Assignments: Why Were They Needed?

Since the entire scheme was based upon using money advanced by investors, why are they not the beneficiaries on the mortgage or deed of trust and why were they not the payee on the note?

The investors would not have advanced any money without getting a certificated or non-certificated interest in the pool of assets “purchased” with money from a pool of money collected from a group of investors.

There could be no certificate of asset backed series xxx-2006A without there being something in existence bearing the name asset backed series xxx-2006A.

There could be no entity (SPV) bearing the name asset backed series xxx-2006A without a framework of securitization of money (SIV) and assets (SPV).

That framework could not exist but for the existence of securitization documents including the pooling and service agreement.

Thus all this must be in place before accepting the first application for a loan.

Therefore when the loan closed the true beneficiaries and payees on the note were known and should have been named as such without a nominee (MERS) or any other intermediaries. Of course THAT would have ceded control over the pool of assets to the owners of that investment, something that neither the investment bank nor any of the other intermediaries wanted. It would mean that loans and claims could be modified or settled easily since all parties are known.

It would also mean that if the intermediaries did anything wrong, like for example investing only part of the money into mortgages and keeping the rest, BOTH the investor and the borrower would probably find out. And it would mean that third party payment would be made to the investors and the investors would deduct those payments from the balance due on the obligation and statements sent out to borrowers would reflect the change _ i.e., either a deduction or subrogation of rights, spreading the ownership out to the third parties who made the payments.

And THAT would mean all those illicit profits would be the subject of liability and damages in lawsuits and maybe criminal liability. So the pretender lenders are right. This is a simple matter — or would be — if they had played by the rules and named the right parties to begin with. Maybe they would even have used industry standard underwriting principles since there was real risk involved.

Posted in Uncategorized |