Would appreciate an answer from someone.whos an Expert

Here is the question – and no one appears to be able to answer. Would appreciate an answer from someone.

- In the process of securitization, mortgage loans are removed from security underwriter balance sheets - and converted into securities by an accounting conversion process. Only an entity that is able to convert mortgage loans into securities is required to now report these loans (converted into securities by off-balance sheet conduits) on their current balance sheet – whether or not it take 2 days or 6 months to actually record the true accounting.

This question is gibberish.

MSoliman

Livinglies Posts

Ladenburg Thalmann analysts started coverage of Bank of America /quotes/comstock/13*!bac/quotes/nls/bac (BAC 16.77, +0.15, +0.90%) , JP Morgan /quotes/comstock/13*!jpm/quotes/nls/jpm (JPM 44.56, +0.31, +0.70%) and Wells Fargo /quotes/comstock/13*!wfc/quotes/nls/wfc (WFC 29.04, +0.46, +1.61%) , all with a buy. Firm calls them “bionic” banks. The banks are likely to perform with growth investments, dividend increases and share buybacks after their TARP-related capital raises, the analysts said. “In our opinion, BAC, JPM and WFC will be the end-game winners” of the financial crisis.

Usedkarguy, on January 14th, 2010 at 8:59 am Said:

Anonymous: This is the defense that John (oliver@ipa) has mentioned. This is exactly the point I would like to make to a federal judge instead of a county/state court judge (If I am allowed)via appeal. My trust was all Wells Fargo except for the Securities Underwriter (read buyer and reseller)CitiGroup Global Markets, which took a $62BILLION writedown.

tony brown, on January 21st, 2010 at 3:25 am Said:
To Ms
I have the original note stamped fully paid and satisfied, along with a letter stating the same. The Lender is now defunct. The ROD in my county would not let me satisfy the mortgage Pro-se ( I went there yesterday) The ROD will not accept the note either as proof of payment. long story but I’m being foreclosed upon and I don’t understand why this Bank put an assignment from Mers on the mortgage from a company that is no longer in business and I have the note.

ASK THE EXPERT:IS IT BETTER TO GO AGAINST THE GRAIN

WHAT IS WITH DEFENSES AND DEFEAT MERS. READ THE JUDGES COMMENTS, FROM JUDGE BOYKO TO JUDGE JUDY!

Okay, lets do it again. MERS is an accommodation to a post event recording. We used to call it a sub escrow.

The word nominee is a play on vernacular. A nominee is the holder of the "security" as in stock certificates. A nominee acts solely on behalf of the beneficial interest (in stock securities). But we know its all gibberish. Again they are a recording accommodation company.

So did they record the assignment, and did MERS endorse it, or does MERS have a beneficial interest. *S*T*O*P* If you or anyone else is facing foreclosure know this.

1) California waives the need to enforce an assignment. Note - But that pertains to a race to record.
2) Counter a lender possession complaint with an action. - Put a lis pendants on the property as a back up

WRONG! I have never gone against the grain for purposes of being always to the contrary of public opinion. The public is not listening to the message and some here will survive and the rest will walk away from their homes.

Don't fight MERS join them in an action. At least depose them and know what to ask. And don't file an action for lis pendants. Do the opposite and remove all clouds from title. That includes any unenforceable liens of records.

m.soliman
expert.witness@live.com

For more expert witness information FIRST contact the publishers of this site or contact the webmaster for livinglies for more information. [Not an attorney and remember that only a lawyer can assist you in protecting your home and enforcing your rights]

Ask the Expert: What Are Collateralized Mortgage Obligation (CMO)

A Collateralized Mortgage Obligation (CMO) is a security (debt instrument) that is collateralized by either a pool of whole / individual residential mortgages or pass-through mortgage-backed securities (whose underlying assets are also residential mortgages).
The underlying pools of mortgages of the CMO can consist of both conforming and non-conforming residential mortgages; and can can also be agency (guaranteed or issued by GNMA, FNMA, FHLMC) mortgages or certificate securities (Agency CMO) or private label securities (issued by financial institutions; Non-Agency CMO). Agency CMOs have a lower credit risk due to the government guarantee

Ask the Expert: What is A Collateralized Mortgage Obligation (CMO)

Collateralized Mortgage Obligation (CMO)

A Collateralized Mortgage Obligation (CMO) is a security (debt instrument) that is collateralized by either a pool of whole / individual residential mortgages or pass-through mortgage-backed securities (whose underlying assets are also residential mortgages).
The underlying pools of mortgages of the CMO can consist of both conforming and non-conforming residential mortgages; and can can also be agency (guaranteed or issued by GNMA, FNMA, FHLMC) mortgages or certificate securities (Agency CMO) or private label securities (issued by financial institutions; Non-Agency CMO). Agency CMOs have a lower credit risk due to the government guarantee 


expert.witness@live.com

31-Jan-10

[Trustee name]
[Trustee Address]
[Trustee City], [Trustee State] [Trustee Postal]

Re: Trustee sale no. [440816CA] Loan No. [0634753578] Title Order No. [338887]

Dear Counsel;

[California Reconveyance Company] The Trustee is alleging to be duly assigned and authorized under the guidelines set forth in the civil code of procedures. I find no evidence anywhere in public record for you or your office having been duly authorized and lawfully substituted in as Trustee as your represent.
The Notice of Default is voidable having not been lawfully recorded. The Trustee, if not duly appointed cannot replace the recognized Trustee named in the original deed of trust dated [05-15-2006], executed by [borrowers] as trustor, to secure obligations in favor of Assigns, as beneficiary recorded [05-22-2006, book, page, and instrument 2006-0160032-00 of official]

This effort you’re enforcing is deceptive whereby a trustee cannot become substituted in where the trustee and its authority are one in the same and lacking any evidence of a lawful condition precedent.
Indispensable parties’ to the transaction are both conditioned precedent and subsequent in liquidation which further makes untenable your claims whereby an agents or substituted right to act on behalf of the beneficiary is lacking transparency. Therefore you are pursuing the right to acceleration and a power of sale without any standing as a holder in due course whereby you acknowledged having sold the loan.

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, inc., (MERS), is recording accommodation acting with limited authority acting solely as nominee for Washington Mutual Bank or undisclosed successors and assigns.So, why has your client refused repeated efforts to produce an assignment or evidence any recording showing proper authority? The information is reasonable, evidentiary and judicially mandated for enforcing this notice and claim.

Your client is one of many interested parties whom were assigned by the government a bundle of assets and of which this loan was left out. Or, who was provided the right to charge down these problem assets held by the original bank and upon a government bail out funding. Those assets are charged to the accounting of someone’s books and thus you are nothing more than a collector of an unsecured note.

You’re operating off the status quo and human nature to be compelled to a traditional authority. Arguments to the contrary require evidence to be subpoenaed in a pending action to Quiet Title and production will disclose the potential for a fraud being committed by your office.

Sarbanes Oxley is sufficient legislation to ensure you to act on behalf of the true holder in due course free of any deceptiveness and show the facts with complete transparency.

Your acting without any authority regardless of the fact a nominee is named on behalf of the beneficiary. Who is authorizing the nominee as successors and assigns and why are you keeping this secretive?

No documentation or evidence exists of the executed or recorded substitution as required under California CC § 2924.3. California Reconveyance cannot authorize itself on behalf of a Nominee acting in pace for a lender who is bankrupt and for an asset likely to have been charged off by the FDIC.

Therefore the instruments you recorded are slanderous to title and recorded in error as it shows the agent for the beneficiary acting without any evidence of a formal substitution, and required recorded instrument. This is a fraud against the county recorders office with no authorization or evidence that the beneficiary and holder in due course exist.

When the original was recorded and filed for record on [01-20-2010] in the office of the county recorder it is a fraud as alleged to have occurred. In an offer to compromise we ask you to please retract the filing solely as an error upon which the matter will be dropped.

We have continually asked your client, serving agent or parties claiming the beneficial interest to determine the true holder of due course and to show sufficient evidence of the lenders standing to bring on a power to sell. The lender originating the loan is lost to the note and absent from the matter due to a default under the FDIC as a member bank and caused by receivership and or bankruptcy. There are no formal recorded assignments to successors and by your own admission you compromise your interests where you state as follows:

“As set forth below, is sent to you in as much as an examination of the title of the trust property shows you may have an interest in the Trustee’s sale proceedings.

The original successor and assigns sold the asset to Wall Street investors through an investment group managed by a major bank “Trust Department” regulated by the FDIC. Your client therefore is operating as a lawful successor and assigns? And for what consideration and lawful intent can you allege this transfer to have been conducted?

My discovery shows the lender in this example is the seller who is documented to have sold the asset and transferred its interest under accounting rules found under FSAB and GAAP. The servicers are in violation of servicing rules found under FAS115 as well as the rules enforceable under the Securities Exchange Commission in violation of rules 1122 AB.

My fear is the likelihood for your bringing a receivership inquiry to the Trustee for violations of FAS 140-3 for controlling interests in assts alleged to be sold. Your efforts are seen solely for recovery of FDIC assistance and an obligation “you “owe or for recourse avoidance.

Whereby no sale date may be set until three months from the date this notice of default is recorded me state for the record the date of recordation as it appears on this notice delivered to us is void and has no bearing on the claims made by you solely as a debt collector. I will forward a copy of my letter to the FDIC seeking them to have them assist me and if possible join me in this effort to circumvent your unlawful activity. I will ask the FDIC to review the matter.

I will seek to have my attorney plead this matter and compel the Trustee to produce even a minimum threshold of evidence necessary to enforce the terms of the deed of trust and obligation. Therefore I ask you to consider this formal notification for intending to file for exparte notice and for petitioning the court to Quiet Title to remove this adverse claim.

Gentlemen, what you’re alleging and seeking to enforce is deceptive andshould you fail to support your standing, I assure you I will press additional claims of fraud, slander of title and unlawful conveyances. These rights I seek to enforce are protected under Sarbanes Oxley legislation.

Respectfully;

(Borrowers Names)
Trustor
Cc: M.Soliman
Expert Witness

Ask the Expert: About the Large Number of Delinquent Loans In MBS Pools

February 1st 2010
An Insider View of the Governments Approach to the Mortgage Delinquency Question.

Consider the borrower's allegations of the note being lost to the lenders successors are true? What if the homes equity emerged from a failed securitization and upon being charged by the shareholders?
One can argue the devalued securities are compensating balances for the charge taken for the delinquent pass thru mortgage. So the homes equity is held on account by the bank foreclosing. I guess then the equity is subject to a sale and proceeds claimed by a trustee on behalf of a financial institution e.g., bank but no longer in trust.

It appears the equity account is garnished at sale by a third party such as the original FDIC member bankwho will claim a valid debt (i.e. final money judgment) owed but unpaid;

Therefore the borrower is being sued and forced to settle as a nominal defendant without even naming the so-called debtor or obligee (to the FDIC).

But the real party is the owner of the property who has an absolute right to intervene and protect his assets.

The major reason that the Lenders' have not bought out the large number of delinquent loans in MBS pools is capital constraints or liquidity; when a nonperforming loan is bought out at par, it is immediately written down on the balance sheet to about 40% of face value, which is approximately the market bid side price for pools of seriously delinquent nonperforming loans, Deutsche Bank Securities analysts said.

The capital for this loss must be obtained from the Treasury Department. That's not a cheap proposition to consider. Soliman agrees with other analysts opinions which is it's costly Lenders' typically pay a 10% dividend to the Treasury on such preferred stock. It's just not a financially realistic business model to assume. Take a GSE who is buying out a loan with a coupon of 6.5% at par for example. Consider where the lender is then borrowing 60% of the face amount and paying 10% on the loan.

According to JPMorgan analysts - you can see the motivation now for why the Lenders' have chosen to leave such seriously delinquent loans in MBS pools and continue to pay investors the coupon month after month." That from the horse's mouth and a SEC enforcement violation, lack of transparency under Sarbanes Oxley and huge cause to bring an action by a borrower for among other things tortuous interference, Promissory estoppels, and Dis-joinder of parties.

The delinquent loans are moving to Fannie and Freddie's balance sheets, and there is no more write-down once they are bought out. The Lenders' will still have to obtain the cash to buyout loans. But according to Barclays estimates, the Lenders' could easily issue $100 to $200 billion in discount notes over a period of a month or two, thereby funding the buyout purchases.

With relief comes a cost and new rules while seeking to return the milk shake back into ice cream, its original form. Also, the banks financial capacity to make good on repurchase commitment from defaulted paper will have a staggering effect on the Constant Prepayment Rate (CPR) for the loans held both as performing and idle.

Once again the government comes to the proverbial rescue whereby the incentives have changed for problem oriented member banks holding toxic waste from misaligned lending policies. Since the start of the year all loans, delinquent and performing, are already on the balance sheet at par, so buying loans out of pools will have no impact on the Lenders' balance sheets anymore. The adoption of FAS 167 will seek to bring guaranteed securities back on the Lenders' balance sheets. As of Jan. 1 it also changes the Banks incentives to buy loans out and has raised investor fears that prepayments will in response accelerate sharply.

It represents the proportion of underlying mortgages that would be paid off in a year at the new anticipated pace.

expert.witness@live.com

ASK THE EXPERT: 10 FORECLOSURE TIPS TO KEEP IT FAIR

There are lots of things to consider with respect to a judicial foreclsure or non judicial power of sale. But the lender is weaked by a strong challenge based on well established facts and solid affirmative defenses in each of the headings below.

The following 3 headings listed below are somethings necessary to understandand and to argue in a wrongful foreclosure claim::

1) LENDERS STANDING: In law, the real party in interest is the one who actually possesses the substantive right being asserted and has a legal right to enforce the claim (under applicable substantive law). Additionally, the "real party in interest" must sue in his own name. In many situations, the real party in interest will be the parties themselves (ie, plaintiff and defendant). However, when a Trustee is a party to a lawsuit, the real party in interest is the beneficiary of the trust. However, Rule 17 of the FRCP expressly provides that trustees are the real party in interest when it is necessary to sue on behalf of the estate. A beneficiary may sue under these circumstances only when the trustee refuses or neglects to bring suit.


2) LAWFUL TRANSFER: Transfer of a property right or title to some particular person under an agreement, usually in writing. For example, the payee may assign his or her rights to collect the note payments to a bank. The owner of a trademark/mark may transfer, give or sell to another person the owner's interest in the trademark/mark. This type of agreement/gift is called an assignment, and the person who receives the owner's interest is called an assignee. An assignee has the right to exclude others from using the trademark/mark. To be enforceable, the assignment must be in writing and signed. It must also include the goodwill of the business connected with the mark.Contracts. In common parlance this word signifies the transfer of all kinds of property, real, personal, and mixed, and whether the same be in possession or in action; as, a general assignment. In a more technical sense it Is usually applied to the transfer of a term for years; but it is more properly used to signify a transfer of some particular estate or interest in lands. The proper technical words of an assignment are, assign, transfer, and set over; but the words grant, bargain, and sell, or any other words which will show the intent of the parties to make a complete transfer, will amount to an assignment. A chose in action cannot be assigned at law, though it may be done in equity; but the assignee takes it subject to all the equity to which it was liable in the hands of the original party. The deed by which an assignment is madeis also called an assignment. By an assignment of a right all the accessories which belong to it, will pass with it as, if the assignor of a bond had collateral security, or a lien on property, the collateral security and the lien will pass with the assignment of the bond. The assignment of a thing also carries with it all that belongs to it by right of accession; if, therefore, the thing produce interest or rent, the interest or the arrearages of the rent since the assignment, will belong to the assignee.


3)  ASSIGNMENTS & ASSIGNEE.: By deficnition one to whom an assignment has been made. Assignees are either assignees in fact or assignees in law. An assignee in fact is one to whom an assignment has been made in fact by the party having the right. An assignee in law is one in whom the law vest's the right, as an executor or administrator. Co. Litt. 210 a, note 1; Hob. 9. Vide Assigns, and 1 Vern. 425; 1 Salk. 81 7 East, 337; Bac. Ab. Covenant, E; a Saund. 182, note 1; Arch. Civ. Pl. 50, 58, 70 Supp, to Ves. Jr, 72 2 Phil. Ev. Index, h.t.



4) EVIDENCE OF ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION
5) COMPLETE TRANSPARANCY IN A TRANSACTION
6) PROPER ACCOUNTING UNDER GAAP
7) CONDITION PRECEDENT THAT TRIGGER A FORECLSURE
8) ADEQUATE AUTHORITY TO ACT AS AN AGENT
9) INDESPENSIBLE PARTIES KNONW OR UNKNOWN
10) PROPER JURISDICTION IN A FORECLOSURE CLAIM

ASK THE EXPERT : Is MERS a Problem as a Nominee vs. a Benficiary

Early in 2007 our firm laid claim to the fact that MERS MAY IN FACT HAVE STANDING as a nominee for the beneficiary. We believe given the definition of a Nominee MERS can demonstrate its authority as granted by the lender of record at settlement and by the successors and assigns. Caution here as there is tremendous room for speculation in this Boyko decision revisited in Bankruptcy matter likely fought by eviction attorneys caught off guard by multi-diversity and courts unlimited jurisdiction.

First look at the definition of a Nominee folks -please!

MERS is operating within the framework of that definition for a nominee people. It may not be that MERS is entirely lost to right to enforce the interests of the parties who are subject to the transfer of rights to the successor.

The beneficiary and original nominator may be allowed to enforce its rights upon claims made by the successors where the original beneficiary is an assignor and the assignee is a fractional interest.

An evidentiary presumption for a lawful judicial transfer is not necessarily going to void a recovery claim by the successor’s nominee where a court may rule it cannot compel MERS to act independently for the benefit of the parties under a nominee. It may benefit or may not benefit the remaining parties to the loans that are indispensable to the transaction. MERS is holding the right to succeed upon a transfer of assets the collective interest whereby the sum is greater than the parts. That collective interest remaining will constitute the successor beneficiary subject to a court determining what that interest maybe.

That beneficial interest appears to be long gone to the lender and original assignor. But do the assignees live another day in tandem with the outstanding obligation?

Careful here folks as we need to look at this one closer!

msoliman
expert.witness@live.com