It has certainly taken long enough but more arrests are being made in the massive mortgage fraud schemes that have plagued the industry over the past few years.
NEW YORK – A mortgage fraud crackdown announced Thursday resulted in the arrests of dozens of people, including six lawyers, seven loan officers and three mortgage brokers in four states.
Thirty-one people were arrested in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and North Carolina. They were among 41 people charged with engaging in mortgage fraud scams that defrauded lenders out of more than $64 million in home mortgage loans.
It's just a drop in the bucket but it is good news. Hopefully we'll see many more such arrests and it will reach into the banks and financial firms that helped promulgate these frauds. Current Mood : happy Tags : banking, housing, mortgages, scandals Location : Home
Under Obama's plan, the Federal Reserve would gain power to supervise holding companies and large financial institutions considered so big that their failure could undermine the nation's financial system. But even as it gained new powers, the Fed would lose some banking authority to the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
So we get a lot of new "free markets are bad" style regulations without any changes in government regulations and/or oversight that contributed to the crises. Gee, that sounds like a recipe for smooth sailing!
Obama's scheme would also put an end to the alleged independence of the Federal Reserve:
Obama's proposal would require the Federal Reserve, which now can independently use emergency powers to bail out failing banks, to first obtain Treasury Department approval before extending credit to institutions in "unusual and exigent circumstances."
I have no illusions about the chances of that happening in an era where those in the government who helped cause the problem are instead rewarded and lauded as saviors of the people. The foxes are not only guarding the hen house, they are giving themselves raises and awards for the "fine" job they've been doing. Current Mood : determined Tags : banking, barney frank, chris dodd, democrats, federal regulations, obama administration, scandals Location : Home
You may have noticed something unusual about those "stress" tests the government ran on the top financial institutions.
Namely, the people complaining the most about them were politicians who want more regulations and even nationalization of the financial industry. Sure, the media tried to portray is as "bipartisan" complaining, but their favorite RINO had already switched parties. (Oops, better update that file!) They even told you it was the financial institutions themselves that were the ones creating all the noise. However, reality doesn't quite match up to their stories.
Once the banks new the (latest) rules to the game their stocks rallied. Once you know the rules you can lobby against them!
Politicians, for the most part, responded by calling for increased "conditions" to be placed on the banks to "allow" them to pay their way out of government meddling.
Yes, you read that right. Financial institutions can only get rid of government interference when the government tells them it is okay. Hmmm...I can't see any unforeseen consequences to that, can you?
The creeping national socialism of the Obama administration keeps marching right along. If you'll excuse me I need to check into moving my money offshore. I'm not exactly thrilled with the notion of doing my banking at the Bank of Obama. Current Mood : cynical Tags : banking, national socialism, obama administration Location : Home
Fresh from driving GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy Obama is now centering his aim on financial institutions.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The financial sector will make up a smaller part of the U.S. economy in the future as new regulations clamp down on "massive risk-taking," President Barack Obama said in an interview published on Saturday.
Obama, whose young administration has spearheaded a raft of reforms in the banking sector as part of efforts to tackle the financial crisis, said the industry's role in the United States would look different at the end of the current recession.
I hope you don't have too many shares of companies Obama doesn't approve of.
Heck, at this point I can't think of any company that I'd want to own shares of. Current Mood : determined Tags : banking, barack obama Location : Home
The economy was just as bad in the first quarter of this year as it was in the last quarter of last year. (Which of course means that fiscal year 2009—which runs from last three months of 2008 through September of 2009—is going to be very bad.)
Wasn't Obama supposed to magically change all that? Weren't things "already getting better" because he was electedtook officehad 100 days under his belt uh...well...uh...Bush bad! Bush bad! :P
Obama reiterated his intent to destroy the banking industry during his 100 day speech. I hope no one is surprised when he nationalizes them or forces them into non-profit status. Apparently in the Obamanation it is morally wrong to make money when you lend money to other people. Hmmm...where have I heard that before? Current Mood : busy Tags : banking, economic growth, economy, obama administration Location : Home
This result is consistent with the moral hazard argument that non-risk-rated deposit insurance induces banks toward excessive risk taking and therefore results in more bank failures. The moral hazard hypothesis is also supported by the empirical results of Richard Grossman (1992). [20] The fact that Canada had no bank failures and runs at all during the period under study seems to suggest that regulations are necessary and desirable to stabilize a banking system. This policy recommendation, however, should be made with qualifications. First, in the statistical sense, our empirical results show that free banking is not more prone to bank failures than regulated banking. Moreover, the finding that the American banking system had a higher bank failure rate than the Canadian system, though both were regulated, is consistent with Benston's allegation that the U.S. regulatory authorities were not adequate in preventing bank failures. That the mere existence of regulations does not necessarily stabilize the banking industry is also supported by the Hong Kong experience.
And the money quote:
If a free banking system is not more prone to bank failures than other banking systems, it can be an effective alternative to banking reform. Regulatory authorities, threfore, should not assume that more regulations naturally translate into fewer bank failures.
You won't hear that from the rabid left which lusts for the blood of everyone who makes more money than they do.
The added bonus of a free(er) market is that overpaid executives (i.e., those who fail to perform) will lose their job as a natural consequence of their companies going bankrupt or being bought out by competitors. Current Mood : busy Tags : banking, cato, free market Location : Home
March 19th, 2009, Fairfax, VA—Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson today in a letter urged President Barack Obama and members of Congress to "return the $4.37 million they received in campaign contributions from AIG since 1989, including the $644,218 they received in 2008."
"If the American people are to believe all the angry words and threats coming from the White House, President Obama must return the $104,332 he received from AIG during the 2008 campaign cycle," declared Wilson in a statement.
According to OpenSecrets.org, AIG gave some $644,218 to candidates for federal office in 2008. According to Wilson's letter, "[I]n return, it received from the Federal Reserve some $173 billion in taxpayer-guaranteed loans. That represents nearly a 27 million percent return on their 2008 'investment' into politicians' loyalty."
The holding company that owned Washington Mutual is calling shenanigans on the FDIC, arguing that the true worth of Washington Mutual was much more than the amount for which the FDIC sold it to JPMorgan Chase.
SEATTLE – Washington Mutual's holding company is suing federal regulators for billions of dollars, saying the firesale of the bank's assets to JPMorgan Chase violated its rights.
The lawsuit was filed Friday in federal court against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which seized the Seattle-based savings and loan in September. It was the largest bank failure in U.S. history.
Lawyers for the holding company, Washington Mutual Inc., argue that the bank was worth more than the $1.9 billion JPMorgan paid for it in a deal arranged by the FDIC. The lawsuit argues that if WaMu's assets had been liquidated prudently, they would have been worth more than that.
Indeed, if the free market had been allowed to function then JPMorgan Chase and other companies would have had to compete for Washington Mutual at market prices. The very act of buying part (or all) of Washington Mutual would have drive up the share price. The takeover of Wachovia, complete with a bidding war between Citigroup and Wells Fargo, was just such a situation, proving that banks could be taken over without a single taxpayer dollar being used (though the FDIC did meddle in that transaction as well).
Anyone who knows the history of the S&L problems from the 70s and 80s knows that forced sale of Washington Mutual is exactly the same kind of stunt the Resolution Trust Corporation would pull when it was given the power to liquidate financially "troubled" S&Ls. Frequently firms would be told on one day they were sound or were to purchase less solvent entities under the program, only to be taken over the next day for being "unsound".
The free market is far better at allocating resources and recovering them than any political entity ever will be. Current Mood : working Tags : banking, fdic, washington mutual Location : Home
Credit unions, of course, want no part of this. But just leave it to the pernicious Democrats to use weasel words to pretend they are "protecting" that industry by spreading the same disease that killed other industries. It doesn't make sense, but it doesn't have to when you're a Democrat! Current Mood : determined Tags : banking, mortgages Location : Home
I told you this would happen. Now banks are getting sued because they did lend to minorities, though allegedly in discriminatory ways.
Of course, the articles don't give you enough information to discern whether this claim is true. Why do I suspect that is because it isn't?
As we have seen, it doesn't have to be. As the lawsuit Barack Obama participated in demonstrated, the mere act of suing a bank often gets you the desired results. Current Mood : busy Tags : banking, big lie, race Location : Home
There is a mountain of evidence that shows we should not be doing what we are doing with regards to the banking and mortgage situations. We are in effect throwing good money after bad and allowing problem banks to "double down" on their bad bets, just like we did with the S&L crisis when it started in the late 1970s. The result will be the same: massively higher costs to properly resolve the situation years down the road.
The results? In 1994, 4.5% of the mortgage market was subprime and 31% of those subprime loans were securitized. By 2006, 20.1% of the entire mortgage market was subprime and 81% of those loans were securitized. The Congressional Budget Office now estimates that GSE losses will cost $240 billion in fiscal year 2009. If this crisis proves nothing else, it proves you cannot help people by lending them more money than they can pay back.
It shouldn't be a surprise that the same people who try to blame people like Gramm are advocating more of the same. Subsidizing failure is the raison d'être of this administration.
Gramm also neatly debunks the "deregulation" myth and attacks on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill which allowed banks, insurance companies and related companies to aggregate under bank holding companies.
GLB repealed part of the Great Depression era Glass-Steagall Act, and allowed banks, securities companies and insurance companies to affiliate under a Financial Services Holding Company. It seems clear that if GLB was the problem, the crisis would have been expected to have originated in Europe where they never had Glass-Steagall requirements to begin with. Also, the financial firms that failed in this crisis, like Lehman, were the least diversified and the ones that survived, like J.P. Morgan, were the most diversified.
Moreover, GLB didn't deregulate anything. It established the Federal Reserve as a superregulator, overseeing all Financial Services Holding Companies. All activities of financial institutions continued to be regulated on a functional basis by the regulators that had regulated those activities prior to GLB.
And so too with attacks on credit swaps:
When no evidence was ever presented to link GLB to the financial crisis -- and when former President Bill Clinton gave a spirited defense of this law, which he signed -- proponents of the deregulation thesis turned to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA), and specifically to credit default swaps.
Yet it is amazing how well the market for credit default swaps has functioned during the financial crisis. That market has never lost liquidity and the default rate has been low, given the general state of the underlying assets. In any case, the CFMA did not deregulate credit default swaps. All swaps were given legal certainty by clarifying that swaps were not futures, but remained subject to regulation just as before based on who issued the swap and the nature of the underlying contracts.
I would also add that if the people marketing credit swaps didn't understand them or know their true value then that is the fault of the people doing the trading.
I think it is also time to again note that Phil Gramm has a PhD in economics. During his time in Congress he was only one of two members to hold that distinction. (Of course, the other was also a Republican.) His education and background as a professor of economics allowed him to poke holes in the frivolous proposals the Democrats kept sending through Congress while he was there. Democrats will never forgive him for that.
It's not surprise that the magazine championing socialism is busily rewriting history. Instead of exposing Chris Dodd and Barney Frank's part in promulgating the financial troubles we now face, BusinessWeek attempts to prop them up as champions of reform who was obstructed by those nasty, evil Republicans.
I guess it is time to once again feature the video showing Democrat after Democrat denying that there were any problems back in 2004 while Republicans tried to fix them.
Chris Dodd and Barney Frank's involvement in this sordid affair has been well documented. This article in BusinessWeek is nothing more than attempt to rewrite history to hide the culpability of Democrats.
Democrats at center of financial crisis point fingers at others
Representative Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd, two figures at the center of the financial scandals that spun out into a crisis, are trying to shrug off the blame onto others. In a letter to USA Today they to blame the free market.
First, it will be hard to justify that Democratic "members supported virtually any program that provided credit to low-income purchasers and inner cities, regardless of whether this lending was prudent," when in fact we have been trying to pass a national anti-predatory lending legislation for years. But we were thwarted by a deregulation-loving Republican Congress that wanted to allow the "free" market to work its magic.
There's epic fail there. Both Frank and Dodd (among others) have been on record and on video as trying to stifle attempts to police the lending markets. In this video Frank claims "nothing is wrong" (starting at 4:52 and again at 6:02).
And Chris Dodd's sweatheart loan deals are well documented.
Once again we have people at the center of the scandals pretending to be watching out for our interests and pledging to find "the real criminals".
Paul Krugman, et al, have been claiming that "free markets" (i.e., companies not linked to the government) were primarily (if not wholly) responsible for the current financial scandals revolving around subprime loans.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac engaged in “an orgy of junk mortgage development” that turned the two mortgage-finance giants into vast repositories of subprime and similarly risky loans, a former Fannie executive testified on Tuesday…
The former executive, Edward J. Pinto, who was chief credit officer at Fannie Mae, [said] that the mortgage giants now guarantee or hold 10.5 million nonprime loans worth $1.6 trillion — one in three of all subprime loans, and nearly two in three of all so-called Alt-A loans, often called “liar loans.”…
Such loans now make up 34 percent of the total single-family mortgage portfolios at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a level that will link them to eight million foreclosures, or one in six, in coming years.
So much for "it's all the free market's fault!" If we had a free market all those companies would be bankrupt and not taking taxpayers for hundreds of billions in bailout money. Current Mood : busy Tags : banking, big lie, economy, paul krugman, scandals Location : Home
Andrukonis and others expressed concern about another type of mortgage Freddie was buying, where neither income nor assets were stated on the loan application. Andrukonis said these were popular with Hispanic borrowers, but the delinquency rates of 8 to 13 percent were much higher than on conventional loans. People familiar with the matter said Freddie was being pushed by advocacy groups to come up with new loan products to offer to low-income and minority borrowers.
Emphasis mine.
Anyone want to place bets on which "advocacy groups" were applying the pressure?
And for those who keep claiming "it was the banks!" I say that's like arguing whether the chicken or the egg came first!
Despite these concerns, Fannie continued to push into this new market. A business presentation in 2005 expressed concern that unless it didn't, Fannie could be relegated to a "niche" player in the industry. Mudd later reported in a presentation that Fannie moved into this market "to maintain relevance" with big customers who wanted to do more business with Fannie, including Countrywide, Lehman Brothers, IndyMac and Washington Mutual.
Emphasis mine. Notice anything in common among those four companies?
And they were taking their cues from Freddie and Fannie!
The documents suggest than Fannie and Freddie knew they were playing a role in shaping the market for some types of risky mortgages. An e-mail to Mudd in September 2007 from a top deputy reported that banks were modeling their subprime mortgages to what Fannie was buying.
Nothing like a horrible business model combined with competition to see who can implement it on a larger scale!
WASHINGTON – When the Washington Nationals played their first-ever baseball game in the nation's capital in April 2005, two congressmen who oversaw mortgage giant Freddie Mac had choice seats — courtesy of the very company they were supposed to be keeping an eye on.
Efforts to tighten government regulation were gaining support on Capitol Hill, and Freddie Mac was fighting back. The baseball tickets for home opener were means of influence.
According to confidential company documents obtained by The Associated Press, Reps. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, and Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., spent the evening in hard-to-obtain seats near the Nationals dugout with Freddie Mac executive Hollis McLoughlin and four of Freddie Mac's in-house lobbyists.
Predatory lenders are still scamming the system and Democrats in Congress are still looking the other way.
Next year we'll have another round of messy defaults and who will the Democrats blame then? Current Mood : determined Tags : banking, congress, democrats, fha, scandals Location : Home
The reality is that the housing market collapsed in large part because a coalition of race-baiting bullies brought very heavy pressure to bear on the banks to make more subprime loans on properties in low-income communities. Those who didn't approve the risky subprime loans were accused of "redlining"--i.e., refusing to make loans on properties in those neighborhoods.
Who were these bullies?
"That one", of course, among others.
You can thank one Barack H. Obama for the express elevator to Hell your portfolio is on. Current Mood : determined Tags : banking, barack obama, scandals Location : Home
STOCKHOLM, Sweden - Germany joined Ireland and Greece on Sunday in guaranteeing all private bank accounts, putting Europe's biggest economy at odds with calls for a unified European response to the global financial meltdown.
The decision came as governments across Europe scrambled to save failing banks, working largely on their own a day after leaders of the continent's four biggest economies called for tighter regulation and a coordinated response.
Gee, could it be that governments all over the world pushed for more "cheap housing" and looked the other way over fraudulent lending practices when the money was flowing in?
Nah, it has to be President Bush's economic policies! Six years of economic growth in the United States caused a global meltdown in the subprime lending markets. *eyeroll* Current Mood : relaxed Tags : banking Location : Home
"We need true tax reform that will at least make a start toward restoring for our children the American Dream that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as high as his strength and ability will take him. . . . But we cannot have such reform while our tax policy is engineered by people who view the tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure."