Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
eric pebble

"45% Of Mortgages Were Dodgy" Fsa

Recommended Posts

Ha!! :lol:

People scoffed over the last near-5 years as I said that Mortgage Fraud/LIAR LOANS were ENDEMIC.....

Well --- I knew I was right...... and.... make that 60-70% then.... - because as we all know, "official figures" always have to be halved or doubled more pessimistically..... :P

And, BTW, we ain't even BEGUN to see anythin' yet.... This ones going to roll and roll and roll.....

The Greatest fraud in all history imo.

--------------------------

"45% of mortgages were dodgy" FSA:

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8047383.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ha!! :lol:

People scoffed over the last near-5 years as I said that Mortgage Fraud/LIAR LOANS were ENDEMIC.....

Well --- I knew I was right......

yep. You stated your opinion and you stuck with it over the years when a lot argued with you based on government/VI stats.

Nice one Eric, you must feel vindicated. :):)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yep. You stated your opinion and you stuck with it over the years when a lot argued with you based on government/VI stats.

Nice one Eric, you must feel vindicated. :):)

Nice one indeed. Let`s see how much flak the Big Red letters take now from Hamish and co :lol::lol::P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We have found substantive evidence of irresponsible lending and inadequate affordability assessment," said Jon Pain, a managing director at the FSA.

"We will ask whether we should change our rules to require income verification for all mortgages, with lenders required to verify the plausibility and authenticity of the documentation by the customer before an offer is made," he added.

What? A polite enquiry? Ask nicely?

Surely the FSA has a duty to insist on income verification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"We have found substantive evidence of irresponsible lending and inadequate affordability assessment," said Jon Pain, a managing director at the FSA.

"We will ask whether we should change our rules to require income verification for all mortgages, with lenders required to verify the plausibility and authenticity of the documentation by the customer before an offer is made," he added.

What? A polite enquiry? Ask nicely?

Surely the FSA has a duty to insist on income verification.

Yes, it is outrageous, but the bang from the fallout is going to make a lot of people sit up straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AS a former mortgage broker and owner of a LIAR loan, I love Erics obsession with this.

Look its simple - if at some stage you cant maintain the payments, just sell the house, pocket the change and buy somehere smaller.....Oh dear, prices down you say?

And interest rates possibly/probably rising?

And unemployment rising?

I think ive just soiled myself!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ha!! :lol:

People scoffed over the last near-5 years as I said that Mortgage Fraud/LIAR LOANS were ENDEMIC.....

Well --- I knew I was right...... and.... make that 60-70% then.... - because as we all know, "official figures" always have to be halved or doubled more pessimistically..... :P

And, BTW, we ain't even BEGUN to see anythin' yet.... This ones going to roll and roll and roll.....

The Greatest fraud in all history imo.

--------------------------

"45% of mortgages were dodgy" FSA:

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8047383.stm

Eric, it says that 45% of mortgages were granted without the income being checked. This does not mean 45% of mortgage applications were fraudulent you dick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric, it says that 45% of mortgages were granted without the income being checked. This does not mean 45% of mortgage applications were fraudulent you dick.

:D What's your take on it then Twatthingy? Everything fine and rosy - no one's in debt at all... People can shove their 2.3 bed shittily built slaveboxes on the "market" for £499,000, and, tra la la la la..... along comes a happy buyer.... tral la la la la.... wetting him/herself with alacrity and happiness at the really "great value" prospect of living in a shitty little hovel - a "drreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeammm home" --- all for the wonderful "price" of half a million quid --- OOhhh life is going to be so wonderful... I'm not going to be at all pushed to pay this [F*CK~ING STUPID] loan back.... OOoooohhh what a wonderful decision I have [not] made.......

It is all so deeply pathetic --- The stupidity of it defies belief......

We have become a nation of

F*CKING TWATS

:wacko::wacko: :angry: :angry:

Edited by eric pebble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric, it says that 45% of mortgages were granted without the income being checked. This does not mean 45% of mortgage applications were fraudulent you dick.

so how many were turned away?....well, not many I gather as the risk was down to someone else because a stupid mathematician said so.

funny, but werent the FSA supposed to be checking WHILE the mortgages were issued, ALL THE FRACKING TIME?

ah I remember, Gordons light touch....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ha!! :lol:

People scoffed over the last near-5 years as I said that Mortgage Fraud/LIAR LOANS were ENDEMIC.....

Well --- I knew I was right...... and.... make that 60-70% then.... - because as we all know, "official figures" always have to be halved or doubled more pessimistically..... :P

And, BTW, we ain't even BEGUN to see anythin' yet.... This ones going to roll and roll and roll.....

The Greatest fraud in all history imo.

--------------------------

"45% of mortgages were dodgy" FSA:

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8047383.stm

I think using credit scoring to "Fast-track" could be a bit dodgy aswell, as someone with a good borrowing history could have a higher score than someone with no borrowing history (so it is conceivable that someone who always makes their minimum payments on their credit card debt could get a higher score than someone who doesn't have any credit card debt)

?? :blink::blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D What's your take on it them Twatthingy?

Once upon a time, a lot of very stupid people, and a lot of very greedy people, and a lot of stupid and greedy people borrowed a lot of money that they could not afford to pay back. This was based on the naive assumption that somehow, the perceived price of an asset could in some way pay back a loan, with interest.

Some of these people knew at the time that they couldn't pay it back, some of them discovered later that they couldn't pay it back.

Many of these were as a result of fraudulent mortgage applications, some just naive wishful thinking.

Often banks and brokers turned a blind eye to mortgage fraud, indeed some positively encouraged this practice.

These naughty people were allowed to get away with this for a while, as up to 45% of mortgage applications were not scrutinised properly, and the details of the applicants income were not verified properly.

This does not mean 45% of mortgage applications were fraudulent. You dick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, will we see 45% of mortgage brokers locked up?

45% of borrowers chased for outstanding taxes, fined for fraud?

I doubt it.

I'll settle for the impact on HPI of 45% of liar loans being removed from the upward pressure of future mortgage applications

Well done Eric :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

House prices only ever go up, boom bust had been abolished if you can't pay you sell the house and make a profit and the lender gets the money back.

What is is about this you people don't understand.

Quite clearly you don't get the logic, nor do you fail to understand how fool proof this get rich quick scheme is.

I mean what could possible go wrong.

Easy money to be made and you don't want it.

Liar loans helped to improve this nations wealth.

Next people will be saying lenders and borrowers be prosecuted for fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so how many were turned away?....well, not many I gather as the risk was down to someone else because a stupid mathematician said so.

funny, but werent the FSA supposed to be checking WHILE the mortgages were issued, ALL THE FRACKING TIME?

ah I remember, Gordons light touch....

I don't disagree with you that the FSA were (criminally) negligent, and that Gordon Brown was responsible for the mess we are in for a number of reasons.

I also think that people who are found to have lied on their mortgage application forms should be arrested and charged with fraud. This goes the same for the brokers and the bankers that encouraged it and profited from it.

Regardless of this, there is no excuse for the the appalling amateurish excitable drivel that opened this thread.

Eric is wrong, wrong, and wrong. This is the sort of thing GCSE pupils get pulled up on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't disagree with you that the FSA were (criminally) negligent, and that Gordon Brown was responsible for the mess we are in for a number of reasons.

I also think that people who are found to have lied on their mortgage application forms should be arrested and charged with fraud. This goes the same for the brokers and the bankers that encouraged it and profited from it.

Regardless of this, there is no excuse for the the appalling amateurish excitable drivel that opened this thread.

Eric is wrong, wrong, and wrong. This is the sort of thing GCSE pupils get pulled up on.

And TWATmangle is "right, right, right......" :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric, it says that 45% of mortgages were granted without the income being checked. This does not mean 45% of mortgage applications were fraudulent you dick.

As I recall, you could always get a lower rate of interest on your mortgage if you took out a loan where your income was verified. Why would you want to take out a mortgage at a higher rate?

1) You were stupid. (Will account for a certain percentage, thats for sure).

2) Your income was illegal in some way (untaxed cash or drug dealing etc).

3) You were lying about your income so you could get on the property ladder before prices ran away from you.

So you are right, not all of these mortgages were fraudulent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't disagree with you that the FSA were (criminally) negligent, and that Gordon Brown was responsible for the mess we are in for a number of reasons.

I also think that people who are found to have lied on their mortgage application forms should be arrested and charged with fraud. This goes the same for the brokers and the bankers that encouraged it and profited from it.

Regardless of this, there is no excuse for the the appalling amateurish excitable drivel that opened this thread.

Eric is wrong, wrong, and wrong. This is the sort of thing GCSE pupils get pulled up on.

Why would 45% of the applications be for a higher rate type loan like 'self certification'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regardless of this, there is no excuse for the the appalling amateurish excitable drivel that opened this thread.

Yes there is.

This is Eric.

It's his job to be overexcitable.

To paint the subtle grey nuances of the world, both literally and figuratively, in primary colours.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric, it says that 45% of mortgages were granted without the income being checked. This does not mean 45% of mortgage applications were fraudulent you dick.

Please can I have a non-income verified loan mr lender because I really want to pay the higher charges/interest rate that goes with it.

You'd either have to be really dumb or only using this route because you couldn't make the numbers fit. The lenders likd them because they didn't have to ask the question. The buyers of the securitised debt based on these loans HATE them, now and will not be touching them with a bargepole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric, it says that 45% of mortgages were granted without the income being checked. This does not mean 45% of mortgage applications were fraudulent you dick.

I hate to ask this .. but who at any point said they were fraudulent? Would you like me to get a dictionary definition of dodgy for you? If I remove the bald spare tyre from my car then MOT it and then put the bald spare tyre back on .. it's not Illegal .. but it's a "Bit Dodgy".

All self cert loans are dodgy .. only some of them are fraudulent ..

The £235,000 100% interest only self cert loan given to dodgy Ken (Anual income £29,000) to buy a one bed ex council flat in Camberwell .. I think we can safely assume that's fraudulent ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please can I have a non-income verified loan mr lender because I really want to pay the higher charges/interest rate that goes with it.

You'd either have to be really dumb or only using this route because you couldn't make the numbers fit. The lenders likd them because they didn't have to ask the question.

PRECISELY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   296 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.