Mortgage Securitisation - Preferred

[Suetonius]

Quote [if the securities themselves default, the investor has no recourse to the originator for any shortfall. Secondly, separation allows the security to be rated independently of the originator. This is particularly important for those originators with a poor or no credit rating]unqote

 

Now I'm thinking indemnity principal

 

How so in relation to the borrower ?

[uneverdid]

Hi Joncris,

 

if u go back a couple of pages and click on the photos ive uploaded you can read the full details. Basically it hands over responsibility to Capstone whilst retaining the right to claim it back in the future.

 

Smarterchick, it has been slightly confusing i have tried to post up a new thread but cant figure out how to do it.

 

I appreciate all the responses ive got although i have to say its all kinda mind boggling'.

[Suetonius]

Sue I think it's clear they cannot meet their obligations under the codes which I think means the borrower was misled at the time of entering into the contract

 

I need to have a read and see exactly what those obligations are. I have edited my post and added some links

[Suetonius]

Smarterchick, it has been slightly confusing i have tried to post up a new thread but cant figure out how to do it.

 

Click on mortgage and secured loans, near the top of this page. Then scroll down a little and click on new thread.

[JonCris]

Poor old uneverdid posted up those two letters and everyone's ignored the poor fellow whislt in the depths of this securitisation talk...sorry Uneverdid, but I personally do not know the answers to your question, just so you know I for one am not ignoring you..

 

Edit: and as I type up this about uneverdid - suetonius jumps in and answers - typical

 

Now, reading littledotty's wonderful finds, it again makes clear that the originators have to be legally remote from the SPV's, but then this Stewart Makura reference says that they may be subsidiaries of the originators to benefit from stamp duty relief. Holmes Financial, the Abbey National SPV has its office in Abbey's headquarters Triton Hse- I haven't been able to check out the directors, but that doesn't sound legally remote to me other than it may be a seperate Ltd company which, perhaps may be enough to make it 'legally remote'. What difference does this make?

 

I think you'll find the reason for remoteness is tax avoidance

[uneverdid]

Thanks all, I have just had another look at the POA and it states that the signatures should be witnessed and they have not been and also they are unreadable so surely the names should also be printed.

[Suetonius]

I think you'll find the reason for remoteness is tax avoidance

 

lol what are you trying to say ???

[Suetonius]

Anyone else getting email notifications out of sequence ?

[JonCris]

lol what are you trying to say ???

 

Isn't the bond holder usually 'offshore' hence the need to be remote

[littledotty27]

Found something else to browse at..

 

http://time.dufe.edu.cn/jingjiwencong/waiwenziliao/hpd0503pryke.pdf

 

Anyway guys of to bed...happy reading

[JonCris]

seu Still the codes covering mortgages & arrears cannot be met by the manager because of securitization therefore the original bargain has been radically altered to the detriment of the borrower without either their consent or knowledge

[Suetonius]

Found something else to browse at..

 

http://time.dufe.edu.cn/jingjiwencong/waiwenziliao/hpd0503pryke.pdf

 

Anyway guys of to bed...happy reading

 

 

Page 323

 

"under securitisation the mortgage itself is not sold"

[Suetonius]

seu Still the codes covering mortgages & arrears cannot be met by the manager because of securitization therefore the original bargain has been radically altered to the detriment of the borrower without either their consent or knowledge

 

You are most likely correct. However, we would have to say which specific duties under these codes could not be met and why they could not be met.

 

I will have a read through them tomorrow, as we would have to comply a list of the relevent sections

[frettful38]

I would just like to say that JonCris is an inspiration to this site, keep up the good work you good man

[Smarterchick]

I would just like to say that JonCris is an inspiration to this site, keep up the good work you good man

 

 

I know, Seutonius, Littledotty, uneverdid, Scedminc, Supersleuth et al, and me - we're just a waste of time

[uneverdid]

Thanks Smarterchick, you've just confirmed my fears.

[littledotty27]

Originally posted by Suetonius

 

 

page 323 "under securitisation the mortgage itself is not sold"

 

Again it states that all legal rights have been transferred though.

[frettful38]

Gordon Bennet I think I need a law degree to understand this thread, it is however very interesting. My English is improving rapidly

[foolishgirl]

My English is improving rapidly

 

Latin too, if you take note from suetonius

[JonCris]

Latin too, if you take note from suetonius

 

 

Que?

[JonCris]

How so in relation to the borrower ?

 

According to the securitizarion bargain the original owner suffers no loss even if the borrower defaults................ hence the collapse of AIG;) ........No loss NO liability

[IS IT ME?]

Sue, Jon and every other mad person on here I have been having night mares about this and woke up last night and just had a though silly I know back please just think,

 

If the mortgages are put into a securitisation pool and the lender gets the full value which they do,

because the bond holders only get some of the interest we pay ie, 7% they get say 3%,

THEN and this is the part, the ERC can NOT be any loss to the lender or the bond holder as they have NOT lost any money in the deal

 

Now I have a letter saying its for there adverts, staff, paperwork etc but nothing about there lost with regard to interest?

 

Or may be I am going the wrong way??? lol.

[Suetonius]

Sue, Jon and every other mad person

 

 

Here is a book I think you seriously need to buy..

 

Please don't throw another series of tantrums if I don't answer your question.

 

ANSWER THE QUESTION WHAT GUARANTEE DOES THE BOND HOLDER HAVE?

by the way I note that you never answered what security the bond holders have?

but I notice you have not answered the question of how or what security the bond holders

JonCirs,

well no one has answered the post above

But You Have Not Answered The Question What Do The Bond Holders Get For There Millions????

So if your right and the bond holders have nothing for there money, no title, no rights,what do they have?

 

I personally find it a lot more satisfying to find the answer to my questions myself. If you bother to SEARCH ERC's on this very site as previously suggested by Smarterchick, you will find all the information about ERC's that you desire.

 

Yes they are unfair, Yes they are excessive. I am sure no one will disagree.

 

Oh what they hell, I know this will be just like before, so I will post the link for you..(just remember that search option is a wonderful thing;))

 

It was not one case it was four - details here - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/mortgage-companies/62003-important-mortgage-claimants-please.html

 

It was not 'only a county court decision' and the claimant ended up with

£7.5K costs -

 

Judge Kaye QC, in the High Court (Smith v Mortgage Express), addressed the matter as follows (in a case concerning a mortgage early redemption charge) –

 

“In my judgment, looking at the contract as a whole, I have no doubt that this is merely a provision as to what should happen, not if the borrower broke the contract, but if the borrower elected a right to redeem the mortgage at an early stage. It was, after all, part of the package that was being offered to him.”

[Suetonius]

According to the securitizarion bargain the original owner suffers no loss even if the borrower defaults................ hence the collapse of AIG;) ........No loss NO liability

 

Hello Joncris, sorry I took a day off yesterday.

 

I was under the understanding (more likely misunderstanding) that the indemnity principle was in relation to costs.

[Suetonius]

Again it states that all legal rights have been transferred though.

 

Hello Littledotty, if I am reading it correctly it states that legal rights are transferred as part of a "pure secondary market transaction" and not as part of "securitisation".

 

A "pure secondary market transaction", is similar to the previously mentioned wholesale loan. This is when an actual mortgage (mortgage book) is sold from one lender to another lender. (think Woolwich / Barclays)

 

(for some reason, I can't copy and paste from that document)

Edited April 11, 2009 by Suetonius