GovCorps Profit from Not Modifying Mortgages Print
Commentary/Politics - Editorials
Written by Kathleen McCarthy   
Wednesday, 04 August 2010 05:27

It has been discovered by real-estate professionals at Think Big Work Small Daily (ThinkBigWorkSmall.com) that banks are refusing to modify mortgage loans because it is far more profitable to let mortgages default so that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), using taxpayer money, can reimburse the banks and financial institutions for their losses under special agreements struck during the "financial crisis."

A recent analysis of IndyMac's new owner, One West Bank, exposed the financial benefit to One West in letting mortgages go all the way to foreclosure rather than modifying the loans or allowing short sales of the properties -- selling the property for less than the amount owed on the loan.

In July 2008, IndyMac was taken over by the FDIC, then sold to One West Bank. It is a disingenuous name, because One West is not a bank at all but a holding company created specifically to absorb IndyMac's assets. Its owners include seven investors who are mostly Goldman Sachs alums, including the recently indicted John Paulson, accused of fraud against investors in a deal between himself and Goldman Sachs. Other owners of note are Michael Dell (Dell Computers) and George Soros, the Hungarian billionaire who is one of the top five largest contributors to Obama and the Democratic party, as well as the primary funder of Media Matters and the Center for American Progress (credited with choosing and placing Obama's administrative cabinet and czars).

One West purchased IndyMac mortgages from the FDIC at a discount of 70 percent of the current balances (original loan amount minus payments), then resells the properties after they have been foreclosed upon at a much lower market value.

The mystery has been the unwillingness of One West to work out a loan modification with the underwater homeowner, instead opting for foreclosure and selling the home at a severely discounted rate to a third party.

The reason lies in a crafty financial scam that allows One West to recoup far more than its purchase price of mortgages from the FDIC; it actually makes a profit because the FDIC reimburses One West's losses on these foreclosed properties via calculations using the original loan amount rather than the actual amount owed at the date of foreclosure, minus what it finally sold for.

It is another complexly arranged racket that explains the huge lack of modifications to mortgages that prevails nationwide. There is a helpful chart that explains how this scam works at RCReader.com/y/fdic, along with videos and articles on the FDIC's "Shared-Loss Agreement" that incentivizes what appears to be blatant criminal conduct by these unholy alliances I appropriately refer to as GovCorps.

White House Wants FBI to Have Unwarranted Access to Citizens' Internet Activity

There is a new assault on Americans' due-process rights as defined in our Constitution, without which we are reduced to nothing better than a police state. Due process consists of Miranda and the right to an attorney, facing your accuser/knowing what you are accused of, bail (if warranted), a speedy trial by a jury of your peers, and a host of other processes that guarantee our equality under the law.

The White House has proposed that the FBI expand its search-and-seizure authority over U.S. citizens by allowing it to seize any and all of an individual citizen's or U.S. company's or organization's "electronic communication transactional records" without a judge's approval, which means without a warrant. Attached to this new authority is a gag order that would prevent those citizens or companies/organizations whose electronic activities were confiscated from disclosing the seizure(s) to anyone. (See RCReader.com/y/fbi.)

What possible justification could exist for such expanded authority over U.S. citizens? If a citizen is suspected in the first place, there should be ample evidence to obtain a warrant. The whole point of a warrant is to force authorities to establish justifiable probable cause, prohibiting violations of our established rights, and/or abuses of power that would naturally abound without such checks and balances.

Such actions are perpetrated under the guise of the safety and protection of Americans, but in reality are a wholesale subversion of that mission. If you agree, then notify your congressmen of your absolute objection to this intrusion upon your right to privacy and due process. Promise withdrawal of both your vote and financial support if such an abuse of authority is granted, then keep your promise.

But you had better object sooner than later. The administration is asking Congress to enact this expanded authority by October. It is not enough to complain to your family, friends, or neighbors; you must make your wishes known to your representatives, regardless of which party you support. Because if you do not voice your objection, then you must accept that a police state is what you actually prefer for yourself and your children. You cannot have it both ways. Put simply, you are no patriot if you are unwilling to participate in the most basic civic duty -- express your political wishes to those you voted to represent you on such matters. The days of sitting on the sidelines are over if you don't want to be the generation that history records as responsible for the final demise of American liberty.