bank of america paid bonuses to foreclose

[birdog1960]

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.

[meazza]

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.

 

And what is your solution?

[IDBillzFan]

And what is your solution?

 

Take that bonus money and give it to the people who signed a contract to take on a mortage they knew they couldn't afford. It's only fair.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Again, I don't know of anyone who was forced to take out a home loan they couldn't afford; nor have I ever heard of a single reason why a company should walk back an agreement, a singed contract nonee-th-less, because the other party cannot meet their contractual obligations. It seems to me that if the party who has honored their contractual obligations can make a larger profit by following the terms of that contract, then there is no reason to modify. That's how contracts work. It's why we have them in the first place.

 

But I digress. I'm just waiting for the stock price to tumble again so folks like me can turn another tidy profit.

[KD in CA]

And what is your solution?

 

Notice his solution won't have anything to do with the idiots who put the incentives in place for such behavior.

 

[birdog1960]

Again, I don't know of anyone who was forced to take out a home loan they couldn't afford; nor have I ever heard of a single reason why a company should walk back an agreement, a singed contract nonee-th-less, because the other party cannot meet their contractual obligations. It seems to me that if the party who has honored their contractual obligations can make a larger profit by following the terms of that contract, then there is no reason to modify. That's how contracts work. It's why we have them in the first place.

 

But I digress. I'm just waiting for the stock price to tumble again so folks like me can turn another tidy profit.

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.

[DC Tom]

Again, I don't know of anyone who was forced to take out a home loan they couldn't afford;

 

I do know quite a few cases where they were conned into it, though.

 

And a lot of those were through Countrywide, which makes them BofA's current responsibility, though not fault.

[....lybob]

Take that bonus money and give it to the people who signed a contract to take on a mortage they knew they couldn't afford. It's only fair.

yeah I'm sure some people bit off more than they could chew but that wasn't the only thing happening

 

The schemes most directly associated with the escalating mortgage fraud problem continue to be those defined as fraud for profit. Prominent schemes include loan origination, foreclosure rescue, builder bailout, short sale, credit enhancement, loan modification, illegal property flipping, seller assistance, bust-out, debt elimination, mortgage backed securities, real estate investment, multiple loan, assignment fee, air loan, asset rental, backwards application, reverse mortgage fraud, and equity skimming. Many of these schemes employ various techniques such as the use of straw buyers, identity theft, silent seconds, quit claims, land trusts, shell companies, fraudulent loan documents (including forged applications, settlement statements, and verification of employment, rental, occupancy, income, and deposit), double sold loans to secondary investors, leasebacks, and inflated appraisals.

Mortgage Fraud Perpetrators

Mortgage fraud perpetrators are industry insiders, including mortgage brokers, lenders, appraisers, underwriters, accountants, real estate agents, settlement attorneys, land developers, investors, builders, and bank and trust account representatives. Perpetrators are also known to recruit ethnic community members as victims and co-conspirators. FBI reporting indicates numerous ethnic groups are involved in mortgage fraud either as perpetrators or victims. This type of mortgage fraud is known as affinity fraud. Ethnic groups involved in mortgage loan origination fraud include North Korean, Russian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Lithuanian, Mexican, Polish, Middle Eastern, Chinese, and those from the former Republic of Yugoslavian States. Street gangs such as the Conservative Vice Lords, Black P. Stone Nation, New Breeds, Four Corner Hustlers, Bloods, and Outlaw Motorcycle Gang are also involved in various forms of mortgage loan origination fraud as a means to launder money from illicit drug proceeds. Additionally, African, Asian, Balkan, and Eurasian organized crime groups have also been linked to various mortgage fraud schemes.

 

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/mortgage-fraud-2009

[birdog1960]

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.

[TakeYouToTasker]

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.

Right... so have a bunch of government bureaucrats and career lawyers with a limited to vacant understanding of finance and investment, and your going to have them dictate the rules of finance and investment.

 

I can't see how anything could possibly go wrong.

[....lybob]

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.

yeah good point I shouldn't engage in a side topic- if they won't fulfill the contract at least they should return the governments money and really if a contract is broken in private business I think a penalty is common.

[birdog1960]

Right... so have a bunch of government bureaucrats and career lawyers with a limited to vacant understanding of finance and investment, and your going to have them dictate the rules of finance and investment.

 

I can't see how anything could possibly go wrong.

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.

[DC Tom]

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.

 

Actually, not only was no such agreement was expressed or implied in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, HAMP was set up under a completely different piece of legislation a year later.

 

And the bailout wasn't supposed to help people...or corporations for that matter. It was intended to keep the capital markets from collapsing.

 

You managed to get a hell of a lot wrong with comparatively few words.

[birdog1960]

yeah good point I shouldn't engage in a side topic- if they won't fulfill the contract at least they should return the governments money and really if a contract is broken in private business I think a penalty is common.

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?

 

Actually, not only was no such agreement was expressed or implied in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, HAMP was set up under a completely different piece of legislation a year later.

 

And the bailout wasn't supposed to help people...or corporations for that matter. It was intended to keep the capital markets from collapsing.

 

You managed to get a hell of a lot wrong with comparatively few words.

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.

[....lybob]

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?

are you kidding? the precedent has been set at the government getting about 5% of the bank's illegal profits, making them pay back the whole thing is positively draconian

[TakeYouToTasker]

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.

Actually, since you've asked: Anyone with a deep enough understanding of finance to write a code governing the entire industry already works in finance.

 

The problem isn't with the laws. The laws we have are a symptom of our broken system and activist government.

 

are you kidding? the precedent has been set at the government getting about 5% of the bank's illegal profits, making them pay back the whole thing is positively draconian

Not to mention that what he suggests would lead to the complete collapse of our financial system.

[birdog1960]

 

 

 

Not to mention that what he suggests would lead to the complete collapse of our financial system.

pretty certain that this time he was being facetious.

[DC Tom]

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.

 

Go ahead and fact-check. You'll find that AARA provided the Treasury with the authority to set up a program to relieve homeowners headed towards foreclosure AND provide capitalization to the banks via TARP, but HAMP was set up a year later by Treasury to provide incentives to banks to modify loans. Nowhere will you find any statement requiring TARP money to be used for HAMP - they're completely different programs, completely different buckets of money, and the idiot who wrote the article probably confused the two.

[birdog1960]

Go ahead and fact-check. You'll find that AARA provided the Treasury with the authority to set up a program to relieve homeowners headed towards foreclosure AND provide capitalization to the banks via TARP, but HAMP was set up a year later by Treasury to provide incentives to banks to modify loans. Nowhere will you find any statement requiring TARP money to be used for HAMP - they're completely different programs, completely different buckets of money, and the idiot who wrote the article probably confused the two.

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..."

[DC Tom]

1st stop was here. http://www.dsnews.co...ions-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.

 

Looks like the judge feels BofA violated HAMP. I don't see anywhere that the court links HAMP and TARP.

 

I see where the lawyer does...but only in a bloviating public statement. One attorney saying stupid **** (which attorneys do all the time) doesn't make HAMP part of TARP.

 

EDIT: And you're bitching about an old case that was already settled?

Edited June 18, 2013 by DC Tom