Democorruptcy Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 A speech by the FSA's Mortgage Policy Manager last October: Self-certification mortgages have been more or less withdrawn from the market by lenders, following the credit crunch. But non-income verified mortgages continue in the form of ‘fast track’. Even in Q1 this year, this accounted for 43% of mortgages sold. So what’s wrong with fast-track? We are well aware that lenders’ fast-tracking processes can be ‘gamed’ by brokers who know the rules and who know where to place cases where they don’t want to provide evidence of income. And with the demise of self-cert, the point of least resistance becomes fast-track. Fast track would simply develop into self-cert by another name. We read the mortgage blogs and have seen many brokers comment on how easy and open to abuse the fast track process is. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/Speeches/2010/1020_lb.shtml After reading the speech I contacted the FSA to ask what percentage of mortgages were non-income verified in other quarters of 2010. I've now got a reply: Q1 2010: 43% Q2 2010: 37% Q3 2010: 32% The percentage is dropping but still 1 in 3 mortgages are potentially liar loans. A decent credit score and people can lie about their income. The HPC anti-christ's take on fast-track mortgages http://www.videojug.com/expertanswer/other-types-of-mortgages/whats-a-fast-track-mortgage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lepista Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 How else do you think you can have house prices at 3.5x income, and £165,000? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) The HPC anti-christ's take on fast-track mortgages The anti-christ LIAR LOANS.... Edited January 10, 2011 by eric pebble Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misanthrope Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 A speech by the FSA's Mortgage Policy Manager last October: After reading the speech I contacted the FSA to ask what percentage of mortgages were non-income verified in other quarters of 2010. I've now got a reply: Q1 2010: 43% Q2 2010: 37% Q3 2010: 32% The percentage is dropping but still 1 in 3 mortgages are potentially liar loans. A decent credit score and people can lie about their income. Given that mortgage approvals haven't breached 50,000 per month, all year, according to BoE stats (see http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/graphs-mortgage-approvals.php), then these figures are staggering. Raises a lot of suspicion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 How else do you think you can have house prices at 3.5x income, and £165,000? PRECISELY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wild card Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 http://www.mortgageintroducer.com/mortgages/239282/5/Industry_in_depth/CML_withholding_interest-only_data.htm Council of mortgage lenders has refused to pass on their own figures on IO borrowing to the FSA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pauly_Boy Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Truely shocking. They must be laughing at all of these debt slaves! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shell Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Where the frick is the media on this? They should be on this. Can someone tell the Guardian or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Where the frick is the media on this? They should be on this. Can someone tell the Guardian or something? They are totally in the VI camp too! Waste of time.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 holy sh1t. Holy Cow!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearwithasorehead Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 My mortgage in 2006 (yes, I know) was non-income verified but it wasn't a liar loan. I can think of a number of reasons why this might be the case. Can't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lepista Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 My mortgage in 2006 (yes, I know) was non-income verified but it wasn't a liar loan. I can think of a number of reasons why this might be the case. Can't you? Do you think the number of legitimate reasons means that 1/3 of the mortgages granted require a non-income verified mortgage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicestersq Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 My mortgage in 2006 (yes, I know) was non-income verified but it wasn't a liar loan. I can think of a number of reasons why this might be the case. Can't you? I can't think of anything legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wealthy Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 A speech by the FSA's Mortgage Policy Manager last October: After reading the speech I contacted the FSA to ask what percentage of mortgages were non-income verified in other quarters of 2010. I've now got a reply: Q1 2010: 43% Q2 2010: 37% Q3 2010: 32% The percentage is dropping but still 1 in 3 mortgages are potentially liar loans. A decent credit score and people can lie about their income. The HPC anti-christ's take on fast-track mortgages http://www.videojug.com/expertanswer/other-types-of-mortgages/whats-a-fast-track-mortgage Look at that perfect 5% drop between quarters. The addict is clearly on a managed withdrawal program to rid them of their problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blod Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Right so about a third of approvals aren't having their earnings check, is one of the reasons that the banks are expecting a crash and hence more worried that they don't get dumped the negative equity. So they are checking every single deposit and accepting that they have improved their earnings checks over how they used to operate. Just looks like they have accepted a big drop in the market is around the corner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Democorruptcy Posted January 11, 2011 Author Share Posted January 11, 2011 These were the actual figures they sent me: To answer the specific question you have raised on the percentages of non-verified mortgages so far in 2010, the figures are: Including lifetime mortgages: Q1 2010: 42.60% Q2 2010: 37.38% Q3 2010: 32.44% Excluding lifetime mortgages: Q1 2010: 41.24% Q2 2010: 36.08% Q3 2010: 31.05% I presume "Lifetime mortgages" are like equity release? A lifetime mortgage is a loan secured against your home. There are no regular repayments to make and the loan and interest are rolled up and usually repaid when you die or go into long-term care. What are the benefits? You receive a cash lump sum to spend on whatever you want You don't have to make any monthly repayments during the lifetime of the loan, as the loan and interest are rolled up and repaid by the sale of your property when the plan ends. This is normally when you die, or move into long-term care. Aviva’s 'no negative equity' guarantee means neither you nor your estate will have to pay back more than your home is sold for, as long as this is for the best price possible What are the considerations? A lifetime mortgage charges interest on the total amount of the loan including the interest that has already accumulated, so the amount owed will quickly increase A lifetime mortgage is a long-term commitment – it can be expensive if you decide to repay the loan early and you may have to pay a substantial early repayment charge. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/offers/aviva-equity-release/7800240/Lifetime-mortgage-explained.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Didnt even realise they still did this. All self cert offers have long since dissapeared from price/mortgage comparison sites. Is this a wink wink hush hush thing they actually do in the banks branches? Seriously, i thought for the last 2 years these things had gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Didnt even realise they still did this. All self cert offers have long since dissapeared from price/mortgage comparison sites. Is this a wink wink hush hush thing they actually do in the banks branches? Seriously, i thought for the last 2 years these things had gone. ...'liar loans' also include those salaried people who submit false payslips ....while the self employed have to produce say three years of past certified accounts and projected budget's which is all good and well as long as the documentation is not forged and fraudulent ...who checks...?..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twatmangle Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Where in the article does it say that one in three mortgages were fraudulent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 ...'liar loans' also include those salaried people who submit false payslips ....while the self employed have to produce say three years of past certified accounts and projected budget's which is all good and well as long as the documentation is not forged and fraudulent ...who checks...?..... The tax man should. They should just haul in EVERY self cert borrower. If things dont match up either theyre guilty of tax evasion or mortgage fraud, one of the two. Bit of a catch 22 for the borrower. No way out. Maybe offer them a way out if a group of them testify that a mortgage broker basically misled them to lie, as shown on one of Eric Prebbles videos. The prison system would be bursting at the seams with bankers, brokers and IFAs by now if i had my way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepwello'nights Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 These were the actual figures they sent me: What were the LTV percentages? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) The tax man should. They should just haul in EVERY self cert borrower. If things dont match up either theyre guilty of tax evasion or mortgage fraud, one of the two. Bit of a catch 22 for the borrower. No way out. Maybe offer them a way out if a group of them testify that a mortgage broker basically misled them to lie, as shown on one of Eric Prebbles videos. The prison system would be bursting at the seams with bankers, brokers and IFAs by now if i had my way. ....as pointed out it's not just certain self certs ...what about those with fraudulent salary slips which they can 'buy' off the internet ....?..... Edited January 13, 2011 by South Lorne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meg32 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 My mortgage in 2006 (yes, I know) was non-income verified but it wasn't a liar loan. I can think of a number of reasons why this might be the case. Can't you? Frankly - no. There must be ways of verifying that mortgage holders have a fighting chance of actually repaying the mortgage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R K Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Why are the Cartel of Mortgage Liars allowed to refuse to provide data to the regulator? Why doesn't Turner simply suspend their licences until they do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric pebble Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Why are the Cartel of Mortgage Liars allowed to refuse to provide data to the regulator? Why doesn't Turner simply suspend their licences until they do? Because no one should admit there's an elephant in the room.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.