Consumer group tentatively supports $25-billion mortgage deal

[ProSense]

Consumer group tentatively supports $25-billion mortgage deal

By Alejandro Lazo

The Center for Responsible Lending has called a proposed $25-billion settlement over faulty foreclosure practices between attorneys general, federal agencies and the mortgage industry “an important step forward in addressing foreclosure abuses.”

The Washington-based consumer group, which has a strong California presence, called the proposed deal “not perfect” but one that would “provide an important template for ways banks can use principal reduction to reduce unnecessary foreclosures and put the country back on a path to economic recovery.”

<...>

Some activists, including MoveOn.org, and consumer groups have been skeptical of the deal because of concerns by certain attorneys general -- most vociferously Eric Schneiderman of New York -- that the banks were asking for too much release from liability. California's Kamala D. Harris also walked away from negotiations with the banks because of her concern that the banks were asking for too much release from liability in exchange for too little for the state's homeowners.

People familiar with the negotiations hoping to get Harris onboard have insisted that the terms of the deal would only block certain claims, namely origination and servicing, from going forward. The center appeared to echo those arguments, writing, “the settlement would preserve the ability of homeowners to pursue claims against banks.”

- more -

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-foreclosure-settlement-backed-20120124,0,4966939.story

AG Settlement: Not Perfect, but Significant Reform of Mortgage Servicing

Center for Responsible Lending
January 24, 2012

Washington, D.C. --- Based on what we've heard, the settlement between major banks and states’ Attorneys General (AGs), the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Justice would represent an important step forward in addressing foreclosure abuses. The settlement would include key reforms to clean up unfair mortgage servicing practices. It would also provide an important template for ways banks can use principal reduction to reduce unnecessary foreclosures and put the country back on a path to economic recovery.

Not all details are available yet, and we will continue evaluating the agreement as it becomes available. Based on current information, we are pleased to see a number of key reforms, including:

• No more robo-signing. Banks would agree that key foreclosure documents will be individually reviewed as required by law.
  
  
• End of many servicing abuses. The banks would agree to adopt many practices that will result in better communication, fewer delays, and fairer treatment for homeowners who are late on house payments.
  
  
• More sustainable loan modifications. The settlement would require banks to get serious about reducing the principal balances on mortgages for struggling homeowners, possibly preventing hundreds of thousands of unnecessary foreclosures.
  
  
• Banks remain accountable. While the state AGs would not be able to bring additional origination or servicing claims against the participating banks, the settlement would preserve the ability of homeowners to pursue claims against banks. Moreover, the settlement would not shield banks from prosecution related to criminal activities, claims based on mortgage securities violations, fair lending suits, or claims against MERS. Finally, the settlement would be enforceable in court by an independent monitor.

This settlement would wrap up a year-long investigation focused on robo-signing and other abusive and fraudulent practices by mortgage servicers. This action is a crucial to containing the damaging effects of foreclosures on our economy, but it is only one response—and one that is necessarily limited by legal and practical restraints. Addressing the massive foreclosure crisis requires additional policy actions on multiple fronts.

- more -

http://www.responsiblelending.org/media-center/press-releases/archives/AG-Settlement-Not-Perfect-but-Significant-Reform-of-Mortgage-Servicing.html

[ProSense]

1. Kick! n/t

[truebrit71]

2. Bullshit.

It's a major step forward into a pile of dogshit...$25 Billion? Is that it?

Complete and total fucking whitewash is what this is...

[ProSense]

4. One

It's a major step forward into a pile of dogshit...$25 Billion? Is that it?

Complete and total fucking whitewash is what this is...

...can argue that the amount is too low, but the amount is separate from potential criminal charges. From the OP

Moreover, the settlement would not shield banks from prosecution related to criminal activities, claims based on mortgage securities violations, fair lending suits, or claims against MERS.

I'd be interested to see where this goes, especially given the CFPB has launched an investigation of one company:

The CFPB had already rolled out a public education campaign, “Know Before You Owe,” to improve financial literacy on the consumer side as well before Cordray officially took office last week. But Obama’s recess appointment unleashed the watchdog’s full enforcement authority. Over the past few days, the CFPB also launched its first known investigation into a financial firm, probing kickbacks that were allegedly paid to PHH Corp., a private mortgage lender.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002163578

I'm also interested in the AGs' opinions, specifically Harris, Biden and Coakley and Cortez Masto.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

9. Nothin' but a whitewash is right.

Slap on the hand fine, civil (criminal?) immunity.

Bullshit,.

I am happy our State Ag is refusing to sign on.

[KansDem]

3. Does this mean the banks broke the law?

No more robo-signing. Banks would agree that key foreclosure documents will be individually reviewed as required by law.



And if they broke the law, why are they not being prosecuted?

[elleng]

5. Because there were TOO DAMN MANY of them!

[MotherPetrie]

6. If slimeball Eric Holder is for it then I'm against it.

[ProSense]

7. Holder

"If slimeball Eric Holder is for it then I'm against it."

...is for voting rights, are you against them?

Holder Stands Up for the Right to Vote
http://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/holder-stands-right-vote

[MotherPetrie]

8. I was referring to the mortgage deal. Why weren't you?

[ProSense]

10. As

"I was referring to the mortgage deal. Why weren't you?"

...I said above, the amount of the settlement is unrelated to the potential for criminal charges, and now we know:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002217724

[MotherPetrie]

12. You didn't answer my question.

[ProSense]

13. Well,

"You didn't answer my question."

...I didn't take it seriously.

Here is your first response in the thread: "If slimeball Eric Holder is for it then I'm against it."

And your second: "I was referring to the mortgage deal. Why weren't you?"

Still, if you want a reason to a non-serious question, my response to your first comment was a question referencing your "slimeball" characterization that you chose not to answer:

"Holder is for voting rights, are you against them?"

[MotherPetrie]

15. Why isn't Eric Holder conducting an investigation into Don Siegelman's case?

[ProSense]

16. Well,

"Why isn't Eric Holder conducting an investigation into Don Siegelman's case?"

...I have no idea, but that has nothing to do with OP or mortgage fraud.

Maybe you should flesh that question out in an OP?

[gratuitous]

11. You don't understand

Any specific criticism of the current administration must be immediately conflated into a ridiculous blanket condemnation. How else can you be discounted as a shill or a tool? For example, if you listen to the State of the Union address and conclude that somehow the president said the veterans returning from Iraq made the United States safer and more respected, you will immediately be savaged for misstating the president's position that the Iraq war made the United States safer and more respected. By the time you straighten it out, the bus has already mowed you down, and the Defenders of the Faith can high-five each other.

I hope that addresses your question.

[ProSense]

14. Actually

You don't understand

Any specific criticism of the current administration must be immediately conflated into a ridiculous blanket condemnation. How else can you be discounted as a shill or a tool? For example, if you listen to the State of the Union address and conclude that somehow the president said the veterans returning from Iraq made the United States safer and more respected, you will immediately be savaged for misstating the president's position that the Iraq war made the United States safer and more respected. By the time you straighten it out, the bus has already mowed you down, and the Defenders of the Faith can high-five each other.

I hope that addresses your question.

...if you believe the President's position is "the Iraq war made the United States safer and more respected," that's on you. I disagree with you. If disagreeing with you makes you feel like a victim, it might explain why you heard something different from what I heard.

[gratuitous]

17. So, what did you hear?

Obama talked about meeting military folks at Andrews Air Force Base as they returned from Iraq. He described them as a generation of heroes who "made the United States safer and more respected around the world." If they did that simply by arriving at Andrews, why didn't we just put them on a plane in Florida or some place, and fly them in to Andrews, so we could all be safer and more respected? Would have been a lot cheaper and a lot of lives wouldn't have been lost.

Unelss he was saying something else. I've put forward that he was saying it because "this generation of heroes" had just gotten back from Iraq, meaning that the United States was "safer and more respected" for what they had been doing there, which was prosecuting the war in Iraq. Granted, those two dots aren't in the identical spot, but they're close enough to suggest a line. But you disagree, which causes you to respond to posts not even addressed to you, and accuse me of playing the victim. I wonder why that is?

[Octafish]

18. Astroturf in service of Wall Street

http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/489-center-for-responsible-lending

EXCERPT...

Herb and Marion Sandler are the billionaire founders of the Center for Responsible Lending. The Sandlers made a fortune in the subprime mortgage industry, thanks to the success of their bank, Golden West Financial.

[bvar22]

19. So the Big Banks managed to buy themselves a "Consumer Group"?

That is small potatoes compared to buying the White House and most of Congress.

Expect to see a lot of :

"Consumer Groups",

Celebrity Talking Heads currying favor with their masters,

Marketing Tsunamis ,

Propaganda Dumps,

DLC Party Operatives,

and TONS of Cyber AstroTurf flooding the Net,

....in an ALL OUT Marketing Blitz to pimp "The DEAL".




[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]