First

This robbery always was about the deep pockets of just a few:Fed Eliminates Compensation Limits for TALF SponsorsMarch 3 (Bloomberg) — The Federal Reserve eliminated executive-compensation limits for sponsors of asset-backed securities accepted under a new $1 trillion program, indicating the rules may have hampered efforts to get the plan underway.The Fed isn’t applying the requirements to the Term Asset- Backed Securities Loan Facility because of the government’s “desire to encourage market participants to stimulate credit formation and utilize the facility,” the New York Fed said in a question-and-answer document on its Web site today.The change suggests the government doesn’t intend to apply compensation limits beyond firms that receive direct investments from the Treasury’s $700 billion bailout fund. Officials have yet to announce whether such requirements will be imposed on firms participating in a separate effort to remove as much as $1 trillion of distressed assets from banks’ balance sheets…The revised terms and conditions of the TALF, posted on the New York Fed’s Web site, also omitted a previous section on compensation requirements. The limits were previously instituted because the program is being seeded with capital from the $700 billion financial-stability plan, which has provided capital injections to banks with compensation rules attached…The Fed and Treasury didn’t include the change on executive compensation in a news release today. It was included on page 15 of the “Frequently Asked Questions.”http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aPu6EEraeXPE&refer=home

This is similar to the prelude to the French Revolution. The friends of the court, the lords and nobles, were handling the taxation, the laws and the justice, and their excesses of wealth and arrogance were destroying the people.

there is something wrong with Tim explaining what he does’nt know to those that know less….I suggest if the truth about Goldman Sachs and all those who work there or have worked there, ever comes out, we will then fully understand what happened, especially over the last 6 months….

Because you don’t want to rescue a company employing thousands of people, if it effects your own salary. Better to let the company go bust, and make use of the pension plan.I can’t believe it that everybody has become so numb that people accept all this.

That’s exactly right.

“Obama Says Now May Be a Good Time to Buy Stocks”…carnival barker.

Maybe he should lead from the front, and go 100% into the market then.

Re-posting an item and a comment, because they were at the end of the last thread …————————–OK, let’s take brief interlude to look at the financial charts. I mean, heck, this is an economics blog – right ???Go to http://www.stockcharts.com and type in $RUTWhat you’re looking at is the Russell Index for small businesses. Notice a key fact – this chart just started moving to new lows. And if you expand the time scale by going to 3 years, you might even say to yourself “Oh my gosh!”. Or something with more expletives. Because it sure looks like this chart is about to undergo another sudden big drop, similar to what happened in early October of 2008. Hold that thought. We’ll come back to it.Now we venture over to look at $SPF and $BKX, also on stockcharts. Yep, sure looks like the financials and the banks are continuing that serious downward plunge. Not a surprise. But remember that interesting piece that was posted here yesterday. Community banks are now having to plough quite a bit of money in to support FDIC funding. Ouch! It all hurts, and it all sucks away the bank profits. And this comes at a bad time as commercial real estate is plunging. Lots of bad commercial RE loans hitting these banks right now.So the point is this …* Looks like we’re headed for a period with more small and mid-sized banks in the USA going bust* It also looks like we’re headed directly into a period of serious business bankruptcies. This coincides with major tightening of business credit by the banks.* This would certainly point to a further spike in unemployment in the USANow finally we move over to our old friend … the infamous Four Bears Chart at this link:http://dshort.com/charts/bears/four-bears-large.gifNotice that the blue line marking the current market is falling right on the gray line that coincides with the 1929-1933 depression. Looks pretty ominous, doesn’t it? Sure does. But not surprising. The US economy built up an enormous overload of credit, which cannot be justified by the real productivity of the country these days. Something has to give, and it sure looks like the blue line knows this.Point being? I wouldn’t be surprised if we hit a really turbulent stretch in the US economy in the next 2-3 months. We may even see that blue line dive UNDER the gray line, making the current economic descent the most rapid on record.No wonder the White House is murmuring comments about staving off an “economic catastrophe”. For the rest of us on Main Street, it means some even more serious tightening of belts. Maybe even the expectation of a bank holiday sooner or later, while the Gov’t tries to sort out the banking system.—————Comment …All evidence still points to US consumers being heavily engaged in the deleveraging process (i.e. making a mighty effort to pay down debts). The US consumers are doing the right thing, even if the Government is not. The data does not show that consumer behavior is about to change. I doubt there will be a big shift in the immediate future – to more consumer spending, and I doubt that consumer confidence will climb substantially for quite a while. There is no way out of this until: (1) The USA completes a period of restructuring that focuses on real productivity driven by savings (not credit), (2) The world shifts from being driven by US consumer demand and finds a new base of global consumers, and (3) The US dollar is no longer the reserve currency. But frankly, we’ve still got a long way to go. A long way. Almost all economic and political policies right now are “rear mirror policies” based on trying to get the system back to where it was. That ain’t gonna’ work.———————PeteCA

So … how long do you think before we see armed guards outside major US banks? Not to protect the money. But to protect the banks.PeteCA

It seems that the President isn’t aware that, even if he’s right, the public doesn’t have the cash to buy these stocks.

Warren Buffet is advising him to say this?

UPDATEThe President wishes to add “that for those who are in for a short or medium term, selling stocks is still a potentially good deal”

Regarding Citi, an account from a failed state at the capitalist periphery.Probably underreported in the west but a neferious terrorist group planted a huge 60kg AMFO bomb at a car outside the Citibank headquarters in Athens a few days ago. The detonators exploded but the wiring was wrong and it didnt go off. Had it gone off, it would had leveled an entire city block. Police are mostly clueless but newspapers point to an anticapitalist, extreme left terrorist group, using al queda originating knowhow and disregard for human life.Citibank branches are routinely attacked by amateur gas canister minibombs in Athens, but nothing on this scale had been attempted before. Which says a lot as to how badly things can develop, especially in failed peripheral states like Greece.When you talk of popular uprisings, be careful what you wish for. The strategy of tension is a proven and tested one…

@Pete700 breached. Tomorrow?

The Great Depression was like driving an old Ford down a dirt road and one of the wheels came off and you rolled into a ditch. The Modern Depression is like driving a Ford 150 pickup at 70 mph down the freeway and the front axle is giving way, and if it breaks, you’re dead.

Today.

August of this year.

Same as it ever was

Another Obama appointee and point person on foreign trade is found to owe back taxes. But it’s okay. As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tells us, “When you put anybody’s tax filings under a microscope, people don’t have to be dishonest [sic].” Well, I’m sure we would probably find it so with Reid’s taxes – “Hey, I’m just a common, ordinary crooked politician.” Maybe it’s time to take a look into Reid’s finances.But if you’re a common ordinary taxpayer variety, as I am, you’d better not rely on Reid’s advice.It’s like the congressman from West Virginia said about Geithner, if he hadn’t been appointed Treasury Secretary he wouldn’t have paid the taxes. Nor would Kirk.“Cabinet-pick Kirk owes $10,000 in back taxes” | Dallas News(March 3, 2009) WASHINGTON – Ron Kirk’s excess deductions for basketball tickets and failure to report speaking fees as income have cost him $10,000 in back taxes, a Senate committee disclosed Monday, in the latest IRS-related embarrassment for an Obama Cabinet pick.The problems are the first indication of potential trouble for Kirk’s nomination to be U.S. trade representative, though White House officials and key senators called the errors minor and predicted the former Dallas mayor will be confirmed by the Senate.”When you put anybody’s tax filings under a microscope, people don’t have to be dishonest,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. “It’s just hard to do all the right things. It certainly shouldn’t disqualify him.” …Kirk earned more than $1 million last year as a law partner at Houston-based Vinson & Elkins and from corporate board positions, according to his financial disclosure form…Aides to the Senate Finance Committee uncovered Kirk’s tax shortfall during weeks of vetting. Kirk, a lawyer and the Texas Democratic Party’s 2002 Senate nominee, will file amended tax returns for the last three years and pay the Internal Revenue Service $9,975 plus interest…Kirk owes $5,800 because of $37,750 in honorariums from 16 speeches dating to 2004. He assigned the fees to be paid directly to a scholarship fund at his alma mater, Austin College in Sherman. The Finance Committee said he should have reported the income and claimed a corresponding charitable deduction.Independent tax attorneys agreed but called it an honest mistake.Kirk owes $2,600 stemming from deductions for season tickets to the NBA Dallas Mavericks: $6,208, $7,035 and $4,139 in 2005, 2006 and 2007, respectively…http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/DN-kirk_03nat.ART.State.Edition2.4a68fa3.html

I mean what will tomorrow bring having fallen below 700, a key technical level?

Honest mistake. Its a non-issue.

Miss AmericaWhat’s your take on the rumour of a new Arabian peninsula currency backed by oil and gold, due for launch in 2010? If true, does this change the game with regards to gold?Regards

I love it… Modern Depression. Proposed that nomenclature yesterday. I say we stick with it!I can’t imagine what would happen if credit totally froze in this country… a bank holiday could be catastrophic if debit/credit cards stopped working. Such a small percentage of the population is actually perpared for that scenario. Scary times indeed. Hopefully the good old JB Weld bailouts will hold the axel together…Me… I am all about taking the axel out and TIG welding it back together or replacing it entirely. Leaving the metaphor aside, these patchwork bailouts will bring the economy to collapse.

Who are the counterparties?!?!?!

Thats the question isn’t itIf the counterparties of AIG are hedge funds and investment bankers then there is a river of money flowing from the US government to pay these turkeys for bad bets.Its worse, because as long as the govt pays, these turkeys will continue to short and drive down the market.Stop the money flow and the market will stabiliseSimple as that

GOOD QUESTION :The answer is Goldman Sachs,Merrill lynch and other banks both U.S.and INTERNATIONAL.Personal promises have been made on the International Accounts.So this little game will continue as long as possible ,until as much of the $298 Billion of CDS on AIG books as of Dec.31,2008 is replaced with Fed (Taxpayer)money.NO SECRETS HERE!!!!!!!!!!

WHERE’S THE NOTE, WHO’S THE HOLDER: ENFORCEMENT OF PROMISSORY NOTE SECURED BY REAL ESTATEHON. SAMUEL L. BUFFORDUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGECENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIALOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA(FORMERLY HON.) R. GLEN AYERSLANGLEY & BANACKSAN ANTONIO, TEXASAMERICAN BANKRUPTCY INSTUTUTEAPRIL 3, 2009WASHINGTON, D.C.WHERE’S THE NOTE, WHO’S THE HOLDERINTRODUCTIONIn an era where a very large portion of mortgage obligations have been securitized, by assignment to a trust indenture trustee, with the resulting pool of assets being then sold as mortgage backed securities, foreclosure becomes an interesting exercise, particularly where judicial process is involved. We are all familiar with the securitization process. The steps, if not the process, is simple. A borrower goes to a mortgage lender. The lender finances the purchase of real estate. The borrower signs a note and mortgage or deed of trust. The original lender sells the note and assigns the mortgage to an entity that securitizes the note by combining the note with hundreds or thousands of similar obligation to create a package of mortgage backed securities, which are then sold to investors.Unfortunately, unless you represent borrowers, the vast flow of notes into the maw of the securitization industry meant that a lot of mistakes were made. When the borrower defaults, the party seeking to enforce the obligation and foreclose on the underlying collateral sometimes cannot find the note. A lawyer sophisticated in this area has speculated to one of the authors that perhaps a third of the notes “securitized” have been lost or destroyed. The cases we are going to look at reflect the stark fact that the unnamed source’s speculation may be well-founded.UCC SECTION 3-309If the issue were as simple as a missing note, UCC §3-309 would provide a simple solution. A person entitled to enforce an instrument which has been lost, destroyed or stolen may enforce the instrument. If the court is concerned that some third party may show up and attempt to enforce the instrument against the payee, it may order adequate protection. But, and however, a person seeking to enforce a missing instrument must be a person entitled to enforce the instrument, and that person must prove the instrument’s terms and that person’s right to enforce the instrument. §3-309 (a)(1) & (b).WHO’S THE HOLDEREnforcement of a note always requires that the person seeking to collect show that it is the holder. A holder is an entity that has acquired the note either as the original payor or transfer by endorsement of order paper or physical possession of bearer paper. These requirements are set out in Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which has been adopted in every state, including Louisiana, and in the District of Columbia. Even in bankruptcy proceedings, State substantive law controls the rights of note and lien holders, as the Supreme Court pointed out almost forty (40) years ago in United States v. Butner, 440 U.S. 48, 54-55 (1979).However, as Judge Bufford has recently illustrated, in one of the cases discussed below, in the bankruptcy and other federal courts, procedure is governed by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy and Civil Procedure. And, procedure may just have an impact on the issue of “who,” because, if the holder is unknown, pleading and standing issues arise.BRIEF REVIEW OF UCC PROVISIONSArticle 3 governs negotiable instruments – it defines what a negotiable instrument is and defines how ownership of those pieces of paper is transferred. For the precise definition, see § 3-104(a) (“an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest . . . .”) The instrument may be either payable to order or bearer and payable on demand or at a definite time, with or without interest.Ordinary negotiable instruments include notes and drafts (a check is a draft drawn on a bank). See § 3-104(e).Negotiable paper is transferred from the original payor by negotiation. §3-301. “Order paper” must be endorsed; bearer paper need only be delivered. §3-305. However, in either case, for the note to be enforced, the person who asserts the status of the holder must be in possession of the instrument. See UCC § 1-201 (20) and comments.The original and subsequent transferees are referred to as holders. Holders who take with no notice of defect or default are called “holders in due course,” and take free of many defenses. See §§ 3-305(b).The UCC says that a payment to a party “entitled to enforce the instrument” is sufficient to extinguish the obligation of the person obligated on the instrument. Clearly, then, only a holder – a person in possession of a note endorsed to it or a holder of bearer paper – may seek satisfaction or enforce rights in collateral such as real estate.NOTE: Those of us who went through the bank and savings and loan collapse of the 1980’s are familiar with these problems. The FDIC/FSLIC/RTC sold millions of notes secured and unsecured, in bulk transactions. Some notes could not be found and enforcement sometimes became a problem. Of course, sometimes we are forced to repeat history. For a recent FDIC case, see Liberty Savings Bank v. Redus, 2009 WL 41857 (Ohio App. 8 Dist.), January 8, 2009.THE RULESJudge Bufford addressed the rules issue this past year. See In re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757 (Bankr. C. D. Cal. 2008). First, there are the pleading problems that arise when the holder of the note is unknown. Typically, the issue will arise in a motion for relief from stay in a bankruptcy proceeding.According F.R.Civ. Pro. 17, “[a]n action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.” This rule is incorporated into the rules governing bankruptcy procedure in several ways. As Judge Bufford has pointed out, for example, in a motion for relief from stay, filed under F.R.Bankr.Pro. 4001 is a contested matter, governed by F. R. Bankr. P. 9014, which makes F.R. Bankr. Pro. 7017 applicable to such motions. F.R. Bankr. P. 7017 is, of course, a restatement of F.R. Civ. P. 17. In re Hwang, 396 B.R. at 766. The real party in interest in a federal action to enforce a note, whether in bankruptcy court or federal district court, is the owner of a note. (In securitization transactions, this would be the trustee for the “certificate holders.”) When the actual holder of the note is unknown, it is impossible – not difficult but impossible – to plead a cause of action in a federal court (unless the movant simply lies about the ownership of the note). Unless the name of the actual note holder can be stated, the very pleadings are defective.STANDINGOften, the servicing agent for the loan will appear to enforce the note. Assume that the servicing agent states that it is the authorized agent of the note holder, which is “Trust Number 99.” The servicing agent is certainly a party in interest, since a party in interest in a bankruptcy court is a very broad term or concept. See, e.g., Greer v. O’Dell, 305 F.3d 1297, 1302-03 (11th Cir. 2002). However, the servicing agent may not have standing: “Federal Courts have only the power authorized by Article III of the Constitutions and the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant thereto. … [A] plaintiff must have Constitutional standing in order for a federal court to have jurisdiction.” In re Foreclosure Cases, 521 F.Supp. 3d 650, 653 (S.D. Ohio, 2007) (citations omitted).But, the servicing agent does not have standing, for only a person who is the holder of the note has standing to enforce the note. See, e.g., In re Hwang, 2008 WL 4899273 at 8.The servicing agent may have standing if acting as an agent for the holder, assuming that the agent can both show agency status and that the principle is the holder. See, e.g., In re Vargas, 396 B.R. 511 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008) at 520.A BRIEF ASIDE: WHO IS MERS?For those of you who are not familiar with the entity known as MERS, a frequent participant in these foreclosure proceedings:MERS is the “Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. “MERS is a mortgage banking ‘utility’ that registers mortgage loans in a book entry system so that … real estate loans can be bought, sold and securitized, just like Wall Street’s book entry utility for stocks and bonds is the Depository Trust and Clearinghouse.” Bastian, “Foreclosure Forms”, State. Bar of Texas 17th Annual Advanced Real Estate Drafting Course, March 9-10, 2007, Dallas, Texas. MERS is enormous. It originates thousands of loans daily and is the mortgagee of record for at least 40 million mortgages and other security documents. Id.MERS acts as agent for the owner of the note. Its authority to act should be shown by an agency agreement. Of course, if the owner is unknown, MERS cannot show that it is an authorized agent of the owner.RULES OF EVIDENCE – A PRACTICAL PROBLEMThis structure also possesses practical evidentiary problems where the party asserting a right to foreclose must be able to show a default. Once again, Judge Bufford has addressed this issue. At In re Vargas, 396 B.R. at 517-19. Judge Bufford made a finding that the witness called to testify as to debt and default was incompetent. All the witness could testify was that he had looked at the MERS computerized records. The witness was unable to satisfy the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly Rule 803, as applied to computerized records in the Ninth Circuit. See id. at 517-20. The low level employee could really only testify that the MERS screen shot he reviewed reflected a default. That really is not much in the way of evidence, and not nearly enough to get around the hearsay rule.FORECLOSURE OR RELIEF FROM STAYIn a foreclosure proceeding in a judicial foreclosure state, or a request for injunctive relief in a non-judicial foreclosure state, or in a motion for relief proceeding in a bankruptcy court, the courts are dealing with and writing about the problems very frequently.In many if not almost all cases, the party seeking to exercise the rights of the creditor will be a servicing company. Servicing companies will be asserting the rights of their alleged principal, the note holder, which is, again, often going to be a trustee for a securitization package. The mortgage holder or beneficiary under the deed of trust will, again, very often be MERS.Even before reaching the practical problem of debt and default, mentioned above, the moving party must show that it holds the note or (1) that it is an agent of the holder and that (2) the holder remains the holder. In addition, the owner of the note, if different from the holder, must join in the motion.Some states, like Texas, have passed statutes that allow servicing companies to act in foreclosure proceedings as a statutorily recognized agent of the noteholder. See, e.g., Tex. Prop. Code §51.0001. However, that statute refers to the servicer as the last entity to whom the debtor has been instructed to make payments. This status is certainly open to challenge. The statute certainly provides nothing more than prima facie evidence of the ability of the servicer to act. If challenged, the servicing agent must show that the last entity to communicate instructions to the debtor is still the holder of the note. See, e.g., HSBC Bank, N.A. v. Valentin, 2l N.Y. Misc. 3d 1123(A), 2008 WL 4764816 (Table) (N.Y. Sup.), Nov. 3, 2008. In addition, such a statute does not control in federal court where Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 and 19 (and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7017 and 7019) apply.SOME RECENT CASE LAWThese cases are arranged by state, for no particular reason.MassachusettsIn re Schwartz, 366 B.R.265 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2007)Schwartz concerns a Motion for Relief to pursue an eviction. Movant asserted that the property had been foreclosed upon prior to the date of the bankruptcy petition. The pro se debtor asserted that the Movant was required to show that it had authority to conduct the sale. Movant, and “the party which appears to be the current mortgagee…” provided documents for the court to review, but did not ask for an evidentiary hearing. Judge Rosenthal sifted through the documents and found that the Movant and the current mortgagee had failed to prove that the foreclosure was properly conducted.Specifically, Judge Rosenthal found that there was no evidence of a proper assignment of the mortgage prior to foreclosure. However, at footnote 5, Id. at 268, the Court also finds that there is no evidence that the note itself was assigned and no evidence as to who the current holder might be.Nosek v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company (In re Nosek), 286 Br. 374 (Bankr D Mass. 2008).Almost a year to the day after Schwartz was signed, Judge Rosenthal issued a second opinion. This is an opinion on an order to show cause. Judge Rosenthal specifically found that, although the note and mortgage involved in the case had been transferred from the originator to another party within five days of closing, during the five years in which the chapter 13 proceeding was pending, the note and mortgage and associated claims had been prosecuted by Ameriquest which has represented itself to be the holder of the note and the mortgage. Not until September of 2007 did Ameriquest notify the Court that it was merely the servicer. In fact, only after the chapter 13 bankruptcy had been pending for about three years was there even an assignment of the servicing rights. Id. at 378.Because these misrepresentations were not simple mistakes: as the Court has noted on more than one occasion, those parties who do not hold the note of mortgage do not service the mortgage do not have standing to pursue motions for leave or other actions arising form the mortgage obligation. Id at 380.As a result, the Court sanctioned the local law firm that had been prosecuting the claim $25,000. It sanctioned a partner at that firm an additional $25,000. Then the Court sanctioned the national law firm involved $100,000 and ultimately sanctioned Wells Fargo $250,000. Id. at 382-386.In re Hayes, 393 B.R. 259 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2008).Like Judge Rosenthal, Judge Feeney has attacked the problem of standing and authority head on. She has also held that standing must be established before either a claim can be allowed or a motion for relief be granted.OhioIn re Foreclosure Cases, 521 F.Supp. 2d (S.D. Ohio 2007).Perhaps the District Court’s orders in the foreclosure cases in Ohio have received the most press of any of these opinions. Relying almost exclusively on standing, the Judge Rose has determined that a foreclosing party must show standing. “[I]n a foreclosure action, the plaintiff must show that it is the holder of the note and the mortgage at the time that the complaint was filed.” Id. at 653.Judge Rose instructed the parties involved that the willful failure of the movants to comply with the general orders of the Court would in the future result in immediate dismissal of foreclosure actions.Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Steele, 2008 WL 111227 (S.D. Ohio) January 8, 2008.In Steele, Judge Abel followed the lead of Judge Rose and found that Deutsche Bank had filed evidence in support of its motion for default judgment indicating that MERS was the mortgage holder. There was not sufficient evidence to support the claim that Deutsche Bank was the owner and holder of the note as of that date. Following In re Foreclosure Cases, 2007 WL 456586, the Court held that summary judgment would be denied “until such time as Deutsche Bank was able to offer evidence showing, by a preponderance of evidence, that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint was filed.” 2008 WL 111227 at 2. Deutsche Bank was given twenty-one days to comply. Id.IllinoisU.S. Bank, N.A. v. Cook, 2009 WL 35286 (N.D. Ill. January 6, 2009).Not all federal district judges are as concerned with the issues surrounding the transfer of notes and mortgages. Cook is a very pro lender case and, in an order granting a motion for summary judgment, the Court found that Cook had shown no “countervailing evidence to create a genuine issue of facts.” Id. at 3. In fact, a review of the evidence submitted by U.S. Bank showed only that it was the alleged trustee of the securitization pool. U.S. Bank relied exclusively on the “pooling and serving agreement” to show that it was the holder of the note. Id.Under UCC Article 3, the evidence presented in Cook was clearly insufficient.New YorkHSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Valentin, 21 Misc. 3D 1124(A), 2008 WL 4764816 (Table) (N.Y. Sup.) November 3, 2008. In Valentin, the New York court found that, even though given an opportunity to, HSBC did not show the ownership of debt and mortgage. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice and the “notice of pendency” against the property was cancelled.Note that the Valentin case does not involve some sort of ambush. The Court gave every HSBC every opportunity to cure the defects the Court perceived in the pleadings.CaliforniaIn re Vargas, 396 B.R. 511 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008)andIn re Hwang, 396 B.R. 757 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008)These two opinions by Judge Bufford have been discussed above. Judge Bufford carefully explores the related issues of standing and ownership under both federal and California law.TexasIn re Parsley, 384 B.R. 138 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2008)andIn re Gilbreath, 395 B.R. 356 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2008)These two recent opinions by Judge Jeff Bohm are not really on point, but illustrate another thread of cases running through the issues of motions for relief from stay in bankruptcy court and the sloppiness of loan servicing agencies. Both of these cases involve motions for relief that were not based upon fact but upon mistakes by servicing agencies. Both opinions deal with the issue of sanctions and, put simply, both cases illustrate that Judge Bohm (and perhaps other members of the bankruptcy bench in the Southern District of Texas) are going to be very strict about motions for relief in consumer cases.SUMMARYThe cases cited illustrate enormous problems in the loan servicing industry. These problems arise in the context of securitization and illustrate the difficulty of determining the name of the holder, the assignee of the mortgage, and the parties with both the legal right under Article 3 and the standing under the Constitution to enforce notes, whether in state court or federal court.Interestingly, with the exception of Judge Bufford and a few other judges, there has been less than adequate focus upon the UCC title issues. The next round of cases may and should focus upon the title to debt instrument. The person seeking to enforce the note must show that:(1) It is the holder of this note original by transfer, with all necessary rounds;(2) It had possession of the note before it was lost;(3) If it can show that title to the note runs to it, but the original is lost or destroyed, the holder must be prepared to post a bond;(4) If the person seeking to enforce is an agent, it must show its agency status and that its principal is the holder of the note (and meets the above requirements).Then, and only then, do the issues of evidence of debt and default and assignment of mortgage rights become relevant.

lol..

Turns out Nouriel Roubini is one of the few thinking of the entire economy, one of the few who’s willing to take on the job of cleaning up the mess and meting out a little economic justice. Congress and shareholders of the self-described “too-big-to-fail,” seem more intent on shifting the mess to the taxpayers rather than re-stabilizing the economy with a viable banking system. To reiterate Tech Ticker:”The government has already taken over the financial system,” Roubini says, noting U.S. policymakers have committed $9 trillion to rescue the financial system and already spent $2 trillion. “So let’s stop the delusion about ‘no nationalization.’”Roubini, who has publicly advocated for temporary nationalization of insolvent banks, says fully nationalizing Citigroup and/or Bank of America would have a minimal effect on the Dow, which is a price-weighted average. More importantly, he believes full nationalizations (vs. the current partial, piecemeal effort) would be better for the market and the economy because it’s the first step in the process of cleaning up “bad” banks so they can later be sold back to private investors, i.e. “re-privatized”, as was the case last year with IndyMac.

THE VULTURES ARE BACK!Ex-Leaders at Countrywide Start Firm to Buy Bad Loanshttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/business/04penny.html?hpcan someone please explain how this is even legal, let alone ethical.and how does PennyMac get away with this?

incredible. absolutely incredible. you cause the problem. then you sweep back in and buy the problem for pennies on the $. then you slash the interest rates that you set that caused the problem in the first place. so now you’ve wrecked the co. that made the loans and start another one to buy it all up.amazing. simply amazing.

utterly revolting, to put it mildly.

Postmodern Depression is more like it.

Europe needs about a $22 Trillion Bailout -http://www.cliffkule.com/2009/03/europe-banks-may-need-163-t-bailout.html

and if you haven’t busted a gut yet, enjoy this — yes folks it’s getting stranger and stranger by the millisecond:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/business/04dead.html?hp

PINK DOLPHIN!!!!———————————————-enough with black swans,how bout PINK DOLPHIN!!a pink dolphin event…one in a millenia!!http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4927224/Pink-dolphin-appears-in-US-lake.htmlPink dolphin appears in US lakeThe “WORLD’S ONLY PINK” Bottlenose dolphin which was discovered in an inland lake in Louisiana, USA, has become such an attraction that conservationists have warned tourists to leave it alone.Pinky the rare albino dolphin has been spotted in Lake Calcasieu in Louisiana, USA Photo: CATERS NEWSCharter boat captain Erik Rue, 42, photographed the animal, which is actually an albino, when he began studying it after the mammal first surfaced in Lake Calcasieu, an inland saltwater estuary, north of the Gulf of Mexico in southwestern USA.Capt Rue originally saw the dolphin, which also has reddish eyes, swimming with a pod of four other dolphins, with one appearing to be its mother which never left its side.He said: “I just happened to see a little pod of dolphins, and I noticed one that was a little lighter.”It was absolutely stunningly pink.”I had never seen anything like it. It’s the same color throughout the whole body and it looks like it just came out of a paint booth.

j,sweet.

Wow, that really is pink. Awesome!

Sadly, ours is not an age of reason my friend.

Everybody always wants your faith, no change there.That might be the biggest piece of damage done when all this dust has settled. The cat is out of the bag, and the desperate, greedy, grasping face is in plain view for all the world to see. Hard to keep the faith nowadays.

here’s another little something:”It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.” – Henry Ford

Post Traumatic Depression?

Thanks…I have friends who will be grateful for this glimmer of hope!

it was probably the extra time required for capitalizing the ‘F’

No one was fired after 911. There is no accountability. Nationalizing the banks and recapitalizing the empty vaults with monopoly money provided by the Federal Reserve and central banks will provide a conduit pathway of some sort for the credit system during the money supply collapse in the real economy. Nationalization will occur because there is no other viable option. It is the least bad action.Saturation MacroecomonicsEquity valuations are an exact reflection of the optimal daily speculative, or if preferred, ‘investment’ money supply and that available supply’s ideal rotation between competing vehicles: equities, commodities, and ‘bonds’ or ‘savings’ equivalents, and hard assets. e.g. real estate. That total money supply operative in the real economy is now contracting globally with the collapse of the housing bubble and loss of jobs, continuing housing foreclosures, increasing housing and commercial real estate supply, correlative decreasing housing valuations, and escalating default on debt which can viewed as a default on bond equivalents. ‘Money’ supply is being destroyed at rapid rate and will continued to be destroyed for years as Alt A and Option Arms mortgages reset and loans of sorts: mortgage, credit card, and student undergo default. The rise and fall of the total macroeconomic system and its ‘health’ can be viewed and understood in this context. The macroeconomic system is mechanistic and highly predictable. Using asset valuation fractal analysis and understanding the macroeconomy in the context of a limited self balancing system bounded by debt and asset oversupply and overvaluation, the macroeconomy has characteristics of a predictable exact science – as much as physics and chemistry. Using asset valuation fractal analysis the 11 October 2007 Wilshire intraday high was predicted. Now a major intermediate low for equities is predicted for 11 or 12 March 2009. The same folks who are largely responsible for the degree of dysequilibrium have been ironically chosen to fix the dysequilibrium. There is no good fix. It will take take years and years for the system to reset. The president will likely be faulted for encouraging ‘investors’ to reenter the market.

As an interesting aside, Lavoisier was one of the Parisian tax collectors. The kings cruel minion by day, father of chemistry at night. Money is neither created or destroyed it is conserved – not!

Go long on food banks, short on defense companies.

Revenge of the Gluthttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/opinion/02krugman.html?_r=1

NEW THREAD

You are all a circle jerk. Go back to grade school. Learn something, come back when you are Rush. The Chimp in the flesh.