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
h gosh

Lenders avoid redoing loans, Fed concludes

Study cites lack of profit in aiding the distressed

A study by the Boston Fed raises questions about the Obama administration’s effort to solve the foreclosure crisis by giving lenders $75 billion to rewrite delinquent loans. A study by the Boston Fed raises questions about the Obama administration’s effort to solve the foreclosure crisis by giving lenders $75 billion to rewrite delinquent loans. (David Mcnew/ Getty Images)

Mortgage lenders don’t try to rework most home loans held by borrowers facing foreclosure because it would probably mean losing money, a study released yesterday by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston concludes.

Entire article here:

Quote 0 0
Link to article:
in which which Federal Reserve Bank of Boston report's credulity straining conclusion is stated as:
The study, coauthored by Manuel Adelino and Kristopher Gerardi, also rebuts a widely held suspicion that the holdup in modifying loans is because of investors who control them through mortgage-backed securities. The Fed found no difference in the rate of aid between investor-controlled loans and those that lenders own directly.

The FRBB report supported notion that securitization is not culpable for lack of mortgage modifications. This report has received far more coverage than it deserves, particularly since its ill conceived conclusions are based on a data set from Lender Processing Servicers f/k/a Fidelity, widely known for fabricating loan data. 
Yes, none other than LPS, subject of DOJ investigation:
and CT AG investigation:
Of greater concern is that its authors believe that their "analysis has some important implications for policy" when in actuality FRBB report is no more than a shameless attempt at disinformation to further misguide public and law makers as well.  Anyone who has looked into causes of epidemic mortgage servicing fraud knows that it is entirely driven by a banking cartel that has become too large a part of US government.  Substantial mortgage modifications, essentially a reversal of defaults or 'credit events' would require a reimbursement or clawback of credit default swap profits and the banksters don't want that.  Even so, DOJ appears to have them in their sights. DoJ's antitrust missile could have explosive consequences

Quote 0 0
h gosh
A very big Thank You Blossom....this is what this site was set up for...let's see if we can keep the momentum going!!
Quote 0 0
The Equitable One
This article from  Morgensen of the NYT casts different light on the same topic.

Quote 0 0
This is good time to clear up some confusion about the relationship between the government and bank fraud. Even upper level economists have been duped by the OCC scam. I have had to explain this to high level respected economists preparing Congressional and Senate reports on the sub-prime meltdown so financial experts were deceived as to the OCC's purpose just as many are confused as to the Federal reserves role.

Most of here remember all the effort the OCC put into preemption years ago in order to derail investigation and dismantling of the msf money laundering mechanism so it's no new news to many long time forum members. My own case on the Illinois interst rate act was derailed by Federal pre-emption. The whole point behind preemption in the case of mortgage fraud is to prevent state and local courts from prosecution and civil resitution for mortgage note fraud where the mortgage notes have been converted into fraudulent securitizations, fraudulently foreclosed in order to collect the CDS payouts, tax evasion or other illicit purpose.

The OCC is not a Federal watchdog agency it's Trojan horse filled with baking Mafia
shills, set up with Government approval and in fact is a Government agency funded by the banks created to represent the banks interest and deceive the public. It's really no different than Mexican police or military units assigned to protect drug cartels, except it is a U.S. Federal agency set up to protect banking cartels.


NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material

is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior

interest in receiving the included information for research and

educational purposes.



January 2001



Dependent on Lenders' Fees, the OCC

Takes Banks' Side Against Local Laws


By Jess Bravin and Paul Beckett, Wall Street Journal

January 28th, 2001



When a federal appeals court in San Francisco took up the issue of automated-teller-machine fees earlier this month, it sparked the latest round in the battle between big banks and customers.


Sticking up for consumers were the cities of San Francisco and Santa Monica. They had banned certain ATM fees, after customers complained about being gouged when they use ATMs belonging to banks other than their own. Defending the fees were California's two largest banks -- Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. -- which had won at trial.


Also in the courtroom: the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the federal banking regulator. But in this case -- as in more than a dozen others in recent years -- the OCC wasn't there to check the economic power of banking titans. Instead, the regulator was helping the nationally chartered banks defend their fees. The appeals court is expected to rule in coming months


…..The OCC's solicitousness toward the businesses it oversees stems in part from its need to compete for their loyalty. In an uncommon arrangement, banks can choose either a state or federal regulator, and the selection has financial consequences: The OCC and state banking departments subsist entirely on fees paid by the institutions they regulate….

Quote 0 0
Thank you  h gosh

For more discussion and comments on FRBB Report:

"Does Securitization Affect Loan Modifications?"

Re: Gretchen Morgenson's piece in which Prof. Allan White's study found that mortgage modifications peaked in February and have declined in all but one month since, neither take into account news from April in which Banks Ramp Up Foreclosures .  Prof. White's study analyzed on 3.5 million subprime and alt-A mortgages written in 2005 through 2007 in securitization pools overseen by Wells Fargo and serviced by BoA, Chase Home Finance and Litton, but he doesn't see the 900 lb gorilla in the room, the credit default swap casino that's been driving this train wreck as played out in Markit's subprime ABX index, one of many benchmark indexes that the Markit cartel controls for credit-derivatives market in which subprime REITs were targeted for mortgage servicing fraud in order to produce "trigger events" which occur when manufactured defaults or losses on loans reach a certain specified level. Rigged CDS bets paid out obscenely on these tigger events also called credit events.  Twice a year 20 different REITs were selected [targeted] by cartel members for inclusion in ABX index.  Not suprising is that these trigger events have occurred in all but one deal represented in the ABX index. 
DOJ is currently investigatng this as noted in article referenced in previous post which notes:
"Lawyers contend that the DoJ suspects that some dealers may have been behaving as a cartel when it comes to supplying prices and selecting the composition of the various indices that are published and managed by Markit."

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...