Why Antitrust Legislation Should be Applied Against the mega banks

Securitization of data that is mischaracterized as securitization of debt has enabled the securities firms to write off the loan concurrently with funding it

I believe there is a very strong case for applying antitrust legislation against the big winners in the securitization game because they could and did apply multiple incentives to borrowers to accept loan products that were clearly losers from a business perspective. This blocked competitors who wanted to make real loans with real lenders and raised the risk of loss to consumers without any disclosure to the consumer, to government regulators or anyone else. All of this was performed at the same time that the risk of financial loss was entirely eliminated on any transaction with homeowners that was characterized as a loan.

*

The big securities brokerage firms acting as investment “banks” were able to fund loans and then sell securities that were completely dependent upon data released by the same securities firms about the performance of the data, as announced by the securities brokerage firm in its sole discretion. Effectively and substantively they sold the same loan multiple times. But nominally there was no reduction in the loan receivable account because there was no loan receivable account.

*

 This effectively forced small community banks, credit unions and other lenders into the position of not competing — if they had offered the same incentives on real loans to homeowners, they would have suffered catastrophic loss. So they had to step out of lending, which would have been catastrophic or originate loans “for sale.”

*
The result was an undisclosed reduction of risk of loss for everyone on the “lending” side. But the more pernicious result was that the bank practices also flooded the market with money such that salespeople were selling payments instead of price and the accuracy of appraisals was reduced as a factor in granting loans. This created a second antitrust impact — the price of homes was driven up by cheap money rather than demand for housing. But values remained the same because median income has been flat.
*
The effect on consumers was that they all bought or financed homes based upon appraisals that were based upon the amount of the intended loan rather than the value of the property. So the net effect was that homeowners were forced into deals where they were taking an immediate loss of as much as 65% of the “price” of acquisition of the home or new loan. This was a hidden increase in the cost of credit. Amortizing the likely loss over the likely period of retention of the home increases the cost of credit far beyond usury prohibitions.
*
The overall bottom line is that the big banks acting as unregulated lenders have grabbed a market share for lending that controls more than 80% of the market and heavily influences the rest of the market.
*
Consumers suffer because they are not dealing with a party who could answer for damages resulting from violations of TILA and other lending and servicing statutes and because they are not left with either a lender or a loan account in real terms that is maintained as an asset on the books of any business. They are left with a toxic transaction in which they are strictly on their own when they discover the deficiencies in the lending process. They’re on their own because there is no actual creditor who claims ownership of their debt, note or mortgage.
*
The risk of foreclosure is high, especially on those transactions in which the appraisal is far higher than the value of the home and especially where the transaction is labeled as an option loan in which the homeowner gets reduced payments for some specified period of time. In short, the failure to regulate the securities brokerage firms acting as investment “banks” and then as licensed commercial “banks” has so distorted the marketplace that no borrower can find a source of funds who will admit to being part of the the transaction, much less the lender in any specific transaction.
*

Securitization of data that is mischaracterized as securitization of debt has enabled the securities firms to write off the loan concurrently with funding it, while at the same time pursuing foreclosures and other enforcement or “modification” processes in which they have been successful at pretending the loan account exists, that a party owns it, that a loss was sustained as a result of the homeowner’s “failure” to make payments on a nonexistent loan account.

*
Neil F Garfield, MBA, JD, 73, is a Florida licensed trial attorney since 1977. He has received multiple academic and achievement awards in business and law. He is a former investment banker, securities broker, securities analyst, and financial analyst.
*

FREE REVIEW: Don’t wait, Act NOW!

CLICK HERE FOR REGISTRATION FORM. It is free, with no obligation and we keep all information private. The information you provide is not used for any purpose except for providing services you order or request from us. Inthe meanwhile you can order any of the following:
*
CLICK HERE ORDER ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY, ANALYSIS AND NARRATIVE. This could be all you need to preserve your objections and defenses to administration, collection or enforcement of your obligation.Suggestions for discovery demands are included.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER TERA – not necessary if you order PDR PREMIUM.
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER CONSULT (not necessary if you order PDR)
*
*
CLICK HERE TO ORDER PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT REVIEW (PDR) (PDR PLUS or BASIC includes 30 minute recorded CONSULT)
*
FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IS NOT SIMPLE. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF A FAVORABLE RESULT. THE FORECLOSURE MILLS WILL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO WEAR YOU DOWN AND UNDERMINE YOUR CONFIDENCE. ALL EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT NO MEANINGFUL SETTLEMENT OCCURS UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR OF LITIGATION.
  • But challenging the “servicers” and other claimants before they seek enforcement can delay action by them for as much as 12 years or more.
  • Yes you DO need a lawyer.
  • If you wish to retain me as a legal consultant please write to me at neilfgarfield@hotmail.com.
*

2 Responses

  1. Harris received 40% of National Mortgage Settlement ($9.2 Billion).

    Most of these money were never used to help homeowners and disappeared in Harris’ hands.

    According to recent filings, CA used about $331 million to cover for budget deficiencies – but the rest of $8.9 Billion is still missing – and nobody asked Harris how she handled these money.

    Even Reuters questioned Harris involvement and support to Big Banks fraud with mortgages

    Its reasonable to conclude that these money were a bribe to AGs who sold American people to Big Banks for $25 billion.

    The same with Lisa Madigan. $700 million from $2 bil were used for “consulting” – which is impossible to account. $1.3 Bil disappeared.

    As of smaller lenders and credit unions – they are actually participate in “lending” – as sham conduits for investment Banks.

    My friend works for a small credit union who offers residential mortgages under 2.75% (!!!) for 15 years; and even commercial loans.

    The friend said that they do not “sell loans”

    So, HOW this small credit union can make money from 2.75% interest rate if annual inflation is about 6%?

    Big Banks totally monopolized home lending and other lending industry, smaller players now must work under Big Banks’ command.

    Hint: this credit union works with BMO Harris Bank (no, not Kamala Harris)

  2. This is all accurate. Quote from the header – “Securitization of data that is mischaracterized as securitization of debt has enabled the securities firms to write off the loan concurrently with funding it”

    Thus, in the case of a refinance, or assumption of debt in a purchase loan, the concurrent write off with simultaneous claimed “funding” – means that the debt is a charge off debt, and only collection rights have been re-assigned. There is no funding for collection rights, and there is no “note” as default debt is transferred by assignment – not a note. And, this is why people start their claimed “refinance” with a non-friendly debt collector “servicer” and no actual creditor.

    It is also important that consumer protection laws, such as TILA, are violated in this process. Unfortunately, the statute of limitations for TILA is short – one year. Rescission is statute of repose — three years. But by the time anything is figured out by the borrower, time has already passed.

    The appraisal scenario described here is also accurate.

    If anyone watched the Harris/Pence debate — Harris claims all was handled and fixed for the Great Fraud Crisis by her and Biden. NOT.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: