Mortgage Securitisation - Preferred

[enoughisenough]

Mmm.

 

Hi Uneverdid. It would all rather depend upon whether they informed their customers of the changing LIBOR and the variation of their payment, wouldn't it? We are not dealing with 'normal' companies here.

 

And of course in very many cases they didn't bother, especially when the LIBOR crashed through the floor. They have started doing this because they have had so many inquiries about the BOE base rate going down - why hasn't mine? Also as the repos have accelerated a number of us have cottoned onto their game. Then they got a little bit jumpy.Thats why even people like myself who have been relentlessly screwed by these cowboys are starting to get a bit of leeway. Not much though. You have to watch them like hawks.

[iconoclash]

Hi - yes watch them watch them. I've only just today noticed that Oakwood have added a further £2013.00 to my balance allegedly for legal costs - hmmm - thats interesting, we already had a judge set their costs in court last Feb and so what are these new ones for??? and they have the cheek to write to me and say they cant contact me and that as I'm in arrears they might have to take legal action - its a joke it really is, we did all that already!

[enoughisenough]

Inspector Knacker of the Yard may want to put away his temporary interest in our MPs who have covered themselves in glory, and instead start focusing on this instead.

[mercyblue]

well the new bba site is garbage. When it was still on the main site the rates were a week behind been posted not unreasonable the new seems to stop at feb this year.

[enoughisenough]

The new BBA site is garbage. Why the hell is this stuff not in the public domain anymore? Well we all know the answer to that one don't we.

[tbern123]

Sorry US rates

Edited May 20, 2009 by tbern123
wrong rate

[vickson]

Ive been trying to find the rates as well to put them up on here, I echo the sentiments "the new bba site is not much use", for our purposes.

[mercyblue]

go to thisismoney.co.uk that gives good coverage

[enoughisenough]

Hi Guys

 

Please use and customise the FOS and FSA Template jobby I've been posting around. Get it right under their skins.

 

The following is just a joke honest peeps, including trolls. Everyone needs a release now and then. This is mine.

 

Please be advised:

 

Pressure may cause cracks. Terms and conditions may no longer apply: all warranties given may be void at the discretion of the consumer; you may be subject to the full penalties and remedies availablle under the law of England and Wales (Scotland and Northern Ireland as may apply) and you may not seek recourse through the courts. Should you act in voidance of your lawful obligations you will be subject to penalties and/or fines which may restrict your activities and/or obligations to third parties.

[Crapstone]

The rate for March I was given is 5.8% - product margin of 3.75% so it should be 2.5% rounded up or down.

[Crapstone]

It looks like the FSA already have wind of the SPV issues.

 

case number: WI-A13

[enoughisenough]

Yeah but have you seen this. Stitch UP!

 

Accordingly, the FSA wrote to the ombudsman service on 6 May 2009 asking it to consider deferring issuing any adjudicator views or ombudsman decisions in these cases. The FSA said it believed that this would allow it to explore all options to achieve the best outcome for consumers even though this might give rise to some delays in individual cases.

 

http://www.widerimplications.info/assets/pdf/2010_001.pdf

[Suetonius]

Yeah but have you seen this. Stitch UP!

 

Accordingly, the FSA wrote to the ombudsman service on 6 May 2009 asking it to consider deferring issuing any adjudicator views or ombudsman decisions in these cases. The FSA said it believed that this would allow it to explore all options to achieve the best outcome for consumers even though this might give rise to some delays in individual cases.

 

http://www.widerimplications.info/assets/pdf/2010_001.pdf

 

 

The above is in relation to investment products sold to Joe Public, who have subsequently made complaints to the FOS about the performance and/or any guarantees offered and not about mortgage securitisation or complaints with regard to mortgage securitisation.

 

"At the time of the Lehman Brothers collapse in September 2008, it transpired that a considerable number of UK investors had taken out plans where either a full or partial guarantee had been provided by Lehman's."

 

"In the aftermath of the Lehman's default, the Financial Ombudsman Service has received a number of complaints from investors and other parties involved in the sale of linked products. It has been investigating some cases, but the number of these is comparatively small in relation to the total numbers affected."

 

 

http://www.myfinances.co.uk/news1/investments/financial-advice/fsa-probes-structured-investments-$1294061.htm

 

"MP Edward Vaizey, shadow minister for culture, called for an investigation from FSA this week.

 

His Early Day Motion states: "This House notes that more than 6,000 people invested more than £200 million of their savings in structured products backed by Lehman Brothers; further notes that such products were marketed as 100 per cent secure by the companies that sold them."

 

http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=79286

 

"FSA has today announced that it is going to review firms' sales of Lehman backed structured products (Lehman backed products) to retail investors. This raises important issues for affected investors, for firms that sold Lehman backed products, and for the structured product market as a whole."

 

"United Kingdom investors have brought claims against the retail providers who issued Lehman backed products, and against the retail intermediaries who advised them to acquire the products. An investor may claim that he was not warned about counterparty risk, or that the adviser should have been more cautious in selecting the investment. In the first instance an investor will complain to the selling or advising firm and, if their complaint is rejected, refer the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) who will adjudicate the complaint (up to a ceiling of £100,000) without charge – an attractive alternative to taking court proceedings."

Edited May 21, 2009 by Suetonius

[enoughisenough]

Bloody hell Suetonius you're back!

 

Welcome back and thanks for the clarification. I confess to speed reading

 

Why does the same document mention consumer detriment?

 

Does it only mean that the FSA regard investors as consumers and not Joe the Plumber?

 

As regards my query a couple of weeks ago I was wondering if you had an opinion. Please let me know.Here it is. Cheers

 

Hi Suetonius

 

Again I'm puzzled by your absence. We all know why the nitty gritty of Pender shouldn't be spilled out on open forum just yet.

 

What does closed actually mean. This is really important. A repo case brought in the name of a closed company would have no legal standing would it? The mortgage would then actually in full have been passed on and the borrower would then have to have been notified and expressly agreed. Is this not right?

 

Cheers. EIE.

 

Once again welcome back.

 

 

PS can you answer this?

[Suetonius]

Joe Plumber and his cousin Joe Bloggs are both investors.

 

So Joe Plumber was advised by his Independent Financial Advisor to invest his savings in a certain product which was guaranteed by Lehmans.

 

 

With regard to your question with regard to closed. From memory I think that was an extract from an article published on a website.

 

I would presume that the term closed was used in the context of closed to new business.

 

However, it is not a good idea to assume or presume anything

 

A consumer can be an investor, investors are not only multi-national corporations

[enoughisenough]

Whilst I may jump the gun from time to time on these forums the one thing I never do in the medium term is assume or presume anything. I dig. You however if you read your above post HAVE presumed.

 

By Joe plumber I was of course referring to the ordinary Joe consumer of these mortgage products. It is accepted without doubt that many ordinary Joes are also investors, especially, though by no means exclusively, where they have pensions and/or savings. Unwitting investors that is.

[Suetonius]

Whilst I may jump the gun from time to time on these forums the one thing I never do in the medium term is assume or presume anything. I dig. You however if you read your above post HAVE presumed.

 

By Joe plumber I was of course referring to the ordinary Joe consumer of these mortgage products. It is accepted without doubt that many ordinary Joes are also investors, especially, though by no means exclusively, where they have pensions and/or savings. Unwitting investors that is.

 

I said that I would presume, and that it is not a good idea to presume anything. In the context that I did not personally write the article, so I do not know the exact meaning of the word closed within the frame and context of that particular article. I can only therefore guess the answer, to your question without referring to the author of the article

[enoughisenough]

Fair enough! Semantic splitting of hairs though if you ask me. The difference between presuming and I would presume followed by a statement seem to be indistinguishable, but I guess cleverer people than I would be able to differentiate the two.

 

Welcome back to the posts nonetheless.

[Suetonius]

Fair enough! Semantic splitting of hairs though if you ask me. The difference between presuming and I would presume followed by a statement seem to be indistinguishable, but I guess cleverer people than I would be able to differentiate the two.

 

Welcome back to the posts nonetheless.

 

:?

 

I said

 

 

I would presume that the term closed was used in the context of closed to new business.

 

However, it is not a good idea to assume or presume anything

 

 

 

It is not a matter of semantics or anyone trying to be clever EIE.

 

I said that I presume something. However, as a word of warning about my own presumption, I said that it is not a good idea to presume anything.

[Suetonius]

The above is in relation to investment products sold to Joe Public, who have subsequently made complaints to the FOS about the performance and/or any guarantees offered and not about mortgage securitisation or complaints with regard to mortgage securitisation.

 

"At the time of the Lehman Brothers collapse in September 2008, it transpired that a considerable number of UK investors had taken out plans where either a full or partial guarantee had been provided by Lehman's."

 

"In the aftermath of the Lehman's default, the Financial Ombudsman Service has received a number of complaints from investors and other parties involved in the sale of linked products. It has been investigating some cases, but the number of these is comparatively small in relation to the total numbers affected."

 

 

http://www.myfinances.co.uk/news1/investments/financial-advice/fsa-probes-structured-investments-$1294061.htm

 

"MP Edward Vaizey, shadow minister for culture, called for an investigation from FSA this week.

 

His Early Day Motion states: "This House notes that more than 6,000 people invested more than £200 million of their savings in structured products backed by Lehman Brothers; further notes that such products were marketed as 100 per cent secure by the companies that sold them."

 

United Kingdom, Banking and Financial, FSA Wider Implications Referral Lehman-Backed Structured Products - CMS Cameron McKenna LLP - 11/05/2009, Financial Services, Investment

 

"FSA has today announced that it is going to review firms' sales of Lehman backed structured products (Lehman backed products) to retail investors. This raises important issues for affected investors, for firms that sold Lehman backed products, and for the structured product market as a whole."

 

"United Kingdom investors have brought claims against the retail providers who issued Lehman backed products, and against the retail intermediaries who advised them to acquire the products. An investor may claim that he was not warned about counterparty risk, or that the adviser should have been more cautious in selecting the investment. In the first instance an investor will complain to the selling or advising firm and, if their complaint is rejected, refer the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) who will adjudicate the complaint (up to a ceiling of £100,000) without charge – an attractive alternative to taking court proceedings."

 

http://www.myfinances.co.uk/news/investments/investment-advice/mps-back-investigation-into-uk-lehman-brothers-victims-$1293931.htm

 

"MPs are rallying round to support the 6,000 UK investors who lost savings when Lehman Brothers collapsed.

 

It is estimated some £200 million is savings was lost be investors who put their cash into structured products that guaranteed their capital.

 

The average age of the investors is 65."

[enoughisenough]

Hi Suetonius

 

I gave you a gracious welcome back to the forum to which you have not in the slightest fashion acknowledged.

 

I asked a legitimate question (in response to your own post nearly a month ago to which I responded with the same question) and all I get back is semantic hair splitting I don't understand. What precisely is the difference between presuming and I presume? Sorry to come across a bit thick here but i genuinely do not get the difference.

 

We can at least be agreed that assuming and presuming are a rubbish way of proceeding on anything can't we? And yes I do jump the gun BUT it clearly still refers to consumers as well as investors.

[Suetonius]

Hi Suetonius

 

I gave you a gracious welcome back to the forum to which you have not in the slightest fashion acknowledged.

 

I asked a legitimate question (in response to your own post nearly a month ago to which I responded with the same question) and all I get back is semantic hair splitting I don't understand. What precisely is the difference between presuming and I presume? Sorry to come across a bit thick here but i genuinely do not get the difference.

 

We can at least be agreed that assuming and presuming are a rubbish way of proceeding on anything can't we? And yes I do jump the gun BUT it clearly still refers to consumers as well as investors.

 

EIE

 

1) I have not said that you jump the gun

2) Your question related to a quote from a 3rd party. Therefore, I am only able presume/assume the answer. I am not in a postion to provide you with a definative response.

3) There isn't a difference. The point I was making was that I was refering to me and my statement. Not to you.

 

Thank you for you warm greeting. However, it is no my intention to come back, I just read the posts in relation to the FSA and Lehman and wanted to ensure that readers where aware of additional information.

[enoughisenough]

Hi Suetonius

 

I am aware that you have not said I jump the gun. It's a free admission I make of my own accord. However I am far from reckless in doing so (an explanatory note rather than a further attribution to you which would be incorrect).

 

I check, check, check and then check again with anything I am willing to put forward myself or those I may from time to time assist.

 

The posts have a variety of functions beyond the very important minutiae which you rightly raise.

 

They galvanise, they polemicise, they caution, they inform, they lead to other lines of inquiry, they encourage debate and they create a sense of optimism in the face of extreme adversity.

 

I will happily subscribe to all of these objectives. Most of all the CAG empowers peeps to take control of their own circumstances (insofar as they can - given the biggest smash and grab raid in human history) and try to fight their corner. The scale of consumer detriment is enormous - and the misery piled on families is appalling.

 

What the hell is worth living for other than the age old aspiration of getting on in life and giving your kids a better start than you had?

[Crapstone]

But it is a wider review and all the links in the chain have to be considered. Without the mortgages and securitisation there is nothing left for either the investor as a consumer or the consumer as an investor in the mortgage products and the overall financial pool recorded as Lehmans.

 

The 'structured product market as a whole'. Is not a mortgage classed as structured?

 

There is only one way to find out and I'll let you know tomorrow evening. I prefer facts than pointless assumptions and ambiguous terms.

 

It's no hardship that the FSA is looking at this in whatever context.

[enoughisenough]

And so the central question remains.

 

Does what I have posted, especially the link to the letter, mean that if an ordinary consumer of a mortgage with one of these Lehman backed originated companies complains to the FOS, the FSA have now asked the FOS to put these on hold?

 

It's a simple question really. And I'll have the equally simple answer soon enough as I have now contacted the FOS in regards to mine.

 

EIE.