COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary SEE LIVINGLIES LITIGATION SUPPORT AT LUMINAQ.COM


EDITOR’S NOTE: It’s frustrating for those of us who have already done our homework. And we do need to cut the SEC some slack since none of them had the opportunity, motivational or direction to get up to speed on the use of derivatives, mortgage-backed bonds and the whole fake securitization scheme that was unfolding. In the Bush years they wanted to let the “free market” do its work. In the Obama years, they still seem to  lack the understanding that there was no free market, so it couldn’t perform any corrective action — investment banks withheld the information and created an intricate system of obfuscation that would intimidate any bright analyst of Wall Street tricks.

All that aside, it seems as though the SEC is starting to look in the right places, but the references in the media and from regulators still point to “portfolios” of loans with Fannie and Freddie. There weren’t any. These were mere conduits for sale and securitization into the secondary market. It was assumed that no bank would be stupid enough to disregard hundreds of years of banking practices of detailed documentation, transfers and recording, since it was there money on the line, and their jobs on the line. When the foreclosures came, they still didn’t make any other assumptions and they actually didn’t care since they only were the the vehicle for the guarantee of the U.S. government, the exact nature of which is subject to some legal disputes. The only act of Fannie and Freddie was to keep track of those loans that carried the guarantee. Neither one of them ever actually funded a loan directly or indirectly. And neither one actually received any documents that would, in a court of law, using established principles of substantive and procedural law, show that Fannie or Freddie “owned” the loans.

This rather obvious line of reasoning and facts is shown by the fact that neither Fannie nor Freddie ever forecloses on property. They are usually not named in bankruptcies. They are not creditors. Yet on their websites, they clearly show that the loan is a Fannie or Freddie loan giving the impression of ownership when it really only means that they acted as the conduit for fake securitization of a lot of loan documents that were fatally defective on transactions that violated Federal law — something that should have bothered them since they are both (or were) Government Sponsored Entities (GSE).

The question here at this nexus, where the highest officials of the GSE HAD to know what was going on, is whether the S.E.C. is going to prove a connection between the lack of marketplace disclosure which might have stopped the mortgage mess in its tracks. Apparently they think they can or they wouldn’t have issued the Wells notices.


Freddie Mac’s Former Chief May Face S.E.C. Action

Richard Syron, the former chief of Freddie Mac, during House testimony in 2008. Mr. Syron may face a civil action as the government ramps up an investigation at Freddie and Fannie Mae.Chris Kleponis/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesRichard F. Syron, former chief of Freddie Mac, during House testimony in 2008.

The former chief executive of Freddie Mac may face a civil action as the government ramps up an investigation of disclosure practices at the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, people briefed on the investigation said.

The executive, Richard F. Syron, a former president of the American Stock Exchange and now an adjunct professor and trustee at Boston College, has received a so-called Wells notice from the Securities and Exchange Commission, an indication the agency is considering an enforcement action against him.

Mr. Syron, who has not been accused of any wrongdoing, is the latest executive mentioned in the government’s sweeping examination of the two government-controlled companies. Three others have already been sent Wells notices, and at least two others are thought to have received them, the people briefed on the investigation said.

Last week, Daniel H. Mudd, the former chief executive of Fannie Mae, received a Wells notice, and another former Fannie executive is expected to receive one as well, these people said.

The S.E.C.’s long-running investigation is now zeroing in on how Freddie and Fannie publicly disclosed their exposure to risky loans and whether those depictions were too rosy, according to the people briefed on the investigation who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the inquiry was still under way.

Although the companies offered detailed snapshots of their mortgage portfolios, the S.E.C. is exploring whether they underreported their ownership of subprime loans and mortgages that required few documents from borrowers.

The government continues to examine the potential culpability of people and agencies involved in the mortgage mess and the subsequent financial crisis.

The Justice Department has investigated Fannie and Freddie but no charges have been brought.

The S.E.C., which has faced intense criticism for bringing few prominent cases stemming from the crisis, has now spent two years interviewing former and current employees at the two companies. If the case against Fannie and Freddie officials proceeds, it may shape up to be one of the most significant actions brought by the agency in recent years.

The S.E.C., however, could decline to file suit against any of those who received Wells notices. Recipients of such a notice can choose to challenge the allegations against them in hopes of heading off any civil action. After receiving his notice in mid-January, Mr. Syron offered a rebuttal to the possible accusations on Feb. 22, according to his lawyer, Mark D. Hopson.

“We have made a submission to the commission which demonstrates that Mr. Syron, as C.E.O., oversaw a very rigorous and fulsome disclosure process and that the company’s disclosures were in fact wholly accurate and complete,” Mr. Hopson, a partner at Sidley Austin, said in a statement. “Any proposed charges against our client are completely without merit.”

Mr. Mudd, now the chief executive at the publicly traded hedge fund Fortress Investment Group, is also planning to contest any allegations against him. So far, Mr. Mudd has the support of Fortress.

Donald J. Bisenius, an executive vice president at Freddie Mac, and Anthony S. Piszel, the former chief financial officer at Freddie, both received notices as well and are also challenging them. Mr. Bisenius plans to leave Freddie Mac, while Mr. Piszel has resigned as chief financial officer of CoreLogic.

The S.E.C. investigation centers on Fannie’s and Freddie’s disclosures from 2006 to 2008. Regulators are focusing on the way both companies reported their subprime mortgage portfolios and concentrations of loans extended to borrowers who offered little documentation, also known as Alt-A loans.

The issues relate to how the two companies defined subprime. While there is no universal definition, it is often identified with characteristics that include borrowers with low credit scores and poor payment histories. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, however, categorized loans as prime or subprime based on the lender rather than on the loan itself. At Fannie, the company adopted lenders’ differing definitions of what constituted Alt-A loans, causing the company to underreport its exposure.

During that period, however, both companies did disclose to investors breakdowns of their loan portfolios by slicing data according to borrowers’ credit scores and how much equity they had in their homes, among other information, filings show.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were public companies that operated with a Congressional mandate to foster homeownership. They do not offer loans, but instead buy up thousands of mortgages from lenders, package them and sell them as securities to investors. The lenders, for their part, use the money to offer new loans to consumers.

By 2005, lawmakers and lenders began to push the companies to delve deeper into the risky subprime markets, to enhance business and offer the chance of homeownership to a segment of the population often ignored by lenders. The companies, meanwhile, sought to regain market share that they had ceded to Wall Street.

But the billions of dollars in risky mortgages acquired at the height of the real estate bubble ultimately sank the once-mighty mortgage financiers. The Bush administration rescued Fannie and Freddie from the brink of collapse in September 2008, effectively making them wards of the federal government.

The companies have since tapped more than $100 billion from their government lifelines. Fannie recently requested an additional $2.6 billion from the Treasury Department while Freddie requested $500 million.

Last month, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said the two companies should be slowly wound down.

21 Responses

  1. When I felt I got it…things change. GMAC Bank/MERS assigned to GMAC Mortgage to foreclose. Denied loan mod of the 25 billion settlement because Fannie Mae owned my loan. Now my argument of break in chain of title is messed up…I now read Fannie Mae does not own any Mortgage as it is not the lender..So, GMAC Bank, according to the docs. prepared for the Court is correct…I know the investors loaned the money…so it would be correct for the court to assume everything was done appropriately….as GMAC Bank is on the Note.

  2. Hey guys!

    I discovered something in our 2008 foreclosure debacle happening in Cook County, Illinois. WFB, NA is the foreclosing servicer. The case is in limbo, and we filed Fed complaint in 2009.

    I demanded the mortgage co (WFHM) to provide me full accounting history and for the past 4 years in QWR’s and it has never done so, just giving me bits and pieces and focusing on thier charges and advances – but this time, the f’d up somehow and gave me parts of the history which shows payments the servicer received in 2009 and 2010 (not from us, of course). The servicer in our case seems to have received a PAYMENT of MORE THAN THE ORIGINAL LOAN AMOUNT in 2010, plus reimbursements of ALL advances from I don’t know who. On one page (intended for ME, I suppose) it shows our escrow in the negative and charges for advances forceplaced insurance and taxes; and on another page shows the same dates plus dates that are missing on the page intended for me, showing escrow balance as zero, advances due as zero, reversal of attorney charges in 2009. It is showing as “current” only corporate amounts due for ongoing property inspections. Despite The large payment, the principle amount due hasn’t changed.
    The loan is a Fannie Mae loan (I have the FNMA account number, but can’t find info on owner, HELP?).

    Our refi was originated in 2005 by mortgage banker Draper & Kramer Mortg. Corp (aka/dba 1st Advantage Mortgage Corp, Positive Mortgage Corp who had bad standing in IL on date of my 2005 mtg, DK Lending Mortgage Corp) through a warehouse lender (not sure who). MERS is nominee of DKMC. The funds came from a Lasalle Bank checking account, payable directly to Stewart Title 2 days after closing. On one of the docs I got from the Title Company loan file, there is a reference to “Bnc One”(BancOne?). I have no idea where Wells Fargo Bank, NA fits in here (could be Trustee, or warehouse bank?), but our first and all of our mtg statements always came from WFHM, and our H/O insurance decs always show WFB,NA as mortgagee – neither of whom are mentioned anywhere in our loan docs or the parts of the closing file that the Title Company will let us see.

    The lender on my mortgage doc is DKMC dba Positive, and on the note is DKMC. DKMC is nowhere on the SEC, and neither are any of its dba’s, but WFHM claims that Fannie owns the loan so I doubt that DKMC sold the loan (such sales need to be registered on the SEC, no?). I think the warehouse bank or someone else did that, or maybe the note was deposited and converted to cash (how can I find out?). I checked the UCC to see where DKMC may have gotten funds as a credit line, and only found it to be a debtor of Credit Suisse Boston a few months before our loan closed. I have yet to check its dba’s for UCC filings.
    Also, Merrill Lynch is somehow involved, because the “new” (2011) DKMC endorsement (without recourse from DKMC to WFB,NA) on the back of the copy of note I recently received shows Kathleen Lynch as DKMC ‘agent”; she is an employee of securities broker William Blair & Co. I say “new” because the copy of note originally filed in the 2008 foreclosure only had one stamp on back – an endorsement in blank “without recourse” from Wells Fargo to nobody, with Scott Swanson as Ass VP of WFB,NA. None of the endorsements are dated. All this, plus 30 days after filing foreclosure (actually, on the same date we filed appearance) WFB,NA foreclosure attorneys Pierce & Associates recorded a backdated MERS affidavit stating that MERS, acting on behalf of DKMC, transferred and assigned the Mortgage and Note to WFB,NA for value and without recourse six days before filing foreclosure. The MERS officer is one of the attorneys. To top it off, WFHM keeps saying that MERS still holds title, and that it is agent for Fannie, and that it will not release original docs until the loan is paid in full (??). I have written Fannie numerous times since 2009 and it has not responded even once. Another thing, in 2007-2008, when we first checked the MERS database for someone to contact regarding our loan (since the servicer and lender were’st responding), our loan was listed as “inactive” with WFHM as servicer – but in 2010 it was showing as “active” with Fannie Mae as “investor”. What’s up with that?

    Cook Cty case 2008CH44742 / ILND case 2009cv02115 (Wells Fargo)

    Check this – the attorney for Wells/MERS in our Fed case just recently filed a motion in the Cook County foreclosure case to substitute himself as WFB,NA’s primary attorney, but the current primary attny’s (Pierce & Ass) haven’t withdrawn. The attorney in the Fed case is a Chairman at the Illinois Mortgage Bankers Association (and the MERS officer in the affidavit is a Co-chair!).
    What I think is happening: Pierce & Associates (representing Wells Fargo) needs to get out of the case unnoticed (fraudulent MERS assignment). I think the Fed. case Wells/MERS attorney (who is on the Fannie Mae retained attorneys list) wants in the Cook Cty foreclosure case so that it can SUBSTITUTE the Plaintiff to be Fannie Mae.

    Well, just in case, I filed an objection to the substitution, outlining (again) the frauds/lack of standing and letting the court know that the Wells/MERS attorney, as well as Fannie Mae, has actual and constructive notice of the lender/servicer/MERS fraud allegations I brought in the Foreclosure case (and via our Fed case). My idea here is that if the Cook County Judge allows the substitution of primary counsel and that attorney attempts to substitute the current Plaintiff, who has no standing and unclean hands, with another Plaintiff with similar qualities, we can allege criminal fraud upon the court against both atty firms and plaintiffs. Fannie has no excuse for not appearing to defend or intervene in the Fed case or the foreclosure case. I think that if these attorneys can’t substitute firms they may try to voluntarily dismiss so they can refile with different counsel and Fannie as plaintiff, so Fannie can denounce the MERS affidavit as “erroneous” and the copy of note as outdated. Problem for Fannie, though – I filed my lis pendens and there is no Fannie Mae perfection of equitable mortgage interest and the contractual (albeit fraudulently-induced) debt obligation is owed ONLY to DKMC and it’s successors or assigns – and since I also know that DKMC could not have legally sold or assigned the debt to Fannie, Fannie can’t have legal recourse against us. Fannie will just have to fight with the entity it bought the loan from (and that entity has no recourse in contract due to fraud and unclean hands doctrine). To be able to have a secured or unsecured interest against me, Fannie will have to prove that it is my lender’s successor or assignee. FAT CHANCE OF THAT, since DKMC already caused fraudulent endorsement of (a copy of) the Note!

    We are still looking for an attorney to help us on contingency and we can’t afford retainers/big monthly payments. We have been told by many attorneys that our case is complex (ie, we may need more than one attorney, or an attorney with multiple scopes of practice), which is why we are still pro se. What do you think about it all?

    I hope there is someone out there that can put this all together somehow – if anyone can shed some light, I’d appreciate it!

  3. Ms Mary Cochrane
    I just noticed the other day what a nice response you gave me.
    I can’t seem to find your Website nor Email address.
    Could you please help me with Lasalle bank trustee for Lehman xs trust series 2007-9? . I can reimburse you for your time . I need it for Court
    Stan Putra
    Racine WI

  4. Mickey_Finn,
    I am a lawyer in Chicago and I am currently focusing my practice in Foreclosure Defense. If I can help you please give me a call.
    Tom Burdelik

  5. Why does every consumer go back to the spin, the distraction so you won’t pay attention to. the fact that foreign organizations c/o private family trusts own the real estate industry of the USA. For every mortgage you now let them steal in a foreclosure, 98 cents on the dollar leaves the country!

    The collapse of the economy was intentional.

  6. Would appreciate if someone knowledgeable could provide an answer/opinion to tom’s question below regarding the recent spike in fannie filed foreclosures in cook county.

  7. Wells Fargo Private Brand Label did the 80/20’s in secret and as SELLER of discounted loans created for their own benefit the 80 and allowed a third party to BUY the 20. Funny but they did this as custodian and are not suppose to sell properties as a bank for 30 days but the federal administratvie agency responsible for Origination oversight as designed by Congress is the Federal Reserve Board.

  8. The involvement of Freddie Mac and the exclusivity of the arrangement.caused THE BREAKUP OF HomeAdvisor Technologies as if that was a bad thing for who? Bill Gates owns part of Wells Fargo along with Warren Buffett. I wonder how many of their billions come from the 2001-2008 pillage and plunder of residential properties one mortgage at a time?

    Microsoft is content to focus its energy on the real estate industry by increasing the content and home-listing material available on its HomeAdvisor.com site and developing more technology products like Realty Desktop for Realtors.

    Microsoft is divesting itself of the mortgage platform division and says it is working with Freddie Mac, New York-based J.P. Morgan Chase and Minneapolis-based GMACRFC, which still hold an equity stake in HTI, to find a strategic buyer for the mortgage portion of HTI. Sources say the remaining equity partners will have to decide how to make the venture work with a new buyer and the same technology that was initially produced or acquired by HTI, or abandon the venture altogether.

    I’ve learned the author of articles are feed information and don’t know if the information is true or false and provides SPINN. Why NORWEST is GMACRFC acquired in 1992/1993 by Foothills and new parent Pacific Crest (Foreign Organizations).

    Norwest LTD LP LLLP and GMAC Mortgage in joint ventures. Alike former Wells Fago & Co/MN and Norwest & Extreme Networks in 2000.

  9. Freddie Mac was already in bed with Norwest Corp and Microsoft . 1996 Norwest and Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp, and GMAC-RFC, and newly acquired affiliate recognized to be the largest producer of non-conforming mortgage products were doing business virtually.

    Is Bill Gates giving away his money because he’s guilty he profitted from the evil empire’s takings of the United States of America?

    Public document:
    Microsoft Joins Forces With Freddie Mac,
    Chase Manhattan,
    GMAC-RFC … REDMOND, Wash.,
    March 16, 2000 —
    Microsoft Corp. today announced the formation of … Freddie Mac is one of the nation’s largest investors in residential … Chase, GMAC-RFC, Norwest Mortgage and Bank of America represent more than $400 …
    http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2000/…/NewCompPR.mspx – Cached

  10. What can you do if Congress ignores Wells Fargo breaks the laws, files documents with public offices to foreclouse on properties and creates loans during the default event and lies that the loan was in the pooling and servicing agreement of a particular loan trust. Was not. Banking & Insurance Frauds, took your property by deception during origination and brought into the wholesale pipeline, set you up to fail and default so they could profit from the valuable 5-Year credit enhancment on the loan trust your loan was not placed in during the default event so they could collect insurance claims (that is the Master Servicers).

  11. RE: Stanley Putra Posting Above. “My loan serviced by Wells Fargo had listed as an investor EMC//Bear Sterns/PMBS/Fannie-Mae. Wells Fargo/ASC foreclosed on the home but the sale they assigned the note and judgement to Fannie Mae with a Wells Fargo address. Then after BOA bought back their toxic securities from Fannie , the house is now owned by Fannie with a BOA address.
    Stanley P Racine Wi
    Wells Fargo is a private brand label purchased by foreign organization to trick you to trust the United States of America, U.S. Constitution, that as a reasonable person Congress had in place statutory laws both federal and state, and additional regulations and many federal administrative agencies in place to protect you as a reasonable person in the eyes of the law.

    You and I ASSuMeD we were safe when ‘purchasing’ financial products and services in the public domain. Afterall, CONGRESS is paid each year to protect the welfare of the nation and make good decisons in which the economy, now recognized to be the third element of our national security would be protected, domesitically and internationally. Look above for the ‘Wells Fargo Bank NA’ Uniform Commercial Code Statement in which Fannie Mae and Wells Fargo Bank NA div Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Instituional Lending as SERVICER did business.

    The companies you name are part of the 1992/1993 foreign organization Foothill Group Inc. subsidiary Foothill Capital Group acquiring Norwest Corporation who already included GMAC Mortgage Corporation of Iowa who does business under fictitious names including in PA, ‘GMAC Bank’ and ‘GMAC Mortgage’ dba GMAC Mortgage Corp of PA. Whether subsidairies operating as bank affilaite or non-bank affilaite they are of FREDERICK MD and wholesale broker of discounted loans.

    The foreign organization uses the ‘private brand label’ operating as a financial holding company domestic under the Federal Reserve Board since 3/13/2000 and the former Wells Fargo & Co/MN (formerly Norwest) is an independent domestic wholly owned subsidiary.

    1996 Norwest Corp already in agreements with members of financial exchanges collaborated and continue doing business under former registrations and agreements and include:

    Deutsche Bank, Bear Stearns/EMC in agreements with Lehman Borthers, Structured Asset Securities Corp, and former Wells Fargo & Co., and Goldman Sachs for SEC transactions in which money was laundered out of the nation one mortgage at a time in a Ponzi scheme the government ignores.

    1992/1993 Foothill Group Inc. and subsidiary Foothill Capital Group, Investment Securities Advisor, UBS Financial Investments, Agent Bank of America ‘BOA’ ….acquired Norwest Corp and that includes all of the 50 states agreements and operating under fictitious names.

    For example ASC is Americas Servicing Corporation a fictitous name for Norwest which morphed into Wells Fargo Home Mortgage for a time 2000-June 2004.

  12. 9/19/2007 UCC Financing Statement form IOWA

    SECURED PARTY: Fannie Mae

    DEBTOR Wells Fargo Bank NA
    Is this the Debtor’s Exact Full Legal name ?

    Mailing Address:
    1 Home Campus, Des Moines, IA 50328 USA
    typically is Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Institutional Lending SERVICER

    Type of organization: Naional_Association ?
    Jurisdiction : DC
    Organizational ID: 1741

    Federal National Mortgage Association
    (aka Fannie Mae)
    3900 Wisconsin Ave, NW, Washington DC 20016

    The collateral (the “Collateral”) that is the subject of this Financing Statement is as follows:

    (i) All those “Loans” (as defined below) that Debtor (“Lender”) has assigned, transferred, and/or sold (collectively “transferred”, “transfers”, or “transfer” as appropriate) previously to Secured Party (“Fannie Mae”) in the “Transactions” (as defined below), and

    (ii) (ii) all those Loans that Lender transfers to Fannie Mae in the future in the Transactions.

    However, any such Loan ceases to be Collateral effective if an when Fannie Mae transfers such Loan to Lender, or to any entity that is then servicing such Loan for Fannie Mae or that previously serviced such Loan for Fannie Mae.
    Loans are defined as all obligations evidenced by any of the following documents and records, all rights of ownership and possession of such documents and records, and all rights associated with ownership or possession of such documents and records:

    (i) Promissory notes and/or electronic notes (and/or participations therein),

    (ii) Including such notes secured by residential real estate and/or personal property (all of the foregoing in this clause “(i)” are collectively referred to as “Notes”),

    (iii) (ii) all documents, files and records associated with Notes that are reasonably required to originate and/or subsequently service any of the obligations evidenced by the Notes,

    (iv) (iii) all mortgages, deeds of trust, security deeds, security agreements, or other security devices that secure any of the Notes, and

    (v) (iv) if retail installment contracts (and/or participations therein) are used in any past or future Transaction, then references to Notes in (i),
    (ii), and (iii) and shall also include the retail installment contracts, insofar as applicable.

    The transactions in which the Collateral has been (or will be) transferred to Fannie Mae are referred to herein collectively as the “Transactions.”

    The Transactions include both those in which Lender receives cash, and those in which Lender receives mortgage-backed securities, from Fannie Mae at the conclusion of the Transaction.

    Lender and Fannie Mae both intend that all of the Transactions are and will be true, absolute, and unconditional sales by Lender to Fannie Mae of all of the Lender’s right, title, and interest in Collateral, and not pledges of such Collateral by Lender to Fannie Mae.

    If, however, notwithstanding that intent of the parties, a court or other appropriate forum shall ever finally hold that the Collateral (or any portion thereof) is still the property of the Lender, then it is the intent of the parties that Lender’s title to such Collateral is subject to a security interest (granted by lender to Fannie Mae at the time of transfer) in all of Lender’s right, title and interest in such Collateral that is still the property of the Lender, to secure payment or performance of all of the Lender’s obligations relating to , or arising under, the Transactions and/or under any commitments, contracts or other agreements applicable to the Transactions, including the payment of principal, interest and other sums due to Fannie Mae.

    This filing is effective as of its filing date.

    CSC, 801 Adlai Stevenson Dr, Springfield IL 62703 8009279800 qsconfirmations@casinfo.com fax: 302-555-5555
    Iowa Corporations
    UCC Certified
    Federal Tax Liens

    28E Agreement
    UCC Alternative
    Financial Disclosure

    UCC Alternative – Display

    Name searched: (B) WELLS FARGO

    UCC Debtors & Secured Parties

    Debtor B

    Secured B

    UCC Filings
    FINANCING STATEMENT 9/19/2007 1:31 PM 1

    Home|State of Iowa|Site Map|Disclaimer|Contact Us

  13. E.Tolle- great analogy likening principal reduction/correction to a bank robber giving back the ones and fives while keeping the fifties and hundreds.

  14. Does anyone have an insight here? In December of 2010 and JAN/FEB of this year Fannie Mae has filed hundreds of foreclosure lawsuits in Cook County, IL. More in December that in the 6 previous YEARS combined! Why the change in strategy?

  15. Fannie Freddie loans orignated in sub prime 80- 20 programs ….but endorsed AFTER THE FACT…..cost to consumers is 2.5% higher rate and they pay teh insurance.

    Believe it or not …..sham ‘


  16. Stanley Putra,

    Then it is not Fannie.

  17. Think this investigation will go much further that the article suggests.

    Question — how did Wall Street gain ground on the mortgage market that was previously dominated by Freddie/Fannie??

    Answer — loans had to be intercepted. Wall Street would have no interest IF Fannie/Freddie retained loans rights. Wall Street had to get the loans OUT of the hands of Freddie/Fannie. And, any fraudulent means — was game. Fannie/Freddie – to their detriment — were compliant.

  18. I think the original business models for Fannie and Freddie were not corrupt but were corrupted by criminals and criminal practices. As usual, the powers that be are trying to blame it on the homeowner/common man. We, the people, are paying for Wall Street’s crimes. First, they screwed us and then they are making us pay for it. Gotta do something drastic about this. Burmese8@yahoo.com

  19. This has been my thing all along.

    My investor is Fannie Mae…but my servicer is First Mortgage Corp.

    I am not behind or late, but I want to smoke these bastards out.

    Any ideas?

    QWR came back from the Servicer. Copies of Copies of the note, nothing more.

  20. My loan serviced by Wells Fargo had listed as an investor EMC//Bear Sterns/PMBS/Fannie-Mae. Wells Fargo/ASC foreclosed on the home but the sale they assigned the note and judgement to Fannie Mae with a Wells Fargo address. Then after BOA bought back their toxic securities from Fannie , the house is now owned by Fannie with a BOA address.
    Stanley P
    Racine Wi

  21. Their entire phraseology is corrupt, and reflects the whole “deadbeats” argument that they spin so well.

    They say:

    “Regulators are focusing on the way both companies reported their subprime mortgage portfolios and concentrations of loans extended to borrowers who offered little documentation, also known as Alt-A loans.”

    Should read:

    “Regulators are focusing on the way both companies reported their subprime mortgage portfolios and concentrations of loans extended to borrowers when the lenders decided that centuries old underwriting standards weren’t necessary.”

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: