Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
ucodegen
ParticipantOk, so if China is investing in US stocks and treasuries why would the secretary of state be upset with them?
Ooh I love to dance a little sidestep, now they see me now they don’t-
I’ve come and gone and, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step,
cut a little swathe and lead the people on. Best Little Whorehouse in TexasWhat.. you are expecting them to tell the truth all of a sudden? It is easier to divert attention and blame someone else..
The truth in the matter is a little more complicated… It is hard for any foreigner to invest in the Chinese markets, but it is quite easy for the Chinese to invest in the US markets.
The Chinese can sell to the US and then use that money to buy the means of production in the US. If the US sells to the Chinese, it is harder to buy the means of Chinese production (much is still state owned.. and run, and that which isn’t.. requires that it still be in Chinese control).Also if their economy is taking off, I assume they have inflation,why would they buy US treasuries.
To hold the exchange rate down in their favor. You need a ‘reverse trade’ to offset the trade imbalance. The Chinese initially were buying treasuries only.. but the return on them is pretty poor so they have started to resort to buying stock & bonds in US companies.
Just read that they untied their currency from the dollar today, will that cause us inflation?
Where is the ref on them ‘untying’ their currency?
I had no idea that we import more from Canada than from China,interesting!
Umm.. don’t know where you get your figures… try these..
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/top/dst/2009/09/deficit.htmlIf you are referring to this:
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/top/dst/2009/09/balance.html
read the fine print at the top.. “The values given are for Imports and Exports added together.”ParticipantOk, so if China is investing in US stocks and treasuries why would the secretary of state be upset with them?
Ooh I love to dance a little sidestep, now they see me now they don’t-
I’ve come and gone and, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step,
cut a little swathe and lead the people on. Best Little Whorehouse in TexasWhat.. you are expecting them to tell the truth all of a sudden? It is easier to divert attention and blame someone else..
The truth in the matter is a little more complicated… It is hard for any foreigner to invest in the Chinese markets, but it is quite easy for the Chinese to invest in the US markets.
The Chinese can sell to the US and then use that money to buy the means of production in the US. If the US sells to the Chinese, it is harder to buy the means of Chinese production (much is still state owned.. and run, and that which isn’t.. requires that it still be in Chinese control).Also if their economy is taking off, I assume they have inflation,why would they buy US treasuries.
To hold the exchange rate down in their favor. You need a ‘reverse trade’ to offset the trade imbalance. The Chinese initially were buying treasuries only.. but the return on them is pretty poor so they have started to resort to buying stock & bonds in US companies.
Just read that they untied their currency from the dollar today, will that cause us inflation?
Where is the ref on them ‘untying’ their currency?
I had no idea that we import more from Canada than from China,interesting!
Umm.. don’t know where you get your figures… try these..
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/top/dst/2009/09/deficit.htmlIf you are referring to this:
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/top/dst/2009/09/balance.html
read the fine print at the top.. “The values given are for Imports and Exports added together.”ParticipantWe can no more tell the Chinese to change their exchange rate than we can tell them how to run their military.
Clear misunderstanding on exchange rates. They can’t be set. The way that China offsets their trade surplus with the US is by buying US dollar denominated securities (treasuries and stocks). This creates a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario. The treasury purchases that China does to offset their trade surplus is helping the Fed keep their lending rates low.
ParticipantWe can no more tell the Chinese to change their exchange rate than we can tell them how to run their military.
Clear misunderstanding on exchange rates. They can’t be set. The way that China offsets their trade surplus with the US is by buying US dollar denominated securities (treasuries and stocks). This creates a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario. The treasury purchases that China does to offset their trade surplus is helping the Fed keep their lending rates low.
ParticipantWe can no more tell the Chinese to change their exchange rate than we can tell them how to run their military.
Clear misunderstanding on exchange rates. They can’t be set. The way that China offsets their trade surplus with the US is by buying US dollar denominated securities (treasuries and stocks). This creates a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario. The treasury purchases that China does to offset their trade surplus is helping the Fed keep their lending rates low.
ParticipantWe can no more tell the Chinese to change their exchange rate than we can tell them how to run their military.
Clear misunderstanding on exchange rates. They can’t be set. The way that China offsets their trade surplus with the US is by buying US dollar denominated securities (treasuries and stocks). This creates a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario. The treasury purchases that China does to offset their trade surplus is helping the Fed keep their lending rates low.
ParticipantWe can no more tell the Chinese to change their exchange rate than we can tell them how to run their military.
Clear misunderstanding on exchange rates. They can’t be set. The way that China offsets their trade surplus with the US is by buying US dollar denominated securities (treasuries and stocks). This creates a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario. The treasury purchases that China does to offset their trade surplus is helping the Fed keep their lending rates low.
November 19, 2009 at 12:53 PM in reply to: MERS “chain-of-custody” issues preventing foreclosures. #484393ParticipantAdmitted also was that neither of the Lender, Servicer, or mortgagee was ever the owner or holder of the Note (except the Servicer claims it became owner when the mortgagee conveyed the Note after foreclosure complaint).
Somethings missing here. The terms are not really correct. You generally have the Originator, Servicer, Lender and Borrower. You also don’t have ‘foreclosure complaint’. You’ll have Notice of Default and Notice of Trustee sale.
Originator – the company/person who wrote the original loan package. They fronted the initial money for the loan. They then package a bunch of loans together and sell them off (recouping the money they originally fronted plus securitization fees). Depending upon how structured, the originator may contract with a servicer (ie. MERS) as a part of packaging the loans.
Servicer – the company that collects the mortgage payments on behalf of the final Lender and tends to be the one who holds the mortgages in trust(important term.. also why it is called Trustee Sale) for those Lenders. Being the Trustee also means that they have Power of Attorney with respect to servicing the mortgages. It does not need to be ‘conveyed after foreclosure complaint’ because they have POA.
Lender – This is effectively the most recent person who has bought into the loan package. The servicer makes sure these people get their payments in return for a % of the ‘passthrough’ aka servicing fee.The Borrower has affirmative defenses, one is the fact that the Servicer was not the true party in interest (not the owner of the debt) at foreclosure filing, and FDCPA violations before foreclosure was filed.
Wrong.. remember, the Servicer holds the notes in trust.. they are the Trustee and have the Power of Attorney with respect to the notes. All they need to prove is their Power of Attorney with respect to the notes and the terms of the original notes.
The Servicer claims that because it obtained servicing before default, it had the right to foreclose, and was not subject to the FDCPA.
Correct. They have POA. All they need to prove is that they have POA with respect to the note in question and the terms of the original notes.
Neither of the Lender, mortgagee, or Servicer will disclose the identity of the Note Holder or owner of the debt to the borrower nor will they notify the Note Holder of the default and f/c complaint.
You mean the Originator and Servicer will not disclose the Lender.. that is true.. the note is held in Trust.
The Judge is relying on the recorded assignment as proof of Servicer’s ownership of the Note.
This happened in Illinois. As a matter of fact, it happens every day in Illinois.
What is wrong with all of this, and what recourse might an Illinois borrower have?
It happens with all mortgages, nothing is wrong with it and if the money is owed.. it is owed. All that the Servicer has to prove is that the money is owed by the Borrower and that the Servicer has POA on the Trust that contains the mortgage (recorded assignment).
What it looks like, is that there is a misunderstanding of a recent court case where a person was able to stop foreclosure on a MERS held mortgage. It was not successful because the Lender could not be disclosed. It was successful because the Servicer could not prove the loan (that the money was owed). They were not able to prove the trace from the origination to the servicer holding the loan. The person asked the servicer to prove that they owed the money.. to the effect of ‘where is my signature on the loan papers’??
November 19, 2009 at 12:53 PM in reply to: MERS “chain-of-custody” issues preventing foreclosures. #484561ParticipantAdmitted also was that neither of the Lender, Servicer, or mortgagee was ever the owner or holder of the Note (except the Servicer claims it became owner when the mortgagee conveyed the Note after foreclosure complaint).
Somethings missing here. The terms are not really correct. You generally have the Originator, Servicer, Lender and Borrower. You also don’t have ‘foreclosure complaint’. You’ll have Notice of Default and Notice of Trustee sale.
Originator – the company/person who wrote the original loan package. They fronted the initial money for the loan. They then package a bunch of loans together and sell them off (recouping the money they originally fronted plus securitization fees). Depending upon how structured, the originator may contract with a servicer (ie. MERS) as a part of packaging the loans.
Servicer – the company that collects the mortgage payments on behalf of the final Lender and tends to be the one who holds the mortgages in trust(important term.. also why it is called Trustee Sale) for those Lenders. Being the Trustee also means that they have Power of Attorney with respect to servicing the mortgages. It does not need to be ‘conveyed after foreclosure complaint’ because they have POA.
Lender – This is effectively the most recent person who has bought into the loan package. The servicer makes sure these people get their payments in return for a % of the ‘passthrough’ aka servicing fee.The Borrower has affirmative defenses, one is the fact that the Servicer was not the true party in interest (not the owner of the debt) at foreclosure filing, and FDCPA violations before foreclosure was filed.
Wrong.. remember, the Servicer holds the notes in trust.. they are the Trustee and have the Power of Attorney with respect to the notes. All they need to prove is their Power of Attorney with respect to the notes and the terms of the original notes.
The Servicer claims that because it obtained servicing before default, it had the right to foreclose, and was not subject to the FDCPA.
Correct. They have POA. All they need to prove is that they have POA with respect to the note in question and the terms of the original notes.
Neither of the Lender, mortgagee, or Servicer will disclose the identity of the Note Holder or owner of the debt to the borrower nor will they notify the Note Holder of the default and f/c complaint.
You mean the Originator and Servicer will not disclose the Lender.. that is true.. the note is held in Trust.
The Judge is relying on the recorded assignment as proof of Servicer’s ownership of the Note.
This happened in Illinois. As a matter of fact, it happens every day in Illinois.
What is wrong with all of this, and what recourse might an Illinois borrower have?
It happens with all mortgages, nothing is wrong with it and if the money is owed.. it is owed. All that the Servicer has to prove is that the money is owed by the Borrower and that the Servicer has POA on the Trust that contains the mortgage (recorded assignment).
What it looks like, is that there is a misunderstanding of a recent court case where a person was able to stop foreclosure on a MERS held mortgage. It was not successful because the Lender could not be disclosed. It was successful because the Servicer could not prove the loan (that the money was owed). They were not able to prove the trace from the origination to the servicer holding the loan. The person asked the servicer to prove that they owed the money.. to the effect of ‘where is my signature on the loan papers’??
November 19, 2009 at 12:53 PM in reply to: MERS “chain-of-custody” issues preventing foreclosures. #484933ParticipantAdmitted also was that neither of the Lender, Servicer, or mortgagee was ever the owner or holder of the Note (except the Servicer claims it became owner when the mortgagee conveyed the Note after foreclosure complaint).
Somethings missing here. The terms are not really correct. You generally have the Originator, Servicer, Lender and Borrower. You also don’t have ‘foreclosure complaint’. You’ll have Notice of Default and Notice of Trustee sale.
Originator – the company/person who wrote the original loan package. They fronted the initial money for the loan. They then package a bunch of loans together and sell them off (recouping the money they originally fronted plus securitization fees). Depending upon how structured, the originator may contract with a servicer (ie. MERS) as a part of packaging the loans.
Servicer – the company that collects the mortgage payments on behalf of the final Lender and tends to be the one who holds the mortgages in trust(important term.. also why it is called Trustee Sale) for those Lenders. Being the Trustee also means that they have Power of Attorney with respect to servicing the mortgages. It does not need to be ‘conveyed after foreclosure complaint’ because they have POA.
Lender – This is effectively the most recent person who has bought into the loan package. The servicer makes sure these people get their payments in return for a % of the ‘passthrough’ aka servicing fee.The Borrower has affirmative defenses, one is the fact that the Servicer was not the true party in interest (not the owner of the debt) at foreclosure filing, and FDCPA violations before foreclosure was filed.
Wrong.. remember, the Servicer holds the notes in trust.. they are the Trustee and have the Power of Attorney with respect to the notes. All they need to prove is their Power of Attorney with respect to the notes and the terms of the original notes.
The Servicer claims that because it obtained servicing before default, it had the right to foreclose, and was not subject to the FDCPA.
Correct. They have POA. All they need to prove is that they have POA with respect to the note in question and the terms of the original notes.
Neither of the Lender, mortgagee, or Servicer will disclose the identity of the Note Holder or owner of the debt to the borrower nor will they notify the Note Holder of the default and f/c complaint.
You mean the Originator and Servicer will not disclose the Lender.. that is true.. the note is held in Trust.
The Judge is relying on the recorded assignment as proof of Servicer’s ownership of the Note.
This happened in Illinois. As a matter of fact, it happens every day in Illinois.
What is wrong with all of this, and what recourse might an Illinois borrower have?
It happens with all mortgages, nothing is wrong with it and if the money is owed.. it is owed. All that the Servicer has to prove is that the money is owed by the Borrower and that the Servicer has POA on the Trust that contains the mortgage (recorded assignment).
What it looks like, is that there is a misunderstanding of a recent court case where a person was able to stop foreclosure on a MERS held mortgage. It was not successful because the Lender could not be disclosed. It was successful because the Servicer could not prove the loan (that the money was owed). They were not able to prove the trace from the origination to the servicer holding the loan. The person asked the servicer to prove that they owed the money.. to the effect of ‘where is my signature on the loan papers’??
November 19, 2009 at 12:53 PM in reply to: MERS “chain-of-custody” issues preventing foreclosures. #485017ParticipantAdmitted also was that neither of the Lender, Servicer, or mortgagee was ever the owner or holder of the Note (except the Servicer claims it became owner when the mortgagee conveyed the Note after foreclosure complaint).
Somethings missing here. The terms are not really correct. You generally have the Originator, Servicer, Lender and Borrower. You also don’t have ‘foreclosure complaint’. You’ll have Notice of Default and Notice of Trustee sale.
Originator – the company/person who wrote the original loan package. They fronted the initial money for the loan. They then package a bunch of loans together and sell them off (recouping the money they originally fronted plus securitization fees). Depending upon how structured, the originator may contract with a servicer (ie. MERS) as a part of packaging the loans.
Servicer – the company that collects the mortgage payments on behalf of the final Lender and tends to be the one who holds the mortgages in trust(important term.. also why it is called Trustee Sale) for those Lenders. Being the Trustee also means that they have Power of Attorney with respect to servicing the mortgages. It does not need to be ‘conveyed after foreclosure complaint’ because they have POA.
Lender – This is effectively the most recent person who has bought into the loan package. The servicer makes sure these people get their payments in return for a % of the ‘passthrough’ aka servicing fee.The Borrower has affirmative defenses, one is the fact that the Servicer was not the true party in interest (not the owner of the debt) at foreclosure filing, and FDCPA violations before foreclosure was filed.
Wrong.. remember, the Servicer holds the notes in trust.. they are the Trustee and have the Power of Attorney with respect to the notes. All they need to prove is their Power of Attorney with respect to the notes and the terms of the original notes.
The Servicer claims that because it obtained servicing before default, it had the right to foreclose, and was not subject to the FDCPA.
Correct. They have POA. All they need to prove is that they have POA with respect to the note in question and the terms of the original notes.
Neither of the Lender, mortgagee, or Servicer will disclose the identity of the Note Holder or owner of the debt to the borrower nor will they notify the Note Holder of the default and f/c complaint.
You mean the Originator and Servicer will not disclose the Lender.. that is true.. the note is held in Trust.
The Judge is relying on the recorded assignment as proof of Servicer’s ownership of the Note.
This happened in Illinois. As a matter of fact, it happens every day in Illinois.
What is wrong with all of this, and what recourse might an Illinois borrower have?
It happens with all mortgages, nothing is wrong with it and if the money is owed.. it is owed. All that the Servicer has to prove is that the money is owed by the Borrower and that the Servicer has POA on the Trust that contains the mortgage (recorded assignment).
What it looks like, is that there is a misunderstanding of a recent court case where a person was able to stop foreclosure on a MERS held mortgage. It was not successful because the Lender could not be disclosed. It was successful because the Servicer could not prove the loan (that the money was owed). They were not able to prove the trace from the origination to the servicer holding the loan. The person asked the servicer to prove that they owed the money.. to the effect of ‘where is my signature on the loan papers’??
November 19, 2009 at 12:53 PM in reply to: MERS “chain-of-custody” issues preventing foreclosures. #485248ParticipantAdmitted also was that neither of the Lender, Servicer, or mortgagee was ever the owner or holder of the Note (except the Servicer claims it became owner when the mortgagee conveyed the Note after foreclosure complaint).
Somethings missing here. The terms are not really correct. You generally have the Originator, Servicer, Lender and Borrower. You also don’t have ‘foreclosure complaint’. You’ll have Notice of Default and Notice of Trustee sale.
Originator – the company/person who wrote the original loan package. They fronted the initial money for the loan. They then package a bunch of loans together and sell them off (recouping the money they originally fronted plus securitization fees). Depending upon how structured, the originator may contract with a servicer (ie. MERS) as a part of packaging the loans.
Servicer – the company that collects the mortgage payments on behalf of the final Lender and tends to be the one who holds the mortgages in trust(important term.. also why it is called Trustee Sale) for those Lenders. Being the Trustee also means that they have Power of Attorney with respect to servicing the mortgages. It does not need to be ‘conveyed after foreclosure complaint’ because they have POA.
Lender – This is effectively the most recent person who has bought into the loan package. The servicer makes sure these people get their payments in return for a % of the ‘passthrough’ aka servicing fee.The Borrower has affirmative defenses, one is the fact that the Servicer was not the true party in interest (not the owner of the debt) at foreclosure filing, and FDCPA violations before foreclosure was filed.
Wrong.. remember, the Servicer holds the notes in trust.. they are the Trustee and have the Power of Attorney with respect to the notes. All they need to prove is their Power of Attorney with respect to the notes and the terms of the original notes.
The Servicer claims that because it obtained servicing before default, it had the right to foreclose, and was not subject to the FDCPA.
Correct. They have POA. All they need to prove is that they have POA with respect to the note in question and the terms of the original notes.
Neither of the Lender, mortgagee, or Servicer will disclose the identity of the Note Holder or owner of the debt to the borrower nor will they notify the Note Holder of the default and f/c complaint.
You mean the Originator and Servicer will not disclose the Lender.. that is true.. the note is held in Trust.
The Judge is relying on the recorded assignment as proof of Servicer’s ownership of the Note.
This happened in Illinois. As a matter of fact, it happens every day in Illinois.
What is wrong with all of this, and what recourse might an Illinois borrower have?
It happens with all mortgages, nothing is wrong with it and if the money is owed.. it is owed. All that the Servicer has to prove is that the money is owed by the Borrower and that the Servicer has POA on the Trust that contains the mortgage (recorded assignment).
What it looks like, is that there is a misunderstanding of a recent court case where a person was able to stop foreclosure on a MERS held mortgage. It was not successful because the Lender could not be disclosed. It was successful because the Servicer could not prove the loan (that the money was owed). They were not able to prove the trace from the origination to the servicer holding the loan. The person asked the servicer to prove that they owed the money.. to the effect of ‘where is my signature on the loan papers’??
ParticipantIt is another example of creeping PC, or you could say ‘mind-thought-control’.
Vulgar words are considered protected speech under first amendment by Supreme Court.
Offensive speech is also considered protected speech under first amendment by Supreme Court(but to a more limited extent)Inciting speech isn’t considered protected speech.
From what I got from reading up on it was that the poster who got ‘outed’ and later resigned was responding to a post on a news-person’s personal blog post about ‘weirdest things you ever ate’. The poster responded on the blog with a post related to ‘furry felines’. The news-person responded by tracking the IP addr and contacting the school that was associated with the IP address, resulting in the poster resigning (probably under coercion). The post probably was juvenile and in poor taste, but not equivalent to a person losing their job.
I find it disturbing how members of the press often lean heavily on the First Amendment for their postings, but are willing to violate the First Amendment and its concepts if they themselves don’t like the speech in question. (Could call it coercively enforced compliance with the mainstream medias concepts and ideas).
ParticipantIt is another example of creeping PC, or you could say ‘mind-thought-control’.
Vulgar words are considered protected speech under first amendment by Supreme Court.
Offensive speech is also considered protected speech under first amendment by Supreme Court(but to a more limited extent)Inciting speech isn’t considered protected speech.
From what I got from reading up on it was that the poster who got ‘outed’ and later resigned was responding to a post on a news-person’s personal blog post about ‘weirdest things you ever ate’. The poster responded on the blog with a post related to ‘furry felines’. The news-person responded by tracking the IP addr and contacting the school that was associated with the IP address, resulting in the poster resigning (probably under coercion). The post probably was juvenile and in poor taste, but not equivalent to a person losing their job.
I find it disturbing how members of the press often lean heavily on the First Amendment for their postings, but are willing to violate the First Amendment and its concepts if they themselves don’t like the speech in question. (Could call it coercively enforced compliance with the mainstream medias concepts and ideas).
-
AuthorPosts
