BANKTHINK

= Subscriber content; or subscribe now to access all American Banker content.
ACCOUNTABLE

Megabanks Extend and Pretend They Won't Pay for Foreclosure Fouls

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

(13) Comments

SEE MORE IN

RELATED TAGS

Comments (13)
We're in TRUST of the best appointed decision makers within the OCC on the FORECLOSURE WRONG DOING, give them the reins for success, it's been to long....DELUSION AND DOESN'T SEEM TO BE OVER...
Posted by robtat | Sunday, January 06 2013 at 1:28PM ET
@Joel Sucher

Hi Joel,

Thanks for your comments. I've enjoyed your columns on BankThink. I hope to see more of you.
Posted by Francine McKenna | Thursday, September 27 2012 at 9:16AM ET
@sterlingamara

What you may end up getting are several checks, for each of the different errors or issues you identified, dribbling in over time. There's a strong faction that wants to develop a number for each borrower based on the limited response so far, send out a check, as them to sign a release and call it a day. There's a strong desire to stop doing any individual file reviews. Not that many have been done yet in some of the engagements by the actual "independent consultants" versus subcontractors.
Posted by Francine McKenna | Thursday, September 27 2012 at 9:02AM ET
@DesolationPress

Thanks for your comment. The open ended questions are the only place the borrower can tell their story. Unfortunately reviewing and classifying information in an open-ended response is the most difficult of all for the reviewers. I think that this can work against the borrowers since the reviews and reviewers are not set up to deal with ambiguity and the need for judgments.
Posted by Francine McKenna | Wednesday, September 26 2012 at 7:21AM ET
Now that I think about were calling Romney a cheat when in fact we don't know how he would act as he is a lawyer and maybe like under Bush I they dealt with the S&L scandal as Professor Black has reminded everyone. Yes Romney said GM should go bankrupt which they did go into bankruptcy but with the government greasing the way. However this was not real capitalism because of the government involvement, so we can only at this point speculate as to if GM would have come out OK without government funds which we are not going to get that all back as right now they owe the taxpayer $25 billion.

Now does Romney do what Obama should have done and put a stop and have the Fed rescind these loan that have given the banks capital to be able to not perform the modification and do illegal foreclosures knowing that borrowers don't have the funds or the legal team experienced enough to understand the crimes that have been committed.

I believe that if Obama out the way and his connection with the banks are not there and black Congressional member are free to expose the corruption, which they cannot under Obama because black are under the impression that Obama is the second coming, and any thought other wise is the sign of a Uncle Tom.

Secretary Donovan is aware of the situation he is in and that is to allow this thing to be pushed backed as now the end line is Dec 31, 2012 at a point Obama is either reelected of not and Donovan is on his way out without any consequences just as Secretary Paulson, Geither, Blair or Bernanke suffered after the debacle of 2008.

Fact is that as many as 660,000 of the 4.4 million foreclosures where FHA & VA loan that could not be foreclosed at all under a administrative foreclosure because there is no "holder in due course" because in order for the lender to participate in the Ginnie Mae program the lender must separate the Notes, debts and security instrument (mortgage, deed of trust, security deed). Bottom-line is that there is not an lien on any property that is in a Ginnie Mae Mortgage Backed Securities, because Ginnie Mae by law cannot purchase a home mortgage loan!
Posted by charleswreed | Tuesday, September 25 2012 at 11:03PM ET
As the months go by, those of us who responded to the survey have to accept that it is not likely that the banks or the reviewers will act in any meaningful way. What we can do is post our stories in a public manner and let the banks deal with the impact it may have on their brand value.

Look at the last question of the review form: it contains the only open-ended question (itself a sign). To see an example of a response to this question, see http://www.desolationpress.com/essays/indreview.html

There's a link on that page to a template that anyone can use to compose their response. Let your voice join the chorus ...
Posted by Desolation Press | Tuesday, September 25 2012 at 8:06PM ET
@Clffton

I'm sure consumer groups and Congress would like to see more borrowers take advantage of the process but as another commenter mentioned, the outreach efforts have been dismal. The GAO said so and yet there's been no improvement. Intentions are good. Execution by the regulators has been very bad.
Posted by Francine McKenna | Tuesday, September 25 2012 at 5:12PM ET
Wasn't it consumer groups and members of Congress that asked for the deadline extension?
Posted by Debra Cope | Tuesday, September 25 2012 at 3:28PM ET
Francine... Your post was right on the mark, and as a former blogger for BankThink on "alternative perspectives" I can appreciate your jumping into the murky waters surrounding these so called "Independent Foreclosure Reviews." It's a smoke-and-mirrors attempt by the MegaBanks and their regulatory enablers to shove this legacy of fraud and deception into the proverbial dustbin of history (much of it with Donovan and Geithner's approval). If Romney ascends to the Presidential Throne no doubt his aim will be to make this whole foreclosure scandal simply a footnote in some future academic treatise. However (again citing my experience as an AB blogger) it's amazing how little attention is being paid by the one-per centers to the pent-up rage among millions of homeowners either in the foreclosure process, already evicted or simply struggling to stay afloat in their underwater homes. Many may be suffering in silence, but suffering -- like depression -- has a flip side: Anger.
Posted by Joel Sucher | Tuesday, September 25 2012 at 9:45AM ET
It is unfortunate at the very least to see, through and following a financial crisis of historic proportion and very incorrect following steps by two Presidents to right the ship of State, home owners continue to suffer. Unfortunately, there will remain a process of retaining your money. It is the government that retains much of that money in fines and not to you. It is the legal profession that gets much of your money upon those lucrative government settlements. Slowly and painfully your money trickles. Have you ever wondered why the vast majority of Government representatives are lawyers?
Posted by hedger | Tuesday, September 25 2012 at 9:25AM ET
What is it with bankers? Why is it that they just can't play an ethical game? What kind of culture is their's? They only know how to screw all involved, always, never miss a chance to show their lack of morals. I think the whole point is the result of making institutions instead of people, accountable; allowing execs to remain as innocent spectators of their wrongdoing. The institutions get fined for all sins, customers pick up the tab and C-level remains the same and doing the same things, over and over. Isn't lobbying the art of bribery? So, who owns the ball here? The big thieve ends up being the government that takes the bribes through lobbyists, proving incapable of protecting us, The People.
Posted by mauriciott | Monday, September 24 2012 at 7:55PM ET
Thank you Ms. McKenna. Aside from your fundamental and correct conclusion, "It's time for the big banks, and their independent consultants, to stop stalling and prepare to finally pay borrowers for foreclosure abuses", the other key issues here, in my opinion are twofold. 1) How independent are the "independent consulting firms"? And, 2. Given the pale 5% return rate on borrowers requesting reviews, did the banks design an outreach process using the path of least resistance, i.e. operationally and financially? The points you've raised re the "independence" of the independent consultants are valid and bear no repeating here. I would augment only by stating that although the OCC hired an independent contractor to oversee this process, the banks were allowed to choose and design the methods / manner of outreach - which leads me to my second issue re: the effectiveness of the outreach program does, in my view, require additional scrutiny. Although I know that any audit allows for sample expansion based upon discovered patterns of irregularities and defects found, both of which I've been advised are significant and disturbing here, the fact that the outreach campaign was found to be quite lacking per the GAO report to Congressional Requestors - June 2012, seems to NOT be on the improvement track. In reading the report, the mailer and PSA approach are the strategies being deployed. While these are good first level attempts, my conversations reveal that there seems to be NO FULSOME STRATEGY to ensure that as many of the 4 million households as possible understand their options and have an opportunity to make an informed decision on exercising their option to request a review. Pg 6 of this report clearly states that "...the purpose of the outreach is to provide a robust process so that eligible borrowers who believed they've suffered financial injury within the scope of the consent orders have a fair opportunity to request an independent review of their circumstance and, potentially to obtain remediation." As the current strategies have not produced the desired response rates, one would think that the impacted banks would be DIRECTED to enhance their strategies to include second level approaches such as in-person support. These options are more expensive but could be combined with existing delinquent loan inspection requirements for those loans that are still on the books and still in delinquent status, thus adding marginal $ increase to current delinquent loan servicing costs. The companies providing these types of services have fulsome, effective & most importantly TURNKEY strategies / executions that would not only increase penetration and response rates for the 4 million target population, but would also provide excellent feedback on the households who still choose NOT to request a review. I believe in and have successfully used In-person contact strategies and believe that they should be a requirement in the US delinquent mortgage servicing process AND that they should have been and CAN STILL BE incorporated in Foreclosure File review process. It won't help the households who used products bearing NINA & SISA features to bite off more than they could handle....they won't reply let alone request a review. As I believe we are at the precipice of establishing the foundations for US housing policy for the next decades, it's important that we do this right. Extending the deadline but not changing the approach results in virtually unchanged outcomes, little consequence to those charged with mishandling these situations, AND affected households NOT receiving compensation determined to be due. I know we can and MUST do better. The question is " DO WE WANT TO?".
Posted by Ingrid Beckles | Monday, September 24 2012 at 4:14PM ET
This is very true. There are those of us who submitted our claims very early in the process. We have heard nothing and believe when we finally do, it will be a finding of no wrongdoing by our servicers. This process will drag on... except they shouldn't bank on Romney winning the election. However, even after Obama wins, it still won't matter. Nobody protects the powerless.
Posted by sterlingamara | Monday, September 24 2012 at 3:51PM 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.