U.S. to sue the big banks over securitized mortgages....
MilesWaits
Posts: 5,349 ✭✭✭✭✭
and it isn't even the weekend yet! A telegraphed move pre-market??
And the next to last line:
News of the suit could have a negative impact on stocks of the banks in question on Friday. JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs are traded on the New York Stock Exchange, while Deutsche Bank is traded on the German exchange.
Got Gold?
Reuters
Miles
And the next to last line:
News of the suit could have a negative impact on stocks of the banks in question on Friday. JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs are traded on the New York Stock Exchange, while Deutsche Bank is traded on the German exchange.
Got Gold?
Reuters
Miles
Now riding the swell in PM's and surf.
0
Comments
Deutsche Bank also trades on the NYSE. DB.
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
execs and traders for pushing this garbage.
Gold up +$50.00 as of 9:25AM Eastern.
News of the suit could have a negative impact on stocks of the banks in question on Friday. JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs are traded on the New York Stock Exchange, while Deutsche Bank is traded on the German exchange.
This is just the initial salvo. I'm sure that the banks will have a strategic response, and my gut feeling is that the banks will start making it very uncomfortable for Washington DC in retribution.
The question is "who runs who?"
I expect the taxpayers to get it in the vital organs long before the banks or the government have to suffer any inconvenience.
As Miles suggests, "got gold?"
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>As Miles suggests, "got gold" >>
I would add a dash of silver to that recipe
Suing the people you're propping up with taxpayer paper just has to be a move for public PR consumption.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
<< <i>Aren't these zombie banks, loaded down with hopeless mounds of bad debt? Hasn't the Fed been propping them up with truckloads of infusions, now down the rathole?
Suing the people you're propping up with taxpayer paper just has to be a move for public PR consumption. >>
ABSO-fisting-LUTELY! The PROPER thing would have been to let them go broke in 07. Sure, it would have been cataclysmic, but it would all have passed with huge damage to some very big money.
And we wouldn't be more in debt with absolutely NO WAY OUT.
Like we are now.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>
<< <i>Aren't these zombie banks, loaded down with hopeless mounds of bad debt? Hasn't the Fed been propping them up with truckloads of infusions, now down the rathole?
Suing the people you're propping up with taxpayer paper just has to be a move for public PR consumption. >>
ABSO-fisting-LUTELY! The PROPER thing would have been to let them go broke in 07. Sure, it would have been cataclysmic, but it would all have passed with huge damage to some very big money.
And we wouldn't be more in debt with absolutely NO WAY OUT.
Like we are now. >>
Spot on! Except I think for the word "cataclysmic" in which there are dozens if not hundreds of sound banks out there that would have quickly stepped in and taken up the slack. It's the politicians who made us believe it would be cataclysmic when it reality, the better word would have been something such as "cleansing" and getting rid of all these charlatans with their shenanigans and schemes, and allow them to go broke which they should have, instead of bailing them out which we shouldn't have.
The BS line of being "too big to fail" might be true in a manufacturing business such as aircraft in which we depend on that for our national defense...but in banking and insurance where it is basically just paperwork pushing...being too big to fail is utter nonsense.
<< <i>You think one dime of one bonus will be paid back? >>
lol
Once everything blew up and exploded, the lending pendulum moved to the other end of the spectrum to where few people can qualify for a loan. This impacts home sales and home prices just as much as the glut of foreclosure homes.
I understand that some politicians are now grumbling again that the lending industry needs to loosen lending standards and start making loans to a "broader segment of the population" so that everyone has an equal chance to become a home owner.
One day, the private lending industry will simply die off and people will obtain their home loans from Uncle Sam, or will simply rent their residence from Uncle Same.
Won't that just be great, the majority of people in the country will live in Public Housing and pay rent to Uncle Sam.
New credit (public and private) should be temporarily outlawed until the rot is purged from the system. This would of course strangle the bankers; credit is their livelihood, whether it be financing wars or cars.
I love the commercial where the little kid is ashamed to be seen in the family's three year old car. Theme of the advert was "buy a new car so your kid won't be ashamed to be seen with you." Are there really fools like that out there? Something tells me there are.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>When is the government going to sue the politicians and civil servants who created a system whereby lenders were required to make loans to people who were never qualified to obtain the loans [so that everyone was equal and everyone could have a house]? Sure the lenders and others in the private sector [including homebuyers who stupidly took out these junky loans] have responsibility for the subprime and now prime mortgage mess. However, they were simply operating within the dysfunctional system put in place by Barney Frank and other political leaders. Of course thinking that politicians and civil servants who created this system will be held accountable for their wrongdoing is laughable.
Once everything blew up and exploded, the lending pendulum moved to the other end of the spectrum to where few people can qualify for a loan. This impacts home sales and home prices just as much as the glut of foreclosure homes.
I understand that some politicians are now grumbling again that the lending industry needs to loosen lending standards and start making loans to a "broader segment of the population" so that everyone has an equal chance to become a home owner.
One day, the private lending industry will simply die off and people will obtain their home loans from Uncle Sam, or will simply rent their residence from Uncle Same.
Won't that just be great, the majority of people in the country will live in Public Housing and pay rent to Uncle Sam. >>
Spot on - that's exactly what King B would love.
<< <i>It's all part of the bankers' "slaves to debt" campaign. First you have your puppets toughen bankruptcy law, then you have them weaken lending requirements. Once you've got the fools suckered in you give them a way out - other people's money which is in fact borrowed by raising the federal spending limit and paying the bankers (read FED) to create more money which is backed by more taxpayer debt.
New credit (public and private) should be temporarily outlawed until the rot is purged from the system. This would of course strangle the bankers; credit is their livelihood, whether it be financing wars or cars.
I love the commercial where the little kid is ashamed to be seen in the family's three year old car. Theme of the advert was "buy a new car so your kid won't be ashamed to be seen with you." Are there really fools like that out there? Something tells me there are. >>
I don't really blame the bankers - they are doing what all businesses try to do - make money. Other posters here have it exactly right - liberal government under the guise of "good intentions" is what totally caused this mess...and their good intentions was at the risk and expense of the taxpayers.
If it can be proven in court that some politicians may have been paid off or bought by some bankers for certain favors, then throw those politician bastiges in prison for a long time, along with those bankers for bribery.
US government "representatives" are among the stupidest most venal critters on earth.
And big money KNOWS this.
This much doesn't go THIS WRONG without a lot of loot changing hands. It's why my savings are in gold. 60% of em anyhow.
From "free trade" to "quantitative easing"
<< <i>You think one dime of one bonus will be paid back? >>
That battle was lost 2 years ago. The securities and banking industry ran a bunch of ads telling
people "call your congressman and tell them it's UNFAIR for big out-of-control government to
TAKE BACK money that YOU and people JUST LIKE YOU LEGALLY EARNED.
but it's not really insider trading if enough people do it ... right?
here's a thought about the law suit announcment (which can be taken seriously or tongue in cheek, depending on how you want to think about it)
maybe this was one of the new job creation plans from the WH
I mean I'm sure lawyers, clerks and the press can have a field day with more of our money this way
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
<< <i>When is the government going to sue the politicians and civil servants who created a system whereby lenders were required to make loans to people who were never qualified to obtain the loans >>
There was NEVER EVER such a requirement. That's a meme promoted by Wall Street and the bankers to deflect the blame. The Community Reinvestment Act 35 years ago
required banks to have written policies that they will loan SOME MONEY back to the same communities that deposited it, but has a clause that in NO WAY does that require them to make non credit worthy loans. The junk mortages were made simply to collect all the loan origination fees and commissions, then profit by packinging the mortages with phony AAA ratings...and then doing it all over again...
the lousy +17,000 August jobs number. Imagine how bad the number would have been w/o the imaginary birth death model jobs key-stroked in from black boxes?
If the banking system would have been allowed to fold in 2007-2008 it would have been interesting to see how the failed $1.14 QUAD in derivatives would have played out. If the failure
rate was in line with Lehman's bankruptcy (91% failure rate), there would have been counter-parties looking for their $1.04 QUAD in payouts. A lot more than just 5-25 big US banks would have gone done. You can probably figure GE, GM, other auto companies, huge investment funds, AIG, insurers, Fannie-Freddie, pension funds, University endowment funds, and a list of hundreds or thousands more all down the drain in one shot as some were saturated with worthless derivatives. How about Buffet's BH who took on a few billion of otc derivatives not long ago? The carnage would have extended far beyond just the big US and world banks. I wouldn't be at all surprised if municipalities, states, and a dozen or two foreign nations would have been wiped out as well. The advantage of having the biggest banks swallow up failing big banks is that those toxic derivatives aren't called upon to perform. In the case of Lehman and any future big bank failures, those derivatives have to be immediately unwound and accounted for...no kicking the can down the road. Between AIG, Lehman, and other failures in the 2007-2011 period somewhere to the tune of $15-$20 TRILL was paid out. And this only reduced the outstanding otc derivatives by about 3.5%....leaving 96.5% to still be accounted for. The remaining potential is 25-30X the size of what has already occurred. If needed JPM will absorb every big bank in the country of needed and ultimately became the next official Bank of the United States.
roadrunner
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>I don't really blame the bankers - they are doing what all businesses try to do - make money. Other posters here have it exactly right - liberal government under the guise of "good intentions" is what totally caused this mess...and their good intentions was at the risk and expense of the taxpayers. >>
the banks control legislators and their legislation. bankers are inserted into political positions where needed. this is done for the benefit of the banks, not for benefit of the voters they supposedly work for.
<< <i>When is the government going to sue the politicians and civil servants who created a system whereby lenders were required to make loans to people who were never qualified to obtain the loans >>
<< <i>There was NEVER EVER such a requirement. That's a meme promoted by Wall Street and the bankers to deflect the blame. The Community Reinvestment Act 35 years ago
required banks to have written policies that they will loan SOME MONEY back to the same communities that deposited it, but has a clause that in NO WAY does that require them to make non credit worthy loans. The junk mortages were made simply to collect all the loan origination fees and commissions, then profit by packinging the mortages with phony AAA ratings...and then doing it all over again... >>
Politicians were very much as responsible, as the banks, and the borrowers for the fiasco. (And let's not forget puppet Greenspan's artificially low interest rate policy over at the FED)
This perfect storm of raping American homebuyers and taxpayers was not coincidental. It involved many outside players, was well planned and well executed. It even included a back door (bailout) when the house of cards crumbled. Those who chose to keep their savings in PMs were somewhat protected.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i> If needed JPM will absorb every big bank in the country of needed and ultimately became the next official Bank of the United States.
roadrunner >>
Think they'll pay good CD rates?
<< <i>
<< <i> If needed JPM will absorb every big bank in the country of needed and ultimately became the next official Bank of the United States.
roadrunner >>
Think they'll pay good CD rates?
Let me get this straight. The gov encouraged banks to make shoddy loans. (Remember Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpen crying "racist" tactic keep minorities from qualifying for mortgages). People couldn't pay for their mortgages. Then banks went belly up in 08, and the gov had to bail 'em out. Now the gov is suing the same banks it bailed out. This is pretty funny, and reads like a SNL script. HA HA!
JPM being sued for 33B. Not sure they'll have good CD rates anytime soon, but you never know.
<< <i>When is the government going to sue the politicians and civil servants who created a system whereby lenders were required to make loans to people who were never qualified to obtain the loans [so that everyone was equal and everyone could have a house]? Won't that just be great, the majority of people in the country will live in Public Housing and pay rent to Uncle Sam. >>
You're absolutely correct. Bad policy and Jesse Jackson screaming RACISTS!! RACISTS!! to banks. Jesse Jackson should
be jailed along with Barney Frank.
This includes politicians, lobbyists, originating lenders, mortgage loan brokers, warehouse lenders who financed the originating lender operations, loan purchasers who bought blocks of loans in the secondary market to create the loan pools that were securitized (put into pretty packaging and sold as AAA investments even though they were nothing more than doo-doo), Wall Street operators who sold the Mortgage Backed Securities to individual, institutional and governmental investors worldwide, greedy investors who bought these Mortgage Backed Securities, loan servicers, the lawyers and accountants involved in putting together the paperwork and reporting documents, the title companies and escrow companies that made money on these loan escrows, the real estate brokers who sold overvalued houses to people who had no ability to pay for them, and (last but not least) the borrowers who took out these idiotic loans.
They all should be made to pay dearly for their wrongdoing.
Funny thing is that most everyone will never have to worry about a thing. Eventually the current market downturn will pass, and the cycle will repeat itself with a new cast of villians and victims.
<< <i>When is the government going to sue the politicians and civil servants who created a system whereby lenders were required to make loans to people who were never qualified to obtain the loans [so that everyone was equal and everyone could have a house]? Sure the lenders and others in the private sector [including homebuyers who stupidly took out these junky loans] have responsibility for the subprime and now prime mortgage mess. However, they were simply operating within the dysfunctional system put in place by Barney Frank and other political leaders. Of course thinking that politicians and civil servants who created this system will be held accountable for their wrongdoing is laughable. >>
I've heard this arguement before but take it from a guy who worked 4 years for a major subprime lender, It was all about the greed. Every loan was good not because of some requirement to provide housing but because they all got put in CDOs , rated primo and sold overseas. Goldman Sachs was the big stockholder and production was the ONLY goal. Even the loan approvers were on commission, how many do you think they declined?
<< <i>Everyone involved in the process of the creation, selling, reselling, etc. of all of the horrible loans are equally responsible for the fiasco. They all should be sued, criminally and civilly. They should do jail time and should be required to pay back the money they borrowed and the profits that they obtained.
This includes politicians, lobbyists, originating lenders, mortgage loan brokers, warehouse lenders who financed the originating lender operations, loan purchasers who bought blocks of loans in the secondary market to create the loan pools that were securitized (put into pretty packaging and sold as AAA investments even though they were nothing more than doo-doo), Wall Street operators who sold the Mortgage Backed Securities to individual, institutional and governmental investors worldwide, greedy investors who bought these Mortgage Backed Securities, loan servicers, the lawyers and accountants involved in putting together the paperwork and reporting documents, the title companies and escrow companies that made money on these loan escrows, the real estate brokers who sold overvalued houses to people who had no ability to pay for them, and (last but not least) the borrowers who took out these idiotic loans.
They all should be made to pay dearly for their wrongdoing.
Funny thing is that most everyone will never have to worry about a thing. Eventually the current market downturn will pass, and the cycle will repeat itself with a new cast of villians and victims. >>
Should any blame be assigned to the lying SOBs who wanted the money to buy a house to flip before it went up another nickel?
The loans were shaky.
The borrowers were liars.
Fools bought the paper.
I realize it's fun to blame the banks, but they provided what was wanted on both ends.
I ....was.... a private mortgage lender. Personal funds.
When they began wanting to kite their loans beyond what .....MY.... appraisal was, I let someone else buy the mortgage.
And I didn't hold a gun to their heads.
<< <i>(And let's not forget puppet Greenspan's artificially low interest rate policy over at the FED) >>
I am a Greenspan defender.
He made some mistakes, and I think, in hindsight, that bubble popping might need to be on the list of the Fed's goals here, but I don't think low interest rates were directly to blame for the housing crisis. I think it may have aided it, but the low rates now are not creating a housing crisis. And they are lower now than then. Should rates be higher today? Higher than they were back then?
It wasn't the low rates that caused the problem, although it made it easier for the problem to spread and grow.
The housing problems came in from the liar loans, negative amoritization ARMs, bundling junk subprime and labelling it as AAA, fraudulent appraisals, and so on.
Why is it not happening now?
Tighter lending standards.
Now, if they had tighter lending standards back then, we wouldn't be in nearly as bad of a mess as we are now.
Low rates is definitely not the cause of this mess, and blame can not be hung on one person when so many were committing fraud of some sort or another and gambling on housing -- which when we bought our first house had typical annualized returns of 3% a year... somewhat less than the interest rates back then. However, when people were panic buying homes to flip it raised those returns artificially to over 10% per year and people bought like that was normal.
(PS -- if housing prices were to have continued 3% from before the bubble, we'd still be overpriced today in many markets across the country.)
<< <i>Everyone involved in the process of the creation, selling, reselling, etc. of all of the horrible loans are equally responsible for the fiasco. They all should be sued, criminally and civilly. They should do jail time and should be required to pay back the money they borrowed and the profits that they obtained. >>
Exactly.
one person (Greenspan) didn't do this.
The bankers and all the other players are looking for a scapegoat (not them) and they stick their fingers at Greenspan and say "rates were too low." Yet, if he were to pop asset bubbles (housing included) they'd cry "lassez-faire" and "conspiratorial government interference" and "they aren't letting us make money" and cry cry cry boohoo
It's all those finger pointers out there who are to blame.
Greenspan said ONCE in his testimony to Congress that consumers could have saved over the ast few years if they had ARMs. (true. but who has a crystal ball on the economy.)
People blame him for saying that.
Crazy.
No where did he suggest negative ARMs, using ARMs to help flip houses in over heated market, liar loans, falsifying paperwork, etc.
just "ARMs could have saved people money"
And I told my wife when we moved recently I wanted an 3/1 ARM (remembering that advice) but she was too scared what it'd be like at refi time 3 years into the future. I'm going to guess she's regretting it now. No, Uncle Ben has esentially painted a picture that rates will be low for probably the next couple of years...
and
10years are near all time lows
people are refi'ing now.
my suggestion: consider a 3/1 ARM. it might save you some money if you think you can risk the 1. housing price stability(you might go underwater in 3 years), 2. Interest rate stability (looking good so far) and 3. Job stability.
Yeah... Greenspan and his low rates and suggestion that an ARM would have saved some people some money caused all the problems. Right.
for those of you who read the us coin forum and the "worthless" collectibles thread....
I just remembered a worthless collectible I own.
remember that chick on CNBC who painted a Greenspan painting on air and they auctioned it ???
I don't own that one, but I own one of her paintings of Greenspan. Now that he has been scapegoated by the true criminals in the game, people have taken them off the walls and hiding them under the bed and in the closets. The auction winner is embarassed to show theirs.
Mine still hangs on the wall.
After the Bubble, Beauty Is But Fleeting for Greenspan Portraits
<< <i>Edit
I don't own that one, but I own one of her paintings of Greenspan. Now that he has been scapegoated by the true criminals in the game, people have taken them off the walls and hiding them under the bed and in the closets. The auction winner is embarassed to show theirs.
Mine still hangs on the wall. >>
As one of the artists here, I would love to see this. Got a pic?
The ones with the "typical Greenspan poses" were not as well executed as the one I chose.
I did go with the one with the best execution, but least "Greenspan" in its composition. It looks the most like him.
the last series painted "Goodbye Greenspan"
And the subject matter is definitely different. I see the historical archiving aspect of it obviously. Curious though why you have it in private hands. Where do you have it hanging in the house if you don't mind me asking? Random old dude looking over the dinner table? Ha
just kidding.
living room
and it's greenspan, not random old dude.
the canvas is 21.5" x 16" with a thin black wooden frame surrounding but not touching it.
Figured 'random' was how folks would ask about it initially when they see it.
I always thought someone would either recognize him or assume it was grandpa.