The Report on Assessment prepared by GMACM


GMAC Mortgage, LLC: The Report on Assessment prepared by GMACM and the related Attestation Report have identified material noncompliance with two elements of one servicing criterion applicable to it. Specifically, with regard to servicing criterion 1122(d)(2)(vii), which contemplates that reconciliations are prepared on a monthly basis for all asset-backed securities related bank accounts –

 

   

certain custodial account reconciliations were not reviewed within the timelines outlined in GMACM’s policies and procedures, as contemplated by criterion 1122(d)(2)(vii)(C); and

 

   

certain custodial accounts had reconciling items which were not resolved within 90 calendar days of original identification, as contemplated by criterion 1122(d)(2)(vii)(D).

The registrant does not believe these instances of noncompliance had material impacts or effects on investors, and appropriate measures have been taken to resolve the bank reconciliation items noted in the Report on Assessment, and to prevent such instances of noncompliance in the future or to detect them in such a manner as to permit prompt correction.

Homecomings Financial, LLC: The Report on Assessment prepared by Homecomings and the related Attestation Report have identified material noncompliance with one servicing criterion applicable to it. Specifically, with regard to servicing criterion 1122(d)(4)(x)(C), certain refunds resulting from payoff transactions were not returned to the obligor within 30 calendar days of full repayment of the related pool asset, as contemplated by such criterion. The registrant does not believe these instances of noncompliance had material impacts or effects on investors, and appropriate measures have been taken to prevent such instances of noncompliance in the future or to detect them in such a manner as to permit prompt correction.

Litton Loan Servicing LP: The Report on Assessment prepared by Litton Loan Servicing LP (“Litton”) and the related Attestation Report have identified material instances of noncompliance with three servicing criteria applicable to it. Specifically –

 

   

With regard to servicing criterion 1122(d)(2)(vii), which contemplates that reconciliations are prepared on a monthly basis for all asset-backed securities related bank accounts, Litton’s investor bank account reconciliations included certain reconciling items that were not resolved within 90 calendar days of their original identification.

 


   

With regard to servicing criterion 1122(d)(4)(iii), which contemplates that additions, removals or substitutions to the asset pool are made, reviewed and approved in accordance with the terms of the transaction agreements, Litton indicates that certain loan buyouts from pool assets were not made within timeframes established in the transaction agreements.

 

   

With regard to servicing criterion 1122(d)(4)(vi), which contemplates that changes with respect to the terms or status of an obligor’s pool asset are made, reviewed and approved by authorized personnel in accordance with the terms of the transaction agreements and related pool asset documentation, Litton indicates that certain loans were modified during the 2007 calendar year that included a modified maturity date that exceeded the latest maturity date established in the transaction agreements.

With regard to investor bank account reconciliations, Litton indicates that its controls over the investor bank account reconciliation process are adequately designed and operating effectively and that, in the fourth quarter of 2007, it reduced the number of investor bank account reconciliations which included reconciling items that were not resolved within 90 calendar days of their original identification to less than 4%.

Litton also indicates that its key monitoring controls include an account reconciliation status report, and a key performance indicator report which monitors bank account reconciliation timeliness, and the percentage of accounts which have 90-day reconciling items. Litton also indicates that senior servicing management review both of these monitoring reports monthly.

With regard to loan buyouts from pool assets, Litton indicates that it is in the process of incorporating automation that will calculate the calendar month in which a loan can be bought out of individual securities transactions based on the requirements in the respective transaction agreements, and that this automation will not allow a loan to be removed from a transaction unless it is in the timeframe allowed in the respective transaction agreements. Litton indicates that it expects to have this automation in place soon.

With regard to loan modifications, Litton indicates that, in February 2008, it reviewed all of its transaction agreements and updated its monitoring software with the latest maturity date to which a loan may be modified for each transaction, and that this software is designed to prohibit loss mitigation personnel from modifying a loan with a maturity date past the maturity date maintained in the system.

We have not independently verified the accuracy of Litton’s assertions concerning these instances of noncompliance or the adequacy of its remediation efforts.

LaSalle Bank National Association: The Report on Assessment prepared by LaSalle and attached to this Report on Form 10-K describes in Appendix B thereto the following material instance of noncompliance related to investor reporting:

 


“1122(d)(3)(i)(A) and (B) – During the [r]eporting [p]eriod, certain monthly investor or remittance reports were not prepared in accordance with the terms set forth in the transaction agreements and certain investor reports did not provide the information calculated in accordance with the terms specified in the transaction agreements for which certain individual errors may or may not have been material.”

According to LaSalle, the investor reporting errors identified in its Report on Assessment as material instances of noncompliance included, for example, revised delinquency, REO, foreclosure, repurchase, payoff or modified loan counts, category indicators and/or balances. LaSalle indicates that the conclusion that these investor reporting errors amounted to a material instance of noncompliance was based primarily on the aggregate number of errors as opposed to the materiality of any one error.

LaSalle also indicates that these investor reporting errors were generally caused by human error resulting primarily from high volume monthly data processing demands that had to be addressed within constricted time frames with less than a full complement of operational staff. Between the fourth quarter of 2007 and the date of its Report on Assessment, LaSalle indicates that it has employed additional operational staff to accommodate the high volume of monthly investor reporting requirements and minimize the risk of the investor reporting errors recurring. LaSalle also indicates that other necessary controls are in place to minimize the risk of such errors.

We have not independently verified the accuracy of LaSalle’s assertions concerning these investor reporting errors or the adequacy of its remediation efforts.

Platform-Level Reports

Regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) require that each Servicing Participant complete a Report on Assessment at a “platform” level, meaning that the transactions covered by the Report on Assessment should include all asset-backed securities transactions involving such Servicing Participant that are backed by the same asset type. Further guidance from the SEC staff identifies additional parameters which a Servicing Participant may apply to define and further limit its platform. For example, a Servicing Participant may define its platform to include only transactions that were completed on or after January 1, 2006 and that were registered with the SEC pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933. Each Servicing Participant is responsible for defining its own platform, and each platform will naturally differ based on various factors, including the Servicing Participant’s business model, the transactions in which it is involved and the range of activities performed in those transactions.

Based on our understanding of their platforms and the guidance that is available at this time, we believe that the parameters by which the Servicing Participants have defined their platforms should be permissible. However, because the SEC’s regulations are new and the guidance that is available at this time is subject to clarification or change, we cannot assure you that the SEC and its staff will necessarily agree.

 


Item 1123 of Regulation AB: Servicer Compliance Statement.

Each of Residential Funding, GMACM, Homecomings and Litton Loan Servicing LP (each, a “Servicer”) has been identified by the registrant as a servicer with respect to the pool assets held by the Issuing Entity. Each Servicer has provided a statement of compliance with its obligations under the servicing agreement applicable to such Servicer (a “Compliance Statement”) for the portion of the period covered by this Form 10-K during which such Servicer was servicing the pool assets, in each case signed by an authorized officer of such Servicer. Each Compliance Statement is attached as an exhibit to this Form 10-K. None of the Compliance Statements has identified any instance where the related Servicer has failed to fulfill its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in any material respects.

Advertisements
Tagged , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: