Mortgage Securitisation - Preferred

[JonCris]

Also the Committee confirm one of the arguments Carmel Taff & I have been banging on about for ages namely that this present crisis has nothing whatsoever to do with 'trailer trash' not being able to pay their mortgages. It's much more to do with bond holders wanting to liquidate their assets.

 

On the knowledge that they were about to be subject to taxation they provoked the crisis because none of them would trade with one another so at the slightest excuse they liquidated the asset namely repossessing homes.

 

This is the reason why many homeowners have found themselves the subject of repossession action even after only missing as few as one payment

[Smarterchick]

The jig-saw is taking shape isn't it? All beginning to make sense.

 

Matter of interest, would you be aware of how exactly the repossession process kicks in between the SPV and the bank? What kind of instruction do you think they receive to start this process off?

[JonCris]

Basically the bond holder wants to liquidate the asset the SPV then instructs the managing company (Capstone or SMPL) to find way's to default the borrower such as raising rates to unmanageable levels or if the borrower is late making a payment even by one day they will use that as an excuse to repossess.

 

They don't even need to do that but it looks better if they can claim the borrower is no longer credit worthy............. You will have seen cases where lenders have demanded immediate repayment of the mortgage from people who have NEVER EVER defaulted.......... the most recent being a few weeks ago involving HBOS

[bustthematrix]

correct. The parties are using the 'gap' allowed to register from one to another without any intention of registering the true owner in the the 1st place. It's a clear breach of criminal law

JC, I think I follow your statements on this matter. They are right in line with Supersleuths earlier posts arguing the same points.

However, Suetonius has since convincingly argued and provided some case law evidence that the matter, may in fact not be as simple as this due to the way securitisations are structured under UK law i.e. the use of trusts and the splitting of legal title and equitable title under the securitisation.

Suetonius raised a number of objections in this regard which I'm yet to see overcome (or have I missed something?).

I do think sight of the Sale agreement between the lenders and the SPVs to confirm what exactly was sold, either full legal title OR equitable/beneficial interest, would really clarify the debate.

It may simply be that the lenders and investors allege one thing in sight of the public, FSA and courts etc but agree something quite different among themselves.

[bustthematrix]

Basically the bond holder wants to liquidate the asset the SPV then instructs the managing company (Capstone or SMPL) to find way's to default the borrower such as raising rates to unmanageable levels or if the borrower is late making a payment even by one day they will use that as an excuse to repossess.

 

They don't even need to do that but it looks better if they can claim the borrower is no longer credit worthy............. You will have seen cases where lenders have demanded immediate repayment of the mortgage from people who have NEVER EVER defaulted.......... the most recent being a few weeks ago involving HBOS

The question JC is why now? What do they have to gain? The lenders gain a reputation over repossessions and it can be a costly and messy excercise for them.

 

I do know though, that IF there is a risk of default, bond holders (who are naturally risk averse) will opt for the safe return of capital and forego future potential profit. A bird in hand is worth two in the ...

[kegi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smarterchick

Just for clarification JC....at what juncture then does the line get drawn on who the owner is at any particular time of the procedure? Also, these spv's seem to liquidate after a few years, so I presume these assets are sold on yet again somewhere else?

 

for example:

 

a) When the mortgage is taken out - the 'title owner' I'd presume to be the mortgage provider who registers their name at the Land Registry

 

b) when the mortgage provider securitises the mtg - the owner is ? The SPV not proven yet JC

 

Now in the position of b) all the paperwork I have seen (which I accept may not be legal as per CB, but lets ignore that for the minute) indicates that this has all been securitised under equitable assignment. If that is the case, does legal ownership change with equitable assignment and to whom - the Trust company, the SPV or to whom or does it remain with the originator? legal ownership carries with it the duties AND obligations of the originator - legal ownership 'is good for the world'

TRUE ? WAS WHO IS THE TRUE OWNER

c) IF CB is correct and title changes or should have changed then legal title should of course be registered at the LR.

 

correct. The parties are using the 'gap' allowed to register from one to another without any intention of registering the true owner in the the 1st place. It's a clear breach of criminal law

If so how long can this gap last forever if it can it must be with the consent of the LR and if it can or can not it is the LR who is in breach surely ..And I ask again then why can't it be brought to the attention of the police.Or if not go back to the starting line and challenge whoever is on the LR to prove they have the right to be there,if not have it removed and the true owner would then have to register yes... surely the LR have to answer to someone..

[kegi]

Originally Posted by JonCris

Basically the bond holder wants to liquidate the asset the SPV then instructs the managing company (Capstone or SMPL) to find way's to default the borrower such as raising rates to unmanageable levels or if the borrower is late making a payment even by one day they will use that as an excuse to repossess.

If by bond holder we mean invester who was promised a return on his money of x amount and now fears he may not get it he asks for his money back from the SPV he can't do owt other than ask the title holder [ie spml] what to do and all he can do is try for repo ..=the owner

They don't even need to do that but it looks better if they can claim the borrower is no longer credit worthy............. You will have seen cases where lenders have demanded immediate repayment of the mortgage from people who have NEVER EVER defaulted.......... the most recent being a few weeks ago involving HBOS

 

I have'nt JC would love to read that one and as to how the judge would see it " I want to repo him because I don't like the colour of his money Sir"

Judge ..is that written into the charge you have on his property .

SPV " WELL AT THE MOMENT I HAVE'NT EVEN REGISTERED WITH THE LR YET "

Judge are you the owner of the title then or not

SPV "well actually no its me cousin who owns it but he lets me play around with it ":D

[SadButTrue]

subscribing

[JonCris]

Quote:

Originally Posted by

SmarterchickSmarterchick

Just for clarification JC....at what juncture then does the line get drawn on who the owner is at any particular time of the procedure?

spv's

these

spv's

seem to liquidate after a few years, so I presume these assets are sold on yet again somewhere else?

 

for example:

 

a) When the mortgage is taken out - the 'title owner' I'd presume to be the mortgage provider who registers their name at the Land Registry

 

b) when the mortga

securitises

securitises

the mtg - the owner is ? The SPV not proven yet JC The SPV is the banks client not the borrower.

 

Now in the position of b) all the paperwork I have seen (which I accept may not be legal as per CB, but lets ignore that for the minute) indicates that this h

securitised

securitised

under equitable assignment. If that is the case, does legal ownership change with equitable assignment and to whom - the Trust company, the SPV or to whom or does it remain with the originator? legal ownership carries with it the duties AND obligations of the originator - legal ownership 'is good for the world'

TRUE ? WAS WHO IS THE TRUE OWNER IMHO the bond holder represented by the SPV

c) IF CB is correct and title changes or should have changed then legal title should of course be registered at the LR.

 

correct. The parties are using the 'gap' allowed to register from one to another without any intention of registering the true owner in the the 1st place. It's a clear breach of criminal law

If so how long can this gap last forever if it can it must be with the consent of the LR The LR know nothing about it until it happens and if it can or can not it is the LR who is in breach surely ..And I ask again then why can't it be brought to the attention of the police.Or if not go back to the starting line and challenge whoever is on the LR to prove they have the right to be there,if not have it removed and the true owner would then have to register yes... surely the LR have to answer to someone.. The people who need to answer about this is the FSA who have consciously acquiesced to this behaviour

& who Parliament have now asked to enforce the law

 

Response above in bold red

[JonCris]

Originally Posted by JonCris

Basically the bond holder wants to liquidate the asset the SPV then instructs the managing company (Capstone or SMPL) to find way's to default the borrower such as raising rates to unmanageable levels or if the borrower is late making a payment even by one day they will use that as an excuse to repossess.

If by bond holder we mean invester who was promised a return on his money of x amount and now fears he may not get it he asks for his money back from the SPV he can't do owt other than ask the title holder [ie spml] what to do and all he can do is try for repo ..=the owner

They don't even need to do that but it looks better if they can claim the borrower is no longer credit worthy............. You will have seen cases where lenders have demanded immediate repayment of the mortgage from people who have NEVER EVER defaulted.......... the most recent being a few weeks ago involving HBOS

 

I have'nt JC would love to read that one and as to how the judge would see it " I want to repo him because I don't like the colour of his money Sir"

Judge ..is that written into the charge you have on his property .

SPV " WELL AT THE MOMENT I HAVE'NT EVEN REGISTERED WITH THE LR YET "

Judge are you the owner of the title then or not

SPV "well actually no its me cousin who owns it but he lets me play around with it ":D

 

Anyone's mortgage can be recalled at any time by the lender without the lender giving a reason

 

As for what is said in court it's been shown that when challenged regarding title they simply lie & even when they don't the Judges usually think it's OK because the 'original' lender is still registered with LR. The Judges like most people don't understand the concept of securitization

[JonCris]

The question JC is why now? What do they have to gain? The lenders gain a reputation over repossessions and it can be a costly and messy excercise for them.

 

I do know though, that IF there is a risk of default, bond holders (who are naturally risk averse) will opt for the safe return of capital and forego future potential profit. A bird in hand is worth two in the ...

 

1st lets put to rest your mistaken belief the banks care what society think............. they don't give a toss & if you haven't figured that out yet then I must ask where have you been for the last couple of years & of course it's to their benefit to repo just read the thread & you'll find out why

[JonCris]

JC, I think I follow your statements on this matter. They are right in line with Supersleuths earlier posts arguing the same points.

 

However, Suetonius has since convincingly argued and provided some case law evidence that the matter, may in fact not be as simple as this due to the way securitisations are structured under UK law i.e. the use of trusts and the splitting of legal title and equitable title under the securitisation.

Suetonius raised a number of objections in this regard which I'm yet to see overcome (or have I missed something?).

 

I do think sight of the Sale agreement between the lenders and the SPVs to confirm what exactly was sold, either full legal title OR equitable/beneficial interest, would really clarify the debate.

 

It may simply be that the lenders and investors allege one thing in sight of the public, FSA and courts etc but agree something quite different among themselves.

 

Quite You may also recall that seu conceded that when sold the complete title changed making it to use sue's term "good for the World" therefore ALL benefits changed hands................& yes they do say one thing to the courts & one thing to each other & this is why it'll be real struggle to expose the actual agreement in court......... not least because it shows an intention to break the criminal law by NOT registering the change of owner.

[Suetonius]

Quite You may also recall that seu conceded that when sold the complete title changed making it to use sue's term "good for the World" therefore ALL benefits changed hands................& yes they do say one thing to the courts & one thing to each other & this is why it'll be real struggle to expose the actual agreement in court......... not least because it shows an intention to break the criminal law by NOT registering the change of owner.

 

I was only refering to the Bank of England document. I did not concede in relation to securitisation that anything other than the equitable title is transferred. I do not consider that one document overides all the information that I have previously posted.

 

I am as adament today as I was the first day I posted on this thread that it is only the equitable title that is transferred.

 

The reasons I say this are evident by the information that I have posted.

 

If legal/absolute title was transferred, why would the client information pack (as I have previously posted) from one of the "firms" that advise the companies with regard to securitisation specify equitable assignment.

 

Wouldn't this be misleading and somewhat pointless.

 

This is also why he/she feels an injustice was done in that his new mortgage lender had to pay a large ERC to the original lender when in fact the securitization expressly forbids the right to remortgage. In other words why should they be paid for something they wanted to block

 

I am a little confused why a repossession would be more beneficial than a remortgage ?

 

Wouldn't it be more financially beneficial for all parties if the borrower was to remortgage as this would mean that all monies were repaid straight away and prevent any possible shortfalls.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can anyone, show any actual evidence (document) to show that a legal / absolute assignment has taken or takes place ?

[frettful38]

Anyone's mortgage can be recalled at any time by the lender without the lender giving a reason

 

 

 

How scary is that?

[kegi]

Anyone's mortgage can be recalled at any time by the lender without the lender giving a reason

 

 

 

How scary is that?

 

sounds like it a bit like wind maybe I have yet to see it happen ,or the outcome of such an attempt ? why would they insist on having a charge on your house ,why run around like headless chickens trying to find ways of forcing you into arrears so they could repo you when all they had to do is say ...give me the money back I loaned you and if you can't we'll take your house.

[bustthematrix]

Anyone's mortgage can be recalled at any time by the lender without the lender giving a reason

JC

Do you have proof of this? I am aware that while this applies to bank overdrafts which do not have a repayment schedule, it does not apply to mortgages. To my knowledge (or ignorance for that matter) as long as the borrower fully maintains their obligations i.e. timely, full agreed payments, the lender cannot enforce anything.

Enlighten me:-|

[JonCris]

Anyone's mortgage can be recalled at any time by the lender without the lender giving a reason

 

 

 

How scary is that?

 

sounds like it a bit like wind maybe I have yet to see it happen ,or the outcome of such an attempt ? why would they insist on having a charge on your house ,why run around like headless chickens trying to find ways of forcing you into arrears so they could repo you when all they had to do is say ...give me the money back I loaned you and if you can't we'll take your house.

 

I suggest you read your mortgage agreement as it has happened very recently in fact

[JonCris]

Here you go

 

RBS repossession threat to couple who never missed a payment on their mortgage | This is Money

[SadButTrue]

A press article is very one sided. It could be that there was a breach of the agreement.

 

The house could have been rented to tenants etc

[JonCris]

Sue welcome back;) If now't else I got your attention:D - Now to the fray

 

I understand you point of view & the very sound reasons for it - but I do believe like many honest people your missing the bigger picture namely that the banks WILL & HAVE lied & not only about securitization I might add

 

Of course it's beneficial to have the SPV liquidated in order to not only recover what you can by repossession but also to trigger the insurance payout. - also the SPV by it's terms of agreement has no intention whatsoever of honouring the term of the originators mortgage contract usually 25 years

[JonCris]

A press article is very one sided. It could be that there was a breach of the agreement.

 

The house could have been rented to tenants etc

 

Of course it's one sided The bank without cause is evicting them from their home ........ what excuse have the bank got

 

"The house may have had tenants" Oh pleeeese What next It's a brothel or better still it's a drugs den........ after all one at least is a pharmacist

 

Lets just stick with the 'known' facts shall we

[SadButTrue]

I would JonCris. However, are you able to establish the "known facts" from a press article. Hardly a reliable source of facts really.

[the main man]

I would JonCris. However, are you able to establish the "known facts" from a press article. Hardly a reliable source of facts really.

 

 

maybe not, but this was not a one off, it happened to others as well.

[SadButTrue]

maybe not, but this was not a one off, it happened to others as well.

 

I am quite sure that this does happen regulary. However, it would be fool hardy to rely upon or to draw facts from a newspaper article.

 

Only one fact can be obtained from that artical and that is the action of the bank. It is impossible to extract the facts to explain why.

[kegi]

johncris

I suggest you read your mortgage agreement as it has happened very recently in fact

I have read my agreement and three of my kids agreements and there is nothing in them that says they can ask for the money back in full without reason ...They can for a breach of the agreement ie lieing.false info on the application etc taking in tenants without permission drugs den and brothels etc all happen up my end of the woods :pso yes with just cause they can without no ............my last comment on this issue