LasVegasSun – As Las Vegas limps into a new decade, let us return to the now-hazy origins of our current sickness: 2005.

It would seem the entire Las Vegas Valley had been slipped a drink laced with a financial hallucinogen — a powerful narcotic that combined Ecstasy’s feelings of well-being with methamphetamine’s urge to be busy.

Even the city’s most accomplished business and political elites could not resist its influence. They were spaced out, convinced that the laws of the economic universe had been suspended, that housing prices could expand into space, that borrowing money was as holy as prayer.

“We thought we had a recession-proof economy, we thought we would grow forever,” says Elliott Parker, a UNR economist.

Parker describes an “illusion, that we could create wealth from nothing, that we could keep consuming beyond our income, that housing prices would keep rising, that investments could yield high returns without risk, since we were all so clever …”

If they weren’t addicted to the drug themselves, Las Vegas denizens acted as street corner touts — marketing the magical drug for a living — and were always shouting its wonders.

We were, in Parker’s words, “selling high roller fantasies to gamblers and expensive houses to people who sold their homes elsewhere for even more insane amounts of money. We thought it would continue forever, and we made no contingency plans for the alternative.”

Illusion. Fantasy.

When skeptics pointed out that perhaps a dangerous real estate bubble was forming, the crowd responded with mockery:

“The only bubble you’ll see in this market is in a Champagne glass,” a well-known real estate player said in our now fated year of 2005.

But in fact, here’s what was happening in the Las Vegas real estate market: After years of slow and steady growth, a mania took hold. Home values had increased more than 35 percent in 2004 alone.

It was a classic bubble by 2005, right up there with phony Silicon Valley technology companies 10 years ago, and phony Amsterdam tulip futures 375 years ago.

For a while, Americans could borrow unlimited sums of money against their rising home values to come to Las Vegas to spend money. So we built new resorts.

We needed construction workers to build those resorts. We needed other construction workers to build homes for the first construction workers.

Simple logic

This wouldn’t — couldn’t — go on forever. At some point, Americans would hit their limits and the growth of tourism would slow, and we wouldn’t need so many construction workers to build resorts, and then we wouldn’t need so many construction workers to build those houses for the first construction workers.

Once we didn’t need those construction workers, they would be laid off and stop making mortgage payments on their homes. And the sell-off would begin. Throw in all the subprime loans that borrowers couldn’t pay to begin with and you’d get a fire sale. Welcome to 2007.

It’s simple logic, really. Any college freshman who got suckered into a pyramid scheme could explain the illogical underpinnings of it all. It was an economic house built without a foundation on a sandy desert hillside. And there it goes, into the wash.

Sure, we had the resorts, and the wealth they created was real, but the Strip was living on borrowed time, larded with debt, a bad recession away from near collapse and in some cases, bankruptcy.

“A growth-addicted economy produced phony prosperity,” says Hugh Jackson, proprietor of the Las Vegas Gleaner blog and a policy consultant to the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, a liberal advocacy group.

Phony. Like the happiness of a drug.

This isn’t to say that the decade didn’t begin with hopeful signals — low unemployment and rising wages, and the tax revenue needed to improve schools, health care and social services. The Strip kept attracting more customers and building more hotel rooms to house them.

But the 9/11 terrorist attacks should have provided a clear warning that a dip in tourism could pummel the city. When tourism quickly resumed, however, that warning went unheeded.

Plus, debt was accumulating, in households here and among potential customers around the world, and on corporate balance sheets.

It should have been a portentous time, a ripe time for Cassandras.

“The decade began with a facade,” Jackson says of those go-go years.

A facade. Soon it was a Potemkin village of steel and stucco, massage parlors and pawn shops.

So wrong

In the reality-based world, many people knew the intensifying speculative bubble in real estate wasn’t sustainable and tried to warn others. Bill Robinson, a UNLV economist, sold his house in 2005, patiently explaining to neighbors the laws of economic reality and the coming crash.

“Everybody who was independent of all this saw it coming,” Robinson says. Meaning everybody sophisticated enough to understand economic data and not a paid representative of the resort or development industries.

(And, in fairness, some people from those industries tried to pull the fire alarm early on.)

What is striking about our real estate player, the one who sneered about there being no bubbles except those in Champagne, isn’t that he turned out to be so wrong. After all, people are wrong all the time. The sun revolved around the Earth for centuries after Ptolemy, and many smart and well-meaning people, even the high priest of laissez faire capitalism Alan Greenspan, were wrong about the housing bubble.

No, what’s striking is the tone of triumph and arrogance, like he’s pulled one over on the stupid herd.

It turns out, our addiction’s true power was so much like that of other drugs: It gave the user great powers to deceive.

We were good at deceiving others.

“Hardly anything we did this decade was upfront,” Robinson says.

Illusion has always been part of Las Vegas’ appeal — that we would not succumb to mathematical certainty at a card table; that we could come here and remake ourselves into glamour gods; that buildings that look like the New York City skyline can approximate the feeling one would get from actually being in New York City.

Illusion is one thing.

Deception, done with malice and for the most selfish ends, is something else.

Deception in Las Vegas took many different forms this decade.

Easy to con

On the Clark County Commission, four members would eventually be convicted of what amounted to dishonest service for taking bribes. Erin Kenny told us she was acting on the community’s behalf when she pushed approval of a CVS drugstore at Desert Inn Road and Buffalo Drive. Really, it was for a $200,000 bribe.

From the sensational to the prosaic: The real estate loan officers who extended money to people knowing they couldn’t repay, demanding no documentation, employing no safeguards or due diligence.

So, waddya make last year?

Oh, that’s good enough.

“Stated income,” we called these loans, employing our bottomless ability for euphemism.

Or, our lenders weren’t straight with borrowers — many who didn’t speak English — about what would happen to their monthly payment in a year or two after a “reset.”

On the other side of the ledger, there were speculators and plenty of average people who took out loans they had no intention of repaying.

“The easiest con for a con artist is another con artist,” says Mike Green, the Nevada historian. “If you want to believe you’ll always be living on the Big Rock Candy Mountain, then it’s easy for someone to sell you another piece of worthless land.”

Once things started to collapse, a whole new set of scam artists — “loan modification specialists” — preyed on vulnerable homeowners, promising to keep them in their homes but running off with cash instead.

For so many — and at great expense to the rest of us — the decade was a giant con, a bamboozlement, a flimflam.

“We have a history of benefiting from all that flimflamming,” Robinson notes.

“It’s kind of our culture. So at some point it was inevitable that if there was an easy-money climate, we would fall prey to it,” he says.

Which brings us back to another kind of deception, perhaps most damaging of all — self-deception.

“It’s easy to delude yourself into believing something you want to be true. And here we are,” says Mike Sloan, a gaming consultant and former state senator.

We were deceived, we were narcotized, because we wanted to be deceived.

CreditSlips.org – The expanding market for that buying, selling and securitization of consumer debts has resulted in a serious problem regarding the “quality and admissibility” of the computer data that is being tendered to the United States Bankruptcy Courts to prove the nature and extent of consumer debt obligations. The same thing can be said with respect to the quality of the evidence that is being offered by Mortgage Servicers with respect to the nature and extent of the mortgage obligations of homeowners in bankruptcy cases. The analysis of these records by the attorneys for the debtors and by the Court has tended to overlook the underlying evidentiary foundations necessary to authenticate the same in order to create admissible and competent evidence. Also, since none of these records are generated in the normal course of business of an entity other than the proponent of the evidence in court, the business record foundation has also been either ignored or overlooked by the litigants and the courts. These are all important concepts in a consumer bankruptcy practice since the evidence presented in a proof of claim and in support of motion for relief from stay normally consist exclusively of “electronic evidence.”

In order to introduce electronic records into evidence, the witness for the moving party must be able to establish all of the evidentiary foundations.

Fed. R. Evid. 104. The Judge acts as gatekeeper on the preliminary questions regarding the admissibility of evidence if a Federal Proceeding. The basic elements for the introduction of business records under the hearsay exception for records of regularly conducted activity all apply to records maintained electronically. American Express v Vee Vinhnee, 336 B.R. 437 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2005). See also In re Lee, 2009 WO 1917010 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2009)(court found witness not “competent to testify regarding the accuracy of the payment records and denied admission of this evidence).

Generally, such records must be:

1. Made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge;

2. Made pursuant to regular practices of the business activity;

3. Kept in the course of regularly conducted business activity; and

4. The source, method, or circumstances of preparation must not indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

See Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) and United States v Catabran, 836 F.2d 453, 457 (9th Cir. 1988).

These elements must either be established by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness or must meet prescribed certification requirements. Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). Such records, however, will not be admitted unless the court is also persuaded by their proponent that they are authentic. Ordinarily, because the business records foundation commonly covers these elements, the authenticity analysis is merged into the business record analysis without a proper focus on the elemental foundation questions.  See 5 Weinstein 900.06[2][a]. The primary authenticity issue in the context of business records is on what has, or may have, happened to the record in the interval between when it was placed in the computer data file and the time of the hearing. In other words, the record being proffered must be shown to continue to be an accurate representation of the record that originally was created.

Authenticating a paperless electronic record, in principle, poses the same issue as for a paper record, the only difference being the format in which the record is maintained: one must demonstrate that the record has been retrieved from the file, be it paper or electronic, and is the same as the record that was originally placed into the file. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Footnote 5 to this Rule provides that “the requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.”

Hence, the focus is not on the circumstances of the creation of the record, but rather on the circumstances of the preservation of the record during the time it is in the computer data base so as to assure that the document being proffered is the same as the document that originally was created. 

In the case of a paper record, the inquiry is into the procedures under which the file is maintained, including custody, access, and procedures for assuring that the records in the files are not tampered with. The foundation is well understood and usually is easily established. See Edward J. Imwinkelried, Evidentiary Foundations 4.03[a] (5th ed. 2002); 5 Weinstein 900.07[1][b][i].

The paperless electronic record involves a difference in the format of the record that presents more complicated variations on the authentication problem than the paper records. Ultimately, however, it all boils down to the same question of assurance that the record is what it purports to be.

The logical questions extend beyond the identification of the particular computer equipment and programs used. The entity’s policies and procedures for the use of the equipment, database, and programs are important. How access to the pertinent database is controlled and, separately, how access to the specific program is controlled is all important questions. How changes in the database are logged or recorded, as well as the structure and implementation of backup systems and audit procedures for assuring the continuing integrity of the database, are pertinent to the question of whether records have been changed since their creation.

There is really little mystery to all of these rules. All of these questions are recognizable as analogous to similar questions that may be asked regarding paper files: policy and procedures for access and for making corrections, as well as the risk of tampering. But the increasing complexity of ever-developing computer technology necessitates a more precise focus on the problem.

Some of these computer-related questions are becoming more important as the technology advances.  For example, digital technology makes it easier to alter text of documents that have been scanned into a database, thereby increasing the importance of audit procedures designed to assure the continuing integrity of the records. See George L. Paul, The “Authenticity Crisis” in Real Evidence, 15 PRAC. Litigator No. 6, at 45-49 (2004). This adds as extra dimension to consideration of whether the computer was “regularly tested” for errors. See 5 Weinstein 901.11[2] (2005).

This ever-expanding complexity of the cyberworld has prompted authors of the current version of the Manual for Complex Litigation to note that a judge should “consider the accuracy and reliability of computerized evidence” and that a “proponent of computerized evidence has the burden of laying a proper foundation by establishing its accuracy.”  Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth), 11.446 (2004).  The Manual quotes with approval the following statement for an Article by Gregory P. Joseph,  A Simplified Approach to Computer-Generated Evidence and Animations, 43 N.Y. Sch. L. Rev. 875(1999-2000). In the Article, it is stated that in general the Federal Rules of Evidence apply to computerized data as they do to other types of evidence. “Computerized data, however, raise unique issues concerning accuracy and authenticity. Accuracy may be impaired by incomplete data entry, mistakes in output instructions, programming errors, damage and contamination of storage media, power outages, and equipment malfunctions. The integrity of data may also be compromised in the course of discovery by improper search and retrieval techniques, data conversion, or mishandling.” Manual for Complex Litigation, Id, at fn. 6.

In effect, it is becoming clearly recognized that early versions of computer foundations were too cursory, even thought the basic elements covered the ground. For example, it has been said that a qualified witness must testify as to the mode of the record preparation, that the computer is the standard acceptable type, and that business is conducted in reliance upon the accuracy of the computer in retaining and retrieving information. Barry Russell, Bankruptcy Evidence Manual P.17 (2005). These several elements, however, subsume a number of constituent elements.

Rule 901(b)(9), which is designated as an example of a satisfactory authentication, describes the appropriate authentication for results of a process or system and contemplates evidence describing the process or system used to achieve a result and demonstration that the result is accurate. Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(9). Advisory Committee Note 7 to this Rule provides and “evidence describing a process or system used to produce a result and showing that the process or system produces an accurate result.” 

Indeed, judicial notice is commonly taken of the validity of the theory underlying computers and of their general reliability. Imwinkelried, Id., at 4.03[2]. Theory and general reliability, however, represent only part of the foundation. Professor Imwinkelried perceives electronic records as a form of scientific evidence and discerns an eleven-step foundation for the admissible of such records:

1. The business regularly uses a computer.

2. The computer is reliable.

3. The business has developed a procedure for inserting data into the computer.

4. The procedure has built-in safeguards to ensure accuracy and identify errors.

5. The business keeps the computer in a good state of repair and has regular and professional maintenance.

6. The computer system has appropriate firewalls and security features in order to eliminate the possibility of corruption or manipulation of data.

7. The witness had the computer readout certain data.

8. The witness used the proper procedures to obtain the readout including the entry of a proper user-name and password and the proper commands.

9. The computer was in proper working order at the time the witness obtained the readout.

10. The witness recognizes the exhibit as the readout.

11. The witness explains how he or she recognizes the readout.

12. If the readout contains strange symbols or terms, the witness explains the meaning of the symbols and terms for the trier of fact.

13. The business has implemented a proper computer policy and system control procedures that limit access to the data.

14. The computer system can generate reports as to when any original data was changed, modified, or deleted, including the time and date, the name of the employee taking such action, and the basis for the action.

15. The business exercises control over access to the database.

16. The software programs have been verified for accuracy and all patches, fixes, and new features have been and are uploaded on a regular basis.

17. The business has implemented regular audit procedures to assure the continuing integrity of the records.

18. The business has a regular system to backup all databases and checks the system for accuracy on a daily basis.

19. The witness has complete access to the computer system and database, is familiar with how the data is entered, stored and maintained, has personal knowledge of ally verification and security systems, and can testify that all of these matters were personally verified in connection with the evidence proffered.

20. The witness must be able to offer evidence of sufficient training, experience and expertise in these areas to offer the detailed foundation evidence required for authentication.

How should the attorney for the Debtor deal with this type of evidence? It is suggested that a Motion to Strike the Affidavit with the defective account data should be filed. This type of motion can be filed pursuant to Rule 7012 of the Bankruptcy Rules and Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion must be filed with “20 days after service” of the Affidavit and the substantive objection is that the document is replete with data or account information that is not admissible and therefore immaterial to the issues before the Court.

With the number of affidavits and legal documents that are currently being executed by third-party providers, or by document assembly and preparation operations pursuant to “signing authorities,” it is essential that these foundation rules be enforced in every case in order to prevent the complete high-jacking of our system of justice and to prevent a total disregard for the Rules of Evidence. 

I live in Tennessee and I had a Rental Property that was Foreclosed on in 2008. Wells Fargo held the original Mortgage and sold the property for less that the amount that I owned. I received a 1099-A and thought I was done with my Rental Nightmares!

I recently recieved a letter from a out of town Collection Agency stating that I owed 19K!!

I do not have the means to pay this debt, that’s why I loss the Property!

I know my credit is ruined but what else can they do to me! “You can’t squeeze blood from a turnip”…or can you???

Thanks for your advise

Scott (more…)

“The combined percentage of loans in foreclosure or at least one payment past due was 14.41 percent on a non-seasonally adjusted basis, the highest ever recorded in the MBA delinquency survey.”

Delinquencies Continue to Climb in Latest MBA National Delinquency Survey
MBA – 11/19/2009

Hi Paul,

Can I give the house back and not lender come after me for judgements issue. House is Florida and no longer live there.

Kim (more…)

Yahoo News – Can’t pay the mortgage? You still might be able to stay in your home. Government-controlled mortgage company Fannie Mae is going to give borrowers on the verge of foreclosure the option of renting their homes for a year.

The change announced Thursday could give a temporary break to thousands of homeowners, but critics question whether it will only add to the mushrooming losses at the company, which has received billions in taxpayer money.

The new “Deed for Lease” program will allow homeowners to transfer title to Fannie Mae and sign a one-year lease, with potential month-to-month extensions after that. It also helps save money because the lender does not need to complete the often lengthy and time-consuming foreclosure process.

The program helps “eliminate some of the uncertainty of foreclosure, keeps families and tenants in their homes during a transitional period, and helps to stabilize neighborhoods and communities,” Jay Ryan, a Fannie Mae vice president, said in a statement.

It also does less harm to the borrower’s credit record.

“It shows that you put your best effort to work out a solution,” said Gabe del Rio, director of homeownership at Community HousingWorks of San Diego.

However, Mike Himes, director of homeownership services at NeighborWorks Sacramento, said the industry should push harder to modify loans at lower monthly payments. “The preferred option is allowing people to retain ownership,” he said.

Fannie Mae executives said the rental program is designed to help delinquent homeowners who don’t qualify for a loan modification, but still want to stay in their homes.

To qualify, homeowners have to live in the home as the primary residence and prove that they can afford the market rent, which will be established by the management company running the program. Rents are based on current market rates.

The plan is expected to be particularly attractive in places like Phoenix or Orange County, Calif., where homeowners are stuck paying large mortgage bills on properties that are now worth far less than they originally paid. At the same time, rents have been falling in those areas. So by renting the same house, former homeowners could wind up paying far less every month.

In Orange County, for example, the average monthly rent for all apartments was about $1,450 in September, down nearly 8 percent from a year earlier, according to research firm MPF Research. In Phoenix, the average renter paid about $720, also down about 8 percent from last year.

Still, the effort is likely to attract a relatively small number of homeowners.

In the first nine months of the year, Fannie Mae took ownership of nearly 2,000 properties through a process known as a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure. That pales in comparison to the 90,000 foreclosed properties the company repossessed in the period.

Deed-in-lieu works like the new program, allowing homeowners to turn over title to Fannie Mae, but rather than renting, the owners simply walk away.

While Fannie Mae executives say the company’s motives are community-minded, critics say the company is simply gambling that the properties will eventually sell for a higher price. That’s folly, says Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital in Darien, Conn., and a longtime bearish investor.

“Taxpayers are now going to own all these houses that (Fannie Mae) should have unloaded,” he said. “It’s going to cost a fortune.”

The announcement came as Fannie Mae asked for an additional $15 billion in government aid after posting another big loss in the third quarter. The mortgage finance company, seized by federal regulators in September 2008, posted a quarterly loss of $19.8 billion, including $883 million in dividends paid to the Treasury Department.

Pessimists like Schiff say the recent stability in the housing market is just temporary, and argue that there is a huge backlog of foreclosed homes that haven’t gone on the market. Refusing to sell those homes, they say, only prolongs the problem.

But other experts say that Fannie Mae’s new policy could make sense, even if prices don’t rebound quickly. The company will get rental income while avoiding costly foreclosure expenses.

It will also help to safeguard the homes, which are less likely to be vandalized when occupied.

“There are a whole lot of costs you avoid,” said Thomas Lawler, a former Fannie Mae economist. “You don’t necessarily have to believe that home prices a year from now will be higher than today.”

Fannie Mae’s sibling company, Freddie Mac, launched a similar effort in March. That policy, however, requires the foreclosure to be completed and only allows month-to-month leases. Freddie Mac declined to detail how many borrowers have participated.

The two companies purchase loans from banks and sell them to investors. Together, they own or guarantee almost 31 million home loans worth about $5.5 trillion, about half of all U.S. mortgages. They have been badly hurt by the housing bust and have required $111 billion in federal aid since being seized by government regulators 14 months ago.

___

To find out whether your home loan is owned by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, try these Web sites:

Fannie Mae http://loanlookup.fanniemae.com/loanlookup/

Freddie Mac: http://www.freddiemac.com/mymortgage

I own 3 rental properties which I included in a recent bankruptcy.  The debts were discharged and the lenders received permission to foreclose.  Although I am not liable for the debts, I still own the properties and the lenders have first mortgage liens on them.  There is also a sizable tax lien on them from the IRS. 

It appears that the lenders are content to sit on the liens and the community still requires me, the owner, to upkeep the properties, which is as it should be. I doubt these properties would sell at sheriff’s sale due to the large tax lien which would still be in place even if the 1st mortgages were paid .  The mortgages are for much more than the appraisal values due to the bubble bursting. 

All the properties have PMI on them.  I would think the lenders would simply walk away, release the liens and collect from the PMI company.  Is there any way I can force the lenders to move ahead with whatever action they chose to take?  I have even offered to let them rewrite the loans for a smaller amount and I would still accept the tax liens which I will have to resolve anyway. 

My income is way more than enough to qualify for the mortgages.  I have no other debt due to the discharge.  It seems to me that this would be a good answer for me and the lenders.  They would cut their losses and I would get my properties back at lower principals.  I don’t understand their failure to accept this deal when they are looking at a loss which is much higher.  Can you suggest any resolution or tell me why they may be reluctant to rewrite the loans?

Mel (more…)

I have a Satisfaction of Mortgage recorded in Palm Beach Florida by MERS in conjunction with a short sale of my property. The language reads as follows:

Know all men by these presents: MERS is the owner of and holder of a certain mortgage deed executed by My_Name to MERS bearing Date 01/01/2005 recorded on 01/13/2005 in Official Records Book OR XXX234, Page 999, Instrument # XXX2228899 in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County State of Florida, securing a certain note in the principal sum of $300,000.00 Dollars, and certain promises and obligations set forth in said mortgage deed, upon the property situated in said State and County hereby acknowledge full payment and satisfaction of said note and mortgage deed, and surrenders the same as canceled, and hereby directs the Clerk of the said Circuit Court to cancel the same of record.

Witnessed sealed notarized etc. and recorded.

Is this a release of my note as well as the mortgage? I have no cancelled note, and have not yet received a 1099C from my “lender”. They reserved the right to pursue a deficiency judgement in their short sale letter. This sure looks like MERS recorded the note as paid in full and satisfied along with the mortgage.

Thanks
Jeff (more…)

I and two others purchased an undeveloped lot in the Florida Panhandle in 2005.  When the loan came up for a balloon payment in 2008, I found my co-owners were unable to pay and one had transferred his interest to the other.

To clear the air, I paid my 1/3rd ($127,500) to the lender and was given a full release from the note in the amount of $382,500 but no certificate of satisfaction or partial release from the mortgage. 

My remaining co-owner entered into a modification agreement with the lender with a new unpaid balance of $255,000 on the note and security instrument which reflects my payment. 

In view of lender’s refusal to cooperate, is it possible to infer a partial release by virtue of the lenders acceptance of my payment and their having released me from the entire note. My question is in anticipation of foreclosure and due to my payment I feel I should share in the foreclosure proceeds. 

Rodney (more…)

National Mortgage News – The business of brokering residential loans has enjoyed a good run — about 25 years by most measurements — but now there are increasing signs that not only are these third-party salesman facing a bleak future, but that they have no future at all.

Recently, David Olson of Wholesale Access made headlines in the industry press when he predicted that by yearend there would be just 15,000 brokerage firms in existence. Mr. Olson, who has made a good living the past two decades studying brokers, cites a number of reasons: restrictions on yield-spread premium payments, new national registration requirements and licensing costs, and a general lack of interest on the largest remaining wholesalers in growing their broker channels. (A few mortgage insurance firms have said they either won’t accept broker loans or put bans on condominium mortgages sourced through them.)

“Chase?” asked Mr. Olson. “They don’t like brokers and are out that channel. Bank of America and Wells are seeing their TPO (third-party origination) volumes going down, down, down.” He added, “Everyone is writing brokers off.”

Three years ago there were 54,000 brokerage firms in existence, which means if Mr. Olson’s prediction comes true, the peak-to-trough decline translates into 72% of the industry going bust over three years, not a pretty picture. Keep in mind, though, that many brokerage firms are small “mom and pops” that employed less than five people. Some were sole proprietor operations.

Every month or so Wholesale Access would hear from 1,000 brokers, picking their brains about the state of the market and reselling that research to some of the largest wholesalers, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But today, Mr. Olson says he’s talking to just a handful of brokers each month and many are “looking for something to do.” Some he said are selling car insurance on the side or doing loss mitigation work.

Yet, Mr. Olson sees a ray of hope in the industry’s future. The chief reason is costs. He and many other mortgage veterans know that it can get expensive keeping full-time loan officers on their books, especially when origination volumes begin to swoon. “Brokering is a form of outsourcing,” he said. “It has to be viewed that way.”

In other words, if a loan doesn’t close, a broker doesn’t get paid by the wholesaler. And because a broker is really just an outsourced employee, it costs the wholesaler nothing in terms of fixed salary costs. Banks and thrifts have to maintain retail branches — another fixed cost.

As for how long it will take the brokerage sector to revive, Mr. Olson is uncertain. There have been scattered reports of regional banks launching small, targeted wholesale divisions, a positive sign for the industry. And recently, Michael Ashley, chief business strategist at Lend America, Melville, N.Y., started to lay the groundwork for a new wholesale channel.

According to Mr. Ashley, there “are still plenty of brokers around that would want to do business if they had a source [of funding].” He said he believes the declining numbers in the Wholesale Access report reflect a “survival of the fittest” dynamic among brokers. In many cases he believes those remaining “know how to responsibly and ethically originate a loan.”

In other words, perhaps all the sector’s “bad actors” have left the building and only the cream of the crop are left. We shall see.