Posts Tagged ‘economics’

Oppenheim Law In The News: Walmart Mortgages Coming Soon to Aisle 10

Friday, December 7th, 2012

Roy Oppenheim was quoted in the following article, which was originally posted on Lawyers.com by author Michelle Bowman

You buy toilet paper and ammo there, so why not a home? Consumers are indicating they would trust Walmart and other non-banks with their mortgages, and some experts believe that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

While they seem mostly satisfied with the services of the big banks, “continued frustrations with current mortgage processes . . . could drive consumers to alternative home loan providers,” according to a recent survey by a consulting firm whose clients include some of the largest financial institutions in the world.

Survey Cites Mounting Frustrations

Carlisle & Gallagher Consulting Group (CG) surveyed over 600 U.S. consumers in a September 2012 online study and discovered the following:

  • 80 percent of U.S. consumers would consider a mortgage from a non-bank
  • 33 percent (1 in 3) would consider a mortgage from Walmart
  • 48 percent would consider a mortgage from PayPal

The consultants said consumers cited frustrations over several issues with their current mortgage providers, including high interest rates, high payments, and taxes and escrow. Slow execution of the process, difficulty in communication, inability to track the status of their applications and untrustworthy advice were also mentioned.

Already in the Business

In order for Walmart to get into the mortgage business, the company would have to get licensed in each state where it wants to sell the products, says Roy Oppenheim, a founding partner of Oppenheim Law in Weston, Fla., which specializes in real estate, mortgages, and defending foreclosures.

“Walmart already has a bank,” Oppenheim notes. “They cash paychecks, issue debit cards. You can do your taxes there. Walmart is already into the banking industry.”
(more…)

Machiavelli, Alive and Well, In Illinois?

Friday, September 14th, 2012

 

Niccolò Machiavelli

A statue Niccolò Machiavelli sitting outside of the Uffizi, in Florence, Italy. Macchiavelli was a philospher, humanist and writer.

Since I started the South Florida Law Blog following the 2008 economic meltdown, I have made no secret of the fact that I am extremely critical of what can best be characterized as “America’s new crony capitalism.”

Crony capitalism occurs where certain industries have gained undue influence in the political process and thus have curried favor unjustly from the government. This undue influence distorts the market in favor of those that can afford favorable treatment (in other words, not you or me), and also creates a system where these industries are permitted to grow unfettered and unregulated, leading to practices such as the “Wall Street Rule or “Too Big To Fail.”

Typically the type of influence that these corporations are able to obtain falls within the executive and legislative branches of the government. Whether we like it or not our system does allow for a certain amount of lobbying as well as campaign contributions in order to obtain such influence.

But not surprisingly, the ease with how these companies are able to obtain such influence has created a highly uneven playing field between the average tax payer and that of large multi-billion dollar industries, particularly banks.

But despite all of this crony capitalism, under no circumstances did I ever expect to see the banking industry blatantly attempt to try and corrupt the judicial branch which is typically the most neutral of the three branches of government when it comes to political influence and crony capitalism. Yet, in another “Too Big To Fail” twist, the Illinois Bankers Association (the “IBA”) has done just that.
(more…)

New Ideas To Fix The Housing Crisis? Nothing to See Here

Monday, September 10th, 2012

Nothing To See HereWith the presidential race entering its final stretch and with the employment figures remaining effectively flat, one would think that the housing crisis would have already been front and center by now.

As I have said numerous times every economic recovery since the Depression has been led by the housing sector.

But only now do we have a fuller picture of both the Republicans’ and Democrats’ agendas on housing.

AND TO SAY THE LEAST I AM UNDERWHELMED.

In the wake of both conventions, each party has made their official party platforms public, and yes, they both at least try to address some aspects of the foreclosure crisis.

With the Democrats, there is a firmer grasp of the housing picture, but I still haven’t heard a solution from them that has the teeth to have a lasting impact.

They recognize the importance of refinancing, which is good, but to date nothing they have done has forced the banks to refinance. So the intent is there, but there is little actual follow through.

Not HARP or any of the alphabet soup programs created during the last four years have done anything to truly encourage refinancing. There’s too much please and thank you in the Democrats programs, when it is time for them to be the stern parent and send the banks to bed without their supper.

You must make refinancing in the banks’ best interest, to me the only way for that to happen would be to reinstate Franklin Roosevelt’s Home Owners Loan Corporation.

It closed up shop in the 1950’s, and mortgage lending hasn’t been the same since.
(more…)

Obamacare, the Foreclosure Crisis and the Rule of Law

Friday, June 29th, 2012

This commentary was originally published on Yahoo! Homes and is being redistributed on South Florida Law Blog with their permission.

United States Supreme CourtHuh? What do “Obamacare” and the foreclosure crisis have to do with each other?

Simply put, the legal debate over Obamacare largely centered on the individual mandate, a law that would require people to buy health insurance whether they wanted to or not.

A little to my surprise, the Supreme Court did uphold it, although as a tax.

During the passing of the healthcare law, it seemed that the president assumed that the government had the ability to force people to buy a product from a private company that they did not necessarily want.

The mandate’s survival in the Supreme Court on a much narrower standard apparently leaves the question far from settled.

I felt that there was little, if any, constitutional analysis done by the president and his team when they decided to pass the mandate, except for the fact that they perceived a compelling need for it.

And that’s how the debate over the healthcare law reminded me of the legal debate during the foreclosure crisis.

Back when I started defending homeowners, the judges took a simple view: You borrowed the money, therefore you owe the money, so you have to pay it back.

No one stopped to think whether the banks bringing these foreclosures had the constitutional right to do so.

No one.

No one asked whether the banks had fulfilled their legal requirements before filing suit, such as properly assigning notes and knowing who owned the mortgage.

Instead, there was a preference for expediency. Since the homeowner borrowed the money and owed the money, the homeowner had to pay. The banks would be able to sort out who actually owned anything among themselves, and the most important thing was to get the home away from the homeowner.
(more…)


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

Bad Behavior has blocked 2694 access attempts in the last 7 days.