Beat And Battered

From the WSJ:

Housing Bill Relies on Banks To Take Loan Losses
Lawmakers Pressure Lenders to Pitch In To Curb Foreclosures
By DAMIAN PALETTA
July 28, 2008; Page A3

WASHINGTON — The housing rescue bill passed by the Senate Saturday hasn’t been signed into law, but top Democrats already are putting pressure on regulators and bankers to make sure a major program to prevent foreclosures doesn’t fall flat.

For struggling U.S. homeowners, the success or failure of the program — which would let roughly 400,000 owners refinance into affordable, government-backed loans — depends largely on bankers’ willingness to take a partial loss on the loans and to reduce the amount of money borrowers owe.

Bankers say they will do it, but it isn’t clear how many loans they might be willing to restructure.

“I absolutely do believe that there will be more principal reductions,” Michael Gross, Bank of America Corp.’s managing director for loss mitigation, mortgage, home-equity and insurance services, told a congressional panel Friday.
…
Experts say the program’s eventual participation could rise dramatically if home prices continue to drop — which could put more pressure on lenders to offer borrowers more assistance. Lawmakers are already pressing regulators and lenders to prepare now so the program can begin without delay when it goes into effect Oct. 1.
…
Taking a loss on a loan by writing down the principal owed is one of the least desirable options for loan servicers. They typically prefer to either lower the interest rate or extend the life of the loan — from 30 years, for example, to 40 years.

“The real problem is going to be, just like with every program out there, are the banks going to take this seriously?” said Rebecca Case-Grammatico, a staff attorney at the Empire Justice Center in Rochester, N.Y., who advises clients facing foreclosure. “And if they don’t, we’re in the same position we’ve been in all along.”
…
The program will be run by the Federal Housing Administration, a division of HUD, and will insure up to $300 billion in refinanced 30-year, fixed-rate loans. The mortgages can’t be for more than 90% of a home’s newly appraised value. For mortgages that exceed the value of the home, the lender would have to voluntarily write down the principal to the qualifying level. If the home goes up in value, the borrower must share newly created equity with the FHA.

The program will begin Oct. 1 and end Sept. 30, 2011. Borrowers won’t be able to qualify if they have intentionally defaulted on their loans or if they had a debt-to-income ratio of less than 31% as of March 1.

From the WSJ:

FDIC Faces Mortgage Mess After Running Failed Bank
Subprime Lender Made Problem Loans On Regulators’ Watch
By MARK MAREMONT
July 21, 2008; Page A1

Federal officials heap much of the blame for the subprime mortgage mess on lenders, claiming they recklessly made too many high-cost home loans to borrowers who couldn’t afford them.

It turns out that the U.S. government itself was one of the lenders giving out high-interest, subprime mortgages, some of them predatory, according to government documents filed in federal court.

The unusual situation, which is still bedeviling bank regulators, stems from the 2001 seizure by federal officials of Superior Bank FSB, then a national subprime lender based in Hinsdale, Ill. Rather than immediately shuttering or selling Superior, as it normally does with failed banks, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. continued to run the bank’s subprime-mortgage business for months as it looked for a buyer. With FDIC people supervising day-to-day operations, Superior funded more than 6,700 new subprime loans worth more than $550 million, according to federal mortgage data.

The FDIC then sold a big chunk of the loans to another bank. That loan pool was afflicted by the same problems for which regulators have faulted the industry: lending to unqualified borrowers, inflated appraisals and poor verification of borrowers’ incomes, according to a written report from a government-hired expert. The report said that many of the loans never should have been made in the first place.
…
At the time the FDIC was running Superior, subprime lending hadn’t yet emerged as the national disaster it since has become. But some lending experts already were faulting industry practices and warning about rising delinquencies. The FDIC’s problems with Superior could fuel criticism that bank regulators were slow to heed warning signs.
…
In a recent court filing, the FDIC estimated that about 1,500 of the 5,315 loans it sold to Beal either have defaulted or are nonperforming. The FDIC already has bought back another 247 of the mortgages, most of them for violations of federal anti-predatory-lending laws intended to protect borrowers from unreasonably high fees or deceptive practices. Beal Bank has said in court filings that 73 of the repurchased loans were originated while the FDIC was running Superior.
…
The FDIC says that was a draft report. Last month, the agency filed a final version in court, which estimated that about 19% of the loans sold to Beal contained “material” breaches of the warranties — meaning there were significant problems with close to 1,000 mortgages. This version of the report blames Beal Bank for some of the portfolio’s lost value, saying it serviced the loans in an “inferior” manner.