Securitization of data that is mischaracterized as securitization of debt has enabled the securities firms to write off the loan concurrently with funding it
I believe there is a very strong case for applying antitrust legislation against the big winners in the securitization game because they could and did apply multiple incentives to borrowers to accept loan products that were clearly losers from a business perspective. This blocked competitors who wanted to make real loans with real lenders and raised the risk of loss to consumers without any disclosure to the consumer, to government regulators or anyone else. All of this was performed at the same time that the risk of financial loss was entirely eliminated on any transaction with homeowners that was characterized as a loan.
The big securities brokerage firms acting as investment “banks” were able to fund loans and then sell securities that were completely dependent upon data released by the same securities firms about the performance of the data, as announced by the securities brokerage firm in its sole discretion. Effectively and substantively they sold the same loan multiple times. But nominally there was no reduction in the loan receivable account because there was no loan receivable account.
This effectively forced small community banks, credit unions and other lenders into the position of not competing — if they had offered the same incentives on real loans to homeowners, they would have suffered catastrophic loss. So they had to step out of lending, which would have been catastrophic or originate loans “for sale.”
Securitization of data that is mischaracterized as securitization of debt has enabled the securities firms to write off the loan concurrently with funding it, while at the same time pursuing foreclosures and other enforcement or “modification” processes in which they have been successful at pretending the loan account exists, that a party owns it, that a loss was sustained as a result of the homeowner’s “failure” to make payments on a nonexistent loan account.
FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!
-
But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
-
Yes you DO need a lawyer.
-
If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
2 thoughts on “Why Antitrust Legislation Should be Applied Against the mega banks”
Harris received 40% of National Mortgage Settlement ($9.2 Billion).
Most of these money were never used to help homeowners and disappeared in Harris’ hands.
According to recent filings, CA used about $331 million to cover for budget deficiencies – but the rest of $8.9 Billion is still missing – and nobody asked Harris how she handled these money.
Even Reuters questioned Harris involvement and support to Big Banks fraud with mortgages
Its reasonable to conclude that these money were a bribe to AGs who sold American people to Big Banks for $25 billion.
The same with Lisa Madigan. $700 million from $2 bil were used for “consulting” – which is impossible to account. $1.3 Bil disappeared.
As of smaller lenders and credit unions – they are actually participate in “lending” – as sham conduits for investment Banks.
My friend works for a small credit union who offers residential mortgages under 2.75% (!!!) for 15 years; and even commercial loans.
The friend said that they do not “sell loans”
So, HOW this small credit union can make money from 2.75% interest rate if annual inflation is about 6%?
Big Banks totally monopolized home lending and other lending industry, smaller players now must work under Big Banks’ command.
Hint: this credit union works with BMO Harris Bank (no, not Kamala Harris)
This is all accurate. Quote from the header – “Securitization of data that is mischaracterized as securitization of debt has enabled the securities firms to write off the loan concurrently with funding it”
Thus, in the case of a refinance, or assumption of debt in a purchase loan, the concurrent write off with simultaneous claimed “funding” – means that the debt is a charge off debt, and only collection rights have been re-assigned. There is no funding for collection rights, and there is no “note” as default debt is transferred by assignment – not a note. And, this is why people start their claimed “refinance” with a non-friendly debt collector “servicer” and no actual creditor.
It is also important that consumer protection laws, such as TILA, are violated in this process. Unfortunately, the statute of limitations for TILA is short – one year. Rescission is statute of repose — three years. But by the time anything is figured out by the borrower, time has already passed.
The appraisal scenario described here is also accurate.
If anyone watched the Harris/Pence debate — Harris claims all was handled and fixed for the Great Fraud Crisis by her and Biden. NOT.