Profits Surge as Declared Losses Vanish: Are the defaults real?

And THAT is why you are entitled to compel discovery, compel answers to your QWR, DVL and other requests. If the losses were not real, if the pools were marked down solely on the say-so of the financial institutions that created them, if the default rate was really much lower than the declared defaults, if AMBAC, AIG and others made payments on those pools, and if the investors, as the creditors in the loan transactions received payments directly or indirectly (through their agents) then some part of those payments were allocatable and should be allocated to your loan. Thus all loans in the pool should be credited pro rata with the amounts received from third party payments. Homeowner obligations declared in default would then be either premature or incorrectly stated in the amount due. Other loans that were not delinquent should have had the principal reduced — none of which was accounted for because the intermediary pretender lenders kept the money for themselves.

Editor’s Note: Ambac’s Profit Surge is the result of illusory losses that are now being recaptured. The “game” was to declare huge losses, take in taxpayer dollars and then gradually filter the money back into the company thus creating guaranteed earnings rising steadily and thus providing an increase in the price-earnings ratio. The investment houses are doing the same thing. They made trillions of dollars is cash profits, declared trillions in paper losses and scared the public and government into giving them money to prevent the collapse of the financial system.

Since trust and confidence in the system is the foundation, it didn’t matter whether they were telling the truth as long as most people believed the lie. The taxpayer bailout was necessary as a symbolic gesture to assure the world that there was always backing by the U.S. Federal government.

The question for these institutions is whether the defaults in home loans were declared prematurely (or falsely) or even caused by policies designed to give credence to the big lie and to provide them with yet another source of windfall profits by picking up homes that are sold in foreclosure at a fraction of the original loan amount. As stated in numerous articles before on this blog, the ONLY people who actually lost money are the investors who advanced the real money into a pool that was used to fund mortgage closings (and also used to fund absurd profits on fees, yield spread premiums etc.) and the homeowners who advanced their homes as collateral on loan products that were sold to them under false pretenses. Both the mortgage backed securities and the loans were sham financial transactions.

And THAT is why you are entitled to compel discovery, compel answers to your QWR, DVL and other requests. If the losses were not real, if the pools were marked down solely on the say-so of the financial institutions that created them, if the default rate was really much lower than the declared defaults, if AMBAC, AIG and others made payments on those pools, and if the investors, as the creditors in the loan transactions received payments directly or indirectly (through their agents) then some part of those payments were allocatable and should be allocated to your loan. Thus all loans in the pool should be credited pro rata with the amounts received from third party payments. Homeowner obligations declared in default would then be either premature or incorrectly stated in the amount due. Other loans that were not delinquent should have had the principal reduced — none of which was accounted for because the intermediary pretender lenders kept the money for themselves.

By Alistair Barr & John Spence, MarketWatch

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — Ambac Financial Group Inc. shares surged 71% on heavy volume Friday, after the bond insurer said it swung to a fourth-quarter net profit.

Ambac (ABK 1.10, +0.46, +71.47%) said late Thursday that quarterly net income was $558.1 million, or $1.93 a share. That compares with a net loss of $2.34 billion or $8.14 a share in the same period a year earlier.

The improvement was mainly driven by a $472 million tax benefit, the company said, as well as by lower expenses from losses in its main financial-guarantee business.

Total net loss and loss expenses were $385.4 million in the fourth quarter of 2009, down from $916.4 million in the final quarter of 2008, Ambac reported.

Ambac, one of the world’s largest bond insurers, has been hit hard by losses from mortgage-related guarantees it sold during the housing-market boom of the last decade. When the real-estate market collapsed, Ambac was left paying big claims on those guarantees.

Last month, the regulator of Ambac’s main bond-insurance subsidiary, Wisconsin’s Office of the Commissioner of Insurance, seized a big chunk of its business to protect hundreds of billions of dollars in guarantees on municipal bonds. See Read about Ambac “amputation.”

Ambac also has been settling some of its obligations at large discounts, partly because counterparties worry that the bond insurer is too financially precarious to pay anywhere near 100 cents on the dollar on its guarantees.

//

“The transfer of structured finance obligations to the state regulator and the subsequent payment at a discounted rate is a de-facto default,” said Egan-Jones Ratings, a rating agency that’s paid by investors rather than issuers, on Friday. “However, credit quality of the remaining corpus is enhanced.”

Egan-Jones affirmed its rating on Ambac at BB+, but noted this rating only applies to the business units that aren’t seized by the Wisconsin regulator.

Shares of Ambac dropped after the seizure was announced, and recently traded near 50 cents. The company’s stock traded close to $100 before the financial crisis.

On Friday, the stock surged 71% to close at $1.10 as almost 200 million shares changed hands. The average weekly trading volume is 72 million shares, according to FactSet data.

Still, Jim Ryan, an equity analyst at Morningstar, said Ambac’s quarterly results weren’t as strong as suggested by the company’s reported net income of $1.93 a share.

“For all the favorable accounting benefits, the fact remains that Ambac has not written any new business in more than a year and continues to exist in runoff mode,” Ryan wrote in a note to investors on Friday.

When analyzing insurers in “runoff,” investors should try to work out whether there are enough reserves to settle claims on existing policies, Ryan explained.

Ambac’s qualified statutory capital fell almost 70% in 2009 while total claims paying resources dropped 20% for the year, he noted.

“With little improvement in the housing market (Ambac’s primary source of claims) and the potential for a double dip in housing prices on the horizon, which could contribute to the growing inventory of potential foreclosures, we think the future remains opaque, to say the least,” Ryan wrote.

Alistair Barr is a reporter for MarketWatch in San Francisco. John Spence is a reporter for MarketWatch in Boston.

11 Responses

  1. Without REMORSE or SADNESS, I am obligated to report a DEATH today. Even with the ethereal efforts of Goldman’s “God’s Workers”, a fateful fatality has occurred.

    ———————

    from: The Home Equity Theft Reporter

    Proposal To Make Florida Non-Judicial Foreclosure State Dies In Committee

    In Tallahassee, Florida, The Palm Beach Post reports:

    * Proposed legislation that would allow banks to foreclose on Florida homes without going to court died in a House committee Monday, giving supporters scant hope for success this year. “We knew this was a big change in Florida law and we were asking a lot for it to happen in one session,” said Anthony DiMarco, executive vice president for government affairs for the Florida Bankers Association. “When you have this kind of policy change, it can take more than one year.”

    (me: hopefully NEVER Mr. DiMarco. May your Bankster Pipe Dreams Never NEVER never..come to pass. We must ALL unite and fight ETERNALLY against this ugly head of TYRANNY.)

  2. Jul
    you have to host it online elsewhere & just post a link here,

  3. Can anyone tell me how I can copy a pdf scanned (by mortgage company) to here? I have documents I want to put up under this post

    Thanx

  4. dave
    the booooooo was not aimed at you…no far from it.
    it was the peanut gallery chant asking where is the justice ..or more like it is just us. thank you for the well founded info!

  5. Dave
    fwiw this same judge [A. J. rules in another BK case “this court is aware of the”hwang ruling ” in south cal district by Bufford , and is not [persuaded ] and or chooses to not follow it. this is the nrth dist of cal .[9th cir].
    The lines between -debtor & creditor , appear to be “preconceived as such disallow any challenge” , the fact that the note/mortgage were split from the deed of trust renders the mortgage unenforceable. There are enough cases to bring that into question, short of a 9th cit BAP decision or supreme court. so these other case are only persuasive…booooooooo

  6. Dave Krieger

    your comments are right on point , but if the bk judge wants to abstain from hearing the case, my contesting a lien [validity ] is a core matter not avail outside the title 11 jurisdiction . The judges comment ” counsel i believe this case should be heard in another court” , Isnt lien validity outside the other courts [ both district or federal] jurisdiction?
    please correct me if i am missing the obvious ,i am far from anything that is legal expert, i am at best a fairly well read amateur under the dilution that raising relative comments or statements, pleadings re; documentation proving a correct chain of title is not the concern of a judge who wishes to abstain!.. how is this issue “forced” by legal pleading to mandate jurisdiction to circumvent “discretion of abstaining”?

    TIA!

  7. Humm, the point of the above blog article in pro-rata, if my simple mind serves me right… This is something that as never been discussed before… how many times have loans been sold over and over again in MBS pools at the face value at signing despite the true value when the loan was sold and or assigned… Assuming that the loan was current and not in default at the time of sale, with a decreased principle balance due to timely pay-downs in principle and interest ,at the time of sale, would that not constitute fraud on not only the investors, but the American Taxpayer, who funded the bailouts covering undisclosed true values in MBS pools with money that never existed, or until 2007 had never been printed.

    Again in my simple mind quite a few of the American homeowners have already bailed themselves out. Correct me if I am wrong.

  8. “angry” and “J” … suits in Law and suits in Equity are two different animals. Article III standing doesn’t apply because we are all in Article I contracts. This is administrative because a contract is involved and the only thing impairing performance of that contract is the fact the bank can’t find it and now has to dummy up paperwork. We as consumers however can’t take up that issue because we look like “patriot movement” right-wing conspiracy theorists in front of the judge … it won’t work. Attorneys need to STOP playing the MERS conspiracy angle in court because it’s detracting the case from the real issues, like the phony assignments being drafted AFTER the fact.

    Now that it’s been exposed where the Achille’s heel is we need to go after that, especially in the non-judicial states. I am working with cases right now where foreclosure was commenced and the borrowers received NO NOTICE OF DEFAULT and MERS and its new assignee did everything bass ackwards taking the home away. The trust appointed a trustee to the property before MERS conveyed it. MERS supposed “certified official” signed off on it, except MERS is in “Flint, MI” and this “official” signed off on it in St. Louis, MO (where the law firm handing the foreclosure is located). Pretty soon, it will be commonplace for these fools to attempt to get one over by dummying up paperwork (i.e. Harpster in FL).

    There is enough ammunition with MERS as a player alone without even having to bring up Wall Street and its chicanery. Sure, we may have proceeds coming back to us; but I am not sure the other side is going to let you “dip” that far into their cookie jar … and honestly, what homeowner has the funds to take on Barclays or Lehman and the pretender lenders wanting to keep you away from the fraud. You will have to find a judge that will run roughshod over the lender’s rights … and I just don’t think we’re at that juncture yet.

    Go back to two or three key points and drive those home. That’s how you win cases … not playing darts with issues. (i.e. If you know TILA and RESPA’s statute of limitations have run out, use another angle)

    First, the fact that the note/mortgage were split from the deed of trust renders the mortgage unenforceable. There are enough cases to bring that into question.

    Second, faulty or no paperwork. There is a foreclosure case in Johnson County, Kansas right now that is about to slam dunk Mellon Bank. They have had since last December to produce original paperwork but cannot (and MERS recorded this Deed of Trust). Judges will NOT let electronic records be submitted as proof. They want the originals. There will be a quiet title action filed subsequent to the Motion to Dismiss being granted. The defendant lost his insurance license after the foreclosure showed up on his credit report and now the bank can’t even prove it owns the note. Now you have economic interference coming back from the other direction. I think a free and clear mortgage is just compensation for that.

    Here’s something else for those of you worried about getting a 1099-C from the lender, post victory … if the lender can’t prove they own the home, they certainly can’t be sending out phony 1099-C’s to homeowners showing they made an income when the lender can’t even prove they owned the note to begin with. That should trigger a criminal investigation with the IRS if the lender even dares to go that route. And MERS has absolutely NO right to send out a 1099-C!

  9. Not being a lawyer, I like to keep it simple so the
    Judges understand what I’m talking about.
    Under Glass-Steigel, the commercial banks could
    monetize the value of real estate, but they had to keep
    the Notes for themselves and live off the measely (for a banker) interest on this money created out of nothing.
    After the repeal, they could sell these Notes to
    third parties and get real cash. Essentially, they went
    into the counterfeiting business. This created a
    bubble in housing prices which could only last as
    long as it took the borrowers to start defaulting en
    masse. When that happened, investors stopped
    buying those bonds backed by real estate Notes
    and the whole Ponzi scheme collapsed.
    Many banks were so into this, that when the
    gravy train stopped, they collapsed and came running
    to Uncle Sam for a bailout. Those banks had lost
    the “death-gamble” and should have died so that
    their debtors (who won the “death-gamble”) would
    own their properties free and clear. Most of those
    debtors had been ripped off by inflated appraisals
    and income finagling by the brokers. They deserved
    to win the “death gamble”. The gambling banks should have gotten what they deserved, death!
    Instead, our stupid and profligate Congress
    came to their rescue with tax payer dollars so they
    could rise again and continue to hound the debtors
    who should have won the “death-gamble”.
    MORT-GAGE, = DEATH-GAMBLE in French. Gager=
    to gamble. When you gamble, expect to lose and
    don’t whine about it. The banks had their whining
    listened too by Congress but the debtors are not
    getting theirs listened to by Congress or most
    Judges. DEAD BANKS HAVE NO EQUITY, IT PASSES
    TO THE DEBTOR. PRETENDER LENDERS HAVE
    NO EQUITY EITHER! JUDGES WAKE UP!

  10. “Does the Law of Equity not apply in any part of the courts anymore?”

    Not a consumer pro se party.

  11. The same thing applies to Chase. They were able to write down all of the WAMU loans acquired to a zero balance in the FDIC takeover because they were all so toxic. 191 Billion worth per the Asset and Liability report. It is very telling though as they then added them to the Chase balance sheet at 176 Billion to the good. So then they come back and report that they will incur huge losses on the loans as they are expected to default up to 85%. Now they write them down to 88 Billion.

    It is all accounting fraud and such failure to pay any consideration for them leaves me with a question of Article III standing. If they have no economic damage how can they prove the standing to foreclose?

    Does the Law of Equity not apply in any part of the courts anymore?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: