Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us
The government is going to use tax payer money to buy the securities that the investment banks can't unload.

Alrighty then.... I understand that part of it.....

BUT without scrutinizing the servicing aspect and putting the practices of these bastards under the microscope and regulating the servicers this bailout is nothing more than a farce on the American people.

WE are financing a RESCUE that still leaves US standing in front of the bus!

What I want to know is what role will the government play in determining who's going to service the loans? Won't the servicing aspect HAVE to be addressed?? I honestly don't think they will take ANY role and will just leave the servicing of these loans with the same parasites who caused most of this problem to begin with!

The financial rape and pillaging of the American homeowner will continue.

I have a better idea...instead of using my tax dollars why not just send me my portion of the 700 billion and I'll just pay off my own damn note!
Quote 0 0

Hey Ohio, I could not agree with you more.  From what I'm hearing, and it is still early in the process, it sure does sound like the servicing parasites will be left untouched, leaving us in the same boat we're in now, or possibly even worse.  If the feds rescue the institutions that control our servicers, I'm afraid the servicers will be in an even stronger position than they are now to wreak havoc against us.  I won't hold my breath for any piece of that $700 billion to be heading our way, other than the bill we'll be receiving as taxpayers, so at this point I wouldn't be disappointed to skip the bailout altogether and let the chips fall where they may.  Aren't these the same people who've been telling all of us to suck it up?  Well, here's their chance to show us how.

Quote 0 0
Here's One
Rep Maxine Waters was the ONLY person to speak about the role of the servicer.

Quote 0 0
Even Ms. Waters does not appear to understand the role of the servicers. Her worry was that they were not going to be allowed enough money to modify loans. Ack! She does not seem to realize that servicers have contracts with the trusts, etc. Servicers do not currently have the power to modify loans. To give them that power is to undermine contract law in the US. Once that happens, we are all doomed.

What we need is a good clear concise explanation of what servicers do and their role in the foreclosure mess that can be emailed to all of them.

Of course, this is really help for wealthy bankers anyway. I have little hope that any real people will receive any tangible benefit from any of it.

Quote 0 0
Forced Modifications

Paulson: Treasury Will Force Loan Modifications


September 24, 2008

Starting off his remarks to a key (and often contentious) hearing with members of the House Financial Services Committee by offering a concession on executive pay, Treasury secretary Henry Paulson clearly wanted to get off on the right foot with key legislators that have become increasingly critical of the Bush administration’s proposal to bail out key financial institutions.

Paulson signaled openness to capping executive pay and other potential limits on pay in his opening testimony to key House members, including Committee chair Barney Frank (D-MA). Reportedly, the two had locked horns earlier over Democrats’ insistence that any bailout limit executive compensation in some form, although Frank later refuted such reports in a statement released Tuesday.

For the mortgage industry, however, an exchange with Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) proved to be the most explosive of the afternoon; Waters questioned the Treasury chief over servicing advances and loan modifications, as well as who the Treasury would choose to manage assets.

While officials have yet to specify what sort of assets the Treasury would purchase under the plan, it’s clear that private-party RMBS and CDOs backed by ABS will be part of the deal, as both are among the hardest-to-value in the current market. It’s less clear if the Treasury will look to buy whole loans as part of what Paulson has termed the “trouble asset resolution program.”

Either way, however, both Paulson and Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke have made it clear that the government will manage assets, seeking to hold some to maturity if need be — and that led Waters to wonder aloud if the Treasury will look to intervene in future servicing of mortgages, to ensure a return on taxpayer investment.

Paulson suggested that the answer was yes. “As the government owns more of these assets, we should have more leverage to push servicers for more in the way of modifications,” he said.

He also suggested that the government was looking at ways to help servicers potentially circumvent the problem of servicer advances, which many say have limited many servicer’s ability to modify loans for a growing number of troubled borrowers, but did not provide further details on what options were currently under consideration.

Waters also asked how the Treasury planned to select its vendors to manage the purchase and resale of assets under the bailout program, citing her concern for small and minority-owned businesses being shut out — a question that was met with distinct silence from both Paulson and Bernanke.

“I didn’t hear you,” Waters said sarcastically, after waiting for a response. “I understand you concern, and we’ll address that,” was the only reply that came back from Paulson.

For mortgage market participants — particularly those on the servicing and default end of the business — the fact that Treasury intends to exert some unknown pressure on servicing practices and is also looking to resolve the issue of servicer advances are huge issues. Large enough, in fact, that taken together both have the potential to change much of the landscape in mortgage servicing; the testimony also left the door open that Treasury may yet look to become involved in approving vendors on the default management side, as well.

While questions remain over the approach, Paulson sought to make clear that the Treasury proposal was not a “spending platform” but an “asset management platform.” Paulson and Bernanke have argued the past two days that investors have valued many of the most complex mortgage-related instruments below a longer-term fundamental value they believe the government can realize to the benefit of taxpayers.

Quote 0 0
They are pissing on our legs and insisting it's rain....can they be any more freaking wishy washy

They are tap dancing and puffing smoke up the asses of Americans. As far as I can see it the government holds all the cards and there shouldn't be ANY consideration afforded the tycoons in connection with the bailout. The government has the leverage to be as RUTHLESS and PREDATORY as need be to protect the taxpayers!

Too much pocket padding and a$$ patting for THAT to ever happen.

Quote 0 0
Lets see, on Monday, Paulson said these were "Deal Breakers" now he is agreeing?   If they were deal breakers why do the deal? 

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...