Livinglies's Weblog

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

LIVINGLIES-GARFIELD CONTINUUM BLOG

Our normal securitization analysis does not include the loan level accounting and analysis. That is a whole other project. The reason you MIGHT want it is that it would show, among other things, to whom payments were being made, the status being reported to the investors or the trust, and any other activity involving money that is reported between the servicer and the “trustee.”This information frequently reveals that while the homeowner has received a notice of default, a notice of sale or even notice that a sale has occurred, the distribution (payment on your loan) is continuing (through payment by the servicer) and being reported as performing. Or it might show that distribution reports stopped some time ago which would be a very strong indication that the “trust” has been dissolved, repackaged or otherwise resolved. Those reports might even show that the servicer stopped making payments even while the homeowner was still current.

LOAN LEVEL ACCOUNTING AND REPORT

Normally we are able to pierce through to the loan level data. In some cases, it is not available using any of the search methods we employ. In order for us to do a review and report on the loan level data, tracing the money back and forth to determine the presumptive creditor, you will need to employ discovery procedures in court. If you get it, we will be able to do the analysis and report.

We can only offer conjecture why the parties deviated from normal reporting procedures. It is possible that the loan was assigned to one pool and then treated as though it was another pool or pools. That happens sometimes. Of course since the title record shows nothing in the way of transfers and data is at best questionable from intermediaries like MERS that have databases crammed false data on a platform that is not secure, there is no other way for us to get it.

It is also possible that they intentionally or unintentionally changed the naming convention at the loan level which would go back to the idea that the loan was “assigned” (without documentation) to one pool, but the money was used for “another” pool. In this case, if the name was changed, the “other” pool might be the same pool. Although we do perform a sweep to try to catch the name of the pool that is reported in the securitization report, the result sometimes is “no hit.” More often than not, we do get a “hit” because the “trust” is already in litigation somewhere. You might want to have your attorney check through Pacer and see if any case in litigation uses the same name of the “trust.”

Keep in mind that the “trust” is probably not legally constituted so maneuvers like the ones we are speculating about easily occur. In the absence of an actual trust document naming a trustor, trustee and beneficiaries that is properly named and registered under applicable state law there is no way to trace whether the trusts were simply intermingled or used interchangeable at the will of the investment banking firm that originated the securitization process. If necessary I can give you an affidavit describing the above, if it will help you in court.

Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud | Tagged: loan level analysis, loan level data, securitization report and analysis |