Tag Archives: Securitization

South Africa – Bank busted over securitisation lies

Jack Darier of Parkhurst in Joburg asked his bank whether his loan had been securitised. No way, said the bank. It was the answer Darier was expecting. Meantime he had the proof that the opposite was true. It was a truth test, he says, and the bank failed.

Source: http://news.acts.co.za/blog/2015/11/busted-joburg-man-catches-standard-bank-out-over-securitisation-denial

Sometimes the banks just can’t get it right. Here’s a case where Standard Bank’s legal department flatly denied a customer’s mortgage loan had been securitised, while another department in the same bank sent proof that the loan had in fact been sold to an entirely different legal entity.

Busted. That’s what happens when the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.

What makes this case even more interesting is that the customer, Jack Darier of Parkhurst in Johannesburg, does not have a judgment against his name, nor is his house under threat of being repossessed. He just wanted to know if his home loan had been securitised – in other words, on-sold by the bank to a new owner. That means the bank no longer has legal standing to bring action against the customer in the event of default. You can see below how the banks get around this – it’s a simple cession, they argue successfully in our brain dead courts.

So let’s ignore the blather of the R50,000-a-day silks who show up daily in our courts as they repossess upwards of 10,000 homes each year (and for which the SA Communist Party is now calling for an official investigation), and go straight to the law books: Regulation 35 of the Banks Act covers the sale of a loan to a third party by way of securitisation. A debt on-sold to a “Special Purpose Vehicle” is considered a sale (not a cession) under which the full entitlement, rights and obligations are conveyed to the purchaser. Regulation 35 furthermore blocks the public from gaining access to securitisation transactions, which are deemed to be “off balance sheet”.

The reason banks securitise is to move assets off balance sheet and so free up capital for further lending. The provisioning requirements of the Basel accords, which govern banking internationally, means banks have to set aside capital according to the type and risk of loans it makes. So if it can move these off balance sheet by way of securitisation, it’s a case of rinse and repeat – issue a bunch of new mortgage loans, bundle them together, and sell them off to investors. Great business if you can get it. If the mortgage lender defaults, there are various insurance policies and credit default swaps (CDSs) that make up the shortfall. A zero-sum game for the banks. But not if you are the home owner. If the home owner defaults, the bank will get judgment, sell the house at auction for a fraction of its value, and then pursue the hapless defaulter for the shortfall.

In law, that’s called undue enrichment. Or selling the same asset twice.

A securitisation is therefore not a cession, but a shift in ownership of the underlying asset. The problem is no defaulting home owner can afford the R50,000-a-day silk to argue this convincingly in court. So the charade goes on. Section 72 read with Section 1 of the Banks Act precludes a bank from participating in any business wherein it may unduly influence and/or place at risk its providential requirements or burden its liquidity requirements. So an SPV cannot be a division or associated entity of the bank. The SPV must be an independent juristic entity.

But let’s get back to Darier’s to-and-fro discussion with Standard Bank. When he found out his mortgage loan had been securitised – despite the bank’s bare denial – he went along to visit the commercial crimes unit in Johannesburg. There he laid a charge of fraud against the bank.

Despite having presented evidence of the securitisation along with his correspondence and affidavit and receiving a case number, no further action was taken by the police investigation unit.
Darier’s interest in the matter all started when his father ran into difficulty with the bank some years ago. He fired off a bunch of questions to Standard Bank asking whether his mortgage bond had been securitised.

No it had not, said the bank (you can see the correspondence below). But then another division from the same bank sent him a Certificate of Balance showing the mortgage loan was now owned by Blue Granite. This is a securitisation vehicle used by Standard Bank into which it has placed thousands of its loans.

Bear this in mind when reading what followed.

In mid-July this year Darier sent off a standard set of questions that New Economic Rights Alliance (New Era) advises clients to put to their banks.

Here’s the response from Joop Dekker, executive in charge of complaints resolution at Standard Bank, sent on 24 July 2015:

Good day Mr Darier,

We refer to your note below and would like to reply as follows:

Regarding the questions you have posed below we are of the view that your questions are inappropriate.

The bank does engage in the process of securitization and there is nothing untoward or illegal about this.

It seems that you are being misled by New Era and we note that your question is identical to those that New Era have been inviting people to ask.

The bank has been involved in litigation with this entity and we attach hereto a copy of the latest judgement herein. We draw your attention to paragraphs 24 and 25 where the honourable Judge Baqwa described the NEW Era’s action as vexatious. You will also note that legal cost had been awarded against the New Era directors in person.

Lastly we confirm that any failure on the bank’s side to specifically reply to your question below cannot be construed as an admission to the correctness thereof.

We therefore trust that the above clarifies the matter from the bank’s side.

Regards

Joop Dekker

To which Darier replied on 25 July 2015:

Hi Joop. I have seen by your position at the bank that you are merely doing your job in deflecting any negative PR. As such I harbour no ill feelings or intentions towards you.

However, my response is as follows:

1.       I am not surprised the bank finds these question “inappropriate” because they do not want their customers and the public to have an insight into their dubious banking practices. Just because they deem it inappropriate does not infer that there are inappropriate questions to ask.

2.       It seems to me that your bank and most likely all the banks underestimate the intelligence of the public and they are trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes. Your executives are a bastion of CA’s and financial professionals who seem to think they are far more intelligent than everyone else and no-one will be the wiser. This may the case in other instances but I can assure you this is not the case now.

3.       With regards to the legality of securitisation: you are 100% correct. The process of securitisation (ie. selling promissory notes/loan agreements to third parties for purposes of using as investment vehicles to invest in stocks) is legal. However, there is no mention of the fact that after ceding the loan agreement to a party without notification to the debtor the banks’ rights to repossess houses are null and void. The bank is thus merely acting as the agent for the third party in retrieving monies owed. I see on the website there is but 2 or 3 lines (mentioning) securitisation but there has been a convenient omission of any information which would allude the fact that the bank has no more rights for repossession.

4.       I have been influenced by New Era, however I do not deem them as misleading me. The fact you have not been willing to answer my questions is testament to the fact that the bank does not want to draw attention to the matter or reveal the shady practices. If the bank wasn’t doing anything wrong they wouldn’t find the questions “inappropriate”. New Era indicated that the bank would not divulge any details on this matter.

5.       Securitisation has been banned in the US for the reasons that is shady and it has resulted in a plethora of illegal foreclosures (No. There have been calls for the outlawing of securitisation in the US, but it is not banned – Ed).

6.       I assume that because the manner in which securitisation works, it can be utilised in any form of loan/credit agreement (home loans, car finance, credit cards, etc). It would fantastic if the banks and third parties undertook profit shares with the debtor as they are using money which has not been paid to them yet to create profits. They are essentially utilising the hard work and income of their customers to generate massive profits for themselves

7.       I am well aware of what vexatious litigation and proceeding are. I examined the document and it was considered vexatious due to the manner in which the litigation was undertaken. It actually has nothing to do with the legitimacy of accusations or the matter on hand and the legality of the bank repossessing houses when it has no right to.

8.       New Era have successfully won cases against the bank and you and I both know this (They certainly educated the public, and in doing so frustrated the banks in their attempts to repossess homes, but New ERA does not fight cases for individuals – Ed).

The response does not clarify the matter at all. That being said we can drop the matter on the premise that I assume that my home loan has been securitised and that I am aware the bank has no right to repossess it.

I will be engaging with New Era and volunteering my time and services for free.

Jack Darier

On 28 July, Joop Dekker of Standard Bank provided the following reply:

Good day Jack

We confirm that Home loan account number 364814497 has, according to the bank’s records, not been securitized.

Furthermore we will have to agree to disagree on our respective views regarding New ERA’s position, which entity has taken on the banking industry (including the SA Reserve Bank) during the past few years via the Courts, and has had no success whatsoever.

Hypothetically if your homeloan had been securitized, and due to arrears on the account the bank foreclosed on the loan, the homeloan would merely be ceded back to the bank (by the special purpose vehicle) and the bank’s normal legal and collections process would subsequently been followed.

Regards

Joop Dekker

So what we have here is a serious dispute of fact: Dekker’s denial of securitisation, and Darier’s inadvertent receipt of proof suggesting otherwise. Based on standards of evidence, it looks like Darier has made his point. The bank’s position is that even if the loan is securitised, it can simply re-cede it back from the SPV and continue with the normal collections process. In theory this is fine, except that per our reading of the law as per the above, you cannot reverse an outright sale with a simple cession.

But Darier was just getting started. He then fired off a letter to the Northern Provinces Law Society, asking what it was doing to investigate lawyers implicated in drafting dodgy securitisation agreements.

Good day. I would like to request a meeting with senior counsel at the Northern Law Society in order to discuss multiple instances of banking fraud committed by local banks and their legal teams which are acting on their behalf. Their attorneys and debt collectors are raising judgments in court and making demands for monies owed on credit agreements for which the bank has no locus standi as they ceded the credit agreements through securitisation structures. (And thus ceded the underlying assets as the whole credit agreements along with assets are sold off their books).

Proof of many instances  of this shady practice are available AND local attorneys and law societies can no longer claim they do not know what securitisation is and overlook the matter.

The attorneys have presented papers to the court which are untruthful and indicate the bank still has locus standi on properties lodged as surety when in fact they don’t. These attorneys are well aware of this and are essentially lying to judges and are actively committing fraud and being complicit to the fraudulent practice.

I would like to discuss this with the law society to understand their views and positions on this as I am sure the securitisation matter has arisen before and the fact that attorneys are still being given free reign to present fraudulent papers to the courts is tantamount to one of the following 2 scenarios: a) either the law society is completely oblivious to this matter and more study and education of the subject in-house is required,  or b) the law society has knowledge of this unlawful practice but is allowing it to continue as it represents a great value of business for the local legal system and practitioners (ie. You are complicit to the fraud and deception in court)

I am not working with New Era and I think it would be in the best interests of the law society to meet with me to discuss further as there may be calls for disbarring of many lawyers who are implicated in this scheme.

Also, another matter I am going to be addressing is how certain firms are structuring the securitisation contracts and legal framework on the JSE in a manner which they are aware is not legal as they knowingly create shell investment schemes. They are structuring in a manner which directly contravenes numerous banking and credit act subsections/clauses and they are structuring in a manner such that properties are not transferred at the deeds office to the entity to whom credit agreements and the physical assets have been ceded to. The sole purpose being so that if a customer defaults the bank can approach the courts and pretend to be legal creditor. They are knowingly advising banks to create shell investment schemes.

Surely the local law societies are aware of this practice or they need to start introducing formal education and study into these matters.

Jack Darier

The Law Society has requested a meeting with Darier over the matter. We’ll keep you posted.

The tide is turning against the banks – Part 1

South Africa’s courts have traditionally weighed in on the side of the banks when it comes to home repossession, even though the loans have been securitised and are now under new ownership. When asked to produce the original mortgage documents signed by the borrower, the banks often claim they have been “lost in a fire.” But the tide is turning against the banks, says consumer lawyer, Robyn Zimmerman. In this two-part interview, she explains how the courts have applied different standards of evidence when it comes to banks, while consumers get the short end of the stick. The good news is that courts are gaining a better understanding of consumer law, all of which is leading up to a titanic class action suit against the banks. Pull up a chair and grab the soda, folks, this is getting interesting. 

Robyn Zimmerman is a Cape Town-based consumer lawyer who recently came to national prominence after appearing on two SABC documentaries on “Securitisation” (the process whereby bank loans are bundled together and on-sold to third parties, and then traded on the stock exchange for profit). She represents several clients whose homes and properties have been repossessed by the banks in highly controversial circumstances.  One of her clients is Zulfa Samsodien, who successfully defended her property from bank repossession in a Cape High Court case against First National Bank (FNB) in 2008, on the grounds that FNB had securitised the home loan and had therefore had no legal standing to bring action in this case. The Samsodiens were subsequently sequestrated – again under highly controversial circumstances – and Robyn is advising in an appeal against the sequestration order. The legal ramifications of securitisation and other questionable bank practices hold huge import for all South Africans. We asked Robyn to share some of her insights in this two-part interview.

Acts: Robyn, thanks for talking to us. Please tell us a bit about yourself and how you got into consumer law. 

My background is in litigation and conveyancing, previously for the banks, as a director at two medium-sized legal practices. I subsequently left the “dark side” and established a practice which fights for the financial well being of any family unit, with my partner and husband.  We are both certified to practice in both the lower and higher courts. We litigate extensively and our areas of expertise naturally became focussed and specialised in consumer law and consumer credit law as a result of our extensive litigation against the banks encompassing over 1,800 cases in the last four years.

Acts: The SABC documentaries on the subject of “securitisation” have elevated the national debate on this issue to unprecedented levels. There seems to be a growing awareness around the world on the subject of securitisation, with banks being forced by courts in the US to pay out huge sums of money to borrowers whose homes had been fraudulently or illegally repossessed. Can you explain briefly what securitisation is, and how does it affect a home owner?

There are two types of securitisation:

  1. Traditional securitisation – which is fairly easy to prove – in which the bank sells its debt to a company that trades with that debt on (stock) exchanges.  The bank loses its ownership in the debt in this instance and depending upon whether the purchaser of this debt complies with consumer (and other) law, the debt may be reduced to the capital amount, or be written off in particular circumstances. It’s extremely easy for us to determine and prove whether a mortgage loan has been securitised in this way. But it is difficult for us to prove securitisation of other loans as these cessions are not registered at the Deeds Registry.
  2. Synthetic securitisation was developed, in my opinion, due to the problems encountered with traditional securitisation, and is extremely hard to prove. Although we know the banks still securitises their debt, they now do so synthetically in which they trade in the derivatives of the loan (interest and cost of credit) and not the loan itself. Depending upon which vehicles the banks employ and whether these vehicles comply with the consumer legislation in conjunction with the bank, the consequences are similar.

It is, however extremely difficult for us to determine and prove synthetic securitisation. We recommend that the Consumer Commission investigate both issues and deliver an outcome therein.

Since the above trade is concealed and hidden from the consumer for what we assume is the financial gain of the banks, and since it is my belief that consumers are harmed by this conduct, the Commission has jurisdiction to investigate and decide upon this issues.

The problem that exists with the Commission, aside from suffering under huge administrative issues, is that where the bank employs attorneys and counsel (that are) educated, experienced and equipped to deal with these matters, the consumers are not allowed legal representation, nor is any representative or attorney allowed to receive remuneration for the endeavours with the Commission.  The scales of justice are against the consumer the moment they file a complaint. I find the Commission’s conduct in their adjudication unconstitutional and lacking in just administrative action.

Acts: Can we pick up on the subject of fires. Several banks have sought and obtained judgment against defaulting home owners, yet when asked to produce evidence of the original mortgage note signed by the borrower, they have claimed they were destroyed in a fire, or otherwise lost.  What advice do you have for someone facing repossession by one of the banks, when the bank is unable to show the original mortgage note?

In theory, I love the laws of our country, its jurisprudence and the systems we employ to render justice. My problem with the judiciary – although I see a trend in judgments that this is slowly changing – is their passion to assert the rule of law when it comes to the banks, and their dispassion to assert it when it comes to consumers. I have often sat in the High Court to hear a judge bark at an unrepresented consumer: “Do you owe the money?”, with the advocate for the bank confirming and asserting its debt. At the same time the consumers do not know what defences are available to them and surely do not know the information to which they are entitled.  With banks’ counsel and attorneys convincing the courts that the only issue is whether the consumer owes the money, we have very bad consumer common law currently in existence. There is little or no account for the rule of law in our country.

I have not seen one original document in my time litigating against the banks.  But should the consumer file a copy of their opposing affidavits or pleas at court, they would need to explain why the original is not before the court. This is correct and so should it be required for the bank to adequately explain the loss of the original. Truthfully, transparently and openly.  The problem with the fire is that all the evidence related thereto is once again concealed by the bank.  Security documents are generally barcoded so they can be tracked. Upon conducting inventory of the lost facilities (due to fire) in 2009 and now again 2013, the banks were obliged to contact their registering attorneys, to supply them with a full copy of their security documents containing the signatures. To my knowledge the bank has not done so. Security documents are also stored in fire-proof cabinets, therefore an explanation of how they then become destroyed must also be tendered.

However at the end of the day, should the judge feel that the defences that you raise, or that your disputes are without merit, they will decide – departing from the rule of law – against you. Where I would agree to such a departure upon exception, the higher courts have employed this departure to such an extent that there is little or no rule of law in consumer credit litigation. This opens the entire system open to abuse, by credit providers who constantly push parameters to make litigation easier for themselves.

On this issue we have been deeply disappointed by the judicial system.

Unfortunately, it is extremely unlikely that you will be heard if you do not have an experienced attorney to guide you.  Sometimes consumers need to accept when they do not have a case.  Sometimes they need to be encouraged to persevere where they do.  Some consumers are equipped enough to make the correct decision.  Most are not.

Litigation in the high court can be accessible, if your attorneys are experienced and certified to deal with the matter without the need for counsel.  It is the additional expense of counsel that consumers can often not afford. So I would ask consumers to request from the law societies a list of the attorneys so equipped to deal with matters to ensure that legal costs are kept to a minimum.

Acts: If the bank is unable to produce the original “wet ink” mortgage note signed by the borrower when the mortgage loan was taken out, does this constitute grounds to ask the court to throw out the case? 

The Bank would then need to authenticate the documents it seeks to use in its case. Where there is a good faith and/or factual dispute, the matter will continue to trial for evidence related thereto.

Acts: It seems judges are all too willing to believe the banks when they say the original documents have gone missing. You have made the point that a bank cannot calculate the final balance owed by the defaulting borrower without this original mortgage note. Why is this? Surely an electronic copy will do?

The agreement entered into between the parties is of importance. The mortgage bond merely embodies the security for the indebtedness derived from the loan agreement. The original of both is required in terms of the rule of law. Copies of both may be accepted, dependent upon whether there is a dispute of fact pertaining to the contents of the copy or the signatures, the matter may be referred for oral evidence or trial.

This would critically depend upon how your defence is constructed and what your defence is, and what avenues of consumer law you are seeking to employ, etc.  In the construction of your defence you must be careful not to inadvertently admit to something which will prove the case against you. The Plaintiff or bank bears the onus of proving their case, so be careful not to acknowledge or admit anything which relieves them of this onus.

To be continued in Part 2.

Lodge a complaint with the Consumer Commission

You can lodge a complaint with the Consumer Commission at:  complaints@thencc.org.za or NNetshitomboni@thencc.co.za.

http://news.acts.co.za/blog/2013/10/the-tide-is-turning-against-the-banks-part-1

Related stories:
Is this the biggest fraud in history?
Judgment opens up a world of trouble for the banks
New Economic Rights Alliance brings heat to the banks

MICHIEL VAN NIEKERK – SECURITISATION ISSUES : Niren

On 9/5/2013 at 2:33 PM, “Michiel” <michiel@quadex.co.za> wrote:

Dear Mr. Urry

I hope that this e-mail finds you well?

I have not heard from you again and I hope that you know that in Law silence is seen as admission of guilt. There is a tremendous awakening happening at the moment as to how the banks generate money for themselves off the back of peoples signatures.

There are a few more programmes coming on Special Assignment and lots and lots of radio talk shows on the issue of securitisation.

There is also an awareness campaign being launched to every police station in the country as to the possible fraud and racketeering happening at the moment. Do thus not be surprised one day when the cops come knocking at your door to ask you a few simple questions regarding your involvement in this possible scam against humanity.

I am sure you have a guilt free conscience and sleep well at night thinking that you are climbing the rung of success in the banking industry. I want you to know that when the paw paw hits the fan one of these days that you are going to be the fall guy.

If I have my facts correctly the Banks and Corporate governments were foreclosed on last December and each and every employee is acting on their own.

I think you really need to start doing your own research and wake yourself up. The 7 pm news at night is NOT the reality that is playing itself out on this planet at the moment. (Big Smile)

You can keep supporting the dark (Because you are ONLY doing your job) or you can join the light and stop this insanity and suffering on the planet.

I wish you well with your beautiful career in an industry that operates in honesty, openness, integrity, trust, good governance, harmony, win-win, peace, love and truth. I am sure that you are doing the best you can for your children and when they look into your eyes at night before they go to bed they see a dad that they know will always be open and honest them. I hope they do not one day ask you………….. How could you let this happen??

Remember, there is a saying that goes………………. IT IS A GREATER COMPLIMENT TO BE TRUSTED THAN TO BE LOVED.

As always in pure truth.

Michiel

Michiel of the family van Niekerk (Unlimited)

Without prejudice – Non Assumpsit – All rights reserved

P O Box 50150 Randjesfontein Midrand 1683 South Africa

Cell: 083 264 7944

Fax: 086 656 3233

E-mail: michiel@quadex.co.za

“By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe”

From: Michiel [mailto:michiel@quadex.co.za]
Sent: 06 August 2013 08:25
To: ‘Urry, S. (Steven)’
Subject: RE: MICHIEL VAN NIEKERK – SECURITISATION ISSUES : Niren

Dear Mr. STEVEN URRY

Thank you for the reply. Please can you let me know the amount of shares that NEDBANK LTD. Has in each of these companies individually.

Thank you and in pure truth

Michiel

Michiel of the family van Niekerk (Unlimited)

Without prejudice – Non Assumpsit – All rights reserved

P O Box 50150 Randjesfontein Midrand 1683 South Africa

Cell: 083 264 7944

Fax: 086 656 3233

E-mail: michiel@quadex.co.za  

Some people are so poor, all they have is money.

From: Urry, S. (Steven) [mailto:StevenU@Nedbank.co.za]
Sent: 02 August 2013 15:16
To: michiel@quadex.co.za
Subject: FW: MICHIEL VAN NIEKERK – SECURITISATION ISSUES : Niren

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Sir

Nedbank Securitisation programmes per your NCR schedule as provided are

  • the Greenhouse Funding programme, a premium mortgage securitisation programme, rated by Fitch Ratings, and
  • the Octane ABS  Vehicle-and-Asset backed programme.

For more information on Nedbank and its securitisation programmes, kindly refer to the Nedbank Ltd annual report, available via web download at http://www.nedbankgroup.co.za/financial/Nedbank_ar2012/

For any account specific information regarding Nedbank’s securitisation programmes, kindly provide the respective account details including your SA-ID number, Account name and type description, and the respective account numbers.

Yours sincerely

Steven UrrySenior Securitisation Manager | Retail Finance – Home Loans | Nedbank Limited

Second Floor  Block 1, Nedbank Park, 6 Press Avenue, Selby, Crown Mines 2092, South Africa

PO Box 1144  Johannesburg  2000  South Africa

t +27 (0)11 495 9023  @ stevenu@nedbank.co.za

Website: www.nedbank.co.za

SAVE TREES, SAVE PAPER – THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT Nedbank is proud to be Africa’s first carbon-neutral bank and official conservation partner of the WWF-SA.

From: Michiel [mailto:michiel@quadex.co.za]
Sent: 31 July 2013 09:59 AM
To: Buckley, E. (Emma)
Cc: De Waal, L. (Louanne); Bates, G. (Gayle); Dirksen, L. (Lynly); Hardie, D. (Doug); Eckard, Y. (Yolandi); Nedbank Carlswald Centre – Branch Manager; ‘Schalk van Niekerk’; braam@afriprop.co.za; ‘Braam van Wyk’; ‘Anthony van der Riet’; Nico van der Riet
Subject: RE: Confirmation Please?

My dear bankers

Having been a client of yours since 1984 and yourselves enjoying the fruits of my labour and having made money for yourselves out of my CQV trust and the selling off of every document I have ever signed via one of your SPV’s I herewith want to share with you something I found floating rampantly around the internet. This is stuff we are discovering on the internet and I want you to tell me if it is true or not?

I see that you have now even got a Securitisation Department? (Big Smile) In future I can thus sign all my documents that I create value for yourselves with my signature with a blue pen and have a stamp made and stamp each page so it says MAY NOT BE SECURITISED – PENALTY FRAUD. I will autograph it and NOT sign it. Hope that is ok with yourselves. I will then KNOW that you ACTUALLY borrow me REAL money.

If I do not hear from Steven Urry, I will thus with this notice say that it is a done deal.

THANK YOU FOR ALWAYS MAKING THINGS HAPPEN.

Steven, seeing that you are an “expert” on securitisation,  can you please let me know if any one of the companies listed with the NCR belongs to Nedbank and or if so, if Nedbank has minority or majority shares in any one of these companies. Please see attachment.

I hope to hear from you soon.

As always in universal love and pure truth

Mike

Michiel of the family van Niekerk (Unlimited)

Without prejudice – Non Assumpsit – All rights reserved

P O Box 50150 Randjesfontein Midrand 1683 South Africa

Cell: 083 264 7944

Fax: 086 656 3233

E-mail: michiel@quadex.co.za  

Some people are so poor, all they have is money.