Wells Fargo: Full Speed Ahead with Foreclosures

Despite the political pressure, Wells Fargo is pressing ahead with its planned foreclosures.

Irvine Home Address … 14492 GUAMA Ave Irvine, CA 92606

Resale Home Price …… $499,000

If you believe in the power of magic,

I can change your mind

And if you need to believe in someone,

Turn and look behind

When we were living in a dream world,

Clouds got in the way

We gave it up in a moment of madness

And threw it all away

Don't answer me, don't break the silence

Don't let me win

Alan Parsons Project — Don't Answer Me

Borrowers believe in the power of magic. Either the market will save them or the government will. Fortunately, not every bank answered the politicians' call to stop foreclosures. B of A answered this call and in a moment of madness, they threw it all away.

Wells Fargo Foreclosures Proceed After Data Queried

Wells Fargo & Co. is standing by the accuracy of its foreclosure filings and won’t follow competitors in delaying seizures, after an employee testified he signed documents for proceedings without personally reviewing records.

The bank said yesterday it doesn’t plan to halt repossessions because its “procedures and daily auditing demonstrate that our foreclosure affidavits are accurate.”

In a May 20 deposition, a Wells Fargo Home Mortgage employee said he signed 50 to 150 documents a day, including statements describing debts and borrowers used to justify foreclosures, without personally confirming the information was correct. His testimony related to a civil claim against the bank in a Washington state court. A judge dismissed the case in June.

Can you guess why the judge dimissed the claim? Because it was baseless. Who cares if some employee batch signed a few documents. Supervisors do this all the time. These documents were probably already reviewed by an army of staff before the signer ever saw them. The statement above implies that the banks were not reviewing these documents which is crazy.

Mortgage firms have drawn fire from borrowers, lawyers and state officials for letting employees sign affidavits for court- monitored foreclosures without personally checking loan records. JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Bank of America Corp. last week delayed foreclosures to review the accuracy of their filings. Last month, Ally Financial Inc. said its GMAC Mortgage unit would halt evictions for a similar review.

Let's be clear here: mortgage holders do not have the power of eviction. If they did, we wouldn't have so many squatters. They only have the power to foreclose, an act that leads to auction and later an eviction if the former owner doesn't leave on their own.

The Wells Fargo employee said he relied on foreclosure lawyers and personnel in other departments to check files, according to a deposition transcript provided by Melissa Huelsman, the Seattle attorney representing the homeowner. The employee said he confirmed the date on the file before signing without verifying other information.

‘Out of Context’

Those comments “should not be taken out of context,” Wells Fargo said in yesterday’s statement, e-mailed by a spokeswoman, Vickee Adams. The judge “reviewed Wells Fargo’s procedures, documents and declarations and summarily dismissed the borrower’s case, confirming that the foreclosure was valid,” the bank said in the statement.

For once, I agree with a bank. These lawsuits are silly.

Such a dismissal doesn’t necessarily invalidate testimony, said Peter Henning, a professor at Wayne State University Law School in Detroit and a former federal prosecutor.

“It’s not that the judge rejected the deposition, or found that the deposition was incorrect,” he said. “The firm probably went back into court and said ‘Here you go, you can inspect all the documents.’ Maybe that was enough.”

Wells Fargo is the second-largest servicer of U.S. home loans, according to industry newsletter Inside Mortgage Finance. The San Francisco-based bank handles about $1.8 trillion of residential mortgages, according to company filings. Bank of America, JPMorgan, Citigroup Inc. and Ally round out the top five. Through June, 92 percent of Wells Fargo’s mortgages were current, according to the statement.

If 92% of its loans are current, then 8% are delinquent. That is still an astonishingly high number.

‘How Do You Know?’

Andrew Yates, a Seattle-based lawyer representing the employee, didn’t return calls for comment. Adams declined to comment beyond the statement.

During questioning from Huelsman, the bank employee described his efforts before signing filings.

“So you’re simply signing the document that’s presented to you and you’re just making sure the date is correct?” Huelsman asked during the deposition.

“Correct,” the employee said.

“So how do you know when you’re signing this document that it’s true and correct?” Huelsman said.

There are people that are responsible for” maintaining the paperwork, the employee said.

This is akin to asking the guy on the assembly line who installs doors if he knows anything about the motor mounts. If it isn't his responsibility, how is he supposed to have knowledge of it?

States Take a Stance

The employee said he oversaw 53 full-time staff and 15 contract workers, and that other supervisors within the department signed the same amount of paperwork. That would amount to each supervisor signing 1,000 to 3,000 documents during 20 business days each month.

In a separate case in Florida, an employee at New York- based JPMorgan said in May that her team of managers signed about 18,000 documents a month. In a December deposition, an employee at Detroit-based Ally said he signed about 10,000 documents a month. Attorneys general in at least seven states including Texas, Illinois and Ohio are investigating practices at Ally’s GMAC Mortgage unit.

In Wells Fargo’s home state, California Attorney General Jerry Brown asked JPMorgan to prove its foreclosures are legal or else freeze them, and made a similar request to Ally in September.

“This goes to the internal processes and oversight at these institutions with respect to the conduct of their employees,” said Jacob Frenkel, a partner at Potomac, Maryland- based law firm Shulman Rogers Gandal Pordy & Ecker, which isn’t representing any lenders in foreclosure proceedings. “It’s not in the banks’ interest for the records not to be right. As a lawyer I want to go into court with papers that are solid.”

If the fact that banks are processing large amounts of documents is the best these plaintiffs can do, no wonder the judges are dismissing these cases.

Published: Thursday, 7 Oct 2010 — Diana Olick

I'm not going to tally the number of Attorneys General filing lender lawsuits or lawmakers demanding foreclosure moratoria, because the minute I do the number will change.

Suffice it to say that you're not in political fashion these days if you're not "demanding" a federal investigation into shoddy foreclosure procedures or "ordering" a freeze on foreclosures for the foreseeable future, even though you might not exactly have the jurisdiction to do so.

“Our families deserve to know that an action with such a huge and lasting impact is the absolute last resort, and that every effort has been made to keep them in their homes prior to foreclosure,” wrote Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley. He's a Democrat, by the way, and they appear to be in the majority of those screaming at the wind; gee I wonder why.

No less than the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and her cadre of California lawmakers noted that, "Avoidable foreclosures end up being unnecessarily costly for homeowners, lenders and servicers, and our housing market, whose health is essential to our economic recovery," in a letter addressed to the U.S. Attorney General, Fed Chairman and the acting Comptroller of the Currency. "Recent reports that Ally Financial (formerly GMAC), JP Morgan, and Bank of America may have approved thousands of unwarranted foreclosures only amplify our concerns that systemic problems exist," she adds.

And it's not just the Dems posturing on this one. Far be it for Republicans to pass up a chance to use the scandal as a weapon. Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, ranking Republican on the Banking Committee is calling for a hearing: "I am highly troubled that once again our federal regulators appear to be asleep at the switch.”

I'm not going to feign surprise at any of this. It's to be expected, especially given this particular upcoming election. I just wish these folks would stick to the facts. This scandal is largely about bad paperwork, not "unwarranted foreclosures." Right now close to 10 percent of borrowers in this country are delinquent on their loans.

Translation: They're not paying their mortgages.

Another 4 percent have been delinquent for so long that they're now in the foreclosure process.

Yes, the process is flawed because the banks clearly aren't equipped to handle the numbers.

Yes, there may be some loans that could have been saved, but the vast majority can't.

Still lawmakers want to freeze all foreclosures to make sure all of them are fair because, as Speaker Pelosi writes, "People in our districts are hurting."

Boo Hoo.

The question is, how much would a foreclosure freeze hurt the greater housing market?

I asked some mortgage mavens and got the following responses:

Josh Rosner, Graham-Fisher: With REO sales being a large part of supply we would see home prices artificially and unsustainably rise, foreclosure volumes paint a false picture of stability and investors in MBS would be further harmed as their losses grow. Once the moratorium ended prices would fall and foreclosures would skyrocket. But, it would paint a prettier picture than reality heading into mid-term elections.

That is a brilliant synopsis of what would happen if this moratorium continues and becomes more widespread.

Guy Cecala, Inside Mortgage Finance: Instead of having a ton of mortgage borrowers who haven’t made any payments in at least a year, we would have a ton who haven’t made a payment in a year-and-half. Keep in mind we will have new problem loans entering the system throughout any moratorium whether we acknowledge them or not. Do we seriously believe that a foreclosure moratorium can change the outcome of potentially 5 million or more homeowners losing their homes over the next two years? Ultimately, if we don’t do something to handle distressed properties more efficiently (and faster), the housing market is going to remain stuck in limbo with no recovery in sight.

Right again. any widespread moratorium will encourage strategic default.

Janet Tavakoli, Tavakoli Structured Finance: Banks are vulnerable to lawsuits from investors in the [securitization] trusts. This problem could cost the banks significantly more money, which could mean TARP II (Washington Post)

Another very likely outcome. Banks are going to either lose money through foreclosure or lose money through lawsuits due to their failure to foreclose.

Rick Sharga, RealtyTrac: If foreclosure sales are prohibited, home sales would tail off dramatically…foreclosures and REOs accounted for over 30% of all sales during the quarter [Q3] Fewer home sales will put more pressure on home prices, reduce tax receipts for already-strapped municipal and state governments, and put even more pressure on an already-moribund economy. This could cause at least a temporary loss of jobs in a number of sectors. A 90-day moratorium would also extend the housing market downturn, pushing the anticipated recovery from early 2014 into late 2014 – and possibly even longer.

Any foreclosure moratorium would be a disaster. Since B of A is at least temporarily going that route, perhaps Wells Fargo and other banks will take advantage and push a few more foreclosures through the system. If I were in their shoes, I would.

They got their share of the HELOC riches

  • The owners of today's featured property paid $486,000 on 5/29/2003. The used a $388,800 first mortgage, a $48,600 second mortgage, and a $48,600 down payment.
  • On 6/4/2004 they refinanced with a $437,000 first mortgage.
  • On 9/27/2004 they obtained a $75,000 HELOC.
  • On 3/16/2005 they refinanced with a first mortgage for $439,000.
  • On 1/26/2006 they refinanced the first mortgage for $555,000.
  • On 8/28/2006 they refinanced with a $564,000 Option ARM with a 1.25% teaser rate, and they obtained a $100,000 HELOC.
  • Total property debt is $664,000.
  • Total mortgage equity withdrawal is $226,600.
  • Total squatting time is about 18 months.

Foreclosure Record

Recording Date: 10/29/2009

Document Type: Notice of Sale

Foreclosure Record

Recording Date: 07/24/2009

Document Type: Notice of Default

Irvine Home Address … 14492 GUAMA Ave Irvine, CA 92606

Resale Home Price … $499,000

Home Purchase Price … $486,000

Home Purchase Date …. 5/29/2003

Net Gain (Loss) ………. $(16,940)

Percent Change ………. -3.5%

Annual Appreciation … 0.3%

Cost of Ownership


$499,000 ………. Asking Price

$17,465 ………. 3.5% Down FHA Financing

4.21% …………… Mortgage Interest Rate

$481,535 ………. 30-Year Mortgage

$94,234 ………. Income Requirement

$2,358 ………. Monthly Mortgage Payment

$432 ………. Property Tax

$0 ………. Special Taxes and Levies (Mello Roos)

$42 ………. Homeowners Insurance

$43 ………. Homeowners Association Fees


$2,875 ………. Monthly Cash Outlays

-$371 ………. Tax Savings (% of Interest and Property Tax)

-$668 ………. Equity Hidden in Payment

$26 ………. Lost Income to Down Payment (net of taxes)

$62 ………. Maintenance and Replacement Reserves


$1,924 ………. Monthly Cost of Ownership

Cash Acquisition Demands


$4,990 ………. Furnishing and Move In @1%

$4,990 ………. Closing Costs @1%

$4,815 ………… Interest Points @1% of Loan

$17,465 ………. Down Payment


$32,260 ………. Total Cash Costs

$29,400 ………… Emergency Cash Reserves


$61,660 ………. Total Savings Needed

Property Details for 14492 GUAMA Ave Irvine, CA 92606


Beds: 4

Baths: 1 full 2 part baths

Home size: 1,897 sq ft

($263 / sq ft)

Lot Size: 5,130 sq ft

Year Built: 1971

Days on Market: 9

Listing Updated: 40457

MLS Number: S634529

Property Type: Single Family, Residential

Community: Walnut

Tract: Cp


According to the listing agent, this listing may be a pre-foreclosure or short sale.

Ready to work, Here is great opportunity for you. Located in cul-de-sac. Walking distance to elementary school. Large house for little money.

118 thoughts on “Wells Fargo: Full Speed Ahead with Foreclosures

  1. winstongator

    USA today hit this yesterday.

    I’m a bleeding heart who’s donated to Obama, but I think he just doesn’t get it. Does he have any friends who live in CA/AZ/FL/NV who can explain how things have been working the past 2 years?

    We have a lot of people who could never afford their mortgages, even before they lost their jobs. Their homes need to be foreclosed, sooner rather than later. There are people in negative equity situations who are just getting as much free rent as possible.

    What happens to the homes that foreclosures get completely blocked on? Does the occupant get back to paying? Do they bring the loan current?

    People losing their homes is a problem, but one that is fixed with the availability of affordable rentals. People living in homes while not making payments is also a problem (the one many want to ignore), and one of the main solutions to that is foreclosure (the other solution is reducing unemployment, but it seems like we’ve got to wait for some magic to get that).

    There should be some incentive to speed foreclosures, not slow them. People that aren’t making payments and aren’t looking for a mod, should have some non-adversarial setting to set a timeline with a bank.

    1. Geotpf

      Obama has little to do with this. People on the free rent program are simply finding legal defects in the foreclosure filings. Lawyers just doing their job. Eventually, the proper owner will foreclose on the property-the home owner never (or almost never) becomes current in this type of situation.

      1. winstongator

        Obama does have something to do with this, and he should get credit for stuff like this:

        “Irresponsible banks need to be held accountable, but if we have not found a problem with a bank’s process we do not believe that we should impose a moratorium where that can hurt the market and hurt individual buyers,” said Shaun Donovan, secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

        Delaying the inevitable can still have consequences, and a program that added 3 months to every foreclosure proceeding would not be a good one.

        1. Geotpf

          …and clearly Obama is not calling for such. Obama should be credited for not doing so, but the problem is the banks are being sloppy and cheap and not following (old existing) law when foreclosing.

    2. Perspective

      “I’m a bleeding heart who’s donated to Obama…”

      Some day I hope there’s a politician who I can at least agree with on 60% of their issues, so as to send in a donation. I haven’t found one yet.

      As long as Obama keeps vilifying earners above $250K as the “evil rich,” I will return the vilification.

        1. Perspective

          Thank you Kirk. It is hard, but we do our best to remain strong during this time of persecution. This too shall pass…

          1. Kirk

            You’re welcome.

            What kind of human being would I be if I didn’t sympathize with the plight of the less fortunate that earn more than 98% of the population?

          2. whatever

            Someone has to make more than 98% of the population. It’s a mathematic certainty.

            Kill off the top 2% you’ll still have a top 2%.

          3. norcal

            Nobody wants to kill them – only tax them. Under Eisenhower they’d have had a 50-90% tax rate and still be considered rich.

          4. Kirk

            Yeah, where’d this whole killing thing come from?

            I simply pointed out how America has dealt these poor souls such a raw deal. It must be absolutely miserable to be in the top 2% of earners.

          5. AZDavidPhx

            Perspective, you should start a revolution. Create a new country where you won’t be taxed like that. Start penning your declaration of independence immediately. It’s time to end the tyranny.

          6. matt138

            The sad part about your robin hood mentality is that the poor suffer as an end result.

            I would wager that Perspective has far more sympathy than you. (on a rational level of course)

          7. Perspective

            My intent was not to express a complaint, but rather to take a shot at the language Obama has used to describe higher earners. “Rich” is a term best used to describe a great balance sheet, not a great income statement.

          8. Kirk

            I also am shocked how Obama wants to tax these poor helpless 2%’ers to death. I mean their top bracket going from 35% to 39.6%? How will these people afford food and medical care paying an extra 4.6% of their income to this unjust socialist government?

          9. Perspective

            Don’t be discouraged by your pauper plight Kirk! With a lot of hard work and dedication, you too, yes YOU, can earn a college degree and a med, bus, or law grad degree, and join the force of working professionals Obama castigates.

          10. Kirk

            Become a high earner?! Are you crazy? High earners have the worst life! Haven’t you read your own comments? No, I’m going to stick with minimum wage and live in paradise. I only hope they lower minimum wage so I can live even better.

          11. Perspective

            Tis true. Tis true…

            Let us then celebrate the freedom we have to choose our path, and complain about our choices…

          12. Kirk

            Why would I complain? I don’t have the heavy burden of making more than 98% of the population. That is your burden to bear. Life is very difficult for you, it is easy for me. I am very sorry this country has committed this atrocity against you.

          13. winstongator

            It’s only an extra 4.6% on income > 350k, or an extra 3% of income between 250k and 350k…

          14. Perspective

            Ah, spoken like a true Democrat: “It’s only ____.”

            Why don’t we agree that amount of money the IRS receives is sufficient, and start from there? Why don’t the Democrats slash military spending or the other big chunks of spending (SSI & Medicare)?

            If that’s not possible, why don’t Democrats go after the truly “rich” – those people who have a great balance sheet? Allow the estate tax to return to the $1M exemption and 50%+ rate in 2011.

          15. Kirk

            I’m confused. Is the Republican position to seize property from the “truly rich” like the Soviet Union did? I was upset enough over the Democratic plan to get an extra 4.6% on income past $350,000. Now you’re telling me the other side wants to seize property?

            For the love of God Almighty! Who should I vote for?! Someone tell me!!!

          16. Kirk

            OMG!!! OMG!!! If you die with over $1 million in 2011, everything past $1 million gets taxed at 55%!!! It’s already been done!!!!!! This country is doomed!!!!!!

            What kind of afterlife I’m I going to have when I only get to take $1 million with me?! I mean, I don’t want the rest of it after it’s been tainted by taxes!!!

            Wait a minute… calm down Kirk… calm down. I don’t have a million dollars. Okay… okay… everything is fine. omg…

      1. winstongator

        the irony is that a majority of those earning > 250k voted for obama (myself and wife included). his ideda to let those tax cuts expire was all over the campaign (remember how many homes mccain owns?) Those earners obviously didn’t feel the vilification you feel. it’s phantom vilification – i assume you’re not dick fuld, mozilo or anyone that does deserve vilification. vilifying them has nothing to do with you.

        1. Perspective

          When Obama, Democrats, and the media call higher-earners “rich,” it isn’t a compliment. “Rich” is used as a derogatory term. It’s intended to illustrate that these people are living in mansions, driving Bentleys, and working sporadically if at all, while not paying their fair share of taxes. This most certainly is vilification.

          1. Partyboy

            I don’t really understand why you seem to hate people who have become successful. A flat tax seems to be the fairest method of taxation, not because of what the impact is to each individual, but because it shares the tax responsibility proportionately. For those who think the “rich” should pay a higher percentage than the “poor”, why stop at taxes? Why not charge rich people more for a gallon of milk than poor people? Why not charge a rich person $100,000 for a Honda Civic but sell it to a poor person for $100? Same basic concept, it’s just more obviously ridiculous when you look at it this way.

          2. Geotpf

            The income tax has always been a progressive system, with the rich paying more than the poor. The financial hit of a flat tax that would generate the same amount of money as the current system to the poor would be extreme.

          3. Kirk

            I’ll tell you what the deal is with Winstongator’s self-loathing. This country has been cruel to people like him! That’s why hates himself and his kind! Like an abuse victim that cuts themselves, Winstongator votes for people like Obama. It is very very sad.

            Well, I for one will continue to advocate for the downtrodden quarter-millionaires and the destitute multi-billionaires that don’t have the power to speak for themselves!

            I don’t think a flat tax is fair at all. Think about it. The poor use much more public services than the high earners (don’t you dare say r*ch!). My proposal is that people earning $0/year should pay $30,000/year in taxes. Those taxes would phase out until they are a flat $1,000/year for those making over a million dollars a year. Millionaires still use roads. They should pay for them. But, they don’t use many other public services. So, why should they pay for them?

          4. bltserv

            Be careful for what you are thinking. Imagine if the election of 2008 had elected McCain. And he had a myocardial infarction and passed away. Sarah Palin would be our commander and chief.
            Now just think about it long and hard. You betcha.

          5. Kirk

            That’s another thing. Old people use too much Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security! When you get old, you should be taxed more! When you are a baby, you should be taxed more! When you are poor, you should be taxed more!

            When you are wealthy and healthy, you should pay a very minimum tax rate since you aren’t leaching off of society!

            That Palin site is very uplifting!

          6. bltserv

            Going to guess you have never been outside the country. Try going to Scandinavia. Holland, Australia, Even a country like Costa Rica. Almost no crime. No huge Prison Population. No wars. The American Dream is broken. The GOP are going to try one more time. Now they can get money from the Chinese and pump it into the Elections from Corporations. NutMeg paying 150 Million to become the Governor. Give me a break. WTF. How many hours a day you watchin Faux News ? Have fun with the Palin site. Open the doors and explore the site. It has hundreds of hidden tricks.

          7. Kirk

            I’ve been to the Netherlands. It is a VERY SCAREY place! Lot’s of sinful people trying to lure me into their hellfire lit lairs! And just the other day someone died at Schiphol Airport!

            Luckily, I was able to make my tulip investment and escape unscathed. I’m never going back to that awful place!

            Fox is spelled F-o-x, not F-a-u-x. I’m not sure why people get confused by that all the time, but I see it a lot. I haven’t watched Fox News since getting my implant.

          8. bltserv

            Loved Holland. Great Marijuana Laws. So much fun to get stoned in the bars. Just think in a couple months we will be doing that in California. I know. Its better to outlaw our number one cash crop and keep all those cops and prison guard unions flush with cash. Guess how many people Die at LAX and the surrounding ghetto every year. Way more than the entire country thats Holland.

          9. Kirk

            Death is not a problem that needs to be solved by big government. Sinning is the issue that needs government intervention. If you’re free of sin then there is no reason to worry about death. Am I the only one here with common sense? BTW, anything that makes you happy, other than loving our Lord, is probably a sin.

  2. Swiller

    The reason people can’t afford their homes is because the financial sector was allowed to commit fraud with the Republicans AND democrats stripping regulation. The democrats also have had a hard-on for subsidized housing to allow the “poor” to own a home, whether they deserve to or not.

    Both of these shams resulted in property values increasing to unsustainable prices, and they are still there in many places. We need foreclosures by the thousands. We need property values to dive down once again. This in turn will result in more defaults and walk-away’s, but this will help the PEOPLE of america by again, lowering the cost of housing, so they can actually enjoy their lives rather than be a bond/debt servant for a place to sleep/eat.

    It was fraud from the top down, they knew exactly the course of this action. Remember, the intelligent people mostly go into finance now, not medical, or research, there’s FAR more money in Wall St. then actually attempting to help and bless your fellow man.

    1. Geotpf

      I think now property values come close to representing their natural value. There is a shortage of housing in most “desirable” areas, due to red tape in building new houses, zoning restrictions, simply running out of land to build on, as well as local land hoarding (that is, The Irvine Company parcels out only so much land each year to build on). Prices in more fringe areas have dropped dramatically. Housing prices in, say, the Inland Empire or the deserts beyond are affordable to any middle income family and most lower income families.

      1. Chris

        You may be correct on this. Unless there’s a mass exodus (and I do mean mass) of companies that employ high paying jobs or another financial meltdown, I doubt desirable areas such as Irvine will drop any further. 10% drop is probably the max with no external factors involved.

  3. OrangRenter

    I read an article on MERS yesterday (MERS holds 60% of mortgages electronically on behalf of the note owners), and how they have no “standing” to foreclose.

    People actually want to invalidate all those foreclosures. HOW DOES THIS CHANGE THE FACT THAT THESE PEOPLE DEFAULTED AND HAVEN’T PAID IN 18+ MONTHS!!?

    What is the legal argument here? “I haven’t paid in 18 months, but I should keep the house free-and-clear because the bank robo-signed some documents”.

    This is crazy!

        1. Perspective

          Hmm, interesting. I’m sure he’ll be compensated for any inconvenience this may have caused.

          So we have one case in which a homeowner was wrongfully foreclosed on in the entire US.

          We need to stop all foreclosures now!

          1. flyovercountry

            Well here are 5 of them, just from Bank of America.


            Why are people putting forward a false choice of having to accept banks falsifying documents or freezing all foreclosures? Either one of those is a stupid choice.

            Simply make banks follow the laws that they helped write. As Jon Steward said… They are the ones who INVENTED small print. They should have to follow the procedures that are outlined in the small print. They are trying to take short cuts and do their job on the cheap, and innocent people are getting caught in the process. Why should we cut them slack? The foreclosure mess has been going on since 2008, they’ve had plenty of time to hire and train people to handle the paperwork.

            If that haven’t done that yet, they better get busy.

          2. flyovercountry

            Yeah, thats it. Only 5 people in the whole country have been done wrong by banks. That web site found the only 5 people who were wrongly foreclosed on, and it was only Bank of America that made any mistakes. The rest of the industry has a spotless reputation.

            Again, I don’t get this false choice… Let banks do whatever they want with paperwork, or stop all foreclosures.

            They are big boys, they have been running the mortgage business for a century, and they have had years to realize that foreclosures have been ramping up.

            All I want is them to actually verify their facts before they possibly ruin a persons finances.

            And if it has a byproduct of stimulating employment if they have to hire some new workers, I can live with that too.

          3. AZDavidPhx

            I’m just saying that it’s highly likely that these incidents are the exception rather than the rule. Also, I suspect that BOA has resolved the issues (as they should!)

            In reality, most of these people getting foreclosed on do in fact need to be foreclosed. It sucks for them, but they rolled the dice and lost. Betting that nothing bad will happen over the next 30 years is a very foolish thing to do.

    1. AZDavidPhx

      You would think so but when the banks know their customers by paper rather than by name – screw ups are bound to occur here and there.

      I am still waiting to read a tear-jerker story about someone being wrongfully foreclosed and not getting it cleared up eventually.

  4. alan

    I think the key here it “midterm elections”. If it weren’t for the Nov election, I don’t think Nancy Pelosi would involve herself in this. The dems are looking at getting hurt this cycle and any press they can spin in their direction they will. B of A just wants to continue the amend and pretend as long as they can to build up their reserves to offset these losses. This is all about midterm elections and increasing loss reserves, not about helping “inocent” home-debtors.

    1. AZDavidPhx

      But B of A is “evaluating” their processes. I’m sure it consists of some evaluator lubing himself up and watching internet porn for 8 hours, stamping some document “APPROVED” and calling it a day. They care about house debtors. Try thinking positively for a change and stop being so negative.

  5. bltserv

    Its about putting more lipstick on the pig for just awhile longer. Eventually all the tricks to subsidize the floundering housing market will end.
    Eventually the forces of the free market will prevail. I agree. Its about the election. Lets let the poor homeowner think he is our friend.
    After the election the poor bastard will be another 10-15% more underwater than he is today.
    Election over. Back to your regularly scheduled reality of depreciation until we get to affordability that matches local incomes.
    True pricing based on supply and demand.

    1. AZDavidPhx

      I’m sure some vulnerable scared house debtor out there will feel lots of inspiration and vote accordingly.


    1. Honcho

      What mistakes?

      If the documents show that the bank is titled to foreclose what difference does it make that it was robostamped or not reviewed when a subsequent review shows that the borrower was in default and the foreclosure is proper?

      Hold the person accountable for filing a false affidavit, but I’m not sure the proper remedy is to award a defaulted borrower a free home when everything else points to the fact that the bororwer has defaulted and the bank is entitled to foreclose.

      1. winstongator

        I agree that the remedy is not to award a free home. If you read Ritholtz’s point more closely, you’ll see that the real mistakes that have been made (see the Sun-Sentinel link) The mistakes are a direct-line result of cutting corners.

        This is the analog to the insta-defaults on the so poorly underwritten loans that the fraud wasn’t detected. Do the underwriting, and you don’t get those types of errors. Don’t do the robosign, and you don’t get those egregious errors.

      2. darms

        A “Free House” isn’t the worst consequence – from an article on CNBC

        Levitin says the documentation problems involved in the mortgage mess have the potential “to cloud title on not just foreclosed mortgages but on performing mortgages.


        Nearly all Pooling and Servicing Agreements require that “On the Closing Date, the Purchaser will assign to the Trustee pursuant to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement all of its right, title and interest in and to the Mortgage Loans and its rights under this Agreement (to the extent set forth in Section 15), and the Trustee shall succeed to such right, title and interest in and to the Mortgage Loans and the Purchaser’s rights under this Agreement (to the extent set forth in Section 15)”. Also, an Assignment of Mortgage must accompany each note and this almost never happens.

        We believe nearly every single loan transferred was transferred to the Trust in “blank” name. That is to say the actual loans were apparently not, as of either the cut-off or closing dates, assigned to the Trust as required by the PSA.

        Rather than continue to fight for the “put-back” of individual loans the investors may be able to sue for and argue that the “true sale” was never achieved.

        1. Honcho

          Then they were effectively assigned if they were assigned in “blank.” This would turn the note into bearer paper, meaning that whoever owns the note (the trust), would be entitled to enforce it.

          1. darms

            Yeah, they’d be bearer bonds but oopsie, those are illegal to sell in the US (at least to US citizens & corporations) thanks to the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. IMNAL nor an accountant but what I found in my quickie search is here. I’ve seen better writeups on this lately, likely at Naked Capitalism or The Big Picture but I read a lot of blogs & it can be tricky to retrace one’s peregrinations over the course of a couple of weeks…

            Accordingly, under existing law, private U.S. and foreign issuers (and the U.S. government) cannot issue bearer bonds marketed to U.S. investors, but bearer bonds can be sold abroad under arrangements reasonably designed to ensure that the bonds will be sold or resold in connection with their original issuance only to non-U.S. persons, interest is payable only outside the United States, and there is a warning on the face of the bond that any U.S. holder will be subject to limitations under U.S. tax law.

          2. darms

            Enforcement of the mortgage? Nada except now who has standing to pursue foreclosure?

            Break in the title chain? Big problem for the next owner. And the part that really honks me off about this fraud is depending on what mechanism is ultimately used to resolve these title defects, the same mechanism could cause a title defect for someone who is paying their mortgage on time. And I fully expect the title insurance companies to take as much responsibility for fixing this mess as every other involved party already has, namely NONE. NADA. ZIP.

            Again, I have no sympathy for HELOC abusers or people who knowingly got in over their heads. My sympathies are with those that played by the rules and next those who were swindled by fast-talking con artists. And I really resent that it will be the responsible homeowners & the low to middle income tax payers who ultimately will pickup the tab for this. While the endless wars rage on…

          3. honcho

            I’ll be honest. I am having trouble following your argument.

            What I will tell you is that I have never seen any of this work in a court. Occassionally, you get an oddball ruling out of a trial court, but every case that I have seen that partially accepts one of these crazy theories is quickly and summarily rejected by a higher court.

            I would liken this to the arguments that a group of people raise for why taxes are unconstitutional. Those groups can make very convincing arguments that sound great, but have no basis in the law. But, at least those tax cheats follow their own advice and don’t pay taxes. The groups and indivuduals peddling these foreclosure defense arguments pay their mortgage. Why? Because they know that their brand of BS will be rejected by every court out there.

            The courts are sympathetic to defaulted borrowers. I have seen them give individuals chance after chance to try to cure a defective lawsuit even though there is no chance they can file anything that has a chance of surviving even the pleading stage. This does nothing other than prolong the process. I have seen the court absolutely rip attorneys who bring these claims, but they still prolong the process because they do feel bad for the defaulted borrower.

  6. Kevdiego

    I don’t see this foreclosure moratorium happening. Not if it hurts the banks bottom line. I think what we may be seeing is the banking industry ramping up it’s foreclosure efforts. Before long the banks will be well oiled foreclosing machines. With the squatting trends and clear signs home pricing will be dropping, the banks must want to overturn these money losing properties as fast as it can. Here it comes: Foreclosure Tsunami!

    1. AZDavidPhx

      I think it is actually the complete opposite. The banks would love nothing more than to hold all of these properties for another hundred years – whistling Dixie – all is well – La Dee Dah.

  7. P

    My husband convinced me that we should NOT purchase an Irvine home in 2006. So, we’ve been excellent renters, complying with our lease agreements as responsible adults ever since.

    Now, it’s so infuriating to see this foreclosure moratorium. It is bad enough that “homedebters” (to borrow that term from AZDave) may be squatting in a home they have stopped paying for, but I know of one guy who is “renting” a home well below rental rates from “homedebters.” Both parties know the house could be foreclosed on at any time. UNBELIEVABLE. The owners are taking money for a home they are not paying for and now, we’re going to extend that nonsense indefinitely. I wonder how many people are doing that neat little trick.

    Yet, here I am, a chump, paying my little condo rental. I’m so pissed.

    1. gepetoh

      Be patient, padowan. You’ll be able to buy that house for a song in the not-too-distant-future.

      1. Geotpf

        Unlikely. These foreclose moratoriums should keep supply low in the short term (months). Prices will fall, slowly, in the middle term (years), but not by much. Long term (decades), they will rise again.

        1. gepetoh

          So I guess you’re of the belief that we’ve pretty much hit the bottom and that the moratorium indeed will “stop the bleeding”? The scenario you just described predicts that we’re basically at the bottom and I’m not sure many here would agree with that. Especially in Irvine where I just have not seen yet the drop that is warranted. Elsewhere in the country I might agree with you, under normal circumstances. But once foreclosures are artificially held back, there will be additional impacts. I think a worst case scenario could cause the following set of situations:

          1) lack of foreclosure resales boosts asking prices, but nobody will buy
          2) once the foreclosure holdback is released, the market will be inundated with excess inventory, further depressing the price as asking price plummets and sale price goes down further than otherwise would have
          3) prices will slowly come back up but will take longer than if they would have let foreclosures happen as it has been

          And I think this scenario is a bit more than “unlikely”.

          1. Geotpf

            We are well past bottom.

            Look at the graph in the middle of this page:


            The bottom was in March 2009 (look at the sold graph only). This is even more clear if you change the graph to houses only. (If you switch it to condos only, the bottom becomes less clear-because condos are an inferior product.)

            I doubt prices for Irvine houses will ever again drop below the $335/sq ft sold price on March 2, 2009. (Current price is $357/sq ft.)

            The partial moratorium may cause prices to get close to the $335/sq ft number again, but probably not drop below it, IMHO. Once that is lifted, prices will slowly (very, very slowly) rise, IMHO.

          2. gepetoh

            Seriously, you believe that? Looking at YOUR graph current price is at $339/sf , only $9 above that bottom during the period when the stimulus was still on. As you can see prices have begun to drop yet again. I would hardly call teetering $5-10 above that low, during the period of stimulus, constitutes us being “well past” bottom. And as you can very plainly see on that graph the asking price has a steady trend downward the ENTIRE time period. What does this tell you? That seller psyche is still on the decline, which does not bode well for selling price. The trend downward has been building for a while DESPITE the stimulus. Think about that, despite the stimulus the market has gone up 2.5% in 18 months, while the asking price has gone DOWN 5%! And that sounds like we’ve reached the bottom to you?

            As for the house-only thing, people don’t buy “SFRs only”, they buy houses, period. Regardless of how you view condos as a product, excluding them is only manipulating the statistics to your liking. When it’s all said and done, people buy homes at whatever agreeable price. You can’t just conveniently remove a segment of that just to make your numbers look better.

          3. matt138

            geotpf is delusional. he should go be an economic advisor for Steve Thomas or maybe the realtor association.

            I do believe they will debase our currency enough to stop house prices from falling. We are not there yet. The dutch boy only has so many fingers to plug holes in the dam.

            Once the bond pendulum is released and swings the other way, prices will face severe downward pressure. the question is when.

          4. AZDavidPhx

            It is absolute common sense. All one has to do is think back to the good old days of 1998. I would happily jump into a time machine and return to the booming days of the late ’90’s when everything was just grand. How were Irvine house prices doing back then? Fast forward back to today and look at how super F_CKED up the economy is and suddenly the big giant elephant that is prices in places like Irvine reveals itself. Folks like PR are going to claim that it’s because the rich have just gotten that much richer. Maybe the super-rich, but not the kind of folks who buy in Irvine.

          5. Geotpf

            I am so delusional I hallucinated the graph that shows that Irvine houses (not condos; the figures I used were for houses only; and sold numbers only, not listing prices) at $22/sq ft above peak, or 6.6% above bottom. Heck, prices on Irvine condos only have been basically flat for a year and a half.

            Almost every city you can pick has similar numbers.

            Here’s Riverside, for instance:


            The bottom for Riverside houses was June 1 to July 6, 2009, at $111. Currently, it’s at $128/sq ft, or a 15.3% increase. (There are so few condos in Riverside the numbers don’t change much if you include them.)


            If you have data that disagrees with my analysis, please share such with the class. Otherwise, it is you who is delusional, not I.

          6. gepetoh

            It’s not about being delusional, I think quite to the contrary. The argument is actually intelligent and well thought-out. However, it falls into the classic case of statistical manipulation of looking only at the data that put things into fit the opinion of the author.

            Looking only at final selling price for sfr’s is angling to only show the positive info for a specific segment. It actually should be looked at along with the trend of what sellers think (asking price), which speaks to the other side of the market. And obviously the view should be on the entire inventory. What is the reasoning for excluding condos? “Housing” is not just SFRs, and statistically should not be looked as such to base the state of the housing market off of. That’s just manipulating the stats.

          7. bltserv

            I like Housing Tracker.

            As for Riverside. I am of the same school as Jim Cramer. We should just bulldoze the Inland Empire. Thats the only way your going to get prices up out in the 909. Calling the Bottom right now is INSANE. Forclosure issues and the fact that government intervention in the market is still going on. And whats up with 32K units on the market in Riverside. That seems like a buch of inventory to me.

        2. gepetoh

          To add, the moratorium is a bad idea from a psychological standpoint. Whether it was the politician’s plan or not, it is designed to help the troubled homeowners. What will boost prices are BUYER psyche, and this does the opposite since the troubled homeowners are NOT the potential buyers. It will have a negative psychological impact on the buyers, and that only leads prices downward more so than it would have. It’s a futile attempt to protect the wrong set of the population from recovery standpoint.

        3. lowrydr310

          Here are some interesting useless statistics related to the previous bubble and bust in Southern California; a relative of mine purchased a home in Rancho Cucamonga in 1989 (new construction) for $230K. Another relative bought in Irvine in 1996 for $240K. Does that mean the IE’s peak prices (2007) will be Irvine’s bottom (2014)? 🙂

          Here’s the kicker: comparable homes in the the Rancho Cucamonga neighborhood are selling for just over $300K (only 30% higher than their original purchase price TWO DECADES ago), while comparable homes in the Irvine neighborhood are still 300% higher than their 1996 purchase price.

          Unfortunately 1996 was *the* bottom and I don’t know exactly where prices peaked in that neighborhood just a few years prior. I was too busy playing Super Nintendo at the time, but was Irvine still considered a ‘premium’ area back then?

          1. Geotpf

            I’m sure Irvine was considered a premium area then. Now, almost everywhere in Orange and Los Angeles Counties is a premium area (with Irvine a super-premium area due to high rated schools and low crime rate), with the exceptions of a few high crime areas and the Lancaster area.

      2. darms

        But that song might need to be as popular as “Stairway To Heaven” and you’d damn sure need to have the writer’s & publisher’s credits… 😉

  8. HydroCabron

    In the context of the pumping of stock and real-estate markets since around 1993, this looks like another gasp in the endless inflation/preservation of asset bubbles to enable legislators and administrations to say: “Depression? Not on my watch!”

    Of course, the media feeds this by saying, every day “What are the President and Congress doing to help you economically”, feeding a socialist world view in citizens even as everyone fiercely denies being socialist. And an end to useless wars, or cuts in spend, or tax hikes, are always off the table.

    Next: Dow 6000 & dollar demise.

    But when? These guys sure can keep the bubbles afloat.

  9. HydroCabron

    Is it just me, or does everyone seem much more angry about the politicians stalling foreclosures than the banks doing the same?

    Maybe because, theoretically, the politicians are supposed to answer to us, but nobody really expects any better of the banks?

    1. Geotpf

      Well, the banks own the forclosures, so they have the right to not foreclose if they don’t want to. Also note that the current moratorums are not caused by the government, but by the banks, and by people suing the banks and pointing out that their paperwork sucks.

  10. gepetoh

    I think there is little doubt that banks in general have taken short cuts that they should not have, resulting in their current position of being the fodder for political agendas. Having said that, what the forced moratorium does is to reward a mass group that should not be benefiting from the fault of others. There has to be a better way to punish the banks for improper procedures without rewarding those that, for the most part, should have been foreclosed upon anyway.

  11. DarthFerret

    This is a very smart move on Wells Fargo’s part, imo. They are selling their REO’s into a higher-priced market than BofA and the other banks will be selling theirs when they resume foreclosures. BofA may have more time to replenish their reserves to cover their losses, but they’ll also be getting less for their REO sales.


    1. octal77

      Its boiling down to a giant game of chicken
      amongst the large banks.

      On one side of the coin, if WF forecloses now
      then the impaired asset is “marked to market”
      it must be booked at a loss per FASB rules.

      On the other side, WF may experience less of
      a loss if they foreclose now.

      However it goes, once one of the big banks (which
      appears to be WF) breaks ranks, then the tsunami
      will start.

      In any event a giant tsunami of foreclosures
      is exactly what this market needs to flush
      out all the crap. Is it actually going
      to happen? – who knows – too many fingers
      in the pie.

  12. darms

    Yet another from the FDL News DeskPortrait of HAMP Failure: How HAMP Connects to Foreclosure Fraud
    BTW the woman involved didn’t take any HELOC money & never missed a payment. But she got screwed over just the same.

  13. Soylent Green Is People

    What’s missing from this kerfuffle is that REO’s are a small part of overall sales in OC. It’s the Short Sales that will continue forward unrelentingly. SS’s are a much greater part of the purchase market today than REO’s will ever be.

    If I was holding a few home in my flip portfolio, I’d re-check my title policy, perhaps getting a few lawyers lined up just in case this Robo-Signing issue begins to mushroom out of control.

    My .02c

    Soylent Green Is People.

  14. bltserv

    Great opportunity for the Title Insurance guys. New higher rates for your possible “Dirty Foreclosure” liability issues with that new purchase. Nothing like a little extra premium to spice things up. Just like the old saying. You get Lemons ? Make Lemonade.

  15. darms

    In three minutes, you can demand to see your mortgage note, courtesy of SEIU.
    & some commentary from Zero Hedge

    “Whether you are facing foreclosure, have an underwater mortgage, or are just a concerned homeowner, it’s important that you contact your bank and demand to see the original note on your mortgage. It only takes a few minutes using our free online tool.” Quick, simple and easy. And in a few days your mortgage bank will have no choice but to tell you if they do in fact have your original mortgage note. And if not – welcome to cost-free living, courtesy of MERS and millions of rushed and fraudulent mortgage note assignments.

    1. honcho

      This is the biggest load of crap there is in CA. The “show me the note” defense has been found to be frivolous and one attorney touting this position lost his bar card and just paid over $1,000,000 to the AG as a result of his absurd lawsuits.

      You really should check out the people touting these positions you have been citing on MERS. The “leader” of this revolution was deposed not too long ago and he admitted that he was paying on his mortgage. If he really believed the B.S. he is selling, why is he still paying his mortgage?

      1. darms

        If you have a mortgage, why don’t you try the site out? Prove that it’s utter B.S. What do you have to lose? If I had a mortgage I’d have sent the letter out about three minutes after finding the site.

        1. honcho

          The defense is bogus. In CA, the foreclosing party doesn’t have to have the note. If you raise it in court, you will likely be sanctioned.

          Hopefully you aren’t paying money to have them track this info down.

          1. AZDavidPhx

            I suspect that honcho knows what he is talking about. He has been systematically laying waste to the lynch mob for a couple of days now with relative ease. This latest sideshow will blow over in a couple of weeks and the hustlers will then have to go back to throwing more SH_T at the wall. I am still waiting for them to dig up a class action lawsuit for all these people living on the streets who were wrongly foreclosed. When they get tired of obfuscating the semantics of “foreclosure fraud” maybe they can get back to finding the real victims.

          2. darms

            Possibly but I’m not suggesting one should use the “show me the note” site/tactic for defense against a foreclosure, I’m suggesting one might want to use the “show me the note” site to but SEE. THEIR. OWN PERSONAL MORTGAGE NOTE. And nothing more. This could be total B.S. but one never knows unless one does it for ones self or knows someone personally who has done it. (On the internet no one knows you’re really a cat) My last mortgage was in 1987 but I was always curious as to why after negotiating with a local mortgage company for five months the note was transferred to ANMC less than two weeks after closing…

  16. theyenguy

    Well, maybe Wells Fargo may NOT go full speed ahead as in the linked news article, GMAC, Wells Fargo To Review Foreclosures, Alex Veiga and Alan Zibel of the Associated Press report: “Two big mortgage lenders are reviewing foreclosures as public officials heighten pressure on the industry over allegations that they made errors in documents used to evict homeowners.
    GMAC Mortgage, a unit of Ally Financial Inc., said Tuesday that it has enlisted legal and accounting firms to conduct independent reviews of its foreclosure procedures in all 50 states. GMAC has already halted foreclosures in 23 states. Separately, Wells Fargo & Co. said it would review pending foreclosures for potential defects in response to requests from lawmakers and public officials. The San Francisco-based company says it has not turned up any evidence of problems. “We have no plans to initiate a foreclosure moratorium,” company spokeswoman Vickee Adams said. In May, a Wells Fargo executive acknowledged in a deposition that he verified only the dates on up to 150 foreclosure documents he signed daily. The executive said he relied on co-workers to ensure that other information in the documents was correct.”

    I envision that the Federal Financial Regulator, the Secretary of the Treasury, will exercise the broad discretionary power assigned to him by the Dodd Frank Legislation to manage economic, investment, lending and credit. He will rise to be Segnior, that is top dog banker who takes a cut. All credit will come and go through him. It is interesting that one definition of credit is trust. So many will come to trust in him to oversee commerce, trade, banking and credit.

    Tyler Durden in ZeroHedge article “Just The Tip Of The Iceberg” quotes from the Adam Levitin, Associate Professor of Law at Georgetown University, legal briefing prepared for CitiBank on the mortgage foreclosure issue which outlines a systemic problem that may see an extreme resolution: “Our speaker predicted that more and more lenders are likely to stop their foreclosure processes in both judicial and non-judicial states. He also expects more states’ attorney generals to get involved. At the federal level, it is possible than banking regulators might step in as there is legal and reputational risk for the banks involved. Ultimately, if these issues do in fact escalate, the Administration may try to broker some sort of settlement. If such deal brokering does take place, Levitin believes that “some payment” will be exacted from the lenders and servicers. The Administration could bargain for more mortgage principal write downs.” In other words, the endgame will likely end up being the extraction of material concession from the banking syndicate, in the form of systemic mortgage writedowns, with Obama’s blessing, which will likely put the 25% of homeowners who are underwater on equal footing with the other 75%. It may turn out that this was the plan all along. And people naively wonder why banks have hundreds of billions in cash stashed on the sidelines.”

  17. BD

    Hello All –

    I noticed how this convesation all turned very political. That said, I thought I would throw in – our government should not be in the business of picking winners and loosers. Everyone that enjoys Americas’ benefits should pay equally. All else is BS in my mind…

    I can’t imagine going to a party where everyone had to contribute based on their income or wealth.

    This is all BS socialism which has proven not to work for every society as long as we have been able to keep records.

    It is total BS that 47% of people pay no income tax and the top 10% pay something like 70% of all income taxes. I’m not in this category but, this is simply not fair.

    Go look at the facts.

    …just my .02


    1. darms

      BD, I have looked at the ‘facts’, just because FISA isn’t federal withholding for the IRS doesn’t mean it doesn’t have the same impact to a wageearner as a federal withholding tax, likewise state income/sales taxes, federal & state user fees & the ubiquitous “sin taxes” plus road tolls et al. What do you think about the richest 10% taking home 50+% of the total income? Have you seen the recent obscene income redistribution charts? You want political, there’s your political. Dammit.
      IR calls us “astute observers” and while I don’t agree with all the regulars here, at least not all of the time, for the most part his appellation is correct & warranted, if you wanna do a driveby & still be credible you better be prepared to backup your claims. Dammit.

    2. HydroCabron

      the top 10% pay something like 70% of all income taxes

      The top 1% hold 35% of the total wealth. The top 20% hold 85% of the total wealth. So the bottom 80% holds only 15% of the total wealth.

      Under a flat tax system – assuming wealth to be roughly equal to income – the top 20% would pay 85% of the taxes.

      The right-wing brainwashing of the past four decades is paying rich dividends to our corporate masters. So many middle-class folks think that taxing the rich at higher top marginal rates is the greatest injustice the government perpetrates.

  18. Ochomehunter

    Govt. letting squatters is a planned operation. Govt. knows that folks squatting are more than capable of paying rent elsewhere and most can actually pay mortgages too. But, if folks are thrown out of the homes, these squatters will end up spending that extra disporal money into rental, which will take away the disposal income that they are spending into the economy to contribute consumer spending.

    First we got crazy consumer spending via home equity withdrawl, now we have artifical prop to spending via squatters! One way, these squatters are helping Govt. improve the numbers. I know several folks who go to stakehouses for expensive dinners, shop at expensive places, but are squatting as they are allowed to do so.

    Obama is a dog! and the one that barks! I have no respect for this man! Congress is joke and should be take out of washington as a whole, FED should be abolished!

    1. Geotpf

      That logic fails the sniff test. If landlords (most house landlords are regular joes who only own one or two rental properties) could increase rents, they would have more income to buy personal watercraft and Chevy Cobalts and beer.

      Never attribute to malice what could be due to neglect. Obama’s administration really hasn’t affected things much, and the difference from what they are doing and what a McCain (or Palin-McCain would have had a heart attack from the stress of being president and died by now) administration would have done is minimal to nonexistant.

    2. winstongator

      dude, the bigger stimulus is the refi of nearly every non-underwater mortgage to rates below 5%. while less on a per house basis, there are a lot more refis than squatters.

      1. Planet Reality

        5%? Dude they already could refi to 4.25% and they will have the opportunity to refi to 3.5% in the not to decent future.

        There is only one group who did not benefit.

    1. SanJoseRenter

      Quote from above link:

      “Tim Robertson came to San Diego from Maryland in 2005, and tried to jump into the field in 2006, as people stopped buying.

      He summarized his conversations with buyers: “‘Buy this house at $360,000, but in a few months it will be worth $300,000.’ That’s a tough sell.”

      ha ha ha

      So for a brief period, there was one honest real estate agent. 🙂

Comments are closed.