Uhh, Cenk really needs to source his info, because he's wrong about a few things.

For one, HARP is only offered to people whose mortgages are owned by Fannie and Freddie. No Bank of America mortgages are eligible.

Second, all of Fannie and Freddie's loans are guaranteed by the government. Pre-crisis people assumed that was the case, and post-crisis that's been explicitly stated by the government.

Third, "loan guarantee" doesn't mean you can commit fraud. One can make a moral hazard argument, and say that loan guarantees will encourage banks to make loans it thinks are likely to fail, but it doesn't make actually doing so legal. It also ignores that Congress has always been fastidious about Fannie and Freddie's lending standards for exactly this reason.

If I didn't know better, I'd guess Cenk got this from some sort of right-wing spam e-mail, not from actual due diligence research.

And for those who want to read the actual text of the announcement from the FHFA on this change, here you go.

I'm not a lawyer, but I have been reading a lot of this kind of stuff lately (because I'm underwater on my mortgage now too!), and all they're really doing is widening the pool of people who they're going to allow to do refinances by letting people who are less screwed participate.

Here's their response to the "moral hazard" argument I alluded to in my earlier comment:

Are you concerned that eliminating seller and servicer representations and warrants on HARP loans will force the Enterprises to take on additional risk?

We anticipate that the package of improvements being made to HARP will reduce the Enterprises credit risk, bring greater stability to mortgage markets and reduce foreclosure risks – each of which is an important statutory mandate for FHFA.
Nearly all HARP-eligible borrowers have been paying their mortgages for more than three years, and most of those for four or more years. These are seasoned loans made to borrowers who have demonstrated a capacity and commitment to make good on their mortgage obligation through a period of severe economic stress and house price declines.

Reps and warrants protect the Enterprises from losses on defective loans; typically, such defects show up in the first few years of a mortgage and so the value of the reps and warrants decline over time. By refinancing into a lower interest rate and/or shorter term mortgage, these borrowers are recommitting to their mortgage and strengthening their household balance sheet, thereby reducing the credit risk they already pose to the Enterprises. Therefore, FHFA has concluded that eliminating the reps and warrants that may have discouraged industry participants from taking greater advantage of HARP to-date will be good for borrowers, housing markets, and the Enterprises and taxpayers.

According to this, HARP helps people with a loan to value of over 80%. This means if somebody's house goes down in value, your loan-to-value will actually increase (mortgage/appraised worth of home). Cenk is saying HARP does the opposite of that. Either I'm confused or he is confused.>> ^NetRunner:

And for those who want to read the actual text of the announcement from the FHFA on this change, here you go.
I'm not a lawyer, but I have been reading a lot of this kind of stuff lately (because I'm underwater on my mortgage now too!), and all they're really doing is widening the pool of people who they're going to allow to do refinances by letting people who are less screwed participate.
Here's their response to the "moral hazard" argument I alluded to in my earlier comment:

Are you concerned that eliminating seller and servicer representations and warrants on HARP loans will force the Enterprises to take on additional risk?
We anticipate that the package of improvements being made to HARP will reduce the Enterprises credit risk, bring greater stability to mortgage markets and reduce foreclosure risks – each of which is an important statutory mandate for FHFA.
Nearly all HARP-eligible borrowers have been paying their mortgages for more than three years, and most of those for four or more years. These are seasoned loans made to borrowers who have demonstrated a capacity and commitment to make good on their mortgage obligation through a period of severe economic stress and house price declines.
Reps and warrants protect the Enterprises from losses on defective loans; typically, such defects show up in the first few years of a mortgage and so the value of the reps and warrants decline over time. By refinancing into a lower interest rate and/or shorter term mortgage, these borrowers are recommitting to their mortgage and strengthening their household balance sheet, thereby reducing the credit risk they already pose to the Enterprises. Therefore, FHFA has concluded that eliminating the reps and warrants that may have discouraged industry participants from taking greater advantage of HARP to-date will be good for borrowers, housing markets, and the Enterprises and taxpayers.

>> ^rottenseed:

According to this, HARP helps people with a loan to value of over 80%. This means if somebody's house goes down in value, your loan-to-value will actually increase (mortgage/appraised worth of home). Cenk is saying HARP does the opposite of that. Either I'm confused or he is confused.

You're reading the document right -- it says what you're saying.

A HOUSE = an investment

YOUR HOME = not an investment