Archive for June, 2008

posted by admin on Jun 27

You have lost your home to foreclosure. Surprise, here is the bill for the income tax you now owe. Maybe not, if you are one of the former homeowners saved from grief by new federal legislation. On December 20, 2007, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 became law. This new law will protect some but not all foreclosed homeowners from a one-two gut punch. While it has received some recent press, it is still not commonly known that a tax liability is created when debt is forgiven in a home foreclosure. This can be a nasty second hit for a recently dispossessed family.

Congress and the President apparently expect many taxpayers to lose their homes over the three year period the law covers. Our government may now avoid some of the outrage these down-and-out voters would have felt if they were hit with a tax liability in addition to losing their homes.

Before this piece of legislation, cancellation of debt from foreclosure or short sale (sale of a home for less than the amount owed) generally resulted in additional tax liability based on the difference between what the home was sold for and the amount of the total debt. Unfortunately, many foreclosed homeowners will not be protected by this new law.

The relief from debt stemming from foreclosure of a personal residence, but only to the extent the debt went into buying or improving the house, will now be left out of taxable income if a foreclosure occurs between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2009. However, many will still feel the sting of this tax viper unless they file a petition in bankruptcy.

The limit on cancellation of debt a homeowner can claim before it becomes taxable appears to be generous. The limits are $2,000,000 or $1,000,000 for a married taxpayer filing a separate return. Nonetheless, many consumers will still get hit with a tax bill after the foreclosure of their real estate loans. The first big problem will be that only debt from buying or improving the property is covered by the new law. When home values were skyrocketing and sub-prime lenders were handing out money like candy on Halloween, it was quite popular for the debt burdened middleclass consumer to take out a second mortgage or home equity line of credit to consolidate high interest credit card debt. Few will have refinanced their homes without paying off outstanding consumer debt. In many cases, it would have been a requirement of the lender. This portion of the home debt will continue to trigger tax liability when the loan is foreclosed.

Second homes, vacation homes, business and investment property are not included in the forgiveness; it will only apply to debt secured against the qualified principal residence of the taxpayer. If a taxpayer has two homes, only the home that is used the majority of the time will qualify in most circumstances.

When calculating the amount of forgiven debt that is covered by this statutory exclusion, any debt not used to buy or improve the principal residence will continue to be considered as income to the foreclosed homeowner. This means that a careful analysis of the loan history and actual expenditures made by a debtor must be made before a foreclosure is permitted. Unfortunately, a byproduct of this legislation could well be a false sense of security for a homeowner facing foreclosure. The failure to act promptly could result in the unfortunate gut punch described above with tax liability on top of loss of the home.

By: Kent Anderson 

The bankruptcy and insolvency exceptions to cancellation of debt income taxation still are available. However, the taxpayer must be insolvent at the time of the foreclosure, or the foreclosure must occur after or during the bankruptcy to qualify for these exclusions. If a bankruptcy is filed too late or the taxpayer has retirement funds or other assets at the time of foreclosure, there can still be an enormous and unexpected tax liability resulting from the foreclosure

posted by admin on Jun 17

The inflation and subsequent collapse of the residential real estate market was facilitated by the Federal Reserve over nearly a decade. From the late 1990’s when the technology bubble burst until early 2007 when investors began to realize how much bad debt had actually been created in the housing market, interest rates were kept artificially low, while capital poured into suburban sprawl and subprime mortgages.

The leader of the Fed and manipulator-in-chief of the economy during the primary boom years was Alan Greenspan, who once believed in things such as the gold standard, the impossibility of sustaining a housing bubble, and speaking to Congress in riddles and financial jargon. His main adversary in the Congress was Ron Paul, who still believes in things such as the gold standard, the impossibility of sustaining any manufactured market bubble, and is a master riddle-solver himself with a strong Austrian economics background.

One of the great mysteries of the Greenspan legacy has been his rumored doctoral thesis for New York University, compiled and written in 1977. Certain revealing parts of the 180-page thesis have been reported on by Barron’s news organization. The parts reviewed by Jim McTague at Barron’s show that Greenspan most likely understood and could have predicted all of the events he was putting into motion by inflating a massive housing bubble.

A most intriguing quote from the article shows how the master manipulator knew what would happen when the dotcom bubble burst and all that capital needed a new home in residential housing. “Greenspan also broke new ground in the introduction to his thesis, where he noted that homeowners were refinancing for larger amounts than their original mortgage, in essence monetizing increases in their home’s market value and spending the excess cash on goods and services or putting it into savings.” This was long before double-digit rises is home values, subprime mortgages, no-doc loans, Home Equity Lines of Credit (HELOCs), and inflatable-value McMansion-burbs, but is a perfect representation of what happened during the real estate boom of the late 1990’s and early 2000’s.

Ron Paul, as well, understood the consequences of the housing bubble. In a speech made into the Congressional Record on September 6, 2001, he stated, “Refinancing especially helped the consumers to continue spending even in a slowing economy.” The same monetization of rising property values that Greenspan was concerned about became Greenspan’s policy when looking for a new bubble.

Neither Paul nor Greenspan believed that a continual cycle of rising home prices and refinancing could continue, however. As Greenspan himself claimed in his doctoral thesis, “There is no perpetual motion machine which generates an ever-rising path for the prices of homes.” Paul, in the same entry into the Congressional Record as referenced above, agreed: “This, too, will burst as all bubbles do.” And the more inflated the bubble became, and the more capital was misdirected into it, the greater would be its fall.

Who, though, could have predicted such a large crash of the real estate market, with property values falling to lower than the replacement costs of the buildings? Well, Greenspan, for one. A “break in prices of existing homes would pull down the prices of new homes to the level of construction costs or below, inducing a sharp contraction in building,” he wrote in the thesis that earned him a well-deserved Ph.D; well-deserved due to his uncanny ability to predict the consequences of policies he would set in place and disclaim responsibility for later on.

Paul also knew that malinvestment caused by government intervention in any sector of the economy would lead to disaster. Making a statement before the Financial Services Committee of the House of Representatives in September of 2007, Paul said, “The housing boom was caused by the Federal Reserve’s policy resulting in artificially low interest rates. Consumers, misled by low interest rates, were looking to consume, while homebuilders saw the low interest rates as a signal to build, and build they did.” The larger the bubble, the more malinvestment would occur, and the more severe the correction would have to be.

Most joking aside, the example of Alan Greenspan as Federal Reserve chairman should serve as a strong warning against putting anyone in power who believes they understand how the economy works. Greenspan understood and believed in libertarian ideas of economic manipulation and Austrian economics, and then spent nearly two decades at the Fed working against every one of those principles.

It is not so much that he went back or overturned what he believed in to become the most successful bubble-inflator in history — far worse than that, he used his understanding of how a free market can work in order to further the cause of socialism. In fact, it would probably have been far less destructive to have someone in charge of the Fed who had admittedly no understanding of how markets work at all, rather than someone who understands free markets and the prosperity they help engender but psychopathically worked in the opposite direction.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, stood by his principles and had the audacity to challenge supposed libertarian and Austrian economics advocate Greenspan. For this and his continuing adherence to traditional American beliefs of individual liberty and free trade, and his opposition to government manipulation and corporate welfare, he has been marginalized by mainstream media and colleagues in Washington.

Using the economy as a laboratory of how to turn a firm understanding of the economy on its head and foster socialism and corporatism, mad scientist Greenspan has further impoverished us all to enter into and direct the economy from the sacred halls of the financial elite. Paul, by advocating true freedom and less government, has been shunned by the government-corporate media and the brainwashed masses, but his ideas and influence are being embraced by an ever-expanding group of people waking up to the evils of government manipulation and psychopathy of power.

posted by admin on Jun 16

Some have argued that the advent of securitization has effectively eliminated the holder in due course doctrine, stating that the process of indorsing each of the hundreds or thousands of notes that make up a mortgage pool would be so time consuming as to be impractical. Tamar Frankel stated, “Usually the servicer of the SPV’s portfolio is the loan’s originator and the payee under the notes. Therefore, in practice, notes are not endorsed, and the originator remains the holder of the notes.”

While originators were formally the usual servicers of the loans they originated, this is no longer universally, or even generally, the case.

Now, the servicing rights to loans are easily and widely bought and sold, with originators discovering that they can avoid the volatility associated with servicing, such as varying prepayment rates by borrowers, by transferring the servicing rights to a company that, because it specializes in servicing, can derive greater profit from those rights.

Small lenders in particular often sell their loans “servicing released,”

meaning that the buyer of the loans also obtains the servicing rights to them.

Steven Levine and Anthony Gray assert that “[o]riginators typically endorse and deliver notes to issuers,” noting that “in the absence of such endorsement and delivery, the transferee would be the owner of the note but not the holder and, therefore, not a holder in due course.” The Kravatt treatise on securitization describes in detail the efforts that a securitizer of residential mortgages should take to become a holder in due course and further notes, “If a note is negotiable, the simplest way to transfer an ownership interest in the note is to negotiate the note by delivering it to the pool entity if the note constitutes bearer paper, or endorsing it and delivering it, if the note constitutes order paper.”

While there may well be securitizers who do not ensure that each note is indorsed to a new holder, the GSEs that have been the driving engines of securitization, by and large, require that the notes be endorsed before they can be securitized. For example, Freddie Mac’s Single-Family Seller/Servicer Guide requires a seller to endorse notes delivered to Freddie Mac without recourse and states “If the Seller is not the original payee on the Note, the chain of endorsements must be proper and complete from the original payee on the Note to the Seller.” The document custodian handling this volume of documentation is required by Freddie Mac to “verify that the chain of endorsements is proper and complete from the original payee on the Note to the Seller delivering the Note to Freddie Mac–not to the Servicer.” Fannie Mae requires the lender to endorse the note in blank, without recourse, and that the “last endorsement on the note should be that of the mortgage seller.” Even Ginnie Mae’s recent streamlined document requirements still requires that a “complete chain of endorsements up to the pooling of the loan must be evident,” though after the note is endorsed in blank when the note is placed into a Ginnie Mae pool, further endorsements are not required.

posted by admin on Jun 5

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER

WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve has given approval for Bank of America
Corp. to purchase distressed subprime mortgage lender Countrywide
Financial Corp.

The Fed board approved the deal in a 32-page order issued Thursday.
Countrywide had said previously that it will hold a special meeting of
shareholders on June 25 to approve the proposed sale.

In its order, the Fed board said that after the proposed deal Bank of
America would remain the largest depository institution in the country,
controlling approximately $773.4 billion in deposits, which represent
10.9 percent of total insured bank deposits in the country.

When the deal was first announced in January, Bank of America said it
would pay about $4 billion in an all-stock deal for Countrywide,
exchanging 0.1822 shares of Bank of America for each share of
Countrywide outstanding.

In recent months, some analysts have speculated that the deal may be
completed at a lower price because of further deterioration in the
mortgage market and a continued rise in mortgage delinquencies and
defaults.

Experts have said that the deterioration of the mortgage market and
Countrywide’s loan portfolio could lead to costly write-downs and
create a drag on Bank of America’s earnings.

But on Monday, Ken Lewis, the chief executive of Bank of America, told
analysts on a conference call that he believed buying Countrywide was
still a good deal even though the housing market had continued to
falter since the deal was announced.

Lewis said he believed that housing conditions would improve by early
next year. He said that Countrywide and its professional sales force
would give the bank a boost as it pushes to increase market share in
the mortgage sector.

In a statement commenting on the Fed decision, Bank of America said
that it expected the sale to close in the July-September quarter.

“This transaction represents a rare opportunity for Bank of America to
significantly gain market share in the mortgage business, allowing it
to expand in a cornerstone financial product,” Lewis said in a
statement.

posted by admin on Jun 2

By HEATHER TIMMONS

GURGAON, India In a glass tower on the outskirts of New Delhi, dozens of young Indians are on the telephone, calling America¹s out of work, forgetful and debt-stricken and asking for cash.³Are you sure that¹s all you can afford?² one operator in a row of cubicles asks politely. ³Well, how do you take care of your everyday expenses?² presses another.

Americans are used to receiving calls from India for insurance claims and credit card sales. But debt collection represents a growing business for outsourcing companies, especially as the American economy slows and its consumers struggle to pay for their purchases.

Armed with a sophisticated automated system that dials tens of thousands of Americans every hour, and puts confidential information like Social Security numbers, addresses and credit history at operators¹ fingertips, this new breed of collectors is chasing down late car payments, overdue credit card debt and lapsed installment loans. Debt collectors in India often cost about one-quarter the price of their American counterparts, and are often better at the job, debt collection company executives say.

³India will be the only place we grow this year,² said J. Brandon Black, the chief executive of the Encore Capital Group, a debt collection company based in San Diego. India is the company¹s largest operating area, with about half the company¹s collection force of more than 300.

Although the stereotype of a collector may be ³some guy with chains and a cut-off shirt,² Mr. Black said, collectors in India are ³very polite, very respectful, and they don¹t raise their voice.² He added, ³People respond to that.²

Companies like Encore buy bad loans from banks and credit card issuers for pennies on the dollar and pocket the cash they collect. The delinquent borrowers often owe at least a thousand dollars.

So far just a tiny fraction, maybe 5 percent, of American debt collection is done outside the country, industry executives estimate. But new business is in the pipeline.

Financial services clients are saying, ³We want you to collect my debt, to analyze it and change the way that we sell² the loans, said Tiger Tyagarajan, executive vice president at Genpact, the business processing company spun off from General Electric that has roots in India. Genpact, which works with lenders to get customers to pay, rather than buying loans directly like Encore, employs thousands of debt collectors in India, Romania, Mexico and the Philippines, and is hiring in all those locations.

In the past, the prevailing wisdom about wringing money from late payers has been ³if you¹re calling the Midwest, you want someone from the Midwest to twist their arm,² said Mark Hughes, an analyst with Sun Trust Robinson Humphrey who covers the industry. That theory is changing as the pool of trained phone professionals in India and other locations deepens, and companies look outside the United States for lower costs.

Telephone debt collection represents new, more aggressive territory for India. ³This is really a sales job,² Mr. Hughes said. ³It is commission-intensive, and you¹re paid on your ability to collect.²

Like many sales teams, Encore¹s collectors in India gather for a daily pep talk before their shift. In one recent session, they were schooled on the intricacies of American tax policy.

³One hundred thirty million U.S. families will get a tax rebate this season² as part of the new economic stimulus package, Manu Sharma, the team leader, explained to a roomful of top-earning collection agents, most in their 20s.

Those who qualify for the rebates will get as much $600 a person or $1,200 a household, he said, and ³the I.R.S. is going to start paying this money in May.²

Start bringing up the rebate during calls, he told them. ³This gives you an advantage so you can increase your wallet share,² he went on. ³Get them set up on minimum balance arrangements² based around their tax rebates.

Once the calls start flowing, Encore¹s Gurgaon office resembles nothing less than the headquarters for an enthusiastic fund-raising telethon. Just minutes after collectors have put on their headsets, a supervisor yells out ³Rajesh, for $35 a month for three months.² All employees enthusiastically respond by clapping three times, and Rajesh is the first on the day¹s sales board.

Companies like Encore often schedule dozens of payments and make dozens of calls before the loan is paid off.

Encore which also operates as Midland Capital Management also files sheaves of lawsuits against customers who do not respond. Sometimes the debt is so old that the statute of limitations for filing a suit has passed, and it may already have vanished from a person¹s credit report. If the debtor makes a new payment, though, the statute of limitations starts all over again.Credit counselors in the United States say more and more of their clients are being contacted by debt collectors based in India. Sometimes, it can cause problems. When clients ³run into someone who doesn¹t speak English well or there is a communication gap, it can add to the frustration of the customer,² said Bill Druliner, manager and financial counselor for GreenPath Debt Solutions in Milwaukee.

Debt collection, no matter who does it, can have ³a devastating impact on people¹s lives,² Mr. Druliner said, because calls can stress family relationships and sometimes debtors are pressed into paying late bills instead of buying necessities like prescriptions. Still, he said, he had not run into any specific problems with overseas debt collectors. ³What they may lack in authority or ability to handle slang, they do handle the process very well and are very well spoken,² he said.

Mortgage loans, which involve complex state and national laws, are nearly always handled by collectors in the United States. But credit card, auto and other debt are prime candidates for collection overseas.

Just over 4.5 percent of all bank credit card accounts were delinquent in the fourth quarter of 2007, according to the Federal Reserve, up from 3.5 percent two years before. Businesses in the United States put $141 billion in delinquent consumer debt up for collection in 2005, according to a PriceWaterhouseCoopers survey commissioned by an industry group, and debt collection agencies collected $51 billion that year. They kept nearly a quarter of that in profits.

Collection veterans are seeing an unusual phenomena in this economic downturn. ³People are walking away from their homes and hanging on to their credit cards, because that is their lifeline,² said Rajinder Singh, the head of global analytic services for Genpact.

Encore hires people with call center experience in India, and then trains them in unexpected skills like sympathy. Clients ³get very abusive, very emotional, very sad,² said Manu Rikhye, vice president at the Encore unit in Gurgaon. The collector¹s job is to ³try to empathize with the consumer,² he said and try to figure out, if they¹re angry, why. ³Maybe it¹s us, maybe it¹s someone else,² he said. ³You have to hear what they have to say.²

Collectors are taught to handle abuse by telling debtors: ³This attitude is not going to get you anywhere. We can either work with you or refer you for further action,² implying a lawsuit. Collectors who raise their voices or try ³tough² tactics are warned, Mr. Rikhye said, and those who misrepresent facts can be fired.

Manju Muddanna, 27, who uses the name Michelle Green when she is on the phone, is one of Encore¹s best collectors. With laced-up stiletto sandals, wood bangles and a wad of chewing gum, she wheedles work and cellphone numbers out of debtors¹ relatives to track them down. Like most Encore collectors, Ms. Muddanna handles several hundred calls a day, but actually makes contact with only a handful of borrowers.

Ms. Muddanna¹s telephone voice veers to the school-marmish, her learned American accent into Blanche DuBois territory . When people on the other end of the phone mumble, she upbraids them, politely, ³Ahhh just can¹t understand you, ma¹am.²

Encore pays its collectors in India an average base salary of 17,000 rupees

($425) a month, and they earn bonuses sometimes more than $1,000 a month for getting customers to pay. In contrast, collectors in the United States, make about $6,500 a month. Thanks to the income, a windfall in India, where the average monthly income is $63, collectors are amassing some of the status symbols that probably got their clients into trouble in the first place new scooters, iPods, Swatch watches and exotic vacations.