FedUpUSA

Archive for the ‘mortgage’ Category

Massachusetts Register of Deeds John O’Brien and Forensic Mortgage Fraud Examiner Marie McDonnell find former Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin is victim of potential mortgage fraud;  expert says chain of title to new Arizona home clouded by robo-signers.

In a statement, McDonnell called the (JPM) foreclosure move a “hijack,” and a “fraud.”

Sarah Palin’s Tainted Chain of Title

As we reported here on April 26th, the Michigan Court of Appeals handed down a ruling that pretty much shuts down non-judicial foreclosures by MERS in Michigan.  As we indicated at the time, this is probably the most sweeping mortgage foreclosure case since Ibanez and has even further reaching consequences than any of the other MERS decisions handed down this year.   (See Residential Funding LLC v. Saurman, Case No. 290248 ).

As we had hoped at the time, this means things are a-changin’ in Michigan.  Since appellate court rulings set precedent in their respective states, lower courts are now required to take their cues from this case when hearing foreclosure suits before them.  Now it is just a matter of getting suits filed on behalf of wronged homeowners. 

Taking the lead in this regard is Justin Grove of the Dailey Law Firm, P.C. in Royal Oak, Michigan.  In addition to filing a class action lawsuit against Bank of America, Justin has now filed more than 15 actions to quiet title.   While these suits will take time, and there are no guarantees, the precedent now set by the Michigan Court of Appeals has given these homeowners a shot at leveling the playing field against the rampant and prolific number of fraudulent foreclosures perpetrated by the big mortgage banks in this state.

Just as important, is that the Dailey Law Firm is getting the word out about the fraud and corruption.  They’re bending more than a few ears, too.  With a weekly radio program airing in two markets, Detroit and Chicago, they are educating homeowners in a vast portion of the Midwest on two of the biggest mega-watt radio stations, WJR and WLS. 

In the past couple of years, almost as many scam law firms have sprung up taking advantage of homeowners, as there are fraudulent mortgage companies.  Unfortunately, an unsuspecting homeowner, desperate for help, may not recognize a scam when they see one.  A page everyone should bookmark and keep for reference for helping to spot a scam is READ THIS FIRST — DON’T GET SCAMMED!  This is also permanently linked on our Links page here on FedUpUSA.

However, let me assure you that Justin Grove and the Dailey Law Firm, P.C. are no scam.  They’ve not only done their homework, but as the Founder and Director of FedUpUSA, I’m going to personally vouch for their integrity.  Much of their work in this area to date has essentially been pro bono.  Filing suits on behalf of homeowners in foreclosure in a non-judicial state with absolutely no case precedent for defense, is a heck of a long shot.  Yet, they did it anyway.  Why?  Because fraud is a crime, but it is not a crime to default on a debt. 

As we’ve said before, this isn’t about anyone getting a free home; this is about the rule of law.  Those rules have been thrown three sheets to the wind in the past 4 years.  Property law has been violated by the banks; rules of accounting have been violated and circumvented (much with the blessing of Congress making special ‘exceptions’); and tax law has been completely thrown out the window, which has resulted in horrific losses of revenue for municipalities.  All of this is FRAUD.  Yet, no one has gone to jail.  Sure, there’ve been fines handed out here and there, but no one has been prosecuted — but many people have lost their homes, and a good portion of those have been the lenders utilizing the aforementioned methods of fraud.

So where does it end?  That’s the question we here at FedUpUSA have been asking since April of 2008.  Perhaps it ends when good people no longer remain silent and good attorneys are willing to stand up and say, ‘You know, there’s no point in my having a job, no point to my profession, unless the rule of law can actually be restored and followed.’  Justin Grove is one of those lawyers.

So, if you’re facing foreclosure, if you’re worried about the chain of title to your home, if you know MERS is part of that chain of title, tune in to The Law Show With Brian Dailey.   Get educated, and if you’re in Michigan and MERS has initiated foreclosure proceedings on your home, then call the Dailey Law firm.: (248) 744-5005 or (866) 66-Lawyer (866-665-2993)

FedUpUSA will be featuring permanent links to The Law Show in our side bar and the Dailey Law Firm, P.C. contact information can be found on our Links page.

Live Video Stream DETROIT Sunday 11:00 AM Eastern:

Live Video Stream CHICAGO Saturday 10:00 AM Central:

And in case you missed it, Justin Grove talked foreclosures and the recent Michigan Appeals Court ruling on their May 8, 2011 show.  Give a listen.

Justin Grove, Esq.

From western Michigan:

U.S. Loan Effort Is Seen as Adding to Housing Woes

By PETER S. GOODMAN

The Obama administration’s $75 billion program to protect homeowners from foreclosure has been widely pronounced a disappointment, and some economists and real estate experts now contend it has done more harm than good.

Since President Obama announced the program in February, it has lowered mortgage payments on a trial basis for hundreds of thousands of people but has largely failed to provide permanent relief. Critics increasingly argue that the program, Making Home Affordable, has raised false hopes among people who simply cannot afford their homes.

As a result, desperate homeowners have sent payments to banks in often-futile efforts to keep their homes, which some see as wasting dollars they could have saved in preparation for moving to cheaper rental residences. Some borrowers have seen their credit tarnished while falsely assuming that loan modifications involved no negative reports to credit agencies.

Some experts argue the program has impeded economic recovery by delaying a wrenching yet cleansing process through which borrowers give up unaffordable homes and banks fully reckon with their disastrous bets on real estate, enabling money to flow more freely through the financial system.

“The choice we appear to be making is trying to modify our way out of this, which has the effect of lengthening the crisis,” said Kevin Katari, managing member of Watershed Asset Management, a San Francisco-based hedge fund. “We have simply slowed the foreclosure pipeline, with people staying in houses they are ultimately not going to be able to afford anyway.”

Mr. Katari contends that banks have been using temporary loan modifications under the Obama plan as justification to avoid an honest accounting of the mortgage losses still on their books. Only after banks are forced to acknowledge losses and the real estate market absorbs a now pent-up surge of foreclosed properties will housing prices drop to levels at which enough Americans can afford to buy, he argues.

“Then the carpenters can go back to work,” Mr. Katari said. “The roofers can go back to work, and we start building housing again. If this drips out over the next few years, that whole sector of the economy isn’t going to recover.”

The Treasury Department publicly maintains that its program is on track. “The program is meeting its intended goal of providing immediate relief to homeowners across the country,” a department spokeswoman, Meg Reilly, wrote in an e-mail message.

But behind the scenes, Treasury officials appear to have concluded that growing numbers of delinquent borrowers simply lack enough income to afford their homes and must be eased out.

In late November, with scant public disclosure, the Treasury Department started the Foreclosure Alternatives Program, through which it will encourage arrangements that result in distressed borrowers surrendering their homes. The program will pay incentives to mortgage companies that allow homeowners to sell properties for less than they owe on their mortgages — short sales, in real estate parlance. The government will also pay incentives to mortgage companies that allow delinquent borrowers to hand over their deeds in lieu of foreclosing.

Ms. Reilly, the Treasury spokeswoman, said the foreclosure alternatives program did not represent a new policy. “We have said from the start that modifications will not be the solution for all homeowners and will not solve the housing crisis alone,” Ms. Reilly said by e-mail. “This has always been a multi-pronged effort.”

Whatever the merits of its plans, the administration has clearly failed to reverse the foreclosure crisis.

In 2008, more than 1.7 million homes were “lost” through foreclosures, short sales or deeds in lieu of foreclosure, according to Moody’s Economy.com. Last year, more than two million homes were lost, and Economy.com expects that this year’s number will swell to 2.4 million.

“I don’t think there’s any way for Treasury to tweak their plan, or to cajole, pressure or entice servicers to do more to address the crisis,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com. “For some folks, it is doing more harm than good, because ultimately, at the end of the day, they are going back into the foreclosure morass.”

Mr. Zandi argues that the administration needs a new initiative that attacks a primary source of foreclosures: the roughly 15 million American homeowners who are underwater, meaning they owe the bank more than their home is worth.

Increasingly, such borrowers are inclined to walk away and accept foreclosure, rather than continuing to make payments on properties in which they own no equity. A paper by researchers at the Amherst Securities Group suggests that being underwater “is a far more important predictor of defaults than unemployment.”

From its inception, the Obama plan has drawn criticism for failing to compel banks to write down the size of outstanding mortgage balances, which would restore equity for underwater borrowers, giving them greater incentive to make payments. A vast majority of modifications merely decrease monthly payments by lowering the interest rate.

Submitted by Leo Kolivakis, publisher of Pension Pulse.

Henny Sender of the FT reports that top hedge funds bet on big rise in yields:

The
recent rise in long-term US interest rates comes as good news for
several leading hedge fund managers, including John Paulson, who have
positioned their trading books to benefit from higher yields on US
Treasury securities.

 

Mr Paulson, who
made big gains earlier this decade by betting against the subprime
mortgage market and whose firm, Paulson & Co, manages $33bn, has
said he believes that government stimulus efforts would inevitably lead
to higher inflation and a corresponding rise in rates.

 

“It will
be difficult for the government to withdraw the economic stimulus,” Mr
Paulson said in a speech. “An increase in the monetary base leads to an
increase in the money supply, which leads to inflation.”

Bond
prices fall as yields rise, and Mr Paulson told the Financial Times
last week that he has been hoping to benefit in the Treasury market by
buying options that would become profitable if rates headed higher.
TPG-Axon’s Dinakar Singh has been making similar options trades,
according to a person familiar with the matter.

Julian Robertson,
the hedge fund manager, has pursued a related strategy, hoping to
benefit from a bigger difference between short-term and long-term
interest rates, known as a steeper yield curve, a person familiar with
his trades said.

The yield on the 10-year Treasury, which hit a
crisis low of 2.055 per cent last year, has moved from 3.2 per cent
last month to 3.75 per cent on Tuesday.

Hedge fund managers,
however, have been hesitant to engage in short sales of Treasury bonds
to profit from the rising yields – and falling prices – because of the
Federal Reserve’s heavy involvement in the market. This has led some to
buy options – dubbed “high strike receivers” – that would enable them
to profit from sharply higher Treasury yields, hedge fund managers say.
These trades, which are relatively cheap to execute because they are so
out of the money, are based on the thesis that yields could hit 7 or 8
per cent.

“If they are right, and the world ends, they will make
a fortune,” said one fund manager who is sceptical of the idea. “If
they are wrong, they haven’t lost much.”

Some traders are
cautious because many peers lost large sums betting that rates would
rise in Japan in the 1990s – as yields fell to less than half a
percentage point. The trade was termed the “black widow” because it left so many victims.

“Nobody
understood the extent of deflation and economic weakness in Japan,”
said Dino Kos of Portales Partners, a research consultancy, who was
then a Fed official. “More money was lost on that trade than on any
other single trade. Everyone piled in when rates were at 3 per cent and
then at 2.5 per cent and then at 2 per cent.”

So
is it time to place big bets on rising yields? I could easily see a
backup in yields in the near term as economic reports surprise to the
upside, but I don’t believe that bonds have entered a long-term secular
bear market. I think the hedgies are right, best to play interest rate
directional calls though options.

Also, given the increase in
liability-driven investing by pension funds worried about their funding
status, there is an upper cap on bond yields. I don’t know what the
exact magic number is, but at a certain level (say 7%), you’ll have
pensions scambling to lock in rates. Bond bears tend to ignore this
when predicting doom and gloom on bonds. All they do is focus on the
“pending collapse” of the US dollar, which won’t happen .

Could the next black/green/dark gray swan be so obvious that it has avoided everyone? Well, except for the deputy governor of the Bank of China, who just gave the world a startling reminder of economics 101, when he said that it is “getting harder for governments to buy United States Treasuries because
the US’s shrinking current-account gap is reducing the supply of dollars
overseas.” Oops.

The funny thing about natural (and economic) systems: they can only be pushed so far before they snap back to default state. With the entire world embarking on an unprecedented spree of domestic bubble blowing to mask the collapse in global GDP, everyone forgot to trade. Zero Hedge has long emphasized that the drop in world trade can only sustain for so long before it brings the current destabilized system back to some form of equilibrium. Because with every country intent on merely printing more of its own currency, whether it is to build bridges or to make the stock of electronic book fads trade at 100x earnings, said countries ran out of non-domestic cash. Alas, this is most critical for the United States, now that Treasury monetization is over, as the US needs to constantly find foreign buyers of its debt to fund unsustainable deficits. Foreign buyers who have US dollars. And according to Shanghai Daily, this could be a big, big problem.

Here is what the BOC’s Zhu Min said earlier:

“The United States cannot force foreign governments to increase their
holdings of Treasuries,” Zhu said, according to an audio recording of
his remarks. “Double the holdings? It is definitely impossible.”

“The
US current account deficit is falling as residents’ savings increase,
so its trade turnover is falling, which means the US is supplying fewer
dollars to the rest of the world,” he added. “The world does not have
so much money to buy more US Treasuries.”

In a nutshell, in printing trillions of assorted securities, the Treasury has soaked up the world’s dollars, which due to US banks not lending, is sitting and collecting dust in the form of bank excess reserves. These excess reserves can not be used to buy Treasuries and MBS as that would be literal monetization (as opposed to the figurative one which is what QE has been). And the world is running out of dollars with which to buy Treasuries.

Does this mean that the “world” will be forced to buy dollars, and thus spike the value of the greenback? Not necessarily:

In a discussion on the global role of the dollar, Zhu told an academic
audience that it was inevitable that the dollar would continue to fall
in value because Washington continued to issue more Treasuries to
finance its deficit spending.