Big Banks Put In Charge of (Their Own) Foreclosure Settlement Payout


Step one: Use shoddy foreclosure policies to wrong four million homeowners. Step two: Agree to pay out $3.6 billion in a settlement with federal regulators. Step three: Get put in charge of the disbursement of that settlement.
This new agreement was reached after a year and $2 billion spent working with consultants made zero headway towards helping those facing foreclosure, raising questions about who these regulators were, why they were chosen, and what went wrong.
Cutting out the middleman is a time-honored way of saving money and trimming budgets. But is it the right move to put these banks in charge of cleaning up the mess they created through negligence (at best) or fraud (at worst)?
"Why did you not trust the banks a month ago?" asked one consultant who spoke anonymously for fear of offending regulators. "And why do you solely rely on them now?"
Of course, there's one other complication. The Independent Foreclosure Review was set up to fail.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency now says that it will check the work of the banks involved, which includes Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo. They have established a system that they think will be more equitable than a uniform payment to all parties involved:
Under the plan outlined last week, the banks will pore over loan files… to identify the worst possible errors. Military personnel illegally foreclosed on, for example, will rank highest on the list. Borrowers who might be current on their loan payments—and therefore did not warrant a foreclosure—will be next.
Regulators will then decide how much money to pay each category of borrower. The worse the errors, the bigger the payout.
Housing advocates are not so optimistic, claiming that the banks have every incentive to skimp on the process just to get it over with (not to mention conceal wrongdoing). Regulators respond to their concerns by pointing out that the settlement amount is fixed, thus "creating a backstop."
In other words: we don't care so much who gets the money as long as it all gets paid out. A classic government sentiment: thinking that any sort of redistribution creates wealth and solves problems.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Step one: Use shoddy foreclosure policies to wrong four million homeowners."
Step Two: Refer to deadbeats as "homeowners"?
What do you mean a barrista shouldn't be able to buy a $400K home you racist.
You know it's been six years since New Century cratered?
And I was sick of treating the culprits as victims six years ago.
If anybody's done more damage to our economy over the last six years than deadbeat homeowners, I don't know who it is. Somebody might argue that Barack Obama has been worse for the economy, but a lot of the awful, semi-permanent things he's done have been done under the pretense of protecting...people who don't realize that when they sign a loan, they have to pay it back--AKA "homeowners"?
No, no, no, call them "deadbeat, scumbag, freeloaders"--which is what they are. And the sooner they're all thrown out into the street, the better off we'll be.
I don't know, I can't blame people for being deadbeat, scumbag freeloaders when there are absolutely no negative consequences of being such.
However I don't disagree with you that we should call them such.
Of course they lied, but the bigger liar at the desk is the banker that was handing out the money knowing it was going into a black hole. The higher duty for the transaction is the one handing over the money.
The big problem is not the foreclosures, it is the acceptance by society that fraud in land records nationwide is okay to fix it. There is potential for huge losses to fix all these MERS records with perjured signatures by Linda Green.
"The higher duty for the transaction is the one handing over the money.
The lenders deserve to have to foreclose on the deadbeats--nothing more. (And even that's assuming the loans weren't acquired by way of a forced merger).
Actually, providing credit to risky borrowers can be extremely lucrative; see the abundance of credit card companies and payday loan shops for examples. Lending to risky borrowers with an asset like a home to repossess is actually better than what the credit card companies and payday loan do in some ways...
Meanwhile, the people who stopped making payments on their mortgages deserve absolutely nothing--except to be thrown out of the mortgage holders' homes.
I won't blame the deadbeats for their taking out the loans years ago because the lenders basically told them it was OK to lie.
What I WILL blame the deadbeats for is their current lie that they were being misled, etc.
Let us not forget that the biggest lender was the government via the GSE's. The lesson to be learned is NEVER trust a government official. Their only purpose is to change the rules in the middle of the game; the purpose of changing the rules is to eventually steal your property. Any advantage the government may provide you today is to fatten you up for later slaughter.
Shoddy foreclosure policies could refer to things like robosigning, and evicting people who are current because of clerical errors. I'm not sure but I think that's what the case actually referred to.
They aren't deadbeats if they were current with their loan but got forclosed anyway.
I won't say it's never happened that there was a clerical error--where someone who made their payments was accidentally foreclosed on--but if that happened, it was one in a million.
People got foreclosed on because they didn't make their mortgage payments. If the banks skirted some technicalities in order to get their properties back, that doesn't change the fact that the deadbeats needed to get out of the mortgage holders' homes.
The borrowers weren't confused about who they were supposed to send the checks to when they were still making payments--it only became confusing for them when they stopped making payments?
These are the kinds of questions judges ask when these foreclosures go to court on an individual basis:
Deadbeat: They don't have standing to foreclose!
Judge: How many payments have you made over the last six months?
Deadbeat: Um...none, Your Honor.
Judge: You knew you owed that money to somebody, right?
Deadbeat: Yes, sir.
Judge: But you haven't made any mortgage payments to anybody?
Deadbeat: Um.
Obama's got people's heads screwed on so far backwards, the deadbeats themselves are starting to believe they're the victims.
"Obama's got people's heads screwed on so far backwards, the deadbeats themselves are starting to believe they're the victims."
You mean if I don't make my payments, then I could lose my house?
Why didn't somebody warn me?!
I'm just a victim of Wall Street!
Greedy bankers!
Corporations aren't people!
I'll bet more than one lawyer earned a new Benz out of this.
Meh, the cash was never going to go (or ever intended to go) to anyone who was actually wronged, so who gives a crap who doles it out. Whichever way creates the least gov't jobs is my favorite, and it looks like this is it.
Hurray for crony capitalism.
The government already has the money, the only argument is which set of cronies get it.
I get tired of hearing how banks made all these 'risky' loans - as Forbes was warning for years, banks were making mortgage loans to dead chipmunks knowing that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were buying the loans no questions asked and implicitly putting the taxpayers on the hook for the loan. There was no risk involved for the banks. Sure, the banks were greedy, but with the incentive they had to get all the loan origination fees for churning out what were essentially government-backed loans, are you surprised?
Just because the borrowers defaulted doesn't give the lender license to commit fraud and trash the chain of title via robosigning and bad secondary market documentation.
If a lender wrecks its own ability to foreclose via incompetence and malfeasance, I for one am perfectly happy letting it bear the cost of that, even if it means converting the mortgage note to an unsecured note.
Which is all that would happen here. The lender can still go after the note, it just has to prove up the default and go through the judicial process for attaching its judgement to the house as a judgment lien rather than a mortgage lien.
So, no, holding the banks accountable for their wrongdoing doesn't mean deadbeats get free houses. Stop pretending it does.
Especially when a lot of the money govt is getting out of this has mostly gone to.... the govt. At least, if I recall correctly from older Reason posts on this topic. Maybe I'm wrong and the media quoted above got it right for once.
....