[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FORECLOSURE PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION:
THE IMPORTANCE OF LOSS MITIGATION
STRATEGIES IN KEEPING FAMILIES
IN THEIR HOMES
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 30, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services
Serial No. 110-81
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
40-433 WASHINGTON : 2008
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Chairman
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
MAXINE WATERS, California RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware
NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York PETER T. KING, New York
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
JULIA CARSON, Indiana RON PAUL, Texas
BRAD SHERMAN, California STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
DENNIS MOORE, Kansas WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts Carolina
RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York GARY G. MILLER, California
JOE BACA, California SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts Virginia
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina TOM FEENEY, Florida
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia JEB HENSARLING, Texas
AL GREEN, Texas SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey
EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida
MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire TOM PRICE, Georgia
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky
RON KLEIN, Florida PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
TIM MAHONEY, Florida JOHN CAMPBELL, California
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio ADAM PUTNAM, Florida
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida KEVIN McCARTHY, California
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia
DAN BOREN, Oklahoma
Jeanne M. Roslanowick, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity
MAXINE WATERS, California, Chairwoman
NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
JULIA CARSON, Indiana Virginia
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico
EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri PETER T. KING, New York
AL GREEN, Texas JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York GARY G. MILLER, California
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio JOHN CAMPBELL, California
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana KEVIN McCARTHY, California
BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on:
November 30, 2007............................................ 1
Appendix:
November 30, 2007............................................ 91
WITNESSES
Friday, November 30, 2007
Albon, Michaela, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Home
Loans Division, Washington Mutual.............................. 37
Arnold, LeFrancis, Vice Chair, Affordable Housing Committee,
California Association of Realtors............................. 72
Bates, Joseph C., Director, Santa Ana Homeownership Center, U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.................... 15
Blackwell, Brad, Executive Vice President, Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage....................................................... 39
Burnie, Evalyn, Leader, Los Angeles ACORN, accompanied by Richard
Castro, NeighborWorks America.................................. 79
Cho, Hee Suk, Homeowner, Camarillo, California, accompanied by
Joshua Byung An, Korean Churches for Community Development,
serving as a translator........................................ 68
Clark, Yolanda, President-Elect, Multicultural Real Estate
Alliance for Urban Change...................................... 74
Deutsch, Tom, Deputy Executive Director, American Securitization
Forum.......................................................... 41
Frisbee, Margaret, Pacific District Director, NeighborWorks
America........................................................ 78
Heedly, William, Homeowner, Carson, California................... 67
Herrera, Pastor, Director, Department of Consumer Affairs, Los
Angeles County................................................. 21
Krimminger, Michael H., Chairman's Special Advisor for Policy,
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.......................... 17
Lee, Karen, Homeowner, Los Angeles, CA........................... 44
Leonard, Paul, California Office Director, Center for Responsible
Lending........................................................ 45
Peters, Heather, Deputy Secretary for Business Regulation,
Department of Business, Transportation, and Housing, State of
California..................................................... 19
Rogan, Sean, Director, Department of Housing and Community
Development, City of Oakland, California....................... 22
Samuels, Sandor, Executive Managing Director, Countrywide
Financial Corporation.......................................... 35
Smith, Ed, Jr., Vice President, California Association of
Mortgage Brokers............................................... 70
Thomas, Anna M., Homeowner, San Pedro, CA........................ 44
Twomey, Tara, Of Counsel, National Consumer Law Center........... 76
Villaraigosa, Hon. Antonio R., Mayor of Los Angeles, California.. 12
Young, Hon. Anthony, City Council President Pro Tempore, San
Diego, California.............................................. 10
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
Lantos, Hon. Tom............................................. 92
Albon, Michaela.............................................. 94
Bates, Joseph C.............................................. 99
Blackwell, Brad.............................................. 103
Deutsch, Tom................................................. 108
Frisbee, Margaret............................................ 113
Herrera, Pastor.............................................. 121
Krimminger, Michael H........................................ 125
Lee, Karen................................................... 141
Samuels, Sandor.............................................. 142
Smith, Ed, Jr................................................ 157
Twomey, Tara................................................. 165
Villaraigosa, Hon. Antonio R................................. 176
Young, Hon. Anthony.......................................... 188
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Waters, Hon. Maxine:
Statement of the NAACP....................................... 190
FORECLOSURE PREVENTION AND
INTERVENTION: THE IMPORTANCE
OF LOSS MITIGATION STRATEGIES
IN KEEPING FAMILIES
IN THEIR HOMES
----------
Friday, November 30, 2007,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity,
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., at
the California Science Center, 700 State Drive, Los Angeles,
California, Hon. Maxine Waters [chairwoman of the subcommittee]
presiding.
Members present: Representatives Waters and Green.
Also present: Representatives Napolitano, Richardson,
Sanchez, and Watson.
Chairwoman Waters. This hearing of the Subcommittee on
Housing and Community Opportunity will come to order.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to start
by thanking the California Science Center for once again
allowing us to use this wonderful space for our subcommittee
hearing, as they did last year.
In addition to the hearing, you all should be aware that
resources are being made available next door to assist
homeowners who are in danger of foreclosure. Please stop by if
you or somebody you know is facing problems making mortgage
payments, and the good folks from Neighborhood Housing Services
and others can work with you.
I would also like to thank Congressman Al Green, from
Texas--one of our most dedicated subcommittee members--for
traveling all the way from Houston to join us today.
And, finally, without objection, Representative Grace
Napolitano, Representative Laura Richardson, and we will soon
be joined by Representative Linda Sanchez, will all be
considered members of the subcommittee for this hearing, and
their opening statements will be made a part of the record. I
would like to thank them for participating today. They are not
members of the subcommittee, but they care so much about this
issue that they wanted very much to be here and they are here.
Thank you very, very much.
Before we hear from our panels, I would like to explain
briefly why we are having this hearing and what I hope to
accomplish today. Hopefully, this will help the witnesses focus
on their remarks and responses to members' questions. First,
with respect to the ``why'' of holding this hearing, it would
be arguably derelict of this subcommittee not to hold hearings
regarding the subprime mortgage market and home foreclosure
crisis.
This issue is not only the biggest story in housing, in the
whole housing world that this subcommittee operates in daily,
it is currently the biggest economic story in the Nation, and
perhaps the world. A field hearing in California is warranted,
given that our State lies at the epicenter of the foreclosure
wave. California's third quarter foreclosure rate of 1 filing
for every 88 households ranks second highest among all States
and reflects a near quadrupling of the number reported for the
same period last year; 8 of the top 20 cities in foreclosure
filings are in California.
Clearly, then, there is no better place to gauge the
response to date by public and private stakeholders than here.
And the stakes could not be higher. Having watched the turmoil
in the mortgage markets unfold over the past year, it has
struck me that two assessments made at various points by key
prognosticators inside and outside government have yet to hold
true.
The first such claim is anything along the lines of, ``This
foreclosure crisis isn't as big as we thought it was, and we
appear to have our arms around the magnitude of the problem.''
The second quote is, ``This problem in the housing finance
sector is unlikely to have tremendous impact on the rest of the
economy and threaten growth.'' Rather, at every step the scope
of the crisis has proven to be larger than originally
anticipated, including by the Department of Treasury and the
Federal Reserve. And we have not yet reached the crest of the
wave, as millions of adjustable rate mortgages are scheduled to
reset over the next 12 months.
Similarly, initial assurances that the problems of the
mortgage market are unlikely to spill over into the rest of the
domestic and global economy now seem wildly overoptimistic.
Many of the Nation's largest financial institutions find
themselves heavily invested in mortgage-backed securities of
uncertain and declining value with extraordinary ripple effects
being felt across the global financial markets.
Former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers now puts the
chances of avoiding recession at less than 50 percent, unless
decisive action is taken. I take this warning very seriously,
as I witnessed how the S&L crisis of the late 1980's
contributed directly to the recession of the early 1990's,
which in turn brought a 20 percent drop in California housing
prices during my first 6 years in Congress.
I would note, further, that the financial services industry
now makes up nearly twice the share of gross domestic product
compared to then, meaning an unredressed crisis in that sector
is far less likely to be segregated from overall economic
wellbeing today. So the magnitude and urgency of the crisis
clearly merits a hearing.
Let me proceed, then, to my second point, namely what we
are trying to accomplish with this hearing. As a senior member
of the Financial Services Committee, I have obviously been
involved in the committee's many activities around the subprime
crisis spearheaded by a very able chairman from Massachusetts,
Chairman Barney Frank. However, the focus of many of our
hearings and legislative activities has been on preventing the
next crisis.
The House recently passed H.R. 3915, the Mortgage Reform
and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007, which puts in place new
Federal standards for loans designed to prevent ongoing abuses
in the subprime market. While I remain concerned that the
preemption provisions of this bill may inhibit States from
taking on the pioneering enforcement role they assumed in the
current crisis, there is no question that H.R. 3915 is a
significant piece of prospective legislation.
Today, though, I want to focus on the effectiveness of what
is being done to address this crisis right now. To a large
extent, such measures by Federal regulators and the major
private sector stakeholders have had to take place under
existing legal authority, though we in Congress have certainly
encouraged them to interpret the authority so as to take bold
rather than timid steps. This has included, for example, House
passage of my FHA modernization bill, H.R. 1852, designed in
part to make FHA insurance more available to assist currently
distressed homeowners.
Even before Senate and presidential action on this bill,
HUD heard the signal of congressional intent and created the
FHA Secure Program under its current authority to give the FHA
a more central role in the current crisis. Simply put, the
overarching question of the day is, how is it going? In other
words, what has been the impact on the ground to actual
borrowers of the various loss mitigation initiatives that we
have heard about in Washington?
This, of course, includes such national initiatives as FHA
Secure and HOPE NOW Alliance between major mortgage servicers--
and NeighborWorks--and State efforts like the agreement
announced by Governor Schwarzenegger a few days ago. I am
especially focused on the rate at which distressed borrowers
are receiving timely, effective loan modifications from their
servicers.
I have said from the beginning of the crisis that the
mortgage servicers are the key to any solution. They are
literally where the rubber hits the road in a system, where a
homeowner's actual mortgage may be sitting in third tranche of
a security held by an investor 6,000 miles away.
I fully recognize that servicers face constraints on their
actions, most obviously the pooling and servicing agreements
that they have with their investors. They are under a fiduciary
obligation not to just give away the store, and efforts to help
a homeowner and avoid foreclosure, but not all homeowners are
similarly situated in terms of the appropriate loss mitigation
strategies.
At the same time, however, I am concerned about reports
that servicers have not been moving as quickly as they might
under their current authority. Indeed, I fear we may have lost
critical time as servicers and the Treasury Department and the
Federal Reserve have only recently begun to concede that a
plodding loan-by-loan renegotiating and reunderwriting process
simply won't get the job done fast enough to stem this crisis.
I understand that Secretary Paulson yesterday met with a
number of the servicers represented here today to discuss this
very issue, and I am interested to hear more about that meeting
than may have been reported in the press today. To be clear, I
enter this hearing with an open mind.
I hope that servicers will tell me and the members of this
subcommittee about any further obstacles to decisive action
that this subcommittee might help with. And, further, that the
reports we hear today from consumer groups, regulators, and
homeowner witnesses, indicate things are moving in California
at an appropriately rapid pace. But I would be less than honest
if I did not share up front my concern that they are not.
Even more distressing are reports that servicers profit
from foreclosure fees far more than I think many of us
suspected, adding to my eagerness to confirm that their actions
underground in California are consistent with their reports to
the full committee when it comes to engaging in effective loss
mitigation strategies.
Today's hearing, in turn, informed the subcommittee's
legislative work in regard to mortgage servicers and loss
mitigation. Indeed, during the markup of H.R. 3837, the Escrow,
Appraisal, and Mortgage Servicing Improvement Act, Subcommittee
Chairman Kanjorski and I agreed to focus on the question of
whether some duty for servicers to engage in loss mitigation
activities is called for and given current circumstances.
With that, I would like to thank all of our elected
officials who may be in the audience today. I know that
Assemblyman Mike Davis is with us today. And I know that he is
working on this very issue and will be having a hearing that is
coming up, I believe, on December 8th. So we will share that
information with our audience before we leave here today.
With that, I would like to recognize Mr. Green, the
Congressman from Houston, for his opening statement.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I especially want
to thank you for convening this most timely hearing, and I
would like to, if I may, just thank you for what you have been
able to do in just a few months as Chair of the Housing
Subcommittee. In a very short period of time, Madam Chairwoman,
I am grateful that you have taken on some of the pressing
issues, including issues of 2/28s and 3/27s, issues that would
allow persons to get fixed financing for 2 years, and then
variable financing for 28 years, 3 years in the 3/27s and 27
years of variable financing.
I am mentioning these things because I want you to
understand that I am appreciative that you have made a
difference in the lives of people by virtue of being chair of
this subcommittee. You have truly been the harbinger of help
for the helpless and a purveyor of power to the powerless.
And, friends, I think that even in subcommittee hearings
like this it is appropriate to give an expression of
appreciation to a Chair who is working tirelessly to make life
better for the least, the last, the lost, and those who are
trying to fulfill the American dream.
So I come today, and I am honored to be here, with an
understanding that Dr. Martin Luther King imparted to us. He
reminded us that life is an inescapable network of mutuality,
tied to a single garment of destiny. What impacts one directly
impacts all indirectly.
And that is why this subprime crisis is one that everyone
must be concerned with. Those who say, ``Let them suffer. They
made their beds hard, let them lay, let them lie, let them
stay,'' friends, they are mistaken. This problem is not one
that will be localized. There are many prime homes in areas
where subprime loans have been made.
And when the for sale signs are up, the value of property
goes down. When the value of property goes down, taxes are
smaller. When property taxes are smaller, schools, roads, and
infrastructure don't get the repair that is needed. So you
cannot conclude that because I did not get a subprime loan that
may go into default that I don't have a problem. This is an
American problem, and we all must be involved in the solution
to the problem, especially the Housing Subcommittee and the
United States Congress.
If the President decides that he is going to call together
some business persons and try to work out a system, a solution,
I think that is wonderful. If the courts rule appropriately in
certain cases, the Judiciary Branch of government, I think that
is wonderful. But I think people expect the Housing
Subcommittee to do what we are doing today, and that is to hold
hearings to try to find out how we can be of assistance to
homeowners across the length and breadth of this country.
And when we do this, we are interested in not knowing that
we have some catchy slogan, like ``Hope Now,'' which is a good
one, and I don't want to demean the process, but I understand
that people really want help now. HOPE NOW is a great way to
impart a desire for people to continue, but the people that I
talked to, they want help now. And they understand that the
details are where you either are going to have more hope that
will lead to help or you are going to find that you are stalled
in a process that does not lend itself to your getting the help
that you need.
Again, this is not something that is isolated to any
community or any given neighborhood. It is something that is
happening across the length and breadth of this country.
I also want to acknowledge and appreciate very much what is
being said by members of the Administration with reference to
their desire to be of help, but I do wonder if they are aware
that we have already passed legislation through this
subcommittee to do much of what they are saying they want
Congress to do. And it may be time for people to become
truthful and say they want certain aspects of Congress to act
that have not acted, because this subcommittee has been moving
tirelessly to make sure that homeowners will have the
opportunity to keep their homes.
So I look forward to hearing from the witnesses who are
here today, and I assure you that I will have some questions
that I think will be of interest to them and to me and to the
constituents that I serve, given that we have about 2.5 million
adjustable mortgages that will adjust by the end of next year,
and that is about $600 billion. That is going to have a
tremendous impact.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors has indicated that at least
1.4 million homes will enter into foreclosure next year. That
is going to have a significant impact. The size of the problem
is large, but it is one that we can manage. We only have to
decide that we are willing to work together. This chairwoman
has been willing to work with whomever will work with her, and
I join her, and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses
today.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for your time.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Next, I would like to recognize one of my colleagues that I
work very closely with--and we are so lucky to have such a
wonderful group of elected officials in this overall area--
Grace Napolitano representing the 38th Congressional District.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I will keep
my remarks short and brief. But I echo Congressman Green's
sentiments about Chairwoman Waters, because any time I have an
issue on public service or on fairness and justice, I know I
can call her and she is sitting right there next to me trying
to fight for the ones who do not have a voice.
This is something that affects the economy of the United
States. It affects the heart of our people. People have a home,
they have roots, they have the ability to educate their
children, they have the ability to own businesses. This is
economy. This is the future of what we have been striving for,
and to lose it for many will be catastrophic.
And we want to ensure that anybody who has an issue can
understand that this Chair and this subcommittee has been
putting forth the propositions, and hopefully they will get out
of the Senate to be able to address what has been happening
throughout the United States. And understand that a lot of what
is--I have seen and heard is that foreign corporations are
buying us up.
We cannot afford to have them do that. Land is ours. It is
our people. And as you can see, it is a very diverse America
that we must continue to be able to support in moving forward
to protect our families and our communities.
So thank you for allowing me to be part of your hearing. I
may not be able to stay the whole time, because I have other
commitments, but this is a very serious matter for my area
also, and I am sure for the rest of California and the Nation.
And I thank you for your leadership and hope my colleagues will
consider coming into my area some time within the not-too-
distant future, because we need to spread the word about what
is really happening and how we can work together to address
that.
So thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I am very happy to be
here.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
We will be joined shortly by Ms. Sanchez, who is on her way
here and has been caught up in traffic. But next we are going
to hear from one of our newer Members of Congress. We are so
pleased and proud that Laura Richardson has joined us in the
Congress of the United States of America. She hit the ground
running, and she is focused on this issue. I think she may have
cut short a trip that she was involved in to get back here, so
that she could be at this hearing today.
Thank you, Congresswoman Laura Richardson.
I will recognize you for your opening statement.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters, for holding
this very important hearing today. Domestically, I cannot think
of another topic that is more important to all of the citizens
of California and the United States when you look at it
nationwide than the current crisis that is occurring in the
housing market.
It was just less than 5 years ago that lenders across the
country were recording record sales, and countless Americans
were experiencing the joy of becoming new homeowners as they
took out subprime loans and adjustable rate mortgages to
finance their dreams. However, as the old saying goes, ``If
something is too good to be true, it probably is.''
Preying on wide-eyed aspirations of many low-income first-
time homebuyers, some lenders disregarded industry-wide lending
standards for an opportunity to take advantage of a booming
housing market that saw home prices increase dramatically at
the turn of this century. With teaser rates that are now set to
explode, the dream that many families set out to achieve has
become, in less than 2 years, an absolute nightmare.
The Center for Responsible Lending estimates that 8.4
million neighboring homes in California will experience
devaluation because of foreclosures in California. The same
study reveals that the foreclosures can bring down the values
of not only that person's home, but their neighboring area as
well.
As was stated by Representative Green, when you have the
decrease in overall property value for a particular
neighborhood, that reduces the tax base, and the local
government then that depends upon those dollars is unable to
adequately fund for police, firefighting services, garbage
pickup, and public schooling. This clearly illustrates that
this is a community problem that we are all affected by. It is
painfully obvious that we cannot sit back and do nothing, not
when the foreclosure crunch is being felt by more Californians
than in any other State in the Nation.
As I get ready to close, I would like to speak to you a
little bit about my district. Statistics from the 37th
Congressional District, which includes Watts, Compton, Long
Beach, Carson, and Signal Hill, are alarming to say the least.
Thirty-six percent of the loans originated in my district were
subprime loans. One in five of these subprime loans will end in
foreclosure.
That means that the 37th Congressional District, of more
than 225,000 surrounding homes, will be affected by the price
declines as a result of these foreclosures. As a Member of
Congress, we recently passed legislation, H.R. 3915, that was
recently stated, but you need to know on something that I feel
quite passionate about that if we were to look at this
situation related to a disaster, similar to the recent fires or
what happened in Katrina, stronger efforts probably would have
been taken.
And I am here to say that just because there is not a fire,
just because there is not a flood, this must be addressed in
our community.
Again, I want to thank Congresswoman Waters. You should all
know, sometimes when we are involved in local government you
hear something that a person is a chair of a particular
committee, and you may not understand the magnitude of that.
Congresswoman Waters has had a long history of advocacy
regarding many issues, but in particular of housing and the
work that was done in Katrina was something that was needed. We
are fortunate that she happens to represent us here in
California, but she is spearheading this issue across the
Nation.
I am more than happy to stand with her and the other
members of this subcommittee as we have this hearing to figure
out what additional solutions can be brought forward to address
this very serious problem.
Thank you, Chairwoman Waters, for your leadership.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you so very much.
The other member who will be with us today, working with us
today, just arrived. And, again, as I said, we are so fortunate
here in Southern California to have such strong advocates for
people, for working people, for poor people, and such a
representative is Ms. Linda Sanchez from the 39th Congressional
District.
Thank you so much for being with us today, and I will
recognize you for an opening statement.
Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
My apologies for my tardiness, but the traffic and the rain
are a bad combination in Los Angeles.
Chairwoman Waters. Yes.
Ms. Sanchez. I am pleased to be here this morning, and I
really want to thank Chairwoman Waters for organizing today's
hearing and for inviting me to participate in it. Her
leadership on this critical issue has been a key part of
Congress' effort to develop solutions for working and middle-
class families who find their American dream at risk of
becoming a nightmare.
The subprime mortgage crisis has inflicted severe stress on
our national financial system and has even triggered concerns
in our global economy. Falling real estate prices and a
reduction in the availability of loans are making it more
difficult for overstretched homeowners to either refinance
their way out of trouble or even to simply sell their homes.
In 2006, 1.2 million foreclosures in the United States were
recorded. That is almost double the number that existed in
2005. By this year's end, foreclosures could reach the 2
million mark, and statistics of this magnitude haven't been
seen in this country since the Great Depression.
The subprime mortgage crisis has hit our economy hard and
will continue to spiral downward if we don't address it with
swift and discernible action. If changes to the mortgage
lending system are not made, an astounding $400 billion worth
of mortgage defaults will occur in the United States between
now and 2008.
In my Congressional District alone, where 31 percent of
home mortgages made in 2005 and 2006 are subprime loans, that
means that one in every five of those families will likely
receive a notice of foreclosure. One in every five. Challenges
posed by the subprime mortgage crisis don't end with those who
lose their homes.
Even those who are fortunate enough to pay their mortgages
on time and be able to maintain their homes will be affected.
Foreclosures reduce property values of nearby properties and
induce lenders to tighten credit, making borrowing credit more
expensive even for those with good credit.
Approximately 198,000 homes in my district face price
declines amounting to about $2.4 billion in home equity loss
due to the fallout from the foreclosures. So even if you don't
have a subprime mortgage, don't think for a second that this
crisis isn't going to affect you. We must all do what we can to
help prevent additional foreclosures and to ensure that lenders
no longer have incentives to lend carelessly to subprime
borrowers with shaky credit.
The Emergency Home Ownership and Mortgage Equity Protection
Act of 2007, which I introduced in September along with our
colleague, Brad Miller of North Carolina, is just one of the
measures that we are working on in Congress to protect American
families during this financially turbulent time. This bill
would protect homeowners whose situations are so dire that they
have no other option but to declare bankruptcy.
This legislation would help at least 600,000 U.S. families
and homeowners affected by the subprime lending crisis to avoid
losing their homes as a result of foreclosure. It would allow
bankruptcy judges to restructure home mortgage debt as they
concurrently do for mortgages on investment properties,
vacation homes, and family farms.
Currently, the law allows bankruptcy judges to modify
mortgages for families who are fortunate to own a second home,
such as a vacation home or an investment property, but denies
judges the ability to do the same for working class families
whose only property is the home they live in. And that simply
doesn't make sense to me, given that most Americans only own
one piece of property, and that is the home that they live in.
All homeowners should be treated similarly and have access
to the full range of financial support and options available,
whether they have multiple vacation homes or just one cozy
cottage. The Emergency Home Ownership and Mortgage Equity
Protection Act provides that relief and simultaneously lessens
the pressure on the mortgage market and the broader economy.
With even more subprime loans scheduled to reset at higher
interest rates in the next 18 months, mortgage servicers and
Congress must act now to prevent the current wave of
foreclosures from turning into a tsunami of foreclosures.
I want to thank all of our distinguished witnesses in
advance for taking the time to be here, and I look forward to
their testimony.
I thank the gentlewoman, and I yield back the remainder of
my time.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Before I introduce our first panel of witnesses, I would
like to thank all of you who have taken time to come here
today, particularly in the rain. I had not expected such a
turnout. You do me proud. Thank you very much. Give yourselves
a big round of applause.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are expecting the Mayor, Mayor
Antonio Villaraigosa, to join us. He has a very tight schedule,
and we will try and put him on as soon as he comes in the room.
Now I would like to introduce our witnesses for the first
panel: the Honorable Anthony Young, city council president pro
tempore, from San Diego, California; Mr. Joseph Bates,
Director, Santa Ana Homeownership Center, U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development; Mr. Mike Krimminger, Chairman's
Special Advisor for Policy for the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation; Ms. Heather Peters, deputy secretary for business
regulation, Department of Business, Transportation, and
Housing, State of California; Mr. Pastor Herrera, director,
Department of Consumer Affairs, Los Angeles County; and Mr.
Sean Rogan, director, Department of Housing and Community
Development, City of Oakland, California.
I would like to thank all of you for appearing before the
subcommittee today, and without objection, your written
statements will be made a part of the record. You will now be
recognized for a 5-minute summary of your testimony. I will
start with the Honorable Anthony Young. Thank you for being
here.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ANTHONY YOUNG, CITY COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Young. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters. And before I
begin, I wanted to let you know how much I appreciate the work
that you have done. The individuals in San Diego have
recognized that, and they sent me to tell you thank you for all
of your work. I have watched all of your careers, and I just
want to say thank you for all the work that you have done.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you.
Mr. Young. On behalf of the City of San Diego and the City-
County Reinvestment Task Force, I would like to thank you again
for your invitation. We appreciate your interest in a topic
which for the City of San Diego, the State, and the country is
having a profound impact on people's lives and our economy. The
impact is being felt by all segments of the population,
including our military.
In the first 9 months of this year, 15,582 homes have
received notices of default from their lenders in San Diego
County alone. Forty percent of those end up in foreclosure.
Between January of 2007 and September, foreclosures have
increased by 100 percent in San Diego County. We project this
rate to increase and continue unabated for the next 2 years
based on the volume of subprime loans dumped into the local
market. And I say ``dumped'' onto our local market because the
majority of those loans have come from mortgage brokers who are
no longer in business.
Over 70 firms in San Diego County in our region are
either--have either gone bankrupt or are selling off over the
past 2 years. We have been victimized by an industry that
functions without regulations, with minimal supervisions, that
can appear and disappear without penalty and without
responsibility for the damage that they inflict on people's
lives in this economy. It troubles me to think that our
servicemen and women who are currently fighting and putting
their lives on the line to protect our country are particularly
being preyed upon.
Historically, in San Diego, crises in the housing market
are caused by a combination of external or economic factors. In
this case, the foreclosure epidemic has been caused by
unregulated funds from new State licensed mortgage lenders,
most of whom are no longer in business as I said before, home
mortgage brokers being paid double and triple commissions for
subprime and predatory loans targeted to low-income, and
particularly ethnic borrowers, lack of State supervision or
authority to regulate interest rates and loan terms in the
absence of supervision over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and
their policies related to securities' purchase of subprime and
predatory home loan products, and lack of national regulations
related to securities, and leveraged finance obligations for
Wall Street investments.
The City-County Reinvestment Task Force, which I chair, has
been following this issue for the last 2 years. We have filed
comments on pending legislation with Federal bank regulators,
the Banking and Finance Committee of Congress, the State, and
directly to a number of major regulated financial institutions,
many of them who actually sit on the Reinvestment Task Force
that I chair.
Seeing little if any action at any level has resulted in
our adoption of local strategies to attempt to manage this
serious economic problem. For the last year, this task force
has held hearings in order to define the problem and engage in
finding tangible solutions.
We have created a list of recommendations that were
presented and adopted by the City Council at the City of San
Diego. Some of the recommendations and actions were to direct
the City and county lobbyists to aggressively support Federal
and State legislation which provides increased funding of
nonprofits for foreclosure counseling, that establishes rules
and regulations for unregulated mortgage companies and brokers,
that the Reinvestment Task Force will work in partnership with
nonprofits and State coalitions to negotiate with major lenders
for reasonable workout programs and loan products for
customers.
And we recommend that the city, county, and State legal
authorities develop an enforcement strategy for interdicting,
reducing, and removing predatory mortgage lending practices in
the region, including review of potential security violations.
We also requested that the city and county establish an
ordinance regarding inspection and monitoring of foreclosed
properties for code violations and ongoing maintenance.
That the FNMA and the Veterans Administration modify loan
limits to compensate for the cost of housing in the San Diego
market, which I also believe that is an issue here in Los
Angeles. We encourage the FNMA and the Veterans Administration
to develop specific foreclosure alternative products, including
refinancing and engaging in aggressive marketing efforts to our
veterans.
Many of our communities are now sitting with vacant
properties--five to six on a block--depressing the local market
and inviting blight and criminal behavior to normally pleasant
communities. Following the lead of a City just south of us,
Chula Vista, which has been hit particularly hard, we have an
ordinance that requires banks to maintain these empty, vacant
properties under the threat of penalty. We want them off the
market before they infect the vitality of communities that have
had to struggle for years--over the years to become--
Chairwoman Waters. I need you to wrap up.
Mr. Young. I will.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you.
Mr. Young. Yes, ma'am. Basically, what I would say to this
subcommittee--and thank you for the time that you have allotted
to me--is that this is a national problem, even an
international problem. But I would also say that local agencies
really have to be a part of this.
Home counseling, aggressive marketing to individuals,
letting people know that they do have options, and then one of
the things I would say to this subcommittee is allow the use of
CDBG funds that cities already have to be able to--to be used
for the home counseling that is so important now.
The last thing I would say, Ms. Waters--and thank you for
giving me this extra time--is to also understand that there is
going to be something happening after this. And there is a
tsunami that Ms. Richardson talked about that we are in the
middle of. But after the tsunami, there are some things that we
should do, including finding opportunities for individuals to
get back in their homes.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
Mr. Young. I appreciate it.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young can be found on page
188 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. Ladies and gentlemen, I mentioned that
we would be joined by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. He is now
here. We thank you for being here, Mr. Mayor. We know how
concerned you are about this housing crisis that we have, so we
will recognize you for the next 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA, MAYOR OF
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
Mayor Villaraigosa. Madam Chairwoman, it is good to be
here with you. Congressman Green, and Congresswomen Napolitano,
Sanchez, and Richardson, it is good to be with all of you.
Thank you for holding this hearing here in the City of Los
Angeles. We believe that it is important to put a light on the
widening crisis of home foreclosures here in the City. In the
last year, we witnessed a dramatic rise in the number of
foreclosures; 2007 has been the worst year on record here in
the City of Los Angeles.
In the first quarter of 2006, there were 115 foreclosures
in the City of Los Angeles. By the first quarter of 2007,
foreclosures had increased 6-fold with 716 families losing
title to their homes. Since then, we have seen the crisis
escalate in its scope and scale. Foreclosures rose to 850 in
the second quarter and 1,177 in the quarter ending in
September.
Most alarmingly, we see the foreclosure crisis hurting
people in our most economically vulnerable neighborhoods. In
these neighborhoods, as was mentioned a few minutes ago, we are
losing dozens of homes a day. The 10 zip codes with the highest
foreclosure activity, notices of default, foreclosure notices,
foreclosure sales, were located in either South Los Angeles or
the Northeast Valley.
We also see that the crisis has a distinct face. The vast
majority are subprime loans. The loans with the highest rates
of foreclosure have been made to African-American and Latino
households. There is gathering evidence that the corrosive
effects of the foreclosure crisis is spreading, and one of the
most pernicious side effects of widespread foreclosures is the
increase in broken windows and neighborhood blight caused by
abandoned buildings.
Already in Los Angeles, we are seeing an increase in the
number of abandoned building referrals to the Department of
Building and Safety and a rise in the number of nuisance
building cases referred to our Abandoned Building Task Force.
The crisis is simply too big for half-measures and tinkering at
the margins.
And I do want to take a moment to go off script and
acknowledge the leadership of Congresswoman Waters on this
issue. This is not an issue that the Congresswoman first raised
during this mortgage lending crisis. I remember being with her
some 5 or 6--maybe it was 7--years ago with ACORN talking about
this issue here in South Los Angeles, and I want to acknowledge
you for that effort over the years.
As you well know, we need a concerted well-organized
campaign to demand adequate resources to address the misery
that has been caused to ensure that the needed reforms take
place. For this reason, I am calling on fellow California
mayors to join me in a coalition to demand State and Federal
legislation to bring necessary resources to our communities and
to reform lending practices.
We did not cause this crisis, but we are on the front lines
of it. Our constituents are the ones who have suffered because
those who have had the power to stop fraud and predatory
lending were asleep at the switch. A strong, collective voice
is needed to make sure this never happens again, and together
with my fellow mayors, I intend to raise that voice.
We also need local lender accountability. For this reason,
I will shortly convene a meeting of our City's largest lenders
and mortgage servicers and create a program of local lender
accountability. Lenders and mortgage servicers have signaled
their desire to work with borrowers, and we believe that many
of them are. However, we also believe that much can be done and
much more should be done.
As the crisis grows, the need for a streamlined,
transparent process for loss mitigation will grow even more
urgent. We need lenders to publicize their loss mitigation
programs, and the criteria they use to decide how they can help
distressed borrowers. We need lenders to tell us how they
intend to manage foreclosed homes that are vacant, so that they
do not contribute to urban blight.
We need lenders to begin a meaningful discussion about
creating a process to offer foreclosed properties to the City
and to nonprofit organizations, so that these properties can be
converted into community profit and affordable housing. Here in
the City of Los Angeles, for 2 years running, and for the first
time ever, we fully funded our Housing Trust Fund at $100
million, half of that money dedicated to permanent support of
housing for the homeless.
We believe that it is incumbent on these mortgage lenders
and banks to participate with us in an effort to convert this
housing into affordable housing. We cannot allow these
properties to be snapped up by speculators. What we need now is
support for the foreclosure counseling and legal aid agencies
that help home buyers at risk of foreclosure.
Here in the City of Los Angeles, we have committed $100,000
for foreclosure counseling, but as you know much more money is
needed to expand these services. Incredibly, at the State
level, these funds were cut to $2 million for the current
fiscal year. An infusion of Federal funds specifically
designated for foreclosure counseling and legal assistance
would not only help to avert future predatory mortgages but
also help avert foreclosure of mortgages that are currently at
risk.
For this reason, we strongly support the Mortgage Reform
and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007, and would urge
immediate Senate passage of your bill. Furthermore, we have to
address the needs of borrowers who are currently at risk of
losing their homes, and we have to challenge the banking
industry to accept their responsibility to be a part of the
solution.
Here in California, Governor Schwarzenegger is
demonstrating what is possible. A recent agreement announced
between his office, Countrywide, GMAC, Litton, and HomeEq
should serve as a model for the entire Nation to follow.
Working in partnership with the mortgage industry, the Governor
is forging a commonsense solution. We intend to work with him
to build on that here in the City of Los Angeles.
Finally, I also want to acknowledge the work of assembly
speaker Fabian Nunez and assembly member and chair of the
Assembly, Committee on Banking and Finance, Ted Lu. The speaker
and Mr. Lu have put together a much-needed package to address
foreclosure prevention measures, banning such things as
prepayment penalties, no documentation loans as well. Requiring
that lenders consider the borrower's ability to repay the loan
over the entire period is also crucial to protecting California
borrowers.
I am here today in support of this hearing, and intend to
work with you, all of you. I have worked on many issues in the
past on this very, very important issue.
[The prepared statement of Mayor Villaraigosa can be found
on page 176 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. Well, Mr. Mayor, I would like to thank
you so much for taking time from your busy schedule to be here
today. Clearly, based on your testimony, you certainly know
what is going on, and some of the proposals that you have just
made and talked about are extremely important. You are
absolutely correct. We need to get more money to the cities for
counseling.
We have $200 million that is in conference right now. The
President is threatening to veto it. We hope not, because the
cities just don't have enough money to allocate toward this
counseling and educating of our citizens. The Honorable Anthony
Young from San Diego recommended that we use more CDBG money to
do it, but you are so limited in your CDBG money, and there is
such competition for it until it would put a real strain on the
City's use.
We need new resources and new money, and we are going to
fight for it. But we would hope that we get the message out
there to encourage the President of the United States to sign
the legislation that would put $200 million out into the cities
very soon.
I know that your time is limited. We thank you so much for
appearing here today, and we look forward to working with you.
Mayor Villaraigosa. Well, thank you.
Thank you, Chairwoman Waters. And I want you to know that
on behalf of the City of Los Angeles, I recognize that though
this hearing is being held here, if it is necessary for me to
be with you anywhere, including Washington, D.C., on this issue
I certainly am prepared and willing to join you in this effort
to ensure that the Federal Government is responsible and
assisting in this effort.
Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Villaraigosa. Thank you.
Chairwoman Waters. Ladies and gentlemen, I mentioned that
we have such a strong group of Members of Congress in this
area, and we are very blessed to have been joined by
Congresswoman Diane Watson who is representing the 33rd
Congressional District. Thank you very much for joining us
today, Congresswoman Watson.
We are going to move on with our witness panel, and then we
will return to our members here to ask questions.
I have something that I must do. There are so many rules of
Congress when you run these committees. I must say that
Representative Diane Watson will also be considered a member of
this subcommittee for the duration of this hearing.
Without objection, such is the order.
We will move now to Mr. Joseph Bates, the Director of the
Santa Ana Homeownership Center, U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH BATES, DIRECTOR, SANTA ANA HOMEOWNERSHIP
CENTER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Bates. Thank you. Chairwoman Waters and the
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to testify today on the efforts made by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development in the areas of
foreclosure prevention and intervention. I am Joseph Bates,
Director of HUD's Santa Ana Homeownership Center.
The significant effects of foreclosure on our national
economy and on the world markets brings us here today. Congress
and the Administration have for some time been looking at
legislative and regulatory options for minimizing foreclosures.
At HUD, I can report that we are working on both in our efforts
to mitigate the adverse effects of this market correction on
borrowers.
One of the strongest tools we have to protect both
borrowers and markets is the Federal Housing Administration,
FHA. As you may know, HUD helps individuals secure credit by
providing mortgage insurance through a private sector
distribution network that makes owning a home more affordable
and safe, and, therefore, a reality for many borrowers who
might otherwise go underserved.
HUD Secretary Alfonso Jackson has stated in previous
testimony before Congress that he has firmly believed for some
time that many of those who ultimately entered the subprime
market would have been better off with an FHA-insured loan.
Many may still be eligible to refinance today.
Although we cannot go back in time to ensure that each
borrower had made the best decision when obtaining a mortgage,
we can provide refinancing options to many subprime borrowers,
and we can do more to help people make better decisions going
forward through both innovative products and counseling
support.
This week HUD released informational video footage
containing foreclosure prevention tips and information for
homeowners who are struggling to pay their mortgage. Among
other things, the video includes a list of 10 tips on how to
avoid foreclosure. I suggest that anyone who owns a home or who
is in the market to buy a home visit HUD's Web site at
www.hud.gov for more information.
Secretary Jackson has commented that the dramatic rise in
single-family foreclosure starts is fueled in great part by the
proliferation of subprime loan products, including hybrid ARMs.
More than 2 million subprime ARMs are expected to reset to
higher interest rates by the end of 2008, and many of those
borrowers, unable to afford the higher payments, will be forced
into foreclosure unless the industry takes immediate and
aggressive action to provide alternatives.
In September, FHA announced one such alternative. FHA
Secure is one of our refinance options designed specifically
for conventional and subprime borrowers who default on their
mortgages solely because they can no longer afford the payments
on their ARM loan after the interest resets to a higher rate.
Through this very new program, over 800 FHA lenders are already
using FHA Secure to rescue delinquent borrowers from the
potential loss of their homes. Since September, more than
100,000 conventional borrowers have applied for FHA Secure
refinance loans.
On October 10th, HUD Secretary Alfonso Jackson and
Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson announced the HOPE NOW
Alliance, an unprecedented alliance of the Nation's largest
mortgage servicers, housing counselors, and real estate
investors, all committed to one common goal--to help as many
homeowners as possible avoid foreclosure and retain
homeownership.
One of the goals of the HOPE NOW Alliance was to develop
and fund a nationwide advertising campaign to encourage
delinquent borrowers to seek help through the 888-995-HOPE
network of HUD-approved housing counselors. The 888-995-HOPE
line is up and running with 122 experienced counselors
nationwide. Another 50 are currently being trained and more are
being recruited.
Throughout this year, HUD staff and senior officials
nationwide have sponsored and participated in more than 125
homeownership retention events including fairs, targeted
mailings, and joint task forces that reached a combined
audience of 25,000. The Santa Ana Homeownership Center, in
cooperation with the Southern California Congressional
Representatives and HUD field offices have put together a
series of seven town hall foreclosure summits to spread the
word on foreclosure prevention.
Participants besides HUD include Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, the IRS, local
congressional representatives, and representatives from Wells
Fargo and Countrywide, both of whom are major local mortgage
providers in California and participants in the FHA Secure
refinance program.
Attended by over 1,000 participants, these meetings have
also featured on-the-spot housing counseling with HUD-approved
counselors from 1 or more of our 15 Southern California
nonprofit agencies employing an estimated 125 certified
counselors. In addition to these town hall meetings, the Santa
Ana Homeownership Center has attended several banking and
Realtor conventions and meetings as part of our outreach effort
to help publicize FHA Secure.
The recent National Association of Realtors Convention in
Las Vegas was attended by an estimated 5,000 Realtors who lined
up at the FHA booth to obtain information on the work we do. As
you can see, the Department has taken several steps to address
foreclosures, but there is much work still to be done.
Thank you for your time this morning, and I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bates can be found on page
99 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
Next we will hear from Mr. Mike Krimminger, Chairman's
Special Advisor for Policy, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL H. KRIMMINGER, CHAIRMAN'S SPECIAL ADVISOR
FOR POLICY, FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
Mr. Krimminger. Good morning.
Chairwoman Waters. Good morning.
Mr. Krimminger. Chairwoman Waters, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on
behalf of the FDIC. As you know, the rising level of
foreclosures across America is of great concern to FDIC
Chairman Sheila Bair. I would like to focus my oral remarks
this morning on her plan for modifying the more troubling of
these exotic mortgages known as 2/28 and 3/27 subprime hybrids,
which are forcing many homeowners into default and foreclosure.
As you know, poor lending standards and weak consumer
protections are at the root of the problem. After a huge run-up
in these 2- and 3-year adjustable rate loans that began after
2003, they now make up more than half of the $1.3 trillion in
subprime mortgage loans outstanding.
Now, some 1.5 million or more of these loans will reset by
the end of 2008, and another 375,000 will reset in 2009.
Without a doubt, we are just now getting into the thick of the
problem.
California's exposure to subprime mortgages is especially
significant. The large numbers of subprime hybrid ARM loans
with approaching resets in California places many thousands,
perhaps hundreds of thousands, of California borrowers at risk
between now and December 2008. These borrowers had hoped to
refinance their homes as prices rose to pay off the loans
before reset and avoid crippling monthly payments.
And let me point out one important fact: The lenders and
investors also expected these borrowers to refinance the loans.
No one expected them to pay the reset payments.
Unfortunately, housing prices now are declining, closing
off these options for many. California's subprime mortgage
problems also are spreading, affecting home builders, suppliers
and others, resulting in layoffs, lower tax revenues, and
higher foreclosure rates. We believe that all of this calls out
for creative solutions to keep people in their homes by
restructuring their loans on a long-term and sustainable basis.
Now, some of the borrowers who have the 2/28 and 3/27
subprime loans will be able to refinance at better rates.
Today, unfortunately, that is probably a fairly small number.
Some others have been seriously delinquent, even at the starter
rate, and even if their loans are modified there may be limited
prospects for keeping their properties.
Another group, however, has generally remained current.
Chairman Bair's proposal focuses on this last group. Her
proposal is simple and effective, but often misunderstood. It
is this: For owner-occupied homes where the borrower is making
timely payments, but clearly cannot afford the reset payments,
we think those loans should be converted to fixed rate loans at
the starter rate. At a minimum, the starter rate should be
continued for a long-term sustainable period of 5 years or
more. This could keep hundreds of thousands of people in their
homes and stabilize our mortgage markets.
Chairman Bair is urging loan servicers to do this in a
streamlined way. Renegotiating the terms of the loans, loan-by-
loan, as some are doing, is costly and time-consuming. A
standardized approach is urgently needed.
We believe there is an emerging consensus among
policymakers and servicers that this is the best way to start
dealing with the subprime meltdown. For example, as you noted,
Governor Schwarzenegger announced last week an agreement with
four major subprime lenders to work with homeowners unable to
afford escalating mortgage payments.
In line with Chairman Bair's proposal, the servicers agreed
to maintain the initial lower interest rate for subprime
borrowers who occupy the homes, have made their payments on
time during the starter period, and have proved they cannot
afford payments at the higher reset rates. We support this
agreement and believe it will spur other servicers to adopt
this approach and speed up the pace.
We also would urge the homeowners who cannot afford their
mortgages to please contact their lenders or servicers as soon
as possible to look for a workout solution before the reset
date. I underlined that, because I think that is a critical
factor in making sure that there is a relationship and a
conversation between the homeowners and their servicers.
Now, to the critics who say such a large-scale approach is
untested and unworkable, we say these and other loan servicers
are already doing it successfully. Not only is it feasible, the
servicers say that it is saving them time and money and keeping
people in their homes. We think that just about anything beats
foreclosure, which, as you noted very accurately, runs down
neighborhoods and costs up to half of the initial loan amount.
Chairwoman Waters, the FDIC is committed to working with
you to find solutions to the growing mortgage crisis, not only
here in California but for all of those subprime borrowers who
are living the American dream, but in need of better deals so
they can continue to do so.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Krimminger can be found on
page 125 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
Next we will hear from Ms. Heather Peters, deputy secretary
for business regulation, Department of Business,
Transportation, and Housing, State of California.
STATEMENT OF HEATHER PETERS, DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR BUSINESS
REGULATION, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION, AND
HOUSING, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Peters. Good morning, Chairwoman Waters, and members of
the subcommittee. My name is Heather Peters, and I am the
deputy secretary for both business regulation and for housing
for the State of California. I am also the chair of Governor
Schwarzenegger's Interdepartmental Task Force on Non-
Traditional Mortgages.
We appreciate the interest of the subcommittee, and the
interest of the chairwoman in bringing the subcommittee here to
California to hear this very important testimony today, because
by all measures we can agree that California has been
disproportionately impacted by the crisis in the housing and
mortgage foreclosure arena.
I commend the subcommittee for putting together such a
distinguished panel of witnesses today, and for recognizing the
multi-dimensional challenge that we are facing here and
realizing that there is no silver bullet. To make an impact
here, we need the cooperation of Federal, State, and local
authorities, we need the cooperation of private lenders,
brokers, servicers, and investors, and we also need the
cooperation of the public, the consumers, and the homeowners
who are losing their homes and losing the American dream.
Together we can come up with solutions to this most daunting
crisis.
I will skip over the statistics in my testimony, because we
can all agree that the magnitude of the problem has reached
epic proportions. Governor Schwarzenegger is a man of action,
not a man of words, and he agrees that we need help. Early this
year, in January, he appointed me to unify leadership of our
various departments in business transportation and housing that
have various responsibilities for regulating aspects of the
mortgage industry.
In March of this year, we put together a task force to make
sure that we were putting our best and our brightest together
and getting us on the same page and moving forward. The task
force consists of the department heads from our Department of
Financial Institutions, which regulates banks and credit
unions, the Department of Corporations, which regulates non-
depository lenders such as Countrywide, the Department of Real
Estate, the Department of Real Estate Appraisers, the
Department of Housing and Community Development, and CAL HFA.
Very quickly we realized that regulation alone was not
going to be able to solve this problem, and that there was a
huge consumer component to this. So we added the leadership
from State and consumer services agencies, Secretary Morin, as
well as the Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs. We
have all been working together very closely all year on this
issue, and the subcommittee has asked us to address the factors
that contributed to the crisis as well as what the State is
doing about it.
There are numerous factors. The first is the lack of
affordability of housing in California, which has been a
problem for us for many decades. According to the Building
Industry Association, only 12.6 percent of the housing in
California is affordable to income earners in the median income
range; that is versus 42 percent nationwide. It has been a
massive problem here.
This year we have passed, and the Governor has signed, AB-
929, which increases the amount of affordable housing in
California by raising the total debt the California Housing
Finance Agency can carry by $2 billion. Additionally, the
Housing Community Development Department is working diligently
to implement the $2.85 billion housing bond that was passed by
the voters in California last year, which is estimated to
generate over 118,000 new affordable housing opportunities and
rental opportunities.
However, we cannot do this alone, and we need your help.
The Governor has written to the leadership of both the House
and the Senate, and he has urged increases in both the FHA and
the GSE loan limits. Currently, the FHA loan limit is $362,790,
and the GSE loan limit is $417,000. The median cost of a home
in California is well over $500,000, reaching toward $600,000.
Clearly, these programs are not relevant in California
anymore. Unfortunately, the FHA loan volume in California has
dropped from 109,000-plus loans to a mere 2,599 loans in the
entire State of California. Now, that is a decrease, a loss of
$13.6 billion in funding through FHA. Reform is crucial, and
clearly the lack of safe, affordable financing through these
programs in California has been a contributing factor to
homeowners being forced to go through non-traditional
financing.
Chairwoman Waters. I need you to wrap it up.
Ms. Peters. Additionally, we have passed regulations that
are some of the strongest in the Nation, assuring that
underwriting standards make sure that people can afford the
loans they are getting into. We have a brand-new disclosure
form in five languages that illustrates to the consumer very
early in the process what the worst-case payment could be if
all the resets adjust to their worst-case scenario.
We have made appraisal fraud a crime. We have had the
agreement referred to by the FDIC with the lenders that is a
nationwide leader and is being picked up by the Federal
authorities. And we work closely with them and applaud their
efforts. We applaud the chairwoman for her leadership and
reform in this area.
And yesterday the Governor was in Riverside to announce a
$1.2 million public outreach campaign. He will personally be
involved in PSAs to reach out to homeowners to ask them to call
the Hope Hotline, to call their lenders, that there is help
available. But, unfortunately, more than half of the people who
lose their homes to foreclosure never contacted their lender.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
Ms. Peters. Thank you.
Chairwoman Waters. Next, we will hear from Mr. Pastor
Herrera, Director, Department of Consumer Affairs, Los Angeles
County.
STATEMENT OF PASTOR HERRERA, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER
AFFAIRS, LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Mr. Herrera. Good morning. I am Pastor Herrera, Jr., the
director of the Los Angeles County Department of Consumer
Affairs. And let me echo my congratulations to you,
Congresswoman Waters, for really taking the initiative and
leadership in this area. It is an issue that is on everyone's
radar screen, whether it is here in California, in Washington,
north or south of this country, and definitely we see that
there is no end in sight.
Here in L.A. County, we know that approximately 5,000
notices of default are filed monthly, and that to me is
staggering. That indicates that there is definitely a problem
here in Los Angeles County, and it is probably reflective not
only in California but throughout the country.
I hope that my comments this morning will assist the
subcommittee to develop some additional recommendations, and
from a Department of Consumer Affairs perspective, an agency
that deals with consumers day in and day out, a more consumer-
friendly business practices, not only in this area but other
areas that impact consumers.
I will summarize my comments today; my written comments
have been submitted. The Department of Consumer Affairs here in
Los Angeles County is very unique. It is, of course, supported
and funded by the Board of Supervisors, and we are very proud
of that, because unfortunately many, many communities do not
have a Department of Consumer Affairs, which is their first
point of contact when they may be victims of consumer fraud.
We are very fortunate that we have a unit, a program, that
is, the Real Estate Fraud and Information Program, which I will
get into momentarily. But we also have an Identify Theft Unit,
a Consumer Fraud Unit, an Elder Fraud Prevention and Education
Unit, Small Claims Court, and also a Volunteer and Internship
Program. And we serve over 750,000 consumers a year.
Our Real Estate Fraud and Information Program does assist
consumers and homeowners, particularly in the area of real
estate fraud and information. It serves and helps them in areas
such as foreclosure prevention, review and recorded documents,
buying a home, reviewing refinance loan documents, and
assisting first-time buyers. The Department also, and this unit
in particular, accepts complaints for investigations and
mediations. We receive complaints against foreclosure
consultants, predatory lending, fraudulent recorded deeds, and
refinance transactions.
Last fiscal year, for example, our real estate unit
assisted over 29,000 consumers with real estate fraud issues.
Approximately 650 of those 29,000 of those homeowners needed
assistance with a foreclosure problem. That was an increase
over last year of 33 percent. Last year, the Department handled
on a case-by-case basis 100 homeowners who were facing a
foreclosure problem, and our Department was able to stay,
delay, or cancel a property from being sold in a foreclosure
sale.
The Department's success rate was approximately 65 of those
cases. Unfortunately, it was not 100 percent.
Some of the other things that we do as far as prevention,
we work very closely with the media, which is a very good
outlet. In fact, 50 percent of our referrals to our Department
come from the media. We also work with prosecutory agencies
when we deal with a foreclosure consultant. We deal with legal
services, nonprofits, and do a very, very good job here in Los
Angeles County. We do speaking engagements, participate in
community forums, and our Web site is also very, very
definitely in tune with this issue.
We have information on foreclosure, predatory lending,
evictions, and we also have an opportunity for consumers to ask
questions. Interesting enough, the inquiries for real estate-
related questions have increased by 85 percent. And that
represents an increase of 85 percent; 35 percent were in the
area of foreclosures.
Chairwoman Waters. Could you wrap up your testimony, Mr.
Herrera?
Mr. Herrera. Very good. Of course, the challenges are
funding, the challenges are how do we get homeowners to get
information and seek counseling. And, of course, the other
issue is financial institutions. They need to identify a point
of contact in their organization, so that we can negotiate and
resolve foreclosure type of issues. And, of course, we need to
reach out to homeowners.
Very quickly, some of the recommendations, pooling and
servicing agreements limit sometimes the servicer's ability to
engage in loss mitigation strategies. Other recommendations are
in my written testimony.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you, and we will have all of your
testimony in the record--
Mr. Herrera. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Waters. --for review by all of the members.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Herrera can be found on page
121 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rogan, director, Department of Housing and Community
Development, the City of Oakland, California.
STATEMENT OF SEAN ROGAN, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, CITY OF OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Rogan. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and subcommittee
members. On behalf of Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums and the City of
Oakland, I am happy to be here today to give testimony and
speak to some potential solutions as we look forward to solving
this foreclosure crisis.
The City of Oakland has been greatly affected by
foreclosures brought on in large part by the subprime lending
practices. Record numbers of foreclosures are occurring weekly.
Over 345 notices of default have been recorded in the month of
October alone. East Oakland, made up predominantly of people of
color and of low income, is currently experiencing a 14.9
percent foreclosure rate.
Lenders and investors have been unwilling to discuss
workout options with borrowers. This is greatly impacting
families and neighborhoods as foreclosure activity continues to
grow. And additional consequence includes lenders foreclosing
on rental properties and locking out tenants in good rent
standing and with legitimate rental agreements.
Immediate action is needed to curb the number of
foreclosures and assist families who were given loans with
terms that they either did not understand or did not qualify
for. Actions that the City of Oakland would like to see
implemented include the following: Extend time notices of
default from 90 days to 150 days; extend time period for notice
of trustee sales from 30 days to 60 days to allow more time for
counseling and workouts; provide additional funding for
counseling agencies to help work with borrowers facing
foreclosures; and work with lenders and investors on rate and
terms of mortgages, so that borrowers in good standing with
pending interest rate hikes can continue mortgage payments at
lower rates for up to 3 years.
Additionally, future legislation should be written so that
qualifying borrowers should be based on documented income and
at a highest adjusted rate during the loan term, provide clear
disclosure of any balloon payments or interest rate
adjustments, and strengthen anti-predatory lending legislation.
Interestingly enough, Oakland at one time had adopted anti-
predatory lending legislation, which was then overturned by the
State. And we certainly question where we would be today if
some of that legislation had in fact been implemented.
Additionally, lenders and investors need to partner--and
this has certainly been echoed throughout this testimony this
morning--but the lenders and investors, in particular the Wall
Street investors, need to partner with the local, State, and
Federal Government to set guidelines and regulations so that
borrowers and lenders and servicers know how to accomplish the
workouts.
And then, finally, as I was driving here this morning in
the wonderful L.A. traffic, and I was speaking with a colleague
of mine, he brought up an issue which really hasn't been
discussed today, and I think it is important for the Members of
Congress here today to hear.
You know, an impact that affects these borrowers who have
been foreclosed on is depending on the difference between what
the bank collects and what their mortgage is, they end up with
an IRS price tag in some instances $30-, $50-, to $100,000 that
then gets stated as income. I certainly believe that with the
folks here today that is an additional point that should be
taken under consideration.
Again, I thank you for your time today, and I am happy to
answer any questions you may have.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you.
I would like to thank all of our panelists for being here
today, and we are going to start with our question period where
our members will each be afforded 5 minutes to ask questions.
I will begin. I would like to focus first on Mr. Mike
Krimminger's recommendation, because I like what I hear. I
don't know what took place in a meeting I think that was held
yesterday on this very subject, but I am very, very interested
in the idea that instead of trying to solve this problem one
loan at a time that we can come up with a policy that would
allow the servicers to automatically extend the reset period.
Is that what you said?
Mr. Krimminger. Yes. What Chairman Bair has recommended is
to extend the starter rate period. Her preference was clearly,
if the borrower can make--has been making payments at the
starter rate, but cannot make the payments at the reset rate,
extend the starter rate, for the life of the loan preferably,
but certainly for a long-term period.
Chairwoman Waters. For the life of the loan?
Mr. Krimminger. Certainly for a long-term sustainable
period that will give the borrower an opportunity to do the
normal refinancing. Five-plus years might be an appropriate
period to do that.
Chairwoman Waters. That is very significant. That is very
significant, because the folks who got in the ARMs and the
adjustable rate mortgages received teaser rates, and those
teaser rates were something they could afford. But then, when
they reset and they quadruple, then they certainly cannot
afford, and particularly if you are on a fixed income.
Or even if you are working a regular job, your cost of
living increases just don't increase that fast, and you are
certainly going to lose that house. But if this is a
recommendation that the reset be extended for a long period of
time, or for the life of the loan, I really do think that is an
absolute viable way by which to save these homes from
foreclosure.
I would like to say to Mr. Young, I appreciate your
recommendation on CDBG. CDBG is those funds that we give to our
local governments to help out in so many ways with poor people
and working people and programs. And we are working hard to
extend it. I heard your recommendation about the use of CDBG to
be of assistance in counseling and education, and we will
certainly take that into consideration.
Mr. Young. Madam Chairwoman?
Chairwoman Waters. Yes.
Mr. Young. If I may, and the reason why I recommended CDBG
initially, because at this point in time local agencies, local
municipalities, that is really their only funding that they
have at their disposal right now. And that is what we are doing
at the City of San Diego, but we certainly do appreciate the
opportunity to get additional monies to do that home financing.
Chairwoman Waters. Well, we know that we have $200 million
in conference that we are trying to get, but let us find out
from our representative here, from Governor Schwarzenegger's
efforts, she mentioned that there would be some funding
perhaps, about $1.2 million, that would be used to help in this
situation. Where does that money come from? When will it be in
process? And who will have access to it?
Ms. Peters. Great question. Thank you for asking. There are
actually two sources of funding coming out of the State
currently. Several months ago--I believe it was back in
September, speaking of CDBG--our Housing Community Development
Department issued a notice that $1.16 million in CDBG money
that is flowing through the State, not directly from the
Federal Government, would be made available for consumer
counseling.
Additionally, we put out an advisory quite along the lines
that the councilman has already suggested, that some of the
areas that receive funding directly from the Federal Government
may likewise be able to reallocate some of the funds they have
on hand. And our Department is happy to work with any local
governments on how we can maximize the access to that.
The second source of funding that I mentioned in my
testimony was just announced yesterday by Governor
Schwarzenegger. This is a $1.2 million campaign that is a
public awareness campaign to get homeowners to call for help.
And people are absolutely terrified. We have heard horror
stories of homeowners who believe that they can be arrested for
failing to pay their mortgage.
Chairwoman Waters. So basically this is for public service
announcements, for advertising.
Ms. Peters. Right. And that is coming from our existing
budgets within my departments at BT&H, and we are putting
together a proposal today--
Chairwoman Waters. That is great.
Ms. Peters. --to expedite availability.
Chairwoman Waters. While we are talking about that, could
you explain to us the agreements that the Governor made to
Countrywide, for example?
Ms. Peters. Yes.
Chairwoman Waters. What is it he asked them to do, and what
have they agreed to do?
Ms. Peters. Thank you for asking. The Governor announced
with--an agreement with four of the major loan servicers--
Countrywide, GMAC, HomeEq, and Litton Loan Servicing--which
together nationwide represent 25 percent of the subprime loans.
They have agreed to reach out proactively to borrowers well
before the loans reset.
We are talking several months, maybe 6 months before the
loans reset, to let them know that the reset is coming. They
have agreed to streamline the process by which they determine
whether the borrowers can afford that reset payment as the
chairwoman mentioned, and, if they are unable to afford it, to
fix the initial rate for a sustainable period of time.
Now, there is more discussion to be--
Chairwoman Waters. So basically--
Ms. Peters. --had on the details of this.
Chairwoman Waters. --basically what you are saying is early
notice the reset is coming, and after you do that notice the
homeowner will have an opportunity to get a workout and try and
do a rearrangement of that loan. And did these four major
subprime lenders agree that they would be involved in the kind
of proposal that we just heard that would have to extend the
low rate that they got in with?
Ms. Peters. Yes.
Chairwoman Waters. Will they--
Ms. Peters. That is exactly what they have already agreed
to.
Chairwoman Waters. Is this in writing somewhere?
Ms. Peters. It is on the Department of Corporations' Web
site, which is--
Chairwoman Waters. Okay. Good.
Ms. Peters. --corp.ca.gov.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you.
Ms. Peters. Additionally--
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
Ms. Peters. --there is an important element to that, which
is accountability, because we hear a lot from consumer
servicers, consumer counselors, that they talk the talk, but
they are not walking the walk. The Department of Corporations
will be releasing within this coming month the results of a
survey of the lenders that quantifies exactly how many of these
workouts they are doing, so that we can follow up. And if
consumers are not receiving the help that the lenders have
agreed to do, we want to hear about it, and we want them to
call us.
Chairwoman Waters. That is exactly what we are going to do,
and we thank you for that.
And, FHA, since in the bill that I introduced--and we got
passed--we were very concerned about being able to use FHA to
refinance. We are very proud about that possibility. Now, what
is this Hope program that you are talking about? And what does
it do?
Mr. Bates. Well, the HOPE NOW Alliance is a grouping of the
large lenders, Freddie and Fannie, four of the national
intermediary counseling agencies, and others, to kind of
develop a measured and appropriate response to the subprime
problems. And the--
Chairwoman Waters. I want to know specifically, because we
want Fannie and Freddie really involved in this solution, but I
have not heard anything specific about what they are going to
do.
Mr. Young. Well, the first thing is, of course, they have
the hotline, and they have the housing counseling agencies in
place.
Chairwoman Waters. So they have a hotline and people can
call and say, ``I am in trouble.'' And then, what are they
going to do?
Mr. Young. And then, they are working on trying to
establish a standard for workouts or loss mitigation measures
that would be taken in response to people's difficulties.
Chairwoman Waters. Did you hear Mr. Krimminger's proposal?
Mr. Young. Yes, I did.
Chairwoman Waters. Can they adopt that?
Mr. Young. I don't know whether they can adopt that.
Chairwoman Waters. They can dispute that.
Mr. Young. But I would be happy to get with the Chair on
that.
Chairwoman Waters. Would you get a copy of that proposal,
since we are all here and working together? We have FHA, we
have FDIC. You are talking to some of the same subprime
lenders. Everybody should get on one track on this. There is no
reason why we should have a Hope program that is talking about
convening and getting them together.
But, rather, you know, we should all do--and it should be
substantial. We talk about a sustainable period of time. I like
the idea of just converting that into a permanent long-term,
30-year, 40-year loan so that we can make sure we can afford
it. So you all get together. We will be following up with you
to see if we can get everybody on the same track.
Thank you all very much. This panel is dismissed.
Excuse me. Before you go, you are not dismissed.
We have questions from the other members. We have several
other panels that we are going to do, but our members get a
chance to ask you all questions today.
Let us start with Mr. Green.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. As is usually the
case, when the Chair finishes, there is not much left to be
said.
But I do want to make a couple of comments and make a
couple of inquiries. Mr. Krimminger, I greatly appreciate your
comments, but I do want to just remind you that, when you
indicated no one expected the buyers to pay the adjusted rates,
some of these lenders did. And let me explain why.
Many of them had prepayment penalties that coincided with
the teaser rate, which means that you are either going to pay a
lot of money to avoid the adjusted rate or you are going to end
up paying--with a prepayment penalty or you are going to pay
the adjusted rate. Now, look, I appreciate what you have said.
I just want to point that out--that not all of them were acting
with the same amount of good faith as many of them were.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Krimminger. I would just say that we have certainly
noted that there are prepayment penalties on some of the
adjustable rate mortgages. In fact, many of the 2/28s and 3/27s
do have prepayment penalties.
Chairwoman Waters. Please talk right into the microphone.
This is very important. This is about prepayment penalties.
Mr. Green. And speak quickly, please, because my time is
running.
Mr. Krimminger. I will be very brief. We have certainly
noted that many of the 3/27 and 2/28 mortgages have prepayment
penalties.
Chairwoman Waters. Can you hear him in the back? Okay.
Bring it closer, and don't be shy. Speak up.
Mr. Krimminger. We have noted that many of the 2/28 and 3/
27 mortgages do have prepayment penalties. Most expire just
before the reset period, but we have certainly been very
critical of some loans that do have prepayment penalties that
extend out until just before the reset date.
Mr. Green. Let me intercede quickly and say this. When you
said ``just before,'' define ``just before,'' because usually
that is about a month or two before, which doesn't give the
person enough time--the buyer who is acting in good faith--to
secure the kind of loan in the environment that we have now
that will protect the buyer.
Mr. Krimminger. And we fully agree with you.
Mr. Green. Okay.
Mr. Krimminger. We think that is far too short of a period
of time. Chairman Bair has advocated that if you are going to
have a prepayment penalty at all--and we would prefer not in
the subprime market--then it certainly should expire 180 days
before.
Mr. Green. Okay. Now, after we go through the 3/27s, the 2/
28s, the prepayment penalties, the no-doc loans, the yield
spread premium--yield spread premium, for those who don't know,
that is the kickback that the originator gets for getting a
person to take a loan that is higher in interest rate than they
qualified for. Now, some people may not know this, but that
kickback is legitimate, but we are working on that. The Chair
is going to help us with that.
But once you go through all of these things and steering
into higher interest rates than people deserve, what it boils
down to is people were qualified for teaser rates, and they
were not qualified for the adjusted rates. And if that is the
cause of the problem, and we have now about $600 billion at
risk, we are talking about millions, possibly $2.5 million
adjustable mortgages that are going to reset by the end of
2008.
I don't see how we can possibly manage the problem on a
case-by-case basis. It really defies logic to think that we can
do this on a case-by-case basis. It does. So now, if it defies
logic to do it on a case-by-case basis, we have to find a way
to transform Hope Now into Help Now. Really, that is what we
have to do.
And, Mr. Bates, no disrespect to you, I think you have
articulated what is happening quite clearly. But what has to
happen is what the chairwoman has suggested. We have to find a
way for the lenders to acquire something called enlightened
self-interest. Enlightened self-interest. And sometimes people
have to be pushed to that point. On other occasions, they can
acquire it by some sort of revelation.
But, clearly, enlightened self-interest would dictate that
they not let these properties go into foreclosure, and that a
teaser rate is much better than no rate at all. And that is
what we have--you have to take that message back, if you would,
to the folk who can help us out and make a distinction between
Hope Now and Help Now, or Help is on the Way because we are at
a point now where help has to arrive.
And, Madam Chairwoman, I thank you for allowing me the
time, and I will yield back, given that we have so many
members.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
Congresswoman Grace Napolitano?
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I sit here
with great interest. Since I don't sit on the subcommittee, a
lot of it just goes over my head in terms of terminology, but
let me tell you the result is the same. What I hear is a lot of
talk about things we need to do, things we are going to be
doing, but what is being done?
Because this is not just something that happened yesterday,
it has been happening for several years, and yet we are still
not at a place, as you say, that we can turn around and say to
our constituency, ``Okay. Here is where you can go. Call my
office, call the City Council, call''--have you engaged the
media, anybody? Have you talked to being able to have them be
the purveyors of information to get people to know where the
heck they have to go for assistance?
You talk about CDBG. Does that need any legislative
approval to be able to channel those funds? Or can it be done
without having to go through the process of legislative
approval? Then, we have Mr. Bates, and, again, you talk about
tips, you talk about a Web site. Who the heck knows where to
go? What if they don't have a computer? What about if they--you
know, you talk about HOPE NOW, and I will submit some questions
for the record, Madam Chairwoman, because I--
Chairwoman Waters. Yes.
Ms. Napolitano. --my time is short, and I have a lot of
things I want to get out.
The HOPE NOW, how many people are aware? You said that
there were the tips. The Chair has not seen them, I have not
seen them. At least we should be able to have this Financial
Services Subcommittee know where it is, so we can impart that
to our constituency, so they know where to go and how to access
those services.
But lo and behold, and I know you have a constraint funding
issue, but please use what you have at hand--the media, the
net, the public access channels, the Council of Governments,
the COGs, all of those need to be partners in getting the word
out to the constituents, because if we lose, they lose. If the
subcommittee loses, the COGs lose. So unless we work together,
all of it in tandem, then we are all just spinning our wheels
separately.
Financial servicers--have they been informed of some of
those programs you are talking about? Because the Chair here
says, ``I didn't know that.'' So somehow there is a disconnect
within our own agencies to Members of Congress in the
subcommittee. That is another one.
Credit unions--what role can they play? Because they have
at the local level a very strong sense of community, and they
will help their own. But are we allowed--again, do we have to
go through legislative approval to allow them to be able to
help their local folks?
I don't know. I am running out of breath here.
Have all of you brought the financial institutions together
and asked, ``When are you starting? Where are you starting? And
how can we channel our folks, so they can get help through
you?'' I mean, we talk great, and, I am sorry, the wheels of
government move very slowly. But we need to move faster than
that, and be able to put things on the table now, yesterday,
not tomorrow, not next month, not next week, but now. That is
something that is just missing in what I hear.
Everybody has great ideas, and certainly since I don't sit
on the subcommittee, I am grateful to be able to find out a
lot. My area is devastated. I have three of my members working
in real estate. I hear it from them, and I hear in my office
people calling in and, ``Where do I go from here? What can I do
to save my home?''
But have we made an intense effort to be able to tell
people, ``Don't wait until your date is set before you go for
help?'' I have heard it in Washington, I have heard it in our
circles, but I don't hear the people--how many of you--just
give me a show, how many of you knew that? Anybody who is out
there, how many of you actually knew that you could call your
financial institution and ask for help prior to your reset
date?
There you go. They don't answer the phone. So how do we get
the people who need to have the information ahead of the game?
The lack of knowledge of where to go, institutions
unwilling or unable to institute these expansion of the
mortgage. Many are--about 5 or 6 years ago I held a predatory
lending forum, and I was very concerned because in some areas
there is that--was that practice very prevalent, and it was
taking advantage of people who didn't know any better. So we
brought it out, and we started putting it into the general area
to allow people to vent.
And I asked one of the lenders, ``Why don't you go to a 30-
year mortgage?'' He said, ``Oh, no, there is no difference
between a 20- or 25- to 30-year mortgage.'' I replied, ``I beg
your pardon, because that amount of money can help send
somebody to school, to college. That amount of money can help
somebody be able to move forward in education, and purchase, or
a business,'' whatever. But they didn't want to do it.
So have we changed that mindset of the lending institutions
to expand those mortgages so people cannot lose their home, and
then we don't have that impact at the local level of buildings
that are going to the dogs.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you very much, and I would like to
submit questions for the record, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
Congresswoman Richardson, for questions?
Ms. Richardson. Yes, thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Peters, you spoke pretty boldly of saying our Governor
is a man of action. Well, I am not too impressed with the
movies and the machine guns and all of that, so I hope that
some of what is being said today will in fact be translated to
action.
We heard Mr. Rogan here from the City of Oakland give some
specific request, and I was wondering if you could take to our
Governor, the man of action, asking him to do two of these
points, and they were quite simple. Number one, to extend the
time notices of default from 90 days to 150 days, and the
second request was to extend the time period for notice of
trustee sales from 30 to 60 days to allow for more time for
counseling and workouts.
So as our Governor is negotiating these private side
agreements--and I could give you a whole dissertation on what I
think about some of the private side agreements that have been
done in the past--but as he formulates these with the lending
institutions, if you could request that these two items be
included as well.
Ms. Peters. I will take that back to him, yes.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you.
My second comment is for Mr. Bates. I was quite alarmed
when I read Ms. Peters' testimony that said that the access to
FHA loans have decreased to such the amount that she stated. In
fact, she said that they have dropped from 109,000 to just
2,600, which represents in California a 98 percent decline. Do
you know that to be true?
Mr. Bates. With some caveats about the exact numbers, yes,
essentially that is true as it pertains to forward mortgages,
which is what we are talking about here. We do a fairly decent
business in California on reverse mortgages, which are the home
equity conversion mortgages which seniors can use to get equity
out of their property. But in terms of forward--now we have to
adopt the term ``forward mortgages,'' the standard mortgages
people think of to buy a house or to refinance a house, yes, we
have had a vast fall-off.
Ms. Richardson. And why is that?
Mr. Bates. Well, when it began in 2003, when I first
started noticing it, I could attribute it almost entirely to
the loss of refinance business. But then, it just kept going
and going and going. And in conversations with our
counterparts, part of it would be, well, FHA hasn't kept up
with the market in terms of having flexibility. Some of its
requirements were dated and not important anymore, and the
mortgage limit issue.
And so what happened I think is, as we became less and less
a part of a lender's business, there might have been a tipping
point to where they just didn't go to the trouble of doing any
FHA business, even if there were many borrowers who still could
get an FHA mortgage, even in California.
Ms. Richardson. Are there any discussions to change that?
Mr. Bates. Well, I think Chairwoman Waters has been very
assiduous in pursuing FHA modernization, which is a big part of
what the Administration I think is advancing, and I think is
something that would be essential to bringing FHA back as a
viable alternative in California, high-cost States like
California.
Ms. Richardson. Well, my request would be that you would
take the message back that this hearing--we completely support
the chairwoman of this subcommittee in requesting FHA to take a
second look at their role in the marketplace. When you talk
about a 98 percent decline, from the time that I have had an
opportunity to become a homeowner, clearly when FHA was more
involved with the average borrower, we didn't see some of these
creative financing and some of these other issues.
FHA I think took a greater responsibility to ensure that
people were getting the right loans, and, if problems occurred,
were I think better prepared to assist those borrowers as well.
So clearly there has to be a better commitment to get back into
this marketplace, because I think that you can assist in
bringing the stability that our borrowers need. So that would
be the message I would like to see brought back, that from this
hearing the chairwoman has our complete support in asking for
that change to occur.
Mr. Bates. Thank you.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you. I yield back my time.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. Let me just say, if
I may, for a moment, the whole idea of revitalizing FHA was to
get it back in the business, Ms. Richardson. And what I really
do believe happened is the financial institutions, the loan
initiators, with the subprime market just forced them out of
the market, because they came along with all of these exotic
products.
And basically what they said is, ``You can get in with this
teaser rate.'' They were not vetting these qualifications to
make sure people could afford them. They had no-doc loans, no-
documentation loans. FHA couldn't compete with a financial
institution or a loan initiator that was saying, ``We will give
you a loan without documenting your income.'' They couldn't
compete with these teaser rates that would reset within, you
know, 6 months or 2 years or so.
So we are revitalizing FHA. We passed that bill out of
committee off the floor, and I just don't know what is
happening on the Senate side. Where is my bill?
We understand they are working on it.
I am told that they have hotlined it. It may not be the
same version. Staff, let us get up to date with what is
happening on the Senate side with our bill. That is extremely
important.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Krimminger. Chairwoman Waters, I would just like to
make one note that I would be derelict in not noting.
Chairwoman Waters. Yes.
Mr. Krimminger. For the benefit of the subcommittee, as
well as members of the public, in responding to Congressman
Green's questions about the prepayment penalties, I think one
important thing to look at in terms of Chairman Bair's proposal
for real modifications on a streamlined basis is that the
prepayment penalty provision would not apply to the loan
modifications.
It does apply when you are talking about refinancing, but
it would not apply to the loan modifications because you are
not doing a prepayment of the loan. So I think that is an
important thing to keep into consideration.
Chairwoman Waters. Oh, very important.
Mr. Krimminger. I think that is very important for the
public to know as well, which is, again, I would re-urge, in
response to your comments as well, Congresswoman, for the
people to reach out to their servicers. I think that it is
critical for them to do that in advance, so that something can
be done before the reset, because obviously if they can't make
the payments after reset, there are going to be dire
consequences to their credit history and to other obligations
they may have.
Chairwoman Waters. All right. We are going to move on. Our
constituents would reach out, if they thought it was going to
do any good. Most people just don't believe the bank is going
to be kind, that they are going to do anything for them, and I
have not seen the same people who are initiating the loans
doing the outreach to tell them to call. I am watching the ads
every day, and I am going to ask some of our financial
institutions about them.
They are saying, ``Come on, we want to give you a loan.''
They are saying some of the same things they said that got us
in trouble before, and I don't get it. So if they would spend
some money advertising that they want people to call, so that
before these loans reset, then people will feel a lot more
comfortable in calling that telephone line that never answers.
Okay?
Thank you very much.
All right. We will move on now to--Ms. Watson, thank you
very much for being here today, and I know this is an issue you
are very concerned about. You have 5 minutes for questioning.
Ms. Watson. Thank you so very much, and I want to thank the
chairwoman for calling this hearing. I cannot think of anything
we could do during this period of time, but all come together--
at the local level, State level, and Federal level--to look
into the fraud that has been perpetrated on this Nation through
subprime and other gimmicks. And I want to say this--mine is
more a statement than a question because I do have to go on--
but I pledge to work together with all of those who represent
the public to do something from the top.
What we haven't focused on is that these are gimmicks that
come out of the financial institutions, and they change all the
time. Someone sits in the back room and figures out how they
can make a bigger profit and give back to their shareholders.
So what we are doing is running after the caboose. We are
trying to solve individual problems. We will never be able to
do that. We have a whole list--and I am sure the chairwoman has
it--of community agencies, that this hearing is to mitigate the
loss in L.A. County, California.
I want to go one step above that and into the Federal
Government. I believe that the State ought to hold a conference
and set up a commission that will look at all of the lending
institutions. And we need to have some ground rules to prevent
these kind of products from being perpetrated on those who are
seeking the American dream. So I would propose that, because if
there are a million people in this room, a million people have
a different problem with how they are going to save their
homes.
And so what we have to do is go higher, and in the Federal
Government we need to look at--we have all of these different
agencies that intend to help homeowners avoid foreclosures. But
we can be doing this year after year after year. Let us set
some standards for the State of California, City of Los
Angeles, the county included, and some Federal standards, that
control the kinds of products that are offered to those who are
seeking to buy property and to have their homes for a lifetime
if they wish.
So what I want to do is say to all of you presenters and to
this panel, and the one that comes up after ours, I would like
you to come together and look at ways the State of California
can set up regulations for the kinds of financing of homes that
come out of their various institutions.
Then, I am going to ask the chairwoman to call us together
where we can talk about some Federal guidelines that will cover
all kinds of financial institutions that do home loans and that
introduce products that really are perpetrated to make a profit
and not necessarily there to keep people in their homes.
And I want to say this in closing, that the American dream
has to be supported by those who represent you. And if it is a
real dream, it will become a reality. And the banks don't want
your homes. What are they going to do? They want to sell them
off, but they certainly are calling in your loans. You can't
pay those increased payments. So we really need to deal with
this at the top, we need to speak loudly and clearly to the
institutions that finance these loans and tell them, ``We will
not tolerate the fraud that has been perpetrated on those
seeking to own homes and sustain their homes.''
So with that, Madam Chairwoman, thank you so much for
letting me sit with you these few minutes, and I am ready to
join with all of us to protect not only our constituents but
all people who seek the American dream. Thank you so very much.
Chairwoman Waters. You are welcome.
Ms. Watson. And what I would like to do is submit to you a
proposal that we have to assist in the foreclosure. I will put
it in writing and give it to you.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. As you know, Congresswoman,
we have H.R. 3915--
Ms. Watson. Right.
Chairwoman Waters. --that was introduced by our chairman
and passed out of our committee. Did it pass on the floor? It
passed on the floor. This is the Mortgage Reform and Anti-
Predatory Lending Act of 2007. You did support that. We had
good support from our side of the aisle on this, and we took a
lot of action in this bill on the Federal duty of care. And we
have another title that set minimum standards for all
mortgages. We have a signee securitizer liability, and on and
on and on.
The biggest fight with this bill was something called
preemption, and this is always a big fight in Federal
Government. Oftentimes, we will run into problems like the one
that we have now on foreclosures. Some States have tougher laws
than the Feds will ever have, because when you are dealing with
the Feds, you are dealing with all of the States and all of the
interest groups, all of the entities that are represented in
Congress, and they come with different ideas.
So we try to support the States when they have stronger
laws, but I want you to know this is when the big boys roll out
big time. They roll out big time with the money, with the
lobbyists. Sometimes they hire two, three, four lobbyists to
every individual who serves on the Financial Services
Committee, and they back these efforts because what they would
like to have are Federal laws that are basically minimum
standards.
They would like it to apply to everybody, and we are trying
to preserve the right of States to be even tougher than the
Federal Government would ever get. So it is an ongoing struggle
and an ongoing fight that we have to engage in.
Ms. Watson. Yes. And in response, that is why I would
address Ms. Peters that you go back and carry the message that
California always is in the lead. We go above those standards,
and I think it becomes an obligation for the State to protect
its homeowners. And so, again, I want to thank you, and we know
we are kind of concentrating on Los Angeles, but we are dealing
with a problem that is so overwhelming it means the loss of the
American dream. So I commend you for those efforts, and we will
work together to have better regulations and better laws.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you so very much.
Ms. Peters. We have new regulations this year. We actually
have new regulations this year in California that are some of
the toughest in the Nation.
Ms. Watson. Yes.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. And we were waiting
for Ms. Sanchez. I think she had to leave, and so now is the
proper time to dismiss this panel.
Thank you all very much for your participation.
Thank you for responding today, and we anxiously await to
see the results of Chairman Bair's recommendations. We think
that is an answer.
Okay. With that, let me introduce our next panel as they
come forward. Let me just say that the Chair notes that some
members may have additional questions for this panel which they
may wish to submit in writing. So without objection, the
hearing record will remain open for 30 days for members to
submit written questions to these witnesses, and to place their
responses in the record.
Thank you very much.
Panel number two consists of: Mr. Sandor Samuels, executive
managing director of Countrywide Financial Corporation; Ms.
Michaela Albon, senior vice president and general counsel, Home
Loans Division, Washington Mutual; Mr. Brad Blackwell,
executive vice president, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage; Mr. Tom
Deutsch, deputy executive director, American Securitization
Forum; Ms. Anna Thomas, a homeowner in San Pedro, California;
Ms. Karen Lee, a homeowner in Los Angeles, California; and Mr.
Paul Leonard, California office director, Center for
Responsible Lending.
Without objection, your written statements will be made
part of the record. I will recognize each of you for 5 minutes.
We are going to try and keep each of you to your 5-minute
presentation. We would ask you to summarize and submit for the
record, so that we can move on with all four of our panels
today. And we are going to ask our members to keep their
questions to 5 minutes, so that we can complete this in a
timely fashion.
I would like to welcome all of you who are serving on panel
two, and we will start with Mr. Sandor Samuels, the executive
managing director of Countrywide Financial Corporation.
STATEMENT OF SANDOR SAMUELS, EXECUTIVE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
Mr. Samuels. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters. In addition to
my position at Countrywide, I also serve as the chairman of the
board--
Chairwoman Waters. Let me see if I can get a little bit
of--
Mr. Samuels. Okay.
Chairwoman Waters. --attention for you here. Some people
are moving out, some people are moving in, and it is creating
quite a bit of conversation. So if you will just hold your
conversation to a minimum and quiet down, so that we can hear
our panelists, I would appreciate it.
For those of you who are standing back in the doorway on
the side walls, we do have plenty of seats. Please feel free to
occupy any of them.
Thank you. We will start again with you, Mr. Samuels.
Mr. Samuels. Okay. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters.
Chairwoman Waters. You are welcome.
Mr. Samuels. In addition to my position at Countrywide, I
also serve as chairman of the board of Bet Tzedek Legal
Services, and I am also on the board of the Los Angeles Urban
League and the Housing Preservation Foundation.
As you may know, I testified earlier this month before the
full committee about the recent expansion of our foreclosure
prevention efforts, a $16 billion home preservation program to
assist as many as 82,000 Countrywide hybrid ARM customers
facing unaffordable ARM resets, and about our ground-breaking
partnership with the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of
America, or NACA, as well as with other consumer groups.
Today I want to update you on our progress with those
initiatives and provide additional information on our
activities here in California. California borrowers represent
about 17 percent of our almost 9 million customers. More than
64 percent of our California borrowers are located here in
Southern California. As the largest group in our servicing
portfolio, California borrowers will benefit significantly from
our home retention programs and will remain a major priority of
our outreach efforts.
Last week we endorsed the home retention principles
announced by Governor Schwarzenegger. These principles are also
consistent with those articulated by Treasury Secretary
Paulson, FDIC Chairwoman Bair, OTS Director Reich, and other
Federal banking regulators, calling for a systematic and
scalable approach to home retention that is up to the
challenges ahead.
We believe that we are ready for these challenges and
already can point to results that show loan modification
activity is sharply increasing. Although the majority of our
efforts will result from direct contact with our customers,
nonprofit organizations are also critical to our efforts. On a
national level, we recently entered into a groundbreaking
partnership with NACA, as I mentioned. NACA has more than 30
offices around the country, including two very effective
branches in California, one here in Los Angeles and one up
north in Oakland.
In just 5 weeks since the partnership was announced, more
than 177 home save solutions have been completed or are in
process. The NACA partnership is a model that allows us to
leverage the unique capabilities of some of the best nonprofit
counseling agencies on the ground in many of the communities we
serve. Countrywide also is working with the L.A. Neighborhood
Housing Services. We participate in the Foreclosure Solutions
Task Force and support home preservation fairs like the one
being held here as we speak.
We are collaborating with Lori Gay and the LANHS to expand
our relationship and strengthen our ability to help more
borrowers preserve homeownership and avoid foreclosure
throughout the L.A. area. I look forward to providing you and
the subcommittee with additional details on this collaboration
in the near future.
Countrywide also has sponsored homeownership preservation
seminars in 30 communities around the country, including events
in Anaheim, Fresno, Oakland, Ventura, and earlier this month in
support of the ACORN event here in Los Angeles at the St.
Vincent School. We plan to significantly expand these efforts
in 2008.
Most importantly, Countrywide's initiatives are producing
results that help borrowers avoid foreclosure and preserve
their homes. Congressman Green, we are providing help now.
Through today, in 2007, Countrywide has helped over 55,000
borrowers stay in their homes through loan modifications,
repayment plans, and other home retention solutions, and we
have about 100,000 borrowers in some stage of a workout
transaction. To give you some sense of how our more recent
initiatives and partnerships are paying off, in October we
completed 11,000 home retention transactions, workouts where
the family stays in the home.
That is more than twice our previous monthly high. And more
than 9,000 of these, 82 percent, were loan modifications,
meaning that they involved a change to a loan's interest rate,
principal balance, or maturity date, or a combination, designed
to provide long-term affordable payments. By comparison, about
28 percent of our workouts in 2006 involved loan modifications.
These trends reflect not only the changing nature of the
market, and the causes of loan defaults, but also the efforts
of servicers, investors, and regulators, with substantial help
from this subcommittee, to secure the needed clarifications of
accounting standards and other barriers to ensure that loan
modifications can be done whenever they present a better
alternative to the mortgage holder than a foreclosure.
In short, unlike what you may have read in the press, loan
modifications have become a primary tool for keeping borrowers
in their homes. I have offered a lot of statistics in my
comments, but I also want to offer you two assurances. First,
we understand that this is a human problem, not simply a
numbers problem. Second, Countrywide readily acknowledges that
these are dynamic times, and we fully understand that
additional initiatives may be needed as events unfold.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for your leadership and for
your continuing efforts to help borrowers sustain the dream of
homeownership.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Samuels can be found on page
142 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
Ms. Albon, senior vice president and general counsel for
Home Loans Division, Washington Mutual.
STATEMENT OF MICHAELA ALBON, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL
COUNSEL, HOME LOANS DIVISION, WASHINGTON MUTUAL
Ms. Albon. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and members of the
subcommittee. My name is Michaela Albon, and I am senior vice
president and general counsel of the Home Loans Division of
Washington Mutual. I am pleased to be here today on behalf of
WaMu to discuss our efforts in helping our borrowers find
alternatives to foreclosure and the ways they can overcome
financial obstacles to keep their homes.
Clearly, the housing market is currently experiencing a
sharp downturn. These events are painful for homeowners,
lenders, investors, and our communities alike. This is
especially true in markets such as California, which are coming
off an extended period of rapid home price appreciation.
Moreover, delinquencies and foreclosures are increasing as
fewer borrowers are able to refinance or quick sale their way
out of financial trouble.
While California remains a key concern, as you have already
noted, this is a national issue. Simply put, we view
foreclosure as a last resort, and we work very hard to keep our
customers in their homes and keep them as customers. We fully
recognize that no party wins--in fact, all parties lose--if a
lender is forced to foreclose.
Our firm belief is that early intervention, as has been
noted earlier today, combined with expanded options is
instrumental to helping our customers avoid foreclosure. To
that end, we are applying particular emphasis on reaching out
to our adjustable rate mortgage customers at least 6 months
prior to the first reset date through direct mail, dialing
campaigns, and state messaging.
Overall, we have sent almost 5 million pieces of outreach
mail year-to-date and we will continue to work with our
borrowers requesting assistance up until their reset dates and
beyond. In April, we announced a $2 billion assistance program,
which is focused on helping our subprime customers who are
current in their payments but who are feeling the effects of
this challenging environment. We are reaching out to our
customers and encouraging them to contact us if they are
concerned about making their new mortgage payment as a result
of a payment adjustment on an adjustable rate loan or for other
reasons.
Our offers of assistance include refinancing or modifying
their mortgage into a fixed rate loan at a discounted interest
rate. To date, we have refinanced or modified approximately
$720 million in loans, and we expect this number to increase
sharply in the coming months. For those borrowers who have
already become delinquent and are in need of additional
assistance, we are offering expanded forbearance and loan
restructuring plans, including permanent reductions in rate,
extended terms, and even partial forgiveness of debt.
To the latter end, WaMu has publicly supported the
initiative to reduce or eliminate the income tax on forgiven
debt. WaMu maximizes the opportunities to meet with our
customers by reaching out to them via mail, phone, and
personally inviting them to attend homeownership preservation
events, even to the extent of offering $100 gift cards if our
customers will attend and talk to us about their loans.
These homeownership preservation events are held throughout
the United States, in the homeowners' own communities, so
borrowers may meet face-to-face with WaMu employees to work out
a solution to keep them in their homes. WaMu recently
participated in events held in Anaheim and Ventura, both of
which were considered quite successful.
With regard to the percentage of home loans currently in
foreclosure, we do not publicly disclose this information, but
we give borrowers every consideration as we work to assist them
while making prudent lending decisions and adhering to investor
and regulatory requirements.
Despite the efforts of lenders and servicers to help
borrowers avoid foreclosure, the industry does face challenges.
It has already been noted today that the terms and the
conditions of applicable pooling and servicing agreements, as
well as tax law and accounting rules, determine the
requirements regarding the loans we service on--to some extent
the requirements regarding loans we service on behalf of
securitizations and third party investors.
Declining home values, subordination of junior liens, and
securitized seconds are also impacting our ability to help some
customers. Perhaps our biggest challenge, however, is simply
reaching the borrowers who are most in need. If we can't reach
them directly or indirectly, such as through community
organizations, we cannot help them.
In addition to WaMu's own efforts as a lender and servicer,
we partner with local, regional, and national nonprofits to
combine raising rates of borrower delinquency and default. We
have found that these organizations can be very, very effective
in reaching customers who may not feel comfortable contacting
us directly.
We are a member of the HOPE NOW Alliance that has been
mentioned some this morning, and we recently participated in
the HOPE NOW outreach efforts. And our employees, including
myself, are active participants in all of the working groups,
including the groups responsible for expanding and funding
counseling initiatives as well as advancing our ability to do
more workouts and loan modifications.
The final area I would like to briefly cover today is our
industry-leading measures we have taken to help borrowers
through the ongoing origination process. In late September,
WaMu co-sponsored a national conference on consumer education
that was held at our training center in Seattle. In October, we
introduced a requirement in our wholesale channel that we hope
will soon become industry standard practice.
Chairwoman Waters. Could you wrap it up for us, please?
Ms. Albon. I am sorry?
Chairwoman Waters. Could you wrap up your presentation?
Ms. Albon. Yes. Basically, we have increased the
disclosures that must be provided by brokers on loans that they
broker to us, including more clear disclosure of their
compensation.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Albon can be found on page
94 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
We have to move on Mr. Blackwell, executive vice president,
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage.
STATEMENT OF BRAD BLACKWELL, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, WELLS
FARGO HOME MORTGAGE
Mr. Blackwell. Chairwoman Waters, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify. I am
Brad Blackwell, executive vice president of Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage's National Sales Force.
Chairwoman Waters, we commend your leadership on housing
issues. Wells Fargo is proud to have spoken at numerous
national forums of this nature, as we believe collaboration
with you and other Members of Congress is critical. We, too,
are concerned about foreclosures, particularly in parts of
California where the market correction continues to depress
housing prices.
It is important to note that, culturally, Wells Fargo is
committed to lifetime customer relationships. Our vision is to
satisfy all of our customers' financial needs, not just their
mortgage needs, and to help them achieve financial success.
This includes ensuring all customers have access to and can
sustain homeownership.
Working with organizations like Los Angeles Neighborhood
Housing Services, Operation Hope, the West Angeles Community
Development Corporation, and the East Los Angeles Community
Corporation, we have introduced a number of innovations to help
homeowners, including conducting seminars to help borrowers
review loan documents and training local lawyers to give aid to
people facing foreclosure.
In your congressional district alone, Madam Chairwoman,
Wells Fargo has contributed over $19 million toward low- and
moderate-income housing investments. When faced with the
tension that can naturally exist between doing what is right
for the customer and generating a profit, responsible lenders
do what is right for the customer.
Unlike many in our industry, Wells Fargo chose not to offer
negatively amortizing option ARM products. In 2006 alone, these
loans generated close to 40 percent of the industry's revenue.
We know that having fair and responsible lending principles
makes a difference. The subprime loans originated by Wells
Fargo Home Mortgage have foreclosures half that of those not
originated by our company.
Our principles include focusing on the customer's ability
to repay, providing information to make fully informed
decisions, making only those loans that provide a demonstrable
benefit to the customer, and doing all we can to keep people in
their homes by providing experts, tools, and services that help
customers manage their credit.
While we believe we have made good decisions that align
with our responsible lending and servicing practices, like most
others we did not predict the extreme confluence of market
events currently affecting customers. So we have stepped up our
efforts to find more ways to help at-risk customers.
Wells Fargo has weathered the current subprime crisis well,
relative to our competitors, because we respect that what is
good for consumers and what is good for investors are
inextricably linked. Selling mortgages into the secondary
market makes homeownership possible for millions, including
minority and low-income consumers, and we are careful to avoid
practices that could limit responsible access to funding.
To ensure the future health of the housing industry, it is
very necessary to preserve liquidity and capital from the
secondary market. We must find a good balance between upholding
investor obligations and meeting consumer needs.
Since the vast majority of subprime loans we service are
held by investors, an ongoing industry dialogue organized by
the American Securitization Forum has helped us develop
solutions that take into account our secondary market
obligations. Over the past few weeks, we have been working
closely with Treasury Secretary Paulson, the Federal banking
regulators, and the ASF on more systematic solutions, as you
have been discussing earlier, for segments of subprime
consumers who share similar credit characteristics.
Now, HOPE NOW, which Wells Fargo was instrumental in
creating, is another great example of how industry and
government have come together in nationwide solutions. This
alliance harnesses the strengths of mortgage servicers'
counselors to capital markets in the U.S. Government to help
consumers get budget guidance.
A critical component--and this was not discussed in the
last panel--is encouraging customer contact, since it is the
biggest obstacle we face in helping customers. HOPE NOW is
already beginning to prove that when we come together and
mobilize to help consumers we can have great impact.
To gain further insights on the best ways to help more
customers, we analyzed our 2007 subprime ARM servicing
portfolio, considering the life of the loan and current market
trends. About 3 percent of the 7.9 million real estate-backed
loans Wells Fargo services are subprime ARMs that have or are
expected to reset by the end of 2008.
At this time, it appears we can find workable solutions
for the vast majority, 80 to 88 percent. These customers will
pay in full, they will refinance, manage the higher loan
payment, or benefit from a workout solution. We either seek
refinancing solutions or modify all loans for customers who can
afford the modification and are willing to manage their
mortgage payments. If a repayment or modification will not be
successful for the customer, we turn to foreclosure avoidance
options to protect the customer's credit standing.
As the Nation's leading FHA lender, we appreciate
Congresswoman Waters spearheading FHA reform in the House, as
we believe this will provide yet another conduit for helping
customers. Six months in advance of a reset, we contact
borrowers.
Chairwoman Waters. Could you wrap it up for us, please?
Mr. Blackwell. Thank you. I will. And by working--so we
make sure we contact those borrowers to see what we can do to
help them with the reset.
By working together, our industry, government, capital
markets, consumer groups, and not-for-profit counseling agents
can help people stay in their homes, and it takes the effort of
all of them. Together, we must get all customers facing
difficulty to call their servicers or credit counselor, and we
must explore refinancing, modification, and workout options. We
are there for the help of our customers.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
Mr. Blackwell. And we thank you very much for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blackwell can be found on
page 103 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
Mr. Deutsch?
STATEMENT OF TOM DEUTSCH, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN
SECURITIZATION FORUM
Mr. Deutsch. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am honored to
be here on behalf of the American Securitization Forum, as well
as the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.
As indicated before, the ASF represents members, over 375
members, including all of the major servicers in the
securitization marketplace, all of the major originators, as
well as the institutional investors, to purchase these
mortgage-backed securities as well. Our mission and goals can
be succinctly summarized as: first, providing good market
standards and practices in this area; second, advocating on
behalf of our members; and, third, providing a good education
as to how securitization works and the different incentives
market participants have.
Before I address the specifics of the securitization
process, and some of the many initiatives that we are working
on right now, I would like to make one fundamental observation
about the current mortgage market. That is, no one--no one--
benefits from foreclosures, not the mortgage servicers, nor
pension funds, nor mutual funds or hedge funds who ultimately
invest in these mortgage-backed securities benefit from
foreclosures at all. It is often the costliest outcome for both
the borrower as well as the investor in those mortgage-backed
securities. And let me just put a placeholder in there and come
back to that towards the end of my testimony.
Fundamentally, the process of securitization, though,
allows originators of consumer and commercial credit to pool
hundreds of like obligations and securities, which often
generates stable and predictable cashflows for the investors in
those mortgage-backed securities as borrowers pay their
principal and interest payments.
Recent developments in the current subprime residential
mortgage place has generated a number of significant concerns,
and have impacted both the borrowers in those mortgage-backed
securities as well as all of the securitization market
participants. Given these market conditions, servicers of the
mortgage loans, whether they are held in portfolio by the
different banks, or whether in securitization trust, have
redoubled their efforts, as you have just heard by all of the
testimony from some of the servicers here, to help borrowers
avoid foreclosure and minimize the losses to the securitization
investors.
This is a very key point. The securitization investors are
the ones who keep capital flowing into this marketplace.
Refinancing is the number one option for many borrowers in
these homes, not everyone, and let me speak to a couple of the
general tenets that we have been discussing through numerous
discussions both with various industry participants as well as
the various Federal regulators and the Administration.
For many of those who are coming up on their reset date,
and they have generally been current in their introductory
mortgage payments, and have built up some equity in their home,
refinancing opportunities continue to exist and to be
accessible to borrowers even in the current marketplace. But
for some borrowers with significantly impaired credit, or
little equity in their home, these refinancing opportunities
may not be available, and this is an area where the servicers
as well as the industry have taken particular note and focus,
especially over the last few months.
For borrowers who have been able to stay relatively current
in their introductory rate--again, showing their ability and
willingness to pay in that current introductory rate--servicers
are and will continue to employ the full tool kit of loss
mitigation options, including, but not limited to, loan
modifications to try to help that borrower to stay in their
home, again coming back to the point. For those leaving their
home, whether it is through foreclosure or even short sales, it
is often not the best outcome for anybody in the securitization
process.
So let me just talk a little bit about the securitization
pooling and servicing agreements that have been discussed a
little bit today and get to some of the recent industry
developments. As many of you are aware, all of the
securitizations are covered by pooling and servicing agreements
that are effectively the contract, if you can think about it,
between the servicer and the investor of the mortgage-backed
securities, various provisions that allow servicers to do a
wide range and open up the full tool kit of what servicers can
do.
Given current market conditions, the American
Securitization Forum has taken particular note of that. And as
far back as June of this year, we instituted a statement of
principles, recommendations, and guidelines for the
modification of securitized subprime residential mortgage. That
is attached to my testimony as Exhibit A.
This document concludes that loan modifications--and this
was back in June--that are in default, for subprime loans that
are in default or for which default is reasonably foreseeable,
an important serving tool as part of the full servicing tool
kit to often help borrowers avoid foreclosure and remain in
their homes.
I would also like to note that the development of the ASF
statement was a first and important step towards industry
collaboration and coordinated solutions. Since the ASF and
SIFMA have also been pleased to be involved with the HOPE NOW
Alliance that was formed on October 9, 2007, under the
leadership of Treasury Secretary Paulson and HUD Secretary
Jackson, this HOPE NOW coalition again brings all of the
counselors, servicers, investors, and other mortgage market
participants to maximize the outreach to borrowers and to help
develop industry solutions.
On that same day, we also released a statement allowing for
the reimbursement of borrower counseling expenses to be viewed
as servicing advances, effectively Help Now. That is, that
servicers can deduct out of securitization trust cashflows many
of the expenses that they reimburse for counseling expenses,
something we spent a great deal of time working with both
servicers and investors to develop this.
Finally, I believe that brings me to the work that we are
currently working on now with Federal policymakers, including
the FIDC, FASB, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department,
and other Federal bank regulators to identify the loss
mitigation obstacles and promote best servicer practices
throughout the industry.
Fundamentally, the ASF believes, and is continuing to
pursue, streamlined methods of segmenting borrowers with
various types of characteristics including loan-to-value
ratios, credit scores, and, most importantly, payment history
at the introductory rate. We believe that streamlining this
approach by doing this very quickly, as servicers have been
doing and working on over the last few months, will achieve
very measurable outcomes and ultimately help even that many
more borrowers stay in their homes.
We are pursuing these efforts in great earnest, and hope to
report out the progress of these efforts in the very near
future.
Madam Chairwoman, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to participate in
today's hearing. The ASF and SIFMA stand by to assist you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Deutsch can be found on page
108 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Deutsch.
Now we will hear from some homeowners. First, Ms. Anna
Thomas, a homeowner from San Pedro, California. Thank you for
being here.
STATEMENT OF ANNA THOMAS, HOMEOWNER, SAN PEDRO, CA
Ms. Thomas. Thank you. Thank you. It is exactly a year ago
that I got into a bad loan with Freemont Investment and Loan,
almost to the day, and they did nothing to help negotiate or
modify my loan. Over 6 months, I paid them $5,190.35 for my
mortgage. I had help to do that. I had family members in my
home, and I was able to do it for 6 months.
And it turned out, towards the sixth month, I realized my
family members were not there any longer, they had to go back
to New York, and I could not make those payments. Freemont
Investment and Loan would do nothing to help me. I heard
mentioned today that the consumers don't know where to go, and
I didn't know where to go either.
I got a book, this Consumer Action Handbook. I found the
Department of Consumer Affairs, their Real Estate Fraud Unit, a
lady, Dawnnesha Smith called me right away to see how they
could help. They got on the phone with Freemont--now, I had
been negotiating with them for over 6 months now. They would
not take any partial payments. They wanted me to sell my home.
Investigator Gutierrez spoke with them at length on one
particular day. She called me at work and said, ``I have been
talking with them all day. I am sorry, they are not bending.
You are going to--on the 16th of November, they will file
foreclosure notice, and you are going to have to move out of
your home. And as a matter of fact, within 72 hours you would
have to vacate your home.''
I was devastated at that news, and I felt the compassion in
her voice. There was somebody that I was able to call. I don't
know what she said to them, but she called me back 15 minutes
later and said, ``Ms. Thomas, I am on a conference call with
Freemont Investment and Loan, and this gentleman would like to
speak with you.'' So within a 15- to 20-minute period, I went
from devastation to elation. He told me he would modify my loan
at 6 percent. Would I be able to pay them a fee of $5,190.35? I
said yes, I would.
I didn't have it then, 6 months ago. I don't really have it
now either, but my friends and relatives got that money
together. I sent it in to them, my payment now is approximately
$3,700. I asked if they could put that $5,000 maybe onto the
loan, so that I would not have to pay that money on the 16th of
November, and then go back on the 1st of December now with
$3,700, but that is another hurdle that I will have to make.
I am here--hopefully other consumers will get in touch with
our agencies, especially the Consumer Affairs Department and
the people who helped me--perhaps they, too, can save their
homes. I am a survivor of this foreclosure crisis. I am happy
to say that at this point. Going forward, I have learned a lot
of things, and I would like to thank you for having this panel
and hopefully preventing this from happening to other people.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Waters. Well, you are so very welcome, and we
thank you for being here.
Ms. Karen Lee, also a homeowner, from Los Angeles. Thank
you for being here today.
STATEMENT OF KAREN LEE, HOMEOWNER, LOS ANGELES, CA
Ms. Lee. Thank you. It is my pleasure to be here and share
my story. I feel like I am one of the lucky ones, because I was
not losing my home at the time I think I had--my health went
down, so I had to quit work. My husband wasn't in the greatest
health either, and he was on the verge of retiring.
So we discussed what we would do, since we knew we didn't
have a lot of money coming in, and we had refinanced before a
couple of times for our children's education. So we, therefore,
did not even consider what would happen to us once we retired
or if something drastic like my health going down the tubes
would affect our lives.
I had been getting a lot of literature through the mail
about reverse financing. I didn't understand it. There was a
seminar that we attended, and we still didn't give it a lot of
thought. But then, as the time got nearer for my husband to
retire, then I started thinking, well, gee whiz, I am ill, my
house note was $1,300 a month, and maybe to some people that is
not a lot of money, but for us raised in South Central Los
Angeles, it was a lot of money.
So I couldn't imagine how, if something should happen to
him, how I could get this money together if I should miss a
payment or whatever. So we discussed it, and I am very pleased
to say that we were happy with the decision that we made to go
ahead on and do something about it before anything happened. So
we went on and we applied. I have a new that is with the HUD
Corporation, and he was instrumental in giving us advice and
putting us with the right people to give us the right
understanding, and now we can breathe easy and it is a good
feeling.
I appreciate you allowing me to come and share my success
story.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lee can be found on page 141
of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. Well, thank you very much.
Mr. Paul Leonard,California office director, Center for
Responsible Lending.
STATEMENT OF PAUL LEONARD, CALIFORNIA OFFICE DIRECTOR, CENTER
FOR RESPONSIBLE LENDING
Mr. Leonard. Madam Chairwoman, thank you and the other
members of the subcommittee for coming out today. I can't help
but say the timing of this hearing couldn't have been better
given the landscape that we are facing now, the Governor's
intervention, the discussions that are happening in Washington
around expanding the scale of modifications. It is critical.
I am Paul Leonard, the director of the California office of
the Center for Responsible Lending. We are a nonprofit,
nonpartisan policy organization working to eliminate financial
abuses in the marketplace. We work with a lot of other civil
rights, labor, consumer groups. We work closely with the NAACP,
and the National Council La Raza, at the national level as well
as here in the State.
We are also affiliated with Self-Help, which is a credit
union, so we are a lender to people who have imperfect credit
in North Carolina directly. And through a national lending
program, we have bought some $5 billion and helped finance more
than 4\1/2\ million homeowners and small businesses.
I would be remiss if I didn't reiterate the fact that
California really is the epicenter of the national foreclosure
crisis. Last year we put out a report that projected there
would be 2.2 million foreclosures as a result of subprime
lending that occurred in 1998 and 2006. We estimated that close
to 500,000 of those would be right here in California, and some
45,000 here in L.A. County specifically.
As others have mentioned, this is a problem that is
disproportionately focused on minority communities and minority
borrowers. Both African Americans and Latinos are much more
likely than similarly-situated, similarly credit quality white
borrowers to get high cost subprime loans and to experience
foreclosures.
You know, not too long ago the problem for homeownership
lending used to be redlining, that minority folks couldn't get
a lender to say yes to a loan. Unfortunately, the pendulum has
swung way too far to the other end where the saying in the
industry is is that if you could fog a mirror, you could get a
loan, and the whole issue is now not about whether you can get
a loan but how much you are going to pay for it and what the
terms of those loans are.
And, unfortunately, far too many people got into loans that
they fundamentally are not going to be able to repay, and that
the lenders didn't evaluate their ability to repay beyond the
initial starter rate period and didn't verify their income as
to determine their ability to repay.
The costs of this are staggering, not just for the
borrowers, for whom it is a tragedy for them to lose their
homes, but also for the neighbors, as several of the members
mentioned. We have done some analysis. Here in L.A. County, we
estimate that 3 million homeowners will experience price
declines in their homes totalling some $31 billion as a
result--specifically as a result of foreclosures that are
happening to their neighbors.
And as others have mentioned also, the problem is going to
get worse. We are going to see a spike in subprime ARM
borrowers who are facing resets for the first time over the
next 12 to 18 months. Unfortunately, for the last 6 to 9
months, we have heard a lot of what I call ``happy talk'' from
the lenders, promises of efforts to reach out, staff up their
loss mitigation efforts, contact borrowers and offer a full
range of loss mitigation tools, including loan modifications.
Unfortunately, that rhetoric has often been hollow.
Moody's did a survey of the largest servicers in the
country a couple of months ago, and they found that only 1
percent of borrowers at reset were getting modifications. And
when we have scratched below the surface and looked at the
types of modifications that are being provided, often they are
of a very short-term nature, not the long-term affordability
that Chairman Bair is seeking in her approach to loan
modifications.
Now, why isn't this happening despite the obvious economic
appeal and the point that Mr. Deutsch made that nobody really
benefits from foreclosures? Well, we think there are a few
reasons. One is that the financial incentives for the servicers
may very well be mismatched with the incentives of the
investors. There was a recent quote in an Inside Mortgage
Finance from a Deutsche Bank official who said, ``Just this
week, servicers are generally disincented to do loan
modifications because they don't get paid for them, but they do
get paid for foreclosures.''
This official went on to indicate that it costs servicers
between $750 and $1,000 to complete a loan modification. So we
have to dig beneath the surface and really get into the guts of
these operations to understand where the financial incentives
are internally, even if the outcomes of foreclosures are
clearly worse off for investors and for borrowers.
There are other issues. Clearly, the servicers haven't had
the capacity to deal with the wave of folks who are facing
problems. There are potential lawsuits from investors that are
tying the hands of how many modifications, at least that the
lenders suggest that they can do. And, finally, there are some
complicated incentives with many loans that have second
mortgages, which make it difficult to offer these loan
modifications.
Well, what is needed to make this work? I think there
really are three things. First of all, we wholeheartedly
endorse the proposal put forward by Chairman Bair to
essentially identify quickly and in a streamlined fashion those
borrowers who are not going to be able, who are current and
occupying their homes, current at the time of reset and aren't
going to be able to afford it. And let us just, as she said,
get on with it, convert these loans to the starter rate for the
life of the loan.
I would also point out that we should expand the universe
of those folks who are affected, because there are many people
who have already passed their reset date and who have fallen
behind on their loans but were current before, and they have
fallen behind on their loans because they couldn't afford this
reset that they have already experienced. Those folks, too,
should be included in the universe that we are looking for for
this streamlined, simple modification process.
The second thing that I think is really, really important
is there has to be transparency about who is going to qualify
for these streamlined modifications. I have talked to a lot of
housing counselors and borrowers who you have already heard
today have trouble finding the right person, have trouble
knowing what their clients are eligible for in terms of a loan
workout, and so we have to make it simpler and easier to
understand for borrowers and for the lenders alike.
And perhaps most importantly, we need regular reporting of
data, because right now--Madam Chairwoman, you know, you were
intimately involved in the effort to get--expand the Home
Mortgage Disclosure Act, which has shed a light on and provided
a real democratization of data around home lending practices.
We need similar data collection right now for the servicing
activities, so that we can know and measure the lenders up to
the standards that they have set for themselves, that if they
are providing the long-term affordable loan modifications that
they are talking to, they will make this data--readily make
this data available for you and me and everybody else to see,
so that we can know that people's homes aren't being lost.
Two final points that I think are important to sort of
level the playing field to help current borrowers. One is Ms.
Sanchez's proposal for bankruptcy reform. It is a critical,
critical component, because right now, as she said, the first
home mortgage is the only asset that a bankruptcy judge can't
rework the terms of their loan.
Second home, vacation home, a nice yacht, or an RV, even
credit card debt, all can be restructured in a bankruptcy
process. First home mortgages isn't one of those items. And if
we don't do that--if we do that, we are actually giving the
borrowers a whole lot more leverage in their ability to
negotiate with their lenders today.
The one final point I want to say is requiring mandatory
loss mitigation activities on behalf of the lenders,
establishing some requirements as are required by FHA today
that would require lenders to reach out and document their loss
mitigation efforts before they came move to foreclosure we
think would be a strong Federal policy that should be adopted.
Thank you very much, and I am happy to answer your questions.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very, very much.
Thank you very much.
Again, I would like to thank all of the panelists for their
testimony. It was indeed tremendously informative, and we have
a few questions to raise of our panelists.
Let me just say to the lending institutions who are here
today that I know oftentimes you don't feel comfortable coming
to these kinds of hearings, and particularly when it is chaired
by Maxine Waters. You think you are going to get beaten up.
And we don't want to do that. We want to make you feel as
comfortable as we possibly can, but we have to ask you some
tough questions. The first question I would like to ask is
something you alluded to, Ms. Albon. Can each of you tell me
how many foreclosures are in your portfolios? Let me start with
Countrywide. What is the total amount of foreclosures that you
are working with at Countrywide? How many foreclosures have you
had?
Mr. Samuels. Could you start with someone else? Let me just
review--
Chairwoman Waters. All right. We will start with WaMu.
Ms. Albon. Yes. We do not publicly disclose that data, so
I--
Chairwoman Waters. I am sorry. Would you please give her
the microphone?
Ms. Albon. We do not publicly disclose that data, so I do
not have it with me today.
Chairwoman Waters. All right. I know that you said that. I
just wanted to get it into the record, because we have to talk
about what we do about that.
What about Wells Fargo?
Mr. Blackwell. Wells Fargo's foreclosures currently
represent .66 percent of our portfolio.
Chairwoman Waters. What is that--
Mr. Blackwell. That was as of the end of the third quarter.
Chairwoman Waters. What is that in raw numbers?
Mr. Blackwell. I am sorry. I don't know that number.
Chairwoman Waters. Okay.
Mr. Blackwell. We have--
Chairwoman Waters. Okay.
Mr. Blackwell. --roughly 7.9 million loans in our
portfolio.
Chairwoman Waters. All right.
Mr. Samuels. Ours is .89 percent of our portfolio of almost
9 million.
Chairwoman Waters. Almost 9 million?
Mr. Samuels. Yes.
Chairwoman Waters. All right. For Wells Fargo, do you
have--do you own other companies that initiate loans for you?
Any other--do you own any other banking or mortgage companies
that do loan initiation for you?
Mr. Blackwell. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters. I think I
understand the question.
Chairwoman Waters. Yes.
Mr. Blackwell. Do we own any separate companies, not under
the--
Chairwoman Waters. Yes.
Mr. Blackwell. --Wells Fargo umbrella--
Chairwoman Waters. Yes.
Mr. Blackwell. --that originate mortgages?
Chairwoman Waters. Yes.
Mr. Blackwell. The answer to that is no. We do originate
loans under the Wells Fargo Home Mortgage name, and under the
Wells Fargo Financial name. Both are wholly-owned subsidiaries.
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage is actually a unit of Wells Fargo,
and Wells Fargo Financial is a wholly-owned subsidiary.
Chairwoman Waters. Are all of your loans initiated by loan
officers that work in these entities?
Mr. Blackwell. If you mean are all of our loans originated
as in the loan officer takes the loan application--
Chairwoman Waters. Yes.
Mr. Blackwell. --the answer to that is no. We have--and our
primary origination source is retail, in which loan officers
take the loan applications. But we also have a wholesale unit
which originates loans through mortgage brokers who can deliver
loans to us. And we have a correspondent unit that buys loans
from mortgage bankers, and those three units all do mortgages
for Wells Fargo.
Chairwoman Waters. What percentage of your loans, your
subprime loans, are originated by mortgage brokers?
Mr. Blackwell. I am sorry. I don't have that information. I
can tell you that more than half of our loans were originated
through our retail channels, but I do not have the percentage
of loans that were done through our wholesale channels.
Chairwoman Waters. What about you, WaMu?
Ms. Albon. We also do business through licensed brokers,
and a large percentage of our subprime loans that we currently
service were originated through mortgage brokers, and then some
were purchased from sellers.
Chairwoman Waters. What percentage again?
Ms. Albon. I don't have that number on me, but I can go
back and get that information.
Chairwoman Waters. Can either of you tell me--can you trace
whether or not your foreclosures are more tied to or related to
the loans that were initiated by your banking operation or by
the operations of the mortgage brokers and the mortgage
bankers, others that were initiating for you?
Ms. Albon. We would internally have that data.
Chairwoman Waters. Well, I know you would have it
internally, but can you tell me?
Ms. Albon. I do not have it with me right now.
Chairwoman Waters. But is this something that you can
publicly disclose?
Ms. Albon. I will go back and check on that.
Chairwoman Waters. Yes, sir.
Mr. Blackwell. I apologize. I don't have the exact numbers,
but I do know that the performance of our portfolio originated
directly by our loan officers is better than that originated by
mortgage brokers that delivered in to us.
Chairwoman Waters. At any point in time leading up to this
crisis, did you know and understand that?
Mr. Blackwell. I do not have the answer to that personally.
Chairwoman Waters. Okay. Let me just move on to Mr.
Deutsch. Mr. Deutsch, did you say what I heard Mr. Leonard say?
Was it true that you said that the servicers don't get paid for
doing the workouts on foreclosures?
Mr. Deutsch. I am sorry. As much as I would like to have
the resources of Deutsche Bank, I think that is who he was
referring to, not Tom Deutsch.
Mr. Leonard. That is correct.
Chairwoman Waters. Oh, okay.
Mr. Leonard. It was a Deutsche Bank official that--
Chairwoman Waters. Oh, okay.
Mr. Leonard. --I was quoting.
Chairwoman Waters. All right. I am sorry.
Mr. Leonard. Not Mr. Deutsch.
Chairwoman Waters. I just saw Deutsch there, and--
Mr. Leonard. You have seen one Deutsch, you have seen them
all I think.
Chairwoman Waters. That is right. That is right. So but
since you are an expert in this area, is this a problem?
Mr. Deutsch. Could you repeat the question?
Chairwoman Waters. The question is, because you understand
and know you are the forum, and you have under your umbrella
all of these servicers, have you heard or have you learned that
they do not get paid for doing workouts? That it is too costly,
it is too time-consuming, that it is not--you don't have any
incentives for doing these kinds of modifications or workouts.
Have you heard that said before?
Mr. Deutsch. I have heard that said before, and personally
having, for better or for worse, drafted many of these pooling
and servicing agreements, quite familiar with many of the
provisions that are applicable, I guess I would respond I guess
with two notes. Is that, first, the servicer does have an
incentive to continue servicing and not foreclose or create
some sort of short sale arrangement, because they are
continuing to receive a servicing fee for servicing that loan
ongoing.
So if they were to--to say that they are not paid to
actually do a loan modification misses the point that they will
continue to receive a servicing fee for servicing that loan
going forward.
Secondly, is that they--
Chairwoman Waters. No, no, we understand that.
Mr. Deutsch. Sure.
Chairwoman Waters. We understand that if they continue to
service the loan they are going to get paid. So that is the
incentive for wanting to service rather than--well, you said
it. If you do the workout, and it stays on the books, then you
do get paid for it. So what point were you making, Mr. Leonard?
Mr. Leonard. I was simply sort of reiterating this comment
from my friends at Deutsche Bank as opposed to Mr. Deutsch
that--
Chairwoman Waters. Yes.
Mr. Leonard. --that, in fact--that from this person's
perspective that the incentives were not necessarily aligned
and moving in the direction of making sure that the servicers
were going to be striving for to deliver modifications rather
than foreclosures. And combined with the risk of investor
lawsuits and other complications, the default may very well
still be easier to do--to accept a foreclosure, have the loan
off the books, than it is to go through the effort of doing a
workout.
Chairwoman Waters. Mr. Deutsch, are you guys worried about
liability? Is there something that needs to be done to relieve
you of that concern of liability based on the contracts that
you have with the investors?
Mr. Deutsch. Absolutely, liability has been raised as an
issue, and I would respond with two notes, is that servicers
have indicated a concern if they do too few loan modifications
that investors and mortgage-backed securities could sue them
for that, but they have also noted--servicers--in the same
breath that if they do not enough loan modifications that
investors could also sue them for not doing enough loan
modifications, because they haven't modified to an extent that
would maximize the net present value of the trust.
Chairwoman Waters. They could be. Do you know of any
servicers who have been sued?
Mr. Deutsch. I am not personally aware of lawsuits that
have been filed. Most of those would be private litigation that
I--
Chairwoman Waters. But in a forum where you are looking to
make sure that you strengthen the industry and protect your
investors and do the work that they--you would know whether or
not there was a rash of--
Mr. Deutsch. Certainly, there has been, as far as I am
aware, no rash of suits as of yet. But I would note that it
is--there is always litigation risk. Absolutely. But that is--
Chairwoman Waters. In life.
Mr. Deutsch. --life in the capital markets.
Chairwoman Waters. Yes.
Mr. Deutsch. Servicers, when they sign up for these
agreements, they do have to take those risks, the risks
associated with--
Chairwoman Waters. Have you made available--maybe my staff
would know--a copy of these kinds of service agreements that
are worked out between the investors and the servicers? Have
you seen these kinds of agreements?
Mr. Leonard. My colleagues have reviewed these pooling--a
sampling of these pooling and servicing agreements, as well as
many other Wall Street firms that have reviewed them and--
Mr. Deutsch. Ms. Waters, I might note you can go to the
sec.gov Web site, and within that Web site is a filing of all
pooling and servicing agreements on publicly-issued securities,
so you can look at any particular issue through that Web site.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you. And I would instruct my staff
to do that. We are going to gather those and take a look at
them and see what you are talking about.
One last thing. You mentioned that in these workouts that
we are still trying to find, you know, all of these workouts
that have been done.
Mr. Deutsch. Sure.
Chairwoman Waters. But one of the things you look at is
whether or not there is impaired credit.
Mr. Deutsch. Correct.
Chairwoman Waters. Now, don't forget these are workouts
that are being done by people who have already been extended
credit.
Mr. Deutsch. Correct.
Chairwoman Waters. They got into a teaser loan.
Mr. Deutsch. Correct.
Chairwoman Waters. So did the credit become bad after they
gave them the loan, or when did they have such bad credit that
they can't do a workout to remedy the risk that they are now
involved in?
Mr. Deutsch. Sure. I might distinct out between credit and
payment on their mortgage payment. I think it--
Chairwoman Waters. Well, they have been in this for 6
months.
Mr. Deutsch. Okay.
Chairwoman Waters. They got a teaser rate.
Mr. Deutsch. Okay.
Chairwoman Waters. They are in for 6 months. It is going to
reset. Are you saying the credit went bad in 6 months?
Mr. Deutsch. No. What we would--what we are proposing, and
through I think all of the different proposals that you have
heard, both from Chairman Bair as well as others, is that if
they are current in their introductory rate, and their credit
hasn't taken a significant or drastic slide, that they would be
eligible for either refinancing when they come up upon their
reset, or that upon that reset they would receive a loan
modification.
Chairwoman Waters. So you do support Chairman Bair's
recommendation to freeze the ARMs at the starter rate?
Mr. Deutsch. I think there is a lot of nuances associated
with that statement.
Chairwoman Waters. Well, just the general idea. Do you
support that?
Mr. Deutsch. As a general idea, the American Securitization
Forum has come out in our statement in June noting that loan
modifications are extremely important and should be done on a
loan-by-loan basis. But let me quality that. By streamlining
the process of evaluating the borrower characteristics--and
there is many different metrics that can be done to make that a
very efficient and fast process, and I think over the--in the
very near future you will see the industry working hand in hand
with the Federal regulators--
Chairwoman Waters. Well, let me just say that we are way
past 101 Loan Modifications. It is too slow, it is too time-
consuming, the consumers are not getting the information, we
don't see the kind of outreach that we are hearing about today.
Chairman Bair has a proposal to say, ``Let us do it in a
significant way. Let us just come up with an agreement that we
are going to freeze these ARMs at a starter rate.'' You are
telling me you are not prepared to say you support that today?
Mr. Deutsch. I think one could--
Chairwoman Waters. Yes or no.
Mr. Deutsch. One--
Chairwoman Waters. I want to be nice.
Mr. Deutsch. I agree. I think the statements that Chairman
Bair has made have indicated on a specific basis that loan-by-
loan analysis, even under her proposal, still needs to be done
on a loan-by-loan basis, but that systematic criteria can be
used. I think they are the exact same approach, but different
nuances in the words have made them seem as if they are
different approaches.
Chairwoman Waters. Well, I would hope that at some point in
time our subcommittee, and perhaps our entire committee, is
going to make it very clear where we stand on the idea, and we
are not going to nuance it. We are going to want some real
action.
I know I have taken a lot of time here, but you are
extremely important to solving this problem. And I have been
wanting for us to get to you guys to see what you were doing,
what you were initiating. I am concerned about the liability
issue, and I am concerned about any other obstacles to doing
these workouts that would freeze these ARMs.
And so we have a lot of work to do, as I can see, but you
could be very helpful in helping us to understand how best to
do it, and supporting a real proposal by which to get it done.
Now, having said that, I am going to wrap up, so that my
colleagues can get their questions in. How many of you in your
outreach, not your national town hall meetings, but you know--
Countrywide, for example, you hold most of your paper, is that
right?
Mr. Samuels. Yes.
Chairwoman Waters. So you are doing your own servicing, is
that right?
Mr. Samuels. Yes, ma'am.
Chairwoman Waters. So your people are sending out the
notices every month?
Mr. Samuels. We are not only sending out notices, but we
are also calling.
Chairwoman Waters. When the notice goes out, for whatever
reason, on that loan, what is your organized systematic way of
making sure that everybody is getting an invitation, either
notifying them that--
Mr. Samuels. Right.
Chairwoman Waters. --the loan is going to reset--
Mr. Samuels. Right.
Chairwoman Waters. --or that they are in trouble already
and come in and they can get a modification consideration?
Mr. Samuels. As I mentioned, we have several notices that
go out--180 days, 90 days, 45 days--before the reset. And we do
several things on the notice. We say, ``If the interest rates
at the date of the reset are what they are today, this is what
your payment would be.'' So somebody could see, compare what
their existing payment is, to the payment reset. And we say,
``If you have an issue with what is going--you know, with this
reset, please call us, please call the Housing Preservation
Foundation, NeighborWorks,'' you know, one of those
organizations.
And we also call--we also call these borrowers, because
sometimes when an envelope comes, as you know, we get a lot of
junk mail. When an envelope comes, sometimes people may not pay
attention to it. So in order to try to make sure that people
are aware of the coming reset, we also make phone calls.
Chairwoman Waters. You made an arrangement with a nonprofit
organization to help you to do what?
Mr. Samuels. Yes. That is--well, we have a number of
arrangements, but the one that I think you are referring to
is--
Chairwoman Waters. NACA?
Mr. Samuels. Yes, the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation
of America.
Chairwoman Waters. What is that arrangement?
Mr. Samuels. The arrangement that we have there is where
people come to NACA. What NACA does is they do counseling.
Chairwoman Waters. How do they get to NACA?
Mr. Samuels. They get to NACA a variety of ways. they--
well, we are actually doing some advertising, are going to be
doing some advertising.
Chairwoman Waters. How much money have you put into paid
ads?
Mr. Samuels. To paid--
Chairwoman Waters. On television. You know, the same kind
of ads where you say, ``Come to Countrywide and get this
loan.''
Mr. Samuels. Right.
Chairwoman Waters. How many of those have you done that
say, ``Come to Countrywide and get this loan modification?''
Mr. Samuels. We haven't done any of that yet.
Chairwoman Waters. Well, that is what I thought. And not
only have you not done any, but you are still spending money on
ads to say, ``Come and get this loan,'' and you are still doing
direct mailings. And those mailings look like some of the same
mailings that went out prior to this crisis that has created
this problem. I don't get it.
Mr. Samuels. Well, Congresswoman, we are still--we still
want to make loans to people who can qualify for loans, and we
think that that is still important.
Chairwoman Waters. No. We want you to do that.
Mr. Samuels. Yes.
Chairwoman Waters. Except we don't want you to do it the
same way that you have done it. It was described here earlier
that we were at a time and point, in minority communities in
particular, where we were redlined. And we worked awfully
hard--awfully hard--to open up these doors.
Now we are being accused of not being appreciative, that we
opened up the doors and you allowed us to get all of these
loans, and it is not your fault that we are defaulting.
However, everybody has to take some blame in this, and
certainly the initiators have to take some blame in this,
because what you did was you extended exotic products to people
who thought they were able to realize the American dream and
get a loan. They didn't understand these exotic loans and these
teaser rates and these interest only and these no-doc loans.
And what I think I see is you are still advertising and
soliciting on these exotic products.
Mr. Samuels. No, we are not doing that. That is not--we are
not doing that anymore, no.
Chairwoman Waters. What are you doing in your solicitations
that is different?
Mr. Samuels. Well, we are not doing--we are not doing 2/28s
and 3/27s anymore. So these products--our subprime, you know,
we are--our subprime products have been very, very
significantly reduced from what they were. But I want to--
Chairwoman Waters. Do you have a way that you can document
how many modifications you have done?
Mr. Samuels. Yes. In fact, I have--I think we have been--
Chairwoman Waters. Is it public information?
Mr. Samuels. Yes, absolutely. And we have been very--I
think of all the lenders, we have been very, very forthcoming
in terms of how many we have done. And it is in our written
testimony, and I have also mentioned it in--
Chairwoman Waters. So you have made 18 million phone calls.
Mr. Samuels. Yes.
Chairwoman Waters. And you have done what with 30,000? Did
you do workouts? Did you do successful workouts?
Mr. Samuels. We did 50--
Chairwoman Waters. Did you talk with 30,000 people? What
did you do?
Mr. Samuels. We have done--since the beginning of the year,
we have done 55,000 workouts, meaning people stay in their
homes. It is not--we do not include--
Chairwoman Waters. Does your workout include a
modification?
Mr. Samuels. Yes. Of the--
Chairwoman Waters. All of these have been--
Mr. Samuels. No, not all of them have been modifications.
There are other--
Chairwoman Waters. So you talked with some people--
Mr. Samuels. But there are other kinds of workouts that
are--
Chairwoman Waters. Yes, there are. There are a lot of them.
There are some that result in modifications and some that
don't.
Mr. Samuels. Yes. And in October--
Chairwoman Waters. How many modifications have come out of
this 18 million phone calls?
Mr. Samuels. Well, I will tell you, in October we have done
11,000 workouts, and 9,000 of those 11,000 were modifications.
Chairwoman Waters. Okay. All right. I said I wasn't going
to get too tough with you guys, but, you know--
Mr. Samuels. And we are prepared to be very open with the--
you know, our figures as to--
Chairwoman Waters. Okay.
Mr. Samuels. --what we are doing in terms of our--
Chairwoman Waters. Okay.
Mr. Samuels. --workout transactions.
Chairwoman Waters. I do appreciate that. This is such a
serious problem.
Mr. Samuels. Yes.
Chairwoman Waters. And so many homeowners are at risk. We
recognize and appreciate that the industry is in business to
make money. We don't deny that, and that is okay. But we cannot
be in a situation where we find that people have gotten
involved over these exotic products and these loans, and they
are going to lose the homes. Everybody tells us it is not in
the investor's best interest. Everybody tells us it is not in
the lending institution's best interest.
Mr. Samuels. That is correct.
Chairwoman Waters. Then, why don't we just fix it.
Mr. Samuels. We are trying.
Chairwoman Waters. Why don't we--
Mr. Samuels. Yes.
Chairwoman Waters. --do something that is significant. For
example, I bet you, Countrywide, you spend millions of dollars
on ads on television. Put some of the money into soliciting
people to come back to you and get these workouts. Think about
it. You don't have to answer me, but just think about it.
With that, let me just move on. I can't ask another
question.
Congressman Green, they belong to you.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Does everyone agree that there were some lenders who took
advantage of borrowers? If you agree that there were some,
would you raise your hand, please, so that we can have you on
record? Okay. Some lenders who took advantage of borrowers.
All right. Now, if you did not raise your hand then, raise
your hand now. That way we will--so everybody agrees.
I ask this because when you ask a person to go back to the
person that took advantage of you, sometimes it is difficult to
negotiate that when you are saying, ``Come back to me, and I am
going to help you now.'' Well, maybe you are, and maybe you
aren't, is what happens in the minds of many people.
And I am not saying that you--do not personalize it. I am
trying to give some notion of why people are not rushing back
to the place where they perceive that they got into trouble.
Why would you run back to trouble? People just don't do that.
Let us examine a couple of things. Is it better to allow
the borrower who can afford the teaser rate, but who cannot
afford the adjusted rate, to maintain the loan with a teaser
rate? If you think it is better to allow the borrower who can
afford the teaser rate, meaning he or she can continue to pay
that rate, but they cannot afford to pay the adjusted rate, to
let that borrower keep that teaser rate and stay in that home.
Is it better to do that? Is that the better thing to do? If you
think it is, raise your hand, please.
Okay. Everybody seems to agree. Now, if you think that is
the better thing to do--and I don't want to just pick on one
person, but Mr. Deutsch, why did you have such difficulty with
the chairwoman's question? Because that is in essence what she
is asking. Why can't you simply allow borrowers who can afford
the teaser rate, but cannot afford the adjusted rate, to keep
the adjusted rate?
Mr. Deutsch. We absolutely agree with your statement. The
issue is determining whether or not they can afford the reset
rate or not, and that is not an easy thing to do.
Mr. Green. Can I give you one example of how you can find
out whether they can afford it?
Mr. Deutsch. Sure.
Mr. Green. They go into foreclosure. That is a pretty good
indication.
Mr. Deutsch. Absolutely.
Mr. Green. People don't want to lose their homes. So at the
point that they start to go into foreclosure, because what we
want to do now is get to people before they get there, but
clearly when they get there that is pretty good evidence that
they can't afford it. So why not, at that point, at least
suggest that, ``Let me let you keep this teaser rate and keep
this home.''
Mr. Deutsch. I guess the answer is if you don't do any kind
of determination whether they can afford it or not, you go back
to a characterization of a categorical loan modification, that
everyone would get a loan modification--
Mr. Green. I understand.
Mr. Deutsch. --across the board.
Mr. Green. I understand. But, look, let us assume now that
you have done your due diligence. After due diligence, are you
saying then that you would do this? This has--
Mr. Deutsch. Absolutely.
Mr. Green. After due diligence.
Mr. Deutsch. Absolutely.
Mr. Green. Okay. Now, let us examine the statement that no
one benefits from foreclosures. The real question is, who
really loses in foreclosures? Because we keep saying no one
benefits, and that seems to give some air of comfort to certain
institutions. But the question is, who benefits?
You are familiar with PMI, correct, sir?
Mr. Deutsch. Correct.
Mr. Green. And you are familiar with MIP.
Mr. Deutsch. MIP mortgage? Oh, correct.
Mr. Green. Okay. Do you agree that MIP and PMI are designed
to help the lender become whole in the event of a foreclosure?
Mr. Deutsch. I am not sure I could make a firm--
Mr. Green. Wait a minute. Hold on. Let us examine that now.
Why does one acquire PMI? What is the purpose of it?
Mr. Deutsch. One is to provide additional insurance to--
Mr. Green. And what does that insurance do?
Mr. Deutsch. It guarantees that to a certain extent some of
the equity associated with that hump.
Mr. Green. And who does it guarantee benefit?
Mr. Deutsch. The guarantee ultimately would benefit the
mortgage investor.
Mr. Green. Would that be the lender, the investors?
Mr. Deutsch. The institutional investors.
Mr. Green. Okay. So if they have the benefit of PMI, do you
agree that they are not going to be the big losers in this
process? Because that is what PMI does. It helps them to avoid
losing money. That is what MIP does. So when we continue to
say, ``No one really benefits,'' we really are overlooking the
fact that there are some who are not going to be the big
losers. The big losers are the borrowers.
The lenders get the benefit of MIP and PMI. The borrowers
do not. Isn't that true?
Mr. Deutsch. Well, they do benefit, but they don't benefit
to the full extent of the principal amount.
Mr. Green. Well, let us examine that statement. Doesn't
that depend on where you are in the loan process, in your
repayment process?
Mr. Deutsch. I think--
Mr. Green. For example, if you didn't--if you put down 10
percent, and you have a certain amount of equity in the
property, when the lender forecloses, you get to sell the
property, you get the benefit of PMI/MIP. So you do get pretty
close to being whole in terms of your principal when you add
those two together, if you have some equity in the property.
Mr. Deutsch. I think the definition of ``some equity''
might be a concern there, because PMI oftentimes only covers,
say, 10 percent of the equity.
Mr. Green. Okay.
Mr. Deutsch. Loss severities oftentimes on a foreclosed
home will reach 60 percent, 40 percent.
Mr. Green. Okay. All right. Then, let us take it this way.
This will be my final question in this area, one more thing. Do
you agree that the borrower walks away with zero while the
lender or the investor walks away with something?
Mr. Deutsch. They can walk--the lender does walk away with
the principal, but it is usually somewhere in the range of,
like I said, something along the 60 percent of the principal
that may have extended to that borrower.
Mr. Green. And to some extent, as was indicated by the
gentleman--what is your name, sir? I am sorry. I can't see it.
Mr. Leonard. Mr. Leonard.
Chairwoman Waters. Mr. Leonard.
Mr. Green. Okay. Mr. Leonard, there are some conflicts in
this process that will cause one element of the process to
conclude that it is not to my advantage to foreclose right now,
whereas another might conclude it is to my advantage to
foreclose right now. Is this true?
Mr. Deutsch. Again, there are--you would have to provide
additional details and color. Again, it is very difficult to
make a determination--
Mr. Green. Okay.
Mr. Deutsch. --on all of the different borrowers.
Mr. Green. Let us go to one more real fast. The credit
rating agencies--do you agree that there may be some conflict
of interest as it relates to credit rating agencies in that
they are paid by--who are they paid by? You tell me.
Mr. Deutsch. Credit rating agencies are often paid by the
issuers of the mortgage-backed securities.
Mr. Green. Okay. And who are they rating?
Mr. Deutsch. They are often rating the issuance of those
mortgage-backed securities.
Mr. Green. Is that the same person who is paying them?
Mr. Deutsch. It is.
Mr. Green. And is it to their advantage, just to the
average person, to give a rating that will be pleasing, if you
will, to the person who is making the payment or the entity
making the payment?
Mr. Deutsch. We don't believe so.
Mr. Green. You don't believe so. You don't believe that the
person who is paying you dearly would like to have a favorable
report from you?
Mr. Deutsch. Absolutely not. And the rationale for that is
that investors in these mortgage-backed securities--and,
remember, the American Securitization Forum represents the
institutional investors in these mortgage-backed securities. If
you rate something once, or you rate something twice, or you
rate something three times, in each of those times those
ratings were incorrect. Institutional investors may lose some
confidence in those ratings. So if you do that over an extended
period of time, your word effectively is not your bond.
Mr. Green. In fact, that is what has happened.
Mr. Deutsch. There has been. Some of--
Mr. Green. But that is what has happened in this market,
because they rated those bundles higher than they should have
and many of them are now paying a price for that, because their
credibility is on the line. That is how we got into this.
Chairwoman Waters. Would you please discuss, if you will,
this moment, the tranches?
Mr. Green. The tranches, yes.
Chairwoman Waters. They were securitized, and they were
placed in these tranches. Some of them were worse than others,
and the investors took them. Why?
Mr. Deutsch. I am sorry. Took what?
Chairwoman Waters. They took the bundle--mortgage-backed
securities that were placed in tranches. And as I understand
it, the tranches were good, bad, and not so good mortgages. And
the investors took the not so good ones along with the good
ones. Is that right?
Mr. Deutsch. Absolutely. It is a fundamental premise of
mortgage-backed securitizations is that you want to create
different variations of risk. Over 90 to 95 percent of all
mortgage-backed securities are AAA rated. Those are oftentimes
the tranches that pension funds or that mutual funds will
purchase. But lower-rated tranches effectively are tranches
that will receive part of the waterfall effectively, is that
once the higher ones are paid off, then the lower tranches will
be paid.
The reason mortgage-backed securitization works very well
is it is able to divide up the risk. Pension funds--
Chairwoman Waters. In the lower-rated tranches, were the
high credit risks persons who had impaired credit?
Mr. Deutsch. No. Those tranches are based on the entire
pool, not on any particular borrower in that pool.
Mr. Green. But if you have a tranche A as opposed to a
tranche F, and let us assume that A is a better rated tranche--
Mr. Deutsch. Correct.
Mr. Green. --if you have a tranche A as opposed to a
tranche F, which is more likely to accept foreclosure as a
remedy?
Mr. Deutsch. Neither. Neither benefit from foreclosure.
Mr. Green. No, no, not benefit. I said accept the
foreclosure.
Mr. Deutsch. Which is more likely?
Mr. Green. Yes.
Mr. Deutsch. I think you would have to ask that
institutional investor.
Mr. Green. But would not the person in tranche A--well, let
me ask this way. Would the person in tranche A have a greater
amount of benefit in a foreclosure than a tranche F?
Mr. Deutsch. I think there are different incentives for
different investors along--
Mr. Green. But let us just talk about money as the
incentive.
Mr. Deutsch. Sure.
Mr. Green. The money from a tranche A foreclosure is larger
than the money from a tranche F.
Mr. Deutsch. No, because all of the funds are pooled into
the same entire pool. So the tranche A, you could argue, that
over the extended period of the actual security, which extends
anywhere from 15 to 30 years, say, depending on the amount, the
length of the loans that are backing that security, so over
those 30 years, the net present value of having that mortgagee
paying the entire amount, over time both class A and class F
would benefit from that borrower continuing to pay and stay in
that home.
Mr. Green. Madam Chairwoman, if I could have just 30
seconds. But let us talk about an immediate foreclosure we are
talking about within this period of time where you have the
teaser rate, and then you move into the adjusted rate that you
cannot pay.
Mr. Deutsch. Right.
Mr. Green. All right. In that period of time, the tranche A
holder, does the tranche A holder benefit to a greater extent
than the tranche F?
Mr. Deutsch. In that period of time?
Mr. Green. Yes. Because that is really what we are talking
about. That is the period of time we are talking about.
Mr. Deutsch. I think a more appropriate way would say that
they suffer less loss--
Mr. Green. Okay. They suffer less loss. All right. I will
adopt your terminology.
They suffer less loss. Okay. If they suffer less loss than
the tranche F, do you agree that the person who is holding the
tranche F, that this person may have some conflict when you are
trying to decide whether you should do this, and you are
talking to your investors. The modifications, as the Chair has
indicated, that is when you run into these conflicts, because
they have different levels of interest. Do you agree?
Mr. Deutsch. They have different levels of interest, but I
would you to the American Securitization Forum statement in
June of 2007, where we specifically addressed this issue. It is
that servicers, when they service mortgage loans, they are
serving for the net present value of the entire trust. They are
not, and should not, be looking to the implications on any
individual class within that trust.
Mr. Green. No, but the servicers, in doing due diligence,
they will consult with the investors. Servicers don't just do
this without consulting investors. True?
Mr. Deutsch. They have their pooling and servicing
agreements.
Mr. Green. Well, you just talked about lawsuits a minute
ago.
Mr. Deutsch. Sure.
Mr. Green. Now, do you think servicers are doing this
without consulting investors?
Mr. Deutsch. Absolutely. Servicers do talk to the investors
who are purchasing those.
Mr. Green. Okay. That is when they get the intelligence
that we just talked about.
Mr. Deutsch. Sure. But they have a contractual obligation
to service in the best interest of all of the security holders,
not any individual tranche.
Mr. Green. The chairwoman has given me the proper
terminology: tranche warfare.
Have you heard of that term?
Mr. Deutsch. I have heard that term used--
Mr. Green. The various tranches in mortgage-backed
securities resist loan modifications that might disparately
affect their particular slice of that security. That is what we
have been talking about.
Mr. Deutsch. Sure.
Mr. Green. So we have to be careful when we say, ``No one
benefits.'' While that may be true, there are some who benefit
a little more than others, or some who don't suffer as much as
others. Do you agree?
Mr. Deutsch. Well, I think, again--yes, absolutely I agree.
Mr. Green. And that is what is creating a lot of--all I am
trying to get you to do is help people to understand why it is
difficult for the foreclosure to take place, for--excuse me,
for the modification to take place. Do you agree that is a part
of the difficulty?
Mr. Deutsch. I think that has been raised, the
consideration, and that there are some servicers who have
expressed that concern. But again, going back to the point I
made to Ms. Waters earlier, is that at the end of the day
servicers do take litigation risks. They are--
Mr. Green. All right. Let me just close with this. If you
are familiar with the tranche discussion that we just had,
raise your hand, if you understand tranches and you are on this
panel and you understand tranches? Okay. Now, those of you who
understand tranches, let me ask you, do you agree that these
various level of tranches do provide difficulty, cause
difficulty in trying to modify these loans? If you do, raise
your hand.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Blackwell. It is a complicated issue. Is there--
Mr. Green. I understand.
Mr. Blackwell. I barely understand tranches, I will tell
you that, but it is a complicated issue. What I will say is
that it is very important for us all in this room to ensure
that we preserve not only homeownership of those who own homes,
but those who will in the future.
Mr. Green. Sir, we passed that when we had opening
statements, so we are with you there.
Mr. Blackwell. Okay.
Mr. Green. But no--no disagreement. What we are trying to
do now is get some intelligence out that we have acquired about
what is really happening with these investors and how these
investors are sometimes at odds with each other over what
should be done, and that is what creates a problem with
restructuring some of these loans. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Blackwell. What I will say is it is very important that
we get the investors on the same page with the lenders in the--
Mr. Green. I agree. But to get them on the same page by
implication means that they are not on the same page. Do you
agree with that?
Mr. Blackwell. Yes.
Mr. Green. Okay. That is what we are talking about. They
are not on the same page.
Mr. Samuels, do you agree that many of them are not on the
same page?
Mr. Samuels. Well, no, I agree with what Mr. Deutsch said
about the fact that as a servicer we have an obligation to try
to maximize the total return on that security. And so whether
you are tranche A or tranche F, we are trying to maximize the
present--the net present value of the cashflows on that total
security. How it gets distributed is a function of the--
Mr. Green. Do you agree that a servicer does not have the
authority to dispose of the loan as he--as the servicer sees
fit without consulting the investor?
Mr. Samuels. It depends on the pooling and servicing
agreement.
Mr. Green. Okay. But do you agree that most of those
agreements would require the investor have some input?
Mr. Samuels. Some of them do, and some of them give
delegated authority.
Mr. Green. Let us talk about most. Most lawyers don't write
agreements so that the investor does not have some input. Do
you agree?
Mr. Samuels. Oh, well, I don't know. I can't--I don't know
the answer to whether most do.
Mr. Green. Okay.
Mr. Samuels. Mr. Deutsch could probably answer that better
than I can.
Mr. Deutsch. Thank you, Sandy. I am going to remember that.
Mr. Green. All right. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
And, listen, I thank all of you for your kindness in trying
to help us to get this information out. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Green.
All right. Ms. Richardson? Before you start your question,
let me just say that Councilman Bernard Parks, who is very
interested in this issue, just came in. Thank you very much.
Mr. Parks, we appreciate your being here.
Ms. Richardson?
Ms. Richardson. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
A couple of questions. Regarding Countrywide and some of
the questions that were asked, it was stated that you make
approximately 18 million phone calls. Of those 18 million
calls, 55,000 were workouts, and of that 29,000 were loan
modifications. What happened to everyone else?
Mr. Samuels. Well, don't forget that these are calls made
to people who are 30 days down, 60 days down, so it is not--you
know, we make collection calls, and so we remind people that
they have, you know, payments that are due, and so not all of
the calls: (a) relate to people who are, you know, in distress;
and (b) not all of them are answered. And so we oftentimes have
to make multiple calls before we contact the borrower.
Ms. Richardson. Well, according to your testimony, you made
18 million calls, and I think you reached 2.2 million, which is
approximately a little more than 10 percent. I wouldn't call
that good. I wouldn't rate that as being good, 10 percent.
Mr. Samuels. Well, I mean, we can only do as well as the
person on the other end of the line.
Ms. Richardson. Well, no, that is if you are only relying
upon phone calls.
Mr. Samuels. Well, no, we are not.
Ms. Richardson. Or DVDs.
Mr. Samuels. We are not only relying on that. We are also
relying on the mail, etc.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. You are kind enough to actually share
your information, so I want to make sure that we are not, you
know, overly on your end. So I would like to hear a little more
from Ms. Albon and Mr. Blackwell. My concern is--and the
chairwoman also alluded to this as well--what are you doing
beyond the phone calls and beyond the mail?
I have talked to constituents who, when they are in this
particular situation, they are not only receiving mail from
you, they are receiving mail from a hundred other people who
are suggesting that they consider working with them to resolve
their funding problem. So beyond the mail, and beyond the phone
calls, what specifically are you doing to help your borrowers?
Ms. Albon. Well--
Ms. Richardson. Besides processing a default.
Ms. Albon. We understand. We are very active with HOPE NOW,
Neighborhood Housing Works, other--even ACORN in some areas,
trying to work with them to help reach a lot of these
customers. We have funded some of--as I believe Countrywide and
Wells have--funded some of the national advertising of the Hope
foreclosure prevention effort. And we are finding that to be
very successful.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. With all due respect, you know, you
have talked about HOPE NOW and Neighborhood Services, and on
and on and on. There are over 10 million people alone in Los
Angeles, over 10 million, and so to expect that those three or
four organizations that you are referring to--ACORN, and so
on--are reaching the millions and millions of people who are
out there is just not adequate. It is not sufficient.
So what we are looking for is a greater commitment, an
additional commitment, exploring other things, whether it is
going to a person's home. These are things that might be a
little expensive, but as we have all talked about the expenses
are bearing upon everyone--you as a provider and also the
borrower as well. So are you doing visits?
Ms. Albon. Yes.
Ms. Richardson. Have you invested--for example, as the
Congresswoman said, it is quite clear that there are specific
pockets of areas that are having a higher incidence than
others. So are you doing ads? Just like you are advertising for
people to utilize your loans, are you doing ads in those
particular areas to reach out to those particular borrowers and
say, ``Hey, if you happen to be reading such and such paper, or
on such and such television, or cable,'' or, etc., what other
aggressive things are you prepared to do to reach out to the
borrowers?
Ms. Albon. We are actually using--contracting with
servicers to go out to the borrowers' homes, knocking at the
door, leaving flyers if they are not available. We are really
using all of those different types of efforts.
Ms. Richardson. So would you say out of your borrowers who
are in this particular position, 100 percent will receive
contact by a visit?
Ms. Albon. Probably not 100 percent, and we are still
having trouble reaching more than 50 percent in terms of
actually getting them to engage with us.
Ms. Richardson. So if you are only reaching 50 percent, and
yet you can reach them to get payments, or at least prior to
this situation, what other steps do you plan on taking to
increase that amount?
Ms. Albon. That is constantly under consideration, and I
can go back and get more detail on that. But we are constantly
looking at new ways to do a better job of reaching our
customers.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. Well, what I heard from this
subcommittee, the chairwoman requested that you consider
looking at some of your advertising dollars that you are
spending in terms of reaching out for people, that you consider
using those advertising dollars in more creative ways specific
to these communities, not advertising dollars to the world, to
the United States, but to these specific communities.
We are also asking that you consider visits, etc., so you
explore those. There were also a few other recommendations that
were given that we would like the three of you to consider, and
I would like to hear the possibility of you accepting them. One
would be extending the time notices of defaults from 90 days to
150 days. The second would be extend time periods for notice of
trustee sales from 30 days to 60 days.
And then, something Ms. Thomas mentioned that I have heard
quite a few constituents talk about, and that is is that there
is an unwillingness to accept partial payments. So let us say
you get on the phone with someone, and you begin to talk to
them about doing a workout or whatever.
Unless they are prepared to pay the $20,000, and until a
final workout or loan modification is done, there is an
unwillingness to accept partial payments. So that would be also
a consideration for you to review with your appropriate
companies--
Ms. Albon. Okay.
Ms. Richardson. --of allowing partial payments while you
are going through this modification period, so that instead of
someone being $20,000 behind at the end, maybe they are only
$10,000 behind. So then we don't have this instance where they
are having to spread $20,000 over the next 3 months, which they
cannot afford.
The other point would be, if I understood the gentleman
from Countrywide, you are not using outside agencies,
creditors, to collect, is that correct?
Mr. Samuels. I am sorry. What was that?
Ms. Richardson. Are you using--are any of you, your three
companies, utilizing outside agencies to collect these funds?
Mr. Samuels. No, we have our own--we have our own
collection groups.
Ms. Richardson. Mr. Blackwell?
Mr. Blackwell. Yes, the same. We do all our collecting
ourselves.
Ms. Albon. I will get that information. I am not 100
percent sure that in every pocket of the country, it is on
staff, but I will check on that.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. So if it is on staff, some of the
things we are hearing from constituents is that in addition to
the amount that they are owed, the back payments of their
previous months, additional fees are also being accumulated
that they are being told that they have to pay in order to
participate in these loan modifications. Does that apply if it
is internal within your own organization?
Mr. Blackwell. The only fees that we charge are fees that
we incur through the process, and so I am not--I guess we would
have to get into specifics, and I am not sure I am familiar
with all of them.
Ms. Richardson. Do you know how much those fees come to on
average?
Mr. Samuels. No, I don't.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. Because--
Mr. Samuels. But they are not loan modification fees. I
mean, we don't charge for a loan modification, if that is what
you are referring to. I mean, it could be that if someone is
going through foreclosure, there are fees that you have to pay
to newspapers, you know, for advertising or to attorneys in
some States, you know, things like that. But there is not a fee
for a loan--you know, to engage in a loan modification, there
is not a fee.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. So even if a person has defaulted to
the extent of 5 or 6 months, or whatever, you are not requiring
additional fees, is that correct?
Mr. Samuels. As I said, we are not requiring--if we are
doing a workout with them, yes, that is correct.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. All right. My last and final question
has to do with we really are looking for a commitment. Some of
the solutions when I heard Mr. Leonard speak, it sounded very
similar to what I hear in my district, and that is a lot of the
solutions that you are proposing are just simply other
alternatives to pay, whether it is spreading out of 5 months or
6 months, but very few are situations of--where I read in some
of your testimonies of offering forgiveness of debt, extending
the amount that is owed over a longer period of time--for
example, more than 6 months.
So our constituents, oftentimes we are going to need other
creative means to be expressed, and I don't feel to the
satisfaction that you are exploring all of those to the extent
that you could. So I would be looking for further action beyond
what has happened to this date.
Chairwoman Waters. Okay.
Ms. Richardson. And you will get back to the chairwoman
about the other request? Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
This panel is now dismissed. Let me say to the homeowners
who were here today, thank you for spending the time. I
understand that you really needed to leave a little bit
earlier. I wasn't aware until recently, the last few moments,
that you were staying past the time that you need to leave in
order to go to work.
I am interested in my staff following up with you, Ms.
Thomas, even though it appears that you got some help. I am
interested in the $5,000 fee that you paid, and I don't know
where that came from, who it is that--doing a modification or a
workout for you. So I am going to ask my staff to follow up
with you, because I would like to see what is being done.
I thank all of you for being present here today. Mr.
Deutsch, we are going to spend a lot of time on servicers. We
think you can do a lot more. So I would hope that your Forum
would provide the leadership to help us understand how to do a
lot more, and I wish you would embrace Chairman Bair's proposal
without reservation, because it seems to me we could get a lot
done that way. But we thank you for being here.
I think we are going to extend an invitation to you to come
to Congress, perhaps not only in a hearing setting but maybe in
a caucus setting, where we can delve more into what you do. We
are going to review service agreements. We are going to
understand a lot more about them, so that we can get a better
feeling of what you can and what you cannot do, and this whole
liability question.
But I want you to leave here knowing that I think my
colleagues will agree with me we are interested in resets with
the initial amount of the mortgage continuing through the life
of that loan. We are really interested in that. Okay?
Thank you all very much.
Without objection, your written statements will be made a
part of the record.
We will now move on to panel number three. Some of our
members may have additional questions for this panel, which
they may wish to submit in writing. So without objection, the
hearing record will remain open for 30 days for members to
submit written questions to these witnesses, and to place their
responses in the record.
Panel three, if you will come forward, I will begin the
introductions. Again, your written statements will be made a
part of the record, and you will be recognized for a 5-minute
summary of your testimony.
Mr. William Heedly, homeowner, Carson, California; Ms. Hee
Suk Cho, homeowner, Camarillo, California; Mr. Ed Smith, Jr.,
vice president, California Association of Mortgage Brokers; Mr.
LeFrancis Arnold, vice chair, Affordable Housing Committee,
California Association of Realtors; Ms. Yolanda Clark,
president-elect, Multicultural Real Estate Alliance for Urban
Change; Ms. Tara Twomey, of counsel, National Consumer Law
Center. Is that ``Twomey?''
Ms. Twomey. ``Twomey.''
Chairwoman Waters. All right. Thank you. Ms. Margaret
Frisbee, specific district director, NeighborWorks America; and
Ms. Evalyn Burnie, leader, Los Angeles ACORN. So we have a big
panel here on this fourth panel.
We want to thank all of you for coming, and we are going to
start with Mr. Heedly. Is that the correct pronunciation? He is
not here yet. Okay. He is here. There he is. How are you doing?
Mr. Heedly. I am doing fine.
Chairwoman Waters. We are going to start with you.
Mr. Heedly. Okay.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. Would you pull the
microphone right up and share your testimony with us?
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HEEDLY, HOMEOWNER, CARSON, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Heedly. First of all, I would like to thank you,
Chairwoman Waters, and this subcommittee for inviting me, you
know, to tell my story.
Chairwoman Waters. Yes.
Mr. Heedly. In March of this year, I was put into a loan. I
was tricked into a loan by a guy that I know who I thought was
a Realtor, because he had done two loans for me before. I
thought I was in a fixed loan, but come to find out, I was in
an ARM loan. And after we signed the papers and the deal went
through, it wasn't like the original deal, because he called me
and told me, ``Hey, this is not a friendship call. This is a
business call. It is time to refinance.'' I said, ``Well, okay,
if we can--if you can get my payments down, if you can pay my
car off, then we can go, we can go with it.'' Okay. So about 2
weeks down--2 or 3 weeks, he had gave me a call and said that
he had paid my car off, but he probably couldn't get the loan
down--I mean, get the mortgage down, that it would probably go
up $100 or $200.
So me and my wife, we talked about it, and we agreed to go
along with it, because, you know, like we had dealt with him
before, and we trusted him. I know him. You know, I know him,
and I didn't think he would do something like this.
Okay. So when the notary came out, he called me and told me
that he wouldn't be able to be there for the notary and to just
go on and sign the papers. Everything is, you know, like how we
had discussed. Okay. So it was my fault that I signed the
papers without him being there. I admit to that.
But after we got the coupons, you know, the mortgage and
things, come to find out I have a second--a first and a second.
Then, I have three choices to pay--the max, minimum, or the--I
mean, the max, median, or the minimum. All I am able to pay is
the minimum, which makes my interest goes up. So I went to him
and I talked with him, and I asked him what could he do, you
know, so he said, ``Well, let me look at the paperwork.''
I said, ``Well, look, man, you know, I am trying to find
out what the deal is he put me in, and I was in an ARM.'' And
the--I mean, the prepayment penalty is $13,000. ``Why don't you
pay the $13,000, and then I can get somebody else to
refinance.'' He didn't want to do that. So, you know, I was
listening--the way I got some help, I was listening to Front
Page.
And they were talking about a meeting that they were having
at Homeless Church, and I went to the seminar and I don't--I
filed a complaint against this guy with the State Department of
Real Estate Complaints, and I found out he doesn't even have a
license. Operation Hope had called me, and I talked with Anne
Marie, and she really was trying to help me, and she referred
me to Dorothy Herrera, and here I am now.
So, I am not in foreclosure, you know, but I want to try to
do something about it before I get to foreclosure. And my
mortgage is double, is upside down, and I feel so hopeless. You
know, I need some help.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much, and I am glad you
came today. And we will see to it that you get some assistance.
Mr. Heedly. Okay.
Chairwoman Waters. And I will move on to our next
presenter, Mrs. Hee Suk Cho, and she has a translator with her.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HEE SUK CHO, HOMEOWNER, CAMARILLO, CALIFORNIA,
ACCOMPANIED BY JOSHUA BYUNG AN, KOREAN CHURCHES FOR COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT, SERVING AS A TRANSLATOR
Mr. An. Hi. This is Mrs. Cho, and I am going to be her
translator. I am from KCCD, and I represent Korean Churches for
Community Development, and we work for the Korean community to
resolve these housing issues.
As of now, the problem has not been resolved, and she is
actually considering many options, including bankruptcy. She
came to testify as to how she got into this. Back in August of
2005, she purchased a townhouse for $518,000 with a 10 percent
downpayment. Because of her language barrier, she went to a
Korean-speaking licensed broker.
The agreement was that she would make a total payment of
$1,500 a month. That loan included no penalty and $100
increments once a year for the next 5 years. Then, the broker
told her that she could refinance within 2 years. So she was
making a $1,500 a month mortgage payment.
She was making payments to WMC Mortgage Company, and then
in January 2006, a bill came from Countrywide. The bill
included four options. First, to make a payment, and one of the
options had $1,451 that is going to be added to the principal.
So she contacted the original--the Korean broker, and then the
broker told her to just make the option three payment, which
now is the minimum payment and don't worry about it.
So the payment used to be $1,500. Now the minimum payment
is $2,736, and that is--she didn't know it at that time, but
now she knows that it is a negative amortization, and $1,400 is
being added to principal every month. So she continued to make
that minimum payment of $2,700 for about a year. Meanwhile,
because her payment jumped so high she was having very
difficult time making a payment, so she looked for different
sources to refinance but was not able to find anyone to
refinance her loan.
One thing that she found out through, you know, other
sources is that she has been refinanced, and that included 3
years of prepayment penalty. So she was very confused at the
time, so she went back to the Countrywide office and confirmed
that the loan had been refinanced without her knowledge.
She confirmed that the signature had been forged without
her knowledge, and she couldn't really do anything, because of
penalties and because of high payments. She looked for help
from the lawyer, but--and the lawyer told her that it is likely
a fraudulent case and she could win the case, but she was very
reluctant to hire a lawyer because of high cost, and the time
that it takes for them to process and make the case.
In the midst of all these troubles, there was another loan
agency that approached her and claimed that if she signed the
paperwork to give up her rights for the house to them, they
would let her live in the house with her children and make a
rent payment to them. She signed it.
At the time, she thought she was making the right choice,
because she wanted to save the house and live in that place
with her children. But, still, she was very confused and not
sure what was going on, so she found an ad in the local
newspaper about KCCD. That is how she came to KCCD and asked
for help.
Through KCCD, she learned that the loan agency that
approached her was fraudulent, so she actually canceled that
contract with them. And we are still now trying to solve the
problem. She is at a point where she is going to make decisions
for bankruptcy or foreclosure for anything.
I would like to say after this hearing, we are going to
actually go meet with the Countrywide personnel to help her
situation, to talk about it. And she is really desperate right
now. She wants to get an answer today. If not, she is going to
just go crazy.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much. And let me just say
to you, Ms. Hee Suk Cho, that we certainly sympathize with you,
and we are very sorry that you have been placed into this kind
of a situation. And I wish that the Countrywide representative
was still here. Are you here? Okay, fine. You have this case?
You hear what she is saying? We need you to move on this very
aggressively right away.
My staff will follow up with you to make sure that we do
everything that we can to help this consumer who has obviously
been defrauded. All right? Thank you very much.
Mr. An. Thank you.
Chairwoman Waters. Staff, will you follow up with this?
Thank you.
Ms. Cho. Thank you.
Chairwoman Waters. We have that information.
All right. We are going to move over to Mr. Ed Smith. And I
should wait until the time for questions, but I have been
hearing so much about these options that people are being
given. Do you want to pay a little? Do you want to pay a lot?
Or do you want to pay the minimum amount? I never heard of that
before. So if you in your testimony could help us understand
that, I would appreciate it very much.
STATEMENT OF ED SMITH, JR., VICE PRESIDENT, CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF MORTGAGE BROKERS
Mr. Smith. Absolutely. Thank you so much for giving us the
opportunity to speak before this panel and yourself. You have
been a very good supporter of our organization, and we hope we
bring value to that relationship.
Like I said, my name is Ed Smith, and I am the vice
president of government affairs for the California Association
of Mortgage Brokers. We represent the top 15 percent of
licensed originators in California. We have criminal background
checks, we have DOJ checks, we have pre-education, post-, and
continuing education requirements. We are licensed originators
in the State of California. We represent approximately 4,800
members.
Today is one of the days that we really are happy to be
able to bring value to our relationship in the process of
explaining and working with homeowners such as Mrs. Cho here.
From what she just articulated, it sounds like she also needs
to talk to the California Department of Real Estate, because it
sounds like some criminal--
Ms. Peters. I just gave her my card.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Oh, I didn't know. I didn't know Heather
was back there. Because it sounds like some criminal activity
has occurred. I wanted to bring just a few statistics to the
table before I talk about our preserving homeownership
initiative, but I also--and I will also explain to you what
that option ARM, negative amortization loan is, if you give me
the time.
At the end of the fiscal year of June of 2007, the
California Department of Real Estate initiated 9,103
investigations which resulted in 1,382 licensed denials. Those
are individuals who are trying to get in our business but were
denied at the point of application. Of those investigations,
507 resulted in license suspensions and revocations for
individuals in our business who have done things such as
enumerated here with Ms. Cho.
So I just want to applaud the California Department of Real
Estate, BT&H, Ms. Peters, for being very aggressive in
following up on these complaints.
To give you a little bit of background about negative
amortizing loans, which is--you will hear some of the time
called K-option ARMs. This is the typical type loan that has
been utilized in the last couple of years as a financing
technique, as a direct result of the high cost of
homeownership.
What that negative amortization really means is that there
are four payment options, which gives an option of the minimal
payment which is due on the loan, which in many cases, in all
cases, is not the minimum amount due just for the interest on
that loan that month. So each month when an individual makes
payment option number one, which is called the negative
amortizing payment, there is an arrearage. There is a shortfall
of interest that is not being paid on the balance of the loan.
This is being added to the balance of the loan on a monthly
basis. So, effectively, you are losing every month. You are
adding on to your principal every month.
Typically, payment option number two is an interest only
payment, which is if you make that payment your balance will
remain the same, you will not grow, but you will not also do
any principal reduction. That is the interest only feature of
payment option number two.
Number three is typically a 30-year amortized payment, and
the number four in certain cases is a 15-year amortized
payment. What we are seeing here in the last couple of years is
this product has been a very predominant product used in the
marketplace, because it got people into homes that they really
couldn't afford. Many of those products were utilized with
stated income and also using 100 percent financing with no
downpayment, no downpayment whatsoever.
So when the market came down, values are declining, your
balances on your loans are rising, and when those interest
rates hit a certain percentage that is prescribed in your loan
documents, usually 115 percent of the original loan balance,
that loan recasts to a fully amortized payment at whatever the
rate is at that time. This is what we call payment shock. This
is what is killing consumers in this country, and especially in
California, because we are such a high cost area here.
This kind of dovetails into the high cost issue. Many of us
realize that in California you cannot buy a property for under
$417,000. This is one of the reasons why these products have
been so prevalent with interest only, negative amortization,
and some of the other exotic products that are out in the
marketplace.
We would encourage you to look at raising California and
have it--raising California's loan amounts and loan limits to
be in a high cost area, Southern California as a high cost
designated area, to put liquidity back into the marketplace so
we can have sustainable, long-term loans. This is a critical,
critical cog of the wheel to this problem.
If we kind of move into what we are doing, Congressman
Green mentioned a little earlier, what are we doing about going
back and reaching back? Many people don't go back to the same
people that they had problems with. I am proud to say that our
association is built of small businesses. We are mortgage
brokers who live, work, worship, and work with the communities
that we live in.
We create long-term relationships to sustain our
businesses, and we are actually, through our preserving
homeownership program, are going right back into those
communities that we serve, that we did business with, and
actually explaining and working and trying to come up with
workable solutions to keep people in their homes as a result of
a reset or as a result of a loan product that is no longer
palatable for that individual for whatever reason it is.
We are the first organization that are loan originators
that actually have created that program. We work with the
Department of Consumer Affairs. We actually go out and do town
hall meetings, and we work in those communities where people
are losing their homes right now. We go back and we deal with
these individuals, and we don't run away from them after we do
business with them.
This program has been a success throughout the State of
California. We have 19 chapters, approximately 4,800 members,
we have meetings throughout the State on an ongoing basis, and
we partner with other nonprofit organizations and ourselves and
other legislators to reach back into those constituents'
neighborhoods and work with those legislators to try to bring
some type of relief back to the communities to keep people in
their homes.
We have heard a whole lot of talk today about the results
of the inactivity or not being able to have--consumers not
being able to have regress once they call their loan servicers.
I don't want to beat that up. We already know that there is a
problem when people reach out to their loan servicers.
I am very proud today to see that the major loan servicers
in this State are actually reaching back and proactively saying
what they say they are going to do, and let us wait and see if
they are going to do it. We are actually doing it. We are
experiencing the same problems as those consumers do when they
reach the telephone.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith can be found on page
157 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
Mr. LeFrancis Arnold, it is good to see you.
STATEMENT OF LeFRANCIS ARNOLD, VICE CHAIR, AFFORDABLE HOUSING
COMMITTEE, CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS
Mr. Arnold. It is very nice to be here, and I want to thank
you, Congresswoman Waters, and members of the Housing and
Community Opportunity Subcommittee for inviting me today to
speak on behalf of the California Association of Realtors on
the issue of foreclosure prevention and intervention.
My name is LeFrancis Arnold, and I am the owner and broker
of LeFrancis Arnold Consulting, a Lynwood, California, firm
specializing in all aspects of real estate, including FHA
loans. I have been a member of the California Association of
Realtors and the National Association of Realtors for over 30
years. I have been privileged to serve on a number of policy
committees at both organizations.
The California Association of Realtors is the largest State
trade association in the country, with over 200,000 members.
CAR's members are the front line of California's real estate
market and have witnessed firsthand the devastating effects
that mounting foreclosures could have on families and a
community. Over the last 2 years, the California housing market
has experienced a significant correction, from a peak level of
sales for both 2004 and 2005 of 625,000 existing home sales
have declined to an expected 350,000 this year.
At the same time, the rate of foreclosures in the State has
gone from historic lows to return of the high experienced in
the mid-1990's. Personally, I have seen more than a 40 percent
decline in my business while peers in other parts of the State
has experienced even greater declines. Many people have asked
me, what is the cause of this downturn?
With more than 30 years in the business, I can tell you no
one single factor is to blame, and, therefore, no one single
solution will help ease the current market downturn. Instead, a
broad-based approach must be taken where all players in the
real estate industry do their part, including Realtors.
Now, more than ever, Realtors are working to keep families
in their homes and maintaining strong communities. As a first
point of contact for home buyers, often it is the Realtors that
homeowners turn to for help when in trouble. However, every
situation is unique, and, unfortunately, foreclosure is
sometimes unavoidable.
As the market began its current downturn in 2006, CAR began
taking aggressive steps to provide the best tools to our
members, including large pools of recently licensed Realtors in
California who have never been through a market like this. Many
of these agents have never performed a short sale, communicated
with lenders on behalf of troubled homeowners to work out a
loan on a REO, or sold a foreclosure property.
As such, now CAR offers both short sale and foreclosure
classes to members and non-members. CAR sponsors and applauds
Governor Schwarzenegger's lenders and servicers who have
recently worked out an agreement for the fast loan
modification, subprime mortgages as such. Proactive efforts
such as these are an example of what is needed to stem the tide
of foreclosure and ease the current turn down.
Let me share this with you, in my experience of 30 years,
we have been through this. We have been through similar
situations like this when the interest rates went up in the
1980's. Lenders must change their policies so that borrowers
are not required to be delinquent on their mortgage payment
before a troubled loan can be worked out.
Many of my fellow Realtors have described frustration when
contacting lenders on behalf of homeowners who realized that
they would not be able to make their mortgage payment when
their loans reset. The homeowner must be in delinquency before
loan workout can be discussed. Additionally, lenders must
address the current staff shortage in loss mitigation
departments which are presently overwhelmed.
For the government's part, the Senate needs to pass, and
the President must sign legislation to reform government
housing programs intended to keep America's housing market
stable. That includes FHA and GSE reform. Increased FHA and GSE
loan limits in high cost areas, better homeowner opportunities
for the American veterans, mortgage debt cancellation relief,
and subprime mortgage reform that balances strong consumer
protection with the need to maintain a flow of capital to the
housing market.
In closing--
Chairwoman Waters. Okay.
Mr. Arnold. --I would like to tell the subcommittee a story
about a family of four who lost their home. This family was
working with their agent and their lender's loss mitigation
department to get a short sale approved by the investment firm
who purchased the loan.
When the short sale was finally approved, it turned out
that the investment firm's foreclosure department had also
approved the foreclosure sale. This is a simple example. They
ended up losing their home. Lack of communication between the
Mitigation Department and the Foreclosure Department. These are
ongoing problems. That family lost their home.
These are issues that we have to deal with, and we need to
deal with them now. I want to thank you, Congresswoman Waters,
for having this hearing here in Los Angeles, because California
at this point is the foreclosure capital of the country.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
Now we will hear from Ms. Yolanda Clark, president-elect,
Multicultural Real Estate Alliance for Urban Change.
STATEMENT OF YOLANDA CLARK, PRESIDENT-ELECT, MULTICULTURAL REAL
ESTATE ALLIANCE FOR URBAN CHANGE
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters, and members of the
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity for allowing
me to testify at this hearing on foreclosure prevention and
intervention.
My name is Yolanda Clark, and I am president and broker of
Golden Path Real Estate and Home Loans. I am also president-
elect of the Multicultural Real Estate Alliance for Urban
Change, and have been president or vice president of several
other organizations.
There are four points that I wish to convey to this
subcommittee today. The rippling effects of foreclosure are far
more devastating than just to the homeowners or the lender; it
affects the entire community. A large sector of the economy is
hurting. Foreclosures are affecting both the consumer and the
real estate community. What problems are perpetuating the
situation? And what should be done to resolve the problem?
The foreclosure crisis is not just a borrower and lender
problem. Closed escrows in California were down 38.9 percent in
September, and 40.2 percent in October. Brokers and lenders are
being forced to reduce their staff, overhead, and some are
going out of business. It has produced a trickle-down effect
impacting all real estate affiliate businesses. Escrow, title,
appraisals, termite companies, home warranty, home inspection,
construction workers and developers are but a few of these
businesses, not to mention the loss of revenue and fees
generated to governmental agencies by closed transactions.
Foreclosures have affected the local market by loss of
equity. August to September was both the largest month-to-month
percentage decline on record and the first year-to-year decline
in more than 10 years. The impact of foreclosure affects all
tiers of the property--of the market, I am sorry--including the
high end. Well-qualified borrowers were affected by the lack of
funds available for jumbo loans.
Problems or obstacles have been encountered in trying to
assist homeowners in foreclosure prevention, which was
discussed earlier today. Difficulties in getting a lender on
the phone and the loss mitigation department, lenders are
further devaluating properties by cutting appraised values
established by certified appraisers.
I understand that the lenders must protect themselves in
this market, but they are producing two negative results: One,
clients and neighborhoods are being robbed of hard-earned
equity; and, two, lenders are cutting appraised values more in
lower income and minority neighborhoods.
This affects seniors trying to get reverse mortgages,
property owners trying to refinance, and the home buyer
stability--desirability to purchase in devaluated
neighborhoods. In other words, who wants to buy a home in a
neighborhood that is going to be worth less than what you paid
for it? Lenders have outsourced loss mitigation services as
well as other related real estate services to foreign
countries, further perpetuating job losses and the situation.
What tools or resources do we need in order to overcome
these obstacles? Education is one of the most important things
that need to be accomplished. Education of the public should be
provided by counselors that are licensed real estate
professionals who understand the ramifications of what they are
teaching or what they are saying to the client, and who are
able to give a more complete picture of the total real estate
process from understanding the types of loans available to
foreclosure proceedings to evaluating the property.
Although there are some really good licensed homebuyer
counselors who have never purchased, listed, or sold, the
licensed practicing real estate professional has more of a
first-hand, in-depth experience and fully understands the
mechanics of home-buying. Misinformation can hurt the consumer
rather than help them.
Financial and programmatic resources are needed to provide
education and counseling to prevent foreclosure. Incentives are
needed to assist lenders in working out pre-foreclosure
solutions, thereby taking a positive, proactive approach to
preventing foreclosures. All persons originating mortgages
should be licensed, not just the companies. All legislation
should be binding on all originators, regardless of the
governing department.
Originators for non-licensing entities can simply go to
another institution and start the same thing over again. There
is no accountability.
Correct terminology should be used. There is a difference
between a notice of default and a foreclosure proceeding,
because there are sometimes workout programs available and they
don't always result in a foreclosure.
Public service announcements should be made. Legislation
should be done as well. Legislation intervention is necessary.
In conclusion, I just wanted to say that buyers and sellers
cycle have always been a part of this business, but right now
it is more crucial than it has been in all of my 20 years of
real estate, and that is because there are so many simultaneous
things--factors affecting the market, not just non-prime loans
but unemployment, outsourcing. There are a lot of factors that
are affecting this.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
Ms. Clark. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Chairwoman Waters. You are certainly welcome.
Ms. Twomey?
STATEMENT OF TARA TWOMEY, OF COUNSEL, NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW
CENTER
Ms. Twomey. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Waters, and members
of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify. My
name is Tara Twomey, and I am an attorney, currently of
counsel, with the National Consumer Law Center, and a lecturer
at Stanford Law School.
Before moving to California about 3 years ago, I was
clinical instructor at the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law
School where my practice focused primarily on foreclosure
prevention and predatory lending litigation. I testify here
today on behalf of the National Consumer Law Center as well as
the low-income clients that we assist and represent.
As you already know, we have a foreclosure crisis in this
country that is real, it is big, and it is growing. Its
magnitude currently dwarfs the response from the financial
services industry. Loan modifications, which are one of several
loss mitigation tools, have been identified as one of the
preferred strategies for addressing the rising tide of
foreclosures, but in practice they do not appear to be
happening in any significant numbers.
The recent measures, which will freeze interest rates for
certain California homeowners, are a significant step in the
right direction. However, the length of time for the proposed
freeze is unspecified. Clearly, the agreement did not
contemplate permanent modifications to those loans, and instead
we believe is merely a ``kick the can'' approach to solving the
foreclosure crisis. To be sure, it will provide some immediate
relief to some people, but it is not a long-term solution.
It is well known that creating a long-term solution will
require overcoming some structural barriers inherent in today's
mortgage market. Some of these barriers we have already talked
about today--constraints in the pooling and servicing
agreements, mismatched interest of borrowers, servicers, and
holders, and the tranche warfare which pits investors against
other investors and servicers.
But from the homeowner's perspective, the first hurdle to
loss mitigation is getting a live person on the phone--getting
a live person on the phone that can provide reliable
information and who can make a decision about the homeowner's
loan. You have heard from the servicers today that contact with
the consumer is key.
Well, that is important, but if borrowers are caught up in
a maze of voicemail and bounced around from one department to
another, and receive contradictory information, as was just
spoken about a few minutes ago, from servicer representatives,
that is not helpful to borrowers. And borrowers deserve
something better. They deserve--loan servicers need to find a
way to provide timely, consistent, and competent information to
borrowers about their own loans.
Today, I would also like to urge the subcommittee and other
Members of Congress to look beyond the rate reset problem.
While rate resets pose a substantial hurdle for many borrowers,
there is another group of distressed borrowers who has received
much less attention. These homeowners have not been subject to
payment shocks or adverse life events, but, rather, have been
saddled with unaffordable loans from the moment the loan was
originated.
These families are defaulting on their mortgages not
because of the teaser rate, because in these cases the--it is
because the teaser rate in these loans are 9 or 10 percent, or
sometimes even higher, the teaser rate. These families are
defaulting on their mortgage loans because their monthly
payments for principal, interest, taxes, and insurance exceeds
60 percent of their gross--or even 70 percent of their gross
income.
A successful loan modification strategy for these borrowers
will take more than temporary or even permanent freezes of
their adjustable rates. These homeowners will need interest
rate reductions. They will need principal reductions or some
combination of the two in order to realize the goal of
affordable and sustainable homeownership.
NCLC supports an approach that would combine the automatic
loan modifications for certain classes of loans as well as--in
addition to case-by-case measures to reach those for whom
automatic measures are either insufficient or for those who are
not eligible for the automatic modifications.
In addition to requiring servicers to implement reasonable
loss mitigation measures, it is important to nip in the bud
abusive practices in the loan modification process. For some
time now, homeowners and consumer advocates have struggled with
servicers who have no interest in helping families stay in
their homes. Rather, in the interest of maximizing profits,
servicers have engaged in a laundry list of bad behavior that
has exacerbated foreclosure rates.
The nature of the loss mitigation process makes the
disparities in bargaining power between the homeowner and the
servicer even greater than the disparities in the origination
context. This provides fertile ground for abuse. Currently, one
of the most pernicious practices is to include a broad waiver
of claims provision in the loan modification agreement. Upon
execution of the agreement, the borrower waives all claims that
they have, or may ever have, related to the loan.
In a forbearance agreement that I recently reviewed, the
waiver language also required borrowers to specifically waive
their rights under California Civil Code Section 1542. That
section was enacted to protect parties from waiving unknown and
unforeseen claims in general release provisions. That kind of
broad release language is simply inappropriate in the context
of a loan modification. The practice should not be allowed to
flourish.
In conclusion, loan modification is a strategy that can be
used to limit the devastating consequences of skyrocketing
foreclosure rates. There are challenges to implementing this
strategy at a scale commensurate with the foreclosure problem.
These challenges are significant, but not insurmountable.
We hope that the subcommittee and Congress will act to make
sustainable loan modifications a viable option for millions of
homeowners who will face foreclosure in the coming years.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Twomey can be found on page
165 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you.
Ms. Margaret Frisbee, Pacific district director,
NeighborWorks America.
STATEMENT OF MARGARET FRISBEE, PACIFIC DISTRICT DIRECTOR,
NEIGHBORWORKS AMERICA
Ms. Frisbee. Thank you, Chairwoman Waters, and
Congresswoman Richardson. My name is Margaret Frisbee, and I
serve as district director, Pacific District, for NeighborWorks
America. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today to talk about the efforts we and our partners are making
to help stem the tide of foreclosures, especially in
California, and most particularly L.A.
By way of background, NeighborWorks America was established
by Congress in 1978 as the Neighborhood Reinvestment
Corporation. The Corporation receives Federal appropriated
funding out of the Transportation, HUD, and related agencies'
appropriations subcommittee. The Corporation's board of
directors is made up of the heads of the Federal financial
regulatory agencies and the Secretary of HUD.
The primary mission of NeighborWorks America is to expand
affordable housing opportunities and to strengthen distressed
communities across America, working through a national network
of local, community-based organizations known collectively as
the NeighborWorks Network. Our network includes about 249
nonprofits serving close to 4,500 communities in all 50 States.
They operate in our Nation's largest cities and in some of its
smallest rural communities.
Here in California, there are 18 NeighborWorks
organizations, including the LANHS, which as we speak is
working in the next room, along with other partners, providing
counseling to people who have been coming in all day looking
for help with their mortgage problems. I know we are talking
about trying to get to a large answer, but right now all we
have is one-to-one counseling. That is the only thing we can
do, and it is very time-consuming.
Local NeighborWorks organizations provide a wide variety of
services that reflect the needs of their neighborhoods and
communities. They have provided homeownership counseling to
more than 500,000 families, assisted nearly 150,000 families of
modest means to become homeowners, and just in this past year
generated about $4 billion in direct investment in distressed
communities.
But today I would just like to highlight a few things that
we are trying to do in response to the precipitous rise in
foreclosures. NeighborWorks America has a 30-year history of
facilitating lending to non-conventional borrowers. From our
experience, we know that the best defense against mortgage
delinquency and foreclosure is education and counseling before
the borrower begins shopping for a home and selecting a
mortgage product.
We also know that homeowners' odds of success are increased
even further when they have access to post-purchase counseling
and homeowner education. We have been closely tracking the loan
performance of the many low-income families assisted by these
organizations over the years, and we can report that they are
10 times less likely to go into foreclosure than subprime
borrowers, and even 4 times less likely to go into foreclosure
than FHA borrowers. So counseling is the key.
Our commitment to quality homeownership extends far beyond
our network. We have our NeighborWorks Center for Home
Ownership Education and Counseling, and the NeighborWorks
Training Institute, and we have become the Nation's largest
trainer of housing counseling professionals.
We saw the problem of foreclosures coming over 4 years ago,
not just in California but in other parts of the country. With
the strong support of our Board, we created the NeighborWorks
Center for Foreclosure Solutions. It is an unprecedented
partnership between nonprofit financial mortgage and insurance
sectors, and you have heard that name today--the Hope Hotline.
Well, that is the hotline that we are now working with with the
Homeownership Preservation Foundation.
We are trying to get the word out about this Hope Hotline,
and it is--we are working with the Ad Council, and we would
like it if everybody knew about it, but unfortunately they
don't. The service is available 24/7 to provide callers with
high quality, telephone-based assistance in English and in
Spanish, but individuals needing more intensive service are
then referred out to a NeighborWorks organization or another
HUD-approved housing counseling agency.
Our basic message through the Hope Hotline is that nothing
is worse than doing nothing. In addition to the Hope Hotline,
many of our local NeighborWorks organizations are also
counseling delinquent homeowners every day. These organizations
have stretched their budgets, redeployed staff, and worked
hundreds of extra hours, all to address the real very threat
that pending foreclosure is causing in communities across the
country.
We are actively training hundreds of counselors on
foreclosure intervention at our national training institutes,
but now we are trying to bring them out regionally. We have one
scheduled here in L.A. in January, and we expect to have many
more in the coming year. We know we have to get more counselors
on the ground.
I am going to skip all of the statistics. We just simply
know that it is really bad out here, and so what we have are 14
local NeighborWorks organizations in California offering
aggressive homeownership preservation services. Eleven of them
are using the Hope Hotline. They have generated--17,800 calls
have come in from California in the past year, making it by far
the largest number of calls of anywhere in the country.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Frisbee can be found on page
113 of the appendix.]
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
Ms. Frisbee. You are welcome.
Chairwoman Waters. Next we will have Ms. Evalyn Burnie,
leader, Los Angeles ACORN. Thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF EVALYN BURNIE, LEADER, LOS ANGELES ACORN,
ACCOMPANIED BY MR. RICHARD CASTRO, NEIGHBORWORKS AMERICA
Ms. Burnie. Good afternoon, and thank you for this
opportunity to testify about the importance of effective loss
mitigation strategies in keeping families in their homes.
I, Evalyn Burnie, am a member of ACORN. I am a member of
the California State Chapter, and ACORN stands for Association
of Community Organizations for Reform Now, the national largest
grass-roots community organization of low- and moderate-income
families consisting of 350,000 members organized in 850
neighborhoods, in cities--more than 100 different cities across
the United States.
Thirty-seven thousand of these members live in California.
I am an example of someone who almost got caught up in the
current wave of foreclosures, in a large part because I was a
victim of a predatory mortgage broker. But I am here today to
discuss what ACORN is doing about the current foreclosure
crisis.
Community-based housing counselor agencies, such as our
sister organization ACORN Housing Corporation, have begun to be
more aggressively--to more aggressively provide specialized
post-purchase assistance to distressed borrowers, including
delinquency counseling and foreclosure prevention. The effect
of the delinquency counseling depends on the willingness of the
servicer to engage in reasonable loss mitigation, often
including loan modification that typically involves changing a
loan from an adjustable rate to a fixed rate, or changing other
terms to enhance affordability.
This is essential. This is the first step in keeping
families in their homes. We believe that some lenders may be
willing to announce some major initiatives to assist delinquent
borrowers such as contacting borrowers several months before
their rate adjusts, or, more importantly, offering a fixed rate
alternative using a good affordability standard to modify
unaffordable loans.
We have also held foreclosure prevention workshops, fairs
across the country, which individual lenders and servicers have
agreed to attend and worked with at-risk customers and loan--on
loan modifications. Here in L.A., hundreds of people have
attended these workshops and received assistance to avoid.
In conclusion, ACORN is committed to ensuring that low- to
moderate-income residents are protected from the dangers of
predatory lending. Based on our experience, we would like to
make the following policy recommendations. One is city, county,
and States should identify neighbors at great risk from growing
numbers of foreclosures and the vacant properties that also
often result and should implement emergency action to help
prevent the decline of these neighborhoods.
Congress should pass legislation to protect families
against predatory mortgage lending and foreclosure rescue
scams. Congress should also pass legislation that would reform
the Bankruptcy Code to allow judges to modify mortgage loans on
primary residence for borrowers applying for bankruptcy.
Last, Congress should approve funding for HUD-certified
housing counseling organizations such as ACORN Housing
Corporation that provide foreclosure prevention services to
borrowers. And that is really important. Lenders, servicers,
and investors should aggressively modify unaffordable loans to
prevent foreclosures.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify, and I
will be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Chairwoman Waters. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. We will take the next few minutes, Ms.
Richardson and I, and ask a few questions of you. We thank you
for having been here.
Some of the recommendations that you made are
recommendations that we are pursuing in Congress already--the
increase of the loan limits for sure, and some other things
that you have said to us.
Let me just raise a few questions. First, Mr. Heedly, we
need to assign someone from our office to get together with
you, so we can unravel what has taken place and where you are
and see what we can do to give you some assistance. And we will
do that. I hope that we have taken that information.
Let me return--well, also, we have already said that we are
going to assist you with Countrywide and do everything that we
can to get you out of what looks like a very complicated and
difficult situation, Ms. Hee Suk Cho.
Mr. Smith, you have heard some of the statements that have
been made about who initiated some loans, and the mortgage
brokers have to take some responsibility in the initiation of
some of these exotic products. But you have also said that your
organization only deals with licensed brokers, that you do not
have unlicensed brokers in your organization. Is that correct?
Mr. Smith. That is correct. We have approximately 20
members who were grandfathered in that were registered and
licensed under the Department of Corporations, and our
executive board of directors, which I am part of, are reviewing
that now to determine if in fact those members will still be
allowed to be a member. They are not voting members.
Chairwoman Waters. So could you tell me, if you know, how
many unlicensed brokers do we have in California?
Mr. Smith. That is the $64,000 question. There are three
regulatory--
Chairwoman Waters. Describe them to us. Who are they?
Mr. Smith. There are three regulatory regimes within
California, us being licensed by the Department of Real Estate,
the Department of Corporations has lenders that are--the
companies are licensed, but the individuals that work there are
not licensed. For example, Countrywide is licensed by the
Department of Corporations. In many instances, individuals that
work for these companies may have part-time jobs. I am not
saying that they are not competent, but they don't go through
the rigorous tests and have the fiduciary responsibility that
we do as licensed brokers in California.
There is an interdepartmental task force now that has been
created as a result of Senate Bill 385 that is working through
the process to identify the number of employees that work for
these companies that are only licensed as companies but not
individual licensees.
Chairwoman Waters. What was the third? Did you--
Mr. Smith. And the third one is the Department of Financial
Institutions in California, which handles the State-chartered
banks and credit unions, which I believe there are
approximately 127 in California.
Chairwoman Waters. So you are saying they have unlicensed--
Mr. Smith. They are not required to have a license either.
Chairwoman Waters. Repeat who is not required to have a
license again.
Mr. Smith. The Department of Financial Institutions, which
are your State-chartered banks and credit union employees.
Those are the individuals that sit in front of a customer, do
loans, but they are not required to have a license such as us
under the regime of the California Department of Real Estate,
in addition to the Department of Corporations, such as your
Countrywide. Those are your consumer finance lenders.
Chairwoman Waters. Do you support legislation that would
require all brokers to be licensed?
Mr. Smith. We wholeheartedly support that legislation,
which is in H.R. 3915. We believe, from the California
Association of Mortgage Brokers, that every individual who sits
in front of a customer in this State, and the United States,
should have a registration and a license and be competent in
handling the biggest financial transaction of most people's
lives.
Chairwoman Waters. And we agree with that.
We heard from you some of the actions that you are taking
to help us deal with this crisis. Do you support Chairman
Bair's recommendation that we continue for the life of the loan
the initial rate that the consumer, the borrower, was given?
Mr. Smith. In concept, I agree. This is personally. This is
not from the California Association of Mortgage Brokers. We
don't have an official position. But personally, as a 24-year
veteran of doing residential home loans in San Diego County, I
believe that creating sustainable, long-term products that help
create generational wealth for families is the way to go.
Chairwoman Waters. So basically, what you are saying is
that the recommendation by Chairman Bair could help solve this
problem.
Mr. Smith. It could be the first step to creating long-term
stability for a family who has the ability and demonstrated
willingness to make a payment to be able to count on what they
have to pay every month to budget for their family.
Chairwoman Waters. There is one other aspect of that I
would like to focus on, and that is this. It was said, I think
today by one of our presenters here, that some people should
have the ability to get in this program for this long-term
sustained loan, but others should not. Why don't we just do it
for everybody?
Mr. Smith. I think that everyone should have the
opportunity to have a home. I think that is the American dream.
The reality of it is that some individuals are not financially
prepared for the responsibility of owning a home. But I
disagree with the fundamental construct that you don't have an
opportunity to try.
I think if we legislate product, we are going to lock out
people and stymie growth and reduce homeownership rates in
California and the United States. I believe that everyone
should have the opportunity to own a home. And given that--with
that--
Chairwoman Waters. If you got into this loan with a teaser
rate, and you go for a workout, and say the teaser rate was one
that would reset in--I guess they reset any time--6 months, a
year. Do you believe that a person could have damaged their
credit so bad, even though they have paid the teaser rate, but
now they cannot afford the rate that will reset, that they
should be denied a continuation of the teaser rate because
somehow their credit has gone bad?
If they can afford the teaser rate, they can pay the teaser
rate, we are talking about the workout that would allow them to
continue to do that, should they be allowed to have that
opportunity? If they can't do the teaser rate, then perhaps
they should be foreclosed on. But what is it in this 6-month
period, or this 1-year period, about their credit that would
cause one to say, ``Sorry, you can't maintain the teaser
rate''?
Mr. Smith. I have a fundamental disagreement with that
construct. Currently, under the FHA and VA rapid refinance or
streamlined refinance process, there is no credit requirement
if you can demonstrate that you had successful payments the
previous 12 months. So that is an argument right there that a
person may have credit problems, but they have demonstrated an
ability to make a payment and they are awarded a loan.
Chairwoman Waters. You heard what was said by the Forum
here today relative to that, and taking a look at the credit
background that may not qualify one to continue with the teaser
rate. That is something that we want to try and get at based on
what I have heard here today.
Mr. Smith. I think we could get a deeper dive on that.
Quite frankly, any loan is better than no loan. A teaser rate
is better than no rate, as the Congressman said earlier.
Chairwoman Waters. Yes. All right.
Mr. Smith. I firmly agree with that.
Chairwoman Waters. Okay.
Mr. Smith. And we have that in process already under the VA
and FHA regime currently.
Chairwoman Waters. All right. Thank you very much.
Ms. Clark, you told us something that I didn't know. You
said they are outsourcing loss mitigation activities. To where,
offshore? And what do they do? What do they do when India calls
your home? I mean--
Ms. Clark. You can't get them on the phone.
Chairwoman Waters. How do they do this?
Ms. Clark. They have been doing this for a while. Even
title is outsourced to foreign countries. That is why you can't
reach a lot of the lenders, because they are not available.
They are not here.
Chairwoman Waters. Okay. I hear what you are saying. So we
have this outsourcing. But I am a homeowner, and I am about to
be delinquent, or I have become delinquent, and you have loss
mitigation that will help me to understand that I have a
problem, and some way that I can work this out, so that I can
get caught up, or what have you. How does this outsource entity
from someplace else help me to do that?
Ms. Clark. That is the problem. When you try to reach these
people, you can't. And that is what is perpetuating the
situation.
Chairwoman Waters. Ms. Twomey?
Ms. Clark. But they all--
Chairwoman Waters. Go ahead. I am sorry.
Ms. Clark. But from my understanding, they set up shell
companies that are here in the United States, but the actual
people who are answering the phones are not here.
Chairwoman Waters. Okay.
Ms. Clark. They are in foreign countries.
Chairwoman Waters. Do you know anything about this, Ms.
Twomey?
Ms. Twomey. Yes. I think what has been represented is
accurate. As a matter of fact, oftentimes when loans go into
default, the servicing rights are transferred to a default
servicer, so there is actually another entity that comes into
play when loans go in default. So, the number of different
entities that borrowers have to deal with in the process can be
fairly overwhelming.
And as was already mentioned, actually getting a live body
on the phone is one thing. I think the other thing that happens
is there are two different departments usually. There is
collections, and there is loss mitigation, and usually people
start at collections.
And the goal of the collections department is to collect
money, not to do a loan workout, and so getting--working your
way up the chain to get to the loss mit department, and then to
find someone in the loss mit department who can actually make a
decision about your loan is a real hurdle, I think, for a lot
of borrowers.
Chairwoman Waters. So let me just ask about a concept that
may be applicable to what we are talking about here. I can
recall for years they have created in cities one-stop shops.
And these one-stop shops were basically for businesses, what is
good for business. We should have a one-stop shop to keep them
from having to run all over city government for licensing and
this, that, and the other. We should be talking about a one-
stop shop for this situation of doing workouts.
Ms. Twomey. I think that is an excellent idea, and
especially if there is a third party at the one-stop shop that
can help the borrower figure out--one of the things I mentioned
was the bargaining disparity that we have when you have a
distressed homeowner trying to save their home and a servicer
that makes all of the decisions. And a third party being
involved in that would be helpful in helping the borrower to
navigate that process. That, of course, requires more funding
to be able to do that.
Chairwoman Waters. Do you have a contract with any of these
financial institutions?
Ms. Twomey. No, we don't do specific--
Chairwoman Waters. Mr. Leonard, do you have a contract?
Mr. Leonard. No, we do not.
Chairwoman Waters. You do, Ms. Frisbee.
Ms. Frisbee. We don't have a contract--
Chairwoman Waters. No.
Ms. Frisbee. --with financial institutions. We--
Chairwoman Waters. Your money is directly from the Federal
Government to do this kind of work. So the contracts that have
been worked out with some nonprofits, as was mentioned today,
does not include any of you in the room today. Did they ask
you? Does anybody come to you and say, ``We would like to do a
contract with you''? No?
Ms. Twomey. Not that I am aware of.
Chairwoman Waters. ACORN, do you have a contract?
Ms. Burnie. I don't believe so, no.
Chairwoman Waters. ACORN may be working on some of them?
Mr. Castro. Richard Castro, NeighborWorks America.
Chairwoman Waters. Please state your name and who you
represent.
Mr. Castro. NeighborWorks America.
Chairwoman Waters. So NeighborWorks has a contract?
Mr. Castro. With one of our organizations. They are all
autonomous. NeighborWorks organization in Sacramento is
NeighborWorks Home Ownership Center Sacramento, and they are
working on a contract with HomeEq.
Chairwoman Waters. Okay. Thank you very much.
I am going to turn the questioning over to Ms. Richardson.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. I hope you feel better.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you. Your mortgage brokers that are
part of your association, have they received information about
some of the products that are available, modifications, workout
scenarios, things like that, so if they have people that they
have worked with to get these loans come to them, do they have
this information readily available of what some of the
options--maybe they could recommend that they followup with
these various providers?
Mr. Smith. Yes, we do. Our advisors--and what--and our
Preserving Home Ownership Initiative Program, the individuals
are licensed brokers, and they have gone through training. Ms.
Mary Harmon is our consumer--is our community services chair,
who is the director of that program.
Myself and her and several other members of our association
have been trained by Freddie Mac through the Credit Smart
Program, and we are abreast of all of the different loss
mitigation techniques and programs that are available. So when
we sit down with a customer, we can effectively advise them in
the right direction to go based on current practices and
programs that are available.
Ms. Richardson. Not a specific department, but are all of
your brokers aware of those options?
Mr. Smith. I am sorry. Say that again.
Ms. Richardson. All of your individual members, are they
aware?
Mr. Smith. I couldn't say that all of them would, but I can
tell you that information is readily disseminated on a regular
basis from our State organization, and that they have access to
that information via the web and by telephone from our State
organization.
Ms. Richardson. And with the licensing that takes place,
how much of it is spent actually talking about foreclosures?
Mr. Smith. Well, we say licensing--that is two different
regimes. I think I misunderstand your question.
Ms. Richardson. When your members take a test to have a
license, of that test component, how much of it would you say
covers actual foreclosures?
Mr. Smith. I haven't renewed my license in the last couple
of years, but the continuing education requirements by the
Department of Consumer Affairs is changing. There is a 40-hour,
I believe, consumer protection piece that has different
modules, and consumer protection is one of the items that this
would come under.
Ms. Richardson. Madam Chairwoman, that might be something
we want to consider. I did something similar with this with the
Department of Motor Vehicles. It was looking at the various
licensing departments and requiring that a larger portion be
spent in terms of actual counseling and understanding the
foreclosure side, what the termination options are, etc., that
that be a part of the licensing program itself, because they
have to increase the amount that they provide.
Mr. Arnold, your real estate agents who are members of the
California Real Estate Association, would you--how many of them
do you think know about specific options that some of these
providers have?
Mr. Arnold. Well, not a lot of them. In fact, so many of
them are new licensees, and so CAR has--we are teaching
foreclosure prevention as well as counseling. We have added two
classes to that this year because of the fact that so many
people are foreclosing. So we have to educate our members.
And, really, one of the problems that we see is the fact
that these members have never experienced a market like this.
Most of the Realtors have come in over the last 5 or 6 years.
We have doubled the amount of licensees that we have had, and
so not--not like myself that has experience in loss mitigation,
foreclosures, and short sales.
They don't know it. But CAR, because we are a trade
organization, we want to educate our membership, so we do
have--currently have classes and we have had it at--I believe
at NAR, we had it at our CAR meeting, so we are consistently
talking about this, so we can educate our membership.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. I would like to dovetail off his answer. I have
some information that may be able to give a little bit more
global perspective of it. As of fiscal year June of 2007, there
are currently 537,038 licensees in the State of California;
147,171 are brokers, 389,867 are sales persons that are
licensed persons like myself. Approximately 31,000 of those
brokers are engaged in mortgage activities in the State of
California.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. And then, Ms. Clark, Ms. Twomey, Ms.
Frisbee, and Ms. Burnie, we are fortunate enough--I want to say
thank you, that some of the earlier panelists actually stayed
to hear the continuing testimony, so we appreciate that. Do you
have any suggestions that you could provide to these providers
themselves, the financial institutions? And I see the
Governor's office is also still here as well. Any suggestions
you could give to them of how we could better outreach to the
direct consumer themselves?
When I hear things like making 18 million calls and we have
reached 2.2, that is 10 percent, that is not great. So of the
people that you are interacting with, what would you recommend
that they consider in terms of their outreach to increase that
number?
Ms. Twomey. I am happy to respond, Congresswoman. I think
one of the problems is that there is this outreach that is
going on, but, as I said before, when the consumer calls back,
they can't get anywhere. And so I am not sure where the
disconnect is, but it seems to me what we are hearing is, ``I
called my servicer, and I ended up in voice mail. And I called
them,'' you know, however many times, or ``I couldn't get
someone to give me information.'' And so I think the outreach
is good if the back end of the piece is there, which is when
the person actually responds to the outreach there is someone
there that can answer the questions that the borrower has.
Ms. Richardson. And how do people know how to reach you,
your organization?
Ms. Twomey. Our organization works primarily with legal
services organizations, government agencies, and private
attorneys who are representing low-income homeowners. And we
have published a series of books on consumer issues.
Ms. Richardson. Anyone else want to respond?
Ms. Frisbee. Yes. We just feel that the lenders have to be
more flexible. They have to really tailor their work to the
individual situation. We are finding that people are calling a
little bit earlier, but usually, you know, they are already 60
days behind and they are just told, ``There is nothing we can
do.'' So this has to change.
Ms. Burnie. I am happy with the testimony that was brought
out today, but I just think that we need more funding and more
ways to bring the information to the community.
Ms. Twomey. I want to add one more thing, which is I think
this week the OTS recently announced that it was going to offer
financial incentives for servicers to do workout arrangements,
and that would potentially deal with some of the problems that
we heard earlier about the costs that servicers incur in trying
to do workouts, and then sometimes passing those costs along to
the borrowers. And so maybe a proposal like that would help
incentivize servicers to actually contact those borrowers and
then do loan workouts with them.
Ms. Richardson. Madam Chairwoman, I just want to say--I
think this is our last panel, so I wanted to take this
opportunity to thank you again for having this hearing here. I
think there is no better place than California to get a sense
of what is happening in the wave across the United States. We
applaud your efforts and look forward to working with you to
resolve this issue.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Waters. Well, thank you very much.
I would like to thank all of our members who participated
today, and, Ms. Richardson, I would like to thank you for
staying through our last panel here. I would like to thank all
of our panelists. I would like to thank our citizens who came
to learn more about this and find out what we can all do
collectively.
I would just like to say to our panelists and to our
homeowners that I am attempting to approach this in a
thoughtful manner. I am attempting to try and determine what we
can do working with the financial institutions and the loan
initiators. I must say that I am not happy with what I am
hearing as of today has been the response.
I am not happy with the pace of the response. I am not
happy with our Federal regulators. And I do not think that you
are going to see a lot of money coming from the government to
encourage servicers to do the right thing.
One of the things I do not wish to do is to get in a
running battle with the financial institutions, with the
servicers, nor do I wish to be in the additional position of
not only doing my legislative work, but doing organizing. The
financial institutions, these loan initiators better step up to
the plate or we are going to put a lot of heat from the street
on them.
As I have come to understand about the banking community in
particular is one thing they don't want is a crowd outside the
door demanding anything. But if we have to do that, we are
going to have to do that. This crisis is overwhelming and
scary, and it really should not be happening. We all have
responsibility in this, and I accept my responsibility as a
Member of Congress.
As a Member of Congress, we should demand more of our
regulators. They should see this stuff coming down the pipe.
There is no way that we are spending the amount of money that
we are spending on all of these agencies that are supposed to
be doing oversight and auditing, and all of this, and they
didn't know that these exotic products had hit the street.
So the Federal Government, Members of Congress, loan
initiators at every level, no matter where you are, should have
seen this. This stuff enriched a lot of people on the front
end. A lot of people made money, and the investors are sitting
back there just waiting to rake it all in. And so everybody has
to take responsibility on this, and we may have to step outside
the box to make it happen.
I thank you for participating. I thank you for all that we
have learned today from you, and we have some additional
legislative possibilities here based on the information that we
have received. Let me just say that I will note that some
members may have additional questions for this panel, which
they may wish to submit in writing. And without objection, the
hearing record will remain open for 30 days for members to
submit written questions to these witnesses, and to place their
responses in the record.
Let me also say that the following organizations and
individuals have submitted written statements which shall be
included in the record: the NAACP and our distinguished
colleague, Mr. Lantos, who was unable to join us today. These
statements, without objection, will be made a part of the
record.
I am reminded that we have assistance that is available in
the next room. Some people who have come today have already sat
with some of our nonprofit organizations that are taking the
information. Ms. Frisbee, you had mentioned that. They are
still available as we close down this panel today, and we would
encourage anybody who is in the audience who would like to have
some assistance to please avail yourself of the opportunity
that is being offered.
Also, we would like you to help us get the word out. They
can call our office. They can call the office of any of our
members who are participating. We will have information about
the nonprofits that have some arrangements. Those who don't
have arrangements that just do this work, we will make that
information available to everyone.
I want to thank you, and this hearing is concluded. Thank
you very much.
[Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
November 30, 2007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0433.100