(function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-NHW25TH'); window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);} gtag('js', new Date()); gtag('config', 'G-BPZENKSMDF');

Archive | James H MaGee

RSS feed for this section

Attacks on foreclosure attorneys – a newer industry gathers steam with “robosigners” and “foreclosuregate” despite forecast of 2 million foreclosures per year.

"Foreclosuregate" and "robo-signers" seem to be words fading from the public lexicon, although in September and October 2010, such words dominated business media.

"Robosigners" were individuals who signed vast numbers of foreclosure related documents (usually, affidavits for those states requiring bank affidavits in the processing of a foreclosure). The vast number of documents signed per month by such individuals begged the question of whether such individuals were truly signing and reviewing the foreclosure related documents and affidavits.

"Foreclosuregate" was the general name given to foreclosures that may have been flawed – either because the foreclosure was done with "robosigner" documents or was subject of some other technical mis-procedure.

Banks, their employees and their outsourced employees rushing "robosigned" documents through a foreclosure court (in those few states requiring a judge’s signature or judicial proceeding to foreclose – Washington state is not one of these states) may be undesirable, but perhaps understandable. Over 2.25 million foreclosures are expected in 2010, and 2 million more expected in each of 2011 and 2012. Many of these homes are abandoned – and many more involve owners who could not afford any mortgage payment whatsoever, so for that subgroup, even a modification is not plausible.

Perhaps three questions should be considered before the cheers grow to burn the foreclosure lawyers and the banks at the stake: First, did or did not the homeowner borrow funds to purchase a home? Second, did or did not the homeowner fail to make the payments? Third, what is to be gained by giving someone a "free house" by alleging technical procedural problems in a foreclosure?

Perhaps the most widley recognized consumer advocate attorney pursuing banks is O. Max Gardner, III, a Shelby, N.C. attorney. Mr. Gardner offers a "bootcamp" to lawyers to teach bankruptcy litigation techniques. Mr. Gardner is referenced the the October 16, 2010, NY Times article of Barry Meier – see link below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/16/business/16legal.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=foreclosure%20mess%20draws%20in%20the%20filing%20lawyers,%20too&st=cse

Round Two: Countrywide/Bank of America now attacks those from whom it purchased loans. See my earlier post: “Round One: Bank of America under attack for selling lousy mortgages to investors Pimco Bonds and Black Rock”

First off, many kudos to Joe Nocera of the NY Times, the source of much of the info and inspiration in this post in his 11/27/2010 article:

"Liar Loans" a/k/a "stated income" loans were the forte of Countrywide, which may come to represent the dirtiest of all the subrime lenders. However, other companies also made stated income loans, in all fairness, and stated income loans have been around in one form or another since the 1980s.

However, Countrywide went around looking to purchase the "stated income" loans made by other companies, banks and lenders.

To help you understand this "behind the scense" squabbling between the banks and government, I quote from Stephanie Strom’s November 27, 2010, NY Times article:

"Take, for instance, that litigation between Countrywide and the Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation (Ginnie Mae). For some time now, the mortgage insurer has refused to pay claims on thousands of stated-income loans it insured, on the unsuprising grounds that the loans were fraudulent at their inception and thus violated the terms under which the company insured them. In December, Bank of America (Countrywide) filed suit on behalf of its Countrywide unit, arguing, in effect that it doesn’t matter whether the loans were fraudulent. Since the insurer never asked for income verification – and accepted the fact they were stated income loans – it has to pay up. (Nearly a year later the litigation is just getting started.)

Now contrast that stance with Countrywide’s (B of A’s) effort to force smaller mortgage originators to buy back loans it had purchased. In these cases Countywide makes the exact opposite argument: because the loans were made fraudulently, the smaller companies have an obligation to buy them back. [ ]

Thus, when it serves Countrywide’s purposes (now owned by B of A) to argue that everyone knew the loans were fraudulent, it happily makes that case. But when it is better served by arguing that it is shocked – shocked! – to discover gambling in the casino, it makes that opposing argument wtih similar ease. Isn’t that the dictionary definition of hypocrisy?"

See "The Give and Take of Liar Loans", by Joe Nocera, NY Times Saturday, November 27, 2010.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/business/27nocera.html

Many Kudos to Joe Nocera – a nicely written article!

Round One: Bank of America under attack for selling lousy mortgages to investors Pimco Bonds and Black Rock

Investors are mad, hopping mad, and Bank of America (and others) are in the crosshairs. Between 2004 and 2008 B of A assembled some $2 trillion in mortgage securities, and sold many of them off to investors, including Pimco and Black Rock, large money management companies.

These angry investors want to shove the cruddy mortgages down Bank of America’s throat.

This Nelson D. Schwartz October 20, 2010 NY Times Article is telling:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/business/20bond.html

"But while the human toll of the foreclosure crisis has grabbed the headlines, the fight over how these loans were created in the first place could last much longer and ultimately cost the banks much, much more. And it is setting the stage for a huge battle between mortgage holders like the government (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae), hedge funds and other institutional investors on one side and teh big banks on the other. ‘It’s very serious said Glenn Schorr, an analyst with Nomura Securities. ‘The numbers are all over the map’ If the Fed and the investors succeed, it could cost Bank of America billions of dollars. On Wall STreet and in bank boardrooms,the question of whether investors can force banks to buy back, or "put back" bad mortgages to the banks that sold them is dominating the debate and worrying analysts, money managers and banking executives."

"The danger posed by angry – or opportunistic – investors ‘putting-back’ mortgages to the banks is hardly limited to Bank of America. Other giants like Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase face similar claims, and [on approximately October 14, 2010] JPMorgan set aside $1.3 billion just for the legal costs, including put-backs"

Countrywide magnate pays $67 million – Angelo R. Mozilo former CEO pays to settle civil fraud case brought by SEC

Gretchen Morgenson of the NY Times reports on October 16, 2010:

"…the settlement by Mr. Mozilo is the fist time that a prominent executive has been penalized personally for financial excesses linked to a mortgage boom that, when it went bust, threatened to topple the economy and led to an unprescedented wave of foreclosures."

"Earlier this year, Goldman Sachs paid a $550 million fine to setle securities fraud charges. Securities regulators are also investigating former senior executives at Merrill Lynch for possible securities fraud."

The SEC sued Mr. Mozilo alleging that he improperly generated profits on insider stock sales, and that he allowed "toxic" loan products to move forward, knowing them to be toxic.

Countrywide (acquired by Bank of America) is to pay $20 million of Mr. Mozilo’s settlement. Mr. Mozilo has also agreed to never again serve in a public company. (Note: Big fat deal – he is 71 years old and recorded gains on stock sales of over $140 million on Countrywide stock and for years was among the highest-paid executives in America – and was known as an audacious and flamboyant financier)

The settlement was reached four days before the scheduled beginning of a jury trial in Los Angeles.

Other Countrywide employees sued by the SEC (and whom settled) were David Sambol (former Countrywide president, paying 5.52 million) and Eric Sieracki (former Countrywide chief financial officer, paying $130,000).

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/16/business/16countrywide.html?scp=1&sq=Lending+Magnate+Settles+Charges+for+%2467+million&st=nyt

Dying man’s last wish: that you learn how to effectively invest – see “The Investment Answer” by Gordon Murray

Mr. Gordon has brain cancer. He is going to die, soon. Mr. Gordon used to sell expensive "actively managed" financial products that rarely, if ever, beat the market. Mr. Gordon feels poorly about this, and he wants you to learn how to avoid people like him who want to eat up all of your investment results through expensive actively managed mutual and bond funds.

Mr. Gordon wrote a book, it is called "The Investment Answer", co-written by Daniel C. Goldie.

If you are now earing more money, or have had your debts relieved, you should now have more funds to put away for your future.

Please consider reading Mr. Murray’s book.

You can get an overview of his book from the Saturday, November 27, 2010, NY Times article by Ron Lieber:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/your-money/27money.html

Housing prices will not return to previous levels for 13 years – commercial space could be vacant for 10 years – NY Times

Median house prices have dropped 20 percent since 2005. Given an inflation rate of about 2 percent – a common forecast – it would take 13 years for housing prices to climb back to their previous levels – and that assumes no further value/price drops.

In Atlanta, the Southeast’s tallest building, the Bank of America tower, is one-fifth vacant – and the B of A just wrestled a rent decrease from the developer of the building.

In Cherry Hill, NJ, 10 percent of the houses on the market are so-called short sales, in which sellers ask for less than they owe lenders.

Commercial vacancies are soaring, and it could take a decade to absorb the excess in many of the largest cities. The commercial vacancy rates (end of June 2010) stand at 21.4% in Phoenix, 19.7% in Las Vegas, 18.3% in Dallas/Fort Worth & 17.3% in Atlanta, according to data firm CoStar Group.

According to the NY Times’ MIchael Powell and Motoko Rich’s October 13, 2010, article, "Some of the homes being offered at distressed prices are dragging down prices for less troubled homeowners who hope to sell. And with [some] foreclosures in disarray, the market could be further weakened."

"Even someone who is trying to sell a normal, well-maintained house is at the mercy of these low prices," said Walter Bud Crane, agent with Re/Max of Cherry Hill, NJ, as uoted by Powell and Rich.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D06E7DC173EF930A25753C1A9669D8B63&scp=1&sq=Across+the+U.S.%2C+a+Long+Recovery+Looks+Much&st=nyt

Gold, gold, gold – religion, politics and voicing lack of confidence – but is it an investment?

I grew up in "gold bug" days of the late 1970s and early 1980s. There was even a gold mine up the street from my home during the mid 1980s (no joke!).

Nevertheless, I have never owned any gold. But I find gold fascinating.

Here is an article for you that I found interesting, it is Floyd Norris’ NY Times article from Friday, November 26, 2010 (Black Friday!) about investing in gold.

Gold is perhaps more of a statement than an investment, is what Mr. Norris points out. Read on, and I hope that you are as fascinated as was I. The article gave voice to feelings I held since I was a youngster 12-13 years old trying to understand Howard Ruff’s "How to Proposer in the Coming Bad Years" a popular book in the late 1970s early 1980s – which was a popular title in the hard-hit apple-belt of Wenatchee, WA, where I grew up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/business/26norris.html

Charity Ripoffs: Charity Navigator seeks to help you avoid “ineffective charities” in your annual donations

An "ineffective charity" is the name given to a charity which consumes a substantial portion of its gifts and donations in management and administration fees. The charity is thus "ineffetive" at serving its intended beneficiaries.

The organization Charity Navigator seeks to guide you towards more effective charities that truly benefit the intended recipients of your donated funds. www.charitynavigator.org

There is one caveat to Charity Navigator raised by critics of Charity Navigator – a focus placed solely on an a charity’s organizational expenses may shortchange some worthwhile charities. Focusing solely on (a) how much an organization spends of fund raising and (b) the ratio of administrative costs to their overall revenue may end up giving an undeserved poor rating to some worthy charities, critics counsel.

"By focusing on administrative costs,’ said Sean Stannard-Stockton, a consultant on philanthropies, "it encouraged donors to steer resources toward organizations pushing everything into the cause rather than investing in people with expertise, new technology and other things that make a nonprofit strong." As quoted by Stepanie Strom, NY Times, Saturday, November 27, 2010, "To help Donors Choose, Web Site Alters How It Sizes Up Charities"

Charity Navigator is growing more sophisticated in response to these critics, reports Ms. Strom of the NY Times. Over the next three years, Charity Navigator plans to add evaluations of a nonprofit’s accountability and transparency to its ratings, as well as research on its impact and research by other organizations, reports Ms. Strom, so it would appear that Charity Navigator is still a good "starting point", and is going to continue in its relevancy over the coming years.

Oly about 35% of donors do any research before making a gift, and only 10% use a service like Charity Navigator as their primary source of information about nonprofits, according to research by the firm Hope Consulting, reports Ms. Strom in her 11/27/10 NY Times Article.

The best $20.00 you may spend this year: The National Consumer Law Center’s “Guide to Surviving Debt”

Don’t wait..don’t walk…don’t meander…but RUN!!!! to your computer and buy this book: "Guide to Surviving Debt", by the National Consumer Law Center, with principal author Deanne Loonin. See www.consumerlaw.org to order it directly from the NCLC.

What is the National Consumer Law Center? It is a group of people who care about you! "NCLC is the nation’s expert on the rights of consumer borrowers. Since 1969, NCLC has been at the forefront in representing low income consumers, before the courts, government agencies, Congress, and state legislatures. [] NCLC publishes nationally acclaimed series of manuals on all major aspects of consumer credit and sales" – Excerpted from the 2010 edition of "Guide to Surviving Debt".

Frankly, how can you go wrong with a book that offers the following chapters (this is just a sampling, not an exhaustive list of the 21 Chapters of the 493 page "Guide to Surviving Debt"):

-Choosing which Debts to Pay First

-Establishing a Budget

-What You Need to Know About Your Credit Report – How to Obtain a Home Mortgage with a Blemished Credit Report

-Credit Counseling and "Debt Relief" Companies

-Responding to Debt Collectors

-Collection Lawsuits

-Mortgage Workouts

-What You Need to Know About Your Mortgage

-Defending Your Home From Foreclosure – Your Rights in the Mortgage Foreclosure Process

-Utility Terminations

-Automobile Repossessions – Your Rights When the Creditor Makes a Mistake

-Student Loans – Pros and Cons of Consolidation and Rehabilitation

-Many, many more topics and chapters beyond just the preceding!!!!!

Here are some of the "Guide to Surviving Debt" reviews, excerpted:

"A gold mine on topics like how to handle collectors, which debts to pay first and how collection lawsuits work" – U.S. News and World Report

"Great advice, from the nation’s experts, on how to pull yourself out of debt." – Jane Bryant Quinn

This book has been around for many years, but is updated every couple of years, with the most recent udpate completed for 2010. Prior editions were completed for 1992, 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2008. Make sure you nail down the 2010 edition.

This book is helpful to me as an attorney (even though it is clearly written for "the man/woman on the street") – because it is so well written in its approach. It really tells you step #1, step #2 etc, in its "what to do/what not to do" approach, that you will find much assistance.

This book is great. Even if you should file bankruptcy with our office, when your bankrutpcy is all done, gone and settled, I can assure you that you will find helpful info that will keep you out of bankruptcy court again.

University of Phoenix – “for profit” school – criticized by Bill and Melinda Gates’ education advocacy group “The Education Trust” – U of Phoenix produces low graduation rates and leaves students saddled with huge student loans

The National Consumer Law Center’s 2006 publication "Student Loans" (see also the 2009 Supplement) pointed out that for-profit schools signed up many, graduated few, but left most all (graduated or not) saddled with substantial student debt which experienced much higher default rates than student loans originated by students attending non-profit public and non-profit private colleges and universities.

Consequently, it was no suprise to me when the NY Times reported on Wednesday, November 24, 2010, that the Education Trust (a non-profit research and advocacy group) which is a Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded organization, released a report entitled "Subrime Opportunity" which charges that such for-profit schools like the University of Phoenix deliver "little more than crippling debt" citing federal data taht suggests only 9 percent of the first-time, full time bachelor’s degree students at the Univeristy of Phoenix, the nation’s largest for-profit college, graduate within six years.

I quote from Tamar Lewin’s 11/24/2010, NY Times Article (page A18) "Report Finds Low Graduation RAtes at For-Profit Colleges": "…only 22 percent of the first-time, full-time bachelor’s degree students at for-profit collees over all graduate within six years, compared with 55 percent at public institutions and 65 percent at private non-profit colleges. Among Phoenix’s online students, only 5 percent graduated within six years, and at the campuses i Cleaveland and Wichita, Kansas, only 4 percent graduated within six years.[]…for-profit students graduate with so much more debt than community college students. Many either default on their loans, or struggle to make payments but find that their lives are taken over by debt. In a separate study also released Tuesday [11/23/10], the Pew Research Center reported that almost one-quarter of those who received bachelor’s degrees at for-profit schools in 2008 borrowed more than $40,000, comapred with 5 percent at public institutions and 14 percent at not-for-profit state colleges."

Interesting, Mr. Lewin points out that (as perhaps a sign of subtle protest) Melinda Gates resigned from the board of the Washington Post Company, which gets most of its revenues from its for-profit higher-education unit, Kaplan, Inc. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/education/24colleges.html?