Posts Tagged ‘financial economics’

Deconstructing The Black Magic of Securitized Trusts

Wednesday, December 19th, 2012

Below is an abbreviated version of an article written by Roy Oppenheim and Jacquelyn Trask, which was first published this week by Thomson Reuters. The longer version of “Deconstructing The Black Magic of Securitized Trusts” was published earlier this year by the Stetson Law Review.

Black Magic MoneyFrom 2003 to 2007, Florida saw the largest real estate boom in its history. Real estate sold at astonishing prices as people were sold a bill of goods known as the “American Dream.” But for many, that American Dream turned out to be the American Nightmare. From sub-prime mortgage lending and predatory practices by mortgage brokers, lenders and improper securitization of mortgages, this era of economic boom led to the largest crash in the history of the real estate market1, a crash from which Florida has yet to recover, and to which we have not yet seen the end. The full extent of the damage inflicted by these practices has not yet been felt, but millions of homeowners nationwide have suffered from financial crisis, foreclosure and bankruptcy. And what is worse yet is that the systemic fraud and illegal conduct of the banks has continued to pervasively infect court systems throughout the nation; further, the Florida court system has suffered from extreme abuse at the hands of the banks that have high jacked it and effectively turned it into a private collection agency for the banking industry.2

Mortgage securitization is perhaps one of the least understood areas of the real estate industry, and for good reason. With phrases such as mortgage bundling, securitized trusts, and tax-exempt structures known as Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits (“REMICS”), there are many terms employed to describe massive collections of bundled mortgages which were broken up and sold off in pieces. While this method of bundling mortgages was once looked at as perhaps the best thing to ever happen to the mortgage industry, allowing large scale investors such as pensions and retirement funds to own interests in mortgages in a way that was deemed “safe,”3 the securitization process has become a nightmare for the American homeowner fighting foreclosure. In fact, the securitization process has made it impossible in many, if not all cases where a mortgage is held in a securitized trust, to determine who actually owns a mortgage and note, a fact which until recently has done little to slow down the foreclosure rocket-docket.4
(more…)

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…)

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…)

Moral Hazard Lies On Wall Street, Not Main Street

Thursday, August 30th, 2012

Judge About To Make VerdictIf there is only one thing that I hope to see as an attorney, it is the law applied fairly to all sides of the courtroom.

And there has been no greater sense of frustration for me than to see the banks, time and time again, not be held to the same standards as you or me.

It has become standard practice for banks to wiggle and maneuver and do everything possible to escape accountability.

But perhaps even more maddening is when those in power refuse to dig their heels and go after these banks. The latest example: the Justice Department’s refusal to prosecute Goldman Sachs.

They hedged their bets and sought to make money on the backs of their clients. This is nothing new to any of my readers, nor is the Justice Department’s lack of reprisal.

Both Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone’s excellent political reporter, and the New York Times Opinion Page called Eric Holder on the carpet, and now it is my turn.

No one is suggesting that prosecuting Goldman Sachs would have been a walk in the park. But prosecuting them was necessary, if the climate of Wall Street is ever going to change.

What is absolutely maddening about all this is that by allowing Goldman Sachs to skate, the DOJ is all but announcing that the banks can continue to engage in other unconscionable and illegal activities without the fear of retribution This is called a moral hazard — encouraging certain negative behavior by allowing it to continue.

“Ironically” — we only hear about moral hazard in the media, it’s FROM the banks, or government officials like Edward DeMarco, who are alarmed at the notion that homeowners might participate in moral hazard. They will use that alarmist notion, despite the fact that it has yet to be substantiated, as a reason not to do principal write-downs or provide homeowners the meaningful assistance they need.
(more…)


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

Bad Behavior has blocked 4338 access attempts in the last 7 days.