The Truth About Fannie and Freddie’s Role in the Housing Crisis
∅baMa∅ Tse Dung
Myth 1: The government-sponsored housing finance companies Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac had nothing to do with the housing crisis. They were
simply innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire. Economist and New
York Times columnist Paul Krugman, for instance, has argued that
Fannie and Freddie’s role in the housing market was insignificant
between 2004 and 2006 because “they pulled back sharply after 2003,
just when housing really got crazy.” According to Krugman, Fannie and
Freddie “largely faded from the scene during the height of the housing
bubble.”
Fact 1: Fannie and Freddie contributed to the housing crisis by making
it easier for more people to take out loans for houses they could not
afford. Beginning in 2000, Fannie and Freddie took on loans with low
FICO scores, loans with low down payments, and loans with little or no
documentation.
[...]
Myth 2: Fannie and Freddie’s role in the housing market increased
homeownership, especially for first-time buyers and lower income
earners.
Fact 2: The small increase in homeownership rates were temporary and
artificial, driven by unsustainable incentives. In the best case
scenario, Fannie and Freddie may have increased the homeownership rate
from 63 percent to 69 percent, but the rate has now fallen back to 66
percent. Moreover, Fannie and Freddie did not make housing more
affordable and even priced many first-time buyers out of the market.
[...]
Myth 3: Fannie and Freddie are essential for maintaining a working
mortgage market. Without them, interest rates will increase and
homeownership will plummet as more people are priced out of the
housing market.
Fact 3: Interest rates are likely to go up. Yet it is not clear what
impact this will have on homeownership rates. In the 1980s, interest
rates on the average 30-year mortgage were significantly higher, yet
homeownership rates were almost the same as they are today. Besides,
the alternative to homeownership is not living on the street.
[...]
http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/04/the-truth-about-fannie-and-fre/singlepage
http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/04/the-truth-about-fannie-and-fre
dave
> Separating economic myth from economic fact
>
> Myth 1: The government-sponsored housing finance companies Fannie Mae
> and Freddie Mac had nothing to do with the housing crisis. They were
> simply innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire. Economist and New
> York Times columnist Paul Krugman, for instance, has argued that
> Fannie and Freddie’s role in the housing market was insignificant
> between 2004 and 2006 because “they pulled back sharply after 2003,
> just when housing really got crazy.” According to Krugman, Fannie and
> Freddie “largely faded from the scene during the height of the housing
> bubble.”
>
> Fact 1: Fannie and Freddie contributed to the housing crisis by making
> it easier for more people to take out loans for houses they could not
> afford. Beginning in 2000, Fannie and Freddie took on loans with low
> FICO scores, loans with low down payments, and loans with little or no
> documentation.
Fannie Mae is a loan guarantor. She doesn't make loans. Investment banks
crashed the economy. Blame it on Phil Gramm and Bill Clinton, and "W"
for looking the other way.
Chas. Chan
> Fannie Mae is a loan guarantor. She doesn't make loans.
>
Man, you are the biggest moron that graduated from a California public
school.
The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
The Real Culprits In This Meltdown - Clinton Democrats
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/461199/200809162042/The-Real-Culprits-In-This-Meltdown.aspx
Andrew Cuomo and Fannie and Freddie
How the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history
gave birth to the mortgage crisis
http://www.villagevoice.com/content/printVersion/541234
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cuomo
Bankrupt "Exploiters"
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/07/22/bankrupt_exploiters
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/07/23/bankrupt_exploiters_part_ii
How "Smart Growth" Exacerbated the International Financial Crisis
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1906.cfm
How U. S. Land Use Restrictions Exacerbated the International Finance
Crisis
http://www.demographia.com/db-overhang.pdf
Who is to blame?
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2008/09/who-is-to-blame.html
RHF
'Special-Dave' You Are The Mouth-Piece {Apologist} For
Fannie Mae = Greed + Corruption & Obama/Pelosi/Reid !
+ Add-in Barney Frank and Chris Dodd Too
Millions In Executive Bonuses To Managers of Federal
Chartered/Licensed Corporations : That's Greed + Corruption
.
'Special-Dave' You Are The Mouth-Piece {Apologist} For
Freddie Mac = Greed + Corruption & Obama/Pelosi/Reid !
+ Add-in Barney Frank and Chris Dodd Too
Millions In Executive Bonuses To Managers of Federal
Chartered/Licensed Corporations : That's Greed + Corruption
.
The Truth About Fannie and Freddie’s Role in the Housing Crisis
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/5402ced8accd5954
-by- ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung
.
The Truth About Fannie and Freddie’s Role in the Housing Crisis
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/785ab94bb456ec45
-by- "Chas. Chan"
.
.
dave
>>
>> Fannie Mae is a loan guarantor. She doesn't make loans.
>>
>
> Man, you are the biggest moron that graduated from a California public
> school.
>
"[...]So if a politician voiced an opposition point of view, and some
did, there was a real risk of them being beat down by an opponent
financed by the financial industry. Doesn’t that kind of weaken the
ability to have a real discussion?
Absolutely. There’s a chilling effect. One of our commissioners,
Brooksley Born, she’s the classic case. Brooksley Born was appointed by
[President Bill] Clinton in 1996 to head the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission. She was one of our 10 commissioners. From 1994 to 1996 or
1997, there were a series of scandals involving the highly risky use of
the over-the-counter derivatives; these are the ones not traded on the
Chicago Board of Trade and the commodity exchanges. There was a big
scandal at Procter & Gamble with Sumitomo Bank. So Brooksley Born, as
chair of that commission, stepped forth and said, “I think we ought to
discuss whether these over-the-counter derivatives”—which ultimately
grew to this multitrillion-dollar industry by the time of the
crisis—“should be regulated.” She put out a concept paper to discuss it.
Well, she was immediately shut down by the powers that be. It was
[former Chairman of the Federal Reserve] Alan Greenspan, it was [former
Secretary of Treasury] Robert Rubin, it was [former Securities and
Exchange Commission Chairman] Arthur Levitt, it was [former Secretary of
Treasury] Larry Summers and it was the financial industry. And they
essentially put a stop, they went to Congress and said that Congress
ought to adopt a moratorium on any regulation—and then two years later,
they got a complete ban on regulation. So this is an example where
someone stood up, said the right thing and was put down for it. But this
should be a constant source of concern, because also more and more power
is concentrated in fewer and fewer banks. Between 1990 and 2005, I
believe the top 10 banks in the country, their share of assets grew from
25 percent to 55 percent. After the crisis now, we have fewer big banks,
because Lehman [Brothers] went under, Bear Sterns went under, Merrill
Lynch merged with Bank of America. The concentration of power by fewer
banks is even greater today.[...]"
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content?oid=1923599
dxAce
dave wrote:
Bottom line: never trust any content out of Sacramento, as it is a hotbed of
Liberal/Democrat/Marxist/Socialists who have brought California to the brink
of bankruptcy.
Christopher Helms
> Separating economic myth from economic fact
>
> Myth 1: The government-sponsored housing finance companies Fannie Mae
> and Freddie Mac had nothing to do with the housing crisis. They were
> simply innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire. Economist and New
> York Times columnist Paul Krugman, for instance, has argued that
> Fannie and Freddie’s role in the housing market was insignificant
> between 2004 and 2006 because “they pulled back sharply after 2003,
> just when housing really got crazy.” According to Krugman, Fannie and
> Freddie “largely faded from the scene during the height of the housing
> bubble.”
>
> Fact 1: Fannie and Freddie contributed to the housing crisis by making
> it easier for more people to take out loans for houses they could not
> afford. Beginning in 2000, Fannie and Freddie took on loans with low
> FICO scores, loans with low down payments, and loans with little or no
> documentation.
So Fannie and Freddie started loaning huge amounts of money to people
who couldn't afford houses in 2000. But it took until late 2007 and
2008 for all these people who "couldn't afford houses" to get into
financial trouble with those houses that they couldn't afford. That's
a long, long time for dirt poor bums to be successfully making
mortgage payments. And all these people who "couldn't afford houses"
got into trouble at exactly the same time which, by an incredible
coincidence, just happened to be the exact same historical moment when
the rest of the economy was melting down. But there's no connection
between the two events. Really? Banks and investment firms taking on
insane, high stakes risks that they couldn't afford to lose had
nothing to do with it? People losing their jobs en masse in 2007 and
2008 had nothing to do with a wave of people no longer being able to
meet their financial obligations from late 2007 to today? No
connection at all?
Spread that story in your garden and you can grow yourself some
tomatoes.
Nickname unavailable
i see the lying multiple personalities has shown his face again.
that is a lie. back it up with real facts, and you will be the first
to collect a $100,000.00 reward that has been offered for proof of
your conservative lie. go ahead liar, i will give you the info, go
collect the money, then get back to me liar.
Get Me ReWrite!
By Barry Ritholtz - May 13th, 2010, 7:20AM
My
approach to everything I have written, studied and analyzed in
this
space is pretty straight forward: Start with the data and
evidence
and
go forward from there. Figure out what the “Truth” is;
try to
get as
close to the objective reality beneath the noise in
order to
make
intelligent investing decisions for myself and my
clients.
There are others who do not share this objective. Their goals are
either political (winning the next election) or ideological (having
their belief system become dominant). Truth is irrelevant to these
people.
Not surprisingly, these folks — many of whom contributed to
the
crisis
in a might way — are desperately trying to duck
responsibility
for
what happened. Those who helped cause the crisis
are engaged in
an
ongoing effort to rewrite its history.
Their
goal? Exonerate their own bad behavior, throw off any
responsibility
to the collapse, blame anything but their own ideology
and horrific
decision making. They want to keep pushing their tired
political
agendas, despite the damage they may have caused.
When writing
Bailout Nation, I tried to steer clear of partisan
finger
pointing.
I kept the focus on what actually occurred, what
could be
proven
mathematically. I blamed Democrats and Republicans —
not
equally,
but in proportion to their what they did. Unsupported
theories,
tenuous connection, loose affiliations were not part of the
analysis.
Every legislative change, each regulatory failure, all
corporate
actions, to be blameworthy, had to manifest themselves in
actual
mathematical proof.
This led me to ascertain the following 30 year
sequence:
-Free market absolutism becomes the dominant
intellectual
thought.
-Deregulation of markets, investment
houses, and banks
becomes a
broad goal: This led to Glass Steagall
repeal, Derivative
exemptions,
Investing house leverage exemptions,
and a new breed of
unregulated
non bank lenders.
-Legislative
actions reduce or
eliminate much of the regulatory
oversight; SEC
funding is weakened.
-Rates come down to absurd levels.
-
Bond managers madly
scramble for yield.
-Derivatives, non-bank
lending, leverage,
bank size, compensation
levels all run away from
prior levels.
-
Wall Street securitizes whatever it can to
satisfy the demand for
higher yields.
-”Lend to securitize”
nonbank mortgage writers
sell enormous
amounts of subprime loans to
Wall Street for this
purpose.
-To meet this demand, non bank
lenders collapse lending
standards,
leading to a credit bubble.
-The Fed approves of this
innovation.
-Housing booms, then
busts
-Credit freeze,
market collapse recession.
You will note
that the CRA is not part of this sequence. I could find
no evidence
that they were a cause or even a minor factor. If they
were, the
housing bubbles would not have been in California or S.
Florida or Ls
Vegas or Arizona — Harlem and South Philly and parts of
Chicago and
Washington DC would have been the focus.
Nor do I blame Fannie and
Freddie. Now understand, there is no love
lost between myself and the
GSEs. For years, I have called them
“Phoney and Fraudy.” Since
George Bush and Hank Paulson nationalized
them, I have accused the
government of using these two as a backdoor
bailout for banks — a
hidden PPIP/TARP used to buy all the garbage
mortgages that banks are
desperate to get off their balance sheets.
Longtime readers will
recall we very publicly shorted Fannie based
upon their fraudulent
practices and horrific balance sheet.
But even I cannot reconcile the
movement to place all of the world’s
troubles at the feet of the
GSEs. Not, at least, according to the
data.
That lack of evidence,
however, doesn’t stop ideologues from making
the attempt. Consider
this attempt at rewriting the causes of the
credit crisis by Kevin
Hassett:
“The worst financial crisis in generations was set off
by a
massive government effort, led by the two mortgage giants, to
make
loans to homebuyers no matter whether they could make the
payments.
Lenders were willing to lend money to just about all
comers, no
matter
how low their income. Why? Because the lenders
knew Fannie and
Freddie
would purchase the loans from them for a
high price before
bundling
them into securities to sell to
investors.”
Now, this makes for a fascinating narrative that plays
into a number
of different ideological beliefs. It exonerates the
radical free
market deregulators, it ignores what the private sector
did, and it
somehow ignores the fact that Congress was controlled by
a very
conservative GOP from 1994 to 2006 — the prime period of time
covered
leading up to and including the beginning of the crisis.
But
worse than all of that, the data supporting Hassett’s position
simply
isn’t there.
Over the past 2 years, I have repeatedly asked the
people who push
this narrative to provide some evidence for their
positions. I have
offered a $100,000 if they could prove their case.
Specifically, I have requested some data or evidence that DISPROVED
the following facts:
-The origination of subprime loans came
primarily from non bank
lenders not covered by the CRA;
-The
majority of the underwriting, at leats fro the first few
years of the
boom, were by these same non-bank lenders
-When the big banks
began chasing subprime, it was due to the
profit motive, not any
mandate from the President (a Republican) or
the the Congress
(Republican controlled) or the GSEs they oversaw.
-Prior to 2005,
nearly all of these sub-prime loans were bought
by
Wall Street — NOT
Fannie & Freddie
-In fact, prior to 2005, the GSEs were not
permitted to purchase
non-conforming mortgages.
-After 2005,
Fannie & Freddie changed their own rules to start
buying these non-
conforming mortgages — in order to maintain market
share and compete
with Wall Street for profits.
-The change in FNM/FRE conforming
mortgage purchases in 2005 was
not due to any legislation or marching
orders from the President (a
Republican) or the the Congress
(Republican controlled). It was the
profit motive that led them to
this action.
These are data supported facts I pounded on in BN.
Of
course, folks like Hassett hate this factual history, as it
conflicts
with their goals and politics. Rather than produce
evidence,
they
create story lines unsupported by facts. But Monkeys
love a good
narrative, and so they give that to them.
However, as an investor, I
demand evidence, data and facts. The blame
Fannie & Freddie crowd
have managed to remain blissfully data free.
They have steadfastly
ignored all calls for proof.
Its way past the time to call out their
intellectual dishonesty. If
you cannot show any data, if you cannot
prove what you are alleging
with actual facts, you need to be called
out for what it is you
actually are: Proponents of a failed
philosophy.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/05/rewriting-the-causes-of-the-cred...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MERS, a creation of the free market to circumvent law, to defraud,
cheat on taxes, maybe the un-dueing of wall street:)the housing bubble
was solely a private sector affair to defraud, engage in criminal
activity, and racketeering
Homeowners' Rebellion: Recent Rulings Could Shield 62 Million Homes
From Foreclosure
Thursday 19 August 2010
by: Ellen Brown, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis
Over 62 million mortgages are now held in the name of MERS, an
electronic recording system devised by and for the convenience of the
mortgage industry. A California bankruptcy court, following landmark
cases in other jurisdictions, recently held that this electronic
shortcut breaks the chain of title, voiding foreclosure. The logical
result could be 62 million homes that are foreclosure proof.
In a Newsweek article a year ago called "Too Big to Jail: Why
Prosecutors Won't Hit Wall Street Hard in the Subprime Scandal,"
Michael Hirsch wrote that we were unlikely to see trials and
convictions like those in the savings and loan scandals of the 1980s,
because fraud and blame have been so widespread that there is no one
to single out and jail. Said Hirsch:
"The sad irony is that in pleading collective guilt, most of Wall
Street will escape whipping for a scheme that makes Bernie Madoff's
shenanigans look like pickpocketing. At the crest of the real-estate
bubble, fraud was systemic and Wall Street had essentially gone into
the loan-sharking business."
"Unfortunately," he added, "prosecution of fraud is the only way
you're going to get reform on Wall Street."
Sure enough, a year later we got a banking reform bill that was so
watered down that Wall Street got nearly everything it wanted. The too-
big-to-fails, rather than being whittled down to size, have grown even
bigger, circumventing antitrust laws; and they are being allowed to
carry on pretty much as before. The Federal Reserve, rather than being
called on the carpet, has been given even more power; and the Consumer
Protection Agency - the main part of the bill with teeth - has been
put under the Fed's watchful eye. Congress and the Justice Department
seem to have bowed out, leaving no one to hold the finance industry to
account.
But the best laid plans even of Wall Street can sometimes go awry. In
an ironic twist, the industry may wind up tripping over its own
Achilles heel, the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems or MERS.
An online computer software program for tracking mortgage ownership
and rights, MERS is, according to its web site, "an innovative process
that simplifies the way mortgage ownership and servicing rights are
originated, sold and tracked. Created by the real estate finance
industry, MERS eliminates the need to prepare and record assignments
when trading residential and commercial mortgage loans." Or as Karl
Denninger puts it, "MERS own website claims that it exists for the
purpose of circumventing assignments and documenting ownership!"
MERS was developed in the early 1990s by a number of financial
entities, including Bank of America, Countrywide, Fannie Mae, and
Freddie Mac, allegedly to allow consumers to pay less for mortgage
loans. That did not actually happen, but what MERS did allow was the
securitization and shuffling around of mortgages behind a veil of
anonymity. The result was not only to cheat local governments out of
their recording fees, but to defeat the purpose of the recording laws,
which was to guarantee purchasers clean title. Worse, MERS facilitated
an explosion of predatory lending in which lenders could not be held
to account because they could not be identified, either by the preyed-
upon borrowers or by the investors seduced into buying bundles of
worthless mortgages. As alleged in a Nevada class action called Lopez
v. Executive Trustee Services, et al.:
"Before MERS, it would not have been possible for mortgages with no
market value ... to be sold at a profit or collateralized and sold as
mortgage-backed securities. Before MERS, it would not have been
possible for the Defendant banks and AIG to conceal from government
regulators the extent of risk of financial losses those entities faced
from the predatory origination of residential loans and the fraudulent
re-sale and securitization of those otherwise non-marketable loans.
Before MERS, the actual beneficiary of every Deed of Trust on every
parcel in the United States and the State of Nevada could be readily
ascertained by merely reviewing the public records at the local
recorder's office where documents reflecting any ownership interest in
real property are kept.…
"After MERS, ... the servicing rights were transferred after the
origination of the loan to an entity so large that communication with
the servicer became difficult if not impossible... . The servicer was
interested in only one thing - making a profit from the foreclosure of
the borrower's residence - so that the entire predatory cycle of
fraudulent origination, resale and securitization of yet another
predatory loan could occur again. This is the legacy of MERS and the
entire scheme was predicated upon the fraudulent designation of MERS
as the 'beneficiary' under millions of deeds of trust in Nevada and
other states."
MERS now holds over 62 million mortgages in its name, including over
half of all new US residential mortgage loans. But courts are
increasingly ruling that MERS is merely a nominee, without standing to
foreclose on the collateral that makes up a major portion of the
portfolios of some very large banks. It seems the banks claiming to be
the real parties in interest may have short circuited themselves out
of the chain of title entitling them to the collateral.
Technicality or Fatal Flaw?
To foreclose on real property, the plaintiff must be able to produce a
promissory note or assignment establishing title. Early cases focused
on MERS' inability to produce such a note, but most courts continued
to consider the note a mere technicality and ignored it. Landmark
newer opinions, however, stress that this defect is not just a
procedural. but a substantive failure, one that is fatal to the
plaintiff's case.
The latest of these decisions came down in California on May 20, 2010,
in a bankruptcy case called In re Walker, Case no. 10-21656-E-11. The
court held that MERS could not foreclose because it was a mere nominee
and that as a result plaintiff Citibank could not collect on its
claim. The judge opined:
"Since no evidence of MERS' ownership of the underlying note has been
offered and other courts have concluded that MERS does not own the
underlying notes, this court is convinced that MERS had no interest it
could transfer to Citibank. Since MERS did not own the underlying
note, it could not transfer the beneficial interest of the Deed of
Trust to another. Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a
trust deed without ownership of the underlying note is void under
California law."
In support, the judge cited In re Vargas (California Bankruptcy
Court), Landmark v. Kesler (Kansas Supreme Court), LaSalle Bank v.
Lamy (a New York case) and In re Foreclosure Cases (the "Boyko"
decision from Ohio Federal Court). (For more on these earlier cases,
see here, here and here.) The court concluded:
"Since the claimant, Citibank, has not established that it is the
owner of the promissory note secured by the trust deed, Citibank is
unable to assert a claim for payment in this case."
The broad impact the case could have on California foreclosures is
suggested by attorney Jeff Barnes, who writes:
"This opinion ... serves as a legal basis to challenge any foreclosure
in California based on a MERS assignment; to seek to void any MERS
assignment of the Deed of Trust or the note to a third party for
purposes of foreclosure; and should be sufficient for a borrower to
not only obtain a TRO [temporary restraining order] against a
Trustee's Sale, but also a Preliminary Injunction barring any sale
pending any litigation filed by the borrower challenging a foreclosure
based on a MERS assignment."
While not binding on courts in other jurisdictions, the ruling could
serve as persuasive precedent there as well, because the court cited
nonbankruptcy cases related to the lack of authority of MERS, and
because the opinion is consistent with prior rulings in Idaho and
Nevada Bankruptcy courts on the same issue.
RICO and Fraud Charges
Other suits go beyond merely challenging title to alleging criminal
activity. On July 26, 2010, a class action was filed in Florida
seeking relief against MERS and an associated legal firm for
racketeering and mail fraud. It alleges that the defendants used "the
artifice of MERS to sabotage the judicial process to the detriment of
borrowers"; that "to perpetuate the scheme, MERS was and is used in a
way so that the average consumer, or even legal professional, can
never determine who or what was or is ultimately receiving the
benefits of any mortgage payments"; that the scheme depended on "the
MERS artifice and the ability to generate any necessary 'assignment'
which flowed from it"; and that "by engaging in a pattern of
racketeering activity, specifically 'mail or wire fraud,' the
Defendants ... participated in a criminal enterprise affecting
interstate commerce."
Local governments deprived of filing fees may also be getting into the
act, at least through representatives suing on their behalf. Qui tam
actions allow for a private party or "whistle blower" to bring suit on
behalf of the government for a past or present fraud on it. In State
of California ex rel. Barrett R. Bates, filed May 10, 2010, the
plaintiff qui tam sued on behalf of a long list of local governments
in California against MERS and a number of lenders, including Bank of
America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, for "wrongfully bypass[ing]
the counties' recording requirements; divest[ing] the borrowers of the
right to know who owned the promissory note ...; and record[ing] false
documents to initiate and pursue non-judicial foreclosures and to
otherwise decrease or avoid payment of fees to the Counties and the
Cities where the real estate is located." The complaint notes that
"MERS claims to have 'saved' at least $2.4 billion dollars in
recording costs," meaning it has helped avoid billions of dollars in
fees otherwise accruing to local governments. The plaintiff sues for
treble damages for all recording fees not paid during the past ten
years and for civil penalties of between $5,000 and $10,000 for each
unpaid or underpaid recording fee and each false document recorded
during that period, potentially a hefty sum. Similar suits have been
filed by the same plaintiff qui tam in Nevada and Tennessee.
Axing the Bankers' Money Tree
Most courts continue to look the other way on MERS' lack of standing
to sue, but the argument has picked up enough steam to consider the
rather stunning implications. If MERS is not the title holder of
properties held in its name, the chain of title has been broken and no
one may have standing to sue. In MERS v. Nebraska Department of
Banking and Finance, MERS insisted that it had no actionable interest
in title, and the court agreed.
An August 2010 article in Mother Jones titled "Fannie and Freddie's
Foreclosure Barons" exposes a widespread practice of "foreclosure
mills" in backdating assignments after foreclosures have been filed.
Not only is this perjury, a prosecutable offense, but if MERS was
never the title holder, there is nothing to assign. The defaulting
homeowners could wind up with free and clear title.
In Florida, Jacksonville Area Legal Aid attorney April Charney has
been using the missing-note argument ever since she first identified
that weakness in the lenders' case in 2004. Five years later, she
says, some of those homeowners are still in their homes. According to
a Huffington Post article titled "'Produce the Note' Movement Helps
Stall Foreclosures":
"Because of the missing ownership documentation, Charney is now
starting to file quiet title actions, hoping to get her homeowner
clients full title to their homes (a quiet title action 'quiets' all
other claims). Charney says she's helped thousands of homeowners delay
or prevent foreclosure and trained thousands of lawyers across the
country on how to protect homeowners and battle in court."
If courts overwhelmed with foreclosures decide to take up the cause,
the result could be millions of struggling homeowners with the banks
off their backs and millions of homes no longer on the books of some
too-big-to-fail banks. Without those assets, the banks could again be
looking at bankruptcy, as was pointed out in a San Francisco Chronicle
article by attorney Sean Olender following the October 2007 Boyko
decision:
"The ticking time bomb in the US banking system is not resetting
subprime mortgage rates. The real problem is the contractual ability
of investors in mortgage bonds to require banks to buy back the loans
at face value if there was fraud in the origination process.
"... The loans at issue dwarf the capital available at the largest US
banks combined and investor lawsuits would raise stunning liability
sufficient to cause even the largest US banks to fail...."
Nationalization of these giant banks might be the next logical step -
a step that some commentators said should have been taken in the first
place. When the banking system of Sweden collapsed following a housing
bubble in the 1990s, nationalization of the banks worked out very well
for that country.
The Swedish banks were largely privatized again when they got back on
their feet, but it might be a good idea to keep some banks as publicly-
owned entities, on the model of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.
For most of the 20th century, it served as a "people's bank," making
low interest loans to consumers and businesses through branches all
over the country.
With the strengthened position of Wall Street following the 2008
bailout and the tepid 2010 banking reform bill, the US is far from
nationalizing its mega-banks now. But a committed homeowner movement
to tear off the predatory mask called MERS could yet turn the tide.
While courts are not likely to let 62 million homeowners off scot-
free, the defect in title created by MERS could give them significant
new leverage at the bargaining table.
dave
>
>
> Bottom line: never trust any content out of Sacramento, as it is a hotbed of
> Liberal/Democrat/Marxist/Socialists who have brought California to the brink
> of bankruptcy.
>
>
We're always on the brink of something. At least we have nice weather.
dxAce
dave wrote:
We have nice weather here as well. Unfortunately it's cold nice weather!
But, the hummingbirds will return in the next 6 to 7 weeks, as will the summertime
static :-(
N∅ ∅baMa∅
>
>
> http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/04/the-truth-about-fannie-and-fre/singlepage
>
> http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/04/the-truth-about-fannie-and-fre
Fannie and Freddie, created to increase the availability of mortgage
loans, misused the government's support to enrich Fannie and Freddie
shareholders and Fannie and Freddie executives by backing millions of
shoddy loans. Taxpayers so far have spent more than $135 billion on
the cleanup.
Fannie and Freddie allow people to borrow at lower rates because
investors are so eager to pump money into the two companies that they
accept relatively modest returns. The key to that success is the
guarantee that investors will be repaid even if borrowers default -- a
promise ultimately backed by taxpayers - Socialized risk, i.e.
Socialism.
"Socialism is great!" - Until it runs out of other peoples money.
Fannie, Freddie and other federal programs now support roughly 90
percent of new mortgage loans because lenders cannot raise money
(investors are not stupid) for mortgages that do not carry government
guarantees. Socialized risk, i.e. Socilism.
"Socialism is great!" Until it runs out of your money, i.e. Serfs.
The Road to Serfdom
[...] "every step away from the free market and toward government
planning represented a compromise of human freedom generally and a
step toward a form of dictatorship--and this is true in all times and
places." [...] "government planning would make society less liveable,
more brutal, more despotic. Socialism in all its forms is contrary to
freedom."
http://mises.org/resources/2402/The-Road-to-Serfdom-Video
How does it feel, Serfs?
N∅ ∅baMa∅
> On 03/04/2011 05:55 PM, Chas. Chan wrote:
>
> >> Fannie Mae is a loan guarantor. She doesn't make loans.
>
> > Man, you are the biggest moron that graduated from a California public
> > school.
>
> I never graduated.
>
Did you tell your mommy?
dave
dxAce
dave wrote:
Yes, and you also have BS 24/7/365 too.
Enjoy!
RHF
> On Mar 4, 6:39 pm, ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung <0bama0.spea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
-
- that is a lie. back it up with real facts, and you will be the first
- to collect a $100,000.00 reward that has been offered for proof of
- your conservative lie. go ahead liar, i will give you the info, go
- collect the money, then get back to me liar.
Nickname Unavailable . . . alas it's only worth
a penny for your thoughts . . .
.
Nickname Unavailable You Are The Mouth-Piece {Apologist}
For Fannie Mae = Greed + Corruption & Obama/Pelosi/Reid !
+ Add-in Barney Frank and Chris Dodd Too
Millions In Executive Bonuses To Managers of Federal
Chartered/Licensed Corporations :
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/97f04f770003591e
That's Liberal Greed + Democrat Corruption
and Smells of "BO" {Obama} !
.
Nickname Unavailable You Are The Mouth-Piece {Apologist}
For Freddie Mac = Greed + Corruption & Obama/Pelosi/Reid !
+ Add-in Barney Frank and Chris Dodd Too
Millions In Executive Bonuses To Managers of Federal
Chartered/Licensed Corporations :
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/97f04f770003591e
That's Liberal Greed + Democrat Corruption
and Smells of "BO" {Obama} !
.
The Truth About Fannie and Freddie’s Role in the Housing Crisis
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/5402ced8accd5954
-by- ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung
.
The Truth About Fannie and Freddie’s Role in the Housing Crisis
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/87608704c55a7350
-by- ∅baMa∅ Tse Dung
.
The Truth About Fannie and Freddie’s Role in the Housing Crisis
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/785ab94bb456ec45
-by- "Chas. Chan"
.
.
> http://www.truth-out.org/homeowners-rebellion-recent-rulings-could-sh...
> called on the carpet, has been given even more ...
>
> read more »
Nickname unavailable
but when are you going to collect the reward?
RHF
> On Mar 6, 2:05 pm, RHF <rhf-newsgro...@pacbell.net> wrote:
- but when are you going to collect the reward?
A Job Well Done : Is It's Own Reward :o) ~ RHF
Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac : Millions In Executive Bonuses
To Managers of Federal Chartered/Licensed Corporations :
That's Greed + Corruption & Smells of "BO" {Obama} !
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/70e2985ffe3cb836
.