Latest Headlines on OCRegister.com
[x] Close
Mortgage Insider ~ Just another Freedomblogging.com weblog

Archive for the 'Regulation' Category

Obama proposes limits on bank growth

January 21st, 2010, 7:16 am by Mathew Padilla

The latest from Bloomberg:

President Barack Obama called for limiting the size and trading activities of financial institutions as a way to reduce risk-taking and prevent another financial crisis.

The proposals will be part of an overhaul of regulations and would specifically prohibit banks from running proprietary trading operations or investing in hedge funds and private equity funds.

“While the financial system is far stronger today than it was one year ago, it’s still operating under the same rules that led to its near collapse,” Obama said at the White House after meeting with former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, who has been an advocate of taking such steps. “Never again will the American taxpayer be held hostage by a bank that is too big to fail.”

The proposals could affect trading at some of the nation’s largest banks, including New York-based Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase & Co., said Frederic Dickson, chief market strategist at D.A. Davidson & Co. in Lake Oswego, Oregon. Banks conduct proprietary trading for their own benefit, not for that of their clients.

MORE HEADLINES…

Economists react to Obama’s bank tax plan

January 14th, 2010, 3:17 pm by Mathew Padilla

President Barack Obama today called for a special fee on the 50 biggest financial firms. A bank economist and an independent economist react:

Scott Anderson, senior economist, Wells Fargo

Anderson said much of the losses Obama mentions actually went to nonbanks like failed insurance giant AIG and General Motors.

“To just tax the 50 largest banks is probably not the fairest way to do it,” he said.

He also said an additional tax on banks would work against their efforts, encouraged by government, to raise more capital and lend more liberally.

Jack Kyser, founding economist of The Kyser Center for Economic Research
“Will this do what the government wants it to do? I feel there are two goals: 1.) is to limit risk taking by the largest banks, and 2.) to demonstrate to the public that the government is punishing the “bad” guys.”

Obama mulls bailout tax on banks

January 11th, 2010, 1:07 pm by Mathew Padilla

President Obama is likely to propose a fee on financial companies to help close the budget deficit and recoup some taxpayer funds used to bolster the financial system, reports the New York Times (with a nod to Politico.com).

However, the administration wants to avoid a transaction tax that would be passed on to consumers.

The Times story had few details, saying the plan should be revealed along with other budget plans expected next month.

What do you think?
questionmark.jpg

Should Obama hit banks with bailout tax?
View Results

MORE HEADLINES…

Bernanke: Regulation, not rates, caused debacle

January 3rd, 2010, 8:27 am by Jon Lansner

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said this in a speech Sunday (PREPARED TEXT HERE) …

… the most important source of lower initial monthly payments, which allowed more people to enter the housing market and bid for properties, was not the general level of short-term interest rates, but the increasing use of more exotic types of mortgages and the associated decline of underwriting standards. That conclusion suggests that the best response to the housing bubble would have been regulatory, not monetary. Stronger regulation and supervision aimed at problems with underwriting practices and lenders’ risk management would have been a more effective and surgical approach to constraining the housing bubble than a general increase in interest rates. Moreover, regulators, supervisors, and the private sector could have more effectively addressed building risk concentrations and inadequate risk-management practices without necessarily having had to make a judgment about the sustainability of house price increases.

Bernanke blames regulation. Agree?
View Results

House passes financial reform bill

December 11th, 2009, 4:39 pm by Mathew Padilla

Bloomberg reports the U.S. House voted to tighten rules for derivatives and create powers to break apart healthy financial firms that threaten the economy. Here’s more:

Lawmakers voted 223-202 to set up a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, expand oversight of hedge funds and build a $150 billion industry fund the government would use to take apart failed systemically risky firms. The House failed to add language letting bankruptcy judges reset mortgage terms, known as a “cram-down.” The focus now shifts to the Senate, where lawmakers lack a schedule for action on a bill.

“We are sending a clear message to Wall Street: The party is over,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference after the vote.

The measure is central to lawmakers’ effort to end rescues of firms deemed too big to fail, which led to bailouts of New York-based American International Group Inc. and Citigroup Inc. The banking industry and the nation’s biggest business lobby fought to scale back the legislation. Republicans called the bill a permanent government bailout and 27 Democrats joined to vote against the measure.

“The free market, particularly when it’s in an innovative phase, works best with a fairly defined set of rules, and that’s what we’ve done,” House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who offered the legislation, said today at the news conference.

More from this blog…

SEC charges former New Century execs with fraud

December 7th, 2009, 11:45 am by Mathew Padilla

(Update II: Quotes added from defendants attorneys.)

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged three former executives of failed Irvine-based subprime lender New Century Financial with fraud for allegedly misleading investors as the business was “collapsing” in 2006.

Robert Khuzami, the agency’s director of enforcement, said, “New Century shareholders took a double-hit: The company’s mortgage assets and business performance became increasingly impaired, and management manipulated its numbers and concealed its deteriorating performance.”

The SEC is charging former chief executive and co-founder Brad Morrice of Laguna Beach; former chief financial officer Patti Dodge of Irvine; and former controller David Kenneally of Rossmoor. The complaint, filed in federal court in the Central District of California, seeks civil penalties and from Morrice and Dodge reimbursement of bonuses and other incentive or equity-based compensation.

In addition, the SEC is seeking a severe personal penalty against the three: a bar against ever again serving as officers or directors of a publicly traded company.

Josh Epstein, a spokesman for Proskauer, the law firm representing Morrice, called the SEC’s charges against the former executive “flatly false.”

“Brad did all he could to save the company and to accurately report the company’s numerous challenges to its shareholders,” Epstein said. “While his efforts failed, there was no fraud.”

Morrice remained a large shareholder until the end, losing millions of dollars when New Century filed for bankruptcy in April 2007, Epstein said.

“Brad was among the biggest victims of the company’s collapse,” he said.

Terry Bird, an attorney for Dodge, said, “We believe the evidence will show that Ms. Dodge fully and completely fulfilled all her fiduciary and corporate obligations to New Century and its shareholders.”

“She looks forward to responding to these allegations and clearing her good name,” Bird said.

John Vandevelde, an attorney for Kenneally, said the former executive was never a “top officer” but a new accountant who lost “every penny he ever invested in the company he believed in.”

Kenneally never signed any financial statements and relied on the outside auditors for accounting treatment now under question by the SEC, his lawyer said.

“Mr. Kenneally will defend any allegation that he engaged in anything approaching securities fraud,” his lawyer said.

New Century was once the top publicly traded subprime lender in the country, making $60 billion in home loans in a single year. It failed in dramatic fashion in spring 2007 as investors began shying away from securities backed by mortgages to people with spotty credit records.

The SEC charged that New Century misrepresented the growing risks of its subprime loan portfolio. It withheld information about defaults, which forced it to buy back at a loss loans it had sold earlier to Wall Street.

In addition, the SEC alleged, the company understated the loan-to-value ratio of its loans. Beginning in early 2005, about a third of New Century’s loans were so-called “80/20″ loans in which borrowers took out two simultaneous loans worth 80 percent and 20 percent of a home’s value.

New Century made it look like the 80/20 borrowers had equity, the SEC alleged. They did that by calculating that the 80 percent loan had a loan-to-value of 64 percent (80 percent of the home’s value times the 80 percent). That created imaginary equity to cover the second 20 percent loan.

When home values began to decline in 2006, many holders of these 80/20 loans started defaulting.

Indeed, New Century borrowers defaulted in growing numbers in 2006. During the last three months of the year, 2.4 percent of the company’s loans defaulted the first month payment was due. Nearly 15 percent defaulted in the first few months of the loans — early enough to trigger demands for repayment by the investors who had bought the mortgages from New Century.

The SEC did not charge co-founder Robert Cole who stepped down as chief executive in 2006, though he stayed on the board of directors. And co-founder Edward Gotschall, who died in January of natural causes, also was not named in the complaint. Gotschall was generally considered the head numbers guy at the company, but he stepped back in 2006, remaining on the board but not active in day-to-day management.

Read the complaint HERE.

Ronald Campbell contributed to this report.

Regulator calls for ban on liar loans

November 18th, 2009, 4:46 pm by Mathew Padilla

Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan today called on regulators around the globe to set minimum underwriting standards for all mortgages made in their respective countries.

For the U.S., prohibiting most forms of loans where borrowers elect not to provide proof of their income and/or assets is at the top of his list. Such loans are sometimes called “stated income” loans or less kindly “liar” loans.

Here are his top three suggested changes:

Verification of income and assets. Low- and no-documentation mortgages have performed extremely poorly in terms of delinquency, default, and foreclosure, he said. Not only do they invite misrepresentation and fraud, but these mortgages materially distort the integrity of other underwriting standards that rely on accurate measures of a borrower’s income. “Regulators should consider prohibiting this practice except in very, very limited circumstances where it clearly can be justified,” he said.
Meaningful down payments. As house prices rose, lenders responded by allowing lower down payments. With defaults low, lenders and investors then began to tolerate “no-money down” mortgages. “The effect has been pernicious,” the Comptroller said, noting that OCC data shows borrowers are much more likely to walk away from loans where they have none of their own money – or “skin in the game” – invested in the mortgage. Mr. Dugan said it will not be easy to decide how large a down payment is appropriate, since too high a requirement would result in many creditworthy borrowers being turned down for a mortgage. “We will need to exercise great care in striking that balance,” he said.
For mortgages with monthly payments that increase over time, qualifying borrowers on their ability to afford the later, higher payments rather than just the initial, lower payments. Too many “nontraditional” mortgages were structured so that payments were low at first, but increased over time, and sometimes very sharply. Mr. Dugan said that borrowers qualified at the lower initial rate often couldn’t afford the higher payments. “That is the type of underwriting practice that generally should be prohibited, because it often implicitly relies on house price appreciation as the ultimate source of repayment of the loan – and as we have learned all too painfully in the last two years, house prices can certainly go down as well as up,” he said.

On this blog we have had some recent heated debates on when stated income loans should be allowed — the answer is never. Read the last stated-income debate HERE.

And read the full release from John Dugan and the OCC.

More from this blog…

Will ‘risk retention’ prevent another credit fiasco?

November 12th, 2009, 1:00 am by Mathew Padilla

There are many ideas for preventing another period of extremely reckless lending.  Some think the answer is for lenders to maintain a stake in the loans they make even after the loans are sold. Here’s more from National Mortgage News yesterday:

Senate Banking Committee chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., has produced a “discussion draft” of a comprehensive regulatory reform bill that requires sellers of mortgage-backed securities to retain 10% of the credit risk. However, the draft provides a risk retention exemption for government-guaranteed mortgages as well as mortgages purchased and securitized by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In addition, regulators can approve a “total or partial” risk retention exemption for other MBS and allocate risk retention between securitizers and the lenders. The House Financial Services Committee is moving toward approving a similar bill to address systemic risk that also requires 10% risk retention, a mandate that the mortgage industry opposes. “To restore confidence in our markets and encourage investment, we will require companies that sell products such as mortgage-backed securities to keep ’skin in the game’ so that they won’t sell worthless securities to investors,” Sen. Dodd said. His bill also creates an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency to protect consumers from “hidden fees and abusive terms” so they know they are being offered “safe” mortgages and other products, he said. Sen. Dodd said he would seek input on his draft bill and reach out to Republicans in an attempt to mark up and approve a bill by the first week of December. Dodd’s CFPA plan focuses on companies that “pose the greatest risk to consumers — mortgage bankers, brokers, finance companies and the largest institutions,” according to a legislative summary.

This will be interesting to watch. I have no idea if it will become law.

I’m also curious to see what readers think.

questionmark.jpg

Is risk retention the way to prevent another crisis?
View Results

More from this blog…

Big home-loan limits likely to stay till 2011

October 28th, 2009, 4:47 pm by Mathew Padilla

The latest from National Mortgage News (note:Orange County is a high cost area):

House and Senate appropriators have agreed to extend the current loan limits for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Federal Housing Administration loans for another year as part of the continuing funding resolution Congress is expected to pass this week. “The CR [continuing resolution] maintains the limits for FHA, GSE … single-family mortgages at $729,750 through the end of calendar year 2010,” according to a statement issued by the chairmen of the appropriations committees. The maximum $729,750 loan limit is due to expire Dec. 31 and it would drop down to $625,500 if it were not extended. “This could result in major disruptions in the mortgage origination market for larger loan sizes as early as November,” the appropriations chairmen said. Earlier in the week, industry trade groups warned Congress that quick action is needed because it is becoming more difficult for lenders to approve mortgages with balances above $625,500 due to uncertainty about an extension.

So another year of putting taxpayer dollars at greater risk.

Of course, the housing market might collapse if all the government programs were scaled back at once. No chance of that happening, apparently. The Federal Reserve has already said it’s extending its purchases of mortgage-backed securities until the end of March.

And Bloomberg reports Senate Democrats plan to extend and expand the $8,000 first-time home-buyer tax credit, allowing some folks to get it who already own a home. Senators seek to extend the credit, due to expire Nov. 30, to home purchases under contract by April 30, with borrowers allowed another 60 days to close the sale.

As I have said before, the tax credit may boost sales but it is wasteful, since some people get it who would have bought anyway.

Read more from this blog on:

FORECLOSURES | MORTGAGE ANSWERS | MORTGAGE RATES | POLLS | DISTRESSED SALES | AUCTIONS

Will the appraisal ‘fix’ be scrapped?

October 24th, 2009, 1:00 am by Mathew Padilla

The House Financial Services Committee this week approved an amendment that would sunset a deal on how home appraisers are selected. It remains to be seen if Congress will make it law.

A little background: some folks say home appraisers have been pressured to value properties high enough to ensure sales happen. If an appraisal is so low it kills a deal, is a mortgage broker or bank loan officer going to call the same appraiser next time?

In an attempt to solve that conflict, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac agreed to subject lenders and brokers to a Home Valuation Code of Conduct. In a nutshell, HVCC says anyone directly involved in and earning commission from a loan should not order an appraisal. Brokers, for example, must now hire an appraisal management company, which then hires an appraiser.

Miller

Miller

Rep. Gary Miller, R-Diamond Bar, says on his Web site HVCC: “has increased costs to consumers, significantly hindered a consumer’s ability to obtain legitimate and reliable appraisals, and adversely impacted small business professionals who work in the very neighborhoods where these consumers are looking to purchase homes.”

I have heard from consumers that management companies sometimes hire appraisers from far away who don’t know their area well enough to do a competent appraisal. (Of course, I wonder if such consumers are being realistic about how much their homes are worth today.)

Gov. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently signed a bill that requires appraisal management companies to follow a professional code of conduct. The code, among other things, requires appraisers to be knowledgeable of the geographic areas they cover.

By the way, Miller’s amendment is tied to the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act.

Update: Miller and the National Federation of Mortgage Professionals are doing a Webinar on the topic on Wednesday, October 28th from 1:30pm - 2:00pm. More info HERE.

More from this blog…

Will a new law mean better home valuations?

October 19th, 2009, 1:00 am by Mathew Padilla

A group of real estate appraisers say home buyers and owners will be better served now that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed SB 237 into law. (Read about other bills he signed last week HERE and HERE.)

The bill targets appraisal management companies, which have gained market influence since mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac agreed to change how appraisers are selected. Under the home valuation code of conduct (HVCC), anyone directly involved in and compensated from making a loan should not order an appraisal.

In practice, that means mortgage brokers have to hire appraisal management companies, which then select an appraiser on each deal. Lenders can have someone else on their staff order an appraisal or they can also hire an appraisal management company to do it.

Some homeowners have complained that management companies are hiring appraisers from out of town who don’t know the nuisances of the neighborhoods of the homes they are evaluating. The result: appraisals come in too low to make a refinance possible.

Andrew Kaluzny, an independent appraiser in Fullerton and member of the Southern California Chapter of the Appraisal Institute, said now management companies will have to hire appraisers with competency in the geographic area they are assigned to.

Having knowledge of an area is just one of the rules of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, which appraisal companies must now follow.

“This is a step in the right direction toward clearing up or cleaning up issues with HVCC,” Kaluzny said.

A statement by the Chicago-based Appraisal Institute said:

Significantly, the new law requires appraisal management companies operating in the state to identify, and provide contact information for, all officers and directors who own 10 percent or more of the company, as well as for all individuals who perform management functions. These individuals must submit to criminal background checks and may not have had their licenses or certifications as appraisers or a real estate agents or brokers refused, denied, canceled or revoked in any state.

As an aside, I wonder if homeowners who complain about out-of-town appraisers not valuing their property high enough are being realistic about what their home is worth today.

More from this blog…

U.K. regulator to ban stated-income mortgages

October 17th, 2009, 9:29 pm by Mathew Padilla

The Telegraph reports the United Kingdom’s financial regulator the Financial Services Authority will “launch plans to tighten up regulation and crack down on risky lending as part of reforms that will slow house price growth for a generation.” Here’s a clip from the story:

Among the report’s proposals, the financial regulator is expected to call for an end to self-certification mortgages and rule that responsibility for income verification be transferred from mortgage brokers to lenders. The moves are an effort to crack down on mortgage fraud, which has already cost lenders about £400bn due to borrowers lying about their earnings to secure a home loan.

“It would be a mistake to effectively ban self-certification,” said Ray Boulger, senior technical manager at mortgage broker John Charcol. “There would be real consumer detriment.” He argued that certain self-certification mortgages – for example for those self-employed people who would struggle to obtain a mainstream mortgage but have sufficient earnings – were a perfectly valid part of the market, “providing they are appropriately priced”.

In the U.K., “self-certification” means the same as stated-income here. And sounds like industry folks across the Atlantic also use the self-employed example as justification for stated-income, one of the key enablers of the destructive credit bubble (there’s a reason they got the nickname liar loans).  Such a rationale suggests self employed folks who use stated income loans are lying to the IRS but not their lender.

Two excellent posts on why stated-income loans should be banned forever are Just Say No To Stated Income and What’s Really Wrong With Stated Income .

AG Brown to enforce ban on advance fees for mortgage aid

October 15th, 2009, 5:12 pm by Mathew Padilla

jerry-brown-file-photo-fro.jpgAttorney General Jerry Brown said today he will go after companies that violate the state’s new ban on collecting an advance fee for helping someone avoid foreclosure.

Since the foreclosure crisis began, hundreds of companies and law firms in Orange and neighboring counties have promoted their ability to get homeowners loan modifications.

But consumer advocates say many of those companies are taking money and providing little service. Homes proceed to foreclosure while owners wait for help that doesn’t come.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on Sunday signed several bills meant to curb lending abuses, including SB 94, which prohibits anyone from taking an advance fee for help getting a loan modification.

AG Brown said today in a release, “Over the past two years, unscrupulous attorneys and real estate brokers have abused their trusted roles and exploited desperate homeowners seeking to avoid foreclosure. The loophole that allowed this abusive practice to continue has now been closed, and homeowners should avoid any person charging up-front fees for foreclosure relief services.”

Anyone who violates the ban can be fined up to $10,000 and imprisoned for up to one year. Corporations can be fined up to $50,000.

Kevin Stein, an associate director with consumer group the California Reinvestment Coalition in San Francisco, said the bill should deter some companies but it has a loophole.

The bill says fees can be collected after a company performs the service for which it was contracted. In Stein’s view that language is too weak.

“Contracts can be written to say almost anything,” Stein said.

Stein said he once saw a contract that said the service will have been completed when a borrower gets a modification; willingly surrenders ownership of the house; or is foreclosed upon.

He said another bill the governor did not sign went further, saying a borrower could only be charged if a loan mod was granted.

SB 94, authored by state Senator Ron Calderon (D-Montebello), also says before entering into a fee agreement, the company must provide the borrower the following statement:

It is not necessary to pay a third party to arrange for a loan modification or other form of forbearance from your mortgage lender or servicer. You may call your lender directly to ask for a change in your loan terms. Nonprofit housing counseling agencies also offer these and other forms of borrower assistance free of charge. A list of nonprofit housing counseling agencies approved by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is available from your local HUD office or by visiting www.hud.gov.

More from this blog…

7 bills strengthen mortgage finance protections

October 14th, 2009, 4:57 pm by Mathew Padilla

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on Sunday signed seven bills meant to crack down on lending abuses, and thus better protect consumers. So I am writing now about the bills.

The main bill he signed is AB 260, which targets higher-priced loans, the government’s term for subprime. (Higher-priced loans have interest rates 1.5 percentage points or more above rates on similar prime loans.)

Assemblyman Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) sponsored the bill and has also backed bills aimed at helping homeowners avoid foreclosure.

Here’s more on AB 260 from a release by Lieu’s office:

Specific provisions of this bill include: prohibiting the steering of borrowers into higher-priced loans that are more risky than lower-interest, fixed-rate loans for which the borrower had actually qualified; banning negative amortization loans where the loan gets larger the longer the borrower holds the loan; and putting strict caps on prepayment penalties. This bill also enacts a strong fiduciary standard for all mortgage brokers and banks acting as mortgage brokers, and prohibits lenders and brokers from making false or misleading statements relative to the terms of a subprime loan.

Yet some consumer groups have been lukewarm on AB 260, saying a key provision was gutted from the bill and that it mostly brings the state in line with federal regulations. In an earlier version, a consumer could sue and, if successful, collect money to pay his attorney’s fees, along with any other judgment he might get.

With that part omitted, lawyers will be less likely to take cases, especially since subprime borrowers are more likely to have lower incomes.

That means the burden is all on state regulators and law enforcement to enforce AB 260, consumer groups say.

Here’s a breakdown of the other six bills from Governor Schwarzenegger’s release:

SB 36 by Senator Ron Calderon (D-Montebello) to establish standardized licensing requirements for all individual loan originators who offer or negotiate residential mortgages.

SB 239 by Senator Fran Pavley (D-Santa Monica) to make it a felony to commit fraud in connection with a mortgage application. This bill makes individuals who engage in mortgage fraud guilty of a public offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or in a county jail up to one year. The bill also provides law enforcement with the necessary tools to make it easier to obtain a search warrant for real estate records and documents believed to contain evidence of mortgage fraud.

AB 329 by Assemblymember Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) to establish the Reverse Mortgage Elder Protection Act of 2009 to provide senior homeowners with greater consumer protections to ensure that they are fully informed about the consequences of entering into a reverse mortgage agreement. Specifically, the bill requires lenders to provide prospective borrowers with a clear and informative written disclosure statement and a written checklist pertaining to the risks and suitability of a reverse mortgage, prior to borrower attending loan counseling.

SB 237 by Senator Ron Calderon (D-Montebello) to create a registration program for appraisal management companies (AMCs) and prohibits any person or entity from acting in the capacity of an AMC without first obtaining a certificate for registration from the Office of Real Estate Appraisers.

AB 957 by Assemblymember Cathleen Galgiani (D-Livingston) to mandate that buyers of foreclosed homes would have the choice of using a local escrow office to handle the transaction. It also prohibits a seller of residential property from requiring the buyer to use an escrow service company or purchase title insurance chosen by the seller and would also prohibit a seller of residential property from, without good cause, disapproving the use of a title or escrow company chosen by the buyer.

AB 1160 by Assemblymember Paul Fong (D-Cupertino) to require mortgage loan documents to be translated into the language the verbal negotiations were conducted. Mortgage documents would be translated into Spanish, Chinese, Tagalong, Korean and Vietnamese languages.

Read the governor’s release HERE.

More from this blog…