Citigroup Defrauding It’s Mortgage Clients?

I find it troubling that regulators seek to bury wholesale origination (brokers) in new regulation while retail origination is being painted as the good guy in the mortgage meltdown. The only difference between wholesale origination and retail origination is the lobbying power of the latter dwarfs that of the former.

Regulators, through their proposed legislation and regulatory changes, would have you believe that fraud only exists in the wholesale origination end of the business. Nothing could be further from the truth. Retail lenders are equally prone to fraudulent lending activities as are the wholesale originators. Apparently, the regulators haven’t recognized this.

In the current environment of massive lending changes and industry scrutiny, fraudulent origination practices have been uncovered at Citigroup. Essentially they have been misrepresenting, to their adjustable rate mortgage clients, that their rate resets will be higher than their present mortgage rates, therefore they should refinance to a fixed rate mortgage.

This would be beneficial to their clients if in fact the resets were higher than current rates. However, they are not higher and in fact are lower. Consider this post at Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis. Emphasis is mine.

Question 1. What happens to our loan on the anniversary? Will it go down?
Answer: It is very unlikely that it will go down. Would you like to refinance?

By the way the existing rate on the loan in the Email above is 6.00%. That rate is based on the one-year treasury rate plus an index of 2.75. On March 17, the one-year T-Bill rate was 1.53 as quoted during the conference call. Let’s do the math. 1.53 + 2.75 = 4.28 (rounded to the nearest higher 1/8 would be 4.375). Citigroup told the client the new rate would be above 6.00%

The above conversation, in conjunction with the documented hard evidence above, suggests a pattern deceit by Citigroup. I am wondering how many Citigroup customers have refinanced to a higher rate and payment based on inaccurate rate quotes from Citigroup mortgage specialists.

I am not a lawyer. I do not know if any of this violates truth in lending laws, fair lending practices laws, or any other laws. However, I do know this is a mess, and if I was a customer of Citigroup I would be questioning whether or not I could believe anything they say.

In the sake of fairness, if Citigroup has a different explanation for the above examples, I will post it.

Interestingly, nothing new from Citigroup has been posted on the site. Also here is another snippet from a lawyer who responded to the post.

I received an Email from a lawyer who writes:

I am a lawyer. And, you don’t need to be a lawyer to KNOW fraud when you see it, and I’d say that what you describe – deliberately misquoting rates, etc. is fraud (there are two types of fraud – fraud in fact and fraud in the inducement, but we don’t have to get in to that, and you may well know the difference (and I suspect you do)).

Most law is “common sense” and if something screams “fraud” it most likely is – under whatever particular law – whether statutory law or common law.

If Citi KNOWS the rate is going lower, but says “it is most likely to go higher” and doesn’t give a straight answer, and is stupid enough to have third party witnesses listen to the misrepresentations and/or put them in writing and or have them recorded (and I assume Citi records a lot of stuff by law or company policy), then they deserve to be sued by a lot people.

I encourage you to visit the post on Mish’s blog as it is well documented and easy to understand. There is no question that Citi’s activity is fraudulent in my opinion. I would fire any loan officer in my employ for doing anything that resembled this practice. Institutionalized mortgage fraud, you have got to love it.

I can identify a significant number of retail originators whose ethics are far from above questioning. The above example is not unique even though the regulators would like you to believe so.

When new regulations emerge from this lending crisis, they should be applied fairly to ALL originators and not just wholesale origination. The act of over regulating one type of originator over another stinks of cronyism and unfairness. More importantly, applying regulation on a favoritism basis does little if anything in providing more protections for the consumer.

The regulators aren’t doing the right things, they are just doing things. It makes them look like they are doing something constructive but that clearly is not the case.

Stop the Bailout or We’ll Pay Dearly!

stop the government bailout of the irresponsible
Congress would like the prudent to pay for the misdeeds of the irresponsible. Of course the cost will show up in your tax bill or the ever shrinking buying power of our dollar. Enough is enough.

Say now or pay later. Visit this website dedicated to stopping the mortgage/real estate bailout. Stop the Mortgage Bailout.

From the website…

This site is dedicated to stopping the government’s planned bailout of the housing market. A bailout requires responsible Americans to pay for the acts of greedy bankers, mortgage brokers, flippers, and over-extended homeowners. In other words, the government wants you to pay for the blunders of others who knew, or should have known, better.

Equally as important, a bailout would permanently price out of the housing market all those responsible Americans who have been patiently saving to buy a house that they can actually afford. The current housing correction is necessary to correct for the historic run up in housing prices over the past decade, which has pushed the price of housing beyond affordability. By bailing out the housing market, the government will prevent housing prices from returning to affordability and thereby ensure that young families will not be able to afford homeownership.

A government bailout of the housing market is both fiscally and morally irresponsible; it is an unfair subsidy being paid to the wealthy (bankers), the greedy (mortgage brokers, flippers, and yes some homeowners), and the incautious (some homeowners), with no benefit to those paying the bill (taypayers).

Why should responsible Americans be forced to pay for the mistakes of others?

They are stealing from us. Let them know we know. United we can stop them.

New Jumbo Conforming Loan Limits for Connecticut

The long awaited details on the expanded loan limits for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are now becoming available. Here is the latest information we have on the new jumbo loan guidelines for counties located in Connecticut.

While the limits have been approved and the matrices released, FNMA’s Desktop Underwriter (DU) and Freddie Mac’s Loan Prospector (LP) do not reflect these changes or offer pricing for these loans. We expect those details to follow shortly. DU and LP are the computer underwriting models used to determine borrower eligibility.

New Conforming Loan Limits for Connecticut

County 1 Unit Limit 2 Unit Limit
Fairfield $708,750 $907,350
Hartford $440,000 $563,250
Litchfield $417.000 $533,850
Middlesex

$440,000 $563,250
New Haven

$417,000 $533,850
New London $417,000 $533,850
Tolland $440,000 $563,250
Windham $417,000 $533,850
For all other U.S. Counties and three and four unit limits, please see FNMA’s Spreadsheet

Here you can find the FNMA Jumbo Mortgage Matrix

And

Here is Freddie Mac’s Jumbo Loan Matrix

We will post any developments with regard to these new limits as they become available.

Obama on Mortgage Crisis, Hypocrite or Ignorant You Decide

In December of last year, I posted on Hillary Clinton’s views of the mortgage meltdown. So it was with great interest that I read Moe’s post on Barack Obama and the mortgage crisis. In fact, I liked it so much that I asked permission to cross post it here.

Moe runs the blog Loan Modification & Home Loan News, which is dedicated to assisting homeowners facing the mortgage crisis. If you are facing a mortgage or foreclosure problem, it would do you some good to check out his blog. He has already helped 19 homeowners save their homes. For that I tip my hat and also thank him for allowing me to cross post his article.

My take on the article is that Moe is right on. This article exposes Obama as being part of the same old problem in Washington. Which in a nutshell is money over people. So not only is Obama a hypocrite with respect to the mortgage crisis, he is one based on his campaign theme of “change”. What Moe’s post exposes isn’t change at all. Rather it’s the same old, same old. Obama is either ignorant of where his money is coming from or a hypocrite, you decide. Either way, these are not qualities that endear me to any Presidential candidate.

The last thing this country needs, in these very critical times, is more political cronyism. This is true even if the favoritism is wrapped in the word “change”.

Is Obama for the People or the Banks?


By Moe on March 2nd, 2008

Let’s get something straight here America.

The President of the United States is to work for the common good of the people for which they represent and serve. Yes, represent and serve. They do not take the oval office to work for the “special interests” of corporate America and the money that fills their campaign buckets.

Or do they?

I have been watching Barrack Obama for quite sometime and what I have seen, has been nothing short of disappointing. Obama has been mostly silent in regards to his policy on the mortgage and housing crisis. He has done little to address the millions of Americans that are “suffering” as a result of these loans they were sold by irresponsible lenders.

I came across this interesting article in the Huffington Post by Earl Ofari Hutchinson. Here are some quotes that I thought I would share with my readers. Since they need to know what candidates truly have their backs. Meaning, which candidate is truly here for the people which they represent and the millions of homeowners that were swindled by the banks.

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama says he’ll crack down on fraudulent sub-prime lenders. If he really means it he can start by firing his campaign finance chair, Penny Pritzker. Before taking over Obama’s campaign finances, she headed up the borderline shady and failed Superior Bank. It collapsed in 2002. The bank’s sordid story and its abominable role in fueling the sub-prime crisis are well known and documented. It engaged in deceptive and faulty lending, questionable accounting practices, and charged hidden fees. It did it with the sleepy-eyed see-no-evil oversight of federal. It made thousands of dubious loans to mostly poor, strapped homeowners. A disproportionate number of them were minority.

I am not really familiar with this Penny Pritzker. So, I thought I would do a Google search and this is what I found. This is from wikipedia.

On February 20, 2008, Flashpoints Radioproduced an investigative report segment into how Penny Pritzker’s possible role in the current predatory lending(aka. sub-prime) crisis. According to investigative reporter Tim Anderson, Superior Bank, FSB of Hinsdale, Illinois, was owned by the Pritzker family until closed by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was named Receiver. Superior Bank was among the original lending institutions who used their investors money to purchase “subprime” mortgages for securitization. Pritzker banking resources working with Ernst & Young and Merrill Lynch developed the original mortgage securitation package, putting mortgages into a bond and then selling the bond. Like many banks nationwide, the decision to participate and underwrite subprime business ultimately proved fatal for their mortgage division.

Here is the podcast that I feel everyone should listen to from Flashpoints Radio.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 Listen D’load Podcast - Today on Flashpoints: Today on Flashpoints, An investigative report into Penny Pritzker, the 2008 campaign finance chairman for Barack Obama, who was a key mover and shaker in creating the sub-prime meltdown;

It doesn’t end there and keep in mind, this is all as easy as doing a 30 second Google search. This is a November 8, 2002 article is from Inside These Times:

After federal regulators closed the $2.3 billion Superior Bank in July 2001, investigations revealed that the suburban Chicago thrift was tainted with the hallmarks of a mini-Enron scandal. New legal developments are adding additional twists, including racketeering charges. And yet the bank’s owners, members if one of America’s wealthiest families, ultimately could end up profiting from the bank’s collapse, while many of Superior’s borrowers and depositors suffer financial losses.

The Superior story has a familiar ring. Using a variety of shell companies and complex financial gimmicks, Superior’s managers and owners exaggerated the profits and financial soundness of the bank. While the company actually lost money throughout most of the ’90s, publicly it appeared to be growing remarkably fast and making unusually large profits. Under that cover, the floundering enterprise paid its owners huge dividends and provided them favorable loans and other financial deals deemed illegal by federal investigators.

Wanting to avoid a lawsuit, the secretive Pritzkers quickly agreed to what the FDIC hailed in December as the biggest settlement they had ever negotiated. The Pritzkers would pay $100 million immediately, then $360 million over 15 years. But there were lots of little provisions in the agreement that benefit the Pritzkers. First, as former bank consultant and longtime thrift watchdog Tim Anderson notes, the $100 million doesn’t even quite pay back all of the unpaid loans made to the owners. The Pritzkers also pay no interest on the $360 million, and since it is paid over many years, the real cost to the Pritzkers may be only around $250 million. As of September 2002, according to FDIC figures, the insurance fund was still out $440 million after this settlement.

But it gets even sweeter for the Pritzkers. The FDIC also agreed to pay the Pritzkers 25 percent of any claim won in a lawsuit against Ernst & Young. Since the FDIC is now suing for $548 million, the Pritzker share could be $137 million. On top of that, the agreement stated that the Pritzkers get half of any civil penalties from such a lawsuit (after certain agency expenses). The FDIC is asking for triple damages, or $1.64 billion; the Pritzker share could be over $800 million.

Even taking into account the “record” settlement they made with the FDIC, the Pritzkers could make more than $700 million in additional profit for running a financial institution into the ground. They had already profited handsomely, sharing in the more than $200 million in dividends to the owners in the ’90s. They accomplished all this with an investment of about $21 million for each partner—though the Pritzkers had also already benefited from $645 million in tax credits.

Meanwhile, roughly 1,000 depositors who had deposits above $100,000 in a Superior account—money above the FDIC-insured limit—lost about $65 million. Most of them were middle-class individuals, attracted by Superior’s high interest rates.

Here is the failed Superior Bank information from the FDIC

So, what does all this tell the American people? The suffering American homeowner that is struggling in one of the very same loans that Penny Pritzker used to pedal at her “Superior Swindle of a Bank”?

How can Barack Obama say you have a splinter in your eye when there is a log in his?

Personally to me, it shows that Mr. Obama is all about the Benjamin’s (AKA Money) and speeches with his big white toothed grin and hollow words that seem to have Americans under his spell and hanging on to his every word as his pockets are lined by the very sharks that feed off of suffering Americans.

Isn’t Obama supposed to protect the people against these corporations or is he to align himself with them to win an election? Hell, it seems like it doesn’t matter where that money came from to fund his campaign. As long as it serves his purpose and this purpose seems to be rearing its ugly head in the form of campaign contributions from the very same people that he criticises.

You are contradicting yourself Obama. Why don’t you read exactly what this means and I’ll help you by posting the wikipedia version of the term “contradiction.”

In logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. It occurs when the propositions, taken together, yield two conclusions which form the logical inversions of each other. Illustrating a general tendency in applied logic, Aristotle’s law of noncontradiction states that “One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.”

More from Inside These Times:

Ernst & Young provided inaccurate audits, resisted regulators, and did not test or properly disclose crucial financial assumptions. The OTS didn’t investigate or follow up on problems adequately, ignored warning signs for years, and unduly relied on the expertise of managers, the auditor’s report, and the promise of the wealthy owners to put their money behind the bank’s strategy, which they ultimately refused to do. While the FDIC lawsuit against Ernst & Young correctly highlights the accounting firm’s sorry record of accounting malpractice, it ignores the dubious history of the Pritzkers and Dworman in cases ranging from tax evasion to bank mismanagement, instead praising the Pritzkers for their charity.

What looked like a good deal for the FDIC in resolving Superior’s failure is now looking like yet another opportunity for the wealthy Pritzkers to further profit from their misdeeds. Certainly, the record suggests that Ernst & Young bears responsibility, but so do the Pritzkers and Dworman. The question is not just who will extract money from whose pocket in the aftermath of the bank failure, but also whether the rich are simply above the law. The RICO lawsuit against bank managers, owners and auditors raises the issue of criminal conspiracy and at least attempts to recover damages for the uninsured depositors. But beyond that, argues thrift watchdog Anderson, “I think there ought to be a criminal investigation.”

More wise words from Earl Ofari Hutchinson from the Huffington Post:

Obama boosters will try to muddy the water by fingering Pritzker’s brother, Jay Robert Pritzker, who heads up a campaign committee for Hillary Clinton. That’s irrelevant. Jay Robert did not head up Superior Bank when it ran roughshod over homeowners in Illinois and nationally. He does not head up Clinton’s campaign finance committee. The campaign committee he started is one of dozens of Clinton campaign committees that operate in many states.

Obama’s message is one of hope and especially change. He can prove it by changing his finance chair, and doing it now. And then telling the public what he will do to stop bank’s like the one his financial point person headed from bleeding needy and desperate home buyers dry.

The predictable happened when many of those lost their homes. When the bank collapsed Pritzker and bank officials skipped away with their profits and reputations intact. Aside from the financial and personal misery sub prime lenders caused the thousands of distressed homeowners, sub-prime lending has been a major cause of the housing crisis in many areas, and has dealt a sledgehammer blow to the economy. Obama has said nothing about Pritzker, Superior Bank, or their dubious practices.

Instead, there was a touching, even teary eyed photo op, moment during one of Obama’s Texas campaign swings. There was Obama talking to a group of San Antonio residents and lambasting the CEO of a sub-prime lender for greedily snatching at a $100 million buy out package while thousands of home borrowers that his company snookered into loans at below market rates faced foreclosure or the threat of foreclosure.

So let me get this straight Obama. You can berate a CEO like Angelo Mozilo (I assume that is who you are speaking of) for taking profits as a result of snookering the American people. But when it comes to accepting money for your campaign, it is quite all right to take money from a woman who snookered American Homeowners and was made rich off the backs of people for which she made toxic loans to.

Excuse me Barack Obama, Penny Pritzker is guilty of the very same thing for which you had a lambasting fest in San Antonio. Now, lets see if main stream media is also under Obama’s goofy grinned spell and if they will pick up this very important information that the American people “need” to know.

Fed Cuts Rate and Mortgage Rates Rise!

The markets can be puzzling at times.Since the Federal Reserve cut the Fed Funds rate by .50% on January 30, mortgage rates are up at least .75% on the thirty year fixed rate mortgage. For example, our 30 year fixed rate, no closing cost loan offering bottomed out at 5.75% APR just before Bernanke and the Fed lowered the fed funds rate by .50%.

Today our no closing cost rate stands at 6.50% APR. That is a three quarter percent increase despite the fed funds rate being cut by one half of one percent. Rates have responded similarly in other fixed rate maturities as well.

Public perception is that if the Fed lowers rates, mortgage rates will follow. Sometimes that is true, other times it is not. Quite often, those of us in the mortgage origination business,
cringe when the Fed lowers their short term rate. More often than not, we need to re-educate borrowers on the workings of the debt markets and interest rates in general. These re-education efforts are necessary due to the bombardment of misinformation the public receives through advertising and/or simply ignorance.

The actual rate that gets the most publicity, when the Fed addresses monetary policy, is the Federal Funds rate. Here is how the Federal Reserve describes the Federal Funds rate on their New York Fed website. Emphasis is mine.

By trading government securities, the New York Fed affects the federal funds rate, which is the interest rate at which depository institutions lend balances to each other overnight. The Federal Open Market Committee establishes the target rate for trading in the federal funds market.

The most important thing to take away from this definition, is that it is a very short term interest rate. You cannot get more short term than overnight. This is the rate that is most commonly used by the Federal Reserve to manipulate monetary policy. The Federal Reserve does not control mortgage interest rates. They really don’t directly control the fed funds rate either, rather they set a target rate.

Mortgage rates move independently of short term rates and it is short term rates that the Fed has the most control over. Just because the Federal Reserve moves rates one way or the other, doesn’t necessarily mean mortgage rates are moving in the same direction. The rate activity, over the past three weeks, proves this point.

In this environment, if you are presented with a good and sensible rate for your situation, don’t jeopardize it by waiting for Federal Reserve actions. You can easily lose this bet two ways. You may guess wrong on the direction in which the Fed is moving short term rates and it may be erroneous to assume that long term mortgage rates will respond by moving in the same direction.

One thing is for certain. Mortgage rates and the very short term fed funds rate, never move the same amount in either direction. To clarify, if the fed cuts or raises by say 1/2%, mortgage rates do not move by the same 1/2%. If they do, it’s rare and purely coincidental. In the world of financial instruments, they are two very different animals. The erroneous assumption of lock step interest rate movement is one I have heard many, many times.

Finally! The REAL Criminals are Being Targeted

For months the Mortgage Guy has been fighting the flawed perception that those most culpable for the mortgage meltdown are the buyers, realtors and mortgage originators. Conventional wisdom would have you believe they are most and directly responsible for the real estate meltdown and the mortgage crisis.

My contention is that the home buyers, real estate agents and mortgage originators are being wrongly blamed for the mortgage meltdown. Sure they played a part, but I believe their respective responsibilities for the debacle is minimal and leaning toward innocence in nature and intent.

All political and regulatory emphasis to date, has been put on either adding to already burdensome lending regulations or bailing out the “greedy” home buyer. That is until the Securities and Exchange Commission set their sights on the mortgage securitization process. This is where the biggest, most serious and harmful crimes were committed.

A look at this recent Yahoo News article will give you an idea as to what the SEC is concerned with.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating how banks, credit rating firms and lenders valued and disclosed complex mortgage-backed securities that ultimately led to the subprime crisis, a top agency enforcer said on Saturday.

The article points out that while the SEC didn’t name the companies involved, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley have disclosed regulatory investigations pertaining to their role in the credit crisis. In all, there are over thirty firms being looked at. It goes on to say…

Banks, due diligence firms and credit rating agencies are being examined for their role in the securitization process, or how mortgages were sold, repackaged and bundled into special financial products.

The SEC is looking at the valuations and accounting treatments of mortgage-backed securities. It is looking at whether the securities were valued correctly in the first place, what was the level of risk and if that was adequately disclosed to shareholders.

In my opinion, the investment banks, with help from others, committed the fraud of labeling credit standard deficient loans as AAA investment grade paper. By doing so, they were able to feed a huge hunger for safe but uncharacteristically high yielding investments. Feeding this appetite for high yet safe yield, allowed for the spread of this toxic paper all over the world.

The investment banks could not pull off the crime of the century without having ample assistance. This is where the ratings agencies and due diligence firms/departments come into play.

It is up to due diligence entities to properly assess the risk and suitability of investments. Apparently, based on the total destruction of our credit markets, these due diligence “experts” couldn’t see that by mixing a pot of AAA mortgages with a pot of DDD mortgages one cannot expect an investment pool deserving a AAA rating as the end result. This is so even if you take into consideration that they bought “insurance” on the portfolio.

The final gate keeper responsible for safeguarding the investment public from misdeeds such as these, are the credit rating agencies. These so called “independent” firms really have the final say as to the grade of any debt security. Yet they also couldn’t see that an investment portfolio with a major exposure to credit standard deficient mortgages should not be rated AAA in safety.

A reasonable person would wonder why the ratings agencies would implicate themselves in what turns out to be the total destruction of our debt markets. The answer is the same for all involved. Money.

At S&P, for instance, no longer will they hand out triple-A’s to issuers who pay them boatloads of fees. They now will employ an ombudsman to listen to complaints about the agencies handing out triple-A’s to issuers who pay them boatloads of fees.

What if General Motors built cars that didn’t run, or your local dairy produced sour milk? What if your bank said it didn’t deposit your paycheck because it lost it, or the electric company just quit supplying your neighborhood?

Then, in response to it all, those companies said: good news, we’re hiring an ombudsman. The ratings agencies in the same fashion have failed on their intrinsic purpose: to judge the likelihood that a debt will default. As of Tuesday they’re about 0 for a few billion.

The quote is from an excellent MarketWatch article that gives insight into the role the ratings agencies played in the destruction of our credit markets. I owe a huge hat tip to The Common Sense Forecaster for bringing my attention to it.

It’s important to realize that events leading to the mortgage meltdown occurred on a “top down” basis. Buyers cannot buy from realtors unless mortgage originators have the loan programs to fit the buyer’s profile. The mortgage originators cannot offer loan programs unless lenders are providing them. The lenders will not provide loan programs unless the securitizers can turn the mortgages into marketable securities and the ratings agencies have the final say as to the grade (the likelihood of default) of those securities.

Proof for this observation is the current state of the mortgage industry. Despite the current demand, no longer are 100% financing for credit damaged borrowers and stated income and asset programs available. This is because lenders cannot securitize these types of loans. They cannot securitize these loans because it has become painfully apparent to investors that these once called AAA investments are nothing of the sort.

Also evidenced by the current state of the mortgage industry, is that without the securitization of mortgages, no one lends and thus, no one buys real estate or borrows money against their house. This makes it clear that it is the securitization engine that drives the entire mortgage process and in turn the real estate markets.

The demand still exists for 100% financing, no income, no asset loans and subprime/alt A loans in general. Being that these programs are no longer available, makes clear that the mortgage business is not driven from the bottom up. The demand is still there, yet it goes unanswered because the securitizers cannot sell the mortgage backed securities. The business is indeed driven by top down forces.

Realizing that the mortgage industry runs on securitization, it’s plain to see who the real criminals are in the mortgage crisis. It is clearly the securitizers, due diligence firms and ratings agencies. They are the major force behind the mortgage industry and it’s destruction.

Without the securitizers lying about the credit quality of the subprime mortgages being securitized, and the winks and the nods from the due diligence firms and ratings agencies, the securitizers could have never sold anywhere near the amount of toxic debt that has been polluting investment portfolios and economies around the world.

The fraud committed by these criminals created the immense capital that led buyers and originators to use the unsuitable mortgage products that have led us into this world wide crisis. They enabled the lenders, originators, realtors and buyers in committing their misdeeds which have led to the total seizing of our credit markets. This in turn has thrust our economy into recession and potentially much worse.

Now it should be clear to all, the buyer, realtor and originators were simply responding to demand that was met by capital that was fraudulently raised. All the buyers wanted was a piece of the “American Dream”. Realtors sought to help them get it and the originators were empowered to provide the financing by the capital raised through fraudulent means.

These subprime/alt A, toxic loan programs simply appeared on our rate sheets. The guidelines specifically allowed for damaged credit, no down payments, no proof of income, assets and in some cases no proof of having a job. There was no fraud involved because the product guidelines allowed for these aspects specifically.

Originators who realized these types of loans were time bombs waiting to explode, could not refuse to sell them. If they did, the consumer would just go to another originator offering these programs. Believe me, there were many originators who saw the writing on the wall two to three years ago. Yet we were powerless to do anything about it. It wasn’t our money being lent, thus we had no say and market forces worked against dissent.

It’s time to end the mis-perception that it was the greed of buyers, realtors and originators that led us into the subprime/credit crisis. Yes to a degree this element played a part in the dilemma but this is not the real cause of the meltdown. It was the titanic greed of the securitizers and their “assistants” that fraudulently created the capital and market forces that have led us to the historic break down of our credit markets and economy.

The first step in restoring confidence in the debt markets shouldn’t be bailouts for the investment banks and insurers. Nor should it be bailing out homeowners through rendering legal contracts as useless. The healing will begin when the real criminals are outed and the perp walks proceed down Wall Street.

Then the world will know our markets are governed by the rule of law, one set of laws for all and no one above the law, as opposed to political cronyism. The perception of political and regulatory cronyism will undoubtedly taint our securities markets forever. This will further weaken the United States’ ability to be a world class economic player.

Blog Banter on Refinancing Now and Placing Blame

As I surf the blogosphere, I occasionally come across misconceptions that just need to be addressed. I had to respond to a post made on an article on MarketWatch’s site pertaining to the upturn in refinance activity.

Here is the comment I responded to…

by BobP863 2 hours ago

The obvious question is why not wait till the FED is through lowering interest rates? Unless there are no closing costs, i don’t understand the urgency. Unless, of course, those irresponsible mortgage lenders are desperate and have to oversell their products in order to survive.

Apparently in need of some guidance, I responded…

While you are waiting for the fed to finish lowering rates, house values are declining. Lack of adequate home value can make refinancing more expensive (pmi) or in some cases, not possible at all.

Further, lending guidelines are being tightened everyday. You can qualify yesterday and may not be qualified today.

The fed doesn’t control mortgage rates. Further deterioration in the Mortgage Backed Securities market could widen the spread between treasuries and mortgage rates. It’s possible to see treasuries move down in yield and mortgages move up in yield, especially in the current environment.

These are reasons for urgency. Maybe now you can understand. But I doubt you will ever understand that it’s not just a subprime issue anymore and that the most blame for the debacle is to be placed on Wall Street and the ratings agencies.

They (Wall Street) enabled every player in the chain. Without Wall Street lying about credit quality and spreading their fraudent securities around the world, we wouldn’t be in this mess. The lenders would not have lent and the buyers would not have bought unaffordable homes.

Severe Home Value Declines Expected for 2008

Entering what could be the worst recession in generations, homeowners can expect to see the values of their homes decline dramatically over the next year or two. Home prices will decline due to a soft market where sellers are lowering their prices daily. Foreclosures will also impact home values negatively and 2008 is expected to be a record year for foreclosures. Foreclosures add to inventory and usually sell at less than market value prices.

I know, cycles come and cycles go but this time it’s different. We aren’t talking about 5% to 10% declines, more like 30% or higher on a national level.

This is from CBS MarketWatch

Merrill Lynch says U.S. nationwide home prices may fall 30%

Merrill Lynch forecasts nationwide U.S. home prices could decline 25% to 30% over the next three years, as new supply and weak demand weigh on the market. “This sounds dire… but would only reverse part of the unprecedented 130% price surge from 2000 to 2006,” wrote economist David Rosenberg in a research note released Wednesday. Rosenberg added the S&P 500 may decline an additional 20% to 25% to breach the 1,100-point level if the market follows historical precedents at times when the U.S. economy is in recession.

More evidence of this trend is the number of properties in foreclosure. Here are some numbers from California.

DataQuick Information Systems reported yesterday that foreclosures rose 353 percent to 7,349, while default notices – the start of the foreclosure process – increased 128 percent to 20,138. The numbers were the highest since DataQuick began keeping track of county foreclosures in 1988 and defaults in 1992.

Here is what is happening in Wisconsin.

“When I started in 1998, there were fewer than 800 for the entire year, maybe 20 or 30 a week,” said Eileen Carlson, a civilian employee of the Sheriff’s Office who helps supervise the weekly sale of foreclosed property.

“We’ve already issued 1,000 docket numbers for 2008. We’re already booking sales into March.”

Close by in Massachusetts, it’s just as discouraging.

Mortgage companies foreclosed on 7,563 Massachusetts homes last year, almost nine times the number in 2005, when the housing boom peaked, and almost three times the number in 2006.

It’s pretty much the same for the Northeast in general.

The pending sale index’s drop in states including New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Connecticut was triple other U.S. regions and demonstrates home sellers are having to lower expectations as the real estate slump worsens…

…“The northeast is getting hit hard,” said Paul Rinkulis, an agent at Keliher Real Estate in Boston. “It’s at least as bad as it was in the late 1980s, early 1990s, and that was bad.”

Here in Connecticut, it’s pretty much more of the same.

A slower housing market and the proliferation of risky mortgage products continue to drive up foreclosure rates across Connecticut. Preliminary figures for February gathered by RealtyTrac Inc., a national online marketplace for foreclosure properties, show a total of 1,451 foreclosure filings in Connecticut, a 61 percent increase over the corresponding period last year.

Your home’s value is directly affected by the price of homes sold in your immediate area. When a home is appraised, several comparable sales are used in determining the value. If sellers in the area are lowering prices, your home’s price would more than likely be affected as well.

It’s plain to see values will fall over the foreseeable future. Now is the time to take care of refinancing and cashing out if you still have enough home value and can meet ever tightening lending requirements. The market situation can make it more costly to borrow and in some instances, the occurrence of which is happening more and more, impossible to borrow.

Homeowners Should Be Taking Defensive Measures IMMEDIATELY!

Homeowners need to defensive right now.For those homeowners who still can, now is the time to take defensive measures. Home values are dropping at historic rates, lenders are tightening up underwriting requirements for the minority of mortgage products still left in the market place. Unemployment is rising. The stock market is falling.

Now is the time, before witnessing further deterioration, to make household budgets as affordable as possible to weather the coming perfect storm of financial woe.

Adjustable rate mortgages should be refinanced to the current low fixed rates. First and second mortgages could be consolidated. Consumer credit, credit cards and installment loans, should be looked at for consolidations. Overall, the household budget should be scrutinized and made as manageable as possible.

Why this needs to be done now

The United States economy is entering what is shaping up to be the worst recession of my lifetime. To offer perspective, I entered the work force under the Carter Administration. This recession is firming up to be worse than any economic downturn including and since the stagflation era under Carter.

Here are some tell tale signs of the severity of the coming recession.

The economic perfect storm is upon us.The reasons for taking action right now are numerous. The case for an economic tsunami is real and frightening. But now is not the time to be the proverbial “deer in the headlights”. Negative developments are coming at us at break neck speed. Like a linebacker, homeowners need to read the play and react to it immediately.

Fairfield County, in Connecticut, is already on FreddieMac’s official “Declining Markets List“. That means prices in Fairfield county are declining measurably. Which also means homeowners in this county have already seen their ability to refinance impacted in a very negative way.

We have seen firsthand, clients and friends who have been negatively impacted by the rapidly evolving negative state of the lending industry. We had one client who is currently months down on their mortgage payments, see several approvals go into the trash can due to lenders going out of business or taking programs off the table.

I cannot stress strongly enough that time is of the essence. Prices are falling and loans are harder to qualify for by the hour.

Thirty year fixed rates are hovering around a very sensible 5.25%. Don’t wait for rates to go lower. Even though they may go lower, falling home values and tighter qualification requirements can sabotage your ability to refinance, either making it more costly or perhaps impossible.

If you have visited the links in this article, you can plainly see we are in for the roughest economic environment since the Great Depression of the 1930’s. In light of this, it’s time for homeowners to become as defensive as possible. Meaning homeowners should shrink and fix their housing costs and perhaps, overall budgets.

The perfect storm is here. Are you prepared to weather it?

Beware the Cheerleaders

Despite the overwhelming evidence showing that the real estate bubble has popped and that price declines still have a ways to go, you will inevitably come across real estate cheerleaders. Now I don’t mind it when lay people make a case for buying real estate now. When professionals dishonestly or ignorantly try to convince us that now is a good time to buy real estate and the worst is behind us, I take exception.

Take for example Connie Degroot, a Beverly Hills realtor. Thankfully Peter Schiff sets the shyster straight. The problem is there are more Connies out there than Peter Schiff’s.

Hat tip to Chris over at the
Housing Panic Blog.

Real Estate Cheerleader

Notice at the end of the video, our realty cheerleading friend is so shook up she forgot she was a realtor. She states “I’m not selling anything”. Oh yeah, what did we just watch? Style over substance. What do you expect from a Beverly Hills realtor?

Here is another cheerleader to be wary of.

As usual, out of touch with reality. The antidote to accepting bad advice from cheerleaders is knowledge. Steer clear of mainstream news sources. Dig a little. Look for opposing view points. Then make your decisions.