Home > Mortgages > Senate Considers Ways to Bring Trust Back to Mortgages

Comments 0 Comments

The mortgage industry is torn apart by mistrust, and that mistrust has stalled the recovery of the housing market and the entire American economy, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson (D-SD) said before Congress this week.

“Borrowers aren’t certain that servicers are accurately evaluating them for modifications,” Johnson said. “Servicers aren’t confident that borrowers’ documents were submitted properly. And investors are concerned about how all these factors increase litigation risk for servicers.”

The result: A backlog of foreclosed homes that drags everyone’s home values down. “Homes that should move through the foreclosure process are held up because courts and servicers are concerned that paperwork has not been completed properly,” Johnson said.

The hearing this week was the committee’s eighth on housing finance reform. This one focused on three bills that would impose national standards on mortgage servicers—the companies that handle the day-to-day work of opening envelopes from homeowners, processing the checks, and making sure each mortgage’s taxes, insurance and investors are paid.

[Featured Product: Compare prepaid credit cards]

One bill would require every servicer to give each consumer a single point of contact within the company. Currently, many consumers complain that when problems arise they are passed between may different people, so questions like whether the servicer received payment go unresolved.

Peter P. Swire, a banking law professor at Ohio State University and a former economic advisor to President Obama, told the committee that he ran into this problem when a servicing company owned by Washington Mutual tried to “force place” flood insurance on his Bethesda, Maryland, home, even though the house already had flood insurance.

Swire notified the now-bankrupt company “dozens of times” that he already had insurance. WaMu charged him anyway. And since Swire didn’t pay, he was assessed numerous late fees. Swire received assurances from several different WaMu employees that the problem was fixed, only to have it reappear the following month.

It took Swire—an expert in banking law—nearly two years to fix the problem, he told the banking committee.

“The amount of time it is taking for me to resolve this matter resembles a major piece of litigation,” Swire wrote in a letter to the company in 2007.

Another bill the committee is considering would end the practice of “dual-track processing,” in which servicers try to modify a mortgage to make it more affordable, while simultaneously suing to foreclose on the house. Combined, “the current process is both emotionally draining and ineffective in keeping people in their homes,” Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) said in his opening remarks.

But a representative of the servicing industry warned that while pursuing a modification and a foreclosure simultaneously doesn’t make much sense to outsiders, doing so is actually required by state laws and by the servicers’ contracts with investors.

“It is important to keep in mind that the investors’ contracts continue to govern much of the latitude for servicers around foreclosures,” Faith Schwartz, executive director of the Hope Now Alliance, a servicing industry trade group, testified at the hearing.

The third bill under consideration would take steps to end the conflicts of interest between servicers and investors. One example: Currently, servicers sometimes earn more money by pushing a home into foreclosure rather than modifying the loan because under foreclosure laws they are guaranteed to reap their fees first, ahead of investors or anyone else. That can pressure them to foreclose, even though modifying the loan may reap more money for the investors.

“The obvious conflict of interest between the investors and servicers may well be a factor in the failure of servicers to modify mortgages voluntarily,” said Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), who introduced similar legislation in the House.

One bill currently being considered by the committee would reduce such conflicts. The Democrats who control the committee are pushing to merge all three bills into one and pass them together as a package. The measure will likely face little opposition in the Senate, but could run into difficulty in the Republican-controlled House.

[Featured Product: Looking for credit cards for poor credit?]

Image: André Natta, via Flickr.com

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other sponsored content on Credit.com are Partners with Credit.com. Credit.com receives compensation if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any financial products or cards offered.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team