New York Times mortgage article

[30A Skunkape]

A nice summary for those of us who don't religiously follow real estate, banking and Wall Street

March 11, 2007
News Analysis
Crisis Looms in Market for Mortgages

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
On March 1, a Wall Street analyst at Bear Stearns wrote an upbeat report on a company that specializes in making mortgages to cash-poor homebuyers. The company, New Century Financial, had already disclosed that a growing number of borrowers were defaulting, and its stock, at around $15, had lost half its value in three weeks.

What happened next seems all too familiar to investors who bought technology stocks in 2000 at the breathless urging of Wall Street analysts. Last week, New Century said it would stop making loans and needed emergency financing to survive. The stock collapsed to $3.21.

The analyst’s untimely call, coupled with a failure among other Wall Street institutions to identify problems in the home mortgage market, isn’t the only familiar ring to investors who watched the technology stock bubble burst precisely seven years ago.

Now, as then, Wall Street firms and entrepreneurs made fortunes issuing questionable securities, in this case pools of home loans taken out by risky borrowers. Now, as then, bullish stock and credit analysts for some of those same Wall Street firms, which profited in the underwriting and rating of those investments, lulled investors with upbeat pronouncements even as loan defaults ballooned. Now, as then, regulators stood by as the mania churned, fed by lax standards and anything-goes lending.

Investment manias are nothing new, of course. But the demise of this one has been broadly viewed as troubling, as it involves the nation’s $6.5 trillion mortgage securities market, which is larger even than the United States treasury market.

Hanging in the balance is the nation’s housing market, which has been a big driver of the economy. Fewer lenders means many potential homebuyers will find it more difficult to get credit, while hundreds of thousands of homes will go up for sale as borrowers default, further swamping a stalled market.

“The regulators are trying to figure out how to work around it, but the Hill is going to be in for one big surprise,” said Josh Rosner, a managing director at Graham-Fisher & Company, an independent investment research firm in New York, and an expert on mortgage securities. “This is far more dramatic than what led to Sarbanes-Oxley,” he added, referring to the legislation that followed the WorldCom and Enron scandals, “both in conflicts and in terms of absolute economic impact.”

While real estate prices were rising, the market for home loans operated like a well-oiled machine, providing ready money to borrowers and high returns to investors like pension funds, insurance companies, hedge funds and other institutions. Now this enormous and important machine is sputtering, and the effects are reverberating throughout Main Street, Wall Street and Washington.

Already, more than two dozen mortgage lenders have failed or closed their doors, and shares of big companies in the mortgage industry have declined significantly. Delinquencies on loans made to less creditworthy borrowers — known as subprime mortgages — recently reached 12.6 percent. Some banks have reported rising problems among borrowers that were deemed more creditworthy as well.

Traders and investors who watch this world say the major participants — Wall Street firms, credit rating agencies, lenders and investors — are holding their collective breath and hoping that the spring season for home sales will reinstate what had been a go-go market for mortgage securities. Many Wall Street firms saw their own stock prices decline over their exposure to the turmoil.

“I guess we are a bit surprised at how fast this has unraveled,” said Tom Zimmerman, head of asset-backed securities research at UBS, in a recent conference call with investors.

Even now the tone accentuates the positive. In a recent presentation to investors, UBS Securities discussed the potential for losses among some mortgage securities in a variety of housing markets. None of the models showed flat or falling home prices, however.

The Bear Stearns analyst who upgraded New Century, Scott R. Coren, wrote in a research note that the company’s stock price reflected the risks in its industry, and that the downside risk was about $10 in a “rescue-sale scenario.” According to New Century, Bear Stearns is among the firms with a “longstanding” relationship financing its mortgage operation. Mr. Coren, through a spokeswoman, declined to comment.

Others who follow the industry have voiced more caution. Thomas A. Lawler, founder of Lawler Economic and Housing Consulting, said: “It’s not that the mortgage industry is collapsing, it’s just that the mortgage industry went wild and there are consequences of going wild.

“I think there is no doubt that home sales are going to be weaker than most anybody who was forecasting the market just two months ago thought. For those areas where the housing market was already not too great, where inventories were at historically high levels and it finally looked like things were stabilizing, this is going to be unpleasant.”

Like worms that surface after a torrential rain, revelations that emerge when an asset bubble bursts are often unattractive, involving dubious industry practices and even fraud. In the coming weeks, some mortgage market participants predict, investors will learn not only how lax real estate lending standards became, but also how hard to value these opaque securities are and how easy their values are to prop up.

Owners of mortgage securities that have been pooled, for example, do not have to reflect the prevailing market prices of those securities each day, as stockholders do. Only when a security is downgraded by a rating agency do investors have to mark their holdings to the market value. As a result, traders say, many investors are reporting the values of their holdings at inflated prices.

“How these things are valued for portfolio purposes is exposed to management judgment, which is potentially arbitrary,” Mr. Rosner said.

At the heart of the turmoil is the subprime mortgage market, which developed to give loans to shaky borrowers or to those with little cash to put down as collateral. Some 35 percent of all mortgage securities issued last year were in that category, up from 13 percent in 2003.

Looking to expand their reach and their profits, lenders were far too willing to lend, as evidenced by the creation of new types of mortgages — known as “affordability products” — that required little or no down payment and little or no documentation of a borrower’s income. Loans with 40-year or even 50-year terms were also popular among cash-strapped borrowers seeking low monthly payments. Exceedingly low “teaser” rates that move up rapidly in later years were another feature of the new loans.

The rapid rise in the amount borrowed against a property’s value shows how willing lenders were to stretch. In 2000, according to Banc of America Securities, the average loan to a subprime lender was 48 percent of the value of the underlying property. By 2006, that figure reached 82 percent.

Mortgages requiring little or no documentation became known colloquially as “liar loans.” An April 2006 report by the Mortgage Asset Research Institute, a consulting concern in Reston, Va., analyzed 100 loans in which the borrowers merely stated their incomes, and then looked at documents those borrowers had filed with the I.R.S. The resulting differences were significant: in 90 percent of loans, borrowers overstated their incomes 5 percent or more. But in almost 60 percent of cases, borrowers inflated their incomes by more than half.

A Deutsche Bank report said liar loans accounted for 40 percent of the subprime mortgage issuance last year, up from 25 percent in 2001.

Securities backed by home mortgages have been traded since the 1970s, but it has been only since 2002 or so that investors, including pension funds, insurance companies, hedge funds and other institutions, have shown such an appetite for them.

Wall Street, of course, was happy to help refashion mortgages from arcane and illiquid securities into ubiquitous and frequently traded ones. Its reward is that it now dominates the market. While commercial banks and savings banks had long been the biggest lenders to home buyers, by 2006, Wall Street had a commanding share — 60 percent — of the mortgage financing market, Federal Reserve data show.

The big firms in the business are Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank and UBS. They buy mortgages from issuers, put thousands of them into pools to spread out the risks and then divide them into slices, known as tranches, based on quality. Then they sell them.

The profits from packaging these securities and trading them for customers and their own accounts have been phenomenal. At Lehman Brothers, for example, mortgage-related businesses contributed directly to record revenue and income over the last three years.

The issuance of mortgage-related securities, which include those backed by home-equity loans, peaked in 2003 at more than $3 trillion, according to data from the Bond Market Association. Last year’s issuance, reflecting a slowdown in home price appreciation, was $1.93 trillion, a slight decline from 2005.

In addition to enviable growth, the mortgage securities market has undergone other changes in recent years. In the 1990s, buyers of mortgage securities spread out their risk by combining those securities with loans backed by other assets, like credit card receivables and automobile loans. But in 2001, investor preferences changed, focusing on specific types of loans. Mortgages quickly became the favorite.

Another change in the market involves its trading characteristics. Years ago, mortgage-backed securities appealed to a buy-and-hold crowd, who kept the securities on their books until the loans were paid off. “You used to think of mortgages as slow moving,” said Glenn T. Costello, managing director of structured finance residential mortgage at Fitch Ratings. “Now it has become much more of a trading market, with a mark-to-market bent.”

The average daily trading volume of mortgage securities issued by government agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example, exceeded $250 billion last year. That’s up from about $60 billion in 2000.

Wall Street became so enamored of the profits in mortgages that it began to expand its reach, buying companies that make loans to consumers to supplement its packaging and sales operations. In August 2006, Morgan Stanley bought Saxon, a $6.5 billion subprime mortgage underwriter, for $706 million.

And last September, Merrill Lynch paid $1.3 billion to buy First Franklin Financial, a home lender in San Jose, Calif. At the time, Merrill said it expected First Franklin to add to its earnings in 2007. Now analysts expect Merrill to take a large loss on the purchase.

Indeed, on Feb. 28, as the first fiscal quarter ended for many big investment banks, Wall Street buzzed with speculation that the firms had slashed the value of their numerous mortgage holdings, recording significant losses.

As prevailing interest rates remained low over the last several years, the appetite for these securities only rose. In the ever-present search for high yields, buyers clamored for securities that contained subprime mortgages, which carry interest rates that are typically one to two percentage points higher than traditional loans. Mortgage securities participants say increasingly lax lending standards in these loans became almost an invitation to commit mortgage fraud. It is too early to tell how significant a role mortgage fraud played in the rocketing delinquency rates — 12.6 percent among subprime borrowers. Delinquency rates among all mortgages stood at 4.7 percent in the third quarter of 2006.

For years, investors cared little about risks in mortgage holdings. That is changing.

“I would not be surprised if between now and the end of the year at least 20 percent of BBB and BBB- bonds that are backed by subprime loans originated in 2006 will be downgraded,” Mr. Lawler said.

Still, the rating agencies have yet to downgrade large numbers of mortgage securities to reflect the market turmoil. Standard & Poor’s has put 2 percent of the subprime loans it rates on watch for a downgrade, and Moody’s said it has downgraded 1 percent to 2 percent of such mortgages that were issued in 2005 and 2006.

Fitch appears to be the most proactive, having downgraded 3.7 percent of subprime mortgages in the period.

The agencies say that they are confident that their ratings reflect reality in the mortgages they have analyzed and that they have required managers of mortgage pools with risky loans in them to increase the collateral. A spokesman for S.& P. said the firm made its ratings requirements more stringent for subprime issuers last summer and that they shored up the loans as a result.

Meeting with Wall Street analysts last week, Terry McGraw, chief executive of McGraw-Hill, the parent of S.& P., said the firm does not believe that loans made in 2006 will perform “as badly as some have suggested.”

Nevertheless, some investors wonder whether the rating agencies have the stomach to downgrade these securities because of the selling stampede that would follow. Many mortgage buyers cannot hold securities that are rated below investment grade — insurance companies are an example. So if the securities were downgraded, forced selling would ensue, further pressuring an already beleaguered market.

Another consideration is the profits in mortgage ratings. Some 6.5 percent of Moody’s 2006 revenue was related to the subprime market.

Brian Clarkson, Moody’s co-chief operating officer, denied that the company hesitates to cut ratings. “We made assumptions early on that we were going to have worse performance in subprime mortgages, which is the reason we haven’t seen that many downgrades,” he said. “If we have something that is investment grade that we need to take below investment grade, we will do it.”

Interestingly, accounting conventions in mortgage securities require an investor to mark his holdings to market only when they get downgraded. So investors may be assigning higher values to their positions than they would receive if they had to go into the market and find a buyer. That delays the reckoning, some analysts say.

“There are delayed triggers in many of these investment vehicles and that is delaying the recognition of losses,” Charles Peabody, founder of Portales Partners, an independent research boutique in New York, said. “I do think the unwind is just starting. The moment of truth is not yet here.”

On March 2, reacting to the distress in the mortgage market, a throng of regulators, including the Federal Reserve Board, asked lenders to tighten their policies on lending to those with questionable credit. Late last week, WMC Mortgage, General Electric’s subprime mortgage arm, said it would no longer make loans with no down payments.

Meanwhile, investors wait to see whether the spring home selling season will shore up the mortgage market. If home prices do not appreciate or if they fall, defaults will rise, and pension funds and others that embraced the mortgage securities market will have to record losses. And they will likely retreat from the market, analysts said, affecting consumers and the overall economy.

A paper published last month by Mr. Rosner and Joseph R. Mason, an associate professor of finance at Drexel University’s LeBow College of Business, assessed the potential problems associated with disruptions in the mortgage securities market. They wrote: “Decreased funding for residential mortgage-backed securities could set off a downward spiral in credit availability that can deprive individuals of home ownership and substantially hurt the U.S. economy.”

[SHELLY]

The article outlines one reason (easy money) for the rise and eventual tumble of RE investing for fun and profit.

Something the article doesn't point out is how the real estate "boom" was, in no small measure, the result of "speculators selling to speculators selling to speculators"....some buying up multiple properties...some convincing other "investors," friends and family to buy up multiple properties...all of them were never intending on living in, or building on, those properties. All convinced that there was a neverending conga-line of folks wanting to buy the properties in a few months time with a 20% premium tacked on top of the buying price....it worked, till it didn't.

In the coming months, as the frenzy continues to unwind, the world will be treated to TV coverage and front page headlines of grannies losing homes that have been in the family for generations and wheelchair-bound, blind vets who were preyed upon by unscrupulous loan/real estate/appraisal folks out to line their pockets at any cost.

The SoWal connection to the subprime (and eventually Alt-A) blow-up will be evident in the tightening affordable housing situation for much-needed service workers and reduced credit availability for investulators when they need to mortgage pre-construction condos bought during 2005-2006.

.

[Jellyfish]

Late last week, WMC Mortgage, General Electric’s subprime mortgage arm, said it would no longer make loans with no down payments.

Boy, things are getting tough out there.....next thing you know, they will want to verify income.

[30A Skunkape]

An interesting take on the subject by Donna Brazile

By Donna Brazile
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published March 12, 2007

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement

We all know what happens when a disastrous act of God (e.g., Hurricane Katrina) is combined with inept and callous acts of political leaders. Those with the least power and fewest resources suffer losses that could have been avoided. Then they wait for their leaders to figure out a way to help them.
Today, many of those same people and others are facing another large-scale disaster that's leaving a trail of unnecessary losses, but there's nothing even partly natural or divine about it. This one is all about human greed and neglect.
I'm referring to the rising flood of foreclosures on dangerous home loans in the high-risk, high-cost subprime market. Subprime lenders target people with blemished credit, offering them loans at 1 percent to 5 percent higher interest levels than the prime rate offered to applicants with strong credit histories, preying on the families already struggling to make ends meet. They could use some leaders with courage to stand up and help them hold on to the American dream of homeownership.
In recent years, subprime loans have become a bigger and riskier part of the total home-loan market. Subprime lenders have touted these loans as "expanded credit," but they are adding up to expanded foreclosures. A new study by the Center for Responsible Lending shows 2.2 million families either have lost their homes to foreclosure or hold subprime mortgages that will likely result in foreclosure over the next several years. More than 2 million. That's more than twice the number of Gulf Coast residents displaced by Hurricane Katrina.
Like weak levees, these subprime mortgages weren't designed to last, and when they fail, foreclosure can be as devastating as floodwater. These mortgages promote failure with their hidden pitfalls and veiled traps.
For example, most of these loans come with an adjustable interest rate that can result in staggering payment increases. The most common subprime-loan type begins with a temporary interest rate that -- like a ticking time bomb -- is set to rise after two years and keeps going up every six months after. Subprime lenders call these loans "2/28s," but they also have earned the nickname of "exploding" ARMs (adjustable-rate mortgages). Guess who is harmed by this exposure: the middle class and working poor.
The consequences of exploding mortgages aren't as visually dramatic as the havoc wreaked by Katrina. But for the families involved, the results are equally devastating. Consider the case of Mr. L., a mechanic who lives in San Leandro, Calif., with his wife and kids. Although their net monthly income was $4,000, a mortgage broker convinced them to sell their home and use the proceeds as a down payment on a much more expensive property in Stockton.
They went from paying a mortgage of $1,700 a month, including homeowner's insurance and property taxes, to paying almost $4,700 -- not including taxes and insurance. The new loan began with an interest rate of 8.6 percent and ultimately it could go as high as 14.6 percent. This family is now struggling to make their payments and keep their home.
Working families seeking greater financial security lose the most from subprime failures, and those in communities of color are hit hardest, since subprime home loans go disproportionately to African-American and Latino families. Last year, more than half of mortgages received by African-Americans were subprime. Research shows people of color are likelier to receive a subprime loan even if they have the same income and credit scores as white homebuyers. This is made possible by the aggressive marketing of subprime lenders and brokers who use the complexity of mortgages to their advantage.
Do we need to encourage a higher rate of homeownership? Absolutely. Slightly less than half of African-American and Latino families own their homes, compared to 70 percent of white families. This gap is troubling, since owning a home represents any family's best hope for achieving sustainable economic security.
Rather than an opportunity, subprime mortgages have become a high-stakes gamble. Even during the early part of this decade, when interest rates were low and housing appreciation was high, 1 in 8 subprime mortgages failed. Now that the housing bubble has burst in many areas, the failure rate is sure to climb. For subprime loans made during the past two years, the Center for Responsible Lending finds 1 in 5 will end in foreclosure.
It wouldn't be hard to stem the tide of these foreclosures, and recent events give me some hope. Last week, federal banking regulators proposed to provide basic protections for families who receive subprime loans with adjustable interest rates. And Freddie Mac, one of the largest mortgage investors, announced it will no longer buy unaffordable loans that have huge built-in payment increases.
It is encouraging that regulators and Freddie Mac have taken major steps in the right direction. Now we need follow-up: Regulators need to stick with their position and enact the new protections immediately. Fannie Mae and other mortgage investors should follow Freddie Mac's example voluntarily. And the Federal Reserve could do the most good by using its authority to extend protective regulations to cover all mortgage lenders, including the finance companies that originate the bulk of subprime home loans.
I just returned from the Gulf Coast, where I helped one of my younger siblings and her family move out of a Katrina trailer and into a new home.
None of us knows when the next hurricane may blow in, but we can prevent future disasters in the mortgage market. Let's keep the dream of homeownership alive and call on Congress and the Bush administration to hold mortgage lenders and brokers accountable for their action.

Donna Brazile is a political commentator on CNN, ABC and NPR and former campaig manager for Al Gore.

[Bob]

Nice hatchet job! The mortgage broker convinced the family to buy. The subprime lender targets those with poor credit. Does not the borrower with the 580 FICO make application like everyone else? Facts to consider are that the maximum payment adjustments are plainly disclosed on the federally mandated truth-in lending statement. The borrower must sign that statement as a part of full disclosure. The article states that payments always go upward at each adjustment period, and that's not always true after the initial adjustment. Subprime lenders offer fixed rates, but most borrowers choose 2/28's because of the lower initial rate. So who is truly the greedy party?? Blaming the broker for the borrowers poor decision is the same as blaming Bush and FEMA for Katrina, and guess what, the same constituency is shifting blame again. The author of the article is shooting from the hip, ...the left one!

[Mango]

Nice hatchet job! The mortgage broker convinced the family to buy. The subprime lender targets those with poor credit. Does not the borrower with the 580 FICO make application like everyone else? Facts to consider are that the maximum payment adjustments are plainly disclosed on the federally mandated truth-in lending statement. The borrower must sign that statement as a part of full disclosure. The article states that payments always go upward at each adjustment period, and that's not always true after the initial adjustment. Subprime lenders offer fixed rates, but most borrowers choose 2/28's because of the lower initial rate. So who is truly the greedy party?? Blaming the broker for the borrowers poor decision is the same as blaming Bush and FEMA for Katrina, and guess what, the same constituency is shifting blame again. The author of the article is shooting from the hip, ...the left one!

Excellent response Bob, and it was my thinking as well. The subprime mortgage market was available for people with who have credit issues.
Plain and simple, they did not pay their bills on time.
2/28 loans were really designed as band-aid mortgages, giving the Borrower time to get their act together so they could refinance into a prime mortgage with a fixed rate. There were also 3/27 and 5/25 available AND 15/30's. They certainly could have taken those.

I do have to state though that minorities were more than often put in subprime mortgages due to the fact mainly that a majority of mortgage brokers who sold these loans only knew how to do subprime loans. They were the local minority Broker with a storefront down the street with Brokers who were minorities usually. The Borrower trusted them.

They never bothered to try putting the loan through a standard FNMA or Freddie loan through automated underwriting to see if they got a prime approval, because 1) they didn't know how or 2) were not approved by the major Prime Wholesalers. Subprime Lenders pretty much approved anyone to buy loans from. If you had a license, filled out the app, and you were up and running.
Prime Banks have much more due dilegence with their wholesale divisions and monitor approved Brokers much more carefully and the quality of loans submitted.

Further there are quite a few Banks that offer reduced rates and credit concessions to Borrowers in minority neighborhoods,who are federally regulated, and trying to meet CRA requirements.

The only accountability I could see going forward would be that a Broker/Banker/ or Bank should prove is that they tried all other available less expensive avenues prior to procuring a subprime loan for a Borrower, and that they properly disclosed via Truth in lending and High Cost Disclosures. The Truth in Lending disclosures should also be changed in my opinion as well. APR is difficult for Borrowers to understand.
Further, I feel any subprime Borrowers should be required to take credit counseling classes.
Other than doing your due diligence on a mortgage and being an adviser, Brokers should not be responsible for the actions or patterns that these Borrowers repeat. Some people will always stay a subprime Borrower.

[SHELLY]

So who is truly the greedy party?? Blaming the broker for the borrowers poor decision is the same as blaming Bush and FEMA for Katrina, and guess what, the same constituency is shifting blame again. The author of the article is shooting from the hip, ...the left one!

(From the Wall Street Journal)

At a Mortgage Lender, Rapid Rise, Faster Fall

By James R. Hagerty, Ruth Simon, Michael Corkery and Gregory Zuckerman
From The Wall Street Journal Online

Ruthie Hillery was struggling to make the $952 monthly mortgage payment for her three-bedroom home in Pittsburg, Calif., last summer when a mortgage broker called. The broker persuaded the 70-year-old Ms. Hillery to refinance into a "senior citizen's" loan from New Century Financial Corp. that she thought would eliminate the need to make any payments for several years, according to her lawyer.

Instead, the $336,000 adjustable-rate loan started out with payments of $2,200 a month, more than double her income. In December, Ms. Hillery received notice that New Century intended to foreclose on the property. Then, earlier this month, after a formal demand by the lawyer, New Century agreed to refund all its fees and cancel the loan once Ms. Hillery gets refinancing elsewhere.

The lawyer, Alan Ramos, says the loan never should have been made. "You have a loan application where the income section is blank," Mr. Ramos says. "How does it even get past the first person who looks at it?
---------------------------

Who is the greedy party is in the story above....

(a) The 70 year old lady struggling with a $952 monthly payment?

(b) The mortgage broker who CALLED her and offered her a "senior citizen's rate" that was double the amount she was struggling to pay?

(c) The Mortgage Company who processed the loan with the income section left blank?

(d) President Bush

(e) FEMA

(Hint: Whose pockets were lined by the event above?)

.................................................. ...................................

[Mango]

(From the Wall Street Journal)

At a Mortgage Lender, Rapid Rise, Faster Fall

By James R. Hagerty, Ruth Simon, Michael Corkery and Gregory Zuckerman
From The Wall Street Journal Online

Ruthie Hillery was struggling to make the $952 monthly mortgage payment for her three-bedroom home in Pittsburg, Calif., last summer when a mortgage broker called. The broker persuaded the 70-year-old Ms. Hillery to refinance into a "senior citizen's" loan from New Century Financial Corp. that she thought would eliminate the need to make any payments for several years, according to her lawyer.

Instead, the $336,000 adjustable-rate loan started out with payments of $2,200 a month, more than double her income. In December, Ms. Hillery received notice that New Century intended to foreclose on the property. Then, earlier this month, after a formal demand by the lawyer, New Century agreed to refund all its fees and cancel the loan once Ms. Hillery gets refinancing elsewhere.

The lawyer, Alan Ramos, says the loan never should have been made. "You have a loan application where the income section is blank," Mr. Ramos says. "How does it even get past the first person who looks at it?
---------------------------

Who is the greedy party is in the story above....

(a) The 70 year old lady struggling with a $952 monthly payment?

(b) The mortgage broker who CALLED her and offered her a "senior citizen's rate" that was double the amount she was struggling to pay?

(c) The Mortgage Company who processed the loan with the income section left blank?

(d) President Bush

(e) FEMA

(Hint: Whose pockets were lined by the event above?)

.................................................. ...................................

Tell me........She couldn't read the Note at closing that said that she would have a mortgage payment due the following month? That is clearly put on the Note and other disclosures. She didn't get a payment coupon at closing??? She didn't consider hiring an attorney to come to the closing with her to read the documents? It's reporters jobs to find worst case scenarios and I have a heart for the elderly who have no idea how much has changed since they probably bought their homes, but aside from this isolated incident, the truth of the matter is Subprime Borrowers are not The Brady family.
These people take no responsibility with credit running up cards, not paying on time, have child support sometimes for multiple children with different partners, you name it. Then they go and use the bancruptcy umbrellas to save them for a while. They have collection accounts up the wazoo. If you saw the loan applications, you would see a majority of them have the most expensive cars beyond their incomes.
They aint the Cleavers.

The only people who have excuses for derogatory credit are people who have had issues with health or health of children that extend for long periods of time. People like my neighbors who had to secure a subprime equity loan to pay for uninsured treatments for their child with cancer after exhausting their savings. Other reasons could be people displaced from their homes and jobs due to catastrophes.

[SHELLY]

As it continues to unfold, the implosion of the subprime mortgage system will be an interesting story to watch as it winds its way through the economy. The weeks and months ahead will provide never-ending casts of guilty and innocent characters, perp walks, finger-pointing, fraud, manipulation and greed--it will eclipse the Worldcom/Enron debacles in size and scope.

To provide added insight, a former "Mortgage Insider" is blogging series on the Subprime Lending fiasco: HERE

[Babyblue]

Tell me........She couldn't read the Note at closing that said that she would have a mortgage payment due the following month? That is clearly put on the Note and other disclosures. She didn't get a payment coupon at closing??? She didn't consider hiring an attorney to come to the closing with her to read the documents? It's reporters jobs to find worst case scenarios and I have a heart for the elderly who have no idea how much has changed since they probably bought their homes, but aside from this isolated incident, the truth of the matter is Subprime Borrowers are not The Brady family.
These people take no responsibility with credit running up cards, not paying on time, have child support sometimes for multiple children with different partners, you name it. Then they go and use the bancruptcy umbrellas to save them for a while. They have collection accounts up the wazoo. If you saw the loan applications, you would see a majority of them have the most expensive cars beyond their incomes.
They aint the Cleavers.

The only people who have excuses for derogatory credit are people who have had issues with health or health of children that extend for long periods of time. People like my neighbors who had to secure a subprime equity loan to pay for uninsured treatments for their child with cancer after exhausting their savings. Other reasons could be people displaced from their homes and jobs due to catastrophes.

A very close friend of mine is a attorney whom we have shared case studies together. One case that he handled was against Westinghouse. That company financed satellite dish's to home owners. A 99 dollar dish could end up costing you 5k or more over the life of the loan. He sued and won on behalf of the 2 plaintiffs. One plaintiff was blind and the other did not even own a TV. Both were poor and lived in the rural south. Not all folks are like you say.

[Mango]

A very close friend of mine is a attorney whom we have shared case studies together. One case that he handled was against Westinghouse. That company financed satellite dish's to home owners. A 99 dollar dish could end up costing you 5k or more over the life of the loan. He sued and won on behalf of the 2 plaintiffs. One plaintiff was blind and the other did not even own a TV. Both were poor and lived in the rural south. Not all folks are like you say.

I had to read this a few times because at first I thought you were joking.

So, if I am knowingly allergic to shellfish, and I walk into a seafood restaurant and order a lobster and shrimp, then have a violent reaction and get rushed to the hospital, are you saying I would have a case against the restaurant who sold it to me because they didn't ask if I was allergic to it?

I didn't say all folks. I said most subprime Borrowers. Subprime loans are people with BAD credit.

[Mango]

As it continues to unfold, the implosion of the subprime mortgage system will be an interesting story to watch as it winds its way through the economy. The weeks and months ahead will provide never-ending casts of guilty and innocent characters, perp walks, finger-pointing, fraud, manipulation and greed--it will eclipse the Worldcom/Enron debacles in size and scope.

To provide added insight, a former "Mortgage Insider" is blogging series on the Subprime Lending fiasco: HERE

Seen this before, but it still cracks me up.
Socalmtgguy works for a Bank (wholesaler) and helps Brokers place subprime and Alt A loans, and then 2) he has a link for visa/MC for consults of $150 for 30 minutes to tell you if you are being stiffed.
The Banking Dept. could have a field day with this guy.

[SHELLY]

The cost of a toxic mix of "easy money" and "easy credit" during a housing boom? Taxpayers, prepare to open your wallets.

--------------------------------------------------

“U.S. lawmakers will have to consider providing aid to about 2.2 million subprime mortgage borrowers who are at risk of defaulting and losing their homes, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said today.”

“‘The impact of losing 2.2 million homes I suspect will be in a lot of areas of our cities and towns that are already pretty hard hit, so we clearly want to look at that and legislate,’ Dodd told reporters.”

“Federal aid ‘would come at a cost,’ said Douglas Duncan, chief economist at the Mortgage Bankers Association. ‘It has to be paid for and the question is would the 34 percent of homeowners who have no mortgage be willing to pay taxes to support the bailout of people who traditionally have not managed credit well?’”

[SHELLY]

Seen this before, but it still cracks me up.
Socalmtgguy works for a Bank (wholesaler) and helps Brokers place subprime and Alt A loans, and then 2) he has a link for visa/MC for consults of $150 for 30 minutes to tell you if you are being stiffed.
The Banking Dept. could have a field day with this guy.

If you go back several months, you'll find he saw the writing on the wall and bailed out of the mortgage biz.

Some of his early stories he related from "inside" were unbelieveable at the time (what people were getting away with)--now we're seeing that they were true.



.

[Mango]

If you go back several months, you'll find he saw the writing on the wall and bailed out of the mortgage biz.

Some of his early stories he related from "inside" were unbelieveable at the time (what people were getting away with)--now we're seeing that they were true. .

Or was fired or layed off. He still has his little consulting business it appears though. What he is doing is illegal. If you collect fees from someone and consult on a mortgage, you MUST be licensed in that State as Broker or Banker. It's akin to someone dispensing legal advice without attending law school, hanging a shingle, and getting paid.

I have to say though that although I got mailings from subprime lenders, I did not pay much attention to them, but quite a few of those ads he has posted are not truly indicative of the programs offered. That Countrywide one looks like it is multiple loan programs, not just one. There is a teeny weeny disclaimer on the bottom regarding FICO scores.

I am not implying that subprime lenders didn't get crazy with their offerings compared to when I got in the business 19 years ago.

[Mango]

The cost of a toxic mix of "easy money" and "easy credit" during a housing boom? Taxpayers, prepare to open your wallets.

--------------------------------------------------

“U.S. lawmakers will have to consider providing aid to about 2.2 million subprime mortgage borrowers who are at risk of defaulting and losing their homes, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said today.”

“‘The impact of losing 2.2 million homes I suspect will be in a lot of areas of our cities and towns that are already pretty hard hit, so we clearly want to look at that and legislate,’ Dodd told reporters.”

“Federal aid ‘would come at a cost,’ said Douglas Duncan, chief economist at the Mortgage Bankers Association. ‘It has to be paid for and the question is would the 34 percent of homeowners who have no mortgage be willing to pay taxes to support the bailout of people who traditionally have not managed credit well?’”

Maybe Dodd could get Arthur Anderson to pay for it. He saved them millions during the Enron crisis.
Wonder who he's cowtowing (sp?) now too.

[bdc63]

The cost of a toxic mix of "easy money" and "easy credit" during a housing boom? Taxpayers, prepare to open your wallets.

--------------------------------------------------

“U.S. lawmakers will have to consider providing aid to about 2.2 million subprime mortgage borrowers who are at risk of defaulting and losing their homes, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd said today.”

“‘The impact of losing 2.2 million homes I suspect will be in a lot of areas of our cities and towns that are already pretty hard hit, so we clearly want to look at that and legislate,’ Dodd told reporters.”

“Federal aid ‘would come at a cost,’ said Douglas Duncan, chief economist at the Mortgage Bankers Association. ‘It has to be paid for and the question is would the 34 percent of homeowners who have no mortgage be willing to pay taxes to support the bailout of people who traditionally have not managed credit well?’”

This just pisses me off to no end.

These people made a choice to live beyond their means ... rather then letting them fail and learn a valuable life lesson from it, what are we going to do? Use taxpayer money to bail them out. What's the message? Its okay to take risks and live beyond your means 'cause the government is there to bail you out.

I found this on iTulip.com:
"I have a better idea. How about this time Goldman Sachs, J.P Morgan, Merrill Lynch, Citibank, BoA, et al, clean up their own mess and pay for the bailout instead of taxpayers? Sure, the cost might put some of these banks out of business, but who cares? Other better run banks will take their place."

Amen.

I need a drink.

[Bob]

(From the Wall Street Journal)

At a Mortgage Lender, Rapid Rise, Faster Fall

By James R. Hagerty, Ruth Simon, Michael Corkery and Gregory Zuckerman
From The Wall Street Journal Online

Ruthie Hillery was struggling to make the $952 monthly mortgage payment for her three-bedroom home in Pittsburg, Calif., last summer when a mortgage broker called. The broker persuaded the 70-year-old Ms. Hillery to refinance into a "senior citizen's" loan from New Century Financial Corp. that she thought would eliminate the need to make any payments for several years, according to her lawyer.

Instead, the $336,000 adjustable-rate loan started out with payments of $2,200 a month, more than double her income. In December, Ms. Hillery received notice that New Century intended to foreclose on the property. Then, earlier this month, after a formal demand by the lawyer, New Century agreed to refund all its fees and cancel the loan once Ms. Hillery gets refinancing elsewhere.

The lawyer, Alan Ramos, says the loan never should have been made. "You have a loan application where the income section is blank," Mr. Ramos says. "How does it even get past the first person who looks at it?
---------------------------

Who is the greedy party is in the story above....

(a) The 70 year old lady struggling with a $952 monthly payment?

(b) The mortgage broker who CALLED her and offered her a "senior citizen's rate" that was double the amount she was struggling to pay?

(c) The Mortgage Company who processed the loan with the income section left blank?

(d) President Bush

(e) FEMA

(Hint: Whose pockets were lined by the event above?)

.................................................. ...................................

The borrower is the greedy party trying to deflect, because the scenario you have described is a no-doc loan. The income section is left blank, and the borrower is aware because she signs every page of the application, including, in Florida, about 20 odd other disclosures[good faith estimate and truth-in-lending et al.] fully illustrating the scope of the transaction. Don't know about Ca., but Florida has a 3 business day right of recission on all refinances. Regarding whose pockets were lined, I guarantee the borrower's pockets were lined by a cash-out closing, because if the rate and term were less advantageous, then the borrower had to be receiving funds at closing for the loan to fly. New Century folded on this loan, because, with no way to reference income on a no-doc, the case becomes Little Old Lady versus Darth Vader Mortgage Inc., a classic he said-she said. It's the same reason disclosure requirements are growing faster than Bill Clinton's black book....litigationlitigationlitigation....no one is responsible because....fill in the blank!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mango]

The borrower is the greedy party trying to deflect, because the scenario you have described is a no-doc loan. The income section is left blank, and the borrower is aware because she signs every page of the application, including, in Florida, about 20 odd other disclosures[good faith estimate and truth-in-lending et al.] fully illustrating the scope of the transaction. Don't know about Ca., but Florida has a 3 business day right of recission on all refinances. Regarding whose pockets were lined, I guarantee the borrower's pockets were lined by a cash-out closing, because if the rate and term were less advantageous, then the borrower had to be receiving funds at closing for the loan to fly. New Century folded on this loan, because, with no way to reference income on a no-doc, the case becomes Little Old Lady versus Darth Vader Mortgage Inc., a classic he said-she said. It's the same reason disclosure requirements are growing faster than Bill Clinton's black book....litigationlitigationlitigation....no one is responsible because....fill in the blank!!!!!!!!!!!

You go Bob.

The three day right of recission is nationwide law (Reg Z- part of Truth in Lending) pertaining to refinances of primary residences, which means you have 3 full days, excluding Sundays and holidays, to cancel the loan. By law, you are to receive every penny back spent relative to the transaction, which even includes the Banks eating the appraisal fees.
It's obvious she got lots of cash out since you do not go from a $952 payment on a $335k loan to $2200 a month unless you had an interest rate of 1.% or so.
In a case with a fixed income Borrower, you can not do a stated income loan (income stated, but not verified), so the only type of loan they could do was a NO DOC, which means they do not list employment or any any income whatsoever.

It's unfortunate because if she had that much equity in the house, and was having trouble paying she should have been in a reverse mortgage.
She could have easily walked into any Bank and got that type of loan, but probably didn't explore all options available.

[Bob]

Thanks Mango, Certain states have even more consumer protection in place. Texas, has a 12 day cooling off period for home equity transactions, and a three calendar day rescission period running with federal protections.

[SHELLY]

The strip mall subprime gang have their fingerprints all over this trainwreck. But their defense will be that they were merely trained (well-paid) chimps who worked boiler room cold calling centers and typed up loan documents....period! If this is the case, they never provided a value-added service to the client who paid dearly for their services. If that is true, then their jobs can be totally eliminated and replaced by a "fill in the blanks" website going forward.

[Bob]

Shelly, The two biggest lenders in the country do subprime, Countrywide and Wells Fargo. Regarding the hatchet job article, the likes of which you continually paper this board with, the term describing the referenced transaction was "benefit to the borrower". The cash received by the borrower was the value-added service. I'll bet you a Norman Vincent Peale seminar that said borrower took the cash at closing and has no intention of repaying the lender. I guess she needs it for her attorney. He's the only person to listen to her story other than the reporter who has no knowledge of the lending industry.

[Babyblue]

I had to read this a few times because at first I thought you were joking.

So, if I am knowingly allergic to shellfish, and I walk into a seafood restaurant and order a lobster and shrimp, then have a violent reaction and get rushed to the hospital, are you saying I would have a case against the restaurant who sold it to me because they didn't ask if I was allergic to it?

I didn't say all folks. I said most subprime Borrowers. Subprime loans are people with BAD credit.

You did not refer to the old lady as "knowingly" and a good trial lawyer( ) would say you have a case. They would just sue for the limits of the policy.

[Mango]

The strip mall subprime gang have their fingerprints all over this trainwreck. But their defense will be that they were merely trained (well-paid) chimps who worked boiler room cold calling centers and typed up loan documents....period! If this is the case, they never provided a value-added service to the client who paid dearly for their services. If that is true, then their jobs can be totally eliminated and replaced by a "fill in the blanks" website going forward.

You're right about strip mall subprime monkeys in boiler rooms, I have seen it with my own eyes, and it's pathetic, the reason I got out of subprime wholesale lending, however, ultimately it's the responsibitlity of the "preyed upon" to not be caught, If you sat in my office and fielded calls from people who are looking around for that deal that I wouldn't do and many others, you'd see that some do not listen to reason. Now the government is supposed to be a counselor/protector/ bailout sugar daddy to protect the rights of those that do not pay and are fiscally irresponsible?

You did not refer to the old lady as "knowingly" and a good trial lawyer( ) would say you have a case. They would just sue for the limits of the policy.

Hmmm, I just call them ambulance chasers.

[SHELLY]

Now the government is supposed to be a counselor/protector/ bailout sugar daddy to protect the rights of those that do not pay and are fiscally irresponsible?

If the government is going to foot the bill for the cleaning up the mess left behind by *subprimates, then they should test, license and regulate them.


(* The chimps that work the subprime mortgate industry )

[Mango]

If the government is going to foot the bill for the cleaning up the mess left behind by *subprimates, then they should test, license and regulate them.


(* The chimps that work the subprime mortgate industry )

That would also mean training their own chimps (the government) since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, all Federal agencies, bought subprime loans as well. While they are at it, they can train the chimps that do their accounting since they seem to misreport their income.

[30A Skunkape]

This article dedicated to Shelly


Top investor sees U.S. property crash
Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:59PM EDT
By Elif Kaban

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Commodities investment guru Jim Rogers stepped into the U.S. subprime fray on Wednesday, predicting a real estate crash that would trigger defaults and spread contagion to emerging markets.

"You can't believe how bad it's going to get before it gets any better," the prominent U.S. fund manager told Reuters by telephone from New York.

"It's going to be a disaster for many people who don't have a clue about what happens when a real estate bubble pops.

"It is going to be a huge mess," said Rogers, who has put his $15 million belle epoque mansion on Manhattan's Upper West Side on the market and is planning to move to Asia.

Worries about losses in the U.S. mortgage market have sent stock prices falling in Asia and Europe, with shares in financial services companies falling the most.

Some investors fear the problems of lenders who make subprime loans to people with weak credit histories are spreading to mainstream financial firms and will worsen the U.S. housing slowdown.

"Real estate prices will go down 40-50 percent in bubble areas. There will be massive defaults. This time it'll be worse because we haven't had this kind of speculative buying in U.S. history," Rogers said.

"When markets turn from bubble to reality, a lot of people get burned."

The fund manager, who co-founded the Quantum Fund with billionaire investor George Soros in the 1970s and has focused on commodities since 1998, said the crisis would spread to emerging markets which he said now faced a prolonged bear run.

"When you have a financial crisis, it reverberates in other financial markets, especially in those with speculative excess," he said.

"Right now, there is huge speculative excess in emerging markets around the world. There will be a lot of money coming out of emerging markets.

"I've sold out of emerging markets except for China," said Rogers, long a prominent China bull.

Even in China, the world's fastest expanding economy, Rogers said stocks were overvalued and could go down 30-40 percent.

But he added: "China is one of the few countries in the world where I'm willing to sit out a 30-40 percent decline."

The last stock market bubble to burst was the dot-com craze which sparked a crash from March 2000 to October 2002.

When the last bubble burst in Japan, said Rogers, stock prices went down 85 percent despite the country's high savings rate and huge balance of payment surplus.

"This is the end of the liquidity party," said Rogers. "Some emerging markets will go down 80 percent, some will go down 50 percent. Some will most probably collapse."

© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

[SHELLY]

This article dedicated to Shelly


Top investor sees U.S. property crash
Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:59PM EDT
By Elif Kaban

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Commodities investment guru Jim Rogers stepped into the U.S. subprime fray on Wednesday, predicting a real estate crash that would trigger defaults and spread contagion to emerging markets.

"You can't believe how bad it's going to get before it gets any better," the prominent U.S. fund manager told Reuters by telephone from New York.

"It's going to be a disaster for many people who don't have a clue about what happens when a real estate bubble pops.

Hell...compared to Jim, I sound like David Lereah


.


.

[SHELLY]

That would also mean training their own chimps (the government) since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, all Federal agencies, bought subprime loans as well. While they are at it, they can train the chimps that do their accounting since they seem to misreport their income.

Not as many as you think.

March 16 WSJ had an article about that. Here's an excerpt:

"For decades, the FHA was a major backer of mortgage funding for borrowers with poor credit. But the FHA’s share of the market has dropped sharply in the past decade as hordes of aggressive subprime lenders wooed away borrowers with an array of seemingly attractive options, including no-money-down mortgages and interest-only payments. The subprime players also offered faster approvals, instant home appraisals, less paperwork and fewer hassles, winning over consumers even though subprime mortgage rates were generally higher than rates for FHA-insured mortgages.

According to Inside Mortgage Finance, subprime mortgage originations, or the dollar volume of such new loans nationwide, totaled $600 billion last year, more than triple the 2002 volume of $185 billion. FHA-backed loan volume fell to $53.7 billion last year, down from $145.1 billion in 2002."



----------------------------------------------------------
In addition, for anyone who is interested, there is an EYE OPENING series starting today in the Charlotte (NC) Observer about how Beazer Homebuilders did some hocus-pocus to get first-time buyers to qualify for FHA-Insured Mortgages: Sold a Nightmare Now many of those buyers are finding themselves with poorly built houses, underwater in payments and facing foreclosure. Moreover, we taxpayers are going to have to make good on these loans.
.

[Mango]

FHA is a separate entity than Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They are much more difficult loans to get, the Bankers who are approved by them go through rigorous approval processes to get their "wings". They have been doing high LTV loans for as long as I have been in the business. They have their own appraisers who go out to the properties (also FHA approved)

As far as the Beezer article, 1) what were people expecting to get for $100K or so on a home (top of the line siding, slate roofs?)

Further, FHA has been doing 3 year rate buy downs forever. The $100 difference in payments bewteen 2 wage-earners at the end of 3 years is not considered a hardship by FHA since they expect that people will be at least getting raises according to inflation.

Then the noted family says they had wanted to get a bigger house in 5 years, then go and have the husband stay home to watch their daughter in lieu of working. Once again, poor financial decisions.
I really wonder where for $1000 a month, they thought they could live with 2 kids.
FYI- if the car wasn't in her name on the credit report and they didn't use his income, you would NOT put it on the loan application since it is not her debt.
This is just another example of people who have big dreams, but once again are fiscally irresponsible. The article doesn't tell you they probably went and bought all new furniture on credit after they closed, (of course you can't have a new house without new furniture.... ) or how much their rent was prior to buying this house.

[SHELLY]

I really wonder where for $1000 a month, they thought they could live with 2 kids.

Apparently in a Beazer subdivision with the blessing of the mortgage folks and underwriters



.

[SHELLY]

As far as the Beezer article, 1) what were people expecting to get for $100K or so on a home (top of the line siding, slate roofs?)

Maybe for 100K they would hope to get a dwelling that would keep the outside elements out....maybe something up to the standards of a $399 Sears garden shed (or at least the box it came it).

Just what price should a first-time homeowner expect to pay for a new house that doesn't rot and mold after 3 years?

.

[beachmouse]

As far as the Beezer article, 1) what were people expecting to get for $100K or so on a home (top of the line siding, slate roofs?)

<snip>

I really wonder where for $1000 a month, they thought they could live with 2 kids.

Less than four years ago, you could have gotten a modest but nice and reasonably well built home in Freeport or Crestview for less than $100K and that same home would have sold for less than $150K in Destin or SoWal if you knew which neighborhoods to look in.

And until we refi'ed down to a 15 year mortgage a few years back, our PITI expenses were less than $1000/month.

This area used to be the place you moved to because you could live cheap by the beach.

[Mango]

Less than four years ago, you could have gotten a modest but nice and reasonably well built home in Freeport or Crestview for less than $100K and that same home would have sold for less than $150K in Destin or SoWal if you knew which neighborhoods to look in.

And until we refi'ed down to a 15 year mortgage a few years back, our PITI expenses were less than $1000/month.

This area used to be the place you moved to because you could live cheap by the beach.

Perhaps so, the difference here in the article in N.C is that FHA encouraged low income housing loans, and the builder provided it. The area was one where land was still relatively cheap in comparison to others.

Apparently affordable housing seems like a damned if you or damned if you don't proposition.

Not sure of the construction of the home in their entirety, but there's such a things asinspections, even brand new ones.
I built my own house 15 years ago and there were still minor issues with construction from settling etc. that we needed to address, and I had a final inspection and warranty on the house.

I suppose what annoys me are these reporters who know nothing about the lending and construction industries reporting these stories.
Example: The reporter asks and points out to the woman who secured the loan that her income was $187 a month higher on the final typed loan application. She claims she didn't notice it.

There could be a reason the higher amount. The Banks use 2 years W2's and do an average of income. She could have had overtime and that was reflected on the final typed application which the Bank prepares. Then the Borrower resigns it at closing. You are making a legal statement when you sign the final typed app at closing. She could have opened her mouth then and how how they calculated her income. Did she? NO.

Her mortgage payments weren't going to rise for 1 full year by a percentage of which the Lender was paying for it anyway, but she still went and had the car repossessed only months after closing.

FHA approved the loan based on her income only and she qualified with just her debt ratios alone. She had a working husband too.
There was no hocus pocus going on here.

We really don't know where the mold is - could be one corner of the house from a flashing problem. Did the reporter take pictures of anything? NO.

Too bad people hear and listen and make opinions when they do not see the whole picture, only what a reporter wants you to hear.

[Bob]

The hatchets are out! There's axes to grind!!!!!!!!!!

[SHELLY]

Hi
This is jamesbrosnan
I am new to this forum. I don't know much about this forum. When my friends told me about this then I saw it. I think your site is providing information about New York Times mortgage article. I didn't see this article. I think this site is to be useful to whom wants to know Mortgage. They required to see this. I fully recommended this site to all the people.

Hi Jim,

Your writing style appears very familiar--would you happen to be affiliated with Barrister Mohammed Kazimbe from Nigeria? I'm currently coordinating transfer of $150 million from the estate of my long-lost relative Uncle Shelly who I'm told died in a Diamond Mine cave-in last year. I've sent the good Barrister $35,000 and all the access information for my banking accounts in preparation for the transfer, but haven't heard from him in about a week. Be a dear and have him give me a call.

Thanx.

Shel.

[Miss Critter]