birdog1960

if this is true, then why foot drag on refi's as is alleged? why push people into forclosure, when by your reasoning refi would be better for everyone? because, at the time, it was not. boa found they could do better going through the foreclosure process or cornering people into higher rate internal refi's that save the homeowners nothing than offering refi's through the gov't program that they were contractually obliged to assist with.in regards, to your first paragraph, i guess your arguing that because $25 billion isn't a relatively large hit to companies with bigger balance sheets than a large number of nations, that it's not much money. and by extension, not important....too big to fail indeed - that's the problem.

the checks ranged from 300-125000 dollars in this smaller settlement.. recission of foreclosure was also included in some cases. that's a pretty big deal if you were foreclosed against. think the banks would have done that on their own? http://occ.gov/topics/consumer-protection/foreclosure-prevention/correcting-foreclosure-practices.html

you're so caught up in semantics you can't see the asteroid threatening your home. he said settlements weren't done for legal reasons. i argued that they sometimes were as defensibility can be of premier importance. ie defensibility = legal... why bother. why don't you go open an account at boa and pick up a nice toaster.

your dismissal or at least disregard for likely massive fraud on the part of one of the worlds largest banks shows your lack of understanding on the gravity of this issue. could it be that admission of a problem in this and similar cases undermines the basis for trust in large financial institutions in general? that we realize that the natural history of the system inevitably leads to lying, cheating, deceit and corruption. we may even have seen such things in action on this board on occasion. i'm still wondering if tasker really did fire his housekeeper and gardener. so far, the settlement from all banks involved has been about $25 billion. in what universe is that a pittance? and that's before these new allegations even came to light. you think maybe there's a chance more suits are to follow? and neither side in the settlement apparently agreed with you that robosigning was nonsense.

i took tasker's point to be that defensibility was not an issue. that's what he challenged me on. i say it's a big issue. especially in this case for the reasons outlined. but i'm not at all sure why anyone reading the exchange would miss that. are you on the wrong page?

really? always? i've been asked to review charts by defendants attorneys to decide whether a case is worth defending. i'm told it's standard practice.. how important could court costs be in comparison to billions? concern for reputation? sure, cuz boa's is so stellar right now.

yeah, a few stella/guiness black and tans at the end of a long day. a bit grandiose, i'll admit. to paraphrase churchill: "yes madame, i'm drunk. but you're ugly and in the morning i'll be sober".doesn't change the fact, the banks got caught cheating those they foreclosed on. them paying out the largest private settlement in history without a fight means they didn't have a decent defense despite gg's contentions. the new case will hopefully go to trial but i doubt it. they probably don't have a defense this time either. what happened before they started cheating on foreclosures is irrelevant as to whether they cheated at magnitudes never seen before.

um, maybe there was a plan. hell, these are smart, cynical, calculating people, after all. what's a few years letting the undeserving live in relative luxury when we can get back more than we "gave" and profit on the foreclosure and legal fees more than we could profit on them paying their mortgages? nah, probably giving them too much credit. it just worked out in their favor by chance. sure. what's the current interest rate for a home buyer? the prime rate charged the banks by the gov't? the spread?

not that i concede your point, but how would that make their actions any more palatable?

well, that's easy. i'd think an OC manifesto would be mandated for that response.

why are you so sure that the banks did nothing illegal? what's the evidence in their defense? HAMP and TARP were supposedly meant to save us from economic collapse by limiting the housing crash impact. so the banks apparently devise a way to reverse the intentions, increase foreclosures and pocket tidy sums. all at the cost of the foreclosed and the economy as a whole. wealth redistribution at its pinnacle or nadir depending on whether you're in the banking industry. makes anything progressives propose in the other direction look trivial. bravo!

took a little while as this struck me as just so wrong and then it hit me. yup, big numbers impress me. like the amount of money need to buy nearly 1/2 the existing nfl franchises or hell, to start your own damn league.. or to pay the salaries of everyone in the city of buffalo for several years...too lazy to do the math but rest assured, several. yup, that impresses me. but not you. i wonder why, i really do.

no problem with banks making a legitimate profit. this is something very different. it's a pattern of very questionable practices that so far have been settled for billions of dollars...in favor of people who lost their homes to foreclosure through the actions of this particular bank. (and sevral others have settled for billions as well) and now another lawsuit with bank employees ready to testify to systematic and premeditated fraud. it appears to be an industry tactic. that's a little different then having add on charges below a certain balance that was in the fine print of a contract all along. if most of america is ok with that then i suppose we deserve what we get. i personally don't like to be played and don't like to see others played. but that just me.

i have this http://nationalmortgagesettlement.com/ to go on from an earlier lawsuit. $1.5 billion settlement...that kind of payout implies some wrong doing to me. and this 11.8 billion dollar payout http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/bank-of-america-loan-modifications_n_1500902.html

no. the second article refers to another case but makes the same point linking TARP to the obligation to modify loans. (i stated earlier this wasnt the first time they've been sued.) the first link is to the recent case that i saw first reported yesterday. we're talking probable theft of billions of dollars here but folks get much more excited about a beat down on an inner city bus. mystifying...

1st stop was here. http://www.dsnews.com/articles/bank-of-america-faces-lawsuit-over-denied-hamp-modifications-2011-07-08 plantiff's attorney certainly feels their connected. see 2nd to last paragraph. looks like the judge feels there may be some fire under the smoke. btw, why isn't this on drudge? seems a pretty big story. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/bank-of-america-sued-by-homeowners-for-withholding-federal-bailout-funds-says-hagens-berman-88917897.htmlseems this writer might be "confused" as well. " boa like other TARP funded financial institutions is obligated to offere alternatives to foreclosure and permanently reduce mortgage payment for eligible borrowers..."

pretty certain that this time he was being facetious.

geez, i hope you're being facetious...discipline with a velvet glove? how bout reparations to all those that should have been refinanced with penalties tacked on. boa barred from further gov't loans. obviously stiff penalties to be paid to the taxpayers and how bout some jail time? that's usually the penalty for grand larceny, no? i quoted the article re the agreement between govt and boa. hen i get a chance i'll fact check but i'm betting on the cnbc writer over you.the bailout was meant to save the financial system which was crumbling mostly from the housing collapse. so HAMP was meant to attempt a remedy through refi's for troubled mortgages. it's not a stretch to say oit wsasmeant to help the people that held thse papers.

could it be any worse than proven thieve's writing the rules? you think maybe they could find some people with a finance background that might be willing to help? some true patriots who value principles over money? but that might involve some academics....naw, you don't want that.

the issues of who is at blame for the loans, why they failed, if borrowers were initially lied to are irrelevant to the lawsuit and reported offenses of boa in these instances. that's background noise as it applies here. "boa agreed to abide by HAMP program guidelines, which require it to modify loans for qualified buyers when it accepted $25 billion from the govt in 2008 following the housing collapse. in return for the financial lifeline, the bank agreed to help millions of struggling homeowners by rewriting mortgages..." but, they didn't. despite agreeing to $25 billion during a time of possible collapse of their business, they renigged. and they renigged to maximaize profits at the expense of the people the bailout was ultimately supposed to help. if you don't see that as sinister, i doubt there's much big corporations can do that you would disapprove of.

boa was given $26 billion from the taxpayers in agreement for restructuring toubled mortgages (ie a contract). thet didn't do it. in fact, per the employees involved in the case they actually actively and purposefuly obstructed the process. so you all believe that's ok? we should trust this bank? if this is proven true, you don't think people should be severely punished?my solution would include severe punishment (including criminal if a case can be made), removal of the financial industry from negotiations on finance reform, campaign reform to remove at least some of the obvious corruption, tighter regulation and oversight of the banking industry. we're seeing wqhat happens when the fox guards the chicken house. but go ahead, blame the chickens. it's much easier and they're used to getting the short end of the stick.

These good people that run the big banks just warm my heart http://www.cnbc.com/id/100818866. how perverse is it that they can make more in fees related to foreclosures than acutaully collecting mortgage payments? they seem to have rewritten the golden rule along with several other rules. not the first time they've been sued for fraud on foreclosures. just don't think you can teach old dogs new tricks especially when the punishment is a hand slap. i feel better knowing that these folks are so influential on legislation about finance reform.

interesting data and salient to the later discussion in this thread (seems no one really cares much about political demographics which will likely shape policy for decades). the ben franklin quote doesn't apply because given your assumptions, only the top 60% did better. do we really want to consider the top 40% not poor? that would be admitting systemic defeat, wouldn't it. but what proof do you have that inflation is underreported? the argument rests on that premise.

really? in the us, how bout changing capital gains taxes? stopping large campaign contributions that influence political decisions for the benefit of the wealthy? on a global level, admittedly it would require an unlikely major paradigm shift. but why wouldn't those actions in the us have an effect on income disparity?

no. the essence of the question to me is: at what level of income and wealth disparity are the most talented people still motivated to give their best effort? i believe we are currently way past that number. for example: doctors and lawyers make roughly 3-4x national medians for income (while after a long career their accumulated wealth would likely be a higher multiple) yet there's no shortage of applicants to law or med school. and both require significant sacrifice and effort. not on expert on demming, but i've heard it said that he proposes no more than an income differential greater than a multiple of somewhere around 30 for higest to lowest paid for an efficient corporation. i believe the incentives are obscenely, artificially and unnecessarily high. to lower them to a more efficient level doesn't constitute communism or even socialism.