All Forum Posts by: Izraul Hidashi

It is worth mentioning that there are indeed investors. The investors fund the mortgage pools. But the banks pocket that money. Check all the litigation that occurred in the last 5 years. WaMu is a perfect example of the ****ery still going on today. The servicers are thieves. The screwed the investors and the borrowers. 

The crimes are so big that SEC and the IRS chose to forgive the unthinkable. Almost every REMIC is in violation of it's tax status. The IRS should have cleaned up on the billions of tax fraud being committed. But instead they bowed down. Unreal! 

All the regulators have become useless pawns. They come out every now and then for show and pretend to punish the banks, who pay fines with victim and shareholder money. But since the regulators and banks are both under the same Federal Reserve umbrella, it's akin to taking money from the right pocket and placing it in the left. Billions were paid out in fines for criminal misbehavior and not a single dime went back to any of the victims.  Explain that!

All these years later and not a single reply from anyone who knows about it!  LOL.

Either people are oblivious to the truth or complicit in keeping it under wraps. Here's what we do know now. I was right about the REMIC frauds. In fact, Chase and several other banks have been slapped with fines for their misconduct relating directly to those issues. Also, Securitization is ********! A scam. A giant ****ing PONZI that collapsed our economy. 

And last but not least, the banks will fight tooth and nail when a borrower is seeking a full accounting. They do not want to reveal the money trail (true source of funds). Why? Because that trail will undoubtedly lead back to the alleged borrower. Normally a Promissory Note would just be an I.O.U., and that's what the banks want people to think. Just a worthless piece of paper that validates a promise (legal obligation). 

But the signature turns into value. Buying & selling Promissory Notes is a result of the intrinsic value.

In fact,  a $300,000 Promissory Note is worth way more than its face value, because of Securitization. Banks & Investors make more than face value on something they get for free. The banks treat it as if the borrowers gift it to them. Then they make a **** load of money on them, and still collect on loans  which they never make (plus interest). 

Real slimy, sleazy, ********. And no one can say it isn't true.  Well...they can, but they would be lying or just plain wrong! Ignorance isn't always bliss.

Ok. So on page 6, Modern Money Mechanics: Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, it explains that banks don't "pay out" the funds for loans from money in other depositor's accounts. That's understood.

Page 19, Two faces of Debt: Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago - "banks exchange a borrower's "promissory note" or "security" for a check that other banks can deposit" (so the note is funding a check) same page states, "...the borrower can spend the deposit acquired by borrowing"...  (so in other words, deposits from which bank-loan checks are issued (from the exchanged notes) is what the depositor (borrower) spends).

The only interpretation of what the Federal Reserve Bank (the head bank) is saying, is that "banks credit depositor accounts and lend the deposits". In this type of transaction, there is no investor, only notes. This is the type of transaction I am referring. It's well known that banks do not loan their money, nor are they allowed to loan credit, so who is funding this type of transaction is my question, because something else has to be taking place, otherwise the only logical answer would be cringe worthy. 

This is the confusion I'm trying to resolve.

The reason I even ask is because I do have a clear understanding of how loans works, or should work. I also have a pretty good grasp on UCC law, which is why the  information that the "Bank of Banks" implies is of concern to me, and quite frankly, should be of concern to everyone. Especially and more specifically those working in our financial arenas who are completely confused and oblivious to this type of transaction, because it does in fact occur. And the banks accounting ledgers can confirm that.

So if professionals of the industry can hardly fathom it, then it's slightly terrifying to say the least. Simply because, if it is what it seems, it's far beyond not good. Clearly something is taking place. I'm just hoping someone with actual knowledge of it can provide some information that offers an alternate explanation. One that isn't criminal.

It most certainly deserves the attention. At least I would think it does.

Thank you for your answer Mr. Phillips. The more I try to understand the more confusing it gets. Maybe it's the REMIC PSA's causing confusion. 

Sorry, I guess it's a little difficult for me to describe since I'm not a financial expert familiar with the terminology. The best references I could find would be from the Federal Reserve Banks themselves. 

Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago - Points of Interest (p. 6)
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago - ABCs of Figuring Interest (p. 2)
Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond - The Federal Reserve Today (p. 14)
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis - Who We Are and What We Do (p. 8)

No. It's a real question. I assume you meant, regardless whether the person named in the note actually lends their own money, it's still owed to them because the agreement is binding. 

Thank you for your answer.

But I meant in the instances where the note itself is converted or exchanged for credits and the ledger shows it as an asset, deposited in a Demand Deposit account. I noticed some T accounting shows matching liabilities, so I'm a little confused as to whom the actual lender would be in that instance.

If a Borrowers Promissory Note is used to fund their loan, then who would the creditor be?