Showing posts with label homeowners help. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homeowners help. Show all posts
Thursday, August 4, 2011
CCN Game Changers - Mortgage Meltdown: Criminal Banks? - Part 3
Joe Vera of www.joeveraseminars.com says bank executives committed crimes and attorneys general are investigating... Are you a home owner that thinks you may have been a victim of these unlawful practices by the Banks? Visit Joe Vera Seminars
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Viewpoint: Five Key Tasks to Make FDIC Loss-Sharing Work
Why? Every day a court in the USA stops a bank from wrongfully foreclosing. Failed Bank executives walk away keeping bonuses based on bad loans. Then …
Why? Every day a court in the USA stops a bank from wrongfully foreclosing. Failed Bank executives walk away keeping bonuses based on bad loans. “After all, there is a reason why these banks failed. Oftentimes, financial statements are old,
appraisals are out of date, and file memos chronicling the loan’s current status are missing.” Then the government insures the buyer of a failed Bank against losses. The thinking seems to be if the government keeps hiding theft and charging it to our children and their children, maybe they (the bankers and the politicians that received “contributions) can continue to get away with skimming.
This article is written by an expert recommending that expert investors who intend to acquire a failed bank with an guarantee against loss should get more experts to counsel on the loss sharing agreement.
So, if the experts have to get experts, how are decent Americans, whether a cook, fireman, truck driver, doctor, or Ph.D. going to understand what is taking place behind closed doors. Yes, closed doors.
A county recorder in Utah said of MERS, “… if looked like a scam from hell.” You will be hearing more about Loss Sharing Agreements. What you won’t hear or read is how by starting a new bank, it might be possible to actually end up with profit by foreclosure on a American. This looks like another “scam from hell” to me.
Viewpoint: Five Key Tasks to Make FDIC Loss-Sharing Work
American Banker | Tuesday, January 12, 2010
By Charles B. Wendel
Entering into shared-loss transactions appears to be the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.’s preferred approach for
dealing with failed banks. More than 60% of last year’s 140 bank failures were resolved using this approach.
Shared-loss transactions let banks build market share or move into new markets with minimal risk. They also let
private-equity players (led by a team of bankers) take advantage of current industry discontinuities.
Much of the attractiveness of these transactions centers on the “guarantee” the FDIC offers buyers. Typically, the
agency remits 80% of “dollar one” loan losses to buyers and increases its payments to 95% for losses beyond an
agreed upon threshold. In turn, the FDIC benefits from recoveries during the 10-year life of these deals.
Though these deals are attractive strategically and economically, they are also complex.
My company’s work with banks and private-equity players points to five key elements that should be addressed in
order to structure and manage a transaction appropriately.
Conducting a focused due diligence process and negotiating the FDIC shared-loss deal. Though many players
are experienced in due diligence, the FDIC window is short, with no more than two weeks between reviewing an offer
package to bidding. Time with the target is also limited (two to three days), requiring a focused approach. Buyers
should assemble a team of internal and external resources and set clear priorities for their review process.
As for negotiating an agreement, the FDIC has standardized the general structure of its purchase-and-assumption
and shared-loss agreements. However, no two agreements are alike, given evolving requirements by the FDIC (for
example, a “true-up” provision added in the fourth quarter) and buyer-negotiated amendments. Management should
view these agreements as a bible that will be revisited many times. Bank buyers should consult the handful of legal,
valuation and related advisers with expertise in the shared-loss world, leveraging their knowledge rather than relying
solely on internal controllers, general counsels or other internal resources.
Addressing key accounting-related priorities. Accounting regulations to be addressed include FAS 141R, SOP
03-3 and IRC Section 593. Many tax and accounting issues stem from the need to determine the tax basis of assets
subject to the shared-loss agreement and the rules related to deferred tax gains. A bank’s auditor is conflicted out
from offering these services, since it would be reviewing and passing judgment on its own work. This requires bank
buyers to obtain the services of an independent firm with appropriate accounting and valuation capabilities.
Ensuring strong portfolio support. The FDIC expects buyers to make regular claim submissions related to loan
losses, usually monthly for residential loans and quarterly for commercial and consumer loans.
Residential submissions are relatively straightforward because of the objective loss criteria outlined by the FDIC,
namely, “actual losses incurred due to modifications, foreclosures, short sales, deeds-in-lieu or bulk sales.” However,
commercial submissions are more subjective and require greater evaluation.
The state of commercial loan files in failed banks is often inadequate for portfolio management or for making “audit-
proof” submissions. (After all, there is a reason why these banks failed.) Oftentimes, financial statements are old,
appraisals are out of date, and file memos chronicling the loan’s current status are missing.
Owners should select a team of internal and/or external resources to triage, in effect, the portfolio, uncovering the
low-hanging fruit that can be submitted earliest while establishing a process to assess the entire portfolio. Every loan
in the portfolio must be reviewed against the acquirer’s risk rating system and managed within policy guidelines.
Commercial bankers at the acquired bank should undergo a sea change in how they look at their loans. Before
failure, many banks avoided taking losses because their reserves could not support a realistic view of a borrower’s
position. Under shared-loss agreements, management wants bankers to accurately assess transaction risk as quickly
as possible in order to identify loans subject to FDIC claims.
Making accurate and complete certificate submissions. The FDIC has developed a three-page certificate that
requires buyers to tap multiple internal databases and in some cases provide manual inputs as well. Systematizing
this process is crucial to increased accuracy and productivity.
Using technology to track and monitor loan submissions and recoveries during the life of the FDIC agreement.
While residential mortgage loans usually involve one submission, both CRE and C&I loans may require multiple
submissions based upon declining values and continuing expenses related to asset preservation, legal and appraisal
costs.
In addition, recoveries occur across the portfolio. Buyers need to develop an inclusive information management
system or “portal” to track these ins-and-outs. Tying the portal to the bank’s core systems allows for the “automatic”
generation of certificates, eliminating much of the manual activity that dominates bank staffers’ time in the early
stages of integrating an acquisition.
Shared-loss transactions can be very attractive and beneficial to all stakeholders, including the customer and the
FDIC. However, making them work requires senior management focus, clear priorities, and a bankwide
understanding of the unique opportunity these transactions offer.
Charles B. Wendel is the president of Financial Institutions Consulting Inc.
Why? Every day a court in the USA stops a bank from wrongfully foreclosing. Failed Bank executives walk away keeping bonuses based on bad loans. “After all, there is a reason why these banks failed. Oftentimes, financial statements are old,
appraisals are out of date, and file memos chronicling the loan’s current status are missing.” Then the government insures the buyer of a failed Bank against losses. The thinking seems to be if the government keeps hiding theft and charging it to our children and their children, maybe they (the bankers and the politicians that received “contributions) can continue to get away with skimming.
This article is written by an expert recommending that expert investors who intend to acquire a failed bank with an guarantee against loss should get more experts to counsel on the loss sharing agreement.
So, if the experts have to get experts, how are decent Americans, whether a cook, fireman, truck driver, doctor, or Ph.D. going to understand what is taking place behind closed doors. Yes, closed doors.
A county recorder in Utah said of MERS, “… if looked like a scam from hell.” You will be hearing more about Loss Sharing Agreements. What you won’t hear or read is how by starting a new bank, it might be possible to actually end up with profit by foreclosure on a American. This looks like another “scam from hell” to me.
Viewpoint: Five Key Tasks to Make FDIC Loss-Sharing Work
American Banker | Tuesday, January 12, 2010
By Charles B. Wendel
Entering into shared-loss transactions appears to be the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.’s preferred approach for
dealing with failed banks. More than 60% of last year’s 140 bank failures were resolved using this approach.
Shared-loss transactions let banks build market share or move into new markets with minimal risk. They also let
private-equity players (led by a team of bankers) take advantage of current industry discontinuities.
Much of the attractiveness of these transactions centers on the “guarantee” the FDIC offers buyers. Typically, the
agency remits 80% of “dollar one” loan losses to buyers and increases its payments to 95% for losses beyond an
agreed upon threshold. In turn, the FDIC benefits from recoveries during the 10-year life of these deals.
Though these deals are attractive strategically and economically, they are also complex.
My company’s work with banks and private-equity players points to five key elements that should be addressed in
order to structure and manage a transaction appropriately.
Conducting a focused due diligence process and negotiating the FDIC shared-loss deal. Though many players
are experienced in due diligence, the FDIC window is short, with no more than two weeks between reviewing an offer
package to bidding. Time with the target is also limited (two to three days), requiring a focused approach. Buyers
should assemble a team of internal and external resources and set clear priorities for their review process.
As for negotiating an agreement, the FDIC has standardized the general structure of its purchase-and-assumption
and shared-loss agreements. However, no two agreements are alike, given evolving requirements by the FDIC (for
example, a “true-up” provision added in the fourth quarter) and buyer-negotiated amendments. Management should
view these agreements as a bible that will be revisited many times. Bank buyers should consult the handful of legal,
valuation and related advisers with expertise in the shared-loss world, leveraging their knowledge rather than relying
solely on internal controllers, general counsels or other internal resources.
Addressing key accounting-related priorities. Accounting regulations to be addressed include FAS 141R, SOP
03-3 and IRC Section 593. Many tax and accounting issues stem from the need to determine the tax basis of assets
subject to the shared-loss agreement and the rules related to deferred tax gains. A bank’s auditor is conflicted out
from offering these services, since it would be reviewing and passing judgment on its own work. This requires bank
buyers to obtain the services of an independent firm with appropriate accounting and valuation capabilities.
Ensuring strong portfolio support. The FDIC expects buyers to make regular claim submissions related to loan
losses, usually monthly for residential loans and quarterly for commercial and consumer loans.
Residential submissions are relatively straightforward because of the objective loss criteria outlined by the FDIC,
namely, “actual losses incurred due to modifications, foreclosures, short sales, deeds-in-lieu or bulk sales.” However,
commercial submissions are more subjective and require greater evaluation.
The state of commercial loan files in failed banks is often inadequate for portfolio management or for making “audit-
proof” submissions. (After all, there is a reason why these banks failed.) Oftentimes, financial statements are old,
appraisals are out of date, and file memos chronicling the loan’s current status are missing.
Owners should select a team of internal and/or external resources to triage, in effect, the portfolio, uncovering the
low-hanging fruit that can be submitted earliest while establishing a process to assess the entire portfolio. Every loan
in the portfolio must be reviewed against the acquirer’s risk rating system and managed within policy guidelines.
Commercial bankers at the acquired bank should undergo a sea change in how they look at their loans. Before
failure, many banks avoided taking losses because their reserves could not support a realistic view of a borrower’s
position. Under shared-loss agreements, management wants bankers to accurately assess transaction risk as quickly
as possible in order to identify loans subject to FDIC claims.
Making accurate and complete certificate submissions. The FDIC has developed a three-page certificate that
requires buyers to tap multiple internal databases and in some cases provide manual inputs as well. Systematizing
this process is crucial to increased accuracy and productivity.
Using technology to track and monitor loan submissions and recoveries during the life of the FDIC agreement.
While residential mortgage loans usually involve one submission, both CRE and C&I loans may require multiple
submissions based upon declining values and continuing expenses related to asset preservation, legal and appraisal
costs.
In addition, recoveries occur across the portfolio. Buyers need to develop an inclusive information management
system or “portal” to track these ins-and-outs. Tying the portal to the bank’s core systems allows for the “automatic”
generation of certificates, eliminating much of the manual activity that dominates bank staffers’ time in the early
stages of integrating an acquisition.
Shared-loss transactions can be very attractive and beneficial to all stakeholders, including the customer and the
FDIC. However, making them work requires senior management focus, clear priorities, and a bankwide
understanding of the unique opportunity these transactions offer.
Charles B. Wendel is the president of Financial Institutions Consulting Inc.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Michigan County approves Funding to Help Homeowners fight MERS, DocX cases
Michigan county approves funding to help homeowners fight MERS, DocX cases
by JON PRIOR
Wednesday, June 8th, 2011, 5:42 pm
A committee for the Ingham County Board of Commissioners in Michigan approved up to $60,000 in Legal Aid funding to represent borrowers affected by allegedly improper foreclosures and possible documentation fraud.
The full board is scheduled to approve the resolution June 14.
The county’s Register of Deeds Curtis Hertel Jr. uncovered potential fraudulent documents in his office calling into question hundreds of foreclosures. Hertel told HousingWire Wednesday he found 400 cases with possible fraudulent documentation involving Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems and another 100 involving DocX, a division of Lender Processing Services (LPS: 24.54 +0.41%).
According to the resolution adopted by Ingham County, the alleged wrongful foreclosures by MERS resulted in more than 400 people losing their homes over the last two years.
The legal assistance provided to affected homeowners will be made available between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012.
Both MERS and LPS signed consent orders with federal regulators in April as a result of a robo-signing scandal that engulfed multiple mortgage industry firms. Regulators required the two companies to “address significant weaknesses in, among other things, oversight, management supervision and corporate governance.”
MERS declined to comment on the Michigan subsidies. LPS did not immediately reply to requests for comment.
The Michigan Attorney General launched his own investigation into legacy DocX affidavits after Bill Bullard, the Register of Deeds in Oakland County uncovered questionable signatures and improper documentation as well.
The Michigan Court of Appeals required MERS in April to pursue foreclosures through the courts, even when the state normally uses a nonjudicial process.
Consumer advocates lobbied Washington for a federal funding program to help homeowners in these cases. Thad Bartholow, a foreclosure defense attorney for Armstrong Kellett Bartholow in Dallas, said such a program sounds like a good idea but could cause more harm in the long run.
“In particular, I would have concerns about creating a parallel to the already horrible problem with ‘foreclosure rescue’ scams by incentivizing shoddy or unscrupulous attorneys with little experience in this highly technical area of the law to take these cases, perhaps even on a volume basis, and absorbing the settlement funds without adequately serving their clients,” Bartholow said.
Hertel said other patterns cropped up in his investigation, which the courts are looking into. Bartholow said the issues arising out of these and federal probes seems unending in scope.
“Calling the problem of robosigning ‘epidemic” is a gross understatement,” Bartholow said. “Virtually industry-wide, it was the norm, with very few exceptions.”
by JON PRIOR
Wednesday, June 8th, 2011, 5:42 pm
A committee for the Ingham County Board of Commissioners in Michigan approved up to $60,000 in Legal Aid funding to represent borrowers affected by allegedly improper foreclosures and possible documentation fraud.
The full board is scheduled to approve the resolution June 14.
The county’s Register of Deeds Curtis Hertel Jr. uncovered potential fraudulent documents in his office calling into question hundreds of foreclosures. Hertel told HousingWire Wednesday he found 400 cases with possible fraudulent documentation involving Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems and another 100 involving DocX, a division of Lender Processing Services (LPS: 24.54 +0.41%).
According to the resolution adopted by Ingham County, the alleged wrongful foreclosures by MERS resulted in more than 400 people losing their homes over the last two years.
The legal assistance provided to affected homeowners will be made available between July 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012.
Both MERS and LPS signed consent orders with federal regulators in April as a result of a robo-signing scandal that engulfed multiple mortgage industry firms. Regulators required the two companies to “address significant weaknesses in, among other things, oversight, management supervision and corporate governance.”
MERS declined to comment on the Michigan subsidies. LPS did not immediately reply to requests for comment.
The Michigan Attorney General launched his own investigation into legacy DocX affidavits after Bill Bullard, the Register of Deeds in Oakland County uncovered questionable signatures and improper documentation as well.
The Michigan Court of Appeals required MERS in April to pursue foreclosures through the courts, even when the state normally uses a nonjudicial process.
Consumer advocates lobbied Washington for a federal funding program to help homeowners in these cases. Thad Bartholow, a foreclosure defense attorney for Armstrong Kellett Bartholow in Dallas, said such a program sounds like a good idea but could cause more harm in the long run.
“In particular, I would have concerns about creating a parallel to the already horrible problem with ‘foreclosure rescue’ scams by incentivizing shoddy or unscrupulous attorneys with little experience in this highly technical area of the law to take these cases, perhaps even on a volume basis, and absorbing the settlement funds without adequately serving their clients,” Bartholow said.
Hertel said other patterns cropped up in his investigation, which the courts are looking into. Bartholow said the issues arising out of these and federal probes seems unending in scope.
“Calling the problem of robosigning ‘epidemic” is a gross understatement,” Bartholow said. “Virtually industry-wide, it was the norm, with very few exceptions.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)