Wells Fargo-Cendent-Cayman Connection Described


Submitted by Mary Cachrane

Editor’s Note: This is where the original SIV’s stashed the illicit profits they received by taking more money from investors than the amount they intended to use to fund mortgages. We call that the tier two yield spread premium that is also undisclosed at the time of borrower’s closing and which is a ticking time bomb… waiting for some smart competent lawyer to look up the statutes and realize that there’s money in them thar hills. I’m talking gold here.

Your have to find all of the agreements for all of the third partys to show the relationship back to WFC HOLDINGS CORP who benefits (1) owner thru Cayman Islands – since purchase 11/1998 of Wells Fargo & Co. logo. Afterall its just an address of an entity registered in DE organized to appear American – it’s not America.

PHH core of secondary sub-servicing relationships pulled into WFC in 1998 thru over

Depository Trust Company
CeCE & Co.
55 Water Street, NY NY 10041
representing sole registra on behalf of brokers, dealers, banks and other participatns in the DTC system. Such participants may hold Certificates for their own accounts.
Filed on behalf of Cendant Mortgage Capital LLC,
by Cendant Mortgage Corporation as Master Servicer for
CDMC Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2002-1.

14 Responses

  1. Must the foreclosure hold in his or her possession the original Deed and Note ? My question directly relates to the original document , no the copy or a copy of what is listed in the land records. Please answer.

  2. cause they took your payments and never applied it to a trust in the first place. it is called modern slavery. Yes, Fannie and Freddie knew this. The theme here is to Bankrupt you which is shy many homeowners are now in the BK courts. This is only a way to re-write a loan which never existed or just the opportunity to clean the slate of the loan,and start all over by erasing all documents in the land records. Just look at the rate of foreclosures due to BK. The employers are all in on the act at this point. The DOD, Aerospace and Aviations and all of your companies within your city and primarily the teachers pensions , firefighters, police officers and all government employees. What becomes most interesting is the non profit organizations , which is The Childrens Fund and the Catholic Charities. One should look deep into the mass fraud.

  3. Dear “PJ,”

    The history inside each 10K extremely important for the entities who sell stock to consumers there is enough information to piece together the relationships. You only have a slice of Cendant and PHH – not a clear understanding at all.

    Remember COMMERCE is 3-D. Each transcation where currency exchanges hands governed by law. Each individual transaction.

    Cendant Settlement & Services is a joint venture using a private brand label that ‘Trustee’ Wells Fargo Bank NA and Goldman morphed end of 2005 into (4) that is four IPO’s.

    Hummm… Cendant they were “absorbed” by PHH after the CEO was charged with securities fraud…

    Bank NY Mellon (formed in 2007) with the merger of The Bank of NY & Mellon Financial… aka BONY… now there is some interesting stuff … there is something very fishy going on in

  4. indio007

    Think you are making good points – my exception is with “external contracts” – everything relevant to the sale of MBS via the Trust – was internal – this is required for sale of MBS – and is directly related to the sale of loans to the Trust and sale of certificates from the “Trust” – and filed with the SEC (of course, to a limited degree as most then claimed 15-D exemptions for continued filings). We do not know what happened after limited period of time. But, there can be no external contracts – unless they were never really securities.

    The Purchase Agreement plays a vital role on WHAT TYPE type of recourse an investor might have against a note seller. This agreement contains certain representations and warranties that the seller makes in order for the investor to purchase the note. If conditions are not met, “without recourse” is invalid.

    Usually, as you state, “without recourse” means an investor can only seek recourse against the payer or property for nonpayment of the note. However, if certain representations and warranties were not met – and the Purchase Agreement includes mandate of repurchase if not met (which all MLPAs included) – then the investors have recourse against the seller. This is what is occurring. And, this challenges the negotiability of the note from the onset.

    You cannot have it two different ways – forced repurchase by “investors” due to misrepresentations and warranties – but still negotiable as to the borrower. Granted, the investor challenges are still pending, but they are massive – if successful.

    And, let me say, far more loans were repurchased than anyone knows – and before investors started demanding repurchase. Where is that reflected on any updated Mortgage Schedules (do not exist)? Happen to know – it is not reflected.

  5. FOR DAVE KRIEGER…Please contact me privately. I have some ideas that I would like to bounce off you. Maybe another way to skin this cat.

  6. To anonymous:

    I agree with everything you said .

    My point was the banks don’t want to be subjected to the limited defenses available on a promissory note.
    There is no need for an external contract for repurchase when an unrestricted endorsement would fulfill that purpose .

    The reason for the separate contract is more ways to weasel out of it than a note gives.


  8. indio007,

    Sure – but the Repurchase and stipulations is contained within the same Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement – it is not a separate contract – it is the same document and contract under the stated Trust and SEC filings. Thus, none of the note endorsements were actually “without recourse.”

    However, many of the repurchase demands were not executed because the banks often looked the other way – until they became massive – and the originators were shut down.

    Most of the endorsements were in blank – only when they knew there was no longer any recourse, are the notes actually endorsed to the trustee. But, they did not know this at the time of the trust set-up.

    And, the notes are executed before foreclosure – they are sold at steep discounts to the servicer and removed from the trust – at this point there is no recourse..

    It is at the inception of the trust – that the notes were not actually negotiable. Thus, the trust never actually owned the notes – they did not have to – because only the receivables are passed-through.

    If there was a separate contract for Repurchases – it would have had to have been filed with the SEC – along with other documents. There was no separate contract – the Repurchase agreement was part of the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement – they were one and the same.

  9. hi,
    As I see in your post there is good information available on sukuk .Sukuk is an alternate way of investment where the investor get the benefits of investment and its treated as rent on investment, to avoid the interest on investment which is strictly prohibited in Islam.I have also some site and blog ,I have write on same topic check my post : http://portfolioanalyst.blogspot.com/2010/09/islamic-debt-bond-market.html.

    I want to write on guest post for your blog based on change on the Islamic debt market.If you agree than contact me at roseanderson26@gmail.com

  10. It’s CeDe and Co. not Cece. It’s a very apt name.

    In regards to “without recourse”. The banks are compelled by statute. They can’t transfer the note without this verbiage on it’s face.

    To exercise by its board of directors or duly authorized officers or agents, subject to law, all such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking; by discounting and negotiating promissory notes, drafts, bills of exchange, and other evidences of debt; by receiving deposits; by buying and selling exchange, coin, and bullion; by loaning money on personal security; and by obtaining, issuing, and circulating notes according to the provisions of title 62 of the Revised Statutes. The business of dealing in securities and stock by the association shall be limited to purchasing and selling such securities and stock without recourse, solely upon the order, and for the account of, customers, and in no case for its own account, and the association shall not underwrite any issue of securities or stock

    If they signed the notes “with recourse” or just endorsed it they would have to satisfy the note before their could be a foreclosure because the would be an accommodation party and have the liability to pay the note.

    Of course the banks are devious and employ a side repurchase agreement as a separate contract.

    The banks have devised a complex artifice of cherry picking applicable laws via multiple documents. A trust here, a promissory note there , a separate loan agreement over there…. all for the purpose of insulating itself of any liability to anyone.

    A complete abuse of the four corners rule.

  11. dny

    Excuse my lengthy post – I thought I got over that.

    Assuming all was valid – which it was not – it was the originator that “underwrote” the loans – who then sold the loans to the Depositor – who sells certificates to “security underwriter. Note – a mortgage originator underwriter is not the same as a security underwriter.

    All of this simply means that the security underwriter’s parent corporation purchased the whole loans for the purpose of securitization (removable of their receivables from balance sheet). Mortgage Loan Purchase agreements include a Repurchase Agreement with a laundry list of stipulations in which the originator – who sold the loans – must repurchase the loans. If you examine this laundry list – every loan originated – should have been repurchased – and, of course, the note was then “with recourse” – not “without recourse.”

    Repurchases were a major trigger for the mortgage crisis meltdown – and what fundamentally shut down many of the now defunct originators – New Century, Ameriquest, Countrywide, Fremont, etc. etc. As the repurchase demands became fast and furious – the originatosr could not fulfill their obligations – and, therefore, went under.

    Today, since the originators are largely gone, “investors” and Fannie/Freddie, and maybe the Federal Reserve Bank of NY – who holds Maiden Lane for government, are demanding repurchase of non-compliant loans from the Depositors – who purchased the loans from the originators – and organized the Trusts that held the loans.

    In effect, the Depositors owned the Trust – which was just a vehicle for pass-through of receivables to the loans. But, the whole loans were also converted to securities by the Trust organization. And, securities just meant the pass-through of the mortgage loan receivables was asset-backed – and therefore, (falsely) rated Triple A.. The certificates to Trusts were then sold to security underwriters – to market the tranches – or keep them for themselves for CDOs and other derivatives.

    In most securitizations, the Depositor – and the security underwriter – were subsidiaries of the same Wall Street Bank – the ultimate party who actually purchased the loans from originators – and the only party who reported financial statements and balance sheets. Also, the only party to remove receivables from on- to off balance sheets – and the only party to now take those off-balance sheets back onto their balance sheets.

    Occasionally, there were securitizations in which Depositor was not a a subsidiary of the Wall Street bank – and appeared to be a subsidiary of the originator. These securitizations were simply fronts – for actual party who purchased the loans – since an originator could not sell loans to “itself.” It is possible that these securitizations were directly related to Fannie/Freddie – but many of the other securitizations were also “Deals” or “Wraps” between Wall Street and Fannie/Freddie..

    Now, many of the repurchases were executed – returned to originator – but this will NEVER be disclosed. In this case, the originator would sell the repurchased loans to hedge funds/scratch and dent buyers/distressed debt buyers who would then synthetically market the repurchases as “securities” (not really securities) to investors. But, the foreclosure mills will still claim the loan remained in the original trust – which is false..

    If loans now in default were not repurchases – then they have likely been removed and sold by now anyway. – unless they are not salable – in which case they still remain with Wall Street Bank – or Fannie/Freddie.

    For those entities/investors that are now demanding repurchases – this demand is, in effect, a demand for compensation related to the “bad” loans that were sold by originators – to depositors – to security underwriters – with receivables passed-through to security investors (never the creditor according to TILA Amendment and Fed Res Opinion (now rule).. It is the security underwriters parent that these entities/investors are now going after. That is, as we all should know by now – Wall Street – the big banks that owned the Depositors, the security underwriters, and who orchestrated the whole fiasco.

    I am just amazed that these repurchase demands are occurring – and years later – when repurchases are not even broached in courts of law for foreclosures (nor is the laundry list for repurchase broached). Not one case I have seen deals with this issue. But is huge – and, as I state above – a big cause of the meltdown – and a big issue today.. Investors are way ahead of us in court – and, these investors are only demanding restitution for investments lost – they are not the party who benefit from foreclosure recovery.

    The advantage “investors” have over us is BIG law firms on their side – because the law firms will make a hefty commission. No law firm reaps a big profit by single foreclosure defense.

    It is all about money – always has been – always will be. We only have advantage – we are large in number. We have to use that advantage to our best ability.

  12. Hummm… Cendant they were “absorbed” by PHH after the CEO was charged with securities fraud… sentenced to prison in 9/2009. However…. Cendant has been showing up in many foreclosure action’s to date which is rather interesting since SEC filings with Cendent/PHH indicate funding for the later “fleet management” business with WF also involved.

    The thing to watch is PHH’s cozy relationship with TARP Custodian and $3 Billion TARP bail out recipient Bank NY Mellon (formed in 2007) with the merger of The Bank of NY & Mellon Financial… aka BONY… now there is some interesting stuff … there is something very fishy going on in Philadelphia!

  13. Pinnacle, Indymac, Wells, Cendant through PHH, with head quarters in PA, First Magnus Financial, J.P. Morgan Chase, all used this detour to make trillions of dollars and then come back to us the TAX payers through or Corrupt Congress people for a bail out. Come on.

    Yes there is gold, but most lawyer I have talked to, are for some reason freaked at the idea of going into Federal Court.
    That is where TILA has teeth

  14. Yes, and these SIV’s, SPE’s, SPV’s, whatever you want to call them (that probably funded the loans in the first place, and also probably don’t even exist any more) must complicate any attempts by “investors” (Fannie, Freddie, certificate holders, etc.) to force the “originators” (read “pretender lenders”) to “repurchase” the “loans!”

    ANONYMOUS, Regardless of “warranties” said to be made, have to ask, “repurchase?” – WHO is “repurchasing,” exactly? And TO WHOM does the repurchase money flow to? If the “originator” never funded the “loan,” how can they possibly be on the hook to “repurchase?”

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: