Quote: Virginia Parsons (DeadlyClear) posted a list of loans that were sold multiple times. Lisa Epstein found the first one and others were found once they dug in further. This was probably two months ago. If they found 10 or 15 (don't remember exact number) of them, I would venture to say this discovery is the tip of the iceberg.
There is no evidence whatsoever of any systemic double pledging or duplicate sales of notes. The same note might be shown in more than one securitization in multiple ways, as has previously been discussed by Mr. Roper and also by t.
For example, a typical securitization has mechanisms built into the closing process to assure that a loan meets the established criteria for the securitization. When a loan does not meet these criteria, it is removed from the pool of collateral and replaced with another note.
The loan originator will then try to place the note into another different securitization.
In fact, the appearance of the same note amongst a list of candidate collateral in more than one securitization or even a half dozen or more securitizations reflects that the due diligence and loan reviews are working. That is, if a loan is presented as possible collateral and does not meet the established guidelines, it is supposed to be rejected.
If the process is working, then an originator might try repeatedly to sneak the inferior loan into a pool only to have it rejected. If the process is not working, then the originator simply puts the rejected loan into the next pool and no one notices.
Similarly, a loan may be placed into a pool as part of a RMBS issue and then the trust certificates from that pool might be subsequently purchased and used as collateral for a subsequent collateralized debt obligation (CDO). The same loan can be collateral for the RMBS issue and the trust certificates from the RMBS issue can be collateral for the CDO issue. But the SEC disclosures may identify the underlying mortgage collateral as it is the characteristics of this collateral that is ultimately backing the issue.
This is not illegal and is not double pledging. Rather, it is simply primary pledging and secondary pledging (through the intermediate certificate pledge).
These various breathless posts about possible double pledging are totally unproductive and merely a distraction.
Swindlers like Mike H. continue to seek to mislead and deceive distressed borrowers so that he can scam these folks out of their last $$.
When someone claims to have discovered double pledging, simply look at the underlying documentation. If any double pledging had actually been taking place, you may be quite assured that the investors in these trust issues would be all over it. This is simply another Internet myth propagated by swindlers like Neil Garfield and Mike H.