Pensions to Be Slashed By Fake Losses on Mortgage Bonds


Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm


LivingLies Membership – If you are not already a member, this is the time to do it, when things are changing.

For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment:  

Many of the most conservative, pro-business people who think they escaped the travesty of the mortgage scam and meltdown are in for a big surprise starting this year. Pension funds were the investors. And they lost big. In some cases the fund managers were in bed with the investment bankers who were peddling this crap.

If you read the Wall Street Journal they explain how the already underfunded pension funds (due to accounting tricks that were illegal and then made legal) are now unable to escape the reality admitting the losses being pitched over the fence at them by investment bankers who are rolling in money from bailouts, insurance (that should have paid the pension fund), credit default swaps (that should have paid the pension fund).

Deep in the articles is a description of exactly what is happening in simple math terms. That description applies equally to the intentionally manipulated underwriting standards to assure the loans would fail. If you or I did this, we would be in jail. Instead Jamie Dimon sits on the Board of the New York Fed. what a country. Millions of people are thrown out of their homes, cities and counties go bankrupt, most from mythical losses they don’t understand.

It all comes from what are called yield spreads, premiums and losses from changes in yield. Under normal protocol investors protect themselves by using various hedge products.

But the investment bankers didn’t make the investors the beneficiary of those hedges, they made themselves the beneficiaries instead. Since they were the agents of the investors they should and still can be forced to apply those proceeds, and pay them to the pension funds, which in turn will reduce the amount due under each loan that was funded.

Sources tell me that not only are the pension funds being forced to accept losses on loans they never owned until it was time to foreclose, but that some of the “bets” that went bad are being tacked on as additional fees or losses.

The pension funds are therefore suffering from two huge write-downs — one from the change in accounting rules that allowed them to kick the can down the road (passed 30+ Years ago), and the other from losses that don’t actually exist but were convenient for the banks to assert when they asked for bailouts.

Pension funds become underfunded automatically when the interest and dividends they get paid shrink. In order to bring up income they need to invest more. Neither the companies nor the pensioners are doing that so there is a shortfall. So when interest rates go down, someone must invest more money to earn the interest required to pay to the pensioners. Nobody is making that investment.

Example: If interest rates were 6% when the pension funds made commitments to retiring employees and the amount of money promised those retiring employees just happened to be $60,000, the pension fund would need $1 million invested (over simplifying by taking out amortization of principal). If interest rates fall to 3%, then the $1 million fund is only getting $30,000 per year. In order to raise it back up to $60,000 per year, the fund needs $2 million invested at 3% to stay fully funded. Without additional contribution, there is a $1 million shortfall.

Right now interest rates, manipulated as they are have never been lower which means that pension funds are getting less income than they were getting before, and since nobody is putting in more money to cover the difference the pension fund is underfunded.

When pension funds must declare the losses on mortgage bonds they will be far more underfunded than currently appears and the amount received by each pensioner will be slashed. Say thank you to Wall Street for that.

Curious coincidence: This same analysis applies to the tier 2 yield spread premium grabbed by the investment bank under false pretenses from investors. For purposes of this article you can spell investor as “Pension Fund.”

When the fund manager for the pension fund gave the investment banker $1 million in our example above, he was expecting a 6% return on investment.

But in the most unbridled breach of trust ever recorded in Wall Street history, the investment banker instead invested half the money at twice the rate.

So they only funded $500,000 in “mortgage” loans carrying a nominal interest rate of 12%, even though they had received $1 million and they pocketed the other $500,000 as “trading profits.”Anyone with any investment knowledge understands that this was (1) an immediate loss of $500,000 to the investor (Pension Fund) and (2) a probable loss of the other $500,000 or most of it after the obvious market crash this would cause.

Of course the people accepting those 12% loans were extremely poor credit risks and were literally guaranteed to default.

So Wall Street took the other half of the money they stole from the pension fund, unknown to the pension fund manager, and bet against the mortgages that were underwritten.

Instead of making the pension fund the beneficiary of that protection the investment banker made himself the beneficiary of the insurance, hedge or credit default swap.

And instead of informing the pension fund manager of the loss in a report in which the fund manager could detect what was really happening, the banks announced that the BANKS had suffered trillions of dollars in losses that never happened except in the mythical world of “cash equivalent” derivatives.

So if you are looking for the rest of your pension income you were promised, you can find it on Wall Street.





87 Responses

  1. Because you play an increasing number of with the spartan
    slots online casino, generally there will be a period for those
    who have a query in regards to the way the side had been treated, or even you sense that a error was created.
    It is translation ‘railroad’ will not seem pretty and so loving although really size because of the major change concerning Chemin-de-fer as well
    as traditional baccarat;

  2. @BEB: HMDA responded that they don’t charge for reports on cd.

  3. Have you come to wound my door and jeer? Verily I say unto you

  4. Wow, my last post as it appears you just like to ramble. You are soooo very far off on the agency and principal transaction. But you did you big legal sounding statements.

  5. You are right that I was throwing stuff out there (thought that was clear), but it cracks me up to think that investors, whom I have always believed had no intention of funding loans and possibly no right – but actually, for all I know – which I admit and at any rate would be apparent is not much – that’s not even true), might have funded the very asset from which the derivs it was their (ostensible) purpose to buy derive.
    I do take note of your comment re: agency or principal and the timing of the spv. If the answer becomes ‘as agent’, someone around here must know if the act of the alleged agent was within its authority. I think I can at least say beyond speculation that an authorized act of an agent binds the principal. And for all I know, the Funds which are garnering a lot of sympathy just now for taking it, well, in the shorts, went in with eyes wide shut to get what they wanted without all the muss and fuss. Speculation? Of course, but given other comments about funds managers floating around, hmmmm……who would it surprise if those guys all colluded to use the pension funds to fund loans? Handy source of funds, especially if there’s lag time on the return.

  6. @johngalt – please do not take my bluntness as an attempt to be mean, but because you do not understand the basic elements of securitization, your latest post is nonsensical. I am unable to reply to points that simply are ‘made up’

    Also, you tend to start throwing out things from Mars, like ecommerce, try to just stick with the string at hand. The legal jargon is also very distracting to whatever point you are attempting to make.

    Again, it is important that an expert who understands the process and steps in securitization follow the money chronologically. The expert needs to have a background in security underwriting. The timing of the inception of the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) allows us to know if the loan was an agency or principal transaction in regards to the bank.

    What you are missing is that the investor did not intend to buy loans, only the cash flows. And it is important to understand the entire point of securization is risk transfer.

    At the heart of the transaction is understanding short selling. Recognize the note is a security.

  7. In case anyone here has an answer, the “I” in my question at 5:33
    yesterday referred to the sec’n investor, not this “I”. NG opines, does he not? that the secn investor funded the loans at closing. If that is true, and don’t ask me, then it seems to me the sec’n investor is buying the derivative of an asset he already owns, notwithstanding
    any alleged transfers of those interests on their (alleged) way back to him in the trust. So Group A are investors, say, by way of a pension fund. They fund Marsha’s loan, that is, their very own pension dollars provided the funds at the closing table thru a path of intermediaries (?) over whom they have no control. I am assuming, think I must, that the pension funds were transferred to the depositor in time for the depositor to scurry those funds down to the closing table, with the cut-off date for the trust being such that this works. Lender X is shown as the payee on the note, with the pension funds being ‘contributed’ as funding by their last intermediary. If the pension fund still owns the funds, and this is the part I have the most trouble with but let’s just say, it has funded the loan, though another party is shown as the payee. Assuming, arguendo at least for me, that at that point, the real lender is the pension fund, or at least has provided the funds. Who has the right to payment at this point? The payee named seems to me is more or less a nominee, but whose? Group A had no input or control. Is ‘who owns the funds’ dispositive?

    I suppose contributing if not dispositive factors on who is the lender, who has the rights to the note, would be the treatment first of all of the pension funds and then the note in sets of books, and this note treatment notwithstanding the UCC, (though books could be ‘juggled’ if those involved found it necessary, unfortunately). I’m pretty sure, fwiw, the presumption is that the payee is the payee and all that implies. I’m not suggesting that makes it factual, but I think that’s the presumption to be overcome.
    But my real question was if the pension fund provided the funds and this makes them the lender (arguendo, again at least to me because the funds were forked over to the depositor who made the cut-off date such that he could manage to fund loans with those monies.But then again, that doesn’t mean he had the right to use those funds to fund loans to sell derivatives), aren’t they getting derivatives on their own asset (the note), again notwithstanding the (alleged) transfers on the way to the trust? Said another way, the pension fund ended up creating an asset, though not by its own acts unless there is contract, a poa or agency or whatnot, to create derivatives to sell itself, the pension fund. If there were NO real transfers of the notes before the notes went into the trust, what have we got here (and remembering securties laws – those who can- , which I can’t)? If there WERE any transfer of the notes on the way to the trust, what have we got here? I did read last night that there is a material change in ‘stuff’ when a note comes back to the original payee, payee being the operative word in as much as that rule presumes the orig payee is the payee (mol). Think it had to do with warranties, if any, and this might be significant.
    Mr. G says the transaction at closing is not what it appears. Okay. I’m just taking that to be true, though looking at the mechanics of that, and wondering if the sec’n investors then end up with derivatives on their own asset! (if there were no intervening bonafide transfers of the note). But I have to note that I don’t think he says any of this makes the fund the lender. I think. think he says that there was no meeting of the minds,(mol) which is an essential element of any contract, because the transaction was not what it appeared.
    Btw, I read last night that a note intentionally destroyed is toast. Can’t be revived by some lost instrument bull. If they were destroyed, be nice if we could prove it. But that doesn’t consider any what is it called – ecommerce? about which I know nada. But, if anything about that made a legit diff, they wouldn’t be so heavily into the note-charade. Right?

  8. @johngalt – 3 items. First, you are not going to be able to get up to speed on my years of experience in a blog. Hire an expert.

    Second you were never the owner or beneficiary of your note, simply the issuer.

    Third, is consistent see

    fc shows when I reply on my smartphone

  9. @fc – and is your comment at 4:31 to say I can’t be the ben of a derivative from a thing I created by my own funding and then running it down a supposed line back to me (even if I didn’t put on the charade)? I can’t be the owner of a derivative from an asset I created and already own or have an interest? Left field? thanks

  10. “That is why the money trail is critical. There may be evidence of notes trading at their own value, ie not in relation to home and because of this the money was loaned using the note and not the property as collateral. ”
    Well, obviously, that’s a new one to me. Have to think about that.
    Not sure it’ll do me any good (with my “securitization handicap)”. Right now, I’m thinking there was no relationship between the amt of the note and its collateral, and if that is true, it may lead to a conclusion that the note was unsecured, and therefore, subject to registration, if nothing else (and then not “mortgage backed”, just a bare note, which would also have big implications to the homeowner. That seems a pretty big hurdle. I can’t yet find reference to, significance of the money trail in here….? I mean, if the note were truly a bare note, it was from day one. Ahh…. who funded might be in play – I AM now merely pondering……but still seems like a big, big hurdle. Even if that were true, bare note, as to the note, well, that seems to get complicated even if proved it’s bare, not the least of which is the borrower’s expectation regarding remedy for breach (must generally go after collateral first v judgment on a note) and therefore, for one, a meeting of the minds was missing on that score. Course, if they’re unsecured, have to go to judgment to try to attack the property. But I’m woefully short, admittedly, on the source of funds issue unless it can be sustained that the investors were the ones who actually, literally, factually funded unsecured notes…..??? This doesn’t seem consistant with NG’s thinking. I think he’s got more, or other, bs in mind, but can’t speak for him.

  11. Good lord! Is NG saying in this post that some contractual provision allows the investment bankster to pocket the other 500k of the pensioners, with only 6% expected, guaranteed, what?? on the million?
    It was understood contractually that the 6% was tied exclusively to the performance of the investments? Was it understood that the principle was at risk, with no limit? Well, I guess that’s how it is with stock purchases. Was 6% so attractive some eejit would agree to this? Oh, yeah, there were mortgage-backed securities (illusion of performance if not just plain illusion as to some remedy, etc.). Still….

  12. @johngalt not a convertible note, but the answer you are poundering is how does a note and mortgage/dot become a mbs (different than cdo). We first have to understand all notes are securities, but when purchased/sold with mortgage/dot, it is exempt from registration.

    The note never converts because mbs (the actual things investors purchase) are a type of securities known as derivatives. The value is ‘derived’ from something else, which was supposed to be the home value, credit of borrower and a few other items.

    That is why the money trail is critical. There may be evidence of notes trading at their own value, ie not in relation to home and because of this the money was loaned using the note and not the property as collateral.

  13. But after reading this

    I’d have to say these notes don’t meet the def of convertible notes. (It’s interesting, btw) Is there another name for a note where it is known by one party that the note is going to become a cdo (and we would need the so what here as businesses routinely do cdo’s, don’t they? course they don’t register them as securities) or exchanged for or turned into derivatives? Does Mr. G say they already have been converted to something ELSE, because the investors, whose money was used (if so), paid for derivatives (not the funding of that from which the deriv would derive)? Would any law view secured notes differently in this regard? Different rules, maybe? Okay, now I am speculating, but it may not be worthless, even if distracting. We need to give what was done a name or names. Imo. What happened in this deal that made it wrong to create debt to exchange for derivatives (if all the notes had been lawfully transferred, etc?) Is it messed because of the use of investors funds, or what? Obviously, I’m willing to display my ignorance, but we need to know, don’t we?, what as I asked has been offended as a matter of law.

  14. fc said:
    “Also name no longer needed on age of electronic security registration.”
    Name not needed on what? Note? Owner at time of registration?
    Perhaps you, or someone here, would be so kind as to give a brief explanation for us lesser mortals? If so, thank you, and I mean that.
    I sure would like it and appreciate, as would others I’d bet, to not have to spend time researching that.

  15. I don’t care who’s trip I am following or endorsing or not, actually – thanks, tho. Having said that, I AM interested in NG’s take on the transaction as well as ANY avenue of relief for American homeowners. Some people disregard defenses out of hand. No one espouses unfounded accusations, I certainly TRY not to make them fwiw, but I don’t want to be a person who dismisses out of hand, either, also fwiw. Since some things haven’t been explained to me and I don’t get them or have names for the acts, I’m looking for answers and names.
    Here’s another question for anyone: Is it possible these notes are FORMS of “convertible notes”, and if so, must a disclosure have been made to the borrower? Moving on, if the answers are yes and yes, must the borrower prove damage or is the yes and yes enough? The fact that I am the one to introduce these words here, that is,
    convertible notes, says one of two things to me: they’re not and that’s the end of that, or people who get this stuff are not weighing in here, nor for that matter have I seen this alleged in any litigation. The inquiry might not stop there; a question may be WHOM exactly knew these were convertible notes, if they are, or some name at least I don’t know. Now, I may have it ALL wrong about convertible notes that’s for sure, and I’m really only throwing it out there, but if it were known to the other players that these notes would be used as cdo’s or deriv’s or what-not, was there a duty, (and if so, under what specifically?) to inform the borrower and again, must the borrower demonstrate damage by either the failure to inform or what factually happened?
    And if I am in left field, is there another name or names which would undermine the integrity of these transactions as a matter of law? (the word ‘fraud’ may be factual, but it’s not going to get it without more) I think that answer depends on the exact mechanics, who knew what and how the funds, if literally still belonging to the investors (which has always troubled me), made their way to the closing table.
    Here is a cursory look at convertible notes:

    I note bk is mentioned. I wonder if some of our impressions of whom is being protected by alleged bankruptcy – remoteness are accurate… It’s over my head unless I spend another year on the issue.

  16. @johngalt. I think you are making Neils case on follow the money and the rest is speculation. Also name no longer needed on age of electronic security registration.
    You’re getting wrapped around axle. Consider finding an attorney for your specific case.

  17. I may have had that slightly off, and maybe the ‘slightly’ is significant. It’s been a long time. Maybe it was that the person owed the obligation could itself use a fictitious name, but a note may not be made payable to anyone non-existant by any name. In application, I suppose that means John Brown can’t name JBrown, Inc. as payee if JBrown, Inc. doesn’t exist. Fwiw, I’ll see what I can dig up on that score. And it seems to me that an obvious question is can a party have a nominee named on the note in its stead? That’s actually the dynamic in my last comment. I think. Would a nominee need to be identified as a nominee? Dunno, but seems to me that would mess up the purpose of the person with the right to payment: keep his id out of it. I’m not at all suggesting that’s what happened here; I just think it needs an answer. I would think that even if a nominee were permitted, there needs to be a paper trail evidencing that the payee is in fact the nominee of the person with the right to payment, succinctly. The party with the right to payment would surely need one, or that’s a lot of trust. How that dynamic, if possible, might be queered by securitization, got me.
    Everyone knows I’m not an attorney. Few would like it better than me if the mechanics at closing actually do nullify the transaction. I’m just looking for the so what; I may be in left field about how to get on target.

  18. @bbe – yes, it is indeed a legal question, one begging an answer.
    If one is going to allege the payee isn’t the payee, essentially, one needs the so what. It’s been my limited understanding, and one formed a very long time ago, that a person other than the party with the right to payment may be named on a note, even by a fictitous name, as long as that person actually exists. I don’t recall any teaching regarding another entity (in lieu of person) on the note and especially if it were done for an untoward purpose. What does untoward change? Is it in fact part and parcel of a mens rea plan to convert the property of the borrower? If not, then what else is legally amiss?
    I may remember this incorrectly. If not, then the challenge is to find, identify, what is amiss, so wrong in the situation at hand such that it has the effect of nullifying the transaction. And I asked because I don’t know. For instance, a FL court recently put a name on a person signing a doc, there goes my memory, where that person had no
    authority or knowledge to execute (in regard to foreclosure). The court identified what was offended: two specific statutes (and I suspect there are others) and imo, my lay opinion, finding the violation of those statute implies mens rea by the actor.

  19. Thanks BEB, will study it.

  20. sorry, I can’t locate that. Can’t you copy paste link to actual page?

  21. @johngault – I assume that is a legal issue, which is why you need an attorney. My point (as is Neil’s) is that you also need to understand the actual transaction that occurred.

    @guest – the website with the order form has the example of the data contained and its format. You will have to be able to import into SQL.

  22. @ BEB: order form below is vague. Can you copy-paste a sample page of report here to see what it contains?

  23. rephrased: What has been offended if the payee on the note is not the party entitled to payment?

  24. What has been offended if the payee on the note is not the payee on the note?

  25. costs $400.00 to get loan application register info

  26. Thanks BEB, I had missed link. Do you have one or two you have uploaded on any website that people can see? You could email it to Neil and he may upload it & provide a link.

  27. @ guest, no, you order the data on the link I provided, by the year you need. It comes on a CD ROM.

  28. @ BEB: this is a report under HDMA (Home Disclosure Mortgage Act). Did you mean something else? have a link?

  29. @ Carrie – I do not think the foreclosures were/are ‘illegal’, which is another huge point Neil has been making. Anyone can bring a civil action in court, the problem is too few attorneys or defendants in foreclosure suits argue that the note is bogus and the party bringing the action has no ‘standing.’

    Neil has been saying (I am paraphrasing) that a defendant must deny everything in the complaint and ask the court to compel the attorney to show they are representing the real client. You need not have all the necessary pieces at this point, just enough using the banks own reporting, a review provided by Neil, and an expert declaration that would make the court pause and require the pretender lender to open their books. At that point, they all seem to drop cases.

    For example, if I wanted to, I could file a foreclosure action against Neil. He would be required to respond AND assert I am not the party capable of bringing such an action and the copy of a promissory note I create is not real. Guess what, I would still get to a motion for dismissal hearing, possibly further.

    If Neil does nothing, I would win, the court would certify my fake note as valid, etc, etc. At that point, he is screwed.

  30. @ las vegas

    @ Carrie – this is the critical element Neil has been pounding the table on. Understand, I work with financial records and documents, but from what I gander from Neil is that if there is no actual promissory note that describes the real transaction, no lien was perfected on the property. Ever wonder why ever foreclosure complaint asks the court to order the note as true and valid?

  31. @BEB

    where could i purchase the HMDA report?

  32. “The transaction described in the promissory note never occurred.”

    So—that means the foreclosures were/are illegal…now what?

  33. Most of the records everyone has access to, they just are unaware they are publicly available. You must first recognize that banks are publicly traded and have to file SEC reports. These reports need no authentication to be submitted as evidence as a corporate officer sign off on them.

    Then you also have HMDA reports. Did the purported lender actually make the loan they claimed? How many actual loans did the lender make in a calendar year? Do the numbers match the annual report?

    SEC filings are free, anyone can purchase HMDA data.

    However, the big piece you all need is available only to those of us in the industry who you believe have formed some vast conspiracy against you. Were not real motivated to post ‘check out this report,’ among what looks to be a frey of malcontents.

    For example there exists databases that contain investor level reporting for RMBS trusts. Remember that lady in Alabama who lost a foreclosure appeal? Took me about 2 minutes to see the bank had filed foreclosure paperwork AFTER the insurance (ie, credit enhancement) paid the entire pool of investors off. More importantly, we can see if money was ever returned to investors after foreclosure.

    Finally, those of us out to get you, also have access to the rating agency databases of every deal. What is great is not that we know the agencies are unreliable, it is that the servicer or bank provided all of the information to the rating agency. IE, you can see an entirely different story being told.

    The transaction described in the promissory note never occurred.

    However, this requires an understanding of what really happened is all based on a flawed belief that housing prices always increase. Corners were cut in the loan process under the premise if a borrower got in a bind, they could refinance their way out. No one ever demands proof of ownership in refinancing.

    The downturn really began in 2007 with AMBAC. AMBAC insured investors of US RMBS pools against losses through complex credit default swaps and other credit enhancements. As homeowners were unable to pay, AMBAC was subject to insurance claims much greater than it could pay.

    This is the point where investors in RMBS pools suffered losses. The pricing of the underlying securities fell 70 to 90% (10 to 30 cents on the dollar) Theses investors were pensions, foundations, endowments, and some mutual funds.

    (What caused the bank failures were side bets on the pools, so focusing on this aspect is not important to foreclosure defense or getting to the ownership of any loan, with one caveat, which I am attempting to research did the bank bet against pools it was servicing?)

    The question now becomes how is the investor still suffering losses if so many foreclosures are occurring? Using investor reporting and an actual foreclosure we should be able to see a ‘credit’ on the monthly report for the market value of the property. However, we’re not seeing this because most if not all RMBS cannot make credit bids at auction – they lack the cash to do so.

    We need actual cases to match.

    We also need actual cases to match to verify securitization really happened. The process must be done in sequences to make it a principal transaction. Too many loans were funded simultaneously with the filing of trust offering documents, making it an agency transaction…ie the bank was just a broker and never advanced money or took the loan on its books.

    You have to put a face on the actual investor. IE, the judge’s state pension, his alma mater, etc so they understand who the owner is and that most likely the foreclosure action is without their knowledge or consent.

    My hope is to encourage folks to stick to facts here and set up their own blog for emotional rants. Plus it may serve you better in your case.

  34. “Having read the post, I thought maybe I could match the investor reports of losses with a real foreclosed home to show the bank just took the money it was not owed.” Sure like to see that, I would.

  35. BEB, You can share your information and do it without name calling & critizism . Heavens knows we have enough of that here. You appear to be a very insightful person and I for one am intrested in what you have to say. But you have to knock that chip off your shoulder and do it in a manner that is respectful. Please!
    There is a money trail and a set of books for numerous transactions that were not trasparent to the pensioners/savers/investors and the homeowners. A set is created for what ever suits there purpose at the time (making profit). Following the money trail to get past standing in one thing … following it back upstream is very confusing to most of us because we can not acces the records of the Federal Reserve, Fannie, Freddie. Please share your thoughts … what records do you have access to? I’m game.

  36. debates are based on facts.

    In order to reduce pension benefits, the plan sponsor must apply to DOL. No such exists for GE or UPS. Just post to put fear in people.

    Would you rather me be nice or just make up stuff like the rest of you?

    Neil politely keeps posting that y’all are not listening (ie follow the money). I think it is because you just want to post some absurd and non germain post.

    Having read the post, I thought maybe I could match the investor reports of losses with a real foreclosed home to show the bank just took the money it was not owed. Was going to post to see if anyone wanted to check a few against my database.

    Instead I see posts of crazy…It is my fault, I thought this was a resource for those working on real cases.

  37. @ BEB, .. correction IRAs & 401k. Perhaps a mistatement, never the less …. with our IRAs & 401ks depleteing quickly and soon to be gone that only leaves us with one household pension in the near future. And that to is Threatened (the money is not there … its gone). You can verify the General Electric pension cuts .. alot like UPS’es. Just because it has not been disclosed publicly yet, does not mean it is not true. Play NIce! . No need to jump on folks sharing their views if they are doing it in a respectful manner. Its called debating …. I Love
    a Good Debate…..

  38. You people are nuts. So far off base, is it any wonder why Courts don’t take cases seriously?

    IRA grab? Really?

    GE – why not read and understand the entire statement. Companies have moved from pensions for over 30 years now. They are speaking of employees who are not yet receiving benefits.

    Kathy – loss enough for 2 houses? In a pension fund? How would you know? A pension is just a check you receive, you don’t get statements. Maybe you mean you mismanaged your IRA? 401k?

    Come on. UPS reducing benefit by 80%? Really? Can’t seem to find the actual filing anywhere.

    The point is that a judge (or members of a jury) would be very interested in understanding that they may have in fact as a pension plan beneficiary already paid the same bank who now seeks to foreclose on the property. The bank argues someone (other than them) is trying to get a free house and therefore the homeowner should pay someone, them. The point needs made that the defense or complaint against the bank is to protect the pension beneficiaries, hospital and university endowments.

    “If you allow the bank to foreclose it will make it nearly impossible for the true owner to actually collect what is owed.”

    This is not ‘we’re getting screwed again.’ This is how the screwing actually happened and smart folks like Neil are given little credence when folks add lines about China buying America. WTF? The China purchase is a signal of recovery.

    This is one of the most critical things Neil has posted and it gets lost among a confederacy of dunces.

  39. […] Read more… Posted in Banks, MERS, News Around The Country, States « EXPERT DECLARATIONS: USE AND CONTENT You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. […]

  40. & he is now 80!!!

  41. It’s been legal in this country for years for a business to file bk and
    dump the pension fund, including what the worker paid in. (???!!!)
    The FDIC gets to eat it, having insured 40%, way I get it. The worker gets the 40% and I guess these days, that guy should consider himself lucky. I remember the first time I heard of this, around 95. A guy I know had worked for 35 years, contributed to his pension regularly. His co. allegedly put the funds at risk: gone – poof! (I only got the abbreviated version) To the best of my info, he never saw a dime and went to work in mtnce at the age of 62, think it was. Don’t know why he didn’t see the 40%. He’s still working.

  42. “Since they were the agents of the investors they should and still can be forced to apply those proceeds…”

    The investment bankers were the agents of the investors? Are you referring to the funds managers as investment bankers here? And they werent the ones to take the insurance, or were they? No way!

  43. you’re.

  44. Your Welcome Sweetie!

  45. My anger is always directed at injustice—nothing else.
    I will not respond to anything else you direct my way…thank you.

  46. @Carie, sounds like he gave you good advice. You reported and its his job to investigate reports, it was not his job to represent you in a cival action. You should have taken his advice .. tnharry, Neil and so many others have told you the same thing. Are you angy with them? Or are you angry with yourself because of the choice you made? I dont get it? You are all right about a Select few attorneys and probably a Judge or two (behind the scences of course) who purchased these value priced homes and resold them to innocent buyers without disclosure. I have already proven that …. But by far the Good ones out weigh the Bad ones. It was just a matter of exposing the ones who Spoiled. The Wheels of Justice are Slow, but they do trun.

  47. I meant “Real Estate Fraud Task Force”—not whatever the heck that was I wrote…!

  48. I agree the time is now.We have been patient fsr too long.

  49. Indeed, check with a Constitutional lawyer they are real eye openers.But again the shaking of the head.

  50. Oh, and he also said:
    “Be sure to get a free consultation if/when you talk to a lawyer…”

  51. I talked to a detective at my city’s Real Estate Task Fraud dept.about all this stuff—his response? Head shake.

  52. I too did not listen well they say hindsight is always 20/20.LOL.

  53. I’m so surprised more people are actually getting this about judges,law enforcement ,etc.This is why the police will not even take a report over the phone.

  54. When you need the money, you will have to sell your labor.
    When your government needs the money, they will sell you.
    We were sold by the government long before we were even born.
    That is the reality !

  55. enough for a few generations. But not only judges, also top sheriffs, district attorneys, legislators, etc… Of 12+ millions foreclosed homes only 12000 (1/1000th) was enough to pay them all off so that they don’t obstruct BanGsters national looting operations… On top of that the above corrupt public employees pending mortgages had probably all been taken off books, or just not billed to them, like the FOA loans (Friends Of Angelo Mozillo-BOA)… aint that sweet deals ??…

  56. @guest

    Interesting…I wonder how many foreclosures judges have bought…?

  57. PENSION PROOF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES: judges & top officials, have secured themselves as rental landlords by assisting mass foreclosure thefts & in return for getting free-bee loans, so they don’t even need their public retirement pension anymore… Of course we ain’t supposed to know that…

  58. You’re cracking me up Nora C., and you’re so right. Who would fear the bogeyman under the bed or bad nuptials when there’s Wall Street in the fine print, reducing one and all to life long servitude?

    Our promissory notes and mortgages might have well have said:

    I, [your name], take you, [originator], to be my master for life. I promise to pay you or yours in good times and in bad, over and above any other bills, in sickness and in health, even when predatory in nature and exceeding any possibility of repayment. I will honor my promise to you all the days of my life even when you utterly lay waste the entire economy and cause my job loss. I will turn my back on your fraudulent actions like a faithful and obedient spouse. I will continue to vote for your enablers every four years, saying nothing as you and they take every dollar printed, and those not yet printed, till death do us part.

    Until, that is, we awaken one day from the bad marriage and realize we have rights, and take these rat bastards to task and extract every single pound of flesh and retake every single penny they’ve taken from our nation, reducing them and their enablers to unemployed former financiers and politicians in the bargain. The time for playing the suffering spouse is over. It’s time to show them just how revolting and down right vengeful ex’s can be, when pressed hard against the wall.

    Death to Wall Street. Rev 2.0.

  59. my neighbor the UPS driver (26 years employment) shared his companies misery with me last week. The teamster pension funds are many and varied. Their fund (from Chicago) just told all the drivers (who have less than 10 or so years) that their pension contribution will remain the same, but their payback is being reduced about 80%. Don’t remember the exact numbers, but it was huge. That’s another reason they went to all part-timers (30 hours) in package handling. Same with the others. Those old union jobs are gone, folks! Save for a few like pipefitters, operating engineers, boiler, construction and public sector workers. Union contributions in Wisconsin (when they stopped taking it out of the members paychecks) dropped substantially. Not anti-union; except for public sector workers. Who needs a union with a cushy government job? C’mon…….

  60. Mom never warned me about a criminal cartel who’d seized control of the world economy, who’d sell me a house priced $40 grand more than it’s worth, cooked their books and tried to rob every single person on the planet. All she said was, “Don’t marry that guy with the holes in his pants.” I didn’t listen on that one either, though.

  61. This is what our parents warned us about.Don’t we all wished we’d paid better attention?

  62. Neil: how much do you think the $250 Billion CALPERS pensioners have been screwed?

  63. Hi Neil,

    Can you write something about the impact of libor rate rigging on pay option arms? Thank you.

  64. @Carie Thank you sooo much. I get it. Nothing is going to get better until these scumbuckets are in jail. And the foreclosure mill attorney’s disbarred.

  65. “You have been a renter all along, you just did not know it.”

    Actually, Martha—God “owns” the whole friggin’ planet—we’re just caretakers for a while…and not doing a very good job…

  66. more of that class warfare to set neighbor against neighbor.

    And Jim, we’re gonna do some chickens, too. You can learn a lot from a chicken…….

  67. “The Rise of Chinese Banks
    By Julie Steinberg

    People have been talking about the rise of the Chinese banking industry for quite awhile, but here’s more evidence it’s actually happening.

    Chinese firm Citic Securities is taking over CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets, the brokerage unit of French bank Crédit Agricole, Financial News reports.

    CLSA has about 1,500 employees, most of whom are based in Asia-Pacific cities. The others work in London and New York. Citic has been prowling for a foreign partner for several years in an attempt to help clients raise capital in countries other than China.

    The Chinese firm’s intention is to become a “world-class, China-focused, global investment bank,” Citic Securities chairman Wang Dongming has said.

    Among Chinese and Western firms, emerging markets are still a big draw. Goldman Sachs Chief Financial Officer David Viniar said last week that bank is still committed to expanding its wealth management and other banking activities within those markets.

    If the trends continue, it’d be wise to start learning Mandarin, stat.”

    … or Cantonese.

  68. American for sale.

    China oil giant buys into North America
    By CNNMoney staff @CNNMoney July 23, 2012: 10:25 AM ET

    Canada’s Nexen, with offshore operations in the U.S. and U.K., has agreed to be acquired by China’s CNOOC for $15.1 billion.

    Canada’s Nexen, with offshore operations in the U.S. and U.K., has agreed to be acquired by China’s CNOOC for $15.1 billion.

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — A major Chinese oil producer expanded its footprint in North America’s energy market with a $15.1 billion acquisition of a Canadian company.

    Calgary-based Nexen Inc. said Monday that it has agreed to be acquired by China’s CNOOC Ltd. in a cash transaction. The deal values Nexen (NXY) shares at $27.50 each, a 61% premium from Friday’s closing price of $17.06.

    Nexen’s assets in North America include exploration and development in the Gulf of Mexico and shale oil development in British Columbia.

    The company also has operations in the North Sea off the coast of Great Britain and off the coast of Nigeria.

    Nexen said the deal will require the approval of regulators, including those in the United States. The deal is expected to close by the end of the year.

    China paying billions for oil deals in the Americas

    Shares of Nexen rose over 50% in early trading to within $2 of the proposed acquisition price.

    The deal adds to string of recent North American energy purchases by Chinese oil firms.

    In 2010, CNOOC (CEO) paid $2 billion for stake in Chesapeake’s Texas oil fields. Last year, it spent $2 billion to purchase Canadian oil sands operator OPTI Canada.

    CNOOC is a familiar name to Americans. In 2005, Congressional pressure ended a bid by the company to buy California’s Unocal, which was ultimately sold to Chevron (CVX, Fortune 500).

    CNOOC isn’t alone.

    In 2011, China National Petroleum Corp. paid over $5 billion for a joint venture in Canadian shale gas properties held by Encana (ECA), and Sinopec (SHI) put down $7 billion for a share in Brazil’s deepwater oil assets.

    Earlier this year, there was talk of PetroChina (PTR) buying an old refinery on Aruba owned by American refining giant Valero (VLO, Fortune 500). China is also said to be interested in building a pipeline to carry 300,000 barrels a day of Colombian oil to the Pacific Coast.

    The acquisitions are being driven by two factors: a boom in North and South American energy production that requires significant investment, and a desire by Chinese companies to become global players in energy businesses. To top of page

  69. The American Dream. Work hard, Pay ten years of loan payments, then find the bankers rigged the market. Then find that the owner prior, had bought the home after a foreclosure auction who did a trustee deed, in which the “THIRD” had foreclosed, and had an auction, yet leaving a 60K and an 81K still in place it seems -(no payoff in the records). Find out you were never going to own it no matter what you did, that was the plan. You have been a renter all along, you just did not know it.

  70. KC,

    I lost my 401 K. It wasn’t much (thank God!) but still.

    O well… They’re finally talking jail time for bankers here.

    Pressure mounting for Libor jail terms
    By James O’Toole @CNNMoneyInvest July 23, 2012: 3:34 PM ET

    Observers are calling for prosecutions for individuals involved in the Libor scandal.

    Observers are calling for prosecutions for individuals involved in the Libor scandal.

    NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — It’s not just banks feeling the heat in the Libor interest-rate-fixing scandal. As public outrage grows, observers are pressuring law enforcement to ensure that the individuals involved end up behind bars.

    Last month, British banking giant Barclays (BCS) admitted that its traders had colluded with those at other banks to manipulate the London Interbank Offered Rate, or Libor, a key benchmark for trillions of dollars worth of loans and derivatives worldwide.

    In response, a group of senators including Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner calling for forceful government action.

    “Banks and their employees found to have broken the law should face appropriate criminal prosecution and civil action,” the senators wrote.

    In the House, Rep. Peter Welch circulated a letter earlier this month demanding that bankers implicated in the controversy “spend time behind bars.”

    The calls from Capitol Hill echo those from commentators who are urging the government to pursue criminal cases against individuals, a form of accountability that has been largely absent in the major Wall Street scandals of recent years. In the current controversy, however, analysts say that such cases may indeed be within reach.

    “The odds are decent,” said William Black, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. “The case is strong, there are low-level folks who are low-hanging fruit, and there’s a political need to do something.”

    In announcing the Barclays settlement, the DOJ said its probe of “other financial institutions and individuals,” led by its fraud and anti-trust divisions, is ongoing. That could potentially include staff at Barclays, who aren’t protected by the firm’s non-prosecution agreement.

    In addition, firms including Deutsche Bank (DB), JPMorgan (JPM, Fortune 500), Citigroup (C, Fortune 500) and UBS (UBS) have revealed that they are cooperating with investigations.

    (Click on the link to read the rest)

  71. No matter how you look at it the pensions funded the loans, PERIOD! How much did you lose in your pension Carie? Anyone? We lost enough to pay for two houses. Who really owns those houses? I will give you a clue …. Not the bank! And not any other party who didnt work 30years to pay for it. Pfffff!

  72. @mass resident

    One more thing. As said before, securities must be backed by current cash pass-through. The security investors invest in the pass-through of the cash flows that are the “benefit” of, in the case of subprime, collection rights. The “loans”/collection rights are not pass-through themselves. The pass-through is the rights attached to the “loans.” The cash pass-through are largely compromised of interest payments (with a much smaller principal payment). There is no funding necessary for these cash pass-throughs. You do not fund interest payments.


    Timothy Geithner’s Treasury Department Ignored Warnings Of Mortgage Fraud: Book

    “In a new book, TARP’s former inspector general claims that he warned Timothy Geithner’s Treasury Department repeatedly that the mortgage program, HAMP, was a disaster waiting to happen. Instead of listening, he says, Geithner plowed right ahead with it, to serve the banks…”

    “…Barofsky’s concerns about HAMP began when he watched a “twitchy, sweaty and obviously nervous” Geithner announce only bare-bones information about the program, as part of a broader new bailout plan, in February 2009 — a dismal performance by Geithner that caused the stock market to tumble that day…”

  74. right, Nora—like ANON said:

    “To date, no government agency, no entity, no law firm, no Congressional representative, no administration, has been able to open Fannie/Freddie books and records. NOT ONE. THIS is the problem…”


  75. I tried several times to post the link to that story in the Huffington Post, but couldn’t. There’s a photo of bank door with a sign on it that says, “Temporarily Closed”. The caption reads, “closed until we can figure out who else to screw.” Are you guys with me when I say I won’t be happy until the sign says, “Closed for EVER” ?

  76. Hold on now, the indictments are just beginning… Ex Bank of America executive was just indicted for tampering with the bidding process on municipal bond investments: Brian Murphy was just indicted for fraud.
    We need to demand that Fannie, Freddie and the Fed be audited.

  77. “how many ways can they screw us, let me count the ways”
    i knew this too was coming, the boundaries are gone completely, unless those that did this are brought to justice (and i can not believe jame biy has the nuts to sat “yes we were stupid yes we were wrong” if thats not the most amazing thing ive ever seen well i dont know what is),, and thats very difficult then what else do we have, and the attorneys that will help are few and far between, the system is well and truely broken and none of the options we have seen so far did sqat.
    but ill keep on keeping on, will never surrender.

  78. @mass resident

    Here is an answer regarding your other post:

    “…These FHFA cases are directed to return money to security investors — not homeowners. FHFA refuses to divulge Freddie/Fannie records. I have been through FOIA (Freedom of Information Act). Bottom line — Freddie/Fannie were scammed out of there own loans — by servicers reporting false default to them. Freddie/Fannie disposed of the false default loans, but then turned around and invested in the subprime securities that invested in the false default loans! Now, they are stating that these “securities” were bogus because the borrowers were delinquent, in default, and that the securities were derived from these “loans” that backed the securities that they purchased! HAH — F/F need to open their books, what was reported to them about the borrower — BEFORE they invested in the subprime securities?

    To date, no government agency, no entity, no law firm, no Congressional representative, no administration, has been able to open F/F books and records. NOT ONE. THIS is the problem…”

  79. I knew it would come to this!!!. I”ve been saying for years , bring out the guillotines to dispose of the bankers, and pitchforks up the asses of the politicians.

  80. General Electric on Friday became the latest company to announce a major reduction to its expected pension funding payments, thanks to a law signed into effect earlier this month.

    On a conference call to discuss its second-quarter results, CFO Keith Sherin said the company contributed about $200 million to its pension plan during the quarter, and expects to contribute $400 million for the year, according to an unedited transcript provided by FactSet. Originally, GE expected $1 billion in contributions this year; the 60% reduction was made possible by a provision in the Temporary Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2012.

    **********so, the only REASON they claim a 60% decrease to the pension fund is due to the LAW, making it “possible.” I don’t think the ACT meant ” We want you to cut 60% of your fund to the pensions”

    Ok, America, GE says, “Thanks to a law, this happened” Blame it on the law.

    This is a very scary thing, a 60% cut is unfathomable. And its lower-priority news about Ashton and Mila of course.


    Super-Rich Hold Up To $32 Trillion In Offshore Havens: Report

    LONDON, July 22 (Reuters) – Rich individuals and their families have as much as $32 trillion of hidden financial assets in offshore tax havens, representing up to $280 billion in lost income tax revenues, according to research published on Sunday.

    The study estimating the extent of global private financial wealth held in offshore accounts – excluding non-financial assets such as real estate, gold, yachts and racehorses – puts the sum at between $21 and $32 trillion.

    The research was carried out for pressure group Tax Justice Network, which campaigns against tax havens, by James Henry, former chief economist at consultants McKinsey & Co.

    He used data from the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, United Nations and central banks.

    The report also highlights the impact on the balance sheets of 139 developing countries of money held in tax havens by private elites, putting wealth beyond the reach of local tax authorities.

    The research estimates that since the 1970s, the richest citizens of these 139 countries had amassed $7.3 to $9.3 trillion of “unrecorded offshore wealth” by 2010.

    Private wealth held offshore represents “a huge black hole in the world economy,” Henry said in a statement. (Reporting by Chris Vellacott)

  82. Some will say this will never happen, but it already has and now people are just first getting wind of this.

    Just look at what happens to under-funded pensions in Greece. The problem does not lie simply with private sector pensions. For years municipalities and the Feds took the funds from our checks, and not only did they not match the contribution, they didn’t even contribute the employee share they withheld.

    It gets better they diverted the funds to current liabilities or passed it along to themselves as dividends or to earnings so they could show better EPS during the quarter.

    Had they simply made all contributions we would have owned more assets regardless of time pricing.

    Wait til they find out that the municipal and private pension funds are getting only 50 cents on the dollar back from mortgage trust fraud and all the assets were never transferred to the trustee.

    I see an IRA and pension grab coming soon. Probably after QE 5 or 6. They just don’t gte it at the federal reserve corporation or the committee banks. WE ARE BROKE and we cannot take on new credit at the consumer level. let the assets unwind and and go through the short deflation before the inflation that follows evolves out of non-core to other assets and basics.

    The housing market is not coming back and we cannot sit and wait for them socialize all the alleged losses through FNM and FRE, and now HUD.

  83. In my new survival mode I bought some chickens. They’re great fun and love the one who feeds them. One small step for mankind……

  84. Looks like I better start converting my flower gardens into vegtable gardens and turn my lawnshed into a chicken coop. Its going to be a rough ride ahead. And they can kiss by dairy aire if they think I’m going to work as a Walmart greeter for them to pay my property taxes. Just sayin ….

  85. Doomsday has arrived …………

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: