Bank of America’s chief executive, Brian T. Moynihan, vowed on Monday to eliminate $5 billion in costs annually by 2014, a move that will eliminate at least 30,000 jobs at the company, which employs 288,000 people and is the largest bank in the United States.
In a widely anticipated speech at an investor conference organized by Barclays in New York, Mr. Moynihan outlined his plan to make Bank of America, the largest bank in the United States, more efficient and profitable even if that means sacrificing scale. “We don’t have to be the biggest company out there,” he said. “We have to be the best.”
While he did not specify the number of jobs that might be involved, the company announced shortly after his speech that 30,000 jobs are to be eliminated under the company’s Project New BAC cost-cutting initiative. The initial recommendations by the architects of New BAC, which takes its name from the company’s ticker symbol, were reviewed last Thursday and Friday by the company’s top management in Charlotte, N.C.
“As the decisions are implemented, employment levels in the areas under review during Phase I are expected to be reduced by approximately 30,000 jobs over the next few years,” the bank said in a statement. “The company expects that attrition and the elimination of appropriate unfilled roles will be a significant part of the anticipated decrease in jobs.”
The first part of New BAC involves the consumer banking operations of the company, as well as its home loan, technology and support operations. Other parts of the business, including Bank of America Merrill Lynch, will be reviewed in the second phase, which begins in October and continues through March 2012.
Out of $73 billion in annual expenses, Mr. Moynihan aims to cut at least $5 billion by shutting some of its 63 data centers, eliminating overlapping deposit systems and trimming layers of back-office staff accumulated during the acquisition binge undertaken by his predecessor, Ken Lewis.
“It’s taking out work we don’t need to do any more, and getting it out of the company,” he said. “We’re a much simpler company than we were 24 months ago.”
While the speech fell short of the bold blueprint many analysts and investors had been hoping for, Bank of America shares rose in early trading by 1.1 percent to $7.06.
It has been a very busy summer for Mr. Moynihan. In the last few weeks, the company has announced a management shake-up, a $5 billion investment by Warren E. Buffett and the sale of more than $15 billion in assets.
None of those major news events have propped up the bank’s battered stock, which is down nearly 30 percent since the beginning of August.
During the question-and-answer part of the session, Mr. Moynihan was asked whether Bank of America had been asked by the federal regulators to raise capital at the time of Mr. Buffett’s investment. Mr. Moynihan said they had not.
A shareholder asked him: “Can you or would you bankrupt Countrywide?” Mounting losses at Countrywide Financial are still plaguing the bank, three years after Bank of America bought it for $2.8 billion when Countrywide nearly collapsed into bankruptcy as its financing dried up.
Mr. Moynihan answered that in dealing with the troubled mortgage giant, the bank “looks at all our options on everything.”
When the questioner followed up by asking Mr. Moynihan if he was saying that bankrupting Countrywide was a viable option, Mr. Moynihan again demurred. “There are options around all this stuff that we continue to work on,” he said.
Angry investors are trying to force Bank of America, and other large banks, to buy back billions of dollars worth of mortgages that have defaulted, arguing that the home loans did not conform to the original underwriting standards or were originated with little evidence of adequate assets on the part of borrowers.
In other cases, investors including the federal government and the insurance giant A.I.G. want to recover tens of billions of dollars from the big banks for losses on securities they assembled from now-troubled subprime mortgages.
Then there is the investigation by state attorneys general into mortgage servicing abuses, which could cost the big banks more than $20 billion in a proposed settlement that so far they’ve been unable to finalize. “The attorneys generals settlement is part of what can move us forward, but the settlement has to be reasonable for the company and reasonable for shareholders,” Mr. Moynihan said.
Bank of America Corp.'s top mortgage executive will tell a Senate panel today that the Charlotte bank is taking steps to improve loan modification and foreclosure processes that have confounded many struggling borrowers.
Among the changes, the nation's biggest Mortgage Servicer has started giving borrowers a single point of contact in the modification process, Barbara Desoer says in written testimony submitted to the Senate Banking Committee. Homeowners often complain about being passed from department to department when they're seeking agreements to reduce their payments.
The bank is also looking to change an industrywide practice of considering a borrower's modification request, while also taking steps toward foreclosure, she says. This so-called "dual-track" system has led to incidents in which borrowers face foreclosure proceedings even as they're working out modifications.
Bank of America doesn't "claim perfection," Desoer says in her prepared remarks, but continues to "put forward solutions that respond to customer needs."
The bank is working with state attorneys general and other parties as it makes changes to its approach, Desoer says. Last week, bank executives were in Iowa for discussions with state officials who are leading a probe of foreclosure practices at the nation's biggest lenders. N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper and some of his peers have indicated that changes to modification programs may be a potential remedy.
Desoer and a JPMorgan Chase & Co. mortgage executive are likely to face tough questions from senators angered over allegations that banks employed so-called "robo-signers" who rapidly approved foreclosure documents without properly reviewing them. Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller is also on the witness list.
Bank of America became the nation's largest mortgage servicer in 2008 when it bought ailing Countrywide Financial Corp. It now administers about 14 million customer loans - about one in five U.S. mortgages.
More than 86 percent of Bank of America customers are current on their loans and making their payments, Desoer notes. But the bank has had to focus extensively on the portion of customers in default or struggling to make payments. Of the 14 million loans, about three-fourths are owned by investors such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, complicating efforts to reach modification agreements.
As it looks to improve the modification process, the bank has assigned 140,000 customers a single case manager to handle questions, according to Desoer's testimony. Wells Fargo has said it will implement a similar approach for certain Wachovia customers as part of a settlement announced last month. The San Francisco-based bank has also said it's providing a single point of contact to customers who make new modification requests.
Among other changes, Bank of America is looking to create a "customer status checklist" that will show customers where they stand in the process. The bank also plans to double its staff that works with customers face-to-face either at Bank of America offices or alongside nonprofit groups. Other steps may come up in the bank's "constructive and continuing conversations" with Miller and other attorneys general, Desoer says.
Meanwhile, Bank of America has halted foreclosure sales in 50 states as it reviews its processes. The bank believes the basis for all of its foreclosures has been accurate, but it has identified "areas for improvement," Desoer says. The bank has changed its affidavit forms, installed extra quality control checks and changed procedures for hiring outside lawyers. "Every affidavit will be individually reviewed by the signer, properly executed and promptly notarized," she says.
Bank of America Corp. chief executive Brian Moynihan said he was surprised when the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and investors sent a letter pushing the firm to repurchase soured mortgages pooled into securities.
The bank expects to resolve the dispute, which could pressure Bank of America to foreclose on borrowers more quickly, Moynihan, 51, said Thursday in Boston at a presentation to banking analysts.
"I don't think we should be put in a position where we aren't trying to help homeowners through this strife because people want us to foreclose faster," he said.
Bank of America shares declined 4.4 percent on Oct. 19 after news of the letter signed by the New York Fed, Pacific Investment Management Co., BlackRock Inc. and others, alleging the bank's Countrywide Financial Inc. subsidiary didn't service loans properly. The New York Fed acquired mortgage debt through its 2008 rescues of Bear Stearns Cos. and American International Group Inc.
"The fact that they signed the letter from your standpoint surprised you, it surprised me, and it is a surprise to a lot of people," Moynihan said, referring to the bondholders. "We have disputes with them about other assets in those pools and we've resolved them."
Bank of America, the largest U.S. lender, has said it has formal outstanding demands from mortgage investors seeking repurchases of almost $13 billion of loans that may have failed to accurately document key data, such as income and home values.
The Charlotte-based bank is also among lenders facing being investigated by state attorneys general over its handling of foreclosures.
Moynihan said he called BlackRock Inc. CEO Larry Fink to discuss the dispute. Bank of America said Wednesday it would reduce its 34 percent stake in BlackRock, preferring to use the capital for its own businesses. The bank will remain a strategic partner of BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, for a long time, Moynihan said.
The bank said last month it would start resubmitting foreclosure affidavits in 102,000 cases in which judgment is pending. Amid pressure from lawmakers and state officials, bankers have delayed action in order to review filings that some borrowers claim were marred by so-called robo-signing, in which employees vouched for the accuracy of court statements without personally checking loan records.
The mortgage-bond investor group including BlackRock says Bank of America's foreclosures take too long because of missing documents, processing mistakes and insufficient staffing to evaluate borrowers for loan modifications, Kathy Patrick, their lawyer at Gibbs & Bruns LLP, said Oct. 19.
Moynihan responded Thursday to a question on whether Bank of America would consider a bankruptcy of Countrywide to limit potential losses from distressed home loans. "We don't see any liability that would make us think differently about working through this in the ways we are working through this," he said.
Pajamas Media roots into FEC filings to discover that Bank of America loaned the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee $32m. last month while asking for nothing more than future contributions as collateral. Such de facto mailing list valuations are an extremely flimsy basis for securing a loan. PJM asks:
Were the Bank of America deals legitimate, arms-length transactions, or were they cozy sweetheart deals in which nothing was really put up to secure a $32 million loan?
But one question not asked is the connection between the loan and Charlotte’s ongoing pursuit of the DNC’s 2012 convention. We already know that BAC CEO Brian Moynihan has been called President Obama’s favorite banker and that the bank’s exec team — like the rest of the Uptown crowd — is full-on behind landing the convention for Banktown USA. Plus we have ample local precedent for BAC throwing millions in sweetheart loans at favored endeavors — the US National Log Flume Ride and France Family Convention Center Annex being two glittering, irrefutable examples.
BAC has yet to respond to PJM inquires with details about the loans — but you know what is coming. BAC will say there is a legit business purpose to the loans and any suggestion to the contrary is counter-factual.
Shortly after Labor Day, as polls continued to sink, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) realized it needed a cash infusion for the upcoming midterm elections.
Its chairman, former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, turned to the Bank of America to secure a $15 million revolving credit line. Then, in the middle of this month, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) got another loan from BofA for an additional $17 million.
What was their collateral? It turns out, not much.
The DNC claims their collateral was an intangible piece of property — its donor mailing list. The DCCC only cites unnamed “assets.” Neither party organization possesses real estate even close to cover the $32 million. The DNC’s headquarters is owned by another entity. Even it was put up as collateral, its market value was last estimated at only $13.7 million.
Were the Bank of America deals legitimate, arms-length transactions, or were they cozy sweetheart deals in which nothing was really put up to secure a $32 million loan?
And if it was the latter, could it be considered an illegal campaign contribution from the largest bank holding company in America?
There also is troubling evidence that two days before closing on the loan transaction, the DNC changed its own privacy provisions to allow the selling or sharing of private donor data.
BofA has been a longtime friend of Democrats. In the 2008 election cycle, BofA gave its largest single campaign contribution to then-Senator Barack Obama. According to Bloomberg News, BofA’s new CEO, Brian Moynihan, is considered Obama’s top political ally on Wall Street.
On the eve of the midterm elections, the appearance of preferential loans from cozy Wall Street bankers could play badly with the electorate. What message does a largely unsecured $32 million credit line for the Democratic Party send to thousands of cash-starved small businesses across the nation who can’t secure any credit even with tangible assets?
The findings are part of an exclusive Pajamas Media investigation.
The DNC Loan Agreement as posted online by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and signed by former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine (D) on September 16, 2010, says the loan collateral included: “All electronic mail (‘E-mail’) addresses and other contact lists, records and other Information (electronic or otherwise) relating to contributors, supporters and subscribers owned by any of the Borrowers.” The borrowers in this case were the DNC and the DNC Services Corporation.
The loan agreement further stipulates that if the Democrats defaulted, Bank of America would be entitled to “proceeds from any fundraising activity, refunds, reimbursements, or proceeds from the rental or sale of mailing, contact or subscription lists or Information (electronic or otherwise).”
One key to understanding the problems behind the $15 million loan is determining what the donor list is actually worth. The DNC filings with the FEC do not attach any independent appraisal documents or list broker evaluations to establish the list’s fair market value.
Senator John McCain once tried to use his presidential donor list as collateral for a loan. He valued his Republican donor list as worth $3 million. The bank rejected the loan.
Trying to fix a value on an intangible mailing list is very difficult.
“Donor lists do have value, but very fleeting value,” Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, told Pajamas Media. “Lists do deteriorate and $15 million is an awful lot of money. So if the bank ends up with the list because the party is broke, where are they going to get their money?”
A senior executive who is part of a national U.S. bank told Pajamas Media that a data list would be a weak basis for a $15 million loan. He gave his comments on the grounds that he would not be publicly identified. He said he was “somewhat skeptical of a donor list as adequate collateral for a $15 million credit line.”
But if the value is not $15 million, it could be considered a substantial campaign contribution to the Democratic National Committee. And that could be illegal.
“The DNC would have to demonstrate it’s an arms-length, commercially reasonable, properly collateralized loan,” says Cleta Mitchell, a Washington-based attorney with Foley & Lardner LLP and an expert on campaign finance law. She says there needed to be some outside way to assess or appraise the list before the line of credit could be approved. “Otherwise, it’s an illegal contribution from a national bank,” she says.
Hans von Spakovsky, a former commissioner on the Federal Election Commission, agrees. Unless the DNC or BofA conducted an independent appraisal, the loan could be considered an illegal campaign contribution. “The FEC would require an independent appraisal of the fair market value of the list that supports the amount of the loan. Otherwise as a commissioner I would consider this an illegal contribution,” he told Pajamas Media.
In 2005, ATA attorneys for direct mail pioneer Richard Viguerie told the Federal Election Commission that ATA could not get credit using its mailing lists as collateral. Concerning its own client’s many mailing lists, ATA told the FEC that as a standard business practice, “the collateral is the mailing lists. Banks have informed ATA that this is not the type of collateral that banks use to extend credit.”
Without independent documentation, Mitchell told Pajamas Media, “you would never be able to say that their mailing list was worth $15 million. A bank would have to discount the value. So a bank would have to say it was worth at least twice that to get to $15 million.” That, she emphasizes, does require an arms-length appraisal and documentation.
Pajamas Media contacted both the Democratic National Committee and Bank of America for comment and details surrounding the transaction. As of this posting, the DNC has not replied to our inquiries. A communications person from BofA did return our phone call but could not respond to our query. [Update: They did after the piece ran; see addendum below.] She promised she would get someone to respond.
Boehm and Mitchell point out that many campaigns frequently take out short-term, temporary loans as bridge loans until new contributions come in. Most promise to pay it off before the election. The BofA terms are different.
The bank states that the first payment of principal will not be required until February 28, 2011, well after the November elections. Final payment for the debt will not be required until December 2011. What if the party found itself in deep debt after losing one or both houses of Congress?
As of October 13, the DNC reported $13.5 million of cash on hand with debts of $7.7 million. Their total worth was $5.8 million with three more weeks of campaigning ahead. (The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee took out an additional $17 million credit line on October 21.)
There is also the issue of whether on the eve of the loan, the Democrats altered their own privacy policy about sharing private donor data. On September 14, two days before executing the loan, the DNC changed its privacy policy web page. The site initially states that their privacy policy is not to share private data: “It is our policy not to share the personal information we collect from you.”
However, the site adds in its last line that indeed it might share private information if it is the result of an “asset sale or in any other situation where personal information may be disclosed or transferred as one of the assets of the DNC.”
Is it simply a coincidence that the last item of this section acknowledges the DNC might share private information as a result of an asset sale to a third party? Or was it added to accommodate the new collateralized loan?
Other Democratic Party web sites strictly forbid the sharing of their mailing lists unless authorized by the individual. For example, one local Democratic website directly state to its supporters: “We will not give, sell or rent your email address to any other organization unless you specifically authorize us.”
The Democrats’ long-time sweetheart relationship with the banking world and with the Bank of America in particular creates the appearance of an insider deal.
BofA was very generous to Barack Obama when he ran for President. Campaign finance records show that in the 2008 election cycle, Senator Barack Obama was the top recipient of Bank of America campaign donations, reaping $421,000.
BofA’s new CEO, who took over from embattled Kenneth Lewis, is considered one of the Obama administration’s top Wall Street allies on a whole host of issues, from the creation of a consumer regulatory agency to the defense of the administration’s home mortgage fiascoes.
Here’s what Bloomberg News reported about the Moynihan-White House axis last May when he was the number two at BofA:
“He has been willing to speak out bravely in his industry on the need for reform measures,” says Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s liaison to corporate America who has met with Moynihan at the White House several times. “And he has been willing to come to Washington and roll up his sleeves and work on the issue.”
The history between BofA and Democrats goes back years. One highly publicized political scandal linked the bank and Democrats to the subprime mortgage giant Countrywide Financial, which BofA acquired more than two years ago. Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo gave preferential below market mortgages to leading Democrats like Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. After the disclosure of the mortgage favors, both Dodd and Senator Kent Conrad (D-SD) decided not to run for re-election.
Dodd and other Washington Democrats belonged to a group of VIP loan recipients known in company documents and emails as “FOAs” — Friends of Angelo, a reference to Angelo Mozilo.
“This (type of loan) isn’t something that’s generally offered to the general public, but it looks like it is something of a sweetheart deal,” observes Boehm about the new BofA credit line to the DNC. “Usually when you see this it is banks with a relationship with candidates and we see that all over the place. We saw that with Countrywide,” he told Pajamas Media.
Allowing third parties access to donor mailing lists as part of financial transactions can be tricky business. For years Democratic activists hounded Republican Sen. John Ashcroft about the third party use of his mailing list. The Federal Election Commission fined his campaign $37,000.
The issue may not play well with voters either. Getting an easy line of credit may not sit well with cash-starved small businesses that have sought loans during the bad economy — even when they tried to collateralize it with real, not abstract assets.
The question is, will the DNC come clean and open their books on the transaction?
Update:
Jefferson George, a Bank of America spokesman, responds:
First, the answer to the question raised in the headline – “Did the DNC Get an Illegal Campaign Loan from Bank of America?” – is no. We follow all Federal Election Commission guidelines in our financial transactions with political parties and apply the same underwriting standards to these organizations as we do to any other institutional borrower. We also work closely with outside campaign finance legal experts to structure and document these transactions. These agreements are required to be arms-length transactions, and we are very careful with how we underwrite these loans.
As I mentioned, we have always had relationships with committees that represent political parties on both sides of the aisle. Our banking relationship with the Democratic Party dates back more than 30 years, well before the current administration. We also have provided loans for Republican candidates and committees. For instance, we provided financing for Mitt Romney’s 2008 presidential campaign.
Regarding the loans to the DNC and DCCC, due to client confidentiality obligations, we can’t discuss specific loans publicly beyond what is disclosed by the FEC, and we would refer you to those individual organizations. We can say, however, that collateral for these types of loans may include many things, and donor lists usually are insignificant compared such security measures as blanket liens against all assets, including accounts receivable. This also assumes a client doesn’t have adequate cash flow from the collection of contributions. Other factors in considering a loan include a client’s history with repaying loans on time or ahead of schedule.
Update (5:10 PM PDT):
More from Jefferson:
Thanks for this. Saw the updated story. One clarification, and it was my error: We didn’t provide financing for Romney. Rather, we had — and have — a banking relationship, handling deposits and providing other cash management services. And that relationship is still active.
Update (8:00 PM PDT):
Richard Pollack adds:
The nub of the story is that Bank of America refuses to confirm that an independent appraisal was done for the issuance of two huge loans to the Democrats totaling $32 million. While the bank might wish to invoke confidentiality, in the post-partisan era promised by President Obama, transparency around this particular loan is vital. This is especially true if there are allegations of violations of law.
The scope of the BofA small business loan to the Democrats is breathtaking. According to CNN/Money, in 2009, the bank issued 308 loans to small businesses totaling $17.6 million and in 2010 it issued 185 loans totaling $22.8 million. So the size of the Democrats’ two loans dwarfs all loans to small businesses in each calendar year. I wonder how credit-starved small business owners would feel about these Democrat loans tonight.
In that CNN/Money article, Mr. George was interviewed, saying, “Among those seeking loans, the creditworthiness of many businesses has changed. Cash flow — the most important factor — often is down. The value of collateral, such as real estate or equipment, has decreased.”
Mr. George had it right. Collateral is everything. The public has a right to know what is the collateral behind the $32 million in loans. Otherwise, it can be regarded as a gift, and patently illegal under federal campaign finance laws.
(Update: 7:54 AM PDT, 10/28):
More from Jefferson:
Your last update at 8:00 pm ET is incorrect. The numbers you cite from the CNN/Money story are for SBA loans. That was clearly stated in the story, and SBA lending is a very small percentage of Bank of America’s total lending to small businesses. In 2009, Bank of America loaned $16.5 billion to small businesses. Through the third quarter of 2010, Bank of America loaned $13.9 billion to small businesses.
Beyond direct lending, Bank of America works with Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) to provide financing and technical assistance to businesses that don’t qualify for traditional financing. As the leading financial institution supporting CDFIs, the bank provides $1 billion of capital – including more than $200 million to CDFIs that finance small businesses in lower-income communities. Bank of America also recently launched a grant program for CDFIs and other nonprofit lenders, aimed at unlocking $100 million in low-cost, long-term capital for small and rural businesses. To date, the bank has awarded grants that allowed CDFIs to access nearly $27.5 million in lending capital.
In addition, Bank of America has made a commitment to increase spending with small, medium-sized and diverse businesses. The bank’s pledge to purchase $10 billion in products and services from those suppliers over the next five years will provide much-needed income for those businesses. Finally, Bank of America recently announced it will hire more than 1,000 Small Business Bankers by early 2012. Based in communities across the U.S., these bankers will consult with small business owners, spend time at their offices and assess their companies’ deposit, credit and cash management needs.
(Update:7:56 AM PDT, 10/28): Richard Pollock responds:
Thank you for your additional comments on behalf of Bank of America. We will post them in full.
As for the substance of your comments:
Actually, I understated the case in your favor by citing the CNN/Money figures. These loans are not to your smallest business customers, which are really hurting in the credit crunch. It’s your biggest SBA (7) loan portfolio, which is the government backed loan program for small businesses through the Small Business Administration.
Your $32 million dwarfs those loans, many of which have been in trouble because of deterioration in collateralized assets. Your former CEO, Ken Lewis, has admitted this repeatedly. That’s why more conservative rules need to be applied in this economic downturn, not more relaxed standards. The Democratic National Committee and the DCCC will continue. No doubt. But its indebtedness after its most expensive and probably losing mid-term election cycle may put it in a precarious state until the presidential campaign. If may twist on an old financial cautionary warning: past performance is not a guarantee of future results. In 2010, the DNC and the DCCC may face substantial indebtedness and will have to repay the loan through 2012 as well as re-build their donor base.
I strongly recommend that your urge your clients, the DNC and DCCC, to be transparent and back up the collateral for their $32 million lines of credit. Failure to do so will only give the public the impression that there was a sweetheart deal here, and perhaps even the appearance of unlawful activity as well.
Bank of America Corp. chief executive Brian Moynihan said he was surprised when the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and investors sent a letter pushing the firm to repurchase soured mortgages pooled into securities.
The bank expects to resolve the dispute, which could pressure Bank of America to foreclose on borrowers more quickly, Moynihan, 51, said Thursday in Boston at a presentation to banking analysts.
"I don't think we should be put in a position where we aren't trying to help homeowners through this strife because people want us to foreclose faster," he said.
Bank of America shares declined 4.4 percent on Oct. 19 after news of the letter signed by the New York Fed, Pacific Investment Management Co., BlackRock Inc. and others, alleging the bank's Countrywide Financial Inc. subsidiary didn't service loans properly. The New York Fed acquired mortgage debt through its 2008 rescues of Bear Stearns Cos. and American International Group Inc.
"The fact that they signed the letter from your standpoint surprised you, it surprised me, and it is a surprise to a lot of people," Moynihan said, referring to the bondholders. "We have disputes with them about other assets in those pools and we've resolved them."
Bank of America, the largest U.S. lender, has said it has formal outstanding demands from mortgage investors seeking repurchases of almost $13 billion of loans that may have failed to accurately document key data, such as income and home values.
The Charlotte-based bank is also among lenders facing being investigated by state attorneys general over its handling of foreclosures.
Moynihan said he called BlackRock Inc. CEO Larry Fink to discuss the dispute. Bank of America said Wednesday it would reduce its 34 percent stake in BlackRock, preferring to use the capital for its own businesses. The bank will remain a strategic partner of BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, for a long time, Moynihan said.
The bank said last month it would start resubmitting foreclosure affidavits in 102,000 cases in which judgment is pending. Amid pressure from lawmakers and state officials, bankers have delayed action in order to review filings that some borrowers claim were marred by so-called robo-signing, in which employees vouched for the accuracy of court statements without personally checking loan records.
The mortgage-bond investor group including BlackRock says Bank of America's foreclosures take too long because of missing documents, processing mistakes and insufficient staffing to evaluate borrowers for loan modifications, Kathy Patrick, their lawyer at Gibbs & Bruns LLP, said Oct. 19.
Moynihan responded Thursday to a question on whether Bank of America would consider a bankruptcy of Countrywide to limit potential losses from distressed home loans. "We don't see any liability that would make us think differently about working through this in the ways we are working through this," he said.
Pajamas Media roots into FEC filings to discover that Bank of America loaned the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee $32m. last month while asking for nothing more than future contributions as collateral. Such de facto mailing list valuations are an extremely flimsy basis for securing a loan. PJM asks:
Were the Bank of America deals legitimate, arms-length transactions, or were they cozy sweetheart deals in which nothing was really put up to secure a $32 million loan?
But one question not asked is the connection between the loan and Charlotte’s ongoing pursuit of the DNC’s 2012 convention. We already know that BAC CEO Brian Moynihan has been called President Obama’s favorite banker and that the bank’s exec team — like the rest of the Uptown crowd — is full-on behind landing the convention for Banktown USA. Plus we have ample local precedent for BAC throwing millions in sweetheart loans at favored endeavors — the US National Log Flume Ride and France Family Convention Center Annex being two glittering, irrefutable examples.
BAC has yet to respond to PJM inquires with details about the loans — but you know what is coming. BAC will say there is a legit business purpose to the loans and any suggestion to the contrary is counter-factual.
Shortly after Labor Day, as polls continued to sink, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) realized it needed a cash infusion for the upcoming midterm elections.
Its chairman, former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, turned to the Bank of America to secure a $15 million revolving credit line. Then, in the middle of this month, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) got another loan from BofA for an additional $17 million.
What was their collateral? It turns out, not much.
The DNC claims their collateral was an intangible piece of property — its donor mailing list. The DCCC only cites unnamed “assets.” Neither party organization possesses real estate even close to cover the $32 million. The DNC’s headquarters is owned by another entity. Even it was put up as collateral, its market value was last estimated at only $13.7 million.
Were the Bank of America deals legitimate, arms-length transactions, or were they cozy sweetheart deals in which nothing was really put up to secure a $32 million loan?
And if it was the latter, could it be considered an illegal campaign contribution from the largest bank holding company in America?
There also is troubling evidence that two days before closing on the loan transaction, the DNC changed its own privacy provisions to allow the selling or sharing of private donor data.
BofA has been a longtime friend of Democrats. In the 2008 election cycle, BofA gave its largest single campaign contribution to then-Senator Barack Obama. According to Bloomberg News, BofA’s new CEO, Brian Moynihan, is considered Obama’s top political ally on Wall Street.
On the eve of the midterm elections, the appearance of preferential loans from cozy Wall Street bankers could play badly with the electorate. What message does a largely unsecured $32 million credit line for the Democratic Party send to thousands of cash-starved small businesses across the nation who can’t secure any credit even with tangible assets?
The findings are part of an exclusive Pajamas Media investigation.
The DNC Loan Agreement as posted online by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and signed by former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine (D) on September 16, 2010, says the loan collateral included: “All electronic mail (‘E-mail’) addresses and other contact lists, records and other Information (electronic or otherwise) relating to contributors, supporters and subscribers owned by any of the Borrowers.” The borrowers in this case were the DNC and the DNC Services Corporation.
The loan agreement further stipulates that if the Democrats defaulted, Bank of America would be entitled to “proceeds from any fundraising activity, refunds, reimbursements, or proceeds from the rental or sale of mailing, contact or subscription lists or Information (electronic or otherwise).”
One key to understanding the problems behind the $15 million loan is determining what the donor list is actually worth. The DNC filings with the FEC do not attach any independent appraisal documents or list broker evaluations to establish the list’s fair market value.
Senator John McCain once tried to use his presidential donor list as collateral for a loan. He valued his Republican donor list as worth $3 million. The bank rejected the loan.
Trying to fix a value on an intangible mailing list is very difficult.
“Donor lists do have value, but very fleeting value,” Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, told Pajamas Media. “Lists do deteriorate and $15 million is an awful lot of money. So if the bank ends up with the list because the party is broke, where are they going to get their money?”
A senior executive who is part of a national U.S. bank told Pajamas Media that a data list would be a weak basis for a $15 million loan. He gave his comments on the grounds that he would not be publicly identified. He said he was “somewhat skeptical of a donor list as adequate collateral for a $15 million credit line.”
But if the value is not $15 million, it could be considered a substantial campaign contribution to the Democratic National Committee. And that could be illegal.
“The DNC would have to demonstrate it’s an arms-length, commercially reasonable, properly collateralized loan,” says Cleta Mitchell, a Washington-based attorney with Foley & Lardner LLP and an expert on campaign finance law. She says there needed to be some outside way to assess or appraise the list before the line of credit could be approved. “Otherwise, it’s an illegal contribution from a national bank,” she says.
Hans von Spakovsky, a former commissioner on the Federal Election Commission, agrees. Unless the DNC or BofA conducted an independent appraisal, the loan could be considered an illegal campaign contribution. “The FEC would require an independent appraisal of the fair market value of the list that supports the amount of the loan. Otherwise as a commissioner I would consider this an illegal contribution,” he told Pajamas Media.
In 2005, ATA attorneys for direct mail pioneer Richard Viguerie told the Federal Election Commission that ATA could not get credit using its mailing lists as collateral. Concerning its own client’s many mailing lists, ATA told the FEC that as a standard business practice, “the collateral is the mailing lists. Banks have informed ATA that this is not the type of collateral that banks use to extend credit.”
Without independent documentation, Mitchell told Pajamas Media, “you would never be able to say that their mailing list was worth $15 million. A bank would have to discount the value. So a bank would have to say it was worth at least twice that to get to $15 million.” That, she emphasizes, does require an arms-length appraisal and documentation.
Pajamas Media contacted both the Democratic National Committee and Bank of America for comment and details surrounding the transaction. As of this posting, the DNC has not replied to our inquiries. A communications person from BofA did return our phone call but could not respond to our query. [Update: They did after the piece ran; see addendum below.] She promised she would get someone to respond.
Boehm and Mitchell point out that many campaigns frequently take out short-term, temporary loans as bridge loans until new contributions come in. Most promise to pay it off before the election. The BofA terms are different.
The bank states that the first payment of principal will not be required until February 28, 2011, well after the November elections. Final payment for the debt will not be required until December 2011. What if the party found itself in deep debt after losing one or both houses of Congress?
As of October 13, the DNC reported $13.5 million of cash on hand with debts of $7.7 million. Their total worth was $5.8 million with three more weeks of campaigning ahead. (The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee took out an additional $17 million credit line on October 21.)
There is also the issue of whether on the eve of the loan, the Democrats altered their own privacy policy about sharing private donor data. On September 14, two days before executing the loan, the DNC changed its privacy policy web page. The site initially states that their privacy policy is not to share private data: “It is our policy not to share the personal information we collect from you.”
However, the site adds in its last line that indeed it might share private information if it is the result of an “asset sale or in any other situation where personal information may be disclosed or transferred as one of the assets of the DNC.”
Is it simply a coincidence that the last item of this section acknowledges the DNC might share private information as a result of an asset sale to a third party? Or was it added to accommodate the new collateralized loan?
Other Democratic Party web sites strictly forbid the sharing of their mailing lists unless authorized by the individual. For example, one local Democratic website directly state to its supporters: “We will not give, sell or rent your email address to any other organization unless you specifically authorize us.”
The Democrats’ long-time sweetheart relationship with the banking world and with the Bank of America in particular creates the appearance of an insider deal.
BofA was very generous to Barack Obama when he ran for President. Campaign finance records show that in the 2008 election cycle, Senator Barack Obama was the top recipient of Bank of America campaign donations, reaping $421,000.
BofA’s new CEO, who took over from embattled Kenneth Lewis, is considered one of the Obama administration’s top Wall Street allies on a whole host of issues, from the creation of a consumer regulatory agency to the defense of the administration’s home mortgage fiascoes.
Here’s what Bloomberg News reported about the Moynihan-White House axis last May when he was the number two at BofA:
“He has been willing to speak out bravely in his industry on the need for reform measures,” says Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s liaison to corporate America who has met with Moynihan at the White House several times. “And he has been willing to come to Washington and roll up his sleeves and work on the issue.”
The history between BofA and Democrats goes back years. One highly publicized political scandal linked the bank and Democrats to the subprime mortgage giant Countrywide Financial, which BofA acquired more than two years ago. Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo gave preferential below market mortgages to leading Democrats like Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. After the disclosure of the mortgage favors, both Dodd and Senator Kent Conrad (D-SD) decided not to run for re-election.
Dodd and other Washington Democrats belonged to a group of VIP loan recipients known in company documents and emails as “FOAs” — Friends of Angelo, a reference to Angelo Mozilo.
“This (type of loan) isn’t something that’s generally offered to the general public, but it looks like it is something of a sweetheart deal,” observes Boehm about the new BofA credit line to the DNC. “Usually when you see this it is banks with a relationship with candidates and we see that all over the place. We saw that with Countrywide,” he told Pajamas Media.
Allowing third parties access to donor mailing lists as part of financial transactions can be tricky business. For years Democratic activists hounded Republican Sen. John Ashcroft about the third party use of his mailing list. The Federal Election Commission fined his campaign $37,000.
The issue may not play well with voters either. Getting an easy line of credit may not sit well with cash-starved small businesses that have sought loans during the bad economy — even when they tried to collateralize it with real, not abstract assets.
The question is, will the DNC come clean and open their books on the transaction?
Update:
Jefferson George, a Bank of America spokesman, responds:
First, the answer to the question raised in the headline – “Did the DNC Get an Illegal Campaign Loan from Bank of America?” – is no. We follow all Federal Election Commission guidelines in our financial transactions with political parties and apply the same underwriting standards to these organizations as we do to any other institutional borrower. We also work closely with outside campaign finance legal experts to structure and document these transactions. These agreements are required to be arms-length transactions, and we are very careful with how we underwrite these loans.
As I mentioned, we have always had relationships with committees that represent political parties on both sides of the aisle. Our banking relationship with the Democratic Party dates back more than 30 years, well before the current administration. We also have provided loans for Republican candidates and committees. For instance, we provided financing for Mitt Romney’s 2008 presidential campaign.
Regarding the loans to the DNC and DCCC, due to client confidentiality obligations, we can’t discuss specific loans publicly beyond what is disclosed by the FEC, and we would refer you to those individual organizations. We can say, however, that collateral for these types of loans may include many things, and donor lists usually are insignificant compared such security measures as blanket liens against all assets, including accounts receivable. This also assumes a client doesn’t have adequate cash flow from the collection of contributions. Other factors in considering a loan include a client’s history with repaying loans on time or ahead of schedule.
Update (5:10 PM PDT):
More from Jefferson:
Thanks for this. Saw the updated story. One clarification, and it was my error: We didn’t provide financing for Romney. Rather, we had — and have — a banking relationship, handling deposits and providing other cash management services. And that relationship is still active.
Update (8:00 PM PDT):
Richard Pollack adds:
The nub of the story is that Bank of America refuses to confirm that an independent appraisal was done for the issuance of two huge loans to the Democrats totaling $32 million. While the bank might wish to invoke confidentiality, in the post-partisan era promised by President Obama, transparency around this particular loan is vital. This is especially true if there are allegations of violations of law.
The scope of the BofA small business loan to the Democrats is breathtaking. According to CNN/Money, in 2009, the bank issued 308 loans to small businesses totaling $17.6 million and in 2010 it issued 185 loans totaling $22.8 million. So the size of the Democrats’ two loans dwarfs all loans to small businesses in each calendar year. I wonder how credit-starved small business owners would feel about these Democrat loans tonight.
In that CNN/Money article, Mr. George was interviewed, saying, “Among those seeking loans, the creditworthiness of many businesses has changed. Cash flow — the most important factor — often is down. The value of collateral, such as real estate or equipment, has decreased.”
Mr. George had it right. Collateral is everything. The public has a right to know what is the collateral behind the $32 million in loans. Otherwise, it can be regarded as a gift, and patently illegal under federal campaign finance laws.
(Update: 7:54 AM PDT, 10/28):
More from Jefferson:
Your last update at 8:00 pm ET is incorrect. The numbers you cite from the CNN/Money story are for SBA loans. That was clearly stated in the story, and SBA lending is a very small percentage of Bank of America’s total lending to small businesses. In 2009, Bank of America loaned $16.5 billion to small businesses. Through the third quarter of 2010, Bank of America loaned $13.9 billion to small businesses.
Beyond direct lending, Bank of America works with Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) to provide financing and technical assistance to businesses that don’t qualify for traditional financing. As the leading financial institution supporting CDFIs, the bank provides $1 billion of capital – including more than $200 million to CDFIs that finance small businesses in lower-income communities. Bank of America also recently launched a grant program for CDFIs and other nonprofit lenders, aimed at unlocking $100 million in low-cost, long-term capital for small and rural businesses. To date, the bank has awarded grants that allowed CDFIs to access nearly $27.5 million in lending capital.
In addition, Bank of America has made a commitment to increase spending with small, medium-sized and diverse businesses. The bank’s pledge to purchase $10 billion in products and services from those suppliers over the next five years will provide much-needed income for those businesses. Finally, Bank of America recently announced it will hire more than 1,000 Small Business Bankers by early 2012. Based in communities across the U.S., these bankers will consult with small business owners, spend time at their offices and assess their companies’ deposit, credit and cash management needs.
(Update:7:56 AM PDT, 10/28): Richard Pollock responds:
Thank you for your additional comments on behalf of Bank of America. We will post them in full.
As for the substance of your comments:
Actually, I understated the case in your favor by citing the CNN/Money figures. These loans are not to your smallest business customers, which are really hurting in the credit crunch. It’s your biggest SBA (7) loan portfolio, which is the government backed loan program for small businesses through the Small Business Administration.
Your $32 million dwarfs those loans, many of which have been in trouble because of deterioration in collateralized assets. Your former CEO, Ken Lewis, has admitted this repeatedly. That’s why more conservative rules need to be applied in this economic downturn, not more relaxed standards. The Democratic National Committee and the DCCC will continue. No doubt. But its indebtedness after its most expensive and probably losing mid-term election cycle may put it in a precarious state until the presidential campaign. If may twist on an old financial cautionary warning: past performance is not a guarantee of future results. In 2010, the DNC and the DCCC may face substantial indebtedness and will have to repay the loan through 2012 as well as re-build their donor base.
I strongly recommend that your urge your clients, the DNC and DCCC, to be transparent and back up the collateral for their $32 million lines of credit. Failure to do so will only give the public the impression that there was a sweetheart deal here, and perhaps even the appearance of unlawful activity as well.
Bank of America announced on Monday that it would resume home foreclosures in nearly two dozen states, despite the running controversy over how banks handled tens of thousands of cases of homeowners facing eviction.
Bank of America, the nation’s largest bank and the servicer of roughly one in five American mortgages, insisted that it had not found a single example where a foreclosure proceeding was brought in error.
The move is also likely to encourage other giant lenders, like JPMorgan Chase, to resume the foreclosure process that threatens two million homeowners.
Meanwhile, GMAC Mortgage, whose procedures helped prompt the controversy when one its executives testified that he had signed 10,000 documents in a month, is also proceeding with foreclosures.
“We announced a temporary suspension of evictions and foreclosure sales in the 23 judicial states several weeks ago so we could commence the appropriate review,” said Gina Proia, a spokeswoman for GMAC. “As cases are being reviewed and, when needed, remediated, the foreclosure process moves forward as appropriate.”
Guy Cecala of Inside Mortgage Finance, an industry publication, said: “This draws a line in the sand that the banks expect this problem will be over in relatively short order and it will be back to business as usual. If Bank of America can do it, certainly the smaller ones will follow suit.”
Bank of America plans to begin filing new paperwork for 102,000 foreclosures by Monday.
Consumer advocates and lawyers for homeowners expressed skepticism that Bank of America could complete a review of the paperwork so quickly. But the banking industry has come under increasing pressure from investors to resolve the problem.
Investors have fled bank stocks in recent days, worrying that the foreclosure halt would cost banks billions of dollars and inflict further harm on the nation’s struggling housing market. Bank of America is scheduled to report its latest quarterly results on Tuesday. Its shares have suffered more than those of other big banks, so any sign that the crisis is easing is likely to be greeted favorably by shareholders.
Reports of improper procedures at mortgage servicers, like having officials sign thousands of documents a month — so-called robo-signers — also have set off a political furor. On Wednesday, all 50 state attorneys general announced an investigation of mortgage servicing.
Bank of America said it would resume foreclosures in the 23 states where judicial approval was required after an internal review turned up no evidence that cases were filed in error.
However, Bank of America’s suspension will remain in effect in the 27 other states that do not require a judge’s approval to foreclose, as the bank’s paperwork review proceeds state by state. It was the only bank to initiate a nationwide freeze.
“We did a thorough review of the process, and we found the facts underlying the decision to foreclose have been accurate,” said Barbara J. Desoer, president of Bank of America Home Loans. “We paused while we were doing that, and now we’re moving forward.”
In the other 27 states, Ms. Desoer said, she expects foreclosures to resume within weeks.
Bank of America was careful to note that the major holders of mortgages — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — as well as private investors had signed off on its decision and had been consulted during the review. Of the 14 million mortgages it services — about $2.1 trillion worth — about half are owned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant mortgage holding companies now controlled by the Treasury.
About 30 percent are owned by institutional investors, like hedge funds, pension funds and insurance companies, while Bank of America holds 20 percent.
“We voluntarily paused our process in the 23 judicial states, not because there was evidence of problems — there was not — but because we wanted to ensure our customers they are being treated fairly,” said Dan Frahm, a bank spokesman.
Even as Bank of America and GMAC signaled their resumption of foreclosures, a Citigroup executive said the company was confident in its procedures. “The integrity of Citi’s foreclosures process is sound,” John C. Gerspach, Citigroup’s chief financial officer, said on a conference call.
In Bank of America’s case, the foreclosures are resuming in the 23 states where judicial procedure is required because the halt was initiated there first, on Oct. 1. It was extended to the other 27 states on Oct. 8.
From the beginning, Bank of America signaled that it did not expect the review to go on for an extended period. On Oct. 8, its chief executive, Brian Moynihan, promised a quick conclusion.
Angelo R. Mozilo, the founder and former chief executive of Countrywide Financial, once the nation’s largest mortgage lender, agreed to pay $67.5 million Friday to settle a civil fraud case brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission last year.
The settlement came just days before the case against Mr. Mozilo and two former colleagues was scheduled to go to trial before a jury in Los Angeles.
The two colleagues settled their cases Friday as well. David Sambol, the former president of Countrywide, agreed to pay $5.52 million, and Eric Sieracki, the former chief financial officer, consented to $130,000.
Under the agreement, the three men did not admit wrongdoing.
Mr. Mozilo’s agreement with the government represents a humbling moment for one of most audacious and flamboyant chief executives in the financial industry. The son of a Bronx butcher, Mr. Mozilo started Countrywide in 1969 with David Loeb, a business partner; together the men built the company into a behemoth with $11.4 billion in revenues at its peak in 2006.
But Countrywide’s foray into subprime lending and other risky loans led to its downfall, and in early 2008, hobbled by mounting losses on loans, the company was purchased by Bank of America in a fire sale. Mr. Mozilo left the company shortly thereafter.
In its complaint filed in June 2009, the S.E.C. had accused Mr. Mozilo, Mr. Sambol and Mr. Sieracki of hiding from investors the growing risks in Countrywide’s operations. The complaint also contended that Mr. Mozilo and Mr. Sambol improperly generated profits on insider stock sales even as they were alerted to the company’s widening woes.
Mr. Mozilo was not present for the court hearing.
Mr. Mozilo’s trial had been widely anticipated because it represented one of the few public prosecutions of a case against a major participant in the mortgage crisis. Still, both the defense and the prosecution faced big risks if they lost at trial, legal experts said, and this may have propelled the recent negotiations to bring about the deal. The settlement was approved by John F. Walter, the federal judge overseeing the case.
Had the S.E.C. won the case, it would have helped the agency re-establish its reputation as an investor advocate, which was badly damaged by inaction in the years leading up to the Madoff Ponzi scheme and the mortgage debacle. A loss would have been another black eye for the S.E.C.
A victory would also have been crucial for Mr. Mozilo, who would be concerned that a criminal prosecution might follow a loss in the civil case.
Sources: AP, CBS News, CNN, NY Times, Countrywide, BOFA, Youtube
Bank of America, the nation’s largest bank by assets, is placing a moratorium on all foreclosure proceedings and sales across the United States, according CNBC and a report on The Wall Street Journal’s Web site. The postponement takes effect Saturday.
Separately, PNC Financial Services Group Inc. is halting most foreclosures and evictions in 23 states for a month so it can review whether documents it submitted to courts complied with state laws.
An official at the Pittsburgh-based bank confirmed the PNC decision, which was reported earlier by the New York Times. The official requested anonymity because the decision hasn't been publicly announced.
The moves come amid mounting political pressure on big U.S. banks to examine foreclosure-documentation problems. Bank of America is the first financial institution to stop all foreclosure actions amid revelations that the banking industry had used "robo-signers," people who sign hundreds of documents a day without reviewing their contents, when foreclosing on homes, the Journal said.
In a statement released Friday, Bank of America said it will stop foreclosure sales until “our assessment has been satisfactorily completed. Our ongoing assessment shows the basis for foreclosure decisions is accurate. We continue to serve the interests of our customers, investors and communities. Providing solutions for distressed homeowners remains our primary focus.”
PNC becomes the fourth major U.S. lender to halt some foreclosures amid evidence that mortgage company employees or their lawyers signed documents in foreclosure cases without verifying the information in them.
N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper is giving Bank of America until Friday to halt foreclosure proceedings in the state amid concerns the Charlotte bank and other lenders haven't properly reviewed documents.
In a letter sent to the bank, Cooper questioned why Bank of America voluntarily suspended foreclosures in 23 states that involve a judicial process but not in its home state. North Carolina requires a "quasi-judicial" process in which clerks of court frequently review affidavits submitted by banks.
"If Bank of America has halted foreclosure proceedings in other states due to flaws in its affidavit process, we do not understand why Bank of America should routinely continue with foreclosures with the same flaws in North Carolina," Cooper's office wrote.
The attorney general wants the bank's foreclosures suspended until it shows its processes are legal. Bank of America said it's responding to officials' concerns.
"Our initial assessment findings show the factual loan information underlying our foreclosures is accurate," spokesman Dan Frahm said, adding the bank continues its "exhaustive efforts to assist our customers who have been unable to make their mortgage payments."
The statement did not address how Bank of America would respond to the Friday deadline set by Cooper.
Cooper has asked 13 other large mortgage servicers to also halt foreclosures in the state until they prove compliance. Those lenders have until Oct. 12 to respond to the attorney general's questions.
North Carolina is also seeking more information about practices at Ally Financial, which has halted foreclosure-related evictions in North Carolina and 22 other states.
In an interview, Cooper said lenders could be breaking an N.C. law requiring a good-faith effort to work out loan modifications if they're improperly handling foreclosure paperwork. One of his main concerns is that homeowners get a "fair shot" at loan modifications, he said.
The attorney general has broad powers to investigate unfair and deceptive business practices, including assessing civil penalties. Cooper said he didn't want to discuss possible penalties until he has heard back from the lenders.
"We are looking to work with the lenders to make sure they get it right," he said.
Among the lenders, Wells Fargo has said its procedures are appropriate and that it doesn't plan to halt foreclosures. BB&T and HSBC also said their processes comply with the law. Citigroup said it doesn't believe a suspension is necessary because it has no reason to believe its employees haven't been following procedures. JPMorgan and Ally have said they are reviewing affidavits and will fix any problems.
SunTrust said it's reviewing the attorney general's letter, while MetLife said it intends to cooperate. OneWest declined comment. Others didn't respond or couldn't be reached.
The attorney general's move comes after Bank of America, Ally and JPMorgan Chase stopped some foreclosure-related actions in about half of the country after concerns that employees and outside lawyers signed documents without verifying information. JPMorgan's moratorium includes North Carolina.
Attorneys general in other states and members of Congress have also called for foreclosure suspensions as well as investigations of lenders' procedures. On Wednesday, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., called on bank regulators to review the foreclosure activities at Bank of America, JPMorgan and Ally.
In some cases, in a process nicknamed "robosigning," bank employees have said they have rapidly signed documents, raising questions about whether they are properly verifying information about homes that are being foreclosed upon. In a deposition obtained by the N.C. attorney general, a Bank of America employee in Texas testified that she would sign as many as 8,000 documents in a month, often in batches.
In another case, a Wells Fargo supervisor based in Fort Mill testified to signing 50 to 150 documents per day. A Wells spokesman noted a judge reviewed the bank's procedures and dismissed the borrower's case, confirming the foreclosure as valid.
Although foreclosures are traumatic for homeowners and damaging to neighborhoods, analysts say the selling off of these homes to financially stable buyers is an important step in a much-needed recovery for the housing market. "If you freeze foreclosures, the overhang in housing gets worse," said Virginia-based banking consultant Bert Ely. "The market isn't clearing."
Cooper said he hopes lenders can work quickly through the process of verifying their practices.
"We don't want to stop foreclosures that are legitimate and need to happen," he said.
"We want to make sure that homeowners are getting a fair shot at keeping their homes and the process has been done legally."
For many North Carolina homeowners, losing their homes to foreclosure was devastating. It is beyond outrageous that many banks were so cavalier with the process that employees didn't even bother to read or verify the information in foreclosure documents.
It is even more dismaying to us that one or both of Charlotte's big banks may be among the culprits in this travesty of faulty work known as "robo-signing."
Bank of America has halted foreclosures while it investigates and straightens out faulty paperwork. It's delaying foreclosures in 23 states including South Carolina. Over the weekend, questions arose about Wells Fargo's foreclosure documents. Wells said it doesn't plan to delay foreclosures because it's confident its foreclosures documents are accurate.
We're not so confident. N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper is right to ask lenders to suspend foreclosures in this state until they can show their process conforms with the law. Given how badly this state was hit with foreclosures, banks involved in lending to North Carolinians should be probing robo-signing practices.
Nationwide, Ally Financial's GMAC Mortgage unit and JPMorgan Chase have halted tens of thousands of foreclosures. Ally stopped evictions here and in 22 other states. Robo-signing is so prevalent more banks are expected to follow suit.
What are those practices? In some cases, bank employees admit they signed foreclosure papers without reading them or determining if crucial information - such as how much borrowers still owed on the property - is accurate. Sometimes documents were notarized illegally with indications that the notary did not actually witness the signing of papers.
These practices are unacceptable. Some appear to be illegal. The N.C. attorney general's office notified Ally last week that using unverified affidavits could constitute fraud. Cooper is right when he says that such practices could mean that "some N.C. homeowners may not be getting a good-faith shot at loan modifications."
This mess is exasperating. The reckless lending practices of financial institutions helped cause the foreclosure tsunami that swept over the country. That damage has been so hard to repair in part because many have been tight-fisted with money they could have loaned consumers and small businesses. Many lenders have been reluctant to modify mortgages, instead moving much too swiftly on foreclosure.
Some of that rush resulted in faulty paperwork that will be costly to fix. Courts may impose sanctions on lenders or force banks to pay borrowers' legal costs in these cases. Judges may even dismiss the foreclosures, barring lenders from refiling and awarding the home to the borrower.
These lenders deserve to be penalized if they failed to meet legal requirements before evicting defaulting borrowers from their homes. Consumers, who often also were losing their financial stability, deserved that consideration.
Belatedly, many lenders will now have to meet those requirements. Investigations by attorneys generals in several states and a probe by federal regulators are forcing them to do so. It did not have to come to this. But it is an apt reminder of why reforms and better oversight of financial institutions are so badly needed.
Welcome to the BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog. (Established 2008)
My name is Laurel. (Author & Publisher)
I Blog with a focus on POLITICS, Business, and occasionally Entertainment.
FACTS ABOUT LAUREL:
Wife,
Mother of a U.S. Soldier,
Sister,
Woman of GOD,
Loyal Friend,
Creative,
Blood-related to a nationally known Charlotte Politician.
Black Female, Intelligent,
Married,
Love to Travel,
Credentialed by the RNC and DNC.
Political Blogger/ Commentator
Grassroots Activist,
PROFESSIONAL STATUS:
Credential Political Blogger/ Commentator,
Registered Independent Voter
Original Native of BROOKLYN, NY
Currently reside in CHARLOTTE, NC
I’m Nice but don’t get it twisted because my Mind is Sharp!
Since You’ve Chosen to Visit and Read the Contents of this Blog by Personal Choice, and of Your Own Free Will,
Please don’t ask me to Compensate you for Expressing individual commentary/ Posted Articles, which are protected by the First Amendment, citing Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression.
No Intentionally Malicious Slander, Libel or Defamation of Character content will be published and I will always Credit all Sources.
NOTE TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, APPOINTED OFFICIALS & PUBLIC FIGURES:
Per the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case: 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan………
The Public has a Right to Criticize the People who Govern them, so the least Protection from Defamation is given to Public Officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” (For a definition of actual malice, see the “History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.”)
People who aren’t Elected but who are Still Public Figures because they are influential or famous — like Actors, Actresses, Movie Stars, Singers & Entertainers, Journalists, TV Hosts, Bloggers, etc., — also have to Prove that Defamatory statements were made with Actual Malice, in most cases.
To the Associated Press and other Media Organizations:
When I use your Content Links., I’m also citing the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107) for further Copyright permission.
Posts and Links published on Black Political Buzz are not endorsed by Black Political Buzz Blog Author Laurel’s Employer, nor the Employers of other Black Political Buzz employees.
This includes Links, Posts and Comments posted on Black Political Buzz’s Facebook and Twitter account pages.
Comments, Links and Opinions of site visitors are Independently-Owned and not endorsed by Black Political Buzz employees, Blog Author Laurel or Laurel’s Employer.)
(No Personal Offense intended) Please know that Black Political Buzz is not responsible for nor do I endorse Requests for Donations from Third Parties on this Blog.
I will Only Endorse Requests for Donations made on behalf of BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog for Business Purposes & Operating Expenses.
I will also Only Endorse Requests for Donations on behalf of Legitimate Politicians and Legitimate Political Candidates. PERIOD!!
If anyone else or another Organization wishes to post a link to Request Donations, I am NOT endorsing ANY of those Requests!
Unless I receive a personal Request to do so and I have Professionally Confirmed that the Third Party Organization or Charity is indeed a Legitimate Entity.
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to give to any Third Party Organization NOT Endorsed by BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ is doing so at his or her own risk.
BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ does NOT Discriminate against Politicians, Political Candidates, Organizations or Charities based on Race, Color, Nationality, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Faith, Disability, Political Affiliation, Creed, Education, Social Status, Age.
This disclaimer applies to ANY and All requests for Donations on this Blog. Thanks for understanding. Again No Personal Offense intended.
For Story Tips….Corrections…….. or Requests for Endorsements:
Please contact me via e-mail: blackpoliticalbuzz@gmail.com
or via my Facebook page: facebook.com/blackpoliticalbuzz
Thanks for stopping by
God Bless
Laurel @BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ
LINKS: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE & INFORMATIONAL SITES
.jpg)
