If something good comes out of the whole foreclosure scandal, it’s that the whole housing issue, which is a millstone hanging around the neck of the economy, has been brought to the fore.
The Obama administration’s mortgage-modification plan, HAMP, is a failure. Foreclosures are still rising. Hundreds of thousands of families will be thrown out of their homes this year. Banks are still playing “extend and pretend,” holding tens or hundreds of billions of dollars of bad loans on their books. Until this hairball gets untangled, the whole economy will continue to suffer
How do you even begin to solve a massive, seemingly intractable problem like this?
Reuters has a good package of stories out today looking at that. Who knows if the potential solutions they detail would be effective, but I like that Reuters is suggesting solutions, not just describing and diagnosing problems. We need more journalism like this.
First of all, Reuters doesn’t beat around the bush here. It comes right out and says that Obama’s plan is a failure and that we need to start over. Here’s one of its headlines:
As HAMP goes up in smoke, U.S. needs new housing plan.
In that story, Alina Selyukh looks at some possible fixes for the mess on the homeowners’ side. In another, Matthew Goldstein takes the investor angle (there’s a sidebar, too).
On the homeowners’ side, Selyukh looks at three ideas to help borrowers: a government-led mass refinancing proposed by a former top Bush economic aide. A plan that would force banks to let delinquent homeowners stay in their houses if they can pay market rent. In five years, they’d be given the chance to buy the house at market price. Finally, cramdown, which would allow judges to write down the principal or otherwise modify mortgages for borrowers in foreclosure.
Goldstein’s story is headlined, ambitiously:
Special Report: A Marshall Plan for America’s housing woes
And it aims high:
Reuters found that after talking to nearly two-dozen housing experts, mortgage traders, lawyers, securities experts and others, there is broad agreement about what a solution to the mortgage crisis might look like. They say a fix must allow many borrowers to stay in their homes, compensate disgruntled mortgage investors and allow banks to take write down loans without causing a repeat of the financial crisis of 2008.
Goldstein zeroes in on home-equity loans as the key sticking point in any fix for the crisis:
Still, housing and banking experts say it’s the potential for large losses on home equity loans that has rendered the mortgage crisis so intractable. After being propped up by U.S. taxpayers and then spending the past year building up capital, banks are hardly pining to take another round of writedowns and charges.“To ultimately resolve this, you are going to have to come up with some solution for the second liens the banks own,” said Bill Frey of Greenwich Financial Services, a firm that specializes in mortgage investing and which has been at the forefront of fighting for the rights of institutional investors. “No one wants the banks to fail, but the banks are going to have to write down second liens.”
One solution for dealing with the home equity loan issue would be for the regulators to allow banks to spread out the writedowns over many years, said some of the people Reuters spoke to. Another fix would be to force the banks to take the hit at all once, but have the government provide a loan that is paid down each quarter from the bank’s reserves.
But the experts Reuters talked to said once banks are forced to deal honestly with their home equity liability, it makes it easier for other parties to take their lumps as well and come up with creative solutions to the mortgage mess.
I like the ambition Reuters shows here. Would that the administration, banks, and investors would show something similar. The American system seems so broken that it’s hard to imagine getting all these parties to agree on anything.
But it’s surely worth pointing out how it might be done.

Office of the Comptroller
Fax 713-336-4301
How about a little help from someone ??
HAMP and HOPE are not working well !!!
Tales of a Chase Loan Modification Attempt.
I saw the recent investigation into the HAMP loan modifications on the TV.
What hit home was Loman from Chase. What a jerk, but then again he works for Jamie Dimon. Unfortunately, my home loan is with Chase. Some points on this are below.
1. When I was terminated from my job in Cincinnati, I called Chase and told them of the situation. They said don’t bother until you are 60 days behind. I am 61 years old and out of work in this economy – I knew it was going to be a problem.
2. I again contacted Chase in Sep 2009 and was put into their Trial mod program where I stayed and made 8 trial payments.
3. All this time it was never clear whether I was in a Hamp program or a Chase program. I never received anything in writing.
4. Ultimately, after submitting all of my documents at least three times and some documents more than that – as well as enduring their collection calls even though I was in their program – they sent a modification offer that was 60% of my income.
5. I called them and they reviewed the NPV and finally admitted they were wrong.
a. Actually I received letters saying I was disqualified due to my income level. They interpreted that I had $15,000 per month of income, even though I was unemployed. But each time they said they would correct it.
6. The error was on their inability to read a P and L, which they kept requesting on a business that we no longer owned. We no longer owned the business because of my unemployment – we had to sell it to have money to live on. But due to no one being able to get money from a bank, we had to finance it to the buyer and take monthly payments. It appears that Chase interpets this as “self employed”.
7. I got a call on May 4, 2010 saying a new mod was approved for $1600 per month and I was to NOT sign the original offer but to sign the NEW one. However, it never arrived.
8. I received a letter from Chase saying “my request for a short sale was denied”. The only problem with that was, I never requested a short sale.
9. Chase some time prior had requested the sale documents on the business we sold, and in their final review of the file – some uneducated loan person thought it was an offer for a short sale.
10. Therefore, when that occurred the modification offer was withdrawn. I had even tried to make a payment, but they would not take it as a modification was being offered.
11. Ultimately, with the HOPE people on the phone with Chase, they again admitted the error.
12. However, the only solution they said is to start over. June 5, 2010
13. Chase sent me a new packet to complete. I did so. June 9, 2010
14. Got a Foreclosure letter. Called Chase and they said it related to the ORIGINAL modification that they botched, but had coded it incorrectly so I got a foreclose letter. I was assured that it would be corrected.
15. Chase asked for more documents, I complied. June 23, 2010
16. Chase has sent me letters saying they are going to foreclose.
17. I got a letter from an attorney that Chase hired to contact me about collecting the debt. June 26, 2010
18. Got a request for more documents, the same ones I sent last week. June 28, 2010
19. Today is July 7th and I have no idea what is up.
20. July 13th. I got a call from Chase asking if I had sent back my loan modification documents. WHAT DOCUMENTS, I asked. I asked the guy to read my file to make sure some had been sent, as I had just spoken to them last week and it was not even in underwriting. He did and then saw none had been sent. So then he AGAIN asked about me unemployment and my wifes income. I think just to cover up his error. Then he saw that the 4506T was for 07 and 08, but not 09. So he dema
#1 Posted by Ron Litton, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 04:35 PM
Nobody has brought up the distinct possibility that the loan servicers may well have bundled and sold each of these loans MORE THAN ONCE to differernt investors via the securitization process. THIS COULD BE THE REAL REASON THAT THERE IS NO DOCUMENTATION / PAPER TRAIL. The non-existent documentation and accounting is entirely consistent with this scenario. This means that the entire plan was a true Ponzi scheme in the worst sense. In other words, rather than selling the loan once to investors, as we have all naively been assuming, there is no reason to believe that they did not double-dip or quintuple-dip and sell the exact same loan to completely new buyers. THIS IS A LEVEL OF FRAUD THAT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HAS NOT YET CONTEMPLATED.
There are no new laws that are necessary. All that is necessary is for the states to FOLLOW THE EXISITING LAWS which have been around much longer than any of us, or any of the banks themselves. These laws were devised to deal with all property frauds, including the current foreclosure frauds. No more bailouts. Let the chips fall where they may.
#2 Posted by Fred Smith, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 05:05 PM
Nobody has brought up the distinct possibility that the loan servicers may well have bundled and sold each of these loans MORE THAN ONCE to differernt investors via the securitization process. THIS COULD BE THE REAL REASON THAT THERE IS NO DOCUMENTATION / PAPER TRAIL. The non-existent documentation and accounting is entirely consistent with this scenario. This means that the entire plan was a true Ponzi scheme in the worst sense. In other words, rather than selling the loan once to investors, as we have all naively been assuming, there is no reason to believe that they did not double-dip or quintuple-dip and sell the exact same loan to completely new buyers. THIS IS A LEVEL OF FRAUD THAT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HAS NOT YET CONTEMPLATED.
There are no new laws that are necessary. All that is necessary is for the states to FOLLOW THE EXISITING LAWS which have been around much longer than any of us, or any of the banks themselves. These laws were devised to deal with all property frauds, including the current foreclosure frauds. No more bailouts. Let the chips fall where they may.
#3 Posted by Fred Smith, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 05:05 PM
@Fred Smith
Cheers! you have it exactly right. What is needed is prosecution. And As the topic of CJR is journalism, I suggest we do some journalism related to criminal fraud possibilities instead of devising elaborate new bailouts. There are investors who will loose, some of those investors are the US tax payors who wended up owning this stuff through TARP. Well so be it. Some of the losers are the funds holding
CDOs but they may be able to use the law to get redress from the banks. Some of the losers are the banks. And most state have laws thank can close banks down if they are convicted of fraud. And the loan servicers are sure to loose when it turns out that no one owns the note on loans they are servicing. Dozens or more lawyers should be dis-bared, and some should serve jail time.
What we need from journalist is to write stories one at a time about individuals who broke the law and what they could be charged with and what the potential penalties are.
The prosecutors will follow the journalism. And the sooner they do the sooner the shadow inventory will be worked through the system, the loses will be realized and we can begin to grow again.
Fred, I'm not sure why you believe that the american public is not contemplating the level of criminal activity. I would rather say that journalists have not yet contemplated it, and we will find instant recognition when we publish the facts. Journalism is needed to convince the prosecutors.
#4 Posted by timothywmurray, CJR on Sat 30 Oct 2010 at 09:43 AM