Foreclosure Fraud For Dummies, Part 2: What's a Note, Who's a Servicer, and Why They Matter

Oct 12, 2010Mike Konczal

mike-konczal-2-100Mike Konczal defines the key players in the foreclosure fraud mess. **This is Part 2 in a series giving a basic explanation of the current foreclosure fraud crisis.

mike-konczal-2-100Mike Konczal defines the key players in the foreclosure fraud mess. **This is Part 2 in a series giving a basic explanation of the current foreclosure fraud crisis. You can find Part 1 here.

What is the note?

The SEIU has a campaign: Where's the Note? Demand to see your mortgage note. It's worth checking out. But first, what is this note? And why would its existence be important to struggling homeowners, homeowners in foreclosure, and investors in mortgage backed securities?

There's going to be a campaign to convince you that having the note correctly filed and produced isn't that important (see, to start, this WSJ editorial from the weekend). It will argue that this is some sort of useless cover sheet for a TPS form that someone forgot to fill out. That is profoundly incorrect.

Independent of the fraud that was committed on our courts, the current crisis is important because the note is a crucial document for every party to a mortgage. But first, let's define what a mortgage is. A mortgage consists of two documents, a note and a lien:

The note is the IOU; it's the borrower's promise to pay. The mortgage, or the lien, is just the enforcement right to take the property if the note goes unpaid. The note is crucial.

Why does this matter? Three reasons, reasons that even the Wall Street Journal op-ed page needs to take into account. The first is that the note is the evidence of the debt. If it isn't properly in the trust, then there isn't clear evidence of the debt existing.

And it can't be a matter of "let's go find it now!" REMIC law, which governs the securitization, is really specific here.  The securitization can't get new assets after 90 days without a tax penalty, and it can't get defaulted assets at all without a major tax penalty. Most of these notes are way past 90 days and will be in a defaulted state.

This is because these parts of the mortgage-backed security were supposed to be passive entities. They are supposed to take in money through mortgage payments on one end and pay it out to bondholders on the other end -- hence their exemption from lots of taxes. The tradeoff is that they can't be de facto managers of assets, and that's what going to find the notes would require.

For Distressed Homeowners

The second is that it also matters a great deal for homeowners who are distressed. The note lays out the terms of late fees and other penalties. As we will discuss in the section on mortgage servicers, the process of trying to get people who are behind on their payments current instead of driving them into bankruptcy has broken down. But for now, it's clear that mortgage servicers don't have great incentives to get distressed homeowners' records correct.

There's well-documented evidence that extra fees are tacked on to mortgages that have fallen behind, fees that aren't following the terms of the note. This is usually only found out in bankruptcy where there is a lawyer (and multiple parties), not in foreclosure cases. But the terms of the note are necessary for the court if homeowners wants to challenge the servicers' claim of the final due amount.

This will matter a great deal for many homeowners. Small, marginal differences in the total owed could allow for a short sale. It could determine if the homeowner has any equity in their home. And this can only be determined by producing the note.

For Investors, Who Took This Seriously at the Beginning

Last reason: you can tell it's important because all the smartest finance guys in the room thought it was important. Let's look at a Pooling and Service Agreement form from 2006 (PSA) between "GS MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP., Depositor, and DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, Trustee." (h/t Adam Levitin for this example.) Let's reproduce the chart from part 1 to see the chain between depositors and trustees who oversee the trust:

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

So what agreement did they come to when it comes to the proper handling of notes in securitization? Did they think this was no big deal, or that it is something serious? From the PSA (my bold):

(b) In connection with the transfer and assignment of each Mortgage Loan, the Depositor has delivered or caused to be delivered to the Trustee for the benefit of the Certificateholders the following documents or instruments with respect to each Mortgage Loan so assigned:

(i) the original Mortgage Note (except for up to 0.01% of the Mortgage Notes for which there is a lost note affidavit and the copy of the Mortgage Note) bearing all intervening endorsements showing a complete chain of endorsement from the originator to the last endorsee, endorsed "Pay to the order of _____________, without recourse" and signed in the name of the last endorsee...

The Depositor shall use reasonable efforts to cause the Sponsor and the Responsible Party to deliver to the Trustee the applicable recorded document promptly upon receipt from the respective recording office but in no event later than 180 days from the Closing Date....

In the event, with respect to any Mortgage Loan, that such original or copy of any document submitted for recordation to the appropriate public recording office is not so delivered to the Trustee within 180 days of the applicable Original Purchase Date as specified in the Purchase Agreement, the Trustee shall notify the Depositor and the Depositor shall take or cause to be taken such remedial actions under the Purchase Agreement as may be permitted to be taken thereunder, including without limitation, if applicable, the repurchase by the Responsible Party of such Mortgage Loan.

Read that again through to the end and use the chart to follow the chain. If more than 0.01% (!) of mortgage notes weren't properly transferred, the trust can force the sponsor (in this case, Goldman Sachs) to repurchase the bad mortgages.   And this is just one contract for one part of the ~$2.6 trillion dollar mortgage backed securities market.  How's that for systemic risk?  Especially if this is found to be widespread...

Looking at the documents, you see that the smart guys who created these mortgage-backed securities put large poison pills into them to try and prevent the kind of note fraud we are currently experiencing.  They took the policing and legal recourse (and legal ability to cover themselves) very seriously on this issue. So seriously they can force repurchases of this bad debt.

So don't believe anyone who says these are just technicalities; the people who wrote the contract didn't believe they were.

Who is a servicer?

Whenever I hear someone say there wouldn't be a problem with foreclosures if people just paid their mortgages on time, I'm reminded of Alan Grayson's paraphrase of the Republican Health Care Plan: "Don't Get Sick. If You Get Sick, Die Quickly." Yes, the world would be an easier place if people never got sick, or credit risk didn't exist, and people made payments perfectly all the time. But they don't, and we need a system of rules and a process for collecting and presenting evidence in order to kick a family out of their home. And we need a system where this process sets the ground rules that in turn allow for lenders and borrowers coming together and negotiating a situation that is best for both of them.

Because the first rule of mortgage lending is that you don't foreclose.  And the second rule of mortgage lending is that you don't foreclose.  I'll let Lewis Ranieri, who created the mortgage-backed security in the 1980s, tell you: "The cardinal principle in the mortgage crisis is a very old one. You are almost always better off restructuring a loan in a crisis with a borrower than going to a foreclosure. In the past that was never at issue because the loan was always in the hands of someone acting as a fudiciary. The bank, or someone like a bank owned them, and they always exercised their best judgement and their interest. The problem now with the size of securitization and so many loans are not in the hands of a portfolio lender but in a security where structurally nobody is acting as the fiduciary."

In the past you had Jimmy Stewart banks. The mortgages were kept on the bank's books. You had someone who you could go to in order to renegotiate your mortgage. With mortgage-backed securities, the handling of payments and working-out of troubles moved to servicers.  If you are learning about this crisis for the first time, understanding what is broken here is very important.

This is Not a New Problem With Servicing

Let's get some quotes from bankruptcy judges in here:

“Fairbanks, in a shocking display of corporate irresponsibility, repeatedly fabricated the amount of the Debtor’s obligation to it out of thin air.” 53 Maxwell v. Fairbanks Capital Corp. (In re Maxwell), 281 B.R. 101, 114 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2002).

“[T]he poor quality of papers filed by Fleet to support its claim is a sad commentary on the record keeping of a large financial institution. Unfortunately, it is typical of record-keeping products generated by lenders and loan servicers in court proceedings.” In re Wines, 239 B.R. 703, 709 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1999).

“Is it too much to ask a consumer mortgage lender to provide the debtor with a clear and unambiguous statement of the debtor’s default prior to foreclosing on the debtor’s house?” In re Thompson, 350 B.R. 842, 844–45 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2006).

(Source.) Notice that consumer rights groups were flagging this as a major problem back in 1999 and 2002 because judges were noticing it was a major problem in their bankruptcy courts. If the late 1990s to 2006 period is a Renaissance period of servicer fraud, then we can contrast it with the period we live in now, the Baroque period of servicer fraud.  Whatever unity there used to be between the forms and functions of the sloppy documentation and outright fraud in the art of servicing have become detached.

The forms of fraud have gone high art: serving documents on people who could never have been served, signing 10,000 affidavits a month, etc. They are all well-covered, and we'll list more later perhaps. Here are some of my favorites from last year, the reading list in Part One has even more. But what I want to focus on is the function of servicer fraud.

What Do Servicers Do?  A Case Study in Bad Design and Worse Incentives

Servicers in a mortgage-backed security have two businesses. The first is transaction processing. This means taking in your mortgage money on one end and walking it over to the crazy tranches and payment waterfalls on the other end. This is clean, efficient, largely automated, requires little discretion and works very well, and implicit in it is that it is most profitable when you can harness economies of scale.

In fact, it's considered a "passive entity", so there are no taxes applied in this passthrough mechanism. If servicers went "active", say by looking for mortgage notes not in the trust 90 days after the fact or mortgage notes that are not in the trust that have defaulted (which is what they'd likely have to do to get out of this foreclosure fraud crisis), they'd face very severe tax penalties.

Their other business is to handle default situations.  In addition to the fixed fee they get for servicing each individual mortgage, they get paid by default fees like late charges. They get to retain most, if not all, of these fees.

So right away they have a disincentive to negotiate to get a mortgage in a good state. They also have a strong incentive to keep a steady stream of fees and charges going to their books, rather than to investors.  So anything that puts servicers in charge of negotiating mortgages, say the Obama's administration's HAMP program, is designed to fail.

Because even without bad incentives, doing good work on modification is costly, time consuming, requires individual expertise and experience and doesn't benefit from automation or economies of scale.  Which is to say it has the opposite structure of their normal business.

And there are additional worries. Many of the servicers work for the largest four banks -- Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citi, and JP Morgan -- and these four banks have large exposures to junior liens. These are second or third mortgages or home equity lines of credit that would have to be wiped out before the first mortgage can be modified. The four banks have almost half a trillion dollars worth of these exposures and, from the stress test, are valuing them at something like 85 cents on the dollar. Keeping a homeowner struggling to pay the second lien would be more worthwhile to these middlemen banks than getting him or her into a solid first lien to the benefit of the bond investor.

So keep these in mind as you read about the servicers here. There have been worries that they, as a designed institution, were simply not qualified for this job going back a decade. They have massive conflicts with the investors they are supposed to be working for. They profit when homeowners collapse and lose money when they are brought up to a normal payment schedule (made current). And if the instruments don't have the notes necessary to bring standing to carry out the foreclosures, they have to take a massive tax hit in order to take the note into the trust. And there is no regulation in place to handle this.

No Regulator

Because for all the talks of regulatory burden, there is no current federal government agency that regulates the servicers. Not the Federal Reserve. Not the Treasury. This is what happens when the financial industry writes the deregulation. Instead, you have a patchwork of state regulators and attorney generals.  Notice how President Obama has nobody to turn to and tell the press that "So and So is on the case." In theory, the OCC regulates servicers if they are part of a bank or a thrift. This regulation must fall to the new regulatory counsel and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to investigate, where it will properly belong.

(The Fair Debt Collections Act, which applies to debt collectors, doesn't apply to servicers. Here's a fun idea for an enterprising staffer: if there is no producible note, are servicers still legally servicers and thus exempt from the Fair Debt Collections Act? Just a thought...)

Is it any wonder that servicers are rushing these foreclosures and making a mockery of the courts and producing systemic risk in the process? There needs to be an investigation of what is being done and why, because this problem is not taking care of itself.

(Special thanks to Katie Porter and Adam Levitin, who you can read at credit slips, as well as Tom Adams and Yves Smith, who you can read at naked capitalism, for in-depth discussions on this material.)

Mike Konczal is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.

Share This

Josh Rosner Goes After the Children Who Ran the Banks

Oct 12, 2010

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and there is a lot of rot to uncover in the mess that lead to the financial crisis. ND20 contributor Josh Rosner appeared on the new CNN show Parker Spitzer to discuss documents that prove a solid 28% of mortgages in securities didn't even meet investment banks' own underwriting standards. The banks ignored the warnings, ratings agencies turned a blind eye, and the securities got sold to investors, Rosner explains:

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and there is a lot of rot to uncover in the mess that lead to the financial crisis. ND20 contributor Josh Rosner appeared on the new CNN show Parker Spitzer to discuss documents that prove a solid 28% of mortgages in securities didn't even meet investment banks' own underwriting standards. The banks ignored the warnings, ratings agencies turned a blind eye, and the securities got sold to investors, Rosner explains:

"There's a real problem here and these documents do seem to highlight that the investment banks did have reason to know that these loans didn't even meet their own standards," Rosner explains. Ratings agencies claim they have no obligation to verify information, so "it seems they intentionally avoided collecting this information," he adds. "This is what happens when the children are in charge. We saw the risk management culture of the investment banks disappear, the trading desks really took over this business," he says. Things would have been fine if housing prices kept rising -- but we all know the end to that story.

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

So is this fraud? Rosner claims, "I'm not a lawyer. I don't play one on TV." But Eliot Spitzer is -- and he proposes someone should "drop a subpoena on every investment bank saying I want to track this information... see where in the company [the documents] went, who saw them, who knew about them, who had a conversation about them, and what did they do." And if someone saw the documents and pushed these securities anyway? "Boom, charge them right there." Time will tell if anyone else takes the hard line against this behavior.

Share This

How Much Will Currency Policies Really Affect Our Economy?

Oct 6, 2010J. W. Mason

downarrow-money-150Does the math really add up on these potential solutions to our economic problems?

downarrow-money-150Does the math really add up on these potential solutions to our economic problems?

A number of economists of the liberal Keynesian persuasion have been arguing recently that dollar devaluation is an important step in moving us back toward full employment. In principle, of course, a cheaper dollar should raise US exports and lower US imports. But what's missing from many of these arguments is a concrete, quantitative analysis of how much a lower dollar would raise demand for American goods.

In the interest of starting a discussion, here is a very rough first cut. There are four parameters to worry about, two each for imports and exports: how much a given change in the dollar moves prices in the destination country (the passthrough rate), and how much demand for traded goods responds to a change in price (the price elasticity). We can't observe these relationships directly, of course, so we have to estimate them based on historical data on trade flows and exchange rates. But once we assign values to them, it's straightforward how to calculate the effect of a given exchange rate change. And the values reported in published studies suggest that the level of the dollar is a relatively minor factor in US unemployment.

For passthrough, estimates are quite consistent that dollar changes are passed through more or less one for one to US export prices, but considerably less to US import prices. (In other words, US exporters set prices based solely on domestic costs, but exporters to the US "price to market".) The OECD's global macro model uses a value of 0.33 for import passthrough at a two-year horizon; a simple OLS regression of changes in import prices on the trade-weighted exchange rate yields basically the same value. Estimates of import price elasticity are almost always less than unity. Here are a few: Kwack et al (2007), -0.93; Crane, Crowley and Quayyum (2007), -0.47 to -0.63; Mann and Plück (2005), -0.28; Marquez (1990), -0.63 to -0.92. (Studies that use the real exchange rate rather than import prices generally find import elasticities between -0.1 and -0.25, which is consistent with a passthrough rate of about one-third.) So a reasonable assumption for import price elasticity would be about -0.75; there is no support for a value beyond -1. Estimated export elasticities vary more widely, but most fall between -0.5 and -1.

So let's use values near the midpoint of the published estimates. Let's assume import passthrough of 0.33, import price elasticity of -0.75, export passthrough of 1 and price elasticity of -1. And let's assume initial trade flows at their average levels of the 2000s -- imports of 15 percent of GDP and exports at 10.5 percent of GDP. Given those assumptions, what happens if the dollar falls by 20 percent? The answer is, the US trade deficit shrinks by 1.9 percent of GDP.

That might sound like a lot. But keep in mind, these are long-run elasticities -- in general, it takes as much as two years for price movements to have their full effect on trade. And the fall in the dollar also can't happen overnight, at least not without severe disruptions to financial markets. So we are talking about an annual boost to demand of somewhere between 0.5 and 1.0 percent of GDP for two to three years. And then, of course, the stimulus ends unless the dollar keeps falling. This is less than half the size of the stimulus passed last January. (Although to be fair, increased demand for tradables should have a higher multiplier than the mix of direct spending, transfers and tax cuts that made up the Obama stimulus.) The employment effect would probably be of the same magnitude -- a reduction of the unemployment rate by between 0.5 and 1.0 points.

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

So it's not a trivial effect, but it's also not the main thing we should be worried about if we want to get back to broadly-shared prosperity. We should remember, too, that a policy of boosting US demand by increasing net exports has costs that a policy of boosting domestic demand does not.

And what about China? At least as often as we hear calls for a lower dollar, we hear calls for China to allow its currency to rise. How much could that help?

Unfortunately, there aren't as many good recent studies of bilateral trade elasticities between the US and China. And the BEA's published series for Chinese import prices only goes back to 2003, which isn't enough for reliable estimates. But common sense can get us quite a ways here. In recent years, US imports from China have run around 2 percent of GDP, and US exports to China a bit under 0.5 percent. So even if we assume that (1) a change in the nominal exchange rate is reflected one for one in the real exchange rate, i.e. that it doesn't affect Chinese prices or wages at all; (2) a change in the real exchange rate is passed one for one into prices of Chinese imports in the US; (3) Chinese goods compete only with American-made goods, and not with those of other exporters; and (4) the price elasticity of US imports from China is an implausibly high 1.5; then a 20 percent appreciation of the Chinese currency only provides a boost to US demand of less than one half of one percent of GDP in total, spread out over several years.

And of course, those are all wildly optimistic assumptions. A recent Deutsche Bank report uses an estimate of -0.6 for the exchange rate elasticity of Chinese exports. They don't give any estimates for US-China flows specifically, but given the well-established empirical fact that US imports are unusually exchange-rate inelastic, we have to assume that the number for Chinese exports to the US is substantially smaller than for Chinese exports overall. Consistent with that, my own simple error-correction model, using 1993-2010 data and the relative CPI-deflated bilateral exchange rate, gives an exchange rate elasticity of US imports from China of -0.17. If the real figure is in that range, then a Chinese appreciation of 20 percent will reduce our imports from China by just 0.03 percent of GDP -- and of course much of even that tiny demand shift will be to goods from other low-wage exporters. This last point makes a focus on the Chinese peg particularly problematic as an explanation of US unemployment. If you are talking about reducing the value of the dollar against our trading partners as a whole, any resulting shift away from imports has to be to domestic goods. But presumably the closest substitutes for Chinese imports are usually other imports, not stuff made in the USA.

These are rough calculations and only intended to start a conversation. But it's a conversation we very much need to have. Before we launch a trade war with China for the sake of American workers, we need more concrete answers on the size of the potential gains.

Historically-minded critics of China and other surplus countries often quote Keynes' writings from the 1930s and '40s, with their emphasis on the importance of "creditor adjustment". The implication is that it's China's responsibility to reduce its net exports. But this is a misleading reading of Keynes. In fact, his concern was only ever to ensure that no country was prevented from pursuing full employment by the need to earn foreign exchange. The US, as the supplier of the world reserve currency, cannot face a balance of payments constraint; if we fail to pursue full employment, we have no one to blame but ourselves. If Keynes were alive today, I suspect he would be telling American policymakers to forget about China and focus all their efforts on boosting US demand -- by public investment in infrastructure, by unconventional monetary stimulus, by paying people to dig holes and fill them up again if need be. Because he knew that the only reason to worry about the trade balance was to gain the freedom to pursue "a policy of an autonomous rate of interest, unimpeded by international preoccupations, and of a national investment program directed to the optimum level of domestic employment, which is twice blessed in the sense that it helps ourselves and our neighbors at the same time."

J. W. Mason is a graduate student in economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. A version of this post previously appeared at The Slack Wire.

Share This

Main Street is Dying a Death by a Thousand Spending Cuts

Oct 5, 2010Marshall Auerback

marshall-auerback-100The evidence is everywhere that fiscal austerity only prolongs our misery.

marshall-auerback-100The evidence is everywhere that fiscal austerity only prolongs our misery.

According to the Telegraph.co.uk in an article entitled "Savers told to stop moaning and start spending," Charles Bean, deputy governor of the Bank of England, said, "Savers shouldn't necessarily expect to be able to live just off their income in times when interest rates are low. It may make sense for them to eat into their capital a bit." Mr. Bean also said savers "might be suffering" from the low bank rate, but they had done well from higher rates in the past and would do so again. Encouraging Britons to spend was one reason why the Bank had cut interest rates, he added.

Spend what exactly, Mr. Bean? Why is it that central bankers find it easy to recall the following equation: C (consumption) + I (investment) + G (gov't spending) = GDP (gross domestic product), but they can't seem to learn this one: HU (high unemployment) + HD (high debt levels) + 0 (no interest income) = AZS (almost zero spending).

I know why: because the latter depends on fiscal policy, and central bankers consistently agitate against fiscal policy. This continues despite the fact that expansionary government spending by accounting identity helps to sustain the private sector desire to save. Unfortunately, Charles Bean of the Bank of England fails to understand that today's predisposition to save is a natural reaction to the credit binge that preceded the crisis. Had the increased private sector saving that occurred over the past few years not been accommodated by rising deficits, then the negative income adjustments would have been more severe and the private sector's plans to return some safety margin to their balance sheet positions would have been thwarted. But he and his fellow central bankers appear incapable of acknowledging this fact.

Each week new evidence emerges that categorically demonstrates that the fiscal austerity proponents are clueless about the functioning of real economies and monetary systems. So today in Britain we have a new government committed to significant budget cuts, despite mounting evidence that cuts already undertaken are drastically curtailing their economic activity. The recently released Markit/CIPS UK Manufacturing Purchasing Managers' Indices, which is calculated from data on new orders, output, employment, supplier performance and stocks of purchases, fell to a ten-month low of 53.4 in September, down from a revised figure of 53.7 in August. Similarly, Ireland finds itself in the midst of a major banking crisis -- Anglo-Irish Bank was recently nationalized, for example -- despite the fact that the Irish government has steadfastly continued to apply the fiscal austerian measures urged on it by the ECB. In reality, this is because of the austerity measures it is taking. The budget deficit, as a percentage of GDP, now stands at 32 percent! Those are wartime-type levels of expenditures.

Yet the conditions attached to the European Central Bank's ongoing financial support of Ireland and the rest of the euro zone is continued fiscal austerity. The so-called PIIGS nations remained trapped between Scylla and Charybdis as a consequence of this Faustian bargain with the European Central Bank. If the ECB stops buying national government debt on the secondary markets, those governments are likely to default, and the big French and German banks it is protecting will be in crisis. Alternatively, every day governments like Ireland or Portugal continue with this policy, the more their economies continue to implode. Ultimately there will be mayhem. The euro itself could once again be threatened.

Don't get us wrong: we think such deficits ultimately put a floor on demand and will help the economy recover. But policy makers need to let these economies breathe for a time, rather than crushing them with additional threats of fiscal austerity. Isn't it interesting that the very policy prescriptions designed to eliminate the so-called "scourge of public debt" are actually increasing it? Shouldn't that make our policy makers pause in their enthusiastic embrace of fiscal austerity? Even the high priests of austerianism, the International Monetary Fund, are now conceding in their latest report that these current policies will condemn Southern Europe to death by slow suffocation, as well as leaving northern Europe, the UK, and the US in a slump for a long time to come.

Policy makers here in the US continue to hint at accounting tricks such as quantitative easing on the premise that central banks swapping one financial asset for another will help incite more speculation. That seems to be doing the trick for the stock market. But this does nothing to boost underlying aggregate demand. How about a solution for Main Street?

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

Even as the markets continue to make new post-2008 recovery highs, governments continue to construct policies around bailing out fundamentally insolvent financial institutions. These policies ensure that the bankers and others can continue to get their exorbitant and totally unjustifiable bonuses, thereby sustaining the very practices that created the crisis in the first place. Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs warned that the bank could shift its operations around the world if regulatory crackdown becomes too tough in certain jurisdictions. To which any politician with an ounce of backbone ought to say, "Good! Take your socially polluting activities elsewhere and leave our populations alone."

Of course, they don't do that. The more likely supine response (as we've already seen in Basel III and Dodd-Frank) is a further undermining of any kind of serious regulation. We tinker around the edges but make no fundamental, structural reforms. It's a national scandal that our most elite businessmen and professionals, who have destroyed the global economy through an unprecedented orgy of mortgage and accounting fraud, have to date gotten away with it scot-free and continue to have a major hand in policy making. Equally incredibly, our governments continue to trumpet the "success" of abominations such as TARP along with their enablers in the media.

As the risk of being called a whiner by Vice President Biden, it has to be pointed out that these very same governments hand out little in spending to underpin the real economy, even as unemployment remains in double digits around the globe. Government support for the real economy via fiscal policy is minimal compared to the trillions thrown at the financial sector. But before we see any kinds of real reductions in unemployment, the cries of "socialism" and "intergenerational theft" rise. The fiscal austerians launch counter-attacks to mobilize against further fiscal expenditures that support employment growth. The expansion of fiscal policy is stopped dead in its tracks.

Curiously, progressives have come to be seen as the enemy because they dare to point out the incoherence and incongruity in current government policy.

For all of the recent hoopla in the stock market recently, much of the latest economic data is consistent with a slow to stagnant economic environment. In the US, inventories are rising. ISM new orders are now just barely hovering above 50, which usually marks the onset of falling levels. The same thing can be said of the leading indicator (which has been falling since the second quarter), and the coincident to lagging indicator ratio. Weekly chains store sales continue to slip toward the April/May lows, while mortgage applications for refinancing are also tipping over, despite the recent drop in mortgage rates. Second quarter revisions of GDP were mild, although this probably marks peak profit margins

Overseas, Japan appears to be reverting back into a recession. Additionally, very few people are looking at the direct impact of China's trade policies and how Beijing's mercantilism is beginning to hollow out other countries' manufacturing bases -- not just in the US but also in other parts of Asia (which are also experiencing decelerations in their exports and purchasing manufacturing indices).

Consumer expectations are tipping over, and we are concerned with a relapse back to a low level of confidence, which never improved from the recession lows. Euro zone company and macro data flow are starting to reflect more fiscal retrenchment , and with the euro higher, exporters may find more competition in the quarters ahead.

Message to today's policy makers: the public debt ratio will fall again when growth resumes. Growth will not resume very strongly unless it is continued to be supported by discretionary fiscal stimulus. There is no magical alternative. Hacking away the last vestiges of fiscal support will simply ensure much more misery, unemployment and social turmoil in the years ahead.

Marshall Auerback is a Senior Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, and a market analyst and commentator.

Share This

What Choices Should America Make to Strengthen the Economy?

Oct 5, 2010

Should we listen to deficit hysteria? What should the Federal budget look like? How do we revive our comatose economy? An event today put on by Demos, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, The Century Foundation, and the Economic Policy Institute will tackle these questions with speakers including Paul Krugman, Martin Feldstein, Jan Hatzius, Robert Reischauer, and David Walker. Not in DC?

Should we listen to deficit hysteria? What should the Federal budget look like? How do we revive our comatose economy? An event today put on by Demos, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, The Century Foundation, and the Economic Policy Institute will tackle these questions with speakers including Paul Krugman, Martin Feldstein, Jan Hatzius, Robert Reischauer, and David Walker. Not in DC? You're in luck -- you can watch livestreaming video from the event here.

Share This

Eliot Spitzer: The Crisis of Accountability

Oct 4, 2010Lynn Parramore

eliot_spitzer-100This is the third installment of "The Influencers," a six-part interview series that Lynn Parramore, the editor of New Deal 2.0 and a media fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, is conducting in partnership with

eliot_spitzer-100This is the third installment of "The Influencers," a six-part interview series that Lynn Parramore, the editor of New Deal 2.0 and a media fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, is conducting in partnership with Salon. She recently caught up with former New York Gov. and ND20 contributor Eliot Spitzer, whose new TV show, "ParkerSpitzer," will launch TONIGHT on CNN, and they talked about the crisis of accountability in American institutions. According to Spitzer, the failures of Wall Street are the symptom of an epidemic that his new show will explore.

Lynn Parramore: As attorney general, you brought a series of high-profile prosecutions to Wall Street. How do you compare their range and results to those following the financial crisis?

Eliot Spitzer: The paramount difference is that we tried to bring prosecutions that led to structural reforms. That was the idea behind the suit against AIG for using deception and fraud to elevate stock price, or the case against Merrill Lynch, where we charged analysts of offering investment advice influenced by gross conflicts of interest. It was important to challenge the whole structure of the banking and financial-services industry and argue for greater accountability. After the economic collapse, what I've seen so far are one-off prosecutions where you catch somebody for insider trading, for example. Given the systemic nature of the problems on Wall Street, the effort should be less on how to address violations in a particular case, but rather the ongoing structural issues.

You've noted that accountability is still a problem on Wall Street. Does the problem extend to other American institutions?

Absolutely. Disaffection of the public has passed from Wall Street to governance and beyond. There is a tremendous sense of failure in accountability in everything from nonprofits to for-profit entities to the whole spectrum of American institutions.

The scholar Viktor Frankl once suggested that the Statue of Liberty should be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility. Are we striking the right balance between freedom and responsibility?

There is a second half of the equation that we tend sometimes to forget. And when that happens, there's a problem. There's the issue of communitarianism -- we need a sense of community and responsibility to each other that rises in parallel with a sense of the freedom of the individual.

How does accountability impact the legitimacy of our institutions?

This is hugely important. If accountability suffers, then institutions become highly suspect. This happens everywhere from Wall Street to Congress. When people feel no accountability, they are more hesitant to presume that the system is functioning. This affects the entire structure of our democracy.

Do you see anything on the horizon that makes you more optimistic about government's role in regulation that will impact the accountability crisis?

We're at a moment where the regulatory bodies are appreciating what they need to do. Elizabeth Warren, for example, will set a high bar in that regard. On the other side of the equation, you have the public's complete fury at government intervention in any way and the prospect that Republican takeover of Congress will eliminate whatever impetus there may have been.

How do you assess the role journalism has played in demanding accountability?

Journalism cuts both ways. Journalists have certainly shined light on major problems. But you also find examples of journalism that are less noble, that tend to diminish pubic understanding. Journalism really mirrors the rest of society. Its failures and triumphs come in waves.

Is this something you hope to address on your new show on CNN?

We're hoping to put a lot of energy in looking closely at institutions. Whether it is Wall Street or government entities, we want to ask the right questions so we can understand who is doing what. We also want to have guests who can help us understand what is happening to the middle class. And we want to understand the response of the middle class to real frustrations and the ongoing economic crisis. A lot of people say that given what the history is, the response of the Tea Party should not hold -- that they are learning the wrong lessons. The idea is that they shouldn't be blaming government, for example, when many would say that a failure of regulation is what caused the collapse. People wonder, Why haven't we learned the lesson that the enforcement of accountability in the private sector is a positive and critical role that government can play?

What are you most looking forward to in your new role as television host?

I'm looking forward to creating something that hopefully a couple of people will watch that is interesting, fun and informative. I've got a very long reading list to prepare for it -- more intense than anything I've had in my recent stint of teaching!

Share This

Why We Should be Mad as Hell About Florida's Foreclosures

Sep 29, 2010Mike Konczal

mike-konczal-2-100We could be giving underwater homeowners a chance. Instead, we're kicking people out of their homes without due process.

mike-konczal-2-100We could be giving underwater homeowners a chance. Instead, we're kicking people out of their homes without due process.

Given that the IMF and others believe a large part of the "structural unemployment" in our country is related to the struggling housing market and underwater/barely-hanging on homeowners, what is to be done? One choice is to allow for options like lien-stripping in bankruptcy courts, resetting mortgages by zip code, etc. Another option is for courts to accelerate foreclosures by ignoring due process, proper documentation and legal process in order to kick people out of their homes and preserve the value of senior tranches of RMBS while giving mortgage servicers a nice kickback.

What option do you think our country is taking?

We should all be very concerned about the foreclosure situation in Florida. If you are a homeowner or potential homeowner, you should find it offensive that people's property rights are being violated in such a flagrant way. If you are an investor, either as "bond vigilante" or someone with a generic 401(k), you should be worried that servicers have gone rogue and the incentive structure to maximize value instead of fees associated with foreclosures has broken down.

And if you care about basic Western liberalism -- the classical kind, with a Lockean understanding of freedom to own property along with freedoms of speech and religion -- you should be pissed off. This is a clear-cut instance of the rich and powerful decimating other people's property rights, rights that are supposed to protect the weak from the strong, in order to preserve their wealth and autonomy. Unless you think property rights are mere placeholders for whatever the financial sector demands, this should be resisted. This should be viewed as a problem an order of magnitude larger than Kelo v. City of New London.

The short problem is that banks are foreclosing without showing clear ownership of the property. In addition, "foreclosure mills" are processing 100,000s of foreclosures a month without doing any of the actual due diligence or legal legwork required for the state to justify the taking of property and putting people on the street. Even worse, many are faking documentation and committing other fraud in the process. The government is allowing this to happen both by not having courts block it from going forward, but also through purchasing the services of these mills. As Barney Frank noted: "Why is Fannie Mae using lawyers that are accused of regularly engaging in fraud to kick people out of their homes?"

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

And the worst part is the lack of conversation about this. Thanks to Yves Smith at naked capitalism for following this story from the get-go; her blog has become the place for anyone interested in this topic (that link is a catch-up post). The rest of the media is starting to catch up to where she was weeks ago.  Here's the Washington Post with the story of an individual caught in one of these nets and ProPublica on GMAC's "robo-signers" who sign off on foreclosures without knowing anything about them.

Also Dean Baker just wrote a good summary of the situation for the Guardian:

As a number of news reports have shown in recent weeks, banks have been carrying through foreclosures at a breakneck pace and freely ignoring the legal niceties required under the law, such as demonstrating clear ownership to the property being foreclosed.

The problem is that when mortgages got sliced and diced into various mortgage-backed securities, it became difficult to follow who actually held the title to the home. Often the bank that was servicing the mortgage did not actually have the title and may not even know where the title is. As a result, if a homeowner stopped paying their mortgage, the servicer may not be able to prove they actually have a claim to the property.

If the servicer followed the law on carrying through foreclosures then it would have to go through a costly and time-consuming process of getting its paperwork in order and ensuring that it actually did have possession of the title before going to a judge and getting a judgment that would allow them to take possession of the property. Instead, banks got in the habit of skirting the proper procedures and filling in forms inaccurately and improperly in order to take possession of properties.

And the situation in Florida is worse than most assume. The specially-created courts see it as their purpose to clear out the foreclosures, as Yves Smith covers here (must read). The most obvious takeaway is that homeowners aren't being given the chance to have their documents properly viewed, have the challenges and proper legal hurdles to putting someone on the street vetted by the courts, and instead are being bribed with an additional month of house time if they don't ask too many questions.

And the biggest fear is that the fraud uncovered at GMAC is the tip of the iceberg for what is going on nationwide.   Keep your eye on this situation.

Mike Konczal is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.

Share This

Visualizing the Nonsense of Fiscal Austerity

Sep 29, 2010

In a new short video, Mark Blyth breaks down the "nonsense" of fiscal austerity, now all the rage in governments across the globe. Austerity, while claiming to be virtuous, really "involves a question of equity: who pays and who doesn't," Blyth explains. "Like a unicorn with a magic bag of salt, it's a nice idea," he says, but in reality it's baloney. Here's why:

In a new short video, Mark Blyth breaks down the "nonsense" of fiscal austerity, now all the rage in governments across the globe. Austerity, while claiming to be virtuous, really "involves a question of equity: who pays and who doesn't," Blyth explains. "Like a unicorn with a magic bag of salt, it's a nice idea," he says, but in reality it's baloney. Here's why:

Before the crisis, everyone took on debt. Those at the bottom 40% of income distribution took it on to pay the bills, because after all they hadn't seen a real wage increase since 1979, Blyth points out. The banks, on the other hand, levered up, which is like "going double or nothing in blackjack," he says. They pushed in all those blackjack chips -- but each was just an IOU, and when the whole thing crashed they became Too Big To Fail.

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

So the problem is debt, but not the way fiscal conservatives want you to think. Everyone, from corporate treasurers to single moms, will use any cash they have to pay down debt -- not to spend. So public consumption -- i.e. government spending -- takes the place of private consumption. "All of these pieces are connected," Blyth says. "If the public sector cleans its balance sheet at the same time as the private sector, then the whole economy craters."

"Austerity: the pain after the party," Blyth mimics. "But here's the kicker: the hangover of austerity is not going to be felt the same across income distribution." In fact, a cycle perpetuates wherein those with the lowest income keep bearing the brunt for those with the highest.

Share This

Will It Work and How Will We Know? The Future of FinReg

Sep 28, 2010Mike Konczal

mike-konczal-2-100Mike Konczal and the Roosevelt Institute to discuss the second act of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Next Monday, October 4th, I'll be holding a conference for the Roosevelt Institute titled "Will It Work and How Will We Know? The Future of Financial Reform Conference."

mike-konczal-2-100Mike Konczal and the Roosevelt Institute to discuss the second act of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Next Monday, October 4th, I'll be holding a conference for the Roosevelt Institute titled "Will It Work and How Will We Know? The Future of Financial Reform Conference."

Here at the Roosevelt Institute, we've fought for financial reform over the past year with events including our Make Markets Be Markets project. We've worked to increase the sophistication of the discussion surrounding specific issues. We've also pushed for the role of regulation in creating rules of the road necessary for a healthy financial system that works to build the real economy. The first round of that battle is over with the passage of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. It's time for phase two.

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

Most other policy initiatives have some sort of conceptual metrics associated with them -- "bending the cost curve" for health care, "jobs saved/created" for the stimulus and test scores for No Child Left Behind. Bundled with the goalposts of a metric is an idea of how the policy should work, as the metrics can't really be separated from creating what it is going to measure. So we need to figure out what bending the cost curve of financial reform is: what are ways to know if the policy implementation is going well or poorly? How can we tell if we are closer or further away from a functioning financial market?

We are gathering some of the best minds of financial reform to discuss this. Here is the current schedule, with a panel focus on Too Big To Fail, as well as a focus on the financial markets broadly construed from derivatives to consumer lending.

It's a small venue at capacity, but it will all be online shortly after the conference. We'll be putting out a booklet of white papers by the authors outlining their ideas about what went wrong, how the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill is meant to remedy it and what it would look like to get to a healthy functioning market, which will also be put online. We'll also be running excerpts and opinions by our participants here and at New Deal 2.0 To start, here is Wally Turbeville on derivatives. I hope you check it all out.

Mike Konczal is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.

Share This

Hamptons Institute: Soros, Warren and Greenberger on FinReg

Sep 27, 2010

You may know that over the summer, the Roosevelt Institute partnered with Guild Hall to put on the Hamptons Institute, a gathering of prominent thought leaders in politics, economics, media, and the arts. In case you missed out on the event, full footage of the panels is now online.

You may know that over the summer, the Roosevelt Institute partnered with Guild Hall to put on the Hamptons Institute, a gathering of prominent thought leaders in politics, economics, media, and the arts. In case you missed out on the event, full footage of the panels is now online.

The first panel featured ND20 contributors George Soros, Elizabeth Warren, and Michael Greenberger. Moderator Joe Nocera asked each to reflect on the victories or challenges embodied in the financial reform bill, which had just passed the Senate. In the above video, Soros sums up his feelings: "I think it's good to have it done. But it doesn't really address the problems of the system." Warren, whose work helped create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (which she is now helping to get started), echoed the sentiment by saying, "I'm pleased," then adding: "It's not perfect." Both agreed that the most important -- and what Soros deemed "urgent" -- piece of the legislation was the new bureau.

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

Michael Greenberger felt the same about the CFPB. But he was perhaps the most optimistic about the entire bill:

While he gave it a "B minus," he added, "I view the B minus as a midterm grade." The battle for meaningful reform continues -- but we now have the tools to fight it.

The event went on to tackle issues such as Europe's economy, building a new Green economy, and investing in the arts and in culture. You can find the rest of the video footage here.

Share This

Pages