My New Blog

Shareholders File Class Action Suit
May 15th, 2009 8:11 PM

Shareholders File Class Action Suit Against eAppraiserIT / WaMU For "Requesting" Artificially Inflated Appraisals

Judge SANTA ANA, Calif. (CN) - First American Corp. provided 260,000 false and inflated appraisals to Washington Mutual in the past 2 years, inflating its own share price through false and misleading statements, according to a shareholder derivative class action. The class claims First American did this through its subsidiary, eAppriaseIT.

The class claims WaMu was eAppraiseIT's largest customer. Plaintiffs claim that Santa Ana-based

"eAppriaseIT, at Washington Mutual's urging, provided materially false and inflated appraisals for properties where Washington Mutual sought to originate a mortgage. This enabled Washington Mutual to engage in real estate mortgage transactions that would otherwise have been untenable had the property at issue been correctly appraised.

Senior executives at First American were aware of and willing to accommodate the request to falsify appraisals. Washington Mutual's competitive place in the market and profit were driven in large part by the number of mortgages it issued based upon artificially inflated appraisals issued by eAppriaseIT."

The complaint adds: "On Nov. 1, 2007, the New York Attorney General filed a complaint alleging that beginning in Summer 2006, Washington Mutual put pressure on eAppriaseIT to increase the appraised value of homes. ...

Defendants' improper appraisal practices during the relevant period [April 26, 2007 to the present]:

1.  rendered the company's statements about its compliance with ethical and legal guidelines materially false and misleading;

2.  rendered defendants' statements about the adequacy of the company's internal controls materially false and misleading;

3.  caused certain of the company's reported financial information, including revenues associated with home appraisals, to be materially overstated throughout the relevant period;

4.  caused the company's loan loss reserves, provisions for doubtful account and contingent liabilities to be materially understated during the relevant period; and

5.  caused defendants to report financial results that were in violation of GAAP."

 Plaintiffs are represented by lead counsel Glancy, Binkow & Goldberg of Los Angeles.

Finger Source Document - Click here

Article Source:  Courthouse New Service


Posted by Tom Pfeiffer on May 15th, 2009 8:11 PMPost a Comment (0)

Subscribe to this blog
Real estate appraiser indicted
May 28th, 2009 12:08 AM

Wednesday, May 27, 2009
By Jonathan D. Silver, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A onetime real estate appraiser linked to the investigation of mortgages allegedly involving former Mt. Lebanon developer Bernardo Katz has been indicted by a federal grand jury.

Perry Berardino, who once ran Perth Appraisal Inc., was charged May 20 with two counts of bank fraud.

A grand jury indictment accuses Mr. Berardino of defrauding Flagstar Bank in 2002.

The indictment said agents of a mortgage broker called America's Mortgage Outlet submitted loan applications to the bank that misstated information.

Mr. Berardino, according to the indictment, prepared fraudulent appraisals of the properties that were to serve as collateral for the bank's loans by overstating their values.

The second count deals with defrauding five other banks from 2000 to 2003 in much the same way, according to the indictment.

A 2008 plea agreement between a former Bethel Park mortgage broker and the U.S. government identified Mr. Berardino as part of a group under investigation for mortgage fraud that includes Mr. Katz.

When he lived in Mt. Lebanon, Mr. Katz amassed more than 100 properties in Allegheny County but has defaulted on numerous mortgages worth millions of dollars.

No charges have been filed against Mr. Katz.

Jonathan D. Silver can be reached at jsilver@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1962.
First published on May 27, 2009 at 9:43 am


Posted by Tom Pfeiffer on May 28th, 2009 12:08 AMPost a Comment (0)

Subscribe to this blog
Loan-Loss Provisions Continue to Depress Net Income
May 28th, 2009 12:03 AM

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 27, 2009
Media Contact:
Andrew Gray (202) 898-7192
angray@fdic.gov <mailto:angray@fdic.gov>

Commercial banks and savings institutions insured by the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC) reported net income of $7.6 billion in the
first quarter of 2009, a decline of $11.7 billion (60.8 percent) from
the $19.3 billion that the industry earned in the first quarter of 2008.
Higher loan-loss provisions, increased goodwill write-downs, and reduced
income from securitization activities all contributed to the
year-over-year earnings decline. Three out of five insured institutions
reported lower net income in the first quarter and one in five was
unprofitable.

"The first quarter results are telling us that the banking industry
still faces tremendous challenges, and that going forward, asset quality
remains a major concern," said FDIC Chairman Sheila C. Bair. "Banks are
making good efforts to deal with the challenges they're facing, but
today's report says that we're not out of the woods yet." She added, "As
I see it, we're now in the cleanup phase for the banking industry. It
will take some more time. But in the end, we'll have a stronger banking
industry that's better able to meet the demand for credit as the economy
recovers."

Insured institutions set aside $60.9 billion in provisions for loan
losses in the first quarter, an increase of $23.7 billion (63.6 percent)
over the first quarter of 2008. Expenses for goodwill impairment and
other intangible asset expenses totaled $7.2 billion, up from $2.8
billion a year earlier. These negative factors outweighed the positive
effects of increased noninterest income (up $7.8 billion or 12.8
percent), higher net interest income (up $4.4 billion or 4.7 percent),
and higher realized gains on securities and other assets (up $1.9
billion). Twenty-one FDIC-insured institutions failed during the first
quarter, the largest number since the fourth quarter in 1992. The FDIC's
"Problem List" grew during the quarter from 252 to 305 institutions, and
total assets of problem institutions increased from $159 billion to $220
billion.

The FDIC also noted that asset-quality indicators continue to decline.
Insured institutions charged off $37.8 billion in bad loans in the first
quarter, almost twice the $19.6 billion of a year earlier. The amount of
loans and leases that were noncurrent (90 days or more past due or in
nonaccrual status) rose by $59.2 billion during the quarter, and are
$154.3 billion higher than a year ago.

"Troubled loans continue to accumulate, and the costs associated with
impaired assets are weighing heavily on the industry's performance,"
Chairman Bair noted. "Nevertheless, compared to a year ago, we see some
positives. Net interest income is higher, and noninterest revenue is up
at larger banks, particularly trading revenues. Realized gains on
securities and other assets improved, too. But these positive factors
were outweighed by higher expenses for bad loans and for goodwill
impairment."

Financial results for the first quarter are contained in the FDIC's
latest Quarterly Banking Profile, which was released today. Also among
the major findings:

Tier 1 capital growth reached a record high. Tier 1 capital rose by
almost $70 billion, the largest quarterly increase ever reported by the
industry. However, much of the increase occurred at institutions that
received capital from the U.S. Treasury Department's Troubled Asset
Relief Program (TARP). A number of institutions also reduced their
dividends to support capital growth. Dividend payments in the first
quarter totaled $7.2 billion, about half the $14.0 billion insured
institutions paid in the first quarter of 2008. The FDIC noted that 97
percent of insured institutions were well-capitalized by regulatory
standards.

Total assets declined by $302 billion. Downsizing by a few large banks
caused total industry assets to fall by $302 billion (2.2 percent)
during the first quarter. Two-thirds of all institutions reported asset
growth in the quarter, but reductions at eight large banks caused the
industry total to decline. Total loans and leases fell by $159.6 billion
(2.1 percent), while assets in trading accounts declined by $144.5
billion (14.9 percent).

The FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) reserve ratio fell to 0.27
percent. Growth in insured deposits and a shrinking fund balance caused
the Deposit Insurance Fund's reserve ratio to decline from 0.36 percent
of insured deposits to 0.27 percent in the first quarter. Insured
deposits increased by $82.4 billion (1.7 percent) during the quarter.
The DIF balance declined from $17.3 billion at the end of 2008 (amended
from the originally reported unaudited balance of $19 billion) to $13.0
billion on March 31, 2009. However, the FDIC Board of Directors approved
an amended restoration plan in February that is designed to restore the
DIF reserve ratio to 1.15 percent within seven years. The FDIC has
already set aside $28 billion in reserve to cover projected losses for
the next 12 months. In addition, the FDIC will collect more than $8
billion in premiums during the second quarter, including $5.6 billion
from the special assessment the FDIC Board approved on May 22.

"Insured deposits increased 1.7 percent in the quarter -- some $82
billion -- and they are up by nine percent over the last 12 months,"
Chairman Bair said. "This growth in insured deposits is a vote of
confidence from bank customers. They obviously see the value of the FDIC
guarantee."

The complete Quarterly Banking Profile is available at
http://www2.fdic.gov/qbp/index.asp <http://www2.fdic.gov/qbp/index.asp>
on the FDIC Web site.

# # #

Congress created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 1933 to
restore public confidence in the nation's banking system. The FDIC
insures deposits at the nation's 8,246 banks and savings associations
and it promotes the safety and soundness of these institutions by
identifying, monitoring and addressing risks to which they are exposed.
The FDIC receives no federal tax dollars – insured financial
institutions fund its operations.

FDIC press releases and other information are available on the Internet
at www.fdic.gov <http://www.fdic.gov/> , by subscription electronically
(go to www.fdic.gov/about/subscriptions/index.html
<http://www.fdic.gov/about/subscriptions/index.html> ) and may also be
obtained through the FDIC's Public Information Center (877-275-3342 or
703-562-2200). PR-77-2009


Posted by Tom Pfeiffer on May 28th, 2009 12:03 AMPost a Comment (0)

Subscribe to this blog
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's new rules are raising appraisal costs
May 20th, 2009 8:09 AM
NATION'S HOUSING

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's new rules are raising appraisal costs, critics say

The rules, intended to improve the accuracy of home valuations, push most large lenders to use third-party appraisal management companies.
By Kenneth R. Harney
May 17, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- How about this scenario the next time you refinance or apply for a mortgage: The real estate appraisal that used to cost you $325 now costs $450, even though the appraiser doing the work is getting only $175 or $200.

Plus, your appraisal-related charges may now be subject to add-on fees that you'd never heard of before -- $50 to $100 extra in "no show" penalties if you get stuck in traffic and miss your appointment with the appraiser. Or an extra $50 to $150 tacked on if the property is worth more than $500,000.

That scenario is now reality, according to critics of the controversial new appraisal rules imposed nationwide May 1 by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Advocates of the rules vigorously deny that the new system is flawed and say any increase in appraisal costs should be manageable for most consumers.

The rules, which go by the name Home Valuation Code of Conduct, are intended to improve the accuracy of appraisals by eliminating pressure on appraisers from loan officers. The code pushes most large lenders to use third-party "appraisal management companies" that contract with networks of independent appraisers around the country who have no direct contact with retail loan officers or mortgage brokers.

Mortgage brokers, who formerly chose appraisers and kept a competitive eye on appraisal fees, say Fannie's and Freddie's rules are adding 20% to 30% to consumers' appraisal costs. Jeffrey T. Hawk, vice president of Maryland Mutual Mortgage in Forest Hill, Md., says a standard appraisal that previously went for $325 jumped to $400 or more May 1 when he was forced to use management company appraisers.

Some applicants also are balking at handing over credit card information upfront when they're not sure what the charge will be. "I lost three clients the first week" because of the credit card requirement, Hawk said.

Buddy McCombs, senior vice president of EverBank, a Jacksonville, Fla., lender that buys loans originated by Hawk's firm and now contracts with management companies for appraisals, concedes that "there's probably a little increased cost" with the new system, "but I don't think it's devastating."

Sacramento-based appraiser James Facchini of American Pacific Appraisal Co. says, "What's terrible is what's happening to [long-established] appraisers who won't work for the low fees" management companies pay.

"On May 1," Facchini said, "I lost almost my entire customer base" -- mortgage brokers who now can't pick up a phone and order an appraisal from him.

Instead, Facchini and other appraisers either have to sign up with management companies or find other employment. What "really bothers me," he said, "is that the consumer has no idea what's going on."

After Facchini signed up with one management company, he said, two consumers commented to him after he finished his appraisal, "Wow, you really charge a lot."

They were each being hit with $550 appraisal fees, although Facchini was getting just $250 through the management company. As he sees it, that leaves $300 of "slush" somewhere in the process -- some going to the management company, but the rest probably "flowing to the lender for doing absolutely nothing."

Rich Kuegler, a vice president at MDA Lending Services Inc., a national appraisal management company, says payments to firms like his are compensation for creating, managing and reviewing a network of thousands of individual appraisers -- MDA has 9,000 under contract across the country -- and for the "processing and administrative" costs that have been taken off the backs of brokers and lenders.

As to appraisers' complaints about fees, Kuegler said, his firm offers them "the ability to have a steady stream of work, training and support." In other words, appraisers can expect to make up in overall volume what they're sacrificing per assignment.

kenharney@earthlink.net

Distributed by the Washington Post Writers Group.

Many real estate agents locally have told us that in three short weeks the system has appraisal problems that never occurred in the past. Most think from inexperienced appraisers from out of the market who are meeting values but producing an inferior appraisal product that is hung up in an underwriting scenario. Most have no clue as to where to turn for help.


Posted by Tom Pfeiffer on May 20th, 2009 8:09 AMPost a Comment (0)

Subscribe to this blog
FNMA - Home Valuation Code of Conduct Web Seminar
May 1st, 2009 12:06 AM

NEW Video - Fannie Mae's Home Valuation Code of Conduct Recorded Web Seminar

Fannie Mae's newest pdf and video provide guidance to lenders and appraisers to supplement the policy requirements in the Fannie Mae Selling Guide for performing and underwriting the property appraisal securing mortgages delivered to Fannie Mae.

Guidance for Lenders and Appraisers - (.pdf, 130K, 26 pages)

Click the graphic below to start the online training video . . .  

FannieMae HVCC Video

 

Top 11 Myths & Realities About The Home Valuation Code of Conduct

Fact-or-crap Are they True or False?  Do YOU  know the answers to ALL eleven Top Myths About The HVCC?

Myth: The HVCC requires lenders to use Appraisal Management Companies.

Myth: Mortgage sellers cannot achieve compliance without outsourcing the appraisal function.

Myth: “Loan Correspondents” or “correspondent lenders” are the same as mortgage brokers and they too cannot order appraisals.

Myth: Sellers cannot maintain the appraisal function internally (as an in-house operation), without loan production involvement.

Myth: Loan Production staff is prohibited from communicating with appraisers.

Myth: Outsourcing appraisal functions to an appraisal management company can reduce costs.

Myth: Outsourcing appraisal management to a third party reduces lender risk.

Myth: Use of third party vendors ensures the use of competent appraisers.

Myth: The licensing of an appraiser ensures his or her competency.

Myth: Professional appraisal designations cannot be used when evaluating the qualifications, education and experience of an appraiser.

Myth: “Comp checks” ? which are prohibited under the HVCC without an engaged appraisal assignment - are the only way to determine if there is sufficient value in the collateral before proceeding with a loan application.

Finger Click here for the answers: Download Home Valuation Code of Conduct - Myths & Realities


Posted by Tom Pfeiffer on May 1st, 2009 12:06 AMPost a Comment (0)

Subscribe to this blog
Recent Posts:

Archive:

My Favorite Blogs:

Sites That Link to This Blog:

Precision Network Services, Inc 1556 King Charles Drive Suite B Pittsburgh, PA 15237-1584
Phone: Fax:

Testimonials | Contact Us | What is an Appraisal | Professional Qualifications | Fee Schedule | About us | Links - County Websites | Counties Serviced | Sketching Service | Bail Bond Service | FHA Checklist | Frozen HELOC Appraisal | Client Login | Order an Appraisal | Inspection Tips | How to Prepare | Home Seller Services | Home Buyer Checklist | Appraisal Myths | Estate Appraisals | Download Adobe Acrobat | Understanding PMI | For Homeowners | Why get an Appraisal | Home | Mortgage Calculators | Faster Appraisals | IFA Designation | For FSBO's | Appraisal ReviewServices | Payment Options | Fax an Order | My Blog | Win $1000 | Pittsburgh Experts | Privacy Notice

Copyright © 2010 Precision Network Services, Inc
Portions Copyright © 2010 a la mode, inc.
Another XSite by a la mode, inc. | Admin LoginTerms of UseSite Map



 
State:
County:
City:
Zip: