Big Banks Giving home owers running around

[revelarts]

A whistle blower BANK VP tells ABC news how his Major bank is intentionally not giving any relief to people with late mortgages but just giving them the run around and charging customers up with fees and more.
ASked how many customers does he know of that have received some debt relief , he replies, many are in the system but ZERO have gotten any relief to his knowledge.
But the banks all needed a bail out from the gov't -US- to help the country and they are paying it back -NOT-

video here
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/saving-middle-class-whistle-blower-banks-helping-americans/story?id=10178938


Whistle-Blower: Banks Give Homeowners the Runaround
A vice president for one of the nation's biggest banks claims customers looking for help in lowering their mortgage payments are often told to call an 800 number -- where he says representatives then give homeowners the runaround.
David Muir gets answers from a vice president of one of the biggest banks.

The bank executive spoke to ABC News on the condition that ABC News not show his face or name him, because he feared coming forward would cost him his job.

Of the 1.1 million homeowners who've signed up for the federal program aimed at avoiding foreclosures, only 168,000, or 15 percent, of homeowners have had their mortgages permanently modified.

"In our managers meeting, which can last eight or nine hours, we probably addressed mortgage modifications five minutes or less," the banker said.

[red states rule]

I can't speak for other banks, but the mortgage company I work for is bending over backwards to help homeowners in trouble with mixed results

First, more then half that do get their loans modified, default again within one year

One of the requirements for a loan modification is the homeowner must have an escrow account for taxes and insurance. I was amazed at the number of homeowners who refuse to set up an escrow account (I was making outboudn calls to get their permission to set up the escrow account)

Some pay their own taxes and insurance, and they said no to escrow accoounts. When I explained to them no escrow, no loan modification - they went into the usual crap about the bank wanting to take the property back and how they are a "victim"

Bottom line is, banks are trying to work with home owners, but in many cases, the home owners is looking for a free ride

With Obam and the Dems trying to push thru laws that would FORCE banks to write off unpaid principal, and FORCE banks to take short sales on property- why the hell would they want to loan money knowing the government can step in at any time and change the terms of contract?

I have seen loans back ionto default with interest rates as low as 2%

Most of these people should not be in the house - they can't afford it

[revelarts]

At least your bank has given them the opportunity to get themselves together. Just as the U.S. gov't gave so many banks the op to get their acts together because they where to "big to fail". the Banks haven't paid back their TRILLIONS yet either but they seem to be making fat profits again. And the 1st excuse was the bad mortgages, if the mortgages were bad -who set them up the banks- then why not paid write them off partially ,as they promised, (legally bound to do but didn't) if that's was the real problem. Where's the trickle down?
I'm glad your bank has been making an effort to help. It obvious from the report that all are not. Even if many of the people are taking advantage of the the banks generosity. At some point if of course whenever or companies people just can't handle it then they have to make other arrangement or be allowed to fail.

AS far as Obama forcing the banks into anything so far it's been the other way around. the banks cutting deals with the from themselves with their people on his (and Bush's) staff and in the treasury that came from Goldman Sachs etc.. Unlike the auto makers who just got took over by the feds.

On the whole i'm happy for the 1/3 or more that your bank has given the opportunity too and they've been working it out. I hope your bank can keep it up.

[cat slave]

This is all a result of the CRA...lending money for mortgages
to people with no down payments, credit history or grasp
of paying anything off.

People with no investment in anything dont really value it
enough to see it through yet have a full blown case of
entitlement.

When did it become outdated to require an applicant to
actually qualify for a loan with a down payment and a job
and reason to expect it to be repaid with interest?

OMG....how insensitive!!!!! And financially foolish!
And it is and will cost us dearly long into the future.

No loan officer ran into the street, grabbed an unsuspecting person and force him/her to sign papers
and move into a house they couldnt pay for.

Im sorry....oh, no, Im not...I dont see the banks as the
evil doers....they got their orders from WA.

[cat slave]

The banks need some return on their investment. If the
current resident does not or cannot make the mortgage
payment they have to do something to avoid taking the
entire hit.

The developer has to make money, the contractors have
to make money, the suppliers have to be paid for building
materials and the buyer has to make agreed upon payments
for a given length of time. I dont get why thats unreasonable.

[red states rule]

At least your bank has given them the opportunity to get themselves together. Just as the U.S. gov't gave so many banks the op to get their acts together because they where to "big to fail". the Banks haven't paid back their TRILLIONS yet either but they seem to be making fat profits again. And the 1st excuse was the bad mortgages, if the mortgages were bad -who set them up the banks- then why not paid write them off partially ,as they promised, (legally bound to do but didn't) if that's was the real problem. Where's the trickle down?
I'm glad your bank has been making an effort to help. It obvious from the report that all are not. Even if many of the people are taking advantage of the the banks generosity. At some point if of course whenever or companies people just can't handle it then they have to make other arrangement or be allowed to fail.

AS far as Obama forcing the banks into anything so far it's been the other way around. the banks cutting deals with the from themselves with their people on his (and Bush's) staff and in the treasury that came from Goldman Sachs etc.. Unlike the auto makers who just got took over by the feds.

On the whole i'm happy for the 1/3 or more that your bank has given the opportunity too and they've been working it out. I hope your bank can keep it up.

Obama is forcing banks into accepting short sales, and it is costing them (and investors) money

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/08/business/08short.html


Also, it was Dems who started us down this road




September 30, 1999

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

By STEVEN A. HOLMES

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates — anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

”Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s by reducing down payment requirements,” said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. ”Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.”

http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/1999-ny-times-fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending/



and what did Dems do as Republicans tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_MGT_cSi7Rs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_MGT_cSi7Rs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[revelarts]

Sure, no problem with people being responsible for bad decision. my problem is that if banks get a trillions in relief then that should trickle down in relief to the people at the bottom as well.

As far as the whole thing being started by partly by the gov't, yes, but congress didn't push the creation of the derivatives scam based on those bad loans that was banks idea, and the losses there are much more than the actual value of the mortgages.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/29XwSpa9k3o&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/29XwSpa9k3o&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

there is , as I usually point out, crime on all sides. And as far as who is greedier the man who wants a better house for nothing or the man who trades on bad paper to line his pockets, God knows. Do either really deserve a bail out, does anyone owe then a handout? no.
no. But which one will be left in a worse condition if they default. In my mind it's the guy without a house. that's where I'm coming from on this issue.



Did some lenders go into the streets and trick, cagoule people into bad loans, yes they did. I've talk to a guy personally who told me he did and that if he and others didn't do it they wouldn't have made any money. "everybody was doing it, so what are going to do!"

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9fMlGGABcHs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9fMlGGABcHs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


more than we want to know...
The Great American Bubble Machine (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_great_american_bubble_machine)
From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression - and they're about to do it again

By now, most of us know the major players. As George Bush's last Treasury secretary, former Goldman CEO Henry Paulson was the architect of the bailout, a suspiciously self-serving plan to funnel trillions of Your Dollars to a handful of his old friends on Wall Street. Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton's former Treasury secretary, spent 26 years at Goldman before becoming chairman of Citigroup — which in turn got a $300 billion taxpayer bailout from Paulson. There's John Thain, ... a former Goldman banker, Thain enjoyed a multibilliondollar handout from Paulson, who used billions in taxpayer funds to help Bank of America rescue Thain's sorry company. And Robert Steel, the former Goldmanite head of Wachovia, scored himself and his fellow executives $225 million in goldenparachute payments as his bank was selfdestructing. There's Joshua Bolten, Bush's chief of staff during the bailout, and Mark Patterson, the current Treasury chief of staff, who was a Goldman lobbyist just a year ago, and Ed Liddy, the former Goldman director whom Paulson put in charge of bailedout insurance giant AIG, which forked over $13 billion to Goldman after Liddy came on board. The heads of the Canadian and Italian national banks are Goldman alums, as is the head of the World Bank, the head of the New York Stock Exchange, the last two heads of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York — which, incidentally, is now in charge of overseeing Goldman — not to mention …..

[avatar4321]

Silly question. Why does the bank have to do anything to help people who arent paying their debts?

[revelarts]

Silly question. Why does the bank have to do anything to help people who arent paying their debts?

Why does the federal gov't have to do anything to help banks who created huge fraudulent derivative packages?

Bush and Obama said it was necessary.
but if the problem was to cover all of the bad loans why not just pay off the bad loans? so the people would own the houses the banks would have there money for the loans. let the people who got the pay offs pay the gov't back in taxes over the life of the payoff amount. the banks are free and clear to move on Good loans.

but no the banks took what they knew where very bad loans packaged them as PRIME A1 and used them as collateral to incur more debt and investments creating a much deeper hole.

so we (the U.s. taxpayers at the encouragement of Bush, Obama and there tag team wall st banking group) have shoveled money into the second hole and not the 1st.

Does anyone deserve it, no. Who deserves it less. God knows . but you be the judge.

[red states rule]

Why does the federal gov't have to do anything to help banks who created huge fraudulent derivative packages?

Bush and Obama said it was necessary.
but if the problem was to cover all of the bad loans why not just pay off the bad loans? so the people would own the houses the banks would have there money for the loans. let the people who got the pay offs pay the gov't back in taxes over the life of the payoff amount. the banks are free and clear to move on Good loans.

but no the banks took what they knew where very bad loans packaged them as PRIME A1 and used them as collateral to incur more debt and investments creating a much deeper hole.

so we (the U.s. taxpayers at the encouragement of Bush, Obama and there tag team wall st banking group) have shoveled money into the second hole and not the 1st.

Does anyone deserve it, no. Who deserves it less. God knows . but you be the judge.

While I do not have a problem with banks helping h/o's who are in trouble - it is in their best interest to do so. It costs alot of money to go thru the foreclosure process. In most cases, the bank loses money

However, I do have a problem with the Fed ORDERING banks to wrote off principal, and take losses on short sales. It is no wonder some banks are not lending money. Why would they when the government can step in and chnage the terms of the contract?

UI have seen case after care of people NOT submitting proper documention to do a loan modification. I have seen people lying on their financial statements. (Banks pull a credit report and many times people have inflated their expenses)

People are expecting the government to bail them out. I have had more the one homeowner tell me they have sent their monthly statements and pay off documents to the White House for payment. I kid you not

Obama was a lawyer for ACORN who did sue Citibank to make loans to people with bad credit.

http://www.mediacircus.com/2008/10/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/

and Obama in his own words

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FewmvkaTXHU&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FewmvkaTXHU&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[cat slave]

I dont think loan officers went into the street to grab
naive, unsuspecting....greedy, entitlement consuming
people.

The booming voice (or whatever)came down from on
high...everyone deserves a house whether they can pay
for it or not. Give loans to people no matter what their
credit history or lack thereof.

Greed???? Oh yeah. But how about some personal
responsibility???? It took greedy people wanting more
house than they ever meant to pay for, cause Freddie
and Fannie said they could do it. We all know how responsible WA is.

People who bought the securities (paper) expected to
make a bundle on these follies. Sure they were greedy,
who isnt? They also took the risk.

Which "greedy" is worse?

[red states rule]

I dont think loan officers went into the street to grab
naive, unsuspecting....greedy, entitlement consuming
people.

The booming voice (or whatever)came down from on
high...everyone deserves a house whether they can pay
for it or not. Give loans to people no matter what their
credit history or lack thereof.

Greed???? Oh yeah. But how about some personal
responsibility???? It took greedy people wanting more
house than they ever meant to pay for, cause Freddie
and Fannie said they could do it. We all know how responsible WA is.

People who bought the securities (paper) expected to
make a bundle on these follies. Sure they were greedy,
who isnt? They also took the risk.

Which "greedy" is worse?

When it comes to the left what does personal responsibility ever matter?

You can buy a house you can't afford? No problem, there is a government program for you

You have kids you can't provide for? No problem - the government will pay for an abortion, or provide government programs to finance their expenses

You quit school? No problem - the government will pay for your GED classes

You do not want to get off your butt and get a job? No problem - the government will keep extending unempolyment benefits

You can't pay your student loans? No problem - the government will wipe it off the books

See the pattern?

[Kathianne]

When it comes to the left what does personal responsibility ever matter?

You can buy a house you can't afford? No problem, there is a government program for you

You have kids you can't provide for? No problem - the government will pay for an abortion, or provide government programs to finance their expenses

You quit school? No problem - the government will pay for your GED classes

You do not want to get off your butt and get a job? No problem - the government will keep extending unempolyment benefits

You can't pay your student loans? No problem - the government will wipe it off the books

See the pattern?

Indeed, daddy doesn't want kids on their own. Daddy will provide for, until he is bankrupt.

[cat slave]

And so it goes. Never a shortage of people with their hands
out with no clue of the freedoms they are throwing away.

[red states rule]

And so it goes. Never a shortage of people with their hands
out with no clue of the freedoms they are throwing away.

Which is why Obama got elected, and the entire foundation of Democrat political campaigns

It is sad and shocking to see so many Americans who believe they are entitled to other peoples money

When I was taking phone calls, at least 20 people a day would call in asking for the "Obama plan" and how the government would PAY THEIR MORTGAGE!

In other words - how I WOULD PAY THEIR MORTGAGE FOR THEM!

[cat slave]

Thats infuriating.

[revelarts]

mailed their mortgage to the White House, that funny and sad. Maybe president Obama can write a personal check.

but, Um didn't I already agree that people getting mortgages they could pay was a bad thing. I'm not defending Obama, or the CRA. I'm saying that the Banks are at fault AS WELL. And that as the interview that I started the post with says at least one bank is lying to clients telling them one thing and doing another. I'm glad your bank isn't doing it. but I wouldn't be surprised if others are. Just because some one is having trouble paying off their loan doesn't mean banks should treat them like crap. I've been a renter, owner and landlord. Though you may want to treat people badly and you owe them nothing, the golden rules should apply.

And Obama is gearing up for new "mortgage assistants" which mean Banks do x and we'll give you something on the side and hope your biz doesn't go under.

Since you've repeated your point I'll repeat mine. Big banks got a lot of money for stupidity/fraud that collateralizing on packaged BAD loans falsely rated as AAA creating even bigger debt than the greedy homeowners created.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wm5Gps1xy7w&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wm5Gps1xy7w&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[avatar4321]

Why does the federal gov't have to do anything to help banks who created huge fraudulent derivative packages?

I never said they did. Im someone who is for personal responsibility. Dont take debt you cant repay. dont make loans that wont be repaid. Why should anyone be obligated to bail someone out?

Now if they choose to help them thats good and all but the idea that anyone should be forced to do anything is contrary to any sane practice.


Bush and Obama said it was necessary.
but if the problem was to cover all of the bad loans why not just pay off the bad loans? so the people would own the houses the banks would have there money for the loans. let the people who got the pay offs pay the gov't back in taxes over the life of the payoff amount. the banks are free and clear to move on Good loans.

the bank loans were paid back though. Why else would the current administration be suggesting we spend that money now?


but no the banks took what they knew where very bad loans packaged them as PRIME A1 and used them as collateral to incur more debt and investments creating a much deeper hole.

Did they have a choice?


so we (the U.s. taxpayers at the encouragement of Bush, Obama and there tag team wall st banking group) have shoveled money into the second hole and not the 1st.

So why should we shovel money into any hole?


Does anyone deserve it, no. Who deserves it less. God knows . but you be the judge.

Which is why we need the Federal Government to follow the Constitution.

[revelarts]

...Now if they choose to help them thats good and all but the idea that anyone should be forced to do anything is contrary to any sane practice.

So why should we shovel money into any hole?

Which is why we need the Federal Government to follow the Constitution.

we're generally on the same page, i only take issue with what you say below.





Did they have a choice?
...

yes they did and they chose fraud.



The bank loans were paid back though. ...


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fHLXO_y3KIg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fHLXO_y3KIg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>



Why else would the current administration be suggesting we spend that money now?

check and see who we're the biggest funders of his campaign for 1 possible answer

[red states rule]

mailed their mortgage to the White House, that funny and sad. Maybe president Obama can write a personal check.

but, Um didn't I already agree that people getting mortgages they could pay was a bad thing. I'm not defending Obama, or the CRA. I'm saying that the Banks are at fault AS WELL. And that as the interview that I started the post with says at least one bank is lying to clients telling them one thing and doing another. I'm glad your bank isn't doing it. but I wouldn't be surprised if others are. Just because some one is having trouble paying off their loan doesn't mean banks should treat them like crap. I've been a renter, owner and landlord. Though you may want to treat people badly and you owe them nothing, the golden rules should apply.

And Obama is gearing up for new "mortgage assistants" which mean Banks do x and we'll give you something on the side and hope your biz doesn't go under.

Since you've repeated your point I'll repeat mine. Big banks got a lot of money for stupidity/fraud that collateralizing on packaged BAD loans falsely rated as AAA creating even bigger debt than the greedy homeowners created.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wm5Gps1xy7w&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wm5Gps1xy7w&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

In most cases, banks gave those loans or they would be taken to court by the liberals, Obama was one of the lawyers who did sue Citibank

If people broke laws by lying and chating to sell loans then they should be charged

What Dems did was they took the RISK out of making those loans. Barney Frank is on record saying if the h/o does not make the payments, well the government is backing the loan

Anytime the government gets involved, chances are things will get screwed up. And brother did the government crew up the housing market

This is a result of Dems screaming home ownership is a RIGHT, and NOT something you have to work hard for and EARN

If you are going to go with Ratigan as a source - consider this

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=Xd8zVrnzkU" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=Xd8zVrnzkU" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

[revelarts]

You know this is a problem I have. I try to look for the facts. I don't fet people by everything they've ever said. The msm sneaks truth through in pieces from all sides. Some thing are bs, some thing maybe marginal other things they may have a perfect handle on. No one gets it right all the time no one gets it wrong all the time. Don't you think its best to judge the facts as facts and not as they may be filtered through our party lens or favorite commentators?

his failure with the tea party doesn't change the facts about the tarp or the derivatives scam.

[red states rule]

You know this is a problem I have. I try to look for the facts. I don't fet people by everything they've ever said. The msm sneaks truth through in pieces from all sides. Some thing are bs, some thing maybe marginal other things they may have a perfect handle on. No one gets it right all the time no one gets it wrong all the time. Don't you think its best to judge the facts as facts and not as they may be filtered through our party lens or favorite commentators?

I work in the field, I talk to the homeowners. I hear what they are DEMANDING. I see how the Dems took the RISK out of making the loans

I have aid if laws were brokedn - charge them

But Dems are trying to do the same things that put us in the hole all over again

[revelarts]

Dems and banks are trying to fix the problem with more of what caused it...
And the bankers are not only to big to fail but to big to go to jail as well. no one has been charged even though they all know they committed fraud.

[red states rule]

Dems and banks are trying to fix the problem with more of what caused it...
And the bankers are not only to big to fail but to big to go to jail as well. no one has been charged even though they all know they committed fraud.

I agree - IF there is any proof of fraud then take them to court

Meanwhile, Obama and the Dems are talking about more "regulation" which means they will tell the banks how to run their business

Hisrory mayt be repeating itself soon - and we the taxpayers will pay the bill

[revelarts]

I agree - IF there is any proof of fraud then take them to court....


http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1933-Derivative-Fraud-Where-Are-OUR-Cops.html


Derivative Fraud? Where Are OUR Cops?

I have long written about The Bezzle in the financial system and that we must get it out of the system if we are to have something approaching real, verifiable and sustainable economic growth.

So far we have seen no interest in that from the regulators in this country, probably because they're well-aware that this would mean revoking some banking licenses and putting a lot of very well-connected people out of "business."

Where does it end in this country folks? There's more than enough evidence that "a river (of corruption) runs through it" - "it", of course, being our economic and banking system. Look at the update this morning out of "Biggovernment" related to the story I discussed yesterday with the AIG "takeunder" by The NY Fed:.....


....But Barofsky is not enough and a few show trials to appease the proletariat won't solve the problem. The issues are structural and must be fixed, not papered over nor will offering up a few sacrificial lambs resolve a thing. Indeed such appeasement simply adds more instability to an already dangerous situation.

We have 50 State Attorney Generals and we allegedly have a federal Attorney General as well. There are more than enough cops to investigate the edifices and artifices that have been put forward by the so-called "financial system" in the name of "innovation" that, I believe, have in fact been nothing more than sophisticated equity and wealth-stripping schemes.

The housing market implosion laid bare upon the table The Bezzle, since there was simply not enough "slop" left in the system to hide it any more. As the layers of the onion have been peeled back we have found more and more instances where "products" were not structured for any reasonable economic benefit of the person or entity that was supposedly "helped", but rather as a means of stripping off funds through concealment of material facts either intentionally or through impenetrable complexity. So-called "CDOs" and "CDO^2s" were sold with thousands of pages of documentation "behind" them - a literal impossibility to read and understand before the "investor" plopped down his or her money. When these blew up it became apparent that the so-called "credit quality" contained in these securities not only didn't exist in the present it never existed - yet those little letters "AAA" were relied upon as representing credit quality equivalent to that of the United States Federal Government.

It's all BS folks and that we do not currently have literal dozens of Grand Juries empaneled to investigate and hand up indictments against the "titans of financial industry" on downward is an outrage....


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8573068.stm

Major banks face derivatives fraud case in Italy

Milan says it faces losses of millions of euros as a result of the deal

Four major banks have been ordered to stand trial in Italy in a fraud case related to derivatives trading.

JP Morgan Chase, UBS, Deutsche Bank and Germany's Depfa bank have been told they will be tried for aggravated fraud, along with 13 other people.

The charges relate to the sale of derivatives to the city of Milan.

JP Morgan denied employees involved had acted inappropriately, while Deutsche and UBS also denied any wrongdoing. Depfa was not available for comment.

Interest payments

Prosecutors say the trial, which is due to begin in May, is an important test case for hundreds of Italian cities who have lost money through similar deals.

The arrangements between banks and cities, including Milan, were designed to reduce interest payments on their loans.

In the case of Milan, the four banks are accused of misleading the city authorities when they agreed a derivatives deal on a 1.68bn euro ($2.31bn; £1.51bn) loan in 2005.

The deal adjusted the interest payments on the loan - a move which Milan says leaves it facing a 100m euros loss.

Two former Milan city officials have also been ordered to stand trial, along with 11 bank employees.

[revelarts]

Rattigan is NAILING this banking issue. the Banks Congress and the FED the big Con. He's off in other areas but this one he's got nailed.

<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc7b9ee3" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640"><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=36233217&width=420&height=245"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="opaque" /><embed name="msnbc7b9ee3" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=36233217&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="opaque" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>

[revelarts]

Big Banks being caught in misleading investors again...

this time cooking the books a lil-bit

Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304830104575172280848939898.html?m od=WSJ_Markets_MIDDLETopNews)


Major banks have masked their risk levels in the past five quarters by temporarily lowering their debt just before reporting it to the public, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

A group of 18 banks—which includes Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc.—understated the debt levels used to fund securities trades by lowering them an average of 42% at the end of each of the past five quarterly periods, the data show. The banks, which publicly release debt data each quarter, then boosted the debt levels in the middle of successive quarters.

Excessive borrowing by banks was one of the major causes of the financial crisis, leading to catastrophic bank runs in 2008 at firms including Bear Stearns Cos. and Lehman Brothers. Since then, banks have become more sensitive about showing high levels of debt and risk, worried that their stocks and credit ratings could be punished.

That practice, while legal, can give investors a skewed impression of the level of risk that financial firms are taking the vast majority of the time.

"You want your leverage to look better at quarter-end than it actually was during the quarter, to suggest that you're taking less risk," says William Tanona, a former Goldman analyst who now heads U.S. financials research at Collins Stewart, a U.K. investment bank.

Though some banks privately confirm that they temporarily reduce their borrowings at quarter's end, representatives at Goldman, Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan and Citigroup declined to comment specifically on the New York Fed data. Some noted that their firm's financial filings include language saying borrowing levels can fluctuate during the quarter.

"The efforts to manage the size of our balance sheet are appropriate and our policies are consistent with all applicable accounting and legal requirements," a Bank of America spokesman said....

[revelarts]

More Foreclosure shenanigans

ROBO Signers
the big banks are 2 faced.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303864404575572662815011760.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

http://www.fiercefinance.com/story/confessions-robo-signer/2010-10-31

[revelarts]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YUZdANb6UaY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YUZdANb6UaY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[red states rule]

Once again I have to share my own personal experiences on this topic. My bank has been bending over backwards to help homeowners

I spend 40 to 50 hours a week working default issues and I usually close (resolve) 50 to 60 cases per week. I am one of 63 in my department

I work written correspondence from borrowers who have a default issue,. They can be current and expect to have an issue - to already have lost the house to f/c sale

Most of the time the borrower has been dropped from the program for not sending in the required documents. I have seen where we have sent letters, and made many phone calls to try and get the documents

Then we have the ones who even if the interest rate is dropped to 0% and they still can't afford the house.

What is the lender to do? Give them the house and let them live there free?

We do have some issues where we made a mistake and we make it right. We do our best to fix the error and help the customer keep the house if they can show they can afford it

As far as this crap where the lender does not have the right to service or start the foreclosure process - there is what is called the MERS sytem

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems electronicly registers the mortgage and no assignment of the mortgage is needed

[SpidermanTUba]

With Obam and the Dems trying to push thru laws that would FORCE banks to write off unpaid principal, and FORCE banks to take short sales on property- why the hell would they want to loan money knowing the government can step in at any time and change the terms of contract?


Gee, I dunno, maybe because they like the big fat bailouts we've been giving them?


The root of this entire problem isn't that too many people bought houses - its that too many people bought houses that were TOO BIG and TOO EXPENSIVE. If you look at other nations with a high percentage of home ownership - Canada, for instance, which has one of the highest rates of home ownership in the world - the difference is they buy smaller homes. in 2003 - 1800 sq ft was the average size in Canada, in 2004 it was 2330 sq ft in the U.S.

http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/us-home-size.html

http://www.darrenbarefoot.com/archives/2006/01/what-is-the-average-size-of-a-house-in-canada.html


The problem is that in the U.S. people get into homes that are a little more expensive than they should be buying, so when the economy takes a downturn and they lose income, they have no room to breathe.

If the houses that people were defaulting on were no bigger than the apartment they would wind up renting if they get foreclosed on, I can see a good reason to help keep these folks in their homes. But for the folks who live in giant McMansions way bigger than they need, I have little. How many of them are trying to rent out a room in their over-sized houses to help make the note? Very few. They just expect the banks to give them free money.

Its also the attitude of many homeowners that's the problem - they aren't really interested in home ownership, they're just interested in lower rent. I have a friend who recently did a refi on his ARM. He had about 25k equity in a home he bought for 75k, and now the home is valued at over 100k. He's been paying on this house for the better part of a decade. So he refinances the house, gets a new note that is the same as the old note, and gets 25k out, and tells me about it as if he's got free money. When I point out that hey, your 30 years has restarted now, the payment is the same but you've got to start all over, he brushes it off as insignificant and points out they'd probably be selling the house before 30 years is up anyway.

[fj1200]

Gee, I dunno, maybe because they like the big fat bailouts we've been giving them?

Doesn't follow RSR. Banks like to make money and wondering if contract terms are subject to the whims of government is detrimental to that.

[SpidermanTUba]

Doesn't follow RSR. Banks like to make money and wondering if contract terms are subject to the whims of government is detrimental to that.

All contracts are subject to the law.

BTW - how many short sales has Obama forced?

[fj1200]

All contracts are subject to the law.

Exactly... until they're not which is RSR's posit.

[red states rule]

Gee, I dunno, maybe because they like the big fat bailouts we've been giving them?


The root of this entire problem isn't that too many people bought houses - its that too many people bought houses that were TOO BIG and TOO EXPENSIVE. If you look at other nations with a high percentage of home ownership - Canada, for instance, which has one of the highest rates of home ownership in the world - the difference is they buy smaller homes. in 2003 - 1800 sq ft was the average size in Canada, in 2004 it was 2330 sq ft in the U.S.

http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/us-home-size.html

http://www.darrenbarefoot.com/archives/2006/01/what-is-the-average-size-of-a-house-in-canada.html


The problem is that in the U.S. people get into homes that are a little more expensive than they should be buying, so when the economy takes a downturn and they lose income, they have no room to breathe.

If the houses that people were defaulting on were no bigger than the apartment they would wind up renting if they get foreclosed on, I can see a good reason to help keep these folks in their homes. But for the folks who live in giant McMansions way bigger than they need, I have little. How many of them are trying to rent out a room in their over-sized houses to help make the note? Very few. They just expect the banks to give them free money.

Its also the attitude of many homeowners that's the problem - they aren't really interested in home ownership, they're just interested in lower rent. I have a friend who recently did a refi on his ARM. He had about 25k equity in a home he bought for 75k, and now the home is valued at over 100k. He's been paying on this house for the better part of a decade. So he refinances the house, gets a new note that is the same as the old note, and gets 25k out, and tells me about it as if he's got free money. When I point out that hey, your 30 years has restarted now, the payment is the same but you've got to start all over, he brushes it off as insignificant and points out they'd probably be selling the house before 30 years is up anyway.

As usual your knowledge of this topic is based on the White House talking points

The root of the problem goes back to Pres Carter and the Community Reinvestment Act which laid the ground work for the "poor" to buy a home

It was expanded under Clinton when Fannie and Freddie lowered their credit standards - again so the "poor" could buy a house

The libs did not care if they could afford the home or not and that was expressed when Barney Franl said if the h/o defaulted the US govenment is backing the loan

Pres Obama was a laywer sho was one of the lawyers who took Citibank to court because they were not giving home loans to enough poor people

We all know the rest of the story. We got the usual results when do gooder liberals try and tinker with the free market

[SpidermanTUba]

The root of the problem goes back to Pres Carter and the Community Reinvestment Act which laid the ground work for the "poor" to buy a home

It was expanded under Clinton when Fannie and Freddie lowered their credit standards - again so the "poor" could buy a house

Please show me the part of the CRA law that requires banks to give loans to people with bad credit.

I'd also like to see the part that requires investment banks to buy up bad loans from depository banks.

Also - rectify the following with your claim


She cited a Federal Reserve Board analysis which found that, in 2006, CRA-covered banks operating in CRA-targeted neighborhoods accounted for just six percent of the risky, high-cost loans largely responsible for the housing crisis
http://washingtonindependent.com/34376/battling-the-cra-myth
Thanks.

[Trigg]

The root of this entire problem isn't that too many people bought houses - its that too many people bought houses that were TOO BIG and TOO EXPENSIVE. If you look at other nations with a high percentage of home ownership - Canada, for instance, which has one of the highest rates of home ownership in the world - the difference is they buy smaller homes. in 2003 - 1800 sq ft was the average size in Canada, in 2004 it was 2330 sq ft in the U.S.

http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/us-home-size.html

http://www.darrenbarefoot.com/archives/2006/01/what-is-the-average-size-of-a-house-in-canada.html


The problem is that in the U.S. people get into homes that are a little more expensive than they should be buying, so when the economy takes a downturn and they lose income, they have no room to breathe.


I agree completely.

I'd add that loan companies were giving second mortgages so that people could "afford" those bigger houses.

People were getting into houses they could bairly afford, no wiggle room at all. People were also flipping houses in Cali and elsewhere thinking the housing bubble would never burst.

People were being stupid and greedy and loan companies were taking advantage. I feel for people who got in over their heads, but they did it to themselves.

[red states rule]

Please show me the part of the CRA law that requires banks to give loans to people with bad credit.

I'd also like to see the part that requires investment banks to buy up bad loans from depository banks.

Also - rectify the following with your claim

http://washingtonindependent.com/34376/battling-the-cra-myth
Thanks.

Banks were sued to give these loans and Obama was one of the lawyers




Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois
Case Summary
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.

U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).

The parties voluntarily dismissed the case on May 12, 1998, pursuant to a settlement agreement.
Plaintiff’s Lawyers Alexis, Hilary I. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Childers, Michael Allen (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Clayton, Fay (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Cummings, Jeffrey Irvine (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Love, Sara Norris (Virginia)
FH-IL-0011-9000
Miner, Judson Hirsch (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Obama, Barack H. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Wickert, John Henry (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-9000

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/29/what-does-a-community-organizer-do-pressure-banks-to-make-bad-loans/




and ACRON made MILLIONS off CRA




THE seeds of today’s financial meltdown lie in the Community Reinvestment Act – a law passed in 1977 and made riskier by unwise amendments and regulatory rulings in later decades.

CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in “subprime” loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.

Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA – and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.

In fact, intimidation tactics, public charges of racism and threats to use CRA to block business expansion have enabled ACORN to extract hundreds of millions of dollars in loans and contributions from America’s financial institutions.

The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN’s Madeline Talbott in her pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards.Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in foundation funding for her efforts.

And, as the leader of another charity, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Obama channeled morefunding Talbott’s way – ostensibly for education projects but surely supportive of ACORN’s overall efforts.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_cvq7rDCHftKwJyLaecfPQK;jsessionid=B6884256356 F45BC6D9F519F8A931DC0





and loan affirmative action

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PFlYmLAMbrw&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PFlYmLAMbrw&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

[SpidermanTUba]

Banks were sued to give these loans and Obama was one of the lawyers




Please quote directly the part of these rulings which require the banks to give no money down loans to people with bad credit. Also please show me what part of the CRA law requires banks give no money down loans to people with bad credit.

Thanks.

[red states rule]

Please quote directly the part of these rulings which require the banks to give no money down loans to people with bad credit. Also please show me what part of the CRA law requires banks give no money down loans to people with bad credit.

Thanks.

What part of the post where I showed you a lawyer named Obama sued Citibank to give loans to poor people?

[SpidermanTUba]

What part of the post where I showed you a lawyer named Obama sued Citibank to give loans to poor people?


Fine, except that I asked you to show me where banks were forced to give loans to people with bad creditt, not where they were forced to give loans to poor people. CAN YOU READ ENGLISH?

[red states rule]

Fine, except that I asked you to show me where banks were forced to give loans to people with bad creditt, not where they were forced to give loans to poor people. CAN YOU READ ENGLISH?

Under threat of lawsuites you can most people and businness to do almost anything.

Along with the unlimited funding of the government, the banks did the only thing they could do. They worte the loans

Lawyer Obama was very proud of himself and his buddies at ACORN

[SpidermanTUba]

Under threat of lawsuites you can most people and businness to do almost anything.

Along with the unlimited funding of the government, the banks did the only thing they could do. They worte the loans

Lawyer Obama was very proud of himself and his buddies at ACORN

Awesome. NOW SHOW ME WHERE THEY WERE FORCED TO MAKE LOANS TO PEOPLE WITH BAD CREDIT.

[red states rule]

Awesome. NOW SHOW ME WHERE THEY WERE FORCED TO MAKE LOANS TO PEOPLE WITH BAD CREDIT.

Already done that son.

If you are to stupid to understand the posts and the video of libs admitting their intention is to give the porr a home loans they you are a lost cause

[SpidermanTUba]

already done that son.[

if you are to stupid to understand the posts and the video of libs admitting their intention is to give the porr a home loans they you are a lost cause

i didn't ask where anyone was forced to give loans to the poor, i asked where the were forced to give loans to people with bad credit! you can't read. This is the 2nd time I've pointed to this out to you. what are you STUPID?

[red states rule]

i didn't ask where anyone was forced to give loans to the poor, i asked where the were forced to give loans to people with bad credit! you can't read. This is the 2nd time I've pointed to this out to you. what are you STUPID?

Again dummy, OBAMA THE LAWYER SUED CITIBANK FOR NOT GIVING LOANS TO POOR PEOPLE

You can refuse to accept reality - which is a big part of being a liberal - but it was do gooder liberals who belived owning a home was a RIGHT and not something that had to be EARNED that got us in this mess

[revelarts]

Yes they sued to give poor people loans,
and the Gov't loosened the rules to allow banks make risky loans (bank Sponsored)
and the banks packaged those loans together in several different instruments,
and KNOWINGLY gave them triple A ratings then sold them around the world at inflated prices many times higher than there value even if good.
And the y Get the US Gov't to Bail them out when the Bill comes due and fraud comes to light for their instruments
THEN they never pay the instruments However then they foreclose on the people who bought more house than they can afford.
Now they want to blame the WHOLE thing on the CRA? that doesn't fly.
Lets give credit where credit is Due. Reagan gets his, Clinton gets his, Bush and Obama gets thiers and the Banks gets theirs which is the biggest portion. On the front end and Back end of the mess
ANd NOW they want to foreclose on everybody using Crappy docs.
Claiming they do no wrong but they forge docs and break contracts and agreements and even kick people out of homes over $75.

Red State I know YOUR particular office isn't doing this but many of these banks are 2 faced the happy good face that you seem to be on and the Ugly crooked face that we see played out down the street and to our friends.
Heres how the dark side is working,
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wIbgAEUG4DM?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wIbgAEUG4DM?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Some people here seem to be unwilling to believe that large companies can be crooks.
I don't get it.
If the local used car dealership can be crooked why not big banks?
It's not a lib vs Con thing
it's Honest vs dishonest here.

[revelarts]

-JP morgan- Breaking into houses changing locks on a lady
3 month behind in her payments, NOT EVEN in foreclosure.

CRA? Clinton? Bush? I don't think so.


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EqKvQ3JvhWo?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EqKvQ3JvhWo?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[red states rule]

Revelarts, what do you expect? The government stepped in, and told the people writing the loan they would back them

So the person writing the loan has zero risk. Remember Barney Frank saying "so what if they person defaults? The government is backing the loan"

There was no risk to the company who grants the loan, They turn around and package them, and sell them to Fannie and Freddie

Human nature then kicks in. It islike you sell cars to people you know can't afford it - but they are not paying you - they are paying someone else

So you do not care

Bottom line is, if the Dems would not have tried to make home ownership a right this never would ahve happened

[revelarts]

http://www.courant.com/business/hc-bank-of-america-1208-20101207,0,5363581,print.story

Bank of America Settles In Bid-Rigging Case
The Hartford Courant


3:22 PM EST, December 7, 2010

Bank of America will pay $137 million in restitution for its part in a nationwide scheme that included bid rigging and other anti-competitive practices that defrauded state agencies, cities and towns, school districtss and nonprofits in the purchase of municipal bond derivative, Connecticut's attorney general said today.

Bank of America will pay $137 million to settle government accusations that it rigged bids to win business from municipal governments, Connecticut's attorney general said today.

Connecticut is among 20 states that will share $67 million of that total in restitution tied to nationwide anti-competitive practices that defrauded state agencies, cities and towns, school districts and non-profits in the purchase of municipal bond derivatives.

Connecticut's share is expected to be about $600,000, according to Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who helped lead the probes by the state attorneys general.

"The settlement is only a first step in an ongoing investigation aimed at recovering restitution from the nation's biggest financial institutions for relentlessly shortchanging taxpayers and nonprofits," Blumenthal said.

Bank of America, Connecticut's largest bank, cooperated with authorities in exchange for leniency. In settling, the bank neither admitted or denied the accusations.

The investigation covers practices occurring between 1998 and 2003. In addition to Bank of America, the wide-ranging investigation is targeting several other major financial institutions.

"Bank of America is pleased to put this matter behind it, and has already voluntarily undertaken numerous remediation efforts," the bank said, in a statement.

In addition to the states, federal agencies involved in the years-long probe included the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Reserve.

[red states rule]

and your point is what revelarts? You can find wrongdoing in any sector

I thought the point of this thread was that the big evil banks were abusing the poor homeowner

The Obama economy is getting so bad overtime is being offered at work and I am taking as many of the extra hours as possible

Yesterday I closed out 13 cases and three of them were from people who already had a loan modification and guess what? They have defaulted again and want another loan modification

In fact they were DEMANDING one!!

Yes you have responsible people who have run in hard times who do need a temporary modification to help them get back on their feet. My employer is bending over backwards to do just that

But then you these three idiots who still can't afford the house they bought even with a 2% interest rate for the next FIVE YEARS and are demanding an even more lower rate from the investor

It all gets back to the undeniable truth about the mortgage problem. Dems set the table to where people who should have been renting were able to buy a home they could not afford

And now we are all paying for it - one way or another