In the article,  Elizabeth Warren (a leading consumer advocate and Harvard Law professor) argues that a toothless consumer protection agency would be worse than none at all.  To be effective, says Warren, the new CFPA must include 4 key elements:

Warren isn’t the only one who understands the necessity of a strong, independent consumer protection agency.  In a recent column, economist and NY Times writer Paul Krugman opined that an important factor in the stability of Canada’s economy, as opposed to our volatile one, is the existence of an independent Financial Consumer Agency.

For the sake of America’s future, let’s hope the Senate takes their responsibility seriously and does not create, as Warren put it, “some mouthful of mush that doesn’t get the job done.”

Many of you are probably familiar with option ARMs—loans popular during the housing boom because they gave borrowers the option of paying very low monthly payments (less than the interest) for the first five years.  The Seattle Times reported that between 2004 and 2008, more than $750 billion of option ARMs were originated in the U.S. (58% of which were in California!).  As many as a million of those loans are estimated to reset higher in the next four years. 

Most option ARM borrowers assumed the value of their house would steadily increase, allowing them to refinance or sell before the reset date.  Instead, the values have dropped dramatically, meaning many borrowers will be stuck with the reset loan payments, which may be double the initial amount (or even more in some cases).

What does this mean for the economy at large? It’s not a pretty picture, according to real-estate finance professor Susan Wachter, as reported in the Seattle Times article:

“Owners may surrender properties to the bank rather than make higher payments for homes that have plummeted in value…The option ARMs will drive up the foreclosure supply, undermining the recovery in the housing market…The option ARMs will be part of the reason that the path to recovery will be long and slow.”

For more information, take a look at this New York Times article  published last week.

According to the Times article, the Obama administration’s foreclosure program, which provides a $1,000 incentive to servicers for each loan they modify (plus $1,000 a year for the next three years) is no match for the revenue generated from delinquencies and foreclosures:

“For many subprime servicers, late fees alone constitute a significant fraction of their total income and profit,” said Diane E. Thompson, a lawyer for the National Consumer Law Center, in testimony to the Senate Banking Committee this month.  “Servicers thus have an incentive to push homeowners into late payments and keep them there: if the loan pays late, the servicer is more likely to profit.”

What’s more, the article reports, some mortgage companies (Ocwen, for example) have established their own title companies in order to keep more of the revenue from foreclosures. 

Scary stuff, but kudos to the Times for shedding light on these dark dealings.

(Please don’t let this post stop you from trying to get a modification…many people have successfully lowered their mortgage payments! The loan modification and forbearance section of our website can help you get started.)

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank threatened to revive the mortgage “cram- down” bill that stalled in Congress this year, saying lenders aren’t being aggressive enough in modifying troubled home loans.

Cram-downs let federal judges lengthen terms, cut interest rates and reduce mortgage balances of bankrupt homeowners, even if the lender objects. Congress gave the mortgage industry every legislative tool it requested to allow them to more easily modify loans for those facing foreclosure, and the results have been below expectations, Frank said in a statement today.

“People in the servicing industry and in the broader financial industry must understand that if this last effort to produce significant modifications fails, the argument for reviving the bankruptcy option will be extremely strong, and I think there is a substantial chance that the outcome will be different,” Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said.

Great news, if it happens. Meanwhile, last night’s Daily Show brought us the story of one particular man who might want to take advantage of such an option:

Our interest in the Meadows decision was piqued a few months ago when one of our Chapter 7 bankruptcy clients was the victim of a payday lender who took the money from her account over a month after we filed the bankruptcy case. We are currently fighting this in the bankruptcy court and hope that our judge will conclude that a post-dated check given in exchange for a payday loan is nothing more than collateral that cannot be seized during the automatic stay. Washington is not in the Sixth Circuit, so we’re hopeful that the judge will not be guided by the Meadows decision and will recognize that the action taken by the payday lender was unlawful. We will keep you up to date and informed on how the case turns out.

Mortgages modified in the third quarter failed at a faster pace than those revised in the first, and the delinquency rate on the least risky loans doubled, signs of deteriorating credit quality, U.S. regulators said.

Loans modified in the first quarter to help borrowers keep their homes fell delinquent 41 percent of the time after eight months, and second-quarter loans had a 46 percent default rate, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Office of Thrift Supervision said in a report today. Third-quarter trends “are worsening,” the agencies said.

Yves notes that most of the mods that lenders are offering today involve interest rate reductions and lengthening maturities, which aren’t as successful as mods that reduce the principal owed. Unfortunately, principal reduction is rarely offered due to the way most mortgages today are securitized (i.e., cut up into pieces and sold to far-flung investors). The only thing that is likely to reverse this trend of increasing modification failures is if bankruptcy judges are given the power to rewrite loan terms.

In February, more than 2,300 households in Washington state declared bankruptcy, up more than 50 percent from a year ago. The most densely populated counties — King, Pierce and Snohomish — together accounted for 1,138 filings.

Check out the interactive map, too. Puget Sound is in the thick of it.

WASHINGTON – The federal agency that insures bank deposits, which is asking for emergency powers to borrow up to $500 billion to take over failed banks, is facing a potential major shortfall in part because it collected no insurance premiums from most banks from 1996 to 2006.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which insures deposits up to $250,000, tried for years to get congressional authority to collect the premiums in case of a looming crisis. But Congress believed that the fund was so well-capitalized – and that bank failures were so infrequent – that there was no need to collect the premiums for a decade, according to banking officials and analysts.

If I had a client who didn’t pay his bills for ten years, I don’t think I’d have too much luck asking the bankruptcy judge for a bailout.