MARY COCHRANE DOING HER HOMEWORK ON INDYMAC FRAUD

Cross Reference info on Huffington.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/13/former-indymac-execs-fraud_n_822538.html#postComment

MERS MEMBER:
Corporate Name: IndyMac Venture, LLC
Address: 888 East Walnut Street
City,State,Zip: Pasadena, CA 91101
Toll Free Number: (800) 669-2300
Direct Number: (626) 535-5555
Fax Number: (626) 535-7854
Primary Contact: Sandy Schneider
Website: http://www.owb.com

Member Org ID: 1008191
Lines Of Business: Originator, Servicer, Subservicer, Investor, Document Custodian
eRegistry Participant: No
eDelivery Participant: No

COUNTRYWID¬E MORTGAGE INVESTMENT¬S, INC.
Jurisdicti¬on DE, 95-3983415 IRS ID#
Exchange where registered¬:
New York Stock Exchange
Commission File# 1-8972
Countrywid¬e Mortgage Investment¬s, Inc. (“CMI” or the “Company”) was incorporat¬ed
in the State of Maryland on July 16, 1985 and reincorpor¬ated in the State of
Delaware on March 6, 1987. The Company has elected to be taxed as a real estate
investment trust (“REIT”) under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended
(the “Code”).

Exhibit 3.1

CERTIFICAT¬E OF AMENDMENT
OF CERTIFICAT¬E OF INCORPORAT¬ION
OF COUNTRYWID¬E MORTGAGE INVESTMENT¬S, INC.

Countrywid¬e Mortgage Investment¬s, Inc. has caused this certificat¬e to be signed by Angelo R. Mozilo, its President, and Sandor E.
Samuels, its Secretary, this 11th day of December, 1993

Indymac Bancorp Inc • ‘S-3′
CMO Collateralized Mortgage Obligation

During the mortgage loan origination process or upon early payment default, CWM MORTGAGE HOLDINGS, INC. (“CWM”) 35 North Lake Avenue, Pasadena, California 91101-1857 (formerly Countrywide Mortgage Investments, Inc.) is at risk of loss to the extent that such seller does not perform its obligations

CWM acts as master servicer with respect to the mortgage loans it sells.
Master Servicing includes collecting loan payments from servicers of loans and remitting loan payments, less master servicing fees and other fees, to a trustee for each series of mortgage-backed securities master serviced.

Master Servicer, CWM, monitors compliance with its servicing guidelines.

CWM is required to perform, or to contract with a third party to perform, all obligations not adequately performed by any servicer.

CWM Master Servicing as of 9/30/1994:
27,084 loans $6.3 billion outstanding principal balance

REMIC – CWM Master Services on a non-recourse basis substantially all of the mortgage loans it purchases.

Each series of mortgage-backed securities is typically fully payable from the mortgage assets underlying such series, and the recourse of investors is limited to those assets and any credit enhancement features, such as insurance.

Generally, any losses in excess of the credit enhancement (insurance) obtained are borne by the security holders.

Except in the case of a breach of the standard representations and warranties made by CWM when mortgage loans are securitized, the securities are non-recourse to CWM.

Typically, CWM will have recourse to the sellers of loans for any such breaches, but there can be no assurance as to the SELLER’s abilities to honor their respective obligations.

CWM established mortgage loan purchase commitments (‘Master Commitments’) with SELLERS that, subject to certain conditions, entitle the SELLER to SELL and obligate CWM to PURCHASE (BUY) a specified dollar amount of non-conforming mortgage loans over a period generally ranging from three months to one year.

Master Commitment specify whether a SELLER may sell loans to CWM on a mandatory, best efforts or optional basis, or a combination thereof.

Master Commitments do not obligate CWM to purchase loans at a specific price, but rather provide the seller with a future outlet for the sale of its originated loans based on CWM quoted prices at time of PURCHASE (BUY).

Master Commitments specify types of mortgage loans seller is entitled to sell to CWM and generally range from $5Million to $1Billion in aggregate committed principal amount.

The provisions of CWM Seller/Servicer Guide are incorporated in each Master Commitment.

Provisions may be modified by negotiations between the parties.
Individualized Master Commitment options available to SELLERS which include alternative pricing structures.

To obtain a Master Commitment, each SELLER is generally expected to pay a non-refundable upfront or non-delivery fee, or both, to CWM.

9/30/1994, CWM had outstanding Master Commitments with 100 SELLERS to purchase mortgage loans in the aggregate principal amount of appox. $9.3 Billion over periods ranging from 3 months to one year, of which $2.4 Billion had been purchased or committed to be purchased pursuant to …
(pick up at page 16) http://www.secinfo.com/dsvRa.b8u.htm?Find=securitized#17thPage

1994 Subsidiaries of
CWM Mortgage Holdings, Inc.
EXHIBIT 21.1
SUBSIDIARIES OF

CWM MORTGAGE HOLDINGS, INC.

SUBSIDIARY STATE OF INCORPORATION OR OWNERSHIP
ORIGINATION

CWM MORTGAGE OBLIGATIONS II, INC. DELAWARE DIRECT
CWM MORTGAGE OBLIGATIONS III, INC. DELAWARE DIRECT
INDEPENDENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE CORP. DELAWARE DIRECT
INDEPENDENT LENDING CORPORATION DELAWARE DIRECT
COUNTRYWIDE MORTGAGE TRUST 1987-I DELAWARE BUSINESS TRUST INDIRECT
COUNTRYWIDE MORTGAGE TRUST 1987-II DELAWARE BUSINESS TRUST INDIRECT
COUNTRYWIDE CASH FLOW BOND TRUST DELAWARE BUSINESS TRUST INDIRECT
COUNTRYWIDE MORTGAGE TRUST 1993-I DELAWARE BUSINESS TRUST INDIRECT
COUNTRYWIDE MORTGAGE TRUST 1993-II DELAWARE BUSINESS TRUST INDIRECT

___________________________________________________________________________________

Exhibit 21.1 2007-2008 Subsidiaries of
SUBSIDIARIES OF INDYMAC BANCORP, INC.

STATE OF INCORPORATION
SUBSIDIARY OR ORGANIZATION OWNERSHIP

IndyMac Intermediate Holdings, Inc. Delaware Direct

IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. Federally Chartered Indirect

Financial Freedom Senior Funding Corporation Delaware Indirect

IndyMac Retained Delaware Indirect

Substantially all of the CWM assets are pledged to secure the repayment of Collateralized Mortgage Obligations, reverse purchase agreements and other borrowings.

Anticipated substantially all of the mortgage loans CWM acquires in the future will also be pledged to secure borrowings pending securitization or sale or as part of their long-term financing.

Cash flows received by CWM from its investments that have not yet been distributed, pledged or used to acquire mortgage loans or other investments may be the only unpledged assets available to unsecured creditors and stockholders in the event of liquidation of CWM.

In purchasing mortgage loans and issuing mortgage-backed securities, the
Company competes with established mortgage conduit programs, investment banking firms, savings and loan associations, banks, FNMA, FHLMC, the Government National Mortgage Association (‘GNMA’), mortgage bankers, insurance companies, other lenders and other entities purchasing mortgage assets. Certain changes currently taking place in the mortgage industry, including technological initiatives promoted by FNMA and FHLMC which could give such entities direct access to mortgage borrowers, may have an adverse impact upon current sellers to the Company’s mortgage conduit operations.

Mortgage backed security is a type of derivative security, the cash flow on which is derived from payments on an underlying pool of mortgage loans.

Subordinated securities refers to mortgage-backed securities that are rated below AAA by S&P) …

Securities retained in connection with its issuance of mortgage-backed securities in the form of REMIC’s

Securities purchased in third party transactions.

Liquidity:
CWM uses proceeds from, among other things,

Reverse purchase agreements to meet its working capital needs.

CWM reverse purchase arrangements are subject to collateral maintenance agreements whereby the Company, in effect, may borrow a specified percentage of the market value of the mortgage loans and mortgage-backed securities which are the subject of the arrangements.

Market value generally determined by the LENDER.

If market value of the collateral declines (as will be the case if interest rates increase), additional collateral is required to secure such borrowings.

If the required amount of collateral is increased, CWM ability to raise funds through subsequent similar arrangement may be diminished.

If CWM fails to post such additional collateral, the LENDER may terminate such arrangement, accelerate CWM obligations and sell or retain the existing collateral in order to satisfy CWM debt.

CWM as implemented a hedging strategy for the portion of its mortgage portfolio held for sale which to some extent may mitigate the effects of adverse market movement.

Currently CWM does not have committed financing facilities available for the portion of its warehouse lending program pursuant to which CWM may make loans that are secured by SERVICING rights, SERVICING sales receivables and FORECLOSURE and REPURCHASE MORTGAGE LOANS, nor does CWM have committed financing facilities available for its newly organized CLP’s.

POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Although the Company believes that its relationships with
CAMC,
CCI and
CFC
provide significant benefits to its various operations, CWM is subject
to potential conflicts of interest arising from its relationship with its
manager, CAMC, and CAMC’s affiliates.

CAMC, through its affiliation with CFC,
has interests that conflict with those of CWM in fulfilling many of its
duties.

Although CWM generally purchases (BUYER) mortgage loans on a servicing
retained basis (where the seller retains the servicing rights) and

CFC purchases (BUYER)mortgage loans on a servicing released basis
(where the buyer acquires the servicing rights),
CWM may from time to time compete with CFC for the
purchase of mortgage loans in those cases where sellers are evaluating servicing
retained as well as servicing released sales options.

In addition, CWM relies upon CAMC
(which has entered into a subcontract with CFC to provide
certain management services to CWM) for the day-to-day operation of its
business.

Currently, CWM has no employees and relies upon CAMC and its
employees to conduct CWM business including its mortgage conduit,
warehouse lending and construction lending operations.

In conducting its operations, CWM may utilize
CFC as a resource for:
loan servicing, personnel administration and loan production.

No assurance can be given that the Company’s relationships with CAMC and its affiliates will continue indefinitely.

The failure or inability of CAMC to provide the services required of it under
the management agreement (or of CFC to perform its obligations under its
subcontract with CAMC) or any other agreements or arrangements with CWM
could have a material adverse effect on CWM’s business. In addition, as
sole holder of all outstanding voting stock of INMC, CFC has the right to elect all
directors of INMC.

Such directors elect the INMC officers and determine the dividend policy of INMC.

16 Responses

  1. Hello friends, how is all, and what you wish for to say regarding
    this piece of writing, in my view its in fact amazing for me.

  2. a Bruce Lee workout includes stretching, bending, running, dipping, kicking, jumping, traditional muscle building exercises, weight lifting, rope skipping, medicine ball handling,
    etc. For many working to lose weight, one failure is enough to get them off the path
    to success. Who does not need that little bit of elevation when trying to diet.

  3. I savor, lead to I found just what I was looking for. You’ve ended my four day lengthy hunt! God Bless you man. Have a great day. Bye

  4. s the perfect time for families to get together for annual
    or periodic family reunions. For this, you have
    to decide how long the cleaning intervals should be according to the household members.
    Though the family is made up of different individuals
    but they are treated as a single unit.

  5. The booming beauty market in fact supersedes the revenue growth in most basic sectors.
    If you color your hair, consider asking your stylist to gradually adjust your hair back to a shade closer to your
    natural shade. Researching online is pretty easy as most of them have sites, blogs; forums etc where you can get your doubts cleared, ask questions and collect
    information.

  6. […] View the original article here Tags:COCHRANE, DOING, fraud, HOMEWORK, INDYMAC. This entry was posted on Thursday, May 5th, 2011 at 8:14 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site. You can . « FORECLOSURE BLUES BLOG GETS AXED Leave a comment Name (required) […]

  7. The sponsor will provide customary mortgage loan representations and warranties with respect to all of the mortgage loans originated by American Home Mortgage Corp. and will only be responsible for repurchase or substitution obligations in the event of a material breach of any such representation or warranty. See “Mortgage Loan Servicing—Representations and Warranties” for more information regarding the repurchase of mortgage loans originated by certain companies for breaches of representations and warranties.

    Servicers’ Ability to Modify the Terms of
    Defaulted Mortgage Loans is
    Uncertain; Effect of Modifications,
    or of Failure to Modify, May Be
    Adverse

    The servicers will be responsible for servicing each mortgage loan in the trust fund regardless of whether the mortgage loan is performing or has become delinquent or is otherwise in default. As a result, as delinquencies or defaults occur, the servicers will be required to utilize an increasing amount of resources to work with borrowers to maximize collections on the mortgage loans. This may include contacting borrowers repeatedly to collect payments, modifying the terms of mortgage loans that are in default or whose default is reasonably foreseeable, or undertaking foreclosure proceedings. At each step in the process of trying to bring a defaulted mortgage loan current or in maximizing proceeds to the trust fund, the servicers will be required to invest time and resources not otherwise required when collecting payments on performing mortgage loans. If there is a large amount of delinquencies or defaults, the final resolution of individual delinquent or defaulted mortgage loans may be delayed. In addition, if the servicers determine that the terms of one or more mortgage loans should be modified, the servicers may:

    · have difficulty contacting all of the borrowers who are at risk in a timely fashion, or at all, to work out an acceptable modification or other arrangement;

    · if there are a large amount of modifications, have difficulty reaching the result that best maximizes proceeds to the trust fund with respect to each individual mortgage loan;

    · make modifications that are designed to maximize collections for the trust fund in the aggregate but may adversely affect a particular class of certificates; and

    · use the discretion permitted under the servicing agreements to effect loan modifications, short sales and other strategies to try to maximize collections to the trust fund.

    The servicers’ decisions as to whether to modify the terms of defaulted mortgage loans may be affected by concern about potential liability to investors.

    Investors should consider the importance of the servicers’ role in maximizing collections for the trust fund and the impediments the servicers may encounter when servicing a substantial number of delinquent or defaulted mortgage loans. See “—Financial Difficulties of and Developments Regarding Originators and Services” above. In some cases, failure by the servicers to timely modify the terms of a defaulted mortgage loan may reduce amounts available for distribution to certificateholders in respect of that mortgage loan.

    If the terms of a mortgage loan are modified, changes in the terms of the mortgage loan may include the capitalization of past due payments, lowering of the interest rate, extension of the maturity date, the forgiveness of past due principal and/or interest payments, or other modifications, any of which will reduce or delay payment of the amount owed to the trust fund by the related borrower or delay the receipt of payments from the borrower.

    On July 30, 2008, President Bush signed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, which among other things, articulates a new fiduciary duty standard that applies to all servicers of “pooled” residential mortgage loans. The Truth in Lending Act is amended by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 to provide that, absent a provision to the contrary in the applicable securitization agreement, a securitization servicer has a duty to maximize recoveries on a pool of securitized mortgage loans for the benefit of all investors and not “any individual party or group of parties.” A servicer will be deemed to be acting “in the best interests of all such investors and parties” if the servicer implements a modification or workout plan for a securitized residential mortgage loan if the loan meets the following criteria: (1) a payment default on the mortgage loan has occurred or is reasonably foreseeable; (2) the borrower occupies the related mortgaged property; and (3) the “anticipated recovery on the principal outstanding obligation of the mortgage under the modification or workout plan exceeds, on a net present value basis, the anticipated recovery on the principal outstanding obligation of the mortgage through foreclosure.” Investors should consider that the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 may cause the servicers of the mortgage loans in the trust fund to increase their modification activity in such a manner that may be beneficial to the trust fund in the aggregate, but may be adverse to certain investors, particularly investors in the subordinate certificates.

  8. From SEC

    On August 6, 2007, American Home Mortgage Corp., which originated approximately 1.63% of the mortgage loans, and certain other affiliates each filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. According to a press release issued by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), on July 11, 2008, IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., which originated approximately 0.49% of the mortgage loans, was closed by the Office of Thrift Supervision and the FDIC was named conservator. The FDIC then transferred substantially all of the assets of IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. to IndyMac Federal Bank, FSB, which the FDIC operates as conservator, and such successor entity will be servicing approximately 0.49% of the mortgage loans, and will provide customary mortgage loan representations and warranties with respect to the mortgage loans originated by IndyMac Bank, F.S.B.
    S-17

    http://www.secinfo.com/d12TC3.t1hJj.htm?Find=class+b+certificate&Line=4619#Line4619

  9. Deb wynn, on April 11, 2011 at 9:07 am said:
    I have a lettr from FDIC stating thst only servicing rights were assumed by onewest Bsnk
    and That onewest is NOT the successor in interest. Well folks they assumed my home under that name as beneficiary.

  10. Loss Share Agreements
    September 10, 2010 By admin 4 Comments
    Loss Share Agreements and Principal Mortgage Reductions

    For those afraid of FDIC’s website on can view on YOUTUBE:

    What is Loss Sharing and LENDERS and FDIC

    Whats Lost Sharing ‘ Got to do – Got to do with us?

    Consumers and investors harmed by the ponzi and money laundering scheme executed through collaboration by a select group of members of the private financial exchanges has everthing to do with us!

    First everyone stop using WALL STREET.

    So what if the employees sold in the public domain financial products and financial services that are defective at time of sale?

    So what if the employees were licensed to recommend the sale and purchase wholesale and retail of the defective products?

    Got evidence? Bring to your attonrey general.

    Meanwhile, know that a select group of foreign organizations collaborated and enabled by ‘Congress’ the US Goverment are all in Agreements —

    not WALL STREET!

    ———————————————————-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCb2BJrbzms
    The video explains exactly how the loss share agreement with lenders who purchase pools of assets of insolvent lenders from the FDIC are “supposed” to inure to the benefit of homeowners.

    —————————————————
    From Principal Reduction Consultants of VA:
    As you can plainly see the vision and purpose of the loss share agreements is to allow reasonably managed entities with excess funds to be able to purchase assets of other mismanaged lenders from the FDIC in such a manner as to not interrupt the relationships that lenders have with their depositors.

    And secondly to allow these acquiring lenders to modify the terms of loans from the pools to benefit homeowners at some cost to the FDIC.

    What is actually happening is a national and broad reaching massive rush to foreclosure.

    Why?

    It’s easier at this point because the lenders have created a massive foreclosure monster by enabling law firms to function as substitute trustees (foreclosing entities who sue homeowners for foreclosure for money).

    This foreclosure engine is now efficient and has what physicists call inertia.

    A trustee by the way, under any definition of the term, has a fiduciary obligation to both parties for which it performs its duty as Trustee.

    It is our firm belief that by giving a law firm a commissioned incentive to foreclose on a homeowner, the lenders have dramatically tilted the scales of justice towards the lender and away from the homeowner.

    These Substitute Trustees (Law Firms) are officers of the court who are sworn to uphold justice and the law and they are bending every single one of these laws in their mad rush to collect their 10% on the REO sale.

    This alone monstrously corrupts the actual intention of the FDIC loss share.

    Our method is to implore the lender to write down the toxic predatory mortgage and create a new fully collateralized loan for our client at 90%LTV and still have access to the loss share agreement (if they have one in place with the FDIC) and therein save our clients home, save yet one more property from the foreclosure mill, and still access the subsidy because they have settled a matter on an illegal loan without bogging down the court system.

    It works for all parties.

    The lenders are going to access the loss share dollars one way or another.

    Either through the foreclosure mill or through the purpose for which the system was intended.
    Is your loan subject to a principal reduction?

    http://www.principalreductionconsultants.com/2010/09/10/loss-share-agreements/#comment-13

    Uploaded by ArkFinancialGroup on Mar 21, 2011

    Loss-Share Compliance Management
    Ark Financial Group is there for your business from the moment you acquire FDIC-insured single family and non-single family assets, throughout the ongoing preparation, accounting, analysis, compliance and operational changes and requirements your organization will have to encounter for the years to come as a result of an LSA. We provide Acquiring Institutions the best external support in order to assist them with efficiently and successfully complying with the provisions of the LSA without the aggravation of regulatory complexity, increased internal staff, and overall impact on your operations.

    Our Loss Share Compliance Management services and products are comprised of the combined comprehensive services mentioned below which we offer to Acquiring Institutions for up to the life of an SF or NSF LSA:

    § Compliance Visitation Readiness and Support
    § Loss-Share Asset Management
    § Loss-Share Accounting
    § Data Analysis
    § Certificate Management
    § Loan-Level Servicing History Review
    § Loan-Level Loss-Share Testing
    § Office of Inspector General Audit Readiness and Support
    § Internal Audit Program Assessment, Remediation and/or Design

    Category:
    Education

    Tags:
    FDIC Risk Management Due Diligence Compliance Mortgage

  11. mortgage principal reductions
    September 26, 2010 By admin Leave a Comment
    Mortgage Principal Reductions

    But why on earth would the lender ever reduce the principal that I owe on my home? How could this possibly benefit the lender? Are there government programs that subsidize the lenders for doing mortgage principal reductions? What is the advantage of a mortgage principal reduction over a simple reduction in interest to a level where I can afford the payment? All are questions we hear weekly from homeowners trying to see what the best solution to their mortgage debacle might be.

    First lets take a look a principal reductions from a mile in the sky. Why is it that people stop paying their mortgage? The first reason is financial hardship. Many people who were sold predatorial mortgages designed to strip equity over time simply cannot afford the fully indexed promissory note as it was written even if they had a good job. Many mortgages were designed to index out to a very large percentage of the household income. These mortgages are not only predatorial but illegal and violate DTI underwriting guidelines. Many of them are fraudulent. This is why we suggest a forensic audit before deciding our your ultimate war path.

    But more and more, especially in the higher end $500k+ note face values homeowners are strategically defaulting. Why? Well why shouldnt they. This entire mortgage bubble was designed by bankers and investment banking firms. They all got filthy rich creating a bubble that they knew had no path other than to burst. Property values had no more room to climb when the market realized that all of the trillions in mortgage backed securities were being over rated based on hot-potatoe credit default swaps with to regulatory oversight. Goldman Sachs made billions and billions on reverse trades and shorts betting against the bond insurers, AIG and the institutions they knew were directly in the path of financial disaster once the CDS debacle became public knowledge. They probably paid Jim Cramer to taut Bear Stearns as “not in trouble” while they shorted it. The bottom line is people who can see no light at the end of the tunnel become strategic defaulters. Give them a principal mortgage reduction and they will pay.

    The game was fixed and the game was designed to make billions and billions for wall streeters from a ponzi scheme whose undoing would rob every American of their American dream, their equity in their home. Why wouldnt an American homeowner slam the property back to the lender? Why would an American homeowner take the next 20 years of his lifes earnings to pay a mortgage for a home from which the equity has been robbed by wall street liar thugs and put into their offshore accounts to await the inevitable decline of the almighty dollar? Now the lenders beat the drums and rattle the legal swords about these strategic defaulters? What did you expect? Meanwhile, because the US government and wall street have evolved into a merged entity, the US government is lending money at no cost to banks and investment banks to right the ship. The Lenders have manipulated the government to use its coffers (your tax dollars) to pay losses on mortgages that default. The bankers have created a situation where the US government has an incentive to punish strategic defaulters because it costs the government money not the lenders and investment bankers who caused the problem. How is itthat the banks make money even when they lose money? The governments interest in now alligned with banks and wall street and not the US citizen. The kicker is that many of the subprime securitized portfolio investors have made their claims on CDS’s and other insurances on heavily defaulted overinsured mortgage pools. The REO sale of your home is icing on the cake and pure profit to the lender in some cases. As a matter of fact Maiden 1 and Maiden 2 TARP tranches bought billions and billions of dollars of defaulted mortgages from subprime lenders. The government owns many of these trusts, yet they let the servicers foreclose anyways. I’ve gotten off point.

    Why would everyone benefit from massive principal mortgage reductions? Well, since the government is already committed financially to pay the losses on defaulted mortgages through loss-sharing, why let 100% of the benefit of those tax payer dollars go to rich bankers at the loss to a homeowner who lost their home? Why not let the lender get the subsidy for giving mortgage principal reduction instead across the board? We do these on a one off basis by toxifying the loan and allowing the lender to use our research package (audits, securitization analyis and legal opinions) to obtain the subsidy for writing down our clients note and issuing a new 90% LTV , fully collateralized performing note. But why doesnt the government set a task force to analyze all subprime notes, analyze the risk to the lender if they enforce these illegal predatory mortgages and get people the hell out of them? It will stem the tide of REOs coming onto the market, keep people in their homes, support a turn-around in property values and cost the government alot less than backfeeding dollars to the lenders and their foreclosure mills as they flood the market with REO and continue causing the market decline. Mortgage principal reductions seems to me to be the best possible use of these government subsidy allocations. It makes no sense to keep feeding our tax dollars to bankers who robbed the American homeowner of their Dream. Let the benefit enure to the American Homeowner..

    Bank of America is already sending out Principal Reduction notices, they are ahead of the curve on these.

    http://www.principalreductionconsultants.com/category/fdic-loss-share/

  12. Movement of bad debt (purchase) profitable:

    FDIC Loss Share Explained:

    mortgage principal reductions
    September 26, 2010 By admin
    Leave a Comment
    Mortgage Principal Reductions

    But why on earth would the lender ever reduce the principal that I owe on my home?

    How could this possibly benefit the lender?

    Are there government programs that subsidize the lenders for doing mortgage principal reductions?

    What is the advantage of a mortgage principal reduction over a simple reduction in interest to a level where I can afford the payment?

    All are questions we hear weekly from homeowners trying to see what the best solution to their mortgage debacle might be.

    First lets take a look a principal reductions from a mile in the sky.

    Why is it that people stop paying their mortgage?

    The first reason is financial hardship.

    Many people who were sold predatorial mortgages designed to strip equity over time simply cannot afford the fully indexed promissory note as it was written even if they had a good job.

    Many mortgages were designed to index out to a very large percentage of the household income.

    These mortgages are not only predatorial but illegal and violate DTI underwriting guidelines. Many of them are fraudulent.

    This is why we suggest a forensic audit before deciding our your ultimate war path.

    But more and more, especially in the higher end $500k+ note face values homeowners are strategically defaulting.

    Why? Well why shouldnt they.

    This entire mortgage bubble was designed by bankers and investment banking firms.

    They all got filthy rich creating a bubble that they knew had no path other than to burst.

    Property values had no more room to climb when the market realized that all of the trillions in mortgage backed securities were being over rated based on hot-potatoe credit default swaps with to regulatory oversight.

    Goldman Sachs made billions and billions on reverse trades and shorts betting against the bond insurers, AIG and the institutions they knew were directly in the path of financial disaster once the CDS debacle became public knowledge.

    They probably paid Jim Cramer to taut Bear Stearns as “not in trouble” while they shorted it.

    The bottom line is people who can see no light at the end of the tunnel become strategic defaulters.

    Give them a principal mortgage reduction and they will pay.

    The game was fixed and the game was designed to make billions and billions for wall streeters from a ponzi scheme whose undoing would rob every American of their American dream, their equity in their home.

    Why wouldnt an American homeowner slam the property back to the lender?

    Why would an American homeowner take the next 20 years of his lifes earnings to pay a mortgage for a home from which the equity has been robbed by wall street liar thugs and put into their offshore accounts to await the inevitable decline of the almighty dollar?

    Now the lenders beat the drums and rattle the legal swords about these strategic defaulters?

    What did you expect?

    Meanwhile, because the US government and wall street have evolved into a merged entity,

    the US government is lending money at no cost to banks and investment banks to right the ship.

    The Lenders have manipulated the government to use its coffers (your tax dollars) to pay losses on mortgages that default.

    The bankers have created a situation where the US government has an incentive to punish strategic defaulters because it costs the government money not the lenders and investment bankers who caused the problem.

    How is it that the banks make money even when they lose money?

    The governments interest in now alligned with banks and wall street and not the US citizen.

    The kicker is that many of the subprime securitized portfolio investors have made their claims on CDS’s and other insurances on heavily defaulted overinsured mortgage pools.

    The REO sale of your home is icing on the cake and pure profit to the lender in some cases.

    As a matter of fact Maiden 1 and Maiden 2
    TARP tranches bought billions and billions of dollars of defaulted mortgages from subprime lenders.

    The government owns many of these trusts, yet they let the servicers foreclose anyways.

    I’ve gotten off point.

    Why would everyone benefit from massive principal mortgage reductions?

    Well, since the government is already committed financially to pay the losses on defaulted mortgages through loss-sharing, why let 100% of the benefit of those tax payer dollars go to rich bankers at the loss to a homeowner who lost their home?

    Why not let the lender get the subsidy for giving mortgage principal reduction instead across the board?

    We do these on a one off basis by toxifying the loan and allowing the lender to use our research package (audits, securitization analyis and legal opinions) to obtain the subsidy for writing down our clients note and issuing a new 90% LTV , fully collateralized performing note.

    But why doesnt the government set a task force to analyze all subprime notes, analyze the risk to the lender if they enforce these illegal predatory mortgages and get people the hell out of them?

    It will stem the tide of REOs coming onto the market, keep people in their homes, support a turn-around in property values and cost the government alot less than backfeeding dollars to the lenders and their foreclosure mills as they flood the market with REO and continue causing the market decline.

    Mortgage principal reductions seems to me to be the best possible use of these government subsidy allocations.

    It makes no sense to keep feeding our tax dollars to bankers who robbed the American homeowner of their Dream. Let the benefit enure to the American Homeowner..

    Bank of America is already sending out Principal Reduction notices, they are ahead of the curve on these.

    http://www.principalreductionconsultants.com/2010/09/26/mortgage-principal-reductions/

  13. I have a lettr from FDIC stating thst only servicing rights were assumed by onewest Bsnk
    and That onewest is NOT the successor in interest. Well folks they assumed my home under that name as beneficiary.

  14. Good Job, Brian
    Keep up the fight!

  15. This is great stuff thankyou for posting
    I will share with my attorney.

  16. http://www.scribd.com/doc/52461704/Plt-Opp-Onewest-Dem-Mot-Stk-Rjn-Ind-Bk-Mers-04-04-11

    This group is the most dishonest. Now corporate assignments of alleged Indymac Bank Loans to Onewest when the FOIA shows only servicing sold.

    It seems Onewest is getting a free house in those cases and with our friends Bryan Bly a successful Vice President of many banks. Look in San Diego records Onewest FDIC transfers of notes when they were bought. Only the servicing rights.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: