THE SiGNiNG… Or, Pardon me, Mr. Banker, but your REMIC is showing

http://mandelman.ml-implode.com/2010/10/the-signing-or-pardon-me-mr-banker-but-your-remic-is-showing/

This is what Repo 105 was all about?
I didn't understand at the time why it would be seen as a legally acceptable practice.
It's very clear now, why that was just so widely accepted.
It was an additional money maker all the way around.
An industry known accepted practice.
What did the financial commission do when this came out in open testimony?
Absolutely NOTHING

Missing the Assignment…

But none of that, the A to B to C to D stuff, or lets say very little of it, was done. And as a result, the loans were never assigned to the trusts. We know that because that’s what the robo-signers are trying to cover up.

So, the question should be WHY? Why didn’t the bankers go to the trouble of properly assigning the loans to the trusts? I have to believe that the Wall Street crowd knew their alphabet, at least to the letter “D,” even if they did have to sign the song in order to remember it. So, why didn’t they do it right the first time.

There are several opinions about why this wasn’t done; I’ve asked around and heard several theories. Many say the Wall Street bankers were just too busy selling the loans over and over to trouble themselves with the real estate paperwork, but I can’t buy that. Not all of the banks would have been too busy and unconcerned about such paperwork at the same time.

A friend and business associate of mine, who spent more than two decades as a US Attorney, suggested that there had to be a benefit, some reason that they didn’t assign the loans to the trusts, and that led me to one place: the “repo agreements”. Last year, I read the book about what happened at Bear Stearns and the one thing that never resolved itself in my mind were called “repo agreements”. I never totally got what they were all about, but as soon as I heard “there has to be a benefit,” the repo agreements went DING!

In our lives, “repo” means repossession, but I remembered that at Bear Stearns the term “repo” was being used to mean “repurchase”. And I remembered that because I hate it when people play games with the English, unless it’s their second language.

So, I remembered reading about how the guys at Bear were leveraging something in order to juice their returns, and they were using these repo agreements to do it. They worked something like this: Bear would borrow money and pledge assets as collateral in the repo agreements, and the deal was that they’d buy the assets back at a certain date at some fixed or variable interest rate.

I remember thinking… well, that’s pretty much how a pawn shop works, no? Why don’t they just say that… they pawn their assets?

So, why didn’t the bankers assign the loans to the trusts? I don’t know… for sure. But I’m going to go out on a limb here and tell you it’s because they wanted to borrow against them, and once assigned to the trust, they wouldn’t be able to pledge them in a repo agreement and thereby get the cash they needed to invest and juice their returns with borrowed money. They like to call it leverage, but leveraging assets you really don’t own, in order to borrow money and invest it… well, it doesn’t sound like something that’s strictly legal… although again, I’m not entirely sure

SEC quizzes US banks over accounting practices

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/7536683/SEC-quizzes-US-banks-over-accounting-practices.html

Hey.... are you guys doing that to?
Lol NOW THEY ASK
Shouldn't they already KNOW the answer to that question?
Any bank that took TARP money should submit to an auditing of their books now
"The letter" leaves it open for self regulation again, and hiding and avoiding secrets is their favorite game.


The US’s leading financial regulator is quizzing major Wall Street banks and insurance firms to ensure that they are not using the secretive off-balance sheet techniques which in part led to the downfall of Lehman Brothers.


The SEC has sent letters to the chief financial officers of the US’s 24 biggest financial institutions to ensure that such techniques have not and are not being used.

The requests demand specific information about the use of repurchase agreements, as well as for how such agreements are accounted for and disclosed to investors.