Mike Shedlock is right but so too is David Dayen. The problem for Mike is that the investors didn't do their due-diligence but rather relied upon the banksters. I refused to invest in real estate before the crash for this very reason. When I said that the whole thing is a house of cards that will fall, I met with not one person who believed me.
Of course, the regulators had an obligation to prevent this so that investors would not have to do such heavy lifting. The problem though is with what started with Ronald Reagan and accelerated right up to the tiny things Barack Obama has allowed to happen to somewhat re-regulate the banksters. The regulators didn't have the heft under law to delve in and expose and sanction. More so and rather, many of them were bought off via revolving-door plans, etc., by the very banksters they were charged with regulating. The same was the case with the private "rating agencies."
As for people deserving to lose their house, there were many who did engage in fraud by going along with the fraudulent schemes of the mortgage brokers and others right up and down the line from top to bottom to top again.
The problem has been with systemic fraud though, and little to nothing has been done about it. Barack Obama was a deliberate jellyfish hired by Wall Street via huge (largest in history to my understanding) campaign contributions to be just that. He's played his role very well, which should have already landed him in prison under current secular law. To obtain the office of the Presidency by means of working with fraudsters is itself illegal, and the Constitution is technically and ethically zero protection for Barack Obama in that matter. Only a misreading of it and ignoring it allows him to remain in office and out of prison.
More so, he is still blatantly appointing and re-appointing people from the banksters' global crime syndicate.
Yes, the banksters did cause the problem, but an uninformed and selfish and greedy electorate did also. As I said, it's systemic. The common people are not without culpability, not all but many and really most.
Mike Shedlock calls this a travesty of justice. According to him, the investor gets screwed out of $417,000, in the above case, and a family who "deserved" to lose their house got it free and clear.
This gets the case entirely backwards. When the homeowners signed the mortgage contract, they didn't request that the bank transfer it multiple times improperly and then throw it into a legal gray area where nobody could determine proper ownership. They did not request that the banks involved use a private database of questionable legal standing instead of the land recording system that worked for hundreds of years. The banks made this mess. The homeowners may be profiting from the consequences (or maybe not; we don't know the facts of the case), [No, they are profiting. Come on.] but those consequences came from the actions of the banks [agreed]. The investors now have every right and responsibility to invalidate the securities. If the law worked as it should, the responsible party for this colossal f___-up [Grow up, David, and clean up your mouth. That kind of talk is part of the problem, not the solution.] would pay the price.