I find it interesting you don't have any response to the S-O angle. The details of that stuff are way out of my area of expertise, so I can't really assess the details, but assuming their interpretation of S-O is right, everything else hangs together.
Regarding Well... that's a lot harder. Until the home-buyers stopped paying, there wasn't any question about the mortgages being valid - the borrowers were paying what they believed were their mortgages every month, the servicers were divvying those payments out to the MBS holders. Pretty much everyone involved seems to have thought those were valid mortgages until the borrower stopped being able to pay.
I have to say, "so what?". The bundles were created on false pretenses. They looked good on the outside, but they were rotten on the inside. The entire purpose of this sort of law is to establish a way of doing things that is supposed to keep things from going south, and to resolve the problems if they do. No one cares, as long as things are good. But just because the flaws don't show, doesn't mean they aren't there, or that criminal intent/incompetence was not present.
no subject
Regarding
Well... that's a lot harder. Until the home-buyers stopped paying, there wasn't any question about the mortgages being valid - the borrowers were paying what they believed were their mortgages every month, the servicers were divvying those payments out to the MBS holders. Pretty much everyone involved seems to have thought those were valid mortgages until the borrower stopped being able to pay.
I have to say, "so what?". The bundles were created on false pretenses. They looked good on the outside, but they were rotten on the inside. The entire purpose of this sort of law is to establish a way of doing things that is supposed to keep things from going south, and to resolve the problems if they do. No one cares, as long as things are good. But just because the flaws don't show, doesn't mean they aren't there, or that criminal intent/incompetence was not present.