Mortgage datapoints of the day

By Felix Salmon
October 15, 2010

Just how bad is the mortgage mess right now?

Mike Konczal finds an Andy Kroll piece from January which shows just how unregulated mortgage servicing has been: the OCC, for instance, has never taken action against mortgage servicers. And it’s far from clear that it’s inclined to now:

The OCC, which regulates the nation’s largest banks, has initiated “examinations” of foreclosure and loss-mitigation procedures at big banks, “to be conducted over the next several weeks to confirm compliance and that banks have remedied any identified issues,” an OCC spokesman said.

The point here is that the decision to go after banks and loan servicers is ultimately a political one, and there doesn’t seem to be a huge amount of appetite in Washington to have another huge fight with the banks, so soon after the last one. The OCC could, at any minute, get very tough on the servicers. But will it? That’s very uncertain.

Meanwhile, the incredibly low rate of existing home sales looks like it’s going to plunge still further:

New buyers have stepped back from the market for distressed property, which now accounts for more than 30% of new transactions, according to RealtyTrac. New owners are worried they don’t have a legal right to their homes. Title insurers are worried about their exposure to faulty documents and unwilling to stand behind new purchases. Since title insurance is required for most mortgages, the market is essentially at a standstill.

In other words, the housing market, which was broken before, is even more broken now.

What’s this all going to cost? Nelson Schwartz is throwing around numbers less than $10 billion, which is decidedly manageable, but that’s just the cost to banks, and crucially it assumes that the problem is merely one of paperwork. Hire a few new people, be a bit more diligent, and things will be able to sort themselves out.

If you start looking at the mortgage market, the potential cost gets much, much higher:

An alarming report on Bank of America, compiled by Branch Hill Capital, a San Francisco hedge fund, circulated widely on Wall Street on Thursday. Branch Hill suggested that the bank, the nation’s largest, could be facing more than $70 billion in losses from mortgage securities that it may have to repurchase from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as private investors.

“We think this is a very important issue, and the liability will be substantial,” said Manal Mehta, a partner at Branch Hill. “There has been pervasive bad behavior throughout the system.”

The problem is hardly confined to Bank of America, of course. All investment banks did this, which means they all have enormous potential liabilities.

And then the costs to the broader housing market are higher still. The longer that market fails to properly clear, and the longer that the overhang of unsold houses continues to grow, the less it makes sense to talk about what any given house is “worth” — and the more it makes sense for homeowners to default on their mortgages. They’re very unlikely to get thrown out of their homes for at least a year and possibly much longer, and there’s a pretty good chance, if they’re underwater, that at the end of this mess they’ll be able to negotiate some kind of principal reduction.

So what are the mortgage originators and investors doing about this huge problem? It looks as though they’re sticking their heads in the sand:

The Executive Director of the American Securitization Forum, Tom Deutsch, released the following statement regarding misinformation circulating within the financial markets that transfers of residential mortgage loans to securitization trusts were not valid.

“In the last few days, concerns have been raised as to whether the standard industry methods of transferring ownership of residential mortgage loans to securitization trusts are sufficient and appropriate. These concerns are without merit and our membership is confident that these methods of transfer are sound and based on a well-established body of law governing a multi-trillion dollar secondary mortgage market.”

Apparently the Forum is going to release a white paper “over the course of the next two weeks” designed to put our minds to rest. Needless to say, it won’t. Even if the narrow question of the transfer of ownership to the securitization trust is cleared up, there are still numerous enormous concerns surrounding mortgage bonds, including whether the banks misled investors, whether investors might be able to force the banks to buy the bonds back, and whether the bonds themselves are going to plunge in value as house prices fall, defaults rise, and the ability to foreclose on notes in default slowly evaporates.

And what happens if and when the homeowners who have already been foreclosed upon start filing class action suits against various parts of the financial-services industry, saying that the banks had no right to do that? If the verdicts of kangaroo courts start being overturned, things could start getting really messy.

What’s desperately needed here — and what isn’t going to happen — is someone to come in and take ownership of the whole mess, and cobble together a roadmap for getting out of it. But that would take more political will than seems to exist in the White House. So this is going to drag on, painfully, state by state, quite possibly for years. And while it’s doing so, the chances of any kind of robust economic recovery — at least outside the world of high-priced legal firms — seem slim indeed.

Comments
7 comments so far

As a renter, the whole mess is, well, some big heaping pile of cosmic justice for all involved. It’s hard not to root for the total collapse of the residential real estate market. Apparently we need to learn this lesson the hard way.

Posted by silliness | Report as abusive

I think of Freddy and Fannie as government run garbage disposals at this point. Will they even ask anyone to take back their MBS?

Posted by jpersonna | Report as abusive

My view (which is as ignorant as anyone’s, but it is free) is that we have held off someone taking a loss for 3 years now. At some point these losses have to be realized. All these MBS’s with their tranches all wrapped in layer upon layer of boilerplate legal caveats about these activities being done in accord with laws and due diligence.
Obviously, very little diligence.
If we can’t have TARP II (movie poster – ITS BAAAACK), whats gonna happen?

Posted by fresnodan | Report as abusive

If I may add this piece about the Earl family and another family half way through. It is extremely interesting and shows how lenders are abusing Tarp and increasing payments rather then lowering, making lump sum payment requests and then defaulting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/ 39676183#3967618

This sad last URL shows the chain has a path back to the FDIC. Maybe this spoiled their appetite to persue by the law. This is so much more then about foreclosure affidavits, but if there was this performance from the regulators, who is regulating the Mortgage laws?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-14  /foreclosure-fiasco-s-trail-leads-to-wa shington-jonathan-weil.html

Posted by hsvkitty | Report as abusive

If I may, I will add another good bit on what is happening to homeowners. Please read, if nothing else, page 3 of this article “one Nation Under fraud.”

http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/14/thedc- op-ed-one-nation-under-fraud/3/

Posted by hsvkitty | Report as abusive

Potential Liabilities with the big banks and Force Placed Insurance is an understatement….talk about a scandal…
http://lenderprovidedinsurance.com/

Posted by ForcePlaced | Report as abusive

Great paintings! That is the type of info that are meant to be shared around the net. Disgrace on Google for not positioning this publish upper! Come on over and consult with my web site . Thank you =)

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/