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

[noblepa]

That's probably why I found Big Short to be a good book because it was as neutral as possible in assigning blame.

Yeah it discussed the NINJA thing and there's a scene with a housekeeper that bought two houses on credit with both houses double mortgaged. But it also points out that through securitization, firms were able to make money by making bad loans. They ran out of people with good credit to lend to so they started lending to people with bad credit then re-selling the bad loans as if they were good loans through the bundling described.

Even in the absence of government regulations that encouraged lending to NINJA's, there was still a profit motive behind the practice.

I don't think that there is anything inherently wrong with securitization. I think that what happened a few years ago, during the big crash, was that lenders were creating packages containing bad or underperforming loans, but were telling potential buyers that they were all AAA credit ratings. As someone else pointed out, if one or two loans in a package containing a hundred or more went bad, the buyer can survive, but in reality many of the loans defaulted.

Its like the old joke, "If you owe the bank $100 and can't pay, you're in trouble. If you owe the bank $100 million and can't pay, the bank is in trouble".

[NYGman]

Many of these dud formerly AAA securities were sold off, and formed the basis of the Governments PPIP Program. http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fin ... fault.aspx

These were formed as a partnership between Private Equity (and Hedge) fund managers and the Government.

http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fin ... tatus.aspx

All returned the money invested plus mad a nice amount of cash for both the Government and the investors.

[letissier14]

Banks do make up money from thin air by hitting a few keys on the keyboard. That's a proven fact.

If it's a proven fact, there's evidence to back it. Please provide said evidence.

Banks are allowed to create money, just as long as they have between 10-20% of the amount loaned in assets

Proof please.

it credits their bank account with a bank deposit of the size of the mortgage. At that moment, new money is created.

I disagree... unless you're saying credit is the creation of new money. Please provide proof it's actually new money being created and not - in effect - a loan that's later paid for.

For this reason, some economists have referred to bank deposits as ‘fountain pen money’

Please identify the economists that hold that point of view.

0

All the information was published by the Bank of England

[Hyrion]

See the Bank of England video "creation of money in the modern economy"

I'll have to see if I can find that for review.

I assume, with the way you've presented it, that it represents the Bank Of England's perspective on the situation. Which obviously would not necessarily reflect actual reality or what happens in other non-UK Jurisdictions.

A clear personal example of what I understand others to be claiming as "money creation":

A couple years ago I helped one of my nieces with her post-secondary education both financially and providing her with a rent/utility/foodcosts-free place to live.

One of the things I did to help her was to use my credit to purchase her a laptop - vague recollection was that it was around the $1,500 price range. I didn't pay for it out of money I had available (obviously as it was credit). But it was indeed paid for. I was, also obviously, responsible for paying back the entity who provided me with the credit.

So here we have someone in need of financial help - my niece.

We have someone willing to help her who did not have money on hand - me.

We have a third party who is not part of the transaction who only has an interest in their relationship with me and the possible financial interest benefit they'd have if I borrowed their money - my creditor.

By all accounts from what I see being described as the limited relationship of the bank to the borrower - the direct relationship equivalent of me to my niece - I created money out of thin air to provide to my niece.

So... here's a very good question for those that believe the Bank - any bank - actually creates money out of thin air:

• The loan the Bank gives out, is it backed by one of:
  
  • 1) Assets of value
  • 2) Some form of assurance/insurance
  • 3) Some form of credit provided by someone else such as another bank
  • 4) Some form of liquid asset reserves to cover called-upon liabilities
  • 5) Other equivalent, the current list should be sufficient to clearly identify the concept

If the answer to the question surrounding the list is Yes - then the Bank is not creating money out of thin air any more then I did when I borrowed money to buy my niece a laptop.

And if it's insisted that the Bank borrowing money, or covering their financial obligation in some other way, in any way can be philosophically referred to as "creating money" then I myself must also be referred to as having the ability to create money because I didn't do anything different.

And since I'm just a regular Joe with sufficient positive reputation that someone is willing to provide me credit - then it's also true any regular Joe that qualifies for credit can create money out of thin air.

Hmm.... side curiosity: what's the business phrase for a positive reputation that can lead to financial improvement? I seem to recall reading it on some financial reports and they actually put a monetary value to it.

Edited to add: the word I was looking for that they attach a monetary value to is "goodwill". It might actually have less to do with reputation then I originally thought. It's definitely a factor I do not understand as belonging on any kind of financial statement.

[YiamCross]

Banks do make up money from thin air by hitting a few keys on the keyboard. That's a proven fact.

Not quite the way you put it. The banks do indeed increase the amount of money in the world but they don't quite create it from thin air. I've posted about this several times before and like Gregg I'm a bit bored with it. Check out his post upthread and take the time to follow the link and get your head around it.

This "banks create money from nothing" tale kind of reminds me of the sad misconception so many woo woo idiots try to promote due to thier total failure to comprehend the facts of quantum physics choosing instead to rely on an insane predeliciton for drawing the wrong conclusions from analogies used by physisists who do understand the maths of it all to try and explain it to laymen in simple language. It's complicated, don't get upset by the fact you don't understand it but ffs, please don't try to push incorrect conclusions based on flawed analogies as fact.

...The reality of this is totally opposite, and banks can, and do lend money they don't have. I can't remember the exact figures off hand, but the Banks are allowed to create money, just as long as they have between 10-20% of the amount loaned in assets. So if a bank has £100,000 in assets, it can then lend approx £900,000.

The only entities that can actually really create money from nothing by just printing more notes, or the electronic equivalent, are governments. Banks cannot lend money they do not have or do not have some arrangement in place to cover. It doesn't take long to get very complex once you start to work out the consequences of a number of banks moving large amounts of money around but one thing is for sure. There is not a commercial bank on the planet that can just whip up currency from nothing. Not a one. No way.

Check out the link Gregg gave above, it's good stuff and saves me a lot of typing.

[Bones]

This thread on the securitisation seminar has been running for a while, funnily enough no mention of Tom being a speaker. They're trying to persuade that idiot applecart to 'speak' at the seminar, wasn't he / she who egged on Sinclair and cost him about £7k in costs, then Sinclair wanted to lynch them for the crap advise given, probably why Applecart won't dare show their face

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewt ... joD0nrfWK0

Yes Applecart was the one with all the stupid claims about it not being possible to mortgage a registered estate, a deed needed to be signed by both parties etc. Applecart did not turn up to help Mr Sinclair at the hearing.

YBS who is organising the get together is actually the same Mr Sinclair, I think he is trying to finally meet up with Applecart. I don't see that happening though

[AndyPandy]

This thread on the securitisation seminar has been running for a while, funnily enough no mention of Tom being a speaker. They're trying to persuade that idiot applecart to 'speak' at the seminar, wasn't he / she who egged on Sinclair and cost him about £7k in costs, then Sinclair wanted to lynch them for the crap advise given, probably why Applecart won't dare show their face

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewt ... joD0nrfWK0

Yes Applecart was the one with all the stupid claims about it not being possible to mortgage a registered estate, a deed needed to be signed by both parties etc. Applecart did not turn up to help Mr Sinclair at the hearing.

YBS who is organising the get together is actually the same Mr Sinclair, I think he is trying to finally meet up with Applecart. I don't see that happening though

maybe that's the reason for the seminar to lure applecart out

cos they've not given up and are looking for new victims to try out there idiotic theories. here he's pursuaded the poster to report the securetization to Action Fraud, duly done and in receipt of a Crime ref no.

Now all the poster has to do is stop paying their mortgage and when the bailiffs turn up with a possession order wave the CR number at them and hey presto the possession order goes away because a crime ref. (Criminal) trumps a possession order (civil) !!!!!!

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewt ... jpg4HrfWK0

The idiocy knows no bounds !!

[Bones]

The idiocy knows no bounds !!

I have read that Applecart now claims that a Crime Reference Number from Action Fraud can in someway stop or delay repossession.

http://www.actionfraud.police.uk/report ... tion-fraud

"Reporting fraud to Action Fraud ensures that the correct crime reporting procedures are followed. We pass on all fraud cases to the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau (NFIB), which is overseen by the police force that leads on fraud for the UK – the City of London Police. Making a crime report to Action Fraud also means that you will receive a police crime reference number. You can use your police crime reference number to update the information in your crime report, if you need to at a later date."

http://www.actionfraud.police.uk/about-us/who-we-are

"When you report to us you will receive a police crime reference number. Reports taken are passed to the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau. Action Fraud does not investigate the cases and cannot advise you on the progress of a case."

A crime reference number does not mean that a fraud has taken place. It is just a reference number that is issued to the person reporting the alleged fraud before it is even investigated. The same when you report a theft to the Police

Whenever I read Applecart's posts, I just and then quickly

[Losleones]

See the Bank of England video "creation of money in the modern economy"

I'll have to see if I can find that for review.

I assume, with the way you've presented it, that it represents the Bank Of England's perspective on the situation. Which obviously would not necessarily reflect actual reality or what happens in other non-UK Jurisdictions.

A clear personal example of what I understand others to be claiming as "money creation":

A couple years ago I helped one of my nieces with her post-secondary education both financially and providing her with a rent/utility/foodcosts-free place to live.

One of the things I did to help her was to use my credit to purchase her a laptop - vague recollection was that it was around the $1,500 price range. I didn't pay for it out of money I had available (obviously as it was credit). But it was indeed paid for. I was, also obviously, responsible for paying back the entity who provided me with the credit.

So here we have someone in need of financial help - my niece.

We have someone willing to help her who did not have money on hand - me.

We have a third party who is not part of the transaction who only has an interest in their relationship with me and the possible financial interest benefit they'd have if I borrowed their money - my creditor.

By all accounts from what I see being described as the limited relationship of the bank to the borrower - the direct relationship equivalent of me to my niece - I created money out of thin air to provide to my niece.

So... here's a very good question for those that believe the Bank - any bank - actually creates money out of thin air:

• The loan the Bank gives out, is it backed by one of:
  
  • 1) Assets of value
  • 2) Some form of assurance/insurance
  • 3) Some form of credit provided by someone else such as another bank
  • 4) Some form of liquid asset reserves to cover called-upon liabilities
  • 5) Other equivalent, the current list should be sufficient to clearly identify the concept

If the answer to the question surrounding the list is Yes - then the Bank is not creating money out of thin air any more then I did when I borrowed money to buy my niece a laptop.

And if it's insisted that the Bank borrowing money, or covering their financial obligation in some other way, in any way can be philosophically referred to as "creating money" then I myself must also be referred to as having the ability to create money because I didn't do anything different.

And since I'm just a regular Joe with sufficient positive reputation that someone is willing to provide me credit - then it's also true any regular Joe that qualifies for credit can create money out of thin air.

Hmm.... side curiosity: what's the business phrase for a positive reputation that can lead to financial improvement? I seem to recall reading it on some financial reports and they actually put a monetary value to it.

Edited to add: the word I was looking for that they attach a monetary value to is "goodwill". It might actually have less to do with reputation then I originally thought. It's definitely a factor I do not understand as belonging on any kind of financial statement.

Here it is.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CvRAqR2pAgw

[Bones]

To be fair regarding securitization, or even selling of defaulted loans to debt collectors, a lot of Consumer Credit Agreements in the late 90's and early naughties didn't have a clause in allowing the bank to sell on the loan, and some even had a clause in saying the complete oppersite (I had one of these), I'm not casting opinion of the morality of repaying a loan, but merely pointing out some arguments used by the fmotl crew do, within reason, have merrit.

But as someone else pointed out about something else, it's a small amount overall this affects, and not the entire banking system.

From what I understand there did not and does not need to be a clause to say that assignment can take place, as it is only a burden of a contract (in terms of a mortgage / loan the burden is the repayment of the debt) that cannot be assigned. However, a clause that states that assignment is not permitted is binding (but has to be in the contract), as per Lord Browne in the Linden Gardens case

[jcolvin2]

The Bank of England's Quarterly Bulletin from the first quarter of 2014 contained a paper by three economists explaining how "money was created" in the modern economy (complete with nifty graphs):

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publicat ... 14q101.pdf

It caused a bit of a stir at the time:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -austerity

[Joinder]

Jesus drove out the money lenders from the temple.
So I think that should be used as the basis to refute any claims from lenders, especially as you can actually swear on the Bible in court, the same book that includes that passage..

[Bones]

Jesus drove out the money lenders from the temple.
So I think that should be used as the basis to refute any claims from lenders, especially as you can actually swear on the Bible in court, the same book that includes that passage..

If you really want to go there

Psalm 37:21 ESV

The wicked borrows but does not pay back, but the righteous is generous and gives;

Deuteronomy 23:20 ESV

You may charge a foreigner interest, but you may not charge your brother interest, that the Lord your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land that you are entering to take possession of it.

(Mods feel free to delete this post)

[Bones]

At £25 per ticket, I wonder how much Colon is taking as a cut for it to be on GOODF

[Bungle]

Hi All
First off, I would like to apologies for the last few days, I can see how my comments were inappropriate.
I would like to thank the moderators for the fairly easy ride they gave me, and for other contributors tolerance.
For the record, Quatloos provides a valuable service in debunking freeman myths and methodology which leads to further debt and misery.
I have said before that the amount of solid investigation , evidence and logic used is incredible .
That said, I still stand by my dislike of personal attacks, in fact I believe it undermines everything that is good about this site.
To Yiam, my apologies too, although I believe the venture was ill advised, you are obviously free to go where you wish.
I can only blame another horror day at Stamford Bridge, don't worry, I'm not going tonight!

Excellent post Joinder. Welcome back.

PS: And they did win tonight.

[NG3]

At £25 per ticket, I wonder how much Colon is taking as a cut for it to be on GOODF

Probably just doing it so he can associate himself.

Haining is a small man desperate to be a big man who'll attach himself to anything if it makes him feel more important, more intelligent, or relevant.

It's the nature of the game, he's both user and used.

[Bones]

Haining is a small man desperate to be a big man

You been speaking to Mrs Haining ?

[PeanutGallery]

Excellent post Joinder. Welcome back.

PS: And they did win tonight.

I know, I was there.

[PeanutGallery]

Jesus drove out the money lenders from the temple.
So I think that should be used as the basis to refute any claims from lenders, especially as you can actually swear on the Bible in court, the same book that includes that passage..

Surely if your religious convictions prohibit you from paying back loans, then they should also prohibit you from taking them out, how exactly is borrowing a hundred pounds from a bank, regardless of how the bank gets that hundred pounds, without intending to pay it back any different from stealing it.

The banks create money through accounting wizardry, they can do this within reason, they have to make sure certain practices are followed and they can't lend out too much without risking a collapse, however the amounts they can lend are regulated and controlled (largely based on the assets the bank holds and it's projected future earnings, which includes the amount of money the bank has loaned and the amount it is going to loan you), simply because if money was just magicked up without any real thought or purpose we would live in a state of hyperinflation. We don't, although the amount of mortgages that were given away pre-2008 and the big crash, did over inflate the housing prices in a lot of areas, simply because the banks were lending more money.

Is it ethical for the banks to do this, well yes, it helps the economy grow and remain strong. But at the same time it places a strong requirement on the banks to be responsible. That means not lending money (or creating money to lend out) to people who aren't going to pay it back and when someone doesn't pay it back, taking whatever action needs to be taken to try and get some semblance of balance back to the accounts. This includes evictions and bankruptcy orders. They are a last resort and the bank won't be likely to recover all the money owed, but it will get something, which will help balance the books. So what happens when the bank takes a loss.

It gets passed on to the other customers of the bank. A portion of the interest people pay on overdrafts, mortgages and the like is used to offset the costs the banks incur when they deal with people like Tom Crawford who cost them a lot more than they can hope to recover because of the amount of futile legal arguments he's put forward, the actions of a mob in frustrating the eviction and the costs of security. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if B&B don't wind up writing off a lot more money than Tom originally owed when this saga is over (we might not find that out however), those costs have to go somewhere and the only place B&B can put them is onto other customers.

We may not all be Tom Crawford, but a few of us will wind up paying a little bit more because of him.

[Joinder]

Yes, if you borrow, you repay.
But what if you say, gamble your house and lose ?....you obviously forfeit the house.
But what if you are a bank, say B and B, you gamble in bonds etc and you lose ?

Would you expect someone else to pay ?