Why Bank of America MIGHT Modify Your Mortgage

I am happy to report there is an update on my saga with BoA in securing a permanent mortgage modification. I have an insider's point of view, because I've been at this as part of the first wave of mortgages that had been securitized, but went south when the bottom fell out of the financial markets. My three-year battle with BoA started in January, 2009, but in the interest of fairness and full disclosure I will always give credit where credit is due.

Over a month ago I was invited to attend an "outreach" event sponsored by BoA here in Salt Lake. I have had such varied and sporadic communications from BoA over the last three years, and can confirm they have given me such scant evidence they had their act together, I almost didn't go. I was again being asked to gather all my supporting documentation (bank statements, tax returns, W-2, etc.), and I thought wearily to myself this would be the fourth submission. I have kept in touch with one person from BoA with whom I met last September. My meeting with her, while pleasant and helpful on a personal level, produced no tangible results. When I asked for her opinion about whether this would be yet another exercise in futility, she strongly recommended that I attend, so I did.

I was amazed, and I'll admit it. For the first time in my experience with BoA, they had a team of fifty people populating various stations in the Grand Ballroom at the Grand America Hotel, and they had organized themselves very well. I secured the first appointment of the day, thinking I could get in and get out quickly. I chit-chatted with two security officers, both of whom are personally trying to get their mortgages modified, who had been hired for the event in case there were some disgruntled borrowers. I saw more anger from them than I did from anyone else, and that was an ironic start to my day. There was no evidence of anger or frustration from anyone else. I got to interact with many borrowers that day, and while each had a sad tale of woe to share, I met no one who had been at it for three years like I have.

We all had one thing in common - no one had filed a lawsuit against BoA, and they were all trying to work things out in good faith with their mortgage servicer.

Computers were synced to underwriters in real time, and as documents were reviewed and cross-checked against long check lists, they were then scanned and handed back to me in sequence. We were each assigned a number (no names were used), and the process was orderly and sequential. With each step as documents were checked, double-checked and scanned, there was a well-defined method, and very little madness. It was impressive, given what I've experienced with BoA in the past.

As the list of additional documentation and letters of explanation continued to mount, I was escorted and checked out of the event, then re-admitted and escorted three separate times during the day. I came to know many of these people on a first-name basis. It was an exhaustive day (I started at 7:30 a.m., and didn't leave until 8:30 that night), and the assembling of supporting documents and letters of explanation for the underwriters continued into the next day.

The good news was that I received a call back on my cell phone on Saturday morning to tell me they had all the documentation assembled and subject to verification (an estimated 7-10 business days), they would be getting back to me with an offer for a permanent mortgage modification because it appears I meet the requirements for something called HAMP ("Home Affordable Modification Program"), or some variation thereof. The discussions about its moral underpinnings continue: Should the federal government (read the Obama Administration) forgive and reduce principal balances in order to rewrite new mortgages? Fannie Mae, despite the billions already received to keep it afloat, is digging in its heels, according to Edward DeMarco, the acting head of Federal Housing Finance Agency. They won't do it voluntarily without more cash infusions from the taxpayers, which the administration seems more than willing to do.

The "negotiators" referenced in my past communications with BoA are a thing of the past. When I asked what their role was the explanation was they were negotiating for terms on my behalf with Fannie Mae, the entity that owns virtually every mortgage under the sun, and now Fannie Mae has created various "buckets" into which mortgage modifications will fit. You either meet those criteria for relief or you don't, and there is no longer a "negotiation." It appears I do meet the new criteria.

Yes, it is an election year, and yes the government is dictating terms to Fannie Mae, and yes, there is no other game in town since the collapse. It has taken this long because of the government's intervention into the mortgage markets to work through the maze to develop programs for certain circumstances that meet their criteria.

Here was my takeaway on what you have to do to qualify for a mortgage modification under the current rules: 1) The home must still be your primary residence; 2) you must express the desire to remain in your home; 3) you must have a job and be able to document your income; 4) you must have a current tax return that can be verified; 5) you must have encountered a hardship that can be documented and adequately explained; and 6) there is a demonstrable high probability you will be able to sustain the new mortgage if granted.

We won't believe it until the ink is dry on the modification papers we now anticipate receiving, but I can at least report BoA is making a start and they are to be commended. They frankly admitted to me they know their brand has been severely damaged. Their top management is conducting weekly webinars to keep the employees on the front lines informed about their future direction. One of the mortgage counselors at the event estimated at the rate they are moving it will take five years to untangle this Gordian knot, and that's based upon what they know they have in the backlog today, barring another wave of foreclosures in the future.

I have to salute BoA, however, for making a start. The Fannie Mae programs are so new the employees of BoA are still in training on them. However, the people who came representing BoA to the three-day event where they served about 200 people in a personal and professional way, were knowledgeable and forthcoming with answers to all my questions. They gave me every indication they were sincerely interested in my outcome. When I asked what metric they were using to measure the success of the event, they indicated if they could modify 50% of the mortgages they worked on, or 100, they would consider it a success worth doing. You can do the math for yourselves. They take this three-day road show into every city in America every weekend between now and infinity, and at the rate of 100 per city, it will take FOREVER to complete.

This has been a long three-year odyssey for us. I'm hoping that soon I will be able to report a happy ending. My advice to others is to stay in constant contact with BoA. Write letters, place phone calls, take the initiative, don't wait for them to act - you act first. Talk with whomever you can, even if it's a person with no authority who is reading from a script. I was delighted to find they had my complete file on record, and when we reviewed it together all my attempts at resolution had been logged and I was given credit and lauded by the team for continuing to do the right thing to get it resolved.

BoA is not the monolithic behemoth I once feared it was. I met real people this time around. They have suffered right along with the public. One lady who had worked for BoA for 33 years has lost lifelong friendships with people who got behind in their mortgages and she was powerless to help them. This will go down as a long, sad chapter in American history, but like most things in life if you persist and you remain constant in your desire to make a resolution, things eventually have a way of working out in a positive way.

Oh, and P.S., they even explained why I was eventually turned down the first time without explanation. In the file there was a notation that the loan calculation for the modification was an "NPV" - negative present value. Why no one ever told me that was not explained, but the person with whom I met that day showed me the file. This time, however, all the calculations were done in advance before the file was submitted to underwriting. I have a feeling this time they are going to get it right.

At least one can hope. . . stay tuned and I'll let you know what happens as soon as I do. I would like to become the poster child for a successful loan modification. I'm hoping BoA would like to cross the finish line and snap my picture for that poster.

Thanks 53ers - Now I Finally Know Who I Am

First we had the tea party, and in 2010 they changed the electoral map nationwide from blue to red in a dramatic "take back" of the People's House - the U.S. House of Representatives.

Most observers speculated they were a flash in the pan that would quickly fade and have no staying power.

However, taking a page from the tea party, a more recent populist response has arisen, labeling themselves as "the 99." They claim they are the "rest of the country" not represented by the privileged class in America who comprise the top 1 percent. Their claims are legitimate. Corporate greed has never been more obvious than it has been the last few years. Workers unite!! Overthrow the system!! Down with capitalism!! At least one observer thinks it's coming right out of the Communist Party play book.

Contrasted with the peaceful demonstrations of the tea party (no, they are not racist, bigoted, rowdy or fanatics), they have been seeking a more representative voice in Washington, and they made huge strides toward that goal in 2010. Many would be surprised to learn the goals of the 99ers and the tea party are not that divergent when it comes to change we can really believe in, as opposed to the change Obama gave us. Political change within the system without anarchy is what everyone is aiming for. Overthrowing the government by violent means isn't really the aim of anyone, or is it?

The 99'ers, aligned with something called "Occupy Wall Street," have filled up public squares all over the United States with their vitriol. Camped out for days at a time they have left behind garbage and filth, and I'm not referring to their language or their antics. The iconic symbol of this development is a picture of a protester defecating on a police car in New York. Nice image.

They claim this country has treated them unfairly. They collect their welfare checks, their unemployment benefits, their Medicare and Medicaid, and they are railing against the fat cats because they aren't. They aren't likely to become such with their protests, unless the goal (which it could be argued is the goal) is to simply destroy the capitalism they detest, which would give them the jobs they claim they want. But what they really would prefer is living on the government checks they receive. The government in their view is the benevolent dictator for which they seek. Level the playing field, equalize the income, redistribute the wealth, reach for the Utopian society capitalism denies them.

It's complicated, I know, but try to keep up.

If the socialist government we have created in this country does not collect enough taxes, it is free to borrow from foreign nations to sustain the socialist giveaways. Try asking them sometime where all the money comes from that funds the government, then wait for their response. Their simplistic view is that we need to tax the rich, redistribute the wealth of the fat cats and presto, problem solved! They rarely mention the debt this government has racked up, nor do they believe government spending must be curtailed. If you really believe in the socialist agenda, you'll have to look somewhere else for direction; you certainly won't find it here.

Now comes something called "the 53-percent." These folks are pushing back against the 99 with their own stories. They pay taxes, these 53 percent, because they are working and trying to stay ahead of the economic tsunami that has overtaken the world's financial markets. Many lost jobs, certainly their medical benefits, their retirement investments, and some on the cusp of old age now find themselves wondering what all their hard work of a lifetime has gotten them. I met a neighbor the other day in his 70s working the drive-up window at Arby's, but he refuses to give up or retire.

Here's the one thing they won't do - they refuse to blame anyone for their plight.

Somebody's got to pay for this according to the 99ers!! Followers of the 53-percenters' site created on Tumblr have been posting photos of their faces next to pieces of paper detailing the workaday sob stories that are their lives. But who are they blaming for their difficulties? Not the fat cat capitalists, nor the communist progressive liberals who are driving this country into the ditch.

The 53-percenters might be pushed to blaming themselves for electing career politicians, but that's generally as far as they will go in playing the blame game with others. They say we did it to ourselves. They're right in the middle of the American electorate where I reside. And in most cases they would be right. It's the folks in the middle who tend to be more independent.

Here's one guy's story who caught my eye today:

"I don't blame Wall Street because it doesn't matter what Wall Street or anyone else does. I am responsible for my own destiny because of me and me ALONE."

Here's another one:

"I don't have health insurance, but I don't blame Wall Street. Stop whining, suck it up, and God bless the U.S.A."

The 53-percent Tumblr is run by Mike Wilson, the same guy who made "Michael Moore Hates America," and his friends.

I don't need to sign up my story on the 53-percent. I wrote my views recently to the Bank of America in my "hardship letter" as part of a request for a modification of my mortgage (almost a three-year odyssey now):

"I love the game of golf. I love it because no matter what external influences come to bear on you during a round, there is only you, the ball, your club selection and the hole up ahead. You alone are responsible and accountable for the outcome in a round of golf. Only you take the swings that produce either a good or a bad shot. You can kick the ball to improve your lie, you can shave strokes off your scorecard, and you can brag about your exploits after the round is over as you describe it to others, but in the end only you know the truth about the round. You can't blame the weather, the wind, your playing partner, or even the condition of the greens. Once you learn the truth that no one's a very good golfer, you can accept responsibility and take it all in stride.

"I signed a mortgage agreement years ago with a mortgage broker and the loan was sold to Countrywide. Then Countrywide was taken over by Bank of America. In a transaction to which I was not a party that mortgage was securitized along the way. But none of that changes the fact that someone in the capitalist system in America eleven years ago provided me with money to buy my home. I made a promise I would pay it back with interest. Certainly since then the financial winds have blown at gale force, the economic rain has fallen in torrents and I lost my means of providing financially for my wife and family. All my savings were consumed and my assets sold to stay alive.

"I reinvented myself to compensate. Three years later I am still alive, in good health and I can still work hard every day.

"I know as the servicer for my loan Bank of American cannot even produce the original note I signed because it long ago disappeared into a securitization pool where it was pledged in the collateral pool to investors who bought it, and I later confirmed the note is now owned by Fannie Mae. There is nothing I can do about any of that.

"All I know is I still owe someone the money I borrowed, and I am doing everything I can to repay it. The arrearage that has amounted to a negative amortization of my loan based upon my partial payments of the full amount will have to be addressed. Even that's not totally my fault, since Bank of America's inaction and broken promises have contributed to it. However, I've done everything you've asked me to do as a borrower in distress.

"In the end I am fully responsible and accountable. No politician did this to me. No bank did this to me. No amount of adverse external conditions swirling over my head in the last three years alters in one iota the fact that I made a promise to pay it all back. And I will. With or without Bank of America's offer of a modification. If I can't get there before I die, a life insurance policy will pay it off."

So after all that, here's what I know about myself: I never saw myself as a member of the tea party. There was something about Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann that just never clicked with me. I'm sure as heck not a 99'er, so I must be a 53-percenter. The margin of victory in a presidential election is most often narrow. Thirteen months out, no one knows which way the thing will turn out. Half the country will be ecstatic, the other half dismayed.

A related thought to conclude: If the death of Steve Jobs teaches us anything it is that in failure we may someday succeed despite all the odds against us. He didn't just put a "ding" in the universe, he kicked the door down. He was likely a fat cat in the upper 1% by any measurement of financial success. How funny to see one of the protesters the other day in New York answering her iPhone while condemning capitalism's profits. Can you say disconnect?

Now you can correctly label me. #IAmThe53. Here's another version.

Why Bank of America Won't Modify Your Mortgage

As a boy, I always loved the story of David and Goliath. Herewith, a modern-day update to the story. If I were a betting man, I'd take Goliath.

I was opposed to TARP ("Troubled Asset Relief Program") from the moment it was announced. I wasn't fully certain of all the reasons at the time, but something about it just didn't feel right. I've done a lot of reading since that day to try to understand it, and after my last call with Bank of America last week I believe I finally have the answer. There's a valid moral question about whether principal reduction on underwater mortgages should be the latest in a long list of government giveaways, and many are opposed to it. This administration, however, seems more than willing to hand out more candy to borrowers.

In the fall of 2008, when it was first proposed, TARP smacked of financial cronyism. Hank Paulson, former chairman of Goldman Sachs, was Treasury Secretary under President George W. Bush. Along with virtually every other financial institution on Wall Street, Goldman Sachs was among the market makers in dodgy financial instruments with disaster written all over them, despite their gold star ratings. (I learned later many of the market makers were selling the market short from another desk in their houses.) It's what they do -- they play both ends of the market. Nobody complains. It's all perfectly legal. So why should we as free Americans reward them for their risky behavior, I wondered? Those were my initial thoughts.

I wrote a letter to the editor of the Deseret News commending Congress for voting down TARP the first time. I've documented most of my feelings about all that on these pages in the past.

Fundamentally, there was a strong negative bias deeply embedded in my DNA against the philosophical roots of the bailouts for the financial institutions. I've been asked why. Would I have chosen a complete financial worldwide meltdown instead?

Here's my summation argument: By bailing out failing companies, Congress in effect decided to confiscate money (I use the word intentionally) from the productive elements of the U.S. economy, companies and individuals, and then made arbitrary decisions about which failing units to transfer it to. With banks who had ignored the risks and invested in sub-prime mortgage instruments assembled in securitization pools, Congress told us, "They are too big to fail. They must be rescued. Without the bailout there will be a worldwide financial catastrophe by Monday morning."

In the case of the auto industry, the government chose to sustain failed companies with obsolete or unsustainable business models. The unions imposed unsustainable demands, the company executives kept passing the higher costs along to consumers, and they deserved to fail. But by choosing to bail them out, the government prevented the resources of these failed and arcane behemoths of industry from being liquidated in the open market where other better-managed companies could have taken those resources and put them to better use in a thriving concern.

So everyone, including George W. "I'm a free market guy" Bush, held their noses and passed TARP. Congress went along with the dire warnings from Paulson and TARP was hatched. We learned later just how much lobbying money went into the re-election campaigns of those who voted "aye."

Back in the day when I studied Economics, it was a basic fact of life (I was told) that in a healthy free market we must permit failure to occur. (Sounds a lot to me like the arguments in favor and opposed to free agency in the pre-mortal world.) Success will be rewarded, but failure will also be punished by investors who will seek a higher return with commensurate risk elsewhere. It sounds so harsh, doesn't it? Survival of the fittest.

With a bailout, I argued at the time, the incentives are reversed. Failing companies are saved from their risky behavior and resources from the taxpayers are shifted arbitrarily by government, rather than being sorted out by the sometimes brutal efficiencies of the marketplace, where profitability is always rewarded. To this day I cannot understand how the bailouts were supposed to be good for our economy. In a country that I know rejects corporate business collusion, why would we as free Americans ever permit the government to pick and choose the winners and losers, when a free market economy does it so much more efficiently? Shifting those decisions to bureaucrats and politicians seemed exactly what we would want to avoid.

Here's a brief history of what happened in the infamous TARP bank bailout package of 2008, and then some comments about one participant's experience with one of the banks deemed "too big to fail" -- the one that services my mortgage:

Bank of America received $20 billion in the federal bailout from the U.S. government through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) on January 16, 2009, and also got a guarantee of $118 billion in potential losses at the company. ("US gives Bank of America 20 billion dollars in capital injection," Breitbart.com. 2009-01-15. Retrieved 2010-10-17).

This was in addition to the $25 billion given to them in the Fall of 2008 through TARP. The additional payment was part of a deal with the US government to preserve Bank of America's merger with the troubled investment firm Merrill Lynch. (Giannone, Joseph A. [February 5, 2009]. "U.S. pushed Bank of America to complete Merrill buy: report," Reuters).

Since then, members of the U.S. Congress have expressed considerable concern about how this money has been spent, especially since some of the recipients have been accused of misusing the bailout money. (Ellis, David [February 11, 2009]. "Bank CEOs flogged in Washington," CNNMoney.com. Retrieved March 31, 201).

Then CEO, Ken Lewis, was quoted as claiming "We are still lending, and we are lending far more because of the TARP program." Members of the US House of Representatives, however, were skeptical and quoted many anecdotes about loan applicants (particularly small business owners) being denied loans and credit card holders facing stiffer terms on the debt in their card accounts.

According to a March 15, 2009, article in The New York Times, Bank of America received an additional $5.2 billion in government bailout money, channeled through American International Group. (Walsh, Mary Williams [March 15, 2009], "A.I.G. Lists Firms It Paid With Taxpayer Money," The New York Times. Retrieved March 31, 2009).

As a result of its federal bailout and management problems, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Bank of America was operating under a secret "memorandum of understanding" (MOU) from the U.S. government that requires it to "overhaul its board and address perceived problems with risk and liquidity management." With the federal action, the institution has taken several steps, including arranging for six of its directors to resign and forming a Regulatory Impact Office. Bank of America faces several deadlines in July and August and if not met, could face harsher penalties by federal regulators. Bank of America did not respond to The Wall Street Journal story. ("US Regulators to B of A: Obey or Else," The Wall Street Journal, July 16, 2009).

On December 2, 2009, Bank of America announced it would repay the entire US $45 billion it received in TARP and exit the program, using $26.2 billion of excess liquidity along with $18.6 billion to be gained in "common equivalent securities" (Tier 1 capital). The bank announced it had completed the repayment on December 9. Bank of America Ken Lewis said during the announcement, "We appreciate the critical role that the U.S. government played last fall in helping to stabilize financial markets, and we are pleased to be able to fully repay the investment, with interest... As America's largest bank, we have a responsibility to make good on the taxpayers' investment, and our record shows that we have been able to fulfill that commitment while continuing to lend." (Bank of America to Repay Entire $45 Billion in TARP to U.S. Taxpayers, PR Newswire, December 2, 2009; "Bank of America Completes US TARP Repayment." 12-10-2009. Retrieved December 12, 2009).

Now to one man's story about trying to deal with the beast. First, there are no real live people working in Utah for the Bank of America with whom a mortgagor (borrower) can speak. All communication with Bank of America is done via mail or telephone. I have personally had to deal with them at three different physical locations and multiple phone numbers.

My mortgage was originated in 1997. After two and a half years of unsuccessfully attempting to modify my mortgage for a lower interest rate, I finally wrote a letter expressing my frustrations as follows:


November 10, 2010

Bank of America Home Loans Servicing, LP
390 Interlocken Crescent, Ste 350
Broomfield, CO 80021

Bank of America Home Loans Servicing, LP
PO Box 650070
Dallas, TX 75265-0070

Office of the Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff
Utah State Capitol Complex
350 North State Street Suite 230
SLC UT 84114-2320

REF:  Bank of America Mortgage Loan #xxxx

Gentlemen:
I received a telephone call from Bank of America this week informing me, “Your request for a loan modification has been declined.”  Further, I was informed I would be contacted next by a “negotiator” who would share with me my “options” within the next 30-45 days.  Now I’m wondering who the “negotiator” will be representing, and what will be “negotiated.”

Attached (click to enlarge), please find a letter dated March 30, 2010, in direct contradiction to the phone call, stating “You qualify for a permanent modification of your home loan under the Home Affordable Modification Program.”  I was told “we will be sending it to you soon.  Please be on the lookout for a package in the mail and return the Agreement to us by the requested date so that we can finalize your loan modification.”  That was SEVEN months ago!  The mailbox is still empty.

I am hoping what we have here is a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.  The question before me now is which Bank of America do I believe?  My approval letter came from the first address listed above.  I have been making my payments to the second address listed above.

The person with whom I spoke most recently indicated I had passed “three stages of approval,” but somehow for reasons not adequately explained as she read from a prepared script that I had failed some test in the “fourth stage” of the approval process.  Until that phone call, I was unaware about anything regarding “stages of approval.”

I have made my trial payments of $xxx per month without fail since the first agreement dated July 3, 2009, after being told there was a “three month” trial period.  If this final stage development in the result of underwriting that was done over a year ago, you undoubtedly are making a decision that should be updated with fresh financial data which I would be happy to supply.  My income is still a fraction of what it once was, but I assure you it is sufficient today to more than qualify under a modification if reviewed and updated.  Fifteen months (two birthdays) have come and gone since the underwriting was originally done.  I’ve made the trial payments faithfully as agreed.  The whole drawn out process has now been in play for FIFTEEN MONTHS!

Your communications to me have now put me in an “awkward position,” to be stating it as simply as I can.  I have acted in good faith.  However, Bank of America has done the opposite, it appears, unless there is a simple explanation you can offer besides another phone call from someone reading a script.

When sharing my dilemma and my frustration this week with a good friend who is also a mortgage broker here in Utah, I was advised to take my case to the Attorney General of Utah, Mark Shurtleff, because in his words, “Bank of America has become the poster child for how not to handle foreclosure procedures.”  I have also copied Shurtleff’s office on this letter.

I am writing to inform you that until I hear back from you (is ten days enough time?) I will proceed as advised and bring action against Bank of America through my legal counsel, who is also copied on this letter for specific performance by Bank of America under the letter dated March 30, 2010 (see attached) upon which I have relied.  You can’t treat your customers this way.

Sadly, instead of resolving my loan with a modification to assist me in keeping my home, I am left to hope I am wrong in the assumption I am being victimized.  I still believe we can resolve the matter amicably.  However, I assure you I will not become another mortgage foreclosure statistic under these specious circumstances without some clarification I hope will be forthcoming.

I have relied upon your representations under the “Making Home Affordable” program.  I will herewith resist any and all efforts, legally or otherwise, from your office unless or until you make good on a modification offer as originally represented.

Thanks for your immediate attention to this matter.

Sincerely yours,

David B. Goates

Another five months elapsed before I heard from them again. Instead of a real person calling me back, I received yet another form letter advising me my note was in default (and has been for two and half years since this process began), and that I had three options: 1) a short sale for which I would not be held liable for the shortfall if I cooperated; 2) a deed in lieu of foreclosure, also helping me avoid liability for the shortfall; or 3) a rental contract if I wanted to continue living in the home after surrendering the deed, also escaping liability for the shortfall. I wrote back and indicated I wanted to stay in my home and that I would begin making the full payments once again, which I have been doing recently. However, the note is still in default technically and the issue is now compounded because the shortfall has increased as the effects of the negative amortization have increased the outstanding balance.

Nowhere in the communication was there a reference to any specific point I raised in my letter. Days later I received a call from a "customer service representative," who once again read from a script and suggested that I apply online for yet another modification application, stating, "The program has been improved and updated."

So I did as suggested and called the department given to me to remain proactive. Rather than discuss a new modification agreement, however, I was given to a collector whose first question was, "When do you intend to make a payment to bring the account current?" I explained why I was calling, was transferred to another representative, then to another who took down my financial information, and concluded by saying, "Based upon the information you have given me today, I am sorry to inform you that you do not qualify for a mortgage modification at this time, Mr. Goates." I asked for the specific reason(s) why I did not qualify. I was put on hold for five minutes, then the line went dead.

I have decided to tell the story publicly now. There remains little hope of reaching a resolution with anyone at Bank of America. And why, you ask?

My mortgage was originated by a little mortgage loan broker, then it was sold in the secondary market and scooped up by Countrywide, who was acquired by BoA, who is merely the servicer of the mortgage. Because my mortgage is owned now by Fannie Mae as part of a larger securitized mortgage pool that was eventually sold to investors, it is virtually guaranteed that the loss on my mortgage will be covered by Fannie Mae via the bailout money available under TARP. 

The banks too big to fail were saved, but the public relations message of wanting to keep borrowers in their home is little more than a scam. There is virtually no incentive for a bank to work with a borrower. They come out whole by systematically removing all their delinquent borrowers from their homes, bidding their total mortgage balance at sale, then cleaning their books and collecting their reimbursement check from the government. 

Despite a warning shot across the bow of Bank of America's ship last week from Utah Deputy Attorney General John Swallow, warning BoA they were not in compliance with Utah statutes by failing to provide local personnel to be available for face to face meetings with residents of Utah, there is little doubt in my mind that BoA, the country's largest bank will find a way to comply and foreclosures will proceed.

Because of our elected representatives in both houses of Congress in Washington D.C., who picked the winners and losers in their infinite wisdom, why would any bank today choose to work with a borrower if the government is waiting in the wings with an open checkbook to cover their losses?