Pssst! Hey Slick. Wanna Buy a Condo?

A few years ago, at Mardi Gras in New Orleans, some moron was having so much fun he decided to take out his gun and start firing shots into the air.  Unfortunately, one of the bullets came down a few blocks away and hit an innocent woman in the head and killed her.   Now, if I HATED someone and really wanted them dead, I could take a gun (I'd have to get one first) and I could sneak up behind the guy and put my gun against his head, pull  my trigger now he's dead.  (sorry, channeling Freddie Mercury for a few seconds).  Though the clown in N'awlins and I would BOTH be responsible for the death of a person, we would be charged and tried to VERY different standards based on our motivation.  Unfortunately for the persons killed, our motives have no bearing on how dead they are ..... they're both just as dead.

So when the Boston Globe gets a story wrong and people who use the story as a basis for their behavior, or tell others of the story and THEY go along with the inaccurate story, and people get hurt, the Globe is responsible.  But mistakes are inevitable and are made by everyone .... I know I've made my share.  But when the Boston Globe reporter writes a story and NONE of the details in the story match the narrative, that means the reporter and editors , nobody, checked to make sure the article was accurate.  THAT would make the personnel involved FAR more culpable then if they just made a mistake.  This brings us to an absolutely astonishing inaccurate piece by Globe reporter Gail Ravgiala titled  "Triple Deckers get a second life" from April 24, 2005 (Don't worry, it ties into more recent articles)

Ms Ravgiala's essay presents to us (Michael) David Scott, a native of Trinidad that is rehabilitating three deckers into condos and who's business plan is to : "establish a reputation for quality, make a reasonable rate of return, and then leverage both by reinvesting in a community."  So committed is he to the neighborhoods that, instead of focusing on the top of the market, Scott is focusing on people who  " .. work for the Boston Public Schools or the MBTA or a nonprofit agency. They have a commitment to the community. Some of them grew up in these neighborhoods and are looking to move back."  (Don't you just know something is wrong when you see hackneyed cliches like "commitment to the community")

And, despite the upbeat tone, there are things that are either wrong or that just don't add up.  As I've said before, if there is a Globe article with a name or an address I'll check the information and the description the Globe gives is invariably wrong.

The project he and his partners are  working on at the time of the article is called the "Dorchester Elite Condo"   on Dix Street but they don't give an address ..... so I go to my real estate tax data (I buy from the city every year) ....but I can't find Scott's name anywhere or the name of his partner "Michael Hecker".  So I go to the registry of Deeds on-line and still can't find those names on any recent transactions on Dix Street, nor can I the name of his company " Metro Property Partners LLP".  Now that's odd.

Well, the article mentions another property they are developing at 465 Ashmont Street in Dorchester  but still no Scott, Hecker, or the corporate name but here we do get a hit at the Registry,  the owner is listed as Gene Mitchell ..... who the hell is he??  But more odd is that Mitchell purchased the home on 02/24/2005 with "piggback" mortgages to Gateway Funding Diversified totaling $474,050 and these mortgages have clauses that state the mortgage is for an owner occupied building (#6.  Occupancy.  Borrower shall occupy, establish, and use the Property as Borrower's principal residence within 60 days ...")  So who is Mitchell, why is he supposed to be an owner occupant, if Scott and Hecker say it's their development??  Clearly the reporter NOR the editors checked this out because they didn't seem to have checked anything!

We also get the names and quotes from buyers of Scott's developments, but they don't seem to be in the registry of deeds either.   Now it's getting really strange.  And then, I just got lucky.  My curiosity piqued, I went back to recheck the information  on the registry web site and Voila!!!!  the Master deed for the Dix Street property is recorded the following day April 25, 2005 but now I'm stumped again, the property is  74 Dix street but again Scott or Hecker ain't the owners ... It's April and Michael Walton who bought the three decker on 12/14/2004 for $550,000 with piggyback mortgages to Greenpoint Mortgage Corp totaling $495,000 and again with that owner occupant clause (#6.  Occupancy.  Borrower shall occupy, establish, and use the Property as Borrower's principal residence within 60 days ..."). So who are the Walton's?  But more so, it's becoming clear ... something is very wrong here!  Or, as I asked myself, "What are they hiding?"

You see, lets just assume that Scott, etal ARE pouring their money into rehabbing these properties.  The money could be lost in a second if, for example, Gene Mitchell has an accident and a person is hurt or killed and Mr Mitchell is at fault.  Any lawyer worth their salt would have a lien on everything Mr. Mitchell owned in seconds ..... and Scott and Hecker would risk losing every penny they put in  it.  For people who are already getting legal advice (They set up a LLP) they are unnecessarily being far too risky in the form of ownership they chose!

And things just keep getting more weird.  One of Scott's buyers, Sonia Gilmere, praises him that "If there is something a buyer doesn't like, Scott will work with them. ''David changed the colors for me,".  So I look up Ms Gilmere and she's nowhere to be found in the Registry!!!  Almost a month later (05/13/20050 I noticed that a Sonia Gilmere buys a condo unit from Scott, etal.  Almost a month BEFORE she buys the unit she's selling Scott to others?  Didn't the reporter or the editors notice any of that??

Ms Gilmere is at least still living in her unit.  Another buyer heaping praise on Scott is Marie Firman who, with her nephew, is buying all three units in another three decker.    It turns out, also as above, the nephew Tyrone Calloway, doesn't close on his first unit at 133 Harold Street #3 for another 1 1/2 months.  He pays $253,500 with piggyback mortgages to sub-prime lender Option One Mortgage totalling $253,500 (100% L/V) and unit #2 for the same price with 100% L/V piggback  mortgages to subprime purveyors Accredited Home Lenders both on 06/08/2005.  He then purchases unit #1 on 06/13/2005 for the same price but this time with piggyback  mortgages to sub prime lender First Franklin Financial for 100% L/V.  Ironically, the lenders expected Mr Calloway to be an owner occupant in all three units. (Yep, that same Clause #6 in the mortgages)  Because nobody at the Globe checked any detail,  they couldn't have found THAT  either.

With all these red flags flying at every level in the story the Globe went ahead and published the article.  Those flags got MY attention which is why I had to sit and watch what was transpiring  right before my eyes .... like a slow motion plane crash.  And THAT brings us to the Boston Globe articles by Jennifer McKim on February 2, 2009  "Bank alleges it was defrauded of $1.5 million" and finally her piece on December 13, 2009 "Developer's easy-money pitch left a trail of ruin"

For reasons I can't yet explain I really can't say too much more about the Michael David Scott saga but I think that last article says it all.  Repeated calls to a member of the Boston Globe editorial board went unheeded (Right Larry Harmon?) and calls to others like columnist Derrick Jackson who could probably find racism in a sneeze wouldn't touch Michael David Scott.  Derrick, how may times did I call and try to explain to you that black home-buyers were getting screwed?  4 or 5 wasn't it?  And you did what ????? I guess it's easier just dragging out those NCAA March Madness schedules and comparing black graduation rates year, after year, after year ....

I did speak with a few of Scott's buyers.  The one woman who bought a condo in Roxbury  had problems from the day she moved in and took him to court several times.  She also claimed he was harassing her (I have NO way of verifying that).  But she told one thing that put the whole episode in perspective.  She saw the Globe article and referred others to Scott because of it.  She told me she was comfortable because Scott and she were both black.   Then added "But now I know he's nothing but a street thug in a three piece suit".

Remember Tyrone Calloway, he did successfully sell one of the three units he was owner occupant in, #3, but ended up losing the other two units to foreclosure.   Ms Gilmere still owns her unit but, since prices have collapsed, it's worth far less then the balances of her mortgages.   And how about 74 Dix Street, the Dorchester Elite!  One woman bought all three units for a total for (get this) $1,036,000.  Scott could have replace all the floors with marble and all the metal with gold and it wouldn't haven been worth $1 million.  But that's OK, it took her less than 2 years to lose all three units to foreclosure. And 465 Ashmont Street?  All three the units were purchased by members of the Dolly family, Agaphitus,  Lenora and Isadora of Miami ...... that's right Miami.  But unit #2 was later sold to a person that may sound familiar ..... it was purchased by one Tyrone Calloway on 10/25/2005.  Unit 1 and unit 3, owned by the Dolly's were able to be sold at a huge loss,  more then 75% less then they paid  and Mr Calloway lost his to foreclosure.

The Boston Globe has blood on their hands but keeps it as quite as possible.  And every person that I dealt with that bought from Scott was black (or is it ... "person of  color" ) so that the blood is the finances of minority home-buyers across Roxbury and Dorchester.

Some of you have heard me say it before, "You don't need the Klu Klux Klan, or the American Nazi party or Aryan Nation to keep black people poor, white liberals (and black liberals) do the job very well on their own!"  And few seem to do it as well as the Boston Globe!

Don't hold your breath waiting for the Globe to say "I'm sorry".

PS: By my work, there was about 3 times the fraud in the Dorchester and Roxbury condo markets than  is (allegedly) attributed to Mr Scott.   I haven't read about any of THAT in the Globe either.

Do-gooders help finance Roslindale eyesore!

How many times can I say it, Why doesn't the Globe tell the WHOLE story instead of trying to hide or "overlook" the parts they find inconvenient?  Today's "Stupid Boston Globe Trick" involves the article by Boston Globe correspondent Christina Pazzanese titled  "Neighbors are tired of boarded-up eyesore"

Where to start. Let's see, John J. Casciano, Jr. buys the home at 15 Maynard Street for $76,000 on 07/08/1996  (Suffolk Registry Book 20700 Page 144) but, because of the ill fated attempts to "democratize" home ownership (which the Boston Globe regularly praised on their editorial pages) he's helped to finance the property with an "affordable" soft-second mortgage product. A first mortgage to Boston Safe and Deposit and Trust for $57,000 (now part of Bank of America) and a "soft second", also to Boston Safe, for $15,200 and a grant (in the form of a 3rd mortgage) to the Massachusetts Housing Partnership.

You fine folks on Maynard Street can thank the Commonwealth for what your ex-neighbor bequeathed to you. But how come the Globe doesn't tell when programs they've long championed go wrong? Maybe that would require telling the truth!

If you want to put a face on the "Great Recession", it's 15 Maynard Street.

PS:  There is one additional twist in this tale of woe but is less certain than above so I'll add it as this post script.  You see, Mr. Casciano refinanced his home with a $140,000 first mortgage to Fleet Bank on 06/21/2005 and his original first and "soft second" were paid off and discharged.   There are no liens  or blemishes on the title to the property  until Bank of America initiates foreclosure on 09/24/2008 (Book 44063 Page 054).  Now, this DOES NOT mean he paid his bills on time.  A bank in Massachusetts doesn't initiate foreclosure until the borrower is at least 90 days late.  BUT, if Mr. Casciano made the original mortgage payments on time, the "mortgages for everyone" do-gooders would be able to claim this debacle as a success and evidence of why these loans should continue to be written.  They don't care if the house is subsequently foreclosed because of later mortgages, if the original mortgages were paid on time .... it's a success.  So Roslindale ... Stop complaining!!!  Mr. Casciano's purchase of the home WAS A SUCCESS!!!!  Can't you reproachable neighbors see that?   In fact, we should write more mortgages like his!!! 

You KNEW the Globe would never tell you this, didn't you.

Goldman Sachs Editorial, "A Laugh Riot!!"

I'm a sucker for comedy.  Growing up watching old Mae West, WC Fields, and Marx Brother movies or listening to records with the young Bill Cosby asking "Why is there air?".  Later I was hooked by Monty Python's Flying Circus,  Mel Brooks,  Firesign Theater  and just last year I was jolted by an hilarious comedy I never saw coming, "The Hangover".  But when it comes to outright belly laughs it's hard to beat a Boston Globe editorial!

 In yesterday's editorial on the SEC case against Goldman Sachs (04/24/2010)  the Globe rails against Goldman's "financial folly" and, since the Globe's editors sit at the right hand of the Father (or on Olympus) and are spoken to by the deities, declare that "The transaction in question wasn’t an investment; it was a form of gambling."  Well ... thank you, I'm glad you clarified that for us "regular folk".  But, sometimes, even those of us that aren't as enlightened as Boston Globe editors have a few questions ... and sometimes they're good questions.  Better yet, sometimes we are actually presumptuous  enough that we'd like to have them answered.

I'd like to start with those first statements.   How is the Globe defining investment, gambling and folly.  Any person who thinks they can open a restaurant and pours their own (and frequently borrowed) money is, in fact, gambling.  Since most new restaurants (not chains or parts of larger restaurant groups) fail with astonishing regularity (about 90% in 5 years), is opening a restaurant and investment, gambling or "financial folly"?  In fact it can be all, folly for those that fail, and an investment or a "successful bet" for the successful.

I'm not trying to split hairs or "count the angels on the head of a pin", or even determine how you define the word  "is",  just to point out that ALL investment involves the risk of failure.  The very reason there is a potential for reward is BECAUSE of the risk.  If all the sides of 2 dice had only one spot, the number that would come up when rolled would always be 2 and betting 2 you would always be a winner, but there would be no reward because of the lack of risk!

The Globe's editorial board also skew the particular Goldman/Paulson transaction by failing to place it into context.  Yes, investor John Paulson, etal did ask Goldman to assemble the Abacus financial instrument but Goldman (and other investment banks) were assembling and had assembled hundreds .. perhaps thousands of similar mortgage based securities involving Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO), credit default swaps (CDS) and other investments.  Abacus was hardly unique.

Investors that thought any particular investment would fail could avoid them, those that thought they would be a successful investment (or bet) bought them, and those who bought them could buy a form of insurance against losses in the form of the CDS's.  So the Abacus investment was just like many others with just one difference, Paulson, etal were so sure the real estate market was going to tank that they didn't care about anything but the low cost CDS's who's value would skyrocket if the mortgages backing the securities failed.   (For an analogy to help explain Credit Default Swaps see the addendum below)

But again, failing to place the Abacus investment in context, this was not the first purchase of CDS's for Paulson.  After they became convinced the market would tank and foreclosures would rise, they set out to buy low cost CDS's from others and did.  But that means that those that held these CDS's were of the opinion that defaults would not rise, the value of the CDS's would not rise,  so they sold them to Paulson for a low price.   Paulson, etal were already betting against the real estate market BEFORE Abacus but, they were so confident everyone else was wrong, they asked for specific deals they could specifically bet against, by investing in the swaps.  So, Boston Globe, to me it appears that those who held, but sold, the swaps to Paulson were wrong.  You might argue that they committed "financial folly" ... but who is it that decides, especially looking forward?

Further, the Globe (as it frequently does) leaves out information that might undermine it's arguments.  The Globe leaves out that, to avoid any conflicts, Goldman brought in a company that specialized in assembling mortgage backed securities, ACA Financial Guaranty Corp., a New York firm that helped Goldman assemble the investment and then bet that it would gain value. (Italics mine)  So confident was Goldman of ACA's ability to put together successful MBS's that persons  in Goldman repeatedly told Paulson, etal that they were wrong and that Goldman was confident with their models.  So confident that the instrument would be a success, Goldman put some of their own money in the investment!!

Yes, Goldman earned $15 million for assembling Abacus for Paulson but they also LOST $90 million of their own money when the loans went bad.  If Goldman Sachs committed fraud, then they must also be guilty of having defrauded themselves out of $90 million!!!!!  Is that why the Globe left this information out of the editorial?

And last, the Globe fails to point out the type of investors that lost millions and whom were allegedly defrauded.  These investors weren't retirees or young people investing for their future, the banks at the heart of the Abacus episode are major investment banks.  These are banks with thousands of employees and layers of risk analysis to determine whether or not any particular investment (or gamble to the Globe) is worth the risk. I think everyone agrees that the rating agencies blew it but,  regarding these investment banks (German banks IKB and Deutsche Bank), they did (or certainly SHOULD have done) their own risk analysis of their Abacus  investment, and decided it looked good.  So, is it the role of the SEC to  protect these banks from their own mistakes and from risk and potential losses??? I hope not because that would imply that the SEC's job is also to protect them from risk and potential gains!

And what if Paulson was wrong, as most of Wall Street thought he was?  He would have lost millions on Abacus, Goldman would have made millions and we wouldn't be having this conversation now.

Ironically, while the Globe berates Goldman Sachs and Paulson, etal, it continues to go soft on those institutions that also "gambled" and lost and clearly exercised "financial folly", but with whom the Boston Globe editorial board agrees.  The failure of FNMA and FHLMC have cost the taxpayers more than $125 billion so far and they are hemorrhaging more money every month.   Even worse, since the government has nationalized the two, the taxpayers are now on the hook for guaranteeing about $1.5 trillion (that's right, with a "T") of loan guarantees issued by them!!!   Fannie and Freddie also used the same sort of MBS's, CDO's and credit default swaps used by Goldman, Paulson and others and lost in a scale not yet seen on Wall Street! When will we see the SEC bring fraud charges against Fannie and Freddie?

Yet, one of the Globe's favorite congressman Barney Frank, pushed Fannie and Freddie to gamble with the American housing market and the world's bond investments.  Where was the Globe criticism when Congressman Frank prodded Fannie and Freddie  into more risky mortgages?  When Mr Frank stated in 2003 that, " These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis.  The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''  Has the Globe tarnished him for being astonishingly wrong??  And did the Globe ever condemn him for gambling on the housing markets when he famously claimed that, " I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation ..."?  Where has been the criticism of Mr Frank when he looked for LESS "safety and soundness" at Fannie and Freddie than what is applied to other banks and lenders?  That's not "financial folly" ??   And  "roll the dice" (his words), doesn't the Globe think that sounds like, oh ... I don't know .... gambling?

And last, where is the criticism of do-gooders like MAHA, NACA, ACORN, and others who, at the top of the real estate market, were encouraging low-moderate income (largely minority) buyers to buy expensive homes with mortgage programs that were referred to as "affordable".  These "activists" were betting that the Dorchester and Roxbury real estate markets would stay expensive (if they thought at all), but they were betting, not with their own money, nor with the money of large investment banks, but with the money and finances of persons who have, by definition low and moderate incomes.  They're NOT RICH!!!

My favorite is the three decker that an Hispanic family purchased on forgettable East Street in Dorchester for $605,000 on 06/17/2005 with an "affordable soft second" mortgage product.  The next most expensive three family home sold on East Street since sold for only $370,000.  If what Goldman/Paulson did was fraud, what the do-gooders did to low-moderate income (largely minority) home buyers should be a capital offense.  But we hear NOTHING from the Globe.

I started off stating that Boston Globe editorials were frequently funny.  The carelessness they exhibit SHOULD be comical.  But when you consider how many people have gotten hurt, and the Globe STILL doesn't get it ...... it's just sad.

(A quick analogy about Credit Default Swaps.  In Florida during hurricane season insurance companies WILL NOT allow you to close on a house purchase if there is hurricane or tropical storm within a certain number of miles of the state.  The reason is that, with a storm that close, the potential for loss is so much greater that, at any price, the insurance company is still taking too large a risk.  If a MBS is thought to be well constructed the risk of loss is low and the cost of the CDS's are low, but if the mortgages start going bad the value of the CDS's rise and THAT was what Paulson, etal were counting on.

I would ask the Globe, are the home insurance rules in Florida a form of gambling or a method for managing the risk of an investment?)

Financial Genius for Boston's "Stratigic Investments"

Today's stupid "Boston Globe" trick involves, again, not telling the whole story.  Today, the Boston Globe's Travis Anderson tells us that State Representative Marie St. Fluer has been hired by Moron .. (I'm sorry)  Mayor Menino to over see the cities "strategic investments" in ".. education, immigration, and anti-poverty programs."  The mayor, the governor, Seth Gitell, a spokesman for House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo speak of her accomplishments .... but she also has an, how shall I put it, irregular financial history.  Might not this history be somewhat of a reflection of her ability to oversee said "strategic investments"?  So let me tell you what the "Globe" doesn't want to tell you.

Ah, Ms St Fleur, where to begin ... how about the beginning. We'll start with when, she and her husband Jean Lauture buy a two family home on Old Morton Street for $176,500 with a first mortgage to First National Bank of Boston for $141,200 and a second to the seller for $17,600. It takes them a whopping 7 months before they are far enough behind in their mortgage payments that FNBOB records an notice of foreclosure on 6/28/1990. Then a second notice on 4-30-1992 (tell me when this gets boring), a third on 1/4/1993 and Bank of Boston takes the property back with a foreclosure deed. Then Ms St Fleur, etal declare bankruptcy on 2-5-1993.

Oh, but we're just getting started, you see, on 6-14-2001, Marie and Jean then buy 45 Hartford Street from Paul L. St. Fluer for $100 (must have been a family member) but get a $168,000 mortgage from First Eastern Mortgage. But still they aren't paying their bills because on 12-18-2002 The City of Boston files a Tax Taking because they haven't paid their real estate taxes.

Marie finally takes full control of the house with a deed from her husband on 12-2-2004 but also borrows more money with a $279,500 mortgage to sub-prime lender Option One Mortgage. She ups her principal again on 2-23-2006 with a mortgage to Tremont Credit Union for $370,000 and follows it with a Line of Credit to TCU for $25,000 more. She then signs an agreement with TCU to modify her LOC from $25,000 up to $30,000 AND another agreement to forgo her principal payments for May and June 2007 AND capitalize three months of principal and add that additional $6,400.26 to the back end of her mortgage payments, both on 9-14-2007. Then .... take a deep breath, I'm almost done ... she refinances AGAIN on 6-26-2009 with Tremont CU with a new first mortgage with a principal of $423,000!!

So, while the financial markets are collapsing and property values dropping, this "genius" keeps adding more and more debt!!!! Maybe she can tell others, in her capacity overseeing "anti-poverty programs", how they can do as she did and avoid paying banks back the money they loaned her, then go on to borrow and spend every penny of equity in her subsequent home, not pay real estate taxes, and STILL end up with an $120,000 job.  Hell, I'LL sign up for THAT anti-poverty program!!!

THIS is the person the city hires to oversee "strategic investment"???  I wouldn't trust her to buy lunch!

Liars or Clueless

(The information in this post was originally sent out to  THE Real Estate Analyst!!! readers on October 8th 2009. The only changes were the removal of some informal "chit-chat" and, since it was written by me, the usual typos and misspellings.)

It continues to amaze me that, as the world continues to suffer from the effects of the collapse in the country's real estate market, the "Boston Globe" steadfastly refuses to tell the story correctly. Are they liars, are they clueless or, as is more likely, has the liberal bias of the editorial pages  bled to the rest of the paper. Do they "cherry pick" the details they use to present a story the way they want, regardless of ALL the data and how that might paint the story.  It's gotten to the point where, when the "Globe" presents a name or an address in a real estate story, I go to the Registry of Deeds online, look up the data and the story is invariably different from the story the "Globe" presented, not sometimes, not often, not even most of the time, but in just about every case.  I'm writing because of the article that appeared in the "Boston Globe" of September 26th titled "A Move Against Foreclosures" by Jenifer B. McKim.

In this tale of woe and hope we meet Frances Louis who has moved into an empty condominium on Cobden Street in Roxbury that has been vacant since it was foreclosed by Guaranty Bank in Wisconsin. We learn that she, her husband and their children were evicted from their home when her mother lost her home to foreclosure in Mattapan. We're told that Ms Louis, and her father, tried to buy her mother's home but were unsuccessful. But now she is being helped by the do-gooders at "City Life/Vida Urbana" to occupy the condo until a resolution can be reached via various agencies like "Boston Community Capital".  Ah, out of desperation comes hope.

And now for the real story about Ms Louis.

It appears that Ms Louis, etal lived at 27 Duke Street in Mattapan that was foreclosed and the "Foreclosure Deed" was recorded on 01//7/2008. The owner of the home was Yvonne Price (I assume that is her mother).  Ms Price purchased the home on 05/23/2005 for $360,000 with a mortgage loan from Long Beach Mortgage for $324,850.  (Long Beach was a major subprime lender that was owned by Washington Mutual, the country's largest thrift before it collapsed with the real estate crash and is now part of JPMorgan Chase Bank.)  Since she got a loan from a subprime lender we can assume she didn't get the best mortgage rate, but it wasn't one of those villainous adjustable rate mortgages (ARM) .. it was a thirty year fixed mortgage. But she was in financial trouble from the start.

Though she purchased the home in May of 2005, Ms Price was sufficiently in default by November and the "Notice of Intent to Foreclose" was recorded on 11/17/2005, six months after she purchased.  Considering how long it takes to foreclose on a mortgage it's hard to image more than two payments we ever made.  A second "Notice" of a foreclosure was on 12/27/2006 that resulted in the Foreclosure.

I have a possible reason why Ms Louis and her father couldn't buy the home, you see, Frances Louis and her husband, Yves Louis owned the home before her mother purchased it. The "Globe" didn't find it necessary to tell their readers that on 06/29/1999 Frances and Yves Louis purchased the home at 27 Duke Street for $135,000 with an FHA mortgage to First Eastern Mortgage for $134,900.  It turns out that Mr and Ms Louis weren't much better than her mother at paying the mortgage.  On 04/22/2002 a "Notice of Intent" to foreclose was filed against them.  Then ANOTHER notice was filed on 06/20/2003.  In order to stop the foreclosure, the Louis' sold the home to James E Wilson, a real estate investor who's name shows up frequently in "peculiar"   Dorchester and Mattapan transactions, for $214,000.  It was Mr Wilson that sold the property to Frances Louis' mother for $360,000 (pocketing a cool $145,000 for his trouble) .... the mother that then lost the home to foreclosure.

But the story gets even better. The blame for housing bubble and bust has often included charges of "predatory" lending and "easy" credit .... but this is nothing new, it also happened in the 80's real estate bubble and similarly, resulted in waves of foreclosures in largely minority parts of Dorchester and Mattapan.... and Ms Louis' parents, Yvonne and Jerry Price are prime examples.

This sordid tale really begins back on 06/20/1977 when Jerry and Yvonne Price purchased a home at 15 Armandine Street in Dorchester for $24,000 with a mortgage to Home Savings Bank for $21,600. (Hey ... I thought banks didn't write mortgages in Dorchester at the time ... I guess they did)  Things went fairly well for the Yvonne and Jerry for about 5 years before property values started rising making it possible for them to start using their home as an ATM.   First it was a $11,500 second mortgage from "Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Employee Federal Credit Union" on 07/18/1983.   Then they upped the stakes with a $14,600 mortgage to the same Credit Union on 10/20/1986.  Then the borrowing spins out of control.  There is the $55,000 mortgage to Mortgage Management Associates on 10/25/1989, and $77,000 from Suburban Equity Corp. on 07/24/1990, then $84,625 from Lee Funding on 11/25/1992, and soon the death spiral is complete.

Ms McKim's article gives us a victim and people trying to help.  We get Frances Louis claiming that she has "a “moral’’ right to live in the newly renovated building on Cobden Street".  But they didn't seem to feel they had a "moral" or even a legal obligation to pay the bank the money they borrowed.  Ms Louis also tells us that “Now is the time for banks to step up and help families instead of putting them out.’’ and. “There are all these vacant, empty places for no reason.’’  In fact, she and her parents HAD been helped by the banks ...... MANY times, yet always seemed to reneged on their side of the agreement,  you know, the one that says "you'll pay the bank back".   And Ms Louis KNOWS why those buildings on Cobden street are empty. The owners of the condo units were deadbeats .... just like she and her parents.

Is there a reason the "Globe" doesn't tell us the REAL story of multi generational deadbeats?  THAT part of the housing boom and bust the "Globe" doesn't seem to want to write about.  But it also raises another question ..... "Where are the REAL victims?"  If, when you look at the real data instead of what the "Globe" reveals, virtually every "victim" presented is really just a stiff that doesn't do a real good job of paying bills.  How much of the lending was "predatory" and how much was just stupid people making stupid financial decisions and now asking for assistance because they are "victims".

I KNOW there are real people who were taken advantage of ..... incomes inflated, given bad loans when they could have gotten better terms, or the elderly who's families got them to sign mortgages they couldn't possibly pay back.  I've spoken with them.  I know they are there!  So why does the "Globe" give us deadbeats and fails to tell real financial history?   Could it be that the "Globe" doesn't want the real story to get out???

Millions of Unemployed but all the "Boston Globe" gives us is a Clown!

The Globe never fails to amaze me in it's inability to get a story correct. It makes you wonder if they ever fact check ANYTHING over on Morrissey Boulevard. Or do they simply make up stories that they "want" to be news regardless of the facts.

A recent example was the column by Brian McGrory that appeared on March 19, 2010 titled "This, too, is hard work". In the article Mr McGrory tries to teach us that, despite the daily news of our battered economy improving, people are still hurting and that the "good news" has a way of dehumanizing the unemployed. Those millions still out of work are no longer flesh and blood, parents, spouses, children, or bread winners for extended or atypical families, they're now just "lagging indicators". In order to humanize the unemployed he presents Ralph Hynes from Stetson Street in Swampscott. Ralph becomes the "everyman" struggling to maintain his dignity and to keep his finances in order until he can find another job.

Unfortunately, the publicly available data (thank god for the Registry of Deeds on-line) paints a very different story of our "everyman" and presents a potent picture of just how the economy got into the mess from which it is slowly recovering. And why didn't Mr McGrory tell us the whole story so we could make up our minds for ourselves?

All you really have to do is to go to the South Essex Registry of Deeds to get the truth. You see, Ralph and his wife Cynthia bought a condominium in Swampscott for $224,000 on 10/31/2001 with a mortgage to East-West Mortgage for $203,000. (Don't worry, this is all public information). So far so good for Mr Grory's story, but he didn't tell the reader that the Hynes' did what too many people did during the real estate bubble .... they borrowed against the equity in their condo and they borrowed sub-prime.

After owning their condo for less than 2 years they decide to borrow $250,000 from Full Spectrum Lending on 07/31/2003. Less than a year later, 04/12/2004, they borrow $264,000 again from Full Spectrum, and finally on 09/05/2006 they borrow $303,444 from Beneficial Massachusetts. Because all of the mortgages are fixed rate they don't list the interest rate but, if we simply use the "Average" rate for the dates of the mortgage from the "Freddie Mac" on-line mortgage charts, we can estimate that, after cashing out this additional $100,000, their monthly mortgage payments are about $600 higher than when they bought the condo! And now they're have trouble paying their credit cards ??? Where the hell did the $100,000 go? Mr McGrory, I'd love to have read that in your column.

But wait ...... there's more!!! You see the town of Swampscott filed a "tax taking" on their property in August of 2009 (Book 29022 Page 580) because the Hynes' haven't paid their real estate taxes. Yes, this was after Ralph lost his job, but the notice is for the 2008 and 2009 taxes. We start paying 2008 taxes in the fall of 2007, that's about 1 1/2 years before he lost his job. Further, the town sent the Hynes' a demand notice on July 2008 just in case they forgot to pay. So why wasn't he paying his taxes BEFORE he lost his job?

And now we're supposed to believe that his wife surprised him with the letter from the bank that it was going to foreclose? Banks don't initiate foreclosures in Massachusetts until you are at least 90 days late. We're to believe and feel sorry for Ralph that he had to drop out of MRI Imaging classes ...... because he didn't know he was 90 days late in his mortgage payments? Give me a break.

But I will admit that at least the title of the essay is correct, It is hard work. It is hard work to spend every penny that comes into your hands and not plan for any possible problems in the future. Yes, It is hard work to be a deadbeat and look for sympathy. And it must have been really hard work for Brian McGrory to get so much of the Ralph Hynes story so wrong. Fortunately for the Globe, Brian was up to the challenge!