With friends like these...

Who would squawk about giving California homeowners a little more protection against bankers, who have paid billions to settle charges of outright fraud in the foreclosure process?

Well, bankers of course.

You expect bankers to fight back when state officials take steps to rein in their illegal and improper practices.

That’s not a surprise.

Even though we bailed out the banks to help them survive, we have grown accustomed to their absolute devotion to their own interests at the expense of everybody else.

But why would an Obama administration federal regulator step in to interfere in a state’s business – on the banks’ behalf?

That’s what’s happened in California, where a proposal for a “homeowners’ bill of rights” by the state’s attorney general, Kamala Harris, has faced tough opposition from the bankers.

You would think that the Obama administration, if it were going to take a side, would want to be on the side of the state’s homeowners, not to mention Harris, who has been a co-chair of the president’s campaign and one of his strongest allies.

After all, President Obama, in his populist campaign mode, has paid strong lip service to homeowners and holding banks accountable. But that’s not what happened.

Instead, the general counsel of the Federal Home Financing Administration, Alfred Pollard, weighed in with a condescending letter to Democratic legislators fighting for the homeowners measure, warning that the legislation would “restrict mortgage credit and hamper necessary home seizures.”

Harris’s proposal sounds dramatic enough, a collection of six bills calling itself a “bill of rights.” But it’s actually a modest set of common-sense protections: for example, establishing civil penalties if banks continue their illegal practice of robo-signing in the foreclosure process, giving homeowners the right to challenge a foreclosure in court if banks don’t follow proper procedure, and prohibiting so-called “double-tracking,” in which banks foreclose while they’re negotiating a loan modification with the homeowner.

Banks have already promised to stop having their employees forge other people’s signatures on documents or verify that documents are accurate when in fact they haven’t even read them. The banks got off with barely a wrist slap for robo-signing and other foreclosure fraud in the recent “settlement” with state attorneys general and the feds. The settlement only costs the big banks $5 billion out of pocket while they negotiated another $20 billion in credits for taking a variety of remedial actions, some of which the banks were doing anyway – even without getting credit.

You might think that Pollard and his FHFA colleagues, who are responsible for overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, might be more circumspect in lecturing others about screwing up the housing market.

During the housing bubble, Fannie and Freddie, which were originally set up by the government to support the housing market but went private in 1968, adopted all the bad behavior of the big banks, cooking its books, taking too much risk, throwing around their political muscle through lobbying and political contributions to stave off questions about their business shenanigans.

Then the government placed them in conservatorship, under the supervision of FHFA. Since the financial collapse, the agencies have not exactly put much muscle into helping homeowners facing foreclosure. The head of FHFA, a Bush Administration holdover named Ed DeMarco, has been particularly insistent that helping homeowners avoid foreclosure through principal reduction would be bad for taxpayers. But it turns out that in 2010, according to internal documents, Fannie Mae was about to launch a principal reduction program that its research showed said would save not only homes, as well as taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, before it was abruptly cancelled.

The principal reduction program was based on a model of “shared equity,” in which if the value of the home later rose, a homeowner would share any gains with the bank.

While the recent foreclosure fraud settlement with the big banks commits them to do some principal reduction, that agreement specifically excludes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

A couple of Democratic congressman, Elijah Cummings of Maryland and John Tierney of Massachusetts, have written to DeMarco demanding an explanation.

“Based on the documents we have obtained, it appears that the shared equity principal reduction pilot program should have been implemented years ago, and the failure to do so may have resulted in unnecessary losses to U.S. taxpayers,” Cummings and Tierney wrote. “This was not merely a missed opportunity, but a conscious choice that appears to have been based on ideology rather than Fannie Mae's own data and analyses.”

Even for an administration that has been kowtowing to the banks from day one, FHFA’s failures, and its lame venture into California’s legislative process, represent a new low.

For a start, California legislators should ignore Pollard and his FHFA’s cronies lame advice. Even better, the president should pitch him and FHFA’s entire leadership out of the administration and replace them with people who know how to support the housing market, not just bankers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Foreclosures / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 05/24/2012

Homeowners' rights face tough fight

California’s bankers have decided that the state’s homeowners don’t need any bill of rights after all, and state legislators show signs of going along with the banks.

In February, California’s attorney general, Kamala Harris, garnered publicity for packaging several modest foreclosure reform measures together as a homeowners’ bill of rights.

Harris was attempting to get state legislators to permanently outlaw several of the most noxious of the banks’ practices during the foreclosure process, which about a half a million Californians now face.

Among the measures was one that would have outlawed the widespread practice of “double-tracking,” in which banks foreclose on homeowners while they are in the process of working out loan modifications. Another measure would have banned the widespread practice of “robo-signing,” in which the bankers hired low-level employees to sign off on stacks of key foreclosure documents without reading them or verifying their accuracy – a practice which the big bankers have supposedly already agreed to stop as part of a 49-state settlement of foreclosure fraud charges against the biggest banks.

But the settlement apparently only requires the biggest bankers to quit their robo-signing ways for three years; Harris’ proposal would make the ban on robo-signing permanent and apply it to other financial institutions not covered by the settlement.

Other parts of the “bill of rights” package would have imposed a $25 fee on banks when they file a default and required banks to establish a single point of contact for homeowners seeking a loan modification.

Harris, a close ally of President Obama, has even been touted as a possible choice for a U.S. Supreme Court. But she’s been overmatched by the combined forces of the California Bankers’ Association and the California Chamber of Commerce, which has labeled some parts of the package “job killers.” They’ve also spread a lot of cash around the legislature over the past 5 years, more than $33 million, so they’ve got legislators pretty well trained.

It would hardly be the first time that California’s legislators have balked at enacting sensible measures to protect homeowners, as well as taxpayers, from bearing the costs of bankers’ misdeeds during the state’s foreclosure crisis. In recent years, legislators also failed to enact proposals that would have required bankers to mediate with homeowners before foreclosure, and another that would have required banks to post a $20,000 for each foreclosure they file, to cover the costs to communities of abandoned, bank-owned property.

Harris was scheduled to testify before a legislative committee on the bills earlier this week when the head of the committee, Assemblyman Mike Eng, a Democrat, withdrew the bills.

The Sacramento Bee reports that the legislation is now headed for a conference committee made up of legislators from the state Assembly and Senate.

According to the Bee, this is a maneuver to get a vote on the legislation without having to go through Eng’s committee, Assembly Banking and Finance, which is apparently split on it.

If you live in California, now would be a good time to call your legislator and remind them that they don’t work for the bankers and the chamber. They work for you.

 

 

 

 

 

Action / California Attorney General Kamala Harris / Foreclosures / Martin Column - 04/19/2012

A "landmark" we still can't see

For the most part, the big media and housing nonprofits have bought the government’s hype on the recent foreclosure fraud settlement, lauding it with great fanfare as a historic landmark.

It’s a good thing that not all our national landmarks are as phony as that settlement has turned out to be.

If they were, none of them would still be standing.

If big media had taken a more objective view, rather than just copying the authorities’ press releases, they might have chosen another, much less dramatic description, such as “yet to be released.”

The best description might take a few more words: “designed to make the Obama administration and state attorneys general look like they’re doing something while letting banks off the hook and leaving homeowners out in the cold and taxpayers and investors holding the bag.”

The settlement continues to raise more questions than it answers. For example, California’s attorney general Kamala Harris announced that the state would get $18 billion in foreclosure relief from the national settlement.

But then a couple of days later, Jeff Collins of the Orange County Register reported that Harris hadn’t offered a complete explanation.

As it turns out, the state might get only $12 billion.

The amount, Harris’ people explained to Collins, depends on which of two methods you used to calculate it.

“There are two sets of numbers,” said Linda Gledhill, a Harris spokeswoman told Collins.

Hah! Who knew?

One method calculates the cost of the settlement to banks, which as explained in the settlement’s “executive summary” are required to provide $25.2 billion in a variety of forms of assistance to borrowers. But providing that assistance doesn’t actually cost them $25 billion.

Apparently the settlement only requires the banks to pay out $5 billion in cash, with the balance consisting of a yet to be released complex system of credits that the the government will give the banks credit for offering the assistance, with details yet to be announced.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times (registration required) has been parsing the sparse publicly available details about the settlement. Their prognosis: The settlement shifts the costs of modifying mortgages from the banks to the taxpayers and to investors who bought securitized mortgages. As a result, it resembles another bailout more than it does a settlement.

Neil Barofsky, the former Inspector-General of the Troubled Asset Relief Program told the FT:

“If the banks are doing something under this settlement, and cash flows from taxpayers to the banks, that is fundamentally an upside-down result.”

And keep in mind that the actual settlement agreement still hasn’t been released yet, more than ten days after it was announced. What exactly is the hangup?

Do the authorities really expect us to take their word for it? How gullible do they think we are?

Remember how the 2008 bank bailout started: a three-page document submitted by the treasury secretary.

As my colleague Harvey Rosenfield warned when the President first announced the settlement, we’ll be in for a lot of surprises when the actual settlement is actually released, whenever that will be.

And something tells me they won’t be the good kind of surprises.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris / Foreclosure / Martin Column / President Barack Obama / SIGTARP - 02/22/2012

An Enforcer For the 99 Percent?

 California’s attorney general, Kamala Harris, has staked out the high ground in promising to hold bankers accountable and protect borrowers in the continuing foreclosure crisis.

So far she’s formed a mortgage fraud task force and walked away from the weak settlement with the banks over mortgage servicing fraud that the Obama administration and the majority of state attorney generals have been trying to foist on the public.

Then earlier this week she told the executive who oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the federally bailed out quasi-public agencies, he should quit if he won’t consider principal reduction as a tool to help underwater homeowners.

Here’s hoping that Harris can build on the foundation she’s laid.

She has a real opportunity to set herself apart from other Democratic Party politicians, from the president to the congressional leadership and others who have opted for strong PR rather than real enforcement.

But she has her challenges ahead of her.

An ambitious politician who chaired the president’s campaign in California in 2008, Harris will have to go against the political grain if she really wants to hold bankers accountable and fight for homeowners.

Prosecuting bankers is never easy. Her agency, the state attorney general’s office, has had a woeful record on consumer protection. It’s been a long time since John Van de Kamp, when he was attorney general, launched his aggressive antitrust campaign.

As we know, bankers have been lubricating the political system to protect themselves against the consequences of the excesses. They spare no expense in hiring legal talent and defend themselves with a self-righteous fury. The legal system has had an unfortunate tendency to show great deference when the lords of the universe show up.

But as William Black, the former bank regulator turned law professor, has pointed out, it can be done. Bankers can be held accountable. It was done after the savings and loan debacle in the 1980s.

If prosecutors have the tenacity, the resources and the chops, they can go after bankers like they do gang members. First you go after the less powerful, more vulnerable players, squeezing them to gain information, and find documents to gradually build cases against the higher-ups.

Harris will be at a disadvantage without federal help – when prosecutors decide to take out a gang, they form a multiagency task forces, using all the agencies of federal, state and local officials.

We’ve seen just how disinterested the feds are in going after bankers. Local prosecutors around the country haven’t shown much stomach for the job either.

But if she is pursues her task in a determined and savvy way she will find wide and enthusiastic support among a crucial group that have become disenchanted with other politicians – the 99 percent.

If you’re in the Los Angeles and you want to hear more about this from William Black himself, he’s scheduled to participate in a stellar panel at Occupy LA at City Hall moderated by Truthdig’s Robert Scheer. Black, a law professor at University of Missouri-Kansas City, will be joined by Michael Hudson, Joel Rogers, a professor of law, political science and economics at the University of Wisconsin, and via live stream, Michael Hudson, a financial analyst who also teaches economics at UM-KC.

 

California Attorney General Kamala Harris / Martin Column / Occupy - 11/05/2011

Feds Unsettle Foreclosure Abuses

Wall Street is apparently about to win another round as federal regulators prepare to sign off on a “slap on the wrist” settlement stemming from widespread abuses in the foreclosure process.

The settlement continues the federal policy of relying entirely on the banks’ voluntary compliance, despite repeated examples of banks using fraudulent and forged documents to foreclosure on homeowners. The settlement apparently imposes no fines.

“Judges don’t tell burglars to go design their own plan to stop breaking into people’s homes and report back in 30 days,” said Rev. Lucy Kolin of the PICO National Network in response to the settlement, which is supposed to be announced later this week. “A judge would get laughed off the bench if they did this, and yet this is exactly what the Fed, OCC and FDIC have chosen to do.”

At Credit Slips, Georgetown Law prof Adam Levitin first labels the proposed settlement “Potempkin regulation,” then decides the better analogy for where we are on bank regulation is the “inmates running the asylum.”

The Obama administration’s lack of enthusiasm for holding the big banks accountable doesn’t exactly come as a surprise. Dog bites man.
They were supposed to working with the 50 state attorneys general to investigate the extent and impact of the foreclosure problems, but the attorneys general and the Fed have yet to conduct an investigation worthy of the name, as if they were investigating violations of law, which they should be. If the Feds and the AG's insist on negotiations with the banks, negotiation without robust investigation is a recipe for disaster.

What’s left unclear by reports of the proposed settlement is whether the state AGs are now free to pursue investigations and remedies on their own or whether the settlement will undercut them.

That’s especially relevant in places like California, where the state’s new attorney general, Kamala Harris, ran a strong election campaign promising to protect homeowners from foreclosure abuses and to hold banks accountable. During the “negotiations”, Harris hasn’t had much, if anything, to say. Her office hasn’t been returning my calls.

Now that the Feds have once again caved in to the big banks, Harris will have the opportunity to keep her campaign promises and enforce the law equally. Homeowners will be counting on her.

 

 

Around the Web / Federal Reserve / Foreclosure / Martin Column - 04/07/2011