(Source: Karoun Demirjian Las Vegas Sun) – The four remaining Republican presidential candidates have lept at every opportunity to distinguish themselves from one another on most economic issues, trading jabs on jobs plans, tax plans and health care plans as they’ve made their way through Nevada.

But when it comes to housing — potentially the most potent economic issue in Las Vegas, where over 70 percent of home loans are underwater — the candidates have eschewed detailed plans to take on the crisis, apparently willing to let their similar positions blend together.

That common position essentially boils down to a two-word phrase: “Free market,” meaning no government-assisted mortgage modification, maybe a few tax breaks, but direct and proactive help is not on the way.

“Be careful what you ask for. As Nevadans, for the federal government to come and help bail you out, to help provide for you, to give you a right to housing,” Rick Santorum told a group of Nevada Republicans at his first campaign event in Nevada on Tuesday night.

“No thank you!” called out one of his supporters, while the rest clapped for the senator’s anti-plan.

“Although it’s very easy to look at the housing crisis in Nevada and particularly Las Vegas and say, ‘That is the issue: All we have to do is wave a wand, give somebody some money and solve the housing trouble,’ it isn’t the answer,” Ron Paul told supporters Wednesday. “The principles that everybody has a right to a house … all those programs that were designed for houses, people have lost their houses.”

Cries of, “President Paul, President Paul,” were the ultimate reception to that speech.

“People always ask me here in Nevada, ‘What are you going to do about housing?’ My first thing is repeal the Dodd-Frank bill, and overnight it’ll be easier to get a housing loan … and you will see a dramatic improvement of the matter in a very short time,” Newt Gingrich said at his first Las Vegas event Thursday morning, entirely sidestepping the issue of existing foreclosures.

Mitt Romney seems to have learned a thing or two since his last appearance in Las Vegas, when he said the market should just be allowed “to bottom out.”

He gave Nevada’s housing crisis lip service during a very brief endorsement ceremony with Donald Trump on Thursday afternoon: “So many people have their homes underwater, it’s extraordinary,” he said.

It isn’t that the candidates are unaware of the impact housing has in Nevada’s political climate: Romney supporters have focused their attacks on Gingrich, who is currently second in Nevada polls, on his history consulting for Freddie Mac to the tune of $1.6 million over several years, money they say puts Gingrich in kahoots with the banks that made bad loans.

It doesn’t seem to be upsetting voters: Not one person we spoke with at rallies for Santorum, Paul, Gingrich and Romney listed “housing” among the top issues they want Republican candidates to address.

There could be a good reason for that. While many in Washington note that Nevadans are contending with the worst foreclosure crisis in the nation, Washington programs haven’t done much to correct Nevada’s problem.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy AdSense Pro.

Please go to the plugin admin page to paste your ad code.

The Treasury Department’s premiere mortgage modification program excluded the average troubled Nevada homeowner for being too bad off for over two years before the terms were changed to allow all underwater loan holders to apply. The president’s more recent proposals to expand mortgage modifications have still left many Nevadans out of luck, however, as only homeowners who are current on payments are eligible — and many Nevadans fall behind in a last-ditch attempt to get banks to make a deal.

Still, as unsatisfactory as many of the federal attempts to ameliorate Nevada’s foreclosure situation may be, local politicians in both parties have encouraged lawmakers in Congress to do more to address the problem.

Those advocates include Democrats, who criticize the Republican candidates — especially Romney — for being willing to let the housing market slide until it can ride the wave of recovery, whether or not it ruins the local economy in the process.

“The state of Nevada continues to face the highest foreclosure rate in the nation. President Barack Obama understands this and is taking steps to stabilize the housing market. … The last time Mitt Romney was in Nevada, he had the audacity to say that we should let the foreclosure process ‘hit the bottom’ and that we should do nothing to help struggling families about to lose their homes,” said state Sen. Steven Horsford, who is running to represent the country’s worst foreclosure ZIP code in Congress next year. “Struggling middle-class families need real economic relief, and Mitt Romney hasn’t proposed a single new idea to give it to them.”

Those advocates include Nevada’s Republican governor, whose deputy is also Romney’s state campaign co-chair.

“I think 1/8Romney’s3/8 presence here, walking those neighborhoods most devastated by foreclosures, I think he absolutely cares,” Lt. Gov. Brian Krolicki said of Romney’s stance on housing.

But when asked if he agreed with Romney’s trickle-down, hands-off approach to correcting the foreclosure crisis, it proved to be a question he would rather not address.

“I think we’re done here,” Krolicki responded.

___

©2012 the Las Vegas Sun (Las Vegas, Nev.)

Visit the Las Vegas Sun (Las Vegas, Nev.) at www.lasvegassun.com

Distributed by MCT Information Services

Source: Karoun Demirjian Las Vegas Sun

Article source: http://www.loansafe.org/even-in-foreclosure-plagued-nevada-candidates-are-sidestepping-housing-crisis

“The banks created the MERS system as an end-run around the property recording system, to facilitate the rapid securitization and sale of mortgages,” Schneiderman said Friday. “Once the mortgages went sour, these same banks brought foreclosure proceedings en masse based on deceptive and fraudulent court submissions, seeking to take homes away from people with little regard for basic legal requirements or the rule of law.”

Article source: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2012/02/03/nys_schneiderman_sues_banks_in_foreclosure_effort/

By Kimberly Miller

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Updated: 11:30 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 2, 2012

Posted: 10:50 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 2, 2012

• Post a Comment
• E-mail
• Print
• Larger Type
  Small Type

Florida’s once-heralded foreclosure mill investigations have fizzled as the
attorney general’s office has failed to find the right strategy to continue
its pursuit and three law firms call for the cases to be dismissed.

This week, an attempt to have the Florida Supreme Court weigh in on whether
the state has the authority to subpoena the Law Offices of David J. Stern
was denied by the 4th District Court of Appeal.

The decision effectively ends the investigations into complaints that the
firms doctored court paperwork in an attempt to speed foreclosures.

“It means the buck has stopped” with the appeals court, said Royal
Palm Beach-based foreclosure defense attorney Tom Ice. “No appeal to
the Florida Supreme Court.”

Even before Wednesday’s ruling – from the very beginning of the investigations
- there has been uncertainty about how to prosecute a civil case against the
firms.

In 2010, flooded with complaints about unbridled foreclosures, former
Assistant Attorneys General Theresa Edwards and June Clarkson said they felt
their only option to protect consumers was to go after the law firms under
the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The act governs trade or commerce, but it is unclear whether it can be used
against law firms. Attorneys for the firms argue that what they are accused
of did not qualify as “trade or commerce” and that the statute is
intended to protect consumers. Technically, the consumers were the banks,
they say.

Now, more than a year and a half after the investigations were announced
during a news conference convened by former Attorney General Bill McCollum,
Edwards and Clarkson have been fired, two of the firms have closed, and it
is debatable whether there is a legal path to hold the Florida firms
accountable.

“This denial is significant,” Attorney General Pam Bondi’s office
said in a statement. “The attorney general’s office will now assess
each of its seven pending investigations into law firms for potential
misconduct in foreclosure cases to determine whether there are other avenues
through which the office can pursue foreclosurerelated misconduct.”

In interviews taken as part of a state inspector general’s inquiry into the
May firing of Edwards and Clarkson, one leading investigator said that
despite increased resources dedicated to the investigations, the state was
not close to filing formal complaints.

“The Florida Office of the Attorney General still cannot figure it out,”
the January report paraphrases former Chief Assistant Attorney General
Robert Julian as saying about why Edwards and Clarkson shouldn’t be blamed
for an inability to build a case against the firms.

The Tampa-based Florida Default Law Group points to the inspector general’s
report as evidence of why the cases should end.

“It is our understanding that the attorney general’s investigation into
our firm has been completed and now that the Office of Inspector General
report shows the lack of any substance supporting the investigation, it
should be dismissed,” said Ron Wolfe, Florida Default Law Group
managing partner.

Attorney Gerald Richman, who is representing the Boca Raton firm of Shapiro
Fishman, agrees.

“I think it’s in everybody’s interest for this to be closed as soon as
possible,” Richman said.

The Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson in Fort Lauderdale settled with the
state last year for $2 million. Stern’s firm and the Ben-Ezra Katz law
firm have closed, but are still under investigation. Also under
investigation are Albertelli Law, Law Offices of Daniel Consuegra and Kahane
Associates.

In December, after losing an appeal in the 4th District Court of Appeal to
subpoena Stern, Bondi asked the court to certify its decision as one of “great
public importance” so she could appeal to the Florida Supreme Court.

But some foreclosure defense attorneys believe the move was a hollow gesture
to appease critics.

Instead of looking to the Supreme Court, Bondi’s office could have issued
subpoenas under a different statute, possibly criminal investigative
subpoenas, Ice said.

“But the attorney general’s office hasn’t availed itself of that
opportunity, which leads me to believe the certification request was a mere
pretense for political purposes,” he said.

Edwards and Clarkson, who were forced to resign in May despite exemplary
evaluations, said the attorney general’s office is trying to make it appear
it has no power. But Edwards acknowledged that taking on law firms is tricky
and the legal avenues to pursue a case were in constant debate.

Still, with consumer complaints coming in daily, Edwards said they were
frustrated by the lack of a clear course and tried to find a way to “shoehorn”
the concerns into the 501 statute.

“Otherwise, here we are, the attorney general’s office, and we were
unable to do anything,” Edwards said.

Despite the apparent legal defeat, Edwards and Clarkson said they are proud
they helped bring national attention to the foreclosure processing issues.

“We still feel we accomplished a lot, and different people have picked up
that torch,” Edwards said. “We woke up the entire country.”

Article source: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/florida-attorney-generals-attempt-to-subpoena-foreclosure-mills-2144794.html

Feb. 2 (Bloomberg) — Jed Kolko, chief economist at Trulia.com, talks about the website for homebuyers, sellers and agents, demand for distressed properties in the U.S., and the outlook for recovery in housing prices.
Kolko speaks with Tom Keene on Bloomberg Television’s “Surveillance Midday.” Jonathan Miller, chief executive officer of Miller Samuel Inc., also speaks. (Source: Bloomberg)

Wall Street’s biggest lobbying group
is split over a proposed settlement of state and federal
foreclosure probes, after a committee of money managers signaled
it opposes terms letting banks push some costs onto bondholders.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association’s
Asset Management Group planned to release a statement last week
urging government negotiators to protect innocent investors,
amid reports that banks will get credit for lowering the
balances of mortgages packaged into bonds, three people familiar
with the matter said. Sifma’s leadership said no. The panel’s
members oversee $20 trillion and include BlackRock (BLK) Inc. and
Pacific Investment Management Co.

Sifma elected not to issue the statement “because the
settlement surrounds potential legal issues involving the
commercial interests of many of our members,” said Cheryl Crispen, a spokeswoman for the group in New York. “Sifma
generally does not intervene in such matters and remains focused
on matters of policy and advocacy.”

The rift within Sifma follows investor advocates’
complaints that bondholder interests are often trumped by those
of the biggest banks when government officials act to address
the fallout from the U.S. housing slump. Language similar to the
planned statement was included in a Jan. 31 release by the
Association of Mortgage Investors, a smaller trade group for
bondholders that unlike Sifma doesn’t also lobby on behalf of
firms that issue, underwrite, service and trade debt.

Deadline

All 50 states announced an investigation into foreclosure
practices in 2010 following disclosures that servicers were
using flawed documents in seizing homes. A group of state
attorneys general and federal officials has since negotiated
terms of a proposed settlement.

Under the agreement, which would total about $25 billion if
California joins, banks would provide a minimum amount of
principal reductions on first- and second-lien loans, a person
familiar with the matter said.

States have until Feb. 6 to decide whether to sign on to
the deal with five firms including Bank of America Corp. (BAC) and
JPMorgan Chase Co. (JPM), after delays as officials debated
liability releases and other terms. U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown,
an Ohio Democrat, and the Washington-based Association of
Mortgage Investors, whose members oversee $300 billion in bonds,
also earlier criticized the potential inclusion of modifications
on investor-owned loans.

“If the money managers don’t have a seat at the table,
going public is one way to blow the whistle,” said James Post,
a management professor at Boston University.

Reaction in E-mail

Sifma’s comment letters to regulators often explain its
constituencies’ differing views on proposed rules. It also has
issued press releases expressing the asset management group’s
specific opinions. The panel’s members include BlackRock, the
world’s largest money manager, and Pimco, which runs the biggest
bond fund, as well as AllianceBernstein LP, whose executives
have led the group and testified to Congress on its behalf.

Mark Porterfield, a spokesman for Newport Beach,
California-based Pimco, declined to comment, as did Lauren Trengrove of New York-based BlackRock and John Meyers at
AllianceBernstein in New York.

Leaders of the panel told other participants in an e-mail
last week that Sifma won’t let the AMG’s voice be heard,
according to one of the people, who declined to be identified
because they weren’t authorized to comment. The panel’s press
release, which would have specified it represented the asset-
management group’s views, said bondholders oppose any agreement
that makes investors, including pensions and Main Street mutual
funds, pay for banks’ wrongdoing.

Flawed Documents

Their inability to put out the statement “demonstrates, as
many of us have been saying for a very long time, that Sifma is
ultimately a sell-side organization that claims to be
representative of both,” said Joshua Rosner, an analyst at
research firm Graham Fisher Co. “It’s why there has been so
little done to fix the underlying problems.” Sell-side refers
to firms that sell securities to investors and funds.

Under the proposed settlement, banks would receive credit
for cuts to mortgages they hold directly and those within
securities without government backing, said the person, who
wasn’t authorized to speak publicly about the matter. They would
earn about twice as much for their own loans. The settlement
wouldn’t require servicers to break contracts that say loans
should only be reworked if that’s better for bondholders than a
foreclosure, the person said.

While investors welcome modifications that reduce losses,
they’re concerned that banks will be tempted to skew
calculations to expand the pool of eligible debts and avoid the
costs themselves, said two of the people who knew of the planned
asset-manager statement.

Servicer Protection

In March, Sifma expressed concern in a statement about the
initial proposed terms. Changes to servicing standards were
being discussed in a “closed process” and extended foreclosure
timelines could create greater losses for investors, it said.

In 2009, Sifma’s lobbyists pushed for legislation offering
protection to mortgage servicers against lawsuits from investors
if they reworked loans in certain ways, and Congress eventually
passed a bill in a weakened form, according to “Way Too Big to
Fail,” a book last year by Bill Frey, head of Greenwich
Financial Services LLC in Greenwich, Connecticut.

“Sifma doesn’t represent investors, they represent a
handful of banks,” said Frey, who sued Bank of America after
its 2008 settlement with states over Countrywide Financial
Corp.’s practices. “Policy makers are trying to prop up the
banks, and in doing so, they are willing to raid the pensions of
this country.”

‘Meaningful’ Relief

Brown, who heads the Senate’s Banking Subcommittee on
Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection, told Iowa
Attorney General Tom Miller and leaders of U.S. agencies
including the Department of Housing and Urban Development that,
while he wants “meaningful, widespread relief” for homeowners,
investors such as the state’s pension funds shouldn’t pay.

“Teachers, first responders, law enforcement, and other
pensioners and retirees should not be penalized for wrongdoing
by Wall Street,” Brown wrote in a Jan. 19 letter.

HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan declined to comment on the
details of settlement talks at a Feb. 1 press conference, saying
“we are making good progress.” Officials expect that a
majority of the loan modifications will occur on loans owned by
banks, said Geoff Greenwood, a spokesman for Miller, who’s
helping to lead negotiations.

“We expect that banks will modify loans only when it’s
better for investors in the long run,” Greenwood said in an
interview.

Tom Kelly, a Chicago-based spokesman for JPMorgan, and Dan Frahm at Bank of America declined to comment.

Countrywide Settlement

The Sifma Asset Management Group’s leaders said in the e-
mail last week they may seek to release their statement through
the American Securitization Forum, a trade group with both bank
and investor members that split from Sifma in 2010, the people
said. Jon Teall, an ASF spokesman, declined to comment.

The Association of Mortgage Investors grew out of a
coalition that formed in 2008 as a result of bondholders’
displeasure over the settlement that year between state
attorneys general and Bank of America’s Countrywide unit, said
Chris Katopis, AMI’s executive director. It became a formal
trade group the next year. Doubleline Capital LP and Angelo
Gordon Co. executives have testified to Congress on its
behalf.

“What AMI offers is an unconflicted voice for mortgage
investors,” Katopis said in a telephone interview, declining to
name its members. He said some of those firms, which can overlap
with Sifma’s, contribute language used in its statements and
that he hadn’t seen the proposed Sifma press release.

‘Legal Challenge’

Frey, in his proposed class action suit against Bank of
America, said bondholders were unfairly penalized by the firm’s
agreement to modify loans to settle charges of fraudulent
lending by Countrywide. His Greenwich Financial invests in,
creates and trades mortgage bonds, and advises bondholders.

That suit was dismissed in 2010, with a New York state
judge saying Frey didn’t own enough of the deals to have
standing. As the pending settlement develops, he said some
investors are eyeing the legal remedies available to bar the
government from taking private assets without fair compensation.

“If the attorneys general want to do something like this,
they are creating the possibility of a legal challenge,” Frey
said.

To contact the reporters on this story:
Jody Shenn in New York at
jshenn@bloomberg.net;
Bradley Keoun in New York at
bkeoun@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Alan Goldstein at
agoldstein5@bloomberg.net;
David Scheer at
dscheer@bloomberg.net

• Tweet

• More

• Print
• Email

<!—->

Article source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-03/wall-street-split-as-money-managers-fault-bank-foreclosure-deal.html