Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 9
Banks considered Foreclosing; Blamed on a clerical error.
Topic Started: 14 Oct 2016, 01:18 PM (5,177 Views)
Rastus2
Member Avatar


For anyone that was not aware, the debate on if banks could, or would ever move to trigger a foreclosure, or even demand more equity on Residential Real Estate has raged for quite a while... it led to one forum member creating a blog which incorrectly and inexpertly deduced the banks could never, and would never attempt to do so.

Turns out, they had already considered their legal options, started the process of revaluing homes, and trigging either demands for more equity, or foreclosures.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-29/residents-on-notice-as-banks-move-to-revalue-williamtown-proper/6812688

The banks only retreated when the parliament got involved...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-12/cba-backs-down-on-foreclosing-contaminated-homes/7925778


It was a 'clerical error' :D

Anyone gullible enough to believe that ?

In truth, they pulled the pin on their trigger too early and let the cat out of the bag on the safety net they have to protect the banks and throw mortgage holders under the bus.


I am yet to be convinced if a major downturn across a large part of the country was to occur, instead of simply Williamtown, the parliament would have little power to stop the banks ensuring their rights are protected.


Game, set, match.


Waiting for the puppet(s) to appear and claim no such thing could ever happen :D





Shadow - Defrauded his Bank ? 2015 I have 9 different loans and my bank had no idea which ones were personal and which were investment. They had half of them classed incorrectly. When this change came in they asked me to tell them if any personal loans were incorrectly classed as investment, which I did, and they switched them to personal for the lower rate. They also had a couple of investment loans incorrectly classed as personal. They didn't ask me about those. So they stay on the lower rate too. Worked out pretty well. :)
Shadow - 2008 Sydney Median House Price 1.25M by 2014-2015

Shadow : I think this boom has already begun in several cities. My prediction :
Peak of boom: 2014-2015. Sydney Median Price: $1,250,000 Bottom of bust: 2017-2018. Sydney Median Price: $1,100,000

Shadow's Original 2010 House Boom and Crash prediction http://s836.photobucket.com/user/rastus22/media/shady-orig-2010-chart.png.html?sort=3&o=0

Shadow's attempt to edit his 2010 chart in 2015 and replace it with one that does not show a crash in 2013 http://s836.photobucket.com/user/rastus22/media/Screen%20Shot%202015-06-06%20at%207.12.52%20pm_1.png.html
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Ex BP Golly
Member Avatar


Yep, pull back on that as its just a few properties, then counter sue the defense force for losses.

In sure the various ministers agreed to that course before the banks ceased action.

Doubt want to scare sheeple unnecessarily.
WHAT WOULD EDDIE DO? MAAAATE!
Share a cot with Milton?
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Khaderbhai
Member Avatar
Wealthy Suburbanite

So even the case of severe devaluation due to toxic contamination, the banks still weren't able to repossess. Interesting. I suppose they knew they can't foreclose without a court granting a repossession order, and there was zero chance of that happening.
Banks can't repossess your home simply because the market value falls. Australia's Consumer Credit Code says consumers aren't liable for things ordinarily outside their control and can't be held to obligations that could only be met by selling their home. Click for details.

"The truth is that there are no good men, or bad men. It is the deeds that have goodness or badness in them. There are good deeds, and bad deeds. Men are just men."
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Rufus
Member Avatar


Rastus2
14 Oct 2016, 01:18 PM
For anyone that was not aware, the debate on if banks could, or would ever move to trigger a foreclosure, or even demand more equity on Residential Real Estate has raged for quite a while... it led to one forum member creating a blog which incorrectly and inexpertly deduced the banks could never, and would never attempt to do so.

Turns out, they had already considered their legal options, started the process of revaluing homes, and trigging either demands for more equity, or foreclosures.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-29/residents-on-notice-as-banks-move-to-revalue-williamtown-proper/6812688

The banks only retreated when the parliament got involved...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-12/cba-backs-down-on-foreclosing-contaminated-homes/7925778


It was a 'clerical error' :D

Anyone gullible enough to believe that ?

In truth, they pulled the pin on their trigger too early and let the cat out of the bag on the safety net they have to protect the banks and throw mortgage holders under the bus.

I am yet to be convinced if a major downturn across a large part of the country was to occur, instead of simply Williamtown, the parliament would have little power to stop the banks ensuring their rights are protected.

Game, set, match.

Waiting for the puppet(s) to appear and claim no such thing could ever happen :D

Let me point something out, a house with a registered kennel is a commercial enterprise, it's not a house.

It is NOT covered by the NCCP and will be treated the same as a hotel, factory, or retail premises etc.
I see no evidence in either ABC article stating that banks were considering selling homes up, even though they may have asked for valuations.
Edited by Rufus, 14 Oct 2016, 03:48 PM.
Take risks - if you win you will become wealthy, if you lose you will become wise
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Rastus2
Member Avatar


Khaderbhai
14 Oct 2016, 03:39 PM
So even the case of severe devaluation due to toxic contamination, the banks still weren't able to repossess. Interesting. I suppose they knew they can't foreclose without a court granting a repossession order, and there was zero chance of that happening.
You assume to understand too much, yet again. Perhaps you should give it up.

As I have explained to you and your other forum account(s), it comes down to numbers.

This trigger is there about reducing risk, but not to be pulled unless the risk is so great it is worth pulling.

If the numbers of properties that have been impacted is not great, then the PR damage of doing what they were in the process of doing outweighs the financial benefit. It's quite likely that there will be future changes to banking laws if this trigger is used to impact a large number of voters... why on earth waste it unless you really need to use it....

The fact that they started that process tells most of us that the banks are well aware of their ability to start this process if required.... the clerical error excuse does not explain how the process was started at all, it is more trying to hide the fact it can happen, and, likely, a clerical error in that the trigger is not meant to be used unless the bank faces such major losses, they are willing to throw large numbers of customers under the bus to save themselves (and shareholders).

If, however, the situation arises where a large enough group of properties fall by a large enough amount such that the lenders find themselves at risk... the process is able to be started... as was clearly shown.

How do I know... because no-one can show me where the banks have stated they would never do such a thing in the future for anyone... perhaps you have the missing bit of evidence... feel free to show the media release where the banks have all stated they would never use such a trigger (again).

Rufus
14 Oct 2016, 03:47 PM
Let me point something out, a house with a registered kennel is a commercial enterprise, it's not a house.

It is NOT covered by the NCCP and will be treated the same as a hotel, factory, or retail premises etc.
I see no evidence in either ABC article stating that banks were considering selling homes up, even though they may have asked for valuations.

Feel free to point it out,

I was well aware that Robert Roseworn's property may or may not be covered.

It is not the only one that was sent letters by the banks.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-12/cba-backs-down-on-foreclosing-contaminated-homes/7925778
"Banks had threatened foreclosure,"

Edited by Rastus2, 14 Oct 2016, 04:04 PM.
Shadow - Defrauded his Bank ? 2015 I have 9 different loans and my bank had no idea which ones were personal and which were investment. They had half of them classed incorrectly. When this change came in they asked me to tell them if any personal loans were incorrectly classed as investment, which I did, and they switched them to personal for the lower rate. They also had a couple of investment loans incorrectly classed as personal. They didn't ask me about those. So they stay on the lower rate too. Worked out pretty well. :)
Shadow - 2008 Sydney Median House Price 1.25M by 2014-2015

Shadow : I think this boom has already begun in several cities. My prediction :
Peak of boom: 2014-2015. Sydney Median Price: $1,250,000 Bottom of bust: 2017-2018. Sydney Median Price: $1,100,000

Shadow's Original 2010 House Boom and Crash prediction http://s836.photobucket.com/user/rastus22/media/shady-orig-2010-chart.png.html?sort=3&o=0

Shadow's attempt to edit his 2010 chart in 2015 and replace it with one that does not show a crash in 2013 http://s836.photobucket.com/user/rastus22/media/Screen%20Shot%202015-06-06%20at%207.12.52%20pm_1.png.html
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Rufus
Member Avatar


Rastus2
14 Oct 2016, 03:54 PM
Feel free to point it out,

I was well aware that Robert Roseworn's property may or may not be covered.

It is not the only one that was sent letters by the banks.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-12/cba-backs-down-on-foreclosing-contaminated-homes/7925778
"Banks had threatened foreclosure,"
Quote:
 
Rob Roseworne, a home and business owner in Salt Ash who is a CBA customer, said his bank had been spooked by his properties' subsequent drop in value.


Mr Roseworne appears to be the only one who received a letter.
Whilst I sympathise and in the bank managers position I wouldn't take action if payments were being made on time, under the mortgage provisions for this particular property, the bank does have the right.

The article does say that "If it came up on one letter, you might put it down to being a mistake, but we have about four, five letters in about six to seven days."

But they all appear related to Mr Roseworne, not the other residents.

Other issues were that the bank wouldn't reduce his payments even though rates had gone down - they simply don't have to, and the banks weren't lending new money in the area - again they don't have to and neither one of those issues means they are repossessing homes.
Take risks - if you win you will become wealthy, if you lose you will become wise
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Khaderbhai
Member Avatar
Wealthy Suburbanite

Rastus2
14 Oct 2016, 03:54 PM
The fact that they started that process tells most of us that the banks are well aware of their ability to start this process if required
I'm sure they start the process to foreclose on commercial properties like this all the time, but it's nice to know they backed down in this case. I'm sure the bad publicity from the prior Bankwest commercial repossessions had some influence. Anyway, once again, no attempt to take action against NCCP protected residential homes. It's all good. :)
Edited by Khaderbhai, 14 Oct 2016, 05:22 PM.
Banks can't repossess your home simply because the market value falls. Australia's Consumer Credit Code says consumers aren't liable for things ordinarily outside their control and can't be held to obligations that could only be met by selling their home. Click for details.

"The truth is that there are no good men, or bad men. It is the deeds that have goodness or badness in them. There are good deeds, and bad deeds. Men are just men."
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Ex BP Golly
Member Avatar


Khaderbhai
14 Oct 2016, 05:19 PM
I'm sure they start the process to foreclose on commercial properties like this all the time, but it's nice to know they backed down in this case. I'm sure the bad publicity from the prior Bankwest commercial repossessions had some influence. Anyway, once again, no attempt to take action against NCCP protected residential homes. It's all good. :)
You don't think he could be like you and lied about the use of the property?

And maybe he didn't lie!

It's a bit grey, given that rurally, 5 acres is considered a 'home block', and whatever else is business.

I can't imagine his kennels would be over 5 acres.
WHAT WOULD EDDIE DO? MAAAATE!
Share a cot with Milton?
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Khaderbhai
Member Avatar
Wealthy Suburbanite

Ex BP Golly
14 Oct 2016, 06:17 PM
You don't think he could be like you and lied about the use of the property?

And maybe he didn't lie!

It's a bit grey, given that rurally, 5 acres is considered a 'home block', and whatever else is business.

I can't imagine his kennels would be over 5 acres.
It's all good Golly. Chill. This is a good news story. The bank didn't foreclose and everything is cool. Thanks for sharing, you guys! :)
Banks can't repossess your home simply because the market value falls. Australia's Consumer Credit Code says consumers aren't liable for things ordinarily outside their control and can't be held to obligations that could only be met by selling their home. Click for details.

"The truth is that there are no good men, or bad men. It is the deeds that have goodness or badness in them. There are good deeds, and bad deeds. Men are just men."
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Ex BP Golly
Member Avatar


Yep, only 1.4 acres.

Cool you assume it's a business loan.
WHAT WOULD EDDIE DO? MAAAATE!
Share a cot with Milton?
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 9



Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.

Forum Rules: The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.

Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.

Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.

This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.

For more information go to Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use

Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ

Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy