OREGON REAL ESTATE ROUND TABLE

Category: History

  • Piedmont Victorian – 5775 NE Garfield Portland, OR 97211


    I recently toured a beautifully remodeled Victorian home in the Piedmont neighborhood in Portland, OR. Here’s a short video about the home, which is listed at $399,000:

    This house really caught my eye from the moment I stepped on the front porch. Here is a photo gallery of pics I snapped with my phone while I toured the house with Joe:

    This slideshow requires JavaScript.

    The owners have taken great care in restoring and remodeling this house, with a great mix of classic and modern elements. Joe even told me how much time he spent filling the original posts on the porch, and it is a lot!

    Financing for 5775 Ne Garfield

    There are a range of home loan options available for this property. As I said in the video, it does qualify for FHA financing, which has flexible credit guidelines and financing for up to 96.5% of the home’s value. To learn more about financing this property, or any other in Oregon and Washington, feel free to contact me at 503.799.4112 or email jason@mypmb.us

    You can learn more about this great home at the following website:

    http://www.5775negarfield.com

    Contact the listing broker,

    Michael Rysavy
    Oregon Realty
    503.860.4705

    Thanks for taking a minute to check out this property!

    Jason Hillard

    Mortgage Advisor MLO #119032

    Pinnacle Mortgage Bankers

    a div of Pinnacle Capital Mortgage Corp

    1706 D St Suite A Vancouver, WA 98663

    http://www.homeloanninjas.com/

    NMLS 81395 WA CL-81395

    Equal Housing Lender

    Related articles

  • Is The National Association Of Realtors Hurting The Real Estate Market? by Brett Reichel, Brettreichel.com


    Yesterday, a fairly sophisticated home buyer called me about a pre-approval.  He and his wife own a home, and a vacation home.  This is a successful business couple who are doing well in the residential construction market despite the current economy.  He indicated that they wanted to buy a new primary residence.  His question to me was “We can get together about 10% down.  Can we even buy a new home with less than 20% down?”

    It’s no wonder they are confused.  Every other article where leadership of the National Association of Realtors is quoted, every press release they issue usually has the quote that “tight lender guidelines are hurting the real estate market”  or “buyers need to have 20% down and be perfect to accomplish a purchase” or some words like that. 

    Unfortunately, these types of statements are blatantly untrue in most markets, and are very damaging to the real estate market at large and to home buyers and sellers everywhere. 

    It’s true that lenders are giving loan applications MUCH greater scrutiny than they have in any time since 1998.  Rampant mortgage fraud on the part of borrowers, Realtors, lenders, and mortgage originators have required lenders to check and recheck everything represented in a loan application.  Unfortunatley, until we get everyone to realize that the “silly bank rules” they are breaking consititutes a federal crime we are stuck with the extra scrutiny.  Fortunately, the new national loan originator licensing and registration systems should make loan officers everywhere realize the seriousness of this issue and root out fraud before it get’s to the point of a loan being funded.  The safety of our banking and financial systems is too important to allow the kinds of games that have been played over the last few years. 

    The National Association of Realtors is right about appraisals.  Appraisals remain a very serious issue.  Pressure from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on lenders results in pressures by lending institutions on appraisers to bring in appraisals very conservatively.  It’s common for appraisers to use inappropriate appraisal practice due to the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac form1004mc, which results in innacurate appraisal (see previous posts).

    It’s also true that underwriting guidelines are stricter than they were during the golden age of loose underwriting (1998 thru 2008).  What people don’t realize that underwriting guidelines are easier now than they’ve been in any previous time frame.  In fact, it’s a great time to buy for many folks who have been priced out of markets previously.

    How can I make that type of claim?  Because I remember the “bad old days”…..Prior to 1997-1998, debt-to-income ratio’s were much stricter than they are now.   A debt-to-income ratio compares your total debt to your total income.  In the old days, if you put 5% down on a conventional loan, you couldn’t have more than 36% of your total income go towards your debt.  Now?  If you’ve been reasonably careful with your credit, have decent job stability, and a little savings left over for emergency it’s pretty easy to get to a ratio of 41%!  With only 5% down!  On FHA loans, it’s really easy to go to 45% DTI with only 3.5% down!   In fact, there are times that we go even higher.

    Is that obvious in the mass media?  No.  They paint a dire picture based, in part, on the statements of NAR. 

    So, if you are a Realtor, press NAR to paint a more positve picture of financing.  Nothing that is “puffed up”, just reality.  If you are a buyer, don’t be fooled by what you read in the mainstream press.  Talk to a good, local, independent mortgage banker.  They’ll give you a clear path to home ownership and join the ranks of homeowners!

     

     

  • No End in Sight: Mortgage Loans Harder in High-Foreclosure Areas by Brian O’Connell, Mainstreet.com


    NEW YORK (MainStreet) — Here’s another bitter pill for homeowners to swallow: If you live in an area with a high foreclosure rate, the chances of someone getting a loan to buy your house significantly decreases.

    The news comes from the Federal Reserve’s latestreport, in which it concluded that mortgage lending was dramatically lower in communities and neighborhoods where foreclosures were surging, using data from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) and from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA).

    “Home-purchase lending in highly distressed census tracts identified by the Neighborhood Stabilization Program was 75% lower in 2010 than it had been in these same tracts in 2005,” the report said. “This decline was notably larger than that experienced in other tracts, and appears to primarily reflect a much sharper decrease in lending to higher-income borrowers in the highly distressed neighborhoods.”

    The Fed uses the term “highly distressed” in place of the word “foreclosure”, but the message is clear: Banks and mortgage lenders are taking a big step back from lending to buyers who want a home in a high-foreclosure neighborhood.

    It’s the same deal for borrowers who want to actually live in a home and buyers who want to purchase the property as aninvestment, as neither party seems to be having much luck in getting a home loan in a highly distressed neighborhood, according to the Fed. The lack of credit extended to investors could really hurt neighborhoods crippled by foreclosures.

    “In the current period of high foreclosures and elevated levels of short sales, investor activity helps reduce the overhang of unsold and foreclosed properties,” the Federal Reserve says.

    Overall, the Fed reports that 76% fewer mortgage loans were granted to “non-owner occupant” buyers in 2010, compared to 2005.

    The Fed’s report reveals some other trends in the mortgage market:

    • Mortgage originations declined from just under 9 million loans to fewer than 8 million loans between 2009 and 2010. Most significant was the decline in the number of refinance loans despite historically low baseline mortgage interest rates throughout the year.  Home-purchase loans also declined, but less so than the decline in refinance lending.
    • While loans originated under the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage insurance program and the Department of Veterans Affairs‘ (VA) loan guarantee program continue to account for a historically large proportion of loans, such lending fell more than did other types of lending.
    • In the absence of home equity problems and underwriting changes, roughly 2.3 million first-lien owner-occupant refinance loans would have been made during 2010 on top of the 4.5 million such loans that were actually originated.
    • A sharp drop in home-purchase lending activity occurred in the middle of 2010, right alongside the June closing deadline (although the deadline was retroactively extended to September). The ending of this program during 2010 may help explain the decline in the incidence of home-purchase lending to lower-income borrowers between the first and second halves of the year.

    All in all, the report offers a pretty bleak – but even-handed and thorough – review of today’s home-purchase market.

    Read more about the continuing effects of the housing crisis at MainStreet’s Foreclosure topic page.

    Related articles

  • The Meat of the Matter – In Re: Veal Analyzed, by Phil Querin, Q-Law.com


     

    “When a note is split from a deed of trust ‘the note becomes, as a practical matter, unsecured.’ *** Additionally, if the deed of trust was assigned without the note, then the assignee, ‘having no interest in the underlying debt or obligation, has a worthless piece of paper.’” [In re Veal – United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit (June 10, 2011)]

    Introduction. This case is significant for two reasons: First, it was heard and decided by a three-judge Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit, which includes Oregon.  Second, it represents the next battleground in the continuing foreclosure wars between Big Banks and Bantam Borrowers: The effect of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC”)on the transferability of the Promissory Note (or “Note”).

    Remember, the Trust Deed follows the Note.  If a lender is the owner of a Trust Deed, but cannot produce the actual Note which it secures, the Trust Deed is useless, since the lender is unable to prove it is owed the debt.  Conversely, if the lender owns the Note, but not the Trust Deed, it cannot foreclose the secured property. [For a poetic perspective on the peripatetic lives of a Note and Trust Deed, connect here. – PCQ]

    By now, most observers are aware that Oregon’s mandatory recording statute, ORS 86.735(1), has been a major impediment to lenders and servicers seeking trying to foreclose borrowers.  Two major Oregon cases, the first in federal bankruptcy court, In re McCoy, and the other, in federal district trial court, Hooker v. Bank of America, et. al, based their decisions to halt the banks’ foreclosures, squarely on the lenders’ failure to record all Trust Deed Assignments.  To date, however, scant mention has been made in these cases about ownership of the Promissory Note. [Presumably, this is because a clear violation of the Oregon’s recording statute is much easier to pitch to a judge, than having to explain the nuances – and there are many – of Articles 3 and 9 of the UCC.  – PCQ]

    Now we have In re: Veal, which was an appeal from the bankruptcy trial judge’s order granting Wells Fargo relief from the automatic stay provisions under federal bankruptcy law.   Such a ruling meant that Wells Fargo would be permitted to foreclose the Veals’ property.  But since this case arose in Arizona – not Oregon – our statutory law requiring the recording of all Assignments as a prerequisite to foreclosure, did not apply.  Instead, the Veals’ lawyer relied upon the banks’ failure to establish that it had any right under the UCC to enforce the Promissory Note.

    Legal Background. For reasons that do not need to be explained here, the Veals filed two contemporaneous appeals. One was against Wells Fargo Bank, which was acting as the Trustee for a REMIC, Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2006–3, Asset–Backed Certificates Series 2006–3.  In the second appeal, the Veals challenged the bankruptcy court’s order overruling their objection to a proof of claim filed by Wells Fargo’s servicing agent, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (“AHMSI”).

    Factual Background. In August 2006, the Veals executed a Promissory Note and Mortgage in favor of GSF Mortgage Corporation (“GSF”). On June 29, 2009, they filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.  On July 18, 2009, AHMSI filed a proof of claim, on behalf of Wells Fargo as its servicing agent.  AHMSI included with its proof of claim the following documents:

    • A copy of the Note, showing an indorsement[1] from GSF to “Option One”[2];
    • A copy of the GSF’s Mortgage with the Veals;
    • A copy of a recorded “Assignment of Mortgage” assigning the Mortgage from GSF to Option One; and,
    • A letter dated May 15, 2008, signed by Jordan D. Dorchuck as Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer of AHMSI, addressed to “To Whom it May Concern”, stating that AHMSI acquired Option One’s mortgage servicing business.[3]

    The Veals argued that AHMSI [Wells’ servicing agent] lacked standing since neither AHMSI or Wells Fargo established that they were qualified holders of the Note under Arizona’s version of the UCC.

    In a belated and last ditch effort to establish its standing, Wells Fargo filed a copy of another Assignment of Mortgage, dated after it had already filed for relief from bankruptcy stay.  This Assignment purported to transfer to Wells Fargo the Mortgage held by “Sand Canyon Corporation formerly known as Option One Mortgage Corporation”.

    The 3-judge panel noted that neither of the assignments (the one from GSF to Option One and the other from Sand Canyon, Option One’s successor, to Wells) were authenticated – meaning that there were no supporting affidavits or other admissible evidence vouching for the authenticity of the documents.  In short, it again appears that none of the banks’ attorneys would swear that the copies were true and accurate reproductions of the original – or that they’d even seen the originals to compare them with.  With continuing reports of bogus and forged assignments, and robo-signed documents of questionable legal authority, it is not surprising that the bankruptcy panel viewed this so-called “evidence” with suspicion, and did not regard it as persuasive evidence.

    • As to the Assignment of Mortgage from GSF (the originating bank) to Option One, the panel noted that it purported to assign not only the Mortgage, but the Promissory Note as well.[4]
    • As to the Assignment of Mortgage from Sand Canyon [FKA Option One] to Wells Fargo[created after Wells Fargo’s motion for relied from stay], the panel said that the document did not contain language purporting to assign the Veals’ Promissory Note.  As a consequence[even had it been considered as evidence], it would not have provided any proof of the transfer of the Promissory Note to Wells Fargo. At most, it would only have been proof that the Mortgage had been assigned.

    After considerable discussion about the principles of standing versus real party in interest, the 3-judge panel focused on the latter, generally defining it as a rule protecting a defendant from being sued multiple times for the same obligation by different parties.

    Applicability of UCC Articles 3 and 9. The Veal opinion is well worth reading for a good discussion of the Uniform Commercial Code and its applicability to the transfer and enforcement of Promissory Notes.  The panel wrote that there are three ways to transfer Notes.  The most common method is for one to be the “holder” of the Note.  A person may be a “holder” if they:

    • Have possession of the Note and it has been made payable to them; or,
    • The Note is payable to the bearer [e.g. the note is left blank or payable to the “holder”.]
    • The third way to enforce the Note is by attaining the status of a “nonholder in possession of the [note] who has the rights of a holder.” To do so, “…the possessor of the note must demonstrate both the fact of the delivery and the purpose of the delivery of the note to the transferee in order to qualify as the “person entitled to enforce.”

    The panel concluded that none of Wells Fargo’s exhibits showed that it, or its agent, had actual possession of the Note.  Thus, it could not establish that it was a holder of the Note, or a “person entitled to enforce” it. The judges noted that:

    “In addition, even if admissible, the final purported assignment of the Mortgage was insufficient under Article 9 to support a conclusion that Wells Fargo holds any interest, ownership or otherwise, in the Note.  Put another way, without any evidence tending to show it was a “person entitled to enforce” the Note, or that it has an interest in the Note, Wells Fargo has shown no right to enforce the Mortgage securing the Note. Without these rights, Wells Fargo cannot make the threshold showing of a colorable claim to the Property that would give it prudential standing to seek stay relief or to qualify as a real party in interest.”

    As for Wells’ servicer, AHMSI, the panel reviewed the record and found nothing to establish that AHMSI was its lawful servicing agent.  AHMSI had presented no evidence as to who possessed the original Note.  It also presented no evidence showing indorsement of the Note either in its favor or in favor of Wells Fargo.  Without establishing these elements, AHMSI could not establish that it was a “person entitled to enforce” the Note.

    Quoting from the opinion:

    “When debtors such as the Veals challenge an alleged servicer’s standing to file a proof of claim regarding a note governed by Article 3 of the UCC, that servicer must show it has an agency relationship with a “person entitled to enforce” the note that is the basis of the claim. If it does not, then the servicer has not shown that it has standing to file the proof of claim. ***”

    Conclusion. Why is the Veal case important?  Let’s start with recent history: First, we know that during the securitization heydays of 2005 – 2007, record keeping and document retention were exceedingly lax.  Many in the lending and servicing industry seemed to think that somehow, MERS would reduce the paper chase.  However, MERS was not mandatory, and in any event, it captured at best, perhaps 60% of the lending industry.  Secondly, MERS tracked only Mortgages and Trust Deeds – not Promissory Notes.  So even if a lender can establish its ownership of the Trust Deed, that alone is not enough, without the Note, to permit the foreclosure.

    As recent litigation has revealed, some large lenders, such as Countrywide, made a habit of holding on to their Promissory Notes, rather than transferring them into the REMIC trusts that were supposed to be holding them.  This cavalier attitude toward document delivery is now coming home to roost.  While it may not have been a huge issue when loans were being paid off, it did become a huge issue when loans fell into default.

    So should the Big Banks make good on their threat to start filing judicial foreclosures in Oregon, defense attorneys will likely shift their sights away from the unrecorded Trust Deed Assignments[5], and focus instead on whether the lenders and servicers actually have the legal right to enforce the underlying Promissory Notes.

    [1] The word “indorsement” is UCC-speak for “endorsement” – as in “endorsing a check” in order to cash it.

    [2] Although not perhaps as apparent in the opinion as it could have been, there were not successive indorsements of the Veals’ Promissory Note, i.e. from the originating bank to the foreclosing bank. There was only one, i.e. from GSF to Option One.  There was no evidence that the Note, or the right to enforce it, had been transferred to Wells Fargo or AHMSI.  Ultimately, there was no legal entitlement under the UCC giving either Wells or its servicer, AHMSI, the ability to enforce that Note.  The principle here is that owning a borrower’s Trust Deed or Mortgage is insufficient without also owning, or have a right to enforce, the Promissory Note that it secures.

    [3] Mr. Dorchuck did not appear to testify.  His letter, on its face, is clearly hearsay and inadmissible.  The failure to properly lay any foundation for the letter, or authenticate it “under penalty of perjury” is inexplicable – one that the bankruptcy panel criticized. This was not the only example of poor evidentiary protocol followed by the banks in this case.  However, this may not be the fault of the banks’ lawyers. It is entirely possible these were the documents they had to work with, and they declined to certify under “penalty of perjury” the authenticity of them. If that is the case, one wonders how long good attorneys will continue to work for bad banks?

    [4] This is a drafting sleight of hand.  Mortgages and Trust Deeds are transferred by “assignment” from one entity to another. But Promissory Notes must be transferred under an entirely different set of rules – the UCC. Thus, to transfer both the Note and Mortgage by a simple “Assignment” document, is facially insufficient, by itself, to transfer ownership of – or a right to enforce – the Promissory Note.

    [5] The successive recording requirement of ORS 86.735(1) only applies when the lender is seeking to foreclose non-judicially.  Judicial foreclosures do not contain that statutory requirement.  However, to judicially foreclose, lenders will still have to establish that they meet the standing and real party interest requirements of the law.  In short, they will have to deal head-on with the requirements of Articles 3 and 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code.  The Veal case is a good primer on these issues.

    Phil Querin
    Attorney at Law
    http://www.q-law.com/
    121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 1100 Portland, OR 97204 
    Tel: (503) 471- 1334

    Related articles

  • Multnomahforeclosures.com: July 15th, 2011 Update.


    Multnomah County highlighted in Oregon; Portla...
    Image via Wikipedia

    Multnomahforeclosures.com was updated with the largest list of Notice Defaults to date. With Notice of Default records dating back nearly 3 years.  

    If you are planning on investing in real estate, want to learn the status of the home you are renting/leasing or about to rent or lease  you should visit Multnomahforeclosures.com.

    All listings are in PDF and Excel Spread Sheet format.

    Multnomah County Foreclosures

    Multnomah County Foreclosures
    http://multnomahforeclosures.com

     
     

    Fred Stewart 
    Broker
    Stewart Group Realty Inc.
    http://www.sgrealty.us/
    info@sgrealtyinc.com
    503-289-4970 (Phone)

    Related articles

  • Don’t Be Fooled Again! by Brett Reichel, Brettreichel.com


    Many people will tell you that an Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM)  is horrible, and something a borrower should never take out.  A friend recently stopped by worried that his ARM was adjusting and that his payment would go through the roof.  We analyzed his paperwork and found out that his interest rate would be going down by MORE THAN 2 PERCENT!  This made a big impact on his payment!

    The ARM’s that were bad were:

    • Sub Prime loans where the rate was artificially low
    • Had super short introductory periods like two years or less
    • Had a pre-payment penalty that was in force longer than the first adjustment of the loan
    • Had a payment that didn’t even cover their interest

    These loans were definitely toxic.

    The difference between today’s ARM’s?  Today’s ARM’s are much safer and better loans.  If you think you are only going to be in a property for 5, 7 or 10 years, you can find an ARM that has a fixed rate time frame that matches!   Here are features to look for in an ARM:

    • A fixed rate period that is the same or longer than the time frame you are planning on staying in the house.  If you think you’ll be there for five years, get a 5 year fixed ARM, or a 7 year fixed ARM.
    • Caps or limits to how high the interest rate a go to both at each adjustment and for the life of the loan.
    • Low margins.  What’s a margin?  Essentially, it’s the lenders “mark up” over the cost of their funds.  The lower the margin, the lower your future interest rate.
    • Most importantly, a lower rate than a 30 year fixed rate loan.  If you are sharing the interest rate risk with the lender, you should get a break in your costs.

     Recent customers of mine who are moving to a new town for just five years, will be saving over 1% in interest rate compared to the thirty year fixed rate loan.  For them this means about $100 per month!  For $100 a month, they can buy their loan officer a steak dinner every month for getting them such a good deal!

    Don’t be fooled by so-called experts.  ARMS are a great deal IF MATCHED to the correct situation.  Thirty year fixed rate loans are great, but sometimes an ARM is a better option.

    Related articles

  • U.S. Homeowners in Foreclosure Process Were 507 Days Late Paying, by John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg.com


    U.S. homeowners in the foreclosure process were an average of 507 days late on payments at the end of last year as lenders handled a record rate of mortgage delinquencies, Lender Processing Services Inc. said today.

    The average grew 25 percent from 406 days at the end of 2009, according to the Jacksonville, Florida-based mortgage processing and default management company.

    “The sheer volume of loans going through the system is going to extend those timelines,” said Herb Blecher, senior vice president for analytics at Lender Processing. Foreclosure processing also was slowed by “an abundance of caution” in the last three months of 2010 after lenders were accused of using faulty documentation and procedures to seize homes, he said.

    A national jobless rate of 9 percent is increasing loan defaults and weighing down prices as foreclosed properties sell at a discount. Homeowners with 6.87 million loans — 13 percent of all mortgages — were at least 30 days behind on their payments as of Dec. 31, Lender Processing said.

    Florida led the nation with a 23 percent delinquency rate, followed by Nevada at 21 percent, Mississippi at 19 percent, and Georgia and New Jersey at 15 percent, the loan processor said.

    California homeowners who didn’t make their mortgage payments had the longest average wait before receiving a notice of default at 379 days, followed by Florida at 349 days, Maryland at 345 days, New York at 344 days, and Rhode Island and Washington, D.C., at 341 days.

    Delinquent homeowners held onto their properties for the longest in Vermont, where it took an average 754 days to lose their homes, followed by 697 days in New York, 695 days in Maine, 688 days in Florida and 682 days in New Jersey.

    The number of U.S. homes receiving a foreclosure filings may climb 20 percent this year, reaching a peak of the housing crisis, as banks step up the pace of seizures, RealtyTrac Inc. said Jan. 13. A record 2.87 million properties received notices of default, auction or repossession last year, according to the Irvine, California-based data provider.

    To contact the reporter on this story: John Gittelsohn in New York at johngitt@bloomberg.net.

    To contact the editor responsible for this story: Kara Wetzel at kwetzel@bloomberg.net.

    Related Articles

  • Cloud of suspense surrounds Bank of America, WikiLeaks, by Rick Rothacker, Charlotteobserver.com


    Picture of Julian Assange during a talk at 26C3
    Image via Wikipedia

    Internal security stepped up after Assange announces plans for ‘megaleak’ about a large bank.

    Heading into the new year, a big question looms for Bank of America: What’s next in the WikiLeaks saga?

    Julian Assange, the anti-secrecy organization’s founder, has said he is preparing a “megaleak” about a large bank, leading to speculation the Charlotte bank is the target. On Monday, he told the Times of London that he had enough information to make the bosses of a major bank resign.

    Meanwhile, Bank of America has cut off payments intended for WikiLeaks, spurring the group to tell customers to stop doing business with the bank. Other financial institutions that have foiled payments have faced cyberspace attacks from WikiLeaks supporters, but so far the bank doesn’t appear to be suffering ill effects.

    Analysts say it’s possible WikiLeaks could stir up new trouble for the nation’s biggest bank, perhaps exposing more problems in the mortgage arena or reviving questions about its Merrill Lynch acquisition. It’s also possible the revelations cause little harm or that WikiLeaks bypasses the bank altogether.

    Bert Ely, a Virginia-based banking consultant, said he suspects all major financial institutions are girding for the group’s next move.

    “We don’t know it’s Bank of America,” he said. “It could be one of a number of banks.”

    In recent months, WikiLeaks has gained notoriety for exposing Pentagon and State Department secrets and for Assange’s fight against sexual assault charges in Sweden. In November, he told Forbes magazine that his group planned a bank leak in early 2011. That drew attention to a 2009 article in which Assange said WikiLeaks had obtained a Bank of America executive’s hard drive.

    Bank of America has said it has no evidence that WikiLeaks has company data but it has said little else on the subject. In a speech earlier this month, chief marketing officer Anne Finucane hinted Bank of America was steeled for any possible revelations, partly because it already has endured intense investigations of its 2008 Merrill deal.

    “We have been out there pretty much 24/7, whether those of us who run communications like it or not, and we have learned not only to react, but deal with this as a given,” Finucane told a Boston audience.

    A Bank of America employee told the Observer that it appeared the bank had stepped up security internally recently, taking steps to block access to websites such as Gmail on company laptops. The bank declined to comment on security procedures.

    Analysts say they’re watching for the next development, which could cause new problems for a company still trying to recover from the financial crisis. When speculation surfaced on Nov. 30 that Bank of America could be WikiLeaks’ next target, the bank’s shares plunged more than 3 percent to $10.95. But since that drop-off, the bank’s shares have climbed nearly 15 percent to $12.98 at Tuesday’s close.

    Jefferson Harralson, a bank analyst with Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, said WikiLeaks’ revelations are unlikely to highlight a new problem but could add more color around topics already in the news. The bank’s mortgage unit, bulked up by the 2008 Countrywide Financial acquisition, has been the biggest trouble spot lately. The most costly issue is requests by investors to buy back billions in soured mortgage loans originated and sold off by Countrywide during the housing bubble.

    “The soft underbelly (for Bank of America) would be the mortgage crisis,” Harralson said.

    Still, analysts already are braced for huge losses tied to mortgage loan repurchase requests. Harralson estimates the bank could spend $35 billion over five years buying back mortgages, although he suspects the amount could end up being less.

    Ely, the banking consultant, said WikiLeaks could reveal information on a range of issues, from executives’ actions during the Merrill Lynch acquisition to who is using the company jet. One of the more damaging disclosures would be evidence of securities law violations, such as the manipulation of earnings or the failure to disclose material information to investors, he said.

    “That can trigger lawsuits from shareholders and bring out the class-action bar,” he said.

    The New York Times on Tuesday reported that regulators also are worried that WikiLeaks revelations could show failings by the agencies charged with overseeing the banking industry. Earlier this month, however, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. chairman Sheila Bair downplayed concerns about a leak. “I have a hard time understanding what would be so provocative,” she said after a speech. “So I would just ignore it, I really would.”

    On Friday, Bank of America said it cut off payments to WikiLeaks because it had “reasonable belief that WikiLeaks may be engaged in activities that are, among other things, inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments.” A bank spokesman declined to answer further questions.

    Analysts said the bank could have a number of reasons for making the move, including pressure from the government, a desire to separate itself from possible criminal activities or revenge for obtaining its internal information.

    Through its Twitter handle, WikiLeaks has encouraged Bank of America customers to close their accounts. The bank’s website doesn’t appear to be suffering from cyberspace attacks. Rich Mogull, analyst and chief executive at security research firm Securosis, said WikiLeaks supporters would need “massive resources” to dent the bank’s formidable defenses.

    “Bank of America is always under attack,” Mogull said. “It’s one of the biggest targets on the Internet.”

    In case of any leaks, Harralson said Bank of America is likely preparing its legal response, although that could be difficult against an “ephemeral” organization like WikiLeaks. “You can examine your legal options,” he said, “but it’s a hard organization to pin down.”

    Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/12/21/1926976/cloud-of-suspense-surrounds-bank.html#ixzz18tDr1BH4

    Related Articles

  • Multnomah County Foreclosures


    It has been nearly 5 months since Multnomahforeclosures.com (http://www.multnomahforeclosures.com/) has been updated. As of July 6th, 2010 the site will be updated weekly again. Each week the Notice of Default lists for several counties in Oregon and Clark County will be posted. This information is public information and is provided to make it easier for real estate buyers and the professionals that serve them to develop opportunities in the Oregon market.

    Visit Multnomah Foreclosures, download the Notice of Default reports for free and help the Oregon Market grow!

  • Mortgage Implode: Time to Get Your Bailout…The ‘Gimme Mine Coalition’


    2% Interest Only 5-year loans available again?!? Yes, but beware.

    -Home Owners and Mortgage professionals, this one is for you.

    I am a big advocate of mortgage modifications that include a fully documented re-underwrite and re-qualification of every borrower in America allowing a maximum of 28/36 debt to income ratios with market-rate 30-year fixed mortgages.

    Yesterday, the video camera was calling my name so I decided to go into more color on mortgage modifications.  Pass this video around to friends and family. Take matters into your own hands because it is obvious nobody will be riding to the rescue anytime soon.

    That being said, I do believe a large scale home owner bailout will come, but it will likely involve giving up present and future equity in your home.  Right now you do not need to do that.  You can even negotiate into the modification a better reporting of this event to the credit reporting agencies with some banks.

    In recent weeks I have seen banks get very aggressive including reducing principal balances to lower than the present home values and giving borrowers 2% interest only loans for five years.  Wachovia offered to buy down a friends mortgage to 2% on a 30-year fixed, however, they had to refi through FHA and carry a silent second for the principal balance reduction needed to get them to the FHA limit for the area.  This sounds great but I do not advocate a super low interest only rate without a principal balance reduction. Getting 2% today with no principal reduction just kicks the can down the road and will cause major troubles then.  Without a principal reduction you are still stuck unable to move or refi.

    I truly believe that there is a small window in time that exists right now where banks can’t handle any more foreclosures and you hold all the cards. The last thing the bank wants is another foreclosure and 65% write down.  If you play your cards right you can win and the bank can have a long-term customer paying her mortgage payment each and every month who will some day own the home. That is what it is all about.

    I also went into great detail on mortgage modifications on July 4th and I urge you re-read the posts. There is information in here you must know BEFORE taking on this task. You have to know what to ask for because banks are a ‘for profit’ business, which means decisions are not going to be in your best interest. – Best, Mr Mortgage

  • Betty Jung’s Blog: Market Update: Building Permits 2007 vs. 2008


    And, here are some more numbers:

    According to the Construction Monitor www.constructionmonitor.com and the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland, here is the 2008 Year-to-Date Building Permit activity by county.  It is at its lowest since 1991.

    Many small builders haven’t built anything new in several months and in some cases more than a year.  If you read my recent post “Market Update:  New Construction“, you will see there is still a large inventory of new homes that builders need to unload.  Remodeling is also lagging.

    In addition, many of the local builders here have filed for bankruptcy protection as I reported in my “Top 50 Builders in Oregon” post.  This weekend, I happened to notice another one of our larger local builders, whom I won’t name, is selling some of his lot inventory.  Is he in trouble or is he just making sure he won’t be? 

    2008 Year-to-date Building Permit Activity by County

    2008

    2007

    Difference

    WASHINGTON COUNTY

     

     

     

    Single Family

    650

    1,681

    -1,031

    Duplexes/Twin Homes

    0

    0

    0

    Other Residential Structures

    23

    96

    -73

    Residential Remodels

    291

    442

    -151

    MULTNOMAH COUNTY

     

     

     

    Single Family

    643

    1,249

    -606

    Duplexes/Twin Homes

    23

    84

    -56

    Other Residential Structures

    29

    66

    -37

    Residential Remodels

    1,004

    1,312

    -308

    CLACKAMAS COUNTY

     

     

     

    Single Family

    619

    1,361

    -743

    Duplexes/Twin Homes

    4

    9

    -5

    Other Residential Structures

    91

    209

    -118

    Residential Remodels

    417

    606

    -189

    YAMHILL COUNTY

     

     

     

    Single Family

    256

    370

    -114

    Duplexes/Twin Homes

    30

    13

    +17

    Other Residential Structures

    32

    154

    -122

    Residential Remodels

    91

    95

    -4

    Source:  Construction Monitor (www.constructionmonitor.com) and David Nielsen, Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland.

    Copyright ©Betty Jung 2008.  All Rights Reserved.

    Disclaimer: All information in this post is subject to change without notice. Subject matter is an opinion, is not guaranteed, may be time sensitive, and may be based on information collected from several sources which may or may not be reliable at the time of sourcing.  

    (For more local and national real estate news, click on my monthly newsletter – JUNG’S JOURNAL – on my website www.bettyjung.com).
    Betty Jung
    Broker
    RE/MAX equity group, inc.
    503-495-5220 or email:bettyjung@remax.net

  • Bloomberg.com: Crisis Hits Main Street as Employers Cut More Jobs


    By Shobhana Chandra and Rich Miller

    Oct. 3 (Bloomberg) — U.S. payrolls plunged in September, signaling the economy may be heading for its worst recession in at least a quarter century as the 13-month-old credit crisis on Wall Street finally hits home on Main Street.

    Employers cut the most jobs in five years in September as cash-squeezed companies pulled back in an effort to bolster pinched profits. In its last employment report before Americans choose their next president, the Labor Department said the unemployment rate was 6.1 percent, a climb of 1.4 percentage points from a year before.

    “If credit markets remain dysfunctional, the current recession could turn out to be as severe as any in the postwar period,” said former Federal Reserve governor Lyle Gramley, now senior economic adviser at the Stanford Group Co. in Washington.

    The spreading crisis is also having reverberations on the campaign trail, as polls show anxious voters increasingly see Democrat Barack Obama as the candidate best placed to see the U.S. through its economic travails. The unemployment rate has only risen twice in the year leading up to elections since World War II, and in each case the incumbent party lost.

    `This country can’t afford Senator McCain’s plan to give America four more years of the same policies that have devastated our middle class and our economy for the last eight,” Obama, 47, said in a statement.

    McCain’s Reaction

    Arizona Senator John McCain, 72, took the opportunity to paint his opponent as a tax-and-spend liberal, whose prescriptions would exacerbate the crisis.

    “Unlike Senator Obama, I do not believe we will create one single American job by increasing taxes, going on a massive spending binge, and closing off markets,” McCain said in a statement. “Our nation cannot afford Senator Obama’s higher taxes.”

    Job losses accelerated as the credit crisis deepened last month, forcing the failure or government takeovers of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and American International Group Inc.

    The figures came hours before a scheduled vote in the House of Representatives on a $700 billion rescue plan for the U.S. financial industry pushed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. The Senate approved the legislation two days ago after the House rejected an initial version of the bill Sept. 29.

    Market Reaction

    Stocks rose and Treasury securities fell on optimism the rescue plan would pass the House. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index rose 2.9 percent to 1,146.1 at 11:08 a.m. in New York. The yield on the benchmark 10-year note rose to 3.72 percent from 3.63 percent late yesterday.

    Today’s report showed that hours worked — considered a good proxy for the state of the overall economy — matched the lowest level since records began in 1964. That indicates the likely current recession may be at least as severe as the 1981-82 slump, during which gross domestic product shrank by 2.7 percent.

    Payrolls fell by 159,000 in September, the Labor Department said in Washington. Aside from a 9,000 gain in government payrolls, all major categories showed declines except education and healthcare.

    “The really bad news here is that job losses are now widespread,” said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at Global Insight Inc., a Lexington, Massachusetts, forecasting firm. “The problems in housing and manufacturing are now spreading everywhere. We are in a recession, there is no debate about that.”

    Health Services

    Even the vibrant health-services industry is showing signs of succumbing to the economy’s troubles. Health care employment rose 17,000, about half the average monthly gain for the prior 12 months.

    Walgreen Co., the largest U.S. drugstore chain, reported Sept. 29 that its profits rose less than analysts estimated after it posted its smallest sales increase in a decade.

    A private report today showed that services-industry growth remained stagnant in September. The Institute of Supply Management’s non-manufacturing index slipped to 50.2 from 50.6 the month before. Fifty is the dividing line between growth and expansion.

    Total payrolls were forecast to drop 105,000 after declining by a previously estimated 84,000 in August, according to the median of 76 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News. The jobless rate was projected to remain at 6.1 percent.

    Rate Forecasts

    Jan Hatzius, chief U.S. economist at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. in New York, said the unemployment rate may eventually rise to more than 7 percent as the credit crunch takes its toll on the economy. If that happens, that would make the overall rise in unemployment the biggest since the early 1980’s.

    Workers’ average hourly wages rose 3 cents, or 0.2 percent, to $18.17 from the prior month. Hourly earnings were 3.4 percent higher than September 2007. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg had forecast a 0.3 percent increase from August and a 3.6 percent gain for the 12-month period.

    After today, the total decline in payrolls so far this year has reached 760,000. The economy created 1.1 million jobs in 2007.

    Americans will go to the polls on Nov. 4 and the October jobs report is due Nov. 7.

    `Angry’ Voters

    “Voters are extremely angry, and they want someone to blame,” said Scott Anderson, senior economist at Wells Fargo & Co. in Minneapolis.

    Obama has opened up a lead over Republican rival John McCain in the aftermath of their first debate and amid growing concerns about the economy, according to a Pew Research Center survey taken Sept. 27 to Sept. 29. A mid-September poll from Washington- based Pew had shown the candidates were in a statistical tie.

    Earlier in September, a Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll showed more respondents said Obama would do a better job handling the financial crisis than McCain, and almost half of the voters believed he had better ideas to strengthen the economy than his rival.

    Factory payrolls fell 51,000 after decreasing 56,000 in August. Economists had forecast a drop of 57,000.

    Today’s report also reflected the housing slump. Payrolls at builders declined 35,000 after falling 13,000. Financial firms decreased payrolls by 17,000, the most since November last year.

    Service industries, which include banks, insurance companies, restaurants and retailers, subtracted 82,000 workers after eliminating 16,000 in the previous month. Retail payrolls slid by 40,100 after a 25,400 drop.

    Hewlett-Packard

    In the past month, Hewlett-Packard Co., the world’s largest personal-computer maker, announced it will cut 24,600 jobs, and auto-parts maker Federal-Mogul Corp. said it would eliminate 4,000 positions globally.

    Marriott International Inc., the world’s largest hotel chain, yesterday reported third-quarter profit fell 28 percent as U.S. companies and consumers cut back on travel.

    Without action from Congress, “the resulting credit squeeze could threaten businesses,” Chief Financial Officer Arne Sorenson said on a conference call. There are “tens of thousands of jobs at stake in our company alone, and we are typical.”

    Mounting job cuts will further limit consumer spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of the economy. A Bloomberg survey in September predicted spending will be unchanged this quarter, the weakest performance since 1991.

    The ISM on Oct. 1 said manufacturing shrank in September at the fastest pace since the last recession in 2001. The odds the central bank will lower its benchmark rate by a half percentage point, to 1.5 percent, were almost 100 percent today, up from 32 percent a week ago.

    To contact the reporter on this story: Shobhana Chandra in Washington schandra1@bloomberg.net