Investigator Bill Paatalo: “Who Is Private Investor ‘AO1?” JPMorgan Chase Refuses To Reveal The Identity Of This Investor.”


In relation to my previous article, let me continue a bit further. More and more cases continue to come across my desk showing that WaMu loans claimed to be owned by JPMorgan Chase, through the “Purchase & Assumption Agreement” with the FDIC, were in fact sold by WaMu to “Private Investor – AO1” prior to the FDIC’s Receivership. Here is an excerpt from a recent affidavit I produced:


“Private investors own the subject loans, and their identity is being concealed.

Attached as Exhibit 5, p.1 is a servicing system screenshot titled, “3270 Explorer” which was provided to me by Plaintiff through discovery efforts. This screenshot is dated 03/02/2009 and refers to “Loan Number [“REDACTED”] which is associated with the [“REDACTED”] mortgage. This document shows an investor code “AO1” directly beneath the top line. The same investor code “AO1” is shown on the servicing screenshot for this loan on 12/31/2005 (Exhibit 5, p. 2). Exhibit 5. P.3 is the servicer screenshot for the [“REDACTED” mortgage (“Loan Number [REDACTED]”) dated 12/31/2005 which also shows the same investor code “AO1.”

From experience, I have seen and reviewed JPMC’s servicing records for WMB originated loans within JPMC’s “3270 Explorer” servicing platform. This system / platform contains a specific screenshot which shows the “loan transfer history” (Screen: “Explorer 3270 – LNTH”) for these loans.

From experience, I have seen complete LNTH screenshots for these WaMu loans provided by JPMC, but usually they are produced with great reluctance and through motions to compel. When produced, these LNTH screens tell an entirely different story about the loans; specifically, all the sales and transfers conducted prior to the FDIC’s receivership.

Attached as Exhibit 6 is a “3270 Explorer: Loan Loan Transfer History (LNTH)” screenshot provided by JPMC in a very similar case which I have been involved captioned Kelley v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., U.S. BK CT, ND CA, Adv. Case No. 10-05245. Like the [REDACTED]loans, the Kelley loan was also originated by Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. Exhibit 6 shows the entire LNTH from origination through the FDIC receivership. The beginning “Investor Code” at the inception of the loan is “030” on 08/07/07. The loan is then sold and transferred to a “New/Inv” (new investor) on 09/01/07 with the “Investor Code – AO1”: the same code for both [REDACTED] loans on 12/31/2005. It can be logically deduced from this evidence that the same originator code of “030” should also exist on the [REDACTED] loans if WMBFA was the originator.

A deposition of JPMC employee “Crystal Davis” occurred in the Kelley case on August 13, 2014. A copy of the Davis Deposition Transcript was filed in the PACER System and a copy is attached to this affidavit as Exhibit 3. Exhibit 4 is a glossary of codes exhibit provided by JPMC in that deposition. Crystal Davis explains the investor codes on p.42 as follows:

(In reference to Exhibit 4).

Q. Now if you look to the right of that, it states that the claim – the investor IDs begin with an A through V; is that correct?

A. In the current MSP platform, yes, indicates private investor loans.

Q. And what would X,Y,Z indicate?

A. Those would indicate bank-owned assets.

It is very likely that the complete LNTH screenshots for both subject loans, if ever produced, will show similar sales transactions from WMB to “New/Inv – AO1.” The identity of investor “AO1” has not been disclosed and is being concealed from the Court and the Plaintiff. I believe this is intentional.”


What also appears to be intentional is the fact that when JPMC is now pressured to produce these “LNTH” screenshots per my findings and recommendations to counsel, JPMC or the servicer comes back with incomplete LNTH histories for the loans; the LNTH screens begin AFTER September 25, 2008. What this means is, not only was no schedule of assets ever produced in association with “Schedule 3.1” of the PAA, but now in some of my current cases, JPMC takes the added position that it owns these WaMu loans to which there is also no record of the sales and transfer histories of the loans within their servicing platform.  So, my opinion that WaMu sold and securitized the loan(s) prior to September 25, 2008 becomes a bit more difficult to rebut.  The question to ask any Chase representative in a deposition is this, “If no schedule or inventory of WaMu loans has ever been produced, and there are no servicing records in existence from WaMu showing whether or not the loan was ever sold or securitized, could it be possible the loan(s) were sold by WaMu prior to September 25, 2008?” (As a reminder, few if any Chase witnesses have any personal knowledge of WaMu’s business practices.)

Bottom line – Chase’s own witness testified that “Ao1” is a private investor, and this code does not mean “bank owned.” With the LNTH screenshots now appearing with no pre-receivership sales and transfer activities entered by WaMu, it is almost too much to believe that one of the largest banking institutions in the world, would not have tracked the loans it originated and sold into the secondary market within its servicing systems.

C’mon Chase, who is “Private Investor AO1?”


Bill Paatalo – Private Investigator – OR PSID#49411

(406) 328-4075



7 Responses

  1. Ahmanson Obligation tranche 1 = AO1

  2. […] via Investigator Bill Paatalo: “Who Is Private Investor ‘AO1?” JPMorgan Chase Refuses To Reveal Th… […]

  3. Thackeray Holdings, WMI Investment. Legacy Washington Mutual Inc. investment holdings.

  4. Random Thoughts :

    1.) Sara Stephens ,, I did exactly that and still got just an OCWEN stooge reading a script… the judges don’t care… the plaintiff attorneys don’t care .. they will never give you anyone with knowledge.

    2.) “3270 Explorer” just guesswork but IBM’s line of mainframe terminals in the 1970’s/80”s/90’s were 3270 devices (mainly 3278 and 3279’s) … That is likely a pc program that interprets mainframe output from a database access system such as CICS or IMS that would normally be sent by TCAM or VTAM to an output terminal rather than over IP to a PC … I can verify that WF used mainframe based IMS in 2004 to process loan apps. Other similar programs are PC3270 and Quick3270.

    3.) This article really should have exhibit 6 linked.

  5. AO1 – Templeton Fund Vietnam/Southeast Asia – transfer agent was “Mellon”?? All I could find for “A01”.

  6. I have washington mutual bank FA investor code INV F58 in 2007 and Chase Loan Finance LLC investor code INV T37 in 2009 after the FDIC receivership. Chase resold the same loan to investor (INV T37). Who is F58 and T37??

  7. Fannie Mae was put under conservatorship on September 6, 2008; on October 31, 2008 Fannie transferred loans to a ‘different set of books’ perhaps with the originating entity; Fannie never shows up anywhere on any docs though there was supposed to have been an assignment to Fannie (or whatever GSE) check out payoff statements – which should list an ‘investor’ – then call GSEs – Fannie/Freddie/Ginnie – ask if the ‘investor’ number is theirs – these GSE loans will not show up on a website check (Fannie/Freddie/Ginnie) – they come back ‘not a Fannie Mae” loan – you have to actually call the GSE and ask them if it is their loan using an investor number not a loan number – they don’t have data under borrower’s name, SSN, DOB, etc., on the website – only recognize a ‘loan’ by the ‘investor’ number. Have done several GSE queries for borrowers – website searches came back “not a Fannie Mae” loan. When Fannie called directly though – they had the loan which is only recognized by an investor number and pulled up data right away. In these cases researched, Fannie Mae stated it ‘purchased the loans’ directly from the entities asserting they were ‘original lenders’ – who actually sold the loans to Fannie Mae even though they were NOT the original lender but used a nonexistent legal fiction name in the note and mortgage – and contracted for the coveted mortgage servicing rights – Fannie Mae stated the entity was the ‘servicer’ who sold them the loan – but in reality was the sham ‘originator’ who hid behind the name of a faux ‘lender’ to cover themselves being involved probably because they did not have mandatory real estate licenses (originator, broker, lender, servicer, correspondent lender) in the states where property was located – and used fictitious names to conceal the identity of the party who actually facilitated the loan – had pre-sold to Fannie (GSEs) and never assigned as required by Fannie – when the conservatorship (September 2008) occurred – Fannie was no longer a ‘private corporation’ and became quasi-governmental – and screwed up for not ensuring loans purchased/guaranteed by it actually legally belonged to it – and the ‘servicer’ was posing as owner/lender when it was merely a conduit selling to Fannie Mae – who is the ‘investor’ in most of these cases – but it was too late to correct paperwork errors of not having recorded docs after 2008 bailout – thus the attempts to cover up and conceal what actually transpired – the ‘investors’ are probably the GSEs. My 2 cents only.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: