Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
eric pebble

Superb Article On Liar Loans: Banks Looted Economy:

Recommended Posts

"The data demonstrate conclusively that most liar’s loans were fraudulent, which means that there were millions of fraudulent mortgage loans because liar’s loans became common (Credit Suisse estimates that they represented 49% of new originations by 2006). The data also demonstrate that even minimal underwriting of the loan files was sufficient to detect the overwhelming majority of such fraudulent liar’s loans. No honest, rational lender would make large numbers of liar’s loans. The epidemic of mortgage fraud was so large that it hyper-inflated the housing bubble, which allowed refinancing to further extend the life of the bubble (and the depth of the ultimate Great Recession."

..../

"In other words, banks made loans to borrowers who they knew couldn't really repay because the heads of the banks could make huge bonuses based on high volumes and fraudulent appraisals, and they didn't care if their own companies later failed.

In short, they looted their companies and the economy as a whole."

Read whole article here:

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/why-did-banks-give-home-loans-people-who-they-knew-couldnt-pay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder whether cash buyers will have grounds for a class action lawsuit which claims that the negligence of banks forced them to pay too much for their homes.

If this problem spreads from the leveraged world to the unleveraged world, banks are in a problem much deeper than before by an order of magnitude.

As much as we deride the litigious culture in the US, this might be a movement that "started in America" and spreads globally to the benefit of the owners of capital to the further detriment of lenders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder whether cash buyers will have grounds for a class action lawsuit which claims that the negligence of banks forced them to pay too much for their homes.

If this problem spreads from the leveraged world to the unleveraged world, banks are in a problem much deeper than before by an order of magnitude.

As much as we deride the litigious culture in the US, this might be a movement that "started in America" and spreads globally to the benefit of the owners of capital to the further detriment of lenders.

A lot of them have gone bankrupt seems an easier way out, I know of 2 on our estate alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder whether cash buyers will have grounds for a class action lawsuit which claims that the negligence of banks forced them to pay too much for their homes.

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have frequently posited this suggestion - and frequently asked for budding lawyers out there to initiate this....... I reckon there are STRONG grounds for this.

Edited by eric pebble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have frequently posited this suggestion - and frequently asked for budding lawyers out there to initiate this....... I reckon there are STRONG grounds for this.

In this country too, we had the growth of HBOS, the Lying Bank.

They grew, and took business at the expense of other banks through their fraudulent policies.

Criminal action such as this forces other banks to follow suit if regulators do not act and put wrongdoers in prison, because if the crimes are not stopped, the honest banker (yeh I know, an oxymoron) cannot offer such good savings rates and interest rates to their borrowers and savers, because they are accounting for their books honestly.

It shows the importance of true regulation, the need for those who carry this sort of thing out as 'policy' to have to go to prison for a long time, and perhaps most importantly, to have the assets of them and their spouses (gotta be spouses too or else assets will be put beyond reach) seized and returned to those wronged, and what's left if anything, to the taxpayer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have frequently posited this suggestion - and frequently asked for budding lawyers out there to initiate this....... I reckon there are STRONG grounds for this.

There is the beginnings of a class action in the US, but most comments I've seen say it won't fly because each loan has to be assessed on its merits. However, investors rather than borrowers can gang up and have a crack - in one case the judge has been involved in getting parties to take statistical samples from a group of 344,000 loans - you can read the transcript here:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/10/bofa-comparison-conference-call-vs-court-transcripts/

Naked Capitalism is the best site for following this, also Denninger and Ritholtz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this country too, we had the growth of HBOS, the Lying Bank.

They grew, and took business at the expense of other banks through their fraudulent policies.

Criminal action such as this forces other banks to follow suit if regulators do not act and put wrongdoers in prison, because if the crimes are not stopped, the honest banker (yeh I know, an oxymoron) cannot offer such good savings rates and interest rates to their borrowers and savers, because they are accounting for their books honestly.

It shows the importance of true regulation, the need for those who carry this sort of thing out as 'policy' to have to go to prison for a long time, and perhaps most importantly, to have the assets of them and their spouses (gotta be spouses too or else assets will be put beyond reach) seized and returned to those wronged, and what's left if anything, to the taxpayer.

HBOS the Lying bank? Surely you don't mean under the guidance of SIR James Crosby? If so, what does that make the FSA?

Sir James was their boss while also on the FSA board (2004 to 2006). Then he left HBOS (2006) and moved to the job as number two at the FSA (2007-2009). The man was also an advisor to the Treasury (2008)!

Sir James Crosby resigns from FSA

Sir James Crosby has resigned as deputy chairman of City watchdog, the Financial Services Authority (FSA). The move follows allegations that, when head of HBOS, he sacked senior manager Paul Moore who had raised concerns the bank was exposed to too much risk. Sir James, who led HBOS from 2001 to 2006, said there was "no substance to the allegations".

But Paul Moore said he stood "firmly and confidently" behind his allegations against Sir James.

The BBC's business editor Robert Peston said he understood that Sir James had stood down to protect the FSA from controversy.

I... feel that the right course of action for the FSA is for me to resign

Sir James said in his statement that HBOS had "extensively investigated" Mr Moore's allegations, concluding that they "had no merit". Mr Moore was the former head of risk at HBOS.

"I nonetheless feel that the right course of action for the FSA is for me to resign from the FSA board, which I do with immediate effect," Sir James added.

The FSA said: "[The] specific allegations made by Paul Moore in December 2004 regarding the regulatory risk function at HBOS were fully investigated by KPMG and the FSA, which concluded that the changes made by HBOS were appropriate."

"It should also be noted that the FSA's concerns about HBOS' risk management framework considerably pre-dated the allegations by Mr Moore," the FSA said in a statement.

It said that it conducted a full risk assessment of HBOS at the end 2002, "which identified a need to strengthen the control infrastructure within the group".

A risk assessment of the HBOS group, formally recorded in December 2004, showed that "the group had made good progress in addressing the risks highlighted in February 2004, but that the group risk functions still needed to enhance their ability to influence the business, which we saw as a key challenge", the FSA said.

It said it had "continued to pursue concerns about the risk management framework" and wrote to HBOS on 29 June 2006, stating that "whilst the group had made progress, there were still control issues" and that "the growth strategy of the group posed risks to the whole group and that these risks must be managed and mitigated".

'No blame'

Mr Moore had earlier released a statement in reaction to Sir James' resignation.

He said: "I read with interest that Sir James continues to refute the allegations I made in my evidence to the Treasury Select Committee and I want all those interested to know that I continue to stand firmly and confidently behind what I have said."

He was not interested in blame and had received countless messages of support, he added.

The Treasury, for which Sir James had worked as an adviser, said officials had been in contact with the City watchdog, but pointed out that ministers had had no direct contact with either Sir James or the FSA in the last 24 hours.

SIR JAMES CROSBY

Joined the Halifax in 1994 and became chief executive in 1999

Became chief executive of HBOS in 2001 following the merger of the Halifax with the Bank of Scotland

Left HBOS in 2006

Appointed to the board of the Financial Services Authority in 2004, and became deputy chairman in December 2007

Led two inquiries for the Treasury: The first in 2006 on identity fraud, the second in 2008 on the mortgage market

'Serious error'

Speaking in Prime Minister's Questions, Gordon Brown said it was right that Sir James stepped down from the FSA.

"It is right that we investigated serious allegations that are made about the banking system. These are serious but contested allegations," he said.

The episode has given the Prime Minister's enemies their first chance to link Gordon Brown personally with someone who, it is alleged, ignored warnings that brought down the Halifax, says the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson.

Opposition leader David Cameron accused the Prime Minister of a "serious error of judgment" in appointing Sir James to the FSA

Sir James Crosby resigns from FSA

_45466877_crosby.jpg Sir James said there was no substance to the allegations<P class=first>Sir James Crosby has resigned as deputy chairman of City watchdog, the Financial Services Authority (FSA).

The move follows allegations that, when head of HBOS, he sacked senior manager Paul Moore who had raised concerns the bank was exposed to too much risk.

Sir James, who led HBOS from 2001 to 2006, said there was "no substance to the allegations".

But Paul Moore said he stood "firmly and confidently" behind his allegations against Sir James.

The BBC's business editor Robert Peston said he understood that Sir James had stood down to protect the FSA from controversy.

'Right action'

o.gifstart_quote_rb.gifI... feel that the right course of action for the FSA is for me to resign end_quote_rb.gif<BR clear=all>Sir James Crosbyinline_dashed_line.gif

Read Sir James Crosby's statement in full

Sir James said in his statement that HBOS had "extensively investigated" Mr Moore's allegations, concluding that they "had no merit". Mr Moore was the former head of risk at HBOS.

"I nonetheless feel that the right course of action for the FSA is for me to resign from the FSA board, which I do with immediate effect," Sir James added.

The FSA said: "[The] specific allegations made by Paul Moore in December 2004 regarding the regulatory risk function at HBOS were fully investigated by KPMG and the FSA, which concluded that the changes made by HBOS were appropriate."

"It should also be noted that the FSA's concerns about HBOS' risk management framework considerably pre-dated the allegations by Mr Moore," the FSA said in a statement.

It said that it conducted a full risk assessment of HBOS at the end 2002, "which identified a need to strengthen the control infrastructure within the group".

A risk assessment of the HBOS group, formally recorded in December 2004, showed that "the group had made good progress in addressing the risks highlighted in February 2004, but that the group risk functions still needed to enhance their ability to influence the business, which we saw as a key challenge", the FSA said.

It said it had "continued to pursue concerns about the risk management framework" and wrote to HBOS on 29 June 2006, stating that "whilst the group had made progress, there were still control issues" and that "the growth strategy of the group posed risks to the whole group and that these risks must be managed and mitigated". 'No blame'

/* -1 && userAgent.search("version/3.") > -1) && !(userAgent.search("windows") > -1 && userAgent.search("safari") > -1 && userAgent.search("version/4.") > -1) && userAgent.search("android") == -1) { bbc.fmtj.av.emp.loadProxyPlayer("emp_7884366"); }else{ bbc.fmtj.av.emp.loadEmp("emp_7884366"); } });/*]]>*/_45468168_jex_288100_de27-1.jpg Click to play

Click to play

Whistleblower on Crosby resignation

Mr Moore had earlier released a statement in reaction to Sir James' resignation.

He said: "I read with interest that Sir James continues to refute the allegations I made in my evidence to the Treasury Select Committee and I want all those interested to know that I continue to stand firmly and confidently behind what I have said."

He was not interested in blame and had received countless messages of support, he added.

The Treasury, for which Sir James had worked as an adviser, said officials had been in contact with the City watchdog, but pointed out that ministers had had no direct contact with either Sir James or the FSA in the last 24 hours.

o.gifSIR JAMES CROSBY

Born 1956. Educated at Brasenose College, OxfordJoined the Halifax in 1994 and became chief executive in 1999Became chief executive of HBOS in 2001 following the merger of the Halifax with the Bank of ScotlandLeft HBOS in 2006Appointed to the board of the Financial Services Authority in 2004, and became deputy chairman in December 2007Led two inquiries for the Treasury: The first in 2006 on identity fraud, the second in 2008 on the mortgage marketinline_dashed_line.gif

Read Nick Robinson's blogRead Robert Peston's blog

The Treasury told the BBC it was Sir James' personal decision to resign from the FSA.

'Serious error'

Speaking in Prime Minister's Questions, Gordon Brown said it was right that Sir James stepped down from the FSA.

"It is right that we investigated serious allegations that are made about the banking system. These are serious but contested allegations," he said.

The episode has given the Prime Minister's enemies their first chance to link Gordon Brown personally with someone who, it is alleged, ignored warnings that brought down the Halifax, says the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson. Opposition leader David Cameron accused the Prime Minister of a "serious error of judgment" in appointing Sir James to the FSA

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7883409.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Max Keiser refers to them as Suicide Bankers

Liar Loaners

Lemming Lenders

The four corners of their satanic new(order) glo_bal temple!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder whether cash buyers will have grounds for a class action lawsuit which claims that the negligence of banks forced them to pay too much for their homes.

No-one marched these maggots to the banks, prized open their mouths and fed them a rotten stinking pile of debt so large they couldn't help but drown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have frequently posited this suggestion - and frequently asked for budding lawyers out there to initiate this....... I reckon there are STRONG grounds for this.

My personal view is that this will happen in the next couple of years.

I am in California at the moment and people are getting really angry. Once you are away from the glitz and glamour of a few coastal areas, most of California is really quite a dump. The only things that look to be of any value are the gleaming Bank of America / Wells Fargo bank buildings in every backwater town.

It is very visible in most of California that the banks are the only ones who have done well. As California is often the home of legal "innovation", a movement to sue banks for manipulation on a class action basis will probably start here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HBOS the Lying bank? Surely you don't mean under the guidance of SIR James Crosby? If so, what does that make the FSA?

Sir James was their boss while also on the FSA board (2004 to 2006). Then he left HBOS (2006) and moved to the job as number two at the FSA (2007-2009). The man was also an advisor to the Treasury (2008)!

Yup - Read all the links below in my signature - and "Sir" James Crosby's - [knighted by that MORON G Broon] - comes up.

A complete shambles - and scandal. Why aren't lots of people in prison??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(...)

A complete shambles - and scandal. Why aren't lots of people in prison??

Because they own the system.

Great article in the OP BTW - well worth a read...

Edited by Timm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The data demonstrate conclusively that most liar's loans were fraudulent, which means that there were millions of fraudulent mortgage loans because liar's loans became common (Credit Suisse estimates that they represented 49% of new originations by 2006). The data also demonstrate that even minimal underwriting of the loan files was sufficient to detect the overwhelming majority of such fraudulent liar's loans. No honest, rational lender would make large numbers of liar's loans. The epidemic of mortgage fraud was so large that it hyper-inflated the housing bubble, which allowed refinancing to further extend the life of the bubble (and the depth of the ultimate Great Recession."

..../

"In other words, banks made loans to borrowers who they knew couldn't really repay because the heads of the banks could make huge bonuses based on high volumes and fraudulent appraisals, and they didn't care if their own companies later failed.

In short, they looted their companies and the economy as a whole."

Read whole article here:

http://www.zerohedge...new-couldnt-pay

Don't forget Brown and his CITY cronies inflamed it all further by underwriting it all using general tax payer cash to prevent banks/ers going under due to this looting and fraud (but it's called preventing homelessness of the house LiarLowner)

Every newbie that joins here and scoffs at various older members esp JD for selling or not buying when they did circa <2005/6 should be sent an email with that plus have it nailed to their computer monitor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every newbie that joins here and scoffs at various older members esp JD for selling or not buying when they did circa <2005/6 should be sent an email with that plus have it nailed to their computer monitor.

Like all swans are not white, not every newbie is new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More now than ever, this seeming confirmation of what a lot of us suspected to have been the case regards fraudulent lending and borrowing, is filling me with a quiet burning, seething rage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have frequently posited this suggestion - and frequently asked for budding lawyers out there to initiate this....... I reckon there are STRONG grounds for this.

That would be fair, if it could happen. The LIAR BORROWERS and the LIAR LENDERS both connived in the fraud, and they can both get off scott free, the former by bankrupsy and the latter by bailout. The cash buyers lose with no recompence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No-one marched these maggots to the banks, prized open their mouths and fed them a rotten stinking pile of debt so large they couldn't help but drown.

Many people made the mistake of assuming their lenders were both capable and honest- they turned out to be neither. The money men created an environment where the public was sent totally false pricing signals- had they not perverted the market people would not have taken on the debt.

Those in power, both in the banks and in goverenment are totally responsible for this mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people made the mistake of assuming their lenders were both capable and honest- they turned out to be neither. The money men created an environment where the public was sent totally false pricing signals- had they not perverted the market people would not have taken on the debt.

Those in power, both in the banks and in goverenment are totally responsible for this mess.

Not sure about that. Most people who lied to get mortgages knew precisely what they were doing. The really infuriating thing is it looks like millions of people will escape criminal charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The crash is going to be big isn`t it? UK can`t afford to underwrite this mess much longer?

Bottom line: lenders in the UK operated a similar business growth model to lenders in the US. The US has had its sub-prime crisis whilst we still have millions of sub-prime loans waiting to turn bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure about that. Most people who lied to get mortgages knew precisely what they were doing. The really infuriating thing is it looks like millions of people will escape criminal charges.

The point is that lying in that way had been legitimised by the system itself, and encouraged by it. Does anyone think the lenders could not have checked the bank accounts of those they lent to to confirm the figures being quoted?

If I walk into a bank tomorrow and inflate my income by 100% will I get away with it? No- because now they care enough to check- then they did not want to know the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 142 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.