Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    7:18 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Bank Of America: Pure Evil Back to Topics
SemiSteve

Champion Author
Tampa

Posts:19,836
Points:458,125
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 18, 2013 12:22:53 PM

Rolling Stone: Matt Taibbi Tells All About BOA

"At least Bank of America got its name right. The ultimate Too Big to Fail bank really is America, a hypergluttonous ward of the state whose limitless fraud and criminal conspiracies we'll all be paying for until the end of time."

"This bank is like the world's worst-behaved teenager, taking your car and running over kittens and fire hydrants on the way to Vegas for the weekend, maxing out your credit cards in the three days you spend at your aunt's funeral. They're out of control, yet they'll never do time or go out of business, because the government remains creepily committed to their survival, like overindulgent parents who refuse to believe their 40-year-old live-at-home son could possibly be responsible for those dead hookers in the backyard."

"It's been four years since the government, in the name of preventing a depression, saved this megabank from ruin by pumping $45 billion of taxpayer money into its arm. Since then, the Obama administration has looked the other way as the bank committed an astonishing variety of crimes – some elaborate and brilliant in their conception, some so crude that they'd be beneath your average street thug. Bank of America has systematically ripped off almost everyone with whom it has a significant business relationship, cheating investors, insurers, depositors, homeowners, shareholders, pensioners and taxpayers. It brought tens of thousands of Americans to foreclosure court using bogus, "robo-signed" evidence – a type of mass perjury that it helped pioneer. It hawked worthless mortgages to dozens of unions and state pension funds, draining them of hundreds of millions in value. And when it wasn't ripping off workers and pensioners, it was helping to push insurance giants like AMBAC into bankruptcy by fraudulently inducing them to spend hundreds of millions insuring those same worthless mortgages."

"But despite being the very definition of an unaccountable corporate villain, Bank of America is now bigger and more dangerous than ever. It controls more than 12 percent of America's bank deposits (skirting a federal law designed to prohibit any firm from controlling more than 10 percent), as well as 17 percent of all American home mortgages. By looking the other way and rewarding the bank's bad behavior with a massive government bailout, we actually allowed a huge financial company to not just grow so big that its collapse would imperil the whole economy, but to get away with any and all crimes it might commit. Too Big to Fail is one thing; it's also far too corrupt to survive."

"Last year, the Federal Reserve allowed Bank of America to move a huge portfolio of dangerous bets into a side of the company that happens to be FDIC-insured, putting all of us on the hook for as much as $55 trillion in irresponsible gambles. Then, in February, the Justice Department's so-called foreclosure settlement, which will supposedly provide $26 billion in relief for ripped-off homeowners, actually rewarded the bank with a legal waiver that will allow it to escape untold billions in lawsuits. And this month the Fed will release the results of its annual stress test, in which the bank will once again be permitted to perpetuate its fiction of solvency by grossly overrating the mountains of toxic loans on its books. At this point, the rescue effort is so sweeping and elaborate that it goes far beyond simply gouging the tax dollars of millions of struggling families, many of whom have already been ripped off by the bank – it's making the government, and by extension all of us, full-blown accomplices to the fraud."

@rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

Here's a few tidbits from the article:

1. Rigged global interest rates: Inside job to defraud. ($350 trillion worth of financial products, including BOA's, globally reference LIBOR)
2. Bilked needy schools and cities. Paid $137 fine.
3. Charged fees for distributing unemployment benefits.
4. "Banks and mortgage lenders conspired to create a gigantic volume of very risky home loans, delivering outsize mortgages to dubious borrowers like immigrants without identification, the unemployed and people with poor credit histories. Then the banks took those dicey home loans and sprinkled them with bogus math, using inscrutable financial gizmos like collateralized mortgage obligations to rechristen the risky home loans as high-grade, AAA-rated securities that could be sold off to unions, pensioners, foreign banks, retirement funds and any other suckers the banks could find."
5. Defrauded insurance companies who insured their loans, causing failures and catastrophic losses.
6. "In the first half of last year, Bank of America paid $12.7 billion to settle claims brought by defrauded customers."
7. Defrauded States, Counties, Churches and others, leaving them on the hook for billions, as BOA executives enjoyed $2K dinners at CRU.
8. Ripped off already devastated homeowners a second time by gaming HAMP, even after paying $8.4 billion to States to settle predatory lending charges.
9. "...settled with the Justice Department for $335 million over Countrywide's practice of dumping risky subprime loans on qualified black and Hispanic borrowers."
10. "...paid out more than $3.3 billion in bonuses to itself, including more than $1 million each to 172 executives." (after getting bailed out by Uncle Sam)
11. Stuck us on the hook for guaranteeing $44 Billion in loans.
12. Borrowed billions in 'emergency loans' from the Fed just last year. (If you have a BOA credit card, the government is really the one who is paying the merchants, with BOA simply taking a cut as the middleman.)
13. Sold bogus loans to Fannie And Freddie, sticking us with more debt. ($38 Billion.) Over half were bad loans and WE are picking up the tab.
14. "...violated a previous settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, illegally slapping $36 million in fees on struggling homeowners after specifically agreeing not to do so."
15. "Bank of America didn't pay a dime in federal taxes last year. Or the year before. In fact, they got a $1 billion refund last year. They claimed it was because they had pretax losses of $5.4 billion in 2010. They paid out $35 billion in bonuses and compensation that year."
16. "In December, the bank's share price dipped below $5, and after being cut off by Fannie in February, the bank announced a truly shameless plan to jack up fees for depositors by as much as $25 a month – what one market analyst called a "measure of last resort." "

"In a pure capitalist system, an institution as moronic and corrupt as Bank of America would be swiftly punished by the market – the executives would get to loot their own firms once, then they'd be looking for jobs again. But with the limitless government support of Too Big to Fail, these failing financial giants get to stay undead forever, continually looting the taxpayer, their depositors, their shareholders and anyone else they can get their hands on."

--Thank you, Matt Taibbi and Rolling Stone, for telling us like it really is. The article will take a while to read and ingest. Make sure you haven't just eaten, because the juicy details will make you want to hurl.

Seen enough? Now can we please mount a national effort to exterminate this venomous monster (and others like it) and imprison those white-collar criminals far away from anything to do with money or government influence? Thank you, and thank yourselves in advance. We will be far better off without slime like this loose on the market.

Rolling Stone: Matt Taibbi Tells All About BOA
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,836
Points:458,125
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 19, 2013 5:04:00 PM

These people are robbing us blind and getting away with it.

They see violations as a business decision adn treat fines as the price of doing business. They've bought off half the government to make life easier for themselves. They already have more money than God but that's not the point. It doesn't matter how much they have they always want more. They're sick; obsessed with nothing but more more more. It hurts us to allow it. We need to shut them down.

Email your representatives. Link or quote the RS article. Ask your rep to take action. Let them know if they don't they can be replaced.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,836
Points:458,125
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Mar 6, 2013 10:27:06 PM

Anybody who still has an account with BOA is part of the problem.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,836
Points:458,125
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 26, 2013 12:30:02 PM

Contact your representative and ask them to crack down on the big banks and white collar crime.
Profile Pic
daylily2009
Champion Author Fayetteville

Posts:2,477
Points:1,197,625
Joined:Oct 2009
Message Posted: Feb 25, 2013 12:42:40 PM

Money
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,836
Points:458,125
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 25, 2013 11:56:54 AM

I remember that story! How great was that? BOA caused all this legal hassle for a couple who bought a house with cash. The bank thought there was an unpaid balance on a loan but was mistaken. It was their own mistake. But it cost the homeowners legal fees to get clear title. So they sued the bank and won. But the bank ignored the judges order. So the homeowners attorney foreclosed on the bank! Arrived with court order, deputies and a moving company to seize the assets of the bank in order to pay the homeowner.

Amazing how quickly Bank of America came up with the money to comply with the court order.

Sad that this is what people have to do to get treated fairly by Bank Of America.

It is long past time to break up this and other big banks.
Profile Pic
eldiablopoco
Champion Author Grand Rapids

Posts:1,055
Points:57,080
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Feb 24, 2013 12:06:42 AM

That guy who foreclosed on Bank of America because they refused to pay him for trying to steal his house was just splendid.

I've included the video because who wants to read!
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,768
Points:1,890,175
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Feb 23, 2013 2:11:28 PM

SEmiSteve, >>It is a real mess, now. If we tried to stop it everybody's mortgage rate would go up two points. But to let it continue means all our mortgages are really using federal debt money. What a freakin pickle. There must be some way to undo this but I can not think of one.<<
***
Ever hear of the free market? It works wonders when unimpeded.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,633
Points:3,506,895
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Feb 23, 2013 12:00:14 AM

Steve- I'm applying for a refi right now. My rate is more or less 3.50% for a 30YF with only about $500 in closing costs. Let's pretend for a sec that it went to 5.5% That's still not bad. Anything under 10% should be acceptable. Anything under 7% is gravy, really. One of the problems as I see it for a small bank to do mortgages is that there is inherent risk. Even if they only gave loans to folks with 750+ or 800+ credit ratings, there's always the fluke that someone gets laid off, then can't pay and defaults - even through no active fault of their own. It could happen to either of us, too. (There, but for the grace of God, go I..) A small bank couldn't handle too many of those, possibly not even one. That may be why they can only broker those kinds of mortgages.

When I got my first job out of graduate school, my company (a HUGE household name) had it's own credit union. And as a CU, it was actually one of the top more or less 30 banks in the US at the time in terms of deposits. They offered mortgages, but only ARMs. They could get you a fixed loan, but only as a broker, and only for 1 or 2 points as an origination fee. I ended up going with a local bank, at the time the rate was 8.75%.

I once had a mortgage with a bank called "Union Planters Bank" in Memphis. They were incredibly dishonest. A few months in a row the held my payment until one day after due, so they could hit me for the $80 late fee. Of course I refused to pay. After all, if I sent my payment in, say, 10 days before it was due, then if they held my payment, that wasn't my fault, it was theirs. When I complained, they ended up caving in. They did the same thing 3 months in a row. The third month I sent the payment directly to the attention of the head teller, by name. She couldn't understand how it could possibly be "late" since she got it in about 4 days after I sent it? Strange, that. Simple explanation, really. dishonesty.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,836
Points:458,125
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 22, 2013 6:51:52 PM

I would only be guessing about CU's, AC-302. I use a small community bank. The people at the bank started the bank after they all lost their jobs from different small banks that got bought out by the big nationals. They realized they had all the talent they needed so they sought investors and started their own little bank from scratch, have been doing quite well, and swear never to sell out to the big monsters.

I applied for a loan and hoped that the money would actually come from local deposits. I was dismayed when I found out they were only acting as an agent for the big monsters. The loan lady there told me they could not possibly compete with the big nationals. She didn't say why. I think the RS article explains it quite well. The game is rigged against the small fries. I presume that would include your CU, especially if they are using depositor funds instead of 'playing the game' with the nationals (who are getting the money from the fed and pocketing a cut.)

It is a real mess, now. If we tried to stop it everybody's mortgage rate would go up two points. But to let it continue means all our mortgages are really using federal debt money. What a freakin pickle. There must be some way to undo this but I can not think of one.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,633
Points:3,506,895
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Feb 9, 2013 11:32:32 AM

SemiSteve speculated: "--It is not a matter of efficiency. That is just your guess. It is a matter of how much their funds cost them. What makes you think they are getting their funds from the government the same as the big banks? I don't think they are. But I'm not sure how to find out. Perhaps it is a matter of scale. Perhaps they get some funds from the govt but not unlimited like the big banks. So they have to stretch their resources. And if the big banks have access to something that the small players don't then that effectively puts them in an unfair competition. That is an example of rigged capitalism. We need to fix that."

--I realize that you, in effect, have a "Mayberry" view of credit unions, or perhaps one from "It's a Wonderful Life". And that's fine. But it's not very realistic. It's still a business, my friend. And if you don't or can't repay, they're not going to say: "No, it's ok...pay when you can." You still have to pay. What I've seen on line for CUs is that they offer LOWER rates. But that's not the reality on the ground here. OH, and the CU that was associated with my company ended up having financial difficulties - they were taken over by another credit union. So when I see that the CUs don't have a competitive rate, then I have to believe that either A) they are greedy as sin or B) they are inefficient as all getout. Would you agree, or not?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,836
Points:458,125
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 8, 2013 2:47:11 PM

I wrote my representative, including a link to the RS article. He said he was forwarding it to the Attorney General.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,836
Points:458,125
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 8, 2013 11:21:31 AM

Thanks for the info about the Obama Phone myth, MJack. I had heard of it but never delved into that, figuring it had to be a misrepresentation of something. Looks like I was right (that time).
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,836
Points:458,125
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 8, 2013 11:13:52 AM

"...the CU's can't even touch this rate. They're more expensive. What does that tell me? That even though they are smaller, they're WAY less efficient. If they weren't less efficient, then why do they need to charge such a high interest rate? Hmmm??? They're borrowing gov't money at the same near zero interest rate. "

--It is not a matter of efficiency. That is just your guess. It is a matter of how much their funds cost them. What makes you think they are getting their funds from the government the same as the big banks? I don't think they are. But I'm not sure how to find out. Perhaps it is a matter of scale. Perhaps they get some funds from the govt but not unlimited like the big banks. So they have to stretch their resources. And if the big banks have access to something that the small players don't then that effectively puts them in an unfair competition. That is an example of rigged capitalism. We need to fix that.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,768
Points:1,890,175
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Feb 8, 2013 10:56:19 AM

SemiSteve, >> "Isn't it the government that did the placation of at least the cell phones?"

--Not sure what you mean, MJack. I was thinking of how the cell makers and cell service providers turned phones into computers (to be used primarily for play and brainless chatter) and then did an effective job of convincing the public they HAD to have one to keep up. Evident by the initial demand for them by children.<<

***
I guess you haven't heard of this program that was started in 1996. It was a big factor among the many who supported Obama as he was credited with giving away free cell phones. But th eactual legislation was done under Clinton with a Republican Congress.

As far as your other claims, most people would not consider technological advances as evil. the only ones that can create evil out of anything is mankind and government. Usually though, the evil is unintended.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,633
Points:3,506,895
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2013 11:18:48 PM

SemiSteve - you agree that the big banks can often charge less than the small ones. OK, here's one for you. I walked into my B of A branch and they approached me about refinancing. Great! They were offering more or less the same interest rate that I had before. And that was about 1.5% higher than the market.

OK, I am trying to refi now. B of A is way too expensive. After my local credit union didn't really want to talk to me, I went with a dishonest mortgage broker. I'm trying a company i found on-line, with a rate that's pretty competitive (low 3's for a 30 year conventional, conforming refi). But again, the CU's can't even touch this rate. They're more expensive. What does that tell me? That even though they are smaller, they're WAY less efficient. If they weren't less efficient, then why do they need to charge such a high interest rate? Hmmm??? They're borrowing gov't money at the same near zero interest rate.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,836
Points:458,125
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2013 3:24:36 PM

SemiSteve, >>Large corporations have placated the public with shallow entertainment in the form of TV, computers and fancy phones. All of which could be very powerful if used for the general welfare. <<

***

MJack: "Isn't it the government that did the placation of at least the cell phones?"

--Not sure what you mean, MJack. I was thinking of how the cell makers and cell service providers turned phones into computers (to be used primarily for play and brainless chatter) and then did an effective job of convincing the public they HAD to have one to keep up. Evident by the initial demand for them by children.

In this day and age of technology advances a phone should cost no more than $5 and the service less than $10 per month. Those are prices that corporations COULD offer and still be profitable. The rest is gravy. And if you doubt this assertion simply refer to the stock prices and values of some of these corporations, all amassed in the last 20 years.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,768
Points:1,890,175
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2013 3:00:04 PM

SemiSteve, >>Large corporations have placated the public with shallow entertainment in the form of TV, computers and fancy phones. All of which could be very powerful if used for the general welfare. <<
***
Isn't it the government that did the placation of at least the cell phones? Did the corporations force the public to purchase tv's, computers, etc.?
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,248
Points:1,955,960
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2013 1:33:04 PM

SS: "We have the government that we deserve, given what we have put into it. It is our own creation."


Yes, we have the takers to thank for Barack Obama. The faster the whole thing comes crashing down the faster we can start over with a government that can live within its means. Hopefully the next time, if their is a next time, they will be smart enough to not allow those who exist on he forced charity of others to have the ability to vote themselves more and more "charity".


mudtoe
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,836
Points:458,125
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 7, 2013 12:46:17 PM

Reposted from another topic, but this applies to BoA:

"Much of what big corporations do, especially financial ones, is borderline legal. And if it is not legal and they want to do it, they try to get the law changed to that it becomes legal. Even if it harms society. Some of it is strictly illegal but they do it anyway because enforcement is lax. They frequently pay fines and simply consider it the cost of doing business. Then they repeat the same offenses. [BoA has done this MANY times.]

Most of the budget for the FBI has been dedicated to a) Terrorism and b) blue collar crime. Prior to 9-11 there was a greater budget for white-collar crime. But most of those units were shut down and the manpower re-assigned to terrorism. Often we hear stories of terrorism plots halted and the perpetrators apprehended by the FBI. What is not often said is that FBI agents planted the idea, the plan and supplied the materials to the perps. The FBI uses informants whom they pay handsomely, or threaten with prosecution, to find these perps. And just as often, the perps would never had committed a crime if they were not prompted to do so. The FBI does this to maintain their budget. This way they are 'showing results' to justify the billions they spend on these ridiculous efforts which often put people behind bars who would have never posed a threat on their own.

If only the FBI were to spend as much on white collar crime as it does on terrorism we would see less money being sequestered into the hands of a very few people and more money in circulation in the economy where it can produce jobs and revenue, thereby reducing our deficit and eventually our debt. "
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,836
Points:458,125
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 7:13:03 PM

If the government we created and then allowed to become what it is today is corrupt we have no one to blame but ourselves. We wrote our own Constitution. We ratified it. We amended it 27 times. We have voted all elected officials into office. We have all had representation available to us the entire time.

Most Americans never contact their Representatives and don't even know who they are. Roughly half don't bother to vote. Most don't inform themselves of national affairs.

Conniving people have taken advantage of our mass apathy to rig the system in their favor.

We have not protested nor objected to this in large enough numbers to stop it.

We have the government that we deserve, given what we have put into it. It is our own creation.

Large corporations have placated the public with shallow entertainment in the form of TV, computers and fancy phones. All of which could be very powerful if used for the general welfare. But instead they have been used to make a few people very wealthy while exploiting the rest.

So if you want to blame just direct it in the most accurate way.

Then put your thinking cap on and tell us what the solution is.

I think the first thing we should do is break up these too big to fail institutions. Then how about a 28th amendment that keeps big money out of politics and corporations out of government and strips them of personhood? How about we return the power to the people? How about we mandate that our schools teach the importance of being a 'well-informed and engaged populace?'
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,768
Points:1,890,175
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 6:15:32 PM

SemiSteve, >>What is the answer?<<
***
I'll give you a hint.

The 'Pure Evil' organization was FORCED by GOVERNMENT to merge with Country wide Credit and Merril Lynch. This was an effort by GOVERNMENT to save those institutions from bankruptcy.

If there is anything pure evil, it is a corrupt GOVERNMENT.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,836
Points:458,125
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 5:58:02 PM

Chris Dodd got several favorable loans from Countrywide (now BoA). Agree, we don't want his ilk in power.

AC-302, I'll leave it up to you to assign percentages of evil. I only use the term as a draw to initiate discussion.

Local Credit Unions rates are higher than the TBTF big banks because they have to get their money the old fashioned way - they earn it. They can only loan out what they control.

The TBTF banks get it almost 'for free' from the government (at a rate nearly zero). The mortgage rate they quote you is artificially low because they are essentially loaning out government money - money our government borrowed because it is, of course, also in debt.

The credit Unions are doing a fair business based on market availability of funds. The TBTF banks have rigged the game in their favor because they have so many 'friendlys' in the gov. The Credit Union mortgage rate is a real market based figure. The TBTF rates are artificial, propped up by government borrowing. The whole thing stinks and anyone who holds a mortgage with a big bank is complicit. I am included in that.

What is the answer?

The govt is afraid to shut down the TBTF banks because (for one reason among many) all who hold mortgages would have to renegotiate their rates at approx two points higher on average without them if they go with a Credit Union or similar small local bank.

"And so the "Greed-a-holics" go into government, where instead of having to trick people into giving them their money as they had to do in the private sector, they can just use force and take it."

--I think most government workers begin with high intentions and then eventually give in to temptation. Certainly it is possible to make far more money outside govt than inside. I would imagine that one who wanted to be vastly rich does not initially seek a govt job. But of course to those who think the govt is more evil than BoA then 'all bad things come from the govt' and 'if we just had a smaller govt' (how small is never mentioned) then the world would be rosey, garbage wouldn't smell, etc etc.
Profile Pic
MahopacJack
Champion Author New York

Posts:9,768
Points:1,890,175
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Jan 31, 2013 9:04:38 AM

semiSteve, >>Seen enough? Now can we please mount a national effort to exterminate this venomous monster (and others like it) and imprison those white-collar criminals far away from anything to do with money or government influence? Thank you, and thank yourselves in advance. We will be far better off without slime like this loose on the market.<<
***
Agree. Maybe we should stop electing politicians such as Chris Dodd who gave Bank of America preferential treatment in exchange for mortgage favors?
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,633
Points:3,506,895
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 11:31:09 PM

So, if B of A is pure evil, then is Wells-Fargo only thee quarters evil? What about Citibank, or Chase, or my local credit union that can't even come within 2% on a mortgage vs. B of A?
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,248
Points:1,955,960
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 2:37:42 PM

SS: "Greed-a-holics don't know when to stop. It is up to government to regulate and restrain them. "


And so the "Greed-a-holics" go into government, where instead of having to trick people into giving them their money as they had to do in the private sector, they can just use force and take it. ROFL!!

mudtoe
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,836
Points:458,125
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 30, 2013 2:31:03 PM

AC-302: "...why didn't "Uncle Sam" split up any of these financial institutions that we had to bail out? They should have done so. "

--Totally agree!

mud: "if the bank wanted to make an acquisition, there were "extra" loans required to be made"

--Which would serve as a disincentive to making acquisitions and becoming 'TBTF'. Growing the business you have is one thing. It is only natural to have business growth match the growth of population. But to grow a business by consuming other businesses can not go on forever. Nor is it conducive to a healthy economy. If allowed, inevitably there would be only one business left. One mega-corporation which would be the provider for every single product or service that anyone wants to buy. Obviously we don't want that. (well, I speak for myself) That would not be good for competition; essentially eliminating it.

Greed-a-holics don't know when to stop. It is up to government to regulate and restrain them. When we allow the greed-a-holics to influence our government through lobbying, industry/government revolving doors, and exorbitant campaign contributions what else do you expect?
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,633
Points:3,506,895
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 10:55:45 PM

SemiSteve harangued: "Since the biggest banks got their vast funds essentially free and without risk, they were happy to loan it out to non-worthy borrowers. They knew the loans were no good but they didn't care. They had a plan to use fancy math to repackage the bad debt as triple A and sell it off to Wall Street investors and pension funds."

--OK, and the government also strongarmed the banks in to making loans to the unqualified based on race. OK, so since the government mandated "community reinvestment act of 1994" made them loan out money that the government gave them free, then you shouldn't be railing against the banks, should you? In your own words, they were only doing what the government told them to do, and paid them to do with taxpayer money, right?

Well, I already told you, and I think we both agreed "too big to fail = too big to exist (as a single entity)" So why didn't "Uncle Sam" split up any of these financial institutions that we had to bail out? They should have done so.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,248
Points:1,955,960
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 1:45:24 PM

SS: "Can you show me in the CRAA where it says that banks are supposed to make bad loans?"


It basically says that they are required to make a certain number of loans in certain geographic areas. It matters not whether there are sufficient credit worthy customers in those areas to meet the quota. By definition, the bank fails if it doesn't make the required number and dollar value of loans. Also, if the bank wanted to make an acquisition, there were "extra" loans required to be made over and beyond the regular quota, typically in the geographic area where the acquisition would take place, in order to make sure that the regulatory approvals would be forthcoming in a timely basis. Failure to comply meant that the acquisition would sit in regulatory limbo, never being outright rejected but always lacking some answers or paperwork that would allow the application to be completed. You have absolutely no conception of how these regulations really operate versus how they are written on paper.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
regulate_now
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:6,626
Points:1,009,050
Joined:Jun 2008
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 1:17:45 PM

As one poster asked early on, "What is the purpose of posting something over 1,200 words long, granted the article from rolling stone from 9 months ago was well over 5 pages long but couldn't you have just as easily posted a shorter posting with just a few points and your comments?"

Bumping? Stirring the pot? What is your point other than inflammatory? To many members just posting junk to create issues then to be debated by every idot on here...

Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,837
Points:840,570
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 1:09:16 PM

Wells Fargo was threatened with lawsuits if they didn't provide more loans to minorities,who were uncreditworthy. They complied and then were sued for making bad loans resulting in too many minority foreclosures. It happened in Baltimore.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,836
Points:458,125
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 1:05:46 PM

I still have a hard time believing that BOA is all goody-goody and the CRAA which was 'rammed down our throats' by the cause of all our problems (the Democrats) intended that banks make bad loans for the purpose of crashing the economy (which would benefit whom?)

Can you show me in the CRAA where it says that banks are supposed to make bad loans?

I doubt it.

And that seems to be the crux of this conspiracy theory.

Without that crucial element reality just sneezed on the whole house of cards of this conspiracy theory.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,248
Points:1,955,960
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 5:59:25 PM

SS: "If they got all their money back how come we had to bail them out? "


Because when the music stopped it stopped suddenly and the banks had lots of bad mortgages on their books that they hadn't sold yet. They weren't anticipating that the market for mortgages would freeze up that fast.

As for being forced to make loans that they knew would not be paid back, that's what CRAA was all about. I worked for a bank and I can tell you that the federal examiners who looked over the other loans on the book always bypassed CRAA loans as far as verifying that the bank had done even the minimum on checking the credit worthiness of the borrowers. They also looked the other way on any losses that happened in the CRAA portfolio. They were basically considered by both the examiners and the bank as just a cost of doing business, as in extortion payments, just like what Tony Soprano does.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
Michiganian
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:6,259
Points:1,279,765
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 5:27:13 PM

Bank of America should be broken up along with Chase, Citi and Wells Fargo. They are the trillion dollar megabanks.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,700
Points:328,145
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 4:46:10 PM

I did.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,836
Points:458,125
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 3:16:36 PM

I wonder how many posters replying to this topic actually reaqd the entire Rolling Stone article?

I am one.

Any more?
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,836
Points:458,125
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 3:15:39 PM

"these banks were required by Federal Law to make these sub-prime loans."

--So then you could show us where they were required to make loans they knew were bad?

" They got paid to make the loans of dubious value then got all their money back when tehy sold the loans to someone else (under the supervision of da gubbiment) and da gubbiment assumed all risk of default."

--If they got all their money back how come we had to bail them out?
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,812
Points:1,598,275
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2013 11:56:15 AM

nstrdnvstr - dont forget that these banks were required by Federal Law to make these sub-prime loans. Then the Federal Government steps in and assumes (in the name of the taxpayer) all risk of default by these same folks who signed the loans by buying the loans via freddiemac and fannymay. Those loans they didnt outright buy they made promises that if the homeowners didnt pay they would.

So lets say you start a business using you own money. Da gubbiment comes along and says you must loan that money to people you dont think will repay it. Da gubbiment also says you cannot charge a intrest rate that reflects proven rates of repayment based on historical fact. But da gummiment also says - dont worry we will assume all the risk or buy the loans from you through a convoluted mess we approve of.

Now any competent person would loan out every dime they could get their hands on. They got paid to make the loans of dubious value then got all their money back when tehy sold the loans to someone else (under the supervision of da gubbiment) and da gubbiment assumed all risk of default.

Stupid is as stupid does......
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,166
Points:4,668,650
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2013 11:38:41 AM

SemiSteve, "Banks and mortgage lenders conspired to create a gigantic volume of very risky home loans, delivering outsize mortgages to dubious borrowers like immigrants without identification, the unemployed and people with poor credit histories. Then the banks took those dicey home loans and sprinkled them with bogus math, using inscrutable financial gizmos like collateralized mortgage obligations to rechristen the risky home loans as high-grade, AAA-rated securities that could be sold off to unions, pensioners, foreign banks, retirement funds and any other suckers the banks could find."

Who forced these people to buy these houses that they could not afford? Did these banks and mortgage lenders put guns to the head of the borrowers to sign the papers?

There WAS a reason why these were called sub-prime loans, wasn't there?
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,166
Points:4,668,650
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2013 11:34:08 AM

SemiSteve, "Yes, yes. We all know that in your view the Democrats are responsible for all of our nation's ills, nstrdnvstr."

And in your view everybody is a victim and cant think for themselves or take responsibility for their own actions (unless they are business owners).

But to the rating agency claim, that they are paid off by banks.
Do these agencies or do they not have an incentive to get ratings correct so those that use them can trust their ratings? Aren't those rating agencies regulated so that banks cannot pay for false ratings?

"And never mind that the banking industry hires the brightest math students out of college for the purpose of having them come up with such complicated derivatives that very few can really understand them."

Number 1 rule of investing: If you do not understand the investment and the risk involved, don't invest in it.

[Edited by: nstrdnvstr at 1/23/2013 11:35:26 AM EST]
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,248
Points:1,955,960
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2013 9:57:12 AM

SS: "Yes, yes. We all know that in your view the Democrats are responsible for all of our nation's ills..."


Truer words you have never typed....


mudtoe
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,836
Points:458,125
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2013 9:21:21 AM

Yes, yes. We all know that in your view the Democrats are responsible for all of our nation's ills, nstrdnvstr.

"There is at least one flaw in your theory. One of the big ones is that banks don't set ratings on bonds, rating agencies do."

--And who pays the ratings agencies? The banks themselves? Follow the money.

And never mind that the banking industry hires the brightest math students out of college for the purpose of having them come up with such complicated derivatives that very few can really understand them. I took calculus. Derivatives were one of the most difficult things to get through. And I was doing textbook stuff. These whizz kids were (and still are) coming up with some of the most convoluted equations on the planet. The banks can pay higher wages than the ratings agencies so they can buy more complicated derivative-creators than the ratings agencies can comprehend. It is widely known that the ratings agencies blew it when they rated these instruments as triple A. They were in for such a bust they should have been triple D!!!
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,166
Points:4,668,650
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2013 9:15:21 AM

SemiSteve, " Bank of America has systematically ripped off almost everyone with whom it has a significant business relationship, cheating investors, insurers, depositors, homeowners, shareholders, pensioners and taxpayers. It brought tens of thousands of Americans to foreclosure court using bogus, "robo-signed" evidence – a type of mass perjury that it helped pioneer. It hawked worthless mortgages to dozens of unions and state pension funds, draining them of hundreds of millions in value. And when it wasn't ripping off workers and pensioners, it was helping to push insurance giants like AMBAC into bankruptcy by fraudulently inducing them to spend hundreds of millions insuring those same worthless mortgages.""

So no one is responsible for making their own personal financial decisions? Everyone is a victim????

Wow, all those educated financial people doing business with Bank of America must be pretty dumb, huh?

Generally speaking, people didn't get foreclosed on unless they did not live up to their obligation to pay their monthly obligation on time. I believe that is mentioned in the mortgage contract they sign, is it not?
Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,166
Points:4,668,650
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2013 9:10:55 AM

SemiSteve, "Since the biggest banks got their vast funds essentially free and without risk, they were happy to loan it out to non-worthy borrowers. They knew the loans were no good but they didn't care. They had a plan to use fancy math to repackage the bad debt as triple A and sell it off to Wall Street investors and pension funds..."

There is at least one flaw in your theory. One of the big ones is that banks don't set ratings on bonds, rating agencies do. Another is that you seem to conveniently forget who gave the banks the "risk free" opportunity.

Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac (the government) funded these with taxpayer dollars. When the oversight board tried to rein them in, the race card was played, democrats during this time insisted that these loans were safe and Fannie and Freddie were "financially sound".

Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,836
Points:458,125
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2013 8:28:47 AM

KansasGunman: "They're without a doubt the Nations largest sanctuary bank, where illegals cash their pay checks without running the risk of being reported...that alone will keep me from ever walking through their doors."

--Wow, didn't know that. The sleaziness never ends.

"Their loan service was so bad, I refi'd to get rid of them. "

--A good suggestion for anyone who has a loan through BOA.
Profile Pic
KansasGunman
Champion Author Kansas

Posts:22,106
Points:2,117,980
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 11:33:29 PM

They're without a doubt the Nations largest sanctuary bank, where illegals cash their pay checks without running the risk of being reported...that alone will keep me from ever walking through their doors.

[Edited by: KansasGunman at 1/22/2013 11:35:42 PM EST]
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,248
Points:1,955,960
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 11:10:53 PM

SS: "Of course it could not go on forever and the house of cards fell in '08. "


Oh, sort of like entitlement spending.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,836
Points:458,125
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 10:22:03 PM

It figures the conservatives are blaming liberals and assuming they have bad credit. All of this as BOA is using federal government money to loan out and collecting fees as the middleman. And guess what? That govt money they are loaning out is borrowed as all govt money is. And the big banksters have been put into high level govt positions by every Pres (including Obama). The revolving door between the big banks and govt is spinning like a top.

Since the biggest banks got their vast funds essentially free and without risk, they were happy to loan it out to non-worthy borrowers. They knew the loans were no good but they didn't care. They had a plan to use fancy math to repackage the bad debt as triple A and sell it off to Wall Street investors and pension funds. Everyday workers, in other words. They called the perfumed excrement 'derivatives'. Of course it could not go on forever and the house of cards fell in '08. More bail-outs and bonuses for the execs. Pay a few fines here and there but for them it is nothing but the cost of business. Why should they care about a fine that amounts to less than 1% of their take? Wreaks to high you-know-what but they don't care. As long as they get their enormous salaries they are happy. Doesn't matter to them who they leave on the hook. But guess who it is? All of us, the taxpayers.

Bank Of America: Pure Evil
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,633
Points:3,506,895
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 10:04:18 PM

Speaking of bad banks, I once had a mortgage that was sold to a company called Union Planter's Bank out of Memphis. For awhile there, to generate late fees, UPB was holding my checks until they were one day late, then running them through the system. They kept trying to hit me for a late fee of some $80. Knowing that my payment was due the 10th, I'd always send it in the 1st. And where I lived at the time was only 2 days away by US Mail.

Anyway, I told the bank that I'd be happy to send my checks in registered mail.. at their expense. I also refused to pay the late fees, as they were bogus. Ultimately they couldn't prove that I was late, but I proved to them that I always had sent it in early. Their processing it late didn't constitute me sending it in late. Charges dropped. But they played that game with me for 3 or 4 months in a row. I shudder to think how many folks just went ahead and paid it.

Union Planters had a story done about them on NPR some years ago. They were the only bank at the time to REFUSE to celebrate King day. Since then they've been bought out by another regional bank. Their loan service was so bad, I refi'd to get rid of them.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,248
Points:1,955,960
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 11:55:54 AM

flyboy: "Mudtoe - your making me cry -"


I hear you, and at your stage in life you certainly have less need of good credit than say someone who is looking to score a high salary job or start their own business. Also, there is a difference between no credit and bad credit.

I understand the issue about credit and I think it's a good idea that a lot of people not use it because they can't be responsible. On the other hand if you are self disciplined and understand the right and wrong way to use credit it can be very beneficial. The only thing I buy on credit is homes, and that's because of the mortgage deduction, which makes the cost of the mortgage less than what I can earn with the money invested elsewhere (in previous posts I've told the story about how I figured out how to get money out of my IRA essentially tax free and turn it into after tax real estate).

I also use a credit card for virtually everything I buy because I get 1-2% cash back on every purchase, and I never ever carry a balance so I never pay interest, which means that the credit card company is helping to subsidize me rather than the other way around. As I said, I wouldn't recommend this strategy to most people because of the risk that they couldn't be disciplined enough to not spend beyond their means, but for the few who are it can work out to your advantage.


mudtoe
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,812
Points:1,598,275
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 11:31:46 AM

Mudtoe - your making me cry -

I will never be applying for another job----
I do not have a mortgage - house is paid for ----
All cars are paid for adn the bank account specifically set up to replace a car when needed is now funded so that we can purchase new ones when we want to - with cash.

GMan your right though we probably should check just to insure things are going well and no fraud is taking place. But there is a certain degree of comfort in not really worring about FICO scores.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:14,248
Points:1,955,960
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 11:20:44 AM

flyboy: "Credit score is only if you are concerned about a need for credit."


Actually it's used for a lot more. As an example, if you apply for a job there is a good chance that buried in the job application is an authorization for the prospective employer to do a credit check on you, and it's not just if you are applying for a job in the financial industry. It's very difficult to get a salaried position anymore if you have bad credit, especially given that due to Obamanomics it's a employer's market and they can afford to be very choosey. Another example is insurance companies, who also check your credit and may deny you coverage if you have bad credit, under the theory that people with bad credit are more likely to have their car with high monthly payments "stolen", or have "bad wiring" in their high mortgage house that causes it to burn down when nobody is home.


mudtoe



[Edited by: mudtoe at 1/22/2013 11:22:20 AM EST]
Post a reply Back to Topics