Robo-signing is defined as the signing of thousands of foreclosure documents by people who never read or checked the documents for errors. It was created by banksters who follow the creed of Dire Straits, i.e. money for nothing.
* * * * *
A new government program was created supposedly to assist homeowners in mortgage trouble. The Department of Housing and Urban Development created the Emergency Homeowners' Loan Program. However, instead of a program to help everyone who needs it, it is a lottery system to help just a sampling of those about to lose their homes.
Larry Summers recently wrote in a Reuters article that "there must be a clear and unambiguous commitment that whatever else happens, the failure of major financial institutions in any country will not be permitted."
It would be useful if all Too Big To Fail banks were intervened by the FDIC, but we have already seen what happens when we simply give money to banksters with no conditions, as Summers and Treasury Secretaries Hank Paulson and Tim Geitner previously did: no increase in lending and enormous bonuses for bank management.
The government is only willing to help a small slice of ordinary Americans, chosen at random, yet every last banker should be saved, according to Summers
One expects to see Summers in a late-night television commercial similar to the ones seen from Christian charities like Feed The Children: "You cannot expect bankers to live on less than one million dollars per day. Look, this one is forced to wear last year's clothes and drive last year's Bentley. Please donate generously so that bankers can live the life they deserve!"
* * * * *
Reuters' article, Special report: Banks continue robo-signing, further illustrated why we need to break up all of the large banks.
Reuters noted that "regulators left it to the banks to oversee their own internal investigations." Where have we heard that before?
I have personal experience with large banks with my soon-to-be-foreclosed house. Every time I call, I receive a different answer on certain questions. One agent snottily told me that they do not care if my property has been vandalized, yet the next one said they did care. A number of agents asked for a HUD Statement, yet that makes no sense until the process finishes in a closing; closing costs are dependent on the selling price and other factors. Sounds like a training issue; management has failed, yet again.
The bank customer service people have told me a number of times, so I think it is probably true, that their bank is only a loan servicer: Fannie Mae is making all of the decisions. Fannie Mae was one of the financial entities responsible for the recent crash and now they are a major barrier on the road to recovery.
Fannie Mae has created a catch-22 with its procedures. It requires that borrowers hire a real estate agent to list their house for 90 days before a short sale can be approved. However, in this dismal market, real estate agents do not want to pay for the listing fees unless there is a realistic chance the property will sell in the near future. And Fannie Mae is not in a hurry, to say the least, so at some point real estate agents will reconsider the wisdom of listing those properties.
And the same process is demanded for borrowers wishing to execute a deed in lieu of foreclosure, i.e. giving the house back to the bank.
The deed in lieu process is where Fannie Mae has really blown it. Someone willing to give the house back to the bank just wants to salvage as much of their credit as possible, given that a deed in lieu is better than a foreclosure in this respect. A deed in lieu is much better for the bank as well, because there are far fewer shyster fees to pay.
The catch-22 continues when the real estate agent finally realizes that it is not cost-effective to continue to list the property, e.g. at the end of the summer when buyers stop looking for homes for the most part. If the property is not listed, Fannie Mae will no longer consider a deed in lieu and therefore the property is destined to end in foreclosure.
I tried to explain this to the bank customer service agent, but he curtly replied that the bank was operating under Fannie Mae rules; if I did not like it, I should contact my congressman.
All of the above stems from securitization; we did not have this problem in the old days when the bank who issued the loan kept it until maturity.
Most borrowers would be surprised to realize that their financing paperwork does not restrict banks from selling their mortgages to banks using overseas servicers and/or call centers. If you think the foreclosure process is bad now, just wait until your bank's customer service department is in India.
Ban the reselling of mortgages now and prevent Wall Street from packaging loans together to create obtuse investment products solely for their financial gain.
* * * * *
A new government program was created supposedly to assist homeowners in mortgage trouble. The Department of Housing and Urban Development created the Emergency Homeowners' Loan Program. However, instead of a program to help everyone who needs it, it is a lottery system to help just a sampling of those about to lose their homes.
Larry Summers recently wrote in a Reuters article that "there must be a clear and unambiguous commitment that whatever else happens, the failure of major financial institutions in any country will not be permitted."
It would be useful if all Too Big To Fail banks were intervened by the FDIC, but we have already seen what happens when we simply give money to banksters with no conditions, as Summers and Treasury Secretaries Hank Paulson and Tim Geitner previously did: no increase in lending and enormous bonuses for bank management.
The government is only willing to help a small slice of ordinary Americans, chosen at random, yet every last banker should be saved, according to Summers
One expects to see Summers in a late-night television commercial similar to the ones seen from Christian charities like Feed The Children: "You cannot expect bankers to live on less than one million dollars per day. Look, this one is forced to wear last year's clothes and drive last year's Bentley. Please donate generously so that bankers can live the life they deserve!"
* * * * *
Reuters' article, Special report: Banks continue robo-signing, further illustrated why we need to break up all of the large banks.
Reuters noted that "regulators left it to the banks to oversee their own internal investigations." Where have we heard that before?
I have personal experience with large banks with my soon-to-be-foreclosed house. Every time I call, I receive a different answer on certain questions. One agent snottily told me that they do not care if my property has been vandalized, yet the next one said they did care. A number of agents asked for a HUD Statement, yet that makes no sense until the process finishes in a closing; closing costs are dependent on the selling price and other factors. Sounds like a training issue; management has failed, yet again.
The bank customer service people have told me a number of times, so I think it is probably true, that their bank is only a loan servicer: Fannie Mae is making all of the decisions. Fannie Mae was one of the financial entities responsible for the recent crash and now they are a major barrier on the road to recovery.
Fannie Mae has created a catch-22 with its procedures. It requires that borrowers hire a real estate agent to list their house for 90 days before a short sale can be approved. However, in this dismal market, real estate agents do not want to pay for the listing fees unless there is a realistic chance the property will sell in the near future. And Fannie Mae is not in a hurry, to say the least, so at some point real estate agents will reconsider the wisdom of listing those properties.
And the same process is demanded for borrowers wishing to execute a deed in lieu of foreclosure, i.e. giving the house back to the bank.
The deed in lieu process is where Fannie Mae has really blown it. Someone willing to give the house back to the bank just wants to salvage as much of their credit as possible, given that a deed in lieu is better than a foreclosure in this respect. A deed in lieu is much better for the bank as well, because there are far fewer shyster fees to pay.
The catch-22 continues when the real estate agent finally realizes that it is not cost-effective to continue to list the property, e.g. at the end of the summer when buyers stop looking for homes for the most part. If the property is not listed, Fannie Mae will no longer consider a deed in lieu and therefore the property is destined to end in foreclosure.
I tried to explain this to the bank customer service agent, but he curtly replied that the bank was operating under Fannie Mae rules; if I did not like it, I should contact my congressman.
All of the above stems from securitization; we did not have this problem in the old days when the bank who issued the loan kept it until maturity.
Most borrowers would be surprised to realize that their financing paperwork does not restrict banks from selling their mortgages to banks using overseas servicers and/or call centers. If you think the foreclosure process is bad now, just wait until your bank's customer service department is in India.
Ban the reselling of mortgages now and prevent Wall Street from packaging loans together to create obtuse investment products solely for their financial gain.
0 comments:
Post a Comment