We deemed that to be operationally unworkable even if the banks had their records and systems working well. The other was “single point of contact,” meaning having one person at the bank serve as case manager and be the interface with the borrower. One was ending dual track (if a bank is entering into a modification discussion or program with a borrower, it cannot keep moving forward in parallel with a foreclosure). Virtually all of it merely insisted that banks obey existing law. As we discussed, it was a disappointment.
Instead, a 27 page outline of their settlement demands was leaked. The scorecard thus far appeared to be that the state attorneys general were the only group moving forward against the foreclosure fraud, but the bold promises of criminal prosecutions were quickly recanted. But Shahien is an able reporter, so I’m sure he has the facts right. That is contrary to both the Obama Administration’s past behavior of making great sounding promises and walk them so far back as to wind up in a different country, and of inconveniencing the banks terribly much. The reason I’m surprised is that this effort, even though it appears misguided on several fronts and falls far short of what is needed, represents an upping of the demands being made against banks. I must confess to being surprised at the report by Shahien Nasiripour of Huffington Post, namely that the Administration is pushing for an even more aggressive-looking mortgage modification program than has been rumored.
Given how well “shock and awe” worked in the Iraq war, I’d see the Administration’s use of that expression in the context of the mortgage mess as a Freudian slip.
0 kommentar(er)
