Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/09/2013
Back in late 2010, there was much hope that as a result of the unfolding robosigning “Linda Green” scandal, not only would banks would be forced to fix their ways by incurring crippling civil penalties (because not even the most optimistic hoped any bankers would ever face criminal charges for anything), but that the US housing market may even reprice to a fair price as for a brief moment there nobody had any idea who owned what mortgage. Ironically, what did end up happening was to provide banks with a legal impetus to slow down the foreclosure process to such a crawl that an artificial backlog of millions and millions of houses at the start of the foreclosure process formed, bottlenecking the foreclosure exits even more (as described in Foreclosure Stuffing) and in the process providing an artificial, legal subsidy to housing prices manifesting itself best in what is erroneously titled a “housing recovery” for many months now.
What this did was to allow banks to aggressively reprice the mortgage-linked “assets” on their balance sheets much higher, and in the process unleash much capital, primarily for bonus and shareholder dividend purposes. Yet this epic self-benefiting act did not come without a cost. Yes, it turns out the banks will have to fork over some out-of-pocket change to put not only the robosigning scandal behind them but the indirect housing subsidy from which they have benefited to the tune of hundreds of billions. That quite literally change, which is what the final cost of the release and bank indemnity amounts to, is roughly $300 for each of the affected borrowers!
Read more: here