Why Banks Treat Mortgage Borrowers So Badly

Just in case you’re still wondering why the big banks are engaged in a seemingly insatiable foreclosure feeding frenzy, this article on MSNBC’s Economy Watch about the blatant and ongoing paperwork fraud at Wells Fargo pretty much sums it up.

“Companies that manage mortgages typically collect only a small fee for each loan that is current. But loans in foreclosure generate a laundry list of foreclosure-related revenues, including legal fees, late charges, back interest, home inspections and maintenance. Last year, Wells Fargo earned $3.3 billion in profits from its mortgage servicing business, or about 20 percent of the bank’s total net income, according to its annual report.”

Most logical, ethical people have a real problem understanding why  bank executives seem to think it makes any sense except in very limited circumstances to foreclose, leave a house sitting derelict and then eventually sell it for way less than the original homeowner’s mortgage.  Why, we wonder, don’t the banks work with their borrowers who want to pay but are in temporary difficulties simply to re-structure their mortgage loans? Why does it seem that the big banks like Wells Fargo go out of their way to work against borrowers?

Most people are well aware that the modified mortgage is going to cost them more in the long run – lower payments today translate into longer terms and more interest. And wouldn’t the banks end up making more, too? How is that not an incentive for Wells Fargo and the rest of the big banks to enthusiastically help their mortgage customers instead of playing insidious little paperwork games, refusing to return calls or answer letters, and even outright lying to get out of modifying mortgages?

To fully understand how completely messed up the relationship between homeowners and banks has become, those of us who have mortgages need to stop thinking of ourselves as the banks’ customers. Just because you exercised your right to chose which bank with which to initiate the mortgage on your home, you shouldn’t make the mistake of thinking that bank still thinks it owes you any of the courtesies generally expected by customers.

Why? Because without your consent or even your knowledge, your bank sold you out. Or at least it sold your loan to an undisclosed “investor” or “investors.” During the mortgage boom, this probably happened before the ink was even dry on those pages and pages of legalese you signed at closing. (And there’s some evidence showing up that your loan might have been sold multiple times, which should be a big no-no!)

The investor doesn’t know you, nor did it have anything to do with creating the structure of your loan. It (whether it’s another bank or an investment fund of some kind) is only interested in your loan as part of a package deal purchased from a bank in a speculative venture, a sort of bet that it will make more money collecting the interest on all those mortgages than it paid the bank up front for the bundled loans.

But the investor doesn’t necessarily have the desire or the organizational resources to do the boring administrative tasks associated with collecting those payments. Enter the “loan servicer,” the entity formerly known as the bank you think of as your mortgage lender.

But wait, you say, I’m still making my mortgage payments to that same bank I chose when I went looking for a mortgage. What do you mean they don’t own the loan?!

What your bank did was contract with the entity (or entities, who knows?) to which your loan was sold for the right to “service” that loan. That means, in simple terms, that the bank performs administrative tasks such as sending out payment notices and processing incoming payments as a service to the investor. For a fee.

Sounds benign, right? But look closer at what happened here. All of a sudden, you went from being a bank’s valued customer to being, well, a number. After your bank sold your loan and contracted back the servicing rights, the investor became the bank’s customer. Not you.

And the investor has no clue who you are. Your loan is just one of a list of numbers in a whole block of loans bought based on a set of criteria such as geographic region, length of term and age of the loan. The investor’s customers are its shareholders or the people who have pooled their money into some kind of fund, such as a retirement plan. Not you.

So, are you starting to understand just how well and truly you got screwed in this little scenario? And why the bank employees treat you like you are dirt. Or invisible. Or stupid.

That’s because you the homeowner are, to put it rather bluntly, just like a cow kept only to give milk. As long as you keep putting out (paying your mortgage every month), everything is probably just fine and you go on blissfully unaware that your bank has stopped considering you a valued customer. But stop giving milk/paying your mortgage for any reason and you find out pretty quick that your status isn’t what you thought. You’re ripe for abuse and/or neglect, but not for aid and assistance.

Ummm. You do know what happens to cows that stop giving milk, right? No, they do not retire to green fields to live out their days in peace. They are send off to the slaughterhouse and eaten.

Any of you out there fighting for a mortgage mod feel like that’s just what your bank would like to do with you?

Time to get over the delusion that your bank is going to suddenly wake up and start dealing with you in a professional and ethical manner as befits a valued customer and realize you are no more than one of millions of cash cows who have run dry.

 

 

Why Your Mortgage Mod Was Really Denied

“Three years after the foreclosure crisis began, the process to apply for a loan modification remains a bureaucratic nightmare that is complicating
the housing recovery …”

An excellent Reuters article detailing the ongoing dysfunction of the mortgage modification programs does a pretty good job of describing the nonsense the banks put people through in what should be a relatively simple, straightforward process. Here’s what one homeowner went through when seeking a loan modification after her adjustable-rate mortgage payment went up, but before she had even missed a payment:

“First she provided documents without getting any response,”

“… then she was denied by her servicer for not providing documents it never actually asked for.”

“One part of the bank appealed that decision and approved her for a trial modification,”

while “another part denied her again – twice – providing two new reasons in part based on inaccurate calculations.”

Then, when contacted by a third party,”a bank spokesman said she was unable to qualify under “imminent default provisions,” a third reason.”

Later the bank begins to start to threaten her, sending a letter stating it is going to “accelerate foreclosure proceedings, despite her perfect payment record and the letter itself saying the bank owed her $281.01.”

Yikes! If you’re not involved in this process with a bank, I think it’s very hard to fathom the breadth and depth of the banks’ perfidy —  the ridiculous lengths to which they will go to justify a denial and the sheer number of lies they tell to support these trumped-up denials.

I’ve gotten fake denials — twice told I had violated the terms of a trial modification I was never in and once denied like the woman above for not sending documents that I was never asked to send. Those are all about confusing and frustrating people, discouraging people from pursuing a modification. I know at least one person who believed a denial letter that actually had nothing to do with her case and gave up, letting her bank foreclose without a fight.

The Reuters reporters documented another disturbing tendency of the banks: falsifying numbers in order to engineer a loan mod denial.

One homeowner’s loan servicer “overvalued his house by more than $100,000 in rejecting a modification.”

“Once he was able to convince [the bank] of that mistake, it rejected him again, dropping his monthly income by almost $4,000 … even though his actual income had not changed.”

Another common practice among mortgage servicers that seems unbelievable if you haven’t experienced it themselves. Most reasonable, honest people can’t begin to imagine the kind of systemic deceit being practiced by these big mortgage servicer banks.

The bank employees ask customers to provide reams of documents detailing their income and expenses and then ignore all that information and just make up numbers? Surely not! That’s surely not legal … moral … ethical … possible? How can it be allowed to happen?

Good question, but it does happen frequently. My financial information was faked  in at least two of the reviews of my mortgage loan for modification. Both times my income and expense figures — which I reported very honestly based on actual numbers that are backed up by bank statements and copies of actual checks and bills — were falsified.

Why? So that the figures fed into the secret computer program that determines HAMP eligibility would generate a denial. Why else?

I have to say my favorite part of the Reuters piece was the bit about the top-secret investor requirements that borrowers don’t meet. Talk about a lack of accountability and transparency in a system.

“More than two years after he first applied for a modification, the bank told him there was an investor restriction on the loan, which meant it couldn’t modify it.”

“That investor agreement was public.”

“But after confronting the bank with that agreement, which did not include any such restriction, the bank told him there was a previously undisclosed secret document that included the restriction.”

Did you catch that? “A previously undisclosed secret document.”

How is a homeowner supposed to fight undisclosed secret documents (which may or may not exist, just like the proof that banks actually own the debt on all the mortgages that have been securitized over the years.)?

The big mortgage servicers that tanked the economy in 2008 and whose actions continue to thwart any meaningful recovery took billions of dollars in bailouts from the American people. One of the only conditions of getting access to all that cash was that they had to agree to take part in the government’s “home preservation” programs such as the Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP).

And HAMP has all sorts of guidelines that establish eligibility and create a process banks agreed to follow when dealing with their customers who are in financial difficulty as a result of the very same economic crisis the banks caused.

In addition, if your mortgage was sold off to or securitized, banks or so-called government-supported enterprises or entities like Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, your mortgage servicer has contractually agreed to abide by a series of guidelines set by these “investors.”

Via the internet, people have access to both the HAMP guidelines and some of the servicing guidelines their banks are supposed to follow. Except the banks don’t follow them. And, for the most part, nobody seems to care.

Well, turns out it doesn’t really matter. Because they’re actually stringing you along and lying to you and denying your loan mod because they’re required to follow the requirements of some shadowy unknown entity as decreed in undisclosed secret documents.

Well, that explains it. If you don’t send documents you weren’t asked to send and you don’t comply with every provision of the undisclosed secret requirements, you aren’t going to get your mortgage modification. Now you know.

 

 

 

Big Banks are Too Big to Serve Their Purpose. Move Your Money.

One of the largest problems with the big banks’ “systems” for evaluating mortgage loans for modification is the sheer volume of loans to be reviewed. No, I’m not buying in to their nonsense spin that they’re doing the best they can; it’s just that the silly homeowners won’t cooperate by sending the proper paperwork.

And I certainly haven’t changed my mind about all the delaying tactics being an intentional strategy to either drive people away without a mod or drive people deeper into debt so that a mod becomes impossible. Those are deliberate systems put into place by the big banks to manipulate the intent of modification programs like HAMP and to scam their customers.

But, even if the banks were honestly trying to help borrowers retain their homes, there are two big roadblocks.

First, the vast majority of homeowners aren’t really the big banks’ borrowers. Most of those mortgage loans originated by Wells Fargo, Chase, Bank of America and their cronies weren’t retained by the institutions that wrote the loans.

If you bought your home during the frenzy of the recent real-estate bubble, your loan was most likely bundled into a mortgage-backed security and sold on before the ink was dry on your purchase agreement. The riskier the loan (those creatively structured sub-prime loans), the quicker it was securitized.

If you bought your home before the real-estate bubble and weren’t a sub-prime borrower, your loan was sold on, as well. That’s because, at least in the early days of securitization when there were still regulations and standards in place, each bundle of loans had to include a certain percentage of high-quality “performing” loans along with the riskier junk loans.

So, suddenly, the company that once bore the risk for the performance of your loan was no longer in that position, no longer had a stake in ensuring you could pay off the loan. Instead, the big banks became loan servicers, which means they make more money (in the form of fees charged to the investor) when something goes wrong with the loan than when you’re just going along making your payment every month. That means foreclosure is more profitable to them than restructuring your loan so you can keep paying.

How ridiculous is that? Talk about a business plan that is not sustainable. It’s all about making those record profits and obscene bonuses in the short term, no matter the long-term cost to the economy or the bank itself.

The second problem keeping the big banks from properly reviewing mortgage holders for loan restructuring is sheer volume. More than 2.5 million home loans have gone into foreclosure in the past two years. That’s a lot of paperwork, even if the banks weren’t playing the “we didn’t get your documents; send them again” game.

What that means is that whether your mortgage qualifies for a modification isn’t decided based on the judgement of an experienced mortgage loan professional. Whether or not you qualify depends on how a bank employee (or contractor) interprets those income and expense numbers you send over and over and which figures he or she decides to input into a computer program that decides whether you qualify.

For the most part these people parsing your financials don’t have much experience or training. And they are highly incentivized by the banks to find ways to ensure you don’t qualify. But even if they were experienced, honest people trying to actually help homeowners avoid foreclosure, the system is doomed to failure. When computers instead of human beings decide the fate of mortgage-holders, of course the numbers of foreclosures will grow.

Again, the sheer size of the big banks sets up a lender/borrower relationship that benefits neither party in the long run – another unsustainable business model.

The real problem here is that the banks have become too big to provide the services they were created to provide. It’s not “too big to fail.” It’s truly “too big to succeed.” Banks with no connection to their customers, writing loans they don’t intend to own long-term, is a recipe for financial disaster. Add on the billions they made bundling all kinds of questionably created mortgages into big-dollar securities and the billions they derive from their loan-servicing subsidiaries and you can see that the big loser here is the consumer, the person the bank is supposed to be serving.

Runaway greed, short-term thinking and the impersonalization of banking services have brought down the largest economy in the world. The big banks have made themselves too big to sustain, too big to do the job they were created to do.

So what can you do about this? It’s actually pretty simple. Stop doing business with a bank to whom you are just a number. Move your money to a local/regional bank or credit union and start establishing a relationship with the people who handle your financial affairs. When it’s time to finance a house loan, a car loan or any other loan, you’ll be working with an institution that is going to own that loan for the duration and that won’t.

A banker with whom a customer has done business over the years can take into consideration the borrower’s full financial picture. Has the person been a loyal customer for many years, always managed his or her finances responsibly, paid off other debts fully and in a timely manner? Is the current hardship a temporary situation caused by circumstances beyond the borrower’s control? If the answer to those questions is “yes,” an experienced financial-services professional is likely to see that customer as a good risk and work to restructure a loan to the long-term benefit of all parties.

On the other hand, if the customer has a history of overdrafts, late payments and general poor financial management, perhaps that person doesn’t get a loan in the first place. Disappointing for the customer, but surely a much more responsible way to do business. A sustainable way to do business. A bank serving its customers the way banks are supposed to.

Invest in Main Street, not Wall Street. Move Your Money!

Related Links:
Move Your Money, Change the System
Moving money: deposits rise at local banks

The Games Wells Fargo Plays: Denying Mod Based on Faked Income

I swear those loss mitigation folks at Wells Fargo remind me of naughty children. You know, the snot-nosed five-year-old who holds his hands over his ears when you’re trying to reason with him and then shouts “I can’t hear you!”

I’ve been working with (against) Wells Fargo for 20 months now trying to get them to restructure my mortgage loan. After stringing me along and trying all kinds of misinformation and outright lies, now they’ve resorted to out-and-out fabrication of numbers, namely ignoring my reported and verified income figures and assigning their own much lower number.

And how do they justify pulling a number our of thin air instead of using the reams and reams of income-verification paperwork I have sent in over the past nearly-two years? Of course, they don’t. They just use this bogus figure to justify denying my loan modification, saying my income is insufficient.

I have been very clear when providing income information, so I’m quite sure this isn’t a mistake or a simple data-entry or calculation error. I do think it’s a calculated strategy to “justify” turning down the mod. Let’s see whether you agree when you know the facts.

I am the owner/sole employee of an S-Corporation. Twice each month I write myself a check from the business credit union account. I then deposit those checks into my personal credit union account. Different credit unions. Business account in business name. Personal account in my name. Very clean, clear accounting.

From the business account, I pay to the IRS the entire quarterly payroll tax for the amount I have paid out in payroll to myself. I do not pay any portion of this tax via my personal account.

For this example, let’s say the amount of the two monthly checks is $900 each, for a total of $1,800. Very simple.

To verify/confirm that income, Wells Fargo has a year + of credit union statements for both my business and personal accounts. Per a request from a Wells Fargo representative, one set of statements was provided after having been very clearly marked up to highlight the check numbers and amounts on the business statements and the corresponding deposit dates and amounts in my personal account. Payroll expense out; personal income in. Couldn’t be more clear and simple.

We have also sent copies of the fronts and backs of the checks to further prove that income amount we are submitting is correct. And they have profit-and-loss statements broken down by month, clearly showing the payroll expense matching the statements and canceled checks.

Yet, for some reason I cannot fathom, Wells Fargo’s underwriters have in two consecutive modification reviews designated my net income as $1,185. In the current review, even the “loss mitigation” person who is my designated “single point of contact” seems to understand that my net income is $1,800. But the underwriter persists in using the much lower number and – big surprise – determining that my income is too low to qualify for a mod.

I’ll be adding a report of this nonsense to the already-thick complaint filed with my state’s attorney general, for all the good that will do. Will this fraud never end? Won’t anyone with any power step up and smack these naughty children around until they take their fingers out of their ears and behave at least as well as a reasonably civilized five-year-old?

Mortgage Mod Fraud Goes On and On

This is for all of you who still think the people working hard for mortgage modifications and fighting foreclosure are just a bunch of “deadbeats” who “bought too much house” and are now “trying to get a free house.

And for anyone who still believes the banks’ nonsense that they really, really want to help more people save their homes, but those darn borrowers just won’t fill out the right paperwork.

Nonsense. It’s all about the money the mortgage loan servicer banks are raking in. Servicers make more money to foreclose than to modify a mortgage.

That’s right. It seems logical to think banks would rather keep borrowers in their homes paying even a reduced mortgage. Nope. The financial incentive is generally all on the side of foreclosure, in large part thanks to federal government subsidies.

From the interview:

“Has there been a rush to foreclose, in your view?”

“I think there has been a rush to foreclose. I think the thing that most made me upset is that you had people that qualified for loan modifications that were denied and went into foreclosure.”

“Lost their homes?”

“Lost their homes.”

“Lost their homes, even though they deserved modifications?”

“Even though they would have qualified and deserved a modification.”

Just as true today as when this interview was first run. Don’t believe me? Just read the long list of lies Wells Fargo Home Mortgage has told me during 17-plus months of mortgage mod nonsense. Is that how an honest company does business. I think not.

Meet My Wells Fargo “Single Point of Contact”

 

Introducing:
JessicaMichelleMarkLindaKathleenWanitaJeffersonAngela- KathleenJacobGaryKathleenJulianSheilaLarryAnneMarieSusan

Back in April 2010, just as I was initiating my first request for modification of my mortgage loan, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage’s soon-to-be-solo president, Mike Heid, told a subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee that the bank was a couple months into a policy of “assigning one person to manage one loan modification from beginning to end.

Then, in mid-November 2010, Alan Jones, operations manager of WFHM servicing, told another subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee that “this year we introduced a 1:1 customer service model to enable at-risk customers to work with one person from beginning to end on their home preservation options.”

In between those two pronouncements, I had spent three months dealing with a never-repeating series of customer service phone queue people. Finally, on June 14, 2010, I finally got connected with a person who actually gave me her direct phone line. She said she would be working with me until the review was completed. But that was not to be. Instead, my case was passed along to five more people – all of whom told me they’d be with me ‘til the end – before that review ended.

I made a second mod attempt starting just before Christmas 2010. This time I had three different contact people, two in the WFHM office of the president and one on the Congressional Support team (thanks to staff at Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ Tucson office.)

Yet, on February 18, 2011, HousingWire reported that Jones, speaking on a panel, said that since June 2010 WFHM had “established a single-point of contact strategy where troubled borrowers are assigned to one loss mitigation representative.”

“The single-point of contact does work. It has helped to avoid foreclosures when the borrower has one person to call will filling out their documentation,” Jones said. I can imagine that’s quite true. I just don’t think it was happening anywhere but in the prepared statements of these executives.

You see, three days after Jones’ statement, I was informed the second review of my loan had ended. By that time, I had been assigned a total of nine different people as my “single point of contact.” Despite the fact that WFHM execs were testifying to Congress that they had been matching borrowers with a single contact person for the past year.

In April 2011, in response to a bit of largely impotent pressure from regulators, Wells Fargo and the other big banks vowed to fix the failing loan mod/foreclosure process. One of the key points was, you guessed it, agreeing to provide customers with a single point of contact.

Single Point Of Contact: Why Won’t Banks Pay More Attention To Homeowners?

A full year after Jones said WFHM’s “single point of contact” strategy was in place and a full 14 months after Heid’s testimony to Congress, I initiated a third mortgage mod review. Surely, by now, WFHM will have perfected this system to match up customers with a single contact person.

Or not.

In just six weeks, between June 15, 2011 and July 26, 2011, I had four (4)!! different people inform me and my legal counsel that they were the “single point of contact” for my case. Four! Here’s the list:

  1.  On June 15, 2011, the day the paperwork to initiate the third round of mod requests was faxed to WFHM, I got a phone call from Tanya Williams in the WFHM president’s office telling me that my case has been assigned to Gary Lingren, executive mortgage specialist in the president’s office, and he will be calling me in the next couple of days. He never did so and he failed to answer several voicemails from my legal counsel. He did, however, later order my case closed because I didn’t send documents in response to a letter that was never actually sent to me.
  2. On June 27, 2011, I received a letter dated June 21, 2011, from Kathleen Halifax, an underwriter in Loss Mitigation. In the letter, she designated herself as my “primary contact” on the “team dedicated to helping” me with my mod review. I never heard from her other than the letter, though another WFHM employee did manage to interrupt her in a meeting to get the list of documents Mr. Lingren needed but never bothered to actually call or write to ask for.
  3. On July 21, 2011 my legal counsel was called by Julian Long from the WFHM president’s office, who identified himself as our “single point of contact” for the ongoing review. He was the person who, just eight days later, notified my legal counsel that my request had been denied.
  4. But, in the meantime, on July 26, 2011, I received a FedEx package containing a letter dated July 21, 2011, in which Sheila Roberts, loan processor, describes herself as “your loan processor and dedicated point of contact for this program.” (Note that this letter was generated the same day Mr. Long was telling my counsel he was the point of contact.) Neither I nor my counsel has had any other contact from Ms. Roberts and I have no idea what her actual role might or might not have been in the review that supposedly ended three days after I got her overnight package.In her letter, she implied the review was just beginning and wrote that she would follow up with me at latest by Sunday, August 21, 2011, to outline the next steps in the process or request additional documents. I hope someone tells her somebody else completed the review already.

Somebody should tell Wells Fargo that “single” means “one.” And “point of contact” implies, well, contact. Communication. Exchange of information.

Instead, “single point of contact” seems to be a phrase used to placate Congress and the “regulators” and mollify the media while the loan servicers continue to play the delay and deny game with homeowners. In short, another scam.

Update 9/13/11:
Add name number 15 to my “single point of contact”
JessicaMichelleMarkLindaKathleenWanitaJeffersonAngelaKathleenJacobGaryKathleenJulianSheilaLarry

Update 6/2012:
Up to 17 “single” points of contact now. Although “contact” might be a bit of an exaggeration.

Bank employees can’t read a bank statement? Or add? Yikes!

So, here’s a little task for all you bright people. I’m going to do the following:

1) Give you a copy of my June 2011 bank statement for my personal account … and
2) Give you a copy of my June 2011 bank statement for my business account … and
3) Give you a copy of my profit-and-loss statement showing the total amount of payroll expense in June 2011.

In addition, I will also tell you that I am the only employee of my business; therefore, the entire payroll amount reported on the P&L was paid to me.

Your task, now, is to verify that the business did, indeed, pay me the amount (by check) that I say I am paid.

Just so you know what you’re getting into, I’ll tell you that the statement for the business account shows records for 19 transactions. Eight are checks, five are deposits, five are debit-card transactions and one is a bank service fee. So, to successfully complete this task you’ll need to look at the records of the eight checks. The personal bank statement details 38 transactions, four of which are deposits.

What’s the catch, you ask? Surely all this should take is looking at the amounts of the eight checks on the business statement to see which ones match up with the amounts in any of the four deposits on the personal statement, add the matching deposits up and then look to see whether the number you get matches the payroll expense amount reported on the P&L.

Simple, right?!

Apparently not if you work for Wells Fargo. If you work for Wells Fargo, it seems that one of the following might be true:

1) You don’t know how to read a bank statement.
2) You don’t know how to read.
3) You don’t know what the words “deposit” and “draft” mean in the context of a bank statement.
4) You can’t add, in this case, two three-digit numbers.
5) You really can do all those things, but your boss told you to pretend you couldn’t so as to further delay the review of a customer’s mortgage loan for modification.

If you work for Wells Fargo and are asked to perform this very task while reviewing a customer’s loan modification paperwork, you will fail. Or, at least, you will inform the customer that you failed, even though saying so will make you seem to be a complete incompetent idiot who shouldn’t be working in a burger joint, let alone in the Office of the President of a multi-billion-dollar corporation.

You will be required tell the customer that in order to verify her income, you will need her to send you copies of the checks that were written on the business account and deposited into the personal account. (Just FYI, there were two.) Because until you see those checks with your own eyes, you have no idea whatsoever what that customer’s income might be.

Ugh.

Just imagine how awful it must be to work for this company whose system for “reviewing” loan mod requests requires you to pretend, right out there in public, you are a complete imbecile. That would sure get old fast. (And even rate an entry in the My Bad Boss contest – a little humor to keep you from beating your head on your desk after reading about this bankster nonsense.)

Wells Fargo: You Did What We Asked and It Was Wrong

One of the biggest excuses the big mortgage servicers spout to explain why mortgage modification reviews take months or even years is that their borrowers fail to send the correct paperwork.

Never mind that the website for my mortgage servicer, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, does not provide anything so logical as a simple checklist of the forms and documents that homeowners seeking modifications under the government’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) must submit.

I heard a new version of the “you didn’t send the paperwork” excuse today. My latest contact at the WFHM president’s office tried to tell me that the review of my mortgage modification request took so long because I sent the documents one or two at a time.

WHAT?! That could be because Wells Fargo employees ASKED FOR THEM that way. I first sent what I thought was a complete initial packet of info. based on a list on the Making Home Affordable website. Then, I sent documents 12 more times. Always at the request of someone from WFHM.

One of the mailings totaled 52 sheets of paper, more than half of which were printed on both sides! Should I have sent that many documents every time one or two items were requested? That’s nuts. But, then so is this whole mortgage modification scam. I keep describing it to those lucky people not involved in it themselves as “The Keystone Kops Manage a Bank.”