Allstate vs JPMorgan Chase, WAMU et al | JPMorgan/WaMu Lied About Virtually Everything When Selling Mortgages
Damn those deadbeat borrowers…
From the Allstate vs JP Morgan lawsuit:
Allstate selected a random sample of loans from each offering in which it invested to test Defendants’ representations on a loan-level basis. Using techniques and methodologies that only recently became available, Allstate conducted loan-level analyses on nearly 26,809 mortgage loans underlying its Certificates, across 17 of the offerings at issue here.
For each offering, Allstate attempted to analyze 800 defaulted loans and 800 randomly-sampled loans from within the collateral pool. These sample sizes are more than sufficient to provide statistically-significant data to demonstrate the degree of misrepresentation of the Mortgage Loans’ characteristics. Analyzing data for each Mortgage Loan in each Offering would have been cost-prohibitive and unnecessary. Statistical sampling is an accepted method of establishing reliable conclusions about broader data sets, and is routinely used by courts, government agencies, and private businesses. As the size of a sample increases, the reliability of its estimations of the total population’s characteristics increase as well. Experts in RMBS cases have found that a sample size of just 400 loans can provide statistically significant data, regardless of the size of the actual loan pool, because it is unlikely that such a sample would yield results markedly different from results for the entire population.
Specifically, Allstate did the following:
To determine whether a given borrower actually occupied the property as claimed, Allstate investigated tax information for the sampled loans. One would expect that a borrower residing at a property would have his or her tax bills sent to that address, and would take all applicable tax exemptions available to residents of that property. If a borrower had his or her tax records sent to another address, that is good evidence that he or she was not actually residing at the mortgaged property. If a borrower declined to make certain tax exemption elections that depend on the borrower living at the property, that also is strong evidence the borrower was living elsewhere.
A review of credit records was also conducted. One would expect that people have bills sent to their primary address. If a borrower was telling creditors to send bills to another address, even six months after buying the property, it is good evidence he or she was living elsewhere.
A review of property records was also conducted. It is less likely that a borrower lives in any one property if in fact that borrower owns multiple properties. It is even less likely the borrower resides at the mortgaged property if a concurrently-owned separate property did not have its own tax bills sent to the property included in the mortgage pool.
A review of other lien records was also conducted. If the property was subject to additional liens but those materials were sent elsewhere, that is good evidence the borrower was not living at the mortgaged property. If the other lien involved a conflicting declaration of residency, that too would be good evidence that the borrower did not live in the subject property.
In a nutshell, as Allstate summarizes, it was lies all the way:
the disclosed underwriting standards were systematically ignored in originating or otherwise acquiring non-compliant loans. For instance, recent reviews of the loan files underlying some of Allstate’s Certificates reveal a pervasive lack of proper documentation, facially absurd (yet unchecked) claims about the borrower’s purported income, and the routine disregard of purported underwriting guidelines. Based on data compiled from third-party due diligence firms, the federal Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (“FCIC”) noted in its January 2011 report:
The Commission concludes that firms securitizing mortgages failed to perform adequate due diligence on the mortgages they purchased and at times knowingly waived compliance with underwriting standards. Potential investors were not fully informed or were misled about the poor quality of the mortgages contained in some mortgage-related securities. These problems appear to be significant.
For more on this go here…
Copy of the complaint below…