ABI Bankruptcy Blog Exchange » Finance & Law for Not-So-Dummies

Finance & Law for Not-So-Dummies: Instant Transfers, Instant Profits (for Banks)

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:00:00 -0800

In the Banking sub-sector of Financial Services, there is a process in effect which will make the Banking business substantially more profitable, although at the risk of cutomer dissatisfaction. "Check21" is a 1year old law that banks to accept checks as EFT (Electronic Funds Transfer) debits to the customer, and EFT credits to the bank. This eliminates "float" for all practical purposes (the time people writing checks had ffom paying a bill or buying something and the time when it actually posts to the customers' account.) You won't have the 1 day's grace when you write a check until it clears.
When ATMs and POS terminals were first introduced in the early 1980s, there was an insufficient infra-structure to support the wide-spread use of them and to generate their true value. Many transactions were simply captured electronically and still processed in "batch". Checks were still checks with float. Now, with the internet providing the connectivity needed, banks can move to eliminate checks as we know them. Even mail order/bill pay by check services are processing checks as EFT occurrences. With the first significant upward movement of interest rates, the issue will become moot. All transactions will be electronic.
Checks in the clearing process take 1-2 days ("float") to be processed, or possibly longer if it is a "foreign" item. For every $100 million in float, and for each 1% increase in the rates being paid or earned by a bank, for each day of float the difference amounts to $1 million dollars annually. Assuming rates move back to 5% from the current 0.5% in 2-3 years, and a large bank has $1 billion in float for 1 day, there is $45 million per year in earnings, either gained/retained or lost. Further, the cost in manpower and technology to process the incoming & outgoing checks and other items is staggering.
In the mid 1980s I wrote a paper on this issue for a Mutual Savings Bank trade publication. Remember that those were the days of 10%-15% interest. Even a $2 million per day float cost $200,000-$300,000 a year. Seems small now but it was not then. The issue preventing the change to all electronics was the lack of the internet. Every device had to be a direct connection; even the ATMs were on dedicated lines. That obstacle is gone. Add to the equation the fact that checks cannot be processed faster without them ending up shredded in the machines, and the machines need time to read the manually typed numbers that reside on the bottom of items showing the amount of the transaction.
Currently there is a debate in COngress about Bnaks' fee income - overdraft charges, ATM fees, etc. Fee income is the line item all Banks are trying to get; there is no risk like there is in loans. A move to all EFT debits and credits, such as checks, deposits and charges, will result in instant profits for Banks. But then again, so have 30% interest rate credit cards.

Finance & Law for Not-So-Dummies: Interesting Interest Rates

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:00:00 -0800

30 Year Home Mortgage Rate Hits 17% Prime Rate at 16%+ Savings account interest reaches 12% Ancient post depression history NO - 1982

The graph above shows the history of the Prime Rate (interest rate charged to a bank's least risky and best customers) - compare those rates to what you pay for credit cards, auto loans, and mortgages, for a real eye-opener Here is a little chart of the Fed Funds Rate (the interest rate the Federal Reserve Banks charge member Banks to borrow - single day loans), the 30 Year Mortgage Rate, the Daily Savings Account Rate, and the 1 Year CD Rate (all averaged for the respective year) :

1982: Fed Funds 12.25% Mortgage 17% Savings 12%

1989: Fed Funds 9.17% Mortgage 11% Savings 8.5%

1995: Fed Funds 5.9% Mortgage 7.9% Savings 4.75% 1 Year CD 7%

2000:Fed Funds 6.42% Mortgage 8.1% Savings 5.5% 1 Year CD 6.625%

2005:Fed Funds 3.33% Mortgage 5.9% Savings 2.35% 1 Year CD 3.25

2007:Fed Funds 5.04% Mortgage 6.3% Savings 4.25% 1 Year CD 4.9%

2008:Fed Funds 1.85% Mortgage 6% Savings 2.5% 1 Year CD 2.5%

2009:Fed Funds .25% Mortgage 5.1% Savings 0.5% 1 Year CD 2%

Why are all of the numbers important? They show the level of inflation, the cost to consumers for borrowing, and perhaps most significantly, the profit the banks are making on money. For example, in 1982, while mortgages were 17% plus points, banks were being charged 12.25% by the Fed and paying 12% to depositors. Keep in mind that a deposit in a bank is nothing more than a customers loan to the bank for the rate of interest being paid on the savings account or CD.

At that time, there was a 5% margin between the cost of money and the rate that could be charged to consumers for a mortgage. The MARGIN narrowed to 2%+/- for the next 27 years; then at the height of the crisis, the margin grew to 5% again. So, in inflation and in recession, the Banks made the same margin. Rates were so stable that savings bank bankers were called "3-6-3" bankers: take it in at 3% (savings deposits) lend it out at 6% (mortgage) and go home at 3 (afternoon) (That was the time before securitization of mortgages).

There are two lessons to be gleaned from the figures other than the fact that Banks make money: 1. When the Cost of Funds (to Banks) is low Banks charge what the market will bear. It is a "free market", unlike the regulated days of the 60s and 70s, and Banks can take advantage of this era. 2. The current interest rates are so low, that as to Banks, there is almost free money. This will not stay so cheap for Banks.

With the interest rates so low, and Banks making 5% on mortgages, and more than 3% on Prime Interest Rate loans (the rate charged to the best customers (those with no risk of default - like GM, right?) why are Banks charging 19%-30% for credit card debt? This is the primary debt for consumers beyond a mortgage. The Banks are making an obscene 15% to 25%+ on the average borrower's credit card balance!!
What is worse, in anticipation of the new laws which prohibit card issuers from arbitrarily raising interest rates because of a one time-one day late payment, or because a payment was a day late on A DIFFERENT CARD, Interest Rates on credit cards have jumped 10%-20% and credit limits have been reduced by 50%-75%.

The next post will deal with the profits being made by banks in real dollar terms. Why is any of this important? The so-called recovery is only in the financial markets. Unemployment is soaring, the dollar is weak (to be explained next post) and the average consumer has seen no relief. Oh, and in case anyone has missed the news, foreclosures are still going strong.

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, November 2009[www.isacofflaw.com]

Finance & Law for Not-So-Dummies: A Note About "Notes"

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:00:00 -0800

The Judge said if you can't prove you own the loan/mortgage, then you don't get any money! The October 25th edition of the New York Times reported on a very important legal case brought in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Attorney David Shaev had filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy (repayment plan) for clients facing imminent foreclosure. In the process he discovered that no entity could prove it owned the loan on his clients' home. Judge Robert D. Drain then determined that the lack of proof of ownership by anyone of the loan meant the homeowners did not have to pay "the mortgage" at all. He erased the debt!

The servicer of the loan, PHH Mortgage, was left without any defense. In theory, it was just sending statements and collecting checks for the owner, supposedly U S Bank. Unfortunately for the bank and PHH, there was no proof of who actually was entitled to the monthly payments. It was not a situation where the Promissory Note (the I.O.U. to the Bank) was presented with several parties claiming it was theirs. What is worse, the ownership had been transferred several times, but no one had the assignment (proof of the sale) showing that PHH or U S Bank was the owner - or any other party to the action. You can be certain that the case will be appealed.

THIS IS DIFFERENT from the current street wisdom of "Gee, if they don't have the ORIGINAL note, then I get my house for free". As is often the case, the street is not very wise. In the New York case, no proof of current ownership was provided. No one was questioning whether there was a loan, just the right of U S Bank or PHH to foreclose. Neither one could even show an assignment, the legal document that transfers ownership of a note from one party to another, to either PHH or U S Bank.

If there was an assignment, the issue of the Promissory/Mortgage Note itself would have become an issue. However, even if the original note was lost but a copy could be presented with the assignment, ultimately that would have been good enough , in most states. In litigation there is what is called the "best evidence rule". Simply put, a copy, if it can be authenticated, is acceptable. Authentication would happen in trial or deposition quite simply; the bank's lawyer would ask Mr. Jones, the owner:

"Mr. Jones, do you own the house located at 123 Elm Street, Blackacre, USA?" (in case Mr. Jones wants to lie, the attorney would have a certified copy of the deed and recording information to prove Mr. Jones "owns" the house).
"Mr. Jones, did you ever borrow money to purchase or refinance the house?"
"Mr. Jones, is this a copy of your current mortgage?" (again, the lawyer would have a certified copy, just in case).
"Now, Mr. Jones, would you examine the document I am handing to you and read the title." (unless he cannot read, or it really does state something different, Mr. Jones would answer "Promissory Note" or Mortgage Note" or something similar).
"Mr. Jones, please look at the signature line on the bottom of page 2. Please read aloud the name typed under the signature line" (it will be "Mr. Jones" in this example).
"Do you recognize the signature?"
" Is that your signature?" (meekly "Yes" says Mr. Jones)
"Thank you Mr. Jones" (unsaid, "you have just authenticated the copy as being the note that obligates you to make payments in order to keep you house in Blackacre")

The loss of an original is not the end of the world, or more importantly, the DEBT. The foreclosing Bank not having the right to claim that it owns the note is the end for that proceeding. The right is proven only with the note (or authenticated copy) AND an assignment to the current owner , if there was a sale of the mortgage.

Confusing? Not in principle. The Bank needs to PROVE it owns the mortgage or has been given the right to foreclose by the real owner, and has to PROVE who is the real owner. No proof, no foreclosure (but no free house)!

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, November, 2009

Photo Credit: [www.ebaumsworld.com]

rii@isacofflaw.com
[www.isacofflaw.com]

Finance & Law for Not-So-Dummies: Money Money Everywhere But....

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:00:00 -0700

The money supply to Banks is there. Interest rates for Bank borrowing is still near 0%. But, homeowners are now subject to much tighter rules for borrowing because the Banks follow the BOOK, or in this case the Federal Reserve Regs. As a result, home mortgages are MORE DIFFICULT to get than anytime in the past decade or two.

There are new rules to try to reign in the high-cost, so-called "subprime" predatory loans. As of October 1st "High Cost Loans" have a new definition: any loan that is "1.5 percentage points" above the average prime mortgage rate. (Note: that is not the prime rate mortgage index but a prime rate mortgage - a mortgage given to a "prime borrower" or a so-called "a" borrower - great credit). If a loan is a "high-cost loan" under the new definition lenders must verify that the borrower can repay the loan through earnings and other income, not simply by a foreclosure or refinance.

That rule may not appear to be a departure from the "old" way but it is. The crisis we are still in was caused by some large lenders/brokers making loans to anyone who could pass a basic screening:"Can you hear thunder and see lightning?". Greedy and ignorant brokers/lenders would often give loans to borrowers without requiring any proof of the borrowers ability to pay.

Sometimes the borrowers knew exactly what they were doing and did not care - they gambled that the market for houses would keep rising and that they could refinance their way out of any problem There were no verifications of employment or verifications of deposits send. No bank statements showing a steady balance, for the self employed were requested, and often, for employed borrowers, W-2 copies were ignored or not sought.

Basically, the new rules that the Federal Reserve has put into effect as of October 1, 2009, merely force lenders/brokers AND borrowers to do what they should have been doing all along. That borrowers would fabricate income and lie on applications was ignored, or even encouraged.

Some states, like Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and a handful of others across the country have already put regulations in place that make the lender/broker certify that the loan is in the best interests of the borrower. In fact, Massachusetts REQUIRES this criteria be met for high cost loans, as defined by the Commonwealth General Laws. Also, many states, Massachusetts among them, have enacted legislation or have had the highest court in the state rule that certain threshold questions (like can the borrower repay and is does the loan lower payments or allow for home improvements, or lengthen the term) must be met on a refinance before the lender/broker can consider itself safe from violating such laws. UNFORTUNATELY, many of the National Banks, and some Savings Institutions governed by the Office of Thrift Supervision, claim that state law does NOT apply to them.

The Federal Reserve Rules also state, in part, that Prepayment penalties are banned if the mortgage payment can change in the initial four years of the loan. For other higher-priced, mortgage loans, a prepayment penalty period cannot last for more than two years. (this is the link to the 65 page Regulation:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/reportforms/formsreview/RegZ_20080109_ifr.pdf

Banks have over-reacted so NO MONEY TO HOMEOWNERS. Foreclosure proceedings are still climbing. The worst may not be over for the average homeowner who has a financial problem, or a first-time home buyer who does not have a high (700s) credit score.

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, October 2009

[www.isacofflaw.com]
rii@isacofflaw.com

Finance & Law for Not-So-Dummies: Good News/Bad News - Is There a Difference?

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:00:00 -0700

Foreclosures are up 23% from the end of the 3rd quarter last year. Foreclosures are up 5% from the end of the second quarter this year. If the numbers continue, this year will have more foreclosures than any before. THAT'S THE GOOD NEWS!

With all of the money given (loaned) to banks, and with the likes of JPMorgan Chase having a profit for the last quarter of $3,600,000,000 ($3.6 Billion), having doubled the amount of money it has planned on for loan losses, you might think that there would be money for you to borrow to refinance your house (after all your credit is good ), or borrow for your business. WRONG - THINK AGAIN! Banks are bracing for the next wave of losses; commercial real estate mortgage backed securities failing because the loans that make up the securities are defaulting. Additionally, because of the financial crisis we are still in, the "normal" way of making loans will not work.

In the April 13th posting (and several others), the whole issue of securitization was explained. The basics: agree to buy a large number of mortgages so that the value, on paper, of what the security maker controls is huge, like $1 Billion. Rather than holding the loans in any Bank, and risking borrowers not paying the mortgage regularly, sell the loans in a package (pool) to investors on Wall Street; investors like mutual funds, individuals, pensions, and of course the Federal Government. So now the $1 Billion portfolio is owned by thousands of people, plans etc. The security eliminates the risk of loss for all of the banks involved in making the loans, because no bank owns one of the actual mortgages - not one. Investors, not lenders/banks, each own a small portion of the pool. Again, they own a security, that acts like a corporate bond, but not a mortgage.

Because of the recent losses and the enormous rise in foreclosures, no one wants to buy these mortgage-backed securities ("MBS"). If no one will buy them, then they will not be created, because the creator does not want to get stuck with a long-term investment (pooled mortgages). If they are not being created, the banks will not lend; even to good borrowers. THIS IS THE BAD NEWS.

There will be no real recovery until credit is available again. The government's mortgage lenders FannieMae and FreddieMac, FHA, have new and very strict guidelines. If you have a blemish on your credit report, NO LOAN.

Businesses use borrowed money all of the time to keep operations running, to buy new equipment, and to expand. If banks won't lend to them, the business shrinks and dies. More jobs are lost, and not just at that business. if people lose work, then they cannot spend money and other businesses fail. That is the cycle we are in for unemployment. And more unemployment means more defaults on mortgage payments, and that means more foreclosures.

The new Bank regulations that will require banks to keep more money set aside for bad loans, and the fact that only the Federal Government will buy the existing MBS and not new ones, means that Banks will not make loans, except to the very best customers. The noose gets tighter and tighter. The recent run-up of the stock market is not a reflection of consumers’ and "Main Street" types’ (us) confidence. The profits are being made by traders, Wall Street professionals, and companies like JPMorgan Chase.

So, the very kinds of investments, the MBS or pools of mortgages, that allowed the housing boon, has led us to the housing boom - it’s imploded. Breaking the cycle we are in will take time; actually a great deal of it

Finance & Law for Not-So-Dummies: "Making Home Affordable" Program Is Not Working

Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:00:00 -0700

The Obama administration's Making Home Affordable program, you know the one to stop foreclosures on millions of homes, is missing the mark. As was reported in the New York Times by Peter Goodman in today's edition, "The Congressional Oversight Panel, created last year to keep tabs on taxpayer bailout funds, said the Obama administration’s program would prevent fewer than half of predicted foreclosures." (To read his full story go to http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/business/10modify.html ).

Mr. Goodman's article discusses the overriding problems with the program, but does not deal with the situation from a day-to-day point of view. In reality, the Obama Program, as it is called, (which is really named Making Home Affordable ("MHA"), and has under it two programs - Home Affordability Modification Program "HAMP" and the Home Affordability Refinance Program "HARP") does not accomplish the goal of home preservation.

Basically, if a homeowner is behind now, but was current as of January 1, 2009, and meets other criteria, the homeowner should be eligible for a loan modification. The modification allows the participating lender to set up a 3 month trial period wherein the borrower makes affordable payments based on actual financial information submitted to the lender, after which the lender can decide to modify the loan or not. The terms are dictated by the lender and may not ever become permanent.

The most disturbing part of the situation is that homeowners are going into foreclosure at a record rate, and the programs at best are being outpaced by the foreclosures by 3 or 4 to 1. Elizabeth Warren, head of the TARP Oversight panel, estimates that even when everything is working at full speed, the programs will lose the battle against foreclosure schedules by 2 to 1. The honest homeowner who "bought" a mortgage without really understanding the terms and was sold "a bill of goods", like thinking he/she had a 30 year fixed mortgage when in reality the rate changed after 3 years, has no recourse.

The lenders, Wall Street folks, and investors, who pushed and packaged these loans, and now do not want to take any loss of income, are not being held accountable. They still have no risk of loss. Taxpayers, meaning the homeowners who are in trouble, are the ones paying the entire cost of the programs, YET CANNOT EVEN GET HELP IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES.

With the jobless rate being reported at near 10%, which means it is probably over15% (people off benefits and not looking anymore are not reported), and layoffs continuing, more and more people will be a situation where foreclosure is inevitable. The MHA could work, but not without the full cooperation from the lenders and mortgage servicers. With no one being in charge to enforce ACTIVE participation in MHA, and there being no regulator with teeth to force compliance, the people who own the loans will not allow the programs to work. They will lose money if modifications become permanent. Guess who wins this battle.

For now, it's the only game in town. If you are facing foreclosure, apply for an MHA program. Once it's determined you are eligible, any foreclosure action is put on hold while your application is considered.

(A correction from 9/28/2009 post: I incorrectly stated that Rep. Barney Frank was from Western MA. He is, of course, from Eastern MA)

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, October 2009

rii@isacofflaw.com
www.isacofflaw.com

Finance & Law for Not-So-Dummies: Credit Cards - Rep. Barney Frank's Frustration (Mine Also)

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 07:00:00 -0700

Rep. Barney Frank (D), Congressman from Western MA, wants to "push up" the effective date of the new Credit Card regulations. He is prompted by the frenzy of card issuers raising rates, cutting limits, changing terms, and adding fees, all to beat the starting date of the laws. The laws merely set limits on how and how often card companies can change the terms of the agreement you have with them, without prior notice.

The standard argument, that there is no contract unless both sides agree, is not able to be put forth, because in the agreement you signed originally you gave the company the right to make all of these changes, even to your detriment. Is it fair? NO!, Is it legal? Yes, but only until the first of the year.

Congressman Frank's frustration is understandable, especially if you have a card and have been "slammed" by the card company with rates and fees you never anticipated. That these same companies, CitiBank, Bank of America, Chase, all have Federal Money from the bailout is beside the point. As stated in an earlier post, this is how they were able to report record earnings last quarter.

Congress will not change the date to October as Congressman Frank wants, but at least the issue is again being discussed. Unfortunately, the Congressman may suffer a decline in his credibility with his colleagues, but he will have a boost from his constituents.

Right now, everyone should be examining his/her cards and statements to determine if the terms have suddenly changes, if rates are higher, credit limits lower. If you need a card try a local financial institution. If none issue cards, shop for a new one, if yours is not playing fair. Be certain that you read the "Agreement and Terms" disclosure that will be your contract, BEFORE you use the card. Do not hesitate to decline the card even after it is issued to you. Be certain however, that you follow the rules on terminating the relationship or you could find an open credit line, detracting from your credit score, all the while believing that the card account was closed.

To be safe about credit, whether it is cards, loans, mortgages, joint accounts, "authorized user" cards (where the credit is based on someone else who has given you a card to use), get at least one credit report every six months. They are free from [www.annualcreditreport.com] .
Check to be certain that only the cards you use are open. Close everything else. While there may be a slight drop in your credit score (see posts of 7/27/09 and 6/11/09), the risk is far less than if you have unused and unwanted open credit lines affecting your score and overall credit standing.
Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, September, 2009
rii@isacofflaw.com [www.isacofflaw.com]

Finance & Law for Not-So-Dummies: Foreclosures; Another Shoe is Dropping

Wed, 23 Sep 2009 07:00:00 -0700

Currently, in the City of Pittsfield, MA, there are 190 properties in some stage of foreclosure; 69 are currently in default, 30 are Bank owned, 16 are awaiting a foreclosure sale date, and the rest are in some part of the process (such as sale completed but deed not yet recorded or waiting for the sale with a date set).
For a city the size of Boston, or Atlanta, or even Springfield, MA, that number might not be worthy of note, but in a city of 40,000, to have 190 HOMES in some state of being taken from the homeowner is alarming. What is more concerning is the fact that there is no action on the part of the city to assist those homeowners in trouble. There are no meetings inviting homeowners to learn how to protect their home which is probably their biggest investment; the local community college, which offers courses and seminars in all types of subjects, has no offerings to educate homeowners about how to avoid the common pitfalls that lead to defaults and foreclosure. There isn't even a hotline that is well publicized, that a homeowner in trouble can call to get emergency legal assistance/counseling.
What is most disturbing is that the situation in Pittsfield is not the exception, but the rule. This issue pervades the country and, yet, because we have moved to a new news cycle, gets no attention anymore. The stock market is nearing 10,000 again; the dollar is low so exports are high; oil is over $70/barrel but not too much; gold is over $1,015 per ounce but that is because of the weak dollar; inflation is under control; and the Federal Reserve is continuing to give the banks cheap money to lend. The fact that it isn't being loaned to consumers or small businesses also goes undetected.

We are facing a real housing crisis. As has been commented on and explained in earlier postings, the next wave of adjustable rate increases is about to hit - the so-called Option-Arms, were "prime" borrowers could get a mortgage, and pick a payment for the month. Well, that period of pick as you may is starting to change. Most had that scheme for 3-5 years. The 3 year period is beginning to end (2006-2008) was most of the activity, so we will start to see loans that have to have PRINCIPAL & INTEREST PAID each month for the remainder of the loan term (27 years generally). That will be coupled by a rate increase of 2%-3%, based on the contract (mortgage documents).

So, will the better qualified borrowers start to default and hit the statistics as a "property in foreclosure"? Not all of them but YES, many will! Keep in mind that many of these borrowers no longer have the jobs they did when they got the loan, or hours have been cut, or the second job is gone, or there is no overtime. This will start another decline in home prices and cycle of panic.

Mortgage lending has already slowed to a trickle of what it was. That is not all bad, but when people cannot refinance or buy a new home, even when they have a steady job and decent income, but only a 670 credit score (680 being the line between prime/regular and the evil sub-prime borrower) we have a major problem.

In many areas, local banks and credit unions are trying to fill the void, but the demand is greater than the supply of loans. And, many institutions have new financial requirements to meet per FDIC, OTS, OCC and the rest of the alphabet; the locals have little to lend on anything but the best prime loans.

One hidden factor regarding the recovery of home prices and the market: banks that have foreclosed on homes, many homes, are NOT putting them on the market for sale, hoping for a recovery in pricing and not wanting to flood the market and further depress prices by increasing the supply of "existing" homes beyond the demand.

So much for the good news!

Finance & Law for Not-So-Dummies: More On Modfications - The Borrowers' Hidden Costs

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 07:00:00 -0700

Mortgage Modification, as stated in earlier posts, can mean anything from allowing a late payment without a fee attached to it, or reducing interest and principal substantially. Unfortunately, most are closer to the deferred penalty than a true modification of terms which will allow the borrower to keep their home.

In today's USA Today, there is a brief analysis of the business of mortgage modifications. The article "Many mortgage modifications push payments higher" by Stephanie Armour, recites the history of 2 borrowers, but details the problems with the program. [www.usatoday.com]

The MHA (Obama) program concentrates on lowering payments. This is accomplished by lowering the interest rate, and, if necessary, extending the term of the loan to 40 years, so that the payment of principal, interest, taxes and insurance, is no more than 31% of the borrowers gross income each month. HOWEVER, the amount of principal owed can actually increase substantially in the process. Per USA Today's quote of government studies "Of loans modified from Jan. 1, 2008, through March 31, 2009, monthly payments increased on 27 percent and were left unchanged on an additional 27.5 percent, according to a recent report by banking regulators." Dismal? Yes! The light might be that the new program, MHA, will do better.

For a borrower that has fallen 6 months behind with his/her $1,500/month payment, accumulated interest, penalties, late fees and other costs, such as legal and inspections, all get added to the amount ultimately owed by the homeowner. In this example, that translates to a minimum of $14,000 added to the amount owed. This in turn would normally increase the monthly payments so a balance has to be reached, generally by adjusting the rate.

NOTHING IS FREE as we all know. Many of these mods (common slang now for mortgage loan modifications) are fixed for only 5 years, and can then adjust. The mod itself creates a new Adjustable RateMortgage ("ARM"). Is this just postponing the inevitable foreclosure? Maybe so - but at least there is a chance for the borrower (who can find new/additional employment, and can clean up his/her credit score, and can make every payment on time) to keep the house by a refinance at the 5 year adjustment period.

Other issues with modifications. There are a number of agencies, well-intended, which help borrowers at risk for foreclosure, to get a modification. The thought there is that by postponing the foreclosure at least the borrower has an opportunity to keep the house. One of the problems here is that many of these agencies are ill-equipped to go toe-to-toe with a mortgage company, be it the servicer or the actual lender. To many of the agencies, any modification is better than none - right? MAYBE!! If the agency is funded by getting modifications done, it can turn into a numbers game. A modification completed is one towards the quota for funding. Keep in mind that a modification can be simply delaying 2 or 3 payments until the end of the loan, or even creating a balloon payment at the end of the term of the loan.

Well, some may say, at least the borrower kept the house for a few more years. Well, I say, "SO WHAT"? The modification should give the borrower a real shot at keeping her/his home for as long as she/he wants.

Recapping, we have a federal program that was put into place for loan mods - fixes - to allow homeowners, who are facing imminent foreclosure or who will be falling behind over the next several months because of a job cut or an UPWARD MORTGAGE INTEREST RATE ADJUSTMENT, to keep their homes. The program allows the mortgage industry, company by company to participate or not. There is only one standard program and that is the Making Home Affordable ("MHA") plan.

Lenders can opt to modify any way they would like to, and are doing so, especially to those borrowers who do not qualify for MHA. The modification may be detrimental to the borrower in the long term but who cares? CreditSights, which is a firm that tracks such matters, states that of the more than 1/2 million mods this year, 90% have resulted in higher principal balances. Good? Bad? It would seem that just adding back interest and fees to a delinquent loan is not good. It seems and is counter-intuitive, and counter to success. It is a short term fix - a band-aid.

HERESY but perhaps there are those who would be better-off losing the house that is a constant struggle to pay for, month after month, year after year. Maybe some homeowners would be better-off losing a house, regrouping and getting finances straight, renting for a few years and saving money each month for a down payment on a house that is affordable.

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, September, 2009

rii@isacofflaw.com
[www.isacofflaw.com]

Finance & Law for Not-So-Dummies: Mortgage Modificiations To Get More Difficult?

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 07:00:00 -0700

Countrywide, now part of Bank of America was one of the major lenders to sub-prime borrowers (that only means a credit score below 680 (or 640 depending on the day). It also packaged and sold the loans it originated, as Mortgage-Backed Securities ("MBS"). It continued to service the loans (collect money and send bills from and to borrowers) and was paid by the owners of the MBS to do so. The owners were just investors - they bought $xxxxx of a bond, not any different than if they bought a corporate or municipal bond.

When the mortgage/housing crisis hit, in large part due to Adjustable Rate Mortgages ("ARM") there was tremendous pressure on the Servicers, of which Countrywide was one, to MODIFY loans so that they were affordable for the borrowers. Some servicers modified loans, which they may or may not have been permitted to do in their contract, called a Pooling and Servicing Agreement ("PSA"), with the "packager"/"owner" of the bond. Countrywide modified loans and then, ignoring its PSA, refused to re-purchase the loans that had been modified by lowering the interest rates or even putting payments at the back of the loan. In simpler terms, Countrywide altered the amount of interest the owners of the MBS would receive.

A federal court ruled that Countrywide's motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against it by the investors would not succeed. The Court stated that the case was one which should be brought in State Court, the the modifications were not protected by the recent legislation and Congressional acts to force lenders and servicers to modify loans. Basically, the Court said that if there is a contract, Countrywide must observe it - any quarrels with that belong in a state court on a case by case basis. No "get out of jail card" was given to Countrywide.

WHY DO YOU CARE? Because Servicers, if they aren't protected when they make modification from the investors, who expect a certain percentage return, will refuse to modify citing the Court ruling but relying on the contract they made, and arguing that they cannot breach the contract! This means more difficulty getting Servicers, which are not participating in the Federal program to modify loans, now for fear of a lawsuit.

This issue was brought up months ago and detailed in my posts of 10/25/2008 and 11/9/2008 -
[finance-for-us.blogspot.com] and [finance-for-us.blogspot.com].

This just points out the disconnect, the lack of communications and an efficient coherent policy to deal with the foreclosures. Maybe Congress would act if it the home of a member!!

Author's Copyright by Richard I. Isacoff, Esq, August 2009
[www.isacofflaw.com]
rii@isacofflaw.com