Tag: master servicer

The OCC Misses the Point on Toxic Waste

The OCC Misses the Point on Toxic Waste

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
http://www.dtc-systems.net

We all see what we want to see.  But when others control the conversation, it is easy to miss the point.  As a regulator the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency should be taking the lead and controlling the conversation, but in reality, they have been bridled and are being led around by the nose.  Conspiciously absent are numerous issues they as a regulator have the responsibility of dealing with.  This article is timely in response to an article by Neil F. Garfield (http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/the-big-lie-banks-did-nothing-illegal/), which is a response to Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism article (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/more-msm-criticism-of-obama-nothing-illegal-here-move-along-stance-on-foreclosure-fraud.html), which is a response to a Reuters article (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/22/us-foreclosures-idUSTRE7BL0MC20111222).  But I found none of these articles until I was finished writing this post.  Take the following random and critical issues:

  • Are the loans in the pool?  Were the loans ever in the pool?  Does the pool exist?  Did the pool perfect interest in any of the loans?  This issue is very political and the OCC in our opinion will never address this issue or look into this.
  • What loans are in default?  Can a loan be in default?  What comes first, the default or the loss?
  • Are there any compliance issues?

Continue reading “The OCC Misses the Point on Toxic Waste”

Internal Revenue Service Publication 938 – REMICs Reporting Information

Internal Revenue Service Publication 938 – REMICs Reporting Information

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Publication 938 contains a directory listing of REMICs and CDOs.  It contains newly created REMICs and CDOs as well as amended listings to existing REMICs and CDOs.  Interestingly the IRS did not publish this publication for 2008.  Why is this interesting?  It is the peak of the meltdown with the failure of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers.  Why is the IRS keeping this information a secret?  I have heard many interesting conspiracy theories, but my guess is “they” feel “we” can’t handle the truth.   From my review of these documents, I only have more questions.  Why are some REMICs not listed?  If Wells Fargo claims that World Savings Bank loans were held in house and not securitized, why are so many World Savings REMICs reported to the IRS?  Why is the REMIC claiming to hold my loan not listed in any of these documents?  Is it a law that all REMICs have to report themselves to the IRS for publication?

The Introduction to Publication 938 for 1996 states:

This publication contains directories relating to real estate mortgage investment conduits (REMICs) and collaterized debt obligations (CDO’s). The directory for each calendar quarter is based on information submitted to the Internal Revenue Service during that quarter. This publication is only available on the IRS electronic bulletin board and the Internet.
For each quarter, there is:
• A directory of new REMICs and CDOs,
and
• A section containing amended listings.
You can use the directory to find the representative of the REMIC or the issuer of the CDO from whom you can request tax information. The amended listing section shows changes to previously listed REMICs and CDOs.
The directory for each calendar quarter will be added to this publication approximately six weeks after the end of the quarter. Continue reading “Internal Revenue Service Publication 938 – REMICs Reporting Information”

Cease & Desist Orders for: Citigroup, HSBC, JP Morgan Chase, MetLife, PNC, SunTrust, US Bancorp and Wells Fargo Bank

Cease & Desist Orders for: Citigroup, HSBC, JP Morgan Chase, MetLife, PNC, SunTrust, US Bancorp and Wells Fargo Bank

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

The latest round of Cease and Desist orders issued by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) are against some of the largest “too big to fail” banks.  Notably missing so far is Deutsche Bank National Trust Company along with Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas and of course OneWest Bank.

The gist of these Cease and Desist orders is that certain “deficiencies” were found and the banks are operating with “unsafe or unsound” practices in residential mortgage servicing and in the Bank’s initiation and handling of foreclosure proceedings.

We hail the OCC for these efforts, but the problem is following up.  How are the banks going to immediately comply with this order?  They would have to stop processing nearly every single foreclosure they are working on today.

Continue reading “Cease & Desist Orders for: Citigroup, HSBC, JP Morgan Chase, MetLife, PNC, SunTrust, US Bancorp and Wells Fargo Bank”

Wells Fargo Does It Again – This Time Investors Take a Hit

Wells Fargo Does It Again – This Time Investors Take a Hit

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Since Wells Fargo Bank has been around since the Gold Rush days and are such a large lender and securitizer, you would think that they would have state of the art systems handling the servicing of loans.  Especially in light of the huge rush to securitize anything and everything in the last 10 years.  But apparently the meltdown has moved them beyond what their systems are capable of.  This is probably especialy true given that banks are for the most part not lending much anymore (very limited number of new loans), but the number of loans in default, foreclosure, bankruptcy and REO status has skyrocketed. Pushing through so many foreclosures and processing so many advances and distributions is weighing down on their systems and infrastructure.  In their latest March statements to certificateholders (investors who purchased certificates from securitized trusts), Wells Fargo (usually as a Master Servicer or Servicer) is giving investors this disclosure on the first page of the reports:

 NOTE: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is processing an extraordinary expense charge related to the analysis, creation, and implementation of new and enhanced systems and processes necessitated by significant and unanticipated changes in industry and market conditions.

Continue reading “Wells Fargo Does It Again – This Time Investors Take a Hit”

World Savings Bank Loans Were Securitized – Pooling and Servicing Agreement Uncovered

World Savings Loans Were Securitized – Pooling and Servicing Agreement Uncovered

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Contrary to what Wells Fargo is saying in court, we have proof that World Savings Bank Securitized loans into REMICs.  We had some evidence of this already, but newly added is a Pooling and Servicing Agreement that we have acquired for World Savings Bank REMIC 12.  The terms are fairly standard that you see in most other securitizations, except that World Savings Bank played nearly all parts in the transaction (the originator, sponsor/seller, depositor, underwriter, etc).  The servicers were required and obligated to make principal and interest payments whether or not they receive them from the homeowners, the notes were required to be endorsed without recourse to the order of Trustee and showing an unbroken chain of endorsements [..] from the originator thereof to the Person endorsing it to Trustee.  It is all here, even the second set of books kept by the master servicer (you know, the true accounting that is concealed, misrepresented and not disclosed to any court of law).

This is a HUGE breakthrough for those looking for evidence that their World Savings Bank loans were securitized.

Download the Pooling and Servicing Agreement here

Irreconcilable Differences… I want a Mortgage Divorce!

Irreconcilable Differences… I want a Mortgage Divorce!

By James Macklin
Secure Document Research

Promissory Note Terms Vs. PSA/Prosectus Terms

When we are handed a voluminous stack of documents at the closing table for our mortgage transaction, a Borrower is expected to make a decision based upon the duty and care that the party who drafted these “investment contracts” has placed into them. However, none of us at the closing table has any idea what most of the words, phrases, and legal terminologies actually means… especially those affecting our rights as a consumer and as a real property owner.
Within the typical language of a Pooling and Servicing Agreement executed by the players of the securitization financing, there are countless references to the “interests” of the asset being conveyed, or, your Note and Deed. Interests are a finicky word of art used. The word simply means this: the asset, along with all of its’ benefits and liabilities. These are the “interests” being conveyed with the sale, set-over, transfer, conveyance, etc. So, under the terms of the Note we signed, look to the section titled: “Who is obligated under the Note” (usually sec. nine (9)). Here you will find that myriad entities may be, and probably are, also obligated under this same Note. These are the terms you have agreed to and bargained for. But the banking intermediaries would have us believe otherwise, as exhibited in the PSA under such language as: “The Depositor, Sponsor/Seller, Swap Counterparty, Master Servicer, Trustee do not intend for any obligation of themselves or their agents or employees to arise as a result of this Agreement”. This is contradictive to the terms and conditions that we have agreed to. Because the intervening assignments are a functional necessity to the bankruptcy remoteness of these assets, the specific substance of the PSA must be followed, including the mandate for the indorsement of each intervening assignment, along with the recordation of those assignment in the proper land title records office within the State of jurisdiction.
Let’s go back to the language of the “Who is Obligated” section of our Note. Notice that anyone who endorses the instrument is also obligated under the Note. Does this create an unknown Obligor at closing? If an un-named Beneficiary is the result of the unilateral agreement known as a Promissory Note”, how do we have the understanding necessary to execute such a critical document? It is the contention of this author, supported by the very agreements signed under oath and filed for record with the SEC, that “interests” and “obligations” are synonomous within the four corners of the agreement we signed…and the agreements signed by the intermediaries. A court of competent jurisdiction shall be posed these foundational questions very soon, and often. Are we a party to these agreements known as PSA/Prospectus? If we do a simple word search on each of these and look for references to: Borrower, Mortgagor, Obligor, we find these terms are typically used in excess of 60-75 times. Yet we were never disclosed the terms and conditions of the actual “loan” transaction as it truly was executed, and the rights, duties and responsibilities of the intermediaries. These are material disclosures relative to fees, expenses and various credit enhancements which are attributed to the Borrowers’ payment stream.
A divorce from this menagerie of deceit is not only appropriate, but a right that is being tried in many courtrooms. I believe that the judiciary will be tested on many platforms and small but visceral victories shall carry the day.

Realized Losses in Securitization

Realized Losses in Securitization

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

It is of interest to note that no loss is calculated in securitized transactions until the loan is liquidated.  It is also of value to note that usually the principal and interest is advanced until the loan is liquidated (as I saw in a case where it was stated by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company in an answer to discovery).  So principal and interest payments are made by the servicers and/or trustees, and no loss is actually realized until after the house is foreclosed upon and sold to a 3rd party.  So what came first, the default or the loss?  No default occurs until the loan is liquidated, which doesn’t occur until after the foreclosure sale.  This means the homes are sold while the loans are current.  I would venture to say that nearly ALL foreclosures in at least the last 10 years on homes with securitized transactions, have been fraudulent and invalid.  This is because the paperwork used to foreclose is VOID.  Not voidable, but VOID.

Take a look at these definitions from the Argent Securities Inc. 2003-W6 Trust:

State Principal Balance
As to any mortgage loan or manufactured housing contract, the principal balance of the mortgage loan or manufactured housing contract as of the cut-off date, after application of all scheduled principal payments due on or before the cut-off date, whether or not received, reduced by all amounts, including advances by the master servicer, allocable to principal that are distributed to securityholders on or before the date of determination, and as further reduced to the extent that any realized loss thereon has been, or had it not been covered by a form of credit support, would have been, allocated to one or more classes of securities on or before the determination date.

Advance
As to any Mortgage Loan or REO Property, any advance made by the Master Servicer or a successor Master Servicer in respect of any Distribution Date representing the aggregate of all payments of principal and interest, net of the Servicing Fee, that were due during the related Due Period on the Mortgage Loans and that were delinquent on the related Determination Date, plus certain amounts representing assumed payments not covered by any current net income on the Mortgaged Properties acquired by foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure as determined pursuant to Section 4.03.

Determination Date
With respect to each Distribution Date, the 10th day of the calendar month in which such Distribution Date occurs or, if such 10th day is not a Business Day, the Business Day immediately preceding such 10th day.

Continue reading “Realized Losses in Securitization”

Understanding the Governing Documents 1

Understanding the Governing Documents 1

by Daniel Edstrom

Wall Street financial engineering is a thing to behold.  Of course most of it is in complex legal terms difficult to comprehend.  Let’s take a look at a few definitions in a Prospectus Supplement and break them down.  This is from the RASC Series 2005-EMX4 Trust put out by GMAC.

Subordination. So long as the Class M Certificates remain outstanding, losses on the mortgage loans which are not covered by amounts payable under excess cash flow or overcollateralization will be allocated to the Class M Certificates that remain outstanding with the lowest payment priority, and the other classes of certificates will not bear any portion of such losses. If none of the Class M Certificates are outstanding, all such losses will be allocated to the Class A Certificates as described in this prospectus supplement.

What this means: Numerous classes of certificates are issued.  In this trust the Class A certificates are paid in priority first while any losses first come out of the Class M certificates.  Once the Class A certificates principal is paid in full, the principal is applied to the Class M certificates.  Once the Class M certificates absorb all losses and the principal is reduced to zero, the Class A certificates will suffer losses.  The diagram to the left shows what this looks like.  Is there a loss?  Only if the loss is not covered by “amounts payable under excess cash flow” or “overcollateralization.”

DEBT SERVICE REDUCTION–Modifications of the terms of a mortgage loan resulting from a bankruptcy proceeding, including a reduction in the amount of the monthly payment on the related mortgage loan, but not any permanent forgiveness of principal.

What this means: A reduction in the monthly payment based on a bankruptcy ruling but not including any permanent principal forgiveness.  This doesn’t mean much at the moment but we will revisit this shortly.

Realized Loss–As to any defaulted mortgage loan that is finally liquidated the portion of the Stated Principal Balance plus accrued and unpaid interest remaining after application of all amounts recovered, net of amounts reimbursable to the master servicer for related Advances, Servicing Advances and other expenses, towards interest and principal owing on the mortgage loan. For a mortgage loan the principal balance of which has been reduced in connection with bankruptcy proceedings, the amount of the reduction. As to any mortgage loan that has been the subject of a Debt Service Reduction, the amount of the reduction. For a mortgage loan that has been modified, following a default or if a default was reasonably foreseeable, the amount of principal that has been forgiven, the amount by which a monthly payment has been reduced due to a reduction of the interest rate, and any Servicing Advances that are forgiven and reimbursable to the master servicer or servicer. To the extent the master servicer receives Subsequent Recoveries with respect to any mortgage loan, the amount of the Realized Loss with respect to that mortgage loan will be reduced to the extent such recoveries are received.

What this means: This is part of the Wall Street engineering genius that is difficult to understand.  Basically what it is saying is that despite what you might believe,  despite what a judge rules in bankruptcy, and despite the fact that a loan modification has been applied to a loan, the investors receive the original payment of principal and interest.  Even after a ruling by a standing bankruptcy judge the investors receive the original principal and interest based upon the original note (or at least the copy of the note allegedly pooled into the trust).  One can only imagine the book-keeping nightmares that servicers face keeping multiple sets of books and trying to keep them all straight.  This is my best guess as to why the servicers have such a hard time keeping the accounting straight for those in bankruptcy.  Just ask O. Max Gardner III how often the servicers mess up bankruptcy rulings.

Read all of the above again.  Even if the principal and interest payment are reduced in bankruptcy, the servicer is required to advance the principal and interest of the original mortgage loan as amortized.  Once the loan is liquidated (paid off), the principal loss is calculated at that time and advances which have not been paid by other forms of credit enhancements are paid back to the advancing party.   THE INVESTORS GET THEIR MONEY during the course of the loan (whether or not paid by the homeowners), then it gets ripped out of their hands all at once when the loss is calculated.  But you never know for sure whether the investors will actually suffer a loss or if the credit enhancements will pay for it.  This is one of many reasons why the homeowner is entitled to a full accounting.

Bankruptcy judges be warned: Wall Street takes your rulings with a grain of salt and applies them in their own fashion.  This can only stem from multiple sets of books that are concealed, misrepresented and not disclosed to the courts.

Disclaimer Reminder:  This is a blog for educational and informational use only and does not constitute legal advice.  Take no action without first consulting an attorney in your jurisdiction.