Monday’s Adjudication Roundup
- A group of homeowners on Friday asked the Eleventh Circuit to revive their putative class action alleging Caliber Home Loans Inc. and American Security Insurance Co. inflated their insurance rates via a kickback scheme.
- Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC agreed on Friday to a $225 million deal resolving allegations brought by the California Department of Business Oversight that the mortgage servicer backdated mortgage payment notices and restoring Ocwen’s ability to service new California mortgages.
February 27, 2017 | Permalink | No Comments
February 24, 2017
The Money Problem
I recently read The Money Problem: Rethinking Financial Regulation by Morgan Ricks (University of Chicago Press 2016). While it is not a book for the financially faint of heart, it does provide a great introduction to what money is and what banks and other financial intermediaries do. The back matter reads,
Years have passed since the world experienced one of the worst financial crises in history, and while countless experts have analyzed it, many central questions remain unanswered. Should money creation be considered a ‘public’ or ‘private’ activity—or both? What do we mean by, and want from, financial stability? What role should regulation play? How would we design our monetary institutions if we could start from scratch?
In The Money Problem, Morgan Ricks addresses all of these questions and more, offering a practical yet elegant blueprint for a modernized system of money and banking—one that, crucially, can be accomplished through incremental changes to the United States’ current system. He brings a critical, missing dimension to the ongoing debates over financial stability policy, arguing that the issue is primarily one of monetary system design. The Money Problem offers a way to mitigate the risk of catastrophic panic in the future, and it will expand the financial reform conversation in the United States and abroad.
I particularly recommend Part I to those trying to get their hands around money (the concept, not hard currency itself) and how it is created. Ricks reviews the “standard textbook description” of bank money creation and others’ account of it before providing his own “modified story.” (58-59)
Parts II and III provides a far-reaching blueprint for reforming the monetary system. This reform agenda is not without its critics, but I think Ricks gives a fair reading to competing views so you can make up your own mind as to who is right.
February 24, 2017 | Permalink | No Comments
Friday’s Government Reports Roundup
- In a recent article titled, “How ARM Rates Help You Get More Home When Fixed Rates Keep Rising,” Dahna Chandler forces borrowers to be smarter about their home purchases. On average, U.S. homeowners move once every seven years due to family size, school districts, or career sustainability. Chandler explains why home buyers must consider the length of time they will live in the home to ensure they choose the loan type that is more cost efficient.
- The lending market is drastically shifting. Once upon a time banks were the dominant lenders for homeowners in the U.S. However, as homeowners grow more worried about interest rates and terms of the loan, non-banks are becoming more and more attractive to potential homeowners. Today, the three largest bank lenders of 2005 share a total of 21% of the lending market which is astounding because they once held 50% of the market.
February 24, 2017 | Permalink | No Comments
February 23, 2017
Bad Credit/Good Credit
OppLoans quoted me in Bad Credit Loan Coming Attractions! It opens,
Everyone is talking about bad credit loans these days, and Hollywood seems to be taking notice. (Editor’s note: They’re not.) All the newest films are about bad credit lenders! (Editor’s note: They’re really not.)
With so many people wondering what their loan options are, we thought you might enjoy hearing about the hottest upcoming films that deal with bad credit loans, which we may or may not have made up entirely (Editor’s note: We did).
If you have a not-so-hot credit score and you’re worried about getting a loan, these upcoming blockbusters might help you figure out which bad credit loan works best for you.
THE INTEREST RATE DECEIT
Tammy is just an everyday woman who needs a loan for some car repairs. Unfortunately, her credit is quite low. She sees some advertisements for bad credit loans, and figures the safest choice would be to pick the one with the lowest interest rate.
But, spoiler alert, there’s a big twist! The loan she chose had so many fees, it ended up being more expensive than the loans that had higher interest rates. If only Tammy had made sure to compare the loans using their APR, or annual percentage rate—she might have met a better fate. The APR tells you the full cost of a loan, including interest and fees, so it’s the best way to avoid an unpleasant twist in your story.
David Reiss, a law professor and editor of REFinBLOG.com (@REFinBlog), gave us an example of why APR is so important: “It would help a potential borrower compare the cost of credit between one loan with a 5 percent interest rate and one with a 4 percent interest rate that charges a point at origination.”
In other words, a loan that charges a fee when you take it out could actually be just as expensive or more expensive than a loan with higher interest rates and no fees.
February 23, 2017 | Permalink | No Comments
Thursday’s Advocacy & Think Tank Roundup
- In the Midwest, there is a different approach to affordable housing. Instead of focusing on multi-family units, like in the larger urban areas, CDCs in the Mid-west are working to build more single-family homes. Their method of affordable housing entails smaller homes and homes built in factories.
- A recent study by the Urban Institute, found that African American home ownership is at its lowest levels since the 1960s, which was during a time of heavy discrimination. Furthermore, the housing crisis of the early 2000s, affected African Americans more than any other ethnic group. As a result, many African American households were forced to foreclose on homes because of the high rates at which they received when purchasing their home.
- Ocwen Financial has suffered another loss. The non-bank was barred from purchasing “mortgage servicing rights in bulk” by the California Department of Business even though the department made a mistake removing the restrictions for the company.
February 23, 2017 | Permalink | No Comments
February 22, 2017
GSE Investors’ Hidden Win
The big news yesterday was that the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled in the main for the federal government in Perry Capital v. Mnuchin, one of the major cases that investors brought against the federal government over the terms of the Fannie and Freddie conservatorships.
In a measured and carefully reasoned opinion, the court rejected most but not all of the investors’ claims. The reasoning was consistent with my own reading of the broad conservatorship provisions of the Housing and Economic Recover Act of 2008 (HERA).
Judge Brown’s dissent, however, reveals that the investors have crafted an alternative narrative that at least one judge finds compelling. This means that there is going to be some serious drama when this case ultimately wends its way to the Supreme Court. And there is some reason to believe that a Justice Gorsuch might be sympathetic to this narrative of government overreach.
Judge Brown’s opinion indicts many aspects of federal housing finance policy, broadly condemning it in the opening paragraph:
One critic has called it “wrecking-ball benevolence,” James Bovard, Editorial, Nothing Down: The Bush Administration’s Wrecking-Ball Benevolence, BARRON’S, Aug. 23, 2004, https://tinyurl.com/Barrons-Bovard; while another, dismissing the compassionate rhetoric, dubs it “crony capitalism,” Gerald P. O’Driscoll, Jr., Commentary, Fannie/Freddie Bailout Baloney, CATO INST., https://tinyurl.com/Cato-O-Driscoll (last visited Feb. 13, 2017). But whether the road was paved with good intentions or greased by greed and indifference, affordable housing turned out to be the path to perdition for the U.S. mortgage market. And, because of the dominance of two so-called Government Sponsored Entities (“GSE”s)—the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae” or “Fannie”) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac” or “Freddie,” collectively with Fannie Mae, the “Companies”)—the trouble that began in the subprime mortgage market metastasized until it began to affect most debt markets, both domestic and international. (dissent at 1)
While acknowledging that the Fannie/Freddie crisis might justify “extraordinary actions by Congress,” Judge Brown states that
even in a time of exigency, a nation governed by the rule of law cannot transfer broad and unreviewable power to a government entity to do whatsoever it wishes with the assets of these Companies. Moreover, to remain within constitutional parameters, even a less-sweeping delegation of authority would require an explicit and comprehensive framework. See Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001) (“Congress . . . does not alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms or ancillary provisions—it does not, one might say, hide elephants in mouseholes.”) Here, Congress did not endow FHFA with unlimited authority to pursue its own ends; rather, it seized upon the statutory text that had governed the FDIC for decades and adapted it ever so slightly to confront the new challenge posed by Fannie and Freddie.
* * *
[Congress] chose a well-understood and clearly-defined statutory framework—one that drew upon the common law to clearly delineate the outer boundaries of the Agency’s conservator or, alternatively, receiver powers. FHFA pole vaulted over those boundaries, disregarding the plain text of its authorizing statute and engaging in ultra vires conduct. Even now, FHFA continues to insist its authority is entirely without limit and argues for a complete ouster of federal courts’ power to grant injunctive relief to redress any action it takes while purporting to serve in the conservator role. See FHFA Br. 21 (2-3)
What amazes me about this dissent is how it adopts the decidedly non-mainstream history of the financial crisis that has been promoted by the American Enterprise Institute’s Peter Wallison. It also takes its legislative history from an unpublished Cato Institute paper by Vice-President Pence’s newly selected chief economist, Mark Calabria and a co-author. There is nothing wrong with a judge giving some context to an opinion, but it is of note when it seems as one-sided as this. The bottom line though is that this narrative clearly has some legs so we should not think that this case has played itself out, just because of this decision.
February 22, 2017 | Permalink | No Comments



