Archive for October, 2012

Presidential Debates Let Wall Street Off the Hook

Friday, October 26th, 2012

Roy Oppenheim’s commentary was originally published on Yahoo! Homes and is being republished on South Florida Law Blog with their permission.

So we’ve managed to get through all three presidential debates.

But although the presidential election is (thankfully) in the home stretch, did we really learn anything new about either President Barack Obama or Gov. Mitt Romney?

And more importantly, what everyone should be asking is why neither candidate refused to acknowledge the 900-pound gorillas in the room. They were there, but they got a cursory glance at best. These issues are glaring and obvious, yet it is as if they did not exist. It is the reason why many voters are still scratching their heads and asking the following questions.

Why isn’t housing the No. 1 domestic economic issue in this campaign?

Both the president and Romney spent exceedingly too much time on the national debt, when our economy starts and ends with housing. For the first time since the Great Depression, the real estate market has not pulled the economy out of recession. Structurally that is huge, because it was in fact the real estate market that caused the recession in the first place.

But more importantly, the recession was caused by greed and a confluence of people falling asleep at the switch. You have the government that has not properly regulated the banks, who have used their cozy relationship with the regulators to grow larger and more powerful as our nation’s leaders stood idly by.

And now you are left with entire industries, including Wall Street, effectively overshadowing the role of government. At times it seems like moral character has been checked at the foot of Wall Street.
(more…)

Strategic Defaulters Are Public Enemy #1 Again (Unless They’re on Wall Street)

Tuesday, October 23rd, 2012

Roy Oppenheim’s commentary was originally published on Yahoo! Homesand is being republished on South Florida Law Blog with their permission.

Deficiency judgments are probably the last thing any homeowner under threat of foreclosure wants to think about.

For the uninitiated, a deficiencyis when the proceeds from a foreclosure sale, or a short sale, don’t cover the balance of the mortgage loan. In a recourse state, such as Florida or 39 other states, it is legal for the lender to go after the homeowner for that deficiency when a deficiency judgement is awarded.

My experience has been that if a bank actually does bother to seek a deficiency judgement, there is a good chance it can either be severely reduced or negotiated, especially if you have an attorney.

But it looks like the pendulum is starting to swing in the other direction, if you have a loan backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

A report just released by the inspector generalfor the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which oversees both of the government-sponsored enterprises, suggests Fannie and Freddie should be much more aggressive in recovering deficiency judgments, in order to mitigate their losses.

The FHFA stresses their report is not an “encouragement to aggressively pursue borrowers who do not have the ability to pay their mortgages.” (Of course you can’t squeeze blood from a turnip.) Instead it centers on an old and familiar target: the strategic defaulter.

Now the inspector general’s office is just doing their job. They were asked to perform an audit, and they did. But there is a just a whiff of hypocrisy that is both arrogant and outrageous.
(more…)

Don’t Tread On My Turf; Politicians Need To Butt Out of the Courtoom

Friday, October 12th, 2012

The rule of law is the rule of law is the rule of law.

I am repeating this because the message is just not getting through. This country was built on a system which held the rule of law in the highest regard and protected our judicial system.

That is what I learned in 8th grade civics class, anyway.

Whatever issues I might have with our political process and the ways influence can be garnered, with a few exceptions judges have been allowed to focus on the law and nothing else.

Yet again and again the judicial branch is being brought down into the muck, by both politicians and big business, without any hint of shame or contempt. It is seen now as another commodity which can be used to exert power by the brokers who seek to impose their will.

Cases of partisan ideology being brought into legal issues are popping up with alarming frequency. It happened in Illinois, it is happening in Iowa, and now it is the case here in Florida as well.

In this case it is the Republican Party of Florida which is trying to have its way in the courtroom. If it was the Democrats who were meddling, I would be just as opposed.

The RPOF voted to oppose the merit retention of three Florida Supreme Court Justices. Why? Their statement is brief and and extremely vague, and claims there is extensive ‘evidence of judicial activism’, yet cites just one case where these judges voted to set aside a death penalty case.
(more…)

Wall Street Has Ruled….Because of the Wall Street Rule

Wednesday, October 3rd, 2012

An edited version of this post originally appeared on Yahoo! Homes and is being republished on South Florida Law Blog with their permission.

Wall StreetI am often asked how Wall Street has managed to be so reckless, with little to no regard for its customers and its investors, yet avoid any real consequence for its actions.

The easy answer, if there is one, is that no one has really tried to change the very culture of the banking industry. Corrections have been at the micro level, yes, but these granular solutions have merely chipped away at the problems with mortgage securitization.

No one until this point has been bold or audacious enough to stand up to the banks. Maybe it’s because of fear of blowback from the bankers and their powerful allies, maybe it’s that the regulators and legislators actually don’t know how take them on.

Wall Street has always managed to have a defense that it always seems to fall back on whenever its motives are questioned.

Banks have used it so often there is actually a name for it. It’s called the Wall Street Rule.

Two Brooklyn Law School professors recently, and succinctly, brought attention to the Wall Street Rule and how it applies to the mortgage securitization engine. Bradley Borden and David Reiss correctly argue mortgage backed securities were flawed from the start.

By convincing Congress to ease certain tax restrictions back in 1986, these securities called REMICS were created and became a loophole to allow the banks to avoid paying income tax on millions upon millions of mortgages, which I alluded to back in August.
(more…)


PHP/MySQL Components, WordPress Plugins, and Technology Opinions at TravisWeston.com

Bad Behavior has blocked 2363 access attempts in the last 7 days.