FANNIE MAE IS BADLY IN NEED OF REFORM & NEW LEADERSHIP MINUS CONGRESS' INTERVENTION (NO BAIL OUT)

FANNIE MAE IS BADLY IN NEED OF REFORM & NEW LEADERSHIP MINUS CONGRESS' INTERVENTION (NO BAIL OUT):

WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL INTERFERENCE, FANNIE MAE STAFF CAN NO LONGER USE POLITICS TO HURT HOMEOWNERS WHO VOTE OPPOSITE OF THEIR CHOSEN CANDIDATES.

WITHOUT CONGRESS' HELP, FANNIE MAE STAFF CAN NO LONGER STEAL HOMES WITH EQUITY FROM U.S. MILITARY VETERANS WHO VOTE OPPOSITE OF THEIR CHOSEN CANDIDATES.


Post Sources: American Banker, Forbes, Fox News, Youtube


********How next FHFA chief can reform Fannie, Freddie without Congress' help


The legislative stalemate over housing finance reform is likely to prolong the uncertain future for the government-sponsored enterprises. But it also illuminates the power of the next head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

With FHFA Director Mel Watt's term due to end in January, his successor — either a Senate-confirmed appointee or an interim chief — has substantial authority to set part of the path forward on GSE reform, including how far Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac expand their mission and the status of a common securitization platform shared by the two mortgage giants.

“Reforms can move forward without legislation,” said Anne Canfield, executive director of the Consumer Mortgage Coalition. “There are things that can be done administratively that would reduce the government’s exposure and risk to the GSEs and bring private capital into the marketplace, but in a little bit of a different way.”

That highlights the importance of whomever the Trump administration selects for the job. It could be someone who differs from Watt — an Obama appointee — in style and policy, who could opt to go as far as placing the mortgage giants into receivership.

“I don’t think we’re going to have legislative GSE reform anytime, but the day-to-day decisions they make, whether to approve a pilot or fund the Housing Trust Fund, these are significant decisions that will impact the trajectory of mortgage finance,” said Isaac Boltansky, the director of policy research at Compass Point.

During his tenure, Watt has appeared cautious about changing Fannie and Freddie's role in the absence of congressional reforms.

"I am well aware, and regularly express my belief, that conservatorship should never be viewed as permanent or as a desirable end state and that housing finance reform is necessary," Watt said in a 2014 policy speech early in his FHFA tenure. "However, Congress and the administration have the important job of deciding on housing finance reform legislation, not FHFA. Instead, our task is to continue to fulfill our statutory mandates, to execute our strategic plan and to manage the present status of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

But observers said his successor could take advantage of the agency's powers to move in the direction of reducing the GSEs' role.

Before Watt arrived, the agency was run on an acting basis by Ed DeMarco, who had joined the agency in the Bush administration and was seen as more opposed to expanding Fannie and Freddie's reach.

“It depends on the person," said Canfield. "It really depends on who they select.”

Some candidates who have been mentioned as possible successors to Watt — including DeMarco himself along with retiring House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling — have been vocal about reducing the government’s role in the mortgage market.

In February, when Fannie requested a $3.7 billion draw from the Treasury, Hensarling harshly criticized giving the company any more bailout funds.

“Today’s announcement that Fannie Mae has once again run out of money to pay its own bills is the latest example of why we need to repeal the GSEs’ government charters once and for all," he said then in a statement, adding criticism later of Watt's handling of the companies' fiscal situation.

"The even more troubling aspect of the GSEs financial crisis is FHFA Director Mel Watt’s continued insistence to siphon taxpayer dollars to prop up payments to the Housing Trust Fund that the GSEs cannot afford to make," Hensarling said. "If the GSEs don’t have the money to pay their own bills, they should not be making optional payments to outside entities."

While Watt's term will end in early 2019, a pair of recent scandals facing the agency has led some to speculate he could leave sooner. Watt has been accused of sexually harassing an FHFA staffer and is reportedly under a separate investigation for attempting to weaken the oversight of the FHFA Office of Inspector General.

Before a new nominee is Senate-confirmed, the White House could appoint one of Watt’s three lieutenants to serve as acting director or appoint a temporary director under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act when Watt leaves.

“If there’s a prolonged period where we have an acting director … I think that it would be a slower decision-making process and more of a caretaker,” said Boltansky.

But Canfield disagreed, saying that the administrative decisions made by an acting director could depend on the person.

“I think the acting director can do quite a bit,” she said. “I would hope that they would get a permanent director in there but if they’re not able to do that, I think they can all move forward with an acting director.”

If the White House were to move quickly to nominate a successor to Watt, it would signal that the administration wants to move quickly to end conservatorship and implement reforms of the mortgage finance system, Keefe, Bruyette & Woods wrote in recent a research note.

“However, it is difficult to say what policy path the administration will pursue until we see what personnel it intends to insert at FHFA,” the company said.

Of all the actions a director could take, the most significant would be to put Fannie and Freddie into a receivership, which supporters claim would restructure the GSEs without burdening taxpayers.

Among the other decisions the next FHFA director could make would be to determine the courts of efforts to implement a common securitization platform, which would allow Fannie and Freddie to issue uniform mortgage-backed securities. The FHFA has pushed the second phase of the process to June 2019 — after Watt’s departure.

The director will also be at liberty to decide whether or not to continue Fannie's pilot Enterprise-Paid Mortgage Insurance program and Freddie's similar Integrated Mortgage Insurance pilot, which both debuted this year. Some have criticized the mortgage insurance programs as being too far outside the bounds of the GSEs’ mission.

An FHFA director with the view that the GSEs' footprint should be reduced could oppose the mortgage insurance pilots.

However, the pilot programs are too new to automatically write off, and the FHFA director could just as easily wait to see if the programs are effective before making a decision to implement them further, said Laurence Platt, an attorney at Mayer Brown.

“I don’t think this is an issue that will be dependent on who the new FHFA director is,” Platt said. “I don’t think there’s a partisan side to this, per se.”

To be sure, there are clear limits on what the next FHFA director can do administratively. Creating some new housing finance structure to replace the GSEs is the territory of Congress. Instituting an explicit government guarantee or changing the ownership charter or structure of the GSEs would need congressional approval, which is unlikely to happen in the short term.

Besides congressional reforms, there are other policy areas where the FHFA cannot move unilaterally. The FHFA would have to work with the Treasury Department to change the preferred stock purchase agreements, which require Fannie and Freddie to direct nearly all of their profit to Treasury. Investors have long claimed this is unfair, and have unsuccessfully challenged the legality of this agreement in court for several years.

MEL WATT, 72, FANNIE MAE CHIEF, INVESTIGATED FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIM BY FEMALE EMPLOYEE (#MeToo)

MEL WATT, 72, FANNIE MAE CHIEF, INVESTIGATED FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIM BY FEMALE EMPLOYEE (#MeToo):

FANNIE MAE OWNS THE LOANS FOR MANY U.S. MILITARY VETERAN HOMEOWNERS.

U.S. MILITARY VETERAN HOMEOWNERS ARE LOSING THEIR HOMES UNDER FANNIE MAE'S LEADERSHIP......WHY??

IF U.S. MILITARY VET HOMEOWNERS EXPERIENCE HARDSHIPS, WHY NOT TRANSFER THOSE LOANS TO VETERANS AFFAIRS ADMIN?

THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIM IS BEING THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED BY A FEDERAL AGENCY.

THE VICTIM HAS HIRED A VERY REPUTABLE ATTORNEY.

MEL WATT IS A CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA NATIVE & FORMER U.S. CONGRESS MEMBER.

MEL WATT IS AN OBAMA ADMIN HOLDOVER. HIS FIVE-YR TERM ENDS IN 2019.

DRAIN THE SWAMP.


Post Sources: Politico, Charlotte Observer, Daily Caller, Youtube


****** **** Federal housing leader Mel Watt under investigation for sexual harassment claim


Mel Watt, a former Democratic congressman from Charlotte who now heads a federal housing agency, is under investigation for harassment of a female employee.

Politico first reported the allegations Friday, citing documents and partial transcripts of conversations between Watt and the employee, which the story did not name. The story describes three 2016 incidents of Watt making sexual advances on the woman.

A statement from Watt through the Federal Housing Finance Agency to McClatchy confirmed an ongoing investigation, as did an attorney for the woman.

“The selective leaks related to this matter are obviously intended to embarrass or to lead to an unfounded or political conclusion.

However, I am confident that the investigation currently in progress will confirm that I have not done anything contrary to law. I will have no further comment while the investigation is in progress,” said Watt, who is the agency’s director.

The investigation began a month or two ago, said Diane Seltzer Torre, an attorney for the woman who alleges the harassment.

Torre said the investigation is being conducted by an official with the U.S. Postal Service. It is typical for an outside agency to investigate claims such as these.

My client did not submit information to the media. She is not looking for attention and doesn’t want to talk to the media,” Torre said.

Torre declined to identify her client nor would she discuss her client’s employment status with the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

She said she is not aware of any other complaints against Watt.

Watt, 72, represented Charlotte in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1993 to 2014, when he was tapped by President Barack Obama to head the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

The agency oversees Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and FHLBanks, which provide nearly $6 trillion for mortgage markets and financial institutions, according to FHFA.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency was created after the housing crash in 2008 and it serves as the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Watt was confirmed by the Senate 57-41 months after he was nominated. Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina was one of two Republicans to back Watt’s nomination.

Watt’s five-year term is set to expire in January. Watt is still on the job, a spokeswoman for the agency said.

Watt, an attorney, is married and has two grown children and three grandchildren, according to his FHFA bio.

A Mecklenburg County native, Watt graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill before earning a law degree at Yale. He served one term in the North Carolina state senate.

While in the U.S. House in 2011, Watt tried to slash funding for the Office of Congressional Ethics by 40 percent, a move that was soundly defeated.

Watt and seven colleagues were investigated and cleared by the office for fundraising that took place before a key House vote.

In 2008, Watt had voted to create the Office of Congressional Ethics.

“I wouldn’t call it a ‘personal vendetta,’” Watt told McClatchy at the time. “But I also wouldn’t deny that my experiences had something to do with my view of this agency.”

North Carolina HOAs Gone Rogue! Lawmakers Refuse To Act! (Developer Political Donations)

HOA forecloses on family; neighbors lose, attorneys profit

Not all the foreclosures emptying homes across the Carolinas originate from banks and lenders. Increasingly, the institution doing the foreclosing is made up of neighbors who run the homeowners association–known as the HOA.

Consider one family’s story:

Michelle Roberts’ parents helped her and her husband buy their first home in Gaston County in 2003. Even though she and her husband Darin paid the mortgage, her mom and dad signed the note. Their names are on the deed. That means her parents are on the hook now that the home is in foreclosure and the courts have ordered her family to pack up and leave this week.

“We're going to have to move back in with mom and dad for a while,” Michelle said, sitting among boxes in her living room. “We have no choice.”

This is not one more bank foreclosure–one more mortgage gone bad. No, the Roberts are losing their home to their neighbors–their HOA.

“We just wanted them to work with us,” said Michelle. “We didn't neglect paying them on purpose. They neglected to notify us.”

The Mountain View Community Association off of Spencer Mountain Road near Ranlo, North Carolina and its management company, Hawthorne Management of Charlotte, did not send a bill to the Roberts for years.

“Not one word for six years,” said Michelle, “Not one word.”

The HOA lost track of the Roberts lot and two others when the builder transferred the property to their family. Then in May of 2009 the HOA sent Michelle’s parents a statement asking for almost six years worth of dues at once–$945.

“I don’t know how we would pay that, and I don’t think it’s fair,” said Michelle’s husband Darin Roberts.

At first the Roberts say they called a neighbor who served on the board of the HOA.

“She said, ‘Don’t worry about it. We’ll work it out. It’s not that big of a deal,’” said Darin.

That was before the lien notices and threatening letters began arriving from the HOA’s law firm.

“We were blindsided,” said Michelle.

So the Roberts tried repeatedly to work out a payment plan.

“They wanted a $444-a-month payment and refused to accept anything less than that,” said Michelle.

“I had my daughter selling brownies on the weekend,” Darin said. “I borrowed from my sister. I did overtime. I’m a middle class family dude that tries to pay his bills and feed his family.”

The Roberts made payments totaling $888 last May–which sounds like they’d paid off the bulk of their original HOA debt.

“You would think wouldn’t you?” said Michelle. “You would think.”

But no.

By that point, the HOA’s attorneys were involved. And they charged far more than the original debt in fees and court costs to try to collect it all. Court records show the Roberts whole payment went to legal fees–not to the HOA.

In fact, the paralegal working for the law firm e-mailed the Roberts that, “Your account will be charged $45 for every payment plan request” even if the lawyers refused to accept the terms.

“It’s just burying us deeper and deeper,” said Michelle. “Trying to fix the problem is just making it worse. Every time they touch it, every time they pick up the phone, we’re getting billed again.”

The Roberts gave up. The HOA and its law firm foreclosed.

“Now it just seems like the HOA’s can do whatever they want anytime they want,” Darin said.

And that original bill of less than a thousand dollars? T he attorneys added almost $6,000 in court costs and legal fees.

“The people that are benefiting are the attorneys,” said Michelle. “They’re getting five times what the original bill was.”

The people who are not benefit ting from this HOA foreclosure? The neighbors. Because the foreclosure means the HOA–the neighbors–now own the Roberts home.

“I don't know what good that is,” said Michelle. “People can't sell their homes who legitimately want to sell their homes now.”

Foreclosures can drive down property values for the neighbors since would-be buyers look to comparable nearby properties – known as “comps” – to gage the price they should pay. And foreclosed homes often sell at fire-sale prices, dragging down the neighborhood average.

“The HOA will get their $975,” said Michelle. “But they’ll also have an empty house along with the others they’ve done this to.”

The I-Team searched through Gaston County Register of Deeds records and found six more foreclosures in the last year and a half in the same Mountain View neighborhood from the same Hawthorne Management company and the same law firm: Sellers, Hinshaw. (Click here to read an e-mail from Sellers, Hinshaw)

“We try to work with people,” attorney Tim Sellers told the I-Team in an earlier interview.

Sellers refused to speak on camera about Mountain View and the Roberts.

“The vast majority of the ones we deal with if they’re not in compliance we work to get ‘em in compliance,” he said.

Sellers sent the I-Team a five page time line (click here to read) detailing two years of back-and-forth with the Roberts concluding, “Collection action was authorized only when the Association received no response from the owners or after the owners defaulted on the written agreement for installment payments.”

The Roberts say they made a good faith effort to try to pay an old debt during trying times and lost their home in the process.

Sitting on her couch before loading it on the truck, Michelle summed it up: “We’re like every other family. We’re struggling. We’ve had to take three pay cuts in the banking industry just to keep a job. My business was cut in half. My father has a rare and aggressive cancer.”

Michelle’s father, Dennis Hiatt, said he may go bankrupt. Between breaths from an oxygen tank he says: “It may be legal what they’re doing but it’s just not right.”




NASCAR driver loses four year legal fight with HOA


Todd Bodine is accustomed to the sound of winning.

The NASCAR driver has won the sport’s truck series twice, most recently last year. But earlier this month, if you were to pass by the Bodines’ well-kept home in the Harris Village neighborhood of Mooresville, you would have heard the sound of Todd Bodine losing, as he and a crew of helpers tore down his prize pool house and tiki hut board by board and piece by piece, the result of an epic four-year battle with his homeowners association, or HOA.

A select committee of North Carolina lawmakers considering reforms of the HOA statutes heard that 53% of owner-occupied homes in the state are governed by HOA’s. But few of those homeowners sue their HOA and appeal all the way to the state Supreme Court, only to lose and have to tear down a structure, plus pay opposing attorneys’ fees and fines in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Bodines did.

“I think I’ve been done wrong,” Bodine said, sitting in shorts by his pool, the remnants of his poolside bar covered with a tarp. “And it’s incredible how unjust it is.”

The disagreement started in July of 2007 when the HOA board president who the Bodines had entertained over beers as they built their pool abruptly told them the pool house was not approved. “The president never said ‘it's OK for you to start building,’” said Keith Black, the Greensboro attorney who represented the Harris Village HOA.

Todd Bodine insists the HOA president had told him verbally to go ahead and build. “Everything was always, fine, OK, looks good,” said Bodine.

The issue came to a head at an emergency meeting in the Bodines’ driveway. Bodine was upset. “It was on then. I got in his face,” Bodine said. He and his wife went inside their home while the board members talked things over. The board members signed a “Request for Architectural Approval” checked “approved” pending the approval of the Town of Mooresville Codes Department, which the Bodines quickly secured.

But the dispute continued. The board’s attorney contends that the document was conditional on the Bodines submitting final drawings with dimensions and that the board never realized how large the structure would be. The HOA had issued interpretations of the covenants limiting the size of “accessory buildings” including tool sheds and utility buildings to 320 square feet. But the document was never recorded as part of the covenants.”They ignored the phone calls, the e-mail and built the thing,” said Black.

So when the Bodines returned home after several weeks on the road racing, they faced threatening letters and the prospect of fines from the HOA. “They were fining us $100 a day which is absurd,” said Bodine. The Bodines filed suit.

Bodine insists the HOA targeted him, knowing he could afford the fines. “I was gouged pretty hard because of who I am,” Bodine said. “I believe a lot of it was because of my celebrity as a NASCAR driver.”

But Black, the HOA’s attorney, says the lawsuit had nothing to do with Bodine’s status, further saying the HOA tried to settle. “They said, ‘No. We're not gonna do it. You're wrong. Kiss our rear end. We'll see you in court,’” said Black.

If it’s true that you can’t fight city hall, Todd and Janet Bodine found you really can’t fight the HOA. They lost at every level. It started when the trial judge gave a directed verdict to the HOA so the jurors who sat through days of testimony never even got to deliberate. “We were all dumbfounded,” said Bodine. Then the Bodines lost on appeal. And finally the state Supreme Court refused to even hear the case.

In the whole four years no one said the Bodines’ pool house hurt Harris Village. “Hell it was nice looking,” said Black. “That wasn't the issue. Nobody said it's ugly and you have to take it down.”

Instead the HOA stood on principle and said if they let the Bodines build a pool house without the permission of the HOA board – then what next? “They open the door for anybody and everybody else to say, ‘Well I want to paint my house purple and have pink toilet seats all over the front yard,’” said Black.

The Bodines say other Harris Village homeowners have broken the architectural guidelines of the HOA, so they believe the fight got personal. “I think it was a small group of people out for vengeance,” said Bodine. “They saw their cash cow and they were going for it.”

So now the Bodines are on the hook for their own attorney’s fees, the HOA’s attorneys’ fees and almost $40,000 in accrued fines. The HOA put a lien on their home for the unpaid fines. Bodine was fed up. “I told ‘em, ‘Take it. Take the house,” he said.

Having exhausted their appeals in the courts, the Bodines would like the state legislature to consider reigning in the powers of HOA’s, a group of almost 18,000 neighborhood governments in North Carolina run by neighbors. “A lot of time their power is just way too strong,” said Bodine.

Black and other attorneys representing the HOA’s say that neighbors have legal remedies built into the law and if they don’t like the way the HOA is run they can always throw out the board by electing someone else. “Anytime somebody loses all of a sudden they want it to be changed,” said Black.

But the Bodines are hardly the only homeowners to run afoul of a group of neighbors bent on tearing down their property. And the state legislature is considering several bills to reform HOA’s. None of them will help the Bodines who this month tore their pool house to the ground.


View Larger Map


Sources: McClatchy Newspapers, WCNC, Google Maps

Anthony Foxx & Jennifer Roberts Team Up For "Secret" Tax Hike Scheme ("Revenue Neutral")

Anthony Foxx: No City Tax Hike Could Give Mecklenburg County Flexibility


Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx said he supports the city's next budget having a property tax rate that keeps revenue the same, which he said could give Mecklenburg County more flexibility to fund schools, parks and social services.

The city and the county are both starting budget preparations for the upcoming year at a time of flux. The poor economy has battered local government revenue, and Mecklenburg County is currently reassessing property values, which it hasn't done since 2003.

Foxx said at a press conference Friday morning that a revenue-neutral city budget could give Mecklenburg County more options when it sets its tax rate, perhaps by going higher than revenue neutral to raise more money.

"If we can bring the tax rate down, maybe it can create some capacity at the county level to capture some of the reval without it feeling as tough for residents," Foxx said.

City residents have two different tax bills - one for the city and another for the county. Foxx, who wants to merge city and county government, said keeping overall city taxes the same would shield residents from a double-tax hike if the county chose to generate more revenue.


Read on......http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/01/08/1962726/foxx-could-city-clear-way-for.html


View Larger Map


Sources: McClatchy Newspapers, WCNC, Google Maps

Foreclosure Ruins Consumer Credit For 7 To 14 Years

After Foreclosure: How Long Until You Can Buy Again?


Walking away from a mortgage you can still afford to pay has consequences; everyone knows that. Your credit score is shot and it can be impossible to get credit.

Some homeowners, no doubt, believe that the credit score hit is worth getting out from a deeply underwater mortgage. They may owe, say, $500,000 when their house value is only valued at $350,000. And, they figure, there's no way it will ever be worth what they owe so it's better to get out from underneath the burden.

After default, they reason, they can raise their FICO scores by paying all their bills on time and eventually finance another home purchase.

Don't count on it.

While homeowners who default due to economic hardship, such as a job loss or divorce, normally must wait two to five years before buying a home again, walkaways may face double that time.

"It could be well over seven or eight years before [walkaways] are able to obtain a mortgage to buy a home again," said Jay Brinkmann, chief economist for the Mortgage Bankers Association.




How Foreclosure impacts your credit score

"Credit scores are only one component of a complete credit decision," Brinkmann said. "[In these cases] credit scores are not a good indicator of their willingness to continue to pay their mortgage."

But future underwriters will scrutinize their records very closely, and if they find no precipitating factors leading to the defaults -- no job loss, no health issues --the repaired credit score won't overshadow the black mark of a walkaway.

"If you made a strategic decision to default on paying your mortgage, it will work against you," said Bill Merrell of the National Association of Review Appraisers and Mortgage Underwriters.



Merrell, who teaches underwriting, said banks are looking at several factors in determining whether to grant mortgages: the amount of money borrowers have in the bank; employment histories; payment history.

However, banks may be far more lenient if the default resulted from factors somewhat beyond the borrower's control, such as from local economic problems. "They'll give you more consideration if it's job related," he said. But, he added, banks look at strategic defaults "very negatively."

That said, it's not impossible to get a loan. Banks still want to make interest payments, so they might be willing to gamble with a walkaway.

"It might be a little more difficult for them to borrow, but [banks'] drive for market share -- to profit from making loans -- will trump that caution," said Keith Gumbinger, of the mortgage information publisher HSH Associates. "I don't think we'll see a full denial."

It's hard to foresee the state of mortgage lending six or seven months from now, let alone seven or eight years into the future. So lenders may look at applications from one-time strategic defaulters and say, "Yes, they walked away but it's a whole different market now," according to Gumbinger.

Even so, lenders may require more from borrowers who walked away than those who didn't.

"To the extent they could get a mortgage," said Brinkmann, "they can count on needing a heavy down payment."

The lenders may ask for 30% down or more. That would provide enough collateral cushion that the bank could get all or most of its money back in a foreclosure.

Strategic defaulters might also be charged higher interest rates, even above the levels other borrowers with similar credit scores would receive.


Sources: CNN, Video Credit Score

Black Homeowners Hit Hardest By Foreclosure Crisis: Black In America

Housing Crisis Hits Blacks Hardest

The Foreclosure crisis has hit Blacks harder than any other group in America and it will be tough for them to regain their footing in the housing market.

Blacks' homeownership rate has plummeted nearly 6 percent to 46.2 percent since its peak in 2004. That's more than twice that of any other racial or ethnic group, as well as the nation's rate as a whole, which fell only 2.3 percent, according to U.S. Census data.

Also, among recent borrowers, nearly 8 percent of blacks have lost their homes to foreclosure, compared to 4.5 percent of whites, according to the Center for Responsible Lending. Latinos, who have also been pummeled by the mortgage meltdown, came in a close second behind blacks in foreclosure losses.

The consequences are devastating. Fewer blacks own their home now than any other racial or ethnic group and that makes it even more difficult for them to achieve financial security and attain wealth.

"We built the middle class on homeownership," said Marc Morial, head of the National Urban League, which works to empower the black community. "How many people have built their business with the equity in their home? How many people have sent their kids to college with the equity in their home?"

The loss of homeownership is more than the difference between a mortgage payment and a rent check, experts say. Purchasing property is the key to building wealth, which not only allows people to improve their quality of life and provide more for their children, but also gives them a cushion during tough economic times.

Billions and billions of dollars were stripped away from a community that already had lower levels of wealth than white communities," said Debbie Bocian, senior researcher at the Center for Responsible Lending, which estimates blacks will lose $194 billion in wealth through 2012 due to the mortgage meltdown. "It exacerbates all the socio-economic divides. The consequences are intergenerational."

Subprime lending and unemployment

During the housing boom, nearly seven in 10 Americans owned their home, a gain of 7.8 percent from a decade earlier. Black Americans saw their home ownership rates rise twice as fast to 49.1 percent, thanks in large part to easy credit.

But many of those new mortgages -- which often came with low teaser rates that would adjust upward after two or three years -- would prove unaffordable.

Overall, blacks were 150 percent more likely to get high-cost loans, according to the Center for Responsible Lending. Even when they had similar income and credit scores as white borrowers, blacks were about 30 percent more likely to be steered to expensive mortgages.

When home prices started to fall, borrowers found themselves trapped in subprime loans. And since so many people in the black community had these mortgages, they suffered disproportionately in the early stages of the mortgage meltdown.

Now, the foreclosure crisis has now expanded beyond the subprime market. More and more people with stronger credit backgrounds and more stable mortgages are defaulting on their loans because they've lost their jobs.

But here too, blacks are at a disadvantage. Black unemployment stood at 16.1 percent in September, the highest of any group and 6.5 percentage points above the national average.

"The unemployment rate in the African-American community is sky high," said Chris Herbert, research director at the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. "That's certainly behind their high foreclosure rate."

Tight credit going forward

It's tough for anyone to get a mortgage these days. But it's even more difficult if you are black.

Nearly one-third of blacks were denied loans in 2009, compared to 13.1 percent of whites and 25.6 percent of Latinos, according to federal data released last month. The disparity can't be explained solely by differences in applicants' incomes and loan amount requested. Even when these factors are the same, blacks are still twice as likely to be turned down, a Home Mortgage Disclosure Act report found.

Nearly 49.8 percent of blacks had their refinance applications rejected, compared to 21 percent of whites and 41 percent of Latinos.

These stats mean that many blacks can't shift into lower-cost mortgages in order to save their homes, nor can they purchase their first property and boost homeownership rates.

"Credit constraints are a real concern," Herbert said. "While there is a need for tighter underwriting standards, we have to be careful not to go too far and unnecessarily limit access to credit that helps families manage their finances and build wealth."

One solution that the National Urban League is pushing is more homebuyer education programs. First-time purchasers who go through a course that teaches them about budgets, debt, home maintenance costs and risky, expensive loans are less likely to default, experts say.

"We need a fundamental commitment to housing counseling to prepare people to become homeowners," Morial said.


Sources: CNN

BOFA Foreclosures Resume; Ignores Fraudulent Docs Investigation

Largest Bank Will Resume Foreclosure Push In 23 States


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.






Countrywide’s Former Chief In Settlement Of Fraud Case



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

Obama Vetos Foreclosure Docs Bill! Consumer Protection!

Obama Sends Foreclosure Docs Bill Back To Congress


President Barack Obama has rejected a bill that the White House fears could worsen the mounting problems caused by flawed or misleading documents used by Banks in Home Foreclosures.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that Obama is sending a newly passed bill back to Congress to be fixed because the current version has "unintended consequences on consumer protections." The bill would loosen the process for providing a notary's seal to documents and allow them to be done electronically.

Obama will not sign a bill that would allow foreclosure and other documents to be accepted among multiple states. Consumer advocates and state officials had argued the legislation would make it difficult for homeowners to challenge foreclosure documents prepared in other states.

The White House said Thursday it is sending the bill back to Congress for revisions, and that the administration would work with lawmakers on it.

O. Max Gardner, a consumer lawyer in Shelby, N.C., said the bill would have made the problems with foreclosure documents worse. That's because mortgage companies would have been able to mass-produce documents and affix a digital version of a notary's seal rather than one on paper.



"They could process more foreclosure cases with improper and invalid documents and make it more difficult for consumers to try to fight," he said.

Obama used a rare "pocket veto" - a tactic for killing a bill that can be used only when Congress is not in session. It essentially takes effect when the president fails to sign a bill within 10 days. Obama has yet to issue a traditional veto during his presidency; he has used a pocket veto once before, in December 2009, to address what amounted to a technicality on a defense spending bill.

A furor has been growing as mounting evidence has surfaced that mortgage lenders have been evicting homeowners using flawed court papers. State and federal officials have been ramping up pressure on the mortgage industry over concerns about potential legal violations.

Also Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., urged five large mortgage lenders to suspend foreclosures in Nevada until they have set up systems to make sure homeowners aren't "improperly directed into foreclosure proceedings." Nevada is not among the states where banks have suspended Foreclosures.

Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that the government is looking into the issue. Earlier in the week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and dozens of Democratic lawmakers urged bank regulators and the Justice Department to probe whether mortgage companies violated any laws in handling foreclosures and borrowers' requests for loan assistance.

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, along with liberal groups, had urged Obama to reject the measure after allegations surfaced of widespread flaws in the documents used in the foreclosure process. Those included not having a notary public in the room to certify that a signature is valid.

Three banks have halted some foreclosures in 23 states after evidence surfaced that their employees or outside lawyers signed documents without reading them or filed inaccurate paperwork.

In some states, lenders can foreclose quickly on delinquent mortgage borrowers. By contrast, the 23 states use a lengthy court process. They require documents to verify information on the mortgage, including who owns it.

Those states are:

Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont and Wisconsin.


View Larger Map


Sources: Washington Post, CBS News, CNN, Huffington Post, Youtube, Google Maps

Roy Cooper Demands BOFA Temporarily Halt N.C. Foreclosures During Recession

Bank Of America Gets Friday Deadline To Halt Foreclosures In N.C.

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."










New Foreclosure Mess Shows Need For Reform In North Carolina

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.


View Larger Map


Sources: BOFA, McClatchy Newspapers, Wikipedia, WRAL, Google Maps

Rich Homeowners Default Mortgages More Than Low Income

Biggest Defaulters On Mortgages Are The Rich


The housing bust that began among the working class in remote subdivisions and quickly progressed to the suburban middle class is striking the upper class in privileged enclaves like this one in Silicon Valley.

Whether it is their residence, a second home or a house bought as an investment, the rich have stopped paying the mortgage at a rate that greatly exceeds the rest of the population.

More than one in seven homeowners with loans in excess of a million dollars is seriously delinquent, according to data compiled for The New York Times by the real estate analytics firm CoreLogic.

By contrast, homeowners with less lavish housing are much more likely to keep writing checks to their lender. About one in 12 mortgages below the million-dollar mark is delinquent.

Though it is hard to prove, the CoreLogic data suggest that many of the well-to-do are purposely dumping their financially draining properties, just as they would any sour investment.

“The rich are different: they are more ruthless,” said Sam Khater, CoreLogic’s senior economist.

Five properties here in Los Altos were scheduled for foreclosure auctions in a recent issue of The Los Altos Town Crier, the weekly newspaper where local legal notices are posted. Four have unpaid mortgage debt of more than $1 million, with the highest amount $2.8 million.

Not so long ago, said Chris Redden, the paper’s advertising services director, “it was a surprise if we had one foreclosure a month.”

The sheriff in Cook County, Ill., is increasingly in demand to evict foreclosed owners in the upscale suburbs to the north and west of Chicago — like Wilmette, La Grange and Glencoe. The occupants are always gone by the time a deputy gets there, a spokesman said, but just barely.

In Las Vegas, Ken Lowman, a longtime agent for luxury properties, said four of the 11 sales he brokered in June were distressed properties.

“I’ve never seen the wealthy hit like this before,” Mr. Lowman said. “They made their plans based on the best of all possible scenarios — that their incomes would continue to grow, that real estate would never drop. Not many had a plan B.”

The defaulting owners, he said, often remain as long as they can. “They’re in denial,” he said.

Here in Los Altos, where the median home price of $1.5 million makes it one of the most exclusive towns in the country, several houses scheduled for auction were still occupied this week. The people who answered the door were reluctant to explain their circumstances in any detail.

At one house, where the lender was owed $1.3 million, there was a couch out front wrapped in plastic. A woman said she and her husband had lost their jobs and were moving in with relatives. At another house, the family said they were renters. A third family, whose mortgage is $1.6 million, said they would be moving this weekend.

At a vacant house with a pool, where the lender was seeking $1.27 million, a raft and a water gun lay abandoned on the entryway floor.

Lenders are fearful that many of the 11 million or so homeowners who owe more than their house is worth will walk away from them, especially if the real estate market begins to weaken again. The so-called strategic defaults have become a matter of intense debate in recent months.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two quasi-governmental mortgage finance companies that own most of the mortgages in America with a value of less than $500,000, are alternately pleading with distressed homeowners not to be bad citizens and brandishing a stick at them.

In a recent column on Freddie Mac’s Web site, the company’s executive vice president, Don Bisenius, acknowledged that walking away “might well be a good decision for certain borrowers” but argues that those who do it are trashing their communities.

The CoreLogic data suggest that the rich do not seem to have concerns about the civic good uppermost in their mind, especially when it comes to investment and second homes. Nor do they appear to be particularly worried about being sued by their lender or frozen out of future loans by Fannie Mae, possible consequences of default.

The delinquency rate on investment homes where the original mortgage was more than $1 million is now 23 percent. For cheaper investment homes, it is about 10 percent.

With second homes, the delinquency rate for both types of owners was rising in concert until the stock market crashed in September 2008. That sent the percentage of troubled million-dollar loans spiraling up much faster than the smaller loans.

“Those with high net worth have other resources to lean on if they get in trouble,” said Mr. Khater, the analyst. “If they’re going delinquent faster than anyone else, that tells me they are doing so willingly.”

Willingly, but not necessarily publicly. The rapper Chamillionaire is a plain-talking exception. He recently walked away from a $2 million house he bought in Houston in 2006.

“I just decided to let it go, give it back to the bank,” he told the celebrity gossip TV show “TMZ.” “I just didn’t feel like it was a good investment.”

The rich and successful often come naturally to this sort of attitude, said Brent T. White, a law professor at the University of Arizona who has studied strategic defaults.

“They may be less susceptible to the shame and fear-mongering used by the government and the mortgage banking industry to keep underwater homeowners from acting in their financial best interest,” Mr. White said.

The CoreLogic data measures serious delinquencies, which means the borrower has missed at least three payments in a row. At that point, lenders traditionally file a notice of default and the house enters the official foreclosure process.

In the current environment, however, notices of default are down for all types of loans as lenders work with owners in various modification programs. Even so, owners in some of the more expensive neighborhoods in and around San Francisco are beginning to head for the exit, according to data compiled by MDA DataQuick.

In Los Altos, Los Altos Hills and the most expensive neighborhood in adjoining Mountain View, defaults in the first five months of this year edged up to 16, from 15 in the same period in 2009 and four in 2008.

The East Bay suburb of Orinda had eight notices of default for million-dollar properties, up from five in the same period last year. On Nob Hill in San Francisco, there were four, up from one. The Marina neighborhood had four, up from two.

The vast majority of owners in these upscale communities are still paying the mortgage, of course. But they appear to be cutting back in other ways. The once-thriving Los Altos downtown is pocked with more than a dozen empty storefronts in a six-block stretch.

But this is still Silicon Valley, where failure can always be considered a prelude to success.

In the middle of a workday, one troubled homeowner here leaned over his laptop at the kitchen table, trying to maneuver his way out from under his debt and figure out the next big thing.

His five-bedroom house, drained of hundreds of thousands of dollars of equity over the last 13 years, is scheduled for auction July 20. Nine months ago, after his latest business (he has had several) failed in what he called “the global meltdown,” the man, a technology entrepreneur, said he quit making his $9,000 monthly payments.

“I’m going to be downsizing,” he said.

The man spoke on the condition of anonymity because, he said, he did not want his current problems to interfere with his coming reinvention. “I’m a businessman,” he explained. “I have to be upbeat.”


View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, NY Times, Google Maps