Tonight — Silent Roles of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — Hiding Behind the Obtuse

How to Withhold Vital Information from Homeowners

Thursdays LIVE! Click in to the The Neil Garfield Show

Or call in at (347) 850-1260, 6pm Eastern Thursdays

Charles Marshall, Attorney and Bill Paatalo, licensed investigator discuss the moral hazard created by the Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs) banks, the courts and the regulators in allowing “presumptions” to be used even when the actual facts are different from the presumed facts.

Fannie and Freddie have long been a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

Before false claims of securitization, before fabrication and forgery of documents, the GSEs had fairly clear role in the origination, servicing and enforcement of mortgages. Now they are used as cover to hide lack of ownership where the banks and servicers make the homeowner travel and endless loop leading nowhere.

Now, as to any specific loan, we don’t know which of the following applies:

  1.  GSE is the guarantor of the loan (basically like a third party insurer with government backing)
  2. GSE is Master Trustee of a REMIC Trust in which there is a named Trustee who has the same powers, rights and obligations as the Master Trustee — i.e., no powers to actively administer the active affairs of the trust because there is no business or assets in the trust.
  3. GSE is or was a purchaser for cash.
  4. GSE is or was a purchaser using MBS issued by a named trust that either exists or doesn’t exist.
  5. GSE, using Trust A MBS paid Trust A for loans owned by the Trust or for loans not owned by the trust.
  6. GSE was a seller of the subject debt, note or mortgage.
  7. GSE claimed ownership when it didn’t own the subject debt, note or mortgage.
  8. GSE showed subject loan on its website but had no interest in the subject debt, note or mortgage (or foreclosure).
  9. Third parties claimed that GSE owned the subject debt, note and/or mortgage and it was true.
  10. Third parties claimed that GSE owned the subject debt, note and/or mortgage and it was false.

Foreclosure Prevention is Paying Off claim the GSEs

The GSEs claim to have prevented more than 49,000 foreclosures in the first quarter, an increase of nearly 5,000 preventions compared to Q4, according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s Q1 Foreclosure Prevention Report.  Unfortunately, the majority of these loans that were prevented from being foreclosed upon were held by parties that had no evidence of standing or ownership, and therefore had no right to negotiate.

According to the data, delinquencies, foreclosure starts, and REO inventories were all down in Q1, compared to Q4. Early delinquency (30-59) dropped most sharply, from more than 402,000 in Q4 to just under 318,000 in Q1. Serious delinquencies (above 90 days) dropped from just below 318,000 to almost 293,000. The number of all 60-plus days delinquent loans declined 10 percent to 377,622 at the end of the first quarter, the lowest level since 2008.

The total number of delinquent loans fell 15 percent in the first quarter of 2017. In Ohio, the number of seriously delinquent loans decreased 9 percent during the quarter. Florida’s serious delinquency rates dropped 8 percent; Texas, New Jersey, and Georgia by 7 percent. Total delinquent loans in Ohio dropped by 18 percent. Texas and Pennsylvania saw total delinquencies drop 16 percent in Q1.

The GSEs’ serious delinquency rate in Q1 fell to a flat 1 percent, which also is the lowest level since 2008. This compared with 4.0 percent for Federal Housing Administration loans, 2.1 percent for Veterans Affairs loans, and 2.8 percent for all loans (industry average).

REO inventory nationally was down 8 percent in Q1, to 44,460.

By the end of March, there were about 44,000 home retention actions overseen by the GSEs this year.  In most cases, the GSE has no evidence they purchased these loans.  For all of 2016, there were roughly 164,000 home retention actions. These include actions like loan modifications and repayment plans. Home foreclosure actions (short sales and deeds-in-lieu) dropped 9 percent in the first quarter of 2017 compared with the fourth quarter of 2016. There were 4,936 completed short sales and deeds-in-lieu in Q1.

The FHFA issued a statement saying, “These foreclosure alternatives help to reduce the severity of losses resulting from a borrower’s default and minimize the impact of foreclosures on borrowers, communities, and neighborhoods.”  Nothing could be further from the truth.  These foreclosure alternatives to not reduce the severity of the losses because people end up negotiating unfavorable terms with entities that have no proof that the trust was ever funded. Banks and the GSEs are not in the business of assisting homeowners.

Most modifications require that people negotiate with a loan servicer who has no idea who the true creditor is.  Desperate homeowners end up accepting modifications where they must pay all arrears, the loan is extended beyond its original term and quite often requires a large balloon payment at the end of the modification.  At Livinglies we typically see loan modifications that are economically detrimental for the homeowner.  Most homeowners we counsel would be better off walking away, renting for a short amount of time, and then taking out a new government subsidized mortgage that requires a very low down payment.

There is no data to determine how many of these predatory loan modifications eventually result in default because the terms are unsustainable.  It is well known that the GSE Loans originated from 2001 to 2013 are usually defective and the trusts are empty.  The GSEs can pretend all they want that trillions of dollars of mortgage backed securities they sold to the Federal Reserve are collectiable and backed by real estate- but those of us who examine the documents, read the depositions and follow the money know that the entire GSE system is a facade.  The GSEs are weapons of Mass Destruction for the lower and middle classes.

 

GSE Bill would allow Homeowners to submit FOIAs to Fannie and Freddie while under Federal Conservatorship

By K.K. MacKinstry/LendingLies

Anyone who is trying to find out information about the trust ownership of their loan, knows that if Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac are involved- your research hits a stone wall.  Homeowners who have a mortgage not secured by the GSEs are better able to determine what trust their loan was allegedly assigned to.  The GSEs who operate as quasi-governmental agencies are still private companies but have been able to evade public disclosures by claiming to not be federal entities.

Under current law, the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because, while they are under federal conservatorship, they are not federal agencies.

The days of the GSEs hiding behind an ambiguous status may come to an end.   H.R. 1694 was introduced by Rep. Jason Chaffetz R-UT last week.     Under the proposed  bill, the GSEs would be required to accept and process FOIA requests from the public and release information to satisfy those request for as long as they remain under federal conservatorship.  This would allow homeowners in litigation and foreclosure to have access to trust information and other loan information.  You can be assured that the GSEs and private investors will fight all attempts to bring transparency to these opaque entities.

On March 28, 2017, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform requested a cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO estimated the bill would increase spending for Fannie, Freddie and the Federal Housing Finance Agency by $10 million over the 2018 to 2027 period. Revenues, however, would not be affected.

All the net costs would be covered by Fannie and Freddie because FHFA would assess the fees on the two entities to cover its costs.  Both Fannie and Freddie are profitable operations and the government has fought to relinquish federal conservatorship.  However, it can be predicted that Fannie and Freddie will attempt to revert back to publicly held companies rather than hide the fact that a majority of the loans it guarantees were never properly delivered to the trusts.

The increase in administrative costs wasn’t the only increase the Congressional Budget Office discovered. The office estimates that administrative costs would increase by $40 million in 2018 in order to research and administer FOIA requests.

This bill would only apply to the GSEs while they are under federal conservatorship, and the administration could have solidified plans for GSE reform. The Mortgage Bankers Association recently released its GSE reform suggestions that analyze suggestions for the best option for reform.  Therefore, if this legislation is passed we highly suggest that readers immediately send FOIA requests immediately by certified mail to obtain the name of the trust that allegedly holds your mortgage.

Steve Mnuchin, has already stated that GSE reform is a priority of this administration.  The MBA’s “Task Force for a Future Secondary Mortgage Market,” was created by big lenders and insurers in the industry, to offer a specific vision of the end-state of the GSEs, as well as transition steps to a post-GSE system.  Predictably,  the White Paper benefits the banks at the expense of the homeowner.

The paper breaks down specific areas for reform. It includes:

  • Maintain the liquidity and stability of the primary and secondary mortgage markets through the establishment of a resilient and robust housing finance system, throughout the transition process to the end state.
  • Replace the implied government guarantee of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with an explicit guarantee at the mortgage-backed security (MBS) level only, supported by a federal insurance fund with “appropriately” priced premiums (whatever that means).
  • “Protect” taxpayers by putting more private capital at risk through expanded front- and back-end “credit enhancements” (requiring that the government and tax payer pay for the guarantee).

The chart below is a snapshot from the white paper and gives a quick view of keys factors in the MBA’s GSE reform plans, comparing how the GSEs operated before and after conservatorship.

The paper emphasizes the need for affordable-housing as a political requirement for bipartisan GSE reform.  But in reality, the paper emphasizes the ability of the big lenders to step in for the GSEs and monopolize the profits, while having the federal government act as a guarantor only.

History demonstrates that big banks don’t do anything altruistic for homeowners and the plan would require a mandatory housing fee charged against the guarantors.  Therefore, the banks would receive all of the financial benefits while saddling the government and homeowner with the risk and expense.  It sounds like the type of plan the big banks would attempt to push on to an unsuspecting public.

It is likely that e-lending and e-documents would become the new standard so that the big banks can attempt to electronically manipulate a decade of defective loan documents through this system.  This is disguised under the “preserve infrastructure” clause.  The government and big banks have proven they are unable to administer responsible housing policies without resorting to fraud or protecting homeowners.

Homeowners and borrowers should vehemently oppose using big lenders that securitize loans or use e-signature loan products that can easily be manipulated and fabricated.  Do yourself a favor and bypass the big banks.  Credit unions, local banks and lenders that offer portfolio loans are an excellent alternative to having your loan backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

 

 

Fannie and Freddie Unloading Bogus “Mortgage” Bonds

Standard Operating Procedure: Create more bogus paper on top of piles of old bogus paper and you contribute to the illusion that any of it is real. The “business model” still leaves out the basic fallacy: that most loans were never actually securitized into the trusts that are claiming them. Hence the at the base of this pyramid, is an MBS issued by an entity without any assets in cash, property or loans.

Get a consult! 202-838-6345

https://www.vcita.com/v/lendinglies to schedule CONSULT, leave message or make payments.
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
—————-

see http://blogs.barrons.com/incomeinvesting/2014/06/30/government-support-for-gse-mortgage-transfer-securities-unrealistic-fitch/

The actual goal here is to spread the risk so wide that the impact is reduced when it is finally conceded that the original MBS had no value and every successor synthetic derivative is just as worthless as the one before it.

At ground level, this creates a dichotomy. First the act of a Government Sponsored Entity (GSE) engaging in a “re-REMIC” transfer adds to the illusion that the issuing trust ever acquired the loan in the first place. But second, it corroborates the finding by me, Adam Levitin and others who know and have studied the situation: the foreclosure based upon claims from alleged REMIC Trusts are false claims.

If the original MBS had real value because it was issued by a real REMIC Trust, the process described as “re-REMIC” would not be necessary. Hedge products would be sufficient to cover the changing risk from alleged defaults on loans that were legitimately made by originators. The fact is that the “loans” did not produce loan contracts because one party was owed the debt while another party was named on the bogus note.

And THAT corroborates the experience of millions of homeowners who attempted to learn about the fictitious financial transaction in which “successors” to the “originator” paid nothing for the “transfer” of the loan because it could not be sold by the preceding party who had no ownership.

Forbes: Fannie, Freddie Could Need as Much as $126 Billion in Crisis

555

“[It was] the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament which has caused in the colonies hatred of the English and . . . the Revolutionary War.” – Benjamin Franklin

Fannie and Freddie have reportedly been cash-cows for the federal government who have allegedly held the quasi-governmental guarantors hostage during eight-years of government receivership.   Fannie and Freddie have returned to the Treasury over $60 billion more than they received in the bailout. But the amount they owe to the government remains outstanding.  It is likely that the tax payer is being prepped to dole out another bail-out for the profitable GSE’s that insure trusts that are empty or no longer exist.

Fannie and Freddie are antiquated dinosaurs that contributed to the foreclose melt-down.  As nothing more than guarantors for empty trusts, they routinely attempt to foreclose on homes they don’t own and loans that failed to exist years ago.  The GSE’s business model is to hire servicers to fabricate documents to create the illusion of ownership so they can foreclose.

The true GSE story is yet to be told, but why would two profitable corporations need bailouts?  Where have all the profits from the past seven years gone?  One thing is assured, the federal government couldn’t operate a worm farm even with the best worm cultivators in the world consulting.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-08/fannie-freddie-could-need-126-billion-in-crisis-test-shows

By Joe Light

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could need as much as $125.8 billion in bailout money from taxpayers in a severe economic downturn, according to stress test results released Monday by their regulator.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency said that the government-controlled companies, which back nearly half of new mortgages, would need at least $49.2 billion.

The annual test, required by the Dodd-Frank Act, is likely to be used both by proponents of allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to build capital and by those who think there’s not an urgent need for the government to take that move.

 Under the terms of the companies’ bailout agreements, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must send nearly all of their profits to the U.S. Treasury and wind down their capital buffers until they reach zero dollars in 2018. After that point, any loss at either company would require a draw from taxpayers.

Rescue Funds

 Monday’s stress test results showed that the funds that the U.S. Treasury Department is authorized to use in a bailout are more than enough to cover the billions that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would likely lose in a crisis. The companies would have between $132.2 billion and $208.9 billion in available bailout money from the Treasury after the period of financial duress passed, according to FHFA.

The stress tests assumed an extreme adverse scenario, designed by the Federal Reserve, in which real U.S. gross domestic product dove 6.25 percent by the first quarter of next year, unemployment doubled to 10 percent by the third quarter of 2017 and inflation rose to 1.9 percent.

“A stress test for an entity that is not allowed to retain capital is an exercise in stupidity,” Tim Pagliara, chief executive officer of CapWealth Advisors, said in an e-mail.  “The only way you can fix it is to retain capital.”

Pagliara is also head of Investors Unite, a Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholder group.

‘Serious Risk’

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders, wrap them into securities and make guarantees to investors in case borrowers default. The companies have been in a conservatorship helmed by the FHFA since 2008 and received $187.5 billion in bailout money from the U.S. Treasury.

Last week, Fannie Mae reported a profit of $2.9 billion for the second quarter, while Freddie Mac reported a profit of $993 million. Freddie Mac has reported a loss in two of the past four quarters.

FHFA Director Melvin Watt in a February speech warned that the companies’ falling capital buffers could one day cause investors to doubt their guarantees of mortgage-backed securities. Such uncertainty would cause mortgage rates to go up.

“The most serious risk and the one that has the most potential for escalating in the future is the enterprises’ lack of capital,” Watt said.

Those VA Loans and Ginny Mae Loans Were ALso Securitized

Probably the most misunderstood aspect of the securitization process is that the banks are able to claim there was no securitization when in fact there was. This is especially true in GSE’s like Fannie, Freddie, Ginny and the VA. When you are researching loans you hit a brick wall when you get to the GSE. And there are terms thrown around like smoke and mirrors that this was or this is a Fannie loan and that therefore the loan was not securitized. This is wrong.

None of the GSE’s are lenders. They don’t loan money to anyone. So if the allegation is made that this was a Fannie or Freddie or VA loan from the start, then the originator was not the lender and neither was Fannie or Freddie or any other GSE. These are strictly guarantee agencies who don’t part with a nickle until the loan is foreclosed and the home is sold. THEN they guarantee up a certain amount and pay it out, drawing from the US Treasury as necessary.

All the loans that were considered GSE loans from the start constitute an admission that the loan was securitized or subjected to claims of securitization. Fannie and Freddie for example have a Master Trustee agreement in which they do nothing but they serve as the Master Trustee for asset-backed pools that have a regular trustee (who also does nothing). These pools are REMIC trusts.

As you can see from the attached files,if you will read them carefully, you will see that the custom and practice of the GSE was, if it guaranteed the loan, to serve as either the conduit or the Master trustee for an asset backed pool where the trust beneficiaries funded the origination or acquisition of the loan. This is a factor that did not get adequately covered in Shack’s excellent opinion recently in New York where he chastised Chase and others for playing with the ownership of the loan to suit the need for foreclosure instead of presenting facts that would protect the people who are actually taking a loss.

see Pooled_Loans_and_Securitizations_032309 and VA-FinancialPolicyVolumeVIChapter06

 

BULK SALES OF MORTGAGE LOANS: WHAT ARE THEY BUYING?

Wall Street is gearing up to buy properties en masse from Fannie, Freddie and other holders (including the Federal Reserve. The question for these investors is what are they buying and what are they doing?

I think these sales represent an attempt to create a filler for an empty hole in the title chain. we already know that strangers to the transaction were submitting credit bids at rigged auctions of these properties. The auctions were based upon declarations of default and instructions from a “beneficiary” that popped up out of nowhere. The borrowers frequently contested the sale with a simple denial that they ever did business with the forecloser and that the chain of “assignments” were fabricated, forged, robo-signed, surrogate signed and executed by unauthroized people on behalf of unauthroized entities.

The reason the banks and servicers resorted to such illegal tactics was that they understood full well that the origination documents were fatally defective and they were papering over the defects that continually recited the validity of the preceding documents. That is putting lipstick on a pig. It is still a pig.

While apparently complex, the transaction in a mortgage loan is quite simple — money is loaned, a note is made payable to the lender and a separate agreement collateralizes the loan as guarantee for faithful performance of repayment in accordance with the terms of the note. An examination of the money trail shows that this procedure was not followed and that the practices followed and which have become institutionalized industry standards lead to grave moral hazard, fabrication, forgery and fraud. The entire matter can be easily resolved if the forecloser is required to produce original documentation and appropriate witnesses to lay the foundation of the introduction of documents starting with the funding of the loan through the present, including all receipts and disbursements relating to the loan.

Since the receipts and disbursements clearly involve third parties whose existence was not contemplated or known at the time of origination of the loan, it would probably be wise to appoint an independent receiver with subpoena powers to obtain full records from the subservicer, Master Servicer, trustee, other co-obligors or co-venturers including the investment bank that sold mortgage bonds and investors with the sole restriction that it relate to the accounting and correspondence, agreements and other media relating to the subject loan and the subject pool claiming to own the loan.

Starting from that point, (knowing all receipts and disbursements, sources and recipients, the rest is relatively uncomplicated. Either the documents follow the money trail or they don’t. If they do, then the foreclosure should proceed. If they don’t then there are discretionary decisions of the court as well as mandatory applications of law that are required to determine whether or not the discrepancies are material.

The chain of documents relied upon by the foreclosing party is neither supported by consideration nor do the origination documents recite the terms of the transaction authorized by the lender. Hence there was no meeting of the minds. At a minimum, the recorded lien is a wild deed or should otherwise be subject to invalidation or removal from county records, and the note should be excluded as evidence of the obligation. The actual obligation runs through a different chain the terms of which were never documented between the lenders and the borrower. Hence at common law, it is a demand loan, unsecured.

But the sale from a GSE or other entity creates yet another layer of paper giving the appearance that the origination documented were valid, even though the evidence strongly points in the opposite direction. The purchase of such loans or properties would thus lead to the inevitable wrongful foreclosure suits in which the property is sought to be returned to its rightful owner, and/or compensatory and punitive damages including damages for emotional distress in California.

So my answer is that these buyers did not buy property or loans. They bought themselves into lawsuits that they will lose once discovery is opened up on the underlying transactions, all of which were faked. Is the government colluding with these “buyers” to fix an fixable title problem?

%d bloggers like this: