As we follow the bouncing mortgage note from one mortgage servicer to another mortgage servicer, and then to another, and to another, maybe the answer to why banks don't care about home foreclosures is blowing behind the bouncing mortgage note.
What if each time a mortgage note was resold a whole new group of securitization bonds were created? Would not that mean that there are homes out there that could have been securitized several times over? What if securitization bonds exist on PROJECTED values of homes over the next 30 years?
Example, what if in 2001, a homeowner bought a home for 300,000 and 4 years later that home was "worth" 500,000 dollars. What if in between those 5 years that home was sliced into several different securitization bonds, and with each re-securitization the value of the home was increased to match what the home was being appraised for at that same time?
What if securitizations stretch out into the future for another 25 years, and the value of that 300,000 dollar home 25 years from now was estimated to be 2,000.00 dollars? Heck, if the value of the home went from 300,000 to 500,000 in five years time, one could produce mathematical calculations based on the first five years that showed that same 500,000 home being worth 2 million dollars in another 25 years.
Is it possible that banks would rather foreclose on the formerly worth 300,000 dollar home, now worth 500,000 home, so they can generate the 17 income streams I mentioned in a prior article? Do the banks want to control their own oversecuritization evidence by foreclosing on oversecuritized homes. What I can't figure out is, what if the original homeowner never sells their home, then all of those securitizations would have to be based on the original 300,000 dollar mortgage?
Or, do securitizations kick in everytime a home is resold or refinanced? Could that be the way new securitizations are created? Anytime a home is either refinanced or sold, a new securitization is created? Once the prices on the homes start to drop, the banks MUST repossess so at the very least, they have the product in their own possession?
I am just asking these securitization "what if" questions because it seems to me that the banks have little interest in helping homeowners who actually have been responsible for the past 10, 20, or 30 years, have built up huge equity in their home, and may need to tap just a small amount.
Evidence about how little banksters care about the home owner can found in the relationship between the size of the banksters yearly bonuses versus how many millions of homeowners the yearly bankster bonus money could be allocated towards lower mortgage payments.
Robo-signing may just be the tip of the iceberg, we still need to expose theREASON behind the ROBO-SIGNING.