Category Archives: Media watch

San Francisco Foreclosure Audit Elicits Predictable Responses from Securitization Mess Deniers

Given the existence of a large and still for the most part very well remunerated mortgage industrial complex, it is not surprising that a investigation done by a mere county that found errors in virtually all the loans in a small sample of foreclosures created a hue and cry.

While state attorney general Kamala Harris remarked that, “The allegations are deeply troubling and, sadly, no surprise to homeowners and law enforcement officials in California,” and Nancy Pelosi wrote to ask Eric Holder to take a look, the securitization problem deniers went to assault mode.

Quelle Surprise! San Francisco Assessor Finds Pervasive Fraud in Foreclosure Exam (and Paul Jackson Defends His Meal Tickets Yet Again)

One of our big beefs about the pending mortgage settlement has been the failure of prosecutors and regulators to do anything remotely resembling serious investigations. You don’t settle on known, easy to prove abuses (particularly when you choose not to know their extent) and leave yourself with a grab bag of mainly more difficult to ferret out ones to consider going after later.

We’ve seen repeatedly that small scale investigations in the servicing and foreclosure arena have found widespread problems. So the latest report from San Francisco county should come as no surprise.

“By 2015, [X] is Going to Represent 95% of the Content on the World Wide Web”

Be one of the first to find out….

Philip Pilkington: What Has Bill Gross Been Reading?

By Philip Pilkington, a writer and journalist based in Dublin, Ireland

Question: what on earth has Bill Gross been reading? Gross has long been an acolyte of Hyman Minsky, or so he says. But his recent piece in the Financial Times entitled ‘Zero-Based Money Risks Trapping Recovery’ has a lot of people scratching their noodles.

Michael Olenick: More on ProPublica’s Off Base Charges About Freddie Mac’s Mortgage “Bets”

By Michael Olenick, founder and CEO of Legalprise, and creator of FindtheFraud, a crowd sourced foreclosure document review system (still in alpha). You can follow him on Twitter at @michael_olenick

Fallout continues from the ProPublica/NPR story “Freddie Mac Bets Against American Homeowners,” though probably not the sort ProPublica expected.

Many in the blogsphere who work on finance and housing finance issues, including myself and Yves Smith, didn’t find the piece to be convincing. In a rebuttal Yves, who like me is anything but a cheerleader for the GSEs, explained Freddie’s practice is, in reality, only slightly more nefarious than clearing snow from the parking lot. That is, of all the awful decisions Freddie Mac makes, this isn’t one of them.

Quelle Surprise! Feds Dust off Old Rogue Traders CDO Case to Burnish “Tough on Mortgage Crime” Credentials

The powers that be are in the process of seeing how they can burnish their “tough on bank crime” credentials while not ruffling anyone really important. And the case featured in the Wall Street Journal, “U.S. Plans Charges on Bond Fraud,” illustrates the sort of enforcement theater we are likely to see over the coming months.

Wow! Charges! Better yet, criminal charges! Finally the Administration is getting tough on crime.

Right. It’s tough on crime against banks.

ProPublica’s Off Base Charges About Freddie Mac’s Mortgage “Bets”

A new ProPublica story, “Freddie Mac Betting Against Struggling Homeowners,” treats the fact that Freddie Mac retains the riskiest tranche of its mortgage bond offering, known as inverse floaters, as heinous and evidence of scheming against suffering borrowers.

The storyline in this piece is neat, plausible, and utterly wrong. And my e-mail traffic indicates that people who are reasonably finance savvy but don’t know the mortgage bond space have bought the uninformed and conspiratorial ProPublica thesis hook, line, and sinker.

Doug Smith: Useful Idiot Watch – Matt Yglesias

By Douglas K. Smith, author of On Value and Values: Thinking Differently About We In An Age Of Me

Earlier this month, Matthew Yglesias of Slate tweeted “EXCLUSIVE: The activities of individual business executives have no relationship to the level of economy-wide employment.”

It’s hard to choose what is most ridiculous here…

Adam Davidson, the 1%’s Lord Haw-Haw, Fellates Wall Street

Although I endeavor to treat high dudgeon as an art form, it is difficult to find words adequate to convey the level of ridicule and opprobrium that Adam Davidson’s latest New York Times piece, “What Does Wall Street Do for You?” deserves. I had the vast misfortune to come across it late last week, and have gotten an unusually large volume of incredulous reader e-mails about it. Ms. G’s e-mail headline “NYT – Not a Parody” was typical:

This one is so bad, even for NYT, I’m wondering if the paper wasn’t secretly sold to Murdoch, Bloomberg & the Fed Reserve sometime in the past few days.

American Exceptionalism and Euro-Bashing, Adam Davidson Style

Adam Davidson has an article in the Sunday New York Times Magazine, “The Other Reason Europe is Going Broke,” that manages the impressive feat of making you stupider than before you read it. It misrepresents most of the few facts it contains in appealing to American prejudices about our cultural, or in this case, economics superiority, to sell worker bashing.

Davidson uses the spectacle of Europe going into an economic nosedive to claim that one of the big things wrong with Europe is its spoiled workers. The piece is anchored in a glaring, fundamental misrepresentation. It argues that Americans are much better off than Europeans because we have a higher GDP per capita (more on that in due course) and asserts that that is because Europeans are not able to compete in world markets:

Philip Pilkington: When Economic Journalists Get Out of Their Depth

By Philip Pilkington, a journalist and writer living in Dublin, Ireland

Working as a journalist and as an opinion writer each have their charms. Journalists have the pleasure of discovery and revelation: uncovering new facts, talking to people, sometimes acting as a catalyst to move events forward.

Opinion writing, aside from being a comfy way to make a living, gives the writer greater stylistic freedom, and the challenge and opportunity of making a dent in readers’ views. The problem is that you have a limited amount of space and, often, an easily distracted readership. Now, that’s fine for something like, say, an observation about an upcoming election or the loutish behavior of a major sports figure but it is a patently awful format from which to raise Big Questions.

The normally sound Clive Crook fell into this trap in an opinion piece at Bloomberg, “A Crisis of Leadership, Not a Crisis of Capitalism.” Bluntly, this article is a train wreck.