Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[danickstr]

If the bank didn't dot every i and cross every T I want my house for free!!!

[Skullsessions]

It's the least they could do for making you sign a mortgage that you didn't understand, on a house that you couldn't afford.

[YZ]

danickstr wrote on Mon, 18 October 2010 21:46

If the bank didn't dot every i and cross every T I want my house for free!!!

I have no idea about what prompted that post but...

You do realize that if _you_ don't dot every I and cross every T when you deal with a bank, you're screwed, right?

@Skullsessions:

Dishonest behavior should not be rewarded; as much as people may want to blame one's own ignorance for not knowing everything about a contract before signing it, many financial agents actively drove people into believing they could afford the house, only to fill their quotas and receive bonuses, sure that there would be no ill consequences for them if anything went sour afterward.

[Edvaard]

Quote:

If the bank didn't dot every i and cross every T I want my house for free!!!

The banks being hoist by their own petard, it seems. But it was OK when it worked the other way round, right?


An indeterminate number of various parties got securitization and underwriting fees, advisory fees, fund custodial fees, consultation fees, credit default insurance premiums, securities rating fees etc., with sales commissions most every step of the way, earned capital gains from one sale to the next, while slicing up your mortgage into various bits and pieces, stripping off the interest into a separate security which itself got further sliced and diced, all these bits and pieces then pooled with other snippets into one security, this itself further sliced/diced and re-pooled again ... while transferring the lien and "assigning" the the title to third parties who do not in fact have any legal possession of it and therefore have no standing in any litigation whatsoever (ut oh!) ... all without any permission or knowledge or consent of the original counter party to the original contract.


This aside from the outright fraud involved in the majority of the sub-prime loan originations themselves regarding actual fees and misrepresenting or completely hiding future rate increases and payment increases and broker/originators foisting these onto people who in fact qualified for conventional lower rate mortgages. And don't give me this crap about somebody being "ignorant" and thereby "responsible" for his or her own misfortune for not successfully matching wits with an experienced lawyer who was paid $5,000-$10,000 to write the contract with every purpose of fraudulent intent while hanging by the the thinnest of legal threads.  

Thousands of people who should be serving time in prison are walking free after all that. But the media have it so thoroughly ingrained in the masses that the rich deserve to be rich no matter what thievery was involved in it and deserve to pay less taxes, assiduously avoiding mention of the hundreds with incomes of over $1 million who pay zero taxes and billionaires and corporations who successfully convert US derived income into off-shore assets with no tax liability whatsoever, while -headlining- the working poor who pay no net taxes as a scandal, etc., that they've got the masses spontaneously jumping up to attack the less fortunate, such as victims of mortgage fraud, etc. as "irresponsible" while saying next to nothing about the irresponsibility of an 'industry' that wrecked economies worldwide and caused the loss of 8.5 million jobs domestically.


To the media: Job well done!

 

[Edvaard]

PS

Let's not overlook the fact that the almost all of the recent conventional loan foreclosures involve people who paid on time for years but recently lost their jobs due to the deep recession caused by the financial meltdown brought about by the mortgage-Macarena-mosh-pit shenanigans of retail banks and investment banks and rating agencies etc.

What goes around comes around.

[YZ]

Bravo!

[YZ]

BTW, this is not about ideology, but about not letting bad behavior be rewarded.

[Edvaard]

Especially when the reward is funded by taxpayers.

[mazoaudio]

touche' Edvaard, you've hit it outta the park.

I just wonder why they're so happy to foreclose on all of these homes, that's got to lower their value?  Something don't smell right...

Edvaard wrote on Tue, 19 October 2010 15:58

PS Let's not overlook the fact that the almost all of the recent conventional loan foreclosures involve people who paid on time for years but recently lost their jobs due to the deep recession caused by the financial meltdown brought about by the mortgage-Macarena-mosh-pit shenanigans of retail banks and investment banks and rating agencies etc. What goes around comes around.

[YZ]

Well, today at bloomberg:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/new-york-fed-faces- inherent-conflict-in-seeking-to-recover-mortgage-loss.html

Forget about the part of "conflict" and focus on the rest of the story.

Things like

Quote:

“The losses are extraordinary, and we owe it to the American taxpayer to find out where these losses are coming from,” Edward J. DeMarco, the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s acting director, told lawmakers last month.

and

Quote:

Attorneys general in all 50 states are investigating whether loan servicers have improperly foreclosed on homes, contributing to concerns that banks will be forced to buy back billions of dollars in loans from investors because of faulty paperwork.

and

Quote:

(...)Countrywide failed to service the loans properly, (...) insufficient record keeping, (...) may open the door for investors to seek repurchases, said Kathy Patrick, the bondholders’ lawyer at Gibbs and Bruns LLP in Houston.

and

Quote:

Congress (...) approved legislation that will require government audits of the bailouts and force the central bank to reveal recipients of emergency credit.

and

Quote:

mortgages whose quality failed to meet sellers’ promises

After reading the article at the first link, read this:

  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/banks-face-two-fron t-war-on-bad-u-s-mortgages-flawed-foreclosure-process.html

which has bits like

Quote:

Investors such as Bill Gross’s Pacific Investment Management Co. contend that sellers are obligated to repurchase some mortgages because of misrepresentations such as overstatements of borrowers’ income or inflated appraisals. Their case may be bolstered by probes in 50 states into whether banks used documents that were also flawed to conduct foreclosures. Neither dispute is likely to be resolved quickly.

and

Quote:

The most common issues with the mortgages bundled into securities were borrowers who didn’t occupy the homes and inflated appraisals that distorted the loan-to-value ratio, according to lawsuits filed by the Federal Home Loan Banks in Seattle and San Francisco. A sampling of 6,533 loans in 12 securitizations by Countrywide found 97 percent failed to conform to underwriting guidelines, according to a lawsuit filed Sept. 29 by Ambac Assurance Corp. in New York state Supreme Court.

and

Quote:

“It’s troubling that the people who caused the problem have walked away and left everybody else to fight over who gets stuck with the tab,” Kurt Eggert, professor of law at Chapman University in Orange, Californiat said in a telephone interview. “It’s like a massive game of dine and dash.”

[amorris]

Hey Im a capitalist pig, (at least I wanna be one) but I have no sympathy for banks if this is the situation:
http://www.youtube.com/user/fiercefreeleancer%20

[Edvaard]

Excellent video, thanks for bringing that single well tracked R/L account to the discussion.

This convincingly proves the fallacy of the idea and the folly in practice of deregulation as being "pro-business" when it is in fact "pro-lucky-few-insiders," of which the above video provides but one example. I've yet to see any instance of deregulation that did not ultimately result in transfer of treasury/taxpayer money into the hands of those who used the broad ideology of deregulation and "free markets" to install favorable legislation that is anything but free market in practice.

Entertaining as an ideology, but very expensive for taxpayers when actually implemented. We can't afford it anymore.

I fail to see what could be considered "pro-business" about deregulation that in fact harms so many companies. The instances enumerated in YZ's post above are only a small sampling of the many businesses harmed by the investment banks and rating agencies. And of course that concerns only the immediate damage. The further harm done to many businesses from the resulting economic consequences continue the destructive path of the original so-called "financial liberalization."

The voluminous litigation against the many occasions of deceitful practice is the result of one single large fraud; deregulation.  

 

[Edvaard]

The financial markets and the banking system in particular are the most crucial and essential part of any market economy. This system takes the total savings of a country and allocates the funds to various (mostly) productive and useful pursuits by way of loans and underwriting of bonds and stocks and other securities. As we have witnessed firsthand in dramatic fashion recently, a broken financial markets system translates very forcefully into a broken economy. The  "financial innovation" of the CDO, as just one example product of deregulation, was nothing but a Ponzi scheme from the outset, a game of musical chairs where pension funds and taxpayers were left standing. Why anyone would think it's a good idea for third, fourth, and fifth parties to play fast and loose with your retirement savings and your mortgage, and in fact with the basic engine of the entire economy, is beyond my understanding.


So deregulation of the most essential element of a market economy is to be considered "pro-business"?

The overwhelming and painful evidence proves quite the contrary.

[el duderino]

I agree with alot of what you say here edvaard, however deregulation is merely an enabler for dishonest/uncaring people.

The lack of regulation merely allows them to create problems. As I see it, we've got a bunch of lawyers turned politicians when what we need, at the moment at least, are a bunch of accountants turned politicians so people can actually understand what can be done.

Politicians write the laws and often prevent loopholes, but not always. And when dealing with finances, which is not their specialty, they falter regularly.

[jonathan jetter]

it's important i think to clarify that this is not necessarily the result of deregulation.

what we have going on is some sort of corporatism, or corporate oligarchy, or perhaps it's even fair to call it fascism.

where a certain few corporations are inextricably linked with government, given sweet deals, no-bid military contracts, FDIC underwriting, exemptions from the SEC leveraging regulations, etc etc (adjust specifics for whatever given industry you're focusing on), and every other person and corporation is buried under a mountain of rules and paperwork and left out in the cold.

it has nothing to do with a free capitalist market and everything to do with the super-rich having built an entrenched system where they fleece the rest of the populace

in a truly free market i doubt that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would last a week.