BANKTHINK

How $25B Settlement Monitor Can Keep Banks at Arm's Length

Print
Email
Reprints
Comment (1)
Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook
Google+

Joe Smith, the court appointed monitor for the $25 billion mortgage servicing settlement, can learn something from the recent experience of the federal banking regulators.

Smith's first priority is to get the monitoring process up and running, including selecting the primary accounting and consulting firm that will help him monitor compliance with the settlement agreements.

"My goal," Smith told me recently, "has to be to conduct the monitoring function through persons and firms that are independent of the banks."

The Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency could have built a best-of-breed project team inside their agencies to conduct the foreclosure reviews mandated by consent orders last April against twelve mortgage servicers. Instead, they delegated that job to each bank. As a result, the banks chose friendly firms and some of those choices are less than arm's-length away from the problems and abuses they're reviewing.

My columns, as well as other reports, identified potential independence conflicts with consultants such as Deloitte. Deloitte's consulting practice is performing the foreclosure file reviews at JPMorgan Chase. JPM's problem foreclosures were inherited mostly from Bear Stearns' EMC Mortgage and from Washington Mutual, Deloitte's former audit clients. The OCC and Fed promised they'd vet banks' consultant selections to minimize conflicts of interest. Instead, Deloitte can minimize the problems found at JPMorgan and, therefore, minimize the liability the firm already faces from litigation by Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual shareholders.

"I don’t have a quick and easy answer to that right now," Smith said when I asked him how he's going to avoid the same conflicts of interest we're seeing in the foreclosure reviews when he hires his own "primary professional firm."

Finding the "appropriate balance between independence and capacity," as Smith describes it, is not easy when sufficient independence may mean too little experience and sufficient experience may mean conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest tempt consultants to bend the rules on behalf of current and future bank clients.

Smith has already invited about 40 handpicked professional services firms to express interest in the "primary professional firm" role. Depending on the response he gets, some will be invited to respond to a request for proposals and then subjected a highly personal final selection process.

"I'll meet personally with the firm I'm going to depend on," he promises. The banks, according to Smith, want to deal with one firm for settlement compliance reporting. That's not surprising. Better the devil you know…

If only the banks had seen the value of "one point of contact" when they were servicing mortgages. We may have avoided the runaround and run-the-clock tactics so many borrowers facing foreclosure complained about.

The banks would like to be treated equally from an enforcement perspective. Smith needs consistent and comparable compliance reports from each bank. But it would also be nice if borrowers started to see consistent customer service and timely responses on loan modifications and other programs the banks will claim settlement credits for.

Smith says he's "not predisposed against the largest firms but the Big Four audit firms have an independence issue. I've talked to the banks about this. Everyone knows it." So if the Big Four consultants have an intractable independence problem because they audit so many big banks, what are the alternatives?

Smith could choose a large consulting firm as project team leader only and mandate a best-of-breed approach to choosing experts and on-the-ground compliance staff from a wider range of smaller, regional and niche firms. That would spread the wealth and dilute the independence issues of any one firm while assigning project governance and methodology development to a firm that does that best. This approach would also provide more opportunity to minority- and women-owned firms and to local firms that may understand the nuances of a particular market better than a national firm.

It seems natural to expect coordination between the OCC/Fed foreclosure review and Smith's team. Smith agrees it's a good idea. The settlement monitoring effort should be complementary and not competitive with the OCC/Fed efforts. The combination of both initiatives should result in the best possible outcome for all of those harmed.

Unfortunately, I'm not so sure the "coordination conversation" between Smith and the OCC and Fed will happen anytime soon. "I've spoken on a prospective basis with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau but I have not yet talked with the Fed and OCC," he told me. "I'd like to work with those agencies. I'm sure they'd like to work with me. But the issue is going to be information sharing. They have genuine issues of information sharing. Some things they can share and some things they can not."

If Smith runs into trouble from a non-cooperative bank or an obstinate regulator can he call the Cavalry – the state Attorneys General who signed onto the settlement? "Conceivably," says Smith. But he's hoping he'll get what he needs without resorting to legal remedies.

Smith is also looking at the AGs – and legal aid groups, consumer protection and community organizations – as sources of market information. The mortgage settlement website will have a spot for tips, complaints and feedback. But the fine print makes it clear already that Smith is not in the business of providing relief to borrowers. I'm doubtful he's going to get much market intelligence this way if there's nothing in it for the borrower or the community organizations assisting homeowners. Heck, the initial response to the foreclosure review claims process has been so poor, the OCC and Fed had to extend the deadline even though this is where borrowers can request real money damages from abusive servicers.

Smith will have to move fast to stay ahead of the news cycle. Judge Elizabeth Magner, a federal bankruptcy judge in Louisiana, recently ordered Wells Fargo to pay $3.1 million in punitive damages for conduct in its servicing business she called "highly reprehensible." Magner analyzed the loan files of more than 20 borrowers in her court as a result of one borrower's horror story and found mistakes in every instance. That lines up with similar results from a study done by the San Francisco Assessor's office that found that 80% of residential mortgage loans that went into foreclosure in San Francisco are missing documents or signatures or otherwise violate the law. 

"If litigation against the banks continues and plaintiffs' claims continue to contradict what I'm hearing from bank leadership," Smith says. "I've got to pay attention to it."

Joe Smith seems up for the task he's agreed to. "I've got a lot of stuff I have to enforce. I'm hoping all the time and money the banks are spending on the foreclosure reviews will show up as we do our work."

Hope and change. I'm crossing my fingers again.

Francine McKenna writes the blog re: The Auditors, about the Big Four accounting firms. She worked in consulting, professional services, accounting and financial management for more than 25 years.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

(1) Comment

SEE MORE IN

RELATED TAGS

Who's Who in Auto Lending Investigations
As U.S. auto lending has boomed, the industry especially its subprime sector has become a growing target for a slew of prosecutors and regulators. Here are seven government agencies to keep an eye on.

(Image: Bloomberg News)

Comments (1)
Across all industries there are conflicts when revolving doors are used to access persons with sufficien industry knowledge to oversee the operations of current actors. My experience was in regulation of integrated oil and gas tax-finance. Few career govt employees really understoof the operations of the industry, which really required not just finance/acctg skills but also chemistry. If you cant understand that point--then you join the ranks of the govt folks that really dont know how to regulate that industry. That was the solution used by IRS excise--in effect as it geared to create a new sphisticated interagency data warehouse and analytics center in Crystal City.

The solution is to nab early-retired industry folks into exclusive contracts worth their while with guarantees and conditions that stop the revolving door. Basically non-compete type contracts. Most industry people have a much better view of the trees in the forest than govt counterparts--despite over-confidence in their natl experience. The problem faced by the largest company know-it all-retirees is that the big company guys do not have apprceiation for the niche markets occupied by small competitors that they ignored while in the giants. They tend to be overly focused on their own bigco business models.

Govt folks have a better view of the forest--including the fringe markets--but their view of the forest is from the tree-tops. There are many reasons why career govt cant do end of career transition to industry and back again to apply their newly learned skills but bigco retirees can adapt to govt perspectives--they can expand from a 10% perspective to a 100% perspective---with depth fairly easily--because they are trained from the forest floor up--harder to see through the treetops down to the roots.


I would suggest that the financial industry needs more of the same--unafiliated retirees well-paid with no revolving door back--to spend their last 5 years regulating the whole industry. I think it would be more rational to look at middle-lower tier financial companies/banks---maybe millionaires but not billionares.

another source is non-financial industry finance and tax guys. In my experience, the investment bankers and bankers are overly arrogant about their self-worth---in the end we in industry finance saw the investment bankers not so much as imaginative geniuses but as cookie cuuers that we would have to lead or tailor our own solutions. One might just have a fair view of finance without having spent a lifetime on a bank payroll. There are many many operating company finance guys that have spent decades sitting across the table from the bankers--slapping their hands when they get too greedy. This is what is needed in govt--non-finance industry finance and tax guys--they can keep the bankers in line as they have for years--but apply their talents on a wider scope. Try it--it has to work better than the corrupt revolving door.
Posted by OLDER&WISER | Monday, April 16 2012 at 7:10PM ET
Add Your Comments:
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.
Already a subscriber? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.