Profile:
transparency

This is transparency's Profile page. Use it to view transparency's comments, other users' replies to these comments, and comments transparency has endorsed.

What's Happening Now

transparency
October 1, 2012 8:23 pm

By eliminating partial payments or storing partial payments off to the side is creating another problem for borrowers when partial payments can be part of the solution and maybe even the determining factor in bringing the borrowers loan current by allowing additional time. If a checking account can have over “draft protection”. Then why can a property insurance policy not have the same system? “Bank auto draft protection” on the insurance policy. If the insurance company does not receive the monthly payment within a 5 day grace period after the due date bank auto pay kicks in, preventing a lapse in coverage and preventing the need for other policies that are largely based on fraud, racketeering and inflated fees that prevent borrower recovery. The bank can charge… more »

…the same interest for the insurance draft protection money that they charge on the loan money. If the homeowner gets 3 months behind on any combo of principle, interest or property insurance foreclosure can start. If the homeowner makes 50% payments on their loan, it will give them a full 6 months to get 3 months behind. This system gives borrowers two options to get back on their feet after a job loss or medical issue. A three month recovery until foreclosure starts or a 6 month chance of a recovery with a 50% payment for example. No late penalty allowed for three months and then it is a flat fee $25.00 per month. I have one other suggestion and that is to give all loans an option for the first 10 years of paying interest only or interest and principle each month. A lot of loans already have this feature. How many people could have kept their home if they could have paid interest only when they ran into a bump in the road? Or at least make a law that if someone falls under financial difficulty they can fill out a form and switch to interest only for 6 months or 1 year. More important than anything here, is the importance of remembering that just making new laws will not solve the issues. We have laws now and the banks are ignoring them. The solution requires “Transaction Activity” on the monthly statement to be transparent and include all activity in order for borrowers to even know what is being done to them. Banks have to be stopped from using an, “as busted” system to return money when caught. It is currently easy to keep the refunds to a minimum, by limiting information available to the borrower. « less
transparency
September 14, 2012 12:02 pm

The “Periodic Statement” that you have placed up for review could solve almost every issue brought up here if “Transaction Activity” had to be inclusive of any and all account activity, directly or indirectly, addressing companies by name instead of general categories. The cure is literally that simple. The Transaction Activity” category is currently set up for generalities that enable bank fraud and deception, which is the problem. *******Tell me what issues listed in this column, could not easily be solved, in this one category, on your “Periodic Statement”? Look at the problems needing addressing here with this question: “no obligation to homeowner”, “”run around”, “accountability”, “weak rules”,… more »

…“lying”, “deceptive practices”, “disclosure rights”, “vague claims”, “emphasis on servicer accommodation” etc….. It is important at this point, to see which other questions you have that could solve all of these problems and start linking your problem questions with your solution questions. It’s not a flow chart but it’s a start. :-) If the problem is asking for and getting information then make the information more detailed and available monthly. This is just common sense. Transparency also allows borrowers to police their own account because our government is lacking funds right now and can’t afford an investigator for every account every month. Why would allowing a borrower, to investigate their own loan monthly, by changing “Transaction Activity” to include more detail, not be the answer? It is the only solution to investigation and transparency issues that are being brought up here, in all different ways. (THIS IS THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM) The banks have to enter all activity into their computer anyway’s, to report to the IRS, this information just need to be entered differently and does not add any work, it’s a slight software issue that needs fixing. Look what a quick books cheep program is capable of, when you add it to your computers. The banks are running circles around the regulators and law makers. The banks are acting like they never make changes to there software. Hello, software is constantly changing and there are too many companies selling bank software to dispute this. Just like car makers need rules on more fuel efficient and safety rules and changes, banks need rules on borrower safety and transparency, it’s just not being done. « less
transparency
September 16, 2012 8:15 pm

Moderator, why is the CFPB concerned about giving the public too much information when almost all of the complaints are about not enough or wrong information? Not one person is complaining because they have “too much information”. The public is pulling their hair out because of lack of information, run around and lies. If all activity in a borrowers loan account is disclosed to the homeowner monthly, their would be no “unduly burdensome” phone calls to the servicer. Why is the CFPB complicating things further by separating what information only an attorney can get as opposed to what a borrower can get. A lot of borrowers represent themselves, then what? Why should only an irrelevant third party at a price have transparent information on your loan? What information… more »

…are they only allowing an attorney to get? Splitting the disclosure up between different companies without a simple monthly transparent statement is ignoring the real problem. Where is your question about what rights you are in the process of taking away from the public? I am the poster child for mortgage abuse, having found crime in almost every category, in reference to my home loan. I can tell you, the only thing that would have prevented this from happening, to me, would be if the “Transaction Activity” category, in your new sample Periodic Statement (or monthly loan statement) include all activity related to my loan. Keep in mind this is not a regular bank statement with lots of entries. This a 1 simple loan statement and there should only be a few entries under “Transaction Activity” each month with transparency. For example, if JP Morgan gives Assurant money for a force placed insurance policy and Assurant cuts a check back to JP Morgan or a subsidiary of JP Morgan for 75% of the policy and both activities are related to my loan then the servicer needs to record both under “Transaction Activity”. I can see why the banks would say this is being “unduly burdensome” when they have to document what they are really doing to people. What did you think they would say, we want to put all our crimes on paper and be held accountable, let’s do it? If the servicer charges for a drive by inspections after your house sold then the company name and phone number need to be in Transaction Activity showing the payout. If your servicer and the closing agent both collect your current years property taxes at closing, the day it was paid out should show up in your “Transaction Activity” so you can find it. If the bank is going to keep your account open for 6 months, after your closing, charging you additional interest, to use up some of the over stated closing money, then the bank should send you monthly statements, for 6 months, showing what they are doing behind your back. Limited disclosure like you are proposing is bad but you should see what happens, after the closing, when no disclosure statement is mailed out and your account is left open. You don’t know the half of it. Do you really think it’s better to have a 4 year investigation, into force placed insurance, with lots of hearings, to finally get a company, to admit they are cutting back, up to 75% for force placed insurance policies, back to JP Morgan Chase, when they initiate a policy? Because this entry was not required, on the monthly statement, is the reason so many people, have been so badly abused and why this went unnoticed for so long. You say the banks claim it is “unduly burdensome” to tell me what they are doing to me. Let’s dissect the banks objections and make some real progress. “Transaction Activity” transparency is the category where the problems and solutions rest and it is being swept under the rug, with your plan, with very little disclosure and you are not hearing the “ORDINARY” people. Moderator, please get a list from the CFPB of all the “unduly burdensome” issues the bank claims is beyond the roll of “servicing” a loan, that they are afraid to disclose. Unless someone is being over paid or generating some third party fraud that requires information to be hid, the banks should be happy to put everything on the monthly statement, to relieve the servicer, of the burden of all the phone calls. The truth is the Banksters know, that they have to put up with, unduly burdensome phone calls because the only other alternative is to expose their crimes, under “Transaction Activity” and people will no longer need to call. With full disclosure, the banks and the CFPB’s phone should hardly ring, in reference to mortgage loans. How many entries could there possible be in one loan in 30 days? If you leave this category, the way it is now, you have just enabled the circus to continue. Bottom line, it is not up to the banks and servicers to determine how responsible they are going to be, it is up to the government to set the standards high not low, with transparency. Why will Obama not tell Richard Cordray to demand full disclosure, from the banks, for the “ORDINARY” people, if a bank wants to be able to continue to lend money, end of story! If I understand you correctly, you are going to limit even further the information available to the public, making some of it only available to attorney’s, “which would allow servicers not to respond to certain types of information requests” according to you. I get real nervous, when you talk about a “new disclosure system by attorneys, rather than ORDINARY people”. What is even more scary is your solution for the question that we are currently discussing that addresses not being able to get information from your lender. Your solution talks about the CFPB’s worry about “the risk of overloading consumers with too much information”. I have been alive for 50 years and nobody in any conversation has ever complained that their lender has given them too much information. I realize that Adam Levitin, that just joined the CFPB, as an advisor, is an attorney and could benefit from this rule but after reading some of his amazing papers I would love to know what he has to say about this. Would he leave a comment? My opinion is, you don’t limit borrowers information further to reduce crime and increase transparency. The ordinary people should not have to pay out any money to get information on your loan it should be provided monthly. Look at the earnings of the largest servicers even with all the lawsuits and you should agree they need to start offering service for their earnings. A couple of entries a month is hardly a burden for this amount of wealth the banks are generating from the ordinary and the banks probably cannot even believe they are getting away with providing such little detail.
(Borrower Problem: borrowers not given information Solution: borrowers get all relevant information monthly, timely).
(Servicer Problem: unduly burdensome phone calls where answers are few Solution: Borrower gets all relevant information monthly eliminating unduly burdensome phone calls) « less
transparency
August 25, 2012 12:36 am

Why don’t we use a simple, divided insurance formula, that solves all the force placed insurance problems. The home owner picks the best insurance policy prior to the closing when purchasing a home. The policy is divided by responsibility. The bank adds the portion for the structure to the monthly house payment, that includes wind if required and flood if in flood zone and any inside flooding. The home owner is responsible for personal injury, appliances and personal effects and has to send in the money directly. If the home owner quits making the payment it is irrelevant to the bank that is responsible for sending in the insurance on the structure if they want it protected their investment until foreclosure. It is considered part of the house payment and the bank is returned to arms… more »

…length with insurance companies. The insurance can’t adjust more than once every 12 months. The insurance company has to give the home owner 60 days written notice if there will be an increase in the rate on the homeowner or on the banks side. This way, the homeowner has time to shop for a better rate, before the policy runs out. The homeowner has the option to replace the banks side and the homeowners side because it is in their payment. The closing agent collects a 6 month reserve at the closing for the bank structure insurance. If the home owner does not make the payment the the bank forecloses. That is if the bank has not committed massive fraud or destroyed the documents. If this is the case, then the bank should have to make the structure payment for years, to teach them a lesson. The only solution is to take away the decision making involving insurance from the bank, as the honesty and ethics problem, prevent any other alternative. Oh, when determining the value placed on the home for insuring, it is very important to subtract the value of the land from the purchase price for structure insurance. The land isn’t going anywhere.
JP Morgan was servicing my loan for Fannie Mae. I was shocked to learn after my short sale that I was billed almost $16,000.00 for one month of force placed insurance. I was paying State Farm less than $300.00 per month for insurance. Is this RACKETEERING FOLKS or what!!! JP Morgan billed me under “escrow shortage” on their payoff provided to the closing agent. The closing agent also collected on the HUD 1 for insurance itemized. JP Morgan then collected the 11 month prorated refund for unused insurance. I complained to the SEC about how much I was charged, by my JP Morgan Fannie Mae combo. JP Morgan really shocked me then, they tried to justify their outrageous bill and sent me a copy of another force placed annual policy they placed on my home 2 months after my house sold. They even back dated the policy to start at my closing date. This explains why my account was left open for 6 months after my house sold with activity in my account. I guess if Fannie Mae can go to the government and ask for 100 billion and get it when ever they want, then their is a massive incentive to run this bill up, not down, if they are sharing in the proceeds. Is this racketeering and pay to play is all that I am asking? I can’t think of any other alternatives as hard as I try. Why are the foreclosed homes in such bad shape, if they have this over priced insurance on them? Just let the bank protect the structure that’s all they do anyway’s, most of the time. No more pay to play, no more back dated insurance, no more over priced insurance where consumers are taken advantage of at the lowest point in their lives, no changing insurance companies after foreclosure is initiated. By switching servicers every few months to generate prorated refunds on prepaid annual policies is a very BIG PROBLEM ) The insurance company can’t change after foreclosure is initiated from the homeowners choice and the policy stays with the note and mortgage until the property sells. How many people out there in foreclosure keep getting notices in the mail about a new servicer and a new annual insurance policy every few months even though the last policy says it includes the “successors and assigns”? So, if you have three policies with over lapping dates how can that be if the policy moves with the note and mortgage because it includes the “successors and assigns”? My friend had three force placed insurance policies in place with over lapping dates after his foreclosure started with each one including the “successors and assigns”. The loan was moved around real fast to generate policies. We need a rule here to prevent this. No moving a loan for servicing after foreclosure begins. « less
transparency
August 25, 2012 1:17 am

The 4 letter original lender code followed by a dash then loan number needs to be on the closing documents. It is important that this combo can not be altered for the life of the loan. If I punch in on line for example BOFA-123756327 then I should be able to pull up a chain of title linked to property records, leins, taxes etc. We have had the technology for so long. The worst problem is that people can’t defend themselves in court with out a chain of title and banks are adding additional force placed insurance policies by altering the loan number on the policies so they are hard to trace. Make it simple, we have the technology. This way the banks will have to clean up their behavior because they will not have a choice.

transparency
August 25, 2012 1:48 am

A standard monthly statements for banks should be set up to allow bank investigators to go into the bank and run a report and identify most problems if the software is set up for maximum use. This asking the banks to tell us what they are doing wrong so they can be punished is not working. Letting the banks pick a friend to investigate them is also a bad option and is slowing our progress. This is causing the entire country to loose hope and faith. It is up to bank investigators to do the investigating and it needs to be easy and efficient using today’s technology if we are going to make any progress from this melt down. Please put all the problems on a flow chart and all the solutions on the chart. Get who ever wrote the software for ancestry.com or Ebay or US Customs that is amazing… more »

…to write a linked program that solves all the problems. Original land records should be put on the computer for public viewing and the original documents should be stores at an SEC Edgar type location until paid in full. No more changing or disappearing documents. The solutions are easy. Most problems only have one good solution. The banks have proven they can’t be trusted with original loan documents so why are they allowed to hold them still? Why has MERS not been shut down as it was an illegal system set up to avoid documentation and taxes? Neither party in a Real Estate transaction should be able to hold the original documents for obvious reasons and their is only one solution. Take the documents away. No more robo signing, no more missing documents, no more altered documents. How easy was that to solve three of the worst problems with just take the documents away from the problem. « less
transparency
August 25, 2012 9:48 am

Their is only one simple solution to knowing all your options fast and at one easy to use location available to everybody. Using available computer technology to have someone write a program where you click on your state and answer a series of questions and all government programs are in the program along with all bank programs. You hit “enter” and it tells you all your options with phone numbers and links to on line forms to fill out to enter the program all in minutes. There should even be a make an offer section where the bank can offer the home owner money to walk away because it’s cost effective or where the home owner can ask to be entered into a short sale program or offer a Deed in Lieu agreement if they can remain in the home for 6 months for free for example. Or… more »

…cash for keys offer. Again an option page of all the things the home owner is offering with an expiration time established for response in the form fill in the blank. One location click for solutions. Again the solution is organized, linked computer programs, that lead you to the solution instantly. How did banking and land record, computer technology, get so far behind our society? This is preventing investigation of bank records to prevent racketeering and banking colapse, slowing down the economic recovery and eroding consumer confidence just to name a few.Contact the program writers that wrote the amazing linked programs for ancestry.com, Ebay and US customs to solve this problem easily. The problems are massive most solutions are easy. Good computer program writers should be solving all these problems not people that are not computer program writers. The countries leading computer program writers should be in all important meetings invoving solving our problems or we will go 4 more years without solutions I am afraid. They hold the key to solving most of these problems. Asking the public is good we need a voice and need to help the program writers to address all the issues and we are important in disecting all the issues and problems. After disection of the issues it is important to ask the program writers for the easy solution as they already have the solution! Good luck with this program. :-) « less
transparency
August 25, 2012 10:20 am

Where the note and mortgage are missing the bank should not be allowed to report to the Credit Bureau. The credit reporting agency should not be based on the hear say of a bankster. This is unethical and unfair. This would leave a lot of people with good credit where they can buy a new home again because of bank fraud and irresponsibility. Why is it a bank that admits they have no proof you owe them anything, with a lost note and mortgage, can leave a life wrecking statement that says you do owe them? And there is no place for the homeowner to report on the banks fraud, racketeering, pay to play, empty insurance shells set up for billing etc… so the bank can not loan money any more. In a fair society, this would be working both ways, the same. This has to change! Instead of 10 questions… more »

…listed above, why not put all consumer mortgage issues up there and put this recovery on the fast track? Then on the front of AOL and Huffington Post, put a link to where the CFPB is asking for your voice to be heard, with additional Mortgage solutions and a link to your site. Go on CNN and provide your link and tell about the program and read some of the good ideas you are already receiving. Unless this has only been set up for a few days there are not very many comments and lack of exposure will lead to minimum results, instead of maximum results. Blog it and put up articles all over the web. Again your success will be based on using all cutting edge computer technology. Cutting edge computer technology is the answer to most of the problems. Also, banks say “This call may be recorded for quality ….” Why not require the bank to change this to “Both parties are allowed to record this call for quality assurance” this will change a lot of the banks bad behavior with a couple of words on a recording. Simple solution to a huge problem. « less
transparency
August 25, 2012 6:58 pm

Moderator, the answer is both and they should be one in the same.:-) It is easier to trace a relative that dies a 100 years ago on ancestry.com then it is to trace a $500,00 current note and mortgage. (lack of linked cutting edge computer software is the difference). It is even easie to trace a $1.00 used item sold on Ebay after the sale then a current note and mortgage. I felt like pulling my hair out trying to put together a chain of title with my note and mortgage. If an investigator went into US customs they could pull up, on the computer, any container arriving in the USA, where it came from, where it went and what was in it. Because US customes has current standard technology and an amazing detailed code system that could be adapted for banking. If you want to see the extent of their… more »

…success go to panjiva.com and you will be blown away. Pay the$100.00 and join for one month. You will then be in search of US Customs program writers to solve most of your problems. The banks could use this same system to print a standard monthly report for an individual or company account and maximize transparency for investigators. The same system should accomplish both problems just like US Customs has been doing for a long time . Example, JP Morgan was charging my loan for drive by inspections after my house sold in a short sale. So, I know they were not doing the drive by inspections. The inspector should be able to go into the bank, punch in the drive by inspection code and compare paid out code to billed to customers for drive by inspections with out asking a question and walk out with a report and know to the dollar how bad the problem is in 2 minutes. And ask for proof of payment. It is important to put all the bank problems on a flow chart first and list all problems and possible solutions . Include all the questions that customers and investigators
can’t get an answer for and then meet with the best program writer. To pick one issue, without a comprehensive plan, that solves all computer problems, that need a solution, is a recipe for disaster. The CFPB should have a report on how many times they have been asked the same question. How many of those questions can be addressed in a comprehensive computer program?
Love your web site! You give me hope. :-) « less
transparency
August 26, 2012 10:49 pm

Moderator I can show you documents where the account number has been changed on things like over lapping force placed insurance policies for example. When loans change hands to generate expenses you see this. I am saying your “periodic statement” should have the same originating lender code followed by the account number that was assigned at closing on every statement. The lender code is important, in case the loan transfers to a bank that already has the same number. There should be a government place to “report an error” if your account number has been altered or changed. As you seem genuinely interested in this project I would like to send you my case and you will see that there are so many issues that need fixing relating to the big picture. Why fix a few things… more »

…when you can fix them all. It’s time for national standards as there is not enough staff to investigate individual banks on every corner with a different system in each one. Without a system like this investigating the banks will remain impossible and the problems will change instead of improve as new rules are implemented. I know this has nothing to do with the subject at hand. But, I wish that the Cornell University Law School would get involved and figure out why the Supreme Court won’t shut down MERS as it is a national problem and the courts are ruling differently in each state, making solving the banking problems worse. Maybe Cornell can change banking like the students changed Egypt! :-) « less
transparency
August 29, 2012 10:23 pm

Moderator, Steve Smith made a great point that is related to insurance and is another example of the narrow scope of the questions, that you have to work with. Your success level with this program will be based on embracing the issues that are relevant and important that are being ignored, like the point Steve made. Ultimately, the consumer pays for PMI. If PMI is required, then the home owner should be able to shop for the best rate. If PMI is mandatory then it should be listed and broken down on the statement that we are discussing. Banks need to be removed from insurance where it appears they commit massive fraud so banks will return to focusing on loaning money. The home owner should shop for the PMI best rate to protect their loan because ultimately they are paying for it. The homeowner… more »

…should shop for the best price they can find on structure insurance based on replacement value of the structure including wind/hurricane/flood/fire/water damage, on a need basis and subtract the value of the land for replacement insurance. Structure and PMI insurance is considered part of the monthly house payment just like interest & principle. This keeps what is mandatory to secure a loan to a minimum so homes will not be lost due to over priced insurance any longer. Nobody should loose their home because they are paying for optional items either. There is an easy solution for this. If the homeowner wants insurance for theft, personal injury or house content then this is handled directly between the homeowner and the insurance company if they can afford it and it is a separate policy. Basically moderator, separating minimum priced mandatory bank insurance from optional insurance is crucial and could make the difference from making a house payment or not. Mandatory insurance should be in the name of the bank and homeowner. Optional insurance should be in the home owners name and paid directly from the home owner to the insurance company if they can afford optional insurance. The bank gets a 6 month reserve for structure insurance at closing. The bank sends in the payment every month for PMI and Structure insurance. There is never a default on the banks side where it is placed on auto pay monthly. No more prepaid annual policies to generate prorated refunds by switching servicers. Even though the banks have this expensive force placed insurance on properties they are not keeping up the properties and selling them as is. It is important to stop this game, and only allowed structure insurance for the bank. The most important thing in this paragraph is the importance of separating mandatory insurance, from optional insurance. It is crucial to get the price of insurance as low as possible to prevent a lot of unnecessary foreclosures. It’s time to remove bank greed and fraud from property insurance. It’s time to return banks to loaning money. It was time 4 years ago. « less
transparency
August 30, 2012 11:46 am

Moderator, maybe the government could buy one less military plane and fund this program. The American people are not afraid that Iran or Russia are going to bomb their homes. The American people are afraid of the banks that are already here, that collapsed the economy and are taking advantage of them now, by inflating the fees and then stealing their homes with fake document by hiring a slimy attorney. They are living with fear and anxiety because their chain of title has been destroyed with MERS and the banks are killing their homes values and stable neighborhoods are turning into rental neighborhoods with run down homes deserted with expensive insurance on them to fix them up but it is not being used, just billed. This system would be a lot cheaper than a plane and would save a lot more… more »

…families from destruction. It is sad, that something as complex as this situation is being handled in such a fragmented way with little progress in 4 years. The most important advise I can ever give you for all your questions is the need to start with a flow chart of all the problems and possible solutions. The fact that this has never been done is appalling! Please have a department at your school take this project on even if nobody asks except for me. I can fill up your chart. You have to really know what the problems are in there entirety before the correct solution can even be found. Any thing else is just putting the cart before the horse. Process of elimination after viewing the entire problem will always lead to the best solution. There needs to be a second chart from the flow chart that shows which government agency is responsible for implementing the solutions. Next, these government agencies need to meet monthly by video conference and present their progress and their goals for the following month. (You know the accountability thing.) We don’t have a good system for investigating the banks is the main problem. This is what lead to your limited questions in the first place and the reason we are emailing each other. An employee insider that has experienced one of these bank investigations left an interesting blog on your site that explains their process first hand. Why is it too much to ask for the leading Democrat and the leading Republican Congressman, Cornell rep., OCC rep., CFPB rep. Fareed Zakaria (for his analytical skills) and about 10 others to meet with this flow chart monthly and solve all the problems by video conference and hold our problem solvers feet to the fire by assigning expected results? I have not even begun to tell you everything that happened to me. Your questions are too narrow to address most of the issues my case exposes that need addressing. « less
transparency
September 7, 2012 10:49 pm

To maintain clear information that will prevent people from being “overwhelmed” with fraud would require the bank to give the home owner a choice of servicers at closing. Just like when you buy a computer you pick your service provider. For a servicer to change 4 times in a year, to create multiple annual forceplaced insurance policies, is abuse! Your servicing should not be traded like a stock because, well it’s stupid, leads to fraud and leads to people being “overwhelmed” for no reason. When you buy a car you decide who is going to send you your monthly bill. The banks have proven they are way too irresponsible to make this decision for homeowners. So I ask, why after 4 years, are banks still allowed to do this?

transparency
September 7, 2012 11:28 pm

It is important that if a house has gone into foreclosure that the payoff information remains the responsibility of the lender not the attorney taking care of the foreclosure. This is very important because I got a payoff from both the servicer and the attorney to see what would happen, in Florida. There was close to a $10,000.00 difference in payoff statements. The attorney overstated the payoff in almost every category that he gave to the closing agent. I have proof. The servicer still needs to provide service and be held accountable for the accuracy. The FBI has determined that Florida is one of the worst states for mortgage fraud and with over 90,000 attorneys in Florida the Florida bar revokes very close to “0″ licenses. So, leaving an attorney responsible for payoffs is a risk that is not necessary to take and I don’t think it should be allowed.

transparency
September 8, 2012 9:12 pm

The Periodic Statement is great and you can see that a lot of thought went into this process. However , there is 1 very big problem that will have devastating consequences if not fixed. Under “Transaction Activity” there needs to be three categories. 1) “Charges” 2) “Payments received” 3) “Payments paid out”. This statement still allows banks to generate bogus bills under generic categories like “property inspection fee”. (HUGE PROBLEM) General entries like this allow banks to bill homeowners, without even telling the homeowner who they are obligated to pay, knowing the homeowner has no way to verify the bill and even worse senerio was any service ever provided or just a bill. Any time the bank charges your account for something,… more »

…it should be required to list the company that you are obligated to pay, by company name and contact information. This way, you can verify with the company that they actually provided the service. If the vendor is contacted by the borrower, the vendor should have 10 days to provide a service order with the contact information for the person that actually provided the service and a copy of the bill to verify the amount received from the transaction that can be matched up against the statement Nobody should be able to bill you without telling you who it is you owe with out transparency so it can be verified. With full transparency the borrower can investigate their own loan which would lower mortgage crime and racketeering. “Property inspection fees” under “transaction Activity” should require 2 entries. One to enter the actual service into your account and the second to record the actual payment from your account to the vendor. The first entry when the service is provided would look more like: Mike’s Drive by Inspection Company/3-22-12/ 312-277-9466 with “Charges” of $20.00 (where the date represents the actual date of the service). The second entry takes place when the bank pays out the bill where the entry would be: Mike’s Drive by Inspection Company/3-25-12/Ck#32194 and the amount under “Payments paid out” $20.00. If Chase is keeping $10.00 of this amount then the paid out for this service needs to be split IN THE ACCOUNT AND any money Chase receives in reference to your loan in any given month should be in “Transaction Activity” and explained. If the entire bill goes to Mike’s and any amount is cut back to any of the numerous companies set up by the servicer the amount still has to be recorded in the Transaction Activity. Your servicer should not be able to keep anything from your account or any split deals from your account without it being recorded in your account directly or indirectly under “Transaction Activity”. Any transaction that is not arms length the servicer has to record with details. The investigators just learned in a hearing that JP Morgan is getting up to 75% of the policy when they write a force placed insurance policy. If the banks were required to record the split deal in your Transaction Activity Statement we would have known this a long time ago and I think a lot of people would not have lost their homes because of servicer greed. If JP Morgan cuts Fannie Mae a check from your account then it needs to be in your Transaction Activity and if Fannie cuts JP Morgan a check then it should show up in what ever account it is for. Now people can investigate and know all activity in their account monthly as it is all in transaction Activity with real party names and contacts. Let me explain what happened to me with Drive by inspections because this is the category used on your sample form. After my house sold I requested a Detailed Transaction on what happened with my closing money. I learned the banks are out of control, but sticking to the point, my account was left open for 6 months after the closing and the bank continued to bill my account for “Property Inspection Assessed” and “Property Inspection Paid” for example. The payoff numbers were so over stated I guess they were trying to justify some of the money. I then requested information on who did the drive by inspections of my property, through a government agency. After many months I received a response from the servicer that said, WE DO NOT HAVE TO TELL YOU in a nice way. I also received a check in the mail without an explanation on it and it happens to be the amount for several drive by inspections to the penny. So, I asked the servicer what this check was for, already knowing what it was for because of the amount. The bank then responded, WE HAVE NO RECORD OF WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. So, WE DON’T HAVE TO TELL YOU was followed with OUR COMPUTER IS STUPID game sorry! If I am being billed for drive by inspections then I have a right to know who did the inspections so I can call and verify the expense being billed to me directly from the source not a Bankster. I should not even have to ask for this information. The contact information should be mandatory and on the Periodic Statement. Your periodic Statement Sample1 under “Transaction Activity” shows “Property Inspection Fee” and is missing the WHO and WHEN with contact information. This should not be a generic entry that incubates fraud. This same theory should apply to every “title search company”, every “legal fee” “hazard insurance” etc.. My transaction report has “lots of “corporate advance” entries and should not be allowed. WHO GOT AN ADVANCE FROM MY ACCOUNT? A lot of entries have no description just money being paid out. (WHO??? took the money?) and EVERY ENTRY must have a company name paid that matches the party name that received the funds. Please don’t let the entries be what ever because this is too important to the recovery. Any company that adds a bill to your account should be required to provide you a document that has the amount they received and the person who actually provided the service on the bill where you can read the signature. The vendor should have a 10 day limit to provide you a copy of the bill if you contact them directly. This system works perfect for credit card statements when you put contact information next to the company name and amount due. Transparency will allows borrowers the opportunity to investigate their own loan for accuracy every month for anything that looks suspicious. Realizing that nobody is receptive to a software system like US Customs for investigating for some reason makes my second idea even more important to give the borrower tools to investigate their own loan or this problem is going to get worse. In order to continue their crimes the banks are dependent on generalities, none disclosure instead of transparency and confusing escrow accounts and no accountability to who or how much they pay out. Transaction Activity is currently set up to enable most frauds to continue based on this one important category. ALL of these loop holes need to be closed. Where ever there is generality there will be fraud. Has anybody made a comprehensive list of all questions at the CFPB and complaints about questions that the bank won’t answer that need to be in the Periodic Statement? I can only guess that this has not happened or all itemized pay outs, by the bank would have been addressed with this form. You have the right category just the wrong wording requirements.
« less
transparency
September 17, 2012 4:01 pm

Warning a borrower about force placed insurance is irrelevant to addressing the problem, symptom or solution. After reading your link to 2024.37 force placed insurance (c)2viii I realized that the only solution that is being offered for all the force placed insurance issues is that the banks have to tell the borrower that they are about to place a force placed hazard insurance policy on them that “cost significantly more”. In other words, if you can’t make your property insurance payment, our solution is to increase the price of the insurance. Why am I the only person that sees this as totally stupid? Providing a borrower a written statement that you are going to take advantage of them is not the solution but part of the problem. Trust me, after watching 4 years of abuse,… more »

…the homeowners know they are about to be screwed over, with over priced insurance, that is going to make their problems much worse, and may prevent the chance of any recovery. Providing it in writing, mandated by the CFPB just means that the government approves of this behavior, which makes the pain even worse. This is deplorable! That is like saying, if you don’t send in your $100.00 electric bill payment on time, we are going to charge you $500.00 per month for electric instead and we are going to add a creepy middle man, to share in our electricity scam that “cost significantly more”. The government wants to increase transparency, so I have to give you heads up to the scam in writing. (Problem:homeowner has run into a financial issue and can’t make their property insurance payment. My 2nd provided Solution: Get the insurance payment as low as possible by eliminating all optional coverage and only insure the structure for the bank at the lowest price possible.) Allow the bank to place this on auto pay monthly and charge the homeowner interest on this amount just like their home loan. If home is 3.5% interest then 3.5% on the insurance balance paid out monthly on auto pay. If the combined balance at the bank between principle, interest and property insurance ever equals 3 months behind then foreclosure is an option. If the bank cannot continue the same policy then they have to find one at the same price or lower. Remember this policy has a lot less things it covers because the homeowner side is removed (content etc.) so it actuality is still considered “significantly more” at the same price because it covers less categories now and nobody has addressed this. If you kick people when they are down instead of helping them up or just not kicking them and see if they can get up on their own is a better option.
The absolute worst issues, with force placed insurance are not even being addressed at all, like: Switching servicers every few months to generate a new annual prepaid force placed insurance policy, over priced policies, over lapping policies, prepaid policies that generate prorated refunds for unused insurance where the servicer gets paid twice on the same policy, the servicer and the closing agent both collect for the same insurance policy at closing, new force placed insurance policies being generated 2 months AFTER the property sold and even back dating this policy to the closing date and not mailing me a copy of it until 3 years later (just got a copy of it a couple of months ago). Multiple policies at the same time that include successors and assigns as obligated parties to the policies. This is some of the things that happened to me and or my friend. As shocking as this was, it is even more shocking that the CFPB just wants banks to notify borrowers that they are about to be kicked them while they are down as a solution. Trust me all borrowers have friends that have already been kicked and they don’t need a warning because they know what’s coming and this is irrelevant to any solution. « less
transparency
September 19, 2012 5:18 pm

Why are you leaving it up to the servicer to determine if the information being requested is “unreasonable”? The CFPB is not listening to the “ordinary” people because this is the problem now, not the solution. The banks are probably being asked the same 20 or 30 questions over and over about loans. Please ask Versability for a list of the questions, in relation to a loan, that people ask that are currently not covered on the sample monthly statement that could easlily fit on the statement. Varsability that is emailing you, is trying everything to address transparency issues and has the answers you are looking for. Why don’t we separate reasonable questions from unreasonable questions. Ask Versability, how many of the questions could be answered on the monthly… more »

…statement and eliminate entire categories of crime and eliminate the need to beg for additional information by the borrower. Versability is an insider, bank person that understands banking software and what they are capable of doing. Why is the ultimate goal here, not to reduce as many phone calls as possible, for the borrower to make and the servicer to receive, by providing all monthly activity, in a transparent monthly loan statement, by maximizing the “Transaction Activity” category. (common sense) Everybody is emailing Regulation Room their information problems. It is time to make a list and determine what is “reasonable” information and what is not with specific questions or this is useless. Until we do this we are not even addressing the problem. Should the government tell the Banks, if we are going to give you money to lend, then all activity between banks,servicers and third party vendors in relation to a loan directly and indirectly, has to be transparent to the borrower in “Transaction Activity” monthly? The government needs to say, this has to be a requirement, due to the uncontrollable level of fraud, money laundering, deception and irresponsibility that the ordinary people are being put through unnecessarily. The current system is not working and there are no other alternatives that will solve this problem. Why will our government not step up their game and say, we are not going to allow the banking system any longer, to hide their over priced expenses, behind four interchangeable standard responses that include: “that is proprietary information” or “that is non-recovery” or we are not going to answer your question in relation to expenses, that your account was billed etc… We already know what the servicer is going to determine is “unreasonable” and they will apply the same 4 lousy excuses over and over that I have addressed above, that happened to me. Although it was not the largest monetary crime committed in my account, my following example demonstrates the lack of quality response that is the standard servicer response and manipulation of excuses that the current system allows and the proposed generic changes will let continue. Sadly, this will continue based on the leave it up to the banker to decide if it is an “unreasonable” question, as the solution. Do you think this is unreasonable? I asked who did the drive by inspections of my home, that my account was being billed for, AFTER my home sold. The bank informed me this information was proprietary. I received a check for the over billing with no description on the check. When I asked JPMC why they mailed me a check dated… for the amount of…. and the check cover page even had a bar code and a check a number. Chase responded with: “Chase does not have a record of the letter you are referring to in regards to refund of fees” (Sorry our computer is stupid game). The current system allows banks to be reactive and return only money on an “as busted system” ( HUGE PROBLEM NO SOLUTION) (reactive instead of proactive) When a servicer receives a letter questioning something just refund it. If a borrower is given little information on expenses in their account and you do not get a letter then you keep your ill gotten gains. It really is a simple system based on limited information. With the current system, the servicer just needs to set up a “got caught expense fund” and consider it the cost of committing fraud instead of cost of goods sold. The government is responsible for this current broken system by not requiring transparent monthly statements with strict guidelines on the use of “Transaction Activity”. Versatility as a insider and me having uncovered fraud in almost every categories of my loan payoff statement will both tell you this current disclosure plan does nothing to address the worst problems. (Problem:Banking fraud and secretive activity involving your loan account that increase your payoff and over states your expenses. Solution: eliminate the secrets with 30 day all inclusive, loan activity statements and there are no questions or secrets allowed). The problems are massive and the solutions are so simple. So Servicers don’t have to provide “confidential” (AKA that is proprietary) or “general corporate” (this is soooo generic and generally covers anything servicer related and my “that is non-recovery” would even fit here it is so generic and useless) and if the request for information can not be rejected with one of these generic categories jump to “for information it does not have” (AKA Sorry our computer is stupid game) I could go down this whole list but I think the point is made that this solution is not helpful and is actually counter productive by legitimizing the response that I received above.
« less
transparency
September 22, 2012 6:30 pm

Here is another force placed insurance problem that is not being addressed with the current force placed insurance solution. The current solution, which is a “warning” to the borrower that will some how prevent force placed insurance. Because the homeowner can not make their property insurance payment, because of lack of funds, the bank is going to highly inflate the insurance, is some how the current solution. (This makes the problem worse and is not a solution but another problem.) I have linked the following problem because I’m surprised this problem is not all over the web. I would guess this ladies problem was probably created because the banks collapsed the market after running the market up with artificial demand leaving her upside down.

This lady’s house… more »

…is now worth $59,000. Her insurance company will only insure the house for $59,000. She owes $84,000 on the house. Her insurance company will not insure her home for more than it is worth. So her lender put a force placed insurance policy on her for $84,000 instead of the difference is her complaint, however her complaint should be about a lot more probably. This is so sad, and needs a solution. I ask how many advisors out of the 24 at the CFPB have experienced crime in almost every category, in relation to their mortgage, so they know what it would take, to not have experienced, all the crime? This board needs Transparency and Versability because we will tell them what they have wrong and right based on personal experience. How many victims of extensive abuse with analytical skills, that will speak up, do they have? How many whistle blowers from inside the bank are on this board to expose what the banks are doing that needs fixing? Please do not tell me “0″. I love Elizabeth Warren and the CFPB and I want this program to be hugely successful, because it is our only hope, for bank reform and is the only reason that I am sending you some of my suggestions that fall under the scope of your questions.

http://www.ask.com/answers/214056661/here-is-my-problem-i-have-policy-for-59-000-on-my-home-insurance-will-not-insure-for-any-more-than-that?qsrc=14106#jaques_frm « less

transparency
October 1, 2012 8:33 pm

Problem: Every place where there is not transparency in lending there is fraud.
Solution: All account activity directly and indirectly in your account has to be on the monthly statement addressing companies by name not category.
Problem: “depending on circumstances”
Solution: No, ALL circumstances

transparency
October 1, 2012 9:39 pm

Problem: “The servicer would not have to respond to requests that come more than 1 year after the loan is paid off.
Solution: No time limit to expose mortgage abuse. We have not solved the problems in 4 years so how could one year be a fair time line? (Common sense)

Problem: Allowing servicers to charge for information on your account.
Solution: All monthly account activity directly and indirectly needs to be transparent on the monthly loan statement, this is not an alicart restaurant.

Moderator
September 10, 2012 11:30 am

Hi Transparency. The CFPB’s proposed rule contains requirements for the “Content and layout of the periodic statement,” and require the statement to provide several pieces of information including: the amount due, an explanation of the amount due, a breakdown of past payments, transaction activity since the last statement, and the bank’s contact information (the full list can be seen in the proposed rule.) It sounds like you are suggesting that the statement require billing and contact information for third party service providers, and that the layout should be similar to credit card statements. Do you believe that adding a “who” and “when” to the CFPB’s sample statement would address most of your concerns? What do other users think… more »

…about this proposal? Are there any concerns that this additional information would be confusing or burdensome? « less
Moderator
September 16, 2012 1:44 pm

Hi transparency. Thank you for your comment!

The CFPB wants periodic reports provided by creditors, assignees, or servicers to balance the need to provide useful information against the risk of overloading consumers with too much information. If a consumer wants additional information about their mortgage loan, the CFPB would require servicers to respond to consumers’ written and oral requests within a specified amount of time. Because expanding the way consumers can ask for information encourages use of the new disclosure system by attorneys, rather than ordinary people, the CFPB would allow servicers not to respond to certain types of information requests. Do you think the CFPB has struck the appropriate balance? Do you have an example of the kind of indirect transaction activity that… more »

…you think should be included in the sample periodic statement?

You also mentioned that advanced software and technology is available to servicers that would simplify the disclosure process. What do you think of the proposed exception servicers would have that would allow them not to respond to “unduly burdensome” information requests? « less

Moderator
August 25, 2012 5:07 pm

Hi transparency. CFPB is proposing a standard Periodic Statement to be given to borrowers. Are you suggesting a standard monthly statement or software that bank regulators could use when investigating banks?

Moderator
August 26, 2012 2:42 pm

If a nationwide database, like what you propose, can’t be put into place, what kind of information or access do you think will be missing from the CFPB proposals? CFPB’s proposals include requiring that borrowers receive periodic statements about the status of their mortgage accounts, ensuring they have the right to tell their servicer, and get a prompt response, when they make an information request or report an error, and requiring servicers to provide borrowers in trouble… more »

…reliable contact with someone who knows what’s going on and can help. Please click on the links. It would be helpful, transparency, if you could comment on those posts if you think there is information or access that CFPB should include. « less
Moderator
August 26, 2012 11:05 pm

transparency, we hope you will continue to comment and give feedback on CFPB’s proposals. It sounds like you’re concerned that CFPB’s proposal doesn’t do enough to ensure continuity of record keeping among the various banks and servicers a borrower might have to deal with over the life of their loan. While a national database is not proposed in this rule, CFPB envisions that standard periodic statements will keep information consistent across banks and give borrowers the information they need.

If you go to the issue posts about periodic statements, requesting… more »

…information, fixing errors, and reliable contact with people who can help, it would be helpful to the agency if you could critique CFPB’s proposals in light of your personal experiences. The more information you can give about how things operate on the ground and the more you can flesh out your argument, the better CFPB’s final rule will be.

Because we are neutral, we can’t take a stance on the rule or other banking issues. The way we hope to make change is by providing a space for commenters like you to participate effectively in the rulemaking process and have your voice heard. For more about how Regulation Room works, please visit this page. « less

Moderator
August 28, 2012 9:46 am

Hi transparency. If I understand you correctly, you are making two proposals. First, on insurance, you think an insurance company should be selected at closing to provide hazard insurance. The insurer cannot adjust the rate it charges more than once every 12 months, and must provide 60 days’ notice before changing its rate, giving the borrower time to find a lower-cost insurer. If the homeowner fails to make the required insurance payments, the bank should become responsible for them and simply foreclose on the homeowner without charging the borrower for insurance. Second, servicing cannot be transferred once foreclosure proceedings begin. Is that a correct summary?

Moderator
August 30, 2012 9:09 am

Hi transparency, and thanks for your participation. If I understand you correctly, servicers and banks would need to provide information to the website you’re describing, so that consumers could access it. Who would bear the cost of maintaining the website?

Moderator
September 7, 2012 11:56 am

Hi transparency, We are sorry if you feel you are not being heard or that our questions are too narrow. We should explain that the Regulation Room moderators are neutral, we don’t take a position on the proposed rules. Our job is to help every person contribute their viewpoints in way that will be useful to the agency when they finalize the proposed rules. During the discussion, we may point users to additional information about the rules, pose questions designed to prompt fuller or more detailed discussion, and facilitate discussion between users with different views. Our questions may appear narrow, because we only focus on issues the agency is addressing in these rulemakings. You can learn more about effective commenting and our project.

Moderator
September 17, 2012 12:18 pm

Hi Transparency. CFPB has not proposed a “new disclosure system” for attorneys that would give attorneys privileged access to mortgage information. Instead, it wants to make information more accessible to borrowers and feels that servicers will be able to devote more resources to providing borrowers with specific information about their mortgage accounts if servicers are not overwhelmed by the types of burdensome information requests that are more likely to come from attorneys and are better suited for the discovery phase of litigation.

Please also remember that the purpose of Regulation Room is to provide an environment in which people can learn about important proposed government regulations and discuss them in ways that help the agency make better final decisions. Moderators are here to facilitate discussion on CFPB’s proposed rules and do not take sides on the issues.


No comments