The Securities and Exchange Commission has issued additional subpoenas for documents from the big banks in a growing probe over servicer behavior and foreclosure fraud. They seem particularly interested in securitization, and whether the assets, i.e. the mortgage and the note, were ever properly conveyed to the trusts.
U.S. regulators have opened a new line of inquiry in their mortgage foreclosure probe and are asking big Wall Street banks about the beginning stages of mortgage securitization, two sources familiar with the probe said.
The Securities and Exchange Commission launched the new phase of its investigation by sending out a fresh round of subpoenas last week to big banks like Bank of America Corp (BAC.N), Citigroup Inc (C.N), JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N), Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N) and Wells Fargo & Co (WFC.N), the sources said.
The subpoenas focus on the earliest stage of the mortgage securitization process, said the sources, who requested anonymity because the probe is not public.
The sources said the SEC is asking for information about the role of so-called “master servicers” — specialized firms that oversee the selection and maintenance of the large pool of home loans that go into every mortgage-backed bond.
This is a very important development. The failure of the trustees to convey the loans to the trusts would mean that the mortgage-backed securities are backed by nothing. It would mean that the banks committed outright fraud on the investors. And it would make the trustees liable for taking back all the MBS from investors at par.
As Yves Smith says, more needs to be done here. The SEC should look at the automatic servicer software that generates additional late fees, and basically look at all the servicer practices known to be fraudulent. They need to understand how random Wall Street Journal reporters could get letters about loan modifications on properties where they have no mortgage. They need to examine the rot in the system. But this is a big and perhaps more costly step for the banks, because the investors are a worthy adversary for them, from a financial standpoint.
Meanwhile, in a separate incident, the overseer of the GSEs is resisting principal reductions for underwater borrowers, despite an Administration program designed to allow for that. Since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac own so many loans – they own or guarantee about half of all mortgages – it’s crucial to get sign-off from the FHFA in order for the principal reduction program to succeed (the Administration has a few of them up and running). But this is where the FHFA’s Ed DeMarco’s insistence on reducing taxpayer losses has its negative side. It’s good that, as an investor in mortgages, he’s trying to put back illegal loans on the banks; it’s bad that he’s not allowing the write-downs needed for housing costs to come down, which would actually stabilize and save the GSEs money in the long term.
John Taylor, the head of the nonprofit National Community Reinvestment Coalition, says Fannie and Freddie could easily and quickly affect the overall housing market. “They have the greatest authority and portfolio to make an impact,” said Taylor. There are tens of thousands of loans “they can take care of tomorrow,” he said.
But data show that Fannie and Freddie don’t reduce principal, even if it might save them money in the long term. The reason: Their regulator won’t let them. (The regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, declined to comment.)
The SEC investigation and Fannie and Freddie’s reluctance to reduce principal connect, in a way, because the banks will be rushing for a principal work-out when faced with the need to take back hundreds of billions in mortgages due to faulty processes. Fannie and Freddie will be on both sides of that equation; with the government basically owning them right now, they ought to make the choice.
UPDATE: There’s an amazing graphic in the Pro Publica story. Banks who own the loan outright reduce principal about 29% of the time. Private investors? 0.3% (632 principal mods out of 191,885 modifications). Fannie & Freddie? 0.0% (141 principal mods out of 287,171 modifications).




14 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
This is huge and as such should be managed by a group of politicians and perhaps appointed mortgage industry and consumer group professionals. It should occur gradually to avoid sudden changes that could crash the market or result in an unfair distribution of the pain this is all going to produce.
Pres. Obama probably needs to appoint some people to this in the same way he did the Financial Crisis oversight commission. Give them reporting requirements and advisory opportunities and then let the administration and Congress choose what to do or what to legislate or what to prosecute.
This is how Wells Fargo originated us a fraudulent mortgage loan. How many such fraudulent mortgage loan Wells Fargo has bundled and sold on the wall street?
Wells Fargo originated us a fraudulent mortgage loan in 2005.
Wells Fargo’s fraudulent appraisal valued our home for $718,000.
Wells Fargo’s review appraisal valued our home for $475,000.
Nevada Attorney General’s Office suspended the appraiser’s license for
committing appraisal fraud on our home in 2008.
We put $151,000 downpayment. Between 2005 and 2009 we paid Wells Fargo
around $350,000.
On June 15, 2010, Wells Fargo still foreclosed our home, knowing that it is a Category C felony to make a mortgage loan and foreclose our home based on a fraudulent appraisal.
On November 3, Wells Fargo demanded us to appear in front of the Judge to state cause why Wells Fargo can’t foreclose our home based on fraudulent appraisal.
Please sign the petition on our website. http://www.wellsfargomortgagefraud.com and let our voice to be heard.
I am so very happy that I have never attempted to purchase a home at any time in my life. Really, I haven’t even been all that tempted to do so.
Crooks ‘r’ Us as the bankster mottos.
I am sorry about your situation. I signed the petition. Hope things work out for you.
Ain’t never gonna happen. Government under Preznint Zero will never allow the big banks to take this kind of hit. Massive retroactive law will be passed usurping state regulations.
re: trustee liability: depends on how the pooling & servicing agreements are written. My vague recollection is that they won’t be liable unless the breach is material and causes damages.
Book Salon up with Daniel Galvin’s Presidential Party Building: Dwight D. Eisenhower to George W. Bush hosted by Ari Berman
Good going, David, and I look forward to your follow-on to this important post!
Maybe the banks will be forced to eat their own Shit and Die.
And maybe monkeys will fly out of our butts.
The claims against the Trustees will come on the provision of the PSA that requires the Trustee to certify that it has the docs. If they don’t, and they certified, they will lose.
Note also that PSA agreements have cure provisions in them: even if the breach is material, the trustee just has to get the notes and the breach is cured.
A breach of that provision won’t result in putback provisions being triggered, It’s not a material breach and no damages are caused as a result. If actual foreclosure actions are thrown out, then there’s something that might trigger putbacks.
This is from the first PSA I found via the Googles:
You mean we can feel some cautious optimism? Thanks, David. I may need to eat some crow, but I’ll do it gladly if some of the frauds are prosecuted.