Mortgage Securitisation - Preferred

[Crapstone]

As of today 15 July 2009, I do not think that securitisation (at least with regard to legal title) is the Golden egg that is has previously been protrayed to be in this thread and others by some posters.

 

I don't think it's been suggested that it's a Golden Egg, it's merely a discussion on the topic as a way forward.

 

When asked a question you can always decline to answer rather than throwing the toys out of your pram and becoming sanctimonious. Repeating the same posts again and the same cases isn't getting us anywhere as the law can be tested again and they are but history to be re-invented.

 

You may not agree with some of the points raised here but you are not the judge, although you may have self elected to be.

[Suetonius]

I don't think it's been suggested that it's a Golden Egg, it's merely a discussion on the topic as a way forward.

 

When asked a question you can always decline to answer rather than throwing the toys out of your pram and becoming sanctimonious. Repeating the same posts again and the same cases isn't getting us anywhere as the law can be tested again and they are but history to be re-invented.

 

You may not agree with some of the points raised here but you are not the judge, although you may have self elected to be.

 

The reason that I keep posting the same information, whether you like it or not, is that you will face the same arguments in court with regard to the legal title. The response, I believe this or I think that will not work in Court.

 

As I have previously posted, no one is posting anything to show that the opinions I have expressed or the information that I have posted is in correct.

 

Wouldn't you agree that it is better to debate the issues here, than go into Court with the assumption that Securitisation will prevent repossession and then for that person to lose their home because they had relied upon securitisation rather than investigating other avenues.

[Suetonius]

.

When asked a question you can always decline to answer

 

Sadly I have tried that in the past with very little success:

 

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

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?

 

IS IT ME? was not the only one, just the most annoying

 

It is very frustrating when certain people demand answers and at the same do not answer questions asked of them. hint hint

So I am sure you will understand why when you posted

 

Suetonius.

 

You still didn't give your opinion on

 

I took the opportunity to ensure that I expressed my opinion in full.

 

I would add as a note for future reference, if you don't want it, don't ask for it....

Edited July 15, 2009 by Suetonius

[Crapstone]

Can't we adopt the same mortgage system as Denmark? The US took the idea and ran with it hence the poo we are in now.

 

Danish mortgage market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Crapstone]

But you are saying anything specific to the post. I asked you why they would have a right to be named on my building insurance and what role that has if I have to consult an unintroduced 3rd party for claims and alterations. I didn't ask for a lecture on the entire court proceedings of securitisation via copied posts.

[Suetonius]

Can't we adopt the same mortgage system as Denmark? The US took the idea and ran with it hence the poo we are in now.

 

Danish mortgage market - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I have no idea what they do... but something has to change

[Suetonius]

But you are saying anything specific to the post. I asked you why they would have a right to be named on my building insurance and what role that has if I have to consult an unintroduced 3rd party for claims and alterations. I didn't ask for a lecture on the entire court proceedings of securitisation via copied posts.

 

Now what you said was:

 

Suetonius.

 

You still didn't give your opinion on the 3rd party having exclusive rights on the building insurance and it would seem that you also need it for alterations. Surely that proves their interest is more than equitable?

 

My subsequent posts, explained exactly why their interest is not more than equitable.

[Crapstone]

The reason that I keep posting the same information, whether you like it or not, is that you will face the same arguments in court with regard to the legal title. The response, I believe this or I think that will not work in Court.

 

As I have previously posted, no one is posting anything to show that the opinions I have expressed or the information that I have posted is in correct.

 

Wouldn't you agree that it is better to debate the issues here, than go into Court with the assumption that Securitisation will prevent repossession and then for that person to lose their home because they had relied upon securitisation rather than investigating other avenues.

 

Perhaps you just don't give them the chance to post anything that is read in its entirety without writing it off as fodder. It is better to debate and I fully agree on that but if fellow CAGs' don't listen and just dominate then that's not doing much to boost moral to search for true evidence is it?

[Crapstone]

I also questioned your posts on why you thought a lender would be at a loss when they insure against such losses, at the borrowers expense, and what role that would play with a 3rd party. I appreciate your views but not ones that are parrot fashion and hidden in 3000 words of text. If I had time to read everything written in law then I wouldn't be asking the questions would I?

[Suetonius]

I also questioned your posts on why you thought a lender would be at a loss when they insure against such losses, at the borrowers expense, and what role that would play with a 3rd party. I appreciate your views but not ones that are parrot fashion and hidden in 3000 words of text. If I had time to read everything written in law then I wouldn't be asking the questions would I?

 

If you go back, you will see that I actually responded to the above question by telling you where to find the answer

[Suetonius]

Perhaps you just don't give them the chance to post anything that is read in its entirety without writing it off as fodder. It is better to debate and I fully agree on that but if fellow CAGs' don't listen and just dominate then that's not doing much to boost moral to search for true evidence is it?

 

Oh now I understand.. It is my fault why noone has been able to find any evidence.

 

In that case, I apologise to everyone

[Suetonius]

I also questioned your posts on why you thought a lender would be at a loss when they insure against such losses, at the borrowers expense, and what role that would play with a 3rd party. I appreciate your views but not ones that are parrot fashion and hidden in 3000 words of text. If I had time to read everything written in law then I wouldn't be asking the questions would I?

 

I could say that if you read my previous posts, you would not need to ask me a question I have previously answered and therefore I would not have the need to repeat myself over again

[Suetonius]

It has become painfully obvious within the last few days that certain posters, just want to hear that everything is all rosey and that the sun is shineing..

 

They don't like it, if anyone dares tell them that it is raining.

 

Personally, I would have thought it better to manage and control expectations then just go forth and give what could be unquestioned false hope to the many people that read this thread.

 

I will ensure that I do not dominate this thread in future, to allow people to be motivated to find counter arguments.

 

Suetonius OVER & OUT !

[Crapstone]

I fear they are too afraid of that sharp tongue of yours that cuts them off in their prime. I'm leaving it at that now as it's unfair on the boards and too OT. We need to pull together on this and not put each other down for their views.

[enoughisenough]

Hi Liz

 

I can answer that if you give me a minute!

[enoughisenough]

It has become painfully obvious within the last few days that certain posters, just want to hear that everything is all rosey and that the sun is shineing..

 

They don't like it, if anyone dares tell them that it is raining.

 

A bit like the CML and the FSA then...

[enoughisenough]

Hi Liz

 

This is Evidence before the select committee from Shelter and others. It has some reference to the role of the FSA. Quite long but I'm sure you can extract some relevant stuff.

 

 

Uncorrected Evidence 766

 

 

Also this might be useful. I'm still searching for it I did see it somewhere!

 

Judges Urged To Consider FSA Rules In Repossession Cases | Have Rules Been Flouted?

 

And after a long winded it's all the borrowers fault right diatribe at the bottom an admission... makes me cry how much the poor lenders have suffered at the hands of these rip off borrowers. Something must be done about the evil borrower!

 

The regulatory environment affecting the mortgage world

[enoughisenough]

And Liz

 

I think that this is particularly interesting, especially in the light of the recent Suetonius Vs Caggers debate.

 

Fraudulent self-cert mortgage and problem mortgage backed securities - 14 May 2009

[enoughisenough]

Here it is in full. I've added emphasis which may cast some doubt (and that is all) on the issue of ownership.

 

At the recent Financial Services Authority conference Jon Pain, managing director for retail markets, commented that a lot of self cert mortgages lent by specialist lenders has led to large numbers of arrears and frauds.

 

If the FSA failed to recognise “large numbers of frauds” were being committed it says as much about their failure to regulate adequately as it does about the lenders’ success at fraud prevention.

 

Pain says: "Some lenders, knowing they ultimately do not bear the financial risk of consumers' inability to pay, [have not worried] about affordability, either because they can sell on the mortgages by packaging them up and selling them on; or they believe they can rely on house prices to rise, [with] repossession ultimately providing a safety net - but not for the consumer."

 

This demonstrates very clearly the problems that can arise when lenders are allowed to securitize without any recourse for arrears and bad debts, although my understanding is that most securitisations did effectively have some element of recourse.

 

The most obvious lesson from this is that when the securitisation markets return the originating lender must continue to be on the hook for a proportion of any ultimate loss.

 

Another clear message is that investors need to do proper due diligence in future before buying any mortgage backed securities and not take the lazy option of relying on potentially flawed analysis by one or more of the credit rating agencies, all of which have been discredited by even bigger failures than those made by the regulators.

 

If investors had bothered to take the trouble to understand what they were being asked to buy most would not have bought into some US mortgage backed securities.

 

That would have prevented some lenders from continuing to originate new mortgages and hence the current debacle would have at least been mitigated.

 

Lenders, rating agencies and regulators have rightly been criticised over the causes of the credit crunch but lets not forget the foolish investors, and in particular the chief executives of those companies, who didn’t have the expertise to understand what they were buying. They are equally culpable.

 

Clearly then, as the prospectuses say. A sale has taken place. It therefore follows:

 

1. That the lender must be put to a burden of strict proof of ownership after sale (it's a legitimate question). Having sold the mortgage and received full consideration what rights of ownership does the Originator retain

 

2. A disposition of land must be registered but the prospectuses clearly state that there is no intention for them to do so. Why would they state this if it were not necessary?

 

3. It would only be necessary following on from a sale.

 

All of this seems to be self evident. Where the needle arises is on Suetonious emphasising that there are two types of sale. A true sale or legal assignment and what might be called a rights sale (equitable assignment). What exactly are the buyers buying from the SPV and why would they purchase something that they don't own outright. Is this a sort of time share [problem] when depending on the circumstances any interested party can claim ownership as and when it suits. If Suetonious is right (and to be fair only Super has been able to give his arguments a real run for their money). Then I say this leads us straight back to the tests of fairness. No-one in their right mind would take on such a mortgage.

 

I am going to claim that I did know was therefore not of sound mind and that this therefore justifies rescission.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Suetonius OVER & OUT !

Been watching too many Films there Suetonious!

 

Over and Out!

 

Students of R/T usually get a slapped neck the first time they combine the two in one Transmission!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[JonCris]

I think is is fair to say that you could ask a financial institution to provide you a copy a contract relating to pretty much anything and the answer will be the same.

 

Not saying that is right, just don't think any extra emphasis is placed upon securitisation.

 

 

I don't agree In the coming weeks I'm having a meeting with a barrister on an unrelated matter who specializes in the DPA when I shall be asking if under the DPA I'm entitled to such data as it effects me the original borrower - I expect to find the answers interesting;-)

[IS IT ME?]

Very well put enoughisenough1. That the lender must be put to a burden of strict proof of ownership after sale (it's a legitimate question). Having sold the mortgage and received full consideration what rights of ownership does the Originator retain

 

2. A disposition of land must be registered but the prospectuses clearly state that there is no intention for them to do so. Why would they state this if it were not necessary?

Just what I was trying to say, todate they has been no case where the lender has had to do this and just saying to a judge oh yes we own it is the way they have got away withit so far, I have looked at some case's SUETONIUS and have found NONE where the Mortgage sale has been shown only as above the lender saying ' oh yes we own it so there' and the question which I put to you and again you have given a 3 page write up about is 'WHAT HAS THE BOND HOLDER GOT' nothing then as you say.

I ask you would you invest millions in some thing you have

a; no control over?

b; give millions to a company for nothing but paper?

c: who gets the money from the repo's that have happened, not the lender as I quote from the court case ' I am sorry I do not have that information to hand and would need to refer to my client'

Me: I have asked for this for the last 3 months why have you not got it?

Solicitor: I have not got that information.

So there you have it!

Suetonius, please do not take this the wrong way but after reading your threads I wish you would put as much enough into help people and looking for ways in which to do it insde of putting people down all the time.

[enoughisenough]

Hi Is It Me

 

Thanks for your comments. It's what the cag is about.

 

However I feel compelled to leap to Suetonious' defence, though I'm sure he can defend himself adequately without my help.

 

Away from the vexed issue of ownership Sue has been very helpful to a number of Caggers and is more than ready to batter the sub primers on issues of fairness or the charges.

 

On the ownership issue he has a legitimate difference of opinion. I might even add that his unpopular assessment of the legal position benefits us by testing the securitisation issue in the fire. That would be no less than what our opponents would do.

 

The best thing we can do is prove him wrong. I think he might even welcome it. However that is far from easy as the sheer weight and volume of his posts and evidence, as well as the complexity of the law, mean that someone would have to dedicate themselves to doing so to the exclusion of almost anything else and too many of us are far too busy fighting to keep the damn roof over our heads.

 

Above all what Sue has done for the CAG is raise the bar. We are going to have to get a lot more sophisticated in our approach if we are even to have a sniff of success.

 

I would rather go into court knowing that the argument exists than having some smart ars*d barrister pull the rug from under my feet on the day.

 

Please understand. I am not taking sides here. Well actually I am - instinct tells me there's something wrong here. But to raise that we need to prove it. Better to cast doubt and let them raise it. Reverse the burden of proof. They want to take our house. Let them prove they have the right to do so.

 

Finally, when the whole issue of securitised mortgages surfaced there was complete denial. Now I wonder why that was?

[Smarterchick]

I might even add that his unpopular assessment of the legal position benefits us by testing the securitisation issue in the fire. That would be no less than what our opponents would do.

 

The best thing we can do is prove him wrong. I think he might even welcome it.

 

Above all what Sue has done for the CAG is raise the bar. We are going to have to get a lot more sophisticated in our approach if we are even to have a sniff of success.

 

I would rather go into court knowing that the argument exists than having some smart ars*d barrister pull the rug from under my feet on the day.

 

 

...and there you have Sue in a nutshell and about time too in my honest opinion...that's all he ever gives me the impression of doing..saving ass !!

 

SC

[Sparkie1723]

Returning to assignment I think the only reason the borrower is not avoid the transfer of title but to avoid notifying him the unpalatable truth about his mortgage

 

After all not transfering title/ownership has no other benefits to the lender or bond holder other than keeping their transaction secret from the consumer & it's on these arguments that I think we could win - After all if everything is fine why conceal it from any kind of public scrutiny

2

 

My sentiments exactly Joncris...............Concealment of documents or information New Fraud Act 2006 and possibly The Cosumer Prtection Regulations...misrepresentatation by ommission.

 

sparkie