Mortgage Securitisation - Preferred

[Suetonius]

Anyway enough with the personal differences.. Back to the debate !!!

[supersleuth]

Suetonius,

 

It's really very unimportant. Ergo shall we leave your ego out of it - I've said I concede that there may be something the lenders do with which you may not agree, I don't know what it is and quite frankly I don't really care. So I'm not taking time out to prove or disprove the point. It's far too irrelevant. Again, I've said it's good to find that there is ONE CAGger who is a happy consumer.....and that represents one small step of progress for the banking world.

[enoughisenough]

Just another poor six billion sods to go then! Counting...

[Suetonius]

Suetonius,

 

It's really very unimportant. Ergo shall we leave your ego out of it - I've said I concede that there may be something the lenders do with which you may not agree, I don't know what it is and quite frankly I don't really care. So I'm not taking time out to prove or disprove the point. It's far too irrelevant. Again, I've said it's good to find that there is ONE CAGger who is a happy consumer.....and that represents one small step of progress for the banking world.

 

What can I say.. You are very apt with the terminology that you use

 

However, despite what you may or not believe.. I am not interested in getting into a ****ing contest with you as that will achieve very little.

 

So shall we get back to the debate at hand ?

[andrew1]

Lesson:

 

On my desk is a ping pong ball, half painted black the other half white...when I hold it up and ask another to tell me the colour of the ball they say Black cos that's all they see - from where I look it's white. Same ball different angle...come around my side you see what I see, just keep revolving you two...I don't see squabble or rights and wrongs trying to be proved here..all I see is what one party will be likely to get thrown at them by anyone who knows what they're talking about and there's not many others here with either the balls or knowledge to put these arguments and views forward..you couldn't get this kind of set-off if you paid for it so keep at it, There's nothing intellects like more than intelligent debate and that's what people like me are seeing. So keep it up, for once we are seeing and uncovering the wrinkles, each can take whatever route one wants and feels comfortable with but may I congratulate both of you for your contributions.

 

I know Seutonius is 100% a Cagger, so whatever he says I personally know it's for the common good, Supersleuth wouldn't be on here sharing this wonderful knowledge either if he/she wasn't also doing this for the common good -so, same ball...Well done to both, keep revolving...it's brilliant .

 

Thank you

Sarah

[JonCris]

Thanks Buzz, JC & EIE,

 

I can Act like a Duck, but that doesn't make me a duck ( be fun though ) what I am getting at is splitting hairs here because I want to find the line between 'acting like the owner' and who the actual owner is, or as JC puts it " They can only refuse if it's reasonable to do so " and who decides if it's reasonable and what are the guidelines/rules?

 

Is it in a regulation somewhere that rather than just a courtesy the new loan provider, HAS to request PERMISSION to register the new charge from the current charge holders? and, if that permission is NOT obtained from the true owner as the mtg has been sold through securitisation, then would the new 2nd charge holder have recourse if their loan went belly up on the 'spoof' owner of the 1st mtg as they have been deceived?

 

If as SS says, the ownership has changed and the LReg not informed then that to me is deception..?

 

You may have, wittingly or unwittingly, added another string to the consumers bow - namely has any subsequent secured lender got permission to add their charge from the REAL owner & if not what are the consequences for that lender - unenforceable contract perhaps - poisoned at conception ???

 

Comments please

[enoughisenough]

Ooh. I'm liking this!

[Suetonius]

Lesson:

 

On my desk is a ping pong ball, half painted black the other half white...when I hold it up and ask another to tell me the colour of the ball they say Black cos that's all they see - from where I look it's white. Same ball different angle...come around my side you see what I see, just keep revolving you two...I don't see squabble or rights and wrongs trying to be proved here..all I see is what one party will be likely to get thrown at them by anyone who knows what they're talking about and there's not many others here with either the balls or knowledge to put these arguments and views forward..you couldn't get this kind of set-off if you paid for it so keep at it, There's nothing intellects like more than intelligent debate and that's what people like me are seeing. So keep it up, for once we are seeing and uncovering the wrinkles, each can take whatever route one wants and feels comfortable with but may I congratulate both of you for your contributions.

 

I know Seutonius is 100% a Cagger, so whatever he says I personally know it's for the common good, Supersleuth wouldn't be on here sharing this wonderful knowledge either if he/she wasn't also doing this for the common good -so, same ball...Well done to both, keep revolving...it's brilliant .

 

Thank you

Sarah

 

Loving your work Sarah

 

However, I would get a refund for that ping pong ball lol

[bustthematrix]

You may have, wittingly or unwittingly, added another string to the consumers bow - namely has any subsequent secured lender got permission to add their charge from the REAL owner & if not what are the consequences for that lender - unenforceable contract perhaps - poisoned at conception ???

 

Comments please

I think the merit of this new idea still depends on one's view of Securitisation itself. One may adopt the 'take it as seen' Suetonius view (sorry Sue but you've been branded ) or the more purist Supersleuth-CarmelButler view (err looks you've been branded too Super8)) and this is what informs who the REAL lenders and charge owners are and who should have got permission from whom. The scenario you describe becomes interesting under the latter view.

 

Ultimately, it may be better to stick to the root of the debate rather than derivative outcomes of either approach. Subsequent lenders (or creditors for that matter) can still place a charge against your assets with or without permission from the existing lender(s) as long as the can prove to the LR that you owe them. These charges just don't have the same ease of implementation and legal strength. That's how unsecured debts are converted into charging orders on a property after a judgement for the debt has been obtained by the plaintiff lender.

 

For what it's worth:grin:

Edited April 21, 2009 by bustthematrix
What????????

[bustthematrix]

Far from my bubble being burst, it does not even have a puncture and still airtight ;-)

 

Only as long as you're financially nimble and mortgageable and BBR remains deliciously low. If BBR starts to head North rapidly, you won't be sitting so pretty.

 

Don't mean to 'burst' your bubble sir, just some perspective!!!8)

[enoughisenough]

Interest rates are absolutely guaranteed to head north, and probably big style.

 

It's the only way to pay for this Sh1T.

 

If I were David Cameron I'd Shi**ing myself at actually winning the next election!

 

DISCLAIMER* I HAVE NO POLITICAL AXES TO GRIND.

[Suetonius]

Hi Suetonius,

 

That's a point...if s.136 applies...maybe it does, may be it doesn't. Do you know if there is any legal authority on the point?

 

Supersleuth

 

I didn't but I do now. Contrary to my initial investigations, it would appear that s.136 does apply.

 

The Financial Collateral Arrangements (No.2) Regulations 2003

 

 

PART 2

 

Modification of law requiring formalities

 

Certain legislation requiring formalities not to apply to financial collateral arrangements

 

"(3) Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (legal assignments of things in action) shall not apply (if it would otherwise do so) in relation to a financial collateral arrangement, to the extent that the section requires an assignment to be signed by the assignor or a person authorised on its behalf, in order to be effectual in law."

 

 

So it would appear that that the assignment does not need to be signed by the assignor. However, the requirement for "express notice in writing has been given to the debtor" is still a requirement.

 

If this requirement is not met the assignment can only be equitable.

 

Therefore, the right to commence legal proceedings remains with the original mortgage lender.

[Suetonius]

Only as long as you're financially nimble and mortgageable and BBR remains deliciously low. If BBR starts to head North rapidly, you won't be sitting so pretty.

 

Don't mean to 'burst' your bubble sir, just some perspective!!!8)

 

Lol, I hear you

 

But given the fixed rates etc currently avaliable in the market, I am ok for the immediate future.

[supersleuth]

Yes Suetonius,

 

You currently have the luxury of LOL and you're OK jack, but have you read what's happening to Littledotty27 recently? Proud of your lenders are you? Have you read the carnage they are causing to many good and hardworking families - but no worries, Suetonius cos you're (currently) an OK jack. Tell Littledotty27 that according to the law of Suetonius she's got no chance. Don't want a row Suetonius, but I am beginning to wonder if you have any compasion for others at all.

[Suetonius]

Yes Suetonius,

 

You currently have the luxury of LOL and you're OK jack, but have you read what's happening to Littledotty27 recently? Proud of your lenders are you? Have you read the carnage they are causing to many good and hardworking families - but no worries, Suetonius cos you're (currently) an OK jack. Tell Littledotty27 that according to the law of Suetonius she's got no chance. Don't want a row Suetonius, but I am beginning to wonder if you have any compasion for others at all.

 

 

Ok lets get this straight once and for SS.

 

It has nothing to do with me being an ok Jack. It has to do with just one thing and one thing only. I do not agree with you.

 

1) You do not know me:rolleyes:

2) You do not know anything about my personal financial situation.

3) You are making assumptions about me, without any knowledge of the facts.

 

 

I would ask you respectfully, not to take my posts as personal. I disagree with you, it is that simple.

 

I can assure you that no offence is intended and I apologise if it has been taken.

 

You say you don't want a row... You do give the distinct impression that you would like one !

[enoughisenough]

Good God Peeps

 

I suggest a moratorium. Agree not to post either directly or indirectly with reference to each other for at least 48 hours. Please?

 

Keep the faith. EIE. Cheers.

[supersleuth]

Suetonius,

 

It is not necessary to agree with people in order to be civil. Also I do not take your posts personally. We can gracefully agree to disagree. You are entitled to your opinions as are others.

 

With sincere regards

Supersleuth

[Suetonius]

Good God Peeps

 

I suggest a moratorium. Agree not to post either directly or indirectly with reference to each other for at least 48 hours. Please?

 

Keep the faith. EIE. Cheers.

 

I can live with that

[mercyblue]

sue with regards to your interest rate it exactly illustrates my point you would be much worse off were you to re-mortgage at this time.

Now people with a spml/ge money etc mortgage are finding the same to be the case. Remember these are somewhat more adverse than you are lucky enough to have. The eurosail prospectus I am using has a stabilized interest rate after the end of fixed/discount rates end of 3.15% above libor.

Now to use a libor rate from july 2007 that would mean the average customer paying an interest rate of above 9% pretty much untenable for most people to sustain I would have thought. Hence the need to re-mortgage, sell etc

This is/was the business model employed that the mortgage would be redeemed on or around the end of the fixed/discount rate ended.

Now consider the same average customer they would be paying an interest rate of 4.815% which is likely to be around the original fixed rate the customer was paying hence no desire or need to re-mortgage spv business model out of the window.

Now you also ask the valid question why haven't you been tricked/forced etc into arrears. Well I would say it stands to reason to target the most adverse customers first as they are already paying the most and of course any fees/costs/arrears you can bang on also attract interest at the same high rate. You would also want to factor in the original ltv. Then throw in for good measure the fact that capstone does an experian credit check monthly (common practice in the usa but I aren't even sure of its legality here).

 

[iconoclash]

HI - SS - tracking back thru the thread we had a chat about my lender Oakwood Homeloans and their attempted repossession - the hearing in Feb this year saw them get the suspended repo and order to pay the instalment plus £50. I said I would pay exactly that then and not a penny more.

Thus, today, I have had an arrogant speed speaking man on the phone from Oakwood telling me that we are in default because we are not paying a further £50 arrears charges. Also, when asked about the solicitors costs and why they had been added to the account last Sept, he said that they were entitled to put the costs on whenever they liked as that is when they had incurred the cost!? I've asked him to send me the bill but since they have still not fully complied with my DSAR I doubt they will oblige. He did say the call was being recorded and I said good. I am so cross with this company, I hope that the media people take this case up soon.

[iconoclash]

Hi - me again - been trying to look up oakwood as I know they are only a mortgage servicer and bought ours from GMAC - seems their website is no longer available.

[enoughisenough]

Oakwood Mortgage Services: Welcome

 

GMAC-RFC

[SadButTrue]

Oakwood Mortgage Services: Welcome

 

GMAC-RFC

 

Mortgage Solutions - GMAC-RFC announces portfolio sale to Oakwood

 

GMAC completes second sale to Oakwood - Daily news - Mortgage Introducer UK

 

GMAC sells third portfolio to Oakwood - Daily news - Mortgage Introducer UK

[enoughisenough]

“Transactions such as this demonstrate our continuing commitment to providing the whole loan market with sufficient volumes of collateral to further enhance the availability of new sources of funding and liquidity to our mortgage market.”

 

Ooops. Didn't quite work out like that though did it? Idiots. Greedy idle idiots.

[SadButTrue]

This could interest you Campari, I think this might also be of some relence to the ongoing securitisation debate.

 

Oakwood apes edeus' golden goodbye - 18 August 2008

 

 

The broker-introduced mortgages Oakwood is trying to offload stem from investments made by Credit Suisse.

 

 

It is understood that Credit Suisse bought buy-to-let assets from GMAC-RFC, Kensington and edeus and placed them in Oakwood. It has taken the decision to encourage borrowers to redeem their mortgages early or refinance with other lenders rather than sell the assets at a loss.

As a result, Oakwood has written to 250 borrowers offering to waive 15% of their outstanding mortgage balance if they choose to take their mortgages to other lenders before their fixed rate terms expire.

 

 

The amount waived will be calculated from the date the letters were sent. Oakwood will also waive early repayment charges and its £120 exit fee.

Oakwood is serviced by Homeloan Management, part of the Skipton group. In its letter to borrowers, Oakwood recommends they contact Pink Home Loans, also part of Skipton, to source alternative deals. Pink was unavailable for comment.

 

 

Oakwood is using specialist servicer Engage Credit to notify clients.

Jason Miller, chief executive of Engage Credit, says: "At the direction of Oakwood Homeloans, Engage Credit has deployed a strategy to target selected borrowers which will allow them to redeem their outstanding mortgage balances at a discount.

 

 

 

"This strategy will allow Oakwood to deleverage its exposure to the housing market while giving selected borrowers incentives to refinance."

Credit Suisse's decision to offload assets in this way follows a £5.6m fine from the Financial Services Authority for failures to conduct its business with due care and diligence and for failing to organise itself effectively.

Credit Suisse declined to comment