"It seems a lot about it is, like, notaries," the Goldman source said. "I didn't know anyone even focused on what a notary did! It almost struck me as some kind

"It seems a lot about it is, like, notaries," the Goldman source said. "I didn't know anyone even focused on what a notary did! It almost struck me as some kind of anachronism that must have had some value in the past—which I don't understand." "The question to me is not do you foreclose or do you not foreclose. The question is when and with what philosophy you foreclose," the man on the bank restructuring team said. "If you want to reduce the amount of leveraged homeowners you have, you need to ultimately kick them out of their homes." A colleague walked up: His recommendation was to burn houses. It would lower the supply. Those are two gems there, one an exec does not understand the need for those pesky certified witnesses and in the other, they should burn the houses to lower supply. I know he was being facetious but if you are going to burn them, why would you not let the existing owner stay. I read a great article the other day about how the crisis has gotten so bad that after maintenance and fees to get from foreclose to a sale, the banks are nearing negative return on some homes. The author surmised that Wall St. and the Gov are hatching a plot to forgive the debt on these homes in exchange for a profitable bail out for Wall st. to cover the note fraud crisis. Basically using it as a cover for transferring more tax-payer funds to the banks while awarding trinkets this time.