It’s on now!   For those who thought claims of mortgage fraud committed at the highest levels in banking was simply a conspiracy theory, think again.   Yesterday it was WAMU and now it even Goldman can’t escape the facts.

- The Bank Slayer

The government has accused Goldman Sachs & Co. of defrauding investors by failing to disclose conflicts of interest in subprime investments it sold as the housing market was collapsing.

By MARCY GORDON
AP Business Writer

The Securities and Exchange Commission said in a civil complaint Friday that Goldman failed to disclose that one of its clients helped create — and then bet against — subprime mortgage securities that Goldman sold to other investors.

Two European banks that bought the mortgage securities lost nearly $1 billion, the SEC said. The agency is seeking to recoup profits reaped on the deal

Goldman Sachs denied the allegations. In a statement, it called the SEC’s charges “completely unfounded in law and fact” and said it will contest them.

The charges come as lawmakers seek to crack down on Wall Street practices that helped cause the financial crisis. Among proposals Congress is weighing are tougher rules for complex investments like those involved in the alleged Goldman fraud.

The Goldman client implicated in the fraud is one of the world’s largest hedge funds, Paulson & Co. The SEC said it paid Goldman roughly $15 million in 2007 to put together an investment offering that was tied to mortgage-related securities the hedge fund viewed as likely to decline in value.

Separately, Paulson took out a form of insurance that allowed it to make a huge profit when those securities became nearly worthless.

Goldman Sachs shares fell more than 13 percent after the SEC announcement, which also caused shares of other financial companies to sink. The Dow Jones industrial average fell more than 147 points in midday trading.

The civil lawsuit filed by the SEC in federal court in Manhattan was the government’s most significant legal action related to the mortgage meltdown that ignited the financial crisis and helped plunge the country into recession. The SEC’s enforcement chief said the agency is investigating a broad range of practices related to the crisis.

The agency also charged a Goldman vice president, Fabrice Tourre, 31, who it said was principally responsible for devising the deal and marketing the securities. The SEC said he now is executive director of Goldman Sachs International in London.

Tourre, the SEC said, boasted to a friend that he was able to put such deals together as the mortgage market was unraveling in early 2007.

In an email to a friend, he described himself as “the fabulous Fabstanding in the middle of all these complex, highly leveraged, exotic trades he created without necessarily understanding all of the implications of those monstrosities!!!”

The SEC is seeking unspecified fines and restitution from Goldman Sachs and Tourre.

Asked why the SEC did not also pursue a case against Paulson, Enforcement Director Robert Khuzami said: “It was Goldman that made the representations to investors. Paulson did not.”

Paulson & Co. is run by John Paulson, who reaped billions by betting against subprime mortgage securities. He is not related to former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

Goldman told investors that a third party, ACA Management LLC, had selected the pools of subprime mortgages it used to create what are known as synthetic collateralized debt obligations. But, the SEC alleges, Goldman misled investors by failing to disclose that Paulson & Co. also played a role in selecting the mortgage pools and stood to profit from their decline in value.

“Goldman wrongly permitted a client that was betting against the mortgage market to heavily influence which mortgage securities to include in an investment portfolio, while telling other investors that the securities were selected by an independent, objective third party,” Khuzami said in a statement.

The SEC charges come after Goldman Sachs denied last week it bet against clients by selling them mortgage-backed securities while reducing its own exposure to them.

In an annual letter to shareholders, Goldman said it began reducing its exposure to the U.S. mortgage market in late 2006. It said it did so by selling mortgage investments or buying credit default swaps. The swaps are a form of insurance that pays out if the value of the underlying asset declines.

Those hedges, also known as short positions, served Goldman well. As the housing market began cratering and losses piled up for other big banks, Goldman suffered less damage. That led to criticism that the bank benefited at the expense of clients who bought mortgage-backed securities that became toxic. Goldman denied that.

“Our short positions were not a ‘bet against our clients,’” Goldman said in the letter. “Rather, they served to offset our long positions. Our goal was, and is, to be in a position to make markets for our clients while managing our risk within prescribed limits.”

In the letter, Goldman also rejected claims that it profited from the mortgage market meltdown.

This reporter does a good job at noting some of the more frustrating problems with securing a loan modification with JP Morgan Chase.    These kind of ambiguous and weak answers are a regular part of almost every client stpry who that walks through our doors.

Home owners are so exasperated by the entire process that many times they are on the verge of giving up and letting the house go rather than battle with these knuckleheads.   Read on and if these examples give you the déjà vue then give us a call to find out how to get your situation under control.

-          The Bank Slayer

How Chase Bank Has Left Homeowners in Limbo

By Paul Kiel, ProPublica, February 15, 2010

On the Saturday before Thanksgiving, Lesa Herron of Santa Rosa, Calif., opened a letter from Chase Home Finance (PDF). She’d been denied a permanent modification under the federal government’s loan-mod program, Chase said, because “Your hardship is not of a permanent nature.” No other reason was given.

For Herron, that was hard to understand. She was working two jobs and her mortgage payment still amounted to more than half of her income. She’d fallen two payments behind. If her money troubles were only temporary, it was news to her.

We at ProPublica reported last month that mortgage servicers are often not following the Treasury Department’s rules for the program and provided three examples. One involved another homeowner who, like Herron, had been denied a modification because his hardship was not “permanent.”

Since that story, we have found several other similar cases: homeowners who may well be eligible for the program but who were denied because their troubles were not deemed “permanent.”

The cases ProPublica found all occurred before Treasury explicitly barred such denials in December. Despite the change in guidelines, however, those homeowners are still in limbo. Some face the possibility of foreclosure.

Through interviews with housing counselors and homeowners, we found six cases in which homeowners were denied because the hardship was found not to be “permanent.” All were in November. All were denied by Chase Home Finance, JPMorgan Chase’s mortgage servicing arm.

Chase seems to be alone among the largest servicers in having used that reason for denial. It’s unclear just what criteria Chase used to judge a hardship temporary.

Housing counselors told us that homeowners denied a modification for that reason should reapply. The program does not allow homeowners to appeal denials, and housing advocates have often criticized the program for not providing an effective way to challenge servicers’ determinations.

Christine Holevas, a spokeswoman for Chase, said that the company “adapts as quickly as possible” to Treasury’s guidelines. When asked, she did not say whether Chase would review the applications of homeowners who’d been denied because their hardships were considered temporary.

As we reported last month, the largest servicers have lagged in approving homeowners for modifications. Together, those servicers account for more than 60 percent of the 3.4 million mortgages eligible for the program, but very few homeowners have been approved for lasting modifications. About 425,000 Chase customers are eligible for loan mods,according to the Treasury Department. Only a little more than 7,000 have received permanent modifications.

The Treasury Department has laid out extensive guidelines for the $75 billion program in an attempt to standardize servicers’ evaluations of applicants. When a servicer joins the program, it signs a contract that says it will abide by those guidelines. In return, the servicers receive incentive payments from the government for each modified mortgage.

To receive a modification under the program, homeowners must demonstrate that they can’t afford their mortgage payments. But Treasury’s guidelines, first issued last April and updated repeatedly since, never mentioned testing the permanence of a homeowner’s difficulties when evaluating an application. Last December, a new guideline explicitly prohibited servicers from distinguishing “between short-term and long-term hardships.”

A Treasury spokeswoman said that since the program’s launch, servicers had developed “varying interpretations of the guidelines” and that Chase’s use of the “temporary hardship” denial before the guideline update was “reasonably consistent” with the program’s rules. She said that homeowners who’d been denied for that reason can contact a hotline staffed with housing counselors for help.

It’s impossible to say how many homeowners were denied for that reason. Servicers were not required to systematically collect and report the reason for denials before December. The reporting system includes only 14 possible reasons for denial; having only a temporary hardship is not one of them. Holevas did not respond to a question about the number of denials.

Jennifer Murphy, director of servicer relations at the nonprofit Center for New York City Neighborhoods, said that she had often seen homeowners rejected for modifications because their hardships were deemed “not permanent”—both before and after the launch of the federal modification program last year. As a result, she said, she advises homeowners to state that their hardships are permanent when they apply.

ProPublica could not find an example of any of the other top three largest servicers using the same denial. Spokespeople for Wells Fargo and Citigroup’s servicing arm said they do not evaluate the duration of the hardship for the purposes of the program. A spokesperson for Bank of America gave a more general reply and said the bank follows the program’s guidelines when evaluating homeowners.

Homeowners must meet certain basic qualifications to be eligible for a modification under the program: the home must be the primary residence and the homeowner must be able to show she can’t afford the mortgage payments. If those hurdles are cleared, the servicer is supposed to run a secret formula developed by the Treasury Department to determine whether the investor would make more money modifying the loan or not. The program lowers the mortgage payments to 31 percent of the homeowner’s monthly income. If modification is likely to be more profitable, the servicer is obligated to offer the homeowner a modification.

Chase’s criteria for a “hardship … of a permanent nature,” meanwhile, aren’t so easily explicable. The denial seems to have been applied in a range of cases. Some homeowners had been current on their payments when they applied for a modification, some were months behind. Some had been denied even a trial modification, while some had been denied after making trial payments for over half a year. The program is supposed to feature a three-month trial period before modifications are made permanent (as we’ve reported, trials frequently stretch much longer).

In the example we reported on last month, Chase told a mortgage broker named Nathan Reynolds that he’d been denied a modification because Reynolds had expressed optimism that the administration’s policies might rescue the housing market and thus boost his income. He told ProPublica that he’d likely declare bankruptcy if he didn’t receive a modification.

Yves Andre Vital, a housing counselor with Brooklyn Housing & Family Services, told ProPublica that Chase had denied one of his clients on the rationale that unemployment was only a temporary hardship.

In Lesa Herron’s case, she says a Chase employee told her she’d been denied because her gross income had not decreased since she refinanced into her loan in 2006. Herron works as an X-ray technician at a state-run center for people with developmental disabilities, but has supplemented her income by delivering pizza three nights a week for the past nine years.

Since last fall, she’d struggled to keep current on her loan, which carries a 9.5 percent interest rate and amounted to more than half of her income. But when she couldn’t cover the property tax, she fell two months behind. She was accepted to the federal program last May and was able to make the trial payments, because they’d been cut almost in half, from $3,350 to about $1,778.

Herron made six of those monthly payments before she received the denial letter for a permanent modification last November. She didn’t know what to do next. “I stopped paying my mortgage so that my family and I could get the money together to move when the bank made their next move.” She says she might try reapplying now that she knows her denial is against the federal program’s guidelines.

Paul Kiel is a reporter for ProPublica.

Thanks to Chase-sucks.com for this info.

The article in the Seattle Times about the collapse of WAMU is hilarious.  Thanks to my friend Loren Steffy at the Chronicle for highlighting the madness.  A famous lawyer in New York used to say No Witness, No Case.  WAMU’s behavior flips this one…No ability to pay, No problem.   We catch these guys pulling fast ones ALL THE TIME.

Here is an excerpt for your reading pleasure.

Someone in Florida had made a second-mortgage loan to O.J. Simpson, and I just about blew my top, because there was this huge judgment against him from his wife’s parents,” [Fay Chapman, WaMu's chief legal officer from 1997 to 2007] recalled. Simpson had been acquitted of killing his wife Nicole and her friend but was later found liable for their deaths in a civil lawsuit; that judgment took precedence over other debts, such as if Simpson defaulted on his WaMu loan.

“When I asked how we could possibly foreclose on it, they said there was a letter in the file from O.J. Simpson saying ‘the judgment is no good, because I didn’t do it.’ “

Classic.  I love it!  The old “wasn’t me” is alive and well.

- The Bank Slayer