Just ask JP Morgan/Chase.. there good at this game.

Lost paperwork..PLEASE.. the banks who have it hidden are giving them to them and than saying they never had it, just ask JP Morgan/Chase.. there good at this game. 


New York's banking regulator Benjamin Lawsky unleashed a verbal assault on nonbank servicer Ocwen Financial Wednesday, saying the company's explosive growth "raises red flags," and that its use of technology to better handle distressed loans is "too good to be true."

Speaking at the annual meeting of the New York Bankers Association, Lawsky said Ocwen's public documents make "for startling reading." He sees "corners being cut," by nonbank servicers that have touted their ability to help distressed borrowers.

"We have serious concerns that some of these nonbank mortgage servicers are getting too big, too fast," Lawsky told New York bankers who were meeting at the Waldorf Astoria. "We see far too many struggling homeowners getting caught in a vortex of lost paperwork, unexplained feed and avoidable foreclosures."

Last week, Ocwen put an indefinite hold on its $2.7 billion purchase of servicing rights from Wells Fargo after Lawsky raised concerns about the Atlanta-based servicers' growth.

Yet Lawsky refused to cite Ocwen by name. Instead, he referred to a public document filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by "a nonbank servicer" that boasted to investors that it was still "in the middle innings of cleaning up the human wreckage left by the mortgage meltdown."

Ocwen has used the "middle innings" reference in presentations in January and in December to analysts and investors.

Lawsky also cited Ocwen's comments to investors that it has identified $400 billion in servicing rights that it plans to acquire in the next 12 to 18 months, and that up to $1 trillion in servicing will change hands in the next few years.

But he took particular umbrage by Ocwen's assertions that it can service delinquent loans at a cost that is 70% lower than the rest of the industry, calling into question its entire servicing model.

"Those kinds of cost-saving claims bear special scrutiny," Lawsky said. "Regulators have to ask whether the purported efficiencies at nonbank mortgage servicers are too good to be true."

As superintendent of New York's Department of Financial Services, Lawsky has jurisdiction over Ocwen as a licensed mortgage banker in New York. He also has additional insight into Ocwen's operations because in Dec. 2012, Ocwen agreed to an independent monitor as part of a consent order that cleared the path for its 2011 acquisition of Litton Loan Servicing from Goldman Sachs.

Lawsky made specific references to servicers' difficulty in handling the transfer of documents and dealing with distressed borrowers.

"We see electronic loan files strewn around the globe with no one who knows how to pull them together," Lawsky said. "We see a virtual potpourri of computer systems containing critical borrower information, but no one who knows how to extract that information at the right time and for the right purpose."

Kevin Barker, an analyst at Compass Point, says it is uncertain whether Lawsky is primarily concerned about Ocwen's ability to take on more distressed loans or if it the concerns relate to past servicing practices — or both.

"It's not easy to transfer the servicing and boarding of all these loans because you have to think about what kind of shape the files are in when they get them," Barker says.

Lawsky has previously used his authority to hold up past transfers of mortgage servicing to Ocwen and to demand concessions such as the independent monitor. Still, servicers are concerned whether his actions will set a precedent that upends other servicing transfers involving New York loans.

"Regulators should not just be rubber stamps," Lawsky told bankers.
Servicing
Regulation

Fannie and Freddie Demand $6 Billion for Sale of “Faulty Mortgage Bonds”

Posted on October 21, 2013 by Neil Garfield

You read the news on one settlement after another, it sounds like the pound of flesh is being exacted from the culprits again and again. This time the FHFA, as owner of Fannie and Freddie, is going for a settlement with Bank of America for sale of “faulty mortgage bonds.” And most people sit back and think that justice is being done. It isn’t. $6 Billion is window dressing on a liability that is at least 100 times that amount. And stock analysts take comfort that the legal problems for the banks has basically been discounted already. It hasn’t.
For practitioners who defend mortgage foreclosures, you must dig a little deeper. The term “faulty mortgage bonds” is a euphemism. Look at the complaints there filed. When they are filed by agencies it means that after investigation they have arrived at the conclusion that something was. very wrong with the sale of mortgage bonds. That is an administrative finding that concluded there was at least probable cause for finding that the mortgage bonds were defective and potentially were criminal.
So what does “defective” or “faulty” mean? Neither the media nor the press releases from the agencies or the banks tell us what was wrong with the bonds. But if you look at the complaints of the agencies, they tell you what they mean. If you look at the investor lawsuits you see that they are alleging that the notes and mortgages were “unenforceable.” Both the agencies and the investors filed complaints alleging that the mortgage bonds were a farce, sham or in other words, a PONZI Scheme.
Why is that important to foreclosure defense? Digging deeper you will find what I have been reporting on this blog. The investors money was not used to fund the REMIC trusts. The unfunded trusts never had the money to buy or fund the origination of bonds. The notes and mortgages were never sold to the Trusts even though “assignments” were executed and shown in court. The assignments themselves were either backdated or violated the 90 day cutoff that under applicable law (the laws of the State of New York) are VOID and not voidable.
What to do? File Freedom of Information Act requests for the findings, allegations and names of investigators for the agency that were involved in the agency action. Take their deposition. Get documents. Find put what mortgages were looked at and which bond series were involved. Get a list of the mortgages and the bonds that were examined. Get the findings on each mortgage and each mortgage bond. Use the the investor allegations as lender admissions admissions in court — that the notes and mortgages are unenforceable.
There is a disconnect between what is going on at the top of the sham securitization chain and what went on in sham mortgage originations and sham sales of loans. They never happened in the real world, no matter how much paper you throw at it.
And that just doesn’t apply to mortgages in default — it applies to all mortgages, which is why all the mortgages that currently exist, and most of the deeds that show ownership of the property have clouded and probably “defective” and “faulty” titles. It’s clear logic that the government and the banks are seeking to avoid, to wit: that if the way in which the money was raised to fund the loans or purchase the loans were defective, then it follows that there are defects in the chain of title and the money trail that were obviously not disclosed, as per the requirements of TILA and Reg Z.
And when you keep digging in discovery you will find out that your client has some clear remedies to collect the profits and compensation paid to undisclosed recipients arising out of the closing of the “loan.” These are offsets to the amount claimed as due. If the loan was not funded by the Trust, then the false paper trail used by the banks in foreclosure is subject to successful attack. If the loans were in fact funded directly by the trust complying with the REMIC provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, then the payee on the note and the mortgagee on the mortgage would be the trust — or if the loan was actually purchased, the Trust would have issued money to the seller (something that never happened).
And lastly, for now, let us look at the capital structure of these banks. A substantial portion of their capital derives from assets in the form of mortgage bonds. This is the most blatant lie of all of them. No underwriter buys the securities issued by the company seeking financing through an offering to investors. It is an oxymoron. The whole purpose of the underwriter was to create securities that would be appealing to investors. The securities are only issued when you have a buyer for them, and then the investor is the owner of the security — in this case mortgage bonds.
The bonds are not issued to the investment bank as an asset of the investment bank. But they ARE issued to the investment bank in “street name.” That is merely to facilitate trading and delivery of certificates which in most cases in the mortgage bond market don’t exist. The issuance in street name does not mean the banks own the mortgage bonds any more than when you a stock and the title is issued in street name mean that you have loaned or gifted the investment to the investment bank.
If you follow the logic of the investment bank then the deposits of money by depository customers could be claimed as assets — without the required entry in the liabilities section of the balance sheet because every dollar on deposit is a liability to pay those monies on demand, which is why checking accounts are referred to as demand deposits.
Hence the “asset” has been entered on the investment bank balance sheet without the corresponding liability on the other side of their balance sheet. And THAT remains that under cover of Federal Reserve purchase of these bonds from the banks, who don’t own the bonds, the value of the bonds is 100 cents on the dollar and the owner is the bank — a living lies fundamental. When the illusion collapses, the banks are coming down with it. You can only go so far lying to the public and the investment community. Eventually the reality is these banks are underfunded, under capitalized and still being propped up by quantitative easing disguised as the purchase of mortgage bonds at the rate of $85 Billion per month.
We need to be preparing for the collapse of the illusion and get the other financial institutions — 7,000 community and regional banks and credit unions — ready to take on the changes caused by the absence of the so-called major banks who are really fictitious entities without a foundation related to economic reality. The backbone is already available — electronic funds transfer is as available to the smallest bank as it is to the largest. It is an outright lie that we need the TBTF banks. They have failed and cannot recover because of the enormity of the lies they told the world. It’s over.

VICTORY for Homeowners: Received Title and 7 Figure Monetary Damages for Wrongful Foreclosure

Victory in California, as we have predicted for years. Maria L. Hutkin and Jude J Basile were the attorneys for the homeowners and obviously did a fine job of exposing the truth. Their tenacity and perseverance paid off big time for their clients and themselves. They showed it is not over until the truth comes out. So for all of you who are saying you can’t find a lawyer who “gets it” here are two lawyers that got it and won. And for all those who were screwed by the banks, it isn’t over. Now it is your turn to get the rights and damages you deserve.

Maria L. Hutkin and Jude J. Basile

Maria L. Hutkin and Jude J. Basile

The homeowners won flat out at a trial — something that should have happened in most of the 6.6 million Foreclosures conducted thus far. U.S. Bank showed its ugly head again as the alleged Trustee of a trust that was most probably nonexistent, unfunded and without any assets at all much less the homeowners alleged loan. Still the settlement shows how far Wall Street will go to pay damages rather than admit their liability to investors, insurers, counterparties in credit default swaps, and the Federal Reserve.
When you think of the hundreds of millions of wrongful foreclosures that were the subject of tens of billions of dollars in “settlements” that preserved homeowners rights to pursue further damages and do the math, it is obvious why even the total of all the “settlements” and fines were a tiny fraction of the total liability owed to pension funds and other investors, insurers, CDS parties, the Federal Government and of course the borrowers who never received a single loan from the banks in the first place. If 5 million foreclosures were wrongful, as is widely suspected at a minimum, using this case and some others I know about the damages could well exceed $5 Trillion. Simple math. Maybe that will wake up the good trial lawyers who think there is no case!

Maria L. Hutkin and Jude J. Basile

A fitting announcement on the 5th anniversary of the Lehman Brothers collapse. the economy is still struggling as more than 15 million American PEOPLE were displaced, lost equity and forced into bankruptcy by imperfect mortgages that were a sham, and thus imperfect foreclosures that were also a sham. Another 15 million PEOPLE will be displaced if these wrongful, illegal and morally corrupt sham foreclosures are allowed to continue.
This case, like the recent case won by Danielle Kelley (partner of GGKW) was based upon dual tracking. In Kelley’s case the homeowners had completed the process of getting an approved modification, which meant that underwriting, review, confirmation of data, and approval from the investor had been obtained. In Kelley’s case the homeowner had made the trial payments in full and paid the taxes, insurance, utilities and maintenance of the property.

The Bank argued they were under no obligation to fulfill the final step — permanent modification. Kelley argued that a new contract was formed — offer, acceptance and the consideration of payment that the Bank received, kept and credited to the homeowner’s account. But the bank as Servicer was still accruing the payments due on the unmodified mortgage, which is why I have been harping on the topic of discovery on the money trail at origination, processing, and third party payments. 

The accounting records of the subservicer and the Master Servicer should lead you to all actual transactions in which money exchanged hands, although getting to insurance payments and proceeds of credit default swaps might require discovery from the investment banker. So in Kelley’s case, the Judge essentially said that if an agreement was reached and the homeowner met the requirements of a trial period, the deal was done and entered a final order in favor of the homeowner eliminating the the foreclosure with prejudice.

In this One West case the court went a little further. The homeowners were lured into negotiations, expenses and augments under the promise of modification and then summarily without notice to the homeowner sold the property at a Trustee sale under the provisions of the deed of trust. The Judge agreed with counsel for the homeowners that this was dual tracking at its worst, and that the bank did not have the option of proceeding with the sale. 

The homeowners were forced to vacate the property and make other housing arrangements and these particular homeowners were enraged and had the resources to do what most homeowners are too fearful to do — go to the mat (go to trial.)

One West made several offers of settlement once the Judge made it clear that the homeowners had stated a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure. Bravely the attorneys and the homeowners rejected settlement and insisted on a complete airing of their grievances so that everyone would know what happened to them. After multiple offers, with trial drawing near, OneWest finally agreed to give clear title back to the homeowners and pay $1 million+ in damages on what was a six figure loan. 

We now have cases in both judicial and non-judicial jurisdictions in which the homeowner was awarded the house without encumbrance of a mortgage and even receiving monetary damages in which the attorneys achieved substantial rewards on 7 figure settlements  that probably would be much higher if they ever went to trial — particularly in front of a jury. This is only one of the paths to successful foreclosure defense. I hope attorneys and homeowners take note. Your anger can be channeled into a constructive path if the lawyers know how to understand these loans, and how to litigate them.

“There’s hope. I feel their pain.” — Danielle Kelley, Esq. , partner in Garfield, Gwaltney, Kelley and White.

http://calcoastnews.com/2013/09/onewest-bank-pays-7-figures-mortgage-fraud-case/

Danielle Kelley, Esq. Swings Back at Separation of Note and Mortgage

Danielle Kelley, Esq. whom I admired before she became my law partner has again broke some old/new ground in compelling fashion. This is not legal advice and nobody should use it without consulting an attorney who is properly licensed in good standing in the jurisdiction in which the property is located and who is competent on the subject of bills and notes.
The bottom line: if the note and mortgage were intended by the law to be considered one instrument, they would be one instrument. But they are not because all the conditions in the mortgage would render the note non-negotiable under the UCC and that would be true even if the loan was actually sold, for real, with payment and an assignment. The conditions expressed in the mortgage or deed of trust render the mortgage non-negotiable. Hence an alleged transfer of the note separates the note from the mortgage because the mortgage is by definition non-negotiable. If the banks lose the application of the UCC, which they should, they are dead in the water because they have no way to prove the transactions upon which they rely in collection and foreclosure.
All of this leads us back to the “sale” of the loan because the presumption arising out of being a holder or holder in due course does not exist where the paper is non-negotiable. The Banks must allege and prove the origination and sale the old fashioned way — by alleging that on the ___ day of ___, in the year ___ XYZ loaned the homeowner $____________. Pursuant to that transaction the defendant executed a note and mortgage (or deed of trust), attached hereto and incorporated by reference. On the ___ day of ________ in the year ________, Plaintiff acquired said loan by payment of valuable consideration and received an assignment that was recorded in the public records at page ___, Book ____ of the public records of ____ County. Defendant failed or refused to make payment commencing the ___ day of ____ in the year ____. Plaintiff gave notice of the delinquency and default, provided the Defendant with an opportunity to reinstate as required by the mortgage and applicable law (copy of said notices attached). Defendant will suffer financial loss without collection of the debt for which it owns the account receivable. Pursuant to the terms of the mortgage which is attached hereto, Defendant agreed that the subject property was pledged as collateral for the faithful performance of the duties under the note, to wit: payment.
Of course the Banks refuse to do that because it opens the door to discovery to exactly what money was paid, to whom and why. AND it would show that there were no actual transactions — just shuffling of paper.

Affirmative defense

Non-negotiability of Subject Note Prohibits Plaintiff from Enforcing it Pursuant to Fla. Stat. §673, et seq and Failure to Attach Documents Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.130

With regard to all counts of the Complaint, the Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because the subject note that the Plaintiff may produce is not a negotiable instrument and therefore the Plaintiff cannot claim enforcement of the note pursuant to Fla. Stat. §673, et seq.  In order for an instrument to be negotiable it must not, amongst other things, “state any other undertaking or instruction by the person promising or ordering payment to do any act in addition to the payment of money.”  §673.1041(1)(c).  While there is no appellate case law in Florida (and precious little in the entire country) which has ever interpreted this portion of the statute to mortgage promissory notes, the Second District has interpreted this section with respect to retail installment sales contracts in GMAC v. Honest Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc., et al., 933 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).  There, the Second District held that clauses in the RISC such as the requirement for late fees and NSF charges rendered the contract non-negotiable.  This Court should be mindful that the GMAC case was recently applied to a mortgage foreclosure in the Sixth Judicial Circuit.  See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Christopher J. Chesney, Case No. 51-2009-CA-6509-WS/G (6th Judicial Circuit/Hon. Stanley R. Mills February 22, 2010).

The note attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint contains the following obligations other than the payment of money

1.      The obligation that the borrower pay a late charge if the lender has not received payment by the end of a certain period of days after the payment is due.  Defendants assert this defense although Section 7(a) of the Note attached states “See Attached Rider”.  The only riders attached to the Complaint are a “Prepayment Rider to Note” and an “Adjustable Rate Rider”, the latter of which deals with the interest change, not late fees.  Therefore there are documents potentially missing from the Complaint which runs afoul of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.130 that such documents be attached as they are a document upon which a defense can be made.  Defendants are asserting the defense without the applicable rider; however, if Plaintiff is in possession of the original note, as they should be in order to foreclose, Plaintiff would have had said document to file.   

2.      The obligation that the borrower to tell the lender, in writing, if borrower opts to may prepay in clause 5 of the Note and the Prepayment Rider to the Note. 

3.      The obligation that the lender send any notices that must be given to the borrower pursuant to the terms of the subject note by either delivering it or mailing it by first class mail in clause 8; and

4.       The obligation of the borrower to waive the right of presentment and notice of dishonor in clause 9.

Because the subject note contains undertakings or instructions other than the payment of money, the subject note is not negotiable and therefore the Plaintiff cannot claim that it is entitled to enforce same pursuant to Fla. Stat. §673, et seq.

In addition to, or in alternative of, the following argument, even if the subject note is deemed negotiable, Fla. Stat. §673, et seq. (and therefore negotiation) cannot be utilized to transfer the non-negotiable mortgage, which is a separate transaction.  See in Sims v. New Falls Corporation, 37 So. 3d 358, 360 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (providing that a note and mortgage were two separate transactions).  The terms of the mortgage are expressly not incorporated into the terms of the note; rather, they are merely referenced by the note.  See clause 11 of the note.  Indeed, nowhere in the subject note is the right to foreclose the mortgage a remedy for default under the note.  It is clause 22 of the mortgage, on the other hand, which allows this.  Clause 22 of the mortgage, however, cannot be transferred to Plaintiff by negotiation as the mortgage is not negotiable.  

Unidentified Lenders Account For Growing Share of Jumbo MBS

CAN WE ALL SAY HEDGE FUNDS - THAT ARE FUNDED BY THE BANKS TO HIDE THE FRAUD OF 2004-2008!

Small lenders have accounted for a growing share of contributions to non-agency jumbo mortgage-backed securities. Some deals have included more than 70 lenders, with most of the lenders contributing less than 5 percent of the volume of mortgages included in a security.
While the lenders’ individual contributions to a particular jumbo MBS are small, they add up to significant market share, particularly when issuers don’t identify the lenders in prospectus documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission or in reports published by the rating services.
Through two quarters in 2013, unidentified lenders accounted for 35.3 percent of the collateral backing the $8.29 billion in non-agency jumbo MBS issued during that period, according to a new ranking and analysis by Inside Nonconforming Markets. That was nearly double the amount of loans coming from First Republic Bank, which was the top contributor to jumbo MBS in the first half of 2013.
And while a few identified lenders increased their share of contributions to non-agency jumbo MBS in the second quarter of 2013 compared with the previous quarter, the volume of originations from unidentified lenders increased by 46.8 percent during that time.


DEUTSCHE BANK/DB STRUCTURED PRODUCTS
JPM/CHASE
CITI
USBANK CORP
WELLS FARO
GOLDMAN
BOA

 
ARE ALL  FUNDING THESE HEDGE FUNDS TO HIDE THE FRAUD OF THESE MORTGAGES FROM 2004- 2008 , AND SUDDENLY THEY COME UP WITH THE PAPERWORK FOR THE COURTS, BUT THE HEDGE FUNDS FAIL TO TELL THE INVESTORS OR THE COURTS THE DOCUMENTS ARE FRAUDULENT AND ARE ON LOAN ONLY FOR THE COURT HEARINGS AND ARE RETURNED BACK TO THE BANKS.

PENNY MAC ( OLD COUNTRYWIDE BOYS)
ROOSEVELT MORTGAGE
RUSHMORE
ARCHBAY HOLDINGS LLC 
ARCHBAY CAPITOL /ALSO KNOWN AS YORK CAPITOL

THE LIST IS ENDLESS BUT THESE ARE ALOT OF THE MAIN PLAYERS IN THE FRAUD UPON THE COURTS.

America Lost

In America we are no longer proud. We have a government that is teaching our children that its OK to lie , cheat and steal. That integrity and honor is something only our ancestors Believed in.

Its no longer about  the proud nation we once were, its about America Lost.

 

Az Attorney General Gets It! Precisely Wrong

Nothing could have said it better than these words from the chief law enforcement officer of the state. He said it because he meant it. And he was sort of right in a twisted way. And he was expressing the frustration of all three branches of government together with nearly everyone including the borrowers. The words were "assuming no underlying injustice."

You see that everyone has become so wrapped up in the paperwork and the arguments about the paperwork nearly everyone has forgotten to ask the most basic question: WAS THERE A TRANSACTION WITH OFFER, ACCEPTANCE AND CONSIDERATION. WHERE IS THE MONEY? where is the canceled check or wire transfer receipt? He was only saying that the fabricated forged paperwork was an acceptable short-cut IF NO INJUSTICE is present. In other words, at the end of the day it is just the collection of a debt. But what if there is no debt? Then what is all that paperwork about?

So to make it clear, what I am saying is that if I loan you money, you owe it to me whether we have anything in writing or not. If I fabricate and forge your signature on it, what's the harm? You got the money, you agreed to pay it back, you still owe what I loaned you. And if the note, forged or not, conforms to the deal the borrower thought they were getting, what difference does it make whether you use the note or not?

Ok, there is a problem with the statute of frauds, and about a dozen other statutes and doctrines that arose to prevent fraud and injustice. So maybe it isn't acceptable to fabricate documents, forge signatures, lie to the courts and otherwise do things that ordinary citizens can and are put in jail for doing the exact same thing.

But so what? You owe me money, you know it and you are not going to get out of owing it just because I committed some crime. I didn't commit a crime in loaning you the money, did I? I committed a crime in collecting it --- and that is what is bothering everyone including even the borrowers.

So why do I write this blog, litigate cases against the "lenders", appear as an expert witness to give opinion evidence and explanations of the finance industry?

Well, let's see. What if I didn't loan you the money, AND I got paid more money than you received in a loan from someone else? Huh? Yes, think about it. What if I didn't loan you the money? What if the paperwork was not just fraudulent and criminally created, what if it was just plain wrong? What if there was no transaction at all between us? Should I still be allowed to collect from you, take your house, your livelihood, your reputation? Might you spot some injustice if you learned that banks, pension funds, governments, investors, the central bank (Federal Reserve), gave me ten times more money than you got on the loan?

You are assuming that because the money showed up at the closing table that the loan was real. But the money on the table was stolen. Oops that does make things a little different doesn't it? And here is the kicker ---- the thief got paid ten times over for making the loan appear real. The only injustice is to investors whose money was stolen and borrowers whose lives were stolen.

But I guess that isn't enough. It is ok to steal, it is ok to lie, It is ok to fabricate documents.it is ok to drain the money from our economy and blow up world commerce. You know, on second thought I don't agree with the Arizona Attorney General. I think he is a paid stooge and an idiot. Because I know him, met him and explained to him what the truth was, Along with his investigation team who like in Florida when they were getting close to an arrest were fired or transferred.

Injustice? Where is there not injustice in this whole thing. We have debased our currency, undermined the financial integrity of our governments, left pensioners with too little money to get the payments they were expecting, and we have taken homes away from people just because someone at the top thinks it is too inconvenient to bring the banks down, put the criminals in jail, and leave the victims without any effective remedy. I thought we were better than that and that people like the Arizona Attorney General should be investigated for corruption. But then I was always an idealist.

Ocwen Financial Corporation, Inc.

Events

• $1.84B Bailout

  Apr. 16, 2009 Incentive Payments for Home Loan Modification

  Investment cap reflects adjustment made on Aug. 16, 2012.
  

  Part of Making Home Affordable

  More info from www.treasury.gov
  $347M has actually been disbursed.
  Dec. 31, 2012: $347M

  Subsidy as of December 2012: Borrower: $62,912,378; Investor: $166,083,615; Servicer: $118,131,642
  
  How special you and others like PennyMac the Good ole Boys of Country wide  , take out tax dollars and abuse us again and to top it off , you don't pay a dime back! Are you dumb ass investors paying attention yet??????????????