Treasury Investigates a Bet Against Home Owners

Daily Real Estate News | Tuesday, January 31, 2012

The Treasury Department is investigating allegations against Freddie Mac that accuse the government-sponsored enterprise of “betting against home owners’ ability to refinance their loans” while also putting in roadblocks to make it more difficult refinance at today’s lower rates, White House spokesman Jay Carney said Monday.

Some argue the GSE imposed several barriers to home owners who wanted to refinance their mortgages, like adding risk-based fees. 

The White House says it has tried to get the GSEs to ease such refinancing restrictions, as well as participate in debt-forgiveness programs, so more home owners can take advantage of current low mortgage rates.

The Treasury Department announced last week that it would extend for the first time to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae-backed loans incentives for lenders to forgive portions of homeowner debt in a refinancing program. 

But both GSEs have traditionally refused to permit debt reduction on its loans because it says it will create more losses to taxpayers. (The GSEs are backed by taxpayer money.) The GSEs did agree to review the current incentives, however. 

Several media outlets are reporting that Freddie Mac had a multibillion-dollar investment that hinged on borrowers continuing to pay higher interest rates, and they’re alleging that’s why the GSE wasn’t so eager to help more home owners refinance. 

“Beginning in 2010, Freddie bought several billion dollars' worth of ‘inverse floater’ securities — essentially the interest-paying portion of a bundle of mortgages — for its investment portfolio while selling the far less risky principal portion,” an article in The New York Times reports. “There is no evidence that Freddie tailored its refinancing standards to its investing strategy, but ‘inverse floaters’ make less money if the loans they cover refinance to a lower interest rate.”

Freddie denies any wrongdoing and, in a company statement said that it has stopped doing such transactions and only $5 billion of its $650 billion portfolio contained inverse floaters. In a statement issued Monday, the company said ''Freddie Mac is actively supporting efforts for borrowers to realize the benefits of refinancing their mortgages to lower rates.” What’s more, the company says that refinancings made up 78 percent of its loan purchases last year. 

Source: “Treasury Investigates Freddie Mac Investment,” The New York Times (Jan. 31, 2012) and “Is Freddie Mac Betting Against Home Owners?” ABC News (Jan. 30, 2012)

6 Charged in ‘Builder Kickback’ Scam

Daily Real Estate News | Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Six Charlotte, N.C., residents were charged with working with a home builder in a mortgage scheme that involved offering “builder kickbacks” to fake buyers, which prosecutors say resulted in hundreds of fraudulent sales in the area between January 2005 and February 2008.

The defendants, which include real estate agents, an accountant, mortgage brokers, and the builder’s owner, were working with Tara Properties to sell houses, according to court documents filed by prosecutors.

Tara, which typically builds homes in the $100,000 to $200,000 range, would offer kickbacks of 15 percent of the sales price, prosecutors say. But the kickbacks were never disclosed to lenders or disclosed on loan applications, prosecutors allege.

Prosecutors allege that Tara paid more than $5 million in kickbacks, and the straw buyers involved in the scheme were able to bilk more than $42 million in fraudulent loans from lenders.

Straw buyers lied on mortgage applications about income and assets, employment, and their intent to occupy the home as a primary residence, court document say. The majority of the deals ended in foreclosure.

The defendants have declined to make public statements on the charges.

Source: “6 Charged in Charlotte-Area Mortgage Scheme,” The Charlotte Observer (Jan. 24, 2012)

Florida Radio, TV Host Busted for Ponzi Scheme

Daily Real Estate News | Wednesday, January 18, 2012 

A South Florida radio and TV host who shared with listeners how to make it big during South Florida’s real estate boom was sentenced to four years in prison for taking part in a Ponzi scheme that bilked money from his real estate clients. 

Anthony F. Cutaia, 65, hosted “Talk About Mortgages and Real Estate” on South Florida’s local PAX TV network and radio station WSBR (740-AM) and held seminars offering up financial advice on real estate. 

Cutaia was accused by federal prosecutors of extorting about $1.56 million from his Boca Raton, Fla.-based commercial real estate business, CMG Property Investment Group, to pay for his housing expenses, cruises, cars, casino trips, and more. Prosecutors accused him of running a Ponzi scheme since forming his company in 2002. 

Prosecutors say the victims of his scam included a retired U.S. Department of Homeland Security special agent, who lost almost all of his $180,000 investment that he thought was being used to buy commercial real estate. 

Prosecutors say another one of Cutaia’s victims included the Palm Beach Gardens police chief, who invested $150,000 of his retirement money and lost almost all of it after investing in Cutaia’s company.

Cutaia told the judge prior to sentencing that he believed he’d be able to pay back investors, and he blamed the real estate market collapse on his inability to do so. 

Source: “Former Host Gets Four Years in Ponzi Scheme,” South Florida Sun-Sentinel (Jan. 18, 2012)

4 Ways to ID Borrower-Assistance Scammers

Daily Real Estate News | Friday, January 13, 2012 

 

Scammers have targeted delinquent borrowers during the past few years, hoping to take advantage of their desperation and financial inexperience. Their approach typically involves posing as a representative of a nonprofit or government agency who can help with a loan modification or some other form of assistance.

Sheri Stuart, education manager at Springboard Nonprofit Consumer Counseling, says she frequently encounters consumers at courses offered by her organization who have been victimized by these scams. Stuart says she recently met a couple from Southern California at one of these events who’d paid $3,000 to a fraudulent company in an attempt to keep their home out of foreclosure.

“It’s disconcerting,” she says. “It has a ripple effect. It not only affects the home owners, it affects the communities as well.”

To keep more consumers from being taken in by these scams, Stuart offers the following four red flags to help determine whether borrowers’ knight in shining armor is actually a swindler on the make:

1. They ask for money up front. “That’s usually an indication that someone has an ulterior motive,” Stuart says.

2. “Phantom help” appears out of nowhere. If a consumer hasn’t proactively contacted anyone about missed mortgage payments, but suddenly gets calls and mail about getting help for missed mortgage payments, it’s probably a scammer.

3. They present phony credentials. Many companies that claim to offer assistance will have official-looking seals from credentialing institutions on paperwork, promotional materials, and Web sites. Research those organizations to make sure they actually exist.

4. They make promises they can’t deliver. If they make ambitious guarantees about being able to modify loans or halt foreclosures, that should set off alarm bells. “Nobody can promise you a loan mod,” Stuart says.

If your clients suspect they have been or are being targeted, point them to Loanscamalert.orgloanscamalert.org to get more information and report the scammers.

By Brian Summerfield, REALTOR® Magazine

Unemployed to Get More Mortgage Relief

Daily Real Estate News | Monday, January 09, 2012 

 

Unemployed home owners who have mortgages backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac may be eligible for up to a 12-month reprieve from paying their mortgage or paying reduced payments for that time period.

The mortgage giants’ program currently allows six months of relief to the unemployed. Freddie Mac announced that the changes will take effect Feb. 1. However, Freddie officials say extended one-year forbearance period will be temporary, and borrowers will still be responsible for eventually owing the payments they’ve missed. 

Fannie Mae announced it also would be implementing a similar extension to its unemployed aid program.

"These expanded forbearance periods will provide families facing prolonged periods of unemployment with a greater measure of security by giving them more time to find new employment and resolve their delinquencies," says Tracy Mooney, a Freddie Mac senior vice president. "We believe this will put more families back on track to successful long-term home ownership."

Source: “Fannie, Freddie to Give Unemployed Up to 12-Month Break on Mortgages,” Dow Jones Business News (Jan. 6, 2012)

Financial Fraud Against Older Americans Peaks During Holidays

Instances of financial abuse and fraud against the elderly increased from November 2010 to January 2011, according to a recent report from MetLife, which found overall investment fraud targeted towards older Americans is on the rise.

Americans over the age of 65 lost nearly $3 billion to financial abuse from April to June 2010, up 12 percent from the same period in 2008, according to the report. During that time, 51 percent of the fraud cases reported were perpetrated by strangers, 34 percent by family, friends, and neighbors and 12 percent by businesses.  In a separate look at the holidays, MetLife reports fraud by family and friends increased to 45 percent.

Justice Department Reaches $335 Million Settlement to Resolve Allegations of Lending Discrimination by Countrywide Financial Corporation

More than 200,000 African-American and Hispanic Borrowers who Qualified for Loans were Charged Higher Fees or Placed into Subprime Loans

The Department of Justice today filed its largest residential fair lending settlement in history to resolve allegations that Countrywide Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries engaged in a widespread pattern or practice of discrimination against qualified African-American and Hispanic borrowers in their mortgage lending from 2004 through 2008.

The settlement provides $335 million in compensation for victims of Countrywide’s discrimination during a period when Countrywide originated millions of residential mortgage loans as one of the nation’s largest single-family mortgage lenders.

The settlement, which is subject to court approval, was filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in conjunction with the department’s complaint which alleges that Countrywide discriminated by charging more than 200,000 African-American and Hispanic borrowers higher fees and interest rates than non-Hispanic white borrowers in both its retail and wholesale lending. The complaint alleges that these borrowers were charged higher fees and interest rates because of their race or national origin, and not because of the borrowers’ creditworthiness or other objective criteria related to borrower risk.

The United States also alleges that Countrywide discriminated by steering thousands of African-American and Hispanic borrowers into subprime mortgages when non-Hispanic white borrowers with similar credit profiles received prime loans. All the borrowers who were discriminated against were qualified for Countrywide mortgage loans according to Countrywide’s own underwriting criteria.

“The department’s action against Countrywide makes clear that we will not hesitate to hold financial institutions accountable, including one of the nation’s largest, for lending discrimination,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “These institutions should make judgments based on applicants’ creditworthiness, not on the color of their skin. With today’s settlement, the federal government will ensure that the more than 200,000 African-American and Hispanic borrowers who were discriminated against by Countrywide will be entitled to compensation.”

The settlement resolves the United States’ pricing and steering claims against Countrywide for its discrimination against African Americans and Hispanics.

The United States’ complaint alleges that African-American and Hispanic borrowers paid more than non-Hispanic white borrowers, not based on borrower risk, but because of their race or national origin. Countrywide’s business practice allowed its loan officers and mortgage brokers to vary a loan’s interest rate and other fees from the price it set based on the borrower’s objective credit-related factors . This subjective and unguided pricing discretion resulted in African American and Hispanic borrowers paying more. The complaint further alleges that Countrywide was aware the fees and interest rates it was charging discriminated against African-American and Hispanic borrowers, but failed to impose meaningful limits or guidelines to stop it. 

“Countrywide’s actions contributed to the housing crisis, hurt entire communities, and denied families access to the American dream,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “We are using every tool in our law enforcement arsenal, including some that were dormant for years, to go after institutions of all sizes that discriminated against families solely because of their race or national origin.”

The United States’ complaint also alleges that, as a result of Countrywide’s policies and practices, qualified African-American and Hispanic borrowers were placed in subprime loans rather than prime loans even when similarly-qualified non-Hispanic white borrowers were placed in prime loans. The discriminatory placement of borrowers in subprime loans, also known as “steering,” occurred because it was Countrywide’s business practice to allow mortgage brokers and employees to place a loan applicant in a subprime loan even when the applicant qualified for a prime loan . In addition, Countrywide gave mortgage brokers discretion to request exceptions to the underwriting guidelines, and Countrywide’s employees had discretion to grant these exceptions.  

    

This is the first time that the Justice Department has alleged and obtained relief for borrowers who were steered into loans based on race or national origin, a practice that systematically placed borrowers of color into subprime mortgage loan products while placing non-Hispanic white borrowers with similar creditworthiness in prime loans. By steering borrowers into subprime loans from 2004 to 2007, the complaint alleges, Countrywide harmed those qualified African-American and Hispanic borrowers. Subprime loans generally carried higher-cost terms, such as prepayment penalties and exploding adjustable interest rates that increased suddenly after two or three years, making the payments unaffordable and leaving the borrowers at a much higher risk of foreclosure.

The settlement also resolves the department’s claim that Countrywide violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by discriminating on the basis of marital status against non-applicant spouses of borrowers by encouraging them to sign away their home ownership rights . The law allows married individuals to apply for credit either in their own name or jointly with their spouse, even when the property is owned by both spouses. For applications made by married individuals applying solely in their own name between 2004 and 2008, Countrywide encouraged non-applicant spouses to sign quitclaim deeds or other documents transferring their legal rights and interests in jointly-held property to the borrowing spouse. Non-applicant spouses who execute a quitclaim deed risk substantial uncertainty and financial loss by losing all their rights and interests in the property securing the loan.

In addition, the settlement requires Countrywide to implement policies and practices to prevent discrimination if it returns to the lending business during the next four years. Countrywide currently operates as a subsidiary of Bank of America but does not originate new loans.  

The department’s investigation into Countrywide’s lending practices began after referrals by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and the Office of Thrift Supervision to the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division in 2007 and 2008 for potential patterns or practices of discrimination by Countrywide.

Today’s announcement is part of efforts underway by President Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (FFETF). President Obama established the interagency FFETF to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes. For more information on the task force, visitwww.StopFraud.gov.

A copy of the complaint and proposed settlement order, as well as additional information about fair lending enforcement by the Justice Department, can be obtained from the Justice Department website at www.justice.gov/fairhousing.

The proposed settlement provides for an independent administrator to contact and distribute payments of compensation at no cost to borrowers whom the Justice Department identifies as victims of Countrywide’s discrimination. The department will make a public announcement and post contact information on its website once an administrator is chosen. Borrowers who are eligible for compensation from the settlement will then be contacted by the administrator. Individuals who believe that they may have been victims of lending discrimination by Countrywide and have questions about the settlement may email the department at countrywide.settlement@usdoj.gov.

SEC Charges Former Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Executives With Securities Fraud

Companies Agree to Cooperate in SEC Actions

Washington, D.C., Dec. 16, 2011 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged six former top executives of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) with securities fraud, alleging they knew and approved of misleading statements claiming the companies had minimal holdings of higher-risk mortgage loans, including subprime loans.

---

Additional Materials

• SEC complaint vs. Freddie Mac executives
• SEC complaint vs. Fannie Mae executives
• Non-Prosecution Agreement - Freddie Mac
• Non-Prosecution Agreement - Fannie Mae

---

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac each entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with the Commission in which each company agreed to accept responsibility for its conduct and not dispute, contest, or contradict the contents of an agreed-upon Statement of Facts without admitting nor denying liability. Each also agreed to cooperate with the Commission's litigation against the former executives. In entering into these Agreements, the Commission considered the unique circumstances presented by the companies' current status, including the financial support provided to the companies by the U.S. Treasury, the role of the Federal Housing Finance Agency as conservator of each company, and the costs that may be imposed on U.S. taxpayers.

Three former Fannie Mae executives - former Chief Executive Officer Daniel H. Mudd, former Chief Risk Officer Enrico Dallavecchia, and former Executive Vice President of Fannie Mae's Single Family Mortgage business, Thomas A. Lund - were named in the SEC's complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The SEC also charged three former Freddie Mac executives — former Chairman of the Board and CEO Richard F. Syron, former Executive Vice President and Chief Business Officer Patricia L. Cook, and former Executive Vice President for the Single Family Guarantee business Donald J. Bisenius — in a separate complaint filed in the same court.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives told the world that their subprime exposure was substantially smaller than it really was," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Enforcement Division. "These material misstatements occurred during a time of acute investor interest in financial institutions' exposure to subprime loans, and misled the market about the amount of risk on the company's books. All individuals, regardless of their rank or position, will be held accountable for perpetuating half-truths or misrepresentations about matters materially important to the interest of our country's investors."

The SEC is seeking financial penalties, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with interest, permanent injunctive relief and officer and director bars against Mudd, Dallavecchia, Lund, Syron, Cook, and Bisenius. Both lawsuits allege that the former executives caused the federal mortgage firms to materially misstate their holdings of subprime mortgage loans in periodic and other filings with the Commission, public statements, investor calls, and media interviews. The suit involving the Fannie Mae executives also includes similar allegations regarding Alt-A mortgage loans. The suit against the former Fannie Mae executives alleges they made misleading statements — or aided and abetted others — between December 2006 and August 2008. The former Freddie Mac executives are alleged to have made misleading statements — or aided and abetted others - between March 2007 and August 2008.

The SEC's complaint against the former Fannie Mae executives alleges that, when Fannie Mae began reporting its exposure to subprime loans in 2007, it broadly described the loans as those "made to borrowers with weaker credit histories," and then reported — with the knowledge, support, and approval of Mudd, Dallavecchia, and Lund — less than one-tenth of its loans that met that description. Fannie Mae reported that its 2006 year-end Single Family exposure to subprime loans was just 0.2 percent, or approximately $4.8 billion, of its Single Family loan portfolio. Investors were not told that in calculating the Company's reported exposure to subprime loans, Fannie Mae did not include loan products specifically targeted by Fannie Mae towards borrowers with weaker credit histories, including more than $43 billion of Expanded Approval, or "EA" loans.

Fannie Mae's executives also knew and approved of the decision to underreport Fannie Mae's Alt-A loan exposure, the SEC alleged. Fannie Mae disclosed that its March 31, 2007 exposure to Alt-A loans was 11 percent of its portfolio of Single Family loans. In reality, Fannie Mae's Alt-A exposure at that time was approximately 18 percent of its Single Family loan holdings.

The misleading disclosures were made as Fannie Mae's executives were seeking to increase the Company's market share through increased purchases of subprime and Alt-A loans, and gave false comfort to investors about the extent of Fannie Mae's exposure to high-risk loans, the SEC alleged.

In the complaint against the former Freddie Mac executives, the SEC alleged that they and Freddie Mac led investors to believe that the firm used a broad definition of subprime loans and was disclosing all of its Single-Family subprime loan exposure. Syron and Cook reinforced the misleading perception when they each publicly proclaimed that the Single Family business had "basically no subprime exposure." Unbeknown to investors, as of December 31, 2006, Freddie Mac's Single Family business was exposed to approximately $141 billion of loans internally referred to as "subprime" or "subprime like," accounting for 10 percent of the portfolio, and grew to approximately $244 billion, or 14 percent of the portfolio, as of June 30, 2008.

The SEC's complaint alleges that Mudd violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rules 10b-5(b) and 13(a)14(a) thereunder, and Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"); and that Mudd aided and abetted Fannie Mae's violations of Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5(b), 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder. The SEC complaint also alleges that Dallavecchia violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act and aided and abetted Fannie Mae's violations of Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5(b), 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder. Finally, the SEC complaint alleges that Lund aided and abetted Fannie Mae's violations of Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5(b), 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder.

The SEC's complaint alleges that Syron and Cook violated Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) thereunder and Securities Act Section 17(a)(2); that Syron violated Exchange Act Rule 13a-14; and that Syron, Cook and Bisenius aided and abetted violations of Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5(b), 12b-20 and 13a-13 thereunder.

The SEC's investigation of Fannie Mae was conducted by Senior Attorneys Natasha S. Guinan, Christina M. Marshall, Liban Jama, Mona L. Benach, and Associate Chief Accountant, Peter Rosario, under the supervision of Assistant Director Charles E. Cain, and Associate Director Stephen L. Cohen. Sarah Levine and James Kidney will lead the SEC's litigation efforts.

The SEC's investigation of Freddie Mac was conducted by Senior Attorneys Giles T. Cohen and David S. Karp and Assistant Chief Accountant Avron Elbaum of the SEC's Division of Enforcement under the supervision of Assistant Director Charles E. Cain and Associate Director Stephen L. Cohen. Kevin O'Rourke and Suzanne Romajas will lead the SEC's litigation efforts.

Fannie Mae Announces Eviction Moratorium for the Holidays

WASHINGTON, DC – Fannie Mae (FNMA/OTC) announced today that it will suspend evictions of foreclosed single family and 2-4 unit properties from December 19^th, 2011 through January 2^nd, 2012. During this period, legal and administrative proceedings for evictions may continue, but families living in foreclosed properties will be permitted to remain in the home.

"The holidays are meant for families to spend time together, especially if they’ve gone through the stress of financial challenges and foreclosure,” said Terry Edwards, Executive Vice President of Credit Portfolio Management, Fannie Mae. “No family should have to give up their home during this holiday season. Fannie Mae is committed to helping borrowers avoid foreclosure whenever possible and we encourage any homeowner who is having difficulty making their payment to reach out for help.”

Homeowners with Fannie Mae-backed loans can call 1-800-7FANNIE or visit www.knowyouroptions.com for information and resources on foreclosure prevention options, including contact information for the Fannie Mae Mortgage Help Center or a HUD-approved counseling agency in their area.

Judge Rejects Citigroup Settlement With SEC

The Associated Press

November 28, 2011

 

A federal judge on Monday struck down a $285 million settlement that Citigroup reached with the Securities and Exchange Commission, citing a need for clarity about the financial markets and the SEC's responsibility to ensure the truth emerges.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff said in a written ruling that "in any case like this that touches on the transparency of financial markets whose gyrations have so depressed our economy and debilitated our lives, there is an overriding public interest in knowing the truth."

The deal would have imposed penalties on Citigroup even as it allowed the company to deny allegations that it misled investors on a complex mortgage investment. The SEC accused the bank of betting against the investment in 2007 and making $160 million, while investors lost millions.
The SEC allowed a consent judgment settling the case to be filed the same day it filed its lawsuit against Citigroup, the judge noted.

"It is harder to discern from the limited information before the court what the SEC is getting from this settlement other than a quick headline," the judge wrote.

"In much of the world, propaganda reigns, and truth is confined to secretive, fearful whispers," Rakoff said. "Even in our nation, apologists for suppressing or obscuring the truth may always be found. But the SEC, of all agencies, has a duty, inherent in its statutory mission, to see that the truth emerges; and if it fails to do so, this court must not, in the name of deference or convenience, grant judicial enforcement to the agency's contrivances."

He set a July 16 trial date for the case.

Messages seeking comment were left with both sides.