|
How
did the banks get away with it? Bribery takes many forms. It doesn't
need to be a direct payment, but merely something of value to the
regulator or law enforcement officer. In this case it is the hiring of
children of banking regulators in China. There is no reason why we
should think that couldn't happen here. It did. The revolving door of
regulators, law enforcement and the banks has long been known.
Even
if it isn't a bribe, the bank is hiring people and then designating
them for important positions in government regulation. Jamie Dimon sits
on the Board at the New York Federal Reserve. Being immersed in the bank
culture, the people involved come to believe the myths repeated every
day. It becomes part of their culture.
The
reason why the decisions on banking have been so chaotic is that there
is a direct conflict between the real world and the illusions created by
the banks. Put another way, the difference is between truth and
fiction.
The
fact remains that practically no mortgage can be satisfied or released
because the ownership is completely deranged. The correction can only
come from the courts when they realize and learn that the origination of
the loan was a sham transaction, not just a table funded loan, and that
the intent was fraud on the investors and homeowners (who were also
"investors"). The scheme unraveled precisely in concert with investors
ceasing to buy the "mortgage bonds" issued by entities in "street name."
That is the red flag that alerts authorities that the securitization
chain was in fact a fraudulent PONZI scheme. The issuers were designated
asset pools that had nothing in them, and in most cases were not
funded, directly or indirectly. So the mortgage bonds were worthless.
And
now that the facts are being slowly revealed, the depth of malfeasance
by the banks is being recognized for what it is --- but the government
is sticking with its policy of "no prosecution." Until the government
steps up to the mike and says outright that the scheme was a fraudulent
scheme in which the borrowers were used as pawn to steal money from
investors, most people are not going to believe it. Until respectable
economists and legal scholars step up and say that the loan transaction
described in the note never existed and was a strawman transaction that
should have been revealed to the borrower, this tragedy will stop.
Study
the Assignment and Assumption Agreements executed before the first loan
application was ever accepted for review. Track the money from
strangers showing up at closing as though it was the money of the
designated payee on the note and mortgage. The rest will be easy. But
until regulators see the public as their boss instead of the banks,
don't expect any help from outside the courtroom.
UNFORTUNATELY THE HELP FROM INSIDE THE COURTS ARE LIMITED AS WELL.
No comments:
Post a Comment