Thursday, October 14, 2010

So What Were the Robo-Signers Signing?

Paul Krugman has the best explanation:

More significantly, certain players have been ignoring the law. Courts have been approving foreclosures without requiring that mortgage servicers produce appropriate documentation; instead, they have relied on affidavits asserting that the papers are in order. And these affidavits were often produced by “robo-signers,” or low-level employees who had no idea whether their assertions were true.


Now an awful truth is becoming apparent: In many cases, the documentation doesn’t exist. In the frenzy of the bubble, much home lending was undertaken by fly-by-night companies trying to generate as much volume as possible. These loans were sold off to mortgage “trusts,” which, in turn, sliced and diced them into mortgage-backed securities. The trusts were legally required to obtain and hold the mortgage notes that specified the borrowers’ obligations. But it’s now apparent that such niceties were frequently neglected. And this means that many of the foreclosures now taking place are, in fact, illegal.
What's the blowback, Krugman, again:

...if trusts can’t produce proof that they actually own the mortgages against which they have been selling claims, the sponsors of these trusts will face lawsuits from investors who bought these claims — claims that are now, in many cases, worth only a small fraction of their face value.


And who are these sponsors? Major financial institutions — the same institutions supposedly rescued by government programs last year. So the mortgage mess threatens to produce another financial crisis.
Note: Krugman's explanation is solid, but this being Krugman his solution is off the wall.

He suggests that the George Soros front group, The Center for American Progress, has the great idea: Give mortgage counselors and other public entities the power to modify troubled loans directly, with their judgment standing unless appealed by the mortgage servicer.

No thanks. I'll stick with the rule of law. If the bank has the proper documentation to foreclose, they can foreclose. If they don't, tough luck bank---get it right next time (if you are still around).

3 comments:

  1. Of course these *free* houses will be basically unsellable since it will be impossible to obtain title insurance on them. Even worse, this could spill over into homes that are not in foreclosure but have a mortgage on them as well, since it would be impossible to satisfy a mortgage when its not known whom should be paid off. Even tax leans would be worthless on these homes since one could never get a free title. Nothing but moral hazard lies on the road ahead.

    ReplyDelete
  2. How long did it take Krugman to catch up with Janet Tavakoli?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "No thanks. I'll stick with the rule of law."

    So, all we have to do is depend on the Federal government to not change "the law".

    ReplyDelete