Hi Tanta, just in case you missed it earlier, both Professor Hamilton and I give you props right here on his blog in which I also suggest a (seemingly?) simple way to derive a national index of the incidence of mortgage fraud:
LEH paid the mid-year bonuses not as a sign of strength. They paid because they knew that they might not be in existence at the end of the year and wanted to treat their employees well & not stiff them with no bonus at all for 2008.
I'm not sure why you would want to use complaints to the FTC. As far as I know, the only complaints to the FTC come from consumers who are reporting bad behavior (such as false advertising) by the lender. Although that is certainly a problem, what you are not getting is complaints by lenders about fraudulent behavior of borrowers, appraisers, settlement agents, etc. Those would go to the FBI, not the FTC.
We also want to be careful with interpreting reports of fraud. Increasing reports of fraudulent behavior can quite possibly correlate with lower incidence of successfully pulled-off frauds. I mean, the FBI's numbers tend to come from things like SARs (suspicious activity reports) made by lenders. It's always possible that someone filing a SAR is trying to stop a fraudulent loan closing. (Some reports, of course, will only have been made after the fact--after the loan closing--because it just wasn't discovered until then.)
So while we're on the subject of due diligence, which I thought was the point of the post, if you increase due diligence you should be increasing reports of fraudulent attempts to the FBI. But you should also be lowering instances of successful fraud.
If you are interested, MARI (Mortgage Asset Research Institute) compiles a fraud index as part of its annual MARI Mortgage Fraud Report.
Wow, I actually read your complete post and think I understand what was said. Not because you can't write. I think you need to build a basic vocabulary and grasp of the process involved.
Historically it seems certain states have made it easier, sometimes far easier, for the FC process to work? My guess would be it is rooted in the structure of economic power? TN is probably a state where landed interests over time have made it possible to be done quickly? Perhaps dating from post civel war era?
Also, in this period of 200 +/- days the owner has been evicted? Possibly when the notice is posted? Then does the upkeep price fall on the agency?
But if they change reg1A645 to 300 days, and reg2784B to 1000 days, and reg6675B1A to 30000 minutes, whilst having not changed reg5O78A at the same time...doesn't this provide for some regulatory conflict.
You mean you that in the state of Maine you can live rent free for 505 days (17 months!) after the foreclosure starts. Now, the GSEs are going to give rent-free living for 10 months to every FC'd homeowner. On the taxpayer dime.
I have been a bitter renter, but no more. I am going to go buy a house, get a DAP to make the downpayment, then not make mortgage payments and collect my free rent for 10 months, and as a bonus some copper pipe and appliances.
it seems likely to me that the link to that Freddie Mac paper was probably the most useful link ever put into the comments in the history of the world. i wonder why that heroic fellow never got a curtsy.
Also, in this period of 200 +/- days the owner has been evicted?
No. Nobody can evict the occupants of a home except the owner of that home. The owner is the borrower until the FC has been completed. Once title goes to the lender or a third party purchaser, then the former owners can be evicted if they are still in the property. Nobody can be evicted prior to FC completion.
You mean you that in the state of Maine you can live rent free for 505 days (17 months!) after the foreclosure starts. Now, the GSEs are going to give rent-free living for 10 months to every FC'd homeowner. On the taxpayer dime.
Jesus Christ. Why do I bother to write posts?
Freddie's maximum timeline for Maine is 505 days from DDLPI to completion. You get 150 days DDLPI (four missed payments) until FC STARTS. After that, Freddie's timeline allows for 355 days (eleven missed payments) for FC to be completed.
Freddie Mac cannot do shit about the state of Maine's laws regarding FC. Only Maine can do something about that.
I personally have no idea why Maine's actual average is so much longer than Maine's statutory minimum. Maybe they have only one full-time sheriff in the whole bleedin' state and he's having a hard time serving all the paperwork.
But I do really wish you would quit getting your knickers in a knot before you've read the fucking post.
"Freddie Mac cannot do shit about the state of Maine's laws regarding FC. Only Maine can do something about that."
Are you OK? Seriously, I cannot recall you being so angry. This is heartfelt...not a funny or snark. Or maybe this subject really hits home? I'm just a dumb IT guy...so I don't know...
I thought I read at HW the other day that Freddie was "eliminating" timelines? Is all this fuss about them just extending some?
They are no longer paying foreclosure time line compensation. They are just going to pay a scheduled fee for certain kinds of workouts.
But while they are eliminating the bonus payment for staying inside the timelines, they are not eliminating the timelines. Presumably the timeline measurements just get used as a general measure of servicer performance now.
Are you OK? Seriously, I cannot recall you being so angry.
The day I stop using words like "shit" would be the day to worry that I'm not OK.
Why shouldn't I be frustrated with such a stupid comment? I think that these people who want to hold the GSEs responsible for every stupid thing that has ever happened in the world are cranks. I have a short way with cranks.
The comment was "Now, the GSEs are going to give rent-free living for 10 months to every FC'd homeowner."
You tell me why I shouldn't be annoyed by that kind of statement.
Yea. Mish and company would not be happy unless the GSEs were eliminated, all references eliminated from history, all present employees eliminated, and the corpses of past employees dug up, burned and ashes scattered.
It seems like Mish's worry is that any delay in a foreclosure is a delay in mark-to-market calculations for the value of the MBS the loan is packaged in. Whether the house is actually "foreclosed" on or not aside, the loan is still an NPA.
So, I guess his real question is, how do delays in foreclosure actions affect delays in MBS revaluation?
Mish and company would not be happy unless the GSEs were eliminated, all references eliminated from history, all present employees eliminated, and the corpses of past employees dug up, burned and ashes scattered.
Exactly.
If Freddie Mac had come out with a policy statement that said, "We don't care what the laws of the state of Maine are, you FC those folks' asses in 90 days or face our wrath," then they'd all be hollering because some corporation thinks it's above the law.
Mish's worry is that any delay in a foreclosure is a delay in mark-to-market calculations for the value of the MBS the loan is packaged in.
Well then he is confused about the difference between M2M and "realized losses." I don't know what to say about that.
Look. Freddie is saying they have research that shows that an FC period of about 300 days lowers losses to investors compared to a shorter timeline. The idea is that in these short-timeline states, not enough loans cure. Curing the delinquency is always a better deal for investors than completing FC.
Read the Cutts and Merrill paper. If you disagree with their findings, then tell us why. But it doesn't help to keep claiming that shorter timelines are always better for investors with no data to back it up.
Misean, it is a mental disorder my friend. Don't be surprised if one day you will be reading on this blog how Dick Cheney conspired to destroy these 2 great organisations.(F&F)
So, to be somewhat dense. Anything the agencies come up with will always be trumped by the state laws the FC is in. This change is just a proceessing recognition of that fact.
The same timelines also apply to non-agency lenders. Only to be altered by the processor(?) problems with doing the paperwork.
This timeline would also be altered if the the bank did not have all its paperwork in order. Such as Deutsche Bank?. This, then is not a big deal.
It seems like Mish's worry is that any delay in a foreclosure is a delay in mark-to-market calculations for the value of the MBS the loan is packaged in.
so you're saying Mish is "ticked" off?
that sounds horribly confused. they're trying to minimize losses, not avoid marking to market a bunch of MBS they don't own and that this change won't really impact the prices of.
The majority of prospectuses that I've read give servicers things like "modification fees" as "additional servicing compensation". So Freddie, et al, not only pay financial incentives to servicers but Freddie just doubled their own incentives to servicers.
At the same time, servicers are charging borrowers for "modification fees" as well. Why isn't this considered double dipping - or in the case of Freddie's increase now, "triple" dipping? Servicers are getting paid by both ends of the spectrum here for the same action.
Not only does Freddie furnish a timeline table but the United States Foreclosure Network ( USFN | Home ) does a fine job of keeping the foreclosure mills that Freddie's servicers use up to date on any changes as well. And the quarterly retreats - er, conferences - for the FC mills to compare notes must be a nice change of pace.
"Meanwhile, servicers, whom investors pay to collect mortgage payments from borrowers, often have no incentive to help borrowers find the ultimate holder of a loan, Mr. DelliBovi said. Servicers make more money on a foreclosure than when the loan is worked out, he said.
Anything the agencies come up with will always be trumped by the state laws the FC is in.
Well, yeah. If state law says you cannot complete a foreclosure action in less than 209 days (like Maine), then Freddie Mac cannot require its servicers to complete a foreclosure in Maine in 150 days.
If state law says you can complete a foreclosure in 33 days (like TN), then Freddie can allow its servicers to take up to 150 days.
I really didn't expect that point to be controversial.
This timeline would also be altered if the the bank did not have all its paperwork in order. Such as Deutsche Bank?
No, the timeline is the timeline. If DB cannot complete a foreclosure in Freddie's allowable timeline because its paperwork is a mess, DB would not meet Freddie standards for foreclosure servicing. The whole idea of an investor like Freddie providing these timelines is normative: this is as long as it should take for an efficient and competent servicer. If it takes you longer than that, you are presumptively not efficient and competent.
At the same time, servicers are charging borrowers for "modification fees" as well. Why isn't this considered double dipping - or in the case of Freddie's increase now, "triple" dipping? Servicers are getting paid by both ends of the spectrum here for the same action.
Funny you should bring that up, Mike. In the very same bulletin that Freddie just issued that increases what it pays to servicers for a mod, it prohibits servicers from collecting a mod fee from the borrower.
I don't understand those oppose changes to slow down the foreclosure process. Ok - they're opposed to anything government - they're libertarians I guess. Let them foreclose on everyone and watch housing prices collapse until everyone is broke. They believe in punishment for stupidity no matter what the cost. I call that throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but they are entitled to their opinion.
Still, I tend to think the problem that created this bubble was the unregulated shadow finanical system. It abandoned all reason and responsibility in the pathological pursuit of profit. The GSE's did not, as near as I can tell, throw money at IndyMac, WaMu, CFC, etc. saying, "Please lend this money to subprime slime so we can rake in massive profits on the bonds. The GSE's did not payoff appraisers. The GSE's did not make loans on 1100 sq ft homes in CA for $650,000 to people with no income. The GSE's did not create perverse incentives to allow mortgage brokers to charge folks subprime rates even if they qualified for prime.
Kill the GSE's if you want, but replace them with what?
Tanta,
IMHO you have lost track of the big picture: FRE/FNM will probably be nationalized, because they are in-solvent (see fed's poole), as a result of massive leverage and housing asset deflation. Any private company with 100:1 leverage and with liabilities of half the governments, has to be condemned. The size of their balance sheet, has always made their implicit gov. guarantee, explicit.
To fiddle with any rules when they are in a very precarious financial position, is playing with the biggest systemic risk fire for 50years. Watch the dollar crisis if/when they are nationalized, and they are included in the govt. balance sheet. Let's not stare ourselves blind on technicalities when precarious confidence is at risk
Paul, as one who has strong libertarian proclivities, I should tell you that I, for one, don't think "killing the GSEs" is feasible, let alone optimal.
I do think that they need stricter captial requirements, and that there should be a push to follow the FHLB model so that lenders have more vested interest in the performance of the loans that they originate & service.
Presumably the timeline measurements just get used as a general measure of servicer performance now.
i'm not sure about this, but i would guess that you still get "incentives" for being a "tier one" servicer, and it looks like FC timeline management is still one of the major criteria for that:
We extend several tangible business benefits to recognize and reward customers who achieve Tier One ratings in both the Investor Reporting and Remitting and the Default Management categories of their Servicer Performance Profile. Based on your performance and portfolio size, you can be eligible for Tier One Platinum or Tier One Gold awards, earning incentives of as much as $50,000. Plus, meet the Tier One Platinum or Tier One Gold criteria for four consecutive years with no material foreclosure timeline penalties and you will be included in our prestigious Hall of Fame, earning additional incentives of up to $50,000.
If someone knew how to game the system, how long could they stall the foreclosure /eviction process? I realize it would vary from situation to situation, but I'm guessing there are ways that most people are in ignorance of. I'm not asking for a detailed list (don't really want to "encourage" the behavior) but I have seen foreclosure "postponements" and wonder what the heck is that about.
i'm not sure about this, but i would guess that you still get "incentives" for being a "tier one" servicer, and it looks like FC timeline management is still one of the major criteria for that
I don't know if that's going to be changed or not given the language of the July 31 Bulletin.
I do believe, however, that penalties to servicers for FCs that go out of timeline are still in place.
So up until September 01, 2008, it has been perfectly acceptable for Freddie, to encourage double-dipping on the part of servicers?
Would I be correct in ASSuming that the offering of "incentives" such as these to servicers is pretty much an industry standard? Is the rest of the servicing industry double-dipping on mod fees etc.?
It'll be interesting to see the language used in PSAs post 09/01/08.
If someone knew how to game the system, how long could they stall the foreclosure /eviction process?
We just had a post the other day about someone who filed Chapter 13 four times. In the last one, she got her attorney to object to the servicer's standing, which took months and months to resolve. All told, she got about six years until the lender broke down and accepted a short payoff from a reverse mortgage refi to get the problem to go away.
Besides frivolous BK filings? You can always counter-sue or, in judicial states, contest the FC in court. All this "you can't prove you own my note" stuff is basically about that kind of stalling.
It also probably helps if you're located in a big market with a servicer who is very backlogged.
Maybe I misunderstand something, but here's my question--are the resources available to and staffing levels at mortgage servicers remotely sufficient, or are these timelines aspirational fiction?
I'm not talking the morality of the GSE's. I'm not interested in the squatters' free lunch at taxpayer expense. I'm not really even interested in the big picture policy questions of what happened, why and what to do about it.
I'm just curious whether about the mechanics. This was a very good post on how the mechanics should work. But the whole basis of the originate to distribute, credit score driven automated approval process was commoditization and standardizaton that permitted a repricing (to the consumers' benefit) of credit. In retrospect, the apparent controls were illusory (whether at the mortgage broker in the stip mall or at the rating agency on Wall Street) and the whole initiative has created a royal mess.
Dealing with the mess involves handling a bunch on one-offs. The grandstanding politician emoting about people's homes has a point, to the extent that it's hard to commoditize the work out process. I have yet to hear one acknowledge that the cost of file by file resolution will inevitably be borne by the public. Somehow, they never get to the point that liar loans were generally not made to total innocents. Even if the liars were told under the broker's tutilege, the borrower did have to lie to get the loan. Not sure why that point isn't made more often.
So up until September 01, 2008, it has been perfectly acceptable for Freddie, to encourage double-dipping on the part of servicers?
I suspect if you asked Freddie, they'd say that before September servicers could get $800 for a mod: $400 from Freddie and $400 from the borrower. After September, servicers can get $800 for a mod: $800 from Freddie and $0 from the borrowers.
It doesn't make any sense to call the old rules "double-dipping" unless you believe that $800 is excessive servicer compensation.
Personally, I think all borrowers except a very few bona-fide serious hard-luck cases should pay a mod fee. I think borrowers take these things more seriously when they have to pay a fee, and they are less likely to accept a mod they have no intention of honoring if they have to pay out of pocket.
But Freddie has been influenced too much by people like you, I suspect.
Maybe I misunderstand something, but here's my question--are the resources available to and staffing levels at mortgage servicers remotely sufficient, or are these timelines aspirational fiction?
I just do not understand this term "aspirational fiction."
Are you asking if servicers are mostly meeting these standards? Well, we looked at Maine: the standard is 505 days and the actual average is 598 days. I'd say that means a lot of servicers aren't meeting the standards in Maine.
But why does that make standards "fiction"?
It seems quite clear to me that servicers are understaffed for default management. But that doesn't mean Freddie shouldn't have standards. It means a lot of servicers are likely not to meet those standards.
can a home owner 'game' the 300 day rule by making a payment sometime before the period ends? Would this restart the clock? I'm thinking not.
Once more. The "300 day rule" means the servicer cannot take more than 300 days. It does not mean the servicer can't take less than that.
The rules say servicers must start FC proceedings no later than 150 days from Due Date of Last Paid Installment. If you are 149 days out and you make another payment, you just advanced the DDLPI by 30 days.
Technically, I suppose, a servicer could then go ahead and wait another month before starting FC.
But most of them don't. If you haven't done anything or agreed to a workout plan in 119 days of delinquency and then you just suddenly make a single payment, the servicer can still say that's not good enough and start FC. Starting FC may be what you need to to make you quit dorking around like that. Starting FC doesn't mean that FC will ever get completed. Sometimes you start FC just to force the borrower to get real with you. Freddie does not discourage servicers from doing that when it is appropriate.
It isn't doing us any good to confuse the metrics an investor like Freddie might use to establish outside limits with hard and fast rules for what a servicer might do on any individual loan.
Figure 3 in that paper looks interesting...ignoring peaks and valleys, it appears that of the loan categories where delinquency rose from the 2001-2002 recession, the only one that fell afterwards was subprime. The others either stayed high (VA, FHA) or kept rising (All Conventional). Not exactly what I would have expected from an economic "recovery".
Among active fcls, I show only 7% of loans currently are beyond Freddies timeline in Maine.
Of course, if a few are way over the timeline (because of muliple frivolous bk filings or whatnot) that can skew the average. Which is why it would have been enlightening to include the median as well as the mean in that Freddie research paper.
in claiming that tanta missed the big picture, you miss the big picture.
the big picture, as you so well state, is that Fannie/Freddie are explicitly our (the taxpayer's) problem now. thus, our desire should be to reduce their financial losses.
Fannie/Freddie have just found the sweet spot that should reduce losses. And thus they've set up the standard as such.
therefore, this is a "good" thing as it will reduce taxpayer liability.
of course we all wish we weren't on the hook... but that's magical thinking, sorta like how I wish I had Jedi powers, then I could mind bend you into making sense.
Anything the agencies come up with will always be trumped by the state laws the FC is in.
I understand that timelines are a matter of state law, but is there any historical reason that Congress has not mandated a uniform timeline, for is clearly within its purview? Has it even been debated at the national level, or is losing one's home something so personal (e.g. family and probate law) that Congress leaves it to the states to dictate?
I just read Mish's posting. Once again all this concern about freeloaders gaming the system... It all just seems like an excuse to do nothing. I understand the impulse - we all get off on self-righteous indigation - but it seems disconnected from the danger to the larger economy. Sure - lots of people used the easy money tools provided by Wall Street and made bad investments. Like wtih any "program", some undeserving will take advantage. How many more people have to go bankrupt or get forclosed before we will have punished our society to their satisfaction? Just give me a number.
But Freddie has been influenced too much by people like you, I suspect.
Tanta | Homepage | 08.03.08 - 12:19 pm | #
Oh please, Tanta. DO elaborate on this thought... Do you mean people who have injunctions and contempt orders against a mortgage servicer for attempting to illegally foreclose on their homes?
Among active fcls, I show only 7% of loans currently are beyond Freddies timeline in Maine.
that doesn't mean anything, since it's likely that the majority of active FCs have been started fairly recently. you have to look at the percentage of completed FCs that are beyond Freddie's timeline.
I understand that timelines are a matter of state law
timelines are not a matter of state law, they are a function of varaiations in state laws. Some of you guys need to understand what a timeline is. The purpose of a timeline isn't to rush a foreclosure along, or vice-versa, to slow it down. It's to evaluate servicers performance in this regard. To be able to evaluate if they fall within the range of "normal" for the circumstances (which vary by local laws).
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know why this is a right of the states. But what's the point? Coz it's "so personal"? What if Congress decided borrowers who don't pay get to stay put for 5 years for free? Would that make everything better in rowans' world?
What makes a standard 'aspirational fiction' rather than a benchmark or reasonable expectation?
I'd say there are a couple of things. First, can it be met, given resource constraints and the realities of the situation? My wife teaches school, and some of the 'educational standards' that kids are tested to are, unfortunately, aspirational fiction. If you want to make them operative, for instance, you could begin to address the problem with mandatory prison sentences of the parents of chronically truant elementary age children. Hell will freeze over before that happens.
A second thing that makes standards operative is whether consequences attach to compliance. My son works deep in the bowels of the great General Electric and they have maintenance and servicing standards for various pieces of heavy equipment that are operative, observed and real world consequences (good and bad) attach to meeting those standards. From closely reading your post, I get the sense that, in Maine for example, there is a pretty significant failure to stick to the timelines.
Obviously, standards, timelines, benchmarks are necessary to the administration of any large scale, dispersed activity. And when circumstances change (here a pig appears to have been swallowed by a python) the standards, digestive timeline, whatever, needs to be reviewed. My question is simply, is the problem one of revising the standards, or is it going to become one of resource adequacy? And if the means aren't currently available to handle the unfolding problem, where are they going to come from?
I've learned an amazing amount on this blog. Thank you.
In foreclosure, is it difficult to serve papers on an out of state owner? The reason I ask is according to the US Census Bureau, Maine historically has one of the highest percentages of vacation rental properties in the country at 15% So I wondered if this might factor into their longer time line.
Mike Dillon,
I've spent too much of my life dealing with and looking at bills from underwriters, lawyers and accountants. One thing I've noticed is that the person who writes the check is frequently not the person who pays the bill. In large transactions (such as a home purchase), the person who writes the check is seldom the person who pays les vrais frais.
First, can it be met, given resource constraints and the realities of the situation?
I really don't think we're on the same planet here.
Freddie increased the timeline for FCs in 21 states. Maybe some servicers cannot meet the new timeline. But if so, they certainly couldn't meet the old timeline, which was shorter.
But how could you possibly say that servicers are underresourced to meet the problem if you do not define what a fully-resourced servicer could be expected to do?
Presumably, the resources are going to come out of mortgage servicers' pocketbooks, is where. If they cannot meet Freddie's standards for FC management, they will have to hire people or hire more expensive law firms or whatever it takes to meet those standards.
If servicers can't meet standards because the state itself is hopelessly under-resourced (which sounds, by the way, like the situation in Florida, where the courts are so backlogged that you can't get a foreclosure on the docket for months and months to even start the process), then neither servicers nor Freddie Mac can do anything about that. Either the state will add resources or the state will put up with a very very long resolution to its FC problems.
I think you are mistakenly thinking of Freddie Mac as a government regulator. They are not. They are an investor in mortgages and they set expectations for what approved servicers will do and how fast they will do it.
The fact is that nothing in my post means that Freddie Mac has not, actually, penalized servicers for screwing up in Maine. I don't have any evidence about that one way or the other. The fact is, the Maine pipeline is so tiny compared to Freddie's national portfolio that probably one bad servicer could throw the averages off there. There is really not that much reason to worry about Maine, which isn't exactly the epicenter of the FC crisis. It came up only as an example of a state with a very long FC timeframe because that's the way the Maine state legislature wrote the laws.
No. Nobody can evict the occupants of a home except the owner of that home
Tanta, disagree. Around suburban Chicago if you can't pay your water bill to the town, they shut of the water and then the house becomes "uninhabitable".
Are you saying that you think they calculated these averages including time under BK stay?
here's what the paper says:
The timeline in the table assumes that the foreclosure attorneys working on the investors/servicers behalf execute the foreclosure with maximum efficiency but that each step in the process takes the full time allotted for the minimum time required under state law. There are often delays throughout the foreclosure process caused by backlogs in the court system, bankruptcy filings by borrowers or borrowers who contest the foreclosure. But, importantly, the foreclosure process can be delayed or suspended at any time prior to the foreclosure sale to accommodate a viable workout deal with the borrower. If the borrower fails to meet the terms of contract on a home-retention workout, the foreclosure process resumes, usually at the point in the process at which it was suspended. Thus, we would expect actual average foreclosure timelines to exceed expected optimal foreclosure times by a significant amount and indeed this is the case
in nearly all states.
Thanks for the post. My first impression of the extended timelines was that it was an attempt at inventory control and price stabilization. The Cutt/Merrill paper demonstrates the opportunity costs involved with shorter timelines
If someone knew how to game the system, how long could they stall the foreclosure /eviction process?
I volunteer for a legal aid organization and in my jurisdiction it would normally take about 6 weeks for an eviction for simple non payment of rent. I am aware of case where a person has held off eviction after the trustee sale for about a year without a bankruptcy. I think the fact the person is representing himself actually worked to his advantage because the judges have cut him some slack that they havent to the plaintiffs professional attorneys.
Well, if BK time is included in the "actual averages," then you have to be aware that Freddie Mac adds it to the "allowable timeframe."
That is, Freddie's timeline for state n might be 300 days, but if your borrower in a given FC files for BK, Freddie adds the BK time to your performance timeline. So in state n with a borrower who filed BK, your FC timeline might be 300 days plus 125 days for the BK or 425 total.
They also add to the timeline if the borrower is dead and you are foreclosing against the estate and probate is taking forever and stuff like that.
I had assumed that this being the case, Cutts and Merrill would have backed the BK time out of the "actual" cases for comparison purposes. Otherwise these "actual" numbers have less to do with state law issues than with the relative frequency and duration of BKs in a given state.
I had assumed that this being the case, Cutts and Merrill would have backed the BK time out of the "actual" cases for comparison purposes. Otherwise these "actual" numbers have less to do with state law issues than with the relative frequency and duration of BKs in a given state.
i would have assumed that too, but to me it reads like they didn't, which is just bizarre.
One thing I'm curious about is why did Freddie Mac, and not Fannie Mae also, re-define foreclosure time limits? Do both institutions have similar limits?
Yeah, our court system didn't have enough resources BEFORE they made the recent cuts to the system to balance the budget, but. .
Mostly the delay is due to incompetent foreclosure mills. Not that I'm complaining because I often delay foreclosures.
You can file a foreclosure anytime you want and the complaint is there the day you file it. It hits the electronic docket shortly after.
Then you have to wait and see if there is a response--20 days. Then you have to file summary judgment. Usually you can get on the Motion Calendar (in Miami-Dade, the smaller counties don't have motion calendar), in a week theoretically, but I've found it's better to give the system 10 days to 2 weeks. Then it's set for sale about a month later, then Certificate of Title 10 days later.
My foreclosure defending began many years ago when a person or 3 a year convinced me that money was coming in and the mtg company just didn't believe it. In fact, in every single case the money did come in. In one case it wasn't enough, and the house was lost. This was total, umm 10-15 cases over the years. Do I feel guilty about dragging these out? Absolutely not. One of them took a year for the money to get in, but everybody got paid, and in my opinion the foreclosure mill should have asked for more money; I wouldn't have fought it, but the didn't.
Part of it was my revenge for the horrid way all borrowers were and are treated by the lenders, good and bad credit, rich and poor, people with connections within the lender (such as a close relative in the branch of the lender) or none, virtually everybody got uniformly awful service. Lost papers, more and more unreasonable demands, even in the days of email, they'd claim they lost the email. . .
Ok, now we come up to today. There are still a couple of people, that I expect will be brought current. In fact, I closed one last week. She only owed 62k on a house that is worth 140k. Absolutely no help was offered. Nice 2/2, on a water view with a wood deck. Lady lost her job for a while. After literally nearly a year, we finally found a hard equity lender. It is impossible to sell in Miami-Dade--a 36 months supply, and probably 48 months when you add in phantom inventory.
Another lady will refi in the next few weeks.
That one actually has a defense. She too lost her job and got behind.
At peak, her ltv was manybe 33%; not probably 66%. When she refinanced the stupid title company missed a couple of liens; she thought they hade been taken care of because her ex said he'd do it and she wasn't ask to pay them (true? I dunno; plausible.) Ok, she found a hard equity lender to give her a 2nd, and then I found the liens in my title search. I begged the foreclosure mill to make a title claim last September or so. Isn't that what title insurance is for? We have a procedure to divest liens from homestead property which takes 45 days. By the time the 45 days were up the property/loan mkt had gone to hell and the hard equity lender was no longer willing to lend. We finally found another hard equity lender, and by that time, we had to do the 45 day thing ago. By that time I filed a defense counter suing them because it was their title company's fault that the liens weren't cleared at closing etc, etc.
Did that inspire them to file a claim? No. The mill has now filed 2 requests for more time--as if I wouldn't give it!! Also, we got a pay off letter where the amount demanded for insurance was maybe triple was even expensive forced place insurance is. Yes we owe it, but they refuse to provide bills, so I have a hearing scheduled for next week so we can finally close. I hope the lender hasn't changed his mind. I almost hope it doesn't close, just for the intellectual challenge of seeing just how long these idiots will take to file a claim or otherwise resolve things.
And yes, nowadays I do file delays for the sake of delays. No justification except it's my way of punishing the lenders, and also I've heard some hairraising stories of abandoned houses uncareful by lenders.
One thing I'm curious about is why did Freddie Mac, and not Fannie Mae also, re-define foreclosure time limits? Do both institutions have similar limits?
Fannie Mae also has limits, but Fannie's approach is a little different from Freddie's. Fannie gives servicers a maximum timeline from referral to sale in number of months for judicial FCs in the various states. For any non-judicial FC in any state, they just give a standard three months.
With a similar pre-referral requirement, Fannie's total timelines are comparable to but not identical to Freddie's old requirements. I don't know if Fannie will extend some timelines as well.
Otherwise these "actual" numbers have less to do with state law issues than with the relative frequency and duration of BKs in a given state.
Frequency, maybe. Duration, no.
Since bankruptcy law is Federal, there should be, at least in theory, no meaningful variation from state-to-state in the duration of BKs. That should all average out when you aggregate up a decent-sized sample. Which is why I thought there was some generic allowance for BK baked into the timelines. But I could be wron...and God knows bacon dreamz would be happy to correct me if I am.
As far as the Crews Cutts paper, that was out to do something entirely different, so yes -- it would have been nice to back out the bk stop/stats -- But, I would be willing to bet you an entire box of fig newtons that they didn't have the data readily available.
Good afternoon Tanta - got an idea for you and CR... a money making idea. You should sell little 'Foreclosure Time Line Dials'... we use those in manufacturing to figure out our lead-times... time it takes to deliver a mold or die...
They look like this... with the center circle a separate dial that can move relative to the outer 'calander ring'. Just move the arrow to the 'start date'... and you can see out 'X weeks' to the next milestone.
Could even have little milestones - like the GSE min & max times for each state printed on the inner dial. Make it easy for the not-so-uber-nerds to play along.
And you don't even have to plug it in or boot it up. Doesn't even need a battery.
Bet you could sell kajillions of them to bankers, GSE bureaucrats and even 'armchair mortgage quarterbacks'... even offer to print originator names on them so they can hand them out like promotional 'thank yous'... almost a useful as an umbrella or a coffee mug.
Sometimes, given the reception and apparent reading comprehension of commenters, I wonder the same thing...I'm deeply grateful that you continue to flog the issues though.
I think far too many people really have at best only a passing understanding of the process and the power of the GSEs. As you stated clearly at the beginning, it's all regulated by state law, and the GSEs have to function with 54 different jurisdictions. Lawyer Employment Policy, front and center.
My only critique of your ubernerd posts is that some of your explanations tend to the pedantic and occasionally overstate the case. Of course, given the point above, it seems it's not possible to be too exhaustive. I used to be a Chem teacher, I have empathy for you and the task at hand.
I thought Freddie's discussion of compensating servicers for third-party vendors who make a successful "door-knocking" was simply rivetting! Of course, those "door knockers" need to be courteous and respectful, suggesting that ads for folks do to this will read "Nice Knockers Only!" Very appropos, given the recent housing BUST!
Now listen here little lady, I'm busting my ass trying to help you (as usual). I tried to wave my arms, i.e, flail (transitive verb) in an attempt to connect you to a potential threatening attack from Mish in the OT thread this morning, and all I get now is: Jesus Christ. Why do I bother to write posts?
I think that is somewhat redundant, but so what? At least I got the satisfaction that I helped connect someone to something they needed, and that is the only reason I'm here (man).
Furthermore, we made a deal, I'm not sure what it was, but I think I was to leave and never come back; what was I to do though?
A question for Tanta (or anyone else) about Freddie Mac foreclosures, although more about pushbacks than timelines so it is mildly OT:
A couple of mortgages were originated by a lender (WaMu) in my neighborhood in mid-2007. They were pretty clearly cases of appraisal fraud, and they both foreclosed with a Sheriff's Deed in less than 9 months (EPDs). The foreclosing bank on the Sheriff's Deed is actually Freddie Mac. Does this mean that Freddie Mac did not shove the loans back to WaMu
(I asked this awhile ago, but the more I think about it the answer must be yes, the loan was not pushed back.)
Thanks Tanta, I think I learned three things from this post and the comments.
Freddie and Fanny are not government regulators, they are government sponsored enterprises that buy mortgages, hold some, and sell others in security packages. They still have a special relationship with the federal treasury so investors in both the securities and the corporations generally perceive less risk and thus demand less return on their investments.
Foreclosure, eviction and bankruptcy are all different. They may arise from a common element such as a house that a person bought but could not afford but the specific actions are separate and governed by separate laws enacted by separate levels of government.
You write more precisely and carefully than many of us read. That is our problem, not yours. Thanks for you patience.
Good morning. For those of you waking up, the last discussion thread towards the end was excellent reading about CDS.
Second?
Hi Tanta, just in case you missed it earlier, both Professor Hamilton and I give you props right here on his blog in which I also suggest a (seemingly?) simple way to derive a national index of the incidence of mortgage fraud:
Econbrowser: Due diligence
LEH paid the mid-year bonuses not as a sign of strength. They paid because they knew that they might not be in existence at the end of the year and wanted to treat their employees well & not stiff them with no bonus at all for 2008.
I saw that, Charlie, and I appreciate the props.
I'm not sure why you would want to use complaints to the FTC. As far as I know, the only complaints to the FTC come from consumers who are reporting bad behavior (such as false advertising) by the lender. Although that is certainly a problem, what you are not getting is complaints by lenders about fraudulent behavior of borrowers, appraisers, settlement agents, etc. Those would go to the FBI, not the FTC.
We also want to be careful with interpreting reports of fraud. Increasing reports of fraudulent behavior can quite possibly correlate with lower incidence of successfully pulled-off frauds. I mean, the FBI's numbers tend to come from things like SARs (suspicious activity reports) made by lenders. It's always possible that someone filing a SAR is trying to stop a fraudulent loan closing. (Some reports, of course, will only have been made after the fact--after the loan closing--because it just wasn't discovered until then.)
So while we're on the subject of due diligence, which I thought was the point of the post, if you increase due diligence you should be increasing reports of fraudulent attempts to the FBI. But you should also be lowering instances of successful fraud.
If you are interested, MARI (Mortgage Asset Research Institute) compiles a fraud index as part of its annual MARI Mortgage Fraud Report.
LexisNexis® Mortgage Asset Research Institute - Mortgage Fraud and Real Estate Fraud Prevention Solutions
Good reading as always, Tanta. Thank you for your time.
Wow, I actually read your complete post and think I understand what was said. Not because you can't write. I think you need to build a basic vocabulary and grasp of the process involved.
Historically it seems certain states have made it easier, sometimes far easier, for the FC process to work? My guess would be it is rooted in the structure of economic power? TN is probably a state where landed interests over time have made it possible to be done quickly? Perhaps dating from post civel war era?
Also, in this period of 200 +/- days the owner has been evicted? Possibly when the notice is posted? Then does the upkeep price fall on the agency?
A timeline would be good for something like this.
Per Cutts and Merrill, the longest timeline belongs to Maine
They must have forgot about New York City, which is 575 days.
Well, used to be anyway. I guess now it's whatever you want it to be. I don't understand what they're hoping to accomplish by doing this.
Tanta,
But if they change reg1A645 to 300 days, and reg2784B to 1000 days, and reg6675B1A to 30000 minutes, whilst having not changed reg5O78A at the same time...doesn't this provide for some regulatory conflict.
Cheers,
You mean you that in the state of Maine you can live rent free for 505 days (17 months!) after the foreclosure starts. Now, the GSEs are going to give rent-free living for 10 months to every FC'd homeowner. On the taxpayer dime.
I have been a bitter renter, but no more. I am going to go buy a house, get a DAP to make the downpayment, then not make mortgage payments and collect my free rent for 10 months, and as a bonus some copper pipe and appliances.
This country is screwed.
it seems likely to me that the link to that Freddie Mac paper was probably the most useful link ever put into the comments in the history of the world. i wonder why that heroic fellow never got a curtsy.
I think you need to build a basic vocabulary and grasp of the process involved.
Look at what crawled out from under the bridge this morning!
Also, in this period of 200 +/- days the owner has been evicted?
No. Nobody can evict the occupants of a home except the owner of that home. The owner is the borrower until the FC has been completed. Once title goes to the lender or a third party purchaser, then the former owners can be evicted if they are still in the property. Nobody can be evicted prior to FC completion.
They must have forgot about New York City, which is 575 days.
NYC is a state?
Tanta,
Nice
Thank you.
It looks to me 19 out of 21 states mentioned by Freddie are non-judicial (or both).
Kind of interesting! Maybe it is just a coincidence!
NYC has their own timeline, separate from the rest of the state of NY.
I thought I read at HW the other day that Freddie was "eliminating" timelines? Is all this fuss about them just extending some?
You mean you that in the state of Maine you can live rent free for 505 days (17 months!) after the foreclosure starts. Now, the GSEs are going to give rent-free living for 10 months to every FC'd homeowner. On the taxpayer dime.
Jesus Christ. Why do I bother to write posts?
Freddie's maximum timeline for Maine is 505 days from DDLPI to completion. You get 150 days DDLPI (four missed payments) until FC STARTS. After that, Freddie's timeline allows for 355 days (eleven missed payments) for FC to be completed.
Freddie Mac cannot do shit about the state of Maine's laws regarding FC. Only Maine can do something about that.
I personally have no idea why Maine's actual average is so much longer than Maine's statutory minimum. Maybe they have only one full-time sheriff in the whole bleedin' state and he's having a hard time serving all the paperwork.
But I do really wish you would quit getting your knickers in a knot before you've read the fucking post.
i wonder why that heroic fellow never got a curtsy.
Because I'm a jerk.
Tanta,
"Freddie Mac cannot do shit about the state of Maine's laws regarding FC. Only Maine can do something about that."
Are you OK? Seriously, I cannot recall you being so angry. This is heartfelt...not a funny or snark. Or maybe this subject really hits home? I'm just a dumb IT guy...so I don't know...
Cheers,
I thought I read at HW the other day that Freddie was "eliminating" timelines? Is all this fuss about them just extending some?
They are no longer paying foreclosure time line compensation. They are just going to pay a scheduled fee for certain kinds of workouts.
But while they are eliminating the bonus payment for staying inside the timelines, they are not eliminating the timelines. Presumably the timeline measurements just get used as a general measure of servicer performance now.
@Misean:
I believe the phrase "she does not suffer fools gladly" most likely fits best.
@general:
CR is a daily stop for me because of informative posts like this. Much obliged...
Are you OK? Seriously, I cannot recall you being so angry.
The day I stop using words like "shit" would be the day to worry that I'm not OK.
Why shouldn't I be frustrated with such a stupid comment? I think that these people who want to hold the GSEs responsible for every stupid thing that has ever happened in the world are cranks. I have a short way with cranks.
The comment was "Now, the GSEs are going to give rent-free living for 10 months to every FC'd homeowner."
You tell me why I shouldn't be annoyed by that kind of statement.
Yea. Mish and company would not be happy unless the GSEs were eliminated, all references eliminated from history, all present employees eliminated, and the corpses of past employees dug up, burned and ashes scattered.
It seems like Mish's worry is that any delay in a foreclosure is a delay in mark-to-market calculations for the value of the MBS the loan is packaged in. Whether the house is actually "foreclosed" on or not aside, the loan is still an NPA.
So, I guess his real question is, how do delays in foreclosure actions affect delays in MBS revaluation?
Thanks for the clarification of what is happening.
I get the good news here. When I want to test my anti depressant or looking for an excuse to eat chocolate I read Mish.
Mish is pushing a agenda of Austrian Economics.
Austrian School - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mish and company would not be happy unless the GSEs were eliminated, all references eliminated from history, all present employees eliminated, and the corpses of past employees dug up, burned and ashes scattered.
Exactly.
If Freddie Mac had come out with a policy statement that said, "We don't care what the laws of the state of Maine are, you FC those folks' asses in 90 days or face our wrath," then they'd all be hollering because some corporation thinks it's above the law.
Oh, and you forgot about sowing salt.
Tanta is on fire this mornin. Better bring your A game!
(Excellent post)
.............
Thanks, T. That clears it up. I must've have just seen "eliminating timeline" and stopped reading right there - just before the word compensation.
I'm surprised you even responded to badger boy.
Kinda OT - There's an interesting story in today's NYT magazine abt trolls.
Tanta,
"Why shouldn't I be frustrated with such a stupid comment?"
You should be. Sorry if I offended, it's just that you always seem to have a snark instead of outright pissed off.
Cheers,
Mish's worry is that any delay in a foreclosure is a delay in mark-to-market calculations for the value of the MBS the loan is packaged in.
Well then he is confused about the difference between M2M and "realized losses." I don't know what to say about that.
Look. Freddie is saying they have research that shows that an FC period of about 300 days lowers losses to investors compared to a shorter timeline. The idea is that in these short-timeline states, not enough loans cure. Curing the delinquency is always a better deal for investors than completing FC.
Read the Cutts and Merrill paper. If you disagree with their findings, then tell us why. But it doesn't help to keep claiming that shorter timelines are always better for investors with no data to back it up.
There's an interesting story in today's NYT magazine abt trolls.
I saw that.
Talk about an orgy of troll-feeding. The NYT just stroked those little sociopaths' egos in a way that no innocent blog commenter ever could.
Well, I'm sure glad that you cleared this up.
What was it you were saying?
Misean, it is a mental disorder my friend. Don't be surprised if one day you will be reading on this blog how Dick Cheney conspired to destroy these 2 great organisations.(F&F)
So, to be somewhat dense. Anything the agencies come up with will always be trumped by the state laws the FC is in. This change is just a proceessing recognition of that fact.
The same timelines also apply to non-agency lenders. Only to be altered by the processor(?) problems with doing the paperwork.
This timeline would also be altered if the the bank did not have all its paperwork in order. Such as Deutsche Bank?. This, then is not a big deal.
It seems like Mish's worry is that any delay in a foreclosure is a delay in mark-to-market calculations for the value of the MBS the loan is packaged in.
so you're saying Mish is "ticked" off?
that sounds horribly confused. they're trying to minimize losses, not avoid marking to market a bunch of MBS they don't own and that this change won't really impact the prices of.
Tanta,
Slightly OT but it was touched on above...
Per Freddie Mac, Freddie Mac Doubles Financial Incentives to Servicers Who Help Borrowers Avoid Foreclosure - News Archive - Freddie Mac
The majority of prospectuses that I've read give servicers things like "modification fees" as "additional servicing compensation". So Freddie, et al, not only pay financial incentives to servicers but Freddie just doubled their own incentives to servicers.
At the same time, servicers are charging borrowers for "modification fees" as well. Why isn't this considered double dipping - or in the case of Freddie's increase now, "triple" dipping? Servicers are getting paid by both ends of the spectrum here for the same action.
Not only does Freddie furnish a timeline table but the United States Foreclosure Network ( USFN | Home ) does a fine job of keeping the foreclosure mills that Freddie's servicers use up to date on any changes as well. And the quarterly retreats - er, conferences - for the FC mills to compare notes must be a nice change of pace.
And, just to bump this completely off the rails - MORTGAGES; Struggling, but Staying in a Home - NY Times
"Meanwhile, servicers, whom investors pay to collect mortgage payments from borrowers, often have no incentive to help borrowers find the ultimate holder of a loan, Mr. DelliBovi said. Servicers make more money on a foreclosure than when the loan is worked out, he said.
Anything the agencies come up with will always be trumped by the state laws the FC is in.
Well, yeah. If state law says you cannot complete a foreclosure action in less than 209 days (like Maine), then Freddie Mac cannot require its servicers to complete a foreclosure in Maine in 150 days.
If state law says you can complete a foreclosure in 33 days (like TN), then Freddie can allow its servicers to take up to 150 days.
I really didn't expect that point to be controversial.
This timeline would also be altered if the the bank did not have all its paperwork in order. Such as Deutsche Bank?
No, the timeline is the timeline. If DB cannot complete a foreclosure in Freddie's allowable timeline because its paperwork is a mess, DB would not meet Freddie standards for foreclosure servicing. The whole idea of an investor like Freddie providing these timelines is normative: this is as long as it should take for an efficient and competent servicer. If it takes you longer than that, you are presumptively not efficient and competent.
At the same time, servicers are charging borrowers for "modification fees" as well. Why isn't this considered double dipping - or in the case of Freddie's increase now, "triple" dipping? Servicers are getting paid by both ends of the spectrum here for the same action.
Funny you should bring that up, Mike. In the very same bulletin that Freddie just issued that increases what it pays to servicers for a mod, it prohibits servicers from collecting a mod fee from the borrower.
http://www.freddiemac.com/sell/guide/bulletins/pdf/bll073108.pdf
I don't understand those oppose changes to slow down the foreclosure process. Ok - they're opposed to anything government - they're libertarians I guess. Let them foreclose on everyone and watch housing prices collapse until everyone is broke. They believe in punishment for stupidity no matter what the cost. I call that throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but they are entitled to their opinion.
Still, I tend to think the problem that created this bubble was the unregulated shadow finanical system. It abandoned all reason and responsibility in the pathological pursuit of profit. The GSE's did not, as near as I can tell, throw money at IndyMac, WaMu, CFC, etc. saying, "Please lend this money to subprime slime so we can rake in massive profits on the bonds. The GSE's did not payoff appraisers. The GSE's did not make loans on 1100 sq ft homes in CA for $650,000 to people with no income. The GSE's did not create perverse incentives to allow mortgage brokers to charge folks subprime rates even if they qualified for prime.
Kill the GSE's if you want, but replace them with what?
Tanta,
IMHO you have lost track of the big picture: FRE/FNM will probably be nationalized, because they are in-solvent (see fed's poole), as a result of massive leverage and housing asset deflation. Any private company with 100:1 leverage and with liabilities of half the governments, has to be condemned. The size of their balance sheet, has always made their implicit gov. guarantee, explicit.
To fiddle with any rules when they are in a very precarious financial position, is playing with the biggest systemic risk fire for 50years. Watch the dollar crisis if/when they are nationalized, and they are included in the govt. balance sheet. Let's not stare ourselves blind on technicalities when precarious confidence is at risk
Re: Yes, children, you can have some context.
Thanks Mom, can we have breakfast now!
You may have breakfast now.
Paul, as one who has strong libertarian proclivities, I should tell you that I, for one, don't think "killing the GSEs" is feasible, let alone optimal.
I do think that they need stricter captial requirements, and that there should be a push to follow the FHLB model so that lenders have more vested interest in the performance of the loans that they originate & service.
Presumably the timeline measurements just get used as a general measure of servicer performance now.
i'm not sure about this, but i would guess that you still get "incentives" for being a "tier one" servicer, and it looks like FC timeline management is still one of the major criteria for that:
Servicer Performance Profile - Freddie Mac
We extend several tangible business benefits to recognize and reward customers who achieve Tier One ratings in both the Investor Reporting and Remitting and the Default Management categories of their Servicer Performance Profile. Based on your performance and portfolio size, you can be eligible for Tier One Platinum or Tier One Gold awards, earning incentives of as much as $50,000. Plus, meet the Tier One Platinum or Tier One Gold criteria for four consecutive years with no material foreclosure timeline penalties and you will be included in our prestigious Hall of Fame, earning additional incentives of up to $50,000.
If someone knew how to game the system, how long could they stall the foreclosure /eviction process? I realize it would vary from situation to situation, but I'm guessing there are ways that most people are in ignorance of. I'm not asking for a detailed list (don't really want to "encourage" the behavior) but I have seen foreclosure "postponements" and wonder what the heck is that about.
i'm not sure about this, but i would guess that you still get "incentives" for being a "tier one" servicer, and it looks like FC timeline management is still one of the major criteria for that
I don't know if that's going to be changed or not given the language of the July 31 Bulletin.
I do believe, however, that penalties to servicers for FCs that go out of timeline are still in place.
sdtfs - by far, the biggest 'postponement', from the borrower's side of the equation, is filing bankruptcy.
Thanks for pulling that up, Tanta.
So up until September 01, 2008, it has been perfectly acceptable for Freddie, to encourage double-dipping on the part of servicers?
Would I be correct in ASSuming that the offering of "incentives" such as these to servicers is pretty much an industry standard? Is the rest of the servicing industry double-dipping on mod fees etc.?
It'll be interesting to see the language used in PSAs post 09/01/08.
If someone knew how to game the system, how long could they stall the foreclosure /eviction process?
We just had a post the other day about someone who filed Chapter 13 four times. In the last one, she got her attorney to object to the servicer's standing, which took months and months to resolve. All told, she got about six years until the lender broke down and accepted a short payoff from a reverse mortgage refi to get the problem to go away.
Besides frivolous BK filings? You can always counter-sue or, in judicial states, contest the FC in court. All this "you can't prove you own my note" stuff is basically about that kind of stalling.
It also probably helps if you're located in a big market with a servicer who is very backlogged.
Maybe I misunderstand something, but here's my question--are the resources available to and staffing levels at mortgage servicers remotely sufficient, or are these timelines aspirational fiction?
I'm not talking the morality of the GSE's. I'm not interested in the squatters' free lunch at taxpayer expense. I'm not really even interested in the big picture policy questions of what happened, why and what to do about it.
I'm just curious whether about the mechanics. This was a very good post on how the mechanics should work. But the whole basis of the originate to distribute, credit score driven automated approval process was commoditization and standardizaton that permitted a repricing (to the consumers' benefit) of credit. In retrospect, the apparent controls were illusory (whether at the mortgage broker in the stip mall or at the rating agency on Wall Street) and the whole initiative has created a royal mess.
Dealing with the mess involves handling a bunch on one-offs. The grandstanding politician emoting about people's homes has a point, to the extent that it's hard to commoditize the work out process. I have yet to hear one acknowledge that the cost of file by file resolution will inevitably be borne by the public. Somehow, they never get to the point that liar loans were generally not made to total innocents. Even if the liars were told under the broker's tutilege, the borrower did have to lie to get the loan. Not sure why that point isn't made more often.
can a home owner 'game' the 300 day rule by making a payment sometime before the period ends? Would this restart the clock? I'm thinking not.
So up until September 01, 2008, it has been perfectly acceptable for Freddie, to encourage double-dipping on the part of servicers?
I suspect if you asked Freddie, they'd say that before September servicers could get $800 for a mod: $400 from Freddie and $400 from the borrower. After September, servicers can get $800 for a mod: $800 from Freddie and $0 from the borrowers.
It doesn't make any sense to call the old rules "double-dipping" unless you believe that $800 is excessive servicer compensation.
Personally, I think all borrowers except a very few bona-fide serious hard-luck cases should pay a mod fee. I think borrowers take these things more seriously when they have to pay a fee, and they are less likely to accept a mod they have no intention of honoring if they have to pay out of pocket.
But Freddie has been influenced too much by people like you, I suspect.
Maybe I misunderstand something, but here's my question--are the resources available to and staffing levels at mortgage servicers remotely sufficient, or are these timelines aspirational fiction?
I just do not understand this term "aspirational fiction."
Are you asking if servicers are mostly meeting these standards? Well, we looked at Maine: the standard is 505 days and the actual average is 598 days. I'd say that means a lot of servicers aren't meeting the standards in Maine.
But why does that make standards "fiction"?
It seems quite clear to me that servicers are understaffed for default management. But that doesn't mean Freddie shouldn't have standards. It means a lot of servicers are likely not to meet those standards.
can a home owner 'game' the 300 day rule by making a payment sometime before the period ends? Would this restart the clock? I'm thinking not.
Once more. The "300 day rule" means the servicer cannot take more than 300 days. It does not mean the servicer can't take less than that.
The rules say servicers must start FC proceedings no later than 150 days from Due Date of Last Paid Installment. If you are 149 days out and you make another payment, you just advanced the DDLPI by 30 days.
Technically, I suppose, a servicer could then go ahead and wait another month before starting FC.
But most of them don't. If you haven't done anything or agreed to a workout plan in 119 days of delinquency and then you just suddenly make a single payment, the servicer can still say that's not good enough and start FC. Starting FC may be what you need to to make you quit dorking around like that. Starting FC doesn't mean that FC will ever get completed. Sometimes you start FC just to force the borrower to get real with you. Freddie does not discourage servicers from doing that when it is appropriate.
It isn't doing us any good to confuse the metrics an investor like Freddie might use to establish outside limits with hard and fast rules for what a servicer might do on any individual loan.
Figure 3 in that paper looks interesting...ignoring peaks and valleys, it appears that of the loan categories where delinquency rose from the 2001-2002 recession, the only one that fell afterwards was subprime. The others either stayed high (VA, FHA) or kept rising (All Conventional). Not exactly what I would have expected from an economic "recovery".
Tanta:
one of your best posts ever. Thank you.
(and this from the guy who was a thorn in your side a few weeks back)
from a big-picture standpoint: I wonder if there will be pressure among the states now to increase minimum times to foreclosure?
Among active fcls, I show only 7% of loans currently are beyond Freddies timeline in Maine.
Of course, if a few are way over the timeline (because of muliple frivolous bk filings or whatnot) that can skew the average. Which is why it would have been enlightening to include the median as well as the mean in that Freddie research paper.
LA prices have another round of losses to go
Should you buy now? - Los Angeles Times
pjfny:
in claiming that tanta missed the big picture, you miss the big picture.
the big picture, as you so well state, is that Fannie/Freddie are explicitly our (the taxpayer's) problem now. thus, our desire should be to reduce their financial losses.
Fannie/Freddie have just found the sweet spot that should reduce losses. And thus they've set up the standard as such.
therefore, this is a "good" thing as it will reduce taxpayer liability.
of course we all wish we weren't on the hook... but that's magical thinking, sorta like how I wish I had Jedi powers, then I could mind bend you into making sense.
Anything the agencies come up with will always be trumped by the state laws the FC is in.
I understand that timelines are a matter of state law, but is there any historical reason that Congress has not mandated a uniform timeline, for is clearly within its purview? Has it even been debated at the national level, or is losing one's home something so personal (e.g. family and probate law) that Congress leaves it to the states to dictate?
I just read Mish's posting. Once again all this concern about freeloaders gaming the system... It all just seems like an excuse to do nothing. I understand the impulse - we all get off on self-righteous indigation - but it seems disconnected from the danger to the larger economy. Sure - lots of people used the easy money tools provided by Wall Street and made bad investments. Like wtih any "program", some undeserving will take advantage. How many more people have to go bankrupt or get forclosed before we will have punished our society to their satisfaction? Just give me a number.
But Freddie has been influenced too much by people like you, I suspect.
Tanta | Homepage | 08.03.08 - 12:19 pm | #
Oh please, Tanta. DO elaborate on this thought... Do you mean people who have injunctions and contempt orders against a mortgage servicer for attempting to illegally foreclose on their homes?
Do you mean the 281,100 Federal Trade Commission-certified victims of Fairbanks Capital Corp. n/k/a Select Portfolio Servicing? FAIRBANKS CAPITAL CORP./ SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING
Do you perhaps mean people like Cyrus over at Predatorix ?
Or, perhaps people like Pearl Maxwell Only the Westlaw citation is currently available
People like Nadine Knowles? Woman makes payments, but faces foreclosure
| Tampa Bay, St. Petersburg, Clearwater, Sarasota | WTSP.com 10 Connects
Melba Gillean? Legal Lounge
Or perhaps the people upon whom Rawle Andrews based "Private Property Rights Deferred: Has Predatory Mortgage Servicing Destroyed the American Dream" PR: New Briefing Paper by Private Property Advocates Draws Link between Predatory Lending and Mortgage Servicing Abuse in America
Among active fcls, I show only 7% of loans currently are beyond Freddies timeline in Maine.
that doesn't mean anything, since it's likely that the majority of active FCs have been started fairly recently. you have to look at the percentage of completed FCs that are beyond Freddie's timeline.
I understand that timelines are a matter of state law
timelines are not a matter of state law, they are a function of varaiations in state laws. Some of you guys need to understand what a timeline is. The purpose of a timeline isn't to rush a foreclosure along, or vice-versa, to slow it down. It's to evaluate servicers performance in this regard. To be able to evaluate if they fall within the range of "normal" for the circumstances (which vary by local laws).
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know why this is a right of the states. But what's the point? Coz it's "so personal"? What if Congress decided borrowers who don't pay get to stay put for 5 years for free? Would that make everything better in rowans' world?
Thank You Tanta. I was not getting my head around this at first and your post really helped. Thanks for not dorking around!
Thanks Mom, can we have breakfast now!
Tanta writes:
You may have breakfast now.
heh, heh...even a grammer joke. How about a spelling joke?
What makes a standard 'aspirational fiction' rather than a benchmark or reasonable expectation?
I'd say there are a couple of things. First, can it be met, given resource constraints and the realities of the situation? My wife teaches school, and some of the 'educational standards' that kids are tested to are, unfortunately, aspirational fiction. If you want to make them operative, for instance, you could begin to address the problem with mandatory prison sentences of the parents of chronically truant elementary age children. Hell will freeze over before that happens.
A second thing that makes standards operative is whether consequences attach to compliance. My son works deep in the bowels of the great General Electric and they have maintenance and servicing standards for various pieces of heavy equipment that are operative, observed and real world consequences (good and bad) attach to meeting those standards. From closely reading your post, I get the sense that, in Maine for example, there is a pretty significant failure to stick to the timelines.
Obviously, standards, timelines, benchmarks are necessary to the administration of any large scale, dispersed activity. And when circumstances change (here a pig appears to have been swallowed by a python) the standards, digestive timeline, whatever, needs to be reviewed. My question is simply, is the problem one of revising the standards, or is it going to become one of resource adequacy? And if the means aren't currently available to handle the unfolding problem, where are they going to come from?
Why anyone would put any credibility behind anything Mish writes is beyond me.
The guy is an alarmist who lacks the basic understanding of almost every topic in which he chooses to write.
The guy is and always has been one thing-
twisted entertainment.
I've learned an amazing amount on this blog. Thank you.
In foreclosure, is it difficult to serve papers on an out of state owner? The reason I ask is according to the US Census Bureau, Maine historically has one of the highest percentages of vacation rental properties in the country at 15% So I wondered if this might factor into their longer time line.
Mike Dillon,
I've spent too much of my life dealing with and looking at bills from underwriters, lawyers and accountants. One thing I've noticed is that the person who writes the check is frequently not the person who pays the bill. In large transactions (such as a home purchase), the person who writes the check is seldom the person who pays les vrais frais.
First, can it be met, given resource constraints and the realities of the situation?
I really don't think we're on the same planet here.
Freddie increased the timeline for FCs in 21 states. Maybe some servicers cannot meet the new timeline. But if so, they certainly couldn't meet the old timeline, which was shorter.
But how could you possibly say that servicers are underresourced to meet the problem if you do not define what a fully-resourced servicer could be expected to do?
Presumably, the resources are going to come out of mortgage servicers' pocketbooks, is where. If they cannot meet Freddie's standards for FC management, they will have to hire people or hire more expensive law firms or whatever it takes to meet those standards.
If servicers can't meet standards because the state itself is hopelessly under-resourced (which sounds, by the way, like the situation in Florida, where the courts are so backlogged that you can't get a foreclosure on the docket for months and months to even start the process), then neither servicers nor Freddie Mac can do anything about that. Either the state will add resources or the state will put up with a very very long resolution to its FC problems.
I think you are mistakenly thinking of Freddie Mac as a government regulator. They are not. They are an investor in mortgages and they set expectations for what approved servicers will do and how fast they will do it.
The fact is that nothing in my post means that Freddie Mac has not, actually, penalized servicers for screwing up in Maine. I don't have any evidence about that one way or the other. The fact is, the Maine pipeline is so tiny compared to Freddie's national portfolio that probably one bad servicer could throw the averages off there. There is really not that much reason to worry about Maine, which isn't exactly the epicenter of the FC crisis. It came up only as an example of a state with a very long FC timeframe because that's the way the Maine state legislature wrote the laws.
Of course, if a few are way over the timeline (because of muliple frivolous bk filings or whatnot) that can skew the average.
Are you saying that you think they calculated these averages including time under BK stay?
No. Nobody can evict the occupants of a home except the owner of that home
Tanta, disagree. Around suburban Chicago if you can't pay your water bill to the town, they shut of the water and then the house becomes "uninhabitable".
He Gone!
Are you saying that you think they calculated these averages including time under BK stay?
here's what the paper says:
The timeline in the table assumes that the foreclosure attorneys working on the investors/servicers behalf execute the foreclosure with maximum efficiency but that each step in the process takes the full time allotted for the minimum time required under state law. There are often delays throughout the foreclosure process caused by backlogs in the court system, bankruptcy filings by borrowers or borrowers who contest the foreclosure. But, importantly, the foreclosure process can be delayed or suspended at any time prior to the foreclosure sale to accommodate a viable workout deal with the borrower. If the borrower fails to meet the terms of contract on a home-retention workout, the foreclosure process resumes, usually at the point in the process at which it was suspended. Thus, we would expect actual average foreclosure timelines to exceed expected optimal foreclosure times by a significant amount and indeed this is the case
in nearly all states.
Thanks for the post. My first impression of the extended timelines was that it was an attempt at inventory control and price stabilization. The Cutt/Merrill paper demonstrates the opportunity costs involved with shorter timelines
If someone knew how to game the system, how long could they stall the foreclosure /eviction process?
I volunteer for a legal aid organization and in my jurisdiction it would normally take about 6 weeks for an eviction for simple non payment of rent. I am aware of case where a person has held off eviction after the trustee sale for about a year without a bankruptcy. I think the fact the person is representing himself actually worked to his advantage because the judges have cut him some slack that they havent to the plaintiffs professional attorneys.
Well, if BK time is included in the "actual averages," then you have to be aware that Freddie Mac adds it to the "allowable timeframe."
That is, Freddie's timeline for state n might be 300 days, but if your borrower in a given FC files for BK, Freddie adds the BK time to your performance timeline. So in state n with a borrower who filed BK, your FC timeline might be 300 days plus 125 days for the BK or 425 total.
They also add to the timeline if the borrower is dead and you are foreclosing against the estate and probate is taking forever and stuff like that.
I had assumed that this being the case, Cutts and Merrill would have backed the BK time out of the "actual" cases for comparison purposes. Otherwise these "actual" numbers have less to do with state law issues than with the relative frequency and duration of BKs in a given state.
Ms Tanta, there is a call for you in the next OT thread from Mish
I had assumed that this being the case, Cutts and Merrill would have backed the BK time out of the "actual" cases for comparison purposes. Otherwise these "actual" numbers have less to do with state law issues than with the relative frequency and duration of BKs in a given state.
i would have assumed that too, but to me it reads like they didn't, which is just bizarre.
Many thanks for the timeline explanation, Tanta.
One thing I'm curious about is why did Freddie Mac, and not Fannie Mae also, re-define foreclosure time limits? Do both institutions have similar limits?
Ok, since you mentioned Florida. . .
Yeah, our court system didn't have enough resources BEFORE they made the recent cuts to the system to balance the budget, but. .
Mostly the delay is due to incompetent foreclosure mills. Not that I'm complaining because I often delay foreclosures.
You can file a foreclosure anytime you want and the complaint is there the day you file it. It hits the electronic docket shortly after.
Then you have to wait and see if there is a response--20 days. Then you have to file summary judgment. Usually you can get on the Motion Calendar (in Miami-Dade, the smaller counties don't have motion calendar), in a week theoretically, but I've found it's better to give the system 10 days to 2 weeks. Then it's set for sale about a month later, then Certificate of Title 10 days later.
My foreclosure defending began many years ago when a person or 3 a year convinced me that money was coming in and the mtg company just didn't believe it. In fact, in every single case the money did come in. In one case it wasn't enough, and the house was lost. This was total, umm 10-15 cases over the years. Do I feel guilty about dragging these out? Absolutely not. One of them took a year for the money to get in, but everybody got paid, and in my opinion the foreclosure mill should have asked for more money; I wouldn't have fought it, but the didn't.
Part of it was my revenge for the horrid way all borrowers were and are treated by the lenders, good and bad credit, rich and poor, people with connections within the lender (such as a close relative in the branch of the lender) or none, virtually everybody got uniformly awful service. Lost papers, more and more unreasonable demands, even in the days of email, they'd claim they lost the email. . .
Ok, now we come up to today. There are still a couple of people, that I expect will be brought current. In fact, I closed one last week. She only owed 62k on a house that is worth 140k. Absolutely no help was offered. Nice 2/2, on a water view with a wood deck. Lady lost her job for a while. After literally nearly a year, we finally found a hard equity lender. It is impossible to sell in Miami-Dade--a 36 months supply, and probably 48 months when you add in phantom inventory.
Another lady will refi in the next few weeks.
That one actually has a defense. She too lost her job and got behind.
At peak, her ltv was manybe 33%; not probably 66%. When she refinanced the stupid title company missed a couple of liens; she thought they hade been taken care of because her ex said he'd do it and she wasn't ask to pay them (true? I dunno; plausible.) Ok, she found a hard equity lender to give her a 2nd, and then I found the liens in my title search. I begged the foreclosure mill to make a title claim last September or so. Isn't that what title insurance is for? We have a procedure to divest liens from homestead property which takes 45 days. By the time the 45 days were up the property/loan mkt had gone to hell and the hard equity lender was no longer willing to lend. We finally found another hard equity lender, and by that time, we had to do the 45 day thing ago. By that time I filed a defense counter suing them because it was their title company's fault that the liens weren't cleared at closing etc, etc.
Did that inspire them to file a claim? No. The mill has now filed 2 requests for more time--as if I wouldn't give it!! Also, we got a pay off letter where the amount demanded for insurance was maybe triple was even expensive forced place insurance is. Yes we owe it, but they refuse to provide bills, so I have a hearing scheduled for next week so we can finally close. I hope the lender hasn't changed his mind. I almost hope it doesn't close, just for the intellectual challenge of seeing just how long these idiots will take to file a claim or otherwise resolve things.
And yes, nowadays I do file delays for the sake of delays. No justification except it's my way of punishing the lenders, and also I've heard some hairraising stories of abandoned houses uncareful by lenders.
Omigod. Typing with my nose
Uncared for. Several other typos.
One thing I'm curious about is why did Freddie Mac, and not Fannie Mae also, re-define foreclosure time limits? Do both institutions have similar limits?
Fannie Mae also has limits, but Fannie's approach is a little different from Freddie's. Fannie gives servicers a maximum timeline from referral to sale in number of months for judicial FCs in the various states. For any non-judicial FC in any state, they just give a standard three months.
With a similar pre-referral requirement, Fannie's total timelines are comparable to but not identical to Freddie's old requirements. I don't know if Fannie will extend some timelines as well.
Otherwise these "actual" numbers have less to do with state law issues than with the relative frequency and duration of BKs in a given state.
Frequency, maybe. Duration, no.
Since bankruptcy law is Federal, there should be, at least in theory, no meaningful variation from state-to-state in the duration of BKs. That should all average out when you aggregate up a decent-sized sample. Which is why I thought there was some generic allowance for BK baked into the timelines. But I could be wron...and God knows bacon dreamz would be happy to correct me if I am.
As far as the Crews Cutts paper, that was out to do something entirely different, so yes -- it would have been nice to back out the bk stop/stats -- But, I would be willing to bet you an entire box of fig newtons that they didn't have the data readily available.
Good afternoon Tanta - got an idea for you and CR... a money making idea. You should sell little 'Foreclosure Time Line Dials'... we use those in manufacturing to figure out our lead-times... time it takes to deliver a mold or die...
They look like this... with the center circle a separate dial that can move relative to the outer 'calander ring'. Just move the arrow to the 'start date'... and you can see out 'X weeks' to the next milestone.
Could even have little milestones - like the GSE min & max times for each state printed on the inner dial. Make it easy for the not-so-uber-nerds to play along.
And you don't even have to plug it in or boot it up. Doesn't even need a battery.
Bet you could sell kajillions of them to bankers, GSE bureaucrats and even 'armchair mortgage quarterbacks'... even offer to print originator names on them so they can hand them out like promotional 'thank yous'... almost a useful as an umbrella or a coffee mug.
Just a thought.
Tanta Wrote:
Jesus Christ. Why do I bother to write posts?
Sometimes, given the reception and apparent reading comprehension of commenters, I wonder the same thing...I'm deeply grateful that you continue to flog the issues though.
I think far too many people really have at best only a passing understanding of the process and the power of the GSEs. As you stated clearly at the beginning, it's all regulated by state law, and the GSEs have to function with 54 different jurisdictions. Lawyer Employment Policy, front and center.
My only critique of your ubernerd posts is that some of your explanations tend to the pedantic and occasionally overstate the case. Of course, given the point above, it seems it's not possible to be too exhaustive. I used to be a Chem teacher, I have empathy for you and the task at hand.
Cheers,
I thought Freddie's discussion of compensating servicers for third-party vendors who make a successful "door-knocking" was simply rivetting! Of course, those "door knockers" need to be courteous and respectful, suggesting that ads for folks do to this will read "Nice Knockers Only!" Very appropos, given the recent housing BUST!
Re: Jesus Christ. Why do I bother to write posts?
Now listen here little lady, I'm busting my ass trying to help you (as usual). I tried to wave my arms, i.e, flail (transitive verb) in an attempt to connect you to a potential threatening attack from Mish in the OT thread this morning, and all I get now is: Jesus Christ. Why do I bother to write posts?
I think that is somewhat redundant, but so what? At least I got the satisfaction that I helped connect someone to something they needed, and that is the only reason I'm here (man).
Furthermore, we made a deal, I'm not sure what it was, but I think I was to leave and never come back; what was I to do though?
A question for Tanta (or anyone else) about Freddie Mac foreclosures, although more about pushbacks than timelines so it is mildly OT:
A couple of mortgages were originated by a lender (WaMu) in my neighborhood in mid-2007. They were pretty clearly cases of appraisal fraud, and they both foreclosed with a Sheriff's Deed in less than 9 months (EPDs). The foreclosing bank on the Sheriff's Deed is actually Freddie Mac. Does this mean that Freddie Mac did not shove the loans back to WaMu
(I asked this awhile ago, but the more I think about it the answer must be yes, the loan was not pushed back.)
Thanks Tanta, I think I learned three things from this post and the comments.
Freddie and Fanny are not government regulators, they are government sponsored enterprises that buy mortgages, hold some, and sell others in security packages. They still have a special relationship with the federal treasury so investors in both the securities and the corporations generally perceive less risk and thus demand less return on their investments.
Foreclosure, eviction and bankruptcy are all different. They may arise from a common element such as a house that a person bought but could not afford but the specific actions are separate and governed by separate laws enacted by separate levels of government.
You write more precisely and carefully than many of us read. That is our problem, not yours. Thanks for you patience.
The foreclosing bank on the Sheriff's Deed is actually Freddie Mac. Does this mean that Freddie Mac did not shove the loans back to WaMu
Yes.
Thank you!