A Brief Summary of RMBS Securitization As We Now Know It

COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary

1. In nearly all cases there is a reference to a trust that “owns” the loans. The first transaction is with this fictitious trust on whose behalf money is collected from investors who think they are purchasing bonds, the payor being the trust, but they are in effect non-recourse bonds because the trust only exists as a conduit for the flow of money from receivables that include but are not limited to borrower payments, co-obligor (servicer) payments, loss mitigation payments with waiver of subrogation, etc. The loan product sold to the homeowner occurs long after the money is collected from the investors. At no time are any of the participants in the securitization chain at risk from a default on the loan. That risk is solely borne by the investor. The risk undertaken by the securitization participants is in the bets they placed on the failure of the pools, an occurrence which is declared by the Master Servicer, which is a participant in the securitization chain.

2. In nearly all cases there is no trust document creating the trust.

3. In nearly all cases there were no documents of transfer as required by the securitization documents and as required by the IRC for REMICs. So the assignment, endorsement etc are all fabricated, forged, or backdated, notarized by a notary who neither knows nor ever saw the signor.

4. In nearly all cases the signor of any proffered document by the would-be forecloser is not authorized and there are no documents that can be authenticated proving up a chain of authority or ownership.

5. Thus in nearly all cases, the only party of record is the loan originator who did not loan any money. They acted as a broker and the loan was physically funded by a third party into the escrow account of the closing agent.

6. Thus in nearly all cases, the only party of record with any colorable encumbrance is not owed any money — either because they were PAID IN FULL or they never advanced the money.

7. Thus in nearly all cases, the encumbrance (mortgage or deed of trust) is void ab initio because it secures an obligation that was not owed to the mortgagee or beneficiary. Even the note is void because it describes a party to whom the obligation is owed who never contributed one penny to the funding. The obligation, as your opposition will tell you themselves, is to someone else, not the originating lender.

8. Attempts to show transfers now “fixing the problem” have two fatal defects: (1) both the IRC REMIC law and the securitization documents whose wording is identical to to the statute, require that all assets be transferred in within 90 days of the establishment of the “trust.” This never happened with any securitized loan. (2) in nearly all cases the attempted transfer is of a loan which has already been declared in default. This violates the terms of the securitization documents and any such transfer would be a fraud on the investors giving them non-performing loans when the documents clearly state that the loans must be performing and meet industry standard underwriting guidelines. Hence the parties causing those new transfer documents to be created and signed are prohibited from using them, inasmuch as they are on their face unacceptable as assets of the pool.

9. All documents prepared or proffered by the pretender lenders are self-serving artifice designed to deceive the court. None of them ever advanced any money which we know because the money all came from investors buying bogus mortgage bonds, which are now in litigation because they were bogus. The point though is that the money came from the investors.

10. No securitization participant in the chain has the power to satisfy a mortgage, foreclose on a mortgage, or to submit a credit bid at the time of foreclosure auction because they are not creditors and there is no money owed to them.

Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |