This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Grayson Sends Letter Demanding Halt Of Illegal Foreclosures, Calls Out "Largest Seizure Of Private Property Ever Attempted By Banks And Government"

Tyler Durden's picture




 

The key story from this morning was the Bloomberg report that GMAC Bank had halted foreclosures in 23 states, following disturbing news from last week that rekindled the latent debate over whether servicer banks do in fact own deeds to mortgages on which they foreclose on, and whether the entire foreclosure process is in fact fraudulent (one judge found it to be so, creating a massive headache precedent for the banker community). Yet the company which initially agreed with Bloomberg's version of events, is now retracing and claiming that foreclosures are in fact continuing... with a footnote. Reuters reports: "GMAC Mortgage, a unit of Ally
Financial Inc, is continuing with all new residential
foreclosures despite a report it had stopped them, a
spokeswoman said on Monday. But some evictions have been suspended while the company
reviews its internal procedures, the company said.
" Maybe the company can clarify just what event catalyzed the decision to suspend evictions, and specifically which "internal procedures" are being reviewed. Also, it is about time for the ABA to step in and share some insight on a topic that has millions of Americans suddenly in arms. And since that won't happen, it is up to the one or two politicians who are not in the bankers' (and the Fed's) pockets to raise some noise. Enter Alan Grayson who in a letter just released to a Florida Supreme Court Justice says:"If the reports I am hearing are true, the illegal foreclosures taking
place represent the largest seizure of private property ever attempted
by banks and government entities.
"

Grayson, best known for his endless skewering of Ben Bernanke and his henchmen during congressional hearings, has just sent a letter to Justice Canady of the Florida Supreme Court, demanding a halt to all illegal foreclosure activity. GMAC may have dodged the bullet, but the stink that Grayson is about to dig up may end up killing a massive, and illegal, funding loophole for the entire banking industry.

Full letter below:

September 20, 2010

Chief Justice Charles T. Canady
Florida Supreme Court
500 South Duval Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1900
 
Dear Chief Justice Canady,

I am disturbed by the increasing reports of predatory ‘foreclosure mills’ in Florida.  The New York Times and Mother Jones have both recently reported on the rampant and widespread practices of document fraud and forgery involved in mortgage assignments.  My staff has spoken with multiple foreclosure specialists and attorneys in Florida who confirm these reports.

Three foreclosure mills - the Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, Shapiro & Fishman, and the Law Offices of David J. Stern - constitute roughly 80% of all foreclosure proceedings in the state of Florida.  All are under investigation by Attorney General Bill McCollum.  If the reports I am hearing are true, the illegal foreclosures taking place represent the largest seizure of private property ever attempted by banks and government entities.  This is lawlessness.

I respectfully request that you abate all foreclosures involving these firms until the Attorney General of the state of Florida has finished his investigations of those firms for document fraud.

I have included a court order, in which Chase, WAMU, and Shapiro and Fishman are excoriated by a judge for document fraud on the court.  In this case, Chase attempted to foreclose on a home, when the mortgage note was actually owned by Fannie Mae.

Taking someone's home should not be done lightly.  And it should certainly be done in accordance with the law.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.
 

Sincerely,

Alan Grayson
Member of Congress

 

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 09/20/2010 - 16:36 | 592971 Jim in MN
Jim in MN's picture

This is not your beautiful house

This is not my beautiful debt

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 16:43 | 592996 Roy Bush
Roy Bush's picture

Exactly!  Constant denial of the obvious.  Fuck these people!  If they can't live up to their mortgages kick them out of their houses and let them rent them back from owners who are smart enough to buy them out for pennies on the dollar.  

 

It pisses me off so much that people have pity for these people who can't pay their mortgages.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 16:58 | 593048 Bob
Bob's picture

Yeah, I'd much rather my neighbors pay for the collapse of the economy than the banksters who got unprecedentedly rich doing it before the taxpayer bailed them out . . . actually increasing their incomes and protecting their multi-mansion lifestyles in the process. 

Let's grind the little guys into the ground!  Children on the street--fuck 'em all!  Let's trim the population . . . terminate the parasites (at least the poor ones who cost us a few bucks, courtesy of banksters who extorted trillions from us to bring about this state of affairs).  May only the strongest survive!

Thanks for the inspiration, Mr. Bush.  I'm feelin' ya, alright. 

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:10 | 593110 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

No one likes us
I don't know why.
We may not be perfect
But heaven knows we try.
But all around even our old friends put us down.
Let's drop the big one and see what happens.

We give them money
But are they grateful?
No they're spiteful
And they're hateful.
They don't respect us so let's surprise them;
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:30 | 593182 Spalding_Smailes
Spalding_Smailes's picture

The increase in housing inventory might help push prices higher, said Marilyn Newell of the Platinum Group Realtors in the Springs and another Realtors Association board member. A surplus means buyers have more choices and homes on the market must be well-kept and competitively priced, she said. "Because we don't have as many buyers," Newell said, "they have the luxury of going with the home that is in perfect shape.

by Rich Laden, Colorado Springs Gazette. (2009)

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:54 | 593258 Saxxon
Saxxon's picture

+1 Spaulding for this quote; which may represent the heighth of idiocy - not lightly stated when it comes to certain Realtors in the last few years!

BTW nice rack.

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 00:47 | 594050 Careless Whisper
Careless Whisper's picture

Note to District Attorneys in Florida: Stop prosecuting people for possession of a bag of weed and try some charges for fraud, forgery, conspiracy, mail fraud, and grand theft. Are you afraid to go after J P Morgan? Is it that they have too much influence? Is there any difference in the criminal law about forging a deed or in forging a mortgage assignment? In Brooklyn it will get you 5 to 15. Will you deliver justice? People want to know. And NO, the penalty should not be that the banksters turn over the money to FannieMae that is rightfully theirs. If crimes were committed, then the corporate entity (which is the same as a person according the Supreme Court) should be indicted.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=6633158

http://therealdeal.com/newyork/articles/property-owner-mark-benun-pleads...

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/sep/07/brothers-charged-15-milli...

 

Mon, 10/04/2010 - 06:33 | 623522 Mercury
Mercury's picture

Sorry, those things are hard and busting housewives for pot is well,...easy.  Public sector employees tend to lean toward things that are easy.  Many police departments won't even dust for prints in many types of burglary...because that's hard...

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:32 | 593189 themosmitsos
themosmitsos's picture

which song is this ??

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:41 | 593222 New_Meat
Mon, 09/20/2010 - 18:03 | 593281 New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

Rusty wins!

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:44 | 593231 ChevronSky
ChevronSky's picture

+1 Bob.  

Bush, you have obviously not been in the direct warpath of banks trying to take your property (not just homes...but industrial plants, commercial properties, etc., where the bank fraud is every bit as prevalent).  The bankers in my experience would much rather your family starve than lose even one dollar of the money they lent you.  If it was the bankers hard-earned capital they had lent to us, I would empathize a tiny bit.  But, of course, the "money" they lent us was simply credited to their institution by the Federal Reserve.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:53 | 593257 Quantum Nucleonics
Quantum Nucleonics's picture

Please.  The VAST majority of people buying homes they couldn't afford new EXACTLY what they were doing.  "Thanks Mr. Banker for the cheap, creative loan.  I'll buy this house I can't afford, and flip it.  If the music stops, I just won't pay you back."  Mr. Banker replies, "Your welcome, thanks for the big fee, and don't worry about defaulting, I already sold your loan to some dumb-ass bank in Europe."

Bankers might have been the drunk drivers on the financial highway, but lenders were in the passenger seat, handing them a bottle of Jim Bean yelling, "Fuck Ya! Faster!"

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 18:03 | 593283 pyite
pyite's picture

The main mistake that people make is trying to find a way to argue that one side in this is more wrong than the other.

Individuals made the MICRO-economic mistake of buying homes they couldn't afford.  Obviously they should hurry up and start renting something in their price range.

The bankers, government, etc. made the MACRO-economic mistake of enabling this kind of lunacy on a planetary scale.  They should all end up in prison - or at least penniless.

There is plenty of blame to go around - it is a waste of time trying to blame everything on the "other side".

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 18:24 | 593324 wake the roach
wake the roach's picture

amen pyite, we each have a role in the great play of life... 

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 00:20 | 593813 UncleFester
UncleFester's picture

What about the government...taxing your parents' domestic domicile every year until they die, then taking a hefty chunk when they try to pass it to you or your siblings?  Can't leave them out.

How do you spell Whamster Heel?

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 13:14 | 593514 Rick64
Rick64's picture

 The homeowners as adults have a responsibility to understand the agreement they are entering into. The bankers have a responsibility to their bank not to give loans that aren't feasible. Having said that, the homeowners probably didn't see the financial crisis coming and didn't figure on losing their jobs ect... The bailout was supposed to be used for economic stimulus (jobs were mentioned), but instead Paulson used it to backstop the banks as he was given full discretion on this. So the banks helped cause this, then get a bailout but fail to help the homeowners as much as they have been helped. On top of this they get to kick the tenent out and try to resell the house plus they don't have to put the losses on the balance sheet until they are realized. The government is raising property taxes in some states to slow down shortfalls to put another nail in the coffin. If we lived in an age where our people instead of corporations and banks were represented by the politicians then yes the homeowners would be guilty as hell, but considering the banks and corporations with the government as an active participant by agencies purposefully neglecting to enforce the law, and politicians acting on the behalf of them then of course the answer is no. Lets hold all those accountable then we can point the finger at the homeowner.

  The very people that enabled this to happen are in charge of cleaning it up. The FED, politicians, banks, Paulson (ex-Sec of Treas.), Geithner (head of the NY FED at the time), Summers (Rubin aid when Brooksley Born tried to pass legislstion to control derivatives), ect.. No consequences instead they get promotions, but we should hold the ordinary citizen to a higher standard?

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 18:02 | 593279 wake the roach
wake the roach's picture

its year zero bobby, are you with us or against us ;-)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti4YHSyy9U4

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 18:15 | 593307 Bob
Bob's picture

LMAO!

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 18:24 | 593325 Buzz Fuzzel
Buzz Fuzzel's picture

That Grayson is one evil looking SOB.  His picture gives me the heebeegeebees!  Does he look like the kind of guy who will do the right thing just because it is the right thing?

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 22:05 | 593791 UninterestedObserver
UninterestedObserver's picture

Yeah that picture reminded me of Satan for some reason

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:05 | 593086 hbjork1
hbjork1's picture

IMO, this isn't about recovering value.  It is about preventing FRAUD.

Would you like to open a new avenue to extend the banker fraud.  

The people who don't pay will get moved out in the long run.  This just keeps the real owner from being defrauded by the fast paper operators.  

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 18:29 | 593337 Henry Chinaski
Henry Chinaski's picture

It's about getting reelected, but it ain't happening because this Marxist was the most vocal supporter of Obamacare.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 19:47 | 593494 midtowng
midtowng's picture

Obamacare was a giveaway to the big businesses of health care. That you associate this with Marxism shows that you don't know what Marxism is.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 21:25 | 593702 Yes We Can. But...
Yes We Can. But Lets Not.'s picture

Obamacare is a transfer of wealth from those who pay taxes to those who do not.  As an impudent lefty, Grayson loves it.  He likes using your money to buy his votes.

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 01:18 | 594116 Bob
Bob's picture

Actually, the only transfer is from the taxpayers to the insurance companies and health care providers.  Which, it seems to me, was the real point of the exercise.

The unfortunates who could not/cannot afford health insurance themselves were just a vehicle for this transfer under the guise of compassion--if either the compassion or the expressed concerns for cost were fully genuine, the plan would have featured a public option and universal benefits.

Of course, some call me a liberal, so take it FWIW. 

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 04:20 | 594223 wake the roach
wake the roach's picture

Bob, I think you will find that hidden away in the thousands of pages of legal rubbish is a clause that gives the government legal mandate to provide you and your family with healthcare under a state of national emergency... Ie, once the shit hits the fan and your insurance company evaporates into the aether... I will find the links to where I have read about this and send them your way... Obama is not the enemy... Like you and I, he must play by the rules of the game ;-)

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 22:13 | 593807 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

WRONG.  Not junkie, but freaking wrong.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 22:26 | 593835 UncleFester
UncleFester's picture

Must we go over this again!

Get off the semantics: Marxism, Communism, Fascism, Fabian Socialism, State Socialism, Democratic Socialism, etc, ad infinitum...it's all the same result.  The few control the many and you, your spouse, your children, your parents, your grandparents, your neighbors, your cat, your dog, your fish...generally evreyone and everyone's domestic animal are screwed...just screwed!

I smell bacon!

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 02:58 | 594183 Seer
Seer's picture

Hey, thanks for bringing out the club!  If only more people would do this, then perhaps we could inject logic back into real-world discourse.  It's so tiring reading all these juveniles' political postings.  Ah, but TPTB love this shit...

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:19 | 593147 bob resurrected
bob resurrected's picture

Wasn't the implied deal supposed to be that the banks get the taxpayer bail outs as long as they cut a lot of slack to those taxpayers struggling with mortgages, thus buying time for everybody to get hunkered down for the long haul of the Depression?

Otherwise, it would piss me off that people have pity for these banks that can't meet their obligations. I had to take the equivalent of 2 years income as a capital loss, with no offsetting capital gain, but that wasn't enough to lose my compassion for others.

What is your excuse?

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:22 | 593156 MrBoompi
MrBoompi's picture

While you blame everyone who is being foreclosed for not being able to pay their mortgage, is it too much to fucking ask for proof the foreclosing institution actually has the right to do so?

 

Fuck the Federal Reserve and the Mortgage Lending Association for their part in this fiasco, and fuck everyone who holds these crooks blameless.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:25 | 593170 Let them all fail
Let them all fail's picture

You dumbass.  Foreclosure is fine, as long as the owner of the debt (mortgage holder) is the one foreclosing, the servicer has no place in taking possession of the home's ownership.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:33 | 593187 Things that go bump
Things that go bump's picture

Your avatar suits you, Mr. Bush.  

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:38 | 593215 pyite
pyite's picture

It pisses me off so much that people have pity for these people who can't pay their mortgages.

 

This also happens to people who haven't missed a payment, or people who paid their house off already -- admittedly not as often.  There are reports of people getting foreclosed on by multiple companies too.  The problem with these CDO's is that it is extremely difficult to tell who really owns some properties.  Also, some banks put the same property into multiple CDO's.  It is a mess - and the lack of mark-to-market rules means that it will take a generation to clean up.

Jim Sinclair has been writing about this scam for years.  It is a scam that can work either way too - if you have a good lawyer then you can live for years without paying the mortgage.

 

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 18:14 | 593305 Brutlstrudl
Brutlstrudl's picture

yeah nobody made them sign the mortgage. but you don't walk away from a  train wreck. This is a big shit sandwhich and everybody, including you, is gonna have to take a bite

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 19:26 | 593449 Kaiser Sousa
Kaiser Sousa's picture

Roy Bush -

by "fuck these people" u obviously r referring to someones grandmother...someones father...someones mother, maybe a relative or two of urs...i always marvel at how the ruling elites, n particular the bankers who r hurling even u towards serfdom, have so perfectly beguiled u n to thinking that ur part of something that u will never be part of...

contempt u express for those millions who u will b trying to keep from busting ur fucking ass as  they forage for shelter and food, yet not a word spoken about yet another consequence of a fraudulent fractional reserve banking systems that enriches a kleptocratic few for nothing at all...this on top of placing an additional debt necklace (read bailouts) around each man, woman, and child in order for them to continue the financial rape of the nation....

bravo Bush....Karma is a mother fucker...it always with out fail eates up souless, malevolent, brainwashed people like u..... 

 

Remember ur words....

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 02:19 | 594161 Handle with care
Handle with care's picture

This has absolutely ZERO to do with having pity for people who can't pay their mortgage.

Its about not letting people seize a property they can't show title to. And since they can't show title they've been producing FRAUDULENT DOCUMENTS in order to get their hands on the property.

That's the entire matter. Not about whether the original borrowers or lenders are morally right or wrong or stupid or wise, or greedy or unfortunate, but whether the person turning up in court demanding the court give them the property has the proof that their claim is genuine.

If they don't have the proof they can't get the property its that simple.

(And I will add that my own biased view at this point that if the banks don't have the right documents its their own fault. The borrower certainly signed and handed over all the right documents when they first got the loan and hasn't touched them since. Its not as if they sneaked into the bank's office at night and stole them. They can't be expected to hand over the property to anyone who turns up demanding it without the contract they signed. What if the real holder turns up later?)

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 03:07 | 594185 Seer
Seer's picture

"Handle," I think that you may be on to something...

Maybe these institutions DO have the documents, but revealing them might show absolute fraud?  In such a case, then maybe they no longer have the docs? (read "shredder running overtime"): this is how ALL massive fraud seems to go- burn the evidence!

In the end this will all work out.  The financial sector will be toast, and along with it the majority of the ruling class.  If you make up this quantity of shit it's pretty hard not to trip up and step in it ("with enough rope...").

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 16:45 | 593000 Roy Bush
Roy Bush's picture

It's too bad Alan Grayson is defending these people too....because I normally really like him, especially when he is giving it to Bernanke.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:04 | 593080 chrisd
chrisd's picture

Not everyone is losing their home because they borrowed to fund flat screens, some are losing their home because they lost their job 99 weeks ago and have been unable to find a job / full-time employment. This was caused by a lot of people, that doesn't mean we need to suspend the laws and screw over people who may be guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:14 | 593107 Roy Bush
Roy Bush's picture

.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:13 | 593119 Roy Bush
Roy Bush's picture

Bullshit!  People were over-leveraged without a nest-egg to fall back on.  Continuing to live in a house you can't afford is stealing from the mortgage company that lent you the money to buy the house.  Also, it is indirectly punishing those who have saved enough money to buy a home the right way.  

 

Again, kick these people out and let them rent!

 

As for your comment that we shouldn't punish people for being in the wrong place at the wrong time...why not?  That's the free market? Should the government bail me out because I buy a security at the wrong place at the wrong time? 

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:21 | 593155 Bob
Bob's picture

Ah, the squabbling of the jealous children over which one of them gets the bigger piece of candy and who deserves it more.  Divide and conquer always wins and it's so easy for the PTB to mobilize it. 

How about turning our sights upon the crooks who set this whole thing up, fraudulantly squeezing untold trillions from people the world over in the process--and then blackmailed the American public to bail their asses out with Trillions more dollars, many of which also ended up in their nasty little pockets? 

This is like arguing about who gets the better prison cell . . . and it ain't the real criminals. 

Never underestimate the fascist passions of the guy next door, though.  He's the guy who, in spite of his immaculately groomed yard and fanatically maintained house, exposes the lie that " it could never happen here." 

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:33 | 593197 downrodeo
downrodeo's picture

spot on bob.

we're practically indentured servants for 30 years while we pay the mortgage down. IMO, this is what neuters entrepreneurship, especially here in the USA. I can't start a business, because every spare cent I make is going to pay the mortgage or the rent. Now if I could keep my income instead of forking it over to the banks before I can even touch it, I might be able to do something productive for society with my money, like create some jobs for example. Who's idea was it to get everybody in a mortgage in the first place? Seriously, I am asking, I want to know where a good place to start reading is....

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 18:32 | 593343 nedwardkelly
nedwardkelly's picture

we're practically indentured servants for 30 years while we pay the mortgage down.

Move back in with your parents? Scale down and rent somewhere cheaper? Live in your car for pete sake?

Noone is making you take on a 30year mortgage. Noone is making you buy a house. Noone is forcing you to go into debt.

Take responsibility for yourself, be accountable for the decisions you make. If you think having a mortgage makes you an indentured servant then DON'T GET ONE, you have a choice!

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 00:01 | 593989 stev3e
stev3e's picture

+100

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 17:09 | 595821 downrodeo
downrodeo's picture

One choice I don't have is to be able to work for 10 years, save money, and buy a house outright.

I don't have a mortgage. I rent. I have lived within my means. I am completely debt free, and I realise that if I want to stay free of debt, there is probably no chance that I will ever own a home.

The point I'm trying to make is that, unless you've got it made to begin with, there is almost no chance of owning your own dwelling in this country, without taking out a big ass mortgage. There has got to be a better way.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 19:17 | 593439 Meatier Shower
Meatier Shower's picture

You can mostly thank Barney Fwank and this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:34 | 593201 dogismyth
dogismyth's picture

I'd expect nothing less coming from a bush :>]

Well since the bank originally puts up less than 10% of the actual loan price, and on a 30-yr loan, the bank actually profits by 200% of the value of the house (when paid in and if paid in full), I would say there is definitely something fucking wrong with this system.

So a family pays 10 years of interest and principal (which largely is payment on interest on moneys that were never ever actually lent (100%-10% the banker puts up), and the family is now unable to make full payments, and the house gets repossessed.  Oh, I see.  So lets say they are paying $1000/month.  That equals $120,000 over ten years paid to the bank.  That might put about 10%-15% equity back in the house assuming no down payment.  Oh gee...house prices have fallen??  Why is that??  Who's fault was that?  Sounds like the perfect JPMorgan setup...just like in 1929.  If you can't smell the stink...then you must stink more!!

Bush...you should try being more sympathetic towards those that live among you.  Unless you are a bank mole just here to raise some shit.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 18:07 | 593292 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

And to continue your story, some of these banks bought the mortgages for pennies on the dollar when their original holder went belly up, ie.. Bank of America/Countrywide.  They have already recovered their investment, AND are going to end up with the asset.

I am not sympathizing with people who bought shit they couldn't afford, or played ATM with their HELOCS.  I do however, DESPISE the fuckers who set this up, profited billions, GOT BAILED OUT, and fucked the little guy in the process.

@ Roy Bush: I think you've missed a lot of the bigger picture, and I hope you don't live in a glass house.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 20:07 | 593527 snakeboat
snakeboat's picture

Here here.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 18:20 | 593315 eatthebanksters
eatthebanksters's picture

Roy, I'll bet you're a small time day trader that doesn't even own a house and is waiting for home prices to drop enough that you can take the drug money out of your pocket and by one.  You are an example of narrow minded ingnorance...there are plenty of smart and responsible people losing their homes right now because of the 'origination scam' that Countrywide, Wamu, Chase and others perpetrated.  Add into that the criminals who packaged turds into bonds and CDO's with an AAA rating and the rating agencies who looked the other way and maybe you have the beginnings of a conspiracy that was the biggest ripoff in the history of the world.  The banksters made money originating shit and now the likes of Chase are taking over their competition with the blessings of the FDIC so that they can actually make a ton of dough selling the homes of the same people they fucked in the first place.  The only things people were guilty of being stupid about were believing our government really knew what the fuck was going on and believing the banks really gave a shit about anyone other than their bottom lines, er bonuses.  Roy, you are a simpleton of great magnitude.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 19:30 | 593462 reading
reading's picture

Hey Asshole, then we should have punished the god damn banks and let them fail.  

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 21:30 | 593714 Problem Is
Problem Is's picture

Yes and Yes.
But... Asshole is more efficiently applied to Jamie, Lloyd and their puppet tool Barry Obummer and his "No Banker Left Behind" economic plan...

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 00:33 | 594030 eatthebanksters
eatthebanksters's picture

I agree, if we let the banks fail then no one would be singled out...and we'd all be eating semi raw meat around the campfires...

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 18:25 | 593328 QQQBall
QQQBall's picture

"wrong place at the wrong time. Change your name to "Apologist"..... These problems come back to leverage. Leverage = risk, on both sides.   The borrowers are no victims or innocent bystanders that got hit by a stray bullet - they borrowed money and no they cannot afford to pay....

 

"wrong place at wrong time" - geez!

Suck it it up! Signed, Charlie, Jr.

 

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:09 | 593104 unwashedmass
unwashedmass's picture

 

excuse me, in the heat of your class warfare rants, you seem to be overlooking the critical point -- JPM, GMAC, Ally, are the SERVICERS OF THE MORTGAGES, not the mortgage holders....

and have no right to initiate foreclosure proceedings UNLESS THEY CAN PRODUCE THE ACTUAL NOTE AND AUTHORIZATION FROM THE HOLDER TO SEIZE THE PROPERTY.

Neither of which they apparently have been able to produce.

You assholes are so busy with your anti-Democrat rants you seem to miss the point that if JPM gets away with illegal seizures of the peasants' properties......free and easy....they will move up the food chain when they've drained that area dry....

Grayson is right. It is lawlessness. They need to be stopped, and indictments should start flowing in their direction....

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:23 | 593165 Monkey Craig
Monkey Craig's picture

totally agree with you.

i have no love for those not paying their mortgages, but if you are the the servicer and cannot produce the actual note, foreclosure is not allowed.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 19:16 | 593434 VWbug
VWbug's picture

correct.

but it leaves the question: where are the true owners of the mortgage and why don't they care that their collateral is being taken from them?

methinks this is all a tempest in a teapot.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 19:32 | 593469 reading
reading's picture

Because they've been diced up into a zillion slices and tranches and their is no one "owner." 

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 21:37 | 593732 Problem Is
Problem Is's picture

Better yet...
The same mortgage was fraudulently re-securitized over and over again...

TBTF destroyed the original mortgages to perpetuate the frauds...
That is why when they show up in court to foreclose they use the lost mortgage, "dog ate my paperwork" excuse...

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 03:19 | 594193 Seer
Seer's picture

God bless, someone finally gets it!  Yeah, this is what I'd figured (posted above somewhere).

Every fucking big scam ends with people shredding documents*, why would it NOT be different this time?

* Or, if it's REALLY big, one uses explosives and fire to wipe out evidence (e.g. WTC7 and SEC files).

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 00:43 | 594047 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Excerpt from "The Big Short" by M. Lewis:

"He says to me, 'The more excited that you get that you're right, the more trades you'll do, and the more trades you do, the more product for me.'

   That's when Steve Eisman finally understood the madness of the machine.  He and Vinny and Danny had been making these side bets with Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank on the fate of the triple-B tranche of subprime mortgage-backed bonds without fully understanding why those firms were so eager to accept them.  Now he was face-to-face with the actual human being on the other side of his credit default swaps.  Now he got it:  The credit default swaps, filtered through the CDOs, were being used to replicate bonds backed by actual home loans.  There weren't enough Americans with shitty credit taking out loans to satisfy investors' appetite for the end product.  Wall Street needed his bets in order to synthesize more of them.  'They weren't satisfied getting lots of unqualified borrowers to borrow money to buy a house they couldn't afford,' said Eisman. 'They were creating them out of whole cloth.  One hundred times over!  That's why the losses in the financial system are so much greater than just the subprime loans."

ISBN: 978-0-393-07223-5

 

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:09 | 593106 unwashedmass
unwashedmass's picture

 

excuse me, in the heat of your class warfare rants, you seem to be overlooking the critical point -- JPM, GMAC, Ally, are the SERVICERS OF THE MORTGAGES, not the mortgage holders....

and have no right to initiate foreclosure proceedings UNLESS THEY CAN PRODUCE THE ACTUAL NOTE AND AUTHORIZATION FROM THE HOLDER TO SEIZE THE PROPERTY.

Neither of which they apparently have been able to produce.

You assholes are so busy with your anti-Democrat rants you seem to miss the point that if JPM gets away with illegal seizures of the peasants' properties......free and easy....they will move up the food chain when they've drained that area dry....

Grayson is right. It is lawlessness. They need to be stopped, and indictments should start flowing in their direction....

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:44 | 593233 cossack55
cossack55's picture

It would be much more effective if "beheadings start flowing in their direction...."

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:24 | 593168 MrBoompi
MrBoompi's picture

Grayson is not defending "these people", he's simply making sure banks have the right to do what they're doing.

 

This is not too much to ask given the fact we've seen the largest transfer of wealth from the middle class to the banking cartel in the history of the US.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:34 | 593200 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Roy,

What I see is the MAJOR issue here is, the Banks foreclosing DO NOT HOLD the deeds/Title to the property.

Now, if the tenants are WAY behind, with no hope of catching up, yes they will have to leave or be forclosed on.

HOWEVER, GMAC/ALLY, Do not have the Deeds or Contracts for the foreclosure Properties.

Hence, they have ZERO right even being involved,much less being the Agent of Foreclosure.

The TITLE holder does...........and this is the issue, the way I read it.

It's like you bought a car, and your 120 days behind, and I COME out and tell you to hand over the keys!.

Who the hell am I?.Do I have the Original Title?.

NOPE.

Neither do they.

This shit is want CDS get's you..............NO ONE likely has a clue WHO owns the title deed to these properties.

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 00:47 | 594065 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

I defy anyone to explain any program that's gone over three levels deep in a recursive function!  CDOs were wrapped around MBS, CDO^2s were wrapped around CDS around the CDOs, etc.  If a living, breathing person does NOT show up with note in hand, kick the case out of Court!

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:38 | 593213 1100-TACTICAL-12
1100-TACTICAL-12's picture

Roy my boy..Toy refer to "THESE PEOPLE" as if they are scum. Not every fucking person bit of more than they could chew. Alot of "these PEOPLE" had their job's sent to china. So the fucking Banksters,politicians, & so called fucking elite could fatten their pockets. Don't worry Roy Boy they will suck everyone of us dry. You might end up as one of "THESE PEOPLE".

 

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:36 | 593209 themosmitsos
themosmitsos's picture

Letting the days go by ...

Moratorium #2 Biotchez ???

Servicers who can't establish chain of title should not be allowed to foreclose. And of course people shouldn't be allowed to keep homes they can't afford. Interest rates should also be >8-12% to reflect reality. Take your pick.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 16:38 | 592977 Bob
Bob's picture

Now that's what I'm talking about!

I'm thinking the same thing now that I've thought in the past: Grayson really follows ZH.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 16:42 | 592994 Calvin Jones an...
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle's picture

I'm not sure he follows ZH, as his politics aren't what most readers here have, but he surely does share the disgust with the Fed and banksters.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 16:59 | 593060 fxquant
fxquant's picture

another asshole congress turd posing as a friend of the little in a pathetic pandering for votes.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 18:26 | 593329 aheady
aheady's picture

Agree completely.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 16:39 | 592984 Calvin Jones an...
Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle's picture

I am glad to this getting attention.  Grayson is awesome, and we need more like him to take on the banksters and the Fed.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:05 | 593088 fxquant
fxquant's picture

How is this for the caring asshat:

 

"WASHINGTON — U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson of Orlando is worth at least $31 million — making him the 11th richest member of Congress, according to the latest report from Capitol Hill publication Roll Call.


While Grayson’s wealth has changed little since Roll Call issued a similar report last year, the freshman Democrat still inched him up one spot in the ranks from 12 to 11."

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:29 | 593183 Bob
Bob's picture

Damn, shouldn't he be taking the side of the banksters?  Maybe wealth doesn't necesarily morally corrupt--we'll see if he's just playing the "losers" for his own gain.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 18:03 | 593282 SRV - ES339
SRV - ES339's picture

and your point is...

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 02:26 | 594167 Handle with care
Handle with care's picture

According to his bio he comes from a poor family and cleaned toilets to put himself through college. Then he founded a company that become a Fortune 1000 company. And it wasn't a lobbying or financial services company either, but an early ISP.

He then restarted his law practice to go after government corruption rather than make more money.

Presuming his story is correct, then he deserves better than these nasty insinuations that he's as corrupt as the other politicians who mysteriously become millionaires on a salary of $150k a year

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 16:40 | 592985 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

The thing that's really disturbing me is that goatee.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 16:46 | 593010 Argonaught
Argonaught's picture

I ain't never actually seen the devil...but that is definitely what I pictured the devil would look like.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:40 | 593220 Getagrip
Getagrip's picture

Yep..goat has to go...

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 18:00 | 593271 dogismyth
dogismyth's picture

bahaha....that's the same thing I thought.  I don't trust anyone in Congress and that include Grayson.  His background speaks for itself.  Its just another dog and pony, good cop bad cop.  Nothing more.  No one in Congress give two shitz about grazing cattle.

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 00:43 | 594051 Howard_Beale
Howard_Beale's picture

Junked you for ignorance and lack of knowing who has a pair in Congressl

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 00:44 | 594052 Howard_Beale
Howard_Beale's picture

Junked you for ignorance and lack of knowing who has a pair in Congressl

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 07:14 | 594286 Argonaught
Argonaught's picture

Junked you for thinking that anyone in Congress is worthy of junking someone else over.

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 22:52 | 596445 Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

You take a good long hard look at grayson's eyes when he's werewolfing. That ain't no show. The man is eating someones guts out.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:13 | 593121 kengland
kengland's picture

I am so FACKING LOST HERE. Who takes the write down of the asset in the foreclosure? Is it the GSE or the serivcer? If the servicer, then their pretend capital is freaking wiped out? If the GSE, they are perpetually BAILED out. If the servicer recieves the funds and isn't required to write down assets, we have problems. Is that what is being proported? I sure why like a 6th grade explanation of this sheet.

 

Thank you for the 4+5 captcha. For once I nailed it on the first try

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 18:33 | 593346 eatthebanksters
eatthebanksters's picture

it depends on who 'owns' the loan and what the contract says that was written at the time the loan was packaged and sold as a bond of CDO.  The investor might own it (or a buch of investors if it was 'sliced' up and packaged in different instruments...the investment bank that packaged the notes into bonds and CDO's may end up owning it (Fannie and Freddie are going after a few right now).  Servicers don't own, they service, they collect payments, yada yada yada.  If Fannie/Freddie own it (or any GSE) it's a bailout.  If investors own it, they lose.  The real question is,"How much exposure do the banks have as investors?"

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 00:50 | 594063 Howard_Beale
Howard_Beale's picture

Foreclosure can affect the bank if the equity is less than the mortgage. The owner of the MBS or whatever derivative thereof is conditional upon prepayment, then they take the hit too if they bought it over par. It's a mess.

Read up on how the mortgage industry works, from origination, to selling into the secondary market, to who pools the mortgages and services them, to who it the ultimate buyer. This is not rocket science. Glad you made it through the captcha...now go to Wiki and stop whining.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:15 | 593130 Cheyenne
Cheyenne's picture

Yeah, damnit, I can't let that one go either.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 16:43 | 592999 molecool
molecool's picture

None of this matters until the gray unwashed masses rise up to wrest their country back from the clutches of the banksters and international elite.

Face it - they don't respect us - and they get away with pretty much anything. And they keep winning - every single time. You guys think that complaint letters by Grayson will make any difference? He's one out of 435. You calculate the odds...

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:38 | 593100 Getagrip
Getagrip's picture

Remember, November 2 is take out the trash day. Maybe he becomes one in 100 (taking on 335) that try to reestablish sanity on capital hill. Don't care about party affiliation, only results that are in line with the provisions of our abused Constitution, and sound fiscal policy..  

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 03:25 | 594198 Seer
Seer's picture

"None of this matters until the gray unwashed masses rise up to wrest their country back from the clutches of the banksters and international elite."

Hm... I wonder what the native American Indians have to say about all of this...

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 16:43 | 593002 Tarheel
Tarheel's picture

Wow, props to Mr Grayson for standing up for the little guys in face of big banks.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 16:44 | 593004 metastar
metastar's picture

We live in a lawless society where citizens are forced to submit to the whims and wishes of a criminal, corrupt, and illegitimate government.

 

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 16:45 | 593006 augmister
augmister's picture

Own you house and they can't take it.  Wash, rinse, repeat.  This should be at the top of every new written mortgage written starting today.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 18:03 | 593280 dogismyth
dogismyth's picture

 ya wanna bet?  maybe they decide to put up a hotel or superhighway on your property...whattya gonna do?  Call the ghostbusters?

Do you have an alloidial title?  No.  Then you only have equity title to the house.  This is Amerika....you don;t own shit unless you control it.  And you DO NOT control your property.  If you did, you wouldn't be paying property taxes.  Whattya think the taxes are for?

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 16:45 | 593008 rumblefish
rumblefish's picture

what am I missing here. these folks aren't paying the mortgage correct?

 

 

 

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 16:49 | 593027 Tyler Durden
Tyler Durden's picture

This has nothing to do with defending overleveraged home owners who would be much better off renting in the first place (but, but, houses (and stocks) only go up, and all that). The issue is who gets to pocket the funds upon a subsequent foreclosure sale of the property, and how the true lienholder, the GSEs in most cases, may be getting stuffed willfully by the banks, as the government keeps bailing Fannie and Freddie out with $30-40 billion each quarter, while banks secretly receive the money. The biggest concern is that, if proven true, everyone is complicit on this crime of epic proportions: from the bank CEOs, to the head of the FHA, to the Federal budget director, to the president of the United States.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 16:57 | 593055 rumblefish
rumblefish's picture

That's what I was missing. Thanks Tyler.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:39 | 593212 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

I would be incredibly surprised, even at this juncture, if the banks actually received the entirety of the foreclosure proceeds.  These banks are often times servicing the loans and get paid directly by mortgagors every month, but they are only trustees of the money and not the rightful owners.  My guess is that these get funnelled back to the GSEs.

The real issues are: (a) why the fucking hell do the GSEs own so much of this bullshit (been given the worst of the banks' worst)?; (b) why do the same banks get to service the lion's share of the notes/mortgages?; (c) who bid to do the service work/was it open to the public?; (d) how much do they get paid to do the service work?; and (e) why the fuck is this debt not included in the national debt when we have to keep paying for this shit?

In the end, I think you'll find plenty of $50 hammers, but the vast majority will be sent back up the chain.  The big banks gig the GSEs where they can, but the lion's share of the proceeds end up eeking it back to the GSEs.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 19:22 | 593447 VWbug
VWbug's picture

stock making sense macho man, no one can get all riled up that way

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 00:28 | 594024 UncleFester
UncleFester's picture

a) The "same banks" set it up this way, reap the rewards privately and spread the risk publicly.

b) See a) above.

c) See a) above.

d) Not sure.

e) 2+2=5, accounting 101.  Wait until our kids find out though.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:00 | 593063 Cheyenne
Cheyenne's picture

Stated differently, the issue is whether the U.S. still observes the rule of law.

This is explosive. Kudos to Alan Grayson for picking this battle.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:04 | 593078 Bob
Bob's picture

Thank you, Tyler!

God bless ya. 

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:22 | 593109 Mercury
Mercury's picture

Is Bill Ackman the only person in the world who has actually dug into a residential real estate MBS CDO and identified the actual, underlying properties?  At this late date in the mortgage crisis, is it still that hard to find out what loans go with which borrowers?  How hard can that be, really...(I mean, CUSIP numbers and whatnot).  Or is this kind of thing happening more with whole loans that were never securitized or became unsecuritized?

If this fraudulent mortgage claim business is actually a widespread phenomenon that implies that millions of homeowners who are paying their mortgages on time and in good faith may be sending their money to a bank or entity that has no legitimate legal claim to the mortgage on their house. 

If the average, regular paying,  American homeowner ever figures out that if they stop mailing monthly mortgage checks there's a very decent chance that the people who show up at the door claiming to own their mortgage... don't actually own their mortgage....look out.  DEFAULT-O-RAMA.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:23 | 593162 Spalding_Smailes
Spalding_Smailes's picture

I was a brand-new investor. I thought I was doing the right thing, but it looks like I lost everything. My wife is mad at me.

Massoud Balbas, quoted in the LA Times.

 

I think what may happen -- I don't think you'll see a reduction in [intangible] value; let's put it that way. Value and price are different things. You probably won't see a reduction in value, but maybe in prices, meaning you can pay less but it's worth more.

Realtor Beverly Pindling, quoted in the Orlando Sentinel.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:34 | 593188 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

in other words, the Bailout continues through the back door.  
sorta like the Bustout but in reverse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ydqjqZ_3oc

thanks TD for the clarity.   please continue to prod.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:32 | 593193 Rainman
Rainman's picture

This is an easy money trail to follow. No bloodhound required. Profits are privatized. Losses-R-US. It's been that way for 2 years now. The schemes are just getting bolder and, of course, require the suspension of common sense contract law requiring irrefutible title to ownership.

Government sponsored enterprises are caught backdooring bailouts to private banks ?? Why Not ?? GSEs eat the big loss and the banks shave the vig.

This is desperation ponzi called "emergency powers". 

   

 

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:39 | 593217 downrodeo
downrodeo's picture

 

Jesus the Jew, i can't take it anymore...

you guys think that self-immolation would get anybody's attention these days?

Probably, not, huh. might as well save the match (and the gasoline for that matter)...

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 18:05 | 593288 Cheyenne
Cheyenne's picture

"The schemes are just getting bolder and, of course, require the suspension of common sense contract law requiring irrefutible title to ownership."

This is accurate even if the spelling is not.

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 00:55 | 594079 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

And we have yet to see even one "perp walk!"  The Dept of Justice must be looking over the SEC's shoulders as they surf for pr0n!

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:38 | 593214 kengland
kengland's picture

That's what I thought....the loss is getting willfuly stuffed by the banks onto the GSE and the proceeds get counted as capital on the banks bs. I can't imagine what the accounting transaction would look like.

 

I often wonder if the US would have survived had this type of insight been made available to those who lived in the 30's? Revolution for sure. In these times, folks yawn and wait for super bowl sunday while taking a nice cocktail of anti depressents.

I love this country!

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 18:38 | 593357 eatthebanksters
eatthebanksters's picture

Politicians will do as little as they need too in order not to rock the boat, and people will stay the course until it deteriorates to a certain point...when that happens watch out.  Have plenty of bottled water and canned food and a bag of rice and beans in storage.  And if you're a bankster, wear the suit you want to be buried in!

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:41 | 593224 shushup
shushup's picture

FYI - The lawyers get most of the money.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:46 | 593238 1100-TACTICAL-12
1100-TACTICAL-12's picture

Hell ya they're complicit. W/O a doubt.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 16:51 | 593036 sethco
sethco's picture

who do they pay? Their payments are just a tiny speck of gristle in some mortgage hamburger held by possibly thousands of other "entities".

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:11 | 593115 unwashedmass
unwashedmass's picture

it is irrelevant whether these folks are paying the mortgage or not....

JPM, GMAC, Ally are foreclosing on properties they do not own, and do not hold the notes on.....

it is as if some stranger walked into your house with a shotgun and ordered you out.....

they are seizing property illegally....

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:27 | 593176 Mercury
Mercury's picture

Yes, but somewhere out there is the interested party that should be evicting the defaulted homeowner.

It's just as alarming that the legit mortgage holder doesn't know they own the mortgage and/or care about the payments.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:43 | 593229 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

They know they own the home as the idiots never had the wherewithal to pay the notes.  The problem is that along the way, the mortgagees and their assigns got tripped up in the complexity of their own frankenstein creation and that it CAN be trumped by local law and courts.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:56 | 593264 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

MM, thanks for your intelligent commentary on this issue.  it's definitely quite helpful in ways you may not even realize.

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 08:08 | 594326 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

glad to unwittingly be of service.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 18:06 | 593289 Bob
Bob's picture

Let's hope you never suffer an involuntary and unforeseeable change in circumstances. 

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 08:06 | 594325 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

You arguing the exception or the rule?  You telling me a person with a $500k house in california that was making $50-75k/year had NO IDEA of the risk posed and the necessity of their future production?  A huge portion of the loans were NEVER capable of being repaid.  If ANYTHING went wrong, they default. 

At this juncture, I have $0 in debt to anyone.  I am about to have some debt however, but I will have a house that has a market value of ~1.5x annual household salary and has ~1.15x left on the note.  It'll be paid off in ~3-5 years, if not sold sooner.  You tell me the difference...  and don't give me this bullshit about people being incapable of understanding the risks they take (e.g. why are my note payments so low when I owe so much money?  Duh, maybe you're not even paying principle...  why did this not put you on notice that something might be awry with your concept of the loan transaction?).  Anytime anyone has any debt whatsoever, they are taking a huge risk.  There will come a day when anyone with virtually any debt gets completely whiped out.  That day is coming soon.

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 10:03 | 594537 Bob
Bob's picture

C'mon, MM.  The houses were actively sold as "investments" that could only increase in value.  Obviously that was a lie, but can you blame the unsophisticated for believing the experts selling them homes at wildly inflated prices? 

Much more importantly, however, every time I hear this argument about "what people could really afford," I'm struck by the apparent assumption that "those people" should not have bought a house they would not be able to service if they should lose their jobs or otherwise suffer severe economic hardship beyond their control. 

This would seem, to me at least, to implicitly assert that no one should buy a house unless they have hard and absolutely secure assets elsewhere that would cover them in case of disaster.  That would seem an argument that ultimately requires people to never take on a mortgage unless they have the full amount in reasonably liquid assets on the side to cover the worst case scenario--but how many people would ever take on a mortgage if that were the case?  There would be virtually no RRE market if that were how it is. 

Kudos to you for being debt free!  Don't worry, you'll always remain ahead of the crowd whose efforts did not lead them to such a wonderful destination. 

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 12:51 | 594876 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

I'm pretty sure this same line of reasoning was what bawney and the gang used to lever up people who had no semblance of a chance to repay this crap...  my mortgage payments will be < 10% of takehome...  I think that's a good number for everyone.

I am not implicitly asserting it...  it's my main thesis...  people don't need to buy shit they cannot afford.  Credit is nothing more than paper shackles.  Unfortunately, people often do not realize this fact until it is too late.  I can certainly appreciate that fact.  The problem is that often times, we're not talking about sophisticated instruments...  we're talking about the most rudimentary business and math skills, I take home $600 per week and my mortgage payments are $2000/month (and that was just on interest).  Really?  This is where you're going?  Eventually, we'll admit we fucking suck...  until then, denial is the most difficult habit to break.

Now, there are plenty of other people who had decent jobs and got left holding the bag.  Again, I can certainly appreciate that fact...  could be me tomorrow.  The problem is dealing with the cleanup.  Why do I have to pay for their speculative activities?  I don't expect the rest of the country to pay for my transgressions...  nor to artificially prop up my standard of living.  

The RRE market is going to crumble...  you cannot fight gravity for too long...  americans will have our wiley coyote moment and realize that we've been suspended in mid air for decades on credit and that our real/sustainable standard of living is VASTLY lower.

Those people should not have bought a house.  More importantly, other institutions should not have been made to give them one...  whether they be governmental directly or indirectly through ridiculous incentive given to private enterprise.

I think your viewpoint of the general american is contemptuous and a direct result of the nanny state.  If we cannot give individuals more responsibility to make business decisions, then we will literally never succeed.  It's as simple as that...  allowing these basic choices compounds and multiplies into other freedoms in our daily lives.  In the end, you can have the most pretty socialist utopia ever created, but it can only last so long as its financial operations endure.  First you get your financial house in order, then you move on to the rest.  Unfortunately, we lost our finances and our freedom in the process. 

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 19:02 | 596054 Bob
Bob's picture

So no sympathy for the borrowers, since nobody made them take out the loan.  They get all the blame. 

Yet creditors were made to loan them money "through ridiculous incentives"? 

You see what you're saying, right?

Wed, 09/22/2010 - 01:06 | 596581 faustian bargain
faustian bargain's picture

Yes, that there's no free market in the real estate / mortgage industry. I.e. the government sucks.

Wed, 09/22/2010 - 11:16 | 597279 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

I'm advocating that there is blame on all parties involved.  My problem with how this is generally presented is a complete and total focus upon the mortgage lenders/packagers and not the individual debtors.  In this situation, it takes two (or a village) to tango.

By ignoring the individual debtor component of the equation, you've basically taken a thesis that these individuals were incapable of turning down credit.  You may have both a biological and learned argument...  but I don't see you making it.  I'm reminded of the CNBC special on the collapse, where a woman was attempting to get a loan vastly outside of her ability to pay and she claimed the money was a gift from god.  Unwittingly, and with a little stretching, she's probably right.

Again, until we can individually admit our folly instead of projecting it on faceless institutions or the "representatives" we elect to insert ever increasing objects into our backsides, we will never, ever have any chance of succeeding.  Under any reasonable standard, most all of these people should have been aware that they either had no chance to repay the loans or that incredibly significant risk of default existed.  I am bombarded by commands to buy shit at virtually all hours of the day, but yet I somehow manage to decline the offers.  It isn't magic, it's discipline.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 18:42 | 593361 eatthebanksters
eatthebanksters's picture

This is great, someone has finally figured out that the bansksters fucked the investors as well as the borrowers!  You get an 'A' and get to go to the head of the class.  Banksters are bookies, they lay of bets playing one side aginst the other with your money and make gazillions.  When the ponzi blows up everyone in the game except for the bookie, er bankster, goes down!

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 03:38 | 594204 Seer
Seer's picture

Could it be that many are making assumptions that people are even deliquent?  Really, if there's a feeding frenzy going on and the system is trying to pump through all of this, then why not just grab ANYONE and claim that they are not paying their mortgage?

The POINT is, don't presume guilt until proven in a court of law.

They create money out of nowhere, backed by nothing, then they create "legal" documents for the purpose of the transaction and then disappear those documents.  And given that they basically control the MSM they're able to program everyone to assume that it's the common person that's at fault; this permeates to the point that most judges (likely helped up the ladder by corporate sponsor) fall back on this story to "keep the game going."

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 07:58 | 594313 MachoMan
MachoMan's picture

It's possible, but highly unlikely/represents an incredibly small % of the transactions...  Essentially, the homeowner shows up to court, dumps copies of cancelled checks to the mortgagee/servicer on the judge's lap and the mortgagee/servicer gets asspounded by the court and the homeowner gets punies, attorneys fees, and whatever else.  Not saying it doesn't happen (might even happen by legitimate mistake due to the sheer volume of these transactions/routine nature), but I think you'd be arguing for the exception, not the rule.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 21:11 | 593643 Diogenes
Diogenes's picture

"what am I missing here. these folks aren't paying the mortgage correct?"

 

Not always. Some folks own their house free and clear. Others are up to date on their payments. Others have a mortgage, just not with the bank that is foreclosing.

That's because the guys doing the foreclosing are MAKING UP SHIT. The judge says DON'T MAKE UP SHIT. Come into my court with the original mortgage documents PROVING you have the right to foreclose or don't come at all. If you MAKE UP SHIT I will throw you in JAIL for FRAUD.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 16:52 | 593023 ThroxxOfVron
ThroxxOfVron's picture

TYLER: Please read the Blog Topic and MY Various Comments in the Thread following it -and let Me know what You think.

 

I belive that I have figured the Scam out:

http://market-ticker.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=166915

 

 

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:54 | 593259 kengland
kengland's picture

Karl D does a FANTASTIC job outlining what may be happening. Good post.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 16:49 | 593029 Froggy
Froggy's picture

Grayson is a nutter, but he is a populist nutter with a legit GOP opponent.  He is good for a couple of letters and some interesting committee questions from time to time, but then he calls for those who criticize him to be put in jail or says that the GOP health care plan is to "Die Quickly".  Cute at times, but not a serious person and frankly mentally unstable.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 16:51 | 593034 Xedus129
Xedus129's picture

Sounds like a typical congressman/woman/it

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:06 | 593090 Assetman
Assetman's picture

Hah, the typical congressman/woman are sociopaths.

Greyson truly has a screw loose, because he's trying to play the game of a typical congressman... but he's also pissing off (and choking off) a funding source that could help him get re-elected.

But it just might work in his instance...

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:06 | 593092 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

+1.  Grayson is a douchebag.  He just happens to be right on the issue of the Fed.  Hell, if I lay enough financial pages on the floor, eventually I can get my dog to shit on a winner.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:24 | 593166 Spalding_Smailes
Spalding_Smailes's picture

I'm so mad at my neighbor. I bought my new home here in Ashburn last summer and plan to sell it next year (after holding two years to avoid taxes) to make a nice return on my investment. The problem is my neighbor is trying to sell his house (very similar to mine) right now and he keeps lowering his asking price. Each time he lowers his price, I see my potential profits next year getting squashed. Doesn't he realize he's hurting the comps for all of his neighbors by doing this? I don't think he is acting very "neighborly" by doing this. I want to say something to him and tell him he should stop putting his interests ahead of his neighbors. It's people like him who are ruining the market for the rest of us. If he would just refuse to lower his price, we could maintain our comps and everyone would benefit. What can I do to stop him?

Question during a real estate chat held by the Washington Post.

Tue, 09/21/2010 - 00:30 | 594028 UncleFester
UncleFester's picture

That's a joke, right?

PS. love the avatar.

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 17:42 | 593223 Bob
Bob's picture

That would make him a winner here, then, for whatever reason? 

Hell, it's true, imo, that politicians are all sociopathic . . . but, as you say, nobody can be perfect--even perfectly evil, if you will. 

If he just happens to be right about some of the biggest issues of the day, e.g., the Fed, should we just put him out on the street because we don't, for example, like his goatee or positions on all the issues?

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 18:20 | 593316 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

You say "some of the biggest issues of the day".  I said, "The Fed".  If you can name another, please do.

In this case, he's kind of right, but for the wrong reasons. It's a populist, euphorian move rather than an issue of law.  If it was up to him, he'd just give us all a house anyway.  Unless you make too much money for his taste, then he'd like to take the "surplus", give it to the downtrodden and have you jailed if you protest. 

Being right about one thing in a hundred doesn't cut the mustard.  If you were right only 1% of the time at work, and acted like a mentally unstable clown while you did it, how long would you last? 

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 21:04 | 593659 Bob
Bob's picture

IIRC, Grayson was out in front on HFT and related isues such as co-location of servers, and dark pools as well as The Fed, off the top of my head. 

As for acting like a clown, I haven't seen alot of him, but in a roomful of the clowns pretending to grill Paulson and Bernenke, he was one of the few who didn't seem to be dressed for the circus.  

But then I don't expect much from that group of people by now--I'm just suggesting that we need not look a gift horse in the mouth when there's so little to celebrate. 

I'm not at risk of being jailed by him, though.  Did I miss that one?  Why would he jail you?

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 21:21 | 593695 ColonelCooper
ColonelCooper's picture

The clown shit is more a result of him trying to be some kind of twisted stand up comic.  The "die quickly" was one.  Search his "Red Roof Inn" rant.  T.D. posted in here, and I think it's on You Tube.  (make sure you watch the very end)  He was actually right on that one too.   (trying to give credit where it's due)  There was one other one buffoonish little stunt he pulled.

As far as the jailings, I'd have to google back through shit.  It was kind of tongue in cheek.  I do remember one deal where he tried to get a doctor's liscense taken away because he had a sign in his clinic bitching about ObamaCare.  There was one other deal I can't back up so I admit it's being inadmissable to my point.  He just doesn't much care for dissent. 

He's a liberal who's all for freedom as long as it agrees with him and is run by the government. 

 

Mon, 09/20/2010 - 21:40 | 593745 Bob
Bob's picture

Sadly, I have to concede that your characterization of liberals (if I get your drift) is all too true of many who claim to be "liberals." 

He sounds like a classic trial lawyer (a street fighter with a license.)  "Plays" awfully damn rough, not a man for nuance or subtlety.  The kind of guys I don't like much and who, for their part,  like me even less. 

But I think the issue here is larger than my feelings about the guy.  Actually, this seems to be the kind of situation that calls for an asshole with a capital "A." 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!