Category Archives: Distressed Property
More Time Allowed for Foreclosure Review Requests
Homeowners who think they may have been financially injured due to the actions of mortgage servicers during a foreclosure have additional time to request a review of their cases. The deadline for the Independent Foreclosure Review authorized by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve originally schedule for April 30 has been extended to July 31.
To be eligible for a review a borrower had a mortgage on the primary residence serviced by a participating company which was in active foreclosure between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010. There are no costs associated with the review.
More information and a list of participating servicers can be found at: www.federalreserve.gov/consumerinfo/independent-foreclosure-review.htm or www.occ.gov/independentforeclosurereview.
Related articles
- Borrowers have until July for foreclosure review (marketwatch.com)
- Judge orders Wells Fargo to face claims of improper disclosure of foreclosure practices (alialawgroupforeclosurenews.com)
- Feds to help borrowers prove foreclosure errors (marketwatch.com)
Obama Housing Plans vs Reality
by Cora Currier
ProPublica, Feb. 14, 2012, 2:36 p.m.
The Obama administration recently unveiled a string of proposals to help struggling homeowners and get the housing market back on its feet — part of the administration’s “We Can’t Wait” election year to-do list. Of course, the White House has made big promises before about helping homeowners, only to see them disappoint time and again.
Here are the latest proposals, whether they are anything new and whether they stand a chance of going anywhere.
President Obama wants to allow homeowners whose mortgages are backed by private-sector companies to refinance at lower rates through the Federal Housing Administration. (The FHA insures many mortgages, and it is not the same as the FHFA, the regulatory agency in charge of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.) The president stressed that the proposal would help only “responsible” homeowners who were current on their payments — to counter Republican complaints that his housing policies reward foolhardy borrowers.
Déjà vu: This is only the latest in a long series of attempts by Obama to help homeowners refinance. There have been a few, minor attempts to push refinancing through the FHA. Via a separate program launched in 2009 that used Freddie and Fannie, more than 900,000 homeowners have refinanced, substantially fewer than the goal of 4 million homeowners.
Will it happen? Unlikely. This plan needs to get through a Congress that is staunchly opposed. “How many times have we done this?” said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Republicans have a number of objections. First, Obama wants the plan to be paid for with a fee on the banks in repayment for the bailout, a tactic that’s raised Wall Street hackles in previous budgets. Secondly, some Republicans balk at passing more risk on to the FHA, which is in danger of having to ask the Treasury for a subsidy for the first time in its nearly 70-year history. Even if the plan passes, its impact would likely be limited. For the Obama administration to instigate mass refinancing without Congress’ help, many say it would need to get Fannie and Freddie on board, a move the companies’ regulator has so far been reluctant to endorse.
Bill of rights
A so-called “homeowner’s bill of rights” aims to make things clearer for borrowers, requiring a standard set of forms and disclosure of fees and conflicts of interests. It also calls for help for those very close to foreclosure, including a right of appeal on the decision to foreclose. (Homeowners have claimed wrongful foreclosure for a wide variety of reasons, and have had little recourse to appeal mortgage servicers’ decisions.)
Déjà vu: This may be just a branding of efforts already under way across different agencies. The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau says it is already developing a set of standard disclosure forms and rules aimed at preventing misleading or fraudulent practices by mortgage servicers. As for an appeal process, Treasury already has a system for complaints about foreclosures, and is reportedly expanding its review process for those denied eligibility for government loan modification programs. Advocates have criticized Treasury’s current review efforts as ineffective. And, separately, federal bank regulators are developing new standards for mortgage servicers.
Will it happen? According the White House’s announcement, a host of agencies that deal with housing will work to enact new rules in keeping with the bill of rights. But right now the bill of rights itself is simply a set of guiding principles that don’t yet have any teeth. (We’ve documented problems with enforcement on similar guidelines.) The Department of Housing and Urban Development and the CFPB did not respond to our queries on exactly how the bill of rights relates to existing efforts.
Loan modification
The administration’s plan to make it easier for homeowners to restructure their loans has two key elements. First, it lays out yet another push on principal reductions, which it argues are central to slowing the rate of foreclosures and stabilizing the market. The move triples the incentive for mortgage insurers, including Fannie and Freddie, to write down the amount owed by struggling borrowers. Secondly, it makes more borrowers eligible for HAMP, the administration’s loan modification program, and also will give some homeowners who were previously denied access to the program a chance to reapply.
Déjà vu: Like refinancing, incentives for principal reduction have been proffered again and again, with mixed success. As we’ve noted, a key obstacle is Fannie and Freddie, which guarantee mortgages and haven’t been willing to take the hit that lowering the amount a borrower owes entails even if doing so would ultimately prevent foreclosures. Meanwhile, HAMP has been beset with a host of enforcement and logistical problems.
Will it happen? As a tweak to an existing program, these changes don’t need to go through Congress. And as we explained last week, the mortgage settlement and these changes may actually breathe life into the disappointing HAMP program. But for principal reduction, the question remains: Will Fannie and Freddie give their OK? Without that, only a portion of homes in the U.S. could qualify.
Foreclosures to rentals
This plan takes foreclosed homes where mortgages were backed by Fannie and Freddie and sells them to investors who will put them on the market as rentals. Obama claims this will help heal neighborhoods blighted by empty buildings and evictions, and give a boost to real-estate sales.
Something new: This has been in the works since August 2011, and the Federal Reserve touted it recently as an important process, though Chairman Ben Bernanke cautioned it was no “silver bullet” for the housing market.
Will it happen? It’s already started, though it’s just an experiment for now. It will go through the FHFA, so it doesn’t need congressional approval. The FHFA has already put out its first call for investors for the pilot phase.
Senators Slam Freddie on Bets Against Homeowners
ProPublica, Feb. 9, 2012, 6:17 p.m.
Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., had sharp words for Freddie Mac‘s investment practices and conflicts of interest at a Senate Banking Committee hearing Thursday.
The senator’s concerns came in the wake of aProPublica and NPR report that Freddie, the giant taxpayer-owned mortgage company, had made concentrated investments in complex mortgage securities that benefited from the inability of homeowners in high-rate mortgages to get refinancing. During the same period, Freddie also made it harder for people to get refinancing. Freddie said the decisions were separately made and that there was a firewall between them.
“I don’t understand why you make a bet that you can largely control the outcome of, and want your bet to lose,” Menendez said. “I think that’s against human nature, so I’m not quite sure these firewalls exist in a way that aren’t affecting policies. And that’s a problem.”
Speaking earlier to NPR, the senator called the investments “outrageous.”
The issue is heating up in Washington. On Tuesday, 10 senators sent a letter to Edward DeMarco, the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the regulator that oversees Freddie Mac, calling the report “deeply troubling.”
“If the inability of homeowners to refinance their homes enhances Freddie Mac’s bottom line, this is especially troubling,” the letter said. “Freddie Mac exists to support the housing market, and it should not have a financial incentive to make it more difficult for struggling homeowners. Such actions by Freddie Mac are contrary to the best interests of American homeowners, sound economic policy, and its mission.” (Read the full letter.)
And the inspector general for the FHFA confirmed Wednesday that it is looking into Freddie Mac’s investments. “We currently have an open evaluation on capital markets, which encompasses this issue. We’ll know more when the evaluation is completed,” the government watchdog said.
Separately, Freddie Mac’s chief executive, Charles Haldeman, disputed the ProPublica and NPR story in a piece on the American Banker’s website.
“The major claim is that Freddie Mac worked against homeowners’ ability to refinance in order to boost the performance of specialized securities that make up roughly 1% of our investment portfolio,” Haldeman wrote. “This is just not true.”
He added: “The securities in question helped us protect the value of our investment portfolio and reduce our need for taxpayer support.”
ProPublica and NPR’s story did not actually claim that Freddie’s efforts to tighten mortgage standards were done to boost the investment value of its securities, called “inverse floaters.” The story reported that decisions to limit credit were made at the same time that the company ramped up its investments, but the story said there was no evidence that the two actions were coordinated. As the story noted, Freddie says there is a strict firewall between the two businesses.
Related articles
- Freddie Mac Bets Against U.S. Homeowners (avidlawblog.wordpress.com)
- Senator Demands Answers from Freddie Mac’s Regulator (propublica.org)
- Freddie Mac, Deutsche Bank Caught Up in Securities Allegations (news.firedoglake.com)
- Freddie Mac CEO Gives The Real Reason Why They’re ‘Betting Against Homeowners’ (businessinsider.com)
Why Millions Won’t Get Help From Big Mortgage Settlement
ProPublica, Feb. 9, 2012, 5:25 p.m.
The Obama administration is billing today’s $25 billion agreement between most states and five banks that engaged in flawed or deceptive practices as a big win for struggling homeowners.
Most of the money in the settlement isn’t a penalty, or a fine levied on the banks. Instead, the biggest slice of the settlement will be money banks put toward principal reduction — reducing the amount owed by struggling or underwater borrowers. (Banks will also put smaller amounts toward refinancing and other ways of helping people get back in control of spiraling debt.)
Getting a break on their mortgages could help the millions of homeowners who owe more on their home than it is worth. But many of them won’t qualify — thanks to government-owned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The two mortgage companies, who were bailed out by the government in 2008, were described by former Obama economic advisor Jared Bernstein as “the boulder” in the way of principal reduction. Their federal regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, is tasked with maximizing profits from the companies — and thus minimizing taxpayer losses. The head of the agency, Edward DeMarco, argues that allowing principal reductions would result in a big loss for Fannie and Freddie and ultimately taxpayers.
The two companies aren’t directly part of the settlement. They don’t service mortgages, or deal directly with borrowers. But Fannie and Freddie do guarantee or own roughly half of the mortgages in the U.S. They also hold more than 3 million of the nation’s nearly 11 million underwater mortgages. Since Fannie and Freddie are backing the loans — and are the ones who will take a loss if the mortgage isn’t paid back in full — they often have a veto on whether homeowners get a break.
Even if Bank of America, for example, services your mortgage, you would not be eligible for principal reduction if Freddie or Fannie back it.
Principal reduction is being pushed heavily by the Obama administration as a way to lower the rate of foreclosures. The administration recently tried to encourage Fannie and Freddie by offering to triple incentives for principal reduction. So far, the companies and their federal overseer, DeMarco, have declined to do so. An FHFA spokesperson said that the agency is “not a party to the agreement. We await a copy of the agreement to determine its implications.”
Lowering the amount of money owed on a loan would result in at least short-term losses for Fannie and Freddie, as well as to any other investors in mortgages that are reduced. But many economists and analysts argue that Fannie and Freddie would ultimately benefit since such moves could help restore the health of the housing market as a whole.
The reluctance by Fannie, Freddie and others to take on principal reduction is partly why the administration’s mortgage modification programs have been so ineffective.
The settlement does have potential benefits for future borrowers, including new protections and disclosures to prevent what Attorney General Eric Holder called “abusive practices” by the mortgage industry.
A small portion of the overall settlement — about $5 billion — will amount to penalties for past abuses by the banks. Some of it will go to state governments that were afflicted by banks’ shoddy practices, and some of it will go directly to about 750,000 homeowners who were foreclosed upon. If you lost your home, you could get up to $2,000.
Related articles
- Mortgage Settlement: Do the Big Banks Owe You Money? (usnews.com)
- Treasury Investigates Freddie Mac Investment – New York Times (nytimes.com)
- New Twist in Democrats’ Push for Mortgage Debt Relief (blogs.wsj.com)
- Administration Revamps HAMP to Reach More Borrowers (mainstreetresolutions.com)
- Freddie Mac betting against some homeowners (bottomline.msnbc.msn.com)
- What settlement will and won’t do for homeowners (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
Administration Revamps HAMP to Reach More Borrowers
The Obama administration has announced changes to its flagship foreclosure prevention initiative – the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) – which officials say will expand its reach to more distressed homeowners.

Among the changes, borrowers who are struggling because of debt beyond their mortgage will be eligible for a secondary evaluation with more flexible debt-to-income criteria, and eligibility will be extended to investor-owned homes that are used as rental properties.
The administration is also giving principal reductions a bigger role within the program, tripling incentives for investors that agree to write down an underwater borrower’s principal and offering these same incentives to the nation’s two biggest mortgage investors – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The deadline for HAMP will be extended for an additional year through December 31, 2013.
(developing story)
*Additional details have been provided in a blog post by Tim Massad, assistant secretary for financial stability.
Related articles
- Reduce amount due on mortgage, or grant a short sale? (besthouses2go.wordpress.com)
- Secret Docs Show Foreclosure Watchdog Doesn’t Bark or Bite (mainstreetresolutions.com)
- What went wrong with mortgage aid? (georgegmiller.wordpress.com)
- Fixing the Housing Market: The Principal of the Matter (avidlawblog.wordpress.com)
- Obama loan modification program moving slowly (marketwatch.com)

