Click on our Secret Library of Evidence ------>

    BANKILEAKS Secret Library

Loan Application Forms (LAF's)  

    Bank Emails to Brokers  

    Then Click on 'VIEW NOTEBOOK'

Join us on facebook

facebook3           facebook2 


What BFCSA Does...

BFCSA investigates fraud involving lenders, spruikers and financial planners worldwide.  Full Doc, Low Doc, No Doc loans, Lines of Credit and Buffer loans appear to be normal profit making financial products, however, these loans are set to implode within seven years.  For the past two decades, Ms Brailey, President of BFCSA (Inc), has been a tireless campaigner, championing the cause of older and low income people around the Globe who have fallen victim to banking and finance scams.  She has found that people of all ages are being targeted by Bankers offering faulty lending products. BFCSA warn that anyone who has signed up for one of these financial products, is in grave danger of losing their home.


Articles View Hits

Whistleblowers' Corner!

To all mortgage brokers, BDMs and loan approval officers! 
Pls Call Denise: 0401 642 344 

"Confidentiality is assured."

Cartoon Corner

Lighten your load today and "Laugh all the way to the bank!"

Denise Brailey

Led by award-winning consumer advocate Denise Brailey, BFCSA (Inc) are a group of people who are concerned about the appalling growth of Loan Fraud around the world. BFCSA (Inc) is a not for profit organisation in the spirit of global community concern and justice.

Click on the Cluster Map.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Login
    Login Login form

BFCSA: Captain Haddock has his say and we respond

  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 3019
  • Print

I have decided to respond to Captain Haddock.  My responses are in  RED

Comments from Captain Haddock in black:

To date the AOFM has invested (not spent) approximately $15 billion. This has been invested in home loans for mums and dads who were clients of lenders other than the major banks including credit unions and building societies. About one third of this investment has been paid back already. If these investments were backed by 10% - 20% "tarnished loans", why has there not been a single cent of losses recorded on any of these investments? All these transactions are the subject of continuous open reporting disclosing the performance of all the loans. There have been no issues.

Thank you for that clarification CH.   If the RMBS packs are created by subsidiaries of the Major Banks, what happens then?  If investments have been “paid back,” you have admitted it was via investments (not spent).  It’s all a little like smoke and mirrors and that’s the problem.  We are all new to this and freely admit being so, yet I am no stranger to scams.  We ask for a Royal Commission because the one constant is the FRAUD contained on loan documents by both Banks and Non Bank  Lenders.  If we are wrong why not have a Royal Commission in any case?

I am not sure why the statement is made that there were no audits in respect of the AOFM's investments. Every single deal they have invested in was subject to a rigorous process of checking that the loans met the criteria of the AOFM.   This requirement and the criteria checked is publicly made clear in the Operational Notices from the AOFM which are available from their website. It is simply untrue to state that there have been no audits.

Good Point.  AOFM admitted no audits.  ONs are tick-a-box check lists and we know that both Banks and Non Banks intentionally did not verify any income or financial details.  Checking a check list generated by the bankers would therefore be a fraud as the original data collected was engineered as a fraud.  The AOFM did not telephone the customers. Their job was toi trust the bankser were telling the truth….as did our Members.   Had they done so they would have known of the fraud.  We have the proof and we need a forum to present our evidence: such as Royal Commission.

Really, there are two possibilities here. Either (a) a number of arms of the government, APRA, ASIC, all three rating agencies, every major bank and investment bank, all regional banks and a number of the largest credit unions and building societies, non-bank lenders, major audit firms and the entire capital markets of Australia and offshore are complicit in a scheme to defraud the Australian public that only the readers of this website have discovered, or (b) the small number of readers of this website have been poorly advised, failed to read their loan contracts, were the subject of some level of fraud by brokers and are wrongly assuming that their example is indicative of everyone else.

It is a widely held view by regulators that one person’s complaint could be a key indicator of a wider and more sinister problem or criminal activity.  When 1000 people come forward from here and in New Zealand, who have never met or spoken to each other, and all have discovered the same type of identical fraud spread across 30 lenders including the four majors then there ought to be cause for concern.  I do not gather these people together for my health or for any personal gain, I can assure you. 

When Members assist in setting up a website as they recognise the fact the regulators stopped listening, it’s another legitimate and wider cause for concern.  The readers are not advised at all.  They are on a journey of discovery as BFCSA is in fact by necessity a self help system.  Members and Readers are telling you and me what they have discovered.  You mention “scheme to defraud the Australian public” and it could well be and the very reason why a Royal Commission is necessary.  You think the brokers developed the same fraud on the same day times 40,000 brokers and all brokers are crooks?  The regulators quietly admit the banks are the engineers.  You think the BDMs all dreamed this up? Most Brokers and BDMs did not know each other. 

The fraud was not in the contract….a point of fact.  All loans were assessed by ZIPPY THE CALCULATOR.  Humans were not assessing loans.  We know that now.  The Banks know that we know.  Credit Assessors were ticking boxes the same as the AOFM officers.

The point is Captain Haddock, that the rest of the world suffered this same problem in the banking sector.  Our bubble hasn’t burst yet.  However, as a community we have conducted ourselves with integrity and pooled all our resources to prove that there are emerging patterns of considerable concern: eg: “not one clean loan amongst them and documents altered by the banks after the broker faxed the Applications to the banks.”  Brokers did not know of that gem.  Three people’s handwriting on every LAF, nationwide and after the signature obtained. 

The Brokers did not pluck new income figures out of the air.  The Banks gave them secret passwords to access the bank generated calculator known as ZIPPY.  The banks manipulated the gears NSR 1.1 x and 1.47 x.  We have uncovered the proof.  The Insurers matched the same calculation.  The BDMs and credit assessors were just following orders…ask them.  The dodgy incomes were created and approved in 4 minutes by ZIPPY.

The client was never given a copy of most of the file. 

Did the AOFM pick up on any of this? Did the regulators investigate the banks?  So why do you think we did not follow the same path as America and everywhere else in crisis?  Our banks were writing clean loans?  On a Global scale we are different?

There is a massive role for consumer advocacy and there are many shortcomings in this market. Many of them relate to poor lending practices - for example, how many people here read and understood all terms of their loan contracts?

Correct, they were never given a chance to read the contracts – very very clever system.  It has to be for such a widespread and systemic fraud to occur and for 14 years.  There was no consumer advocacy service until I started assisting people with this problem in 2003.  We have no funding so we are far from perfect with limited resources.  I take no salary at all.  Our helpers are mostly volunteers; although we have just started a user pays system to assist more people as they flood in the door. 

The EDR’s are taking in excess of 600 new cases per week, and you think there is no problem?  No need for a Royal Commission?

The Bank Lawyers were up to old tricks with yellow stickers.  I will leave that gem to the courts and to a Royal Commissioner to probe that argument as to contractual probity.

Claiming that there is massive intentional criminal fraud and that all bankers and regulators are evil simply makes you appear completely lacking in credibility.

Yes initially the issue may lack credibility due to the breath-taking size and nature of the fraud.  A bit like the cyclones we see on the weather map.  However, it does not diminish the size and audacity of the facts we have uncovered to date.  My “theories” in 2001 and reported by ASIC in their 167 page Report 2003, led to six successful court cases, including the High Court challenge by Firstmac.  The Jenman Agents put up the funds on the strength of that evidence that I had collected from 50 families.  These cases were civil cases against the banks, not the brokers.  The Judges understood the real issue and were appalled.  One instructed Counsel for Bank: “you tell your client…..they KNEW, they KNEW etc. 

I know this is hard to accept but that is simply not true. This is not to make light of the bad experience that many here have had. However, confected outrage over massive systemic fraud is not constructive - it just gives decision makers excuses to ignore what are otherwise valid concerns.

Trust me.  Regulators are no longer ignoring us and are meeting with us and are probably our biggest daily readers.  I appreciate your concerns. You too have been kept in the dark.

I would guess that in most cases most borrowers willingly accepted the money advanced under the loans. If some third party took the money and a lender is enforcing where the "borrower" never received the money or knew about the loan, sure, that is fraud. But if you took the money and you knew it had to be repaid......well, that IS a bit different.

As with any fraud investigation, there are points of difference.  I can assure you it’s what the Bankster did NEXT, that is the most diabolical….once they had the victim snared…..” A Royal Commission is the only answer.  Certainly, to protect the rights of the future generations, I advocate that the public have a right to know the truth and have a right to have the mortgage market placde under scrutiny and cleaned up.  Failure on this task will simply create more of the same: poverty and misery and, who benefits from that?  Apart from Banksters of course, and those who thought it smart to hide under desks.   This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

I thank you for taking the time to air these issues and we welcome a complete and thorough and very public investigation into the secret world of bankers.

Last modified on
Rate this blog entry:


  • Denise
    Denise Friday, 01 March 2013

    The more questions from Insiders pop up, the more the truth will be revealed. [email protected]

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Friday, 01 March 2013

    There are a lot of issues here but I will try to keep my responses brief. The AOFM has not, and is not allowed to, invest in deals which contain contain mortgages from subsidiaries of the major banks. This is clearly stated in their operational notices. The AOFM provides detailed reporting on the transactions they have invested in and who originated the mortgages. Instances, even multiple, of mis-selling a product do not constitute a systemic process of fraudulent origination. There would be justification for Royal Commissions into an enormous number of things if this were the case. There have been a large number of forums for evidence to be produced including senate committees and whatever evidence has been produced has not been material enough to convince those in those forums. Existing regulators have examined this particular market. I know no one will believe me but there is no motive for the existing regulators to do banks any favours. The fact that regulators have not done anything to date is not proof of such a motive. To claim it is would be a reductio ad absurdum.

    There seems little reason to think a Royal Commission would take a different view. That is obviously only a matter of opinion of course.

    I am not sure of the issue in relation to audits. Each deal in which the AOFM invests is checked to make sure the loans comply with the AOFM requirements. This check is carried out by independent auditors. The requirement for audits is clearly stated in the public information from the AOFM in their operational notices. If you choose not to believe this that is your option but it is a fact. It may not be an audit of what you consider important but it is an audit nonetheless.

    I am unsure of what you are referring to in relation to ZIPPY. Automatic assessment tools exist in a range of forms. They are typically just a mechanistic calculator. They are not designed to detect fraud at any level of the process but nor can they do anything other than assess the inputs. There is no mystery in relation to assessment tools but they are proprietary as they are typically developed by the relevant organisation. There has certainly never been in Australia any credit assessment calculator which is common across the industry. Again, this is a simple fact which you can choose to believe or not.

    Certainly it is a truism that a single reporting instance of fraud is suggestive of others. However, it is not correct to draw from this point an inference that multiple instances of fraud are confirmation of a systemic conspiracy to commit widespread fraud. It is always tempting to argue from anecdotal evidence but the statistics in relation to this issue demonstrate this quite clearly.

    Certainly there have been instances where borrower's income and or assets have been mis-stated. As a general statement, where this has occurred it was typically the broker that was responsible. Brokers are in the position where all they have at risk is the future trail income on the loan. Banks are not inclined to do this kind of thing on a systemic basis because they have the full value of the loan at risk. That is not to state that no bank officer has ever done it but there is just no organisational motive for any lender to do this. I have little doubt you will disregard this point and tell me that you know the bankers did it. As noted above, and to be completely clear, it may have happened in limited instances. However, there is no reason for any organisation to support this approach, and there is no statistical evidence in securitised loan pools or on bank balance sheets of systemic poor lending.

    Your statistics on the EDR complaints were heavily constructed to suit your argument, as I recall. In any event, let me counter your questions with one of my own. Why, with all the evidence you claim to have, is no one paying any attention?

    In relation to my final comment, I don't really understand your response. I think there is a level of personal responsibility which everyone should have. There are some exceptions to what I am about to say: (i) if you were not capable of understanding what you were signing up for; (ii) if the loan was tied to an investment in an asset where there was a conflict of interest from the loan provider or (iii) if you are vulnerable in some other respect. However, where I come from, if you take money from someone on the understanding that you will pay it back, then you pay it back. If you have used it to put into an investment which ends badly, you STILL pay it back. If you buy a house and you had checked you should have realised you weren't able to pay the interest, you sell the house, and you STILL pay it back.

    All of this information is public and freely available. I know that is not easy to accept if you have lost your house. I understand that is incredibly difficult, and even if you are not an exception, I am honestly very sympathetic. And there are many people who fall into the three exceptions noted above. But it is simply not a systemic issue. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. People are not defaulting on their mortgages at anywhere near the rate implied by your allegations.

    I know you will disagree with all my comments because they don't suit your agenda. Why then am I commenting? Because there are real consumer protection issues at play in this country and spending time and energy on issues such as this is sucking oxygen from those real issues. Thank you for your polite responses however.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Friday, 01 March 2013

    Ed: My apologies Captain. I have deleted Wayne's unwarranted comments. db

    I am not blaming anyone. I realise there are many instances of poor lending and fraud, including involvement from individual bankers as I noted in my response. It is entirely possible that yours is one of those instances and I have no reason to doubt that is the case. My point is simply that it is not happening and did not happen on a systemic basis. It is a fact that in most instances which have been before the courts, generally the broker has been to blame.

    It is a reality that many borrowers do not fully read their contracts. That does not mean they are to blame for fraud. But it does not exactly assist in their case when they claim to have been taken advantage of that they were willing to incur debt without going to the effort of checking terms, and then claiming the terms should not apply to them. I am not accusing anyone including you of that, but it happens nonetheless.

    This information is all public. My integrity is for me to worry about but please be assured I can sleep soundly at night.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Friday, 01 March 2013

    The Banks knew EXACTLY what they were doing with these low doc products. Even APRA warns the risks outlined in the registers are so sensitive that releasing the (bank) information 'may affect the stability of Australia's economy'. Where is APRA's integrity? Do you also follow this same code of honour Captain H.?

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Saturday, 02 March 2013

    APRA tells banks: don't go too easy on borrowers ~ by Caroline Dann | 13 Aug 2012

    APRA claimed banks not reporting overdue loans,"it can obscure prudent internal & regulatory reporting of past-due & impaired loans", APRA said.

    US] But Bear Stearns-- "altered the electronic spreadsheets to conceal the problems", according to the lawsuit, which was filed in New York State Supreme Court.

    APRA has warned banks to exercise caution when issuing mortgage repayment concessions to borrowers facing financial hardship.

    It made the assertions in a letter sent to top bank executives this weekend, urging them to be wary of the risks involved.

    'Hardship concessions' are commonly used to reduce rates, lengthen the lifespan of a loan or defer interest rate payment to borrowers undergoing a tough financial period.

    APRA said some banks were "wiping the slate clean" with borrowers, to avoid activating debt collection processes.

    It said while 'hardship concessions' were sometimes necessary, it potentially disrupted the reporting process.

    APRA claimed there were cases of banks not reporting overdue loans.

    ''While this practice may be reasonable from an operational perspective, it can obscure prudent internal and regulatory reporting of past-due and impaired loans,'' APRA said.

    Earnings reports from several major banks are expected this week. Analysts are predicting profit margins will be hurt by poor mortgage lending activity in the past year.

    Justice Department Probing JPMorgan Over Bear Stearns Mortgage Products


    The DOJ inquiry into the due diligence performed for Bear Stearns tracks accusations detailed in private lawsuits against the bank.

    Bear Stearns hired Mortgage Data Management Corp to review a sample of loans in a 2006 mortgage securitization, according to a case filed against JPMorgan last year by bond insurer MBIA Inc .

    Reviewers concluded that around one-third of the loans had serious credit and compliance problems, the lawsuit said.

    But Bear Stearns "altered the electronic spreadsheets to conceal the problems", according to the lawsuit, which was filed in New York State Supreme Court.

    Bear Stearns removed 50 columns of information from the spreadsheet that showed the issues and then sent the altered report to MBIA, the lawsuit said.

    In its answer to the MBIA complaint, JPMorgan denied the allegations that it had altered the spreadsheets. That case is pending.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Saturday, 02 March 2013

    How long has the AOFM been investing in these mortgages?
    How do we know the AOFM does not invest in mortgages other than the major banks?
    Non Bank Lenders received millions of dollars in funding,which I understand was given to support their lending activities,and to be competition for the major banks.
    What are the statics regarding non bank lenders,who have securitised mortgages?
    I know my mortgage was securitised in 2003 along with several others,and they have all defaulted and the non bank lender has lost approx 1.5 million and that's just 3 loans that I know of.
    Therefore I disagree with your comment that the AOFM doesn't invest in major bank susbsidiaries.
    The way I see it non bank lenders get their funds from where ever they can,correct me if I am wrong.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Saturday, 02 March 2013

    it all sounds a bit fishy to us

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Monday, 04 March 2013

    Honesty, the AOFM has been investing since late 2008. The list of deals which they have invested in is available freely to anyone on their website. There are no deals that funded mortgages from the major banks or their subsidiaries.

    Information on the amount of money which the AOFM has invested in which transactions is freely available on their website also. I know I will not be believed but for vast majority of borrowers, whether their loan is securitised is of no relevance whatsoever. Some borrowers have borrowed from organisations that shut down their business and so the loans have been sold or transferred - this would have happened whether the loans were securitised or not. In fact, securitisation has at least afforded the public better insight into how loan portfolios perform in terms of arrears and losses because it makes the information available (albeit at a cost through various reporting agencies). The RBA is implementing a project which will make all information (other than personal information or borrowers) available freely to the general public. Whilst I acknowledge the point made above about misleading reporting on performance, for a securitisation vehicle it is not possible to hide poor performance on anything other than a very short time frame. The truth will out and the reality is that securitised mortgages have performed very well. I am sure that Bear Stearns got up to all sorts of mischief but then they are now defunct because of it - not really the current situation down here.

    In respect of arree's comments, my only observation would be that APRA's concerns may have been around the public perception of issues relating to second or third tier ADIs in this country, rather than the actuality. Regardless of your views of the world, all businesses rely to some extent on customer confidence. There are many examples where misinterpretation of information has damaged a business because customers have wrongly perceived an issue. The financial sector is important and APRA have to take this risk seriously. That is, there has to be some pretty serious public interest in something to risk creating a run on an organisation that is in fact doing OK but not great. APRA have made a call. Their job is to protect depositors. Everyone has a view on things but it is hard to say APRA have done a bad job at protecting depositors. Also, I am dealing in facts (and a bit of supposition) here not statements of honour. I am not sure how my "Code of Honour" is relevant, but in any case my "Code of Honour" is my own affair, fishy or otherwise.

    Lastly re the editor's changes to Wayne's and my posts, thank you for your consideration. I am entirely comfortable with you reinstating the exchange as originally posted by both parties. My comment looks a bit strange without the original response - one might suspect I was suffering from bipolar disorder.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Monday, 04 March 2013

    Time to Wake Up AOFM

    1)RMBS data(avail?) was hidden in dark corners, hitherto;

    2)banksters, have "no skin in RMBS game"(on-sold) & insutrance covers shortfalls, so no AOFM incentive exists to conduct a "real audit" of client files, lest, insurance be voided & the whole LowDoc (subprime lending standards) scam will be exposed for what it is, always has been -- a "systemic blight" on Australian Citizens, disguised to benefit small business borrowers. It has been hijacked, Sir, wake up, i respectfully request;

    3)Bank of QLD clearly demonstrates (refer to Senate Enquiry) that even in instances of instigating an "internal review" (of something fishy), banks take whatever steps necessary to "hush it up", dismiss their "investigators" & "Carry On" with deny, deny, deny positions all round.--such as MacQ bank, who most recently provides a further "true" prime example of this entrenched behaviour of "Cover-up" at all costs and tell lies to ASIC "annually" , and even if caught, what? --they got a tickle slap from ASIC as a future deterrent.

    4)with respect Sir, so how many "sample files" has AOFM conducted directly instigating audits of individual home borrowers -- to test (fraud) probity issues?.

    5) More than happy to present (confidentially) my direct "evidence" on RMBS bank fraud (part (1) & part (2) ---the acts are simply blatant --that is, when one has the presence of mind to suspect, & consequently enquire a little more deeply than otherwise blindly accepting bank corrupted data as proof of no wrong doing, all is kosher -- indicative of a, "she be right mate", cavalier attitude.

    Are you frightened the AOFM will discover a giant sham / ponzi scheme -- has been running under your very intelligence noses, == and that may be a little embarrassing to explain, one could understand?

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Monday, 04 March 2013

    Andy, your comments seen to assume I am from the AOFM. I am not. I am not sure how much more freely available the AOFM could make information available than posting it on the net. If you go to their website I will bet you or someone you know could find it easily.

    Banks have retained very significant skin in the game in these transactions. Generally it is around 5% - generally the bottom 5% I might add, although every deal is a bit different. They are also on the hook for losses if they have originated the loans out of line with their supposed standards.

    I cannot comment on the BoQ reference. I will not comment again on the AOFM audit question except to note that the performance of all the deals the AOFM has invested in would indicate that there are very low levels of loan fraud. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting but I realise that will not make most readers of this site believe this fact.

    As I am not from the AOFM there is no point sending me instances of bank fraud. I have noted myself that of course bank fraud has happened. It seems difficult to believe that the AOFM would deny the possibility of it. However, what the performance of the AOFM investments indicate is that there are no systemic issues of fraud in those portfolios. I am not denying the existence of bank fraud, just that it is a systemic issue. Just as it would be a mistake to ignore all the evidence of fraud and deny that it exists at all, equally it would be wrong to assume that specific instances of fraud are indicative of a systemic problem.

    I always try and independently verify my thought processes with some hard evidence. It is easy to see a long list of people complaining about fraud and assume that it is wide-spread. But what are the independent signs that anyone would be able to see if it were in fact occurring? If 10% of loans of all types were fraudulently originated, there would be indications of massive default, delinquency and loss rates. Moreover, since it is claimed this activity has increased materially in the period leading up to the GFC, one would expect to see material increases in the [i]rate[i] of these indicators.

    It is just not happening. That is not a matter of opinion, or a claim that there has been no fraud, or a statement that all bankers and market participants are saints, or anything else other, than a statement of fact that the clearest indicator of systemic fraud is.........simply. not. happening.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Monday, 04 March 2013

    AOFM's "Ship of Dreams"

    Notably, no reply to AOFM conducting a "single" probity check of RMBS file/s, notwithstanding 1000+ BFCSA members holding concrete evidence of RMBS FRAUD and the like (corroborated, they can just ask nicely).

    If you don't lift that "rock of concealment", -- as AOFM has chosen -- relying on manipulated bankster numbers, having failed to investigate those "true & correct" claims of widespread RMBS FRAUD, your slant on things, with respect, amounts to spin & fluff.

    A US Senator once said-- "if you torture numbers enough, they're tell you anything", and only now in the US, thru "active investigation", is it being discovered how "crafty" & "extensive" the hand of bankster fraud has concealed the "true & correct" positions relating to RMBS Ponzi Schemes,

    --and your numbers suggest that the ship laden with tainted RMBS loans, just happen to sail right past Australia on it's World Fantasy Tour. The Banksters, must have been asleep at the wheel house, you would gladly have the public believe.

    Your say your rely on evidence, but AOFM chose not to search for the evidence, that is, to conduct a comprehensive audit on the individual mortgage files, to test probity issues. That Sir, is simply "convenient", lest, the Non-Bank participants be declared "insolvent" and AOFM would have no recourse to Mortgage Insurance on grounds of fraud (or similar).

    After-all, were that to happen, there is not doubt whatsoever, the relevant tainted AOFM "investments" would go sour!!!

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Monday, 04 March 2013

    Andy, I have commented on the AOFM's processes above so I have not repeated myself. If everything you were saying was correct, we should be seeing massive default and losses in the deals in which the AOFM invested (and all other securitised deals). There is no way to hide losses in a securitisation vehicle because it is a trust and independent external investors have to be paid every month.

    There are very limited levels of defaults and no losses. I hate to say it to you but the cold hard facts are simply inconsistent with systemic fraud. 1,000 borrowers who have complained about their loans does not constitute a systemic problem. It is uncomfortable to the agenda of this website I know, but it is an unavoidable fact that demonstrated, independently verified, publicly available loan performance is completely inconsistent with widespread systemic loan fraud.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Tuesday, 05 March 2013


    100,000 complaining soon Mr CH. Announce yourself? RBA says,"since there is currently no regulatory standard for RMBS reporting & disclosures,..issuers of RMBS will be required to provide more detailed information than is currently the case." {but compliance years away)

    ---And banksters force borrowers under duress to sell "hand in hand" [mutually selling their prized home prior to bank repo and/or declared default] co-ordinated thru their 'repo creeps' [and/or refinance occurs, more buffer loans] --whilst the bankster "maintains RMBS(AOFM) payments", concurrent to failing to fully report "defaults" to APRA (as APRA complains, explained above)...etc, etc ---you know all the other "tricks to conceal true positions", that was it's called an elaborate bankster cover-up.

    RBA Improving Transparency

    These new reporting requirements are designed to promote greater standardisation of RMBS reporting and enhance information available on securitisations in the Australian market since there is currently no regulatory standard for RMBS reporting and disclosures. A market ‘best-practice’ standard has been developed by the Australian Securitisation Forum which has published various reporting and disclosure standards which it encourages issuers to adopt (for details see: ASF- RMBS Disclosure and Reporting Standards). The Reserve Bank's requirements are consistent with these standards.

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Tuesday, 05 March 2013

    'Figures don't lie; liars figure.'

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Tuesday, 05 March 2013

    I understand that you are not going to believe me about the AOFM's investments. Frankly it is a little unfair because I have an advantage in that I have seen "under the bonnet". (This is not to take away from the fact that the information is there if you want to look by the way). Effectively what that means therefore is that you are speculating as to what is the case where as I actually know.

    However, in view of your certainty, and to prove that I am happy to stand by my word, I propose the following:

    If by a date of your choosing, there has been a single dollar of losses under the AOFM's investment, I will post on this website and admit that I was hopelessly wrong and that the entirety of the criticisms of my posts were in fact correct.

    In return, if by that same date, there have been no losses under any of the AOFM's investments, all I ask is that you acknowledge the absence of losses and personally undertake to think about whether this may mean that there is no systemic widespread fraud in homeloan origination in Australia. That's all I ask - just that you actually seriously think about whether it is possible you could be wrong and that this absence of loss is an indicator of that.

    How does that grab you for a deal? Roll up, roll up. Name your dates. Make them as late as you like.

    P.S. I would offer to wager money but I suspect that would be considered inappropriate.

Leave your comment

Guest Thursday, 22 October 2020