Excellent Analysis on a Securitized Loan from Neil Garfield LivingLies
“The note signed by said borrower and the mortgage-backed bond accepted by the investor who purchased said security are both evidence of the obligation. The Deed of Trust is intended to be incident to the note and possibly incident to the bond, if the chain of title was perfected. The Payee on the note and the payee on the bond are different parties. The bonds were issued with three principal indentures: (1) repayment of principal non-recourse based upon the payments by obligors under the terms of notes and mortgages in the pool (2) payment of interest under the same conditions and (3) the conveyance of a percentage ownership in the pool of loans, which means that collectively 100% of the investors own 100% of the the entire pool of loans. This means that the “Trust” does NOT own the pool nor the loans in the pool. It means that the “Trust” is merely an operating agreement through which the investors may act collectively under certain conditions. Accordingly, it is my opinion that the parties with standing in relation to a securitized loan are the debtor/borrowers and the creditor/investors. This would be further corroborated if, as a matter of fact, the investment banker followed industry standard of selling the mortgage backed security FORWARD. “Selling forward” means that the security was sold and the money was collected before the first loan was funded on behalf of borrowers. However, even if the investment banker had not closed the sale of the securities with investors before accepting applications for loans, it would have been on the basis of an expectation of said funding. Ultimately, in all securitized loans there is really only one transaction — a loan from the investors to the homeowner. Without an investor there would be no loan; conversely without a borrower there would be no investor or investment”.
Expert Witness Testimony Example – Neil Garfield LivingLies
[scribd id=29432382 key=key-17c0zotnbq79uws9kp04 mode=list]