Thursday, October 28, 2010

The Perfect No-Prosecution Crime

By Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com

Did you know that in the aftermath of the Savings and Loan (Thrifts) scandal there were more than a thousand felony convictions of financial elites? The cost of the wrongdoing associated with the rip-off and closure of nearly 800 Thrifts cost taxpayers more than $160 billion. The current sub-prime/mortgage-backed security scandal is 40 times bigger according to Economics professor William Black. That means the size of the crime is $6.4 trillion by my calculation. Can you guess how many indictments there have been on financial elites who created this enormous mortgage crisis mess? Zero, none, nada, zip. Yes, not one single prosecution or conviction has been started of achieved.

That is simply outrageous considering the width and breadth of the many crimes committed. There was “rampant” mortgage fraud in the loan application process according to the FBI as far back as 2004. (Click here to see one of many stories of the FBI warning of mortgage fraud) There was real estate document fraud when the original Promissory Notes and loan documents were “lost.” The Promissory Notes were required to create tens of thousands of mortgage-backed securities (MBS). No “note,” no security. That is security fraud. No security means the special IRS tax treatments for the MBS’s were fraudulently obtained. That is IRS tax fraud. Because there were no documents, the rating agencies fraudulently made up triple “A” ratings for the securities. When the whole mess blew up, big banks hired foreclosure mill law firms to create forged documents. That phony paperwork was and is being used to wrongfully remove homeowners from their property. That is foreclosure fraud.

It appears to me the entire mortgage/securitization industry is one giant criminal enterprise. And yet, last Wednesday, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan said, “We have not found any evidence at this point of systemic issues in the underlying legal or other documents that have been reviewed.” What! Well, look a little harder Mr. HUD Secretary. (Click here for the complete Reuters story with Donovan’s quote.) Donovan did say the foreclosure fiasco is “shameful,” but that is not the same as a criminal prosecution now is it? Where is U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in all of this? I guess he’s busy planning a lawsuit to stop California from making pot smoking a misdemeanor. Holder is probably also very busy with continuing legal actions against Arizona’s immigration law. I guess trillions of dollars in mortgage and securities fraud is just not enough of a legal priority for America!

All 50 State Attorneys General are looking into what is now being called “Foreclosuregate.” Iowa AG, Tom Miller, is leading the investigation for the 50 states. His focus, according to a recent Washington Post story, is “preventable foreclosures“–ones in which small changes might keep the homeowners in their home – benefits all parties involved. The borrower keeps the house. The servicer continues to collect fees, and the investors receive more income than a foreclosure would bring. The community has one less deserted home.” Miller’s office also says, “This is a public policy issue.” (Click here to see the complete Wa Po story.)

When did State AG’s become public policy negotiators for the banks? Where are the criminal prosecutions? This is a sham and an outrage perpetrated by state governments. Who are they protecting? I say it’s really the banks’ and investors’ income stream.

It sure doesn’t look like the FBI is going to prosecute any of the “rampant” mortgage fraud any time soon, according to Professor Black. At the end of September on the Dylan Ratigan Show, he said, “We know that the FBI has formed what it calls a partnership with the Mortgage Bankers Association. Now, that’s a trade association of the perps, and guess what the trade association said: ‘Hey we’re the victims. You know none of the bad stuff happened because the lenders wanted to engage in this fraud,’ and the FBI believed them if you can believe that!”

Black is not just some angry academic. Besides being a Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri KC, he is also a former bank regulator and an expert in crimes committed by CEO’s. He thinks Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Attorney General Eric Holder should be fired so real regulators can get to work on prosecutions of crime throughout the entire industry. And get this, just last week, Black adamantly claimed that “major frauds continue,” at all the big banks. Hear for yourself in the clip below

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Due diligence?

NEW YORK (AP) -- In an effort to rush through thousands of home foreclosures since 2007, financial institutions and their mortgage servicing departments hired hair stylists, Walmart floor workers and people who had worked on assembly lines and installed them in "foreclosure expert" jobs with no formal training, a Florida lawyer says.

In depositions released Tuesday, many of those workers testified that they barely knew what a mortgage was. Some couldn't define the word "affidavit." Others didn't know what a complaint was, or even what was meant by personal property. Most troubling, several said they knew they were lying when they signed the foreclosure affidavits and that they agreed with the defense lawyers' accusations about document fraud.

"The mortgage servicers hired people who would never question authority," said Peter Ticktin, a Deerfield Beach, Fla., lawyer who is defending 3,000 homeowners in foreclosure cases. As part of his work, Ticktin gathered 150 depositions from bank employees who say they signed foreclosure affidavits without reviewing the documents or ever laying eyes on them -- earning them the name "robo-signers."

The deposed employees worked for the mortgage service divisions of banks such as Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase, as well as for mortgage servicers like Litton Loan Servicing, a division of Goldman Sachs.

Ticktin said he would make the testimony available to state and federal agencies that are investigating financial institutions for allegations of possible mortgage fraud. This comes on the eve of an expected announcement Wednesday from 40 state attorneys general that they will launch a collective probe into the mortgage industry.

"This was an industrywide scheme designed to defraud homeowners," Ticktin said.

The depositions paint a surreal picture of foreclosure experts who didn't understand even the most elementary aspects of the mortgage or foreclosure process -- even though they were entrusted as the records custodians of homeowners' loans. In one deposition taken in Houston, a foreclosure supervisor with Litton Loan couldn't define basic terms like promissory note, mortgagee, lien, receiver, jurisdiction, circuit court, plaintiff's assignor or defendant. She testified that she didn't know why a spouse might claim interest in a property, what the required conditions were for a bank to foreclose or who the holder of the mortgage note was. "I don't know the ins and outs of the loan, I just sign documents," she said at one point.

Until now, only a handful of depositions from robo-signers have come to light. But the sheer volume of the new depositions will make it more difficult for financial institutions to argue that robo-signing was an aberrant practice in a handful of rogue back offices.

Judges are unlikely to look favorably on a bank that claims paperwork flaws don't matter because the borrower was in default on the loan, said Kendall Coffey, a former Miami U.S. attorney and author of the book "Foreclosures."

"There has to be a cornerstone of integrity to the process," Coffey said.

Bank of America responded to Tiktin's depositions by re-affirming that an internal review has shown that its foreclosures have been accurate. "This review will ensure we have a full understanding of any potential issues and quickly address them," Bank of America spokesman Dan Frahm said. Frahm added that, on average, the bank's foreclosure customers have not made a payment in more than 18 months.

JP Morgan Chase spokesman Thomas Kelly said the bank has requested that courts not enter into any judgments until the bank had reviewed its procedures. But Kelly added that the bank believes that all the underlying facts of the cases involved in the document fraud allegations are true.

Litton Loan Servicing did not respond to a request for comment.

Even before the foreclosure scandal broke, the housing market was in the midst of an ugly detoxification. Now the escalating crisis is likely to prolong the housing depression for at least another few years. The allegations are opening the entire chain of foreclosure proceedings to legal challenge. Some foreclosures could be overturned. Others could be deemed illegal.

For a housing recovery to occur, all the foreclosed properties -- which could account for 40 percent of all residential sales by 2012 -- need to be re-scrutinized by the banks and resold on the market. Now, with so much inventory under a legal threat, the process will become severely delayed.

"This just adds more uncertainty to the whole mortgage process, so buyers are asking themselves: do I want to buy a home in this environment?" says Cris deRitis, director of credit analytics at Moody's Analytics. "We need to fix these issues before the economy can recover."

Though some have chalked up the foreclosure debacle to an overblown case of paperwork bungling, the underlying legal issues are far more serious. Yes, swearing that you've reviewed documents you've never seen is a legal offense. But at the center of the foreclosure scandal looms something much larger: the question of who actually owns the loans and who has the right to foreclose upon them. The paperwork issues being raised by lawyers and attorneys generals have the potential to blight not just the titles of foreclosed properties but also those belonging to homeowners who have never missed a mortgage payment.

So far, JP Morgan Chase, PNC Financial and Litton Loan Servicing have stopped some foreclosure proceedings in 23 states. Bank of America and GMAC, recently renamed Ally, have extended their moratoriums to all 50 states. Wells Fargo and Citigroup have said they are continuing with foreclosures, adding that they are confident in their documents and processes.

But Citigroup has now backpedaled some on that assertion. The bank sent out a press release Tuesday that it was no longer using the law firm of "foreclosure king" David Stern, now under investigation by the Florida attorney general's office. "Pending the outcome of the AG's investigation, Citi is not referring new matters to this firm," the bank said in an e-mailed statement.

Late last week, in an interview with the Florida attorney general, a former senior paralegal in Stern's firm described a boiler-room atmosphere in which employees were pressured to forge signatures, backdate documents, swap Social Security numbers, inflate billings and pass around notary stamps as if they were salt.

Stern's lawyer, Jeffrey Tew, did not respond to a request for comment.

Meanwhile, the public outrage continues to mount. In what is perhaps a sign of things to come, a Simi Valley, Calif., couple and their nine children broke into their foreclosed home over the weekend and moved back in, according to television station KABC of Simi Valley. The couple, Jim and Danielle Earl, say they were working with the bank to catch up on payments until they discovered a $25,000 difference between what they owed and what the bank said they owed. The family was evicted from their Spanish-style two-story in July. The home has been sold, and the new owner was due to move in soon.

The Earls and their attorney now allege that they were victims of fraudulent paperwork.

Curt Anderson contributed from Miami.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Foreclosure freeze could undermine housing market

, On Monday October 11, 2010, 8:48 am EDT

NEW YORK (AP) -- Karl Case, the co-creator of a widely watched housing market index, was upbeat three weeks ago. Mulling the economy while at a meeting at a resort near the Berkshires, Case thought the makings of a recovery were finally falling into place.

"I'm a 60-40 optimist," he said at the time.

Today, Case's mood is far more subdued. In scarcely two weeks, he and other housing analysts have watched as the once-staid world of back-office bank procedures has spawned a scandal that threatens to further unhinge the housing market.

Allegations of possible mortgage fraud against financial giants GMAC, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America read like a corporate thriller: forged documents, faked Social Security numbers, phantom titles, disappearing paper trails, "robo-signers" and mortgages sliced and diced so many times that nobody really knows who owns them.

On Friday, PNC and mortgage servicer Litton Loan Servicing joined those three financial institutions in suspending some foreclosures while they review how documents were handled. Bank of America, which had already announced a halt for 23 states, expanded the suspension to cover the whole nation. If other banks follow suit, it raises the specter of a national foreclosure moratorium.

In all, the banks will have to review the paperwork for hundreds of thousands of mortgages. On top of that, class action lawyers and state attorneys general have filed lawsuits and called for foreclosure moratoriums.

In the near term, the freezes could actually benefit both homeowners and the housing market. Homeowners would have time to live rent-free and chip away at their debt. Prices might stabilize because so many homes are penned up.

But the long-term implications are grave. Only a month ago, housing watcher Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, predicted that a housing recovery would be under way by the third quarter of next year. Now he believes the foreclosure scandal could prolong the housing depression for at least another few years.

The alleged document fraud could open up the entire chain of foreclosure proceedings to legal challenge. Some foreclosures could be overturned, others deemed outright fraudulent.

Before a housing recovery can occur, all those foreclosed properties have to be re-scrutinized by the banks and then sold. With any foreclosure-related deal open to legal challenge, that inventory could be taken off the market while the legal challenges make their way through the courts.

That's not to mention the questions being raised about missing paper trails on mortgages owned by people who have never missed a payment. What started as simple paperwork bungling in a Pennsylvania office park now threatens to bring to a standstill the nation's entire foreclosure machinery.

The development is especially troubling given how large the foreclosure market is. Before the scandal erupted, forecasters at John Burns Real Estate Consulting predicted that 41 percent of residential sales this year would be on distressed properties. Typically, distressed properties account for 7 percent.

Since housing is the engine that in the past seven recessions has pulled the economy out of recession, any further damage couldn't come at a worse time.

"As far as I'm concerned, anything that slows the foreclosure process is a bad thing," Case said this week.

The debacle injects yet more uncertainty into a frail recovery that is still trying to find its strength.

"This is definitely one of the last things anyone needed to have to deal with," says Diane Pendley, managing director of Fitch Ratings.

The news that GMAC, recently renamed Ally Financial, and JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America were stopping foreclosure proceedings in 23 states was merely the beginning. Federal lawmakers are calling for a federal investigation, saying the excuses from the industry are not credible, and on Wednesday the Ohio attorney general filed a fraud suit against GMAC, calling it "the tip of an iceberg of industrywide abuse." GMAC denies the allegations.

In at least six states, attorneys general are calling for foreclosure moratoriums and launching their own investigations. And this week, the attorneys general of up to 40 states are expected to announce a joint investigation into banks' use of flawed foreclosure paperwork.

A person briefed on the investigation said over the weekend that an announcement of the 40-state investigation could come as early as Tuesday. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was not yet public. Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller will lead the investigation.

The Obama administration is studying the situation. Problems with foreclosure procedures were discussed during two recent conference calls involving officials of the Treasury Department, Department of Housing and Urban development, White House and other agencies, an administration official said on condition of anonymity.

A top White House adviser questioned the need Sunday for a blanket stoppage of all home foreclosures, even as pressure grows on the Obama administration to do something about mounting evidence that banks have used inaccurate documents to evict homeowners.

"It is a serious problem," said David Axelrod, who contended that the flawed paperwork is hurting the nation's housing market as well as lending institutions. But he added, "I'm not sure about a national moratorium because there are in fact valid foreclosures that probably should go forward" because their documents are accurate.

Axelrod said the administration is pressing lenders to accelerate their reviews of foreclosures to determine which ones have flawed documentation.

"Our hope is this moves rapidly and that this gets unwound very, very quickly," he said.

Lawyers who have already filed class action lawsuits in Maine and Kentucky are now signing up entire neighborhoods as new clients. They're hiring private eyes to track down former industry employees and holding marathon conference calls to strategize on how to get every speck of dirt on the banks that they can.

The low-level bank employees in question were supposed to have reviewed mortgage documents in detail. Instead, they say they never so much as glanced at the papers. Nor did they even know where the papers were.

"They were just so haphazard and so gloriously incompetent to save a few pennies here and there," says Barry Ritholtz, director of equity research at Fusion IQ. "But a few pennies times millions of documents is a billion dollars."

The banks insist that most of the people involved in the foreclosure deals were legitimately behind on their payments. But even so, if the procedures that put them into foreclosure are deemed fraudulent, it will nullify the deals and require that the entire process start all over again.

The financial institutions insist that, in most if not all cases, there was no fraud, the borrowed missed their payments and the foreclosures are justified. Delays may occur, they say, but the outcomes will be the same. Moreover, they insist they are strengthening their procedures. They are chalking up much of the controversy to possible shoddy paperwork.

But the pronouncements have done little to assuage those connected to the mortgage industry, and the uncertainty is spreading fast.

On Sept. 23, Standard and Poor's warned of a possible downgrade on GMAC. The next day, Moody's Investors Service also placed GMAC on a watch. On Sept. 29, Fitch Ratings said it was reviewing the mortgage servicers' practices.

Perhaps most worrisome was the news on Oct. 1 that title insurer Old Republic National - which provides protection to the homebuyer and mortgage provider in case any unpaid taxes, questionable ownership or other problems turn up - had ordered its agents to cease offering policies on foreclosed properties owned by GMAC or JPMorgan Chase. On Oct. 7, another title insurer, Stewart Title, issued an internal memo making it incredibly difficult - if not impossible - for an agent to write a policy for any foreclosure property connected to any of the now-tainted banks.

"Right now everyone in the industry is trying to understand the scope and breadth of the problem, and is looking to lenders to get their paperwork in order so that sales can resume," says Kurt Pfotenhauer, chief executive of the trade group American Land Title Association.

Meanwhile, real estate agents who specialize in selling bank-owned properties say the market is locking up. Dorothy Buse, a Coldwell Banker agent in the Orlando, Fla., area, said that out of the 200 foreclosures she has listed for sale, 40 are now in the foreclosure freeze. Of the 40, 12 that were already under contract are now on hold.

"There's nothing within my power -- or my staff's power -- that we can do, except try to reassure them that we're working on this," Buse says.

In addition, legal challenges are mounting. On Sept. 24, a district court judge in Maine threw out a ruling in favor of GMAC to foreclose on a house owned by an unemployed mother of two. Now that case will go to a bench trial in Portland.

The court also sanctioned GMAC about its paperwork process, noting that "this case is not the first time that GMAC's high-volume and careless approach to affidavit signing has been exposed."

Michael Holmes is one of the thousands of mortgage holders whose house was put into foreclosure by the now infamous "robo-signer," the GMAC employee who signed 10,000 foreclosure affidavits a month. On Oct. 1, GMAC informed Holmes that the foreclosure on his Belfast, Maine, home had been put on hold. The bank didn't say for how long.

The temporary halt has done little to subdue Holmes' stress. He spent the past year and a half fighting to get a loan modification from GMAC, a process he says yielded a file the size of a Manhattan phone book and virtually no response from the bank. He also claims he received no written notice of a foreclosure.

Now Holmes, a former hospitality executive at such Boston hotels as the Ritz-Carlton and the Copley Plaza, says he wants to fight to keep the Victorian he grew up in. But from one day to the next, he doesn't know what will happen.

"The one safe place you have is your home," Holmes says. "It's your comfort zone, and to have that in limbo, it feels like the wolves are on my porch."

AP Business writers Alan Zibel in Washington and David Pitt in Des Moines, Iowa, contributed to this report.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration blocked efforts by government scientists to tell the public just how bad the Gulf oil spill could become and committed other missteps that raised questions about its competence and candor during the crisis, according to a commission appointed by the president to investigate the disaster.

In documents released Wednesday, the national oil spill commission's staff describes "not an incidental public relations problem" by the White House in the wake of the April 20 accident.

Among other things, the report says, the administration made erroneous early estimates of the spill's size, and President Barack Obama's senior energy adviser went on national TV and mischaracterized a government analysis by saying it showed most of the oil was "gone." The analysis actually said it could still be there.

"By initially underestimating the amount of oil flow and then, at the end of the summer, appearing to underestimate the amount of oil remaining in the Gulf, the federal government created the impression that it was either not fully competent to handle the spill or not fully candid with the American people about the scope of the problem," the report says.

The administration disputed the commission findings, saying senior government officials "were clear with the public what the worst-case flow rate could be."

In a statement Wednesday, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco and White House budget director Jeffrey Zients pointed out that in early May, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen told the public that the worst-case scenario could be more than 100,000 barrels a day, or 4.2 million gallons.

For the first time, the documents -- which are preliminary findings by the panel's staff -- show that the White House was directly involved in controlling the message as it struggled to convey that it, not BP, was in charge of responding to what eventually became the biggest offshore oil spill in U.S. history.

Citing interviews with government officials, the report reveals that in late April or early May, the White House budget office denied a request from NOAA to make public its worst-case estimate of how much oil could spew from the blown-out well. The Unified Command -- the government team in charge of the spill response -- also was discussing the possibility of making the numbers public, the report says.

The report shows "the political process was in charge and science really does not have the role that was touted," said Christopher D'Elia, dean of environmental studies at Louisiana State University.

The White House budget office has traditionally been a clearinghouse for administration domestic policy. Why exactly the administration didn't want to emphasize the worst-case scenario is not made clear in the report.

However, Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget, said the budget office had concerns about the reliability of the NOAA estimates.

"The issue was the modeling, the science and the assumptions they were using to come up with their analysis. Not public relations or presentation," he said. "We offered NOAA suggestions of ways to improve their analysis, and they happily accepted it."

Jerry Miller, head of the White House science office's ocean subcommittee, told The Associated Press in an interview at a St. Petersburg, Fla., scientific conference on the oil spill that he didn't think the budget office censored NOAA.

"I would very much doubt that anyone would put restrictions on NOAA's ability to articulate factual information," Miller said.

The explosion in the Gulf of Mexico killed 11 workers, spewed 206 million gallons of oil from the damaged oil well, and sank the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig.

BP's drilling permit for the well originally estimated the worst-case scenario to be a leak of 6.8 million gallons per day. In late April, just after the spill began, the Coast Guard and NOAA received an updated worst-case estimate of 2.7 million to 4.6 million gallons per day.

While those figures were used as the basis for the government's response to the spill -- they appeared on an internal Coast Guard situation report and on a dry-erase board in NOAA's Seattle war room -- they were never announced to the public, according to the report.

However, they were, in fact, announced, as news stories from May 2 to May 5 show, though the figures received little attention at the time.

For more than a month after the explosion, government officials were telling the public that the well was releasing 210,000 gallons per day. In early August, in its final estimate of the spill's flow, the government said it was gushing 2.6 million gallons per day -- close to the worst-case predictions.

The documents also criticize Carol Browner, director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, saying that during a series of morning-show appearances on Aug. 4, she misrepresented the findings of a federal analysis of where the oil went and incorrectly portrayed it as a scientific assessment that was peer-reviewed by inside and outside experts.

"I think it's also important to note that our scientists have done an initial assessment, and more than three-quarters of the oil is gone," Browner said on NBC's "Today" show.

But the analysis never said it was gone, according to the commission. It said it was dispersed, dissolved or evaporated -- meaning it could still be there. And while NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco was more cautious in her remarks at a news conference at the White House later that day, the commission staff accuses the two senior officials of contributing to the perception that the government's findings were more exact than they actually were.

Florida State University professor Ian MacDonald, who has repeatedly clashed with NOAA and the Coast Guard over the size of the spill, the existence of underwater plumes and oil in the sea floor, said he felt gratified by the report.

From the beginning, there was "a contradiction between discoveries and concerns by academic scientists and statements by NOAA," MacDonald said in an interview with the AP at the oil spill conference.

And he said it is still going on. MacDonald and Georgia Tech scientist Joseph Montoya said NOAA is at it again with statements saying there is no oil in ocean floor sediments. A University of Georgia science cruise, which Montoya was on, found ample evidence of oil on the Gulf floor.

Online: National Oil Spill Commission: http://www.oilspillcommission.gov