PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Is Set to Sue Banks



Qtec
09-02-2011, 06:03 AM
link (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/business/us-is-set-to-sue-dozen-big-banks-over-mortgages.html?_r=2)


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">U.S. Is Set to Sue a Dozen Big Banks Over Mortgages
By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ

The federal agency that oversees the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is set to file suits against more than a dozen big banks, accusing them of misrepresenting the quality of mortgage securities they assembled and sold at the height of the housing bubble, and seeking billions of dollars in compensation.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency suits, which are expected to be filed in the coming days in federal court, are aimed at Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank, among others, according to three individuals briefed on the matter.

The suits stem from subpoenas the finance agency issued to banks a year ago. If the case is not filed Friday, they said, it will come Tuesday, shortly before a deadline expires for the housing agency to file claims.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>The suits will argue the banks, which assembled the mortgages and marketed them as securities to investors, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>failed to perform the <span style="color: #000099">due diligence required under securities law</span> and missed evidence that borrowers’ incomes were inflated or falsified.</span> When many borrowers were unable to pay their mortgages, the securities backed by the mortgages quickly lost value. </span> </div></div>



Its a start.

What it does show that the collapse was not the fault of the family that couldn't pay their mortgage. If the banks etc had practiced due diligence, most of them would never have been given the money in the first place.

Q

eg8r
09-02-2011, 06:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What it does show that the collapse was not the fault of the family that couldn't pay their mortgage.</div></div>You are such a schmuck. Why don't you bother to comprehend every single word before opening your ignorant mouth?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">failed to perform the due diligence required under securities law and missed evidence that borrowers’ incomes were inflated or falsified.[quote]The sentence which you clearly thought proved your point ended up proving your ignorance. It celarly states the fault is on both parties equally. The bank for not doing its due diligence and the families for LYING on their applications.

[quote]When many borrowers were unable to pay their mortgages, </div></div>This happened because the people LIED about their income.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-02-2011, 07:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> link (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/business/us-is-set-to-sue-dozen-big-banks-over-mortgages.html?_r=2)


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">U.S. Is Set to Sue a Dozen Big Banks Over Mortgages
By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ

The federal agency that oversees the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is set to file suits against more than a dozen big banks, accusing them of misrepresenting the quality of mortgage securities they assembled and sold at the height of the housing bubble, and seeking billions of dollars in compensation.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency suits, which are expected to be filed in the coming days in federal court, are aimed at Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank, among others, according to three individuals briefed on the matter.

The suits stem from subpoenas the finance agency issued to banks a year ago. If the case is not filed Friday, they said, it will come Tuesday, shortly before a deadline expires for the housing agency to file claims.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>The suits will argue the banks, which assembled the mortgages and marketed them as securities to investors, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>failed to perform the <span style="color: #000099">due diligence required under securities law</span> and missed evidence that borrowers’ incomes were inflated or falsified.</span> When many borrowers were unable to pay their mortgages, the securities backed by the mortgages quickly lost value. </span> </div></div>



Its a start.

What it does show that the collapse was not the fault of the family that couldn't pay their mortgage. If the banks etc had practiced due diligence, most of them would never have been given the money in the first place.

Q </div></div>

I can't count the number of very well to do friends and acquaintances I have, who over-invested, and then walked out and left keys on the counters of two to three REal Estate purchases.

The right has been brainwashed to think that only low income black people, bought homes they couldn't afford.

The facts show, that of the CRA defaults, the main cause was lost wages, under Bush, along with high costs for Health Care, when people became ill, and were dropped by health Insurance.

Fannie and Freddie, were hardly a blip in the housing bubble. the Banks and ratings agencies, were lying about the value of what they were selling.

No one FORCED them to provide mortgages, and it was THEIR OWN unprofessional, deceitful policies, that caused the meltdown.

Banks, and ratings agencies on Wall St.,, the major cause, and Bush's "Ownership Society" for which Greenspan, kept interest rates unjustifiably low, for eight years, and ignored all of the warnings he had gotten for ten years! In fact, he destroyed those who tried to prevent his gross failures.

Now, he admits, he was wrong....

"I never worried about fraud in the markets..."

He underestimated Greed on Wall St., superseding their collective common sense.

Investors, were the major fuel of the housing bubble....investors, Banks, Corrupt ratings agencies, Predatory Lenders, it's a joke to try to blame this thing on average Americans, buying above their means.

Health care costs, and the corrupt Health Insurance Industry, were a major cause of default....

G.

Qtec
09-02-2011, 07:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">failed to perform the<u> due diligence</u> </div></div>

Do you understand those words?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This happened because the people LIED about their income.

eg8r </div></div>

Did the banks check them out?
Did they demand proof or was just saying you earned $200,000 a year enough? People lie everyday.
Are you saying the banks did the right thing by just blindly believing them?

When I got my first mortgage I had to provide bank statements, a letter from my employer, etc etc etc. In those days they didn't just cash away to anyone who asked for it.

If the banks gave loans to people who couldn't afford them without checking them out then THEY are at fault. It could be your savings they are giving away.

Q

Qtec
09-02-2011, 07:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> No one FORCED them to provide mortgages, and it was THEIR OWN unprofessional, deceitful policies, that caused the meltdown.</div></div>

True. AIG had AAA status 4 weeks before it collapsed! The rating agencies were also to blame.


Q

Gayle in MD
09-02-2011, 08:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">failed to perform the<u> due diligence</u> </div></div>

Do you understand those words?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This happened because the people LIED about their income.

eg8r </div></div>

Did the banks check them out?
Did they demand proof or was just saying you earned $200,000 a year enough? People lie everyday.
Are you saying the banks did the right thing by just blindly believing them?

When I got my first mortgage I had to provide bank statements, a letter from my employer, etc etc etc. In those days they didn't just cash away to anyone who asked for it.

If the banks gave loans to people who couldn't afford them without checking them out then THEY are at fault. It could be your savings they are giving away.

Q





</div></div>

One of my best friends worked out of the Tampa Office, for Country Wide. He left out of disgust over what they were doing.

He told me they used to all sit in one big room, on phones, all day, answering, and making calls particularly to the elderly and uneducated ethnic groups, and the big joke was, when one guy on one side of the room would stand up and yell out:

"Should we approve this loan?"

In unison the room would yell out:

"Is he Breathing?"

That was the big joke.

Predatory Lending was a huge part of the housing bubble, as were the corrupted Ratings Agencies on Wall St.

Anyone mentioning Fannie and Freddie, is proving gross ingorance. The Fannie and Freddie BS, is just another RW myth.

G.

eg8r
09-02-2011, 08:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you understand those words?
</div></div>Do you understand these words...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">incomes were inflated or falsified.</div></div>To clarify for qtip the dillhole...That means the people lied and could have never afforded those mortgages. They were the intial problem. Both parties are equally responsible.

eg8r

eg8r
09-02-2011, 08:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Predatory Lending was a huge part of the housing bubble, </div></div>So was lying about income which was the start of this.

eg8r

Qtec
09-02-2011, 09:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you understand those words?
</div></div>Do you understand these words...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">incomes were inflated or falsified.</div></div>To clarify for qtip the dillhole...<u>That means the people lied and could have never afforded those mortgages.</u> They were the intial problem. Both parties are equally responsible.

eg8r </div></div>

BS.

Q:..Can you lend me $500,000 eg8r?

eg8r:...can you afford to pay me back?

Q:..sure. Don't worry. I make a zillion $ a year.

eg8r:.. OK then.


Do you realise now how STUPID your argument is?

Q...doubt it.

Soflasnapper
09-02-2011, 10:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Predatory Lending was a huge part of the housing bubble, </div></div>So was lying about income which was the start of this.

eg8r </div></div>

A survey of South California lending found some 2/3rds of persons getting non-standard mortgages would have qualified for conventional financing (30-year fixed rates), with no exposure to ARM jumps or ballons requiring refinancing, or the loss of the 'teaser rate' after only a couple of years.

Instead, as non-bank lending companies like Countrywide preferred, their agents were paid bonuses and extra commissions if they steered these people into the non-standard mortgages.

Imagine the conversation:

Borrower: I'd like the fixed rate mortgage, since it's predictable. I'll always owe the same payment and I know what it is, so I can plan around that monthly payment.

Countrywide Rep: But you are throwing money away! I can save you $6,000 in the first year alone, which you can put in your pocket and use for anything else you want to buy!

Borrower: But what happens after the 2-year reset? That payment will jump up to the fixed rate, and then beyond. I don't want to have to worry about redoing this, and maybe I can't afford the new payment.

Countrywide Rep: When that happens, you can always refinance at a lower rate. You know houses always go up in value, so you can even refinance with cash back. It's like your own personal money tree. Why, 20 people this week alone out of this office decided to be smart and put extra money in their pockets. You should take advantage of this opportunity!

Borrower: I don't know. My family always had a fixed rate mortgage, and my folks still have their home. It's almost all paid off, and...

CWR: Listen, back in the day, the fixed-rate mortgage was all that ANYONE could have. Nowadays, we can take advantage of these newer kinds of mortgages. They're totally safe or they wouldn't be allowed. All you have to do is understand that you can have an additional $12,000 in your pocket over the next two years, or not have the money, because you want to be old-fashioned about it.

The facts are that many of the states tried to rein in the abuses of the lenders, as contrary to laws against predatory lending. The feds stepped in, opposed the AG lawsuits in court, stating the banks were federally chartered and that the states therefore had no regulatory power over these practices.

The predatory lending was kept going through this aid from the federal government to stop the states from stopping it, and not long after, a couple of years, the bovine excrement hit the fan.

Gayle in MD
09-02-2011, 11:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Predatory Lending was a huge part of the housing bubble, </div></div>So was lying about income which was the start of this.

eg8r </div></div>

A survey of South California lending found some 2/3rds of persons getting non-standard mortgages would have qualified for conventional financing (30-year fixed rates), with no exposure to ARM jumps or ballons requiring refinancing, or the loss of the 'teaser rate' after only a couple of years.

Instead, as non-bank lending companies like Countrywide preferred, their agents were paid bonuses and extra commissions if they steered these people into the non-standard mortgages.

Imagine the conversation:

Borrower: I'd like the fixed rate mortgage, since it's predictable. I'll always owe the same payment and I know what it is, so I can plan around that monthly payment.

Countrywide Rep: But you are throwing money away! I can save you $6,000 in the first year alone, which you can put in your pocket and use for anything else you want to buy!

Borrower: But what happens after the 2-year reset? That payment will jump up to the fixed rate, and then beyond. I don't want to have to worry about redoing this, and maybe I can't afford the new payment.

Countrywide Rep: When that happens, you can always refinance at a lower rate. You know houses always go up in value, so you can even refinance with cash back. It's like your own personal money tree. Why, 20 people this week alone out of this office decided to be smart and put extra money in their pockets. You should take advantage of this opportunity!

Borrower: I don't know. My family always had a fixed rate mortgage, and my folks still have their home. It's almost all paid off, and...

CWR: Listen, back in the day, the fixed-rate mortgage was all that ANYONE could have. Nowadays, we can take advantage of these newer kinds of mortgages. They're totally safe or they wouldn't be allowed. All you have to do is understand that you can have an additional $12,000 in your pocket over the next two years, or not have the money, because you want to be old-fashioned about it.

The facts are that many of the states tried to rein in the abuses of the lenders, as contrary to laws against predatory lending. The feds stepped in, opposed the AG lawsuits in court, stating the banks were federally chartered and that the states therefore had no regulatory power over these practices.

The predatory lending was kept going through this aid from the federal government to stop the states from stopping it, and not long after, a couple of years, the bovine excrement hit the fan. </div></div>

And, additionally, if I may, Fannie and Freddie had an accounting scandal in 2003, and got out of sub prime, completely, after which predatory lending exceeded anyone's expectations, during which time the market grew more dark, and less regulated, with the new exotic instuments, and the less regulatory injfluence, however, Greenspan has stated that he was, "Shocked" when someone at the Fed started investigatitng the issue, and came to him and told him that over twenty percent of the mortgages being approved, were in the sub prime category.

But he had been warned about deregulation, and the unregulated Derivatives market, long before that, by non other than Brooksley Born.

What did Greenspan, the Federal Reserve Chairman/Republican do about it? He and his cronies, Republican Cronies, who believed in allowing the market to regulate themselves, definitely a Republican philosophy, ridiculed Brooksley Born, and drove her into a a weakened authority, ditch.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC], Brooksley Born became alarmed by the lack of oversight of the secretive, multitrillion-dollar over-the-counter derivatives market. Her attempts to regulate derivatives ran into fierce resistance from then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, then-Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and then-Deputy Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, who prevailed upon Congress to stop Born and limit future regulation. This is the edited transcript of an interview conducted on Aug. 28, 2009.



</div></div>
Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/interviews/born.html#ixzz1Wofm2X4M

Greenspan contiinued to flame the sub prime market, with those low interest rates, friendly to Bush's "Ownership society" and retired before the **** hit the fan.

This crash was not the sole result of Sub Prime, nor was it a result of Fannie and Freddie, it was a result of a hidden, dark, market, and banking mis-management,.... sub prime was a blip on the screen compared to the extent that the crash was a result of unregulated Wall St. derivatives, and other exotic instruments, which masked what was going on in the markets, under the radar.

Sub prime was a definite problem, but, not the driving force which brought about the market crash. What brought about this mess, more than anything other single thing, deregulation, and failed oversight of WALL ST, and pure GREED.

And, the Greenspan/Republican philosophy, that corporations can be trusted to regulate themselves, and just keep the Federal Government out of it!

Pure insanity!

G.

ugotda7
09-02-2011, 11:45 AM
This is what you get when looney leftists push racist policies in order to gain votes and stay in power......a true broken record if there ever was one.

eg8r
09-02-2011, 01:43 PM
qtip the schmuck is willingly ignoring his own source as to the validity of their own material. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif What a freaking laugh. Sorry schmuck but your own source placed half the blame on the borrower.

eg8r

eg8r
09-02-2011, 01:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A survey of South California lending found some 2/3rds of persons getting non-standard mortgages would have qualified for conventional financing (30-year fixed rates), with no exposure to ARM jumps or ballons requiring refinancing, or the loss of the 'teaser rate' after only a couple of years.

Instead, as non-bank lending companies like Countrywide preferred, their agents were paid bonuses and extra commissions if they steered these people into the non-standard mortgages.
</div></div>Why are you changing the subject. I mentioned the fact that qtip's source admits the borrowers were lying/falsifying their income and that is where this all starts. If the borrower is not being deceitful then those bad mortgages never happen.

You are now the third person on this board (who happens to be a lefty) that refuses to place any blame on the lying consumer. They are half the problem.

eg8r

Qtec
09-02-2011, 01:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">qtip the schmuck is willingly ignoring his own source as to the validity of their own material. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif What a freaking laugh. Sorry schmuck but your own source placed half the blame on the borrower.

eg8r </div></div>

No it didn't.

Can you read and comprehend? I have my doubts.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A survey of South California lending found some 2/3rds of persons getting non-standard mortgages <span style='font-size: 14pt'>would have qualified for conventional financing</span> (30-year fixed rates), with no exposure to ARM jumps or ballons requiring refinancing, or the loss of the 'teaser rate' after only a couple of years.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Instead, as non-bank lending companies like Countrywide preferred, their agents were paid bonuses and extra commissions if they steered these people into the non-standard mortgages.</span>
</div></div>

Q

eg8r
09-02-2011, 02:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A survey of South California lending found some 2/3rds of persons getting non-standard mortgages would have qualified for conventional financing </div></div>This does not prove the fact that your source places half the blame on the borrower for falsifying their income figures. Sorry schmuck but you need to read your entire source and try and comprehend what is being said before you bring it here to have someone point it out to you.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-02-2011, 02:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">qtip the schmuck is willingly ignoring his own source as to the validity of their own material. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif What a freaking laugh. Sorry schmuck but your own source placed half the blame on the borrower.

eg8r </div></div>

No it didn't.

Can you read and comprehend? I have my doubts.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A survey of South California lending found some 2/3rds of persons getting non-standard mortgages <span style='font-size: 14pt'>would have qualified for conventional financing</span> (30-year fixed rates), with no exposure to ARM jumps or ballons requiring refinancing, or the loss of the 'teaser rate' after only a couple of years.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Instead, as non-bank lending companies like Countrywide preferred, their agents were paid bonuses and extra commissions if they steered these people into the non-standard mortgages.</span>
</div></div>

Q </div></div>

LOL, no he can't comprehend. He thinks that the entire crash, came about because some people lied about their income!

BWA HA HA HA HA....

What a CROCK!

No wealthy investors, did that, I'm sure. They were the ones who expanded the numbers of bad mortgages, buying up multi properties, annd walking out and leaving their keys on the counter.

Hmmm, one of these righties on here defended that, in fact, I think it was Ed. I guess if it's some wealthy greedy pig, walking out on his loan, by choice, it's ok with Ed.

But, if it's a middle class family, who got a loan in good faith, and then had a guy like Romney bankrupt his company, and wipe out his health insurance, or a health Insurance corporation, that dropped their clien, because he became ill, and then lost his home, trying to pay the medical bills, then it's a huge crime.

I don't think he reads anything, ever.
He has that automatic truth filter on "ON" every second of every day, when it comes to Repiglicans, and their totally failed economic and foreign policies.

Come on baby, lets do the twist...

Ed twists everything into his preferred version of truth, just like the rest of the RW nutjobs on here.

Remember their insistance that President Obama had adopted Bush's foreign policies?

Another twisted version of truth.

Regardless of who had inherited Bush's failures, they would have had no choic e but to try to disconnect our country from his mismanaged wars, with some honor.

Yes, he expanded our presence in Afghanistan, an act which I myself, criticized him for, but then, the President proved me wrong, he got bin Laden, something Bush couldn't do in eight years.

Just because the president decided to keep the people who were best informed on the circumstances on the ground, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, (a wise decision, vacant of a big ego) that doesn't mean he was following Bush's foreign policies, he was heeding the advice of those best informed, and in place.

That's a far cry of what Bush did, when he followed Clinton, and ignored Clinton's warnings about al Qaeda.

A far cry from Bush, firing every single Democratic he could locate in Washington D.C., when he came into office, including our most excellent experts on bin Laden and al Qaeda.
Ignoring all of their well educated, well documented intelloigence, and correct warnings, of the coming 9/11 attack.

Oh, let's see now, Bush decided to do nothing when he got that memo, and went instead out to dinner?

And Katrina? He went out to dinner. A fund raiser?

And then there was the big event, our country under attack, but Bushy was too busy reading about goats to the children, or too afraid to move his ass!

LOL...nothing they can come up with could ever touch the total failure of the Bush Administration, and the colossal multi level mess that President Obama inherited, on every front.


They all know that, which is why they are all, always so antagonistic.





G.

Gayle in MD
09-02-2011, 03:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">qtip the schmuck is willingly ignoring his own source as to the validity of their own material. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif What a freaking laugh. Sorry schmuck but your own source placed half the blame on the borrower.

eg8r </div></div>

No it didn't.

Can you read and comprehend? I have my doubts.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A survey of South California lending found some 2/3rds of persons getting non-standard mortgages <span style='font-size: 14pt'>would have qualified for conventional financing</span> (30-year fixed rates), with no exposure to ARM jumps or ballons requiring refinancing, or the loss of the 'teaser rate' after only a couple of years.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Instead, as non-bank lending companies like Countrywide preferred, their agents were paid bonuses and extra commissions if they steered these people into the non-standard mortgages.</span>
</div></div>

Q </div></div>

He doesn't want to get it!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Corporate Profitability does NOT create JOBS! PERIOD!

</div></div>

These righties don't understand, this isn't the former economy, any more. this is a global economy, and it's challenges have not yet been disected.

That plays a huge rold in recovering from Bush's Recession.

G.
G.

LWW
09-02-2011, 04:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> What it does show that the collapse was not the fault of the family that couldn't pay their mortgage. If the banks etc had practiced due diligence, most of them would never have been given the money in the first place.

Q </div></div>

How does it do that?

Qtec
09-03-2011, 12:40 AM
The article doesn't blame the borrower. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>It blames the banks.</span>

Lets say you buy a house in 2001 for 300G.
Lets say 3 years later you can't pay the mortgage.
Guess what happens? <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The bank takes back the house.</span> That's their security on the loan. In that time, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>that house may have risen in value by maybe 70G.</span>

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Median_and_Average_Sales_Prices_of_New_Homes_Sold_ in_the_US_1963-2010_Monthly.png/800px-Median_and_Average_Sales_Prices_of_New_Homes_Sold_ in_the_US_1963-2010_Monthly.png



Bank sells house for 370,000, plus it keeps the 40/50G in mortgage payments already made. They still make over a 100G profit.

Where is the loss?


Q

LWW
09-03-2011, 02:20 AM
Are you aware that your own graph makes your post look like the writings of a completely clueless person.

Qtec
09-03-2011, 04:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you aware that your own graph makes your post look like the writings of a completely clueless person<span style='font-size: 26pt'>...because..</span> </div></div>

..or should we all just take every moronic utterance from you as the Gospel truth?


Q

LWW
09-03-2011, 04:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you aware that your own graph makes your post look like the writings of a completely clueless person<span style='font-size: 26pt'>...because..</span> </div></div>

..or should we all just take every moronic utterance from you as the Gospel truth?


Q </div></div>

Because you make the false assumption that people who bought in 2001 and never refinanced are the ones causing the trouble.

Although it is true that if you take from 2001 forward till today, prices haven't ... yet ... collapsed to 2001 levels.

The reality, however, is that the problem loans are a combo of:

1 - Those made at the peak of the bubble for 100% ... or more ... of appraised value.

2 - Those who bought pre-bubble and then did cash out refinances at the bubble's peak. IOW ... although they may well have accumulated equity from 2001 forward ... they cashed it out and spent it and now whine that they are upside down.

Next time you go to HEMA to shop ... pick up a clue.

eg8r
09-05-2011, 05:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The article doesn't blame the borrower. It blames the banks.
</div></div>Which is why your comprehension is always in question. Because you choose not to bold a section does not make it disappear from the article.

eg8r

LWW
09-06-2011, 02:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you understand those words?
</div></div>Do you understand these words...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">incomes were inflated or falsified.</div></div>To clarify for qtip the dillhole...<u>That means the people lied and could have never afforded those mortgages.</u> They were the intial problem. Both parties are equally responsible.

eg8r </div></div>

BS.

Q:..Can you lend me $500,000 eg8r?

eg8r:...can you afford to pay me back?

Q:..sure. Don't worry. I make a zillion $ a year.

eg8r:.. OK then.


Do you realise now how STUPID your argument is?

Q...doubt it.

</div></div>

You are so close to an epiphany.

Why would you make such a loan?

When you learn the answer to that you will have found enlightenment.

Gayle in MD
09-06-2011, 09:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> link (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/business/us-is-set-to-sue-dozen-big-banks-over-mortgages.html?_r=2)


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">U.S. Is Set to Sue a Dozen Big Banks Over Mortgages
By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ

The federal agency that oversees the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is set to file suits against more than a dozen big banks, accusing them of misrepresenting the quality of mortgage securities they assembled and sold at the height of the housing bubble, and seeking billions of dollars in compensation.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency suits, which are expected to be filed in the coming days in federal court, are aimed at Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank, among others, according to three individuals briefed on the matter.

The suits stem from subpoenas the finance agency issued to banks a year ago. If the case is not filed Friday, they said, it will come Tuesday, shortly before a deadline expires for the housing agency to file claims.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>The suits will argue the banks, which assembled the mortgages and marketed them as securities to investors, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>failed to perform the <span style="color: #000099">due diligence required under securities law</span> and missed evidence that borrowers’ incomes were inflated or falsified.</span> When many borrowers were unable to pay their mortgages, the securities backed by the mortgages quickly lost value. </span> </div></div>



Its a start.

What it does show that the collapse was not the fault of the family that couldn't pay their mortgage. If the banks etc had practiced due diligence, most of them would never have been given the money in the first place.

Q </div></div>

The banks knew they didn't have worry about stealing everything they could from the rest of us, as long as Bush, and Repiglicans were in control of Washington D.C.

As your other article in another post so correctly states:


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1. The GOP cares solely and exclusively about its rich contributors. The party has built a whole catechism on the protection and further enrichment of America's plutocracy. Their caterwauling about deficit and debt is so much eyewash to con the public. Whatever else President Obama has accomplished (and many of his purported accomplishments are highly suspect), his $4-trillion deficit reduction package did perform the useful service of smoking out Republican hypocrisy. The GOP refused, because it could not abide so much as a one-tenth of one percent increase on the tax rates of the Walton family or the Koch brothers, much less a repeal of the carried interest rule that permits billionaire hedge fund managers to pay income tax at a lower effective rate than cops or nurses. Republicans finally settled on a deal that had far less deficit reduction - and even less spending reduction! - than Obama's offer, because of their iron resolution to protect at all costs our society's overclass.

Republicans have attempted to camouflage their amorous solicitude for billionaires with a fog of misleading rhetoric. John Boehner is fond of saying, "we won't raise anyone's taxes," as if the take-home pay of an Olive Garden waitress were inextricably bound up with whether Warren Buffett pays his capital gains as ordinary income or at a lower rate. Another chestnut is that millionaires and billionaires are "job creators." US corporations have just had their most profitable quarters in history; Apple, for one, is sitting on $76 billion in cash, more than the GDP of most countries. So, where are the jobs?

Another smokescreen is the "small business" meme, since standing up for Mom's and Pop's corner store is politically more attractive than to be seen shilling for a megacorporation. Raising taxes on the wealthy will kill small business' ability to hire; that is the GOP dirge every time Bernie Sanders or some Democrat offers an amendment to increase taxes on incomes above $1 million. But the number of small businesses that have a net annual income over a million dollars is de minimis, if not by definition impossible (as they would no longer be small businesses). And as data from the Center for Economic and Policy Research have shown, small businesses account for only 7.2 percent of total US employment, a significantly smaller share of total employment than in most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries.

Likewise, Republicans have assiduously spread the myth that Americans are conspicuously overtaxed. But compared to other OECD countries, the effective rates of US taxation are among the lowest. In particular, they point to the top corporate income rate of 35 percent as being confiscatory Bolshevism. But again, the effective rate is much lower. Did GE pay 35 percent on 2010 profits of $14 billion? No, it paid zero.

When pressed, Republicans make up misleading statistics to "prove" that the America's fiscal burden is being borne by the rich and the rest of us are just freeloaders who don't appreciate that fact. "Half of Americans don't pay taxes" is a perennial meme. But what they leave out is that that statement refers to federal income taxes. There are millions of people who don't pay income taxes, but do contribute payroll taxes - among the most regressive forms of taxation. But according to GOP fiscal theology, payroll taxes don't count. Somehow, they have convinced themselves that since payroll taxes go into trust funds, they're not real taxes. Likewise, state and local sales taxes apparently don't count, although their effect on a poor person buying necessities like foodstuffs is far more regressive than on a millionaire.

All of these half truths and outright lies have seeped into popular culture via the corporate-owned business press. Just listen to CNBC for a few hours and you will hear most of them in one form or another. More important politically, Republicans' myths about taxation have been internalized by millions of economically downscale "values voters," who may have been attracted to the GOP for other reasons (which I will explain later), but who now accept this misinformation as dogma.

And when misinformation isn't enough to sustain popular support for the GOP's agenda, concealment is needed. One fairly innocuous provision in the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill requires public companies to make a more transparent disclosure of CEO compensation, including bonuses. Note that it would not limit the compensation, only require full disclosure. Republicans are hell-bent on repealing this provision. Of course; it would not serve Wall Street interests if the public took an unhealthy interest in the disparity of their own incomes as against that of a bank CEO. As Spencer Bachus, the Republican chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, says, "In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks."
</div></div>

http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779


<span style="color: #990000">Repiglicans are the protectors of Crooks, without conscience. Too bad the flyover Idiots are so uninformed, and full of hate, that they are so easily distracted by their hatred for women, gays and ethnic groups, that they become pawns for the Repiglican lies about everything.

Religion has no place in our politics, but it's clear, Repigs, the most unChristian people you can find, have carved out the fascist principles they have wanted, and worked for, since Ronald Reagan began to implement The Shock Doctrine, Friedman's recipe for destroying the Middle Class, and redistributing wealth to the wealthiest.

Of all the destruction of the Constitution, by Bush, his and his Father's Supreme Court appointees, were probably the most devastating to our Democracy.

Our only hope is for Scalia and Thomas to keep on stuffing their fat faces!

G. </span>

LWW
09-06-2011, 09:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Our only hope is for Scalia and Thomas to keep on stuffing their fat faces!

G. [/color] </div></div>

I find this to be low class even by your lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut standards.

After hearing you for years tell the total lie that someone wade a tombstone with your name on it and posted it ... forgetting, of course that it was your lapdog woofy who betrayed your trust about your medical condition ... while you were suffering from cancer, you then make this backhanded death wish upon people who don't follow dear leader's line.

Proof, again, that the hard core leftists who join cults of personality are rabid thugs that will wish death and mayhem upon their political enemies ... if not gleefully participating in violence themselves.

Gayle in MD
09-07-2011, 08:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A survey of South California lending found some 2/3rds of persons getting non-standard mortgages would have qualified for conventional financing </div></div>This does not prove the fact that your source places half the blame on the borrower for falsifying their income figures. Sorry schmuck but you need to read your entire source and try and comprehend what is being said before you bring it here to have someone point it out to you.

eg8r </div></div>



You need to wake up and realize that the Real Estate Bubble was the result of wealthy investors, in collusion with irresponsible and corrupt banks, and lending institutions, in collusion with corrupt ratings agencies, on Wall St.

Even in your own state, most of the damages came not from the average earners, or poor people lying about their income, but from well to do investors!!!


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As we navigate this speculator’s paradise turned financial wasteland, Mr. Joseph stands at the front of the bus in a green polo shirt, highlighting specimens like this one: a white stucco house fronted by palm trees and topped by a Spanish tile roof on a canal emptying into the Gulf of Mexico. It last sold in 2005 for $850,000. Yours today for $273,000.

“How much cheaper does it have to go before you say, ‘Well, that’s just craziness,’ ” Mr. Joseph beseeches as our tour group — mostly retirees from up North, basking in Bermuda shorts on another December day stolen from winter — examines the swimming pool and the Jacuzzi. “I’m telling you now, your opportunity is banging at your door.”

Yes, it has come to this in Cape Coral, a reluctant symbol for the excesses of the great American real estate bubble: foreclosed homes served up as tourist attraction. The struggles and pain that produced this ecosystem are neatly masked by the newly installed granite countertops, pristine carpets and fresh coats of paint that now ornament many properties on the tour.

I am on the bus because, two years earlier, I spent a week here looking at the myriad ways in which plunging home prices were undermining the American dream. Cape Coral and the Fort Myers metropolitan area were confronting an especially potent cauldron of troubles. Unemployment was soaring, and tax revenue was plunging, forcing cuts in government services and intensifying anxiety.

Now I am back to see what has happened.

The dominant pursuit of the moment here is cleaning up The Mess left behind by the era of easy money. The Mess is found in the glut of vacant commercial spaces; in the local unemployment rate, now pushing 14 percent; and in the discarded furniture at curbside and the overgrown front lawns left by some of those relinquishing their homes to foreclosure.

“We’ve been at the epicenter of this,” says Frank Cassidy, a retired Los Angeles police officer who heads Cape Coral’s code enforcement division, which carts away much of the detritus. “We’re the front line on blight.”

He lays out a satellite map showing the city of Cape Coral, a thumb-shape expanse jutting into the gulf. It shows 64,571 single-family homes. Each one touched by foreclosure over the last three years is marked red, as if the city were stricken with a rash: 18,575 red dots pockmark the map.

Kristy Clifton — at 30, the youngest member of the code enforcement team — patrols northwestern Cape Coral in her white Ford Taurus, summoning colleagues to help with the latest clean-out.

This is not work for the squeamish. Some people depart in a rage, leaving graffiti on living room walls (profane suggestions about how bankers might rearrange their anatomy), mounds of trash, dirty diapers, even piles of human excrement.

“It’s pretty gross,” says Ms. Clifton.

As she gathers the artifacts of lives gone wrong and deposits them into Dumpsters, she wonders what happened. “People can just up and leave, and it seems like they leave their whole lives behind,” she says. “Army medals. Photo albums. Framed photos of children. Cribs. Toys. I don’t know if they don’t have anywhere to go or anywhere to put this stuff. But you’d think that pictures of your kids you’d take.”

THE MESS is the product of The Story, the fable that waterfront living beyond winter’s reach exerts such a powerful pull that it justifies almost any price for housing. The Story propelled the orgy of borrowing, investing and flipping that dominated life here and in other places where January doesn’t include a snow blower.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>The Story lost its magic amid the realization that speculators had simply been selling to other speculators, making the real estate market look like a Ponzi scheme. The ensuing crash was breathtaking. <span style='font-size: 26pt'>By the winter of 2007,</span> median housing prices in Cape Coral and the rest of Lee County had fallen to about $215,000, down from a high of $278,000 in 2005. By October 2009, they had fallen to near $92,000</span>
</div></div>

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/business/economy/03coral.html?pagewanted=all


And, it was a done deal, before the Democratic Party, gained the majority!

Wake UP!


This had nothing to do with Fannie and Freddie, nor the Community Reinvestment ACT! predatory Lending, Cheap money, ala Greenspan, and corrupted banking, insuring and loaning, and chopping up the risks, and selling them off. All of it done with exotic loans, that even greenspand couldn't figure out.

Same ol' story, the wealthy, stealing from everyone else, and then stuffing the money into their own pockets!


G.

eg8r
09-07-2011, 08:56 AM
You just need to flat wake up. You are wrong on so many subjects it is pathetic.

eg8r &lt;~~~waiting for the next out-in-left-field-gayle rant.

Gayle in MD
09-07-2011, 09:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You just need to flat wake up. You are wrong on so many subjects it is pathetic.

eg8r &lt;~~~waiting for the next out-in-left-field-gayle rant. </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>PROVE IT SHERLOCK!!!

who launched the "ownership Society"

Who said he wasn't worried about fraud on Wall St.

Who kept interest rates low, and flamed the REal Estate Bubble?

Who admits now, that he was wrong.

Who said we would be in a Depression for a decade, is we didn't give him 8 billion dollars to bail out banks?

Who borrowed more money than all previous administrations combined?

Who broke the earmark record?

Who cut taxes and launched the most expensive war in history?

who inherited a healthy economy, and turned it into the worst economoy since The great Depression?

You can grab at straws, the facts prove you wrong, every time. It isn't reality, just because it flows out of your mouth, from RW brainwashed ideologies!

Read the damn article!</span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

eg8r
09-07-2011, 09:21 AM
LOL, prove it? What is the value add in creating a giant thread wtih links to all your posts? Just do a search on Gayle in Md and you will get a giant list of lies.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-07-2011, 09:23 AM
No proof then? That's what I thought.

You're irrelevant.

G.

eg8r
09-07-2011, 09:25 AM
I said do a search on Gayle in MD.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-07-2011, 09:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I said do a search on Gayle in MD.

eg8r </div></div>

I said you're irrelevant.

G.

LWW
09-07-2011, 09:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You need to wake up and realize that the Real Estate Bubble was the result of wealthy investors, in collusion with irresponsible and corrupt banks, and lending institutions, in collusion with corrupt ratings agencies, on Wall St.

G. </div></div>

So how did they profit by making loans that caused them to go broke?

LWW
09-07-2011, 09:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I said you're irrelevant.

G. </div></div>

The last words of a lost argument.

Gayle in MD
09-14-2011, 09:35 AM
We must destroy Repiglican Fascism before it's too late!