Archive for September 21st, 2010
GMAC/Ally Responds
Sept. 21 (Bloomberg) — Ally Financial Inc., whose GMAC Mortgage unit halted evictions in 23 states amid allegations of mishandled affidavits, said its filings contained no false claims about home loans.
The “defect” in affidavits used to support evictions was “technical” and was discovered by the company, Gina Proia, an Ally spokeswoman, said in an e-mailed statement. Employees submitted affidavits containing information they didn’t personally know was true and sometimes signed without a notary present, according to the statement. Most cases will be resolved in the next few weeks and those that can’t be fixed will “require court intervention,” Proia said.
“The entire situation is unfortunate and regrettable and GMAC Mortgage is diligently working to resolve the situation,” Proia said. “There was never any intent on the part of GMAC Mortgage to bypass court rules or procedures. Nor do these failures reflect any disrespect for our courts or the judicial processes.”
Ok. If you say so.
Perhaps you can explain this GMAC/Ally:
I was beginning to recite to the lawyer what I had typically recited, that there was no affidavit in opposition. And the lawyer said, “Well, I thought you might want to see this,” and handed me some documents which were from another file in our circuit, and it turned out, it was the same note and mortgage that was in a separate and independent file.
There was a different plaintiff pursuing a foreclosure proceeding on the same note and mortgage as the one that was being proceeded on. Both of the cases contained allegations in the original complaints that the separate plaintiffs were owners and holders of the note. Both of them had gone so far to have affidavits filed in support of a summary judgment whereby an individual represented to the court in the affidavit that the separate plaintiffs had possessed the note and had lost the note while it was in their possession.
Interestedly, both affidavits, although they were different plaintiffs, purported the same facts and they were executed by the same individual in alleged capacity as a director of two separate corporations, one of which was ultimately found to me to be an assignee of the original note…
This, incidentally, is apparently a GMAC foreclosure – one of the ones that when reviewed, according to what GMAC claims above, had “no false claims”….. right?
What I find “unfortunate” and “regrettable” is that someone can file 10,000 affidavits in a month and yet the person employing them believes that they actually read and thus can have sworn to the accuracy and completeness of what is contained therein.
The problem, as I noted, is this:
“All the banks are the same, GMAC is the only one who’s gotten caught,” said Patricia Parker, an attorney at Jacksonville, Florida-based law firm, Parker & DuFresne. “This could be huge.”
Yep. That is a problem, I think, as I’ve written on repeatedly.
We shall see how it all plays out – from where I sit it appears there are some rather real questions of fact that need to be resolved here…..
In the meantime, start pressuring your elected representatives to fix it via this process.
Good News: The Great Recession is Over; Bad News: It Doesn't Feel Like It
According to the NBER, at long last the great recession is officially over. Bloomberg reports Worst U.S. Recession Since 1930s Ended in June 2009.
The longest and deepest U.S. recession since the Great Depression ended in June 2009, lasting 18 months, the National Bureau of Economic Research said.
“The committee decided that any future downturn of the economy would be a new recession and not a continuation of the recession that began in December 2007,” the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based bureau’s business cycle dating group said today in a statement. “The basis for this decision was the length and strength of the recovery to date.” The committee is the accepted arbiter of when recessions start and end.
“The economy has begun to move forward, albeit at a slow, disappointing pace,” said Bruce Kasman, chief economist at JPMorgan Chase & Co. in New York. “It’s a recovery that feels fragile, and still raises questions about the risks to its sustainability.” The odds of the economy falling back into another recession are about 25 percent, Kasman said.
Over 50 and Never Working Again
The New York Times comments on the Fears of Never Working Again
Of the 14.9 million unemployed, more than 2.2 million are 55 or older. Nearly half of them have been unemployed six months or longer, according to the Labor Department. The unemployment rate in the group — 7.3 percent — is at a record, more than double what it was at the beginning of the latest recession.
According to a Gallup poll in April, more than a third of people not yet retired plan to work beyond age 65, compared with just 12 percent in 1995.
Older workers who lose their jobs could pose a policy problem if they lose their ability to be self-sufficient. “That’s what we should be worrying about,” said Carl E. Van Horn, professor of public policy and director of the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University, “what it means to this class of the new unemployables, people who have been cast adrift at a very vulnerable part of their career and their life.”
Older people who lose their jobs take longer to find work. In August, the average time unemployed for those 55 and older was slightly more than 39 weeks, according to the Labor Department, the longest of any age group. That is much worse than in August 1983, also after a deep recession, when someone unemployed in that age group spent an average of 27.5 weeks finding work.
At this year’s pace of an average of 82,000 new jobs a month, it will take at least eight more years to create the 8 million positions lost during the recession. And that does not even allow for population growth.
Assuming it does take 8 more years to create 8 million jobs, of one accounts for population growth, unemployment will be 8% or more all the way to 2020.
Indeed America has Lost One Decade – Another One in Progress Now
Lost Decade Lowlights
- Americans living in poverty rose sharply to 14.3% from 13.2% in 2008
- Poverty level is the highest since 1994
- 43.6 million Americans are living below the official poverty threshold
- Inflation-adjusted income of the median household fell 4.8% between 2000 and 2009
- The number of 25-to-34-year-olds living with their parents rose 8.4% to 5.5 million in 2010 from 2008
- Child poverty rose to 23.8% for kids under six in 2009, compared to 21.3% a year earlier
What America Really Needs
Given the structural problems in the US, there is no strong reason to think this decade will be much better than the last. I talked about those structural problems in Response to Nouriel Roubini regarding “America Needs a Payroll Tax Cut”
Roubini says “America Need a Payroll Tax Cut”.
I say what America needs most right now is an honest appraisal of the sorry economic mess we are in, politicians who will work in genuine bipartisan effort to tackle our numerous structural problems, and willpower from everyone to make short-term sacrifices for the long-term benefit of the country.
To date, all the Fed and Congress have done is bail out the banks and the bondholders (in other words the wealthy), at the expense of the middle class.
Given the problems are numerous and deep, the solutions will undoubtedly require a series of across the board sacrifices. Those sacrifices need to start with public unions, the gigantic military complex, government employees in general (Congress and state legislatures in particular), as well as anyone bailed out or benefiting from the numerous and massive fiscally unsound policies of the Fed and Congress.
So far, we do not even have an admission by the President, by Congress, or by most economists as to what the problems are. Instead everyone wants to “stimulate” something, typically by throwing money at problems.
This is why the problems are unlikely to be fixed, and this is why we are likely to remain in a stagnant economy that produces few jobs for the remainder of the decade.
While the recession is over, it certainly does not feel like it. Moreover, because we fail to address the structural issues, the odds of slipping back into another recession are exceptionally high.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
FOMC Statement 9/21
From The Fed…. (with my comments, as usual)
Release Date: September 21, 2010
For immediate release
Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in August indicates that the pace of recovery in output and employment has slowed in recent months.
The economy has gone nowhere. We blew our wad, we’re at ZIRP, and now we’re in a liquidity trap. It feels really nasty too, kinda like Luke in the garbage chute. Oh, what’s that noise?
Household spending is increasing gradually, but remains constrained by high unemployment, modest income growth, lower housing wealth, and tight credit.
Households spend until they default. Then they stop but it’s not by choice.
Business spending on equipment and software is rising, though less rapidly than earlier in the year, while investment in nonresidential structures continues to be weak. Employers remain reluctant to add to payrolls.
Employers are figuring it out – we’re screwed.
Housing starts are at a depressed level. Bank lending has continued to contract, but at a reduced rate in recent months. The Committee anticipates a gradual return to higher levels of resource utilization in a context of price stability, although the pace of economic recovery is likely to be modest in the near term.
I anticipate that if I stroke one off it’ll be messy, but then again, maybe I’m impotent. But then here we are, three years into this, and not only has the FOMC not taken responsibility for what they did that caused the mess, they’re still trying the same crap that didn’t work in 2003 – except to blow another fraud-laced bubble.
Measures of underlying inflation are currently at levels somewhat below those the Committee judges most consistent, over the longer run, with its mandate to promote maximum employment and price stability. With substantial resource slack continuing to restrain cost pressures and longer-term inflation expectations stable, inflation is likely to remain subdued for some time before rising to levels the Committee considers consistent with its mandate.
It’s called Deflation jackass.
The Committee will maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and continues to anticipate that economic conditions, including low rates of resource utilization, subdued inflation trends, and stable inflation expectations, are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate for an extended period. The Committee also will maintain its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its securities holdings.
God forbid we stop drinking. We might have DTs.
The Committee will continue to monitor the economic outlook and financial developments and is prepared to provide additional accommodation if needed to support the economic recovery and to return inflation, over time, to levels consistent with its mandate.
“Accommodation”? By doing what? You’ve already smashed long and short rates through the floor. Further “accommodation” does nothing other than further inhibiting lending. Why would a bank take risk by lending when it can simply borrow money for zero and buy Treasuries, then REPO those into more cash for more Treasuries? That’s a zero-risk trade, right? (Hint: No it’s not even though under bank accounting rules it counts as one, but the why and how is left as an exercise for the reader.)
Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; James Bullard; Elizabeth A. Duke; Sandra Pianalto; Eric S. Rosengren; Daniel K. Tarullo; and Kevin M. Warsh.
We’ll never admit we’re wrong – even as we go in the wood-chipper of history – feet first.
Voting against the policy was Thomas M. Hoenig, who judged that the economy continues to recover at a moderate pace. Accordingly, he believed that continuing to express the expectation of exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period was no longer warranted and will lead to future imbalances that undermine stable long-run growth. In addition, given economic and financial conditions, Mr. Hoenig did not believe that continuing to reinvest principal payments from its securities holdings was required to support the Committee’s policy objectives.
Now if Mr. Hoenig would simply say “doing this is destroying capital formation”, we’d actually have a brain exhibited on the FOMC.
So far, no sign.







