FHFA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Announce HARP Changes to Reach More Borrowers

For Immediate Release October 24, 2011
Washington, DC – The Federal Housing Finance Agency, with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises), today announced a series of changes to the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP) in an effort to attract more eligible borrowers who can benefit from refinancing their home mortgage. The program enhancements were developed at FHFA’s direction with input from lenders, mortgage insurers and other industry participants.

"We know that there are many homeowners who are eligible to refinance under HARP and those are the borrowers we want to reach," said FHFA Acting Director Edward J. DeMarco. "Building on the industry’s experience with HARP over the last two years, we have identified several changes that will make the program accessible to more borrowers with mortgages owned or guaranteed by the Enterprises. Our goal in pursuing these changes is to create refinancing opportunities for these borrowers, while reducing risk for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and bringing a measure of stability to housing markets."

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have helped approximately 9 million families refinance into a lower cost or more sustainable mortgage product, approximately 10 percent of those via HARP.

HARP is unique in that it is the only refinance program that enables borrowers who owe more than their home is worth to take advantage of low interest rates and other refinancing benefits. This program will continue to be available to borrowers with loans sold to the Enterprises on or before May 31, 2009 with current loan-t0-value (LTV) ratios above 80 percent.

The new program enhancements address several other key aspects of HARP including:

 Eliminating certain risk-based fees for borrowers who refinance into shorter-term mortgages and lowering fees for other borrowers;

 Removing the current 125 percent LTV ceiling for fixed-rate mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac;

 Waiving certain representations and warranties that lenders commit to in making loans owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac;

 Eliminating the need for a new property appraisal where there is a reliable AVM (automated valuation model) estimate provided by the Enterprises; and

 Extending the end date for HARP until Dec. 31, 2013 for loans originally sold to the Enterprises on or before May 31, 2009.
An important element of these changes is the encouragement, through elimination of certain risk-based fees, for borrowers to utilize HARP to refinance into shorter-term mortgages. Borrowers who owe more on their house than the house is worth will be able to reduce the balance owed much faster if they take advantage of today’s low interest rates by shortening the term of their mortgage.

The Enterprises plan to issue guidance with operational details about the HARP changes to mortgage lenders and servicers by November 15. Since industry participation in HARP is not mandatory, implementation schedules will vary as individual lenders, mortgage insurers and other market participants modify their processes.

Citigroup to Pay $285 Million to Settle SEC Charges for Misleading Investors About CDO Tied to Housing Market

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2011-214

Washington, D.C., Oct. 19, 2011 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Citigroup’s principal U.S. broker-dealer subsidiary with misleading investors about a $1 billion collateralized debt obligation (CDO) tied to the U.S. housing market in which Citigroup bet against investors as the housing market showed signs of distress. The CDO defaulted within months, leaving investors with losses while Citigroup made $160 million in fees and trading profits.

The SEC alleges that Citigroup Global Markets structured and marketed a CDO called Class V Funding III and exercised significant influence over the selection of $500 million of the assets included in the CDO portfolio. Citigroup then took a proprietary short position against those mortgage-related assets from which it would profit if the assets declined in value. Citigroup did not disclose to investors its role in the asset selection process or that it took a short position against the assets it helped select.

Citigroup has agreed to settle the SEC’s charges by paying a total of $285 million, which will be returned to investors.

The SEC also charged Brian Stoker, the Citigroup employee primarily responsible for structuring the CDO transaction. The agency brought separate settled charges against Credit Suisse’s asset management unit, which served as the collateral manager for the CDO transaction, as well as the Credit Suisse portfolio manager primarily responsible for the transaction, Samir H. Bhatt.

“The securities laws demand that investors receive more care and candor than Citigroup provided to these CDO investors,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Investors were not informed that Citgroup had decided to bet against them and had helped choose the assets that would determine who won or lost.”

Kenneth R. Lench, Chief of the Structured and New Products Unit in the SEC Division of Enforcement, added, “As the collateral manager, Credit Suisse also was responsible for the disclosure failures and breached its fiduciary duty to investors when it allowed Citigroup to significantly influence the portfolio selection process.”

According to the SEC’s complaints filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, personnel from Citigroup’s CDO trading and structuring desks had discussions around October 2006 about the possibility of establishing a short position in a specific group of assets by using credit default swaps (CDS) to buy protection on those assets from a CDO that Citigroup would structure and market. After discussions began with Credit Suisse Alternative Capital (CSAC) about acting as the collateral manager for a proposed CDO transaction, Stoker sent an e-mail to his supervisor. He wrote that he hoped the transaction would go forward and described it as the Citigroup trading desk head’s “prop trade (don’t tell CSAC). CSAC agreed to terms even though they don’t get to pick the assets.”

The SEC alleges that during the time when the transaction was being structured, CSAC allowed Citigroup to exercise significant influence over the selection of assets included in the Class V III portfolio. The transaction was marketed primarily through a pitch book and an offering circular for which Stoker was chiefly responsible. The pitch book and the offering circular were materially misleading because they failed to disclose that Citigroup had played a substantial role in selecting the assets and had taken a $500 million short position that was comprised of names it had been allowed to select. Citigroup did not short names that it had no role in selecting. Nothing in the disclosures put investors on notice that Citigroup had interests that were adverse to the interests of CDO investors.

According to the SEC’s complaints, the Class V III transaction closed on Feb. 28, 2007. One experienced CDO trader characterized the Class V III portfolio in an e-mail as “dogsh!t” and “possibly the best short EVER!” An experienced collateral manager commented that “the portfolio is horrible.” On Nov. 7, 2007, a credit rating agency downgraded every tranche of Class V III, and on Nov. 19, 2007, Class V III was declared to be in an Event of Default. The approximately 15 investors in the Class V III transaction lost virtually their entire investments while Citigroup received fees of approximately $34 million for structuring and marketing the transaction and additionally realized net profits of at least $126 million from its short position.

The SEC alleges that Citigroup and Stoker each violated Sections 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933. While the SEC’s litigation continues against Stoker, Citigroup has consented to settle the SEC’s charges without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations. The settlement is subject to court approval. Citigroup consented to the entry of a final judgment that enjoins it from violating these provisions. The settlement requires Citigroup to pay $160 million in disgorgement plus $30 million in prejudgment interest and a $95 million penalty for a total of $285 million that will be returned to investors through a Fair Fund distribution. The settlement also requires remedial action by Citigroup in its review and approval of offerings of certain mortgage-related securities.

The SEC instituted related administrative proceedings against CSAC, its successor in interest Credit Suisse Asset Management (CSAM), and Bhatt. The SEC found that as a result of the roles that they played in the asset selection process and the preparation of the pitch book and the offering circular for the Class V III transaction, CSAM and CSAC violated Section 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act) and Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act and that Bhatt violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act and caused the violations of Section 206(2) of the Advisers Act by CSAC.

Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, CSAM and CSAC consented to the issuance of an order directing each of them to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations, or future violations, of Section 206(2) of the Advisers Act and Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act and requiring them to pay disgorgement of $1 million in fees that it received from the Class V III transaction plus $250,000 in prejudgment interest, and requiring them to pay a penalty of $1.25 million. Without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, Bhatt consented to the issuance of an order directing him to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations or future violations of Section 206(2) of the Advisers Act and Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act and suspending him from association with any investment adviser for a period of six months.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Andrew H. Feller and Thomas D. Silverstein of the Enforcement Division’s Structured and New Products Unit with assistance from Steven Rawlings, Brenda Chang and Elisabeth Goot of the New York Regional Office. The SEC trial attorney who will lead the litigation against Stoker is Jeffrey Infelise.

SEC Charges Bank Executives With Hiding Millions of Dollars in Losses During 2008 Financial Crisis

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2011-202
Washington, D.C., Oct. 11, 2011 – The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged former bank executives with misleading investors about mounting loan losses at San Francisco-based United Commercial Bank during the height of the financial crisis in 2008 and 2009.

The SEC alleges that the bank’s former chief executive officer Thomas Wu, chief operating officer Ebrahim Shabudin, and senior officer Thomas Yu concealed losses on loans and other assets from the bank’s auditors, causing the bank’s public holding company UCBH Holdings Inc. (UCBH) to understate 2008 operating losses by at least $65 million (approximately 50 percent). A few months later, continued declines in the value of the bank’s loans led the bank to fail, and the California Department of Financial Institutions closed the bank and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver. United Commercial Bank was one of the 10 largest bank failures of the recent financial crisis, causing a loss of $2.5 billion to the FDIC’s insurance fund.

“Today’s charges reflect an all too familiar pattern – corporate executives once seen as rising stars embrace deception to avoid losses and conceal negative news, with investors and the FDIC insurance fund left to pick up the pieces,” said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “But accountability for these executives begins today.”

Marc Fagel, Director of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office, added, “This investigation shows how federal regulators can work together to ferret out fraud by the guardians of financial institutions entrusted to deal honestly with public investors.”

According to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in San Francisco, UCBH and its subsidiary United Commercial Bank grew rapidly, doubling in size after an initial public offering in 1998. It was the first U.S. bank to acquire a bank in the People’s Republic of China, and Wu was considered a rising star in the banking industry. By 2009, however, Wu found himself at the helm of a bank on the brink of failure.

The SEC alleges that Wu, Shabudin, and Yu deliberately delayed the proper recording of loan losses, and each committed securities fraud by making false and misleading statements to investors and UCBH’s independent auditors. During December 2008 and the first three months of 2009 as the company prepared its 2008 financial statements, Wu, Shabudin, and Yu were aware of significant losses on several large loans. Among other things, these executives allegedly learned about dramatically reduced property appraisals and worthless collateral securing the loans, yet they repeatedly hid this information from UCBH’s auditors and investors.

The SEC’s complaint also alleges that the bank’s former chief financial officer Craig On acted negligently by misleading the company’s outside auditors and aiding the filing of false financial statements. On agreed to settle the SEC charges without admitting or denying the allegations. He will be permanently enjoined from violating certain antifraud, reporting, record-keeping, and internal controls provisions of the federal securities laws and will pay a $150,000 penalty. On also consented to an administrative order suspending him from appearing or practicing before the SEC as an accountant, with a right to apply for reinstatement after five years.

The litigation against the other defendants is ongoing.

Lloyd Farnham, Michael Fortunato, Jason Habermeyer, and Cary Robnett of the SEC’s San Francisco Regional Office conducted the SEC’s investigation. The SEC’s litigation will be handled by Lloyd Farnham and Robert Mitchell.

The U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California today announced parallel criminal charges against former employees of the bank, and the FDIC announced enforcement actions against 13 individuals for violations of federal banking regulations.

The SEC acknowledges the assistance of the FDIC, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP), FDIC’s Office of Inspector General, and Office of Inspector General for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Scammers Use Vacant Homes as Bait

Daily Real Estate News | Tuesday, October 11, 2011
  

Las Vegas police and real estate agents are warning renters of a new scam in the area, which has also been stretching nationwide. Scammers are posting housing ads online, such as on Craig’s List, that promote a vacant home available for rent. The unsuspecting renter pays a security deposit and sends monthly rent checks to who they believe is their landlord.

But the landlord doesn’t really own the property and is pocketing the money, police and agents warn. Scammers are targeting vacant homes and foreclosed properties in the rental scam, they say.

Brenda Crosbie-Jaeger, a real estate agent in Las Vegas, says the scammers are posing as real estate professionals and putting together fake lease agreements and forging the seller’s name. They’re also changing the locks on the house so the new renters can move in.

Police are encouraging renters to work with a licensed real estate professional or property management firms to make sure they’re renting a property that is indeed for rent.

Source: “Police, Realtors Warn of Vacant Home Rental Scam,” KTNV-13 News (Oct. 7. 2011)

Lawsuit Accuses Banks of Cheating Veterans

Daily Real Estate News | Thursday, October 06, 2011
  

A federal lawsuit filed in 2006, but unsealed until this week, accuses 13 large banks and mortgage companies of overcharging military veterans who were applying for home loans guaranteed by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Federal law does not allow lenders to charge attorney fees and settlement closing costs with certain home loans for military vets. They’re only allowed to charge “reasonable and customary” fees. But the lawsuit claims military veterans were charged attorney fees on thousands of loans, and banks covered up the charges by labeling them as “title examination” or “title search” fees.

Banks named in the lawsuit include lending giants such as Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Bank of America. The banks have denied any wrongdoing in court documents, Associated Press reports.

About 90 percent of more than 1.2 million refinance loans that have been made to veterans and their families in the past decade have been found to have alleged fraud, the Associated Press reports in an interview with the plaintiff’s attorney.

"This is a massive fraud on the American taxpayers and American veterans," James E. Butler Jr., one of the attorneys who brought the case, told the Associated Press.

Source: “Federal Lawsuit Claims Banks, Mortgage Companies Cheated Veterans by Hiding Illegal Fees,” Associated Press (Oct. 4, 2011)