Product: Debt collection

Dear CFPB, Please find my QWR and complaint against PennyMac Loan Servicing, LLC and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and my demand for certain information. 

On XX/XX/XXXX I received a letter from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( acting under glimpse of " PennyMac '' that SOMEONE ( who was not identified ) purportedly " ordered '' some property inspection and even placed " charges '' on my account REPORT generated and maintained by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who is acting under directions from one of Wall Street Banks ( here : XXXX XXXX XXXX who sold me information about previously securitized transaction with the prior owner, XXXX ). 

This letter has no contact information for the party who prepared this letter or any references who " ordered '' this inspection. Under the law, only the owner of alleged debt or its authorized agent can do it. 

According to PennyMac 's letter of XX/XX/XXXX, all my " mortgage payments '' are forwarded to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a Central Payment and Transfer Agent who apparently is responsible for all accounting activities in some XXXX XXXX " Pooled Security '' (??? which suppose to be incorporated at least in some manner but nobody knows about it ) and where PennyMac claims to be everything - Issuer, Servicer and Investor who receives payments from BONY as a Transfer Agent while can not even explain whom PennyMac is servicing and how they obtained rights to collect from me any money ( if here was a debt ) I demand PennyMac and BONY to provide me ( 1 ) a copy of inspection report and ( 2 ) the name and contact information for a bookkeeper or an accountant who is responsible for bookkeeping and accounting activities of the general ledger of the Company where my loan is RECORDED as an account receivable and who made TWO big " mistakes '' in less than two weeks ; and the name and contact information for this accountant manager, so I can call them and discuss these issues in person. 

The parties involved did not treat the purchase of any security as the securitization of an asset. In plain language, if they had securitized a loan receivable, then the loan receivable account would exist as an asset on the accounting record of some creditor. No such thing exists. In fact, the reverse of lending is what was always intended. No owner of any security, derivative, certificate or hedge product ever made that purchase of a security with the intent of owning or controlling any payment, debt, note, or mortgage from any homeowner. 

And without an existing loan account receivable ( i.e., not the payment history ) there can be no creditor/claimant/beneficiary. It is not the receivables that were securitized. That is the point. Nobody who ever bought a certificate or derivative ever bought a share of receivables. 

There never was any conveyance of ownership of any debt, note or mortgage or any payment. It didnt happen. And in most cases, there was and remains an express disclaimer of any such interest. If you see " PennyMac '' letter of XX/XX/XXXX, it does not state any " sales '', merely a " servicing right transfer '' - which must be done by the owner of the debt while nobody claimed to be an owner before PennyMac 's false statements. 

When Wall Street entered the lending business with derivatives and securitization, it changed the basic components of every lending transaction affected. Debts were not securitized or sold. The inability or failure to recognize this fact is what caused the XXXX crash and what is still draining the economy, undermining any recovery. 

Instead, these components were removed from the transaction leaving the homeowner with nothing resembling a conventional loan transaction : the lender, loan account receivable, compliance with lending statutes, disclosure of revenue arising from the transaction, compliance with servicing and collection statutes were all removed. Certainty and confidence in the transactions were replaced by doubt, mistrust, and ignorance. 

Homeowners found themselves trapped under the threat of administration, collection and enforcement of a presumed debt without any evidence it still existed and without any evidence that the claimant had any rights to it. They also found themselves unable to reach anyone with legal authority to settle any claims because no such person existed. Companies claiming to be servicers do not handle or account for receipts or disbursements. They only report on third party reports. 

Thus far, XXXX XXXX have succeeded in creating something new without any legislative authority to do so and without any governance or regulation : we are now dealing with virtual debts, virtual evidence, and virtual assertion instead of real debts, real evidence, and real allegations of material facts. 

The debts need to be real and so do the creditors.The homeowners like myself never receive any disclosure that the money theyre paying is going to a non-creditor XXXX XXXX that has already generated a windfall in revenue than the entirety of their transaction. 

But controlling the scheme is the point. So each time XXXX XXXX and other XXXX XXXX invented another layer of securitization, they increased their revenues from the receipt of securities that were sold securities that were mere bets on what discretionary reports from th e XXXX XXXX would say. Issuing securities does not mean the securitization of an asset occurred. The purchase of an option is not securitization of an asset even though the option is a new security. 

There is no valid claim for repayment of debt because there is no debt. The reason why the loan account receivable does not exist is that it was paid off behind the curtain through the sales of several layers of bets issued as unregulated securities that were no more than hedges on what would be reports issued by the XXXX XXXX. 

When you total up the revenue from sales of such freshly intend securities the amount is as much as 50 times the amount of the transaction in which the homeowner was given money or credit. So the collection of payments from homeowners is small potatoes compared to the rest of the scheme. the only reason to enforce is to maintain the illusion that the transactions ever were or currently are loans. 

The transaction with the homeowner as an incentive payment for services rendered for XXXX XXXX ( here XXXX XXXX ) where I was an investor in the securities scheme without any disclosures or benefits from the scheme. 

The fact that the debt does not exist explains fully why no payments were ever made for the transfer of the debt, note, or mortgage and THAT is what is required by statute.