More on the "NAME" of the "TRUST"

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

see also just-give-me-the-name-of-the-trust-explained

Perhaps one of the analysts might add to this answer. The “TRUST” is a shorthand way of referring to a party that supposedly claims to own your obligation, note, mortgage or all three. In most cases the Trust seems to have never met the the requirements of the State of New York in forming a trust, so its legal existence is in doubt. In any event, the entity, which is more often than not referred to as a “Trust” is in the language of Wall Street, a Special Purpose vehicle (SPV) qualifying under the REMIC provisions of the internal revenue code. Tf you conform to the requirements of the IRC the IRS will not treat any money going through the trust as a taxable event.

The reference to a GSE (Government Sponsored Entity, like Fannie Mae, Ginnie Mae, Freddie Mac etc.) is a reference to a guarantee which in turn facilitates the sale of the obligation, note and/or mortgage into the “secondary market”. This “Secondary market” is comprised almost entirely of securitization structures which is why everyone talks about “Trusts.” Thus the reference to Fannie Mae confirms that Fannie Mae forms were probably used, confirms that Fannie Mae provided a guarantee, and confirms that Fannie Mae was part of the intended securitization structure as set forth in documents that COULD be recorded with the SEC or elsewhere, but are not necessarily recorded because these transactions are exempt from regulation (see 1998 Act exempting derivative instruments from regulation).

A CUSIP number may or may not exist. Many so-called securitizations were really spreadsheets that never made it into public records. There wasn’t even a bond issued (they were called non-certificated bonds). The name of the asset pool that could or might make a claim to your obligation, note or mortgage could be one of several players in the shell game. Until the Wall Street entities settle on who they are “assigning” the loan to, there is no entity making that claim. And the issue doesn’t even come up without litigation where discovery is actually the end game. If the Judge grants discovery, game over, they make you an offer or just leave the premises. If the Judge denies discovery, you have to appeal and go much further.

It is only at the point where there is litigation, that documents are prepared to show the alleged transfer from the loan originator. Until then, those documents do not exist, contrary to the requirements of the IRC REMIC codes and contrary to the pooling and servicing agreement. Oddly enough the least amount of work in satisfying your question occurs when the securitizers are at least pretending to play by the rules. THEN we can come up with an exact name of the “trust” and maybe even CUSIP number. But the work expands if they didn’t go that route. So we have gone as far as we can without doing a complete securitization analysis and scan of public records in other jurisdictions to find out where these parties show up and what is being alleged by them as to what path they followed in securitizing similar loans.

Posted in bubble, Corruption, Eviction, securities fraud |