Bank Of America Getting Crushed In Trading That's Scarily Reminiscent Of Pre-Crisis Days

"For those who pay on time, nothing. BOA has the ability to process the mortgages and even respond in a timely manner to refinances with other banks."

That's balloon stuffing right there. I know how they've "responded" just on simple requests and it's been nightmares from hell every time.

TG's experience with just a SS# correction is exemplified. TG, I'm so sorry you have to deal with them, but even sorrier they're HQ'd in my home state...what a black mark!

Bert, you might better not trivialize BofA's troubles so nonchalantly. Monoline investors are poised to really do some scalping with the rest of the big boys and BofA begged for it. At the potential for their share of the $1.5 trillion monoline securities put-backs at 30%, it could end up costing BofA 1/2 TRILLION dollars. Watch their stock - it's SELL, SELL, SELL. Do heavy investors know something we don't? I'll wager on the side they do.

"We bought the company (Countrywide) and all of its assets and liabilities... We are aware of the claims and potential claims against the company and have factored these into the purchase." - Scott Silvestri, BofA spokesperson, 2/2008

"You really think this was a deliberate action as opposed to a small snafu? These folks need to be evicted and within weeks and months of defaulting as opposed to staying in these homes for years due a paperwork technicality. This is smoke and a technical error allowing free loaders to put a dent in our economy. The alternative is we the tax payer bails out these former homeowners and buy their worthless paper, modifying their debt to next to nothing (in essence buying them a home) and we foot the bill. This has the potential to the biggest weath transfer in history so just watch who supports this going forward."

You're so concerned about the dented front fender and who's going to pay to fix it you totally miss the fact the entire ass-end of the vehicle is torn off. You'd better check your own mortgage doc's and be damned sure you can get a cleared title when you supposedly satisfy your note obligation. That's the heart of the issue for some. Who actually has "standing" to issue a statement of satisfaction?

Yes, it was a deliberate attempt to conceal the fact mortgages pooled in the MBS didn't meet underwriters' standards so the toxic paper was "conveniently" omitted. In order that the deceit not become "obvious", prime mortgage security instruments were also omitted - it was cast as a "new thing" and investors were assured their purchases were secured. Those who were provided self-destruct mortgages are credited for revealing the bigger picture - banks' fraud, deceit, lying, cheating - all for a profit.

Banksters were aware how MBS's and REMIC's work and knew the limitations - hell, BofA doesn't bribe, er, pay its gang of lawyers to sit on their asses and miss blunders with the potential caustic effects of this magnitude.

Even if you are right, that does not translate to a question of ownership at the end of the day. We are talking about how to fix that as we speak and granting the foreclosed homeowner rights to squal indefinately will have a considerable negative impact on any quote unquote recovery in the housing market. If you suggest this was deliberate in order to hide subprime crap then I would address that as a separate investment related issue and not pull the title issue into question. I don’t see much to back up your assertion so if you have any references I would appreciate it.

Have you read this:

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=168218

Everything in the chain of assignments faltered at the banks’ hands. The real mess only surfaced when a percentage of resets went into default and the banks’ “Oh-OH!” moment happened.

It was then, “Foreclose on ANYTHING that looks suspicious!” to back up the worthless investments sold to defrauded investors.

And yes, the title issue cannot be resolved unless the Note issue is also.

You’re squawking over the “squatters” and assuredly they don’t deserve a “free house”. But at the end of the day, which is more costly? to walk away from a squatter or sink billions for removals and even more trillions in penalties and put-backs to fix the REMICS? At some point, diminishing returns demand cutting losses and getting out. For some, it’ll be the homeowner. For others, the banks.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.