Home > 2012 > Mortgages

Back From the Vomitorium: The Looting of the Mortgage Settlement Agreement

Advertiser Disclosure Comments 1 Comment

States are looting the Mortgage Settlement Fund, and the odds are good that you or someone you know is getting robbed — for the second time.

According to recent reports, politicians, not bankers, are the culprits this time around — siphoning billions from that historic settlement and pumping it into their broken state budgets. Instead of “manning up” and changing their diet, they’re taking a cue from ancient Rome: After a quick trip to the vomitorium, it’s back to the banquet table. (Care for a mint?)

Their willingness to play fast and loose with the settlement — crawling through certain wiggle words in its language to circumvent the clear intent of its negotiators — tells me they still haven’t learned where “fast and loose” leads. Ironically, some of the worst offenders are the governors of states that originally led the fight to win justice for consumers — with California Gov. Jerry Brown leading the charge.

Remember the settlement — the $25 billion that America’s five largest mortgage servicers paid out to atone for fleecing millions of American homeowners? Wells Fargo, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Ally Financial and Citigroup were held accountable for fraudulent foreclosure practices — including the notorious practice dubbed “robo-signing” — that cost millions of Americans their homes. The idea was not just to punish the banks (and the jury is out on exactly how much this really does punish them), but to help beleaguered homeowners as well as raise the level of consumer financial awareness in this country so 2008 would never be repeated.

“This is neither the beginning nor the end of our work to hold banks and other institutions accountable for the destruction they’ve caused families, communities and country,” said Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan when the deal was announced. “Today’s settlement should serve as a warning.”

The settlement set aside more than $2 billion for the 49 participating states and the District of Columbia — money that was supposed to help prevent foreclosures with programs like down payment assistance, foreclosure counseling and financial literacy training.

Unfortunately (perhaps predictably), as the money reached the states, the wheels went off the tracks. In California, Attorney General Kamala Harris exulted about the good the settlement would do for people in her state, hard-hit by the foreclosure crisis. “Hundreds of thousands of California homeowners will benefit,” said Harris, as her office took steps to “ensure the settling banks deliver on their promises.”

The state AG’s gaveth and just like that, the state Governors tooketh away! Over Harris’s strenuous objections, California Governor Jerry Brown took every penny of the state’s $410.5 million in settlement money — even though applying that sum to California’s hemorrhaging $15.7 billion budget deficit is like putting a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound.

Brown’s ethical lapse is more ironic — and ill-conceived — given that one major source of the state’s budget woes is the economic fallout caused by the decimation of millions of Californians who were lured into buying (or irresponsibly raced to buy) homes they could ill afford. To take money from consumer protection and education programs to fill a one-time hole in the state budget is, of course, preposterous.

But California is not alone in capriciously deciding the settlement money isn’t needed to promote sound financial decisions and to help keep people in their homes. Greedy governors and legislators nationwide are plundering the settlement to hide their budgetary failures.

In Georgia, every cent of the settlement money was pilfered. Not being afflicted with a massive California-style budget deficit, Georgia’s legislature used the $99 million received from mortgage servicers for two existing economic development programs. The brunt of mortgage servicers’ abuses were in Atlanta — yet half the money is earmarked for projects in rural Georgia, with the rest sprinkled around the state. Most Georgians victimized by mortgage servicers will get no help at all. In South Carolina, Gov. Nikki Haley attempted to stop the legislature from grabbing the funds for economic development, but her veto was over-ridden.

It’s the same story in Missouri, which plans to use its $39.5 million to cover cuts in the state’s higher education budget. In my birth state of New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie intends to pour the whole $72 million straight into the state’s general fund.

Not all states are engaging in political “bait and switch.” Ohio and Colorado are keeping their promises by dedicating their settlement money to housing-related programs. Other states, including Tennessee and Washington, are keeping a portion for the state coffers, but will spend the rest on programs including foreclosure relief, housing counselors and legal assistance.

For their part, many consumers are refusing to take betrayal lying down. In Arizona, consumer advocacy groups sued the state legislature over its plan to divert half of the state’s $97.7 million in settlement money to the general fund. The groups lost the first round, but plan to appeal.

If you’re getting that creepy déjà vu feeling, that’s because this scenario is nothing new. Many states have treated 1998’s $206 billion settlement with tobacco companies as mad money — a piggy bank they can raid to help balance the budget, as Pennsylvania did this year and Hawaii did a year earlier. “It’s really shortsighted when we start using these funds just to balance the budget rather than putting them strategically into prevention programs,” said Deborah Zysman, director of the Coalition for a Tobacco-Free Hawaii, a recent interview.

This kind of myopic thinking is the reason for the economic mess we’re in. Seeking to woo Wall Street away from Republicans, Bill Clinton succeeded in leading the charge to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act and deregulating the financial industry — a decision that ignored 70 years of political wisdom and the greatest lesson of the Great Depression: that banks, investment housesand insurance firms should be separate.

So we got a single mega-bank, where all the pieces of the mortgage puzzle are tucked under one roof. The investment house provides the money to fund thousands of mortgages, bundles those loans, and sells them to investors. The bank’s retail operation holds the loan just long enough to sell it. And then there is the loan servicer, which — ostensibly working on investors’ behalf — has its own perverse incentives for pushing struggling borrowers into foreclosure and jeopardizing the loans.

Each cog in this vast machine works to maximize short-term profit — and reduce long-term risk… and responsibility. That’s why the megabanks, greased by a national policy to foster home ownership, threw underwriting rules out the window in the mid-2000s and started lending money to almost anyone who could fog a mirror. They were far less interested in whether those loans succeeded or failed, because they made their money on volume, not performance.

Hence, the crash. Hence, the “Settlement.” Hence, this latest outrage. The mistake many states are making is, in principle, precisely the same: taking the easy money, going for the quick fix to balance the books. Let blighted neighborhoods stay blighted. Let victimized homeowners fend for themselves.

It’s time we reject this sort of short-term thinking and get serious about long-term solutions. That means punishing those who treat American homeowners’ finances like a piggy bank to be raided at will. It is totally indefensible that any governor would feel justified in plugging an “unpluggable” budget hole with funds that could be dedicated to assuring 2008 never happens again.

If you’ve been hurt by your mortgage servicer, this is your money and your future. Whether you choose the courts or the ballot box, I urge you to — as we say in New Jersey — “do what you gotta do.”

This story is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not represent the views of the company or its affiliates.

Image: Eric the Fish, via Flickr

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.

  • Pingback: Back From the Vomitorium: The Looting of the Mortgage Settlement Agreement | Wordpress Real Estate 9()

  • Ellen

    In addition to your points made, I just received a form to complete for the National Mortgage Settlement. At the very bottom, last line they state that “short sales…do not qualify.” Oh, okay, so even though it was GMAC’s fault that we were wrongly foreclosed upon, the fact that we attempted to make GMAC’s wrong somehow “right” and got our house sold (because of our personal integrity), now WE ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS SETTLEMENT!
    I cannot believe that we are the only ones in this situation. Is there no one out there that will really help us? Those of us who are not able to hire legal help (due to the financial implications of the foreclosure), and somehow are now “not eligible” under
    (who wrote up?) these guidelines, are not getting any financial restitution whatsoever. Gee, thanks….

  • Pingback: Back From the Vomitorium: The Looting of the Mortgage Settlement Agreement | Wordpress Real Estate 7()

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

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.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

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