Well let's see. Loans are sold to a be sold to investors mol who are also average-return on their investments.

So loans are originated and sold down

trust so fractional ownership interests may sold good odds on receiving a better-thanOkay. the pike to the depositor who puts them in

a trust and the notes and deeds of trust are endorsed and assigned to the trustee who is appointed to perform the trustee duties to the trust for the benefit of the certificate holders. MERS was created so that the deed of trust assignments needn't be recorded until the dots found their way to the end user, the trustee on behalf of the investors. According to MERS' membership rules, the assignment of the deed of trust must be recorded in the land records when member, the trust. The notes get endorsement to the trust, D, as a finds us with properly negotiated the beneficial interest is held by a non-MERS transferred from A to B to C to their final special endorsement, that is, by name. This notes (all endorsements done, paid for in full

at each transfer, possession transferred), and the assignments, heretofore executed but unrecorded, are now recorded in the land records along with the final assignment to the trustee. Movement of these loans toward securitization was accomplished at mock speed, the only impediment, the recordation of the assignments, having been handled momentarily by "MERS" nominee status in the deeds of trust. The investors are 'secure now'. The loans have all been assigned to the trustee for his administration. In the event of the borrower's default, the trustee may garner the collateral for the benefit of the end users, the certificate holders, the owners of mbs's. Right? The put-off recordations of the executed assignments of the deeds of trust are now recorded in proper order along with the last one, the assignment to the trust. The borrower knows the party to whom he must answer for any breach of his contract. Right? Wrong. This is the way it could have been done, but was not. Why not? Surely with a gaggle of Seville Row-clad attorneys, this mission could have been not only successfully formulated but carried out. The 'why not' starts with the investors being horn-swoggled that they were purchasinginterests in notes secured by deeds of trust on real property, and thus had recoursefor non-payment. It appears to me the only thing the investors actually had waswhatever was or is the value of third party guarantees. If the loans were meant to be owned by the trusts, or held in trust by the trustee for the benefit of the investors, those notes would have been so endorsed and the assignments would have been done to the trusts. Then it would clearly be the sec'n trustee who is the proper party to bring foreclosure actions for the benefit of the investors whose mountains of dollars are ultimately at risk as the final buyers. But the trustee didn't want all the responsibility, you say? Now here I have to leave the building for a moment to upchuck the bile. Wall Street BOUGHT the names such as Wells Fargo as Trustee or Bank of America as Trustee in a very large and heartless scam on the investors, the appearance of propriety by the involvement of the country's most formidable financial institutions. We all know a lot of the loans were the sacks of junk in the first place what's-his-WS-ceo-face literally said they were, so enough about that. Now why do we suppose MERS, WS, et al didn't want the enforcement of those notes and deeds of trust in the hands of the trustees, a dynamic easily structured, and just now being implemented when necessary as a Hail Mary? WS took out insurance policies betting on the failure of loans it owned. If this

were not the case, the investors might demand those insurance proceeds as the rightful beneficiaries. They should, anyway, imo. It looks to me like the default insurance was the true goal of securitization and the ever-helpful MERS-machine. (This does beg the question why in the world AIG, et al would write such policies. Production bonuses?) The WS-ers, with the aid of their dirty-bed partners, those same 'formidable financial institutions' who formulated and underwrote loan by loan the killer of home-ownership loan programs like the '2% for five minutes and then 12% for life adjustable rate', drove up the price of land to artificial and wholley unsustainable numbers with one insane loan program after another, and then thanks to MERS, hid the true ownership of these designed-to-fail loans from primarily the investors, and the hapless homeowner, as well. Can any of us prove all this? Probably not. But when there is a straight-forward way to do a thing (and that straight-forward way avoids the production of tomes of contracts and judicial interpretations thereto), and it is instead done circuitously, it is not at all unreasonable to surmise that the circuitous route was purposeful, and in this case, just plain evil. These are my own opinions.