"Don't part with your dreams - when they are gone you may still exist but you will have ceased to live" - Mark Twain

"Do you know that this blog wouldn't exist if it wasn't for you being here to read it!?" - Bobby Gill
Showing posts with label lawyers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lawyers. Show all posts

Thursday, 1 November 2012

Bank Frauds in the News - $43 Trillion Financial Fraud Lawsuit in US - Racketeering and Money Laundering


Iceland dealt with it's banking and financial problems and the economy is recovering.  The Irish are taking mass action against the banks. Even the US have started civil lawsuits against racketeering and Money Laundering now - but they're trying to keep it quiet.


Censored: Banks Fraud in the News - $43 Trillion Financial Fraud Lawsuit and CNBC Executive’s Children Murdered - coincidence or not!?

Do you watch/read the news? Do you believe it isn't censored…?
In that case you will have heard one of the big CNBC related news stories.

Not the one about the Vice President of CNBC Digital having his children murdered, which is the daily fodder of stories that media like to feed people that enjoy this kind of curious behaviour. Even though it was horrific and not deserving of anyone, especially young children: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223972/Krim-murder-Brave-year-old-girl-tried-fight-killer-nanny.html

But the other BIG story I'm referring to is about the $43 trillion dollar lawsuit that CNBC had published earlier that same day.  It was a Press Release that they had run on their website, I know it was there as I had a glance last week and saved the link to read later. CNBC Published the article on Thursday and it had disappeared within 48 hours! Now who says news isn't censored!?

This is the link where the article WAS:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49555671/Major_Banks_Governmental_Officials_and_Their_Comrade_Capitalists_Targets_of_Spire_Law_Group_LLP_s_Racketeering_and_Money_Laundering_Lawsuit_Seeking_Return_of_43_Trillion_to_the_United_States_Treasury

A copy of the deleted article/press release is available here to read:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/111797302

View the 858 Page Lawsuit here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/111799801

And other people that notice the anomaly and discussing the coincidence:
http://wtfrly.com/2012/10/27/cnbc-curiously-removes-article-on-43-trillion-financial-fraud-lawsuit-after-executives-kids-murdered-in-new-york-nanny-case/

I'm not saying there is a link but don't you think it curious that it happened!?

-----

Elsewhere in the World....


Do what Iceland did and kick out the corrupt Government plebs and fraudulent bankers!


The Irish have also started their cases



Bankers in America know their time has come with the latest lawsuit and it looks like it will be the UK's biggest next, with Lloyds TSB management and their Halifax Bank of Scotland partners next.

Do you think your Bank has defrauded you?

Well, with so much overwhelming evidence (or lack of defence offered), moral and financial bankruptcy, government bailouts, whilst they take money from 'Dear Doris' - the answer is yes and you can find out easily by asking them a few simple questions.

Of course if you're happy with them defrauding you, then carry on as normal. After all is Ignorance is Bliss!

If you want to know for sure then you can send them a letter requesting a certified copy of your supposed contracts and proof of Bank funds, to confirm your suspicions.

Your only obligation to yourself is to send the letter, see what answers you get back - then follow up with legal action (if you can afford) or at least publish the information online if there is something untoward or shady about any misdirection and refusal to provide answers or documents that you have a right to!

Yes that's right - Banks refuse to send documents either because they don't have them or because they believe they can get away with it. Is it time you showed them that people aren't going to take any more fraud and lies?

Isn't it time you took a stand too?

Leave a comment below and I'll send you a copy of the letter to find out if you have been taken for a ride.

Monday, 12 September 2011

Repayment v Interest Only

This has always been a popular topic for property investors.
Should they keep their payments low or high and build some more equity?
Should they pay off their debt as they go along or pay it off at the end with the sale of their property?

There are a few options to consider but what is best for you?
Well only you know the answer to that but let me first give you some facts (or things I believe are true from my experiential truth).

I know my opinions are not always popular but they are true.  My ideas may not be mainstream (pop-News style) but why would you read what I wrote if they were ;-)

As you know I have nothing to sell so come from a place of honesty, integrity and truth.
I'm not suggesting those with things to sell aren't, just that occasionally they may mislead you just a little to get a sale. (I really should charge for my insights!)
My 'sale' does go directly into the Universal bank account, which you fund by reading, paying attention and taking Action if necessary.


Quick History lesson - Mortgage

Origin of the word Mortgage is from 1350–1400;
earlier morgage Middle English < Old French mortgage,
 equivalent to mort: dead (< Latin mortuus ) + gage:  pledge
= A pledge till death!



Repayment -v- Interest only?

Once you're involved with this pledge, which is the right payment to make?
Well it all depends, as always.  What does it depend on you may ask, well on your cashflow and equity!

If you invested recently, have good equity and high cashflow, maybe from a HMO, then repayment may be a good option - but what if you didn't…

Banks and population control 'dogma' has taught us that is a good idea to pay a mortgage off using repayment over a long term - NO!  This 'may' be true on your own home - but that thinking too has changed too now for some.

Firstly Cashflow 

Consider the following:
How is your cashflow?
Can you afford your current interest payments at the moment?

Now consider risk planning.
Did the apartment you buy have 'hidden' (as in the small print) service charges?
Is the boiler regularly serviced and insured? What about the pipes and other appliances?
What if your tenants leave with arrears and damage?
As you know you may have big bills that occasionally turn up unexpectedly or tenants leave a property and you have damage and vacancies to deal with, so it is good to keep some money aside.

Also when interest rated go up how is this going to affect your payments?
Might it not be a good idea to put some money aside now to cover for this later?
Many landlords have been lucky and are still in business because of low tracker rates but it's not going to last forever.

Do you want your cashflow to be in or out?

Next Equity

Many investors I know bought properties pre-2007 before the crash and have lost their equity and more.
Now if you think the markets can't go lower, did you think prices would fall 10% from the peak or how about 20%?  Well I think they fell around 25% and there is still plenty of downside.
So do you believe they could possibly fall another 25%? If not, why not… they already fell 25% and the USA has got some places where they fell 50% and more!  It could happen here too!!

So how is your equity position?
If it's good you might consider repayments and get the mortgage paid off sooner (I never said it was a bad idea to pay the properties off)

BUT if you're in negative equity (along with cash-flow challenges) then why would you increase your payments to give the Bank more money, making your current position worse and cash-flow even tighter?

Consider what else you can do with the money like putting it aside for higher interest rates or contingencies. Maybe even investing it elsewhere.

If you are doing repayment and still paying off negative equity and the market gets worse, then you're more likely to go bust and have been worse off in the duration.
If you do get into positive equity, there is still the risk of going bust - so why not leave the risk with the fat cat bankers who can afford it?

Of course if the market improves and you ride the storm through, then the equity will return and you can either make repayments then or sell the properties.

Remember you have to make it to the finish line to Win - and right now companies, corporations, businesses and even Countries are failing to do that!



This informational/ rationale/ thinking doesn't only just apply to your investments.
I have an intelligent friend who is thinking the same about his house and believes there are signs that property might go down another 90% (as this will hurt your head we're not going to cover this figure or reasoning right now) - just know that some markets in the US are down over 50% and who thought that would happen!?  He is happy to make interest only payments, invest the difference somewhere and let the properties go to the Banks if the situation gets worse.


If you get into financial difficulty later, they will try to take your house, even if you have plenty of equity in it!  You're just a number to cross off, a liability and an annoyance if not paying them more and more every month.

- No payments is also an option but I won't be discussing that here.
Yes it really is, if you're struggling you can stop paying and default.
Better to do it now than fund a bad position.
If you have no access to Government funding and bailouts it is easily justifiable.

People have to start treating houses and investments like business decisions not emotional things they have to hang onto.  When the business is failing get rid of it. 
The Banks do NOT give a merde (excuse my French) about you, so why should you care about them?
They've already been paid because they failed!  Don't let it cost you more if you have an option to give them less.

Want to hear the truth from the horse's mouth? Well your local branch of the Bank is a good place to start and you will be able to deduce the truth from what they won't say

Speak to your Bank Manager or Relationship Manager (aka. payment chasers with fancy titles) at your local Bank, as the call centres aren't paid to provide service and answer questions and Regional Managers and CEO's are too important to deal with you the lowly customer.  Someone in your branch can't 'accidentally' hang up on you or keep transferring indefinitely.

Ask them what they recommend would be the best payment method for YOU.  And wait for the answer…
You'll be surprised how they may start to waffle, start speaking legal or say they can't give advice.
If they do answer your question - (which was what is best for you) they will tell you to pay off your debt faster and give the Bank your money.

Really!?
Try it and see how much honesty you get with respect to you, as opposed to them looking after only the Bank's interests.


So which payment?

If you've thought it through, it has to be interest only in my opinion - saving the money for when rates go up and your payments increase or investing it somewhere else.

If the property market improves then great, the equity problem will fix itself.

If it doesn't improve, then at least you didn't feed the Banks from the bottom at the same time as the Government fed them from the top! Screwing you in the process if things don't work out.
Remember the house (bank) is always set up to Win (even if it means cheating) - so stop playing by their stacked rules!

Do what's RIGHT for YOU and your family! 
Not what a Bank employee says because they want to keep their job or hit their bonuses.



Bonus legal stuff


If you have a bigger portfolio and money to spare, do what the corporations do and separate the assets into 'good' investments and 'bad' investments.  This is all legal, though not very honest in my book - but it's OK as you would only be following the examples of our dishonest Government, untrustworthy leaders and the corrupt soul-less Corporate bankers.
Legal is a term used to turn dishonesty into 'acceptable' by lawyers and judges.

That way you can dump the bad assets or sell them on (sub-prime style) if they don't go well.
Please check the legalities of this with your accountant and solicitors - but note the answer may change the higher the fees you pay them (just how the system and lawyers work).
Find those lawyers (and judges) that re-represent councils, governments and Banks to find those with lower standards.



If you are having problems with your portfolio then give us a shout, I know we can help you turn it around or make it less painful making the changes you need to!


.

Friday, 7 May 2010

Dodgy solicitors and greedy family = repossession

I’m aware of this case that Simon Zutshi has just written about on his blog. It’s a tough one with so many parties involved but you’re right, a lawyer should be looking after the best interests of the client at the time and not providing financial advice.

Did he back it up with a guarantee that he’d cover the difference, should things not work out as expected? I didn’t think so…

Unfortunately I know of another lawyers / solicitor / legal ‘advisor’ who seems to think that whatever the money men (banks) say is the truth without actually really being able to apply the legal rules in specific circumstances. They tend to open the text book at a certain page and say that’s how it is or discuss things that they have no idea or experience about. There's nothing worse than bad legal advice from someone who doesn't have any attachment to the outcome.

Definitely worth bringing up with the law society as someone has to hold them accountable!

Also the other family members are partly responsible too, allowing greed to get in the way of sound judgment. Did they consider the implications of what would happen if they couldn't sell it for a higher price?

What happened to common sense? Clearly it doesn’t pay the bills.

Bobby



Screwed by their Lawyer!

by Simon Zutshi

I still can’t believe it. I have been dealing with a motivated seller in London who is being repossessed on the advice of a lawyer acting for one of the family members and even worse this decision has been backed up by a Judge.

I was speaking at an event in London last week and at the end I was approached by a gentleman who for privacy we shall call Mark. Mark asked me if I could help because his mother’s property was due to be repossessed this week!

He asked me to come and look at the property to see if I could help them. It is a large four bed property in North London in need of some work but a fantastic location. Mark explained that his mother lives in the property but that he, his sister and his mother were all on the mortgage.

The loan was with a subprime lender who was charging them 10.5% per annum and they were finding it very hard to keep up the payments and so had decided to sell. Another brother and sister had been helping to pay this mortgage but had decided enough was enough and they had to sell

So the house was put on the market and as a sale had been agreed the lawyer representing Mark’s sister (let’s call them “Bungle & Scarper”) had suggested that the family members stop paying the mortgage and the arrears that build up could be paid off when the revenue comes in from the sale.

This is a risky strategy in the event that the sale could fall through, which surprise, surprise it did. We all know what happens if you do not pay your mortgage (or maybe we don’t all know) …eventually you will get repossessed. Mark had already been to court with his mother and the Judge advised that the property had to be sold.

Mark was a very motivated seller. He and his mother agreed that they would rather sell the house at a discount, to clear all the debt and walk out with £100k rather than get repossessed, have their credit records trashed and potentially not get much money after all the associated legal costs. Mark had an investor lined up ready to buy the property who also went to court with them to present the solution.

Unfortunately, Mark’s sister and the other brother and sister had a different view. On the advice of their lawyers, Bungle & Scarper, they thought the best solution would be good to get repossessed and then do a deal with the lenders solicitors to sell the property on the open market get the best possible price and then hopefully they would get more money from the sale, not to mention the trashed credit rating or maybe they are unaware of the full implications.

Incredibly the judge thought that the investors offer was too low (even though it would clear all the debt and give the family £100k plus), and agreed to give possession to the lenders solicitors. How can being reposed be the best solution for the property owners? Maybe the judge was thinking that they will get more money by selling the property on the open market. Well, whilst I agree they may receive a higher offer I wonder if the Judge has conserved all the associated costs. For a start an estate agent in London would want 2.5% of the sales price. I am sure the lenders lawyers and Bungle & Scarper will also have very high costs associated with their time involved in the sale, not to mention all the interest and penalties building up whilst the property is marketed and sold.

This cannot be right! Maybe I have a simplistic view of this. Maybe I have had a bias account of the facts from Mark but this does not seem right to me. Is this fair? What do you think?

I wonder if Bungle & Scarper were more concerned about the fees they can earn from the prolonged case rather than the best interests of their clients. It looks to me as if this lawyer has been giving financial advice to their clients. Interesting as I don’t think they can do that. I wonder what the law society would have to say about this?

The lessons I would like you to draw from this are as follows:
1. Most sellers do not understand the implication of getting repossessed. Often the bury their head in the sand and think everything will be better once the property is repossessed
2. You need to be aware the advice that sellers are given may not be the best course of action for them.
3. When you are dealing with sellers always put their interests first ahead of your own and try to come up with an ethical win win solution.
4. When there is a disagreement between family members the judge can decide the course of action he sees fit.

Feel free to post what you think about this case study.

Source: Simon Zutshi, Property Investors Network