Upside Down Mortgage

Posts Tagged ‘predatory’

Countrywide Subprime Lending

Over the course of the last year, federal laws regarding loan modifications have changed radically.  Between the end of George W. Bush’s presidency and Barak Obama’s new administration, federal laws  have opened new opportunities for homeowners to avert foreclosure and have access to loan modifications.

Basically, there are four core laws which create the guidelines for all mortgages.  These laws attempt to make the guidelines uniform, based upon equality and that they be administered fairly.  All lenders are required to operate under certain rules, regulations and procedures when taking loan applications.  The rules are: the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), Equal Credit Opportunity ACT (ECOA) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).  Some of these laws are quite old and were passed in a very different era, but Congress hopes that these rules provide the kinds of guidance that will help people borrow money to get a home without being taken advantage of.

RESPA requires lenders to give a good faith estimate of all closing costs that you are likely to pay.  The hope is to keep the borrower from being forced to pay hidden fees at closing.

TILA requires that annual percentage rate (APR), term of the loan and total costs be disclosed to a borrower prior to extending credit to the borrower.  This information must be obvious on documents presented to the consumer before signing, as well as on periodic billing statements (although that is less often).    Obviously, subprime mortgages, and other “creative†forms of mortgages, may have violated this law.

ECOA prohibits any discrimination in lending based on race, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status or age.  Discrimination does not just mean refusing to give a mortgage, it could also mean taking advantage of people and giving them unfavorable mortgage terms just because of their minority status.  

FCRA promotes accuracy, fairness and privacy of information in the files of consumer reporting agencies.  When you apply for a mortgage, the lender always pulls a credit report and FCRA gives you access to the report they pull.  If you have ever been rejected for a credit card, you will doubtless have received a letter explaining the decision and informing you of your right to view your credit report; this is due to FCRA.

California loan modification attorneys are familiar with the state and federal laws governing loan modifications, as well as how those laws can be used to benefit your situation.  If you are facing foreclosure, there is a chance that your mortgage company might have violated one of these statutes.  This could be used as leverage either during a loan modification or even during litigation.  The federal government is still investigation how often mortgage companies such as Countrywide violated these laws in selling people subprime mortgages.  Having a mortgage with a highly fluctuating interest rate certainly seems to violate some of the federal laws mentioned above, as does the tactic of lying about the borrower’s income (which some real estate agents did quite often).  A loan modification attorney can be a big help in figuring out just how the laws governing mortgages can benefit you.

About the Author:

Loan Modification Help Center is a free gathering place for resources and information on the rapidly evolving field of loan modifications. The internet is over flowing with information on this subject with the problem being that there can be as much bad information and advice as good. For a homeowner struggling with mortgage payments and facing the possibility of foreclosure, the importance of getting straightforward information with no agenda or ulterior motive is of utmost importance. The resources we make available at Loan Modification Help Center are just what homeowners need as they seek to understand their options and get the information they need to make the critical decisions involved in a loan modification. For more information about loan modification programs visit loanmodificationhelpcenter.org.

Source - Loan Modification Help Center – Federal Law Governing Mortgage Lending

Fight Foreclosure: Make 'Em Produce The Note!

If you're new around here, you might want to subscribe to our Upside-Down Mortgage RSS feed. It's quite likely the only feed of it's type on the internet!

Predatory Lending Legislation

Question: Does anyone else find this curious?

Here is a link to an article from the NY Times... dated September 30,1999.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Bill Clinton was still President.

Please note who is "applying pressure" in the third paragraph.

But that isn't the best part...

Take a look at the eighth paragraph. Here we have Peter Wallison already talking about how a bailout will be necessary when the subprime market inevitably collapses.

I know the Bush administration proposed legislation to fix the predatory lending situation, but was stopped by the Dems in Congress. Although I admit I don't have all the details on that particular issue.

Thoughts? Does anyone have any more information on this?
Artguurl: What about the talk of the bailout in 1999? That is the part I'm more interested in.

Answer: The Bush administration never proposed legislation to fix the predatory lending situation. He never did anything to stop it. He supported it by helping deregulation the business even more. You're right, you don't have the details on that particular issue. You don't even have the facts.

February 23, 2004: Instead of heeding warnings, Federal Reserve leadership promotes non-traditional mortgages over fixed rate products in a speech to the Credit Union National Association annual conference. "American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage.the traditional fixed-rate mortgage may be an expensive method of financing a home." [Remarks By Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, 2/23/04]

October 8, 2003: Bush administration objected to a proposal to have an independent regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be an independent unit of Treasury, much like financial regulators housed in the agency that oversee banks and thrifts. The Bush administration also objected to a proposal to have the Department of Housing and Urban Development have oversight over the companies' business activities. The independence provision has broad support from committee Democrats and Republicans. The HUD provision was pushed mostly by Democrats but had been accepted by Oxley and Baker as a compromise needed to move the bill forward. [Washington Post, 10/8/03]

February 24, 2004: At a Senate Banking Committee hearing, Norman Rice, President and CEO of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle questioned having low-income Americans use ARM's to finance their homes. In addition, Senator Sarbanes questioned the Federal Reserve's promotion of alternative mortgage products over traditional fixed rate mortgages:

* Norman Rice: "Particularly if you're talking about serving an underserved constituency. Adjustable rate mortgages for a low income constituency is a nightmare."

* Senator Sarbanes: "[The Federal Reserve] is pushing adjustable rate mortgages.and throwing this risk back on the consumer." [Senate Banking Committee Transcript, 2/25/04]

June 30, 2004: After encouraging the use of non-traditional mortgages, many of which re-set with rising interest rates, the Federal Reserve begins to raise rates-17 consecutive, 25 basis point increases that take the Federal Reserve Funds rate from a 46-year low of 1 percent in June 2004 to 5.25 percent in June 2006. [Market News International, 4/29/08]

October 26, 2005: House of Representatives passed regulation reforming the GSE's. The bill passed the House 331-90 (Republicans: 209-15; Democrats: 122-74), and would have given the new regulator broad authority over setting capital requirements and limiting portfolio size. Senate Democrats picked that bill up and offered it, but the Administration opposed that legislation. According to Mr. Oxley, the White House gave Congress and the GSE reform legislation "a one-finger salute."

* "We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we're facing now, if we hadn't had such a firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury and the Fed," Mr. Oxley says." [Financial Times, 9/11/08]

February 7, 2007: Federal banking regulators released their voluntary Guidance on Nontraditional Mortgage Products for mortgage lenders. However, the guidance did not apply to subprime mortgages. [Senate Banking Committee Transcipt, Prepared Statement of Martin Eakes, 2/7/07]

March 22, 2007: Senator Dodd laid out how the Federal Reserve was responsible for the "perfect storm" sweeping over American homeowners. At a Banking committee hearing Dodd said, "By May of 2005, the press was reporting that economists were warning about the risks of these new mortgages. In June of that year, Chairman Greenspan was talking about "froth" in the mortgage market and testified before the Joint Economic Committee that he was troubled by the surge in exotic mortgages." [Senate Banking Committee Transcript, 3/22/07]

August 6, 2007: At a White House morning press briefing, in response to a question whether the housing market is correcting or in crisis, President Bush says that the economy is stable: "[I]t looks we're headed for a soft landing." [Remarks By President Bush, 8/9/07]

November 15, 2007: Senator Reid asked unanimous consent to pass the FHA Modernization Act, but Republicans objected. [Congressional Record, 11/15/08]

December 4, 2007: In response to a question about whether the Administration was too slow to recognize the subprime problem, President Bush said: "We've been working on this since August." [Remarks By President Bush, 12/4/07]

December 6, 2007: Senator Reid asked unanimous consent to pass the FHA Modernization Act, but Republicans objected. [Congressional Record, 12/6/08]

October 4, 2007: At a news conference on Wednesday, House and Senate Democrats outlined a plan to help low- and middle-income families keep their homes." [New York Times

Congressman Kanjorski on Anti-Predatory Lending Legislation on House Floor

Predatory Lending Subprime

Question: Who is at fault for the Subprime Mortgage Crisis?

I've heard opinions that the subprime mortgage crisis is the result of predatory lending, uneducated borrowers, over-valued homes, and a lack of government regulation. What do you think is the main cause? Are there other causes than the ones I mentioned? How do we avoid this situation in the future?
It sounds like there are a lot of groups to blame, but how do we keep this sort of crisis from recurring?

Answer: How can we keep the "mortgage crisis" from happening again? Those who study mortgage trends have said that there has been a pretty consistent pattern of a "bust" in mortgages about every 18 years since World War II. We've seen problems like this before and we will survive this "crisis." If you're looking for a mortgage right now, rates are still very good. The world is not ending (as the politicians who are itching to "help" would have us believe).

In my opinion, the best way to prevent this from happening again, is for the Free Market system to be allowed to punish bad decisions and reward good decisions (as it always does). Government regulation is just something politicians and anti-business people like to propose because it makes them feel good. In reality, the mortgage industry is already highly regulated... and yet the "mortgage crisis" occurred. One of the many regulations that the government has is to disclose VERY clearly and plainly the interest rate of the loan and any adjustments to the interest rate... and yet borrowers claimed that they "didn't understand what they were signing."

Now to your question... In summary, EVERYONE involved played a part in the "bust" to some extent or another.

BORROWERS -- Rather than living within their means, many borrowers decided that they wanted to have a bigger, more expensive house than they could afford. In order to afford these houses, they often turned to loan products such as "Interest Only" loans. With IO loans, you basically pay the minimum amount possible every month and the principal is never reduced. To complicate matters, some loans featured "zero down" where the borrower had absolutely NO equity in the property. Here is an illustration of a typical problem: A property is worth $800,000 at the time of purchase. The borrower takes out an Interest Only loan for $800,000 (putting nothing down). Then the property value drops to $700,000. Now the borrower has a loan for $800,000 for a property that is only worth $700,000. The borrower has ZERO equity in the property so guess what... they walk away from the property and the lender ends up taking the loss.

MORTGAGE COMPANIES (BAD OR POOR UNDERWRITING GUIDELINES) -- In an effort to make as many loans as possible (and to sell these loans to foolishly eager investors), many mortgage companies relaxed their guidelines beyond reason. Some loans had a Loan-to-Value (LTV) ratio of 100 (or higher on rare occasion!). If the property was worth $100,000, then an LTV meant that $100,000 was loaned to the borrower (as stated before, no equity). The lower the LTV, the less risky (and more desirable) the loan is. Another arguably stupid mortgage product was the "80-20" loan. A loan with an LTV of 80 or lower is not considered risky in the mortgage business. Therefore, Mortgage Insurance (MI) is not required for loans with an LTV of 80% or less. (If a borrower has an LTV of 85 and pays it down to 80, then they can drop the MI from the loan.) MI is basically insurance against borrower default. For example, if a borrower defaults on his loan and the lender forecloses and sells the property and loses $2000 in the process, then the MI company will cut a check to the lender for $2000 to make the lender "whole." Rather than requiring borrowers to carry MI on their loans (which would have mitigated risk), the mortgage companies allowed the borrowers to take out a second loan on the same property (a "second lien" or Home Equity Line of Credit or HELOC). This HELOC money was then used as the "money down" on the first loan so that MI could be avoided. For example, if the property is worth $100,000, the borrower might get a HELOC for $20,000 and put that money down on the first loan, thereby lowering the LTV to 80 (thereby exempting them from MI). Another popular loan was an Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) or "Fixed-Adjustable" (where the Interest Rate is fixed for a few years and then starts to adjust (up or down) based on a financial instrument). Borrowers were allegedly given a low "teaser rate" and then (because they bought too much house) couldn't make the payments with the higher interest rate when the rate adjusted. (It seems hard for me to believe that an interest rate adjustment would be so severe that it would prevent someone from making their payments, but that's what the borrowers allegedly claim.) Maybe this is too many detailed examples, but suffice it to say that a lot of stupid mortgage products were offered by mortgage companies (and accepted by borrowers).

INVESTORS -- In their quest to make a "fast buck", investors bought up tons of these mortgages since these riskier "sub-prime" loans brought higher returns (higher interest rates). These investors should have performed a "due diligence" on the loans they bought; but they didn't. When investors purchase loans, there is usually (if not always) a "buyback" provision. This means that if a loan goes bad and the investor finds that there was some irregularity in the underwriting (the loan decisioning process) that the mortgage company who sold them the loan is required to "buy back" the loan. The problem is that most mortgage companies are "cash poor" (meaning that they borrow the cash that they lend from a "warehouse lender" temporarily until they can sell the loan to an investor and pay back their warehouse lender). So when these loans started going bad (hundreds of millions of dollars worth!), the investors demanded the mortgage companies buy back the loans (according to their agreement). So mortgage companies were now looking at buying millions and millions of dollars worth of loans back when they had little or no money of their own! So what happened? Countless mortgage companies declared bankruptcy. With all of the hullaballoo around bad mortgages, investors decided to stop buying sub-prime mortgages. Since there was nobody buying these mortgages and since mortgage companies don't have their own cash, mortgage companies found that they could no longer make these sub-prime loans. The sub-prime market dried up almost instantly.

RATING AGENCIES -- The job of rating agencies is to investigate the creditworthiness of investments (many of which included mortgage debt). These agencies did not do their due diligence and ended up giving these investments an artificially high rating. So investors thought the investments were less risky than they were. Investors will always buy investments that have a high return and low risk (but obviously they weren't low risk).

THE GOVERNMENT -- The government has always put pressure on mortgage companies to make loans to poor and/or minority borrowers. Because these borrowers typically have worse credit and/or less income and/or greater debt, they had to go to the "sub-prime" market to get a mortgage loan. Is it so hard to imagine that a borrower with less income, more debt and bad payment habits will default on a loan (especially when they've put little or no money down)? Of course not. But the government continues to "wish away" laws of basic economics and common sense. In order to "do right" by poor people and minorities, the government expected mortgage companies suspend their normal sound underwriting guidelines and business sense. (Obviously, the sub-prime problem goes beyond just poor borrowers, but my point is that the government contributed to the crisis to some extent.) The government is now poised and ready to exacerbate the crisis beyond what it is now by "freezing" interest rate adjustments. Here is an illustration of the problem: Let's say you have $5000 in cash. I'm a bank and I tell you that if you deposit your $5000 with me that I will pay you 1% during the first 2 years but then I will pay you 7% after those 2 years. So you deposit your money at the low rate of interest. After two years (when you're about to get your higher interest rate), the government comes in and says, "Sorry. You're not getting your 7% as promised. In fact, you can't take your money out of that bank; you must leave it there and only collect 1% for another 10 years." What will happen when you have another $5000 to deposit? Will you put it in my bank? Absolutely not. Why? Because you don't know if you'll really get the return you agreed upon. In the same way, if the government steps in and says to the investor/lender, "Sorry... you're not getting the return on your money that you negotiated... and you can't take back your money; you've got to leave it at the low rate," then guess what the investor is going to do. He will never invest in mortgages again! He will take his money to China or municipal bonds or any other vehicle in which he can get a RELIABLE return on his money. If he DOES decide to put money into mortgage debt again, he will demand a higher return to compensate for the greater risk that the government will step in and "help" again. (In other words, Interest Rates on mortgages will go up for EVERYONE!) Thank you Big Government Democrats and George Bush!

REGIONAL PROBLEMS -- Some regions in the USA had events that made the mortgage problems particularly bad. For example, inflated property values in California started deflating. Condos in Florida didn't sell as thought and many sit vacant. Companies providing jobs in the "rust belt" (such as Michigan) have moved or gone under; thereby leaving the local homeowners with no income with which to make their mortgage payments.

Sorry for such a long answer. Hope it all makes sense.

Thanks!

Bailout, Mortgage Fraud- BB&T Bank, Predatory Lending, Subprime