and California Attorney General Kamala Harris are joining the national mortgage servicing settlement, making a deal that includes all 50 states all but inevitable, according to a source who spoke Wednesday evening on condition of anonymity. “It’s hard to see any state staying out of the deal if California is in,” said the source. The settlement resolves allegations that five of the nation’s largest banks forged documents and wrongfully foreclosed on borrowers in what has come to be known as the “robo-signing” scandal. Schneiderman and Harris have been outspoken in urging the Obama administration to hold the nation’s biggest banks accountable for their role in the housing crisis and have resisted signing on to the settlement until now over concerns that it would go too easy on the banks and provide too little homeowner relief. The two states’ participation had widely been seen as necessary to a successful deal. California has been one of the hardest hit states during the foreclosure crisis, and because of this was considered a key state when it came to securing a deal. The five banks participating in the settlement — Ally Financial, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase — agreed to contribute a total of $25 billion to help struggling homeowners if California joined the deal. Without California, that figure would drop to $19 billion. The deal is being negotiated between the state attorneys general, the Obama administration and the banks. The majority of the settlement money is earmarked for helping homeowners change the terms of a mortgage or refinance it, or reduce the amount of principal owed. In this election year, the proposed deal has become a political lighting rod as some consumer advocates have criticized the Obama administration for what they perceive as terms that deliver too little help to desperate homeowners. “Even if the final settlement number is $25 billion, it pales in comparison to the scope of the problem,” said Margery Golant, a Florida-based attorney who represents homeowners and formerly served as assistant general counsel at subprime mortgage giant Ocwen Financial. “If you do the math, that’s a few hundred million per state. That’s not enough to change anything.” California and New York are joining more than 40 states that already have agreed to the settlement. Florida, Massachusetts, Nevada and Delaware have remained resistant to joining, though that will likely change now with California’s and New York’s participation, sources familiar with the negotiations said. Shaun Donovan, secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, said last week that a deal “will be finalized, I would expect, in the coming days.” A final deal has not been announced.

Read the full article →

In Minnesota, Missouri, Colorado, Economies Languish As GOP Candidates Vie For Votes

February 8, 2012

When Republicans in Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado cast their votes for presidential candidates Tuesday, many will no doubt have the economy on their minds. Tying the three economies together is government, among the top three employers in all three states. And in all three states, government employment is falling too. Missouri particularly struggled last year, losing jobs while nationwide employment grew. And nearly a third of Missouri’s mortgages are underwater — a larger share than the national average. The state is also less confident about the future of the economy than 35 states. Though Minnesota and Colorado’s economies are doing better than average, they are still far from healthy. Minnesota’s home prices plunged 20 percent over the past five years. And Minnesota’s unemployment rate is lower than the national average largely because of slow population growth, said Troy Walters, an economist at IHS Global Insight. Coloradans may feel a bit wealthier than the nation as a whole since the same housing bust has not been as severe there. Home prices have fallen just 5 percent over the past five years, and 16 percent of Colorado mortgages are underwater — far below the national average.

Read the full article →