Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Thanks. Looks like he damn near nailed the peak. I was too busy helping fill the excessive homes with cabinets to pay close attention.
However.... I did repeat over and over and over to just about everybody that this can't last forever, better be banking some cash.
Had no idea the extreme extent of the situation though.
Feeling the pain now......
here's a chart close to the one in the I-box
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzeqrguz/housingbubble/
Just happened to come across this board. Good call.... 5 years ago!
It would be interesting to see this chart from the I-Box updated....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v239/bj2110/realestate30yrchart.jpg
Understanding Freezing the Foreclosures...
Hearing held on paperwork-error case
Oct.3, I posted that The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court would hold a hearing on a case involving questionable documents (paperwork-error case) used during a foreclosure proceeding. The lenders are appealing the land court ruling.
link to original case from land court,
http://masscases.com/cases/land/2009/2009-08-384283-MEMO.html
"The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court plans to hear arguments next week on a paperwork-error case that has the potential to invalidate thousands of foreclosures dating as far back as 20 years. "
below is the link to the Supreme Judicial Court hearing, video/audio Oct. 7, 2010 (click on video below the date)
U.S. Bank National Association v. Ibanez
http://www.suffolk.edu/sjc/archive/2010/SJC_10694.html
That would be a really rude awakening
if you didn't have a mortgage and were foreclose on and are not able to even talk to the company!
Rep. Alan Grayson Explains the Foreclosure Fraud Crisis
Foreclosure Fraud is Contained !
Prudens Speculari
Mon, 04 Oct 2010
The mortgage mess that has become the USA simply keeps on. Almost 3 years into it and with no end in sight and yet the same taking head shills appear daily on the propaganda network to telling you everything is A-okay, the economy is recovering and a double dip is nonsense, and balance sheets are flush with cash.
Yup, sure it is. Just like they told you subprime was contained, housing had never declined, the economy was resilient and the selloff in the market was a temporary blip before we make new highs. So for a real look at what is going on, in particular with the mortgage market which so many of these shills point to as on the mend and recovering we turn to Yves over at the excellent blog Naked Capitalism which brought my attention to a a web site by the name of 4closurefraud. That site has a post entitled, you might wanna sit down for this, Psst. Hey you. Yea. You. I Got Just What You Need. Lender Processing Services DOCX Document Fabrication Price Sheet.
Yes you read that correctly a document fabrication price list.
In what is one of the clearer and more easy to digest explanations of what is transpiring, Here is what Yves at Naked Capitalism has to say on the subject:
A bombshell has dropped in mortgage land.
We’ve said for some time that document fabrication is widespread in foreclosures. The reason is that the note, which is the borrower IOU, is the critical instrument to establishing the right to foreclose in 45 states (in those states, the mortgage, which is the lien on the property, is a mere “accessory” to the note).
The pooling and servicing agreement, which governs the creation of mortgage backed securities, called for the note to be endorsed (wet ink signatures) through the full chain of title. That means that the originator had to sign the note over to an intermediary party (there were usually at least two), who’d then have to endorse it over to the next intermediary party, and the final intermediary would have to endorse it over to the trustee on behalf of a specified trust (the entity that holds all the notes). This had to be done by closing; there were limited exceptions up to 90 days out; after that, no tickie, no laundry.
Evidence is mounting that for cost reasons, starting in the 2004-2005 time frame, originators like Countrywide simply quit conveying the note. We are told this practice was widespread, probably endemic. The notes are apparently are still in originator warehouses. That means the trust does not have them (the legalese is it is not the real party of interest), therefore it is not in a position to foreclose on behalf of the RMBS investors. So various ruses have been used to finesse this rather large problem.
The foreclosing party often obtains the note from the originator at the time of foreclosure, but that isn’t kosher under the rules governing the mortgage backed security. First, it’s too late to assign the mortgage to the trust. Second. IRS rules forbid a REMIC (real estate mortgage investment trust) from accepting a non-performing asset, meaning a dud loan. And it’s also problematic to assign a note from the originator if it’s bankrupt (the bankruptcy trustee must approve, and from what we can discern, the note are being conveyed without approval, plus there is no employee of the bankrupt entity authorized to endorse the note properly, another wee problem)."
You can go to Naked Capitalism's site here and see the document price list for yourself. Needless to say here is Yves of Naked Capitalism had to say about the whole mess.
"So wake up and smell the coffee. The story that banks have been trying to sell has been that document problems like improper affidavits are mere technicalities. We’ve said from the get go that they were the tip of the iceberg of widespread document forgeries and fraud. This price sheet provides concrete proof that the practices we pointed to not only existed, but are a routine way of doing business in servicer and trustee land. LPS is the major platform used by all the large servicers; it oversees the work of foreclosure mills in every state.
And this means document forgeries and fraud are not just a servicer problem or a borrower problem but a mortgage industry and ultimately a policy problem. These dishonest practices are so widespread that they raise serious questions about the residential mortgage backed securities market, the major trustees (such as JP Morgan, US Bank, Bank of New York) who repeatedly provided affirmations as required by the pooling and servicing agreement that all the tasks necessary for the trust to own the securitization assets had been completed, and the inattention of the various government bodies (in particular Fannie and Freddie) that are major clients of LPS.
Amar Bhide, in a 1994 Harvard Business Review article, said the US capital markets were the deepest and most liquid in major part because they were recognized around the world as being the fairest and best policed. As remarkable as it may seem now, his statement was seem as an obvious truth back then. In a mere decade, we managed to allow a “free markets” ideology on steroids to gut investor and borrower protection. The result is a train wreck in US residential mortgage securities, the biggest asset class in the world. The problems are too widespread for the authorities to pretend they don’t exist, and there is no obvious way to put this Humpty Dumpty back together."
Yet through this whole mess not one individual has been arrested, let alone imprisoned. Don't worry CNBC will trot out the shills soon enough to tell you this mess is contained and is nothing to worry about. What a relief!
dickmilde, as I understand it, many of these foreclosures were rushed to auction and than sold to the "questionable" holder of the mortgage at penny's on the dollar. I think in some cases there may be more to the story.
I know of several situations in the area I am in where the owner(s) desperately need to be able to redo the mortgage (ARM) the servicer refuses to even attempt to work with them and refuses to reveal the actual mortgage holder (if they know?)
I understand that they probably should not have got the financing in the first place, but just dumping these properties back onto the market is only driving prices down further.
Well... They wrote all these mortgages
without looking at everything so I guess they think it's OK to foreclose on them without looking at everything
Of course the other part of the problem that goes along with this is the fact that the mortgage they are foreclosing on is not current and payments by the borrower have stopped.
My initial opinion on this is that if you are not making the payments you need to get out of the house... There is no logical reason or right for a person that doesn't pay to be allowed to stay. A processing error does not give you the right to something... The processing error needs to be corrected.
Why "would anyone" question the validity of these mortgages or the foreclosures!!!!
EXCERPT from the original ruling.........reads like an Abbot and Costello routine....
In relevant part, if taken as alleged, the facts in Ibanez and Larace are roughly parallel and can be summarized as follows. [Note 24]
Both Ibanez and Larace involved adjustable-rate, subprime loans for the purchase of residential property in Springfield. [Note 25] In both, the borrower signed a promissory note and gave an immediately-recorded mortgage to the original lender (Rose Mortgage in Ibanez, Option One Mortgage Corporation in Larace). In Ibanez, Rose endorsed the note and properly assigned the mortgage to Option One. [Note 26] In both Ibanez and Larace, Option One then executed an endorsement of the note in blank, making the note “payable to bearer” and “negotiated by transfer alone until specially endorsed.” G.L. c. 106, § 3-205(b). In both, Option One also executed an assignment of the mortgage in blank (i.e., without a specified assignee) (hereafter, the “blank mortgage assignments”). These blank mortgage assignments were never recorded and they were not legally recordable. G.L. c. 183, § 6C (for a mortgage or assignment of a mortgage to be recordable in Massachusetts, the mortgage or assignment must “contain or have endorsed upon it the residence and post office address of the mortgagee or assignee if said mortgagee or assignee is a natural person, or a business address, mail address or post office address of the mortgagee or assignee if the mortgagee or assignee is not a natural person”). Moreover, since the blank mortgage assignments failed to name an assignee, they were ineffective to transfer any interest in the mortgage. [Note 27] Flavin v. Morrissey, 327 Mass. 217 , 219 (1951); Macurda v. Fuller, 225 Mass. 341 , 344-345 (1916); A. Eno & W. Hovey, 28 Mass. Practice: Real Estate Law, § 4.50 at 109 (4th ed. 2004) (hereafter, “Eno & Hovey”) and cases cited therein.
The securitization process then began, with Option One becoming the “Originator” for Lehman Brothers in Ibanez and for Bank of America in Larace.
In Ibanez, Lehman Brothers (as “Sponsor” and “Seller”) purchased the loan from Option One (as the Originator). Lehman then sold it (with hundreds of other loans that originated from Option One and other sources) to its wholly-owned subsidiary, Structured Asset Securities Corporation (the “Depositor”). Structured Asset Securities Corporation subsequently sold the loans to the Structured Asset Securities Corporation Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-Z (with U.S. Bank as trustee) [Note 28] (the “Issuing Entity”), which the grouped them into a “pool” (the “Ibanez pool”) and issued ten classes of certificates (two senior and eight subordinate) with varying rates of return, ranked in order of their payout priority in the event of shortfalls. Lehman purchased the certificates (presumably as the underwriter of the offering) and sold them in an offering to qualified investors.
The loans in the Ibanez pool were administered by five “Servicers,” one of which was Option One (now acting in a different capacity than Originator). [Note 29] Option One is alleged to be the Servicer for the Ibanez loan. [Note 30] These Servicers were supervised by Aurora Loan Services LLC (a wholly-owned Lehman subsidiary) (the “Master Servicer”). The loan documents themselves were kept by “Custodians” — Deutsche Bank, Wells Fargo, or U.S. Bank. [Note 31]
Assuming that events proceeded in the way described, the Ibanez loan thus changed ownership at least four times prior to foreclosure — Rose Mortgage to Option One, Option One to Lehman Brothers, Lehman Brothers to Structured Asset Securities Corporation, and Structured Asset Securities Corporation to Structured Asset Securities Corporation Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-Z (with U.S. Bank as trustee) — without any of this appearing on the public record. Two of those entities (Lehman Brothers and its subsidiary Structured Asset Securities Corporation) are currently in bankruptcy and a third (Option One) has ceased operations. [Note 32] The Ibanez note, Rose’s endorsement of the note to Option One, Option One’s endorsement of the note in blank, Ibanez’s mortgage to Rose, Rose’s assignment of the mortgage to Option One, and Option One’s blank mortgage assignment were all placed into a “collateral file” and, presumably, were passed from hand to hand along the chain of entities just listed, ending with the Custodian. The note (endorsed in blank and thus “bearer paper”) was negotiable by whichever entity possessed it. Since the blank mortgage assignment was ineffective, the mortgage remained with Option One (as Originator).
In Larace, Bank of America (as “Seller”) purchased the loan from Option One (as Originator). Bank of America then sold it (with hundreds of other loans that originated from Option One and other sources) to its wholly-owned subsidiary Asset Backed Funding Corporation (the “Depositor”). Asset Backed Funding Corporation then sold the loans to the ABFC 2005-OPT1 Trust (with Wells Fargo as trustee) [Note 33] (the “Issuing Entity”), which grouped them into a “pool” (the “Larace pool”) and issued fourteen classes of certificates (two super-senior, three senior, and nine subordinate) with varying rates of return, ranked in order of their payout priority in the event of shortfalls. Bank of America Securities LLC (as “Underwriter”) purchased the certificates and sold them in an offering to the public. The loans in the Larace pool were administered by Option One as “Servicer” (again, as in Ibanez, acting in a different capacity than Originator).
Assuming that events proceeded in the way described, the Larace loan thus changed ownership at least three times — Option One to Bank of America, Bank of America to Asset Backed Funding Corporation, and Asset Backed Funding Corporation to ABFC 2005-OPT1 Trust (with Wells Fargo as trustee) — without any of this appearing on the public record. The Larace note to Option One, Option One’s endorsement of the note in blank, Larace’s mortgage to Option One, and Option One’s blank mortgage assignment were all placed into a “collateral file” and, presumably, were passed from hand to hand along the chain of entities just listed, ending with the Custodian. The note (endorsed in blank and thus “bearer paper”) was negotiable by whichever entity possessed it. Since the blank mortgage assignment was ineffective, the mortgage remained with Option One (as Originator).
As noted above, the plaintiffs sold certificates in offerings to investors and, in that connection, issued offering documents. These included the Ibanez Private Placement Memorandum and the Larace Prospectus Supplement. Both contained detailed descriptions of the characteristics of the subprime residential loans that the plaintiffs were acquiring, the “risk factors” involved with those loans, and the documentation that the trusts purportedly would receive to obtain and secure their interests in the loans and lessen those risks. The provisions regarding that documentation are substantially similar.
In Ibanez they stated the following:
The Mortgage Loans will be assigned by the Depositor [Structured Asset Securities Corporation] to the Trustee [U.S. Bank], together with all principal and interest received with respect to such Mortgage Loans on and after the Cut-off Date [December 1, 2006] (other than Scheduled Payments due on that date). . . . Each Mortgage Loan will be identified in a schedule appearing as an exhibit to the Trust Agreement which will specify with respect to each Mortgage Loan, among other things, the original principal balance and the Scheduled Principal Balance as of the close of business on the Cut-off Date, the Mortgage Rate, the Scheduled Payment, the maturity date, the related Servicer and the Custodian of the mortgage file, whether the Mortgage Loan is covered by a primary mortgage insurance policy and the applicable Prepayment Premium provisions, if any.
As to each Mortgage Loan, the following documents are generally required to be delivered to the applicable Custodian on behalf of the Trustee in accordance with the Trust Agreement: (1) the related original mortgage note endorsed without recourse to the Trustee or in blank, (2) the original mortgage with evidence of recording indicated thereon (or, if such original recorded mortgage has not yet been returned by the recording office, a copy thereof certified to be a true and complete copy of such mortgage sent for recording), (3) an original assignment of the mortgage to the Trustee or in blank in recordable form (except as described below), [Note 34] (4) the policies of title insurance issued with respect to each Mortgage Loan and (5) the originals of any assumption, modification, extension or guaranty agreements.
Each transfer of a Mortgage Loan from the Seller [Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.] to the Depositor [Structured Asset Securities Corporation] and from the Depositor to the Trustee will be intended to be a sale of that Mortgage Loan and will be reflected as such in the Sale and Assignment Agreement [Note 35] and the Trust Agreement, respectively. . . .
Ibanez Private Placement Memorandum at 119 (emphasis added). Moreover, the Memorandum further states that each Transferor of a mortgage loan (here, Option One) represented and warranted to Lehman “as direct purchaser or assignee” that “the assignment of mortgage [to Lehman] [was] in recordable form and acceptable for recording under the laws of the relevant applicable jurisdiction.” Id. at 120-121. Assignments in recordable form to each successive entity were thus required at every step in the securitization chain.
In Larace they stated the following:
On or about October 31, 2005 . . . the Depositor [Asset Backed Funding Corporation] will transfer to the Trust Fund all of its right, title and interest in and to each Mortgage Loan, the related mortgage notes, mortgages and other related documents (collectively, the “Related Documents”), including all scheduled payments with respect to each such Mortgage Loan due after the Cut-Off Date. . . .
The Pooling and Servicing Agreement will require that, within the time period specified therein, the Seller [Bank of America] will deliver or cause to be delivered to the Trustee on behalf of the Certificateholders (or a custodian, as the Trustee’s agent for such purpose) the mortgage notes endorsed in blank and the Related Documents. In lieu of delivery of original mortgages or mortgage notes, if such original is not available or lost, the Seller may deliver or cause to be delivered true and correct copies thereof, or, with respect to a lost mortgage note, a lost note affidavit executed by the Seller or the originator of such Mortgage Loan.
Unless otherwise required by Fitch or S&P, assignments of the Mortgage Loans to the Trustee (or its nominee) will not be recorded in any jurisdiction, but will be delivered to the Trustee in recordable form, so that they can be recorded in the event recordation is necessary in connection with the servicing of a Mortgage Loan. [Note 36]
Larace Supplemental Prospectus at S-54 (emphasis added). [Note 37]
Despite the requirement in both Ibanez and Larace for an assignment of the mortgage to the trusts in recordable form at the time the loans were transferred to the trusts, no such assignments were made. As the collateral files for both loans reveal, the only mortgage assignments executed prior to the foreclosure sales were the one from Rose Mortgage to Option One (in Ibanez) and the ineffective blank mortgage assignments by Option One (in both Ibanez and Larace). Thus, at the time the foreclosure sales were noticed and conducted, the notes (endorsed in blank without recourse and thus “bearer paper”) were held by the plaintiffs, but the mortgages securing those notes were both still held by Option One (as Originator).
At some point (the record does not indicate when) both the Ibanez and Larace loans became delinquent and a new entity (Fidelity National Foreclosure and Bankruptcy Solutions) (“Fidelity”) became involved. On April 10, 2007, purporting to act on behalf of Option One in Option One’s capacity as the Servicer of the loan, [Note 38] Fidelity sent an email with an attached pdf referral package [Note 39] to the plaintiffs’ counsel (the Ablitt law firm) with instructions to bring a foreclosure action against Mr. Ibanez and his property “in the name of U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for the Structured Asset Securities Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-Z.” Ibanez, Aff. of Walter Porr, Jr. at Exs. A-C (Jan. 30, 2009). On April 18, 2007, again purportedly on behalf of Option One in Option One’s capacity as the Servicer of the loan, [Note 40] Fidelity sent a similar email and pdf referral package to Ablitt with instructions to commence a foreclosure action against the Laraces and their property “in the name of the investor below: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for ABFC 2005-OPT1 Trust, ABFC Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-OPT1,” with the representation that the Larace mortgage was “currently held” by Wells Fargo. [Note 41] Larace, Aff. of Walter Porr, Jr. at Ex. A (Feb. 2, 2009).
The Ablitt firm then filed a Servicemembers’ Complaint against Mr. Ibanez, naming U.S. Bank as the plaintiff under the representation that U.S. Bank was “the owner (or assignee) and holder of a mortgage with a statutory power of sale given by Antonio Ibanez to Rose Mortgage, Inc.” Complaint to Foreclose Mortgage, Land Court 07 Misc. 345456 (Apr. 17, 2007). As noted above, this was incorrect. Option One was that holder. The Notice of Mortgagee’s Sale of Real Estate, published on June 14, 21, and 28, 2007 for a foreclosure sale on July 5, 2007, stated that U.S. Bank was the “present holder” of the Ibanez mortgage. As noted above, this was incorrect. Option One was that holder. The Ibanez sale was conducted in the name of U.S. Bank, U.S. Bank was the only bidder, and the “foreclosure deed” executed ten months later named U.S. Bank as the grantor pursuant to that sale. [Note 42] Massachusetts Foreclosure Deed By Corporation (May 7, 2008). There was no mention or suggestion in any of these documents that U.S. Bank was proceeding to foreclose the mortgage on behalf of anyone other than itself. An assignment of the Ibanez mortgage to U.S. Bank from American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. as the purported “successor in interest to Option One Mortgage Corporation” was not executed until September 2, 2008, fourteen months after the foreclosure sale and over three months after the recording of the foreclosure deed. [Note 43]
The Ablitt firm brought a Servicemembers’ Complaint against the Laraces, naming Wells Fargo as the plaintiff under the representation that Wells Fargo was “the owner (or assignee) and holder of a mortgage with a statutory power of sale given by Mark A. Larace and Tammy L. Larace to Option One Mortgage Corporation.” Complaint to Foreclose Mortgage, Land Court 07 Misc. 346369 (Apr. 27, 2007). As noted above, this was incorrect. Option One was the holder. The Notice of Mortgagee’s Sale of Real Estate, published on June 14, 21, and 28, 2007 for a foreclosure sale on July 5, 2007, stated that Wells Fargo was the “present holder” of the Larace mortgage. As noted above, this was incorrect. Option One was the holder. The Larace sale was conducted in Wells Fargo’s name, Wells Fargo was the only bidder, and the “foreclosure deed” executed ten months later named U.S. Bank as the grantor pursuant to that sale. [Note 44] Massachusetts Foreclosure Deed By Corporation (May 7, 2008). As in Ibanez, there was no mention or suggestion in any of these documents that Wells Fargo was proceeding to foreclose the mortgage on behalf of anyone other than itself. An assignment of the Larace mortgage to Wells Fargo from American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. as the purported “successor in interest to Option One Mortgage Corporation” was not executed until September 2, 2008, fourteen months after the foreclosure sale and over three months after the recording of the foreclosure deed. [Note 45]
And here is the ruling The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court plans to hear arguments on next week......the ruling was initially issued by:
The Commonwealth of Mass, Trial Court, Land Court Dept.
http://masscases.com/cases/land/2009/2009-08-384283-MEMO.html
This should prove to be interesting,
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court plans to hear arguments next week on a paperwork-error case that has the potential to invalidate thousands of foreclosures dating as far back as 20 years.
AG Coakley: Stop Bay State foreclosures
October 03, 2010
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley is calling on Bank of America and other lenders to halt all Bay State foreclosures amid indications that the firms lacked proper paperwork to seize thousands of U.S. homes, according to the Boston Herald
“We are asking Bank of America and other major creditors to cease foreclosure proceedings for Massachusetts homeowners until they demonstrate that they have complied with Massachusetts law,” Coakley said yesterday.
The attorney general’s move followed word Friday that a Bank of America executive admitted in a Massachusetts deposition to signing thousands of documents in U.S. foreclosure cases without really looking at them.
The documents aimed to prove that Bank of America legally owned delinquent mortgages on thousands of homes that it planned to seize through foreclosure.
However, the Bank of America executive conceded in a deposition obtained by The Associated Press that because she signed 7,000 to 8,000 such documents per month, “I typically don't read them.”
That’s a stunning admission because banks can only seize homes when they clearly own the mortgages in question, something that is sometimes hard to prove because financial firms often trade mortgages like stocks. Failure to file proper paperwork every time a loan changes hands can make it unclear who owns a mortgage and thus has the right to foreclose.
Friday’s revelations prompted Bank of America to voluntarily halt all home seizures in 23 states that use so-called judicial-foreclosure proceedings. Mortgage giants GMAC and J.P. Morgan Chase have taken similar steps in recent days after evidence indicated they might not have properly checked paperwork, either.
However, the banks actions do not apply to Massachusetts because the Bay State does not use the judicial-foreclosure system.
So, Coakley yesterday called on the lenders to voluntarily extend their moratorium to the Bay State as well.
Paperwork flaws are calling into question the validity of tens of thousands of home seizures that banks have conducted during the U.S. foreclosure crisis.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court plans to hear arguments next week on a paperwork-error case that has the potential to invalidate thousands of foreclosures dating as far back as 20 years.
Moody's Zandi: Crisis Could Delay Foreclosures for a Decade
Here is more info on Ally Financial. This could be big and maybe a turn?
http://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/dailybriefing/2010_189/delay-foreclosures-decade-1021450-1.html?ET=nationalmortgage:e331:78806a:&st=email&utm_source=editorial&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NMN_Daily_Briefing_093010
J.P. Morgan suspending some foreclosures: reports
Sept. 29, 2010, 4:50 p.m
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. /quotes/comstock/13*!jpm/quotes/nls/jpm (JPM 38.43, +0.02, +0.05%) will suspend certain mortgage foreclosures as it reviews documents in those cases, according to media reports late Wednesday. The suspension comes with the discovery that employees signed affidavits on some loan documents without verifying the files, The Associated Press reported, citing J.P. Morgan spokesman Tom Kelly. About 56,000 foreclosures are affected by the delay, Reuters reported.
Thanks, but I'm looking for more current data.
U.S. Home Prices Fell 3.3% in July From Year Earlier
By Kathleen M. Howley
Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. home prices dropped 3.3 percent in July from a year earlier, the eighth consecutive decline, as foreclosed properties flooded the market.
Prices fell 0.5 percent from June, the Federal Housing Finance Agency in Washington said in a report today. Economists had projected prices to fall 0.2 percent from the previous month, based on the average of 15 estimates in a Bloomberg survey. The agency revised the previously reported May-to-June decline to 1.2 percent from 0.3 percent.
Foreclosures are boosting the supply of available properties and reducing prices, even as mortgage rates tumble to record lows. The time it would take to clear the market of homes for sale was 12.5 months in July, the highest in more than a decade of data, according to the National Association of Realtors. Banks seized a record 95,364 properties from delinquent borrowers in August, according to RealtyTrac Inc., an Irvine, California-based seller of housing data.
“We have a lot of homes for sale, and a lot of them are distressed properties,” said Thomas Lawler, founder and president of Lawler Housing and Economic Consulting in Leesburg, Virginia. “That is putting downward pressure on home prices.”
The biggest price loss was 1.6 percent in the region that includes Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina, according to the report. The area that includes Arizona and Nevada posted the second-largest decline, at 1.5 percent.
Nationally, sales of existing homes in July plunged 27 percent to a 3.83 million annual pace, the lowest level on record, NAR said Aug. 24. July sales of new homes dropped to an annual pace of 276,000, the fewest since data began in 1963, the Commerce Department reported Aug. 25.
Falling Mortgage Rates
The average U.S. rate for a 30-year fixed loan fell to 4.32 percent this month, according to Freddie Mac. That’s the lowest in the McLean, Virginia-based company’s records dating to 1971. The rate probably will average 4.6 percent this year, down from 5 percent in 2009, according to Washington-based Fannie Mae, Freddie’s larger rival.
“The low interest rates aren’t giving housing a big enough boost because they’re not attractive to someone who doesn’t have a job or is concerned about keeping a job,” Lawler said.
The unemployment rate probably will average 9.6 percent this year, according to the median estimate of 59 economists in a Bloomberg survey. That would be the highest since the same rate in 1983, data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show.
Today’s report from the FHFA is based on repeat sales data that compares prices of the same properties over time. The agency, which measures sales of homes with mortgages backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, doesn’t provide a specific price.
The median home price was $182,600 in July, as measured by NAR. The Chicago-based Realtors’ group is scheduled to issue its report on August sales and prices tomorrow.
asus: you may be able to piece these two reports together to find what you are looking for
pg. 26 of 39 has a chart that goes from 1950 to 1994
http://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/working/98-2.pdf
pg. 21 of this one has a chart that goes from 79 to 2007
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0878r.pdf
Do you or anybody happen to know where I can see a chart of bank repossessions or foreclosures for the last 50 years or so?
Bank Repossession of Homes Sets New Record in August
Tuesday September 14, 2010, 3:22 pm EDT
The nation's banks repossessed a record number of homes in August, according to industry sources. RealtyTrac, an online foreclosure sale site, will release its monthly numbers on Thursday, but sources there confirm the number of repossessions will come in just shy of 100,000 for the month.
That is the highest since the site began tracking in 2005. July's repossession number was the second highest on record. The last highest was 93,777 in May of 2010.
Notices of Default, which are the first step in the foreclosure process, are up slightly but mostly thanks to a jump in California, where the numbers had been artificially low of late, as banks tried to modify borrowers.
"With respect to the NOD increase, I think it is the modification redefault wave beginning to build and new modifications slowing to a trickle, indicating banks have lost their primary borrower re-leveraging tool," says mortgage industry consultant Mark Hanson.
Yesterday J.P. Morgan Chase (NYSE: jpm) cited the "shadow inventory" of foreclosed properties as one of their primary reasons for pushing back their expectations for a housing recovery as far as 2014. No question, a growing supply of repossessed properties will put further downward pressure on home prices, especially given the current 12.5 month supply of existing homes already for sale.
The question now is: Where does the government go from here? Some argue that housing needs to correct on its own, without artificial stimulus, as painful as it will be, in order to recover fully. What the Obama Administration has to decide is, will that correction, involving millions of foreclosures, take too large a toll on the greater economy?
Homebuyer tax credit: 950,000 must repay
September 9, 2010, 2:40 pm EDT
Nearly half of all Americans who claimed the first-time homebuyer tax credit on their 2009 tax returns will have to repay the government.
According to a report from the Inspector General for Tax Administration, released to the public Thursday, about 950,000 of the nearly 1.8 million Americans who claimed the tax credit on their 2009 tax returns will have to return the money.
The confusion comes because homebuyers were eligible for two different credits, depending on when their homes were purchased.
Those who bought properties during 2008 were to deduct, dollar for dollar, up to 10% of the home's purchase price or $7,500, whichever was less. The catch: The money was a no-interest loan that had to be repaid within 15 years.
Had they waited to buy until 2009, they could have gotten a much sweeter deal. Congress extended the credit and made it a refund rather than a loan.
Now, the IRS is developing a strategy for separating the 2009 taxpayers who are required to repay the credit from those who are not.
A review by the Inspector General earlier this year found that the IRS could not easily distinguish between home purchases made in 2008 and 2009. That heightened concerns that some claims could be erroneous or even fraudulent, that buyers could, for example, claim their purchase came later than it actually occurred.
Thursday's release reported that 73,000 claims, more than 4% of the 1.8 million homebuyers who received the credit, had incorrect purchase dates recorded by the IRS.
Some of the inaccuracies counted against the taxpayers, Nearly 60,000 were listed as purchasing in 2008 (meaning they had to repay the credit) or had no purchase dates at all, rather than their correct 2009 purchase dates, which would free them of the obligation to pay it back.
It is also taking a look at all those deceased taxpayers who received credits.
The inspector general reported that 1,326 single people listed as dead by the Social Security Administration claimed more than $10 million in credits. The IRS threw out 528 of those 1,326 claims, saving $4 million.
Housing Woes Bring New Cry: Let Market Fall
By DAVID STREITFELD
Published: September 5, 2010
The unexpectedly deep plunge in home sales this summer is likely to force the Obama administration to choose between future homeowners and current ones, a predicament officials had been eager to avoid.
Over the last 18 months, the administration has rolled out just about every program it could think of to prop up the ailing housing market, using tax credits, mortgage modification programs, low interest rates, government-backed loans and other assistance intended to keep values up and delinquent borrowers out of foreclosure. The goal was to stabilize the market until a resurgent economy created new households that demanded places to live.
As the economy again sputters and potential buyers flee — July housing sales sank 26 percent from July 2009 — there is a growing sense of exhaustion with government intervention. Some economists and analysts are now urging a dose of shock therapy that would greatly shift the benefits to future homeowners: Let the housing market crash.
When prices are lower, these experts argue, buyers will pour in, creating the elusive stability the government has spent billions upon billions trying to achieve.
“Housing needs to go back to reasonable levels,” said Anthony B. Sanders, a professor of real estate finance at George Mason University. “If we keep trying to stimulate the market, that’s the definition of insanity.”
The further the market descends, however, the more miserable one group — important both politically and economically — will be: the tens of millions of homeowners who have already seen their home values drop an average of 30 percent.
The poorer these owners feel, the less likely they will indulge in the sort of consumer spending the economy needs to recover. If they see an identical house down the street going for half what they owe, the temptation to default might be irresistible. That could make the market’s current malaise seem minor.
Caught in the middle is an administration that gambled on a recovery that is not happening.
“The administration made a bet that a rising economy would solve the housing problem and now they are out of chips,” said Howard Glaser, a former Clinton administration housing official with close ties to policy makers in the administration. “They are deeply worried and don’t really know what to do.”
That was clear last week, when the secretary of housing and urban development, Shaun Donovan, appeared to side with current homeowners, telling CNN the administration would “go everywhere we can” to make sure the slumping market recovers.
Mr. Donovan even opened the door to another housing tax credit like the one that expired last spring, which paid first-time buyers as much as $8,000 and buyers who were moving up $6,500. The cost to taxpayers was in the neighborhood of $30 billion, much of which went to people who would have bought anyway.
Administration press officers quickly backpedaled from Mr. Donovan’s comment, saying a revived credit was either highly unlikely or flat-out impossible. Mr. Donovan declined to be interviewed for this article. In a statement, a White House spokeswoman responded to questions about possible new stimulus measures by pointing to those already in the works.
“In the weeks ahead, we will focus on successfully getting off the ground programs we have recently announced,” the spokeswoman, Amy Brundage, said.
Among those initiatives are $3 billion to keep the unemployed from losing their homes and a refinancing program that will try to cut the mortgage balances of owners who owe more than their property is worth. A previous program with similar goals had limited success.
If last year’s tax credit was supposed to be a bridge over a rough patch, it ended with a glimpse of the abyss. The average home now takes more than a year to sell. Add in the homes that are foreclosed but not yet for sale and the total is greater still.
Builders are in even worse shape. Sales of new homes are lower than in the depths of the recession of the early 1980s, when mortgage rates were double what they are now, unemployment was pervasive and the gloom was at least as thick.
The deteriorating circumstances have given a new voice to the “do nothing” chorus, whose members think the era of trying to buy stability while hoping the market will catch fire — called “extend and pretend” or “delay and pray” — has run its course.
“We have had enough artificial support and need to let the free market do its thing,” said the housing analyst Ivy Zelman.
Michael L. Moskowitz, president of Equity Now, a direct mortgage lender that operates in New York and seven other states, also advocates letting the market fall. “Prices are still artificially high,” he said. “The government is discriminating against the renters who are able to buy at $200,000 but can’t at $250,000.”
A small decline in home prices might not make too much of a difference to a slack economy. But an unchecked drop of 10 percent or more might prove entirely discouraging to the millions of owners just hanging on, especially those who bought in the last few years under the impression that a turnaround had already begun.
The government is on the hook for many of these mortgages, another reason policy makers have been aggressively seeking stability. What helped support the market last year could now cause it to crumble.
Since 2006, the Federal Housing Administration has insured millions of low down payment loans. During the first two years, officials concede, the credit quality of the borrowers was too low.
With little at stake and a queasy economy, buyers bailed: nearly 12 percent were delinquent after a year. Last fall, F.H.A. cash reserves fell below the Congressionally mandated minimum, and the agency had to shore up its finances.
Government-backed loans in 2009 went to buyers with higher credit scores. Yet the percentage of first-year defaults was still 5 percent, according to data from the research firm CoreLogic.
“These are at-risk buyers,” said Sam Khater, a CoreLogic economist. “They have very little equity, and that’s the largest predictor of default.”
This is the risk policy makers face. “If home prices begin to fall again with any serious velocity, borrowers may stay away in such numbers that the market never recovers,” said Mr. Glaser, a consultant whose clients include the National Association of Realtors.
Those sorts of worries have a few people from the world of finance suggesting that the administration should do much more, not less.
William H. Gross, managing director at Pimco, a giant manager of bond funds, has proposed the government refinance at lower rates millions of mortgages it owns or insures. Such a bold action, Mr. Gross said in a recent speech, would “provide a crucial stimulus of $50 to $60 billion in consumption,” as well as increase housing prices.
The idea has gained little traction. Instead, there is a sense that, even with much more modest notions, government intervention is not the answer. The National Association of Realtors, the driving force behind the credit last year, is not calling for a new round of stimulus.
Some members of the National Association of Home Builders say a new credit of $25,000 would raise demand but their chances of getting this through Congress are nonexistent.
“Our members are saying that if we can’t get a very large tax credit — one that really brings people off the bench — why use our political capital at all?” said David Crowe, the chief economist for the home builders.
That might give the Obama administration permission to take the risk of doing nothing.
wait a second! Lentinman and Slider went missing at the same time. Hmmmmmmmm if Slider reappears soon, it will be obvious that they are one and the same!
Good to see you're OK...SliderOnTheBlack has gone missing on the boards and was hoping you were still around.
This is simply incredible but not at all unexpected...
The 15 States With The Most Underwater Mortgages
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-15-states-with-the-most-underwater-homes-2010-7/idaho-227-of-mortgages-underwater-1
The question is how long will this go on? We need our jobs back and that won't happen unless our dollar crashes or we do something about trade. We have regulation on just about everything but trade. The U.S. needs to regulate how many jobs American companies can send overseas. If that company moves to another country then put a tarriff on their goods coming into the United States. We can't compete with Chinese wages, and more and more jobs will be sent there esp. during deflation and high taxes. There is always a solution to a problem even if it may hurt for a while.
Split:
That pretty well sums it up!
Len
15 Signs The U.S. Housing Market Is Headed For Complete And Total Collapse
open link, go down to "click here to see the signs" and click on it, top left and you can see each chart with an explanation.
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-signs-that-the-us-housing-market-is-headed-for-complete-and-total-collapse-2010-8
Kudos to roguedolphin
BUDDIEE18, this from another board which I think sums it up quite well...........
"a little word about housing? It's ovepriced!
If you can't pay the mortgage with 40% of your net income, it's overpriced!
If the overhead and taxes run you into the ground and you have no money for groceries, car payments, insurance, etc, it's ovepriced!
If you can't buy it, rent it out, and break even at the very least, it's overpriced!
This is imbalance! The American exists for the rich, so the average Joe can contribute to the fund via huge interest payments over the length of any mortgage. In today's uncertain work climate, it's overpriced!
Real estate needs a real kick in the arse, down to proper affordable levels according to WAGES, not according to RATES and TERMS."
thanks 'split710' -- looks to me that they plan on taking down real estate prices to the early 1970's level ?? which means when the $ was taken off the gold standard -- and inflation was created ?? and then the cycle will be started again ?
is this how you read it ??
Fannie Mae is a MENTAL concept -- does NOT have energy UNTIL a h.u.m.a.n. shoves a piece of LEGALIZED paper aka LEGAL F.I.C.T.I.O.N. in front of the BRAIN-DEAD homeowners who DON'T realize WHAT the LEGALESE language is all about !! it's a P.L.A.Y. that the LAWMAKERS created in ORDER to SCAM hard-working people who THINK that Fannie Mae has the LEGAL right to claim ANYTHING of their butts... who basically is DA PIMP here wanting a PIECE of ASS.ets ! and the homeowners are only too willing to bend over and give their ASS.EtS.
that's it folks -- in a nutshell.
didn't someone here post a graph about real estate prices ?? that it's alll downhill til 2030 ? i thought i saved that link. was looking in my archives and couldn't find it.
Existing Home Sales Plunge 27 Percent.
By: Mike Shedlock | Tue, Aug 24, 2010
Worse than Every Economist Forecast; Treasury Yields Hit New Lows
In yet another clean sweep, the third in a week or so, sales of existing homes dropped twice as much as expected, worse than every economist forecast, to a 15 year low. Inventory soared to 12.5 month, the highest since 1999. Treasury yields plunged with yield on the 10-year note falling as low as 2.50 and the 2-year note hitting a new all-time low at .47%.
Please consider Sales of U.S. Existing Homes Drop More Than Forecast
Sales of U.S. previously owned homes plunged 27 percent in July, twice as much as forecast, evidence foreclosures and limited job growth are depressing the market.
Purchases plummeted to a 3.83 million annual pace, the lowest in a decade on record keeping and worse than the most pessimistic forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News, figures from the National Association of Realtors showed today in Washington. Demand for single-family houses dropped to a 15- year low and the number of homes on the market swelled.
A tax credit of up to $8,000 boosted sales earlier in the year, pulling forward demand and indicating additional advances will prove difficult. Mortgage rates at record lows have provided scant relief to the industry as unemployment hovers close to 10 percent, foreclosures hold near record-highs and the economy cools.
"This is a devastating reading on the U.S. housing market," said Derek Holt, an economist at Scotia Capital Inc. in Toronto. "There's such an inventory overhang, it shows there will be pressure on prices" in the months ahead.
The pace of existing home sales is the slowest since comparable records began in 1999. Purchases of single-family homes dropped to a 3.37 million annual rate, the lowest since May 1995.
Range of Forecasts
Economists projected sales would fall 13 percent from June's previously reported 5.37 million pace. The agents' group revised the June sales figure down to 5.26 million. Estimates in the Bloomberg survey of 74 economists ranged from 3.96 million to 5.3 million. Previously owned homes make up about 90 percent of the market.
The number of previously owned homes on the market rose 2.5 percent to 3.98 million. At the current sales pace, it would take 12.5 months to sell those houses, the highest since at least 1999 and compared with 8.9 months in June. The months' supply of single-family homes at 11.9 months was the highest since 1983, the NAR said.
Extend and Pretend
The only thing this administration knows how to do is extend and pretend. The latest gimmick offered on August 11, 2010 is HUD Offers Interest-Free Loans to Reduce Foreclosures.
The Obama administration will offer $1 billion in zero-interest loans to help homeowners who've lost income avoid foreclosure as part of $3 billion in additional aid targeting economically distressed areas.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development plans to make loans of as much as $50,000 for borrowers "in hard hit local areas" to make mortgage, tax and insurance payments for as long as two years, according to a statement released today. The Treasury Department will also provide as much as $2 billion in aid under an existing program for 17 states and the District of Columbia, according to the statement.
The initiatives will help "a broad group of struggling borrowers across the country and in doing so further contribute to the administration's efforts to stabilize housing markets and communities," Bill Apgar, HUD's senior adviser for mortgage finance, said in the statement.
Fool's Offering vs. Free Rent
Anyone going $50,000 deeper in debt to "save" their existing underwater home is a complete fool. On the other hand, anyone who takes the cash as an offer for free rent with a plan to declare bankruptcy and walk-away later just may be thinking clearly.
Thus, it is likely that the fool in this case is the Obama administration. The only thing this stupid program will do is waste taxpayer money while pushing foreclosures into the future.
Meanwhile the number of negative surprises continues unabated.
Recent Surprises
*
58 out of 58 Economists Overoptimistic on Philly Fed Manufacturing Estimate; Median Forecast +7 Actual Result -7.7, a "Veritable Disaster"
*
Weekly Unemployment Claims Hit 500,000, Exceed Every Economist's Estimate; No Lasting Improvement for 9 Months
Recession Never Ended
As I said in 3rd Quarter GDP Likely Negative, Recession Never Ended ...
While some people still think the odds of a double dip recession are close to zero, ironically, the only reason they may be right is if the first dip never ended.
Amazingly, economists are still clinging to estimates of 2.5% and up.
So expect to discover the vast majority of economists will be surprised at the forthcoming downward revisions, even after we point these things out well in advance and repeat them.
The ECRI is still touting the "flattening" of the Weekly Leading Indicators (WLI) at -10. With the collapse in treasury yields, a print of -500,000 on weekly claims, and a god-awful Philly Fed report, let's watch the next few weeks. I suspect this "flattening" period will soon be over.
Fooled By Stimulus
Nearly every economist has been Fooled by Stimulus even though the structural problems still remain.
It's time to face the facts: There never was a "recovery" by any rational measure. The alleged recovery was nothing more than inventory replenishment fueled by massive and unsustainable government spending waste with additional trillions of taxpayer dollars handed out in bank bailouts.
The plunge in existing home sales shows exactly what happens when free money handouts stop.
MERS COURT CASES
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202435636327&Defective_Paperwork_Strips_Mortgage_Holder_of_Foreclosure_Rights
MERS COURT CASES
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS BLASTS MERS' ALLEGED RIGHT TO ASSIGN ... Sep 17, 2009 ... In the case, which is styled Landmark National Bank v. Kesler, Supreme Court of Kansas No. 98489 (Opinion released August 28, 2009), MERS ...
http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=159 - Cached
Mar 3, 2010 ... MERS v. Nebraska Dept of Banking and Finance – MERS is not a ... Important Court Cases. FourWinds10.com - Delivering Truth Around the World ...
http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/judicial_and_courts/news.php?q=12676513... - Cached
MERS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Homeowners have argued in court that their homes could not be foreclosed because MERS deeds of trust were unlawful.[5] In other cases, state appellate ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MERS - Cached
Law.com - Federal Judge Rejects Homeowners' Lawsuit Against Major ...
Aug 1, 2007 ... In unrelated cases, the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Miami reinstated a MERS foreclosure action in March, and the 2nd District Court of ...
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1185883306599 - Cached
MERS Loan Registry Raises Legal Questions « Foreclosure Fraud ...
Apr 25, 2010 ... MERS also points to a 2009 federal case in Utah that affirmed its authority to ... Court Ordered Discovery – I Found the Fraud by WAMU's ...
http://4closurefraud.org/2010/04/25/mers-loan-registry-raises-legal-questions/ - Cached
The Trouble With MERS : Foreclosure Assistance – Foreclosure ...
Sep 24, 2009 ... In the case of MERS, the Note and the Deed of Trust are held by separate entities. This can pose a unique problem dependent upon the court. ...
http://iamfacingforeclosure.com/blog/2009/09/24/the-trouble-with-mers/ - Cached
98489 -- Landmark National Bank v. Kesler -- Leben -- Kansas Court ...
Sep 12, 2008 ... As the mortgage suggests may be done when "necessary to comply with law or custom," courts elsewhere have found that MERS may in some cases ...
http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/ctapp/2008/20080912/98489.htm - Cached
Mortgage Orb: Content / From The Orb / MERS Cases: The Good, The ...
Jan 22, 2010 ... The first recent noteworthy judicial decision favoring MERS is the case of Ramos v. MERS. There, the Federal District Court of Nevada ...
http://www.mortgageorb.com/e107_plugins/content/content_lt.php?content.5128 - Cached
Waking up to discover the mortgage market was a giant criminal ...
Sep 22, 2009 ... A landmark ruling in a recent Kansas Supreme Court case may have given ... the Kansas Supreme Court held that a nominee company called MERS ...
http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/09/22/landmark-decision-massive-relief-for-homeowners... - Cached
mers Articles // Foreclosure Combatant / National Loan Audits Blog
MERS v. LISA MARIE CHONG. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Dist. Ct. Case No. 2:09-CV-00661-KJD-LRL Bankr. Ct. Case No. ...
http://www.blogcatalog.com/blogs/foreclosure-combatant-national-loan-audits/all/explore/me... - Cached
The Anti-MERS Mortgage Manifesto | Matt Weidner Blog
Feb 28, 2010 ... MERS “won” that case…the Second DCA found that they could proceed ... “won” the case, neither MERS nor lenders cite that case or want courts ...
http://mattweidnerlaw.com/blog/2010/02/the-anti-mers-mortgage-manifesto/ - Cached
NY Bankruptcy Court Wipes out MERS-Registered Mortgage; New Trend ...
Oct 27, 2009 ... As MERS handled mortgage assignments, the link between the the .... The SDNY bankruptcy court says no, and I have won a similar case in my ...
http://firedoglake.com/2009/10/27/ny-bankruptcy-court-wipes-out-mers-registered-mortgage-n... - Cached
MERS - Foreclosures
The MERS Legal Primer provides a sampling of cases that address the ... ensure that pleadings on behalf of MERS in bankruptcy court properly describe MERS. ...
http://www.mersinc.org/Foreclosures/index.aspx - Cached
Ohio Federal Court Opinions and Orders in Mortgage Foreclosure ...
If the loans in the cases had been registered on the MERS ... In two Florida appellate court decisions rendered this year, Mortgage Electronic Registration ...
http://www.mersinc.org/files/filedownload.aspx?id=454&table=ProductFile - Cached
Fair Game - The Mortgage Machine Backfires - NYTimes.com
Sep 26, 2009 ... As cases filed by MERS grew, lawyers representing troubled borrowers ... The court also said that even though MERS was named as mortgagee on ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/business/27gret.html
Vermont Trial Court continues the attacks on MERS in Mortgage Elec ...
Dec 9, 2009 ... In the case MERS v. Johnston (Rutland County Superior Court case no. 420-6-09 Rdcv) another Court has held that MERS doesn't have standing ...
http://dcwintonlaw.com/bankruptcy/vermont-trial-court-continues-the-attacks-on-mers-in-mor...
Mortgage Servicing Fraud
Kansas Supreme Court Knocks Out MERS. » Nevada BK Court Knocks Out MERS ... Dozens of Cases Rolling in from Bankruptcy and Civil Courts Reversing ...
http://www.msfraud.org/ - Cached
Web of Debt - LANDMARK DECISION PROMISES MASSIVE RELIEF FOR ...
Sep 19, 2009 ... http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/mers.php. A landmark ruling in a recent Kansas Supreme Court case may have given millions of distressed ...
http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/mers.php - Cached
REALLY Need Help: My home Foreclosure hearing is tomorrow ...
this covers MERS! a COURT CASE. Submitted by dugger62 on Wed, 05/12/2010 - 22:25 . Black's Law Dictionary defines a nominee as "[a] person designated to act ...
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/115088 - Cached
New MERS Standing Case Splits Note and Mortgage: Bellistri v Ocwen ...
Apr 20, 2010 ... We know that MERS is NOT named on the note. This appellate case from Missouri, ..... Quote the court case above. Tell the court if they have ...
http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2010/04/20/new-mers-case-bellistri-v-ocwen-loan-servicing-... - Cached
RECENT OHIO FORECLOSURE CASES: LENDERS BEWARE By Stephen R ...
App. 2d, 2007). While the Court remanded the case to determine whether MERS had possession of the note, the Court found that MERS is a ...
http://www.abanet.org/rppt/publications/ereport/2007/6/OhioForeclosureCases.pdf - Cached
MERS Case law summmary - Troy Virginia Law Firm- The Law Office of ...
Jan 25, 2010 ... According to the district court, MERS was not an actual beneficiary of the mortgage agreements in the case. Id. at 3 (noting that “MERS ...
http://www.centralvalaw.com/Publications/Articles/MERS%20Case%20law%20summmary.aspx - Cached
MERS' Standing to Foreclose Upheld in Rhode Island State Court ...
In so ruling, the Court “specifically [held] that MERS, in the case at bar, has standing to and may foreclose the mortgage granted to it by the Plaintiffs ...
http://www.psh.com/content665 - Cached
*************Glenn Russell, Esq. Attorney :: MERS
Dec 3, 2009 ... Kesler denied MERS standing to foreclose.However the Superior Court Judge noted that this was a case of first impression in the state and ...
http://www.foreclosuresinmass.com/MERS.php - Cached
Who Is MERS?
In this present case, MERS was created in the boardrooms of the most powerful ... MERS, it is now widely acknowledged by the courts, has no legal right to ...
http://www.chinkinthearmor.net/Who_Is_MERS_.html - Cached
The Home Equity Theft Reporter Cases & Articles: Testimony Of MERS ...
Testimony Of MERS CEO, Senior VP Available Online ... All links to court cases from this site are to the non-copyrightable text portion of the case. ...
http://homeequitytheft-cases-articles.blogspot.com/2010/05/testimony-of-mers-ceo-senior-vp... - Cached
Loan registry raises legal questions: MERS « DinSFLA Stop ...
Apr 25, 2010 ... MERS also points to a 2009 federal case in Utah that affirmed its ... In September, the Kansas Supreme Court ruling took a dim view of the ...
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2010/04/25/loan-registry-raises-legal-questions-mers/ - Cached
Statehouse Live: Kansas court ruling in foreclosure case getting ...
Sep 24, 2009 ... While the case applies only to Kansas, folks who defend ... But the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously that MERS was not legally the ...
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/sep/24/statehouse-live-parkinson-owns-kpers-error/?kansa... - Cached
Landmark National Bank v. Kesler---MERS has no standing to sue.
Just in case anyone wants to know: The CEO of MERS is R.K. Arnold. He has been deposed and parts of his deposition are now also being used in court cases. ...
http://www.collectorsexposed.com/forum2/index.php?topic=401.0;wap2 - Cached
Calculated Risk: MERS v. Kansas
Oct 4, 2009 ... If the mortgage document says that, most courts will enforce it. There are other cases discussing MERS, some of which provide more general ...
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/10/mers-v-kansas.html - Cached
Nevada MERS Cases Illustrate Standing Requirements for Agents ...
The Nevada Bankruptcy Court roundly rejected MERS' assertions of standing and ruled against it in In re Mitchell, which was designated the lead case for the ...
http://www.abiworld.org/committees/newsletters/litigation/vol7num1/mers.html - Cached
Problems with MERS and Some Recent Wounding of the Company
Jan 28, 2010 ... There have been a number of recent court cases that have also effectively challenged the legal rights that MERS claims it has. ...
http://www.foreclosurefish.com/blog/index.php?id=972 - Cached
DD 9/06/05 MERS stubs its toe trying to foreclose as owner's rep ...
Sep 16, 2005 ... In each case, MERS was listed as a plaintiff or co-plaintiff seeking to collect on a note via mortgage foreclosure. In the end, the court ...
http://dirt.umkc.edu/SEP2005/DD_09-16-05.htm - Cached
Massachusetts Land Court Reaffirms Controversial Ibanez Ruling ...
Oct 14, 2009 ... Oftentimes, as in the Ibanez case, lenders will sell bundles of loan and record .... A recent ARK Supreme Court has said MERS can't be the ...
http://www.massrealestatelawblog.com/massachusetts-land-court-reaffirms-controversial-iban... - Cached
Trouble With MERS
In the case of MERS, the Note and the Deed of Trust are held by separate entities. This can pose a unique problem dependent upon the court. ...
http://www.loanfraudinvestigations.com/mers - Cached
Who OWNS Foreclosed U.S. Properties?, Part II: the role of MERS ...
Oct 26, 2009 ... Mr. Nielson makes a great point and the courts are beginning to wake up to the fact that MERS has no standing in foreclosure cases. ...
http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/407380-jeff-nielson/33036-who-owns-foreclosed-u-s-proper... - Cached
Do You Hear That? It's the Sound of MERS on Life Support ...
MERS Finally Takes a Hit Thanks to the Kansas Supreme Court In case you haven't heard, a Kansas Supreme Court has ruled that MERS has no standing to ...
http://www.foreclosureindustry.com/2010/01/do-you-hear-that-it%E2%80%99s-the-sound-of-mers... - Cached
Homeowners' Rebellion - Could 62 Million
Homes Be Foreclosure-Proof?
A committed movement to tear off the predatory mask called
MERS could yet turn the tide for struggling homeowners
By Ellen Brown
From Yes! Magazine
8-18-10
Mortgages bundled into securities were a favorite investment of speculators at the height of the financial bubble leading up to the crash of 2008. The securities changed hands frequently, and the companies profiting from mortgage payments were often not the same parties that negotiated the loans. At the heart of this disconnect was the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, or MERS, a company that serves as the mortgagee of record for lenders, allowing properties to change hands without the necessity of recording each transfer.
Over 62 million mortgages are now held in the name of MERS, an electronic recording system devised by and for the convenience of the mortgage industry. A California bankruptcy court, following landmark cases in other jurisdictions, recently held that this electronic shortcut makes it impossible for banks to establish their ownership of property titles-and therefore to foreclose on mortgaged properties. The logical result could be 62 million homes that are foreclosure-proof.MERS was convenient for the mortgage industry, but courts are now questioning the impact of all of this financial juggling when it comes to mortgage ownership. To foreclose on real property, the plaintiff must be able to establish the chain of title entitling it to relief. But MERS has acknowledged, and recent cases have held, that MERS is a mere "nominee"-an entity appointed by the true owner simply for the purpose of holding property in order to facilitate transactions. Recent court opinions stress that this defect is not just a procedural but is a substantive failure, one that is fatal to the plaintiff's legal ability to foreclose.
That means hordes of victims of predatory lending could end up owning their homes free and clear-while the financial industry could end up skewered on its own sword.
California Precedent
The latest of these court decisions came down in California on May 20, 2010, in a bankruptcy case called In re Walker, Case no. 10-21656-E-11. The court held thatMERS could not foreclose because it was a mere nominee; and that as a result, plaintiff Citibank could not collect on its claim. The judge opined:
Since no evidence of MERS' ownership of the underlying note has been offered, and other courts have concluded that MERS does not own the underlying notes, this court is convinced that MERS had no interest it could transfer to Citibank. Since MERS did not own the underlying note, it could not transfer the beneficial interest of the Deed of Trust to another.Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a trust deed without ownership of the underlying note is void under California law.
In support, the judge cited In Re Vargas (California Bankruptcy Court); Landmark v. Kesler (Kansas Supreme Court); LaSalle Bank v. Lamy (a New York case); and In Re Foreclosure Cases (the "Boyko" decision from Ohio Federal Court). (For more on these earlier cases, see here, here and here.) The court concluded:
Since the claimant, Citibank, has not established that it is the owner of the promissory note secured by the trust deed, Citibank is unable to assert a claim for payment in this case.
The broad impact the case could have on California foreclosures is suggested by attorney Jeff Barnes, who writes:
This opinion . . . serves as a legal basis to challenge any foreclosure in California based on a MERS assignment; to seek to void any MERS assignment of the Deed of Trust or the note to a third party for purposes of foreclosure; and should be sufficient for a borrower to not only obtain a TRO [temporary restraining order] against a Trustee's Sale, but also a Preliminary Injunction barring any sale pending any litigation filed by the borrower challenging a foreclosure based on a MERS assignment.
While not binding on courts in other jurisdictions, the ruling could serve as persuasive precedent there as well, because the court cited non-bankruptcy cases related to the lack of authority of MERS, and because the opinion is consistent with prior rulings in Idaho and Nevada Bankruptcy courts on the same issue.
What Could This Mean for Homeowners?
Earlier cases focused on the inability of MERS to produce a promissory note or assignment establishing that it was entitled to relief, but most courts have considered this a mere procedural defect and continue to look the other way on MERS' technical lack of standing to sue. The more recent cases, however, are looking at something more serious. If MERS is not the title holder of properties held in its name, the chain of title has been broken, and no one may have standing to sue. In MERS v. Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance, MERS insisted that it had no actionable interest in title, and the court agreed.
An August 2010 article in Mother Jones titled "Fannie and Freddie's Foreclosure Barons" exposes a widespread practice of "foreclosure mills" in backdating assignments after foreclosures have been filed. Not only is this perjury, a prosecutable offense, but if MERS was never the title holder, there is nothing to assign. The defaulting homeowners could wind up with free and clear title.
In Jacksonville, Florida, legal aid attorney April Charney has been using the missing-note argument ever since she first identified that weakness in the lenders' case in 2004. Five years later, she says, some of the homeowners she's helped are still in their homes. According to a Huffington Post article titled "'Produce the Note' Movement Helps Stall Foreclosures":
Because of the missing ownership documentation, Charney is now starting to file quiet title actions, hoping to get her homeowner clients full title to their homes (a quiet title action 'quiets' all other claims). Charney says she's helped thousands of homeowners delay or prevent foreclosure, and trained thousands of lawyers across the country on how to protect homeowners and battle in court.
Criminal Charges?
Other suits go beyond merely challenging title to alleging criminal activity. On July 26, 2010, a class action was filed in Florida seeking relief against MERS and an associated legal firm for racketeering and mail fraud. It alleges that the defendants used "the artifice of MERS to sabotage the judicial process to the detriment of borrowers;" that "to perpetuate the scheme, MERS was and is used in a way so that the average consumer, or even legal professional, can never determine who or what was or is ultimately receiving the benefits of any mortgage payments;" that the scheme depended on "the MERS artifice and the ability to generate any necessary 'assignment' which flowed from it;" and that "by engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity, specifically 'mail or wire fraud,' the Defendants . . . participated in a criminal enterprise affecting interstate commerce."
Local governments deprived of filing fees may also be getting into the act, at least through representatives suing on their behalf. Qui tam actions allow for a private party or "whistle blower" to bring suit on behalf of the government for a past or present fraud on it. In State of California ex rel. Barrett R. Bates, filed May 10, 2010, the plaintiff qui tam sued on behalf of a long list of local governments in California against MERS and a number of lenders, including Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, for "wrongfully bypass[ing] the counties' recording requirements; divest[ing] the borrowers of the right to know who owned the promissory note . . .; and record[ing] false documents to initiate and pursue non-judicial foreclosures, and to otherwise decrease or avoid payment of fees to the Counties and the Cities where the real estate is located." The complaint notes that "MERS claims to have 'saved' at least $2.4 billion dollars in recording costs," meaning it has helped avoid billions of dollars in fees otherwise accruing to local governments. The plaintiff sues for treble damages for all recording fees not paid during the past ten years, and for civil penalties of between $5,000 and $10,000 for each unpaid or underpaid recording fee and each false document recorded during that period, potentially a hefty sum. Similar suits have been filed by the same plaintiff qui tam in Nevada and Tennessee.
By Their Own Sword: MERS' Role in the Financial Crisis
MERS is, according to its website, "an innovative process that simplifies the way mortgage ownership and servicing rights are originated, sold and tracked. Created by the real estate finance industry, MERS eliminates the need to prepare and record assignments when trading residential and commercial mortgage loans." Or as Karl Denninger puts it, "MERS' own website claims that it exists for the purpose of circumventing assignments and documenting ownership!"
MERS was developed in the early 1990s by a number of financial entities, including Bank of America, Countrywide, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, allegedly to allow consumers to pay less for mortgage loans. That did not actually happen, but what MERS did allow was the securitization and shuffling around of mortgages behind a veil of anonymity. The result was not only to cheat local governments out of their recording fees but to defeat the purpose of the recording laws, which was to guarantee purchasers clean title. Worse, MERS facilitated an explosion of predatory lending in which lenders could not be held to account because they could not be identified, either by the preyed-upon borrowers or by the investors seduced into buying bundles of worthless mortgages. As alleged in a Nevada class action called Lopez vs. Executive Trustee Services, et al.:
Before MERS, it would not have been possible for mortgages with no market value . . . to be sold at a profit or collateralized and sold as mortgage-backed securities. Before MERS, it would not have been possible for the Defendant banks and AIG to conceal from government regulators the extent of risk of financial losses those entities faced from the predatory origination of residential loans and the fraudulent re-sale and securitization of those otherwise non-marketable loans. Before MERS, the actual beneficiary of every Deed of Trust on every parcel in the United States and the State of Nevada could be readily ascertained by merely reviewing the public records at the local recorder's office where documents reflecting any ownership interest in real property are kept....
After MERS, . . . the servicing rights were transferred after the origination of the loan to an entity so large that communication with the servicer became difficult if not impossible .... The servicer was interested in only one thing - making a profit from the foreclosure of the borrower's residence - so that the entire predatory cycle of fraudulent origination, resale, and securitization of yet another predatory loan could occur again. This is the legacy of MERS, and the entire scheme was predicated upon the fraudulent designation of MERS as the 'beneficiary' under millions of deeds of trust in Nevada and other states.
Axing the Bankers' Money Tree
If courts overwhelmed with foreclosures decide to take up the cause, the result could be millions of struggling homeowners with the banks off their backs, and millions of homes no longer on the books of some too-big-to-fail banks. Without those assets, the banks could again be looking at bankruptcy. As was pointed out in a San Francisco Chroniclearticle by attorney Sean Olender following the October 2007 Boyko [pdf] decision:
The ticking time bomb in the U.S. banking system is not resetting subprime mortgage rates. The real problem is the contractual ability of investors in mortgage bonds to require banks to buy back the loans at face value if there was fraud in the origination process.
. . . The loans at issue dwarf the capital available at the largest U.S. banks combined, and investor lawsuits would raise stunning liability sufficient to cause even the largest U.S. banks to fail . . . .
Nationalization of these giant banks might be the next logical step-a step that some commentators said should have been taken in the first place. When the banking system of Sweden collapsed following a housing bubble in the 1990s, nationalization of the banks worked out very well for that country.
The Swedish banks were largely privatized again when they got back on their feet, but it might be a good idea to keep some banks as publicly-owned entities, on the model of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. For most of the 20th century it served as a "people's bank," making low interest loans to consumers and businesses through branches all over the country.
With the strengthened position of Wall Street following the 2008 bailout and the tepid 2010 banking reform bill, the U.S. is far from nationalizing its mega-banks now. But a committed homeowner movement to tear off the predatory mask called MERS could yet turn the tide. While courts are not likely to let 62 million homeowners off scot free, the defect in title created by MERS could give them significant new leverage at the bargaining table.
Ellen Brown wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Ellen developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest of eleven books, she shows how the Federal Reserve and "the money trust" have usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her websites are webofdebt.com, ellenbrown.com, and public-banking.com.
Fannie Mae gets tough on homeowners who walk away
The mortgage giant plans to go to court against those who can afford to make their payments but decide it's not worth it. It also will limit their access to future loans.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/24/business/la-fi-fannie-walkaways-20100624
"stop originating nonprime mortgages..."
That's a novel idea... A CEO or other senior type should get a fat bonus for coming up with that.
Dick Milde
Wells Fargo to Cut 3,800 Jobs, Stop Subprime Loans
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704545004575353420225599424.html
Wells Fargo & Co. said it will shut down a unit that makes what the San Francisco bank calls "non-prime" real estate, auto and credit card loans and stop originating nonprime mortgages, eliminating a total of 3,800 jobs.
The third-largest U.S. bank in stock-market value behind J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Bank of America Corp. announced the closing of all 638 Wells Fargo Financial stores across the U.S. Many of the locations are storefronts that drew customers who didn't seek loans through traditional Wells Fargo bank branches.
At the end of March, Wells Fargo Financial had $39.4 billion in secured real-estate and auto loans, or about 5% of the company's total loans of $781.43 billion. About 6.1% of the unit's secured real-estate loans were considered prime, with the rest classified by Wells Fargo as "non-prime," a category considered by analysts to be similar to subprime.
Loan losses rose as the U.S. economy stumbled, but Wells Fargo has said that the performance of the unit's secured real-estate loans was similar to portfolios of prime loans for the overall industry.
"Our network of U.S.-based consumer finance stores, which have historically operated as an independent sales channel from our bank operations, have served customers well for more than 100 years," said David Kvamme, president of Wells Fargo Financial, "but the economics of a separate Wells Fargo Financial channel are no longer viable, especially now that our customers have access to the largest banking and mortgage store network in the United States."
The company said less than 2% of its real-estate loans were originated in Wells Fargo Financial stores in the first quarter.
Wells Fargo said the consumer-finance unit's consumer- and commercial-loan products will be available through the branch network and home-mortgage stores acquired in the company's 2008 merger with Wachovia Corp.
About 2,800 jobs, or 20% of the unit's work force, will be cut in the next 60 days, followed by an additional 1,000 in the next year. Remaining workers will be assigned to other Wells Fargo businesses, according to the company.
The move is expected by Wells Fargo to result in restructuring charges of about $185 million on a pretax basis, including severance costs of $137 million, or two cents a share, in the second quarter. The remaining charges will occur in the second half of 2010, primarily in the third quarter. Wells Fargo said cost savings from the restructuring "are expected to offset these charges in the first year and a half."
lentinman:
especially when viewed back to 06,
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$LUMBER&p=W&st=2006-01-01&en=1913-06-27&id=p73305441565
IMO the housing market and recent spurt in construction both new and remodeling is do to hyped hope, the economy is not getting better.
Being that I am in construction(40+ yrs.) I would relish being wrong, but for the life of me, I cannot find anything solid to build a good scenario on.
The old adage applies "follow the money"
Cash traders indicated that retail dealers and wholesalers aren't completely ready to buy lumber for inventory just yet, but current prices make it worthwhile to run some "what-if" bids by the sellers.
Chicago Mercantile Exchange lumber futures Thursday bounced up from Wednesday's contract lows as investors came in to repurchase previously sold speculative contracts at a profit.
Nearby July settled up $4.10 at $182 for a 2.3% gain. September was $5.80, or 3.1%, higher at $192.80, while November was $3.50, or 1.82%, higher at $195.60.
Traders said the market had become very oversold technically and attractive to buyers.
Cash markets continued to struggle, but there is a little more inquiry about pricing, and a market analyst said this may be what made investors with short positions nervous and sent them into the market to rebuy and lock in their profits.
Cash traders indicated that retail dealers and wholesalers aren't completely ready to buy lumber for inventory just yet, but current prices make it worthwhile to run some "what-if" bids by the sellers.
Further gains could be seen on Friday, but the way the market couldn't hold earlier gains made some wonder if Thursday's action wasn't just a one-day affair.
Dow Jones Newswires published a mill-level price for SPF 2x4s at $180 to $185, unchanged from Wednesday.
As of 15:13 EDT, the July/September spread had traded 81 times in the Globex market in a range from $7.40 to $10.40, premium September, with the last at $10.30 bid.
The September/November spread had traded 115 times in the Globex market from $5.20 to $6.70, premium November, with the last at $6.
Split:
Amazing chart which says a lot!
Len
That's a nasty looking chart...
Does not bode well for housing construction. Another one to watch is copper prices.
Dick Milde
dick, I agree, but
Fannie Mae may be doing those that walk away a favor by banning them for seven years, home prices may be lower! or at least more stable.
personally I think it is more lip service than something that will actually be done.
Needless to say there is a lot of blame
in the mortgage debacle... Requiring homeowners to be more responsible is good start... Why should I pay for someones poor judgment and greed... Along with all the other participants such as bankers, real estate agents, loan officers, appraisers...
I worked hard and put hard earned money as a down payment and continued to make my payments on time. Why should I have to pay for my neighbors house as well ???
Now if we can put some of the crooks in jail we can start to recover out of this mess. But as long as we continue to put more good money after bad into this it will take a very long time.
Dick Milde
Fannie Mae to penalize homeowners who walk away
AP Business Writer / June 23, 2010
WASHINGTON—Government-sponsored mortgage purchaser Fannie Mae is trying to encourage distressed homeowners to find alternatives to foreclosure by banning those who walk away from getting new loans for seven years.
Troubled borrowers who do not try in good faith to work out a deal, but have the capacity to pay, are targeted by the policy announced Wednesday.
"Walking away from a mortgage is bad for borrowers and bad for communities and our approach is meant to deter the disturbing trend toward strategic defaulting," said Terence Edwards, executive vice president for credit portfolio management.
A strategic default occurs when a homeowner stops making payments on a mortgage despite being able to do so. It has become increasingly common in communities where housing values fell sharply and homeowners are "underwater," or owe more than their houses are worth.
Fannie Mae said that in locations where the law allows, it also plans to take legal action to recoup outstanding mortgage debt from borrowers who strategically default. The company plans to instruct its servicers to monitor delinquent loans facing foreclosure and recommend cases to pursue for such judgments.
A spokesman for fellow government-backed mortgage buyer Freddie Mac said its current policy requires at least a five-year wait. Freddie Mac will "take a close look" at the new Fannie policy, said spokesman Brad German. "We'll consider it in light of current market conditions in order to manage our risk as effectively as possible."
Fannie and Freddie were created by Congress to buy mortgages from lenders and package them into bonds that are resold to investors. Together, they own or guarantee almost 31 million home loans worth about $5.5 trillion. That's about half of all mortgages.
The wave of foreclosures affecting Fannie and Freddie loans has caused a major problem for the U.S. government, which effectively guarantees the loans. The government seized control of Freddie and Fannie in September 2008. The two companies have already siphoned $111 billion from taxpayers to stay afloat, and that number is expected to hit $188 billion by fall 2011.
In announcing the new policy, Fannie Mae said homeowners who make a good faith effort to resolve their situation with their mortgage services, and those who have extenuating circumstances, will be eligible for new loans in a shorter time period. The company did not detail how long the wait might be.
Fannie Mae shares fell 1 cent to close at 41 cents. Fannie Mae shares finished unchanged at 48 cents. Both companies plan to delist their shares from the New York Stock Exchange because they don't meet listing requirements that they remain above $1 per share.
Half of all modified mortgages redefault within a year
Wednesday June 23, 2010, 3:44 pm
More than half of all homeowners with modified mortgages fell at least two months behind in their payments a year after the adjustment was made, according to a federal report released Wednesday.
However, the data also shows that modifications made in 2009, which emphasized reduced monthly payments, may perform better.
Only 40.7% of loans modified in the second quarter last year were delinquent after nine months, compared to 51.6% of those adjusted at the end of 2008, according to the report, published by the Office of Thrift Supervision and Comptroller of the Currency.
The quarterly report covers 64% of all mortgages outstanding in the United States -- some 34 million loans totaling nearly $6 trillion in principal balances. It offers one of the most comprehensive looks at the state of mortgages in America.
And modifications made under President Obama's foreclosure prevention program, known as HAMP, also had lower redefault rates than non-government modifications. Some 7.7% of HAMP modifications were delinquent after three months, compared with 11.3% of all modifications.
Under the HAMP program, borrowers' monthly payments are reduced to no more than 31% of their pre-tax income. Borrowers also receive incentives for making timely mortgage payments.
Interest rate reductions were the most common method that servicers used to reduce monthly payments in the first quarter, implementing them in 85.9% of all modifications. Term extensions were used in 46.8% of modifications, while principal reduction was utilized only 1.9% of the time.
Many experts say that servicers must do more principal reduction if they want to halt the foreclosure tidal wave. Homeowners are more likely to walk away if they owe much more than the home is worth, a situation about 1 in 4 borrowers find themselves in.
The report also found that delinquency rates dropped for both mortgage made to credit-worthy and to subprime borrowers. The number of newly initiated and completed foreclosures, however, increased by nearly 19% each.
Short sales increased by 9.2% for the quarter, but 120.4% for the year.
Still, servicers are working with borrowers to help them stay in their homes, the report found. There were 1.7 times as many modifications and payment plans initiated in the first quarter as new foreclosures.
New Home Sales Miss by Most Since at Least 1998; Lowest Reading Ever
Wednesday, June 23, 2010 at 10:05AM
After the March and April readings of new home sales beat expectations by the first and fifth most since 1998, respectively, the May reading came in as the worst versus expectations. As shown below, today's reading of 300,000 came in 110,000 lower than the estimate of 410,000. This 26.83% difference blows away all prior misses.
The next worst reading came in December 2009 at -18.86%. The reading of 300,000 was also the worst on record since 1963! Today's number shatters any argument that the end of the new home buyer credit wouldn't have much of an impact on sales.
charts here........
http://www.bespokeinvest.com/thinkbig/2010/6/23/new-home-sales-miss-by-most-since-at-least-1998-lowest-readi.html
Borrowers exit troubled Obama mortgage program
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration's flagship effort to help people in danger of losing their homes is falling flat.
More than a third of the 1.24 million borrowers who have enrolled in the $75 billion mortgage modification program have dropped out. That exceeds the number of people who have managed to have their loan payments reduced to help them keep their homes.
Last month alone,155,000 borrowers left the program -- bringing the total to 436,000 who have dropped out since it began in March 2009.
About 340,000 homeowners have received permanent loan modifications and are making payments on time.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Borrowers-exit-troubled-Obama-apf-887634101.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=4&asset=&ccode=
Dick Milde
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |