How to read articles about MBS, RMBS and securitization of debt

LEARN HOW TO FIGHT WITH HONOR AND WIN!

The absence of investigative journalism into the details of claimed securitization results in entirely misleading reporting. News reports now regularly contain gross exaggerations and misrepresentations leading to a “general consensus” that is both ignorant and completely erroneous.

see https://asreport.americanbanker.com/news/jp-morgan-offers-about-1-6-billion-in-rmbs

J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust 2021-11 is preparing to come to market with its eleventh residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) deal, hoping to raise notes off of a portfolio with an unpaid principal balance of $1.6 billion.

If the article was reporting facts rather than fraud, it would have said this:

J.P. Morgan is preparing to come to market with a new securitization deal. The new offering under the name of “J.P. Morgan Mortgage  Trust 2021-11” is claiming to be the issuance of RMBS, but the securities do not represent any ownership in any debt, note or mortgage nor does J.P. Morgan assert or warrant title to any debt, note or mortgage. J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp is the deal’s sponsor.

As usual, the notes provide operating capital to J.P. Morgan who in turn makes an ultra-subordinated discretionary promise to make payments to buyers of the certificates. And in accordance with current practices and customs the incentive to make such payments is entirely dependent upon (a) sales of more certificates in later deals and (b) receipts from homeowners who make payments that are eventually funnelled to J.P. Morgan, despite the retirement of the original loan account and the obvious absence of any creditor who owns it.

PRACTICE NOTE: THE MOMENT YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU ARE READING FROM WALL STREET IS THE MOMENT YOU ARE FOOLED.

 

 

4 Responses

  1. Note: this is BS Trust 2021 – ELEVENTH. Means here are 10 more BS Trusts with another tens billions

  2. In an unrelated note, I just saw on NY Law Journal , in a foreclosure case, Citibank NA v Wu, the judge ruled that Citibank didn’t need to be licensed as a debt collector in order to foreclose.
    My thoughts would be that if Citibank is foreclosing on a charged-off debt , then they should be licensed as a debt collector. Rather than being viewed as a mortgagee or lender collecting on a loan which is still on their books at the time of foreclosure.

  3. Neil, that’s outstanding, can you do a mass email to a couple thousand attorneys, lawmakers, and county recorders? ( just kidding)

  4. With Honor.
    Ha Ha !!! There is No Honor In this Cesspool of Ponzi Fraud…. Take these Banksters on and take them out with all means necessary.
    And wear that as your Badge of Honor.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: