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
For You Tony Soprano...
Someone please comment on this     11-Aug-08 07:00 pm    
Not sure what to make of this. Saw the ah price go down - because of this??. Got it from Scottrade. I hope this is meaningless but dern it upset me when I saw it - I'm long on this and was enjoying the swing up. Anyway, please comment..

DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

Radian Group Inc. (RDN) on Monday said it received a subpoena from the Department of Housing and Urban Development seeking information about captive mortgage reinsurance.
According to the Philadelphia mortgage insurer's filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the New York Insurance Department and the Minnesota Department of Commerce are also investigating the matter.
-By David J. Reynolds, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-1342; david.reynolds@dowjones.com
Quote 0 0
Toto In WI

Curt Culver needs a haircut...oh, and he says that they were, "SLOPPY"  DUH!
WHERE WAS YOUR DUE DILEGENCE CURTY?????????
http://www.wisn.com/video/16320482/index.html

Part Two...EXPANDED INTERVIEW...
http://www.wisn.com/video/16320621/index.html

Did you MANIPULATE our credit scores Curty????????

Just an fyi....

MORE TO COME, fo show!


Quote 0 0
Curt admits he wanted LOSS'S!  Im guessing it was to cover up the HUGE TAX LIABLITY THE IRS IS INVESTIGATING? 
 
So let get this straight, so all you plaintiff lawyers understand this too, from this interview Curt said he was wishing for loss's?  Well I guess if MGIC were to have subsantial loss's it would wipe out the tax burden, and perhaps the IRS investigaiton. So where did the tens of millions go? mmmmmmm
 
Still have that Rolls Royce Curt? Perhaps you could drive up to Door County for the weekend!
 
 
Quote 0 0
Consumers are bringing a growing number of lawsuits against home mortgage lenders and settlement service providers. In recent years, seven mortgage insurers, including MGIC, have been involved in litigation alleging violations of the anti-referral fee provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, which is commonly known as RESPA, and the notice provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which is commonly known as FCRA. MGIC's settlement of class action litigation against it under RESPA became final in October 2003. MGIC settled the named plaintiffs' claims in litigation against it under FCRA in late December 2004 following denial of class certification in June 2004. Since December 2006, class action litigation was separately brought against a number of large lenders alleging that their captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements violated RESPA. While we are not a defendant in any of these cases, there can be no assurance that we will not be subject to future litigation under RESPA or FCRA or that the outcome of any such litigation would not have a material adverse effect on us.
In June 2005, in response to a letter from the New York Insurance Department, we provided information regarding captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements and other types of arrangements in which lenders receive compensation. In February 2006, the New York Insurance Department requested MGIC to review its premium rates in New York and to file adjusted rates based on recent years' experience or to explain why such experience would not alter rates. In March 2006, MGIC advised the New York Insurance Department that it believes its premium rates are reasonable and that, given the nature of mortgage insurance risk, premium rates should not be determined only by the experience of recent years. In February 2006, in response to an administrative subpoena from the Minnesota Department of Commerce, which regulates insurance, we provided the Department with information about captive mortgage reinsurance and certain other matters. We subsequently provided additional information to the Minnesota Department of Commerce, and in March 2008 that Department sought additional information as well as answers to interrogatories regarding captive mortgage reinsurance. In June 2008, we received a subpoena from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, commonly referred to as HUD, seeking information about captive mortgage reinsurance similar to that requested by the Minnesota Department of Commerce, but not limited in scope to the state of Minnesota. Other insurance departments or other officials, including attorneys general, may also seek information about or investigate captive mortgage reinsurance.
The anti-referral fee provisions of RESPA provide that the Department of Housing and Urban Development as well as the insurance commissioner or attorney general of any state may bring an action to enjoin violations of these provisions of RESPA. The insurance law provisions of many states prohibit paying for the referral of insurance business and provide various mechanisms to enforce this prohibition. While we believe our captive reinsurance arrangements are in conformity with applicable laws and regulations, it is not possible to predict the outcome of any such reviews or investigations nor is it possible to predict their effect on us or the mortgage insurance industry.
In October 2007, the Division of Enforcement of the Securities and Exchange Commission requested that we voluntarily furnish documents and information primarily relating to C-BASS, the now-terminated merger with Radian and the subprime mortgage assets "in the Company's various lines of business." We are in the process of providing responsive documents and information to the Securities and Exchange Commission. As part of its initial information request, the SEC staff informed us that this investigation should not be construed as an indication by the SEC or its staff that any violation of the securities laws has occurred, or as a reflection upon any person, entity or security.
In the second and third quarters of 2008, complaints in four separate purported stockholder class action lawsuits were filed against us and several of our officers. The allegations in the complaints are generally that through these officers we violated the federal securities laws by failing to disclose or misrepresenting C-BASS' liquidity, the impairment of our investment in C-BASS, the inadequacy of our loss reserves and that we were not adequately capitalized. The collective time period covered by these lawsuits begins on October 12, 2006 and ends on February 12, 2008. The complaints seek damages based on purchases of our stock during this time period at prices that were inflated as a result of the purported misstatements and omissions. With limited exceptions, our bylaws provide that our officers are entitled to indemnification from us for claims against them of the type alleged in the complaints. We believe, among other things, that the allegations in the complaints are not sufficient to prevent their dismissal and intend to defend against them vigorously. However, we are unable to predict the outcome of these cases or estimate our associated expenses or possible losses.
Two law firms have issued press releases to the effect that they are investigating whether the fiduciaries of our 401(k) plan breached their fiduciary duties regarding the plan's investment in or holding of our common stock. With limited exceptions, our bylaws provide that the plan fiduciaries are entitled to indemnification from us for claims against them. We intend to defend vigorously any proceedings that may result from these investigations.
The Internal Revenue Service has proposed significant adjustments to our
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
taxable income for 2000 through 2004.--------------------------------------
The Internal Revenue Service conducted an examination of our federal income tax returns for taxable years 2000 though 2004. On June 1, 2007, as a result of this examination, we received a revenue agent report. The adjustments reported on the revenue agent report would substantially increase taxable income for those tax years and resulted in the issuance of an assessment for unpaid taxes totaling $189.5 million in taxes and accuracy related penalties, plus applicable interest. We have agreed with the Internal Revenue Service on certain issues and paid $10.5 million in additional taxes and interest. The remaining open issue relates to our treatment of the flow through income and loss from an investment in a portfolio of residual interests of Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits, or REMICs. This portfolio has been managed and maintained during years prior to, during and subsequent to the examination period. The Internal Revenue Service has indicated that it does not believe, for various reasons, that we have established sufficient tax basis in the REMIC residual interests to deduct the losses from taxable income. We disagree with this conclusion and believe that the flow through income and loss from these investments was properly reported on our federal income tax returns in accordance with applicable tax laws and regulations in effect during the periods involved and have appealed these adjustments. The appeals process may take some time and a final resolution may not be reached until a date many months or years into the future. In July 2007, we made a payment on account of $65.2 million with the United States Department of the Treasury to eliminate the further accrual of interest. We believe, after discussions with outside counsel about the issues raised in the revenue agent report and the procedures for resolution of the disputed adjustments, that an adequate provision for income taxes has been made for potential liabilities that may result from these notices. If the outcome of this matter results in payments that differ materially from our expectations, it could have a material impact on our effective tax rate, results of operations and cash flows.
Net premiums written could be adversely affected if the Department of
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Housing and Urban Development reproposes and adopts a regulation under the --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act that is equivalent to a proposed ----------------------------------------------------------------------- regulation that was withdrawn in 2004. ---------------------------------------
Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD, regulations under RESPA prohibit paying lenders for the referral of settlement services, including mortgage insurance, and prohibit lenders from receiving such payments. In July 2002, HUD proposed a regulation that would exclude from these anti-referral fee provisions settlement services included in a package of settlement services offered to a borrower at a guaranteed price. HUD withdrew this proposed regulation in March 2004. Under the proposed regulation, if mortgage insurance were required on a loan, the package must include any mortgage insurance premium paid at settlement. Although certain state insurance regulations prohibit an insurer's payment of referral fees, had this regulation been adopted in this form, our revenues could have been adversely affected to the extent that lenders offered such packages and received value from us in excess of what they could have received were the anti-referral fee provisions of RESPA to apply and if such state regulations were not applied to prohibit such payments.
We could be adversely affected if personal information on consumers that
------------------------------------------------------------------------
we maintain is improperly disclosed.-------------------------------------
As part of our business, we maintain large amounts of personal information on consumers. While we believe we have appropriate information security policies and systems to prevent unauthorized disclosure, there can be no assurance that unauthorized disclosure, either through the actions of third parties or employees, will not occur. Unauthorized disclosure could adversely affect our reputation and expose us to material claims for damages.
The implementation of the Basel II capital accord may discourage the use
------------------------------------------------------------------------
of mortgage insurance.----------------------
Quote 0 0
So why would MGIC have a "Large Amount" of personal information on individuals?  I can understand for writing policy's, but to possess non customer "Personal" information?  For what purpose? Ahhhh yes, indeed, its was part of RADAR/LSAMS and sharing that information for use on Manufactured Foreclosures!  That benefited MGIC's officers and directors from 1998 through 2006, 
 
 
 
 
Quote 0 0
Toto In WI Again

http://seekingalpha.com/article/85534-mgic-investment-corp-q2-2008-earnings-call-transcript

Quote 0 0

A harbinger? Insiders stocking up on M&I, MGIC shares

The Business Journal of Milwaukee - by Rich Kirchen

Marshall & Ilsley Corp. director David Lubar feels strongly enough about the upside for the bank holding company’s downtrodden stock that in August he bought $4.3 million worth.

MGIC Investment Corp. chairman and CEO Curt Culver added 20,000 MGIC shares to his portfolio for $136,000.

Culver and Lubar, president of Milwaukee private investment firm Lubar & Co., recently joined a group of insiders buying the two Milwaukee stocks that have been hammered in recent months. When directors and top executives buy stock in their companies, it usually indicates they’re confident prices will rebound.

Although regional banks like M&I and private mortgage insurers such as MGIC remain out of favor with investors, some longtime observers expect the companies to pull through their current difficulties. If that happens, the current low prices will look like a bargain and the buyers would turn a handsome profit.


This article is for Paid Print Subscribers ONLY.

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...