New plan: Let’s sue all the banks!

[red states rule]

Another great idea to get the US economy moving forward

Does anyone really think will do any good?





US authorities are preparing to sue more than a dozen big banks over claims they misrepresented the quality of mortgages sold during the 2006-7 housing bubble.

The US Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which is overseeing the remains of failed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is reportedly planning to argue that America's biggest banks failed to check the health of mortgages before they sold them on to investors. The collapse of hundreds of thousands of sub-prime mortgages triggered the 2008 credit crisis and the collapse of Fannie and Freddie.

The New York Times said (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/business/us-is-set-to-sue-dozen-big-banks-over-mortgages.html?_r=1&hp)the FHFA is expected to file the lawsuit against the banks, including Bank of America, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank, as early as Friday. The agency, which is seeking billions of dollars in compensation, claims the banks failed to notice that borrowers were taking on mortgages that they could not afford.

The FHFA lawsuit, which follows a subpoena issued to the banks last year, demands that the banks pay compensation to cover some of the $30bn (£18.5bn) Fannie and Freddie lost on mortgage-backed securities. Most of Fannie and Freddie's losses were borne by US taxpayers after the government was forced to step in and bailout the pair to the tune of $141bn.
It follows a similar $900m lawsuit filed against Swiss bank UBS in July. At the time UBS said it would "vigorously" defend all charges brought against it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/sep/02/us-authorities-sue-banks-subprime

[truthmatters]

we can take the money we make them pay and help people in trouble who were conned by the banks

[red states rule]

we can take the money we make them pay and help people in trouble who were conned by the banks

Yea TM someone from the bank held a gun to the customer's head and forced them to buy that home

[fj1200]

Let's sue banks for Fed incompetence. Great plan.

[red states rule]

Let's sue banks for Fed incompetence. Great plan.


Or how about getting the US government out of the mortgage business?

Fannie and Freddie has cost the US taxpayers hundreds of billions and were the reason the housing market went south

[KartRacerBoy]

Actually, let's just sue the banks and break them up under the anti-trust laws so they are no longer "too big to fail." We rescued them so the economy didn't disappear into a depression (we hope), so now let them pay the consequences. Break them up so it can't happen again.

I really don't understand why this has never been discussed as an option (well, except for the fact that the big political donors on Wall St might disappear). Please, someone give me a reason why beaking banks up is a bad idea if we think they are too big to fail?

[ConHog]

Actually, let's just sue the banks and break them up under the anti-trust laws so they are no longer "too big to fail." We rescued them so the economy didn't disappear into a depression (we hope), so now let them pay the consequences. Break them up so it can't happen again.

I really don't understand why this has never been discussed as an option (well, except for the fact that the big political donors on Wall St might disappear). Please, someone give me a reason why beaking banks up is a bad idea if we think they are too big to fail?

Ummm because we in the US don't punish companies for growing?

Bailouts shouldn't have ever happened to begin with , let them fail if that's what happens. Suing them now is stupid though. I bet Freddie and Fannie don't get sued.

[KartRacerBoy]

Ummm because we in the US don't punish companies for growing?

Bailouts shouldn't have ever happened to begin with , let them fail if that's what happens. Suing them now is stupid though. I bet Freddie and Fannie don't get sued.

History, huh? Apparently no economics to speak of?

[red states rule]

Actually, let's just sue the banks and break them up under the anti-trust laws so they are no longer "too big to fail." We rescued them so the economy didn't disappear into a depression (we hope), so now let them pay the consequences. Break them up so it can't happen again.

I really don't understand why this has never been discussed as an option (well, except for the fact that the big political donors on Wall St might disappear). Please, someone give me a reason why beaking banks up is a bad idea if we think they are too big to fail?

What a surprise! Another example of a liberal wanting to punish success and have more government intervetion into the free market

Funny how the libs exempted Fannie and Freddie (the BIGGEST mortgage backers in the US) from their "financial reform bill" that was to fix all the problems with the banks and mortgage issues

Si what if taxpayers have lost hundreds of billions with thess 2 government agencies. Like Barney Frank said "there is no problem with Fannie and Freddie"

But damn, the left is out to drop the hammer of government on those damn banks!

[fj1200]

Actually, let's just sue the banks and break them up under the anti-trust laws so they are no longer "too big to fail." We rescued them so the economy didn't disappear into a depression (we hope), so now let them pay the consequences. Break them up so it can't happen again.

I really don't understand why this has never been discussed as an option (well, except for the fact that the big political donors on Wall St might disappear). Please, someone give me a reason why beaking banks up is a bad idea if we think they are too big to fail?

Because TBTF is a government creation and the banks are not a monopoly to be broken up under anti-trust. Also, don't we want our banks to be able to compete with foreign banks which have no TBTF concerns in their home countries.

[red states rule]

Bottom line is, we would not have seen the bailouts if governemnt would not have stepped in and tried to make home ownership a "right" instead of something you had to work for and earn

Even now, libs are demanding that the people who can't afford the homes they are in be allowed to keep them

WTF is wrong with these people?

[logroller]

edit: I've made the necessary changes.


we can take back the money we gave them in the bailout, reinvigorating the financial crisis, and help people in trouble who were foolish enough to be conned by the banks at the expense of those weren't:lame2:

[red states rule]

edit: I've made the necessary changes.

:lame2:


I spend my days reading and responding to default correspondence from customers, lawyers, and other thid parties. It is amazing what some people will try and pull

Some try to dispute the debt. They actually demand we send them their ORIGINAl note they signed at closing. They tell us if we fail to produe the ORGINAL note then they do not have to pay

Also they try and say the signatures on the closing docs were forged

Meanwhile, these people are paying vast sums to lawyers who know these tactics are worthless, yet the liberal media and Dems only attack the banks and investors who are protecting their rights when it come to the property

[KartRacerBoy]

What a surprise! Another example of a liberal wanting to punish success and have more government intervetion into the free market

Funny how the libs exempted Fannie and Freddie (the BIGGEST mortgage backers in the US) from their "financial reform bill" that was to fix all the problems with the banks and mortgage issues

Si what if taxpayers have lost hundreds of billions with thess 2 government agencies. Like Barney Frank said "there is no problem with Fannie and Freddie"

But damn, the left is out to drop the hammer of government on those damn banks!



By "success" you mean being bailed out? :laugh:

I'm saying break up the banks that had to be rescued. I assume you just wanted them to be left to their own devices? No bailouts? If they went under, that was fine? Why then is using anti-trust law so offensive to you? Just becz a Democrat suggested it?

I said nothing about Fannie and Freddie btw. And liberals change the subject? :laugh:

And once the banks are broken up, how about reimposing the Glass-Steagall Act to prevent recombination?

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/071603.asp#axzz1WtVyXCTv

[red states rule]

By "success" you mean being bailed out? :laugh:

I'm saying break up the banks that had to be rescued. I assume you just wanted them to be left to their own devices? No bailouts? If they went under, that was fine? Why then is using anti-trust law so offensive to you? Just becz a Democrat suggested it?

I said nothing about Fannie and Freddie btw. And liberals change the subject? :laugh:

And once the banks are broken up, how about reimposing the Glass-Steagall Act to prevent recombination?

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/071603.asp#axzz1WtVyXCTv


I was opposed to all the bailouts and have never supported any of them

Since Fannie and Freddie hold a huge majority of the mortgages in this country, why did Obama and the ems not include them in their "finanical reform" bill?

Libs want to break up the private sector but continue to grow and protect the government agencies that caused the mess in the first place

[KartRacerBoy]

I spend my days reading and responding to default correspondence from customers, lawyers, and other thid parties. It is amazing what some people will try and pull

Some try to dispute the debt. They actually demand we send them their ORIGINAl note they signed at closing. They tell us if we fail to produe the ORGINAL note then they do not have to pay

Also they try and say the signatures on the closing docs were forged

Meanwhile, these people are paying vast sums to lawyers who know these tactics are worthless, yet the liberal media and Dems only attack the banks and investors who are protecting their rights when it come to the property



By "tactics" you mean complying with the law? Funny thing though. At least one court has stopped thousand of foreclosures becz of failure to comply with exactly those laws.

The lawyers that asked the foreclosing bank to show compliance with the law must've been so dumb!

[red states rule]

By "tactics" you mean complying with the law? Funny thing though. At least one court has stopped thousand of foreclosures becz of failure to comply with exactly those laws.

The lawyers that asked the foreclosing bank to show compliance with the law must've been so dumb!

Do you have a hard time reading? By tactics I mean (and talked about) how they "demand" the note they signed. Try asking for that at the bank that financed your car

They try and say they never signed the closing docs, or did not understand them. Funny how they never asked questions until they were late on the payments

All they are doing is stalling for time. As far as the f/c process the same thing. There is a massive number of properties bottled up in the pipeline and when the cap is taken off we will see values further decline

With hundreds of thousands of properties ready to go to sale, the libs are only putting off the inedible. Meanwhile the h/o gets to saty in the property rent free

[logroller]

I spend my days reading and responding to default correspondence from customers, lawyers, and other thid parties. It is amazing what some people will try and pull

Some try to dispute the debt. They actually demand we send them their ORIGINAl note they signed at closing. They tell us if we fail to produe the ORGINAL note then they do not have to pay

Also they try and say the signatures on the closing docs were forged

Meanwhile, these people are paying vast sums to lawyers who know these tactics are worthless, yet the liberal media and Dems only attack the banks and investors who are protecting their rights when it come to the property

Amazing perhaps, but far from surprising. While the housing prices experienced double digit growth, people were amazed then too. Then when ARMs do what ARMs do, and having spent the spoils of refinancing, people are left staring at up-turned, empty hands, mouths agape; so of course they demand the promissory note, that's all they have left-- that and the hope they get a spare change under threat of biting the hand that fed them. You work amidst this behavior; no wonder you come across as angry as do.

[logroller]

the libs are only putting off the inedible

:laugh:, does this smell funny to you?

RSR, there is one issue I have with the banking industry and I'd like your opinion; the sale of notes. I had a really hard time finding a bank which would offer more than just service on my loan. I'd be willing to pay more for the privilege of having a bank which I know is vested with me for the long term-- but that's not done and I think that's one of the reasons why both h/o and note-holders are so disconnected.

[fj1200]

Do you have a hard time reading? By tactics I mean (and talked about) how they "demand" the note they signed. Try asking for that at the bank that financed your car

They try and say they never signed the closing docs, or did not understand them. Funny how they never asked questions until they were late on the payments

Wet Ink rules IIRC, many states have them in regards to mortgage doc.s and the issue has gone in front of the bankruptcy courts to see if that requirement is still valid. I'll have to check with the wife to see what the bankruptcy courts are doing about it.

[red states rule]

Wet Ink rules IIRC, many states have them in regards to mortgage doc.s and the issue has gone in front of the bankruptcy courts to see if that requirement is still valid. I'll have to check with the wife to see what the bankruptcy courts are doing about it.


We are not required to produce orginial docs fj. Again go to the bank and demand they give you the orginal title to the car they financed.

Bottom line is, they know they bought the house and these lawyers are taking money from these people that could perhaos be used to help bring the loan current with a workout plan

Seems to me these lawuers are telling these people they can get a free house or damn near free

[fj1200]

We are not required to produce orginial docs fj.

Many states have those rules and it only really became an issue since the meltdown with people contesting. Mrs. fj said that (some?) courts are only requiring the bank sign an affidavit that the originals have been lost. Not to difficult to get around. Your jurisdiction may be different.

[red states rule]

Many states have those rules and it only really became an issue since the meltdown with people contesting. Mrs. fj said that (some?) courts are only requiring the bank sign an affidavit that the originals have been lost. Not to difficult to get around. Your jurisdiction may be different.

I respond to correspondence from all 50 states FJ. Legal approved every word of our responses and we do NOT send anyone (except our f/c attorney) orginial docs

Again, what these people are doing is just buying time and stalling. It does nothing to help the, and it is sad these people pay lawayers money for such worthless advice

[fj1200]

I respond to correspondence from all 50 states FJ. Legal approved every word of our responses and we do NOT send anyone (except our f/c attorney) orginial docs

Again, what these people are doing is just buying time and stalling. It does nothing to help the, and it is sad these people pay lawayers money for such worthless advice

Legal can approve lots of things that don't mean anything and I don't disagree that they're stalling but the defense remains.

http://real-estate-law.freeadvice.com/real-estate-law/mortgage_matters/produce-the-note.htm

[red states rule]

Legal can approve lots of things that don't mean anything and I don't disagree that they're stalling but the defense remains.

http://real-estate-law.freeadvice.com/real-estate-law/mortgage_matters/produce-the-note.htm

When anyone wants orginal docs our repsonse is like this



....does not disperse orginial docs. However <<<< does have a valid lien on the property


So far in over 2 years I have yet to have any attorney refute my letter telling them that

[fj1200]

^Good. Doesn't mean the defense isn't a valid option.

Are you also producing an e-copy?

[red states rule]

^Good. Doesn't mean the defense isn't a valid option.
\

So far so good

Meanwhile the liberal media tries to paint the banks and investors as the bad guy in all this

[KartRacerBoy]

\

So far so good

Meanwhile the liberal media tries to paint the banks and investors as the bad guy in all this

They are partly the bad guy. There are several bad guys in the loan fiasco. There are the borrowers who took out loans they couldn't afford. There are banks who hired appraisers that they knew would overvalue the property so the bank could write the loan. There are the appraisers. There are the fools who turned mass junk mortgages into bonds. There are legislators who wrote stupid laws. Is any single player the reason for the banking collapse? No.

Don't pretend the banks are blameless. They wrote stupid loans even where they weren't required to and lose paperwork as the loans are sold and resold. They have plenty of the blame but so do many others.

[red states rule]

They are partly the bad guy. There are several bad guys in the loan fiasco. There are the borrowers who took out loans they couldn't afford. There are banks who hired appraisers that they knew would overvalue the property so the bank could write the loan. There are the appraisers. There are the fools who turned mass junk mortgages into bonds. There are legislators who wrote stupid laws. Is any single player the reason for the banking collapse? No.

Don't pretend the banks are blameless. They wrote stupid loans even where they weren't required to and lose paperwork as the loans are sold and resold. They have plenty of the blame but so do many others.

and why did the banks do al that? Because the Dems FORCED banks to make most of those loans under threat of litigation. Obama himself was one of the lawyers who sued Citimortgage.

The Dems had Fannie and Freddie LOWER the credit standards

and when R's tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie they were called racists (you should be happy over that) and told the naton there was no problem

[KartRacerBoy]

and why did the banks do al that? Because the Dems FORCED banks to make most of those loans under threat of litigation. Obama himself was one of the lawyers who sued Citimortgage.

The Dems had Fannie and Freddie LOWER the credit standards

and when R's tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie they were called racists (you should be happy over that) and told the naton there was no problem

Yeah. I'm sure that was the ENTIRE problem. The banks didn't do what I described. :rolleyes:

Man, when you pick a side, you stick to come hell or highwater. :laugh:

[red states rule]

Yeah. I'm sure that was the ENTIRE problem. The banks didn't do what I described. :rolleyes:

Man, when you pick a side, you stick to come hell or highwater. :laugh:

Kart if the Feds walked up to you and told you to go out and write as many loans to "poor" peoplke as possible you would wonder what the hell they were talking baout

BUT, if they told you to write as many loans to poor people as you could, and they would BUY them from you to remove any risk from you - you would write a hell of a lot of loans Kart

That is what the Dems did. they took the RISK out of most of those loans by sending them off to Fanny and Freddie

Kart, I will let the Dems do their own talking. Watch it if you dare


<IFRAME height=345 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_MGT_cSi7Rs" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[fj1200]

Is any single player the reason for the banking collapse? No.

Yes, the Federal Reserve.

[red states rule]

How much more will the taxpayers fork over to Fannie and Freddie?







The government-backed mortgage finance houses Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have sucked up $65 billion in taxpayer bailout funds. But it's not enough

. Freddie Mac wants $1.5 billion more and Fannie Mae has requested $5.1 billion to make up for continuing losses from the housing market. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/think-tanked/post/fannie-and-freddie-ask-for-7-billion-more-could-it-lead-to-actual-reform/2011/08/09/gIQAlC9k4I_blog.html) And now that Standard & Poor's has downgraded US credit to AA it means Fannie and Freddie need more money to guarantee home mortgages so these financial behemouths were on unsustainable financial footing before and now it is even worse.

But why should the Treasury Department approve their request? Well, because they are necessary for preventing a complete collapse of the housing market say some analysts. Though, even supporters of Fannie and Freddie understand they have to change. “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should go back to Fannie’s pre-1969 role as a public corporation run entirely by the government,” said Robert Kuttner of the Demos think tank. He added, “They should not be in the business of facilitating complex financial slicing and dicing. Prior to 1969, Fannie Mae worked like a Swiss watch.”

Critics of the entities say Treasury is going to have to acede to the $6.5 billion request but it should come with strings attached. The Heritage Foundation's James Gattuso says Fannie and Freddie have to close their doors. “Such reform should include a gradual but definitive liquidation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and their replacement by private institutions that enjoy no federal guarantees,” he said.

Hardly seems likely that in an environment where lots of government officials still deny that we've got a spending problem, that the same people would worry about continuing to fund the Fannie/Freddie sink hole.


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/after_billion_fannie_and_freddie_Pn1V98PFoVtIOSwvG GSqiJ#ixzz1X4zkqvuC