free-market Democrats
 

Careful. I made a similar argument on the FB about the NFL, and the next thing I know Hank is posting a fantasy about the HS version of me getting wilded in the shower. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Is it Me?
 

I hadn't seen it before. It's just a procedural issue, unless the mortgage originator has filed bankruptcy. Everyone will have their assignments in order next time.

In this case, it seems that the lawyer dug his own hole: "Plaintiff’s, “Judge, you just don’t understand how things work,” argument reveals a condescending
mindset. . .". It's never a good idea to approach a federal judge in a manner which could be percevied as condescending. Whoever represented DB is lucky they didn't get sanctioned.

Is it Me?
 

Yeh, that was pretty funny. Sadly, I can't say I haven't heard something like it before, but usually at the state level. Doing that in Fed Ct is just fucking insane.

Is it Me?
 

Oh, I've heard (and read) similar things out of other federal courts, but it's always a statement made out of frustration when he knows he's going to lose. It's not a good time to start complaining.

Is it Me?
 

Isn't there also a problem with having all of the mortgages securitized, and as a result getting the various interested holders of a piece of the mortgage together to agree to work-out terms is much more difficult than if, say, a single bank owns the loan?

Is it Me?
 

Were they packaged like that? I thought the pools were made up of individual mortgages at their smallest component level. I didn't think any individual mortgage was sliced up.

Is it Me?
 

Much more a problem with commercial than resi.

Is it Me?
 

See comment above.

Is it Me?
 

I think it's driven by regulations requirng them to declare a loan non-performing and reserve against it at 60 days past,

Is it Me?
 

The typical pooling and servicing agreement allows the servicer to do a number of things without consent. Many (I don't know RMBS structures well, so maybe it's different) provide for a special servicer with greater power to modifiy loan terms in bad circumstances.

What I've read indicates that the general thinking on the "bailout" allows for the modification of the loan terms without the consent of the holders or the need to resort to special servicing. I think that there are a lot of entities holding RMBS bonds who have no idea about anything related to the basic structure of the security, nevermind the much discussed lack of knowledge of the underlying assets. All they knew is that the interest payments were higher.

Is it Me?
 

Most of the forclosures in my neighborhood have been one very crappily built building that went up about three years ago.

BTW, every city should have a real estate blog like Swamplot. It's great for keeping an eye on what's going on in your community.

ETA: Recent post on swamplot about forclosures and crappy new construction. With video!

Is it Me?
 

Individual mortgages aren't sliced up. It's the owners of the trust units (or the CMO holders) with various tranches that won't release their security interests and covenant protections in a workout scenario where they know they're losing their asses unless someone pays them a consent fee.

Is it Me?
 

Bondholders are fairly sophisticated, so I'm not sure about that. And anyone below investment grade definitely knows the structure from inside-out.

Is it Me?
 

Eh, maybe and probably.

Is it Me?
 

Most bondholders are sophisticated. Many state and county pension funds are not so much--Orange County is holding some RMBS, for example; and the over-publicized Norsk town. But the lower tranche holders--they knew what they were buying.