Freddie Mac deja vu?
Published: Tuesday, April 2, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Among Freddie Mac's four largest mortgage “servicers” that handled about 20,000 complaints over a 14-month period, not one reported a single case of fraud or regulatory violation, according to a new audit.
Yep, everything's hunky-dory, based on the supposed due diligence by mortgage servicers Bank of America Corp., CitiMortgage, Provident and Wells Fargo & Co. Not that any of this is unusual.
Based on the audit by the Federal Housing Finance Agency's inspector general, 98 percent of Freddie Mac's mortgage servicers that collect payments and deal with borrowers reported no so-called “escalated” cases. We're talking about a mortgage giant, propped up by taxpayers, that guarantees more than 10.6 million residential mortgages worth an estimated $1.6 trillion.
“Mortgage servicers, Freddie Mac and the FHFA have not adequately fulfilled their respective responsibilities,” according to the audit reported by the Los Angeles Times.
In effect, these so-called mortgage managers, supposedly Freddie Mac's ground troops in dealing with borrowers, aren't complying with basic reporting requirements, according to the IG. And given this level of “oversight,” we return to a frighteningly familiar question: Are today's mortgages worth the paper on which they're written?
Such lackadaisical regard is more reason to break up mortgage monstrosity Freddie Mac and its equally ugly sister, Fannie Mae.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Nelson Mandela: The real legacy
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- Operation Santa Claus: Sustenance for all
- ‘Racism’? No
- Anti-fracking scandal: More junk ‘science’
- The Thursday wrap
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Corrections reinvention
- Accord in Geneva: Smelly side deals, too
- The IRS scandal: FBI games