Gretchen Morgenson and Michael Hiltzik explain the foreclosure settlement

I was so excited.  I thought the almost-nationwide foreclosure settlement between the five big banks and the states would provide relief for underwater homeowners.  I thought it might be an end to short sales as we've come to know and love them.  But no. 

New York Times business columnist Gretchen Morgenson bursts the bubble here. (BTW, Gretchen is really readable -- she makes even the most arcane, convoluted financial stuff very easy to understand. Really.)  Here are a few quotes:

"There’s no doubt that the banks are happy with this deal. You would be, too, if your bill for lying to courts and end-running the law came to less than $2,000 per loan file."

And "For most homeowners, it will barely move the needle. Forgiving $17 billion in principal “is a drop in the ocean ... given that close to 11 million borrowers are underwater on their loans to the tune of $700 billion in total.”

Michael Hitlzik from the Los Angeles Times is my other favorite financial columnist (along with David Lazarus) and his column from today's LAT is here. Some quotes:

"I believe the technical term for all this is "big whoop." The provisions mostly require mortgage lenders and servicers to comply with what I would have thought was already the law, which prohibits, you know, criminal fraud. The rest is pretty much out of the best-practices manual of customer service, which benefits both the customer and the institution."

And "In the words of business consultant...Yves Smith, "We've now set a price for forgeries and fabricating documents. It's $2,000 per loan." She observes, quite properly, that the payoff is a minuscule fraction of the costs these practices have imposed on borrowers, the court system and the economy."

Whew. So much for thinking that things were going to change -- silly me.  Thanks, Gretchen and Michael.

Sunday a.m. newspaper reading with New York Times' Gretchen Morgenson

Today's Sunday a.m. reading comes to us courtesy of the NY Times and their stellar regular columnist, Gretchen Morgenson.  Her article is entitled Some Bankers Never Learn and it's about the (new, not-so-improved) rise of risky low-down loans. Title and above should link. Ms. Morgenson talks about the Dodd-Frank bill and what it would mean to the mortgage market.  My favorite quote: "Basically, Wall Street would have to eat a bit of its own cooking."  The columnist comes out squarely on the side of requiring all mortgage loans to have 20% down.

Although it sounds great in theory, and I love Morgenson to pieces, I need to differ with her on this.  Where are people supposed to get that 20%?  Considering the economic client of the last few years, how would it be possible for any middle-class person to have saved that much unless they happen to be employed in a very few select industries? Or have tapped the Bank of Mom and Dad? Yes, zero-down loans are risky -- but can't we compromise and go with 5% down loans?  Unless we want to see our markets tank again?

IMO, the L.A. Times is back! At least the biz section, anyway

Many of us were dismayed when the L.A. Times began to cut back on its editorial staff and pages a few years ago.  Personally, I missed the separate LAT real estate section and the L.A. Land blog, especially when the editor was the outstanding Peter Viles.  I turned to Calculated Risk and Gretchen Morgenson of the New York Times for my real estate and business news. Caveat: while I don’t have a really sophisticated understanding of all things finance, I do try to keep up with the news, especially about banking, lending and real estate.

But regular business columnists David Lazarus and Michael Hiltzik have changed my mind about the quality of the L.A. Times’ business reporting.  Both are outstanding writers and produce business news columns that are informative, topical and easy to follow for us regular folks.  I’ll never give up reading NYT’s Gretchen, and this isn't a smackdown, but Lazarus and Hiltzik make reading the L.A. Times biz section an educational pleasure once again.