Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
In Proposed Mortgage Fraud Settlement, A Gift to Big Banks - Eisinger

In Proposed Mortgage Fraud Settlement, A Gift to Big Banks - Eisinger

Ratings: (0)|Views: 0|Likes:
Published by josephsomers

More info:

Published by: josephsomers on Dec 29, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/29/2011

pdf

text

original

 
Luis Alvarez/Associated PressTom Miller, attorney general of Iowa.
MARCH 16, 2011, 3:14 PM
In ProposedMortgage Fraud Settlement, aGift toBig Banks
By JESSEEISINGE
Lurking in a proposed mortgage fraud settlement with thestate attorneys general is a clause that could be worth billionsfor the big banks. Yes, I mean the settlement that might extract thesupposedly large sum of $20 billionfrom the banks to settle foreclosure fraud. The one denounced as a“shakedown”by SenatorRichard Shelby of Alabama.Despite such rhetoric, the settlement might let the banks avoid tens of billions of write-downs,thanks to a clause with a biblical flavor: the last shall be first.The proposed agreement — which is preliminary and subject to intense negotiations being led by Tom Miller, the attorney general of Iowa — would allow banks to treat second mortgages,like home equity lines of credit, just like the first mortgages. Under the proposal, when a bank  writes the principal down on the first mortgage, the second should be written down “at leastproportionately to the first.”Suddenly, the banks would be given license to subvert the rules of payment hierarchy, asGretchen Morgenson pointed outin
The New York Times on Sunday. Yes, the clause says theother alternative is to wipe out the second’s value entirely, but given a choice, the banks would be extremely unlikely to do that.So how is this a gift? Because when the principal on the first mortgage is reduced, the secondlien is typically wiped out. The first lien holder has the first right to any money recovered, andthe second lien holder has to wait its turn.The proposal “seems astonishingly generous to the second-lien holders,” said Arthur Wilmarth,a law professor atGeorge Washington University . “And who are those? Of course, they are the big mortgage servicers.” And who owns the big mortgage servicers?The biggest banks.Throughout the financial crisis, we have heard plenty of intoning about the sanctity of contracts.But this suggests that the banks, with the authorities’ tacit approval, think contracts are for theeand not for me. The price to get the banks to do the right thing contractually with mortgagemodifications and foreclosure is to allow them to not do the right thing elsewhere.To understand the significance of this issue, cast your mind back to the height of the housing bubble. People used their homes as A.T.M.’s, withdrawing billions from their equity to finance
InProposed Mortgage Fraud Settlement, a Gift to BigBanks - NYTimes.com http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/in-proposed-mortgage-fraud-set...1 of 3 3/17/2011 11:32 PM
 
motorboats and meals atApplebee’s.The top four banks now have about $408 billion worth of second liens on their balance sheets,according to Portales Partners, an independent research firm specializing in financialcompanies.Wells Fargo, for instance, has more money in second liens than it has tangiblecommon equity, or the most solid form of capital. If banks had to write these loans downsubstantially, acknowledging the true extent of their losses, they would have to raise capital —and might even teeter on the brink of insolvency.The performance of second liens is among the biggest puzzles in banking today: why are they doing better than the firsts? When Wells Fargo disclosed its earnings, for instance, it classified5.3 percent of its first mortgages as nonperforming, but put only 2.4 percent of its second liensin that category. That seems very odd because it’s much easier to lose your home if you don’tpay your mortgage than if you don’t pay your home equity line.Investors are deeply skeptical about the value in these loans, bidding about 50 cents onthedollarfor them these days. Even allowing that banks probably hawk the least attractive loansand that investors bid low to generate a high return for the risk, many of these loans are stillprobably not worth 100 cents on the dollar. Yet banks have taken relatively few write-downs on second loans so far. In fact, even when thefirst clearly is in trouble, sometimes the banks appear to resist writing loans down. Bill Frey, who runs Greenwich Financial Services, has instigated lawsuits to try to recoup the value of mortgage securities by getting the banks to buy back faulty mortgages that were in the pools heexamined. He analyzed mortgage securities made up of loans by Countrywide Financial, whichis now owned by Bank of America, looking for instances when the second lien was still extant,even though the first lien attached to the same property had been modified. Such a situation would suggest that a bank was not marking down a second lien even when the underlying, moresenior first lien was impaired. He says he found multiple instances in every one of the 200pools he examined.Mr. Frey argues that the banks should charge off those seconds. “That’s the concept of subordination,” he said. “It’s been around since the Magna Carta. Maybe we should get on the bandwagon.”This is not simply a fight between hedge funds, which own the securities that contain the firstliens, and banks that house the seconds. Many mortgage securities are held by small banks, lifeinsurance companies and pension funds. “I can see little reason why a pensioner should takethe loss instead of Bank of America, when it’s Bank of America’s bad loan,” Mr. Frey said. A Bank of America spokesman said that it charges off second loans when borrowers haven’tmade payments for 180 days. The bank doesn’t, nor is it required to, charge them off just because the first lien has been modified, he says. But if a first mortgage is modified, the bank  will increase its reserve because it’s more likely that the second will sour.Since the fall, theOffice of the Comptroller of the Currency has been examining how banksacross the industry are treating their second liens, according to two people familiar with the
InProposed Mortgage Fraud Settlement, a Gift to BigBanks - NYTimes.com http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/in-proposed-mortgage-fraud-set...2 of 3 3/17/2011 11:32 PM

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->