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.

Have We Seen the Best of Mortgage Rates… Of Times?

I think we may have seen the best of mortgage interest rates for the foreseeable future. It’s very possible that we have already visited this year’s lows on fixed rate mortgages. Keep in mind of late, the foreseeable future is about as far away as tomorrow.

Normally in a recession, mortgage rates respond to the Federal Reserve cutting the federal funds rate. This time around, it’s very different. Instead of mortgage rates dropping with the Fed lowering the target rate, mortgage rates are going the other way.

There are reasons behind this anomaly. First of all, mortgage rates never mirror the fed funds’ rate moves. However for the past fifteen years, fixed rates more often than not, moved in the same general direction as the fed funds rate. Presently the rates are going in opposite directions. This by the way, is telling us a lot about the economy.

One reason long term mortgage rates are moving upward is because inflation is raging out of control. It doesn’t matter what the government numbers say, everything is more expensive and some commodities have have skyrocketed in price and I’m not just referring to oil. Long term rates have a history of going up in response to inflation because inflation directly erodes the value of long term debt. In essence, the higher rate is supposed to offset the ravages of inflation.

The dollar’s weakness is also adding to the inflation picture. The dollar buys less of everything we import, which is more fuel for the inflation fire that long term mortgage rates are responding to. Keep in mind, in order to strengthen the dollar, long terms rates would have to go up from their current level or foreign currencies would have to weaken.

That could happen, perhaps due to the recessionary environment spreading globally or some other reason. However, there is little reason to think foreign economies won’t deteriorate because they too are affected by the credit crisis and the implosion of the largest economy on the face of the earth.

The U.S. credit markets are broken. The mortgage debt markets are at the vanguard of the market’s destruction, malfunctioning and ongoing deterioration. Hundreds of billions of dollars in mortgage debt value has evaporated into thin air. Mortgage paper (debt securities) is toxic and no one wants to buy it. This is reflected in the trend and level of current mortgage rates.

Not only are mortgage rates struggling against a steepening yield curve, they are also fighting additional risk of default primarily due to irresponsible underwriting and historic declines in real estate values. Consequently mortgage securities are responding to the additional risk of default with higher interest rates.

Adding to the forces pushing mortgage rates up, the United States banking is system is essentially insolvent. Banks are borrowing heavily from the Federal Reserve to meet their required capital reserve levels. In an attempt to shore up their balance sheets, the banks are dumping mortgage backed securities at fire sale prices. The lower mortgage backed securities prices brings with it higher mortgage interest rates. This price/interest rate pressure would play out even if inflation weren’t a factor, which it clearly is.

Banks have yet to even quantify how much mortgage backed debt they own or the value of it. I don’t know how they do it, but the toxic debt securities are being kept off their balance sheets. Even more discouraging is the regulators know it and don’t seem to care. Right or wrong, perhaps the regulators understand the fragility of our banking system and don’t want to break it by enforcing rules.

I have every reason to believe the conditions causing mortgage interest rates to rise, will only get worse for the foreseeable future. Therefore it is my view that at best, the mortgage rate trend will be flat to higher from this point on. This trend will continue until the credit markets regain their integrity. Unfortunately there is no sign that will happen. The Federal Reserve’s main weapon is influence over short term interest rates. It has nothing in it’s arsenal to fix the systemic problems of the debt markets.

The same holds true for the Federal government’s fiscal policy measures aimed at the crisis. Their use of the tax rebate checks, even for people who didn’t pay taxes, is fighting the last economic war. It won’t work in the “new” economy. Dropping checks from helicopters won’t fix the debt markets. At best that will fuel inflation, thus putting more pressure on long term interest rates which in turn will further exacerbate economic woe.

The heart of the crisis is the broken debt markets. Credit is the oil of the modern economy. There is no way any economy can function without ample credit being available. Lenders are not lending, credit is drying up. Right now the economy’s oil (credit) level is dangerously low and falling. This will lead to the economic engine seizing up completely unless something puts the oil/credit back in. That “something” is not apparent to anyone.

In fact, the entire crisis crept up on everyone responsible for avoiding one, ahem. Yet a regular guy working on Main Street, USA, saw this coming nine months ago. It’s just within days that I am hearing admission as to just how bad things really are and are going to get. What is even more disconcerting, is what is just coming to light now, is the tip of the iceberg. We aren’t but two months into what will most likely be a multi year economic downturn.

Not in my lifetime or my thirty years in the financial industry, have I seen a more dangerous economic environment. There is a real possibility that we are facing something on the scale of the Great Depression of the 1930’s. Which is why I asked, “are the best of mortgage rates as well as the best of times behind us”?

Credit Bureaus “Release the Hounds” on Mortgage Applicants

Credit bureaus release the hounds when your credit report is pulled.The credit bureaus, Trans Union, Experian and Equifax, sell a certain kind of data called trigger data. When a borrower applies for a mortgage, a credit report is ordered for the sake of qualifying and underwriting the loan. Naturally, your credit report request is directed to the credit bureaus who notate all of the people who are having their credit pulled for the sake of getting a mortgage.

What the bureaus do with this refined data, is sell it to mortgage origination companies or middlemen in the consumer data arena. Here is a sales pitch for such data from mortgage triggers dot com.


FAQ Answers

Where do triggers come from?
A: Trigger Leads come directly to us from the three major credit bureaus. A mortgage trigger is simply a credit bureau derived lead based on live credit attributes triggered by the actual credit behavior of your prospect. It is highly specialized and targeted for individual client.

Can I specify the lead parameters?
A: Yes. You can select the FICO scores, mortgage amounts, LTV ratios, geography, and revolving debt balances that make up your ideal candidate. When they apply for a mortgage, we send you the borrower’s information within 24 hours.

How is a mortgage trigger lead generated?

A: Once you have established your ideal criteria the bureau creates a “watch” list of all homeowners that fit the exact criteria you desire. When they have a mortgage inquiry which is generated when their credit is pulled, we send you the lead.

If you have ever applied for a mortgage and wondered why you are getting scores of mortgage offers over the telephone, via mail or email, it is probably due to the credit bureaus selling your trigger data to whomever wants it (the releasing of the hounds). I don’t know about you, I’m in the mortgage origination business and I find this tactic disturbing from a consumer point of view. I also don’t like it from the origination perspective either.

I have no problem with the bureaus providing my credit information to prospective lenders. That is their function. However, it is a different story when the bureaus take note of my credit actions, such as having a credit report pulled for the sake of getting a loan, and then selling my activity as opposed to my credit history. This is why I feel this is an invasion of privacy.

Apparently I’m not the only one who doesn’t like it. Consider this snippet from a realtytimes.com article.

Home mortgage lenders themselves are angry about the new hot leads programs. Dan Hughes, a loan officer for Summit Mortgage Corp. in Edina, Minn., told Realty Times that “as a traditional loan officer who gets most of my business from referrals from Realtors and past customers, I take a dim view of anyone who buys leads from any source” — but worst of all from “overnight” data purveyors “who are feeding off my own clients’ personal information.”

Pat Barney, another Summit Mortgage loan officer, recalls recently applying for a home equity credit line from a large New York-based bank. Within a day or two, he got a call from a competing lender trying to persuade him to cancel his application with the New York bank and switch to her company. A day later, he got another call, this time from a lender who claimed that “I’ve been notified by your lender that you’re looking for a home equity line.”

Note the deception in the sales pitch. It’s not uncommon for this particular type of data. I mean what is the sales person supposed to say when the truth is the sales organization is so desperate for business that it pays to be notified whenever someone is applying for a mortgage with another company. Heck if we can’t originate loans by the virtue of our reputation and marketing savvy, we’ll try to steal the business from companies that enjoy these qualities.

This type of sales lead plays on consumer greed. After all of the preliminary hard work has been completed, the mortgage trigger lead buying companies then inundate the consumer with counter offers that are based on pure speculation. The incentive for leaving the initial company contacted is invariably a promise of a lower price. Whether it be a lower rate or closing costs or both.

While the trigger lead buying company has some credit information about you, perhaps your credit score range and amount of revolving, installment and mortgage debt you carry, the lead buying company in no way has enough information to determine you qualify for a lower rate or closing costs.

Instead the process of fact finding and providing solutions therein, need to start all over again. Your credit will need to be re-pulled, which may result in a lower score than initially pulled. However, the biggest issue is time, as the process is started all over again.

In the current lending environment, this could lead to losing a locked rate that is no longer available, possibly a lower appraised value on the home or degraded loan terms due to tightening credit requirements. All this for the promise of a rate that is reduced .25%. A promise and not a guarantee.

There is good news though. You can prevent the hounds from being released in the first place,as you have the right of “opting out” with the credit bureaus. By filling out a simple online form, you can save yourself the aggravation of being a consumer punching bag for up to five years. To be removed from opt in offers, go to OptOutPrescreen dot com. In addition to the online opt out form, you will also have the option of submitting a written request that will remove you from opt in offers permanently.

Don’t you just love the assumption that if you haven’t opted out, then you’ve opted in. Not too many businesses can get away with such tactics. If you would like to voice your opinion on trigger data, you can write the FTC or Federal Trade Commission, as they are the regulatory entity for the credit bureaus.

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.

All Loans Harder to Qualify for as Credit Standards Tighten At Record Pace

U.S. Credit SqueezeFor a while now the Mortgage Guy has been posting that our product shelf is about 20% of what it used to be. Further we’ve stated that underwriting requirements (credit standards) have been tightening on all types of mortgages and that this trend was spreading to credit cards and consumer debt. The Fed released a survey yesterday that documents these very disturbing trends.

Banks are raising their credit standards for mortgages, consumer loans and commercial real estate loans at a pace never seen in the 17-year history of the Fed’s quarterly survey of senior bank loan officers, the Fed said.

Plain-vanilla business loans were also much harder to obtain, the Fed said. Banks expect more delinquencies and charge offs for most types of loans to consumers and businesses, the survey said. Banks said they were tightening their lending standards in response to weaker economy, reduced tolerance of risk, and decreased liquidity in secondary markets.

Consequently, we’ve been urging our clients, both current and prospective, not to delay any financing activity that they have been contemplating. Such as refinancing to make budgets more manageable for the rough times ahead.

One of the biggest reasons for the current procrastination on borrower’s parts, is the prospect for even lower interest rates in the future. We feel this could be a trap. By waiting for lower rates, home values continue to decline and credit standards continue to tightened dramatically.

Any potential gain from lower interest rates can be more than offset by falling home values and tighter credit policies. Waiting for lower rates not only can make refinancing more expensive, it may make it impossible.

This is also from the Fed survey…

For consumers, banks are tightening up on all types of mortgages, not just subprime loans. And banks are less willing to approve consumer installment loans.

More than 80% of banks - the largest percentage ever — said they had tightened lending standards for commercial real estate loans in response to a weaker economy. Nearly 60% of the banks reported falling demand for commercial real estate loans, and 87% expect the quality of such loans already made to worsen.

Clearly the United States is entering a very severe and equally dangerous credit crunch. It started in subprime mortgages and spread to all types of mortgages and now it’s spreading to installment loans and credit cards. Credit card issuers have tightened their standards just like the mortgage lenders as evidenced by this article in the Wall Street Journal.

Big card issuers such as Citigroup Inc. are requiring higher credit scores before issuing new cards, particularly in states that have been hit hard by the housing downturn, including California, Arizona and Florida. Some lenders, including Bank of America Corp., are offering lower initial credit lines. Other lenders, such as Capital One Financial Corp., are limiting credit-line increases or reducing credit lines for existing customers if they see signs that they are suddenly applying for more credit or are having trouble paying down their balances. And many card issuers are raising late fees and other charges to help offset what they see as higher risk.

Also from the article, this synopsis of various credit card lender initiatives.

Various lenders tighten credit.

Naturally, for an economy that is already reaching recessionary levels, these developments prove to be quite serious. John Mauldin at Minyanville states the following about recessions and depressions.

I have long contended that a recession is a normal part of the business cycle, but it takes a major policy mistake by a government or central bank to create a depression.

The Mortgage Guy has maintained that this recession is due to systemic causes rather than cyclical causes. In our view this recession is being brought on by debt markets that are not functioning properly or at all.

We have criticized the Fed, the Treasury Department and politicians for focusing on monetary policy and stimulus packages as opposed to focusing on the dysfunctional credit markets. Lenders, at this point in time, cannot effectively securitize the loans they are originating thus they are cutting back and refusing to lend.

Monetary policy won’t work in this environment because with failing debt markets and banks refusing to lend, there is no way to get the cheap money that a loose monetary policy provides, to the people who need it most.

Could this be the “major policy mistake” that morphs this recession into a depression? We think it could be and history is our guide. Consider this snippet from Wiki on the Great Depression.

In the face of bad loans and worsening future prospects, banks became more conservative in lending money. They built up their capital reserves, which intensified the deflationary pressures. The vicious cycle developed, and the downward spiral accelerated. This kind of self-aggravating process may have turned a 1930 recession into a 1933 depression.

These parallels are much too close for comfort. What is even more disturbing, is that as I write this today, there is still a lack of attention to our malfunctioning credit markets. All of the initiatives put forth so far by Congress, the Fed and Treasury Department all focus elsewhere and we think this is a major mistake. Perhaps the mistake that transforms the current recession into a future depression.

We have a lot of rough sledding ahead. Will you be prepared or will you become a victim? Now is the time to take a hard look at your financial situation and to make adjustments accordingly. Your financial alternatives are shrinking everyday.

Just because you might be the proverbial AAA rated borrower, doesn’t mean you won’t be affected by this credit squeeze. I’ll close this post with how the Fed Survey illustrates this tightening of credit standards affects all borrowers.

More than half of the banks tightened their standards for prime mortgages, by far the highest percentage in the 17-year history of the survey. Seventy percent expected the quality of prime mortgages to worsen.

More than 80% of the banks tightened their standards for nontraditional loans, including jumbo loans and other loans that do not conform to standards set by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A similar percentage expected more delinquencies.

For subprime mortgages, about 70% of banks that offer such loans had tightened their lending standards, but more than 90% of the banks responding to the survey said they do not offer any subprime loans.

About 60% of banks tightened their standards for home equity lines of credit.

HELOCs Harder to Get, Harder to Keep

Home Equity Lines of Credit, the cash spigot that taps one’s home equity, are scarce, more expensive, harder to qualify for and harder to keep. It’s just a continuing sign of the current extinction of useful mortgage products.

In our office, the number lenders offering home equity lines of credit has been cut in half. The number of lenders offering second mortgages has been cut by around 90%. When you can find lenders offering the products, they are usually more expensive (higher rates) and much harder to qualify for.

For example, Chase is lowering the maximum loan to value on HELOCs from 90% to 70% in some California markets. It’s only a matter of time that policies like this spread to other severely impacted markets.

Through this week, Chase customers in California can tap as much as 90% of the equity in their homes. Starting Monday, however, that limit goes down to 85% in most of the state. In six counties, including three in Southern California — Los Angeles, Orange and Imperial — Chase won’t let homeowners borrow more than 70% of the value of their homes. The bank wouldn’t say how the six counties were chosen.

Indymac Bank exited the HELOC market completely. Hat tip to Calculated Risk.

Not only are HELOCs harder to get, they are also harder to keep. Lender Implode posted this letter from Countrywide on their site.

What’s Happening

A portion of HELOC customers have already or will soon be notified by CFC Loan Administration that their HELOC draws have been suspended indefinitely. These HELOCs were identified as candidates for suspensions for various reasons including:

Significant decrease in supporting property value – If the customer’s current untapped equity (home value minus all mortgage liens) drops by 50% or more from their HELOC opening date, his/her line will be suspended.

HELOC payment delinquency – If the customer’s payment is made two or more days after the grace period ends, his/her line will be suspended.

Product Terms/Conditions Violation – In cases where the customer violated terms or conditions of the HELOC Agreement, his/her line will be suspended.

Examples include, but are not limited to: HELOC on property originated as owner occupied, but now believed to be non-owner occupied or unpaid taxes or insurance on the subject property.

Be aware that there may be other actions that could trigger draw suspensions.

Countrywide is joined by Bank of America and USAA Federal Savings Bank, among others, in tightening HELOC requirements.

Many of these HELOCs were taken out to act as an emergency cash reserve. Well it’s emergency time now and these products are either being taken back or not offered.

Needless to say, there is a human impact caused by the HELOC tightening. For example we had a client who had a small Indymac HELOC. The purpose of the HELOC was an emergency fund. They had a death in the family and finances became strained. Just when the proceeds of the HELOC were needed, Indymac suspended all withdrawal privileges. Consequently, this client went into a financial free fall without the liquidity provided by the line of credit.

This is a prime example of why we are telling clients and prospective clients that they must move quickly when it comes to anything to do with home financing. The rules are changing everyday and not in favor of the borrower/homeowner.