Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us
MSF Moderator
The future of Mortgage Servicing Fraud promises sunny days and increased ill-gotten profits as the criminal enterprise embraces its Foreclosures to Rent platform. Recent studies reveal over 80% of the nation's foreclosures are illegal. And everyone knows selling stolen property is also illegal - but what if we just rent all the homes we steal?  

The Once in a Lifetime REO-to-Rent Opportunity Deal

FEB 15, 2012 6:20pm ET

The foreclosure-to-rent movement is an opportunity bound to keep servicers, investors and the Federal Housing Finance Administration busy in the near future. It also is a game changer in the nation’s housing culture because while following the path of homeownership preservation it also embraces renting.


“Renting will become more acceptable,” says Paul Hayman, CEO of PropertyAccess, Austin, Texas, who is a believer in housing about home living, not homeownership.

“The unprecedented volume of potential inventory is creating an economic opportunity that hasn’t been available before in residential rental housing,” Hayman said. It is an opportunity that brings with it “dramatic social and economic benefits” that can positively impact families and neighborhoods while providing economic returns for investors.

According to Hayman, so far roughly 70% of the foreclosed properties in the nation are owner occupied and 30% tenant occupied. Capital is available, he says, noting at least 25 funds he knows of that have from $100,00 to $1 billion in disposable capital are looking into the REO-to-rental market as of now. “It is a matter of pooling these assets” and then managing them.

He sees single-family rentals as “a new asset class” emerging in the United States marketplace that is garnering interest from the capital markets due to its profit potential. These opportunities are bringing about strategic partnerships such as the one between PropertyAccess and Cashel USA Property of Dallas whose stated goal is to enable Australian capital partners to invest in the single-family home foreclosure and REO property market within the U.S. Cashel will provide up to $500 million to purchase assets that will be converted into rental properties. As part of the agreement, PropertyAccess will initially provide property assessment and acquisition evaluations. After the sale PropertyAccess will manage “the entire lifecycle of the purchased properties from renovation, maintenance, rental management and future resale.

Cashel decided to invest in the U.S. distressed housing market to convert foreclosed and REO properties into rental opportunities because of its potential for meaningful return on investment, said Stuart Morton, joint managing director with Cashel USA Property Partners, who represents potential investors based in Australia. It is a “once in a lifetime opportunity…at yields not previously seen in this asset class,” he said.

Cashel will purchase “well below replacement costs,” high-yielding properties it plans to hold for five to seven years until the housing market recovers. This kind of investment provides an excellent opportunity for private capital to enter this space and in the process help stabilize neighborhoods, Morton said.

His future prospect is quite optimistic.

Morton expects to see “a significant amount of capital” enter the U.S. distressed housing market despite underlying challenges. The partnership with ProperytAccess will ensure Australian investors are protected from “the vast majority” of U.S. market risks and compliance challenges, he said. 

The PropertyAccess solution addresses the entire lifecycle of property management including assessment, evaluation, renovation, management, maintenance and future disposition. It provides investors access to a single-sourced, national network of over 500 local property managers, 13,000 contractors and 7,000 professional inspectors.   

It is a good sign that at least so far politicians and the mortgage banking industry seem to agree on the overall benefits of releasing the excess of REO properties from government-owned enterprises through bulk sales to investors.

Recently 33 senators sent a letter to the administration urging it to adopt new programs to alleviate the housing crisis, while the FHFA received over 4,000 responses to their RFI supporting a national rental program and numerous reports “proving REO-to-rental is a sound strategy,” Morton said. 

Hayman agrees that many well-capitalized investors “are eager to jump into the game” this year. Their only challenge is “access to larger pools of assets” as competition grows suggesting REO-to-rental market investors and REO management service providers need to begin preparing sooner rather than later.

According to financial filings, at the close of the third quarter of 2011, there were over 220,000 foreclosed and REO properties being held by HUD, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac combined, in addition to “the shadow inventory” that is estimated at 1.6 million to 2 million properties.

“The opportunity is real,” Hayman says, because the convergence of high REO inventory levels and depressed housing prices, along with an increased demand for rentals, is creating a perfect storm for investors. “The time for investors to get their feet wet is now!”

http://www.mortgageservicingnews.com/msn_features/foreclosure-to-rent-opportunities-1028917-1.html?zkPrintable=true

Quote 0 0

 OH MY that is just sad they have succeeded in killing peoples dreams of owning a home.. People are to scared to buy.. and the ones that lost their homes are wondering if they want to try again.. safer to Rent..  and who wins..?? I know the feeling of being beaten down..

Quote 0 0
bwssr
Why do these banks want to own so much property? What is the advantage to this? It would seem to me that they would loose money for up keep and taxes until they can sell it again. Also when they do sell it. It will most likely be at a loss. Perhaps we need to find a way to follow the money and see what they are up to.
They get a bailout and we get the boot.
Quote 0 0
Paul

President Obama is trying to get the banks to foreclose on all the privately owned homes in the U.S.  Only those banks which accelerate their foreclosures will receive further bailout money.  Then Pres. Obama will declare the banks to be insolvent and these banks will be nationalized.

 

In this way, Pres. Obama can end private home ownership in the U.S. and concentrate ownership of all homes in the government.  This will bring about a communist government without the necessity of overthrowing the government.  It is communist overthrow through foreclosure.

 

Once the U.S. government owns all the banks and all of the homes, Pres. Obama will declare an emergency and suspend the U.S. Constitution, declaring himself "Dear Brother Leader" for life. 

Quote 0 0
Unregistered
Paul
I thought that Bush had already accomplished all of the above and more!
Quote 0 0
Unregistered

Quote:
Paul

I thought that Bush had already accomplished all of the above and more!
 
You ought not be making something political out of this!
 
Homeownership peaked in 4th Quarter 2004 at 69.2%.  It was 67.5% when Pres. George Bush took office in the 1st Quarter 2001.  When Pres. Bush left office the homeownership rate again was 67.5% (4th Quarter 2008), exactly the level when he took office.
 
Since Pres. Obama took office, the rate of home ownership has declined from 67.5% to 66%.  Current administration plans are to drive homeownership down to 65.1% by year end 2012, but then to pick up the pace of home confiscations in his second term.  
 
See Table 14 at this Census page: 
 
 
Paul somewhat exaggerates the President's plans to destroy home ownership in America.  Sources close to the President suggest that his goal is only another sixteen percent percentage point (16%) reduction in home ownership during his second term, bringing home ownership down below 50%.  This will require about five million home seizures a year from 2013 though 2016.
 
By assuring that more than half the U.S. population is dependent, receiving some form of government aid, and less than half owning homes, it is hoped that the population will not resist Pres. Obama's suspension of the U.S. Constitution at the conclusion of his second term.
 
Paul is correct that confiscation of homes and the elimination of private ownership of real estate remains a central objective of the President, it is not expected that this will be completed in his second term, but would be fully carried out after he declares himself President for life due to the national emergency.
Quote 0 0
Unregistered
Are you suggesting that the bailout of the banks didn't begin with Bush?
That the collapse of the housing market  due to criminal behavior by Wall Street Banks didn't begin with Bush? That the financial markets were at there historical peak of greatness when Bush left office?

What kind of Kool-Aid have you drinking?
Paul began the politicalization of the topic with the statement "Pres. Obama will declare an emergency and suspend the U.S. Constitution, declaring himself "Dear Brother Leader" for life. "

Bush began shredding the constitution when he was appointed by the Supreme Court!
Quote 0 0
ms

Unregistered seems to be arguing with himself both for and against Paul's insightful exposition!

Quote 0 0
Unregistered

"Housing starts fell by 79 percent under President Hoover, declining from 105,000 in 1929 to just 22,500 in 1932, at the end of Hoover’s term. Under President Bush, housing starts fell by 16 percent from 2001 to 2007, declining from 1,600,000 to 1,350,000, though from 2005 to 2007, a more severe decline of 35 percent occurred.

Foreclosures under Hoover increased by 84 percent between 1929 and 1932. Under Bush, foreclosures increased by 45 percent from 2001 to 2007. From 2005 to the end of 2007, however, foreclosures more than doubled under President Bush."

Center for American progress   http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/two_conservatives.html

A legacy from Two Conservative Presidents.

Show me a contemporary president, republican or democrat, that hasn't been owned by the banks.

Quote 0 0
Ben

Quote:
Are you suggesting that the bailout of the banks didn't begin with Bush?

That the collapse of the housing market due to criminal behavior by Wall Street Banks didn't begin with Bush? That the financial markets were at there historical peak of greatness when Bush left office?

What kind of Kool-Aid have you drinking?
Paul began the politicalization of the topic with the statement "Pres. Obama will declare an emergency and suspend the U.S. Constitution, declaring himself "Dear Brother Leader" for life. "

Bush began shredding the constitution when he was appointed by the Supreme Court!

 

 

Clearly, you know woefully little about mortgage finance and even less about Democratic and presidential politics!

 

You seem to have bought into the bs story line that the Democratic Party puts out for public consumption and haven't followed the actual facts.

 

You are also confusing and muddling three different issues.  One issue is the origins of the mortgage crisis.  The second is the nature and role of bank bailouts.  The third is the purposeful destruction of private home ownership.

 

Let us take these one at a time. 

 

The news media has recently seized upon former Speaker Newt Gingrich's consulting contract with Freddie Mac.  This has been used to create the illusion that Freddie (and by analogy and example Fannie) were somehow under the control of President Bush and the Republican Party.

 

Precisely the opposite was true.

 

Speaker Gingrich had a small contract.  Have you ever looked at the Freddie Board?

 

Does the name Rahm Emanuel ring a bell?  The current Democratic Mayor of Chicago and the former Chief of Staff to Pres. Obama?

 

Did you know that he was a key member of the Freddie Board during the interval when Democratic operatives first seized control of Freddie and began systematically looting that company?

 

Maybe you ought to read some of the newspaper articles such as this one in the Chicago Tribune:

 

"Rahm Emanuel's profitable stint at mortgage giant"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-rahm-emanuel-profit-26-mar26,0,5682373.story

 

Or maybe you should read the FHFA "Report of the Special Examination of Freddie Mac":

 

http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/749/specialreport122003.pdf

 

With the seizure of Freddie and Fannie, key Democratic operatives began looting these two GSEs to fund various Democratic political operatives and campaigns nationally.  Where do you think that Pres. Obama raised all that money?

 

Over at Fannie, two names that deserve special scrutiny are James A. Johnson and Franklin RainesAre those names familiar?

 

Johnson was Executive Assistant to Vice President Walter Mondale throughout the Carter administration.  He was the campaign manager for Mondale's Presidential campaign in 1984.  Then he went to work as a Managing Director at Lehman Brothers., where he worked from 1985 to 1990.

 

He then used his political connections to get himself appointed as Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae in 1990.  The following year, when Democrats took total control of the Fannie Board, he was named chairman and CEO of Fannie, serving in this position from 1991 to 1998. 

 

When he departed, President Clinton had his close friend Franklin Raines installed as Johnson's successor.       

 

Didn't you ever wonder how it came to pass that Bill and Hillary Clinton were citizens of only modest means when Bill Clinton took office, but that their net worth was shown to be in excess of $100 million when Hillary ran for President in 2008?

 

Did you know that James Johnson also served on the Board of Goldman?

 

http://www.goldmansachs.com/who-we-are/leadership/board-of-directors/07-james-a-johnson.html

 

You seem to be unaware of the known mischief at Fannie before the collapse of the housing market.

 

Why not read from the FHFA's reports on Fannie:

 

"Report of Findings to Date Special Examination of Fannie Mae"

http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/748/FNMfindingstodate17sept04.pdf

 

"Report of the Special Examination of Fannie Mae"

http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/747/FNMSPECIALEXAM.pdf

 

Perhaps you were unaware of the central role played by James Johnson in getting Barack Obama elected President.  Maybe you should take a look at:

 

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/j/james_a_johnson/index.html

 

See also:

 

High Pay at Fannie Mae For the Well-Connected

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21138-2004Dec22.html 

 

Under Johnson and Raines, in addition to the direct looting, Fannie's payrolls were padded with not only Democratic political operatives, but also their wives, girlfriends and even boyfriends or "partners":

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432501,00.html

 

*

 

Now let's take a quick look at banks and bailouts.  Unquestionably, when the economy was reeling in 2008 from the aftermath of more than two decades of corruption and looting of the mortgage and banking industry by the Democratic Party, our then President was faced with decisions about how to react.

 

He might have bailed out all of the big banks.  But he didn't.

 

Instead, two of the very most corrupt -- Bear Stearns and Lehman (yep James Johnson's former employer) -- were expressly allowed to fail.

 

(By contrast, Pres. Obama never met a bailout that he didn't like.  In fact, he has found the economic malaise presents a perfect alibi for simply giving public money directly away to his friends under the pretext that he is "lending" money for "green energy" projects.  The only thing green about these projects is the cash being looted from the public till.)

 

Investigations and possible prosecutions of corrupt Democrats were already well underway when the 2008 Presidential race began to heat up.

 

There were two major Democratic factions.  There was the faction which had made its fortune looting Freddie Mac.  And there was the faction that had made its fortune looting Fannie Mae.  Both factions were at risk for serious prosecutions if a Republican was elected President that year.  Johnson was called in to unite the factions to assure that a President was elected who would BURY these criminal investigations and assure that all of the criminals could get away with their crimes!

 

For this reason, the Democrats decided to go all in and elect a corrupt Chicago politician they knew that they could count on and control!

 

Maybe you should take a few minutes and go over the Fannie and Freddie SEC filings for the past two decades.  Then take a look at the Federal Election Commission campaign finance database.

 

Maybe you should also take a closer look at Attorney General Eric Holder's background and connections! 

 

*

 

Finally, we come to the issue of destruction of private ownership of housing.  While most of the Democratic Party's insiders are committed only to graft and corruption and can be easily satisfied lining their own pockets, there is also a faction that is fully committed to destruction of the free enterprise system and to turning our nation into a communist state.

 

Ironically, while the President's handlers are mostly simply corrupt, the President is a communist idealist.  Pres. Obama hates America, which is why he only began saying the Pledge of Allegiance after being elected.  That is why he is committed to tearing down our nation and ending our capitalist way of life.

 

Those Democratic idealists who work for the President are content to working with the corrupt Democratic operatives, because it is an end to their objective, the overthrow of the United States government from within. 

 

While the graft motivated insiders rush to loot the last few billions they think they can safely spirit away this term, the idealists see the foreclosure crisis as an opportunity to remake a lasting coalition of dependency.

 

They want to make sure that an absolute majority of voters is on the public dole and that a majority are tenants.  This is essential to preserve class hostility and antagonism which is the key way to keep Democrats in power.

 

Unregistered, you may be an unlearned fool who actually has fallen for the story line that Democrats love poor people.  But this is utter nonsense.

 

Democrats love dependency.  They do not love poor people.  They love to keep people poor, to create a pretext to seize power and govern!  And it is really quite remarkable how they manage to so successfully demonize Republicans, who actually favor home ownership.

Maybe you need to cut down a little on whatever you have been smoking and emerge from your drug induced cloud to smell the coffee!

 

Facts can be quite troublesome!

Quote 0 0
Unregistered
And the other side of the coin??? Republicans....the 1% who want it all for them selves. If anyone has narcosis it is you! Obama will be president for 4 more years...live with it.

Quote 0 0
Unregistered

Quote:
And the other side of the coin??? Republicans....the 1% who want it all for them selves. If anyone has narcosis it is you! Obama will be president for 4 more years...live with it.
 

 

Is that supposed to be a rebuttal or merely an admission and acknowledgment that the Democratic Party is totally corrupt and that the rape and destruction of America by this man and his crooked cronies is inevitable?

 

If that is your best argument, best of luck to you!  I hope you enjoy your inevitable homelessness!

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...