<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Mortgage fraud threatens housing rebound</title>
	<atom:link href="http://minnesotaindependent.com/50846/mortgage-fraud-threatens-housing-rebound/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://minnesotaindependent.com/50846/mortgage-fraud-threatens-housing-rebound</link>
	<description>News. Politics. Media.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2011 23:48:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: mr.x</title>
		<link>http://minnesotaindependent.com/50846/mortgage-fraud-threatens-housing-rebound/comment-page-1#comment-67827</link>
		<dc:creator>mr.x</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:47:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minnesotaindependent.com/?p=50846#comment-67827</guid>
		<description>I disagree with your concept of fraud as written in this article.  Fraud is a deceptive act that is intended to misled, to the detriment of the victim, where there was some standard of care imposed between the party -or- its a material omission where a duty to disclose existed. If a lender holds a $300,000 mortgage on a property and they agree to accept $150,000 in full satisfaction thereof or in the case of Minnesota where this is very common: the lender forecloses for a substantially discounted amount and therefore waives the right to collect the full unpaid balance, that is the lender&#039;s decision.  If its flipped one day later, that is just evidence that the lender is woefully lacking in their asset management/loss mitigation controls.  That is not fraud as most of us are use to really encountering it in the real estate business.  It would be a huge waste of resources to tackle any alleged fraud where a lender is willingly reducing the principal balance of their mortgages.  These lenders could prevent inefficiencies (reducing principal too steeply) by hiring their own appraiser or getting their own price opinion-the cost of which could be passed onto mortgagors in a short sale application process fee).  Mortgage fraud is not convincing lenders to over reduce principal balances.  That is just taking advantaging of poorly managed banks, which is woefully legal.  There is no material misrepresentation.  If you want to go dig up real real estate fraud, I suggest you look no further than the monopolies, collusion, anti free market conditions by design, and the unjustifable fees.  Title insurance is require to get a loan in mn so its a fee that must be paid over and over on the same property even though the risk stays flat.  Another fraud worth looking at: over charging by foreclosing lenders.  I&#039;ve seen lenders charge 15k for insurance on a 300k condo as an additional cost to redeem a property out of foreclosure.  Over charging is so common, it masks the fraud in volume.  If you want to see the proof, look no further than the affidavits provided by the foreclosing lenders to the sheriffs in mn concerning these bogus cost items.  Btw: because the lawyers didn&#039;t actual pay for the insurance, their clients did and the lawyers have no proof it was actually paid, the affidavits are perjury.  This too gets over looked.  This is what real fraud is all about.  Its not about gullable lenders over discounting their principal balances.  That is just bad banking.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I disagree with your concept of fraud as written in this article.  Fraud is a deceptive act that is intended to misled, to the detriment of the victim, where there was some standard of care imposed between the party -or- its a material omission where a duty to disclose existed. If a lender holds a $300,000 mortgage on a property and they agree to accept $150,000 in full satisfaction thereof or in the case of Minnesota where this is very common: the lender forecloses for a substantially discounted amount and therefore waives the right to collect the full unpaid balance, that is the lender&#8217;s decision.  If its flipped one day later, that is just evidence that the lender is woefully lacking in their asset management/loss mitigation controls.  That is not fraud as most of us are use to really encountering it in the real estate business.  It would be a huge waste of resources to tackle any alleged fraud where a lender is willingly reducing the principal balance of their mortgages.  These lenders could prevent inefficiencies (reducing principal too steeply) by hiring their own appraiser or getting their own price opinion-the cost of which could be passed onto mortgagors in a short sale application process fee).  Mortgage fraud is not convincing lenders to over reduce principal balances.  That is just taking advantaging of poorly managed banks, which is woefully legal.  There is no material misrepresentation.  If you want to go dig up real real estate fraud, I suggest you look no further than the monopolies, collusion, anti free market conditions by design, and the unjustifable fees.  Title insurance is require to get a loan in mn so its a fee that must be paid over and over on the same property even though the risk stays flat.  Another fraud worth looking at: over charging by foreclosing lenders.  I&#8217;ve seen lenders charge 15k for insurance on a 300k condo as an additional cost to redeem a property out of foreclosure.  Over charging is so common, it masks the fraud in volume.  If you want to see the proof, look no further than the affidavits provided by the foreclosing lenders to the sheriffs in mn concerning these bogus cost items.  Btw: because the lawyers didn&#8217;t actual pay for the insurance, their clients did and the lawyers have no proof it was actually paid, the affidavits are perjury.  This too gets over looked.  This is what real fraud is all about.  Its not about gullable lenders over discounting their principal balances.  That is just bad banking.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Betty</title>
		<link>http://minnesotaindependent.com/50846/mortgage-fraud-threatens-housing-rebound/comment-page-1#comment-44721</link>
		<dc:creator>Betty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 04:33:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minnesotaindependent.com/?p=50846#comment-44721</guid>
		<description>A little something on why Banks aren&#039;t really trying to modify loans. Since Indymac/OneWest is one of the worst lets use them for an example

http://iamfacingforeclosure.com/blog/2009/12/01/anatomy-of-a-government-abetteded-fraud-why-indymaconewest-always-forecloses/


When OneWest took over Indymac, the FDIC and OneWest executed a “Shared-Loss Agreement” covering the sale. This Agreement covered the terms of what the FDIC would reimburse OneWest for any losses from foreclosure on a property. It is at this point that the details get very confusing, so I shall try to simplify the terms. Some of the major details are:

* OneWest would purchase all first mortgages at 70% of the current balance
* OneWest would purchase Line of Equity Loans at 58% of the current balance.
* In the event of foreclosure, the FDIC would cover from 80%-95% of losses, using the original loan amount, and not the current balance.

How does this translate to the “Real World”? Let us take a hypothetical situation. A homeowner has just lost his home in default. OneWest sells the property. Here are the details of the transaction:

* The original loan amount was $500,000. Missed payments and other foreclosure costs bring the amount up to $550,000. At 70%, OneWest bought the loan for $385,000
* The home is located in Stockton, CA, so its current value is likely about $185,000 and OneWest sells the home for that amount. Total loss for OneWest is $200,000. But this is not how FDIC determines the loss.
* ‘FDIC takes the $500,000 and subtracts the $185,000 Purchase Price. Total loss according to the FDIC is $315,000. If the FDIC is covering “ONLY” 80% of the loss, then the FDIC would reimburse OneWest to the tune of $252,000.
* Add the $252,000 to the Purchase Price of $185,000, and you have One West recovering $437,000 for an “investment” of $385,000. Therefore, OneWest makes $52,000 in additional income above the actual Purchase Price loan amount after the FDIC reimbursement.

At this point, it becomes readily apparent why OneWest Bank has no intention of conducting loan modifications. Any modification means that OneWest would lose out on all this additional profit.

Note: It is not readily apparent as to whether this agreement applies to loans that IndyMac made and Securitized but still Services today. However, I believe that the Agreement does apply to Securitized loans. In that event, OneWest would make even more money through foreclosure because OneWest would keep the “excess” and not pay it to the investor!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A little something on why Banks aren&#8217;t really trying to modify loans. Since Indymac/OneWest is one of the worst lets use them for an example</p>
<p><a href="http://iamfacingforeclosure.com/blog/2009/12/01/anatomy-of-a-government-abetteded-fraud-why-indymaconewest-always-forecloses/" rel="nofollow">http://iamfacingforeclosure.com/blog/2009/12/01/anatomy-of-a-government-abetteded-fraud-why-indymaconewest-always-forecloses/</a></p>
<p>When OneWest took over Indymac, the FDIC and OneWest executed a “Shared-Loss Agreement” covering the sale. This Agreement covered the terms of what the FDIC would reimburse OneWest for any losses from foreclosure on a property. It is at this point that the details get very confusing, so I shall try to simplify the terms. Some of the major details are:</p>
<p>* OneWest would purchase all first mortgages at 70% of the current balance<br />
* OneWest would purchase Line of Equity Loans at 58% of the current balance.<br />
* In the event of foreclosure, the FDIC would cover from 80%-95% of losses, using the original loan amount, and not the current balance.</p>
<p>How does this translate to the “Real World”? Let us take a hypothetical situation. A homeowner has just lost his home in default. OneWest sells the property. Here are the details of the transaction:</p>
<p>* The original loan amount was $500,000. Missed payments and other foreclosure costs bring the amount up to $550,000. At 70%, OneWest bought the loan for $385,000<br />
* The home is located in Stockton, CA, so its current value is likely about $185,000 and OneWest sells the home for that amount. Total loss for OneWest is $200,000. But this is not how FDIC determines the loss.<br />
* ‘FDIC takes the $500,000 and subtracts the $185,000 Purchase Price. Total loss according to the FDIC is $315,000. If the FDIC is covering “ONLY” 80% of the loss, then the FDIC would reimburse OneWest to the tune of $252,000.<br />
* Add the $252,000 to the Purchase Price of $185,000, and you have One West recovering $437,000 for an “investment” of $385,000. Therefore, OneWest makes $52,000 in additional income above the actual Purchase Price loan amount after the FDIC reimbursement.</p>
<p>At this point, it becomes readily apparent why OneWest Bank has no intention of conducting loan modifications. Any modification means that OneWest would lose out on all this additional profit.</p>
<p>Note: It is not readily apparent as to whether this agreement applies to loans that IndyMac made and Securitized but still Services today. However, I believe that the Agreement does apply to Securitized loans. In that event, OneWest would make even more money through foreclosure because OneWest would keep the “excess” and not pay it to the investor!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Schmelzer</title>
		<link>http://minnesotaindependent.com/50846/mortgage-fraud-threatens-housing-rebound/comment-page-1#comment-44516</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Schmelzer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 17:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minnesotaindependent.com/?p=50846#comment-44516</guid>
		<description>We pay all our writers, Joe. Also, per our comment policy, please stick with one username. I see you&#039;ve been commenting under various handles. Thanks.

http://minnesotaindependent.com/policies</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We pay all our writers, Joe. Also, per our comment policy, please stick with one username. I see you&#8217;ve been commenting under various handles. Thanks.</p>
<p><a href="http://minnesotaindependent.com/policies" rel="nofollow">http://minnesotaindependent.com/policies</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Top Hat</title>
		<link>http://minnesotaindependent.com/50846/mortgage-fraud-threatens-housing-rebound/comment-page-1#comment-44514</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Top Hat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 17:26:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minnesotaindependent.com/?p=50846#comment-44514</guid>
		<description>So &quot;banks&quot; might be losing money because of short sales?

The tangled bundled mortgage tranches are rarely owned by a single local &quot;bank&quot;.  The real fraud occurred with the help of the banks lending out free money to make up front fees and passing the garbage to sucker investors like pension funds. And
that triggered the economic meltdown of unregulated credit default swaps. And that put you out of a real job and onto a
non-paying MN Indy gig. 

This is just the lowering of housing values that were too high and the little guys trying to get a couple crumbs doing it.

Glad to be distracted by this terrible fraud when the AIG scandal and the continued unregulated hundreds of trillions in CDS is still there and involving local heavies like USB and
Wells Fargo.  Meanwhile most of the tragedy is that people will
lose their houses and the &quot;investors&quot; will not renegotiate
the loans so people come up with these small time scams to do
it for them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So &#8220;banks&#8221; might be losing money because of short sales?</p>
<p>The tangled bundled mortgage tranches are rarely owned by a single local &#8220;bank&#8221;.  The real fraud occurred with the help of the banks lending out free money to make up front fees and passing the garbage to sucker investors like pension funds. And<br />
that triggered the economic meltdown of unregulated credit default swaps. And that put you out of a real job and onto a<br />
non-paying MN Indy gig. </p>
<p>This is just the lowering of housing values that were too high and the little guys trying to get a couple crumbs doing it.</p>
<p>Glad to be distracted by this terrible fraud when the AIG scandal and the continued unregulated hundreds of trillions in CDS is still there and involving local heavies like USB and<br />
Wells Fargo.  Meanwhile most of the tragedy is that people will<br />
lose their houses and the &#8220;investors&#8221; will not renegotiate<br />
the loans so people come up with these small time scams to do<br />
it for them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FlipHomes.US - Realty Flipping Guide and Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Mortgage fraud threatens housing rebound - Minnesota Independent</title>
		<link>http://minnesotaindependent.com/50846/mortgage-fraud-threatens-housing-rebound/comment-page-1#comment-44096</link>
		<dc:creator>FlipHomes.US - Realty Flipping Guide and Blog &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Mortgage fraud threatens housing rebound - Minnesota Independent</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:03:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://minnesotaindependent.com/?p=50846#comment-44096</guid>
		<description>[...] Original Post By Google News Click Here For The Entire Article [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Original Post By Google News Click Here For The Entire Article [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

