Well Amex declines to answer Securitisation Question

[diddydicky]

Hello Alan!

 

If they try that one on in Court, make sure they speak up nice and clearly, for the benefit of the tape!

 

Then remind them that they must own the debt to have a Right of Action in a UK Court.

 

It will be fun watching them try to show where UK Card Debts live in the UK Company Accounts...let alone show that they have not been Securitised!

 

You have to find the fellas first!

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

so in order to get some sort of deal done it would be a good idea i presume to remind them that in the event that this matter goes to court it is your belief that this debt has been securitized and that they will be put to strict proof that they own the debt?

[angry cat]

I asked them if my account had been securitised, and they just refused to answer, by saying, basically, its none of your business!

 

Alan

 

To Reiterate:

 

The way to go about this, is not to ask them;

has the account been securitized?

Because, they will simply say; NO or it is None of your business.

 

Far better, to request proof, in the form of a notarised document, counter signed by the company secretary, that the account has NOT been securitized.

 

AC

[citizenB]

To Reiterate:

 

The way to go about this, is not to ask them;

has the account been securitized?

Because, they will simply say; NO or it is None of your business.

 

Far better, to request proof, in the form of a notarised document, counter signed by the company secretary, that the account has NOT been securitized.

 

AC

 

 

This sounds like a plan AC:D However, would they say NO outright if it wasnt true.. just in case they got tripped up in court:cool:

[angry cat]

This sounds like a plan AC:D However, would they say NO outright if it wasnt true.. just in case they got tripped up in court:cool:

 

CB, by requesting a stamped and sealed certificate that has been signed by a 'notary public' stating that the account has not/never been securitized, puts the matter onto a legal footing.

 

AC

Edited June 30, 2009 by angry cat
spelling

[the_shadow]

CB, by requesting a stamped and sealed certificate that has been signed by a 'notary public' stating that the account has not/never been securitized, puts the matter onto a legal footing.

 

AC

 

I dont see why they would possibly respond to this though, surely they could dismiss this request on the grouds of costs alone?

 

S.

[angry cat]

I dont see why they would possibly respond to this though, surely they could dismiss this request on the grouds of costs alone?

 

S.

 

Generally, a notary public charges approx. £80 fee, hardly an immense amount of money.

 

The point is, by making this request one is demanding proof that the account has NOT been securitized.

 

If the party concerned fails to respond, that is their problem, because the request has been recorded within ones file of papers.

 

If the party again refuses to respond under a Part 31.16;

one could only presume that the account has indeed been securitized!

 

What is the old saying?

Silence is Consent.

 

AC

[the_shadow]

Generally, a notary public charges approx. £80 fee, hardly an immense amount of money.

 

The point is, by making this request one is demanding proof that the account has NOT been securitized.

 

If the party concerned fails to respond, that is their problem, because the request has been recorded within ones file of papers.

 

If the party again refuses to respond under a Part 31.16;

one could only presume that the account has indeed been securitized!

 

What is the old saying?

Silence is Consent.

 

AC

 

See where youre coming from now... thanks for clarifying

 

S.

[angry cat]

My Pleasure, Shadow:)

 

AC

[banker_rhymes_with]

See:

 

American Express (AXP): Worth the Risk?

 

...the conversion of American Express (AXP) to a bank holding company in order to receive funds from the government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). This situation is similar to the Fed’s decision to allow the immediate conversion of Goldman Sachs (GS) and Morgan Stanley (MS) into bank holding companies a few weeks ago. We now know that American Express will seek $3.5 billion in order to relieve the strain on the company being applied by tight credit markets. This move will also allow AmEx greater access to the Fed’s discount window for its short term lending needs. However, as a bank AmEx will be subject to Fed supervision, which will in all likelihood place additional restrictions on its capital-to-debt ratios.

 

Under its former business model, AmEx pooled credit card debt into bonds which it then sold to institutions seeking the stream of income from consumers paying off those credit cards. Lacking the deposit base of a traditional bank, this was the only way for the company to raise capital to lend to its customer base.

 

And...

 

...it would be foolish for a company struggling in this awful credit environment not to take the government “bail out”, especially with so many of its competitors participating. However, it must give investor’s pause that American Express needs this shot in the arm. It is possible that, with defaults rising and no one to sell securitized credit card debt to, AmEx could have failed. That is very unlikely now with a bank holding company structure and a credit line from Uncle Sam.

Cheers,

BRW

[banker_rhymes_with]

See:

 

American Express Banks on Federal Help - BusinessWeek

 

Doubts About Securitization

 

Perhaps investors recognized AmEx's bold decision as a sign of the serious problems that the firm's executives foresee on the horizon. The conversion to a bank holding company is "the prudent action," said Scott Valentin of FBR Capital Markets (FBR), but it "evidences the significant funding stress we believe [American Express] is experiencing." Oppenheimer (OPY) analyst Meredith Whitney said American Express is assuming "a protracted, worst-case funding scenario."

 

A top concern is the fact that credit market turmoil has wreaked havoc on the securitization market, a process by which credit-card companies were used to raising money by issuing securities based on credit-card debt.

The point being that up until November 2008, American Express were not a bank as such. They had to go for the conversion to get bailout funds to stay in business...before things went sideways for them, they relied heavily on Securitisation.

 

If your Card is from before November 2008, as almost every Amex Card on CAG is likely to be, then it is highly likely that it has been Securitised. The chances of Amex missing that opportunity to raise Wonga is highly unlikely!

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited June 30, 2009 by banker_rhymes_with
Tripe-O

[Patma]

Sorry about the multiple posts here, don't know what happened

Edited June 30, 2009 by Patma
Hiccup

[Patma]

and again oops

Edited June 30, 2009 by Patma

[Patma]

None of this is clear yet, but many people are looking, and I'm sure Amex are likewise busy deleting anything they can from the Web to hide what they have been up to.

 

My advice therefore is get looking, now, and save anything interesting you find. Download PDFs, don't Bookmark them, or else you may find they are not there next time you go back.

 

Many banks are flat out deleting anything to do with Securitisation from the Internet, so grab what you can find! It is being hoovered out at the moment.

I'm a bit thick about this securitiation stuff, but very willing to join in and do some digging.

How would I recognise a smokong gun if I found one? Do you need names of specific companies who have bought credit card debts from Amex?

[dp77]

What you really need to find is an ex American Express employee with an axe to grind, someone who has files / records from inside the company. I doubt the documentation you need is on the web, theories yes, speculation yes, educated guesses yes but hard proof? I doubt it.

 

If you could show American Express had legally enforced one single credit card debt which had already been securitised you would open Pandora's Box. The law loves a precedent.

[shinobi101]

Still don't really get the securitisation thing, but having finally dispensed with Newman DCA, Amex are trying it on again using AIC.

 

I thought it would be good to raise the securitsation question.

 

How do you ask it?

 

I could say "Has it been securitised?" or demand proof that it hasn't.

 

Can anyone give me an idea exactly what to ask, or post what they said etc.

 

I want them to squirm a bit, if possible.

[the_shadow]

I've "lifted" this passage from Davey77's thread which itself lifted it from Darset's letter to MBNA

 

"I’m now also aware that securitisation is American Express’s main funding mechanism for its loan book and it seems at least possible, therefore, that the alleged account referenced may have been so treated. Given that the alleged account, although aggregated for this purpose, necessarily links back to individuals it seems clear that basic information as to whether or not a given account forms part of a securitisation pool by having been sold to an SPV is essentially personal data.

However, I have previously not been made aware of any reference to transactions with third parties involving alleged accounts associated with me. That should therefore mean that the alleged account is not now and has not been part of any securitisation pool or otherwise traded with bodies outside the American Express group including but not limited to SPVs. Therefore, in line with the Pre action Protocols, i require confirmation that this is, or is not the case."

 

S.

[shinobi101]

Nice one shadow. I'll just copy and paste that.

 

I'll include it in my first letter, along with poking fun at Newmans, and pointing out the lack of a CCA, and their dodgy DN. Now I'm dealing with AIC, I can remind them they've already been slapped down in court over a dodgy DN.

[foolishgirl]

How do you ask it?

 

I could say "Has it been securitised?" or demand proof that it hasn't.

 

Can anyone give me an idea exactly what to ask, or post what they said etc.

 

I want them to squirm a bit, if possible.

 

 

See Angrycat's posts above (52-54)

[shinobi101]

I dont see why they would possibly respond to this though, surely they could dismiss this request on the grouds of costs alone?

 

S.

 

A solicitor can witness an affidavit (can't they?) Amex must surely have something of a legal team.

 

A statutory declaration is only £5. They can't charge any more than that.

I wouldn't expect witnessing an affidavit to be too expensive. Any statement made under penalty of perjury should be good enough.

[shinobi101]

Does anyone know if we can use a letter rogatory(statement of facts or statement of agreement) backed up by an affidavit in negative averment in support of letter rogatory. The idea is to get a "default judgement" if they can't rebut the affidavit.

 

I got the info here:

 

Tpuc.org Forum • View topic - Certificate of Dishonor

 

What do you think? Can we do this to Amex?

[the_shadow]

A solicitor can witness an affidavit (can't they?) Amex must surely have something of a legal team.

 

A statutory declaration is only £5. They can't charge any more than that.

I wouldn't expect witnessing an affidavit to be too expensive. Any statement made under penalty of perjury should be good enough.

 

You've taken my question out of context.. I was referring to using a notary public.

 

S.

[angry cat]

You've taken my question out of context.. I was referring to using a notary public.

 

S.

 

A Notary is an officer of the law who holds an internationally recognised public office. The duty and function of a Notary is to prepare, attest, authenticate and certify deeds and other documents, for use anywhere in the world. His signature and official seal renders them acceptable, as proof of the matter attested by him, to the judicial or other public authorities in the country where they are to be used.

 

AC

[the_shadow]

A Notary is an officer of the law who holds an internationally recognised public office. The duty and function of a Notary is to prepare, attest, authenticate and certify deeds and other documents, for use anywhere in the world. His signature and official seal renders them acceptable, as proof of the matter attested by him, to the judicial or other public authorities in the country where they are to be used.

 

AC

 

Confused???

Why?

 

S.

[angry cat]

Not sure why you are confused S.

 

I simply posted up a description about Notary Public's, for any members who may be unaware what a 'Notary' is used for.

 

AC

[the_shadow]

Not sure why you are confused S.

 

I simply posted up a description about Notary Public's, for any members who may be unaware what a 'Notary' is used for.

 

AC

 

haha ok, perhaps you should have put "Description:" in front then as it seemed you were re-telling me about notary publics again

 

S.