Mortgage Securitisation - Preferred

[enoughisenough]

Get a load of this:

 

He adds that Lehmans' Eurosail portfolios could also pose problems as underlying collateral may need to be broken up and restructured in order to sell it on the market and this takes time.

 

Another well-placed source says that it is likely that PwC will want to get the process over with quickly.

 

This would see the market inundated with assets in the lead up to next year.

He says: "If £1bn worth of mortgages from Lehmans' balance sheet and up to £8bn from the Lehmans-owned Eurosail RMBS were sold en masse it would effectively flood the market. Prices would drop even lower just as we need them to rise.

 

"But on the plus side, if Lehmans' RMBS were sold at speed it would clear out some of the bad loans more quickly."

 

Warning on Lehmans fallout - 22 September 2008

 

If You think this is as significant as I do save the link immediately. It may not be around for ever.

[JonCris]

I can live with that

 

I agree with supersleuth's perception of the argument - can you live with that:p

[kegi]

Originally Posted by 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.

 

THAT IS THE MOST DISGUSTING OFFENSIVE POSTING I HAVE EVER SEEN ON THIS SITE AIMED AT ANOTHER CAGGER WHO FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN HE/SHE DISAGREES WITH YOUR VIEW OF THINGS [WITH MERIT I MIGHT ADD ] I AM ASHAMED FOR YOU SS .

I AM ALSO A HAPPY CONSUMER SO ARE ALL OF MY FAMILY SO ARE TENS OF THOUSAND OF OTHER MORTGAGE PAYERS ,DOES THAT MAKE ALL OF US OK JACKS LACKING COMPASSION FOR OTHERS ,IT DID'NT BUT IT DOES NOW .

 

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

Sue it's not you who should be apologising

I would suggest renaming this thread the crazy house and bid you all goodbye

[SadButTrue]

WHO FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN HE/SHE DISAGREES WITH YOUR VIEW OF THINGS [WITH MERIT I MIGHT ADD ] I AM ASHAMED FOR YOU SS .

 

With merit and a hell of a lot of supporting documentation and explanation.

 

Come back Sue, I need an answer about charges and ownship !!!

 

I will ask it here as I don't understand

 

If a SPV owns my mortgage, why does it need a charge ?

Aren't charges to do with security and not ownership ?

Edited April 22, 2009 by SadButTrue

[enoughisenough]

Looks Like the divide and rule are merchants are trying to...well you know!

 

EIE Will be back later to this 'madhouse' - a nonetheless veritable sanctuary of sanity compared to the insane goings on out there in funny numbers land.

 

Try to be civil while I'm gone peeps!

[SadButTrue]

Anyone considered the possibility that Sue could be right ?

 

Can someone please answer my question about charge's and ownership

 

I DON'T UNDERSTAND

[bustthematrix]

Me thinks this is classic TNT = Testosterone Needing Tuition

 

Both Super and Suetonius seem to ardently believe what they hold to which is fair. Personal attacks really should be left out though as that will kill the debate.

Beyond all that, we're all grown up and should be thick skinned enough to take some heat for whatever we post - and we should not shy away from retracting comments that are offensive.

Edited April 22, 2009 by bustthematrix

[bustthematrix]

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.

 

And to this I say so what? It's just another point to affirm the status quo - the illusion - if it is that - that those behind it would like us all to accept without question. You do not seem to have grasped the merits of some of the opposing arguments to your points yet you argue yours with much conviction.

 

It doesn't matter whether s.136 applies or not, It only matters IN LAW, whether or not the lenders and SPVs are telling the truth about the sale. That's all that matters and that is the crux of Supersleuth/CarmelButler's arguments.

[bustthematrix]

Anyway, Suetonius, do you REALLY still insist it's an equitable assignment if no notice was ever given to the borrower BUT the SPV sale contract is somehow obtained and it CLEARLY states full legal transfer of title has passed?

[bustthematrix]

Anyone considered the possibility that Sue could be right ?

 

Can someone please answer my question about charge's and ownership

 

I DON'T UNDERSTAND

 

SadButTrue, yes of course we have. That's what this thread is all about. He could be right and he could be wrong. Some agree, some don't.

 

My position is that I don't know enough about the real facts of these transactions (not just what THEY tell us or WANT us to believe but WHAT THEY'VE REALLY DONE). To be honest, I think only an insider to the process can really understand what's happened/happening. You see it's one thing to have the sale done in a certain way. It's another thing to dress it up another way to make it appear as something else to those you'd like to deceive or control by that conduct. There's so much skulduggery and smoke and mirrors in the prospectuses you just know something isn't right somewhere.

 

Straightforward things, tend to be just that, straightforward.

 

I am leaning towards Supersleuth, CB, JC and others' views even though the 'on the face' view is that securitisations are equitable assigments.

 

For me it remains a major difficulty that

 

* Lenders are going to extraordinary lengths to not divulge their SPV sale agreements

* These RMBS's contained severe warnings and risks to investors about potential unenforcibility

* Their repeated labelling and profiling as 'toxic assets' at the very highest levels and the ongoing nature of the problem says a lot. They seem to know these are much more than just bad debts. Lenders have always had bad debts for centuries and have ways to deal with them. The fact they've not been able to do the usual write offs and adjustments (which is how bad i.e. uncollectible debts are often handled) is quite revealing in itself.

* There remain outstanding points about the equity of the ongoing relationship between the SPV/investors, the 'lender' and the borrower and the 'lender's' ability (and even willingness) to honour it's obligations under the mortgage and fair lending practices codes etc.

 

Suetonius' points are well argued if you take things as they are presented to you, yet we all know that's not what CAG is about! If you intend to challenge your own particular mortgage and contract etc, you would do well to develop arguments to at least counter each of those points he (as a layman) has identified which essentially support the status quo. Not on your own mind you, please take professional advice/get help as necessary.

 

This debate is a biggie for sure as the interests concerned and the ramifications are huge.

Edited April 22, 2009 by bustthematrix

[IS IT ME?]

Suetonius, so another one is questioning your views? Oh well we are ALL wrong.

But I still notice you go on about the LR Act and WHAT should happen, like the banks and lenders have done every thing by the book? Is that why we are in the s..t we are now do me a favour .

II HAVE WATCHED YOUR POSTINGS AND CAN SAY THAT THERE IS NOT ONE AND I MEAN NOT ONE WHERE YOU SAT THE LENDERS HAVE DONE ANY THING WRONG.

And as I asked and the details you gave last time do not give any details of the 'Mortgage Sale agreement' or the charges which are at companies house?

Why would they need to do this even as you say they have no legal charges to the assets of the lenders or SMP.

The question was put more than once why is it the the lenders are going to court so many times to get repos when people are even just 2 to 4 months in arrears? to get the BOND HOLDERS money as look at the accounts for the lending companies and you will not see it there.

In our case we where 2 TWO months in arrears and went to claim on our insurance policy with the lender because of an illness but OHHHH not covered sorry but went into court gave the Norgan case and the D/J could do nothing and case dismissed'NO REPO' and they where NOT awarded their costs but are now 8 months down the line trying to claim them plus £100 arrears charges and you say how wounderful they are

[SadButTrue]

Thanks BTM

 

Still don't get the charge and ownership thing

[JonCris]

The point is that many 'informed' people (including many with legal expertise) argued that bank charges were legal & above board & that ALL consumer agreements were enforceable - whereas now thanks to sites like this we know that's not the case - we MUST challenge the apparent status quo no matter what the arguments

[bustthematrix]

Thanks BTM

Still don't get the charge and ownership thing

Sorry, I wasn't trying to answer that in my last post . Come again and we'll see if we can help.

[SadButTrue]

What I don't understand is if the SPV owns my mortgage why does it need a charge.

 

I am thinking like my house. I am the registered owner but the bank has a charge on it

[bustthematrix]

What I don't understand is if the SPV owns my mortgage why does it need a charge.

 

I am thinking like my house. I am the registered owner but the bank has a charge on it

 

You're actually right. They own your mortgage not your house. The charge is there so you can't sell (or remortgage it) without paying off the charge they've registered against your house. The mortgage is the debt you owe them to repay in exchange for sums advanced and it's 'secured' against your house.

 

How do you know the SPV owns your particular mortgage and that a charge is registered by them? This would be as opposed to the 'lender' as they usually do all of that messy stuff.

 

The SPV's (special purpose vehicles) are special investor company formations which they try to ringfence from ever going bankrupt so it can't be party to legal proceedings and anything that could ever jeopardise the 'assets' it holds. This ringfencing is part of the 'protection' and attraction for the investors.

[bustthematrix]

Gotta go now actually, but feel free to post any more questions. I'm sure I and others will reply in time.

 

tooddledoo

[enoughisenough]

My this is burgeoning! back on and subbing with interest. May or may not post later when I've read everybody's bumf!

 

Good stuff though guys and gals. Seems we're getting the debate back on track. An emerging consensus seems as far away as ever though!

[Smarterchick]

SadButTrue, yes of course we have. That's what this thread is all about. He could be right and he could be wrong. Some agree, some don't.

 

Suetonius' points are well argued if you take things as they are presented to you, yet we all know that's not what CAG is about! If you intend to challenge your own particular mortgage and contract etc, you would do well to develop arguments to at least counter each of those points he (as a layman) has identified which essentially support the status quo. Not on your own mind you, please take professional advice/get help as necessary.

 

This debate is a biggie for sure as the interests concerned and the ramifications are huge.

 

 

Suetonius' points are well argued if you take things as they are presented to you, yet we all know that's not what CAG is about!

 

What is CAG all about then if it's not to debate and have well argued points? If it wasn't for these well argued points some £40-50 million wouldn't have been returned to people from bank charges when the banks were running scared. It's the likes of Suetonius arguing and splitting hairs for the cavaliers to consider that brought about the sea change..Agree with him or not, agree with Supersleuth or not ...consider EVERYTHING that is said because then and only then will the truth be uncovered..This is not about winning or losing and those who look to belittle either side on personal attack levels are showing the signs of weakness in their arguments, nothing more, nothing less..just keep debating, beg to differ, but do not fall out.

[enoughisenough]

Concurred. The path to the truth is inquiry!

 

Cheers. Keep the faith. EIE. Let's not turn into splinter groups a la Life of Brian.

 

We're the Judean Popular Front. NO WE'RE NOT WE'RE The Popular Front of Judea!

[enoughisenough]

Or is that Enquiry. Never been too sure!

[SadButTrue]

You're actually right. They own your mortgage not your house. The charge is there so you can't sell (or remortgage it) without paying off the charge they've registered against your house. The mortgage is the debt you owe them to repay in exchange for sums advanced and it's 'secured' against your house.

 

I am getting even more confused

 

If they own the mortgage and not my house, why do the SPV own the mortgage, if they have a charge ??

[IS IT ME?]

that is what I'am asking if the spv has a 'charge at company house' on the assets of the lender

1. what is this charge for

2. what are the 'conditions of this charge'

 

I believe that these charges and the mortgage sale agreement are the answer to this question and as I also believe no one has a 'TRUE COPY' of these documents.

when we get them, then and only then do we have the answers.;-);-);-)

[SadButTrue]

No what I mean is,

 

Is a charge proof of ownership ?

 

Isn't a charge just security. As my mortgage company have a charge on my house but they don't own it.

 

I am getting myself in a muddle

[IS IT ME?]

I may be wrong and some one will say I'am but the 'charge' by the company on the land reg is the one who owns your mortgage as that is the secerity that you will pay and 'they' will get there money.

 

BUT and Her's the BUT the charge and mortgage company should be one of the same!

SPV will not put there name any where no matter who tells you that they should or by what law,

I put it to you that like Lemans in US 2 hours before they went belly up ALL the SPV reg thereinterests in mortgages they hold.

so there you have it!8)

 

I'am not going to tell the borrower until I have too no matter what the law said.