Mortgage servicers will be sued: Ohio attorney general

[Robbien]

Source: Reuters

COLUMBUS, Ohio (Reuters) - Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray said on Tuesday he is plans to sue more mortgage companies over dealings with troubled homeowners in an effort to break the foreclosure crisis.


. . .

Ohio, which had the 12th highest foreclosure rate in the nation for the first half of 2009, is pursuing the worst offenders first in the hopes that others will improve practices on their own in order to escape litigation, Cordray said.

"We'd rather not sue everyone, but we will if we have to," he said. "If we have to sue a dozen of them, then we'll sue a dozen. If that's the kind of policing we have to do then we're glad to do it," he added.

. . .

Cordray said the discovery process in court would allow his office to more closely examine servicers procedures. Whether it be incompetence or greed -- through charging excessive fees for handling loan modification requests -- servicers have not yet hired enough people to provide sufficient customer service to stricken homeowners, he added.

Cordray said his office has received "hundreds, if not thousands of complaints" from home owners over endless fees and appalling customer service -- phone calls not being returned, documents going missing and servicers reneging on promises to modify individual loans.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/ousivMolt/idUSTRE5876QD20090908

[mod mom]

1. OH is fortunate in having an excellent AG in Rich Cordray!

[Lerkfish]

2. I'm all for this, except.....

he's publicly admitted to the intent to unequally enforce the law, which will give the defense lawyers a great get out of jail free card.

In other words, even if he intends to do that, shut up about it and don't give the lawyers for the other side the ammunition.

(note: I'm not a lawyer, but I watch them on TV, so I could be completely wrong)

[Psephos]

8. Unequal enforcement is illegal and unconstitutional

if what you say is true, he has no business being attorney general...I like him and hope you're mistaken

[Lerkfish]

15. that's how his statement reads to me, but like I said, I'm no lawyer

by saying he'll settle for selective enforcement to make an example -- at least, again, that's how it reads to me.
I HOPE I'm wrong, because I'd hate to have a technicality gets these bozos off.

[No Elephants]

56. Please see Reply # 55.

[No Elephants]

55. Actually, the article says the opposite: It says he is STARTING wih

the worst offenders and hoping the rest straighten up and fly right. However, if he has to prosecute everyone, he will. In other words, he will prosecute as many (or as few) as may be necessary to fix the problem.

Quoting from the article:

"Ohio, which had the 12th highest foreclosure rate in the nation for the first half of 2009, is pursuing the worst offenders first in the hopes that others will improve practices on their own in order to escape litigation, Cordray said.

'We'd rather not sue everyone, but we will if we have to," he said. "If we have to sue a dozen of them, then we'll sue a dozen.

If that's the kind of policing we have to do then we're glad to do it,' he added."



Besides, nothing is unconstitutional, illegal or immoral about prosecuting only some offenders. Think about it. Do we prosecute every person who litters, or every person who jaywalks or everyone who spits on the sidewalk? Of course not. No jurisdiction has the police, the lawyers, the judges, etc. to enforce every violator of every law. Does that mean we can never prosecute anyone who does those things? Also of course not.

Prosecutors have to make choices when allocating their resources. Hence, they have almost unlimited leeway so to do. It's called "prosecutorial discretion." Prosecutorial discretion has long been an accepted part of our justice system and, because it is a practical necessity, pronsnly also part of every justice system in the world, whether or not there is a specific name for it.

[sui generis]

3. what about mortgage originators?

they're almost never the same company - the underwriting is usually third party

[WriteDown]

5. Bingo....

Servicers just get the loans afterwards. Although their aren't many mortgage originators left.

[imdjh]

6. They're all gone now. Working at the DMV and selling that water people advertise on their cars.

[WriteDown]

4. This makes zero sense...

"have not yet hired enough people to provide sufficient customer service to stricken homeowners, he added."

So companies that are losing billions of dollars need to hire more people at the OH AG's request? As long as they can be put on OH's payroll I suppose.

[notadmblnd]

7. Those companies lost nothing.

The previous administration bailed them out no questions asked. The new administration asked them to help stem the flood of foreclosures by working with the homeowner to rework the mortgage, they were not asked to give anything away. The banks have done very little. I can tell you that call centers in India are staffed and they can afford to call the home owner every 30 minutes to ask for their money. However try to get a live person at the mortgage company to talk to you and work on a solution. They're not even responding to the foreclosure prevention professionals that many counties and city have set up to stem the flood.

The thing that really takes the cake is that these banks will foreclose, let the home fall into disrepair, then sell it for a fraction of what the previous home owner owes- because the bank just can't be bothered to work with them.

How would staffing the bank to handle the work load cause the state of Ohio to put people on their payroll? The last sentence of your post makes no sense.

Do a little homework and check the first and second quarter profits of the mortgage companies and major banks. I think you will find that they have raked in record profits since the housing bubble burst.

[WriteDown]

9. Receiving a bailout and making a profit are two different things....

If you're losing 100$ a month and I give you 500$ what does that do for you. You are confusing bank profits with their mortgae servicing units. Although BOA may be making a profit, CW is taking a bath. Same for WAMU, Litton, etc. Why would you want to pour funds into a unit that shows no sign of making a profit. They will hold onto it for alittle while and if things do not turn around, they will sell it off. Maybe to the Ohio AG's office.

[Doremus]

10. Why do you care about the banks? They're supposed to service the loan properly & they aren't.

[WriteDown]

11. I just care about knowledge...

People making false claims helps no one. Banks are like any other industry and are there to make profit. If that should not be the case, then all banks should be nationalized immediately and everyone should be given a 1% mortgage.

[Doremus]

13. I don't see anyone making false claims.

There is a lot of ground between your hyperbolic suggestion to nationalize all banks and the reasonable expectation that they perform in accordance with contractual and legal requirements.

There is something I DO see though: A poster who more often expresses the conservative view than a progressive one.

Why do you suppose that is?

[WriteDown]

14. Interesting that you mention contracts....

Contracts go both ways. Once a borrower (whether it be a jet ski, RV, or house) fails to pay, they have violated the contract. Nothing conservative or progressive about that.

Considering the amount of flipping that went on in places like CA, NV, and FL by get rich quick investors, I choose not to support the fatcats.

*edited for grammar.

[Doremus]

16. Lame.

You chose not to support the fatcats. Pure comedic gold.




One day you will be gone and then I'll really laugh.
'Til then think about what you'd like on your pizza. :hi:

[WriteDown]

17. Lame is right...

I like how you ignored my point about contracts. Funny stuff. Fortunately for me, DU values informed opinion.

[notadmblnd]

18. Well I won't avoid it.

My contract was with the bank I got my mortgage from, not the bank it was sold to. And when a person is intentionally led into a contract who actually has no business (such as not being able to afford the loan) entering into a contract, and the lender knows it; then the lender is operating in bad faith and deserves what it gets as far as economic losses to that institution.

If the AG of Ohio is going to sue these lenders.. Then good on them. I will be rooting for them to win and then I will encourage my state representatives to go after the lenders too. And since you couldn't be bothered to look up articles on first and second quarter bank and mortgage company profits. I took a one (second) and did a quick Google for you. Here is just a short list of articles:
#
Augusta, Ga., Bank Says Second-Quarter Profits Boosted by Mortgage ...
Augusta, Ga., Bank Says Second-Quarter Profits Boosted by Mortgage Business. ... Georgia Bancshares, Inc. Reports First Quarter Results. Business Wire ; . ...
www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-122301712.html - Cached - Similar
#
Bank of Ann Arbor buoyed to first-half profits by mortgage growth ...
Aug 3, 2009 ... Bank of Ann Arbor buoyed to first-half profits by mortgage growth ... Provisions for loan losses rose in the second quarter to $5.4 million ...
www.annarbor.com/.../losses-from-nonperforming-real-estate/ - Cached - Similar
#
JPMorgan Profits From Investment Bank; Defaults Rise (Update2 ...
Jul 16, 2009 ... the second- largest US bank, said profit rose for the first time since 2007 on record ... Second-quarter earnings increased to $2.7 billion, ... $15 million as home-equity and prime mortgage defaults continued to rise. ...
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid... - Similar
#
Leumi Mortgage Profit Up 51%. | Article from Israel Business Today ...
The first nine months of 1997 saw the bank accrue net profit of NIS 62.6 ... Bank Leumi subsidiary Leumi Mortgage Bank has ended the second quarter of 1992 ...
www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-20118411.html - Cached - Similar
#
Wells Fargo projects record first-quarter profits - MarketWatch
Apr 9, 2009 ... Wells Fargo sees record first-quarter profit ... Wells shares jumped 26% as the bank also said its Wachovia ... to $100 billion at quarter-end, an indication of strong second-quarter mortgage originations," said Atkins. ...
www.marketwatch.com/.../wells-fargo-projects-record-profits - Cached - Similar
#
Mortgages Turn Lucrative for Banks in Second Quarter - NYTimes.com
Jul 15, 2009 ... But whether or not those profits are sustainable remains an open question. ... Over all, analysts say that second-quarter bank earnings are likely to be good, if not quite as strong as the first quarter's. Bank stocks have ... But the resurgence of the mortgage business should help most of the big ...
www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/business/15bank.html - Similar

The only thing you are right about, is that DU values informed opinion. You do not have one and should go spout your propaganda where it will be appreciated, nurtured and believed. Cause it's not going to happen here.


Now, I think you should be forced to eat anchovies on that pizza of yours.

[WriteDown]

19. So if your car loan changes companies....

which is also quite common then you have a free car. If your bank changes owners, lets say it goes from First Union to Wachovia, then I suppose they don't owe you any money anymore since you had your accounts (contracts) with the old bank :rofl:.

And I find it hard to believe that anyone would believe that both parties share equal responsibility in the situation you outlined:

"And when a person is intentionally led into a contract who actually has no business (such as not being able to afford the loan) entering into a contract, and the lender knows it; then the lender is operating in bad faith and deserves what it gets as far as economic losses to that institution."

[notadmblnd]

20. You said that, not I. If the loans hadn't been sold for more than they were worth, we wouldn't have

this mess now, would we? I said nothing about getting anything free. In fact, in my original post to you. I specifically stated that the banks were not asked to give anything away, just to work with the homeowners to stay in their homes by reworking the mortgages. Corporations renegotiate their debt all the time, why is wrong for an individual to do the same thing?

You find it hard to believe "that anyone would believe that both parties share equal responsibility" Who would you say is responsible? Are you suggesting it is the dummbed down consumer and not the lender who is supposed to know the business and perform due diligence?

I see that you once again ignored my profits statements. Until you prove to me different, I stand by my statements.

[WriteDown]

21. Said what?

You sure sound like you are asking for a free house or car.

If consumers are as stupid as you make them out to be then Congress should start working on a law immediately that requires that a lawyer be present and sign off on any debt instrument that a consumer may sign whether it be credit cards, a washer and dryer, a house, or a car. It would be the only way to be safe.

[notadmblnd]

22. I specifically said the banks were not asked to give anything away

Perhaps a remedial reading comprehension class would be helpful? It might actually help you to understand what is actually written and not to imply or assume meaning that is not.

Now about those profit articles.......?

[Doremus]

23. Writedown plays loose with the facts in order to cloak his conservatism.

His favorite debating techniques: straw men and red herrings.

Banks win everytime with Writedown. Corporations, bankers, CEOs, millionaires ... they're all winners to him. Progressives, consumers, little people -- pretty much all losers who need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

One day he will slip up and get a nice new DU tombstone. I'm watching and waiting.

[WriteDown]

24. All fear the Eye of Doremus....

:rofl:

[notadmblnd]

26. I knew he wouldn't reply to my profits statement.

He really hasn't answered any of the questions I have asked. I don't think we'll see him back in this thread and imagine that he's over there now bragging about his incoherent posts here.

I think you are correct in your suspicions and that sooner or later he will be served. I just hope it's one of those hot and ready ones with the tough, bland crust and greasy pepperoni. I'll pay extra if they put those smelly anchovies on it for him.

[WriteDown]

30. Feel free to outline your "profit statements" nt

[notadmblnd]

32. I posted the headlines, feel free to click on the links

Geesh, and republicans say Dems are lazy.:crazy:

[WriteDown]

37. Your headlines show that you do not understand the difference

between banks and mortgage servicers or mortgage servicing units. For instance, although BOA may be making a profit, I challenge you to find anything saying that Countrywide is. Same goes for JP Morgan and Wamu.

[notadmblnd]

39. here ya go... I found it....

Bank of America Monday said it had net profit of 4.2 billion dollars in the first quarter, solidly boosted by its Merrill Lynch purchase of a year ago, on record revenue of 36 billion dollars.

Bank of America, the largest US bank by assets, has received 45 billion dollars in government aid to weather the global financial crisis and has said it would seek to repay the public funds as quickly as possible.

The bank said it had paid 402 million dollars in preferred dividends in the January-March period to the US government.

Including the government dividend payment, earnings per share were 44 cents.

A year ago, the bank had first-quarter net income of 1.2 billion dollars, or earnings per share of 23 cents.

The Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank said its 2009 first-quarter results include Merrill Lynch, which it acquired on January 1, and mortgage lender Countrywide Financial, which was purchased on July 1, 2008.

Merrill Lynch contributed 3.7 billion dollars to net income, excluding certain merger costs, "on strong capital markets revenue," Bank of America said.

Countrywide also added to net income because of increased mortgage lending and refinancing volume.

Bank of America noted the year-ago period does not include Merrill Lynch and Countrywide results.
http://www.france24.com/en/20090420-business-bank-america-nearly-triples-first-quarter-profit-42-billion-dollars

here's one article that mentions several banks dated 2009. Now, you go find the rest.

[WriteDown]

41. So how much did CW make?

May want to note this from your article

"Bank of America noted the year-ago period does not include Merrill Lynch and Countrywide results."

[notadmblnd]

43. that was a year ago. I said in my first post to you first and second quarter profits

as you can see the article pertains to first quarter 2009 profits. You said in your first post to me they were still "bleeding money." You have not provided any proof of your statement. However, I have proved my statement is fact, the banks and mtg companies have made money

[WriteDown]

48. And still you cannot tell me how much money CW made

:)

[WriteDown]

29. And for your pleasure

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WriteDown]

25. I am simply saying that both parties bear responsibiliy

in a contract. I tend to speak plainly :).

[notadmblnd]

27. ah, no, you don't

there's not much in your posts that make any sense (hence the suggestion of remedial classes) let alone answering any questions. No where in any of your post did you say that both parties bear responsibility. In fact you said just the opposite and defended the banks and mortgage companies.

Now you may think you are smart and that your crap (the stuff you've posted here) doesn't stink. However, your farts are giving you away.

[WriteDown]

28. I'll bold it for ya....

A blast from the past:

And I find it hard to believe that anyone would believe that both parties share equal responsibility in the situation you outlined:

"And when a person is intentionally led into a contract who actually has no business (such as not being able to afford the loan) entering into a contract, and the lender knows it; then the lender is operating in bad faith and deserves what it gets as far as economic losses to that institution."

[notadmblnd]

31. Now that you've bolded it, read it!

"I find it hard to believe that anyone would believe that both parties share equal responsibility"

You are saying no one would believe that both parties share responsibility.Now if I were like you and assumed and implied meaning that was not expressly written, especially with your defense of corporations, then I would have no other option but to assume that you believe that only one party bears responsibility and that- that party is not the lender.

[WriteDown]

33. Whoops....

Sometimes I feel like I have alien hand syndrome. :)

[notadmblnd]

45. yes, I know the Texas education system has failed you along with a great number of other Texans

[WriteDown]

49. Haha, more like NYC education system

and total wrist reconstruction.

[Doremus]

35. Isn't it uncanny how Writedown ALWAYS sides with the money?

Contracts work both ways, he says. No matter that the corporate participant hasn't upheld its end, it's the OTHER participant, the consumer, who is negligent!

To Writedown, consumer negligence trumps corporate negligence 100%, 24/7/365.

We gotcha, Writedown!



Will that be pepperoni or sausage?

[notadmblnd]

36. ......

:rofl:

[WriteDown]

38. What is the corporate participants responsibility in this case....

:shrug:

[Doremus]

40. Why don't you re-read the OP (or read it for the 1st time as the case may be).

"charging excessive fees for handling loan modification requests"
"phone calls not being returned, documents going missing and servicers reneging on promises to modify individual loans"


Not their responsibility? The Ohio Attorney General disagrees with you and soon the courts ...

[WriteDown]

42. Is it their responsibility to modify a loan?

and why?

[notadmblnd]

44. It is their responsibility

Why? because they are the ones that played fast and loose with the consumer, giving consumers bad loans knowingly, then selling those bad loans to investors when they knew they weren't worth the paper they were written on.

They gambled and lost. Now tell me why the government (we the tax payers) should have bailed them out and why they should have to do nothing in return. If I go to a casino and lose all my money gambling, does it mean it is OK for me to ask the government to make it all better by giving me a handout with no quid pro quo? And if it is not OK for me, why is it OK for the banks?

Aren't you people always crying about welfare queens? Seems to me these corporations have taken more from the taxpayers of this country than any single mother ever got.

But you go ahead, keep serving and defending your corporate masters, I'm sure in they end they'll be loyal to you.:sarcasm:

Now if you can't answer my questions in a manner that makes sense, leave me alone, you have become trifling and I'm tired of proving to you that I am right and you are wrong. Just go on ahead in your blissful little world with your head in the sand believing what Fox News tells you. And don't come back here crying when the reality that many others are experiencing, comes and bites you on the ass.

[WriteDown]

47. Who are "they"

Are you telling me the consumer who signs docs for a McMansion knowing there is no way they can afford it is at no fault? Ever hear of house flipping? You're casino analogy is apt. If you sign mortgage docs knowing you can't afford the house, should I bail you out?

I'm sure that logical discourse is trifling to you :).

Here is some interesting articles related to the mortgage crisis
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2009/09/07/daily58.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-ks-kansasmortgagefra,0,6660816.story

Part of the story that is rarely told is the large percentage of rental properties or investment properties that are in foreclosure. Should we be bailing out investment properties? I could use a bailout of some of my stocks if theat is what we are going to start doing. :)

[notadmblnd]

51. Logical? Pot meet kettle.

look I said that the banks and mtg companies have made money, some such as BOA (which btw bought Country Wide; who you stated was still losing money) has made profits in both the first and second quarter of this year (2009).

Article from above:

Bank of America Monday said it had net profit of 4.2 billion dollars in the first quarter, solidly boosted by its Merrill Lynch purchase of a year ago, on record revenue of 36 billion dollars.

Bank of America, the largest US bank by assets, has received 45 billion dollars in government aid to weather the global financial crisis and has said it would seek to repay the public funds as quickly as possible.

The bank said it had paid 402 million dollars in preferred dividends in the January-March period to the US government.

Including the government dividend payment, earnings per share were 44 cents.

A year ago, the bank had first-quarter net income of 1.2 billion dollars, or earnings per share of 23 cents.

The Charlotte, North Carolina-based bank said its 2009 first-quarter results include Merrill Lynch, which it acquired on January 1, and mortgage lender Countrywide Financial, which was purchased on July 1, 2008.

Merrill Lynch contributed 3.7 billion dollars to net income, excluding certain merger costs, "on strong capital markets revenue," Bank of America said.

Countrywide also added to net income because of increased mortgage lending and refinancing volume.

I have proved that point! I will not provide you with the numbers which is not even part of the argument that you keep changing every time I prove you wrong. You have provided nothing other than your misinformed opinion as proof of your argument.

Now I understand that you have a learning disability as a result of attending Texas schools, but if you take your time, and read the article slowly, I'm sure you'll be able to handle the gist of it. If you need more help with this, Print it off, come up from your mother's basement and show the article to someone that knows how to read (surely there is someone in Texas that can read and comprehend?) ask nicely; I'm sure that they'll give you the help you need.

[WriteDown]

52. Once again...

How much money has CW made? Or WAMU for that matter?

[notadmblnd]

53. Now you're just being an asshat

Country Wide does not exist as an independent entity any longer nor does Washington Mutual. BOA bought CW and JP Morgan chase bought WAMU last year. BOA's profits first quarter were 4.2 billion. JPMorgan Chase, $2.7 billion second-quarter profit.

Now, before you ask the stupid question again, WAMU and CW do not exist. They have no loss what so ever as you asserted in your stupid freaking post. You have yet to provide me with an article proving your assertion and I'm certain that you won't. Why? I repeat. Because WAMU and CW do not exist! Now, if you want to know more, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and take responsibility for yourself. Get out of mom's basement and seek the help you need.


Damn I hate lazy republicans.:crazy:

[WriteDown]

54. So a business unit cannot lose money?

You're knowledge of business is astounding. :) Also, I'm sure business units such as Lexus and Acura would be interested to know that they do not exist.

[No Elephants]

59. LOL, what bs. You have less than no evidence that the bulk of mortgages in Ohio involved in this

article were given by fat cat flippers. And the banks are certainly fat cats, too. Not to mention that the banks were granting mortgages for the purpose of flipping, and seeking out risky ones.



I was going to post "nice try," but your post did not even rise to that level, so never mind.

[No Elephants]

57. Your post implies he sometimes posts progressive views, although not

as often as he posts conservatives ones. You must be more observant than I. So far, I have not seen a single post of his expressing a progressive view. Not one. Nor have I seen one post praising any Democrat, only bashing them. He loves him some Republican politicians, though.

[No Elephants]

58. Everyone is in business to make a profit, yet plenty of businesses never make a profit, some

businesses make some profit, then go bankruput and some break even. So, simply saying banks are in business to make a profit is like saying nothing. Less than nothing, really.

If banks wanted always to be profitable, they should not have sought out risky loans, paying originators MORE for risky loans than for solid ones. They also should have kept their expenses reasonable.

Banks are profitable on fees alone, if they do not seek out risky loans or overdo spending.

If servicers want to operate profitably, they may want to look into some of the things cited in the article:

"Cordray said his office has received "hundreds, if not thousands of complaints" from home owners over endless fees and appalling customer service -- phone calls not being returned, documents going missing and servicers reneging on promises to modify individual loans."

[WriteDown]

60. The fact that you think that CW and WAMU were banks

before they collapsed makes the conversation moot. :).

[No Elephants]

62. Huh? I replied to your post 11, which is about banks. Then, I mentioned mortgage servicers .

on my own, anyway, because that is the subject of the thread. I said absolutely nothing about CW, WAMU or any other specific institution.

Nice try at face saving, though.

Actually, I cannot tell a lie. It was neither nice nor much of a try. Just less than honest, as usual.

[WriteDown]

63. I was a little cofused by this...

"If banks wanted always to be profitable, they should not have sought out risky loans, paying originators MORE for risky loans than for solid ones. They also should have kept their expenses reasonable."

It was not "banks" that sought out risky loans in general. Those are a whole different animal.

There is a fee-income component to mortgage servicers revenue, but it is small. The majority of the revenue is made in loan interest and that varies greatly depending on whether its risk-based or non-risked based servicing.

[No Elephants]

64. And how did that sentence support your assertion that I think CW and WAMU are banks?

Nothing supported that assertion of yours because none of my posts on this thread had mentioned any specific entity.

I had referred only to banks or mortgage servicers or loan originators as a class, none by name. Nice try at covering up one dishonest discussion tactic with another dishonest discusssion tactic. But again, not really nice or much of a try.

On your other point, banks most certainly did seek out risky loans. So did their subsidiaries, such as Countrywide, which was one of the prime (no pun intended) offenders of the subprime mortgage industry and is a subsidiary of Bank America. (I never said banks were the ONLY entities that sought risky loans. As I stated earlier, I spoke of banks because I was responding to your post about banks. But, when a bank forms a controlled subsidiary or affiliate to seek out risky loans, it's really splitting hairs and ignoring reality to say the bank was not doing it.)

Back to actions directly by banks, though.

As just one example, appraisers working for banks understood, without being told in so many words, that the appraisal of a residential property had to come in at a price that justified the proposed mortgage loan, or the appraiser would not be seeing
more business from that bank. That, right there, is a risky loan when you have a nonrecourse mortgage--as are most residential mortgages that are not part of a larger transaction.

A nonrecourse loan made on an inflated appraisal is a risky loan even when Warren Buffet or Bill Gates is the borrower. If the owner decides to walk away from a property that no longer justifies the mortgage payments still owed, you have no right to sue the owner for the balance due on a non-recourse mortgage.

Some appraisers have been held liable for inflating the valuation, but no banks that I know of. However, if the appraiser was not afraid of losing his or her livelihood, what motive would the appraiser have to inflate the valuation to justify the loan? There'd be every incentive to give a solid valuation because that could never come back to bite the appraiser. Yet, many appraisals were dicey, even before the real estate market collapsed.

As stated, pressure to bring in an inflated appraisal is just one example of the way banks themselves sought out risky loans.

You've mentioned the narrow profit of the mortgage servicer on another thread, but that really has nothing to do with my reply to your post. That is between the mortgage servicer and the mortgagee. Whatever bargain they make with each other is their business. It has nothing to do with the borrower. And, my prior post did cite some of the undesirable practices of mortgage servicers mentioned in the OP.

My point was, and is, that people, such as yourself, for example, need to stop acting as though the only wrongdoer in the transactions is the party with the least financial sophistication and the least bargaining leverage and the least knowledge of the laws and regulations involved and how they changed. That is the borrower, who also happens to bear most of the risk of the transaction and is never assured of a profit, even if both sides to the mortgage loan perform the contract to a T.

[WriteDown]

65. Time paradox...

"On your other point, banks did seek out risky loans. So did their subsidiaries, such as Countrywide, which was one of
the prime (no pun intended) offenders and is a subsidiary of Bank America."

CW did not become a subsidiary of BOA until after its collapse. This is why its hard to have this conversation.

You need to chill out, Francis.

[sendero]

46. Consider..

... that if the mortgagers don't figure out a way to relieve some of the pressure, they will be getting a lot of jingle mail.

And that's bad for them and everybody who owns a house.

[WriteDown]

50. No doubt about that...

:)

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Odin2005]

61. GOOD!

The jerks in this thread blaming the victims of fleecing need to STFU!!!