The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Ramona's picture

    The Mortgage Fraudsters And Their Get Out Of Jail Free Card

    I don't have to tell you that when it comes to Big Money I know nothing. Beyond coming deliciously close to balancing my checkbook once in a while and/or putting a few pennies away in a sock or a next-to-no-interest savings account, finances are a complete mystery to me. I know people who do know something about Big Money but when they talk about it, it's in a foreign language. Pretty sure. When they're talking about billions and trillions they might as well be talking about the enormity of the galaxies. No comprendo, buddy. Don't even waste your time.

    So when I read a story in USA Today about Goldman Sachs finally getting around to agreeing on a settlement for bilking mortgage customers out of billions of dollars over many years, causing many thousands of them to have to default and move out of their homes, their fine seemed colossal enough where even I should have been screaming with joy. Over $5 billion! Dollars!

    The glimpse of the New York-based banking and investment giant's internal review process came as Goldman Sachs acknowledged it marketed and sold tens of billions of dollars in residential mortgage-backed securities without weeding out questionable loans as investors had been promised.

    “This resolution holds Goldman Sachs accountable for its serious misconduct in falsely assuring investors that securities it sold were backed by sound mortgages, when it knew that they were full of mortgages that were likely to fail,” Acting Associate Attorney General Stuart Delery said as the Department of Justice, state attorneys general and other officials announced the finalized agreement.

    They weren't the only ones, of course. In February, Wells Fargo agreed to pay $1.2 billion for their part in cheating on mortgages.

    From USA Today:

    NEW YORK -- San Francisco bank Wells Fargo Wednesday said it has agreed to fork over $1.2 billion to settle allegations that it fraudulently certified loans in connection with a government insurance program.

    In a 2012 lawsuit, the U.S. government accused Wells Fargo of sticking it with "hundreds of millions of dollars" in Federal Housing Authority insurance claims as a result of years of "reckless" underwriting and fraudulent loan certification.
    As a result, FHA had to pay out insurance claims on thousands of FHA-insured mortgages that defaulted, the government said.

    Around that same time in February, Morgan Stanley agreed to pay $3.2 billion.

    Also from USA Today:

    “Morgan Stanley touted the quality of the lenders with which it did business and the due diligence process it used to screen out bad loans. All the while, Morgan Stanley knew that in reality, many of the loans backing its securities were toxic," said acting U.S. Attorney Brian Stretch of California's northern federal district.

    Morgan Stanley said its previous financial set-asides for the settlements would prevent the payments from affecting the bank's 2016 earnings. "We are pleased to have finalized these settlements involving legacy residential mortgage-backed securities matters," the bank said.

    Well, isn't that special? Their bottom line won't be hurt at all by it. BIG sigh of relief.

    Note that ugly word "fraudulent". Note, too, that innocent phrase "agreed to pay"--as if paying, for them, is an option. Note also too there is no mention of anyone going to jail. Not a single soul from anywhere within those vast companies had to go to jail for their misdeeds. They couldn't even muster up a single scapegoat. Nobody. They paid fines large enough to sustain entire cities but it turns out it's no more than money in a sock to them. So, big frickin' deal. Let's move on.

    Well, how about we don't this time? I know for a fact if I did something "fraudulent" or even "toxic" that caused even one family to lose their home, I would be in big trouble. HUGE trouble. It would probably cost me everything I owned. I would surely go to jail. I would be a bad, bad person. I would even think so myself. I know for a fact I would not have to option to "agree to pay" for my crime. I would pay for it, or else. And I know for a fact I wouldn't be "pleased with the outcome". That's the point of punishment. I should be the opposite of "pleased".

    When huge institutions cause that much indisputable harm to hundreds of thousands of citizens, when billions of our taxpayer dollars end up having to pay for their crimes, we should expect more from them than a slap on the wrist. We should expect that they lose everything, and every member of their group who knew anything about it and let it happen should have to spend many thousands of their remaining days in prison

    They sure as hell shouldn't be able to "agree" to the amount of their fine, and it shouldn't be pennies on the dollar. They sure as hell shouldn't be pleased at the outcome. And they sure as hell shouldn't be allowed to go back to business as usual.

    In August, 2013, Sen. Elizabeth Warren sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder expressing her dissatisfaction with the criminal-free mortgage settlements. In it she wrote:

    "I am concerned that this might be yet another example of the federal government’s timid enforcement strategy against the nation’s largest financial institutions. I believe that if DOJ and our banking regulatory agencies prove unwilling over time to take the big banks to trial or even require admission of guilt when they cheat consumers and break the law — either out of timidity or because of a lack of resources — then the agencies lose enormous leverage in settlement negotiations."

    To which I can only add: You can say that again, sister. We've been living in a system for far too long where the bigger the crook, the lighter they fall. I don't need to know a single thing about high finance to know it's time to end that insane double standard.

    So now we come to the elephant in the room: This is a big election year. My candidate, Hillary Clinton, has taken big bucks in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street giants. She says they haven't bought her influence, and so far I haven't seen any signs that they have, but if she is the Democratic party nominee we're going to need to know how close she is to agreeing with Elizabeth Warren. It had better be pretty damned close. (Let's not get sidetracked by my admission that I'm supporting Hillary. We've been through this. Here's why)

    My party, the Democratic Party, has lost its guts, and it's people like Elizabeth Warren and, yes, Bernie Sanders, who are willing to take up the pitchforks in order to bring some sanity, some fairness, to a system that has fallen all over itself to keep from governing as a full-fledged democracy.

    My party is the party of the people. It should be obvious to our party leaders that it's their job to make sure we live up to our name. We've been too long pretending that any move in the direction toward the people makes us better than the Republicans. Not good enough. Anybody is better than the Republicans.

    Big money is the bane of our existence. When we speak of billions the way we used to talk about millions, we've lost touch with the common needs of the people. We read the articles about billion dollar fines and tend to forget how many lives were adversely altered or outright destroyed, thanks to the fraudsters working out in the open with no fear of punishment or retaliation. They didn't get to that place on their own.

    Money talked louder than we did and money won. Now we're in the midst of a crazy election season, and what we're seeing is the equivalent of an angry mob scene. Someone's to blame and someone has to pay.

    Let's hope it's not us again.

     

    (Cross-posted at Ramona's Voices and Crooks and Liars)

     

    Topics: 

    Comments

    Ramona you 3%? But the fine print told them that that percentage rate would increase to 10% 

    So 'they' might have a monthly 'rent' of 650 bucks.

    And then, six months later, these fine folks would find a monthly 'rent' of $1300/month?

    Or maybe 'they' began at $1300/month and 'they' ended up with $2600/month.

    The repubs skip . this stuff.

    But the big money saw that they could sell land based mortgage promises world wide and make a bundle.

    Collateralised loans were worth more than uncollateralised loans.

    THEY KNEW IT !

    Those in charge, knew damn well what was going on.

    So the poor lost their homes and investors (including pension 'trusts); lost everything.

    And except for a few (including Maddof, etc) escaped prosecution.

    ( It appears that I misspell collateral, why not, I am a loser? hahahahah)

     

     

     

     

     

     


    Thanks Ramona. I wrote a longer comment which deleted itself. To be short, I liked HRC's comments on letting the "living will" process play out, then if the banks fail to comply, decide on a course of action. The process at least forms a starting point for how the banks could be broken up.


    Bernanke: There's No Housing Bubble to Go Bust

    Oct. 27, 2005

    Ben S. Bernanke does not think the national housing boom is a bubble that is about to burst, he indicated to Congress last week, just a few days before President Bush nominated him to become the next chairman of the Federal Reserve. U.S. house prices have risen by nearly 25 percent over the past two years..... he believes the economy could weather a housing slowdown....


    Bernanke is now trying to make amends--kinda, that no one understood the phenomenon and the risks at the time. I cut him a little slack in that his corrective measures worked---kinda.

     


    Maybe he had an inkling the economy wouldn't handle the housing mania, but secretly fantasized being the economic superhero who would save it if it crashed...economists are like Houdinis, no matter what the predicament, they always miraculously escape unscathed.


    Based on a may 2006 housing  peak, bernanke was technically entitled to be stupid( if being stupid means not seeing a year and a half out) for a while.  Donald trump started a mortgage company AT the very peak..

     

    ETA.rechecked article date.  Bernanke pretty stupid .


    I have to admit, I'm a little confused by recent events in this sector as Goldman Sachs failed its "living will" test, required under Dodd Frank. As I understand it, this actually does give the government the legal authority to... wait for it... "break up the bank!"

    It may be that I am just wrong about that, though, because Bernie certainly didn't cite it as a convincing answer for "how are you going to do it?" in the Brooklyn debate, and neither did Hillary bite when asked if she would take this as a sign that she can and should call for Goldman to be broken up.

    Further, I really believe that breaking up Goldman Sachs would make all of Goldman's shareholders, including current management, very much richer.  The asset management, investment banking, merchant and commercial banking divisions there are likely worth more than the whole thing put together.


    Didn't watch the debate but what I read was HRC said wait it out, give the banks a shot to correct the wills, and act accordingly. The reason I like this is even if it's a bad living will and fails again, it will still be a starting point. And anyone who thinks that breaking up the banks is a short, manageable process is dreaming. The fact that we are even to this point is a huge achievement, given the obstacles, and is evidence that something very significant did in fact happen, called Dodd Frank.

     


    I think that we are seeing the ramifications of lodging with an administrator the discretion to designate one a vector of "systemic risk".  Properly deployed, this authority can box a prudent board of directors into divesting enough that you avoid  exposure to the remedial measures, of which the filing of a credible " living will" is just one.


    Which does not divert us from marveling that these behemoths are so ferkacht that they can't even fake up a credible scenario whereby they do anything but crater the general economy in a set of worst case assumptions.


    $5B?

    #costofdoingbusiness...