Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

[Bungle]

And the obsession with a carpet fitter from Nottingham continues, and continues........

Then STOP posting about him then !!!

Will you please dry up and start debating sensibly to this thread......

[Bones]

ETFOTB:
"the information is so dangerous to the Banking Sector that they would have all of us silenced if they possibly could"

Tom Crawford

One of the speakers will be a Banker from America who brought a class action against the City Bank of America and closed down First Allied Bank, also speaking will be Carmel Butler who spoke to the select committee regarding securitisation, from Ireland Anthony Carling and Ben Gilroy who are having great success in the Courts over there.

John Hurst who is well known in this country with his invaluable research on Common Law will also be speaking and Michael Sinclair the organizer will be speaking about securitization, also Brian Gerirsh from UK Column and myself Tom Crawford will be speaking regarding the criminality in the court system.

The Yorkshire Building Society and the Police have been asked to attend and a response is awaited.

Unfortunately there has to be a charge for this meeting of £ 25.00 per person, this will cover costs for the venue and printing etc no profit will be made out of it

Whatever the name of the Banking entity is affecting you, securitization document will be supplied to you about your bank the meeting if you let Michael know in advance.

Please contact Micheal at email iybsactiongroup@gmail.com

Please PM Michael Sinclair on Facebook to book your tickets in advance as the number will be limited.

The venue is the Warwick Trident Collage, Warwick New roar Leamington Spa CV32 5JE
Doors open at 09.45 the meeting starts at 10.00 sharp, Break for Lunch and then we resume after Lunch at 2.00, there will be a question and answer time.

£25 to go and listen to a bunch of speakers who are no strangers to the world of failure

"CarmelButler who spoke to the select committee regarding securitisation"

Ms Butler (as so did other members of the general public), submitted a memorandum to the Treasury Select Committee as part of it's Banking Crisis review and can be read here

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 44w273.htm

The basis of her (self claimed) expertise was that she was involved in Securitisation between September 2006 and December 2007 (less than 13 months).

She used to post on the Consumer Action Group website under the username Superslueth where she used to have run in's with another poster who used the name Suetonius. They would generally argue about Ms Butler's lack of knowledge about assignment and inparticular s.136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. These went on for months (may be even years), ultimately ending with this case

http://markwadsworth.blogspot.co.uk/200 ... e-law.html

Case Reference: B5/2009/1187

Title: Basinghall Finance PLC v Butler

Type:Permission to Appeal

Appeal/Application: for permission to appeal and a stay of execution

Hearing Status: Fixed on 27-Oct-09
Venue: London

Constitution: THE PRESIDENT OF THE FAMILY DIVISION

Case Result: Refused on 27-Oct-09

Tracking Information:
27-Oct-09: Case given a final judgment
06-Aug-09: Case renewed to oral hearing
31-Jul-09: Case passed to Associate for Order to be drawn
30-Jul-09: Permission to Appeal referred to Lord/Lady Justice
15-Jul-09: Bundle(s) approved
08-Jun-09: Letter sent to applicant/solicitor to request bundles and/or documents

So not really someone, I would take any advice from

"Ben Gilroy who are having great success in the Courts over there"

Really, Ben has had great success has he ?

http://www.directdemocracyireland.ie/br ... ull-trial/

BREAKING NEWS – Mortgage securitisation finally sent for full trial

" She has been ably supported by two of the founder members of DDI Ben Gilroy and John Squires, and by Awaken Longford and others (unnamed) who have all collaborated with the Freeman family to defeat all motions of Bank of Scotland (Ireland) in case of P FREEMAN & ANOR V BANK OF SCOTLAND (IRELAND) LTD & ORS."

"Ben and John have been helping fight this case in their role with People For Economic Justice since it started 2 years ago,"

"Now for the first time in Ireland the issue of securitisation of mortgages is going to be heard in court. The ramifications of this will affect almost every mortgage in the state, as the vast majority of mortgages have been combined into financial instruments and sold off as securities to other investors. It was this kind of securitisation that inflated the banking system to a state of bankruptcy and caused the financial bubble that sees us now forced into living under austerity."

Anyone want to guess what happened when this ground breaking case went to court ?

Freeman & Anor -v- Bank of Scotland PLC & Ors [2014] IEHC 284 (29 May 2014)
http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2014/H284.html

Securitisation
7. The plaintiffs claim that the Bank is not entitled to enforce loans that were securitised, and in particular, to enforce any mortgage or charge granted by the plaintiffs as security for such loans. The court was referred to the definition of securitisation to be found in ‘The Law on Financial Derivatives’ by Alistair Hudson (5th Ed.) at para. 1-185, where the author states:

“The process of ‘securitisation’ means translating a financial instrument or a group of financial instruments into a security. Securitisation is the process of taking rights (such as a right to receive a stream of income from a number of different mortgages or credit cards) and translating that bundle of rights into a single security which can be marketed to investors on the open market. Securitisation, then, is the process by which a range of cash receivables or similar assets are grouped together and offered to investors in the form of a security in return for a capital payment from the investors.”

Generally, the receivables are transferred to a Special Purpose Vehicle so that the receivables are taken off the balance sheet of the financial institution selling the financial instruments. The Special Purpose Vehicle issues bonds to third party investors who have no right to share in the profits of the underlying assets, and provided their notes are fully repaid for both principal and interest, any remaining surplus cash is paid back to the originator of the assets as profits.

8. It is an important principle in securitisation transactions that the originating bank that sells the mortgages to the SPV, under an equitable assignment, continues to service the mortgages and the legal title remains with the originating bank. Where customers have provided their consent as part of the standard mortgage terms and conditions, they are not specifically notified that their mortgage has been securitised. In the case of housing loans held by BOSI or the Bank, random selection was applied to determine which of these loans would be securitised. Thus, in the case of the plaintiffs’ loans, five of the six were securitised. Of those, two were removed from the pool on 16th November, 2011 (prior to the appointment of the Receiver), and the remaining three were repurchased from the SPV on 5th November, 2013. By 5th November, 2013, the outstanding notes were redeemed in full and the securitisation transaction closed. Thus, the three loans to the plaintiffs that had remained in the securitisation pool were released back to the Bank.

9. The evidence establishes that:

• The property at 52, Huntstown Drive was not securitised at any time;

• the properties at 55, Huntstown Wood and 27, Willowood Lawn were initially securitised but were released from the securitised pool and assigned back to the Bank in November 2011, prior to the appointment of the Receiver;

• the properties at 15, Ventry Drive, 23, Dunsink Green and 1, Drumcliffe Drive were securitised and remained securitised at the date of appointment of the Receiver. By 5th November, 2013, each of these properties was released from the securitisation pool and assigned back to the Bank.

10. The SPV used in the securitisation was Wolfhound Funding 2008-1 Limited (the “Issuer”). It was set up for the primary purpose of issuing notes as part of a securitisation of a portfolio of Irish residential property assets. Pursuant to a Trust Deed dated 30th November, 2008, made between the Issuer and Citicorp Trustee Company Ltd., the Issuer issued notes in an aggregate amount of €4.3 billion. The proceeds of the notes were applied by the Issuer in purchasing a pool of residential mortgage loans originated by BOSI and the Bank respectively, secured over properties located in Ireland. On 30th November, 2008, BOSI sold its legal and beneficial interest in the loans and their related security comprising the portfolio to the Issuer pursuant to the terms of the Mortgage Sale Agreement. The sale by BOSI to the Issuer of the loans in the portfolio was effected by way of equitable assignment. The completion of the transfer or conveyance of the loans and related security (and, where appropriate, their registration) to the Issuer was, save in some limited circumstances, deferred.

11. At all times, legal title to the loans and related security remained with BOSI until the completion of the transfers to the Issuer and notification of the transfers being given to the borrower. Such transfers would only be completed and notifications given in the circumstances set out in Clause 7.1 of the Mortgage Sale Agreement between BOSI and the Issuer. No event specified in Clause 7.1 occurred and the assignment of each of the plaintiffs’ loans and related security was effected in equity only. Notice of the assignment was not given to the plaintiffs. The security transaction was completed on 5th November, 2013, when the Bank repurchased the SPV’s interest in the securitised loans and relevant securities.

12. In Wellstead v. Judge Michael White [2011] IEHC 438, Peart J. rejected an argument that a lending bank was not entitled to the benefit of an order for possession that had been made in favour of the lender because the relevant housing loan had been securitised. The learned judge said:

“The applicant is also seeking leave to argue that Ulster Bank have no longer any entitlement to benefit from the order for possession because as part of some unspecified securitisation agreement the bank has sold the applicant's mortgage, and is therefore no longer owed anything on foot of the mortgage herein

. . .

His grounding affidavit characterises the action by Ulster Bank in seeking repossession in circumstances where it no longer owns the mortgage and has been repaid the money lent to the applicant is (sic) fraudulent, misleading and premeditated.

In relation to the last argument, Counsel for the bank has referred to clause 17 of the mortgage deed executed by the applicant and his former partner, which contains a consent by the mortgagors to such a disposal of the benefit of the mortgage to another party by way of a securitisation scheme or otherwise, and it is submitted that this is a point which it is simply not open to the applicant to argue, even if he was in time to do so, since he has consented to that occurring. I agree.

But there is another obstacle which faces the applicant, and which he has not addressed, and it is that there is nothing unusual or mysterious about a securitisation scheme. It happens all the time so that a bank can give itself added liquidity. It is typical of such securitisation schemes that the original lender will retain under the scheme, by agreement with the transferee, the obligation to enforce the security and account to the transferee in due course upon recovery from the mortgagors.”

13. Although Wellstead was a judicial review application and not a plenary hearing, there were notable similarities between the point taken in that case and the securitisation point taken by the plaintiffs in this action. In this case, the plaintiffs do not dispute that the loans are in default and I am satisfied that more than one “event of default”, as defined in the terms and conditions applicable to the loans, has taken place. The evidence clearly establishes that the plaintiffs - in accepting the loans - signed documents in which they agreed to BOSI securitising the loans.

14. The second named plaintiff accepted that the plaintiffs began defaulting on their loans in 2009, at a time when they knew nothing about the securitisation of their loans. The second named plaintiff said that until September 2011, she had never heard of the word “securitisation”. There was no evidence to show that the fact of securitisation had anything to do with the plaintiffs going into default on their loans. It became clear, in the course of the trial, that the plaintiffs’ point on securitisation was confined to an allegation that securitisation affected the Bank’s title to the loans. In Kavanagh v. McLaughlin [2013] IEHC 453, Birmingham J. rejected the assertion that the merger of Bank of Scotland Ireland Ltd. and Bank of Scotland plc. affected the entitlement of Bank of Scotland plc. to pursue former clients of BOSI in respect of debts due on foot of loan agreements made with BOSI, Birmingham J. set out the factual background to the cross-border merger and considered, in depth, the terms of Council Directive 05/56/EC and the Regulations made in Ireland and in Scotland and approved by the High Court in Ireland and the Court of Sessions in Scotland. The judge also considered fully the question of the Registration of Title Act 1964, and practice of the Property Registration Authority in accepting the Bank as standing in the shoes of BOSI so far as registration of charges is concerned where there is registered land. In his judgment, Birmingham J. set out in great detail the background to the cross-border merger legislation and Regulations as they applied to the transfer of assets and charges from BOSI to the Bank. I agree with his interpretation of Council Directive 05/56/EC of 26th October, 2005, on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies and the Regulations made in this State and in Scotland pursuant to same and how they affected the transfer of the assets (including charges) held by BOSI to the Bank. I will deal specifically with the Registration of Title point taken by the plaintiffs later in this judgment.

15. In applying for the loans, the plaintiffs accepted the entitlement of BOSI to securitise their loans. I am satisfied that the securitisation of the loans was properly effected and did not in any way alter the obligations of the plaintiffs so far as the repayment of the loans was concerned. After the cross-border merger, the Bank stood in the position of BOSI. By 5th November, 2013, the last of the plaintiffs’ properties which had been securitised were released from the securitisation pool and had been assigned back to the Bank. The plaintiffs failed to establish that their liability to repay the loans to the Bank is affected by the securitisation. As the legal title in the charge over the properties is held by the Bank, the Bank is the proper body to appoint a receiver and can rely on the contractual power to do so which was formerly vested in BOSI. I therefore reject the plaintiffs’ claim that the Bank was not entitled to appoint a receiver, either pursuant to the cross-border merger issue or the securitisation issue.

Michael Sinclair the organizer will be speaking about securitization

Mr Sinclair used to post on the Consumer Action Group website under the username is it me? and now as YBS on GOODF. Much like Superslueth and Suetonius there was also a lenthy thread with it is me? another user called Applecart against a third user called BHALL that went on for over a year.

Mr Sinclair is no stranger to losing on the topic of securitisation dating back to 2001

GMAC RFC Ltd v Grant-Sinclair & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 1793 (19 November 2001)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/1793.html

and more recently

(1) Michael Grant Sinclair (2) Christine Ann Grant Sinclair (1) Alison Overson (2) Vincent David Overson v (1) Accord Mortgages Limited (2) Southern Pacific Mortgage Limited (Rectification or Setting Aside of Documents) [2014] EWLandRA 2013_0031-0020 (21 February 2014)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWLandRA ... -0020.html

That leaves us with

Brian Gerirsh from UK Column and myself Tom Crawford will be speaking regarding the criminality in the court system.

I think we are already familiar with these two idiots

I would not even pay £25 with a WeRe cheque to listen to all of these losers and ill informed idiots

[getoutofdebtfools]

Great insight Bones, thank you.

However, for £25 you'd struggle to find a funnier bunch of comedians. Money well spent I say.

[PeanutGallery]

I don't know...when I usually pay £25 to see a comedy show, the people on the stage are in on the joke. They don't mind you laughing at them, in fact they encourage it, this lot would probably take it personally. That and £25 should get you a decent ticket and at least a drink, maybe even a packet of peanuts too at a good comedy club. So support your local comedians and don't hand over cash to these p***-takers.

[Bones]

Great insight Bones, thank you.

However, for £25 you'd struggle to find a funnier bunch of comedians. Money well spent I say.

This is a link to the eviction of Mr Sinclair the organisor of the gathering who is charging people £25 each

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U51r-roJqwU

Mr Sinclair is linked to Guy Taylor and has also been arrested (according to guy) several times

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ynmw91kYWeg

[NYGman]

Why, Why, Why??? Securitization?? This isn't an issue. I do not understand why they think it is a problem.

Lets look at this intelligently then.

1) Bank closes loan, earns fees, lends capital, receives Interest
2) Bank has capital restrictions, and must manage its balance sheet
3) Loans are Assets to a Bank. The bank has lent money, has a right to get it back plus interest
4) Bank Sells loan, returning capital and some interest. Bank pools loans to reduce exposure to defaults. Why by one loan that, if it defaults you get nothing. Buy a basket of 100 loans, and if one defaults, you are ok.
5) Pricing reflects risk, interest on underlying loan, and has a PV/FV as part of the calculation
6) Securitization allows a bank to reduce its risk, monetize their loan portfolio, manage their balance sheet

Therefore, this process plays an important part in our financial system. It keeps banks in a position to lend, allows investors access to the loan market, and has no impact on the mortgage or the person who owns the house. Why is this problematic. Additionally, many times, when the loan is sold, the issuing bank remains the servicer of the loan, so really no change at all to the party paying. However even if they change servicers, so what. The loan agreement allows for this. It allows the bank to assign the loan to another party.

Why should something that needs no input from the home owner, has no impact on the home owner, doesn't effect the rights of the home owner, become problematic to the home owner. Loans or for extended periods of time, banks merge, go out of business, assets are transferred, sold, or assigned to third parties all the time, and this isn't new.

I am struggling to see the problem here. The only thing I can figure out is that their position is as follows, and if so is crazy:

1) A Bank loans money to a home owner in a contract between bank and owner
2) Bank sells mortgage, receives the value of the loan from an unrelated 3rd party
3) Since the third party has bought the loan, it paid off bank
4) Because the contract is with bank, and bank no longer has loan, owner need no longer pay
5) Third party has no contract, thus no right to collect.

If this is true, why would third party ever by a loan?

Lets substitute words now.
1) You borrow $100 from me
2) I am short on cash, so I say to an unrelated third party loan shark, can I sell you my IOU
3) 3rd party gives me $80 in exchange for your IOU
4) You say, Ahhhh, 3rd party paid you off, so I don't owe the $100 any more
What happens next??
5) Loan shark breaks your legs, and then extracts $120 from you for the trouble

The transaction between myself and the loan shark is just that, a transaction between us. The Loan shark steps in to my shoes, but the original borrower rights and obligations do not change.

This isn't a hard concept, and I am not sure what a $25 day conference is going to do to change this reality.

[Pox]

Lets substitute words now.
1) You borrow $100 from me
2) I am short on cash, so I say to an unrelated third party loan shark, can I sell you my IOU
3) 3rd party gives me $80 in exchange for your IOU
4) You say, Ahhhh, 3rd party paid you off, so I don't owe the $100 any more
What happens next??
5) Loan shark breaks your legs, and then extracts $120 from you for the trouble

The transaction between myself and the loan shark is just that, a transaction between us. The Loan shark steps in to my shoes, but the original borrower rights and obligations do not change.

This isn't a hard concept, and I am not sure what a $25 day conference is going to do to change this reality.

Nooooo - you didn't have the right to sell my loan!
So , no contract (same theory they all rely on with all debts which are passed on).

OK , maybe it was in the small print somewhere but I was that keen on getting my hands on that filthy lucre stuff that I didn't read it!

[NYGman]

Nooooo - you didn't have the right to sell my loan!
So , no contract (same theory they all rely on with all debts which are passed on).

OK , maybe it was in the small print somewhere but I was that keen on getting my hands on that filthy lucre stuff that I didn't read it!

Don't these people ever read their contracts, are not the banks rights explained to you when you are signing? I just refinanced my loan, and they explained what each page was about, not that I needed to have it explained, or if I disagreed with them, I would not be able to change them, just walk away from the loan. apparently, when you a borrowing a large sum from a bank, they want to have certain rights. If you don't want to allow them those rights, go find a lender who will allow it (Good luck with that then). Yes, you are not negotiating from a position of strength, but at the end of the day, you want money, the bank agrees to lend, as long as you agree to their terms. Don't agree, don't take the money.

Also, the bank may just sell the rights to the income stream, not necessarily the ownership. They may bundle and blend loans, and put them in to tranches. You are in effect purchasing a synthetic security, with ownership of the underlying asset remaining intact. There are many possibilities here. Banks want the most flexible options, to give them options in the future, depending on regulations and laws that are not out yet.

The issues FMOTL have with Securitization are outlandish, unrealistic, and stupid. Why would anyone by a loan if the obligation dies with the purchase, Stupid, stupid, stupid...

[IDIOT]

Why, Why, Why??? Securitization?? This isn't an issue. I do not understand why they think it is a problem.

Lets look at this intelligently then.

1) Bank closes loan, earns fees, lends capital, receives Interest
2) Bank has capital restrictions, and must manage its balance sheet
3) Loans are Assets to a Bank. The bank has lent money, has a right to get it back plus interest
4) Bank Sells loan, returning capital and some interest. Bank pools loans to reduce exposure to defaults. Why by one loan that, if it defaults you get nothing. Buy a basket of 100 loans, and if one defaults, you are ok.
5) Pricing reflects risk, interest on underlying loan, and has a PV/FV as part of the calculation
6) Securitization allows a bank to reduce its risk, monetize their loan portfolio, manage their balance sheet

Therefore, this process plays an important part in our financial system. It keeps banks in a position to lend, allows investors access to the loan market, and has no impact on the mortgage or the person who owns the house. Why is this problematic. Additionally, many times, when the loan is sold, the issuing bank remains the servicer of the loan, so really no change at all to the party paying. However even if they change servicers, so what. The loan agreement allows for this. It allows the bank to assign the loan to another party.

Why should something that needs no input from the home owner, has no impact on the home owner, doesn't effect the rights of the home owner, become problematic to the home owner. Loans or for extended periods of time, banks merge, go out of business, assets are transferred, sold, or assigned to third parties all the time, and this isn't new.

I am struggling to see the problem here. The only thing I can figure out is that their position is as follows, and if so is crazy:

1) A Bank loans money to a home owner in a contract between bank and owner
2) Bank sells mortgage, receives the value of the loan from an unrelated 3rd party
3) Since the third party has bought the loan, it paid off bank
4) Because the contract is with bank, and bank no longer has loan, owner need no longer pay
5) Third party has no contract, thus no right to collect.

If this is true, why would third party ever by a loan?

Lets substitute words now.
1) You borrow $100 from me
2) I am short on cash, so I say to an unrelated third party loan shark, can I sell you my IOU
3) 3rd party gives me $80 in exchange for your IOU
4) You say, Ahhhh, 3rd party paid you off, so I don't owe the $100 any more
What happens next??
5) Loan shark breaks your legs, and then extracts $120 from you for the trouble

The transaction between myself and the loan shark is just that, a transaction between us. The Loan shark steps in to my shoes, but the original borrower rights and obligations do not change.

This isn't a hard concept, and I am not sure what a $25 day conference is going to do to change this reality.

But the bank doesn't actually loan money? The 'money' is just figures keyed onto the system that the person agrees to pay back with interest. If the total sum isn't paid back the bank claims the house.

Bank offered me a loan of up to 15k last year. I asked them where the money comes from and they said they key it onto the system. I then asked if I took a loan out for 10k would they take 10k is cash and pt it in my account. She said no and repeated the keying of figures onto the system. Therefore no actual money is being lent, just a promise to pay back created figures with real money you have to go out and earn because the man on the street can't just key figures into his own account.

[PeanutGallery]

Lots of very sensible things, that I won't repeat here for brevity

They have a very schoolyard attitude towards the issue of repaying their debts, basically the way they see it is:

Through securitization someone else has generously paid the bank the amount they owe. So now they don't need to repay the bank because the bank has in their eyes been repaid. It doesn't matter to them that if this became an issue then nobody would buy these loans, the banks would stop selling them, without the cash the banks wouldn't lend, and if you somehow got a mortgage in that sort of financial climate AND defaulted you'd still be evicted.

The people complaining about securitization are more unhappy that their homes were repossessed AFTER they failed to meet the terms of the mortgage they agreed to, than they are outraged at the fact that the banks sold portions of the loan risk to private investors in order to minimise it's liability should those accounts fall into arrears. It's more a sign of jealousy that the bank has still "profited" from taking them on, when they showed themselves to be a bad customer and have suffered the ignominy of eviction due to their financial failings.

[YiamCross]

Indeed, my posts are so inconsequential that dozens have been deleted so outsiders, Tom, GOODF can't read them.
We have to maintain the vision of perfect harmony over here.... No dissent tolerated.

I've had plenty deleted too and I accept the reason why. If I'm honest they weren't contributing much to the subject of the thread and I can see the need to keep things on track otherwise it becomes tedious for observers watching one long bitch fight. Sure, it's entertaining for a minute but it soon pales.

It has nothing to do with hiding dissent from outsiders, GOODF or whatever. This site is very tolerant of all views and anyone from GOODF, the Crawfords' supporters or whoever can come here and post dissenting opinion so long as that opinion is on the subject of the thread and not what they think of some other member of the group.

Seems sensible to me and is one of the reasons I come here fairly regularly. Discussions are not allowed to descend into exchanges of personal abuse and are far better for it. So dissent away, but whining about having pointless posts removed so they don't clutter up the threads is another good way to get more deleted. As is saying the same old thing over and over again.

[Dr. Caligari]

I then asked if I took a loan out for 10k would they take 10k is cash and pt it in my account. She said no and repeated the keying of figures onto the system. Therefore no actual money is being lent, just a promise to pay back created figures with real money you have to go out and earn because the man on the street can't just key figures into his own account.

Once that 10k loan was made, you could indeed draw 10k in cash out of your account.

[Burnaby49]

It's probably safe to assume that in the den of government shill trolls that your super secret PMs to other secret rebel freedom fighters are subject to unreasonable search and seizure with the delicacy of a TSA full cavity examination. Papers please.

Or perhaps nobody really cares what you post in private to others.

Indeed, my posts are so inconsequential that dozens have been deleted so outsiders, Tom, GOODF can't read them.
We have to maintain the vision of perfect harmony over here.... No dissent tolerated.

Still bitter are we? A suggestion, Instead of being subject to the intolerable Stalinistic oppression here why not start your own website? One where you can be truly free to say whatever you want without Burnaby49 or wserra stomping on your vital right to completely free speach.

[notorial dissent]

But the bank doesn't actually loan money? The 'money' is just figures keyed onto the system that the person agrees to pay back with interest. If the total sum isn't paid back the bank claims the house.

Bank offered me a loan of up to 15k last year. I asked them where the money comes from and they said they key it onto the system. I then asked if I took a loan out for 10k would they take 10k is cash and pt it in my account. She said no and repeated the keying of figures onto the system. Therefore no actual money is being lent, just a promise to pay back created figures with real money you have to go out and earn because the man on the street can't just key figures into his own account.

Uh NO!

The bank may move the money around by, as you so quaintly put it "figures keyed onto the system", which is no different when they used to do it by making the appropriate entries on actual paper account sheets in the good old days of the Counting House, but that money comes out of the account called cash on hand that the bank has, and if it isn't paid back in some fashion, the bank has lost that amount of money, and if they have enough of those then the bank goes under. If a bank makes a loan, whether the proceeds of that loan go out to the seller as actual cash, or as a check, or an electronic transfer the same thing happens. When that happens the bank has that much less to lend, and a corresponding liability of funds at loan and an asset of the promissory note for the loan. All the book keeping transactions have to match and balance, or bank go belly up. In the good old days, at least according to some people, the banker went to the vault and got out a corresponding amount of cash to give to the borrower to give to the seller, and then made corresponding entries on his paper ledgers. Today the cash is still in a vault, it just usually happens to be an electronic one, and the funds are transferred electronically(generally) from one party to another or by check from A to B. Same entries are made in the electronic books, jsut done electronically.

Just where do you think the money comes from anyway?

I guess an equally valid question is how do you think a bank account works?

[IDIOT]

I then asked if I took a loan out for 10k would they take 10k is cash and pt it in my account. She said no and repeated the keying of figures onto the system. Therefore no actual money is being lent, just a promise to pay back created figures with real money you have to go out and earn because the man on the street can't just key figures into his own account.

Once that 10k loan was made, you could indeed draw 10k in cash out of your account.

I know that, and you agree to pay interest on it.

[IDIOT]

But the bank doesn't actually loan money? The 'money' is just figures keyed onto the system that the person agrees to pay back with interest. If the total sum isn't paid back the bank claims the house.

Bank offered me a loan of up to 15k last year. I asked them where the money comes from and they said they key it onto the system. I then asked if I took a loan out for 10k would they take 10k is cash and pt it in my account. She said no and repeated the keying of figures onto the system. Therefore no actual money is being lent, just a promise to pay back created figures with real money you have to go out and earn because the man on the street can't just key figures into his own account.

Uh NO!

The bank may move the money around by, as you so quaintly put it "figures keyed onto the system", which is no different when they used to do it by making the appropriate entries on actual paper account sheets in the good old days of the Counting House, but that money comes out of the account called cash on hand that the bank has, and if it isn't paid back in some fashion, the bank has lost that amount of money, and if they have enough of those then the bank goes under. If a bank makes a loan, whether the proceeds of that loan go out to the seller as actual cash, or as a check, or an electronic transfer the same thing happens. When that happens the bank has that much less to lend, and a corresponding liability of funds at loan and an asset of the promissory note for the loan. All the book keeping transactions have to match and balance, or bank go belly up. In the good old days, at least according to some people, the banker went to the vault and got out a corresponding amount of cash to give to the borrower to give to the seller, and then made corresponding entries on his paper ledgers. Today the cash is still in a vault, it just usually happens to be an electronic one, and the funds are transferred electronically(generally) from one party to another or by check from A to B. Same entries are made in the electronic books, jsut done electronically.

Just where do you think the money comes from anyway?

I guess an equally valid question is how do you think a bank account works?

I didn't put anything 'quaintly', I quoted what the bank told me.

Thanks for the explanation abut the banks cash, it's just that I want to really know how it works. I'm well aware of what would happen if I defaulted on a loan no matter where the money/figures came from. I neither need the loan or wanted it yet the bank pushed it to me.

Ta

[Jeffrey]

Therefore no actual money is being lent, just a promise to pay back created figures with real money you have to go out and earn because the man on the street can't just key figures into his own account.

This is kind of like arguing why do you have to repay the banker in a Monopoly game if he just takes the money out of a tray full of money.

These are the rules of the game. It's set up like that intentionally. If Tom didn't have to pay back B&B, he wouldn't have installed rugs for 25 years. We live in a capitalist society, the way we manage the production and distribution of rugs is by paying people to install rugs, people paying to have rugs installed, and rug installers having to install rugs to afford housing and food.

If the UK were a communist country, then a house would be given to Tom for free and Tom would be forced to install rugs for free for 25 years.

Yes the money is "fake" and only the bank of England controls the printing press. Complaining to a judge, who is part of the state apparatus, is not going to do you any good.

Hell, it's like complaining to the Soylent Corporation that Soylent Green is made of people. They KNOW, they set it up that way.

[YiamCross]

Why, Why, Why??? Securitization?? This isn't an issue. I do not understand why they think it is a problem....

The problem as I understand it arose when some greedy bankers started to bundle up large amounts of debt which was certain to go into default in wrappers that said grade A solid loans. Once the cat got out of the bag, though, confidence in the all securitized loans took a massive hit and what was once a valuable asset on someone's balance sheet suddenly became near as dammit worthless. The machine which relies on money moving around in the same way the body relies on blood flowing suddenly struck down by some pretty heavy clotting and I am still to this day amazed that somehow we got away with it. Or maybe even now we haven't. Who knows but I sure as hell wouldn't want to see what happens if the financial system as a whole comes crashing down. It would make the wold of Mad Max seem rather quaint and civilized.

The invented problem, which may or may not have some foundation in reality in some parts of America, is that there's some law which requires the "note" containing the loan agreement to remain with the loan and it was argued that when they're separated the loan becomes unenforceable. Very attractive, especially to those who had been sold mortgages they hadn't a hope in hell of servicing. And, of course, greedy individuals who would happily weasel out of a financial commitment if they could. I'm not going to mention names here but the subject of this thread comes to mind.

There are without doubt some very rich individuals out there who made a lot of money in a very immoral way and frankly don't deserve to be allowed to keep it. The answer to this is not, in my opinion, to paint the whole system as corrupt and try to bring it down around our ears which is what these idiots seem so intent on doing. Really, they would not like the world which would emerge from that calamity. They'd be just as fucked there as they are now, probably in unimaginably more horrible and painful ways.

[Jeffrey]

The problem as I understand it arose when some greedy bankers started to bundle up large amounts of debt which was certain to go into default in wrappers that said grade A solid loans.

Speaking of which, this movie is coming out soon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Short_%28film%29

Based on the book by the same title about investors that saw the securitization crash coming and made money by shorting those securities.

Book is very good, be interesting to see if the movie holds up.

[Hercule Parrot]

I was once at a complex trial when, after the prosecution had presented all its evidence, the defence barrister argued (without the jury present) that the prosecution evidence was not sufficient to prove some of the charges, even if the jury believed it all.

A "half-way submission" in lawyer parlance. They try to do this rather than risk the defendant being cross-examined and blurting information which might help the prosecution, and also because it's thought to be a rather elegant tactic.