About Securitization

When I first suggested that securitization itself was a lie, my comments were welcomed with shock and derision. No matter. When I see something I call it the way it is. The loans never remaining the release pad, much less went into a holding out around share of buyer cash. The whole factor was a fraud and AG Biden of Đelaware and Schniedermann of New You are able to are on to it.
The tip of the iceberg is that the observe was not sent to the traders. The gravitas of the situation is that the traders were never designed to get the observe, the mortgage mortgage or any certification except a check and a submission report. The game was on.
First they (the financial commitment banks) took cash from the traders on the bogus pretenses that the ties were actual when anyone with 6 months experience on Wall street could tell you this was not a connection for lots of reasons, the most basic of which was that there was no client. The prospectus had no loans because there were no loans made yet. The mortgage companies certainly wouldn' t take the risks presented by this toxic pile of loans, so they were awaiting the traders to get mislead. Once they had the cash then they realized out how to keep as much of it as possible before even looking for residential home debtors.
None of the specifications of the Internal Revenue Code on REMICS were followed, nor were the specifications of the combining and maintenance contract. The facts are simple: the papers path as published never followed the actual path of actual dealings in which cash interchanged hands. And this was simply because the mortgage cash came from the traders apart from the papers path. The actual deal between house owner client and buyer mortgage provider was UNDOCUMENTED. And the actual path of records used in home foreclosures all contain conditions of fact concerning dealings that never occurred.
The observe is "evidence" of the debts, not the debts itself. If the client mortgage provider credited cash to the house owner client and neither one of them finalized a single papers recognizing that deal, there is still an responsibility. The cash from the client mortgage provider is still a mortgage and even without certification it is a mortgage that must be returned. That bit of legal conclusion comes from common law.
So if the observe itself represents a deal in which ABC Loaning credited the cash to the house owner client it is mentioning a deal that does not now nor did it ever are available. That observe is proof of an responsibility that does not are available. That observe represents a deal that never occurred. ABC Loaning never credited the house owner client any cash. And the conditions of reimbursement designed by the securitization records were never unveiled to the house owner buyer. Therefore the observe with ABC Loaning is proof of a non-existent deal that mistates the conditions of reimbursement by making out the conditions by which the client mortgage provider would be returned.
Thus the observe is proof of nothing and the mortgage mortgage obtaining the conditions of the observe is equally incorrect. So the traders are suing the mortgage companies for making the mortgage companies in the position of having an debts wherein even if they had security it would be decreasing in value like a stone losing to the earth.
And as for why mortgage companies who realized better did it this way --- follow the cash. First they took an undisclosed generate spread top quality out of the client mortgage provider cash. They squirreled most of that cash through Barbados which " asserted" legislation of the deal for tax requirements and then waived the taxation. Then the mortgage companies created bogus people and "pools" that had nothing in them. Then the mortgage companies took what was remaining of the client mortgage provider cash and financed loans upon request without any underwriting.
Then the mortgage companies stated they were taking a loss on fails when the loss was that of the client mortgage companies. To add offend to injury the mortgage companies had used some of the client mortgage provider cash to buy insurance, credit ratings standard trades and create other credit ratings improvements where they --- not the client mortgage provider ---- were the successor of a benefit based on the standard of home mortgages or an "event" in which the nonexistent share had to be noticeable down in value. When did that discount occur? Only when the completely owned completely managed additional of the financial commitment bank said so, speaking as the " master maintenance company."
So the truth is that the providers and counterparties on CDS paid the mortgage companies instead of the client mortgage companies. The same factor occurred with the tax payer bailout. The claims of bank failures were bogus. Everyone lost cash except, of course, the mortgage companies.
So who has the loan? The buyer mortgage companies. Who has the note? Who likes you, it was worth less when they started; but if anyone has it it is most probably the beginning "lender" ABC Loaning. Who has the mortgage? There is no mortgage mortgage. The mortgage mortgage contract was published and implemented by the client obtaining the payment schemes that were neither unveiled nor actual.