Foreclosing Modifications: How Servicer Incentives Discourage Loan Modifications

Despite record losses to investors, homeowners, and surrounding communities, the foreclosure crisis continues to swell. Many commentators have urged an increase in the number of loan modifications as a solution to the foreclosure crisis. The Obama Administration created a program specifically designed to encourage modifications. Yet, the number of foreclosures continues to outpace modifications. One reason foreclosures outpace modifications is that the mortgage-modification decision maker’s incentives generally favor a foreclosure over a modification. The decision maker is not the investor or the lender, but a separate entity, the servicer. The servicer’s main function is to collect and process payments from homeowners, and servicers do not necessarily have any ownership interest in the loan. Servicers, unlike investors, generally recover all their hard costs after a foreclosure, even if the home sells for less than the mortgage loan balance. Servicers may even make money from foreclosures through charging borrowers and investors fees that are ultimately recouped from the loan pool. Existing regulatory guidance could be improved to facilitate modifications. Investors need increased transparency to hold servicers accountable for failing to make modifications when it is in the investors’ best interests to make modifications. Fundamentally, servicers must be required to make modifications when doing so would benefit the trust as a whole

The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth: Fulfilling the Promise of Truth in Lending

Evaluating the cost of credit and comparison shopping in the modern credit environment can be a daunting task, even for the most sophisticated shoppers. Lenders increasingly unbundle the costs of their loans from the interest rate into an array offees, outsource their overhead to third parties who add to consumers\u27 costs, and unveil amazingly complex loan products that dazzle and confuse borrowers. At the same time, the preemption of state usury and consumer protection laws by Congress and the federal banking agencies has spurred deregulation at the state level. Today, the consumer credit marketplace is governed almost exclusively by disclosure rules. The subprime mortgage crisis of 2007 resulted from allowing the market to police itself and from the failure of disclosure to curb abuses

Consumer Financial Protection in the COVID-19 Crisis: An Emergency Agenda

The coronavirus pandemic is creating overwhelming needs, in three waves. First is the health crisis; second is the macroeconomic crisis created by the abrupt halt in much business activity; and now third is a consumer crisis, as households are faced with total or partial job loss, sharp income decline, and potential loss of health care. Millions of Americans are falling behind on their bills, including major obligations like mortgages, rent, car payments, and other forms of household debt. At the same time, they face a financial industry itself struggling to respond to the compounding crises and widespread confusion as to what the new rules of the road are as financial institutions, states, localities, and the federal government scramble to respond. The result is fertile ground for consumer scams. The authors call upon the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to recognize and respond to this new consumer crisis, providing an action plan of more than a dozen practical steps that the CFPB can and must take immediately to prevent widespread consumer harm. The action plan starts with the most basic and essential step of collecting and disseminating timely and accurate information for both consumers and policymakers. The CFPB must address pressing consumer risks in four primary areas: foreclosure prevention, non-mortgage debt forbearance, oversight of debt collectors, and supervision of credit reporting companies. In each of these primary areas, and on all the issues discussed in this paper, the CFPB must use all of its authorities to ensure that crucial relief is delivered to distressed consumers

Family health narratives : midlife women’s concepts of vulnerability to illness

Perceptions of vulnerability to illness are strongly influenced by the salience given to personal experience of illness in the family. This article proposes that this salience is created through autobiographical narrative, both as individual life story and collectively shaped family history. The paper focuses on responses related to health in the family drawn from semi-structured interviews with women in a qualitative study exploring midlife women’s health. Uncertainty about the future was a major emergent theme. Most respondents were worried about a specified condition such as heart disease or breast cancer. Many women were uncertain about whether illness in the family was inherited. Some felt certain that illness in the family meant that they were more vulnerable to illness or that their relatives’ ageing would be mirrored in their own inevitable decline, while a few expressed cautious optimism about the future. In order to elucidate these responses, we focused on narratives in which family members’ appearance was discussed and compared to that of others in the family. The visualisation of both kinship and the effects of illness, led to strong similarities being seen as grounds for worry. This led to some women distancing themselves from the legacies of illness in their families. Women tended to look at the whole family as the context for their perceptions of vulnerability, developing complex patterns of resemblance or difference within their families

Use of ETC-1002 to treat hypercholesterolemia in patients with statin intolerance

BackgroundOnce-daily, oral ETC-1002 reduces low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and has beneficial effects on other cardiometabolic risk factors but has not been examined in statin intolerant patients.ObjectivesTo study the efficacy and safety of ETC-1002 (a novel LDL-C–lowering agent) in patients with hypercholesterolemia and a history of statin intolerance.MethodsPatients intolerant to at least 1 statin were entered into this multicenter, double-blind, 8-week trial. Participants were required to have a history of muscle complaints that developed during statin treatment and resolved within 4 weeks of statin discontinuation. Patients (n = 56) were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to ETC-1002 60 mg daily or placebo. The ETC-1002 dose was increased at 2-week intervals to 120 mg, 180 mg, and 240 mg. The primary end point was the percentage change from baseline to week 8 in calculated LDL-C.ResultsETC-1002 reduced LDL-C 28.7% more than placebo (95% confidence interval, −35.4 to −22.1; P < .0001). ETC-1002 significantly reduced non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. Triglycerides and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol did not change with ETC-1002 treatment. Sixty-two percent of patients receiving ETC-1002 and none in the placebo group achieved the 2004 National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III LDL-C goal (P < .0001). Muscle-related adverse events occurred with similar frequency in the placebo and ETC-1002 treatment groups, causing no discontinuations in ETC-1002–treated patients.ConclusionsETC-1002 appears to be effective at reducing LDL-C and was well tolerated in patients with statin-associated muscle complaints. Longer and larger studies are required to confirm the absence of muscle side effects

Treatment with ETC-1002 alone and in combination with ezetimibe lowers LDL cholesterol in hypercholesterolemic patients with or without statin intolerance

BackgroundETC-1002 is an oral, once-daily, first-in-class medication being developed to treat hypercholesterolemia.ObjectivesTo compare 2 doses of ETC-1002, alone or combined with ezetimibe 10 mg (EZE), vs EZE monotherapy for lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C).MethodsThis phase 2b, multicenter, double-blind trial-evaluated hypercholesterolemic patients (LDL-C, 130 to 220 mg/dL) with (n = 177) or without (n = 171) muscle-related intolerance to ≥2 statins; 1 at lowest approved dose. Subjects were randomized to 12-week treatment with ETC-1002 120 mg or ETC-1002 180 mg alone, EZE alone, ETC-1002 120 mg plus EZE, or ETC-1002 180 mg plus EZE.ResultsEZE alone lowered LDL-C by 21%, whereas ETC-1002 monotherapy with 120 mg or 180 mg reduced LDL-C by 27% (P = .0008 vs EZE) and 30% (P < .0001 vs EZE), respectively. The combination of ETC-1002, 120 mg or 180 mg plus EZE reduced LDL-C by 43% and 48%, respectively (both P < .0001 vs EZE). ETC-1002 alone or combined with EZE also reduced non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, LDL particle number, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein compared with EZE alone. Across all treatment groups, statin-intolerant patients reported more muscle-related adverse events than did statin-tolerant patients. ETC-1002 was safe and well tolerated, and rates of muscle-related adverse events were similar in all treatment groups.ConclusionsIn patients with and without statin intolerance, daily treatment with ETC-1002 120 mg and 180 mg alone or with EZE reduced LDL-C more than EZE alone and had a similar tolerability profile (NCT01941836)