Bank of America: The End Is In Sight

see http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/06/28/a-brief-history-of-bank-of-america-in-crisis.aspx

It’s always hard to imagine that some giant corporation will crumble all at once. But that has happened repeatedly over our economic history and BofA has trended on the edge throughout its 111 year history. The article in the above link tracks those events and comes to the conclusion that BofA has finally learned its lesson and could be a gigantic opportunity for investors. I beg to differ. As anyone who is involved with foreclosures will tell you, BofA continues to operate as though it was above the law. Bank management is still so impressed with themselves that they fail to see the precipice they are on.

For too long the public policy has been to save the megabanks who are literally too big to regulate — especially across state boundaries and national boundaries. For too long the public policy has been to force homeowners to shoulder the price of the mortgage meltdown. The banks survived financially but the homeowners didn’t. If the banks had been allowed to fail, the homeowners would not have lost $13 trillion in household wealth and the great recession would never have happened. The spending power would have been hit but not nearly as hard as what resulted from a refusal to do the obvious — take the bad behavior of the banks and spread it over all players, not just the homeowners. Iceland did it and the banks and the homeowners did just fine without a major recession. (Not so much for the bankers, who were thrown in jail for defrauding investors, borrowers and everyone in between).

The amount of liability out there for BofA and other major banks remains staggering. And the rulings regarding rescission and proof of foreclosure are a tightening noose around the necks of the the banks, even if their managers have escaped prosecution for criminal activity. As the pace picks up it is obvious that BofA and other banks are facing huge losses from loans “that never were” and mega write-offs on their balance sheet that will put them, once again, in the official position of what everyone already knows to be the case: insolvent.

BOTTOM LINE: The banks knowingly took money from investors for the “purchase” of mortgage backed securities that were issued by empty, non-operating REMIC Trusts. It was the holy grail of criminal investment banking — do an IPO and keep the money because the issuing entity doesn’t need nor want the money. Then through a series of “remote” or “bankruptcy remote” vehicles they slid money onto the loan closing table, pretending that the originator was the lender. The paperwork at closing should have protected the investors because it was their money). Instead it created fake paperwork creating the illusion of rights under the UCC and other theories to enforce worthless paper without alleging or proving that they ever paid for the paper, the loan or anyone else. In legal speak, the banks have the courts treating them as holders in due course of negotiable instruments without BEING holders in due course, and the paper upon which they rely is neither real nor negotiable.

The investor’s money was the source of the loan and it was fraud and breach of contract that their money ended up on the closing table with borrowers. This was precisely why Congress labeled such behavior as predatory per se — for the protection of borrowers, investors and the marketplace. Government missed its cue and instead geared up to millions of foreclosures instead of taking control of the failed banks and renegotiating the loan terms with adequate protections for the investors and the borrowers — the only real parties in the transaction. The Courts missed their cue as well. Instead of actually learning the details of these transactions, knowing that they knew nothing about securitization judges nevertheless ruled repeatedly in favor of the banks and prevented the borrower from getting discovery and forcing the borrower to absorb the burden of proof of facts that were uniquely in the hands of the banks, hidden away from public and private view.

None of the transactions reported by the banks ever took place except as paper trades on their trading desks — with fictional sellers and buyers and fictional money. The reason the banks cling so desperately to the presumptions regarding negotiable paper is that they win no cases if the court allows the borrower to drill down in discovery or the court forces the burden of proof onto the the alleged “holder” to prove the loan or any transaction implied by the false paper they are using in court. They lose every time except in those instances where the originator actually loaned money to the borrower and still has the loan (about 4% of all loans over the last 15 years).

31 Responses

  1. Yes Deborah they will keep doing their studies and getting us credit counseling yo keep up the delusion and illusion. Last yr? 2/3 of fc were still from ’08 and before. Controlled the defaults now real numbers in fc for housing recovery and stock market bubble. Get ready for big pop!

  2. More naked emperorness from scam article
    http://m.rismedia.com/article.php?permalink=/2010-04-05/predatory-mortgage-servicing-fraud-first-of-a-series/Loans mod anyone?

    “”For your benefit, we’ve established an escrow account.”

    The escrow account is where the real financial trickery takes place. No matter how many times you ask, you will never see an accurate accounting of how they arrived at the amount they claim that you owe them.

    “We’re here to help in your time of need.”

    And, if you do actually fall behind on your payments, they will sniff out money you didn’t even know you had and wring it out of you.

    They will try to get as much money from you as they possibly can. First as a sizable down payment, and then as high a monthly make-up payment as you’ll agree to. They take all of your cash and leave you with a payment that might be 35% to 50% higher.

    In the process, you’ll be asked to sign away many of your rights and you’ll do it because they said they care.

    They exploit you at your most vulnerable time because they know that most people would do anything not to lose their home. They intimidate you into suspending judgment and going along out of fear and embarrassment. And, if you put up little or no resistance, they will take you all the way to the courthouse steps.

    They get paid a small fee to process payments, but when a payment is missed, they can charge whatever fees they want and keep all of the money. They are nothing more than shakedown artists operating in a largely unregulated arena who have figured out a way to wring millions of dollars out of nervous consumers and keep the perfect mix of defaults in the pools.

    They get away with all of this because they can. You didn’t choose your servicing company, they chose you. They chose you because they know all about you and know that you will make a good target. You can’t fire them, quit them or take your business elsewhere. Once they begin to destroy your credit, you couldn’t get another loan to pay them back even if you wanted to. And, even if you refinance, there is no guarantee you won’t wind up back with the same servicer.”

  3. Last link demonstrates the disparity , what to give time to talk about and what not to give time to talk about, and for gods sake never talk about the naked emperor.

  4. And yes it looks like they moved on
    Interesting stuff sent to me by STOPforeclosurefraud.com
    http://www.ny.frb.org/research/staff_reports/sr732.pdf

  5. Re Laurens awesome post
    Thats why we must hold on tight to the rule of law
    If that goes down in flames then God help us.

  6. Great topic and what i want to raise is adjacent,
    Identity theft,
    they used our names to complete the illusion
    Our mortgages were purportedly ” sold” on the secondary market thats as much as we could conceive by what was disclosed. we have a trustee type guy ( emphasis added) in court – We know about ninja loans i have in a court order of mine that it was kniwn that anyine who could sign their name got approved, the other one you hear is ” anyone who could fog a mirror) we know about Appraisers stretching the values to the point of exceeding median income thus approx doubling the price (versus true market value where if honest economics were applied and proper underwriting standards) –
    the market was bound to crash – we know about default swaps and hedging what we did not know was that the market was setup to be hostile to borrowers. if theres no REMIC theres no TRUST and no TRUST no TRUSTEE ( at least inrelatiin to the trust that purportedly ” securitized the loan into a pool and sold certificates to investors) who are these people issuing IRS documents claiming lender status g servicer in my case ( – sorry to keep hashing that out) when we never knew the true creditor ( enter FDCPA rights) Our credit is ruined our name is slandered, no credit “worthiness” ( though i dont buy into that particular bs – many others including employers do) you look like a looser, our job prospects our LIFE because they used our signatures at closing ALL the rest relied on us signing the instrument.

  7. Superb summation, Neil. Now, if only all judges and politicians will read, accept and act upon these truths. … and bail out the USA homeowners abused by the banks and quasi-government county judges.

  8. @ Lauren Tratar:
    ABSOLUTLE SPOT ON!

  9. ABC broker or correspondent has a contractual relationship with a B of A. B of A agrees to buy loans from ABC originated by abc. Depending on the financial strength (etc) but mostly fin strength of ABC, B of A may insist on being the underwriter. **B of A does NOT table fund loans it didn’t underwrite itself. **

    *By originated, here I mean found the borrower, processed the loan, ordered title, appraisal, (must be from appraiser on B of A “Approved Appraiser” list) and so on. The completed “loan package” is sent to B of A to underwrite. It sends to ABC loan conditions, which theoretically are to be met prior to closing. B of A, as other larger fish, allowed the ABC’s to be shown on the note and dot to retain the autonomy of the ABC’s. ABC cannot close that loan without first ‘locking it in” with B of A as to ‘strike price” (the agreed upon sale price to B of A), as B of A won’t fund without it, will not happen. At some point before the loan is closed, the loan is locked in with B of A as to that strike price. Generally, but not always, it’s also locked in between ABC and the borrower.

    SOMEone fills out a Request for Funds to B of A before closing. It considers the “strike price”, the tax and insurance escrow, prepaid interest, loan amt of course, and so on. It’s like a HUD 1 settlement stmt in its thoroughness but doesn’t exactly mirror one because it includes what the broker, ABC, is making and that affects the funded amt. B of A will not fund an amt for taxes and insurance, prepaid interest, etc. to be escrowed or which are to be paid at closing, but it will include in the funding amt the amt ABC is making on the loan.iThe title company will generally disburse everything on the HUD 1 since its generally the recipient of BofA’s wire. This includes the check to ABC.

    If ABC is worth a damn, ABC will be the one coordinating numbers with the title co. for closing – supposed to balance to the penny. But, when loans started being originated by anyone with a pulse to bolster B of A’s pipeline for delivery in the alleged A to D chain, B of A may have done this themselves. But one way or another, SOMEone did a Request for Funds and filled out a form for title regarding the HUD 1 figures for closing (the one which must jive with the closing company’s
    (usually title co). figures (the title co. is necessarily apprised of the amt ABC is getting paid or they can’t balance as to funding amt and disbursements). If you want to know who funded a loan, this is the doc to get – the Funding Request / Request for Funds (unless you can get evidence of the actual funding wire. The Request for Funds may be better – have to think about that).

    To make this clear for anyone it may help, I’ll explain how “Tom” used to do it: He locked a loan prior to closing with a B of A. He sent the file to B of A to underwrite. If it came back with conditions, they were generally to be handled before closing. *
    At some point, the ‘strike price’ was determined, with each party committing, (tom’s co. and B of A). Tom coordinated figures with the title company who was closing the loan. They had to balance with each other. At least 48 hours before closing, Tom sent a Request for Funding (the numbers having been coordinated with the closing co / title) to B of A. B of A funded the loan to title. Title disbursed all amts, including an amt to tom’s company. which was mostly what the co. made on the loan. (Fwiw, generally, the appraisal and c.r. had been paid to tom’s co. and appear as a poc (Paid Outside Closing) on the HUD 1. (Before the funds will be released to title, B of A must itself have reviewed the Request for Funds). The request for funds as to orig fee, points, etc. should be parallel to the final good faith estimate and reg z, as I recall provided when the borrower comes in to sign his final loan application (the one based on verifications of theincome therein and about points, etc. If a final loan app (and gfe and reg z) show closing costs of 5k, imo, a loan shouldn’t be closed with cl costs of 10k. An underwriter may have underwritten the file on slightly excessive ratios (say the 28 and 36) based on the borrowers reserves
    (fund available after closing (the borrower is to get a second set of disclosures – a new gfe and reg Z – at the time his final loan appl is signed by her so that she has a better idea of the cost of her loan. She may have applied for a fixed and ended up taking an arm, say, but it doesn’t matter if the loan program didnt’ change.
    The initial gfe and reg Z must be provided to the borrower within “72 hours of taking credit information” – probably found in tila and the second when she signs the final loan application, the one used for underwriting.

    SOMEone has those forms (the Request for Funds) or should.

    B of A itself needs a ‘strike price’ to sell loans to others. B of A may have a ‘forward commitment’ with F or F to deliver, say, 10M in loans at ‘X strike price’ by a time certain, say 2 mos from now. The 10m in loans would have to be all one type, like 30 yr fixed rate, maybe all owner occupied, etc. ABC is generally not set up (authorized) to sell directly to F or F and mostly not to an RFC, either, but B of A is generally authorized to sell loans to F and F “originated” by third parties if that third party has a broker or correspondent agreement with B of A, as does ABC (as I think was true for non-conforming loans headed to RFC. RFC also allowed a B of A to offer its programs itself and thru its broker / correspondents).
    RFC, fwiw, as far as I know, required loans to be seasoned for two months before they would buy them. They didn’t want first -payment default loans (so the way not to have them is not to buy them til month 3).

    *Title companies also have ‘conditions’, called I forget on the title commitment / preliminary report (prob requirements on a page called requirements), like if Mary Johnson is out of town and she and husband are buying or refi’ing together and spouse is to sign for her, the title company will INSIST on reviewing Mary’s poa to spouse.But, look at what we’ve got with alleged atts in fact (the party who gets a poa is not a poa, she’s an att in fact, but it may say ‘under power of attorney’, I believe) alleged agency, craig signing foranother corporation, of which he’s nobody,* as who knows what with exactly zero evidence of the alleged relationships, no evidence of so and so’s auth to designate anyone as such and such, NO challenges whatsoever: it’s just business.)

    *oh, hell, just make him a somebody, – you know, like Merscorp does – Merscorp’ Hultman just purports to make 20+ people its officer (oh, with ‘limited’ responsibilites, like purporting to sell and assign someone else’s note, one not even belong to its shell-baby-mers.

    If B of A (net) funded its broker or correspondent’s loan, IS B of A the lender or is ABC because it’s name is on the note and dot? I’ve said that the contract between the two matters because I think it does or may, but if ABC has no rights to payments because it’s already sold the loan to B of A or if B of A is just plain the lender….?????? And if you use the stinking default law UCC art 3 (instead of the contracts – me – gasp), does it matter to one who takes the note without notice of the underlying facts??? If anyone is found to be a holder in due course (v holder), does it matter?

    IS a shell-corporation with limited or no employees (for instance) an entity which is appropriately named a beneficiary, an agent, a nominee in and for anything, especially a lien on / interest in millions of people’s homes??? Forget the fact for a moment, if you can, that “mers” allows merscorp members to act in its name, and consider what mers is and isn’t. It’s a software program itself owned by another corporation.

    “DEFINITION of ‘Shell Corporation’

    A corporation without active business operations or significant assets. Shell corporations are not necessarily illegal or illegitimate, as they often serve an important for potential STARTUPS. Additionally, shell corporations can act as a tax avoidance (jg: a third, unrelated bk remote-entity) for legitimate businesses.
    INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS ‘Shell Corporation’

    Shell corporations are often formed before commencing operations to obtain financing (jg: possible so that a lender needn’t consider the financial condition of the people who really want a loan). Sometimes, they may be used as a front in tax evasion. Shell corporations however are legal entities in most countries, although they have been known to be used in black or gray market activities. They should not be confused with dummy corporations however, as those are created specifically for the purposes of illegal activity.”

    Mers has no employees to call anything. The plan all along was to have this shell corporation use other people’s employees to act for itr, this “entity” which purports a position in what is supposed to be an agreement between a creditor and a borrower. Before the Consent Order, my money’s on the alleged credit bid was “assigned” to mers because it messes up a trust to have a credit bid and or they can’t be anything but passive. You’ll seldom if ever know who is making a credit bid at sale, because the party holding the f/c sale simply says “bid by beneficiary” and nothing more in regard to that “beneficiary”. What a load of bs!

  10. Good info JohnG that’s the irony the victories can be over a $100 charge but when we tried to work something out in good faith we were jerked around. We were trapped though intentionally not some buildup like Greece. Remember ’07 banks were shut down left and right while they got tough on homeowners and Wall St stayed on sidelines while jobs dried up, bridges collapsed etc but still let’s blame ourselves or our neighbor.

  11. Coincidentally here’s a piece that ties in re Greece.
    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-29/the-moral-of-the-greek-story

  12. Asset Securitization
    Comptroller’s Handbook
    November 1997
    L-Sec
    Comptroller of the Currency
    Administrator of National Banks
    L
    Comptroller’s Handbook i Asset Securitization
    Asset Securitization Table of Contents
    Introduction 1
    Background 1
    Definition 2
    A Brief History 2
    Market Evolution 3
    Benefits of Securitization 4
    Securitization Process 6
    Basic Structures of Asset-Backed Securities 6
    Parties to the Transaction 7
    Structuring the Transaction 12
    Segregating the Assets 13
    Creating Securitization Vehicles 15
    Providing Credit Enhancement 19
    Issuing Interests in the Asset Pool 23
    The Mechanics of Cash Flow 25
    Cash Flow Allocations 25
    Risk Management 30
    Impact of Securitization on Bank Issuers 30
    Process Management 30
    Risks and Controls 33
    Reputation Risk 34
    Strategic Risk 35
    Credit Risk 37
    Transaction Risk 43
    Liquidity Risk 47
    Compliance Risk 49
    Other Issues 49
    Risk-Based Capital 56
    ii
    Examination Objectives 61
    Examination Procedures 62
    Overview 62
    Management Oversight 64
    Risk Management 68
    Management Information Systems 71
    Accounting and Risk-Based Capital 73
    Functions 77
    Originations 77
    Servicing 80
    Other Roles 83
    Overall Conclusions 86
    References 89

  13. BOB HURT SAY’S THIS. REALLY BOB, LETS LOOK A LITTLE CLOSER SHELL WE.

    A Mortgage Note is NOT a Security.

    Bob Hurt Blog 1 2 f t
    2460 Persian Drive #70
    Clearwater, FL 33763
    Email Call: (727) 669-5511
    Law Studies: Donate E-Letter Subscribe
    Learn to Litigate with Jurisdictionary

    Asset Securitization
    Comptroller’s Handbook
    November 1997

    YOU NEED TO READ THE , LAW OF THE BANKS. AND YES, ALL MORTGAGE NOTES, GET TURNED INTO A SECURITY /BOND/ ITS CALLED CONVERSION OF THE NOTE TO A SECURITIES/BOND THAT GET DICED UP AND SOLD.

    I REALLY THOUGH YOU WERE SMARTER THEN THE AVERAGE PERSON.

    I HAVE READ ALL SECURITY LAWS THAT HAS TO DO WITH MORTGAGE SECURITIES. HAVE YOU?

    structuring the Transaction

    The primary difference between whole loan sales or participations and
    securitized credit pools is the structuring process. Before most loan pools can
    be converted into securities, they must be structured to modify the nature of
    the risks and returns to the final investors. Structuring includes the isolation
    Comptroller’s Handbook 1 3 Asset Securitization
    and distribution of credit risk, usually through credit enhancement
    techniques, and the use of trusts and special purpose entities to address tax
    issues and the management of cash flows.
    Examiners performing a comprehensive review of a specific securitization
    process should read through the pooling and servicing agreement and/or a
    specific series supplement for explicit detail on the structure and design of the
    particular asset-backed security and the responsibilities of each involved
    party. For purposes of this booklet, the following is an overview of the
    structuring process and a description of what the documents usually contain.
    Generally, the structure of a transaction is governed by the terms of the
    pooling and servicing agreement and, for master trusts, each series
    supplement. The pooling and servicing agreement is the primary contractual
    document between the seller/servicer and the trustee. This agreement
    documents the terms of the sale and the responsibilities of the seller/servicer.
    For master trusts, the pooling and servicing agreement, including the related
    series supplement, document the terms of the sale and responsibilities of the
    seller/servicer for a specific issuance. The following section describes the
    four major stages of the structuring process:
    C Segregating the assets from the seller/originator.
    C Creating a special-purpose vehicle to hold the assets and protect
    the various parties’ interests.
    C Adding credit enhancement to improve salability.
    C Issuing interests in the asset pool.

    Exhibit 1: Parties Involved in Structuring Asset-Backed Securities, and all PSA

    Borrower. # 1

    Originator. #2

    Servicer. #3

    Trustee. #4

    Credit Enhancer. #5

    Rating Agencies. #6

    Underwriter. #7

    Investors. # 8

    Borrower. The borrower is responsible for payment on the underlying loans
    and therefore the ultimate performance of the asset-backed security. Because
    borrowers often do not realize that their loans have been sold, the originating
    bank is often able to maintain the customer relationship.
    From a credit risk perspective, securitization has made popular the practice of
    grouping borrowers by letter or categories. At the top of the rating scale, ’A’-
    quality borrowers have relatively pristine credit histories. At the bottom, ’D’-
    quality borrowers usually have severely blemished credit histories. The
    categories are by no means rigid; in fact, credit evaluation problems exist
    because one originator’s ’A’ borrower may be another’s ’A-’ or ’B’ borrower.
    Nevertheless, the terms ’A’ paper and ’B/C’ paper are becoming more and
    more popular.
    Exhibit 2 is an example of generic borrower descriptions used by Duff and
    Phelps Credit Rating Corporation in rating mortgage borrowers. The
    borrowers’ characteristics in the exhibit are generalizations of each category’s
    standards and fluctuate over time; however, the table does provide an
    illustration of general standards in use today. For example, an ‘A’ quality

    Asset Securitization
    Comptroller’s Handbook
    November 1997
    AND JUST IN CASE YOU DONT UNDERSTAND. ALL ORIGINALS MORTGAGE NOTES, AND MORTGAGES. HAVE BEEN SHREDDED. MAKING ALL COPY, WORTHLESS PIECES OF PAPER.
    AS A BANK WILL ONLY TAKE A ORIGINAL CHECK, GO AHEAD TRY TO CASH IN A COPY OF A CHECK, SEE WHATS HAPPENS. HAHAHAHAH

    ONLY A TRUE ORIGINALS, AND THE PAPER STAMP DATED THE YR IT WAS MADE. CAN ONLY BE USED. ALL PAPER HAS ITS OWN UNIQUE DATING TIME LINE. SO SOMEONE COPING A MORTGAGE NOTE, NOW THE PAPER WILL NOT BE AS IT WAS IN 2005,06,07,08,09,10,11,12,13,14,15. NOW
    A BANK SAYING THAT THEY HELD THE ORIGINALS ALL THOIS TIME IS FULL OF SHIT, LKIEING TO THE COURT. FRAUD.

  14. @MK like I said all great posts. I agree with what you said as a chronology and sub prime was A trigger along witb war, outsourcing etc which is what needs to be understood in context of great recession. As Deborah is saying if the investment was directed at us and our national interest it would have been a totally different outcome. Where I’m saying focus is off is that the $1 trillion TOTAL sub prime market doesn’t explain the mushroom cloud of derivative and other exotic debt we are being held hostage with in Congress and Wall St.
    Remember many if the appraisers, small mortgage brokers have been targeted by DOJ and gone to jail. That’s where William Black”s testimony in defense is key where he nailed Wall St’s role INSTEAD of small time investor/broker. As long as focus is almost completely on sub prime in media and government we will be stuck on their narrative. There is absolutely coordination, conspiracy but not focusing on basic lawlessness and what’s right has most Americans on emperor wears no clothes mode. If that can be broken down to stop unlawful foreclosures instead of morality play of people can’t afford or deserve homes it’s a whole different ball game we’re starting to see change. The quadzillions are about fraud and the casino economy that makes no sense in the real world. With MERS etc we had notes multiplying intentionally and who knows maybe some error but it was designed that way. They were able to cash out behind the scenes especially if they DIDN’T take our homes as they and everyone beat us down as deadbeats and sub prime.

  15. When a note rate increases by 1%, as I recall, the p & i goes up by 7.5% of itself. 100 dollars goes to 107.50 dollars, $200 goes up 15 dollars and so on. The agencies took it that a borrower’s income could keep up with that change. Changes on F & F loans were limited to 2% (in rate) per annual adjustment on arms. Once 6 mo. adjustments were offered, the adj at 6 mos was limited to 1%. Any other adjustment imo is predatory.

  16. “for the 11.25 million households that are considered the most burdened by housing costs—those spending more than 50 percent of their income—they aren’t just spending slightly more than half their income. Jakabovics says that the median of that group is well over the line, and what they spent on rent is closer to 70 percent of their income.”

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/renting-awful-just-everyone-now-115800504.html

    Compare 50% of one’s gni to this:

    When things were normal (before a market was fully created to which to sell stinker loans) fnma and fhlmc allowed 28% of gni for piti and 36% for piti and montlhly debt obligations (sears, visa, mc, car payments, alimony, child support and so on). Private investors, like RFC which bought loans with higher loan amts, allowed 33% and 38%.
    VA allowed 41% for piti and montlhy obligations.

    No market existed before Mers and sec’n to sell loans tied to libor, say, which could if not did adjust to over 100% (needn’t be that high, tho) of the initial p & i. No market existed to let one enter into a loan with piti & mo. payments exceeding 38%. Any loan which did is predatory. Any loan based simply on the “appraised value” (no verification of borrower’s income and assets ) as basis for repayment is also predatory. The winner of the comparative fault, if any, is the lender who as a matter of state law was precluded from making predatory loans. Imo predatory lending is a defense or claim avaliable in recoupment, meaning it may be made regardless of any st of limitations against a claim against the borrower. imo.
    Just having a borrower sign a blank loan application, for instance, is against the rules.
    Others here have claimed that error won’t be found in the disclosures made on the tila Regulation Z form as to apr, amt financed, total of payments for these teaser rate loans. Bull. One doesn’t need to pay for a securitization report to get these real figures. All you need is someone with the program which calculates these numbers and the qualifications to swear to them (mol). Imo, one should pay about $100.00 to get them.
    Also strictly imo, since no outlet has to date been available to calculate these figures for borrowers, it’s possible that one available now (if one is created ) and getting the real figures (and the new ones provided show that the tila tolerance for error exceed the guidelines)
    may help some people who otherwise “couldn’t have known”. No one may calculate these figures without the software to do so, that is, without someone who could, a borrower ‘couldn’t have known” her figures as disclosed were crapinski. If couldn’t have known fails to get relief under tila itself, then I’d try asserting it as predatory lending or something else I could come up with. The “tolerance” for error in the ” amt financed (memory) shrinks from like $150 to $35.00 after a nod is issued. I may have the first number wrong, but even if so, that’s a fact. So if the creators of tila didn’t intend some remedy re: shrinking that number to $35.00, they wouldn’t have made it a point to shrink the number.

  17. @Hammertime,

    Of course Lauren Tratar is 100 per cent correct.

    This entire SCAM is an “orchestrated Plan”.

    To borrow your words, “The real issue is predatory lending of every demographic where even w sub prime those targeted were charged higher rates and costs than others.”.

    In fact, your words are the VERY ESSENCE of the LIBOR fraud… to say nothing of “subprime lending”.

    Your words simply reinforce what Lauren and I are trying to say: “This entire scam is a contrived attack on American Sovereignty”.

    Forgive me for sounding rude, but, how in the world you jump to: “The quadrillions in derivatives is in no way explained by sub prime especially the fraction of purported default amount.”, is completely beyond anything I am trying to say.

    I suggest you re-read what it is that I wrote. You are altogether wrong.

    “The quadrillions in derivatives” is owed to the “short sale BETS” the international central bankers have placed AGAINST ANY GIVEN BORROWER’S ABILITY TO PAY THEIR LOAN.

    As such, THE FORECLOSURES HAVE NOW BECOME A SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY…

    In other words, if the foreclosures do not go forward, THE BANKERS WILL NOT COLLECT THEIR QUADRILLIONS BASED UPON THEIR INTENTIONAL, ORCHESTRATED DECEIT… what Lauren calls their “Enterprise”.

    On our rental property, we were CURRENT on the loan when BOA placed us into foreclosure.

    Again, although taken from your words, I am not saying, “ … subprime explains how people … were foreclosed on when they were CURRENT”.

    HOW YOU CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION BASED ON WHAT I WROTE IS A MYSTERY.

    Instead, I am saying : “PEOPLE WERE FORECLOSED ON, WHETHER THEY WERE CURRENT OR NOT, SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THE BANKS MUST SHOW THEM IN DEFAULT IN ORDER TO COLLECT A ‘QUADRILLION’ DOLLARS.

    You also wrote, “Pure deception, pure evil we can focus on.”

    I AGREE. The FOCUS needs to START with the FACT this is all part of a “massive conspiracy”.

    To suggest that it isn’t, “plays into their hands”.

  18. @Bill Rose ,

    I have a courier business and in 2005/6/7 one of my best customers were two RE Appraisers, They were the “go to” guys who would produce ANY NUMBER the “lender” needed to get the deal done… They would create an appraisal in hours and needed it delivered ASAP… Most appraisers got caught up in the hurricane of ever increasing lunacy and would be frozen out if they didn’t play,,, then there were these guys that had no moral boundaries and pushed average prices so far beyond reason that I consider it criminal, with the banks demanding the numbers these appraisers added fuel to the fire. In 2008/9 prices crashed in my area by 65% and are now still down 45% or so..

  19. CFPB

    Trespass Unwanted, Creator, Corporeal, Life

  20. Very simply, real estate appraisers made it happen. Most of them are still working as appraisers today.

  21. @ Niedermaye r that’s interesting i’ve always seen my case as one that doesn’t fit everything we’re told. In my case I have paid note among other things.I just got response today from “lender”. It’s getting interesting.you can leave email here to compare notes bit.ly/Si8EL5

  22. @ Hammertime ,

    That suit with the $650M settlement featured underwriting docs involved in the AHMSI v. LPS case DC-11-10440 (Dallas TX) where LPS let the cat out of the bag regarding the underwriting and how AHMSI was supposed to restrict access to the docs… AIG then used those docs against BAC in the first case I cited… AFAIK those docs were all related to Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-FXD2 (mine) and do not help others whose trust is different… In fact in the SEC case against Option One “for the investors” the SEC named all 2006 & 2007 Option One Trusts except mine so mine may be the only one underwritten totally by BAC… I can only state that mine was fully BAC underwritten and funded as admitted to by BAC in the AIG case.

    I have only so much time and money for this … BAC is obviously a target , so is the closing attorney firm , AHMSI is NOT protected in my agreement nor is LPS…. In reality my foreclosure suit was initiated by LPS together with AHMSI and WF (named plaintiff protected in mod agreement terms) had no known direct involvement… Rescission enforcement and a wrongful foreclosure suit are in the works.

  23. Its is evil indeed hammertime

  24. Neidermeyer
    They play poka face well dont they

  25. @ Niedermaye r I’m in middle of my 20 days in LA. Hopefully we can compare notes.

  26. Great posts. Lauren ur post goes along the lines of control fraud described by William Black. Overall we’re seeing possibly another phase of disaster capitalism per Naomi Klein.

    As was recently posted regarding bank bubble in China there needs to be a narrative that people have to go along with.

    Our focus has to be on the great recession overall as well as foreclosure. To focus on sub prime and some massive conspiracy plays into their hands. The real issue is predatory lending of every demographic where even w sub prime those targeted were charged higher rates and costs than others. There is no way sub prime explains how people esp seniors and veterans were foreclosed on when they were CURRENT. The quadrillions in derivatives is in no way explained by sub prime especially the fraction of purported default amount. Sub prime is just one of the mechanisms used to deceive us and to shame us or blame each other. There is real, basic lawlessness that will show to what extent and how the system is broken. Pure deception, pure evil we can focus on.

  27. BAC is DEAD,,, They replied to my rescission with a demand that I produce a BAC loan number ,, they are pretending that the $650,000,000.00 judgement against them in American International Group Inc. v. Bank of America Corp. 11-cv-10549. U.S. District Court Central District of California (Los Angeles) never happened and that they never admitted that they were the funder and underwriter on my note, they are my lender and they are not protected by the language in my mod settlement as they are not a listed party.

    Today is day 21 after their receipt of my letter. Time for my lawyer to decide what order to fry the fish in…

  28. If all that bailout money ( future tax dollars owed) had not bern awarded to the enterprize ” securitzation fail” but instead money pumped into relieving underwater borrowers so that they could at least afford to keep their homes by resetting the home value to its true market value and not exceeding the median income by as much as it did then all this economic damage would have been far less. Reckless does not do congress justice or this administration for not stemming the bleeding, and that is the crime, rewarding the crooks.
    And MK
    Yes you said
    In order to redeem their losses in “Sub-Prime Lending”, the central bankers began placing bets against the garbage loans they had created during the “BOOM Years”. (Google Goldman Sachs)

  29. @ Lauren Tratar,

    BRAVO!!!

    The central banks have failed- THEY ARE INSOLVENT.

    Wall Street is a creature of the central bankers.

    Wall Street speculated on “Sub-Prime Lending” … (BOOM)! … and, they collectively, lost their shirts … (BUST)!

    In order to deceive the bank regulators, the central bankers manipulated the LIBOR. By manipulating the LIBOR, the central bankers managed to make their balance sheets APPEAR far healthier than they are.

    In order to redeem their losses in “Sub-Prime Lending”, the central bankers began placing bets against the garbage loans they had created during the “BOOM Years”. (Google Goldman Sachs).

    These bets now exceed 682 Trillion Dollars as owed to international, “Notional Derivatives”. (Google “Quadrillion”).

    THE “NOTION” IS: WE, THE CENTRAL BANKERS, WILL COLLECT ON THE 682 TRILLION ONLY IF WE FORECLOSE PEOPLE’S HOMES.

    The DTCC and DTC were established to regulate and report on “Derivatives”- something, they are, at-the-moment, refusing to do.

    Read, Ellen Hodgson Brown’s, “The Web Of Debt”.

    The DTC and the DTCC are owned and operated by a foreign, private-banking cartel.

    The foreign, private banking cartel also owns and operates the “Federal Reserve”, the “IMF” and the “World Bank”.

    Once upon a time, the foreign, private banking cartel also owned “Fannie and Freddie”, and, it was during this period F&F created the gazillions owed to it while Wall Street speculated on “Sub-Prime Lending”.

    In 2008, F&F were taken into “conservatorship” while Hank Paulsen and his playmates, a’ la Chicken Little, told congress: “The sky will fall if the US taxpayers are not put, on-the-hook, for the multiple frauds and disasters, We, the central bankers have created”.

    The currency that supports the central banking FRAUD is the US Dollar.

    This has been the case since 1913 (in the US) …

    In 1913, the template for international FRAUD was created through the intentionally mislabeled, “Federal Reserve”; neither “Federal- while owned and operated through private, foreign, banks”, nor possessing ANY “Reserves- our currency is created, out-of-thin-air, on computer screens”.

    In 1913, the 16th amendment was created to TAX PERSONAL WEALTH. The proceeds from the tax were then paid directly to the parasites that have manipulated the American Financial System for over 100 years.

    The Constitution is silent on income tax because the Founders had just beaten the largest military industrial complex of their age to a standstill on the battlefield over that very issue: TAXES.

    The Founders never thought they had to explain the obvious to their descendants, although now, it is more than obvious, We, The People have squandered Our birthright.

    The answer, insofar as an alternative currency goes, is to Renounce the central bankers, repudiate their fraudulent claims of American indebted-ness and then: REINSTITUTE THE GREENBACK!

    Lincoln created the Greenback during the Civil War as a foil to USURY and the foreign, private, central bankers.

    The Greenback currently exists in the US Treasury as a viable alternative to the wholly insolvent “Federal Reserve Notes”.

    NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY: “FOREIGN, PRIVATELY-OWNED BANKS, AND THE INTERNATIONAL, CRIMINAL CARTEL THAT OWNS THOSE BANKS MAY MANIPULATE AMERICAN CURRENCY”.

    Take HSBC- Hong Kong – Shanghai Banking Corp., as an example.
    An English-owned bank, SURPRISE!

    Currently, HSBC is using American Mortgages to launder terrorist and drug cartel money, and, the out-going, banker-playmate, Eric Holder, has explained that it is OKAY!

    He thinks they are TBTJ.

    The central banks: intentionally-mislabeled, “Federal Reserve”, “IMF” and “World Bank” are simply, financial terrorists.

    The FRAUDCLOSURE SCHEME they have created is a deliberate attack upon the “Sovereignty” of the United States.

    For example, everyone knows NONE of the loans EVER entered ANY LEGAL TRUST. (Google “Securitization Fail”).

    The Pools of Loans are empty! … And …

    BECAUSE THE POOLS OF LOANS (THE TRUSTS) ARE EMPTY, THE PENSION PLAN MONEY USED TO FUND THOSE LOANS WENT INTO THE POCKETS OF THE FINANCIAL TERRORISTS LONG AGO.

    The FRAUDCLOSURE SCAM HAS THE ADDED BENEFIT OF DESTROYING THE MIDDLE CLASS, THE PENSION SYSTEMS, HOMEOWNERSHIP, THE RULE OF LAW AND EACH AND EVERY OF OUR RIGHTS, GIVEN US BY THE CONSTITUTION.

    End the Fed- return it as a PUBLIC UTILITY THAT ENRICHES PUBLIC COFFERS- NOT PRIVATE POCKETS.

    INVESTIGATE WALL STREET, PROSECUTE WALL STREET, JAIL WALL STREET.

    REPUDIATE THE BANKERS AND THEIR BOGUS DEBTS. RENOUNCE THE WHOLLY-INSOLVENT “FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES” – REPLACE THE CURRENCY WITH “GREENBACKS”.

    Plant more acorns- We are gonna need more trees.

  30. none of this makes sense unless you know the bigger picture. everyone has a perspective based upon their specific life experiences so that is their point of context. there are many factors at work here, but KNOW this is not random – this was planned – greece exiting the euro, BAC being bankrupted – all part of a meticulously engineered PLAN.

    from my perspective the bottom line is the CONTROLLED collapse of the economy which was due to collapse anyway as every fiat monetary system has (599 in known history) has failed.

    the creation of the Enterprise, one facet of which is foreclosure: the setting up of PATSIES (borrowers and MBS Investors) as part of an orchestrated Plan which included the creation of a real estate bubble to the bursting of that bubble which would then trigger a series of events with the goal of eliminating the middle class whose powerful voices of dissent and sheer numbers could derail the goal of the Enterprise: to retain control of the monetary system the Conspirators have covertly held for years. make no mistake, if MERS was designed to hide the crimes of the Conspirators, if the filing of a 15-15d notice with the SEC 3-4 months after the Trusts closed which no longer required the filing of reports thus hiding what was going on within the Trusts was designed to stop prying eyes from discovering the TRUTH, something indeed is brewing and it is not isolated to foreclosure.

    the ISDA (International Swaps and Derivatives Assn) owned by the 5 largest banks which CONTROL whether a “credit event” is called thus triggering the payment of derivative insurance (now standing at over $1 Quadrillion – many times greater than the WORLDS GDP) which in turn results in the collapse of the banks which in turn results in the collapse of the world economy….

    the collapse will catalyze the need for a NEW currency….. which of course the Conspirators plan to CONTROL and thus maintain their stranglehold of money….

    nothing is an accident – this specific element of the Enterprise has been planned for decades and if you dare to look at the past 40+ years of history through the lens of that perspective it becomes blindingly conspicuous that many events were necessary to set the stage for the stealing of middle-class wealth with one facet being foreclosure.

    there is far more to this story which cannot be told until one wraps their head around the fact that this is all a setup. the challenge now is: how long will we continue to suffer from cognitive dissonance and refuse to acknowledge what is right before our eyes…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: