Mortgage Securitisation - Preferred

[enoughisenough]

By the way all.

 

Totally off topic I know but I now have defintive proof that a certain well known high street bank have been lying through their hind teeth for 2 and half years over a very serious breach of a particularly serious set of laws. As in I mean the penalties for breach are very heavy indeed often and in fact almost without exception accompanied by exemplary damages.

 

Oh and the proof shows that they are willing to forge documents to give the appearance that certain meetings didn't happen when I've got the proof they did. Oh dear...

 

I knew they were lying. I just couldn't prove it. Now I can.

 

Point of posting this? Just as a general rule of thumb then MY argument is that if you think any of these institutions have lied ,cheated and broken the law in order to conceal their lying or cheating then you are probably right.

 

Keep the faith.

[JonCris]

Can someone give me a link to the Treasury Committee's report..........thanks

[foolishgirl]

Do you mean this one Joncris?

 

BankingCrisisMemos250209[1]

[SadButTrue]

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

 

What was the Norgan case about ? Could I use it, when they take me to Court ?

[roony]

That case is about missold PPI's, theres also an excellent thread on using an auditor to calculate how much a bank's overcharged interest on your mortgage here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/411-mortgage-auditor-wanted.html

 

This is something i'll be looking into in my own case, in addition to the lack of the land registry registration.

 

I think the proof of securitisation, in conjunction with an audit by profesional auditors on overcharging interest rates, should be enough to bring a case against most mortgages.

[bustthematrix]

... audit by profesional auditors on overcharging interest rates, should be enough to bring a case against most mortgages.

Hi Roony, just following on from your post. Not sure what you mean by the overcharging interest argument?

 

Overcharging interest usually only becomes a possibility and should only come into play where there have been arrears and therefore the related 'punitive' charges.

 

Is this what you mean or do you mean the lenders 'overcharge' by routine anyway?:?

[bustthematrix]

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.

 

Well come back 'mama'! I'd been wondering where you'd gotten to so you could help clean up the mess.

 

I was not rejecting Suetonius' right to argue his points as he sees fit, I was simply highlighting the fact that they are by no means representative of the full picture. One must be prepared to question and challenge every argument and hold fast to that which is left standing. And that is always the truth. No matter what happens, it is the truth that will ultimately prevail.

 

As to my comments on 'that's not what CAG is about', again what I meant is that CAG is not just about taking things at face value but about digging deeper and challenging the status quo! No matter how impermeable that facade appears.

 

We cool?8)

Edited April 23, 2009 by bustthematrix

[bustthematrix]

Hi Sadbuttrue,

 

The nature of the transactional relationship between the originator (of your mortgage), the SPV and the trustee is this:...

 

Thanks for sorting this out Super.

 

SBT does this answer the questions you have? You have to remember that even those who have worked within securitisations don't necessarily understand it all. There's a lot to it not to mention the intentional smoke and mirrors that's designed to confuse and obfuscate the issue.

 

Take it piece by piece and chew on it and with time you'll start to understand what HAS happened to your mortgage vs what should have happened and that will give you clearer ideas about what you can possibly do about it.

 

Stay tuned to this and other relevant threads, you'll learn more and get lots of answers.

 

Peace

[SadButTrue]

I was not rejecting Suetonius' right to argue his points as he sees fit, I was simply highlighting the fact that they are by no means representative of the full picture. One must be prepared to question and challenge every argument and hold fast to that which is left standing. And that is always the truth. No matter what happens, it is the truth that will ultimately prevail.

 

 

Now I am confused about this too

 

I have been reading this thread and others over and over again.

 

I have not seen people really challenge the points he/she made. There is a long post here or on the Carmel thread with a list of 6 or 7 points. No one seems to have really responded, without the sadly obvious personal attacks on him/her.

 

People seem more interested in personally attacking him/her rather than the points he/she raised.

 

Has anyone effectively countered the points he/she raised ?

[SadButTrue]

This is the post I mean

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2113123.html

[enoughisenough]

SBT

 

Yes Suetonius has challenged them.

 

Whether the challenges are effective ones I will leave for others to decide. I was ambivalent and slided heavily towards Super's arguments. I can't go into why but will say this: It has never been properly tested.

 

The confusion of it all! The fact is that this is how the law works.

 

It is complicated, confusing and people who make heaps of cash out of arguing these points in a court of law often end up having a drink and a sociable chat about it afterwards.

 

They are wordsmiths - sophisticated ones ,no element of doubt. Otherwise cases wouldn't end up in the Law Lords as the last court of appeal. It is just yet another example of the feeding frenzy that the banks, the barristers, the DCAs and others like to swoop upon, at your expense.

 

SBT there is no magic securitisation bullet for you that will make all your problems go away and since you are filled with doubt about this I have two words. Forget it. You can only go on this if like Superslueth you are armed to the teeth. You can alternatively as a supersleuth apprentice pilot this with aload of other stuff that is far easier to get them on.

 

If you are still not getting it, at least to some degree, you need to base your defence around other arguments.

[SadButTrue]

So he/she is wrong definitely then, but the reasons why just can't be posted

[JonCris]

sad They have been posted - repeatedly & there's only so many times it can be done before we need to discuss a way forward - for all of us it's a question of you pays your money & you takes your choice

[SadButTrue]

What was the Norgan case about ? Could I use it, when they take me to Court ?

 

IS IT ME?

 

Can you say anything about Norgan or is it something that can't be posted in public ?

[enoughisenough]

No He/She (i.e. Suetinious) is not definitely wrong.

 

It's just that he/she is not definitely right either.

 

These are complex arguments and the lawyers will chew you up and spit you out if you go in half baked. The best advice I can give is when the papers arrive from the court ask the court to to consider whether the contract is fair. The papers ask you if you want this done and it is a simple yes/no.

 

That's the essence - to stay within your own bounds of competence. If you feel confident in your own ability to put Super's argument go for it. I just wouldn't advise it if you're not. You'll most likely get shot down in flames. Go for the safer route of challenging them on all their myriad other unlawful conduct.

[enoughisenough]

Norgan Is A Matter Of Public Record. Google It!

[SadButTrue]

Norgan Is A Matter Of Public Record. Google It!

 

Thank you

 

I tried that and i found an old case in 1996, but could not see the connection to securitisation

[roony]

Hi Roony, just following on from your post. Not sure what you mean by the overcharging interest argument?

 

Overcharging interest usually only becomes a possibility and should only come into play where there have been arrears and therefore the related 'punitive' charges.

 

Is this what you mean or do you mean the lenders 'overcharge' by routine anyway?:?

 

They ALWAYS overcharge interest, to cover the costs of securitisation & administration fee's etc., theres a couple of massive threads on here on overcharging interests in the mortgage section i think

 

Once you've proved the loan's securitised the amount of breach of contracts & statutes is pretty much guaranteed.

 

Check the interest rate they state they're charging, then get a professional auditor to check the REAL interest rate theyre applying to your account, this constitutes as a clear breach of contract

[supersleuth]

Quite right Roony,

 

They ALWAYS overcharge interest.

 

It is done in order to FORCE the appearance of arrears so that they can make it look like the borrower is in default and hence, repossess. The SPVs want securitised contracts to be redeemed within 5 years so- they make their interest charges so untenable that you will be forced to flee from them through remortgaging, or they will use the overcharges to force you into "alledged" arrears - either way, the mortgages will be redeemed within 5 years.

 

And note that those who've managed to escape the repossession option are just as badly off because, firstly, they've had to incur all the fees of remortgaging e.g. application fees, surveyor fees, ERCs etc - which can run into many thousands of pounds so even those who escape the repossession route are being royally shafted. PLUS, the person with whom they remortgage IS GOING TO SECURITISED them again anyway!! So in a couple of years, they'll be back in the same sh*te...incurring more fees to escape again!

Edited April 24, 2009 by supersleuth

[enoughisenough]

I hope no-one gets offended by the following post. It is merely my ABC of securitisation for general consumption. This attempt is partly for clarity for those who are stumped by the issue and partly I hope for humour. I am NOT dealing with the law. In this latter respect no-one will glean any devastating point of law they didn’t already know! Indeed before serious peeps read further there are no points of law. I enjoyed writing this though so some of you might enjoy reading it!

 

The securitisation process goes something like this. First however 2 additional caveats

 

1. This is necessarily an overview and there are a series of detailed legal points to consider which you will all have found extensively debated between Suetonius on the one hand and Supersleuth on the other.

 

2. The devil is most definitely in the detail. So this is a rubbish post for anyone looking for legal clarity or indeed detail. For more experienced caggers there are some morsels towards the end that you may or may not like.

 

Let’s deal with three entities first and then build up more detail. There is the Originator. This is the entity with whom we entered into our mortgage contracts. Any contract of course binds each party to that contract to performance of the terms and conditions of that contract (always providing the terms are fair and lawful terms) for the contract to be a performing contract. As long as there is no breach by either party and the contract is lawful the contract remains in force.

In the case of a mortgage contract the entity granting the contract is entitled as you would expect to register a charge against your mortgaged premises. You are the owner of the premises in lieu of your continued performance of your end of the bargain – in this case meeting the payments. That way you get to buy a nice house which hopefully increases in value over time and the lender earns interest on the original sum advanced. A very civilized arrangement which is assumed to benefit both parties. If either party breaches the contract the other party has remedy under pretty well established law. This becomes more complex later on however.

 

Securitisation has its origins in the United States as early as the 1940s, but it doesn’t really get going until the 1970s and a bit later over here. The concept itself is not difficult at one level but hugely complex if you go into the whys and wherefores. Essentially it boils down to the drive for ever expanding profits (an oxymoron if ever there was one in my opinion) on the one hand OR alternatively a perfectly legitimate diversification of risk on the other. (Quell those guffaws I’m trying to be balanced here!)

 

This brings us neatly to our second entity in the process. - the Special Purposes Entity/Vehicle (The SPE/SPV). This is where things start to get interesting. The originator creates this vehicle/entity as an empty shell company. It is registered with the relevant authorities (FSA for example), has directors and shareholders. It posts nominal accounts but doesn’t really exist – except on paper. Very few SPVs if any have any employees.

 

Its main purpose is therefore to act as a vehicle for the purchase of the original loans. A sale is therefore effected between the originator and the SPV of all the mortgages. The vexed question arises best explained in a metaphor. If I sell you my car and somebody else subsequently totals that car do I still retain the right to sue that somebody else who did damage to the car. Obviously not I would get very short shrift in a court of law. A deeper question therefore arises which is at the heart of the Superslueth/Setonius debate to wit WAS IT A TRUE SALE?

 

The difference, in simple terms is that either it can only be sold lock stock and barrel or not sold at all OR it can be sold with what you might call reserved rights by the originator. Various statutes and critical provisions within statute law have been vigorously debated here on both sides. Anyone who knows me knows which side of the argument I favour and what I think needs to be done to resolve it. However it’s fair to say that this is where the barristers get very busy. They love this sort of stuff.

 

Leaving this vexed issue to one side (nonetheless accepting that it is probably this issue that will at some point exercise collective minds of the law lords in the House of Lords) is what happens next. Because the SPV only nominally exists its real purpose is then in the parlance to ‘flog the mortgages on’ to investors. If you want to really understand why the economy is up s creek without a paddle this is the reason. I have no problem with others disagreeing with me on this. (Pure greed being another; absence of human decency – I could go on)

 

The packaged collateral (your house and mine) is then issued in the form of notes to investors. THE SPVs to be fair to them have done a sterling job for us caggers in highlighting the various risks to the investors’ investments. In their ‘offering circulars’ or other such nominations (prospectuses is one alternative) they detail the whole transaction process.

 

If I were applying to a University I would naturally ask for a prospectus and it would naturally tell me all about the wonderful things I could expect. Few of them would ever indicate to me that I would have to take a damp room in Mrs Miggins decaying house. What is interesting here is that the prospectus does exactly that. It gives the downside to investors of the UK regulatory framework as it stood at the time of the issue of the prospectus and even more interestingly gives the investors a peek into the potential future regulatory landscape. In other words the prospectuses are a veritable gold mine of information.

 

Notwithstanding this, even if you were a ultrabrain from the planet ultrabrain, much of it is also dense and they also run to about 200 pages. There remain gems for those who want to look for gems.

 

NEXT step. When the investors bought these ‘notes’ they did so on the basis of an extremely lax corporate credit rating system. There are three which between them carve up almost the entire globe’s market in this area, Fitch, Moody’s and Standard and Poors – also sometimes called SNAP. One of them gave Lehman’s a clean bill of health on the day it collapsed (I won’t say which). That’s how in touch these guys were. This is where the greed comes in.

 

Anecdotally they were ‘encouraged ‘ to view the notes ‘positively’ i.e. guess what if you don’t rate these notes high we’ll just pay someone else to rate them high. Nothing, or virtually nothing, was ever rated low, and the guys and gals doing the ratings had pizza whilst playing office baseball as they were doing the ratings. Plus the rating process was quick. Why? Because all they were doing was rubber stamping the ‘quality’ of the notes that the SPV provided them with. Oh and did I forget to mention it was extremely lucrative for the ratings agencies to do so? I have evidence if anyone wants to challenge me more closely on this.

 

Investors are a range of personality types. Some are cavalier and clever, some are rich and clever, some ultra rich and ultra clever and some are playing roulette with our pension funds – and, critically, some are very very nervy and cautious. Most are the latter these days. Why because they were sold stuff that was overrated AND NOW THEY WANT THEIR MONEY BACK COZ THEY ARE MAD AS HELL.

 

This is where you and I come back into the picture. THE ONLY WAY to redeem their investment is to screw you and I into the ground. Repossess until it moves and if it doesn’t move repossess anyway. Hence the Cascade of ****e raining on our heads from Capstone et al.

 

Good night and Good Luck. Because without the CAG you wouldn’t have either, much less the tiles over your head.

 

Oh and I forgot the mention the trustee – the third entity amongst all kinds of stuff going on – Super has explained it in far more eloquent and useful terms for court than I could ever do . BUT TRUST - Seutonius notwithstanding – the best way to understand the role of the trustee is to see that they confidence trick the investors into thinking that everything will be alright. And when the S hits the F? REPOSESS. REPOSSESS. REPOSSESS.

 

Chhers EIE. Keep the faith.

[supersleuth]

 

THE SPVs to be fair to them have done a sterling job for us caggers in highlighting the various risks to the investors’ investments. In their ‘offering circulars’ or other such nominations (prospectuses is one alternative) they detail the whole transaction process.

 

 

Just to add a little further understanding to this correct point - the SPVs did not intend for the borrowers to get wind of this Prospectus - the SPVs do not want consumers to know what's been happening to them and how they're being shafted. The SPVs only anticipated that the Investors would read this document.

 

PLUS, the only reason the SPVs are being CANDID with the investors is because of the laws of disclosure when selling notes on the stock markets eg. the FSMA 2000, and various EU directive, and often the rules of the US regulator, the SEC and the American Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934 are often in play.

 

If the SPV failed to disclose the risks, as is required under these disclosure acts, then these powerful and resourceful investors could (and would) sue for gazillions - and the SPVs are more scared of the real risk that the Investors would sue - but they're not scared of the consumers suing BECAUSE firstly, they didn't anticipate the consumers reading or understanding the Propectus and anyway, the SPVs can just get their hotshot lawyers to trample all over the consumers (we're easy pickings).

[enoughisenough]

Seems that way.

[bustthematrix]

Just to add a little further understanding to this correct point - the SPVs did not intend for the borrowers to get wind of this Prospectus - the SPVs do not want consumers to know what's been happening to them and how they're being shafted. The SPVs only anticipated that the Investors would read this document.

 

PLUS, the only reason the SPVs are being CANDID with the investors is because of the laws of disclosure when selling notes on the stock markets eg. the FSMA 2000, and various EU directive, and often the rules of the US regulator, the SEC and the American Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934 are often in play.

 

If the SPV failed to disclose the risks, as is required under these disclosure acts, then these powerful and resourceful investors could (and would) sue for gazillions - and the SPVs are more scared of the real risk that the Investors would sue - but they're not scared of the consumers suing BECAUSE firstly, they didn't anticipate the consumers reading or understanding the Propectus and anyway, the SPVs can just get their hotshot lawyers to trample all over the consumers (we're easy pickings).

 

EIE and Supersleuth, interesting stuff as always. Been busy so I've been off the threads for a while. It seems there's been some fireworks with SBT????

 

What's happend to Suetonius?

 

Looks like this debate could do with some life...:-|

[enoughisenough]

In the interests of clarity I only asked both Sue and SS to lay off each other for 48 hours. That was a week ago. Come on sue we need your input!

 

As for SBT it is as SS rightly points out that SADBUTTRUE is was and will always be a troll trawler masquerading as an innocent victim of this whole dodgy [problem]. Perpetrator and accessory more like.

[Smarterchick]

In the interests of clarity I only asked both Sue and SS to lay off each other for 48 hours. That was a week ago. Come on sue we need your input!

 

As for SBT it is as SS rightly points out that SADBUTTRUE is was and will always be a troll trawler masquerading as an innocent victim of this whole dodgy [problem]. Perpetrator and accessory more like.

 

You won't lub me for this EIE, but to stay on the right side of foot and mouth on this forum it pays not to Judge unless you know 100%. I'm not going to do that with SBT either and nor should anyone else..it may have just been the way this person expresses him/herself that didn't flow or was interpreted in such a way as to make people suspicious, I've seen it a thousand times before on here. We don't have to agree with people, that's the glory of this site, just ignore them if you don't care for what they say..they soon get fed up once they've got whatever off their chests, we had it with the dca's when they were under considerable consumer pressure from the campaign going on on here..drew in trolls gallore, but they soon vanished, bored at the sound of their own voices...

 

You and I both don't necessarily like the way some people argue their case or question our morals/methods/reasons/aims, but who gives a damn? We know our mission so lets drive it on....still lubs me?