Most of These trust only reported for two years according to the Edgar database.
Quote: Filing reports with the SEC has nothing to do with the existence of an entity.
Not filing just means that they are delinquent, assuming that they have not since become exempt from filing that particular report or form.
It is no different from a company not filing tax returns with the IRS. It just means that they are a delinquent filer.
George has given you a pretty good answer, but his answer is still a bit off the mark in respect to filing delinquency. The first sentence of his post is correct:
Filing reports with the SEC has nothing to do with the existence of an entity.
But his assertion that the entity is delinquent in filing is probably NOT correct.
George IS correct that an SEC filing delinquency ordinarily would not imply that an entity is defunct or extinct. Whether the company or trust continues to exist depends upon state corporation and trust laws, as well as specific facts relating to that trust.
Generally speaking SEC registration statements and regular filings apply only to issuance or sale of securities into public markets. By contrast, there tend to be exceptions as to registration and regular filing for (a) very small offerings and offering NOT made in Interstate commerce (offerings made only in a single state), (b) offerings that are made to a very small group of investors and (c) offerings made to particularly large and sophisticated investors. the former group of small offerings (a) may be covered by state blue sky laws and might be subject to some state registration and reporting. This latter group of offerings (b and c) is often described as a private placement.
A large, privately owned company is typically exempt from filing as long as it makes no public offerings of debt or equity securities. The SEC disclosure requirements are intended to protect the public from possible losses through information transparency.
When you hear about a privately owned company (e.g. Facebook) "going public", this means that the company is making a securities offering into public markets, usually for the first time. This will trigger SEC reporting.
By contrast, someimes you will read about a group of investors making an offering (often with management support) to purchase all of the public shares of a company. This may result in taking the the company private and will often result in suspension of the SEC reporting requirement, at least as to the securities issues which were previously publicly traded.
With residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS), the registration statements and initial periodic filings were usually required to sell the issue to public securities markets. Most often, the suspension of reporting arose when a small group of large sophisticated investors bought up most of the trust certificates, shrinking the number of investors below the SEC threshold reporting requirement.
This often happened with private RMBS through secondary offerings of Collateralize Debt Offerings (CDOs). While the initial RMBS offering reflected ownership of the individualized mortgages by the trust and pass through of the cash flows to the owners of the trust certificates, in a CDO offering, a new trust was established which purchased RMBS trust certificates rather than mortgages and carved up the RMBS cash flows in new ways.
When one or a couple of CDOs purchased all of a large portion of the trust certificate issues, this would also tend to suspend the RMBS reporting requirement to the SEC. The reporting requirement was not for the benefit of the mortgage debtors. It was for the benefit of investors in the trust certificates.
By way of analogy, suppose that Bill Gates used his fortune to buy ALL of the trust certificates for a particular RMBS trust. If Bill Gates owned ALL of the trust certificates, then NO ONE ELSE IS AT RISK and NO ONE REALLY BENEFITS FROM THE REPORTING EXCEPT FOR BILL GATES. Bill Gates would be "taking the RMBS trust PRIVATE".
The CDOs took many private RMBS issues private. Investors were foolish enough to purchase these new CDO trust certificates. The CDO process further added to the opaqueness of the subprime business. Wall Street firms also profited by betting against these CDOs which were often designed to fail.
The role of these secondary CDO trusts is also a source both of confusion and an opportunity for swindlers like Mike H. and Neil Garfield to deceive distressed borrowers.
Take the instance that some RMBS trust purchases and holds John SMITH's mortgage. If a CDO purchases essentially ALL of the trust certificates in that particular RMBS trust, the CDO becomes the beneficial owner of John SMITH's mortgage. But it is not the actual owner. The owner of SMITH's mortgage remains the original RMBS trust (unless the original trust is actually unwound). The CDO trust merely owns the trust certificates of the first RMBS trust.
In disclosure statements, the CDO might reveal (correctly) that it holds a beneficial interest in John SMITH's mortgage. The disclosure may correctly disclose that investors in the CDO certificates are AT RISK for the repayment of John SMITH's mortgage.
The swindlers and other debt elimination scam artists will use this latter disclosure to argue that John SMITH's mortgage has been double pledged to both the RMBS trust and the CDO trust. If the distressed borrower simply gives the swindler some money, the swindler will help to reveal arguments that will help Mr. SMITH obtain a free house.
SMITH will be told that the CDO PAID OFF HIS MORTGAGE or that the mortgage is double pledged. Sometimes, the swindlers will also claim that SMITH's mortgage was paid off with mortgage insurance or credit default swaps. This is NEVER THE CASE and has NEVER BEEN A SUCCESSFUL FORECLOSURE DEFENSE IN ANY CASE NATIONALLY.
These are simply stories that the swindlers tell to deceive and to create myths with sustain the swindle or debt elimination scam.
If someone tells you that your mortgage has been "double pledged", that the loan has been paid off by insurers or through credit default swaps, that the loan was paid off by another trust or otherwise tells you a story about how you no longer owe the money or have been excused from the debt, this person is almost certainly a swindler and is not actually seeking to help you defend your home. These persons also typically use the term "pretender lender". It is part of their vocabulary of deceit.
When someone uses this vocabulary, you should obtain as much specific information about the swindler as possible and then report them to law enforcement. These people are NEVER actually trying to help you to defend your home and are directly responsible for the loss of tens of thousands of properties through unnecessary foreclosures!