SHOCKER, not everyone in foreclosure “bought too much house” or “lied about their income on the loan application”.

It turns out, that at times, Wells Fargo  falsified records and changed borrowers loan applications or steered them into sub-prime profitable loans.

“The order requires Wells Fargo to compensate borrowers affected by these practices.”

To identify Wells Fargo Financial borrowers whose income information was falsified without their knowledge, Wells Fargo is required to set up a procedure for potentially affected borrowers to show that their actual income at the time did not qualify them for the loans they were granted. Wells Fargo is required to provide notice of this procedure to all borrowers who obtained cash-out refinancing loans between January 2004 and June 2008

Thanks to 4closurefraud.org for the article.

- The Bank Slayer

Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

Federal Reserve Orders $85M Civil Penalty Against Wells Fargo for Steering Potential Prime Borrowers Into More Costly Subprime Loans and Falsifying Income

The following is an announcement by the Federal Reserve Wednesday regarding a civil penalty against Wells Fargo:

The Federal Reserve Board on Wednesday issued a consent cease and desist order and assessed an $85 million civil money penalty against Wells Fargo & Company of San Francisco, a registered bank holding company, and Wells Fargo Financial, Inc., of Des Moines. The order addresses allegations that Wells Fargo Financial employees steered potential prime borrowers into more costly subprime loans and separately falsified income information in mortgage applications. In addition to the civil money penalty, the order requires that Wells Fargo compensate affected borrowers.

The $85 million civil money penalty is the largest the Board has assessed in a consumer-protection enforcement action and is the first formal enforcement action taken by a federal bank regulatory agency to address alleged steering of borrowers into high-cost, subprime loans.

Wells Fargo Financial–a once-active, non-bank subsidiary of Wells Fargo–made subprime loans that primarily refinanced existing home mortgages in which borrowers received additional money from the loan proceeds in so-called cash-out refinancing loans. The order addresses allegations that Wells Fargo Financial sales personnel steered borrowers who were potentially eligible for prime interest rate loans into loans at higher, subprime interest rates, resulting in greater costs to borrowers. The order also addresses separate allegations that Wells Fargo Financial sales personnel falsified information about borrowers incomes to make it appear that the borrowers qualified for loans when they would not have qualified based on their actual incomes.

These practices were allegedly fostered by Wells Fargo Financials incentive compensation and sales quota programs and the lack of adequate controls to manage the risks resulting from these programs. These deficiencies allegedly constitute unsafe and unsound banking practices and unfair or deceptive acts or practices that are prohibited by the Federal Trade Commission Act and similar state laws. In agreeing to the order, Wells Fargo did not admit any wrongdoing. The order requires Wells Fargo to compensate borrowers affected by these practices. To identify prime-eligible borrowers with cash-out refinancing loans who were subject to improper steering, Wells Fargo is required to reevaluate the qualifications of all borrowers who took out a subprime, cash-out refinancing loan between January 2006 and June 2008 to account for certain specific steering techniques. To identify Wells Fargo Financial borrowers whose income information was falsified without their knowledge, Wells Fargo is required to set up a procedure for potentially affected borrowers to show that their actual income at the time did not qualify them for the loans they were granted. Wells Fargo is required to provide notice of this procedure to all borrowers who obtained cash-out refinancing loans between January 2004 and June 2008 at a Wells Fargo Financial office where there is evidence that sales personnel at that office altered or falsified borrowers income information.

These compensation plans must be approved by the Federal Reserve. An independent, third-party administrator will review determinations about the eligibility of individual borrowers for compensation and the amounts of compensation provided. The Federal Reserve will also monitor compliance with the approved plans. Failure to comply with the plans will constitute a breach of the cease and desist order.

The amount of compensation provided to individual borrowers will depend on a number of factors, including differences between what borrowers paid and what they should have paid in terms of origination points, interest payments, fees, and penalties. Until specific determinations of harm to individual borrowers are made, it is difficult to determine the total amount of compensation provided to borrowers. Based on preliminary estimates, the amount of compensation that each eligible borrower will receive ranges between $1,000 and $20,000, but some eligible borrowers may receive less than $1,000 and others may receive more than $20,000. The number of borrowers who may receive compensation under both plans is estimated to be between 3,700 and possibly more than 10,000.

Further information for borrowers may be found at www.wellsfargo.com/mortgage.

In addition to the monetary components of the settlement, Wells Fargo is required to improve oversight of its anti-fraud and compliance programs and incentive compensation and performance management policies for personnel who sell and underwrite home mortgage loans. The Board
also has issued consent orders against 16 former Wells Fargo Financial sales personnel prohibiting them from becoming employed in the banking industry. The Board has also issued a consent cease and desist order against another former Wells Fargo Financial sales person prohibiting future improper conduct.

This is another sad example of the strength of mortgage bankers as well as their deep reach into our government.

In an article by Tony Pugh title “Fed wants to strip a key protection for homeowners” he outlines changes the Fed plans on making to the Truth in Lending Act.   Namely castrating mortgage borrower’s ability to use rescission to stop a foreclosure and/or get out of a bad loan.

In fact the article quotes other players in the foreclosure defense field going as far as saying this change “Requiring homeowners to pay what remains of the original loan before a rescission can proceed is tantamount to a “verdict first, trial later” philosophy”.

How does rescission work?

Quite simply if you were sold a bad product you have the right to return it and get back what you paid.

As far as applying this to a mortgage situation it works like this:  You discovered that your mortgage loan which you refinanced was “bad”  or predatory in nature – not everything was disclosed properly.

Who is actually owed the money on your mortgage and how much is owed?  Recently we’ve seen TARP documentation showing a flow of money into mortgage-backed securities.

If large banks like Bank of America routinely foreclose on the wrong house are we sure mortgage payment are going to the correct place?

Is the bank going to indemnify the homeowner from Uncle Sam’s claims when the mortgage is paid off in a short sale or even a simple refi?

– The Bank Slayer

U.S. tax dollars used by Federal Reserve to pay foreign partners of AIG

The New York Fed, led then by Timothy F. Geithner, who is now the Treasury Secretary, “refused to use its considerable leverage,” according to Neil M. Barofsky, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, wrote in a report released some time ago.

Just two days before the New York Fed paid A.I.G.’s partners 100 cents on the dollar to tear up their contracts with the insurance giant, one bank volunteered to take a modest haircut — but it never got the chance.

Mary Williams Walsh at the NY Times says that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York gave up much of its power in high-pressure negotiations with the American International Group’s trading partners last year.

Neil Garfied has a great commentary on this piece.

In her article you have the crux of the problem for the investors in mortgage backed securities, for the foreclosing servicers and for aptly named pretender lenders.

What did the taxpayer actually pay for and what did they get for it?

Consider that if all went to pay off credit default swaps at 100 cents on the dollar then are those obligations to be considered paid or still outstanding, due and owing?   And if they are still due and owing, to whom?

Whether a home goes to sale at a foreclosure or not we are left with the same problem.  To whom is the money owed?

If the Federal Reserve paid off the credit default swaps (READ: insurance) then doesn’t the Federal Reserve has some claim to the underlying asset to which the insurance was applied?

It seem quite clear that one of two scenarios has taken place.

My mortgage which is current is “owned” by the Federal Reserve

When my house which sold at a foreclosure auction bank to the bank should be delivered to the Federal Reserve.

Either way the Fed seems to have a clear claim to the money or the collateral.

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/audit-faults-new-york-fed-in-a-i-g-bailout/

As Neil Garfield points out in the following information:

“This is red meat for investors and borrowers seeking restitution for losses caused by improper appraisals, ratings and representations concerning loan and property values, loan viability, securities fraud, deceptive lending practices, TILA violations etc.”

Ok, so if the mortgage is written down, how does that inpact what you owe?

If you needs foreclosure defense support or are facing a short sale situation you need to have all the facts so you can make informed decisions.  Contact our office today.

– The Bank Slayer

Obama Bank Policy Signals $1 Trillion in Writedowns

(Bloomberg) — U.S. regulators may force Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc. and at least a dozen of the nation’s biggest financial institutions to write down as much as $1 trillion in loans, twice what they’ve already recorded, based on Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. auction data compiled by Bloomberg.

Banks failing Federal Reserve evaluations of loans this month may be ordered to make sales worth as little as 32 cents on the dollar, according to FDIC data. That would be less than half of the 84 cents on the dollar the Treasury Department suggested was a possible purchase price. Some of the bank- insurance agency’s auctions brought 0.02 cent on the dollar.

Lower valuations would lead to new writedowns and capital injections from the $134.5 billion remaining in the Troubled Asset Relief Program, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said.

“The only way banks will sell is under duress,” the 66- year-old professor at Columbia University in New York said in a phone interview.

Asset sales are the latest step in President Barack Obama’s effort to restart the U.S. economy through the most costly rescue of the financial system in history. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s Legacy Loan Program and Legacy Securities Program together are targeted to start at $500 billion and may expand to $1 trillion.

Auctioning Assets

Geithner’s plan will purchase loans and be overseen by the FDIC, which will offer debt guarantees while the Treasury invests capital alongside investors.

The FDIC would auction assets after the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Office of Thrift Supervision or the Fed signals that a bank is in danger of failing.

“If we thought that was the right decision to address their situation, we would certainly tell an institution to move in that direction,” said William Ruberry, an OTS spokesman in Washington.

Geithner’s plan to buy loans and securities “can be very useful,” Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan said in a Bloomberg Television interview today. “It’s one more arrow in the quiver to address problems with assets on banks’ balance sheets.”

Treasury spokesman Isaac Baker said in an e-mail that the program is voluntary and the government expects banks will want to sell assets to clean their balance sheets and make it easier to raise capital from investors, he said.

Financing Help

“Past auctions cannot reliably predict asset prices in the Public Private Investment Program, as we are creating a new market that has not previously existed to help value these assets, and offering financing to help investors purchase them,” Baker said.

Setting up a facility to purchase distressed loans will allow the FDIC to put a bank into “a silent resolution,” said Joshua Rosner, a managing director at investment-research firm Graham Fisher & Co. in New York.

“This is a way to functionally wind down a bank as big as Citi without the world realizing that they’re essentially in resolution,” he said. “The real value of this is a tool to resolve a too-big-to-fail institution.”

The FDIC is considering allowing banks to share in future profits on loans sold to public-private partnerships to encourage healthier lenders to participate, according to Jim Wigand, the agency’s deputy director for resolutions and receiverships. The regulator is seeking comments through April 10 on the program, said spokesman David Barr.

Assets sold under the Legacy Loans Program may be worth an average of 56.3 cents on the dollar, based on the results of FDIC auctions at failed banks over the past 15 months.

‘Large Amounts’

Writedowns would total $1 trillion if the program buys $500 billion in loans at 32 cents on the dollar, the average for non- performing commercial loans in the FDIC sales.

Geithner said March 29 that some financial institutions will need “large amounts of assistance.” He’s trying to avoid bank nationalizations by wooing investors to purchase loans with taxpayer-guaranteed financing to protect them against loss. The U.S. move to clear away distressed assets contrasts with Japanese financial authorities’ reluctance to do so in a 1990s financial crisis, which led to a decade of economic stagnation.

“This is going to be our Yucca Mountain right here,” said Joseph Mason, an associate professor at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge and former FDIC visiting scholar, referring to the proposed radioactive-waste storage site in Nevada.

Half-Life

“You can put it in a train car and ship it across the country. The half-life of this stuff is real long, but it has to burn off,” he said.

The FDIC’s average auction value of 56.3 cents on the dollar for residential and commercial loans is based on 312 sales worth $1.1 billion since Jan. 1, 2008, according to the FDIC. The average for 348 commercial loans for which borrowers stopped paying was 32 cents on the dollar. Auction prices ranged from 0.02 cent to 101.2 cents on the dollar, according to the FDIC.

In announcing its loan-sale program last week, the Treasury provided an example of a purchase price of 84 cents on the dollar, with taxpayers putting up 6 cents, investors 6 cents and the FDIC guaranteeing 72 cents in financing.

“Eighty-four cents is just laughable” because the market value for loans is much lower, said Barry Ritholtz, chief executive officer of New York-based FusionIQ, an independent research firm.

The U.S. is structuring the loan purchases to leave the government with most of the risk, while investors stand to gain most of any profit, economist Stiglitz said.

‘Almost No Upside’

“There’s almost no upside for the taxpayer,” he said. “The government is giving a 110 percent bailout.”

How much investors offer for assets is “going to be the key” determinant of Bank of America’s participation in the government’s two asset-purchase programs, CEO Kenneth Lewis said in a Bloomberg Television interview March 27.

“If there’s an issue with the program, it’s going to be trying to get banks to sell assets,” FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair said in a speech the same day at the Isenberg School of Management of the University of Massachusetts in Amherst.

“If I have concern, it’s the pricing may not be where seller and buyer are willing to meet,” she said.

Any standoff between investors and banks over loan prices may scuttle Geithner’s plan to segregate non-performing assets and restart lending, said Bob Eisenbeis, chief monetary economist with Vineland, New Jersey-based Cumberland Advisors and a former Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank research director.

‘Really Bad Stuff’

“It’s hard to believe that the really bad stuff that’s causing all the problems are going to be offered for sale,” Eisenbeis said. “The institutions won’t want to sell them if they get a true price, because their capital would take too much of a hit.”

With preparations for auctions under way, U.S. banks are being put through so-called stress tests, which Geithner said last month are a comprehensive set of standards for the financial system’s most important lenders. The examinations of loans and their collateral and payment histories are scheduled to be completed by April 30.

Banks have almost $4.7 trillion of mortgages and $3 trillion of other loans that aren’t packaged into bonds, according to the Fed. The vast majority are carried at full value because they don’t need to be written down until they default, according to Daniel Alpert, managing director of New York-based investment bank Westwood Capital LLC.

“Just because it’s being held at full value doesn’t mean it’s not bad,” Alpert said.

Obama Effort

While regulators don’t intend to publish the details of their stress tests, the results will effectively become known once banks announce how much capital they need to raise. Regulators will then give lenders six months to obtain funds from investors or taxpayers as a last resort.

The tests are designed to mesh with Obama’s effort to remove banks’ distressed mortgage assets that have hampered lending to consumers and businesses. Officials aim to have the first loan purchases by private investors financed by the government within weeks of the conclusion of the stress tests, according to the Treasury.

Including TARP, the U.S. government and the Fed have spent, lent or guaranteed $12.8 trillion to combat the financial collapse and a recession that began in December 2007. The amount approaches the $14.2 trillion U.S. gross domestic product last year.

‘Constructive Plan’

Obama met with the CEOs of the nation’s 12 biggest banks on March 27 at the White House to enlist their support to thaw a 20-month freeze in bank lending.

Lenders undergoing stress tests include New York-based Citigroup, which has received three rounds of capital infusions valued at $60 billion, including $45 billion from TARP, according to Bloomberg data.

“The administration has put forth a constructive plan to address the critical issues facing the financial services industry, and we are committed to working together with the industry to help achieve the goals of the plan,” CEO Vikram Pandit said in a statement before meeting with Obama.

Citigroup spokesman Stephen Cohen declined to comment.

The U.S. tests also involve Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America, which also received $45 billion from TARP. It bought Merrill Lynch & Co. — the largest underwriter of failed collateralized debt obligations, according to Standard & Poor’s — and home-lender Countrywide Financial Corp.

Bank of America spokesman Scott Silvestri declined to comment.

Option ARMs

San Francisco-based Wells Fargo purchased Wachovia Corp., the nation’s biggest provider of option adjustable-rate mortgages, for $15 billion. In doing so, it took responsibility for about $122 billion of option ARMs sold by the Charlotte bank.

Option ARM loans allow borrowers to defer part of their interest payments and add it to their principal. When housing collapsed, many holders of the mortgages were left owing more than the value of their homes.

Wachovia issued more than half its option ARMs in California, according to bank filings. Wells Fargo was already the biggest lender in the state.

“Wells Fargo supports any plan by the Treasury that helps financial institutions efficiently sell troubled assets while still providing an investment return to the U.S. taxpayer,” spokeswoman Janis Smith said in an e-mail.

Web Distribution

The ability to distribute loan information over the Internet will also support prices by expanding the number of buyers and allowing for sales as small as $100,000, said Stephen Emery, a managing director at New York-based Mission Capital Advisors, which brokered $3 billion of real-estate loan sales last year.

Terms offered under the Legacy Loans Program, including government-backed financing, will also help boost demand and selling prices by as much as 20 percent, he said.

“The leverage will allow buyers to bump their price a little bit,” Emery said. “But that still doesn’t mean that something that was worth 30 is now worth 60. What’s going to happen is now it’s worth 35 or 36 cents.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Mark Pittman in New York at