“Servicers” Post Losses: Why? Because most of their revenue and profit comes from foreclosures not servicing

If servicers were actually collecting money and dispersing money they would not be reporting heavy losses. The truth is that they don’t collect any money and they don’t make any disbursements to “investors.” That is why they can’t answer questions about collection or disbursements. They are not servicers as we think of servicers. The only real purpose for these companies is to serve as placeholders for the prosecution of wrongful foreclosures. That is where they make their money. The moratoriums have reduced that flow of money to the “servicers”. So now they have reported losses. None of them were intended to be anything other than vehicles to throw under the bus in the event that the securitization scheme was blown wide open.

The relevance of this fact is simply that the “payment histories” they send or proffer in court are really reports of reports from data owned, operated, and maintained by third-party vendors who are accountable not to the “servicer” but rather to an intermediary for the investment bank that leads the securitizations scheme. And that means that the payment history is hearsay and not qualified as an exception to the hearsay rule. It is inadmissible. But without raising a proper foundation and objection, it will be admitted into evidence and used against the homeowner.

4 Responses

  1. Distressed debt buyers do not account for the purchased debt as a balance sheet asset. It might have a “troubled debt restructuring” account which is not an “asset.”. But, when they collect anything it it reported under “income” – on the “Income statement” – not via an accounts receivable balance sheet asset account (balance sheets and income statement are two different financial statements). That is why none of the crisis loan were ever accounted for on any balance sheet. All started out as GSE charged-off debt. And, it was the servicers to the GSEs that purchased the debt from GSEs. They were the original distressed debt buyers. Then they put on their security underwriter hat – and falsely securitize charged off debt. All anyone got was a reinstatement of default debt even though they were told a mortgage and paid for it as if a mortgage including with “Lenders Title Insurance.” Oh — and they got a “debt collector” – IMMEDIATELY. The certificates sold were fake as they claimed to be backed by assets but they were not. This is why banks (security investors) could not take the Trust conduits (or loans) back onto balance sheet when crisis exploded (which is what should have been done). Hence, the bailout by the government. Then the government sold the fake certificates (not loans because asset loans did not exist) as distressed debt to other big distressed debt buyers via the PPIP program. This is also why fake documents have to be created. It is the biggest scam in history, but no one will talk about it because too much money is involved. Not even the derivatives are real because derived from fake assets. The government knew this early on but they chose to keep it quiet and blame the people for “buying too much house.” The cover-up may be worse than the crime. If the government had told the truth the courts would not behave the way they do. Domino effect. The people are stuck with silence. The chambers of silence.

  2. Can these “distressed debt buyers” show any material proof of their ownership of “distressed debt”? and its actual existence?

    Like account payable from which they paid for this distressed debt and this distressed debt is now on their ledger as an asset?

    Do they have any accounts receivable for non-performing assets?

    And how can a DEAD COW (distressed debt) be profitable without sales of certificates to investors backed by this so-called “debt” (if exists) if purported debtors do not make payments thus this “debt” does not even produced any profits

    Buyers of “distressed debt” are the biggest scammers in Wall Street chain

  3. Unless there is proprietary relationship. Which could very well be,

  4. Agree with this — except about “investment bank” — they are out of it due to bail out. You are dealing with the distressed debt buyer behind the Wizard of Oz curtain. Investment banks caused it, but they were gone with bail-out. Long gone.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: