Blog Archives

In 2009 Bank Regulators Adopted Guidance on Prudent Commercial Real Estate Loan Workouts

Posted on December 2, 2009 by Louis F. Strawn

Bank Regulators Adopt Guidance on Prudent Commercial Real Estate Loan Workouts

On October 30, 2009, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) issued a policy statement that was adopted by the OCC, the Fed, the FDIC and the Office of Thrift Supervision as Guidance on Prudent Commercial Real Estate Loan Workouts (FFIEC’s Guidance under the OCC Bulletin 2009-32).  The policy replaced the Interagency Policy Statement on the Review and Classification of Commercial Real Estate Loans that banks have been operating under since November 1995.  (For a copy of the policy statement, see our earlier posting [link].)

OVERALL TONE
The overall tone of the Guidance is to provide prudent but pragmatic guidance on risk assessment, allowing financial institutions in the present environment to actively engage in CRE workouts without undue fear of reclassification by examiners.  For example, the Guidance states:

“Financial institutions that implement prudent loan workout arrangements after performing a comprehensive review of a borrower’s financial condition will not be subject to criticism for engaging in these efforts, even if the restructured loans have weaknesses that result in adverse credit classification.”

While there are a few hard and fast prohibitions in the OCC bulletin, as a general matter its cornerstone is flexibility and pragmatism in working out distressed commercial real estate credits. Institutions are encouraged to consider both the asset and Borrower/Sponsor capacity for repayment of the credit.

The Guidance establishes protocols encouraging institutions to apply prospective, “forward thinking” to the cash flow analysis of distressed real estate projects.  Additionally, it discourages “second guessing” by examiners on such items as assumed cap rates, lease renewal assumptions, lease-up periods and other forward looking market conditions. The Guidance also reinforces, and in some cases clarifies regulatory and GAAP reporting requirements.

KEY POINTS

The Guidance includes the following key points:

  • Renewed or restructured loans to borrowers who have the ability to repay their debts according to reasonable modified terms will not be subject to adverse classification solely because the value of the underlying collateral has declined below the loan balance.
  • In general, renewals of maturing loans to responsible borrowers who, because of the present financial crisis, cannot locate a source of refinancing, should not suffer adverse classification.
  • Separating a single loan into an “A/B” note structure (with impairment and/or non-accrual hitting the B note only) receives a regulatory “stamp of approval” under appropriate circumstances illustrated in the Guidance.
  • Troubled debt restructuring (TDR) contains a two-prong test in which both prongs must be met: (a) the borrower is experiencing financial difficulties (examples of what this means are provided in attachment one of the Guidance) AND (b) the lender grants a concession that it would not ordinarily grant except for the status of the real estate and/or economic conditions.
  • Fair value” vs. “Market value” – Fair value is still required under impairment situations (pursuant to FASB 114) and for properties deemed to be TDR. “Market value” (i.e. predictable future values) can be considered if consistent with the facts and circumstances of the workout.
  • Clarifies Allowances for Loan and Lease Losses (ALLL) calculations utilizing fair value; existing guidance remains in place.
  • The concepts of “market interest rate” become of paramount importance in: (i) classifying or reclassifying the credit, (ii) going on or off of accrual basis, and (iii) booking losses (examples of what is considered and not considered “market rate” are illustrated in Attachment One to the Guidance).  Market interest rate calculations should:

    - Take a forward-looking view at the cash flows, rent rolls and property type analysis

    - Be influenced by the credit quality of both the borrower and the real estate

    - Be adjusted (positively or negatively) by the existence of quality loan guaranties utilizing current financial information

  • “Interest only” concessions for periods beyond one year in order to allow the property’s cash flow to service the debt will be frowned upon, and likely not deemed “market.”
  • Generally “second guessing” by examiners is discouraged and will be viewed as inappropriate in the analysis of certain specified forward-looking circumstances.
  • Overall, the Guidance encourages bank institutions to be proactive and forward thinking in applying their analytics at the property level.

In summary, the Guidance stresses the need to examine each commercial real estate loan on its own merits; examining borrower, sponsor and guarantor credit and payment capacity, as well as the current and projected quality and durability of asset level cash flows.  The examples contained in Attachment One to the Guidance demonstrate that this process will inevitably involve subjective judgments.  Although there is a definite change of tone, the regulatory construct remains fundamentally unchanged.

It will be interesting to see how banking institutions and their examiners react to the October 30th announcement.  Given the general and subjective nature of the subject matter, and that guidance is provided largely through examples, implementation may well prove to be uneven among banking institutions.

As we move into the next phase and begin to work with the Guidance, we encourage you to share your comments and experiences.

Treasury Unveils Do-It-Yourself NPV Assessment

By: Carrie Bay

The U.S. Treasury on Monday announced the launch of a Web-based tool that allows homeowners themselves to conduct a net present value (NPV) assessment of their mortgage.

As part of a borrower’s evaluation for the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), servicers perform an NPV test to determine if modification is a more financially sound route to take than allowing the loan to proceed to foreclosure.

Oftentimes, the reason a homeowner is denied a HAMP modification is cited as “failed NPV.”

Treasury says homeowners who are turned down for the federal modification program can use the new tool – available at CheckMyNPV.com — to compare their own result against that of their servicer.

Homeowners may also use the site, prior to applying for a HAMP modification, to conduct an NPV self-evaluation using the same underlying formula required of HAMP servicers.

Treasury notes, though, that “due to differences in input data and other industry-related data referenced by the formula, users are informed that CheckMyNPV.com provides only an estimate of a servicer’s NPV evaluation and is intended for use only as a guide.”

Homeowners can complete their net present value calculation in around 15 minutes. The website, which also offers a detailed FAQ document, is designed to be a self-service, self-education tool to encourage homeowners to learn more about HAMP and the NPV evaluation process.

Treasury is encouraging homeowners to share the information provided by the site with their servicer and discuss the factors considered in the NPV evaluation to explore all foreclosure prevention options.

Mortgage Fraud Up 44% in First Quarter: Report

By: Heather Hill Cernoch, 5/17/2011

The first three months of 2011 saw a 44 percent increase in the volume of mortgage fraud case activity, according to industry data released this week. The cases reported represent fraud on an estimated $1.2 billion in real estate loans, rising from $0.9 billion in the final period of last year.

These are the latest findings of the first quarter Mortgage Fraud Index from MortgageDaily.com. The index is based on mortgage fraud case activity tracked at the mortgage fraud blog FraudBlogger.com.

The index, which climbed to 990 from 126 in the fourth quarter of 2010, was still lower than 1,144, which was recorded for the first quarter of 2010.

“We’re seeing signs that repurchases are responsible for some of the latest increase,” said MortgageDaily.com founder and publisher, Sam Garcia. “Smaller firms that are forced to buy back loans from housing agencies or correspondent lenders are doing their own investigations and uncovering more fraudulent activity.”

Florida had the highest index at 130 followed by California and New York. California had the highest dollar amount with nearly $0.3 billion in mortgages associated with first-quarter case activity.

“The average quarterly index peaked in 2009 at 1,676 while loan delinquency also topped out that year,” Garcia said. “But subprime mortgage production peaked in 2005, suggesting an average lag time of around four years from when the actual fraud occurred to when the criminal case is prosecuted.”

According to Mortgage Daily, the report indicates that prosecution of mortgage fraud occurs around four years after the crime.

WAMU Predatory Lending Practices: “Stated Income & No Doc” Pay Option ARMs

Posted on April 29, 2011 by Patrick

We, of The Diligence Group, usually make it our practice to steer severely clear of writing articles that do not strictly educate or inform.  Nor do write articles that have a political bent.  Today, however, is an exception.

I recently read an article about the “recently revealed” predatory lending practices of WAMU; practices that we have been exposing via our reports for some time.  According to the article, WAMU made it its mission in life to sell as many Pay Option ARMs as possible, frequently holding internal focus groups to brainstorm marketing activities, and providing additional financial rewards to loan officers who sold Pay Option ARMs to an unsuspecting and uninformed public, in abundance.

Excerpts of an article written by the Palm Beach Post state:

“One loan officer told a congressional committee last year that he expected the majority of homeowners with Option ARMs to sell or refinance before their payments increased.  That became impossible as the real estate market imploded.

Another favorite Washington Mutual loan was one that required no proof of a borrower’s earnings.  The so-called “stated-income” loans were ripe for fraud and perpetuated by rewards given to loan personnel, the report surmises.

“Because of the compensation systems rewarding volume versus quality and the independent structure of the originators, I am confident at times borrowers were coached to fill out applications with overstated incomes or net worth to meet the minimum requirements,” said Jim Vanasek, Washington Mutual’s chief risk manager during a congressional hearing last year.”

From what we at The Diligence Group have been seeing via our investigations, and hearing from homeowners, WAMU loan officers coached no-one relative to the completion of  their loan applications, but simply filled in the blanks themselves, submitted the loans to underwriting for rubber-stamped approval, and eagerly awaited with sweaty palms, the  arrival of cash upon the loans closure.  We recently performed an initial, pre analysis review for a borrower who hails from Brazil and who is a Naturalized US Citizen.  He was shocked to discover that the WAMU  loan he received was not a 30-year fixed rate product, but a Pay Option ARM that has the capacity to increase his mortgage balance to 115% of his original loan amount.  His mortgage balance has already increased over $43,000 in the five years that have elapsed since the closure of his loan, a loan balance that rises steadily with each mortgage payment he makes.  What is horrifying is that this man represents but one drop of water in a veritable sea of borrowers who were targeted, by WAMU, for predatory financing.  He has attempted to modify his loan several times and has received the same disgraceful “Who’s on First?” addle, incompetent, and nonsensical treatment as every other homeowner in America who is trying to modify their mortgage.

What this underwriter considers particularly vexing, is the apparent lack of reasonable recourse that is available to the American Mortgage Consumer, and total lack of responsible government oversight.  I mean, how is it possible that a customer who is burned by a hot cup of coffee in a McDonalds restaurant, is awarded millions of dollars in compensation for “pain and suffering,” but a homeowner who was actively lied to, targeted, and sold a loan product that was harmful by design, have no legal recourse?  Where is the requirement that right and justice prevail?

The fact that there are no government agencies overseeing the modification activities of lenders and Servicers that received Billions in TARP funds is particularly egregious.  Let us be honest, the vast majority of lenders and Servicers who were fortunate enough to remain in business,  received billions from the long suffering US taxpayer, and are legally required to follow HAMP’s modification guidelines, but are not being required to do so.  What is even more outrageous, is that Mortgage Servicers are making billions of dollars in profits because the system rewards them financially for not modifying loans, thus encouraging them to continue to run roughshod over financially distressed homeowners.  If distressed homeowners are not receiving modifications, it is certainly not due to lack of effort on the part of their attorney or modification representatives, it is because Servicers are actively permitted to get away with conduct that can only be described as heinous

A recent class action lawsuit alleges that a Servicer was denying modification assistance to elderly homeowners, homeowners whose sole source of income was derived from Social Security payments.  These homeowners were denied modifications because,  according to the Servicer,  the borrowers did not comply with the Servicers documentation requirements – requirements  that demanded that elderly homeowners provide audited Profit and Loss Statements, Balance Sheets and Corporate tax returns – documents that only Corporations would logically, be required to possess.  How is it that lenders, who granted these loans in the first place, had no problem receiving borrower documentation via fax, email, regular mail and express delivery, but Servicers always seem to be denying modifications to homeowners, declaring that required paperwork was not received (even after it was sent 5 or 6 times via registered mail).  Are these Servicers so disorganized and incompetent that they cannot be trusted with simple documentation?  If such is the case, how can they be trusted to successfully manage a borrower’s mortgage and escrow account? 

Clearly, the only conclusion that a reasonable person can draw, considering the widespread and very public nature of the abuse, is that the same legislators who played “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” with the Financial industry are continuing to avert their eyes.  It is unfortunate that these games continue to be played at the expense of the American Homeowner and Taxpayer.  We certainly deserve more effective representation, and better solutions than this.

I encourage those of you who read this missive, to think, just for a moment, what the harvest might be to the economy, overall,  if the Federal Government mounted a serious, thoughtful, intelligent, and mandated approach to resolving the foreclosure crisis.  Not another bail out mind you, but the simple requirement that Servicers do nothing more than follow the rules and modify eligible loans.  No games, no dual tracking, no ineptitude, no dithering incompetence, or further abuses permitted.  Might not the economy actually grow?  Might not homeowners, who are being bankrupted by foreclosure and legal fees, be able to spend their money on other things, like washing machines, refrigerators, automobiles and other durable goods?  Might not home values begin to stabilize, and the housing market begin to recover?  Might not jobs begin to become available once more, and employment opportunities abound once again?  Alas, until our legislators arise one morning and decide to solve the foreclosure crisis our Nation will continue to languish, and the economic outlook for all, unless you are a Mortgage Loan Servicer or investment banker, will continue to be bleak.  It is a shame.

Until the occurrence of the miracle outlined above takes place, The Diligence Group will continue to do what it does best.  Investigate and evidence acts of predatory lending, bias, targeting, negligence, ineptitude, and deceit relative to the origination, appraisal, closure, Servicing and Securitization of mortgage loan transactions. We will continue to support Attorneys and like professionals who seek to effort Fair Housing Complaints, Class Action Suits, and Securitization claims.  While justice may not be swift, hopefully it will be realized, even if it is only realized one loan at a time.  It is simply sad that Mortgage Servicers have been permitted to take over where the Mortgage Lenders took off, and are continuing to drain the lifeblood, and exploit unabated, the American Consumer.

-FS

http://diligencegroupllc.net/

Since August 2007, which marked the beginning of the “foreclosure crisis”, MainStreet has provided guidance, direction and peace of mind to over 150 families. These families are from every walk of life and each of their mortgage situations is as unique as each individual tied to it. MainStreet Resolutions is Your Path to A Fresh Start!

Call US TODAY

to See How We Can Help.

1-888-728-3020

Are you in default or foreclosure?  If you suspect you have been the victim of Predatory Lending here in Florida, suspect you might be a victim of fraud, suspect the lender who provided your mortgage may have been less than honest, or may have even purposely overvalued your property in the Appraisal, please contact me, Tiffany Arthur at tiffanylarthur@aol.com or visit my website for more information at www.mainstreetresolutions.com We are interested in helping the homeowner find a permanent resolution to keep them in their home.