Fri 2010-10-08 21:53 EDT

MERS 101

MERS - Mortgage Electronic Registration Inc. - holds approximately 60 million American mortgages and is a Delaware corporation whose sole shareholder is Mers Corp. MersCorp and its specified members have agreed to include the MERS corporate name on any mortgage that was executed in conjunction with any mortgage loan made by any member of MersCorp...Thus in place of the original lender being named as the mortgagee on the mortgage that is supposed to secure their loan, MERS is named as the ``nominee'' for the lender who actually loaned the money to the borrower. In other words MERS is really nothing more than a name that is used on the mortgage instrument in place of the actual lender. MERS' primary function, therefore, is to act as a document custodian. MERS was created solely to simplify the process of transferring mortgages by avoiding the need to re-record liens -- and pay county recorder filing fees -- each time a loan is assigned. Instead, servicer's record loans only once and MERS' electronic system monitors transfers and facilitates the trading of notes...MersCorp was created in the early 1990's by the former C.E.O.'s of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Indy Mac, Countrywide, Stewart Title Insurance and the American Land Title Association... MERS, as has clearly been proven in many civil cases, does not hold any promissory notes of any kind. A party must have possession of a promissory note in order to have standing to enforce and/or otherwise collect a debt that is owed to another party. Given this clear-cut legal definition, MERS does not have legal standing to enforce or collect on the over 60 million mortgages it controls and no member of MERS has any standing in an American civil court. MERS has been taken to civil courts across the country and charged with a lack of standing in reposession issues. When the mortgage debacle initially, and inevitably, began, MERS always routinely brought actions against defaulting mortgage holders purporting to represent the owners of the defaulted mortgages but once the courts discovered that MERS was only a front organization that did not hold any deed nor was aware of who or what agencies might hold a deed, they have routinely been denied in their attempts to force foreclosure. In the past, persons alleging they were officials of MERS in foreclosure motions, purported to be the holders of the mortgage, when, in fact, they not only were not the holder of the mortgage but, under a court order, could not produce the identity of the actual holder. These so-called MERS officers have usually been just employees of entities who are servicing the loan for the actual lender. MERS, it is now widely acknowledged by the courts, has no legal right to foreclose or otherwise collect debt which are evidenced by promissory notes held by someone else...

MERS 101.

Mon 2010-09-20 10:12 EDT

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: Fiat World Mathematical Model

...Conditions today are essentially the same as during the great depression...It is the destruction of credit, coupled with the fact that what the Fed is printing is not even being lent that matters...we are in deflation based on the following definitions: Inflation is a net expansion of money and credit. Deflation is a net contraction of money and credit. In both definitions, credit needs to be marked to market...the mark to market value of credit is contracting faster than base money is rising...The Fed tries to hide the contraction in the market value of bank credit by its Don't Ask, Don't Sell policy...The credit bubble that just popped exceeded that preceding the great depression, not just in the US but worldwide. Thus, it is unrealistic to expect the deflationary bust to be anything other than the biggest bust in history. Those looking for hyperinflation or even strong inflation in light of the above, are simply looking at the wrong model...

Fiat World Mathematical Model; Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis.

Wed 2010-08-25 08:41 EDT

2008 Bailout Counter-Factual | The Big Picture

Barry Ritholtz

...My disagreement with the Zandi-Blinder report is not its theoretical underpinnings -- it is by definition a hypothetical counter-factual. Rather, it is the counter-factual Blinder/Zandi chose to use: ``What would the economy look like now if we had done nothing?'' Instead, I propose a better counter-factual: ``What if we had done the right thing, instead of nothing -- or the wrong thing?''...In my counter factual, the bailouts did not occur. Instead of the Japanese model, the US government went the Swedish route of banking crises: They stepped in with temporary nationalizations, prepackaged bankruptcies, and financial reorganizations; banks write down all of their bad debt, they sell off the paper. In the end, the goal is to spin out clean, well financed, toxic-asset-free banks into the public markets...One by one, we should have put each insolvent bank into receivership, cleaned up the balance sheer, sold off the bad debts for 15-50 cents on the dollar, fired the management, wiped out the shareholders, and spun out the proceeds, with the bondholders taking the haircut, and the taxpayers on the hook for precisely zero dollars. Citi, Bank of America, Wamu, Wachovia, Countrywide, Lehman, Merrill, Morgan, etc. all of them should have been handled this way...

2008 Bailout Counter-Factual; Big Picture.

Tue 2010-06-01 18:24 EDT

billy blog >> Blog Archive >> In the spirit of debate ... my reply Part 2

Bill Mitchell

Today, I offer Part 2 of my responses to the comments raised in the debate so far...Modern monetary theory does not use the term ``money'' in the same way as the mainstream because it creates instant confusion. As Scott said ``Money is always someone's liability, so better to be precise about whose liabilities we are talking about than saying money.'' That is why we emphasis fully understanding the asset-liability matches that occur in monetary systems. And that leads you to realise that transactions between government and non-government create or destroy net financial assets denominated in the currency of issue whereas transactions within the non-government sector cannot create net financial positions...So modern monetary theorists prefer to concentrate on what is going on with balance sheets after certain flows have occured rather than narrowly defining some financial assets as money and others not...There is no doubt that the non-government institutions can increase credit. Some slack analysts call this an increase in money. But the accurate statement is that, as a matter of accounting it increases the (in Scott's words) ``the quantity of financial assets and financial liabilities 1 for 1 in the non-govt sector. So, with private credit, there is BY DEFINITION no NET increase in private sector financial assets created.'' Once we understand that and note that typically the non-government sector seeks to net save in the currency of issue then modern monetary theory tells you that the public sector must run a deficit to underwrite this desired net saving or else see an output gap widen...Who is in control is an interesting question. Clearly, the government cannot directly control the money supply which renders much of the analysis in mainstream macroeconomics textbooks as being irrelevant. The Monetarists via Milton Friedman persuaded central banks to adopt monetary targetting in the 1980s and it failed a few years later -- miserably...Then you might like to consider it from the other angle -- a government which accepts responsibility for full employment can ``finance'' the saving desires of the non-government sector by increasing its deficit up to the level warranted by the spending gap (left by the full employment non-government savings)...Orthodox macroeconomic theory struggles with the idea of involuntary unemployment and typically tries to fudge the explanation by appealing to market rigidities (typically nominal wage inflexibility). However, in general, the orthodox framework cannot convincingly explain systemic constraints that comprehensively negate individual volition. The modern monetary framework clearly explicates how involuntary unemployment arises. The private sector, in aggregate, may desire to spend less of the monetary unit of account than it earns. In this case, if this gap in spending is not met by government, then unemployment will occur. Nominal (or real) wage cuts per se do not clear the labour market, unless they somehow eliminate the private sector desire to net save and increase spending...to maintain high levels of employment and given that the public generally desire to hold some reserves of fiat money, the government balance will normally have to be in deficit...modern monetary theory demonstrates that if you want the non-government sector to net save...

Billy Blog; blogs Archive; Debate; reply Part 2; Spirit.

Tue 2010-06-01 17:29 EDT

billy blog >> Blog Archive >> In the spirt of debate ... my reply

Bill Mitchell

...Steve Keen and I agreed to foster a debate about where modern monetary theory sits with his work on debt-deflation. So yesterday his blog carried the following post, which included a 1000-odd word precis written by me describing what I see as the essential characteristics of modern monetary theory. The discussion is on-going on that site and I invite you to follow it if you are interested. Rather than comment on all the comments over on Steve's site, I decided to collate them here (in part) and help develop the understanding that way. That is what follows today... We distinguish the horizontal dimension (which entails all transactions between entities in the non-government sector) from the vertical dimension (which entails all transactions between the government and non-government sector)...A properly specified model will show you emphatically that the horizontal transactions between household, firms, banks and foreigners (which is the domain of circuit theory) have to net to zero even if asset portfolios are changing in composition. For every asset created there will be a corresponding liability created at the same time...you will make errors if there is not an explicit understanding that in an accounting (stock-flow) consistent sense all these transaction will net to zero. In adopting this understanding you might abstract from analysing the vertical transactions that introduced the high-powered money in the first place, but never deny its importance in setting the scene for the horizontal transactions to occur. I think the differences between Steve's models and modern monetary theory are two-fold. First, I do not think that Steve's model is stock-flow consistent across all sectors. By leaving out the government sector (even implicitly) essential insights are lost that would avoid conclusions that do not obey basic and accepted national accounting (and financial accounting) rules. This extends to how we define money. Second, I think Steve uses accounting in a different way to that which is broadly accepted. It might be that for mathematical nicety or otherwise this is the chosen strategy but you cannot then claim that your models are ground in the operational reality of the fiat monetary system we live in. I have no problem with abstract modelling. But modern monetary theory is firmly ground in the operational reality and is totally stock-flow consistent across all sectors. If we used the same definitions and rendered Steve's model stock-flow consistent in the same way as modern monetary theory then Steve's endogenous money circuits would come up with exactly the same results as the horizontal dimensions in modern monetary theory. His results might look a bit different in accounting terms but most of the message he wishes to portray about the dangers of Ponzi stages in the private debt accumulation process would still hold.

Billy Blog; blogs Archive; Debate; reply; spirt.

Credit Writedowns Sat 2010-05-22 20:58 EDT

MMT: Economics 101 on government budget deficits

...when the government has a deficit in any period, by definition the non-government sector (foreign plus private) must have a surplus of exactly the same amount...I haven't talked about government as the creator of currency and the private sector as the user of currency. I haven't focused on any misallocation of resource or malinvestment issues. I haven't raised the spectre of inflation or currency depreciation. I have simply presented the economics and accounting of budget deficits...

credit writedowns; Economics 101; governments Budget Deficit; MMT.

naked capitalism Sat 2010-04-03 09:55 EDT

Guest Post: Top Analyst Says ``Developed Market Governments Are Insolvent By Any Reasonable Definition''

Washington's Blog

Dylan Grice, a top analyst for European financial giant Société Générale, writes: Developed market governments are insolvent by any reasonable definition. Who could have known? Everyone, actually...Grice also says: Eventually, there will be a crisis of such magnitude that the political winds change direction, and become blustering gales forcing us onto the course of fiscal sustainability. Until it does, the temptation to inflate will remain, as will economists with spurious mathematical rationalisations as to why such inflation will make everything OK . Until it does, the outlook will remain favorable for gold. But eventually, majority opinion will accept the painful contractionary medicine because it will have to. That will be the time to sell gold.

developed market governments; Guest Post; insolvent; naked capitalism; reasonable definition; Top Analyst Says.

Debtor's prison Sun 2010-01-03 10:37 EST

Would a Single World Currency be GOOD for the world?

MAAA

...One Single World Currency (SWC) is a topic that we have discussed many times from the very early days of this blog. For months, our discussions have focused on the causes behind the eventual collapse of the current USD-backed financial system, the apparent INEVITABILITY of this collapse and the very high LIKELIHOOD that the proposed solution to this will be a global monetary system backed by a single currency unit -- perhaps a modified version of an IMF SDR as Jesse suggests, or something new altogether. While most of our energy has been spent demonstrating the high likelihood (in our opinion, inevitability) of a SWC, we have been cowards when it comes to taking a stance on a SWC either way. Our apparent neutrality thus far has been largely motivated by a desire to remain unbiased while we explored some of the Numbers/definitions first. Having set these foundations and thought about the matter for some time, the gloves finally come off and we declare ourselves to be VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED to a SWC, both technically and in principle and spirit...we argue that the significantly increased trade granularity of the past few decades diminishes the need for a SWC, and in fact, creates ideal situations for the establishment of more localized currencies, which would be infinitely more stable than a SWC...increased trade granularity (which is a fact) increases the pheasibility and stability of local, floating currencies, to the point that they might be a preferable alternative to a SWC.

Debtor s Prison; good; Single World Currency; world.

zero hedge Thu 2009-11-19 10:36 EST

Bob (Janjuah) Is Back... And He Is Pissed

Near term I think the battle will be between Central Bankers, who deep down, and I think privately at least, FEAR bubbles, FEAR failure and FEAR FORCED abandonment if current policies are persisted with too long and/or added to, vs Fiscal Authorities, who by definition want short-term fixes (there is after all an election cycle in the UK & in the US next yr). This is like a rumble in the jungle between the VOLCKER-ites and the GREENSPAN-ites, with GREENSPAN representing the Fiscal Authorities (he was after all surely the most politicised central banker ever). Are the Volcker-ites up to a fight? I think so. I hope so. Kevin feels and I FEAR however that they aren't/they won't. In which case MORE policy and then, very soon thereafter DISASTER, will follow. In this rumble the inevitable outcome is deflation and multi-yr austerity.

Bob; Janjuah; piss; Zero Hedge.

naked capitalism Tue 2009-10-27 12:18 EDT

Guest Post: Capitalism, Socialism or Fascism?

George Washington of Washington's Blog

What is the current American economy: capitalism, socialism or fascism? ...Nouriel Roubini writes ``We're essentially continuing a system where profits are privatized and...losses socialized.'' Nassim Nicholas Taleb says ``the government is socializing all these losses by transforming them into liabilities for your children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren.'' Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz calls it ``socialism for the rich'' ...leading journalist Robert Scheer writes: ``What is proposed is not the nationalization of private corporations but rather a corporate takeover of government. The marriage of highly concentrated corporate power with an authoritarian state that services the politico-economic elite at the expense of the people is more accurately referred to as ``financial fascism'''' ...Italian historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because ``the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social'' ...one of the best definitions of fascism -- the one used by Mussolini -- is the ``merger of state and corporate power`` ...Nobel prize-winning economist George Akerlof co-wrote a paper in 1993 describing the causes of the S&L crisis and other financial meltdowns...[Looting is the] common thread [when] countries took on excessive foreign debt, governments had to bail out insolvent financial institutions, real estate prices increased dramatically and then fell, or new financial markets experienced a boom and bust...Our theoretical analysis shows that an economic underground can come to life if firms have an incentive to go broke for profit at society's expense (to loot) instead of to go for broke (to gamble on success). Bankruptcy for profit will occur if poor accounting, lax regulation, or low penalties for abuse give owners an incentive to pay themselves more than their firms are worth and then default on their debt obligations ...Whether we use the terminology regarding socialism-for-the-giants (''socialized losses''), of fascism (''public and social losses''), or of looting (''left the government holding the bag for their eventual and predictable losses''), it amounts to the exact same thing. [kleptocracy] Great comments, including Joseph: Three core ideas characterize the myth of our society: 1. Free market; 2. Capitalism; 3. Democracy. The conceptual error that people make is to think that they are compatible, or indeed represent aspect of the same thing. In fact they are all deeply antagonistic towards each other. It is the miracle of post-war society that we managed to hold them in balance for so long. That balance has now been destroyed. A simple example of the contradiction, and the one that the over-socialised right finds most confusing, is the contradiction between capitalism and the market. Capitalism is a system of ownership; the market is a system of distribution. The perfect world for the capitalist is one in which they are price setters in terms of the commodities they produce and labour they employ -- ie a state of monopoly. Each individual capitalist seeks the destruction of the market. What has occurred over the past year is not corruption; it is the triumph of capitalism. The market and democracy have been defeated. Not socialism, not fascism,...

capitalism; Fascism; Guest Post; naked capitalism; social.

Bogarty Files Sun 2009-09-20 14:22 EDT

Bogarty Files: The Postmodern Explanation

...Every time there is a gap between what appears to be reality, and what mainstream seems to believe, I get this uneasy feeling. Is it me, I wonder, am I missing something?...I ordered a few books on postmodernism...So now everything is starting to make sense. This is the Obama strategy -- the ``Geithner plan''. While I'm busy studying the balance sheets of the banks, unemployment data etc. they acted, creating a new reality, one without another great depression. Are the banks insolvent? What is insolvency? My definition or Ken Lewis's? There is no universal meaning for insolvent, there is no transcendental signified, just some archaic meaning handed down to us. We don't have to accept it, we can define it anyway we want, especially if another great depression hinges on its meaning...

Bogarty Files; Postmodern Explanation.

The IRA Analyst Thu 2009-09-17 10:22 EDT

Back to Basis for Securitization and Structured Credit: Interview With Ann Rutledge

To get some further insight into the world of securitization and cash flows, we spoke last week to Ann Rutledge of RR Consulting...The difference between a futures contract for T-bonds and a credit default swap is that the former is a real contract for a real deliverable, whereas the CDS trades against what people think is the cash basis, but there is no cash market price to discipline and validate that derivative market. Rutledge: a contract or structure without a cash basis should not be allowed at all. You cannot have a derivative that is honest and fair to all market participants without a true cash basis. ...derivatives markets such as CDS and CDOs that have no cash basis tend to magnify speculative excesses, while derivative markets where there is a visible cash basis market to discipline investor behavior seem less unstable in terms of systemic risk. Rutledge: If the cash market were visible and could be examined by all participants, then it would give away the ability of the dealer banks to tax participants in the market and extract these abnormal returns. So how do we fix the problem... Rutledge: These originators play this game over and over again and they don't get caught, in part because we do not have a common, standardized set of definitions for governing the most basic aspects of the securitization process. The buyers don't do the work and the accounting framework is a counterparty-oriented framework, not one that is focused on the underlying assets. So banks like Countrywide and WaMu originated and sold some truly hideous structures during the bubble, but the buyers only diligence was reliance upon recourse to these banks. It costs maybe 50bp for a buyer to get the data and grind the numbers to really diligence a securitization based on cash flows, even a complex CDO. But the cost to the buyer and the system of not doing the diligence is an order or magnitude bigger. If the Congress, the SEC and the FASB, and the financial regulators only do one thing this year when it comes to reforming the world of structured credit, then it should be to impose by law and regulation common standards for the definitions used in the marketplace.

Ann Rutledge; basis; interview; IRA Analyst; securitizations; structured credit.

Bruce Krasting Fri 2009-09-04 19:11 EDT

Debt Repudiation -- On the Table

Bruce Krasting

In the Week in Review section the NY Times had a piece by David Streitfeld titled ``When Debtors Decide to Default''. I thought it was an important story. The NY Times put the issue of Debt Repudiation on the table. Exactly where it belongs. The author also contributed a new adjective to describe many of America's troubled borrowers, ``Ruthless Defaulters''. This definition comes to us from the ``lending'' side of the equation. I think that is a misguided definition by the industry. I don't think they know what they are up against. Yet...Debt repudiation is the biggest systemic risk we face...the default rate on mortgages in excess of $500k is going to explode this fall...the CC numbers would follow. Broad based debt repudiation is a distinct possibility.

Bruce Krasting; Debt Repudiation; table.

Sun 2007-12-16 00:00 EST

naked capitalism: SIV Rescue Plan: R.I.P; Is Paulson's Process to Blame?

improve outcomes on tough issues by separating problem definition from problem solving

blames; naked capitalism; Paulson's Process; R.I.P; SIV Rescue Plan.