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
    Neil Garfield on his website, Livinglies, makes a good point about the fraud
surrounding yield spread premium (YSP) which is the compensation paid outside closing (POC) to a "pretender lender" for selling the borrower a higher interest rate than he/she could have had.
    He looks at the problem from the investors point of view in a securitization
scenario and points out that the YSP in these scenarios was much higher than disclosed on the loan closing documents.
    For example, the investor thinks he's lending $150,000 at 5% for a return of $7,500/year in interest. The borrower thinks he's borrowing $107,143 at
7% for $7500/year in interest payments. The "pretender lender" is earning a
yield spread premium of the difference ($150,000-$107,143= $42,857) which
is supposed to be revealed on the closing documents. In most cases the amount shown is much lower than the true amount, which exposes the "pretender lender" to TILA and Respa violations of triple damages if it can be
proven. In this case, damages of $128,571 which is more than the borrowers
original principal amount of the loan!
     He points out that this can only be exposed by a complete audit of the
loan from origination to securitization and that most attorneys are not carrying out this audit in defending homeowners from foreclosure. The point is
that most homeowners, where the loan was securitized,ie MERS was involved, have a TILA/RESPA counterclaim which will wipe out the mortgage
and leave them their homes free and clear! It all revolves around fraudulant
reporting of the YSP on the original loan! He is giving a seminar on this subject to both homeowners Nov 1, and attorneys, Nov2, in Clearwater, Fl. this weekend. I know I'll be there, how about you?
Quote 0 0

TWO Undisclosed Yield Spread Premiums: Why Securitization Changes the Game




So called “auditors” will miss the fact that there are two yield spread premiums that were not disclosed to either the homeowner or the investor. Failure to account for the movement of money through the securitization chain and failure to account for appraisal fraud, essentially leaves 95% of the money on the table. Those who get paid recovering undisclosed yield spread premiums and profits and treble damages should want to take note. But it is easier to offer the less intensive “audit” (we like to call these forensic analyses because there is no audit in the accounting sense). This leaves most of your bargaining chips for modification or settlement sitting in the pocket of the pretender lender.

And this is why forensic reviewers and lawyers who understand the basics of securitization could go after the entire cruise ship but are walking away with only peanuts from the bar. SIGN UP FOR CLEARWATER, FLORIDA SEMINAR NOW

Let’s take a look at what I’m talking about. Example: You have a $300,000 loan that was “bumped” to a higher priced loan than what you would otherwise have qualified for.

This means the salesmen who sold you the loan product convinced you through misrepresentation of the loan and the marketplace that you will be better off with the worse loan. He knows it is worse but he gets paid for putting you in a worse loan. So he skews the facts and misdirects your attention until you come to “agree” that the worse loan is “better.”

If you would have qualified for a 5% annual interest rate, fully amortized, fixed rate for thirty years and instead you took some alternative flexible “loan” product to reduce your payments initially, the loan originator gets a yield spread premium which is required to be disclosed at your loan closing. Usually it isn’t. The amount of this first yield spread premium would probably be around $3,000. This is what the usual TILA “Audit” reveals. What they don’t reveal is an additional $180,000 undisclosed yield spread premium, plus the profit from payment from credit default swaps. So they are claiming around $10,000 in damages for you but they should be going after $600,000. Oops!

Same example with extra facts: The interest rate on the alternate loan that you signed calls for prepayment penalties and adjustable rates, resets of payments from interest only to fully amortized etc. In other words the risk of you defaulting on a loan that you could otherwise have easily paid, is increased immeasurably — a fact not lost on the securitization intermediaries. They, knowing the loan will probably fail, put your loan in a pool with similar loans that are likely to fail. Then they purchase credit default swaps betting that a substantial number of loans will fail thus receiving payment on the pool perhaps as much as thirty times over, because there were no limits on how many times they could insure the pool, even if they had no interest in it and even though they didn’t lend any money.

So it turns out that your real payment and real interest rate are much higher. Let’s say that it is a modest increase to 8% over some period of time. This interest rate is applied against the loan balance, $300,000 which means that for purposes of selling your loan to an investor, they are selling an “apparent” income of $24,000 per year plus a “guaranteed” return of principal.

What the investor doesn’t know is that you don’t qualify for an 8% loan and you can’t pay it. The investor (pension fund, hedge fund etc.) only knows that they are buying a bond which also gives them ownership in your loan and others in the pool. Since the bond is Triple AAA rated and “insured” (by AIG!), the risk is perceived by the investor as very low. So the investor is willing to accept a rate of return of only 5%, which is 1% higher than similar financial products on the market. The fund manager looks like a genius because the extra 1% translates to a 20% increase in fixed income. All the investor cares about at this point is that he just got an income of $24,000 per year virtually guaranteed, which gives him his 5% return.

Now for the analysis and why lawyers and forensic reviewers need to take note: Just take out a piece of paper, a calculator and try this for yourself. A new yield spread premium appears as a result of this shifty tactic of changing loan terms and it is huge. It turns out that the amount of the purchase price of the bond for a 5% return that equals $24,000 is $480,000. You can do the calculation as many times as you like but it comes out the same every time. They took $480,000 from the investor and gave you $300,000 keeping $180,000 for themselves. That means there is an additional yield spread premium of $180,000 that was undisclosed.

Under the TILA-Respa approach this means you are entitled to the first undisclosed yield yield spread premium of $3,000 (see above) PLUS the second  yield spread premium of $180,000.  And you may be entitled to treble damages. That could be $540,000 or perhaps twice the amount of your loan. That means you have a set off in an amount higher than the loan itself. That means they owe you more than you owe anyone. That means you can’t be in default. It means you are not in default. It means your foreclosure is improper, illegal, and immoral.

The moral of the story is stop looking for the easy cheap way out. Your house and your life are worth far more. Yes you will have to fight harder and longer to resolve the issues. And yes lawyers are slow to realize that this is a gold mine for themselves as well as you. But increasingly, judges, lawyers and homeowners are coming to realize that this was not a case where their eyes were too big for their stomach. This was a simple case of fast talking salesmen getting people into trouble without the slightest twinge of conscience. This wasn’t your fault. You are the victim, not the perpetrator of some great fraud on the financial industry. They knew exactly what they were doing when they cheated you and the investor in exactly the same ways.

Quote 0 0
Oh Damn!!!  I sure wish I could go to this on Sunday!

I sure hope he offers this to homeowners again.  I will have to start watching out for this class since I know this happened to me.  I just need to learn from Neil how to prove it in court.


Quote 0 0
     One way to prove it is to look at the closing statement and see how much title insurance the lender required and compare that to the amount of the loan received by the borrower.
     For example, on one reverse mortgage I examined, the title insurance was $147,000 but the funded loan was only $112,749, thus the yield spread premium was $34,251! No wonder people say reverse mortgages can be expensive.
     Another way to do it is to look at the YSP given to the broker. Normally
it is 10% of the total YSP earned by the pretender lender.Thus if it says $2000 for the broker, the other 90%, $18,000 went to the pretender lender. That money came out of the equity of the borrower.
     Subpoenaeing the records of the title company that wrote the title insurance seems to be the easiest way to get at the truth of how much the
real investor put up for the loan.You already know how much you got!
     Sue for the stolen amount under TILA and RESPA.
Quote 0 0
Dear Debbie,
    To answer your question, "neither". The two entities you mentioned are
merely "servicers" after the origination.
    The offenders were the originators, New Century Mortgage and Amnet,
both of which are now out of business. They had "warehouse" wholesale
lending agreements with giant, mega banks. In essence they were "pretender
lenders" who were not really lending any of their own money. They worked
through a group of brokers.
     It appears to me they would make their real money by, for example,
using the appraisal of the borrowers property to borrow 95% of the equity
at a lower interest rate, let's say 5%.from the "warehouse" lenders, Then they would turn around to the borrower and tell them they qualified for an 80% loan at say 7%. The 15% spread between what they borrowed from the "warehouse" lender, and what they funded to the consumer was the true
yield spread premium. The broker would receive 10% of this as a "back end"
commission. This could be the reason for all the "lost Notes". The pretender
lenders don't want the real "warehouse" lenders to know how much they actually lent the consumer and how much they "stole" off the closing table.
      The real question is this: did the "warehouse lenders" know what the
"pretender lenders" were doing, or were they duped like the borrowers?
Quote 0 0
Write a reply...