The function of gnma is to guarantee / insure FHA and VA loans for the benefit of the lender.

With the advent of securitization, it appears GNMA has made a new contract with the MBS issuers which impacts the insurance / guarantee, and the duties of the issuer. In short, the issuer is to make and keep the investors whole. The issuers may then benefit from GNMA's guarantee or insurance. From GNMA: "In the Ginnie Mae program, Issuers are financially responsible for their securities, even if the underlying mortgage collateral becomes delinquent." jg: so the issuer of securities remains liable ("responsible") for payment to the investors on the securities it issued. If that's true, then the issuer is primarily liable to the investors, not the borrower, by way of an (legally?) intervening 3rd party agreement. "While the GSEs are responsible for the financial losses related to the loans in their investment portfolios and MBS, the Ginnie Mae Issuer must make principal and interest pass-through payments to investors for delinquent loans, as well as provide the funds to re-purchase loans to foreclose on a home or modify a loan." jg: the issuer must 1) continue payments to the investors on the securities and 2) repurchase the loan to a) foreclose or b) modify. This says to me that trusts should never be the foreclosing party on FHA or VA loans, if not FNMA of FHLMC ("GSE") "securitized" loans. "Ginnie Mae Issuers are responsible for any unreimbursed costs associated with either violating insurers' servicing guidelines or for inadequate insurance coverage. This requirement provides a strong incentive for private institutions to make better quality mortgage loans." jg: not sure what all this means. There is something GNMA won't cover to issuers, but it's not clear just what that is, though my speculation is cited below. "It is important to note that Ginnie Mae does not have a financial obligation to MBS investors unless the Issuer becomes insolvent." jg: GNMA's guarantee is not to the investors unless the issuer is insolvent. ONLY if the issuer becomes insolvent, GNMA's guarantee passes to the investors. The guarantee is to the issuer, whom to get the benefit, must repurchase the loan to modify or foreclose and THEN GNMA's insurance or guarantee will kick in TO THE ISSUER. So it appears that without repurchasing as is contractually required, the issuers instead use the credit bid of a trust to get the collatera l by showing the trust as the foreclosing party or sell at the foreclosure sale to a third party. Whether or not the issuer then passes the gnma guarantee / insurance monies to the investors is unknown, at least to me (the investors were to have been made whole by repurchase before then and aren't being, would be my thought). To get around their contractual obligation with GNM A, issuers rely on poss of an alleged original note by the trusts for the trusts rights to enforce the notes in their own right. The contract between the issuers

and GNMA is being violated in one ruse after another. And If the investors don't ultimately benefit from GNMA's guarantee / insurance, it is further heinously criminal imo. GNMA has never purchased loans nor do they hold original notes. A copy of certain documents from the loan file (which was presumably underwritten to FHA and VA guidelines)* are sent to FHA or VA, who then issues a certificate of insurance (FHA) or one of guarantee (VA) to the party who tendered the documents for the insuance or guarantee. If not for the contract between the issuers and GNMA, the guarantee or insurance would or at least should inure to the benefit of the current lender (he who has a properly negotiated note and assignment of the coll instrument). Further, it's my understanding that GNMA will only respond to claims made by GNMA approved servicers. I have seen them (FHA) tell an unapproved servicer, who should be making the claim on these particular loans for the issuer who repurchased the loans) to eat a rock for lack of that approva l. *there may be times when GNMA has refused guarantee or insurance on a loan if, say, a spot audit found the loan was a piece of crud not underwritten to their guidelines, and that may be the part referred to above (or that the loan is bein g serviced by a non-approved servicer). The impact on an intervening agreement by third parties, such as that of GNMA with the Issuers, to these notes is another story altogether.

These are as always lay opinions. The verbage prescribed above to GNMA in parens was taken from GNMA's website March 2013.