LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteSarbanes-Oxley places responsibilty on Directors personal assets, not the Corps.
This is a smoke screen maneuver to make O look aggresive and it will be dropped very quickly.
Visit the Archives for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . net
2011 USPOL Most Valuable Poster (MVP)
ahoy mateys,
would ye folks describe this as "anti-business over regulation" 'o our bankin' industry?
U.S. Said to Prepare Mortgage Lawsuit Against BofA, JPMorgan - BloombergBank of America Corp. (BAC) and JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) are among lenders that may face a lawsuit by the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency over faulty mortgage loans, according to six people with knowledge of the matter.
The agency representing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is likely to act before next week’s deadline for legal claims, according to the people, who weren’t authorized to speak publicly. The amount may dwarf the $20 billion sought from the biggest mortgage servicers in a separate probe of lending and foreclosures by 50 state attorneys general, one person said.
A lawsuit “is an uncertainty that can go on for years -- that gets the market quite nervous,” said Nader Naeimi, a Sydney-based strategist for AMP Capital Investors Ltd., which manages almost $100 billion. “Bank of America, being at the epicenter of these problems, is going to get smashed.”
whilst i guess thar be folks who ought to be held accountable fer the ruin that was wrought, i wonder if perhaps we ought to just let this thing recede into the settin' sun and ponder what is ahead 'o us?
it certainly seems like it would be bad fer business, bad fer the DOW, and not help our current mood in the nation.
Bank 'o America be one of the central financial pillars in the city i live in, and i'd most certainly take a major hit amidships if that reelin' fiscal giant were to take on any more water. many 'o thar monied employees be me clients.
Big Banks Sued Over Risky Mortgages : NPRGUY CECALA: This lawsuit is an attempt to recoup some of the losses Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac suffered from investing very heavily in subprime loans.
ARNOLD: So this basically investors, in this case Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, go to the major banks and say, hey, look you, sold us this stuff, you said it was AAA, you said it was great and look, it was garbage and we lost billions of dollars.
CECALA: Exactly.
ARNOLD: Investors have filed many similar lawsuits before, but Fannie and Freddie bought a ton of bad loans, so Cecala says the liability could potentially be huge.
CECALA: It's probably somewhere in the neighborhood of thirty to fifty billion dollars. That is enough to break a number of these financial institutions in there.
should government just get the hell outta the way and leave this be, and let the magic 'o the free market take care 'o things?
be this more onerous overreach by our regulatory agencies?
- MeadHallPirate
Vice President
Sarbanes-Oxley places responsibilty on Directors personal assets, not the Corps.
This is a smoke screen maneuver to make O look aggresive and it will be dropped very quickly.
You should always have an informed opinion, so after I inform you, please feel free to express my opinion...USCitizen
Secretary of Defense
They took tax payer money and should pay back at least twice as much plus interest. If BOA don't want to settle out of court then the suit should go forward, if they crash, they crash.Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate
Secretary of Defense
Banks were forced to write shit loans by te government and bundled those loans with good loans and the government is mad because Fannie bought those shit loans....
Are vital U.S. interests more imperiled by what happens in Iraq where were have 50,000 troops, or Afghanistan where we have 100,000, or South Korea where we have 28,000 -- or by what is happening on our border with Mexico?...What does it profit America if we save Anbar and lose Arizona?
P, Buchanan
http://faceswaps.files.wordpress.com...ke-it-rain.gif
2011 USPOL Most Valuable Poster (MVP)
ahoy Wooyarn me friend,
but wouldn't that be an anti-business maneuver by the Obama administration?
wouldn't a more pro-business mindset be to just let the thing pass into history and not try to re-open these wounds?
- MeadHallPirate
2011 USPOL Most Valuable Poster (MVP)
ahoy CSA,
if thats true, then again, as i said, wouldn't it be better fer the government to not pursue these beleagured banks and let'm be? if anything, the government owes the banks money fer forcin' them to do things that they probably made fearsome attempts to resist doin'.
agreed?
- MeadHallPirate
Secretary of Defense
That's BS and you know it.
Administrator
That's an interesting snip of conversation you caught there MHP. It's especially interesting because the main reason that Fannie and Freddie bought the "crap" was because that's exactly what they were created for!
2011 USPOL Most Valuable Poster (MVP)
ahoy Lutherf,
AYE!
so then ye agree then, that President Obama's FHHA ought to get outta the way and let the free market work its magic, aye?
lawsuits ought to be dropped, fer one thing is fer certain, thar be nothin' particularly pro-business in filin' lawsuits that'll cause the DOW to tumble and weaken our mighty bankin' industry.
agreed?
- MeadHallPirate
Secretary of State
Yes I agree, Fannie and Freddie were part of the problem, now to say they were duped is ludicrous. Fannie and Freddie had no obligation to buy any loan that did not meet its standards of credit worthiness. The problem Fannie and Freddie dropped all their standards, to the point you could buy a house with no money down, no job, no credit to pay anything, and not a dime in the bank.
This all needs to go away.
Administrator
Depends on what the banks are being sued for. I read an article the other day alleging kickbacks for reinsurance and if that was part of what was going on it should be punished.
Secretary of State
Ahoy, my pirate friend!
While one can definitely argue that this lawsuit is bad for B of A, bad for the stock market, bad for the banking industry in general, and bad for the economy, it is certainly part of the free market mechanism.
In the free market, when one is defrauded, then one is allowed to sue for redress of one's grievances.
Now if it is true that the government forced the big banks to bundle these loans and sell them to F & F, then the suit hardly seems right, but if the banks knew or should have known that they were defrauding investors, then the lawsuit is just another gear in the free market machine, as I see it.
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law" because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Isaac H Tiffany (1819)
2011 USPOL Most Valuable Poster (MVP)
ahoy Lutherf,
here be the details;
Government Sues Banks Over Risky Mortgages : NPRIn a sweeping move, the government on Friday sued 17 financial firms, including the largest U.S. banks, for selling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac billions of dollars worth of mortgage-backed securities that turned toxic when the housing market collapsed.
Among the 17 targeted by the lawsuits were Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., JP Morgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs.
In the lawsuits that were filed in federal or state court in New York and the federal court in Connecticut, the government said the securities were sold with registration statements and prospectuses that "contained materially false or misleading statements and omissions."
The Federal agency said the banks and mortgage lenders also falsely represented that the mortgage loans in the securities complied with underwriting guidelines and standards. They also included representations "that significantly overstated the ability of the borrower to repay their mortgage loans."
The 17 institutions are Ally Financial Inc., formerly known GMAC LLC, Bank of America Corp., Barclays Bank PLC, Citigroup Inc., Countrywide Financial Corp., Credit Suisse Holdings Inc., Deutsche Bank AG, First Horizon National Corp., General Electric Co., Goldman Sachs & Co., HSBC North America Holdings Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Merrill Lynch & Co. and its unit First Franklin Financial Corp., Morgan Stanley, Nomura Holding America Inc., The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, and Societe Generale.
what say ye, matey?
be this onerous, antibusiness overreach....or be it a move by the President Obama's FHHA that ye believe be a righteous and just salvo?
- MeadHallPirate
2011 USPOL Most Valuable Poster (MVP)
ahoy oh mighty Smurf!!!
matey, i think the question as ye posed, hinges on other factors, aye?
i mean, i question whether F&F, even if they were under pressure, woulda bought up these loans in such heaps if they were assessed as "C" ratings, instead 'o "AAA". i mean, thar be a world 'o difference 'tween them ratings.
i know ye know this, but fer them who aren't well versed in such matters (such as meself, rawr!), a "C" ratin' is essentially a loan that be encumbered by massive risk exposure.
aye?
- MeadHallPirate
Administrator
Ah, this is about mortgage backed securities rather than mortgages. That pretty much settles it for me and the government can go take a flying leap as far as I'm concerned on this.
Most of these derivatives existed only because F&F held the mortgages which was an implicit guarantee of their risk. I don't see how the banks can be held liable by the government for something that the government created and YES, it's anti-business.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks