bank of america paid bonuses to foreclose

[birdog1960]

Out of curiosity, have you ever wondered how the bubble started and how a reasonable person would want to understand that before arguing about how to fight the symptoms? Why did the downtrodden get sucked into or feel that they were intitled to loans that would provide them with homes way out of their price range? What would make a business owner (lenders) make loans that were very questionable? Answer that and you'll be on the road to discovering what the real problems was/is.

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.

 

Again, your whole premise is that the bulk of the blame was on the banks and not on the mortgage brokers who fronted the loans. There's a reason the AG went after the banks - it's easier and that's where the money is. Good luck chasing thousands of shady mortgage brokers who disappeared into the woods as soon as the music stopped.

 

The banks found it a lot easier to accept the fines, move on and charge more for the next mortgages to recoup the extortion.

sure. what's the current interest rate for a home buyer? the prime rate charged the banks by the gov't? the spread?

[3rdnlng]

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?

 

Either you're drunk and I'll give you a pass or you are really stupid. I asked you about how this whole schit started and you claim it started with the banks? Have you been living on a deserted island for the last several years? Your ilk started the ball rolling on this with your desire to force more "equality". Now you want your opposition to cover for your mistakes.

[birdog1960]

Either you're drunk and I'll give you a pass or you are really stupid. I asked you about how this whole schit started and you claim it started with the banks? Have you been living on a deserted island for the last several years? Your ilk started the ball rolling on this with your desire to force more "equality". Now you want your opposition to cover for your mistakes.

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.

[TakeYouToTasker]

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.

Settling is a business decision, not a legal one.

[birdog1960]

Settling is a business decision, not a legal one.

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.

[Joe Miner]

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.

 

So apparently you don't understand the term "business decision".

 

Just trying to make sure we're all on the same page.

[birdog1960]

So apparently you don't understand the term "business decision".

 

Just trying to make sure we're all on the same page.

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?

Edited June 20, 2013 by birdog1960

[Joe Miner]

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?

 

Your dismissal of it being a business decision based on winning a billion dollars versus court costs shows your lack of understanding of what a business decision is.

[jjamie12]

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?

 

One could easily take the opposite position of yours and say: "Well if the case against these companies is so strong and the American people have been so harmed, why would the AG's settle for such a relative pittance"?

 

Didn't the settlement amount come out to something like $800 per foreclosed customer or something?

 

Ultimately no one can really get past the truth that 99.99% of the people who were foreclosed on weren't paying their mortgage and, independent of all the other robo-signing nonsense, that's what matters.

[birdog1960]

Your dismissal of it being a business decision based on winning a billion dollars versus court costs shows your lack of understanding of what a business decision is.

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.

 

One could easily take the opposite position of yours and say: "Well if the case against these companies is so strong and the American people have been so harmed, why would the AG's settle for such a relative pittance"?

 

Didn't the settlement amount come out to something like $800 per foreclosed customer or something?

 

Ultimately no one can really get past the truth that 99.99% of the people who were foreclosed on weren't paying their mortgage and, independent of all the other robo-signing nonsense, that's what matters.

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.

Edited June 20, 2013 by birdog1960

[Joe Miner]

you're 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 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.

 

Please show me where I have dismissed any such thing.

 

Tasker told you it was a business decision. You responded with a retarded statement seemingly showing your ignorance about what goes into making an actual business decision.

 

How do you expect someone to have a genuine conversation with you when you put forth stupidity like that?

Edited June 20, 2013 by Joe Miner

[birdog1960]

Please show me where I have dismissed any such thing.

 

Tasker told you it was a business decision. You responded with a retarded statement seemingly showing your ignorance about what goes into making an actual business decision.

 

How do you expect someone to have a genuine conversation with you when you put forth stupidity like that?

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.

[birdog1960]

One could easily take the opposite position of yours and say: "Well if the case against these companies is so strong and the American people have been so harmed, why would the AG's settle for such a relative pittance"?

 

Didn't the settlement amount come out to something like $800 per foreclosed customer or something?

 

Ultimately no one can really get past the truth that 99.99% of the people who were foreclosed on weren't paying their mortgage and, independent of all the other robo-signing nonsense, that's what matters.

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

[jjamie12]

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.

 

 

See, this right here is the problem. i don't think you understand what you're talking about. I might be wrong, but the settlement you've been referencing all along was $9.3 BN, NOT $26. I *think* the $26 BN you're now talking about was a reference (I think -- since it doesn't seem like you fully understand how all this works, it's really hard to know exactly what you're trying to say) to the amount of $$ available to banks for the HAMP program.

 

Even if it WERE $26 BN, you still don't seem to understand that $26 BN actually IS a pittance. The three main banks (JPM/Wells/B of A) made $44.7 BN in 2012. So you might look at this and say "See! This fine (even though that's not the right amount) was more than half a year's income for those greedy evil banksters... I'm glad the gov't is sticking it to them!" That's exactly what the AGs want you, Mr. Joe Public to think. What you, Mr. Joe Public doesn't understand is that they've been putting money away for years to pay for these settlements that they knew were coming and that the $44.7 Bn they made in 2012 on top of the billions and billions of dollars they've made over the past 3-4 years is over and above the 'huge' penalty they now face. This wasn't their first rodeo, cowboy.

 

See how nice that is for everyone? Attorneys General, knowing their case is not nearly as strong as their inflammatory statements, love to throw a shiny object in front of the people so they're convinced "something is being done!" Not to mention the mileage that these AG's get out of this settlement when they inevitably make their Congressional/Senatorial/Gubernatorial run a few years from now. And Banks, God bless 'em -- They know how this works, too: It looks bad for them, even though they didn't *really* do a whole lot wrong, so they're willing to settle for a relative pittance (for them). The last thing any of these people want is a long protracted legal battle. The Banks because it's bad for their Brand. The AGs because they know that they probably won't win, or, at the least, won't win in any significant way... Isn't it great?

 

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/topic...-practices.html

 

This isn't the 'smaller' settlement. This is the settlement that you've been talking about, no?

 

Edit: Now I see what you're talking about -- You're talking about the settlement where the bank's agreed to refi people rather than foreclose on them -- They agreed to put aside $26 BN or so to do the re-financings. That wasn't a 'fine', though. That's the banks re-financing under-water mortgages and such. Banks will, generally, come out way ahead on that deal, too because they'll continue to earn interest and fees on those loans that they modify. See the shiny object theory from above.

Edited June 20, 2013 by jjamie12

[GG]

and neither side in the settlement apparently agreed with you that robosigning was nonsense.

 

Robosigning was nonsense.

[birdog1960]

 

Edit: Now I see what you're talking about -- You're talking about the settlement where the bank's agreed to refi people rather than foreclose on them -- They agreed to put aside $26 BN or so to do the re-financings. That wasn't a 'fine', though. That's the banks re-financing under-water mortgages and such. Banks will, generally, come out way ahead on that deal, too because they'll continue to earn interest and fees on those loans that they modify. See the shiny object theory from above.

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.

Edited June 20, 2013 by birdog1960

[GG]

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 then 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.

 

Again, you don't know this. All you have is the article which lifted the plaintiffs' contentions.

 

It's very likely that many of the article's allegations are due to very poor coordination of BoA's mortgage systems in the wake of buying Countrywide. It's probably more that incompetence than a concerted effort to intentionally push people into foreclosure instead of refinancing.

[jjamie12]

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 then 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.

Everything I wrote was in response to the later theme in this thread that developed that "The Banks MUST have been doing something wrong, why else would they settle?" As folks have been trying to point out to you: Because it made more sense, business-wise to settle than to fight it. Everyone wins.

 

In response to the earlier portion of your post -- You actually answered your own question: Because it's more profitable to lend to the same borrower at a higher rate than at a lower rate. IE: "Internal" refis vs. HAMP refis. By the way, I'm not excusing B of A's alleged misdeeds on the referened CNBC article. If those allegations turn out to be true, I hope they come down extremely hard on them. My guess, though, is that the allegations are somewhat overblown and what we're really talking about are low-level managers of the people who deal with the customers and paperwork put into place some bad incentive structures, and/or were responding to incentive structures of their own that weren't thought out properly. I'd be HIGHLY surprised, if, for instance, there was a directive coming from a position of any relative authority that said "Don't process HAMP applications, let them sit in a stack and then lie to customers about it".

 

Also, part of the huge problem with the early stages of HAMP was they way that (surprise, surprise!) the gov't designed the program. To keep it simple -- The reason the early HAMP (and other HAMP-type programs) didn't work was because the risk continued to be with the banks that originated that modification, whether or not they sold the loan or whether or not they followed the guidelines properly. When the gov't finally came out with the HAMP 3 (or whatever iteration it was) they finally got it correct by having the risk of the loan going into default ultimately come down to whomever bought and owned the loan.

[DC Tom]

Again, you don't know this. All you have is the article which lifted the plaintiffs' contentions.

 

It's very likely that many of the article's allegations are due to very poor coordination of BoA's mortgage systems in the wake of buying Countrywide. It's probably more that incompetence than a concerted effort to intentionally push people into foreclosure instead of refinancing.

 

Lord knows that's what happened with Wells Fargo.

 

When we asked about a loan modification (to recover some money to fix foundation damage from a flood - better we all work together than we all get screwed, I figured), Wells actually told us that we had to be in foreclosure to get any adjustment to our mortgage. Then when we refused to default on our mortgage they put us in to foreclosure based on the idea that our inquiry alone represented an intent to default.

 

And it clearly wasn't fraud...it was obvious customer service "phone drone" idiocy.

[Taro T]

Everything I wrote was in response to the later theme in this thread that developed that "The Banks MUST have been doing something wrong, why else would they settle?" As folks have been trying to point out to you: Because it made more sense, business-wise to settle than to fight it. Everyone wins.

 

In response to the earlier portion of your post -- You actually answered your own question: Because it's more profitable to lend to the same borrower at a higher rate than at a lower rate. IE: "Internal" refis vs. HAMP refis. By the way, I'm not excusing B of A's alleged misdeeds on the referened CNBC article. If those allegations turn out to be true, I hope they come down extremely hard on them. My guess, though, is that the allegations are somewhat overblown and what we're really talking about are low-level managers of the people who deal with the customers and paperwork put into place some bad incentive structures, and/or were responding to incentive structures of their own that weren't thought out properly. I'd be HIGHLY surprised, if, for instance, there was a directive coming from a position of any relative authority that said "Don't process HAMP applications, let them sit in a stack and then lie to customers about it".

 

Also, part of the huge problem with the early stages of HAMP was they way that (surprise, surprise!) the gov't designed the program. To keep it simple -- The reason the early HAMP (and other HAMP-type programs) didn't work was because the risk continued to be with the banks that originated that modification, whether or not they sold the loan or whether or not they followed the guidelines properly. When the gov't finally came out with the HAMP 3 (or whatever iteration it was) they finally got it correct by having the risk of the loan going into default ultimately come down to whomever bought and owned the loan.

Yep. These are banks we're dealing with; not the IRS.