Mortgage Servicing Fraud
occurs post loan origination when mortgage servicers use false statements and book-keeping entries, fabricated assignments, forged signatures and utter counterfeit intangible Notes to take a homeowner's property and equity.
Articles |The FORUM |Law Library |Videos | Fraudsters & Co. |File Complaints |How they STEAL |Search MSFraud |Contact Us
Stephen

regulation finally coming < river-wear > 12/18 08:12:29

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_on_bi_ge/fed_mortgage_crisis

It's amazing some of this stuff wasn't already required! This one really gets me:

"And, the Fed would ban certain practices, such as failing to credit a mortgage payment to a borrower's account when the company servicing the mortgage receives it."

Duh.

Quote 0 0
GOD....
AND  ,  you really think so ,  ummmm.

just when you think someone has got your back ,  there's another loop hole ......   you didn't realize did you  !    the only ones who will be saved is when JESUS COMES   , and don't forget it ........................

there is NO  salvation .....................
Quote 0 0
TommyD

Press Release

Release Date: December 18, 2007

For immediate release

The Federal Reserve Board on Tuesday proposed and asked for public comment on changes to Regulation Z (Truth in Lending) to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive home mortgage lending and advertising practices.  The rule, which would be adopted under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA), would restrict certain practices and would also require certain mortgage disclosures to be provided earlier in the transaction.

The Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act amended the Truth in Lending Act (TILA).  Under HOEPA, the Board has the responsibility to prohibit acts and practices in connection with mortgage loans that it finds to be unfair or deceptive.

“Our goal is to promote responsible mortgage lending, for the benefit of individual consumers and the economy,” said Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke.  “We want consumers to make decisions about home mortgage options confidently, with assurance that unscrupulous home mortgage practices will not be tolerated.”

The proposal includes four key protections for “higher-priced mortgage loans” secured by a consumer’s principal dwelling:

  • Creditors would be prohibited from engaging in a pattern or practice of extending credit without considering borrowers’ ability to repay the loan.
  • Creditors would be required to verify the income and assets they rely upon in making a loan.
  • Prepayment penalties would only be permitted if certain conditions are met, including the condition that no penalty will apply for at least sixty days before any possible payment increase.
  • Creditors would have to establish escrow accounts for taxes and insurance.

The rule would define “higher-priced mortgage loan” to capture loans in the subprime market but generally exclude loans in the prime market.  A loan would be covered if it is a first-lien mortgage and has an annual percentage rate (APR) that is three percentage points or more above the yield on comparable Treasury notes, or if it is a subordinate-lien mortgage with an APR exceeding the comparable Treasury rate by five points or more.

“Unfair and deceptive practices have harmed consumers and the integrity of the home mortgage market,” said Federal Reserve Board Governor Randall S. Kroszner.  “We have listened closely and developed a response to abuses that we believe will facilitate responsible lending.”

The following protections would apply to all loans secured by a consumer’s principal dwelling, regardless of the loan’s APR:

  • Lenders would be prohibited from compensating mortgage brokers by making payments known as “yield-spread premiums” unless the broker previously entered into a written agreement with the consumer disclosing the broker’s total compensation and other facts.  A yield spread premium is the fee paid by a lender to a broker for higher-rate loans.  The consumer’s written agreement with the broker must occur before the consumer applies for the loan or pays any fees. 
  • Creditors and mortgage brokers would be prohibited from coercing a real estate appraiser to misstate a home’s value.
  • Companies that service mortgage loans would be prohibited from engaging in certain practices.  For example, servicers would be required to credit consumers’ loan payments as of the date of receipt and would have to provide a schedule of fees to a consumer upon request.

The proposed revisions to TILA’s advertising rules require additional information about rates, monthly payments, and other loan features.  The amendments also would ban seven deceptive or misleading advertising practices, including representing that a rate or payment is “fixed” when it can change. 

Under the proposal, creditors would have to provide a good faith estimate of the loan costs, including a schedule of payments, within three days after a consumer applies for any mortgage loan secured by a consumer’s principal dwelling, such as a home improvement loan or a loan to refinance an existing loan.  Currently, early cost estimates are only required for home-purchase loans.  In addition, consumers could not be charged any fee until after they receive the early disclosures, except a reasonable fee for obtaining the consumer’s credit history.   

The Federal Reserve has engaged in extensive outreach efforts with consumer groups, the financial services industry, lawmakers, and others to ensure that the proposed rules are likely to achieve the goal of protecting consumers from unfair practices without shutting off access to responsible credit.  The proposal takes into consideration testimony given at four public hearings the Board held in the summer of 2006, and a hearing held in June 2007, as well as public comment letters received in connection with those hearings.  The Board also consulted with other federal and state agencies and its own Consumer Advisory Council.

The Federal Register notice is attached.  The comment period ends ninety days after publication of the proposal in the Federal Register, which is expected shortly.

Highlights of Proposed Rule to Amend Home Mortgage Provisions of Regulation Z

Statement by Chairman Ben S. Bernanke

Statement by Governor Randall S. Kroszner

Board meeting materials
Quote 0 0
Ed Cage

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_on_bi_ge/fed_mortgage_crisis

Stephen this is an absolutely spectacular step in the right direction!!!

   This needs to be pinned or kept as a superb news article.

   Very little call for skepticism on this news folks.. It's
   hardly the silver bullet that cures everything but what
   is?  We have seen the light at the end of the tunnel;
   That's what it is!

   Thanks Stephen.
   Ed Cage / ecagetx@tx.rr.com / 972-596-4363



Quote 0 0
Public Comments
It seems to me that the solicitation of Public Comments to amendments in Regulation Z affords us a rather particular and focused opportunity to ASK THE FED to implement one or more OTHER rules or CHANGES to Regulation Z as written.  Perhaps we should POST the various provisions of Regualtion Z as it now exists and as it is proposed to be amended and ask OUR constitutency to COMMENT UPON each provision and to suggest further improvements.  Then one or more us us, individually and/or collectively could furnish written comments to the Fed showing how this proposal could be further IMPROVED.

Of course, we must bear in mind that the Fed CANNOT legislate.  It cannot change the law.  But where the law is ambiguous, the Courts will find that the Fed has an enormous amount of discretion to set policy through its administrative regulation of the financial services industry.

So the question becomes what OTHER changes short of legislative enactments would we ask the Fed to make?

*

I would throw out one half baked idea immediately.  I had only recently come to realize as a consequence of this forum that so many servicers were now refusing to furnish a monthly statement to borrowers showing the application of payments.  I personally believe that RESPA implicitly REQUIRES that the servicer INFORM the borrower of its application of payments.  I have NOT researched court cases on this.  But it seems to me to be implicit that if a borrower has the right to an explanation and to correction of errors that this IMPLIES a right to a statement that would enable the consumer to IDENTIFY that questions had arisen or that errors had been made.  While I am UNSURE as to whther this fits with Regulation Z (which pertains more to TIL than to RESPA), I would think that this is the sort of boundary question that readily COULD be resolved through administrative determination rather than legislation.

I think that we all need to read the law and the regulation with a critical eye towards what is now WRONG with the law and regulations and what the law and regulations SHOULD BE.  Bear in mind that the financial services industry and particularly, mortgage originators, mortgage investors, mortgage servicers and Wall Street investment bankers are doing precisely this.  And THEIR VERSION is the ONLY version of changes to be considered if victims fail to articulate the problems and identify SOLUTIONS. 

I have seen a LOT of critique of OTHER PEOPLE's proposals.  What is OUR PROPOSAL??
Quote 0 0
This only addresses new loans although it does address key points there is great danger in this proposal.

_prohibiting lenders from engaging in a pattern or practice of lending without considering a borrower's ability to repay a home loan from sources other than the home's value.

"Unfair and deceptive acts and practices hurt not just borrowers and their families, but entire communities, and indeed, the economy as a whole," said Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke in prepared remarks. "They have no place in our mortgage system," he added.


This blurs the line between fraud and bad business practices. If the lenders have engaged in a pattern of loans designed to fail they have committed many criminal acts against many parties and must be held accountable.

I do not want to see ex post facto immunity for criminal acts. The Fed really needs to address the issue of stealing homes and equity stripping no one is shy in blaming the borrowers. Borrowers need to be held accountable if they made mistakes or committed fraud but what about the lenders and servicers.

Still it's good to get an admission from the Fed that  the lenders  engaged in pattern of behavior  that resulted in  bad loans.

This could actually prevent us from being compensated or bringing RICO action,
and certainly could decriminalize patterns of fraud by the lenders.

Remember too that regulation is often bypassed and not enforced. The Fed, OCC. OTS basically have almost no enforcement ability so unless you see a massive expansion of staff and facilities this really means nothing.

The OCC in particular has fought hard for Preemption (exclusive jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute fraud nationwide) and they have no fraud investigation ability not even a full time office to make reports let alone even begin to enforce the rules. Basically the OCC which is fully funded by the lenders has fought tooth and nail to legalize fraud and even illegal to investigate and sue.

Remember the Federal reserve is fully owned by the lenders as well and represents the lenders interests.Why and how could the Fed investigate and enforce lending/servicing crimes against itself?

It really does no good to have regulations from the FED, OCC, OTS or any other bank agency to regulate themselves.

Really the only way to get government oversight of a fractional reserve system is to have the Congress run it and open the books to the public. The Fed has never been fully audited since it started in 1913. The treasury prints money for the Fed and there are some government functions but for the most part Congress tossed the economic
football to the private bankers in 1913 along with Fitch and the IRS to raise money for on the eve of WWI during the prewar confusion primarily to support the coming war economy.

The function of the Fed IRS was never a clean sheet economic and taxation system
designed to serve the people needs it was designed to meet the needs of massive cash flow for war efforts, and pay back the debts later, the same purpose as the bank of England Fractional reserve system it was patterned after.

I don't want to burst any-ones bubble and this is hopeful news but there are no government agencies set up to independently regulate the lenders or servicers.

Thank's for the suggestion William A. Roper, Jr about coming up with our own plan.

I think the reason why it is so hard to resolve these issues is the system is so complex why should you need a doctorate degree or two even to even begin   guessing at what to do? Even the best economists are in a quandary of how to best address issues of inflation, speculative boom bust cycles and fraud in the Federal reserve fractional reserve system.

I suggest we aren't going to solve that issue any sooner that resolving the issue of figuring out how to drive our family SUV to Hawaii.

As I have suggested the Federal reserve was not designed to be a stable long term low debt, low inflation financial system it was designed to raise and transfer massive amounts of cash and large portion of that to our allies when the public wanted peace and then have the public pay off the debt though taxes.

The current system we have is card house and even if we do manage to hold it together with duct tape we really should figure out and implement a stable peacetime economic and taxation system. A savings based system with surpluses would allow military spending without wasting money on interest so if desired we would be more prepared for war as well. Really sometime between 1913 and 2007 we should have been able to find the time to set up a stable and reliable monetary and taxation system instead of doctoring a broken system.

The biggest problem we have with the system is that these lenders take our money and lend it back to us and create a tremendous debt burden.

If the borrower provides the equity for the loan in the first place then how do we wind up paying 3 times the price of the home and why does the IRS have an interest rate deduction that encouraged people to become house poor and bury themselves in debt. The IRS and tax structure is linked to lending and mortgages when people ask for simple solution there isn't one because the system is complex.

If lenders had to borrow their own money they would not create defaults and debt they would want to create saving and prosperity as they would get a larger share of the pie.

The fundamental issue is that it is far more profitable to engage in high risk and fraudulent lending than it is to engage in responsible and honest lending.

The current system has a built in incentive to bypass regulation really passing and trying to enforce all sorts of regulation is like putting all sorts of valuables out in your yard in high crime area and spending the rest of your life trying to find a way to protect it.

Unless we fundamentally change the economic and lending structure we will be endlessly chasing our tail baiting the criminals and trying to fight them at the same time.

I know this sounds harsh or extreme but what are the consequences of fraud and recessions and depressions, off shoring, loss of jobs, manufacturing, the security risks of foreign manufacturing and investing to support out debt etc?

The bottom line is we need a savings and production based economy instead of a debt and consumption based economy. We will never get rich buying and borrowing and there will always be a criminal or opportunist around to feed our debt addiction.

We would not have sleazy, criminal debt dealers if we were not a nation of debt addicts.

I know that is not what many people want to here, but we need real world solutions to real world problems and we do reap what we sow.


Quote 0 0
Stephen

Actually I posted this in sarcasm.  This is not justice.  We want justice.

Quote 0 0
~beenawhile
TommyD wrote:
 “Our goal is to promote responsible mortgage lending, for the benefit of individual consumers and the economy,” 
 
As far as I'm concerned; long ago when they noticed that irresponsible lending practices were becoming a pattern within the Mortgage Industry, something should have been done about it then. This has been going on for years and is quite pathetic that it has taken this long for Capital hill to implement measures that should already be in existence. Responsible Mortgage Lending, changed in the late 1980's, a has steadily slithered down stream.
 
It's basic knowledge they've seen the pattern of responsible Lending withering before their very eyes.
 
They've allowed these Companies to taunt individuals, & families with homelessness for years. They've allowed the inclination of homelessness to steadily increase for decades.
 
I agree Greg, they should not be allowed to regulate themselves. This creates more room for great errors, & within the errors, still excellent profitability for the Mortgage Servicing Industry. It's crap, and in my opinion not a "step in the right direction" Now lets come up with something that really works, & I back you on the Mr. Roper!
 
 
 
 We want consumers to make decisions about home mortgage options confidently, with assurance that unscrupulous home mortgage practices will not be tolerated.”
 
See, this comment alone burns my hide, Consumers have been making, & creating Home Mortgages confidently, the problem here lies within the bait & switch papers, as well as all the other tactics used to pressure the anxious home buyer into signing docs, (like late in the afternoon rushing the buyers on a Friday.) What truly bugs me here though, is the second comment.  "with assurance that unscrupulous home mortgage practices will not be tolerated."
It is unbeknownst to 98% of home buyers that these horrible practices, exist; therefore, home buyers are unaware of what they should be looking for when signing a loan. When there is a well dressed, sweet talkin, well mannered; educated broker closing the deal the buyer "victim" is usually unskeptical, & unaware they are currently signing their future Foreclosure documents (so to speak!)        & Lastly,  98% of borrowers would not have any idea that "they" could actually be swindled as everyone has the (Oh that wouldn't or couldn't happen to me idea) & most especially they are unable to comprehend "HOW ANY OF THIS COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN WITHIN THESE, UNITED STATES"  This comment by the FED. RES. in it's entirety, is NOT beneficial to anyone.
THESE OPTIONS SHOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN IN PLACE, AND ENFORCED!
 
 

"Creditors would be prohibited from engaging in a pattern or practice of extending credit without considering borrowers’ ability to repay the loan."

Again, the comment above is senseless & meaningless; you cannot go buy a couch or an automobile without adequate employment, or income. Why would the purchase of a home (in which is far more valuable, & far more expensive) be allowed if the ability to pay is not incredibly "profound"?
 
My opinion again, this should have already been a practice "still" in existence, shame on them for allowing this pre 90's banking ethics to dwindle & deteriorate!


  • Creditors would be required to verify the income and assets they rely upon in making a loan.

Yeah another one, can we say DUH! just as above, a living room suit cannot be purchased without the appropriate credentials, how is it that they have allowed this to happen within the Mortgage Industry? Get us back to the ethical times FEDIES!

  • Prepayment penalties would only be permitted if certain conditions are met, including the condition that no penalty will apply for at least sixty days before any possible payment increase.
Doesn't it sound like this clause is still discussing the arms loans? I could be wrong but that was my thinking. We've seen the damage the Mortgage Servicers can do to individuals with the ARMS loans by Re-setting the "ARMS" before their maturity dates.
I'm sorry I just don't see how this clause benefits the fixed rate individuals at all. Am I missing it? I think this clause leaves LARGE room for more unethical behavior.
A borrower knows their "ARM RATES" are getting ready to reset within 60 days, so they begin searching for fixed re-fi, So how bout those pay-off quotes that the Servicers "refuse" to issue within a timely manner? That's the practice that is currently displayed by SERVICERS. (Hold the "Pay Off" Quote until the borrowers re-fi approval, is null & void.)
This is not specific enough to protect any homeowner. Back to the drawing board let's try this again.
  • Creditors would have to establish escrow accounts for taxes and insurance.
The "HAVE TO ESTABLISH" is a big NO! NO! here. The "created" Escrow accounts by the Servicers on even the NON ESCROW accounts, is a large part of the fraud.
 
The SERVICERS use the ESCROW account as a severely fundamental addition to the accounts in order to create a magnificent amount of charges. Thusly, the ability to add on & charge borrowers for what they claim have been expenditures upon the loan.
NO! NO! NO! This clause is PERMITTING, & ALLOWING THE CONTINUATION OF FRAUD.  PLEASE get back to the drawing board on this one!



“Unfair and deceptive practices have harmed consumers and the integrity of the home mortgage market,” said Federal Reserve Board Governor Randall S. Kroszner.  “We have listened closely and developed a response to abuses that we believe will facilitate responsible lending.”
 
I'm sorry none of the above facilitate, or regulate responsible lending. NONE OF THEM! Now, Lets try this again.
 
 

The following protections would apply to all loans secured by a consumer’s principal dwelling, regardless of the loan’s APR:

  • Lenders would be prohibited from compensating mortgage brokers by making payments known as “yield-spread premiums” unless the broker previously entered into a written agreement with the consumer disclosing the broker’s total compensation and other facts.  A yield spread premium is the fee paid by a lender to a broker for higher-rate loans.  The consumer’s written agreement with the broker must occur before the consumer applies for the loan or pays any fees. 
Just another area where "baiting & switching" of documents could occur. This still does not stop the broker from receiving a kick back from the lender for placing the homeowner into a higher interest rate. HOW DOES THIS HELP ANYONE? This was left wide open for the same practices that occur today to continue as an integral part of the loan/broker/consumer process. Let's try again!
 
 
 
  • Creditors and mortgage brokers would be prohibited from coercing a real estate appraiser to misstate a home’s value.
Real Estate Appraisers have Codes & ethics in which they are supposed to follow, If they cannot follow those Regulations, their licensing should be snatched, and a hefty fine, unleashed upon the Mortgage Company responsible for the hiring of that Appraiser, & the Company in which the Appraiser works should also receive a hefty fine, with All of the fines going to the homeowner who is now stuck with an over-inflated loan.
 
 
  • Companies that service mortgage loans would be prohibited from engaging in certain practices.  For example, servicers would be required to credit consumers’ loan payments as of the date of receipt and would have to provide a schedule of fees to a consumer upon request.
This is a part of "GOOD FAITH" & "BEST PRACTICES", this should already be an integral part of the loan re-payment process, as well as STRICTLY ENFORCED!
If a borrower were to "catch" a Mortgage Servicing Company posting late payments to their account. The Mortgage Servicing Company should be severely fined, with the proceeds going to the homeowner. That would surely nip, late applications in the bud very quickly, and  it would enforce the entire Banking Industry to do what is proper & ethical.
Ok, About the Fees, Please let's stop the fees, the borrowers should not be responsible for "Fees" that the Servicer feels like tacking onto the home.
 
If a Servicer wants to do drive by inspections, or BPO'S by all means let them, however, let it be at the sole expense of the SERVICER, or the investor, but not at the expense of the borrowers. It is a well known fact that Servicers have BPO'S done weekly on specific properties they are trying to Foreclose on. If the Gov. were to halt, the charges of these BPO's being asserted on the Borrowers loans, we would have AN INCREDIBLE DECLINE, IN the illicit collection of funds.
Make the Servicers eat the cost of these expenses they so choose to create!
It's truly unlawful, for a weekly BPO, or even monthly for that matter to be assessed to a borrowers account.
 
 

 The amendments also would ban seven deceptive or misleading advertising practices, including representing that a rate or payment is “fixed” when it can change. 

Then the title of that should be "PERMANENTLY FIXED RATE!"

Now while the Mortgage Market is acquiring attention, it is not receiving the necessary Regulations, that are needed to correct the problems that have arisen, due to the negligence of the Governments participation to hold the Servicers & the entire industry accountable for their deceptive practices; so what can we as individuals do to ensure, that the appropriate regulations become a part, & are enforced en-part, of these current toxic, deliberately created schemes?

 
Quote 0 0
GOD..........
WHEN ,   are you people gonna wake up and smell the roses  ???????

there is NO salvation .............

this is sugar coated politics at it's BEST ................

designed to screw the american people .

there is something BIGGER on the Horizon ,  and you all need to pray for JESUS ............  stop wishing that your Gov't. has your back .

it's called money , and how best to steal it from you  !!!!!!!!!
Quote 0 0
Nye Lavalle
Systems are systems and God created all systems so... let's leave the negative out of here and concentrate on positive or you will always be down!
Quote 0 0
GOD..........

Now while the Mortgage Market is acquiring attention, it is not receiving the necessary Regulations, that are needed to correct the problems that have arisen, due to the negligence of the Governments participation to hold the Servicers & the entire industry accountable for their deceptive practices; so what can we as individuals do to ensure, that the appropriate regulations become a part, & are enforced en-part, of these current toxic, deliberately created schemes?

JUST LOOK at ALL of your TOXIC waste and ALL of your FRAUDS to scheme the american people .  YOU american people cry fowl at every chance you get .  LOOK at all your greed and stealing from one another .   You people are never happy . YOUR gov't goes into other countries and steal their natural resources , by bullying  them .

YOU american people are DOOMED  ,   we Europeans live life to enjoy , not like you americans . you live life to steal any way you can .

so be it .......................................
Quote 0 0
4 justice now
DOG.....

You have made a huge mistake in labeling all Americans as you have mistakenly done. Many of us are in total disgust of what our government has done and what it has failed to do.

That said: It's very clear that you are either quite naive or simply don't know your history. I have no idea of what country that you may hold allegiance to but, I'd be willing to bet that there is a very big chance that you owe much of your freedom and independence to past Americans that have sacrificed their lives for both our country and yours.

4J
Quote 0 0
Moose
Regulation is either premature or lags leaving some number of victims along the way. While they tune it, which could take decades, the powers that be are content to live with the collateral damage.

That's why I've always pointed out that it's up to borrowers to act on their own behalf. The Fairy Godmother isn't coming. This proposed regulatory action may or may not even be enacted, and given the horsepower of the industry you can count on some serious behind the scenes maneuvering to make sure they don't lose their ability to operate as they wish.

It's mostly a politically motivated ploy to let the public know they are concerned.

The real bargaining will never be made known.

Moose

Quote 0 0

Hypocrite! First take the log from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye.

 

In the first place Christopher Columbus discovered the new world and an Italian banker Amerigo Vespucci took the credit so a European banker stole even our name.

 

In 1787 we replaced our confederation of states with our Constitutional government in response to Shea’s rebellion in order to protect European bankers interests. Constitution Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

Our monetary system and economy remained largely under the control of European interests run by Nicholas Biddle until Andrew Jackson in 1828 rid us of the national bank and Nicholas Biddle died penniless.

Ms fraud is supported by money laundering and European interests are heavily involved.

Deutschebank, UBS, Credit Suisse, Bank of England, Royal bank of Scotland, HSBC and other are laundering the profits from ms fraud and other financial fraud in the U.S.

Before looking at the U.S. look at England's role at imposing imperial colonialism and debt slavery on the rest of the world they are the most responsible for the current global financial fraud. In the opium wars England conquered and subjected China in order to run a global drug trade. Look at the bitter power struggles between England, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Russia etc.  

Look at the countries Liechtenstein and Switzerland’s role in laundering illicit funds.

We have global economy and financial crooks and corporate criminals do really have loyalty to countries or groups of people? you are fooling yourself if you think they do.

Instead of calling all Americans ignorant bullies look at Europe's historical and current role in Financial fraud and global domination.

Does the U.S. sub-prime crises pose threat to the worlds economy yes, did European, Asian and 3rd world interests have a hand in facilitating it and profiting from it absolutely,especially under the Clinton's who set up the U.S. lending and insurance system for their profits as well as Asian and middleastern financial interests to the U.S. citizens great detriment. Actually they got the Glass-Steagal act repealed to promote foreign and their own financial interests first before our own.

 

One more thought think about all the blood U.S. soldiers shed defending the freedom of Europe and the money we spent and all the hardware, food supplies etc. we sent over to fight for the worlds freedom.

 

Why not fight financial and political criminals wherever they are and help make the world safe, prosperous and free for everyone?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote 0 0
P.S. not really God

The commission report, posted Friday on the Internet and later to appear as a book, shifts the debate over Nazi gold to Germany from Switzerland. UBS AG and Credit Suisse Group, Switzerland's two largest banks, have been in talks with Jewish groups for months to settle claims that they hold stolen assets and covered up their Nazi past.

http://www.iht.com/articles/1998/08/01/gold.t.php

Why don't you give Angela Merkel a ring she's the head of the G-8 AND the Chancellor Of Germany Europe's largest economy and and the third largest economy in the world.

It seems Deutsche, UBS, Credit Suisse are still up to there old Nazi activities and she is not only the most powerful economic leader in the world perhaps even the overall most powerful person in the world but has the same position Hitler had at the time these same banks were supplying the Nazi war machine, Chancellor of Germany.

You claim you are really concerned about fraud and global bullies it would be nice if you did your part to help instead of blindly bashing those who are trying to help.


We are not all ignorant here I'm as well as others are very upset these financial criminals have made us look bad and caused harm and am fighting everyday to fix it and it would help greatly to bring the European accomplishes to justice before they bury us all in a global depression or perhaps even start WWIII, we all have been duped and all have common interests here.

If you will go back and look at my posts you will see I have expresed concern for lending frauds effect on other countries economies and investments and warned that other countries would get mad at us, that doesn't surpise me in fact it was very easily predictable. What is surprising is that you would attack the victims trying to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Deutsche bank laundered the profits from many ms fraud victims here in the U.S.
Quote 0 0
Not God, Jesus or Buddha
How many people here have a mortgage issued or serviced by the Federal Reserve...raise your hands.

Why isn't anyone questioning WHY the Federal Reserve is involved in this at all? Think, people.

Liquidity crisis? Nope, more like a solvency crisis. All these plans and proposals are just picking at the scab while underneath the main wound festers to the point of gangrene.

There is no liquidity because there is no money. The big banks are insolvent and the mad rush is on to hide it for as long as possible. Once you recognize and accept that all the rest of this nonsense will begin to make more sense.

Accept it and begin to prepare for the hard times now while you still can. It is getting a lot harder for them to hide the life-threatening wound that threatens to kill the banks and our monetary system with them. The retards have killed it with their greed.
Quote 0 0
GOD...........

NOW , youu are starting to get the message ............................

Quote 0 0
A Citizen

S&P gives MBIA, Ambac negative ratings outlook Kira Bindrim

Standard & Poor’s on Tuesday gave MBIA Inc. and Ambac Financial Group Inc. a “negative” outlook, saying the falling value of mortgage-backed securities could eventually prompt a downgrade for either firm’s AAA rating.

The news renewed investor fears that had been somewhat allayed earlier this week, when Moody’s Investors Service reaffirmed the companies’ AAA credit ratings while putting them on “negative” watch.

Shares of Armonk, N.Y.-based MBIA tumbled as much as 11.1% to a 52-week low of $24.62 Wednesday morning, and were down 6% in the afternoon. MBIA’s stock has traded between $25.84 and $76.02 over the past 12 months. Shares of Manhattan-based Ambac fell as much as 8.8% to $24.61 Wednesday.

Both firms have seen their shares sink more than 60% this year amid rising fears that the bond insurers will lack the capital to hold onto their AAA credit rating. S&P, Moody’s and Fitch – the only agency that hasn’t announced its findings – have been reviewing MBIA’s and Ambac’s ratings.

Earlier this month, Ambac announced plans to reinsure $29 billion in securities that it guarantees in an effort to forestall a potential downgrade and last week, private equity firm Warburg Pincus said it invest $1 billion in struggling MBIA.

MBIA was unavailable for immediate comment.

source
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007230523715&category=FREE&nocache=1

Quote 0 0
Stephen

Investors are at the castle walls demanding their money back, and at the top are the banks with cauldrons of boiling oil.

Quote 0 0
In Solvent

Executive Intelligence Review

Subscribe to EIR

PRESS RELEASE


Banks Are Insolvent, So Ease the Rules, Auditor Says

Dec. 15, 2007 (EIRNS)—Auditors are in a tough spot these post-Enron days, with the demise of Arthur Andersen on everyone's mind. If the auditors refuse to rubber-stamp the banks' fictitious valuations, the banks collapse,— but if the auditors allow the fiction, they run the risk of being severely punished for malfeasance down the road. Hence the suggestion by Ernst & Young Item Club's Peter Spencer in today's London Telegraph, that the British "government must suspend a set of key banking regulations at the heart of the current financial crisis, or risk seeing the economy spiral towards a future that could 'make 1929 look like a walk in the park'."

Spencer tries to blunt the clear meaning of his statement, by claiming that the banks are refusing to lend to each other, not because they are insolvent, but rather that they are being prevented from lending to each other by overly restrictive government regulations! The regulations he blames are the capital requirements set by the international Basel agreements, which require the banks to have an 8 percent capital reserve, which Spencer said should be cut to about 6 percent.

In reality, the idea that a mere 2 percent reduction in capital requirements would head off a crisis that would make 1929 look like a "walk in the park," is absurd, as both Spencer and the Telegraph know. What the auditors are really saying, is that the banks are already insolvent, and that the capital requirements must be lowered so that the auditors can continue to certify their books. Which is only an indirect way of admitting that the banks are indeed insolvent, despite his denial.

Quote 0 0
ABAD BMOVIE

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/anil.kashyap/research/Kashyap%20interview%20on%20banking%20Feb05%20TOE.pdf

Quote 0 0
The banks are insolvent because they are insolvent changing interbank lending requirements, capital requirements and monkeying around with regulations is just altering timing. Writing off portions of the debt could forestall immediate disaster but the bottom line is not only do we have an insolvent fractional reserve system we have a fractional on top of fractional reserve system through securities and derivatives. These financial instruments and derivatives are virtually unregulated if lawfully only Congress can coin and regulate money how did we get such a big economic risk from mortgage backed securities which are really a form of highly leveraged money?

The debt ratio should never have been allowed to get out of hand and the term reserves is misleading because all the money is paper if it is created out of nothing how can you have a reserve?

In the debt based fractional reserve system assets become liabilities and liabilities become assets.

The only real options are a more conservative debt ratio or a switch to some type of hard money or barter or parallel debt/hard money economy.

A debt based economy requires expansion to survive and that is why we see so much economic development of 3rd world countries.

A debt and growth based economy is eventual certain death in the long run we will have either a subsistence or savings based economy.

If we can see the writing on the wall it would make sense to switch to a savings based system asap as Ron Paul suggests.


Quote 0 0
~beenawhile
Greg,

"If we can see the writing on the wall it would make sense to switch to a savings based system asap as Ron Paul suggests."

Can you point me into the direction of Ron Pauls outline on the savings system. I'd like to read what his plans would include or detail.

Thanks,
Sounds like interesting information & reading.
Quote 0 0

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul53.html

 

 

 

 

Abolish the Fed

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

        

In the House of Representatives, September 10, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America's economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. I also ask unanimous consent to insert the attached article by Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which explains the benefits of abolishing the Fed and restoring the gold standard, into the record.

Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people.

From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of the dotcom bubble last year, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial "boom" followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts.

With a stable currency, American exporters will no longer be held hostage to an erratic monetary policy. Stabilizing the currency will also give Americans new incentives to save as they will no longer have to fear inflation eroding their savings. Those members concerned about increasing America's exports or the low rate of savings should be enthusiastic supporters of this legislation.

Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of the special interests and their own appetite for big government.

Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy.

In fact, Congress' constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold.  Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working Americans by putting an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans' standard of living, enlarges big government, and enriches well-connected elites, by cosponsoring my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve.

WHY GOLD?
By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

As with all matters of investment, everything is clear in hindsight. Had you bought gold mutual funds earlier this year, they might have appreciated more than 100 percent. Gold has risen $60 since March 2001 to the latest spot price of $326.

Why wasn't it obvious? The Fed has been inflating the dollar as never before, driving interest rates down to absurdly low levels, even as the federal government has been pushing a mercantile trade policy, and New York City, the hub of the world economy, continues to be threatened by terrorism. The government is failing to prevent more successful attacks by not backing down from foreign policy disasters and by not allowing planes to arm themselves.  These are all conditions that make gold particularly attractive.

Or perhaps it is not so obvious why this is true. It's been three decades since the dollar's tie to gold was completely severed, to the hosannas of mainstream economists. There is no stash of gold held by the Fed or the Treasury that backs our currency system. The government owns gold but not as a monetary asset. It owns it the same way it owns national parks and fighter planes. It's just another asset the government keeps to itself.

The dollar, and all our money, is nothing more and nothing less than what it looks like: a cut piece of linen paper with fancy printing on it. You can exchange it for other currency at a fixed rate and for any good or service at a flexible rate. But there is no established exchange rate between the dollar and gold, either at home or internationally.

The supply of money is not limited by the amount of gold. Gold is just another good for which the dollar can be exchanged, and in that sense is legally no different from a gallon of milk, a tank of gas, or an hour of babysitting services.

Why, then, do people turn to gold in times like these? What is gold used for? Yes, there are industrial uses and there are consumer uses in jewelry and the like. But recessions and inflations don't cause people to want to wear more jewelry or stock up on industrial metal. The investor demand ultimately reflects consumer demand for gold. But that still leaves us with the question of why the consumer demand exists in the first place. Why gold and not sugar or wheat or something else?

There is no getting away from it: investor markets have memories of the days when gold was money. In fact, in the whole history of civilization, gold has served as the basic money of all people wherever it's been available. Other precious metals have been valued and coined, but gold always emerged on top in the great competition for what constitutes the most valuable commodity of all.

There is nothing intrinsic about gold that makes it money. It has certain properties that lend itself to monetary use, like portability, divisibility, scarcity, durability, and uniformity. But these are just descriptors of certain qualities of the metal, not explanations as to why it became money. Gold became money for only one reason: because that's what the markets chose.

Why isn't gold money now? Because governments destroyed the gold standard. Why? Because they regarded it as too inflexible. To be sure, monetary inflexibility is the friend of free markets. Without the ability to create money out of nothing, governments tend to run tight financial ships. Banks are more careful about the lending when they can't rely on a lender of last resort with access to a money-creation machine like the Fed.

A fixed money stock means that overall prices are generally more stable. The problems of inflation and business cycles disappear entirely. Under the gold standard, in fact, increased market productivity causes prices to generally decline over time as the purchasing power of money increases.

In 1967, Alan Greenspan once wrote an article called Gold and Economic Freedom. He wrote that:
"An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense – perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire – that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other. . . . This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights."

He was right. Gold and freedom go together. Gold money is both the result of freedom and its leading protector. When money is as good as gold, the government cannot manipulate the supply for its own purposes. Just as the rule of law puts limits on the despotic use of police power, a gold standard puts extreme limits on the government's ability to spend, borrow, and otherwise create crazy unworkable programs. It is forced to raise its revenue through taxation, not inflation, and generally keep its house in order.

Without the gold standard, government is free to work with the Fed to inflate the currency without limit. Even in our own times, we've seen governments do that and thereby spread mass misery. 

Now, all governments are stupid but not all are so stupid as to pull stunts like this. Most of the time, governments are pleased to inflate their currencies so long as they don't have to pay the price in the form of mass bankruptcies, falling exchange rates, and inflation.

In the real world, of course, there is a lag time between cause and effect. The Fed has been inflating the currency at very high levels for longer than a year. The consequences of this disastrous policy are showing up only recently in the form of a falling dollar and higher gold prices. And so what does the Fed do? It is pulling back now. For the first time in nearly ten years, some measures of money (M2 and MZM) are showing a falling money stock, which is likely to prompt a second dip in the continuing recession.

Greenspan now finds himself on the horns of a very serious dilemma. If he continues to pull back on money, the economy could tip into a serious recession. This is especially a danger given rising protectionism, which mirrors the events of the early 1930s. On the other hand, a continuation of the loose policy he has pursued for a year endangers the value of the dollar overseas.

How much easier matters were when we didn't have to rely on the wisdom of exalted monetary central planners like Greenspan. Under the gold standard, the supply of money regulated itself. The government kept within limits. Banks were more cautious. Savings were high because credit was tight and saving was rewarded. This approach to economics is the foundation of a sustainable prosperity.

We don't have that system now for the country or the world, but individuals are showing their preferences once again. By driving up the price of gold, prompting gold producers to become profitable again, the people are expressing their lack of confidence in their leaders. They have decided to protect themselves and not trust the state. That is the hidden message behind the new luster of gold.

Is a gold standard feasible again? Of course. The dollar could be redefined in terms of gold. Interest rates would reflect the real supply and demand for credit. We could shut down the Fed and we would never need to worry again what the chairman of the Fed wanted. There was a time when Greenspan was nostalgic for such a system. Investors of the world have come to embrace this view even as Greenspan has completely abandoned it. 

What keeps the gold standard from becoming a reality again is the love of big government and war. If we ever fall in love with freedom again, the gold standard will once more become a hot issue in public debate.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Ron Paul Archives

 

 

Quote 0 0

The World's Largest Banks Are Now Trapped

by Gary North
by Gar

The subprime mortgage crisis constitutes the worst banking error in my lifetime. Nothing else comes close.

It has visibly begun to unravel. The European Central Bank on Tuesday, December 18, opened a line of credit of $500 billion to commercial banks.

The Federal Reserve System under Greenspan was the prime instigator. It forced down short-term interest rates by supplying the overnight bank-to-bank loan market with sufficient liquidity to drop the rate to 1%. This encouraged banks to make loans at low rates.

These loans were short-term loans. The borrowers then went out and bought long-term assets: bonds and mortgages. This is known as the carry trade. The pioneering central bank in the carry trade was the Bank of Japan. It lowered short-term rates from about 7% in 1990 to just above zero in 1999, where it stayed until mid-2006. But the yen is not the world's reserve currency. The U.S. dollar is.

Through a complex combination of government-licensed monopoly (Federal Reserve System), implied government safety nets for mortgage investors (Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac), creative finance (asset-backed securities), and credit-rating services that were either stunningly naïve or compensated in ways not beneficial to objective analysis, brokers marketed a series of high-commission, fast-sale investment packages that sold like hotcakes until August, 2007. Then, without warning, they stopped selling.

These packages had sold all over the world. European banks got in on the action, marketing these investment packages to their clients.

Americans have seen all this before: the savings and loan crisis of the 1980's. The S&L's were borrowed short (depositors) and lent long (home buyers). Then the rules changed. The government in 1980 abolished Regulation Q, which had limited the rate of interest that banks and S&L's could pay to depositors. A rate war began.

The government had little choice. Money market funds, which had been invented around 1975, were not under the banking system. They were not bound by Regulation Q. They were paying high rates on short-term money. Depositors were pulling funds out of banks and buying money-market funds. The banks were hemorrhaging.

As soon as the banks could compete with money market funds, the S&L's were doomed. Their money was tied up for 30 years. Depositors (legally, owners) were cashing in. It was It's a Wonderful Life without the honeymoon money.

Then Congress stepped in with its own honeymoon money: about half a trillion dollars, if you count interest on the national debt.

That was the test of the mortgage carry trade. The system failed. We are now in the midst of another similar test. It is much larger. It is worldwide. It is affecting capital markets that were once far-removed from mortgages.

MAKING HAY WHILE THE SUN SHINED

You have heard of NINJA loans: no income, no job or assets. These were loans made by local mortgage brokers to first-time home buyers. Poor people were offered loans at rates far lower than conventional loans. The brokers told the prospective debtors that they could re-finance later to get long-term loans. This was not put in writing, and so it cannot be proven. But everyone in the industry knew it was being done. Therein lies the trap for America's largest banks. "Everyone knew."

If lawyers can persuade juries that everyone knew, America's largest banks are on the hook for more money in reparations than they have as capital. Why? Fraud. They sold investors, including European banks, investments known to be fraudulent.

Here it is, folks: what we have dreamed about. The money-grubbing lawyers are about to wipe out the money-grubbing bankers. There is only one hitch: the world's economy could crash. Darn!

In the December 9 issue of the San Francisco Chronicle ran a great headline:

MORTGAGE MELTDOWN

It had even better subheads:

Interest rate 'freeze' – the real story is fraud

Bankers pay lip service to families while scurrying to avert suits, prison

The author, Sean Olender, is a lawyer. He explained what he thinks the Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson and the banks are really up to. It's not about helping poor homeowners. (You probably suspected this.)

The present bailout proposal was not the first one. He describes earlier ones.

First the Treasury Department urged the creation of a new fund that would buy risky mortgage bonds as a tactic to hide what those bonds were really worth. (Not much.) Then the idea was to use Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy the risky loans, even if it was clear that U.S. taxpayers would eventually be stuck with the bill. But that plan went south after Fannie suffered a new accounting scandal, and Freddie's existing loan losses shot up more than expected.
The first was the old standby: a government-funded bailout. This was the now-familiar S&L solution. It did not pass muster. It may a year from now. The second was a bailout by two of the perps. But their capital is tied up in mortgages. The flow of investors' new funds is faltering. These two agencies need honeymoon money. They are in no position to provide it.
Now, just unveiled Thursday, comes the "freeze," the brainchild of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. It sounds good: For five years, mortgage lenders will freeze interest rates on a limited number of "teaser" subprime loans. Other homeowners facing foreclosure will be offered assistance from the Federal Housing Administration.
Mr. Olender is not persuaded by the sincerity of the offer. He perceives this as a judicial move, not an economic move. He sees it as the government's attempt to place a legal moat around the banks' castles.
The sole goal of the freeze is to prevent owners of mortgage-backed securities, many of them foreigners, from suing U.S. banks and forcing them to buy back worthless mortgage securities at face value – right now almost 10 times their market worth.
Not being a lawyer, I am willing to ascribe economic motives as well. If whole neighborhoods face eviction, they are likely to decline very rapidly into residences of illegal drug salesmen and crackheads. These houses are not in upscale parts of town. Once in decline, borderline neighborhoods are almost impossible to restore. The value of the lenders' capital is at risk. Keeping homeowners in their homes does make economic sense. The flow of mortgage payments remains. The houses are maintained. But I digress.
The ticking time bomb in the U.S. banking system is not resetting subprime mortgage rates. The real problem is the contractual ability of investors in mortgage bonds to require banks to buy back the loans at face value if there was fraud in the origination process.

And, to be sure, fraud is everywhere. It's in the loan application documents, and it's in the appraisals. There are e-mails and memos floating around showing that many people in banks, investment banks and appraisal companies – all the way up to senior management – knew about it.

That is the supposed key to the prosecution: "Everyone knew." If everyone knew, then defrauded investors have a legal case. Anyway, they would have a case if they were not trying to collect from the real masters of America, the multinational banks.
There are lots of people who would like to muzzle subpoena-happy New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to buy time and make this all go away. Cuomo is just inches from getting what he needs to start putting a lot of people in prison. I bet some people are trying right now to make him an offer "he can't refuse."
Here we have an attorney general who understands how his immediate predecessor became the Governor of New York: handing out lots of subpoenas to big business CEO's. Cuomo has a severe case of subpoena envy.

Mr. Olender then gets to the heart of the matter: the bottom line. What is the bottom line? The bottom line.

The catastrophic consequences of bond investors forcing originators to buy back loans at face value are beyond the current media discussion. The loans at issue dwarf the capital available at the largest U.S. banks combined, and investor lawsuits would raise stunning liability sufficient to cause even the largest U.S. banks to fail, resulting in massive taxpayer-funded bailouts of Fannie and Freddie, and even FDIC.
I see what he is getting at. There appears to have been fraud at every level. But this, it seems to my judicially untrained eye, is the very loophole the banks need. If everyone knew, as seems likely, and nobody blew the whistle, which is clear in retrospect, then these practices were common. If they were common, then they were not criminal. The government knew, and the government did nothing. Ditto for the Federal Reserve, the Comptroller of the Currency, and every other regulatory agency – Federal, state, and local.

When a criminal conspiracy acts in a criminal fashion, it can be prosecuted. But when a criminal conspiracy has been licensed by the government, and has de facto run the government of every major nation for a century, it will be difficult to get a conviction. None dare call it criminal.

Mr. Olender is correct in his observation regarding the magnitude of this economic liability.

The problem isn't just subprime loans. It is the entire mortgage market. As home prices fall, defaults will rise sharply – period. And so will the patience of mortgage bondholders. Different classes of mortgage bonds from various risk pools are owned by different central banks, funds, pensions and investors all over the world. Even your pension or 401(k) might have some of these bonds in it.
This is the domino effect. The subprime mess cannot be contained. It is like an untreated cancer cell. It will spread.

Mr. Olender means well, but he suffers from an affliction that is almost universal where the banking system is involved: terminal naïveté.

Perhaps some U.S. government department can make veiled threats to foreign countries to suggest they will suffer unpleasant consequences if their largest holders (central banks and investment funds) don't go along with the plan, but how could it be possible to strong-arm everyone?
How? The same way the Bank of England and Parliament have been strong-arming the British since 1694. If you were to identify the longest-running, most successful example of political strong-arming in modern history, you could do no better than to study the Bank of England's relationship with Parliament.

This example is today universal. Every nation on earth has a central bank except Andorra and Monaco. Monaco has a casino instead. Andorra has sheep, but at least only the sheep get sheared. It is different for the rest of us.

What would be prudent and logical is for the banks that sold this toxic waste to buy it back and for a lot of people to go to prison. If they knew about the fraud, they should have to buy the bonds back. The time to look into this is before the shredders have worked their magic – not five years from now.
What would be even more prudent and even more logical would be to abolish central banking. But the world is neither prudent nor logical when it comes to fractional reserve banking and the bubbles it creates.

Yet this bubble is like no other in my lifetime. It is tied to housing, and the entire Western world has been affected. The home-owning masses feel rich because their homes have risen in price. Why has this happened? Because buyers of houses just one price range down have sold and want to move up. Houses are rising because suckers at the bottom were lured into preposterous loans. I don't mean the home buyers, who got in with no money down. I mean the suckers who lent them the money.

Here is why the government is getting in. If the government bails out the new homeowners, it baptizes the entire procedure retroactively.

The goal of the freeze may be to delay bond investors from suing by putting off the big foreclosure wave for several years. But it may also be to stop bond investors from suing. If the investors agreed to loan modifications with the "real" wage and asset information from refinancing borrowers, mortgage originators and bundlers would have an excuse once the foreclosure occurred. They could say, "Fraud? What fraud?! You knew the borrower's real income and asset information later when he refinanced!"
This is what the freeze bill is all about. It is going to sail through Congress. The President will sign it. As soon as it's law, the banks are far safer than before. There may be lawsuits, but judges will know where their bread is buttered.

Mr. Olender goes on to name names and identify culprits. Here, I have decided not to follow his lead.

CONCLUSION

The economic losses are gigantic and will grow. The trickle of bad news is going to become a flood over the next year. It will wear down the resistance of perma-bulls, who believe that the Federal Reserve can save the day and save the stock market. All over the world, the repercussions of bad loans, carry-trade leverage, and relatively tight money are going to be felt.

This has been a huge pool of investment errors. This has sucked in the best and the brightest people on earth, those who allocate capital. They trusted Alan Greenspan. They trusted artificially low interest rates. They trusted fiat money. That trust has been betrayed, as always. But this time, it has been betrayed on a scale that puts the world's banking system at risk.

The bailouts have only just begun.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north591.html
Quote 0 0

There are lots of people who would like to muzzle subpoena-happy New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to buy time and make this all go away. Cuomo is just inches from getting what he needs to start putting a lot of people in prison. I bet some people are trying right now to make him an offer "he can't refuse."

 
***************************
 
Indeed.
 
I have a feeling if he gets what he needs to prosecute, we're  going to
need a bond issue to build a prison to "cage" the fraudsters.
 
Dee
Quote 0 0
Here's what has me torn up:

"I see what he is getting at. There appears to have been fraud at every level. But this, it seems to my judicially untrained eye, is the very loophole the banks need. If everyone knew, as seems likely, and nobody blew the whistle, which is clear in retrospect, then these practices were common. If they were common, then they were not criminal. The government knew, and the government did nothing. Ditto for the Federal Reserve, the Comptroller of the Currency, and every other regulatory agency – Federal, state, and local."

Eek! Does this mean that if a grassroots movement for, say, bank robberies was begun and many people all over knew about it and then went out and robbed banks that it would not be criminal just because everybody was doing it? All we would have to do is rope in a few government employees which should not be too hard as the government is the biggest robber in existence.

Quote 0 0
Arky,

Doesn't that argument that everybody else knew and did nothing, sound
like a 5 year old's explanation when they've done something wrong.

Well, Bobby did it and Stevie did it,so I did it too?

Good grief.

Dee
Quote 0 0
srsd

De you are right.  It does sound like children and when mine was 5,  I didn`t give him the "time out" that people believes in....I busted his butt and that is what needs to happen now. These people need busting big time.

Quote 0 0
Stephen

If Cuomo hadn't started it, someone else would have.  It's official now, the SEC has opened an investigation into WAMU and inflated appraisals.  Suppose Countrywide and Ameriquest are next?

Quote 0 0
Ed Cage

Dear Insolvent:

I'd love to be "insolvent" (Har-har) like BofA or Chase.

 

Enron was corrupt and they failed.

 

Arthur Andersen's illegal special favors led to their demise. In circa 1994 I personally and publicly exposed one of AA's "random" testing schemes. In fact I produced documentation from AA to their client Dallas Area Rapid Transit in which DART was forewarned in advance by AA as to the exact months their ridership figures would be spot checked for accuracy.

 

Enron and Arthur Andersen both collapsed in a quagmire of illicit fraud.  Citi Residential, EMC / Bear Stearns et al. are no different save for the fact that they are far worse.

 

I will not vote for any Presidential candidate GOP or otherwise who advocates a bail out for these highly abusive loan criminals who snubbed their noses at their investors, borrowers, and the law itself. 

 

Ed Cage  /  ecagetx@tx.rr.com  /  972-596-4363 

 

Quote 0 0
Write a reply...