Author Archives: David Reiss

Fightin’ Words on Consumer Complaints

Posted on by

Deloitte has issued a report, CFPB’s Consumer Complaint Database: Analysis Reveals Valuable Insights, that provides valuable — but superficial insights — into the CFPB’s massive database of consumer complaints.

Deloitte’s main insights are

  • Troubled mortgages are behind the majority of the complaints – a growing trend
  • Customer misunderstanding may create more complaints than financial institution error
  • Affluent, established neighborhoods were more likely sources of complaints
  • Complaint resolution times have improved (2)

As to the second insight — customer misunderstanding may create more complaints than financial institution error — Deloitte notes that

Financial institutions have a number of options for resolving consumer complaints. They can close a complaint in favor of the consumer by offering monetary or non-monetary relief, or they can close the complaint not in favor of the consumer, perhaps providing only an explanation. The percentage of complaints closed in favor of consumers declined during the analysis period, falling from 30.9 percent in June 2012 to 18.0 percent in April 2013,6 a trend that was reflected in the monthly complaint [resolutions] for all products. (4)

The report continues, “In spite of fewer complaints closed with relief, consumers have been disputing fewer resolutions. In aggregate, the percentage of resolutions that were disputed fell from a peak of 27.9 percent in January 2012 to 18.6 percent in January 2013.” (5) Deloitte finds that “the data suggests that many complaints may be the result of customer misunderstanding or frustration rather than actual mistakes or operational errors by financial institutions.” (5)

secure payday loans no teletrakcash advance no checkpayday loans in phoenix

This conclusion seems like a big leap from the data that Deloitte has presented. I can imagine many alternative explanations for the decrease in disputes other than customer misunderstanding. For instance,

  • the consumer does not see a reasonable likelihood of a favorable resolution and abandons the complaint
  • the financial institution can point to a written policy that supports its position even if the consumer complaint had a valid basis, given the actions of the institution’s employees in a particular case
  • in the case of a mortgage complaint, the consumer is moving toward a favorable or unfavorable resolution of the issue with the financial institution on another track (e.g., HAMP, judicial foreclosure)

To be clear, I am not saying that customer misunderstanding plays an insignificant role in customer complaints.  Nor am I saying that the reasons I propose are the real reasons that that complaints do not proceed further. I am only saying that Deloitte has not presented sufficient evidence to support its claim that “customer misunderstanding may create more complaints than financial institution error.” Given that these are fightin’ words in the context of consumer protection, I would think that Deloitte would choose its words more carefully.

 

 

Pandora’s Credit Box

Posted on by

Jim Parrott and Mark Zandi posted Opening the Credit Box, a call for “[e[asing mortgage lending standards.” (2) Parrott has had high level positions in the Obama Administration and Zandi, Moody’s Analytics’ chief economist, was mentioned as a possible Director for the FHFA. Given the importance of these two authors to debates about the housing market, I think it is worth evaluating their views carefully. I have to say, they are somewhat worrisome.

They favor easing “mortgage lending standards so that more creditworthy borrowers can obtain the loans needed to purchase homes” in order to support “the current recovery,” but also to support “the economy’s long-term health.” (2) This is wrongheaded, as far as I am concerned.  Mortgage underwriting standards should not be set to support the economy. They should be set to balance the availability of credit with the likelihood of default. If we want to support the economy through the housing sector, we can do so through various tax credits or direct subsidies. But starting down the path of employing underwriting standards to do anything other than evaluate credit risk will quickly lay the foundation for the next housing bubble.

The paper contained a number of similarly disturbing cart-leading-the-horse statements. For instance, they write that for “the housing recovery to maintain its momentum, first-time and trade-up homebuyers must fill the void left by investors.” (2) Again, the goal of of encouraging new entrants in the market should not be to drive demand in the short-term. Rather, it should be done in order to allow creditworthy potential homeowners to have the opportunity to purchase a home on sustainable terms.

The authors take pains to step back from the extreme version of their position.  For instance, they write, “To be clear, the objective is not, and should not be,a return to the recklessly loose standards of the bubble years, but to strike a sensible balance between risk management and access to credit. Today’s market has overcorrected and it is hurting the nation’s recovery.” (2) But given the arguments that they have made, I find this coda to be too little too late.

I also found disturbing their analysis of put-back risk (whereby Fannie and Freddie can make loan originators buy back loans that violate various representations and warranties). Their analysis portrays originators as victims of unfairly tightened standards. The fact is, however, that originators had a long run of pushing off junk mortgages onto Fannie and Freddie. The industry will certainly need to figure out a new normal for put-backs and reps and warranties. It seems a bit premature, however, to say that Fannie and Freddie should just loosen up just as it is settling suits with these same originators for billions of dollars.

We should work toward housing market that balances access to homeownership with mortgages that households are likely to be able to afford in the long term. Once that relatively undistorted market finds its baseline, we can talk about tweaks to it. But jumping in today with policies intended to fill a void left by speculative investors seems like a recipe for disaster. In the Greek myth, Pandora opens up the box and lets loose all of the evils of humanity. I worry that rashly opening up the credit box will do the same for the housing market, once again.

Enforcing The Mortgage Note

Posted on by

Elizabeth Renuart has posted Uneasy Intersections: The Right to Foreclose and the UCC to SSRN. This is a subject that Brad and I have touched on a bit in the context of the Show Me The Note! defense, but Renuart has done a magisterial fifty state review of how state foreclosure laws interact with the Uniform Commercial Code which has been adopted in all 50 states (NY has an older version it on the books for now). The case law in this area is incredibly confused and confusing.  The article helps to chart a path to navigate the intersection between these two areas of law.

Renuart provides a taxonomy of the caselaw, dividing it into three categories:

1.  The UCC States: “courts in these states explicitly join the right to foreclose on a mortgage that secures the negotiable note with the” UCC. (44)

2.  The Foreclosure-Statute-Definition States: “the courts focus on relevant words in the state’s foreclosure statute, such as ‘mortgagee’ where mortgages are used, ‘beneficiary’ where deeds of trust are used, ‘holder’, or ‘owner.’ Next, they determine if that state’s legislature intended that these designations refer to the note holder or the one with the right to act on behalf of the note holder. These courts may or may not reference the UCC in their decisions but the result generally is consistent with” the UCC. (45)

3.  The UCC- Does-Not-Apply States: “courts in these states reason that the state’s foreclosure scheme is comprehensive, inclusive of the prerequisites to foreclose, or does not define the secured party as the one entitled to repayment on the secured monetary obligation. As a result, the UCC does not apply in any way to identify the party who possesses the right to foreclose. To date, these decisions have arisen exclusively in nonjudicial foreclosure states.” (47)

She concludes that the “methodology utilized in Category 1 and 2 states properly harmonizes the relevant UCC rules with state foreclosure law. Category 3 states dismiss the UCC’s role outright. It is these decisions that muddy the law and create inconsistent outcomes from state to state.” (47-48)

It is no exaggeration to say that the discussions about this topic in the blogosphere are virtually incoherent, so this article may provide guidance for those who are looking for it.

DATA! On US Housing Market Conditions

Posted on by

HUD has released a new online database on U.S. Housing Market Conditions.  It can be searched by location and by report type. The website also includes some analysis of national, regional, state, metropolitan and local markets. The website includes some important reports, including National Housing Market Summaries, HUD Policy Development and Research Briefings and the Administration’s National Housing Scorecards.

I found the National Housing Market Summary particularly interesting, with figures from the second quarter of 2013 on

Mortgage Interest Rates (%)
Mortgage Delinquency Rates (%)
FHA Market Share
FHA Mortgage Insurance (thousands)
Private and VA Mortgage Insurance (thousands)
Residential Fixed Investment (SA real annual growth rate, %)
Homeownership Rates (%)
Vacancy Rates (%)
Housing Stock (thousands)
Households (thousands)

Post-Bubble Foreclosure-Prevention and -Mitigation Options in Your Town?

Posted on by

Bob Hockett has posted Post-Bubble Foreclosure-Prevention and -Mitigation Options in Seattle. I recommend it to those interested in issues beyond Seattle’s borders because it actually covers foreclosure-prevention and mitigation options across the country, although it looks at them with a Seattle focus.

He argues that

There is a potentially bewildering array of means available to at least some underwater homeowners, and these programs are also noteworthy for failing to solve the fundamental problems affecting these mortgages. There are three vitiating weakness share by nearly all of these means . . ..

The first weakness among currently available options is that they do not concentrate upon mortgage principal-reduction, meaning that they do nothing about the underwater status of underwater mortgage loans – which is the principal predictor of default and foreclosure – at all. Instead they rely upon temporary forbearance, term-extension, or interest rate reduction. . . .

The second weakness of the currently available options is that they are voluntary from the creditor’s point of view. That is problematic not because creditors lack in appreciation of their own enlightened self-interest or in desire to do the right thing, but because where there are structural or contractual barriers to principal reduction, as we shall see there are here in abundance, even creditor-benefiting such changes cannot occur on an adequate scale. Creditors are very often unable to do what benefits themselves and homeowners alike, meaning that voluntary programs can be useless.

Finally, the third weakness that the options discussed here suffer is that they do not extend to underwater PLS loans, which, as seen above, constitute the great bulk of troubled mortgage loans; they are in general available only to GSE and bank portfolio loans . . .. (11)

I found the review of “publicly encouraged debt relief” programs useful. (14) They include

  1. HAMP (the federal Home Affordable Modification Program)
  2. HARP (the federal Home Affordable Refinance Program)
  3. Miscellaneous Specialized HAMP Analogues
  4. FHA Short Refinance Program
  5. HAFA(federal Home Affordable Foreclosure Alternative)
  6. “Hardest Hit” Fund & Program (Treasury)
  7. HOPE NOW Alliance
  8. The Attorney Generals’ Settlement

Hockett also proposes some innovative approaches that he suggests that Seattle should consider including the use of eminent domain as well as a land bank. Worth the read.

 

A Welling of Judicial Discontent

Posted on by

Reuters ran a story that provides the next chapter to my post, Federal Judge Declares War on Wells Fargo.  The Reuters story is Massachusetts Judge Challenges Wells Fargo, Sparks Legal Fight (behind a paywall) and it reads in part:

A legal battle is heating up over an unusual challenge by a Massachusetts federal judge to banking giant Wells Fargo to waive what the judge called a technical defense in a mortgage lawsuit and to argue its case at trial.

Calling the judge’s order “unauthorized and unprecedented,” Wells Fargo has asked a federal appeals court to overturn it before it sparks “copycat” demands across the country.

It seems to me that Wells Fargo is right to be concerned about “copycat” demands across the country.  My sense from reading many of the upstream and downstream cases that I blog about is that many judges have internalized the populist critique of financial institutions that has crystallized during the financial crisis. This came about, no doubt, in large part because of the relentless headlines about actionable and non-actionable misconduct by these institutions.

That being said, judges must apply the law impartially, so the First Circuit’s review of this case, Henning v. Wachovia Mortgage, F.S.B., n/k/a Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 11-11428 (Sept. 17, 2013), will be of particular interest. The transcript of yesterday’s District Court hearing on a motion to stay the Henning case during the pendency of the appeal can be found here. Judge Young makes clear that he is not budging on the requirement that Wells Fargo produce a corporate resolution, although that order is stayed until the First Circuit decides the appeal.

Rating Agency 1st Amendment Defense Weakened, Again

Posted on by

Federal District Judge O’Toole (D. Mass.) issued an Opinion and Order in Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston v. Ally Financial Inc. et al., No. 11-10952 (Sept. 30, 2013)  relating to the potential liability of S&P and Moody’s (the Rating Agency Defendants) for their ratings. The case “arises from the purchase of private label mortgage-backed securities” (PLMBS) by the plaintiff, FHLB Boston. (1)  FHLB Boston alleges that the rating agency defendants knew that their ratings “were inaccurate and based on flawed models, and that their conduct gives rise to” a claim for fraud as well as other causes of action. (1) The Rating Agency Defendants sought to have the claims dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Court rejected this as to the fraud claim:

The Rating Agency Defendants’ argument that their ratings are non-actionable opinions is unconvincing. As discussed in Abu Dhabi I, “[a]n opinion may still be actionable if the speaker does not genuinely and reasonably believe it or if it is without basis in fact.” 651 F. Supp. 2d at 176 (internal citations omitted). Here the Bank has pled with sufficient particularity that the Rating Agency Defendants issued ratings that they did not genuinely or reasonably believe. For example, the Amended Complaint alleges that the Rating Agency Defendants diluted their own standards and carried out their ratings procedures in an intentionally lax manner as to PLMBS while maintaining higher standards in other contexts. The Bank has also sufficiently pled scienter, alleging that the Rating Agency Defendants competed for business by artificially inflating ratings, as they were only paid if they provided high ratings. (4)

Rating agencies were able to avoid liability for decades, claiming that their ratings were like min-editorials that were protected by the First Amendment. A number of recent cases reject that defense in a variety of contexts (See here, here and here for instance). It is unclear what will happen when these cases are appealed, but for now it appears that a number of courts have identified situations where an opinion can be more than an opinion — it can amount to actionable fraud.