You may have a point in strictly economic terms, but there is more to losing your home than merely economic harm.  By your logic, I could start foreclosing on homes in California... "so long as they are really delinquent, who cares who forecloses?" 

And, there may be other defenses to a foreclosure action available - violation of federal disclosure laws, servicing issues, etc.  Shouldn't homeowners have a right to know who is the beneficial interest holder so that they have a chance to fully inestigate the matter?  I don't think it is good public policy to allow an entity to foreclose on behalf of an undisclosed principal.

There are also technical issues that can prevent foreclosure, though I know you don't necessarily think they should matter.  But, foreclosure is an equitable remedy and it is typically only available to the holder of the note and mortgage.  While I don't necessarily believe that the actual, original note always needs to be provided as evidence, I do believe that there should be some credible record of who the holder is before a foreclosure can proceed. 

I don't think we should ever allow anyone to foreclose without proving that they are actually entitled to that remedy.  I don't think that is too much of a burden to place on the lender.  If you are truly entitled to foreclose... prove it.  I don't think the burden should be on the homeowner to prove that the lender is not entitled to foreclose.