Will The $426 Billion "Second Lien Monster" Require A New Marshall Plan For Housing? Reuters Special Report On Fraudclosure

Tyler Durden's picture

Reuters' Matt Goldstein has completed a special report on foreclosure fraud, asking rhetorically: "foreclosures are rising; lawsuits are flying; banks are beleaguered; there has to be a better way?" Goldstein looks at fraudclosure from the perspective of the fight between junior and senior liens, a topic Zero Hedge discussed a month ago (The Foreclosure Mess MBS Hate Triangle Emerges: Junior Versus Senior Bondholders Versus Servicers) highlighting that $426 billion in loans are second lien, and, as highlighted previously, sit on the balance sheets of BofA, JPM, Wells and Citi in the biggest circle jerk in this whole mortgage crisis fiasco (always remember: one TBTF's mismarked assets always end up being another TBTF's unfudgeable liabilities). As the chart below shows, the banks have no choice but to come up with a compromise: obstinately keeping their heads in the sand is a guaranteed way for the entire financial system to blow up.

Which is why Goldstein asks what are the alternatives to resolve this problem. Six potential proposal have emerged: A Camp David summit, Second lien writedowns, Regulatory easing, Big Refi, Bond investors deal, and a Borrowers compromise. At the end of the day none of these solve all the problems, and all go through the perspective of a TARP 2-type intervention for the banks. Which means that Obama will have to make a decision whether or not to impair the equity and senior debtholders again. And if the president once again sides exclusively with the banks, that will certainly be the tipping point in US populist anger.

At the end of the day, DoubleLine Portfolio Manager Vincent Fiorillo, may be right, and what may be called for is the same type of multilateral bail out costing trillions of dollars in inflation adjusted terms that was the "Marshall Plan."

“No one wants to put the banks in an untenable situation,” said Vincent Fiorillo, a mortgage-backed security trader and portfolio manager with Los Angeles-based DoubleLine Capital. “If the choice is between getting something, I think that as a  fiduciary getting something would be my first choice.” Fiorillo said it may ultimately take some third party to bring all the sides together and hammer out a “Marshall Plan for the mortgage business.”

Perhaps the unwillingness of various  actors who do have much to lose by escalating the issue is one reason why they have so far been unwilling to enjoin de facto monopolists such as Pimco and the New York Fed to pursue aggressive putbacks. Of course, the status quo is most agreeable to all market participants. The problem is what happens when the cash runs completely dry from the simple flesh and blood securities that are at the basis of every MBS. And that's why we soon may truly need a Marshall Plan, the type that is more than a metaphor and is a full fledged wholesale rescue of a crushed entity. Only this time instead of rescuing a continent beleaguered by the ravages of the biggest war in history, it will be the US housing sector, ravaged by what is becoming perceived as the biggest and most pervasive mortgage fraud in history.

Full Reuters must read special report.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
doolittlegeorge's picture

better way?  we've already been led down "the primrose path."  this is the purpose and always has been for "too big to fail."  are we at the "don't worry a federal agency will now be in charge of that" moment?  State AG's have been "looking to cut a deal" since day one.  pretty big tho...even for the Federale's.  Solutions look messy.

Popo's picture

Well the first steps are*clearly* to wipe out the equity holders, replace management, bring criminal convictions to bear and convert debt to equity.   

WTF is so goddamn hard to understand about the straightforward, legal approach?

Resolution authority ALREADY EXISTS under Dodd Frank.   We don't need a new set of laws, we need someone, anyone, in office with a functioning set of balls.

The second step should be to immediately re-instate Glass Steagal AS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN - WITHOUT CHANGES.


This is not complicated.  It will be painful, and it will result in a large portion of the banking elite becoming non-elite.  And the criminal charges will also likely result in a significant number of said former-elite going to jail.  Any other solution involves the obliteration of democracy, capitalism and free-society.  

johngaltfla's picture

What we need is for the enforcement of and allowance of contract law to be completed. The problem is that while the law might apply to the single investor or single homeowner, the banksters have no such obligation until someone bigger comes along (hint: putbacks) and stomps them in the courts. The biggest joke is FASB and CONgress which through Voodoo Accounting is allowing the banks to hold second liens on the books at full value even when the underlying properties have a negative net valuation to the original mortgage and the homeowner is no longer servicing either the primary or secondary liens.

Until we fix those issues this problem is only going to expand exponentially.

Bob's picture

"No one wants to put the banks in an untenable position?"

Hello?  There are some sane people who want nothing less than to resolve these monsters for good. 

NOTW777's picture

what about the untenable position of the average american being abused by his or her government

Bob's picture

That's exactly my point.  We have enough trouble with the government without being drained for the banksters.  BK for the banks. 

BTW, we need to block issuance of that $144B in bonuses that are now clearly illegal sacking of corporate assets. 


TuesdayBen's picture

I'm so friggin pissed that it wasn't BK from Day One.

Bob's picture

We need to block issuance of the $144B in bonuses that are now clearly illegal sacking of corporate assets with BK's on the horizon. 

deadparrot's picture

What do you think the suspension of FASB 157 is? It lets banks pretend they are solvent for long enough to pay out one last round of insane bonuses. Add in the fact that loan loss provisions are being cut to improve "performance" leads me to believe that as soon as said bonuses have been paid in 2011, bank execs will be toasting their good fortune, in first class, on a one-way flight to Venezuela.

Bob's picture

Yes, but that inadequate loss provisioning can no longer be justified, even under "market myth" valuations.  This is a different matter.  Of course, it's obvious what they'll try to do . . . I'm hoping shareholders or plaintiffs in suits will move to legally block payments.  Of course, a government advisory would be helpful, but we know how likely that is.

Fox Moulder's picture

The banks have put themselves into that position.


They better figure on Martial Law to go along with the Marshall Plan.

Popo's picture

I would argue that a growing majority of Americans could give a fuck what happens to the banks.

We have resolution authority under Dodd Frank, we have the FDIC ... and by the way we also have RICO, which we will be ramming up your ass Mr. Dimon.

Ragnarok's picture

OT: Who are Canada's 'freemen'?




HAMILTON, ONT. • When Mika Rasila got pulled over by Niagara police in January for driving his white Pontiac Montana without licence plates, he was ready with a defence: he doesn’t need plates because he’s a Freeman on the Land.

A Freeman on the Land, he explained in a letter he tried to hand the patrol officer through the window, is someone who has revoked his consent to be governed. He has opted out of Canada so the laws don’t apply to him.

Sean7k's picture

Woohoo! America's Freemen? Sounds almost....almost...American....Huh?

The article is a good read. The use of intentional slurs ( radicals, racists, right wing, conspiracy theory, etc) is pretty classic. 

Just why should you not be able to opt out? That there could be a sizeable population of people whom choose to not belong? The native americans have been given some freedom in this regard. Providing there is no criminal actions perpetrated versus a failure the pay fees and taxes or recognize US authority? Us citizens should have a reasonable expectation that their private property rights would be honored. Just as a Freeman's should be. 

What is the US afraid of? What we might choose?

MachoMan's picture

If you opt out, you don't get to drive on the roads built by tax dollars...

Sean7k's picture

Unless, in the interest of peaceful co-existence, you allow for neutral thoroughfares. Native Americans are allowed to use all roads. Would you rather have someone drive across people's property and then try to catch them ex post? If people join in, should they then block access through their property? It works both ways.  

Imminent Crucible's picture

Unless the Freeman is running his own fuel still, he's paying the taxes that build and maintain the roads--at the gas pump.  Every gallon of gas or diesel has both federal and state taxes built into the price.

MachoMan's picture

The original point was that co-existence does not work.  Indians are allowed to co-exist because they have been stuffed into poverty laden reservations (essentially separate countries).  Essentially, this is the same thing we would have to do with dissenters of the state/"freemen".  There is no co-existence.  Either you join or you leave.  The infrastructure of the country has been built in such a way that you may not opt out.

If you want to go to some rural area and have no participation in modern society, then effectively you may get off the grid and opt out...  however, this is vastly more academic than practical.  In other words, the ability to "opt out" is available for only a few until a tipping point is reached and the government is overturned/becomes impotent.  This is not a reasonable concept.  There is no co-existence.

Look at it this way, what are the "free men" of ~mexican (american stereotyping +1) descent doing to our border states?  Use of schools and hospitals?  Payment of taxes?  The inevitable conclusion is that dependents of the state bankrupt it.  There is no co-existence.  The infrastructure has not been buit for anyone to be able to opt-out of paying for it.

kathy.chamberlin@gmail.com's picture

wonder if you could bicycle or roller ski on these same roads, if you were a freeWOMAN?

Bananamerican's picture

no, but what if Jesus came down to wrestle a bear at the astrodome?

Would a freeman have a shot at scoring any tickets?

Sean7k's picture

People have a real hard time with the concept of someone wanting to opt out. To choose to not be a part of this country. Why should that bother you so much?

People whom opt out are not asking for entitlements or services. They are not asking for protection. They are not asking for the freedom to hurt others or be criminals. 

Most people will choose to remain a part of the government- no matter what is instituted or made law. 

The problem in an ever expanded global population is this: you can no longer go somewhere else. The choice to obey or die is not much of a choice is it? However, if we are to acknowledge that human beings have a natural right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; then the means of expressing those rights, when they do not conflict with other's, should be available to all humans, No?

StychoKiller's picture

Kinda sounds like the antithesis of the rationale for the Drug Prohibition laws:  If we make them legal, some mental defectives will CHOOSE WRONG, so we need the Nanny State to choose for them -- it's for your protection -- honest!

MachoMan's picture

Yes, but in acknowledging those human rights, we must also accept property rights and authority of sovereigns...  in this case, the property rights of the state and its sovereignty to determine what occurs within its borders as well as the human rights of its citizenry to determine the same.  In other words, you can't be a freeman living in your mom's basement.  Neat in theory, impossible in execution given competing interests and inevitable conclusion (destruction of the state).

You can either have a state or you can have anarchy (freedom).  Take your pick (note: if you choose the latter, you will either be subjugated or booted, since you live in a state and it determines your responsibilities).

This is why when [insert crazy ass new england state] wanted to secede, it would need to defeat the united states armed forces in order to succeed.

You can hoe your own row, get off the grid, and not participate, but in the end, you'll be subject to all the same laws as me. 

Sean7k's picture

Why do we have to accept them? Because you say so? What if those sovereigns are in violation of the contract they have with the people? The Constitution.

The superior standing of natural rights to tyranny was established by this country in 1776. Or did you forget?

Further, you assume false choices: destruction of the state and anarchy. If a crumb falls from a cake, does the entire cake fall apart? If the entire cake crumbles, was it a cake of any quality in the first place? I think not. Additionally, anarchy is a loaded word- it conjures uncertainty and destruction, when in reality- it merely means no government or liberty. You assume people cannot maintain a society without rigid controls and police power. Yet, you offer no argument  to validate your assumptions. People have lived  without governments in the past- the American Indian being a good example- they could do so in the future.

As for the legitimacy of the government- it is in violation of its' contract with us. The fourteenth amendment guarantees the equal treatment of all citizens ( and corporations have now been defined as citizens) and yet special classes are created for corporations with rights beyond those of the rest of us. When a contract is broken- it is null and void. 

The Federal Reserve Bank and its' members have been given opportunities and benefits beyond those extended to other citizens through fractional reserve banking. They have been allowed to create debt which we are responsible for even though we have no way of restricting their behavior- essentially taxation without representation. 

When the contract was voided, the ability to make law was voided as well- any action to enforce those laws are nothing but the actions of a totalitarian state. A criminal enterprise. Those that choose to support it are nothing, but accomplices.

MachoMan's picture

The government will bear arms against you if you attempt to secede.  In the event you attempt to assert the government breached its contract with you, it will tell you to fuck off and keep paying your taxes.  Your only form of redress, as a non-citizen/freeman is to take arms against the state.  This is why there is no co-existence.  Either you win or the state wins.  The two posititions are mutually exclusive.  So, either secede or shut the fuck up.

Sean7k's picture

You are quite the slave. Good luck with that.

MachoMan's picture

We are both the slaves, only you haven't figured that out yet.  Stuffing feathers up your butt doesn't make you a chicken.

Even if you "opt out" of the system and go hole up in a cave in the rockies, ozarks, or appalachia, YOU ARE STILL SUBJECT TO THE LAWS, RULES, AND REGULATIONS OF THE SOVEREIGN STATE IN WHICH YOU LIVE.  The act of unilaterally declaring yourself a "freeman" is like unilaterally calling yourself something other than the name you have registered with the state...  in order to change your status, you will need approval from the state...  until then, you have no change in status despite your unilateral attempts.

And let's not even get started on expatriation...  good luck getting away with the money/tax avoidance.

In short, until you can successfully defeat the standing army of the federal government and all law enforcement in your particular state, you are advocating mysticism, religion, and naive hopes and dreams.  You were born into slavery and calling yourself a freeman does not change the owner on your title.  Your name is toby.

chubbar's picture

Only until they are privatized and turned into toll roads. Then it's just a rental deal and everyone, even freemen, get to travel on them (freechicks too).

MachoMan's picture

Until the freemen figure out they can't pay the tolls and collectively bargain/impose state control of the roads to gain access...

NOTW777's picture

heres an idea - be honest. quit telling the american public we are in a wonderful recovery and yobama has saved us.  tell the truth about wildly over priced RE and MBS, the banks insolvency and that the taxpayer is primarily the one being asked to pay the consequences

Eternal Student's picture

It strikes me that the Banks ARE telling the truth here, about this all being merely a paperwork issue.

What they mean is that all they need are a bunch of green papers from the Fed, and everything will be resolved.

Silly me for doubting them.

RockyRacoon's picture

One more bank bailout will not be tolerated.  Try us and see.  Dare ya.

plocequ1's picture

Dont talk like that, We are the taxpayer. We lick the boots of our owners when told. As far as a bailout though, I have no fucking money. Go redeem some other fortunite creature and leave me alone.

Joe Davola's picture

They've realized no one will happily give up more of their hard earned.  So they just print up a big bunch and make yours a worth a lot less.  Same outcome, just a lot harder for most to fathom.

frankTHE COIN's picture

Big Bank to RockyRacoon

" May i offer you a toaster "

TuesdayBen's picture

Perhaps an AAPL product would go over better than a toaster.

RockyRacoon's picture

Went to Sears to buy a toaster the other day and they offered me a bank as a premium.

StychoKiller's picture

I stand (well sit, actually!) before you, truly gobsmacked!  Well done, sir! :>D

etrader's picture

"Try us and see. Dare ya."

Thats what Bank Holidays are for.

It avoids such unpleasantries. :>

snakeboat's picture

Rock, I agree, but it'd be you and me and only a handful of others who are not at this point anesthetized by the TV and getting shit done who would even show up.  THAT is the problem.

RockyRacoon's picture

That is not a problem actually.   Look how much damage one guy in a small plane did to an IRS building in Texas....

StychoKiller's picture

I'm bettin' a lot of barkeeps gonna have to bone up on their Molotov cocktail recipes!

NOTW777's picture

wag the dog, wag the dog.

the same people who refuse to use the word terrorist are now setting up a command center and engaging in an hour long campaign er, press conference over an alleged, booby trap package

Sudden Debt's picture

I find BIG REFI sounds pretty catchy.


I'm telling you guys, there's a movie in that somewhere.

frankTHE COIN's picture

Procure the Worldwide rights and get me my muse!

TuesdayBen's picture

Perhaps the Gubmint would do well to sell hyperinflation to the proletariat by characterizing it as  Supersizing The Economy.

chubbar's picture

I agree and here are the terms, 75% off of principle and 0% interest on a 30yr loan for everyone. The folks who own outright get a rebate. Fuck the banks and the PTB. Otherwise, let's bring it all down and see who survives.