USuncutMN says: Tax the corporations! Tax the rich! Stop the cuts, fight for social justice for all. Standing in solidarity with http://www.usuncut.org/ and other Uncutters worldwide. FIGHT for a Foreclosure Moratorium! Foreclosure = homelessness. Resist the American Legislative Exchange Council, Grover Norquist and Citizen's United. #Austerity for the wheeler dealers, NOT the people.



We Are The 99% event

USuncutMN supports #occupyWallStreet, #occupyDC, the XL Pipeline resistance Yes, We, the People, are going to put democracy in all its forms up front and center. Open mic, diversity, nonviolent tactics .. Social media, economic democracy, repeal Citizen's United, single-payer healthcare, State Bank, Operation Feed the Homeless, anti-racism, homophobia, sexISM, war budgetting, lack of transparency, et al. Once we identify who we are and what we've lost, We can move forward.



Please sign and SHARE

Showing posts with label Morgan Stanley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Morgan Stanley. Show all posts

Friday, September 2, 2011

FHFA Sues 17 firms (banks) to recover losses to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac


FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY
NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release Contact: Corinne Russell (202) 414-6921
September 2, 2011 Stefanie Johnson (202) 414-6376

FHFA Sues 17 Firms to Recover Losses to
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Washington, DC -- The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), as conservator for Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises), today filed lawsuits against 17 financial institutions,
certain of their officers and various unaffiliated lead underwriters.  The suits allege violations of
federal securities laws and common law in the sale of residential private-label mortgage-backed
securities (PLS) to the Enterprises.
Complaints have been filed against the following lead defendants, in alphabetical order:
1. Ally Financial Inc. f/k/a GMAC, LLC
2. Bank of America Corporation
3. Barclays Bank PLC
4. Citigroup, Inc.
5. Countrywide Financial Corporation
6. Credit Suisse Holdings (USA), Inc.
7. Deutsche Bank AG
8. First Horizon National Corporation
9. General Electric Company
10. Goldman Sachs & Co.
11. HSBC North America Holdings, Inc.
12. JPMorgan Chase & Co.
13. Merrill Lynch & Co. / First Franklin Financial Corp.
14. Morgan Stanley
15. Nomura Holding America Inc.
16. The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC
17. Société Générale

These complaints were filed in federal or state court in New York or the federal court in
Connecticut.  The complaints seek damages and civil penalties under the Securities Act of 1933,
similar in content to the complaint FHFA filed against UBS Americas, Inc. on July 27, 2011.  In
addition, each complaint seeks compensatory damages for negligent misrepresentation.
Certain complaints also allege state securities law violations or common law fraud.



As conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, FHFA is charged with preserving and
conserving these companies’ assets and does so on behalf of taxpayers. The complaints filed
today reflect FHFA’s conclusion that some portion of the losses that Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac incurred on private-label mortgage-backed securities (PLS) are attributable to
misrepresentations and other improper actions by the firms and individuals named in these
filings. Based on our review, FHFA alleges that the loans had different and more risky
characteristics than the descriptions contained in the marketing and sales materials provided to
the Enterprises for those securities.

FHFA filed the complaints under the broad authority granted to it by the Housing and
Economic Recovery Act of 2008.  The U.S. legal system provides for addressing such alleged
misrepresentations through the nation’s securities laws and traditional common law.  FHFA is
following those legal remedies in filing these complaints and seeks to recover on losses to the
Enterprises that are the legal responsibilities of others.

Discussions regarding these matters have taken place with several of the firms receiving
complaints and, where constructive, they will continue.

Link to FHFA filings in PLS cases
###
The Federal Housing Finance Agency regulates Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the 12 Federal Home Loan Banks.
These government-sponsored enterprises provide more than $5.7 trillion in funding for the U.S. mortgage markets and financial institutions.

Thursday, August 18, 2011

SEC accused of dumping records

Matt Tabbi's story goes legit when the WaPo publishes this .. BE AWARE !!


The SEC has violated federal law by destroying the records of thousands of enforcement cases in which it decided not to file charges against or conduct full-blown investigations of Wall Street firms and others initially suspected of wrongdoing, a former agency official has alleged.

The purged records involve major firms such as Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and hedge-fund manager SAC Capital, the former official claimed. At issue were suspicions of actions such as insider trading, financial fraud and market manipulation.

The allegations come at a time when the Securities and Exchange Commission faces criticism that it has pulled punches or missed warning signs in its policing of Wall Street.

A file closed in 2002 involved Lehman Brothers, the investment bank whose collapse fueled the financial meltdown of 2008, according to the former official. A file closed in 2009 involved suspected insider trading in securities related to American International Group, the insurance giant bailed out by the government at the height of the financial crisis, the former official wrote.

Others involved Bernard Ma­doff, whose multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme the agency failed to stop despite repeated tips.

The allegations were leveled in a July letter to Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) from Gary J. Aguirre, a former SEC enforcement lawyer now representing a current SEC enforcement lawyer, Darcy Flynn.

Flynn last year began managing SEC enforcement records and became concerned that records that were supposed to be preserved under federal law were being purged as a matter of SEC policy, Aguirre wrote.

Flynn contacted the National Archives and Records Administration, which sent a letter to the SEC saying it appeared there had been “an unauthorized disposal of federal records,” Aguirre wrote.

Based on Flynn’s account, the SEC inspector general’s office has been investigating and plans to issue a report by the end of September, Inspector General H. David Kotz said.

From 1993 through July 2010, records of about 9,000 preliminary inquiries were destroyed, Aguirre wrote. The inquiries, a first step in the enforcement process, can lead to full-fledged SEC investigations or be dropped without further action. They are known as MUIs, or “matters under inquiry,” and are opened when the SEC has reason to suspect someone violated securities law.

According to Aguirre, an internal directive to SEC enforcement officials said: “After you have closed [an] MUI that has not become an investigation, you should dispose of any documents obtained in connection with the MUI.”

SEC spokesman John Nester confirmed that that was the agency’s policy, but he said it was changed last year. The agency now directs employees to retain or dispose of inquiry records in accordance with the agency’s records management policy, Nester said. He said he did not have that policy.

Aguirre said federal law required that documents typically generated in preliminary inquiries be kept for 25 years.

Nester said the retention requirements “pertain to documents that meet the definition of a record, not every document that comes into an agency’s possession in the course of its work.”

When agency officials were framing a response to the National Archives in August 2010, they tried to cover up the facts, Aguirre alleged. One official said, “We could say that we do not believe there has been disposal inconsistent with the schedule,” Aguirre wrote, citing Flynn’s notes of the conversation.
Another official said the matter could lead to criminal liability, according to Aguirre’s letter.

Gallery
More on this Story
The agency’s answer to the National Archives last year was “utter fiction, a lie,” Aguirre wrote.
According to Aguirre, the SEC told the National Archives that the enforcement division was “not aware of any specific instances of the destruction of records from any other MUI (i.e., an MUI that was closed without a subsequent formal investigation), but we cannot say with certainty that no such documents have been destroyed over the past 17 years.”

Grassley, who released a copy of Aguirre’s letter Wednesday, called on the SEC to explain what happened.
Aguirre wrote that the issue has “far-reaching, troubling implications for the leadership of the agency which is supposed to protect the nation’s investors and its financial markets.”

His allegations were first reported Wednesday by Rolling Stone.

In contacting Congress on Flynn’s behalf, Aguirre invoked whistleblower protection and said he was concerned that the agency “was in the process of engaging in a reprisal” against Flynn.

Flynn is a 13-year veteran of the SEC’s enforcement division, where he has received favorable evaluations and raises, Aguirre wrote.

Aguirre is a former SEC whistle blower who accused the SEC of disregarding evidence of insider trading by a hedge fund and thwarting his investigation. He claimed that the SEC fired him when he pressed unsuccessfully to question a top Wall Street executive.

The hedge fund later settled insider-trading charges with the SEC, and the SEC paid Aguirre $755,000 to settle his claim that he was fired in retaliation for blowing the whistle.

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Reminder where Obama's money came from, folks on this day of infamy


These are where Obama's top contributors in 2008 "worked":

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/hedge-fund-cantor-and-ron-paul-should-not-both-be-republicans-2011-7#ixzz1TtYZu7el


Monday, June 13, 2011

F Buckley Lofton responds to Shaemus Cooke (Brilliant!)

F Buckley Lofton June 12  

(International Clearinghouse)

The Rich are part of the Issue. Only marginally, not the only source of the Problem. However, your commentary is critical to our thinking about the Issue. It describes the process, mechanism and aftermath but not the specific. In 1929, the Depression was caused by the so-called “greed of Wall Street.” It hasn’t changed nor is it likely to with current policies and attitudes. Criminality is so widespread as to be beyond belief – and in both Political Parties. It’s greed after all. Whether it’s an “Inside Job” or a “House of Cards” or “The Shock Doctrine,” the outcome is the same: economic devastation for most of us. Evidenced in the “something for nothing” mentality, there are people working hard to do the trades and working hard to rig the system. How is the System rigged? Just ask how much the wholesale Bankers are leveraged and WHO allowed it (WTFAI)? The Government is run by Senators and Congressmen that are largely wealthy, due to the wholesale Bankers, who control the Message. A simple reveal of where these Representative do “their Banking” will tell you. The rest is pasted in as a specific view of the Issue as follows:

The fix is one way to put it. Put another way, Hyman Minsky’s Financial Instability Hypothesis – as Commodities go up (they doubled 2002-2006) the World gets poorer. His analogy stretched back to the 1970-1974 Commodity rise with consequent results. Now, the Goldman Sachs’ and Morgan Stanley’s are raping us again. Predominantly, an SEC Rule change in June 2004, screwed the Economy and the United States blind. This was regarding Net Capital Rules (of Wholesale Banks…aka Banksters) that allowed Securities on the Balance Sheet to be leveraged at an Amount of 40:1 versus Traditional Banks by Statute are held to 10:1. Then, in 2007, another SEC Decision was to eliminate the “uptick rule.” This required every Short Sale to be transacted a Price higher than the Price of the previous trade. Having Banksters in charge of our National Security or Economy is like handing over your daughters to rapists for “safe keeping.” “Just trust us.” 

The Net Effect is a repeat of these conditions presently. A refusal to investigate by Regulatory Bodies, you know that “look forward and not back agenda” by Obama, has left the country vulnerable. The Economy is once again on the ropes…due to the Commodities Exchanges and Oil being juggled into the stratosphere. The fictitious Leverage Ratio is largely unenforceable due to the speed at which holdings are changing. Margin Calls are fundamentally crushing when leveraged at anything over 20:1, let alone the Bear Stearns and Lehman Bro’s at 50:1 or 45:1. 
Minsky’s Hypothesis is actually a restatement of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. You can determine your Position (in the Market) but you can’t state your Velocity (of Trades) with precision or certainty. OR: You can state the Velocity of your Trades, but you are damned if you can show what your position (credit or liquidity) is in the Market. 

The only way for a Quantum State to be Economically feasible is a “snapshot moment” that is a controlled hiatus or period of assessment throughout the Trading Day [every two hours?]. Computers run by Regulators are the only bastion to the Barbarians at the Gates.

Sooo – there are two distinct types of traders. The industrial or commercial sector and the speculative or gambling sector. Goldman Sachs grossly underestimates the fees and profit taking by speculators. They currently control the Media Message and have more money than god to do whatever they damn well please. They have every reason to underestimate because they are largely guilty of market manipulation – a crime. Most Americans (how about 95%?) have no idea that this arena is the cause of the 2007-2008 Collapse (Depression). That was understood clearly by Paulson when he said there was to be NO INVESTIGATIONS for the TARP bailouts. Funny how that is. The number of Congressman (Senate Millionaires/ Billionaires Club and the pipsqueak Representative Millionaire Shills) that have Accounts with Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley or…..is fairly complete and ruinously duplicit to our Economy. The Public is largely duped by information and misdirection by the Oil Industry and paid message byte stooges that largely lie about “the Chinese and Indians driving up the Prices.” It is Speculators. (Remember: January 2008, Oil at $150/Bbl. and by May 2008, it’s at $30/Bbl.. Nice.] Period. 

Computer buys and trades are phenomenally fast and cannot be stopped with the current level of inadequate controls. The leveraged positions of these Banksters is WAY over 45:1, still. The suggested controls now present? Not likely to help.

 Removal of the Oil Contracts from speculation is IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY. And placing National Security in the hands or decisions of Foreign Nationals or the Good Corporate Citizen is like giving your daughters to….that same analogy…..and expecting everything to be okay. Not likely. Or giving this market over to Corporatist Multi-Nationals is trusting their amoral behaviors will be good for the “free market,” which Bernanke has made very clear, doesn’t exist without the Fed’s “help.” (Hence the attack on Grayson by the Billionaires Club.) 

Nationalize the American Oil Industry to get a track on Renewable Energy (because if you take a Survey as to whether the American People believe these Fossil Fuel Schmoos will EVER develop or allow development of RE solutions???? Not likely). 
Reduce Capital Gains taxes to 10% and regulate the Leveraging scrupulously.

Shake the Cookie Jar Loose. All those Patents that have been seized under National Security over the last sixty years that pertain to Energy….(under the Invention Security Act of 1951…No One Know about that? One of the greatest scams perpetrated against the American People by dozens of government agencies and services……hugely fraudulent.) 

But then, who cares? Certainly not the Republican puppets of these more-money-than-God imbeciles that have de-railed virtually every good thing in this country for their gain. And sent tens of millions of Jobs overseas…and created NAFTA…..and changed banks into swindling operations where it is your problem (identity theft, huge maximized overdraft fees, PayDay Loans, hacked computer systems, MERS mortgages, etc.) and no one else is experiencing that problem? So, in that vein, if you get the Plague, get your own cure. My hope is that the Republicans get a Plague of Party defectors, realizing that these are the same idiots that refuse to correct the Economy or investigate the corruption…because they are the corruption.

So, let’s consider a Reform Measure to get things straight – for once. As alluded above, every Quarter Trading Session (1 hour: 45 minutes, or so), every firm that trades on the Commodities Exchanges would be displayed showing their Hedge Ratio (IN BIG RED NUMBERS) and their current Contract/Trade Numbers. Of course other pertinent Computer figures that our “OH SO” diligent Regulators are feign to undertake, would be PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED EVERY TWO HOURS. After all, IT IS ABOUT TRANSPARENCY, RIGHT BERNANKE/GEITHNER, ET.AL.??????? 

And then, the SEC, CFTC or Others can actually step in and halt over leveraged trading. Otherwise, kiss your collective asses goodbye to the Banksters.

Hey EVERYONE KEEP MAKING THOSE MARGIN CALLS!!!!! 

The Rich AND the Government (by not instituting IMMEDIATE CONTROLS) are destroying the Economy.

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Cheat Sheet on Bank Investigations and the Probes That Have Petered Out

by Marian Wang
ProPublica, May 24, 2011

As we and many others have noted, no top banking executives have been successfully prosecuted in connection with the financial crisis: not for making the bad loans that fed the mortgage machine, not for lying about the quality of the mortgages, and not for foreclosing improperly when homeowners struggled to make loan payments.

But there have been many investigations. Some are still pending, others seem to have fallen by the wayside. Here’s our overview of what the banks have been accused of doing at each stage of the mortgage machine.
Let us know in the comments section if we’ve left off any significant investigations that have died quiet deaths or are still ongoing.

The First Step in the Machine: Risky Lending and Underwriting

Regulatory action against the major lenders has been relatively rare. In one of the few cases, the FDIC filed a civil suit in March against three former executives at Washington Mutual for risky lending. The executives at the failed bank were accused of taking “extreme and historically unprecedented risks” in their lending practices in order to maximize their compensation. The executives have denied the charges. Federal authorities have been investigating the bank since it failed and was sold to JPMorgan Chase in 2008.

Earlier this year, the Justice Department ended its criminal investigation of Angelo Mozilo, the former CEO of Countrywide Financial, a major subprime lender. It did not bring charges. Mozilo had settled civil charges with the SEC for $67.5 million—though that was for insider trading, not bad lending.

And when the Justice Department did get a conviction of a mortgage company CEO in April, the executive, Lee Farkas of Taylor, Bean & Whitaker, was found guilty of bank fraud, wire fraud, securities fraud and conspiracy—offenses not specific to the company’s mortgage operations. It was nonetheless touted as “the most significant criminal prosecution to date rising out of the financial crisis.”

For the most part, banks struggling with allegations of bad lending have faced demands from investors to buy back troubled mortgages. The banks have at times resisted, attributing the losses to broader economic turmoil.

The relative lack of regulatory action was highlighted in a New York Times article by Gretchen Morgenson and Josh Rosner, which detailed the case of NovaStar Financial, a subprime lender that the SEC never took any action against. That’s despite a damning report from HUD, lawsuits from homeowners, cease-and-desist orders from state regulators and repeated tips from short-sellers. (The SEC declined to comment on its investigation.)

The government has recently shown signs of taking action when it comes to recouping its own losses. The Justice Department sued Deutsche Bank in early May, alleging that a unit within the German bank “recklessly” endorsed bad mortgage loans in order to get government guarantees that would 1) make the loans easier for the bank to resell to investors, and 2) put the government on the hook for losses.

The lawsuit alleges that Deutsche hid evidence that the loans were bad, costing the government millions in insurance payouts while the bank made profits off the resale. Deutsche told the Wall Street Journal that most of the allegations were about activity that occurred before the unit became a subsidiary of the bank.   

Though the suit against the mortgage lender was believed to be the first of its kind, prosecutors have said that it probably wouldn’t be the last. Here’s the Journal:
It wouldn't be a "fantastical stretch to think we are looking at other financial institutions as well," Mr. Bharara said at a news conference, declining to be more specific.
Next Step: Scandals of Securitization

The Journal reported this week that state attorneys general in New York and California are stepping up investigations of a whole range of bank activities—from the origination of mortgage loans to the packaging of mortgage securities.

New York’s attorney general Eric Schneiderman also recently announced investigations into the packaging and selling of mortgage-backed securities by a number of big banks. Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Royal Bank of Scotland, UBS, JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank are said to be the subjects. Of course, there’s no guarantee that anything will come of these. Schneiderman’s predecessor—now New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo—also had been investigating whether several banks had lied to rating agencies about the quality of their mortgage securities, and no charges resulted from that investigation.

The Justice Department also declined to bring criminal charges against executives at AIG, the insurer that sold financial instruments that allowed major financial firms to place bets against the housing market—and sometimes, against the same financial products they sold to investors. As of last year, the SEC reportedly was still investigating.
Bear
In 2009, prosecutors lost the first major criminal case of the financial crisis when the jury acquitted two Bear Sterns hedge fund managers accused of securities fraud and lying to investors about their failing investments.

And Then Came Those Fancy, Complex Securities Called CDOs

We’ve documented a number of investigations into the big banks’ dealings of mortgage-backed securities known as collateralized debt obligations. The Securities and Exchange Commission of course settled a civil suit against Goldman Sachs last year for $550 million, though its related suit against Goldman trader Fabrice Tourre is ongoing.

As we noted earlier this month, Goldman Sachs disclosed in a regulatory filing that it had received subpoenas from regulators regarding the same deal as well as other CDO deals. And it’s not just regulators: The Journal reported on Friday that Goldman executives expect to receive subpoenas soon from U.S. prosecutors seeking more information.

We also reported late last year that the SEC has an investigation into a JPMorgan Chase deal called “Squared.” The agency formally warned two execs involved in the deal that it may take action against them, as Bloomberg reported in April. JPMorgan disclosed in a recent filing that it is in “advanced negotiations” with regulators but didn’t specify which deals were being scrutinized.

UBS, Deutsche, and Citigroup also were last year reported to have received civil subpoenas from the SEC as part of an investigation into CDO dealings. (See our cheat sheet from around that time.) The Journal also reported that Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs were under early-stage criminal scrutiny by the Justice Department.

Finding the Flaws in the Foreclosure Process

Charges against the banks could be coming for their foreclosure-related problems. Huffington Post reported last week that government audits of Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and Ally Financial accused the banks of engaging in fraud with government-guaranteed mortgages. There are few details about what are in the audits, but here’s how HuffPo explains the allegations:
The audits conclude that the banks effectively cheated taxpayers by presenting the Federal Housing Administration with false claims: They filed for federal reimbursement on foreclosed homes that sold for less than the outstanding loan balance using defective and faulty documents.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s inspector general conducted the audits and has referred the findings to the Justice Department, which will have to decide whether to bring charges. (Bank of America and Wells Fargo declined to comment to Reuters at the time—the others weren’t available for comment.)

Both federal regulators and 50 state attorneys general also have been conducting investigations since news of “robo-signers” and flawed foreclosure practices by the nation’s biggest banks exploded into a full-blown scandal last fall.

There have been numerous reports  of divisions within the two coalitions of investigators. Among the federal agencies, the historically bank-friendly Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had pushed for more modest fines compared with the proposals favored by other federal agencies.

As we’re reported, federal regulators have issued “consent orders” that require banks to perform reviews of their own foreclosure actions and compensate borrowers for financial injuries. From our earlier reporting:
The reviews are expected to culminate late this year or early next year, when checks are scheduled to go out to victims. Regulatory sources told us that the total amount sent to eligible homeowners would likely be disclosed. Even before this phase, observers may get a hint of what's happening if, as expected, regulators levy financial penalties against the banks. The findings of the reviews will determine the size of those penalties, regulatory officials said.
The state attorneys general are also, along with Justice Department negotiators, trying to reach a settlement with the banks. There’s also dissent among their ranks: At least eight Republican attorneys general have voiced disagreement with any proposal that would require banks to cut borrowers’ mortgage debt. Virginia’s attorney general compared the debt writedowns to welfare.

Banks, meanwhile, have reportedly proposed paying $5 billion to settle the states’ foreclosure investigation. That’s a quarter of the $20 billion penalty that had been previously proposed.

More Flaws in the Fallout After Foreclosure

Other investigations and lawsuits against the banks have focused less on their dealings with homeowners and more on the fallout after foreclosure. For instance, the City of Los Angeles earlier this month filed a civil complaint against Deutsche Bank, alleging that the bank illegally evicted tenants and let foreclosed homes fall into disrepair and cause neighborhood blight. Deutsche, in this case, was the trustee for the investors who technically owned the loans. The city said that made Deutsche “contractually responsible” for maintenance and actions against tenants—but the bank said the city “filed this lawsuit against the wrong party.”

The L.A. Times notes that Deutsche and other banks have faced similar suits before and gotten off the hook:
In 2008, the city of Cleveland sued Deutsche Bank and other financial institutions alleging that subprime mortgage lending practices had resulted in widespread foreclosures and blight. A judge dismissed the suit.
Follow on Twitter: @mariancw

Cheat Sheet on Bank Investigations and the Probes That Have Petered Out

by Marian Wang
ProPublica, May 24, 2011

As we and many others have noted, no top banking executives have been successfully prosecuted in connection with the financial crisis: not for making the bad loans that fed the mortgage machine, not for lying about the quality of the mortgages, and not for foreclosing improperly when homeowners struggled to make loan payments.

But there have been many investigations. Some are still pending, others seem to have fallen by the wayside. Here’s our overview of what the banks have been accused of doing at each stage of the mortgage machine.
Let us know in the comments section if we’ve left off any significant investigations that have died quiet deaths or are still ongoing.

The First Step in the Machine: Risky Lending and Underwriting

Regulatory action against the major lenders has been relatively rare. In one of the few cases, the FDIC filed a civil suit in March against three former executives at Washington Mutual for risky lending. The executives at the failed bank were accused of taking “extreme and historically unprecedented risks” in their lending practices in order to maximize their compensation. The executives have denied the charges. Federal authorities have been investigating the bank since it failed and was sold to JPMorgan Chase in 2008.

Earlier this year, the Justice Department ended its criminal investigation of Angelo Mozilo, the former CEO of Countrywide Financial, a major subprime lender. It did not bring charges. Mozilo had settled civil charges with the SEC for $67.5 million—though that was for insider trading, not bad lending.

And when the Justice Department did get a conviction of a mortgage company CEO in April, the executive, Lee Farkas of Taylor, Bean & Whitaker, was found guilty of bank fraud, wire fraud, securities fraud and conspiracy—offenses not specific to the company’s mortgage operations. It was nonetheless touted as “the most significant criminal prosecution to date rising out of the financial crisis.”

For the most part, banks struggling with allegations of bad lending have faced demands from investors to buy back troubled mortgages. The banks have at times resisted, attributing the losses to broader economic turmoil.

The relative lack of regulatory action was highlighted in a New York Times article by Gretchen Morgenson and Josh Rosner, which detailed the case of NovaStar Financial, a subprime lender that the SEC never took any action against. That’s despite a damning report from HUD, lawsuits from homeowners, cease-and-desist orders from state regulators and repeated tips from short-sellers. (The SEC declined to comment on its investigation.)

The government has recently shown signs of taking action when it comes to recouping its own losses. The Justice Department sued Deutsche Bank in early May, alleging that a unit within the German bank “recklessly” endorsed bad mortgage loans in order to get government guarantees that would 1) make the loans easier for the bank to resell to investors, and 2) put the government on the hook for losses.

The lawsuit alleges that Deutsche hid evidence that the loans were bad, costing the government millions in insurance payouts while the bank made profits off the resale. Deutsche told the Wall Street Journal that most of the allegations were about activity that occurred before the unit became a subsidiary of the bank.   

Though the suit against the mortgage lender was believed to be the first of its kind, prosecutors have said that it probably wouldn’t be the last. Here’s the Journal:
It wouldn't be a "fantastical stretch to think we are looking at other financial institutions as well," Mr. Bharara said at a news conference, declining to be more specific.
Next Step: Scandals of Securitization

The Journal reported this week that state attorneys general in New York and California are stepping up investigations of a whole range of bank activities—from the origination of mortgage loans to the packaging of mortgage securities.

New York’s attorney general Eric Schneiderman also recently announced investigations into the packaging and selling of mortgage-backed securities by a number of big banks. Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Royal Bank of Scotland, UBS, JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank are said to be the subjects. Of course, there’s no guarantee that anything will come of these. Schneiderman’s predecessor—now New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo—also had been investigating whether several banks had lied to rating agencies about the quality of their mortgage securities, and no charges resulted from that investigation.

The Justice Department also declined to bring criminal charges against executives at AIG, the insurer that sold financial instruments that allowed major financial firms to place bets against the housing market—and sometimes, against the same financial products they sold to investors. As of last year, the SEC reportedly was still investigating.
Bear
In 2009, prosecutors lost the first major criminal case of the financial crisis when the jury acquitted two Bear Sterns hedge fund managers accused of securities fraud and lying to investors about their failing investments.

And Then Came Those Fancy, Complex Securities Called CDOs

We’ve documented a number of investigations into the big banks’ dealings of mortgage-backed securities known as collateralized debt obligations. The Securities and Exchange Commission of course settled a civil suit against Goldman Sachs last year for $550 million, though its related suit against Goldman trader Fabrice Tourre is ongoing.

As we noted earlier this month, Goldman Sachs disclosed in a regulatory filing that it had received subpoenas from regulators regarding the same deal as well as other CDO deals. And it’s not just regulators: The Journal reported on Friday that Goldman executives expect to receive subpoenas soon from U.S. prosecutors seeking more information.

We also reported late last year that the SEC has an investigation into a JPMorgan Chase deal called “Squared.” The agency formally warned two execs involved in the deal that it may take action against them, as Bloomberg reported in April. JPMorgan disclosed in a recent filing that it is in “advanced negotiations” with regulators but didn’t specify which deals were being scrutinized.

UBS, Deutsche, and Citigroup also were last year reported to have received civil subpoenas from the SEC as part of an investigation into CDO dealings. (See our cheat sheet from around that time.) The Journal also reported that Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs were under early-stage criminal scrutiny by the Justice Department.

Finding the Flaws in the Foreclosure Process

Charges against the banks could be coming for their foreclosure-related problems. Huffington Post reported last week that government audits of Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and Ally Financial accused the banks of engaging in fraud with government-guaranteed mortgages. There are few details about what are in the audits, but here’s how HuffPo explains the allegations:
The audits conclude that the banks effectively cheated taxpayers by presenting the Federal Housing Administration with false claims: They filed for federal reimbursement on foreclosed homes that sold for less than the outstanding loan balance using defective and faulty documents.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s inspector general conducted the audits and has referred the findings to the Justice Department, which will have to decide whether to bring charges. (Bank of America and Wells Fargo declined to comment to Reuters at the time—the others weren’t available for comment.)

Both federal regulators and 50 state attorneys general also have been conducting investigations since news of “robo-signers” and flawed foreclosure practices by the nation’s biggest banks exploded into a full-blown scandal last fall.

There have been numerous reports  of divisions within the two coalitions of investigators. Among the federal agencies, the historically bank-friendly Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had pushed for more modest fines compared with the proposals favored by other federal agencies.

As we’re reported, federal regulators have issued “consent orders” that require banks to perform reviews of their own foreclosure actions and compensate borrowers for financial injuries. From our earlier reporting:
The reviews are expected to culminate late this year or early next year, when checks are scheduled to go out to victims. Regulatory sources told us that the total amount sent to eligible homeowners would likely be disclosed. Even before this phase, observers may get a hint of what's happening if, as expected, regulators levy financial penalties against the banks. The findings of the reviews will determine the size of those penalties, regulatory officials said.
The state attorneys general are also, along with Justice Department negotiators, trying to reach a settlement with the banks. There’s also dissent among their ranks: At least eight Republican attorneys general have voiced disagreement with any proposal that would require banks to cut borrowers’ mortgage debt. Virginia’s attorney general compared the debt writedowns to welfare.

Banks, meanwhile, have reportedly proposed paying $5 billion to settle the states’ foreclosure investigation. That’s a quarter of the $20 billion penalty that had been previously proposed.

More Flaws in the Fallout After Foreclosure

Other investigations and lawsuits against the banks have focused less on their dealings with homeowners and more on the fallout after foreclosure. For instance, the City of Los Angeles earlier this month filed a civil complaint against Deutsche Bank, alleging that the bank illegally evicted tenants and let foreclosed homes fall into disrepair and cause neighborhood blight. Deutsche, in this case, was the trustee for the investors who technically owned the loans. The city said that made Deutsche “contractually responsible” for maintenance and actions against tenants—but the bank said the city “filed this lawsuit against the wrong party.”

The L.A. Times notes that Deutsche and other banks have faced similar suits before and gotten off the hook:
In 2008, the city of Cleveland sued Deutsche Bank and other financial institutions alleging that subprime mortgage lending practices had resulted in widespread foreclosures and blight. A judge dismissed the suit.
Follow on Twitter: @mariancw

Thursday, May 19, 2011

one-lawman-with the guts to go-after-wall-street

Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman wants to go after the Wall Street banker crooks that ruined our economy, but he is going to need lots of support. Let's join his FB page and urge others to do the same. Maybe some big numbers behind him will help. http://www.truthout.org/one-lawman-guts-go-after-wall-street/1305815368

One Lawman With the Guts to Go After Wall Street
by: Robert Scheer, Truthdig
 

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman during a joint press conference in New York, November 12, 2010. (Photo: Todd Heisler / The New York Times)
The fix was in to let the Wall Street scoundrels off the hook for the enormous damage they caused in creating the Great Recession. All of the leading politicians and officials, federal and state, Republican and Democrat, were on board to complete the job of saving the banks while ignoring their victims ... until last week when the attorney general of New York refused to go along.
Eric Schneiderman will probably fail, as did his predecessors in that job; the honest sheriff doesn’t last long in a town that houses the Wall Street casino. But decent folks should be cheering him on. Despite a mountain of evidence of robo-signed mortgage contracts, deceitful mortgage-based securities and fraudulent foreclosures, the banks were going to be able to cut their potential losses to what was, for them, a minuscule amount.
In a deal that had the blessing of the White House and many federal regulators and state attorneys general—a settlement probably for not much more than the $5 billion pittance the top financial institutions found acceptable—the banks would be freed of any further claims by federal and state officials over their shady mortgage packaging and servicing practices and deceptive foreclosure proceedings.
At the same time, the SEC and other federal regulatory bodies are making sweetheart deals with the bankers to close off accountability for creating and collecting on more than a trillion dollars’ worth of toxic mortgage-based securities at the heart of the nation’s economic meltdown—a meltdown that has seen the national debt grow by more than 50 percent, stuck us with an unyielding 9 percent unemployment and left 50 million Americans losing their homes to foreclosure or clinging desperately to underwater mortgages. On top of which an all-time high of 44 million people are living below the official poverty line and fewer new homes were started in April than at any other time in the past half century. With housing values still in free fall, we continue to make the bankers whole. 

As Gretchen Morgenson reported in The New York Times, the Justice Department division responsible for checking for fraud in the bankruptcy system has found a widespread pattern of deception by banks foreclosing homes, and she concluded:
 “So an authoritative source with access to a lot of data has identified industry practices as not only pernicious but also pervasive. Which makes it all the more mystifying that regulators seem eager to strike a cheap and easy settlement with the banks.” 
Not really surprising given both the enormous hold of Wall Street money over the two major political parties and the revolving door through which executives travel between firms like Goldman Sachs and the top positions in the U.S. Treasury Department and elsewhere in the government. The financial crisis occurred only because Republicans and Democrats passed the laws that Wall Street lobbyists wrote ending reasonable banking industry regulation installed in the 1930s in response to the Depression. And when the greed they enabled threatened the foundations of our economy, under Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, it was the bankers who were assisted into lifeboats that had no room for ordinary people.
Not surprising then to find all of the power players in on the latest deals: the Obama administration that had bailed out the banks but not troubled homeowners; the regulators and Fed officials who all looked the other way when the housing bubble was inflated; and the state attorneys general who backed away from going after the perpetrators of robo-signed mortgages and other scams used to foreclose homes.
But now Schneiderman has a chance to derail the deals, given that he is supported by the state’s tough 1921 Martin Act, which one of his predecessors as New York state attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, had used to good advantage in exposing the financial behemoths that are so heavily based in New York. The Wall Street Journal describes the Martin Act as “one of the most potent prosecutorial tools against financial fraud” because, as opposed to federal law, it doesn’t carry the more difficult standard of proving intent to defraud.
Last week, it was revealed that Schneiderman’s office has demanded an accounting from Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs as to the details of their past practice of securitizing those mortgage-based packages that proved so toxic. Maybe he will fail against such powerful forces, as did Spitzer and later Andrew Cuomo, but it is a test worth watching, since no one else, from the White House on down, seems to be concerned with holding the bailed-out banks accountable for the massive pain and suffering they inflicted on the public.

One Lawman With the Guts to Go After Wall Street

by: Robert Scheer, Truthdig

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman during a joint press conference in New York, November 12, 2010. (Photo: Todd Heisler / The New York Times)
The fix was in to let the Wall Street scoundrels off the hook for the enormous damage they caused in creating the Great Recession. All of the leading politicians and officials, federal and state, Republican and Democrat, were on board to complete the job of saving the banks while ignoring their victims ... until last week when the attorney general of New York refused to go along.
Eric Schneiderman will probably fail, as did his predecessors in that job; the honest sheriff doesn’t last long in a town that houses the Wall Street casino. But decent folks should be cheering him on. Despite a mountain of evidence of robo-signed mortgage contracts, deceitful mortgage-based securities and fraudulent foreclosures, the banks were going to be able to cut their potential losses to what was, for them, a minuscule amount.
In a deal that had the blessing of the White House and many federal regulators and state attorneys general—a settlement probably for not much more than the $5 billion pittance the top financial institutions found acceptable—the banks would be freed of any further claims by federal and state officials over their shady mortgage packaging and servicing practices and deceptive foreclosure proceedings.
At the same time, the SEC and other federal regulatory bodies are making sweetheart deals with the bankers to close off accountability for creating and collecting on more than a trillion dollars’ worth of toxic mortgage-based securities at the heart of the nation’s economic meltdown—a meltdown that has seen the national debt grow by more than 50 percent, stuck us with an unyielding 9 percent unemployment and left 50 million Americans losing their homes to foreclosure or clinging desperately to underwater mortgages. On top of which an all-time high of 44 million people are living below the official poverty line and fewer new homes were started in April than at any other time in the past half century. With housing values still in free fall, we continue to make the bankers whole.
As Gretchen Morgenson reported in The New York Times, the Justice Department division responsible for checking for fraud in the bankruptcy system has found a widespread pattern of deception by banks foreclosing homes, and she concluded: “So an authoritative source with access to a lot of data has identified industry practices as not only pernicious but also pervasive. Which makes it all the more mystifying that regulators seem eager to strike a cheap and easy settlement with the banks.”
Not really surprising given both the enormous hold of Wall Street money over the two major political parties and the revolving door through which executives travel between firms like Goldman Sachs and the top positions in the U.S. Treasury Department and elsewhere in the government. The financial crisis occurred only because Republicans and Democrats passed the laws that Wall Street lobbyists wrote ending reasonable banking industry regulation installed in the 1930s in response to the Depression. And when the greed they enabled threatened the foundations of our economy, under Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, it was the bankers who were assisted into lifeboats that had no room for ordinary people.
Not surprising then to find all of the power players in on the latest deals: the Obama administration that had bailed out the banks but not troubled homeowners; the regulators and Fed officials who all looked the other way when the housing bubble was inflated; and the state attorneys general who backed away from going after the perpetrators of robo-signed mortgages and other scams used to foreclose homes.
But now Schneiderman has a chance to derail the deals, given that he is supported by the state’s tough 1921 Martin Act, which one of his predecessors as New York state attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, had used to good advantage in exposing the financial behemoths that are so heavily based in New York. The Wall Street Journal describes the Martin Act as “one of the most potent prosecutorial tools against financial fraud” because, as opposed to federal law, it doesn’t carry the more difficult standard of proving intent to defraud.
Last week, it was revealed that Schneiderman’s office has demanded an accounting from Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs as to the details of their past practice of securitizing those mortgage-based packages that proved so toxic. Maybe he will fail against such powerful forces, as did Spitzer and later Andrew Cuomo, but it is a test worth watching, since no one else, from the White House on down, seems to be concerned with holding the bailed-out banks accountable for the massive pain and suffering they inflicted on the public.

One Lawman With the Guts to Go After Wall Street

by: Robert Scheer, Truthdig

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman during a joint press conference in New York, November 12, 2010. (Photo: Todd Heisler / The New York Times)
The fix was in to let the Wall Street scoundrels off the hook for the enormous damage they caused in creating the Great Recession. All of the leading politicians and officials, federal and state, Republican and Democrat, were on board to complete the job of saving the banks while ignoring their victims ... until last week when the attorney general of New York refused to go along.
Eric Schneiderman will probably fail, as did his predecessors in that job; the honest sheriff doesn’t last long in a town that houses the Wall Street casino. But decent folks should be cheering him on. Despite a mountain of evidence of robo-signed mortgage contracts, deceitful mortgage-based securities and fraudulent foreclosures, the banks were going to be able to cut their potential losses to what was, for them, a minuscule amount.
In a deal that had the blessing of the White House and many federal regulators and state attorneys general—a settlement probably for not much more than the $5 billion pittance the top financial institutions found acceptable—the banks would be freed of any further claims by federal and state officials over their shady mortgage packaging and servicing practices and deceptive foreclosure proceedings.
At the same time, the SEC and other federal regulatory bodies are making sweetheart deals with the bankers to close off accountability for creating and collecting on more than a trillion dollars’ worth of toxic mortgage-based securities at the heart of the nation’s economic meltdown—a meltdown that has seen the national debt grow by more than 50 percent, stuck us with an unyielding 9 percent unemployment and left 50 million Americans losing their homes to foreclosure or clinging desperately to underwater mortgages. On top of which an all-time high of 44 million people are living below the official poverty line and fewer new homes were started in April than at any other time in the past half century. With housing values still in free fall, we continue to make the bankers whole.
As Gretchen Morgenson reported in The New York Times, the Justice Department division responsible for checking for fraud in the bankruptcy system has found a widespread pattern of deception by banks foreclosing homes, and she concluded: “So an authoritative source with access to a lot of data has identified industry practices as not only pernicious but also pervasive. Which makes it all the more mystifying that regulators seem eager to strike a cheap and easy settlement with the banks.”
Not really surprising given both the enormous hold of Wall Street money over the two major political parties and the revolving door through which executives travel between firms like Goldman Sachs and the top positions in the U.S. Treasury Department and elsewhere in the government. The financial crisis occurred only because Republicans and Democrats passed the laws that Wall Street lobbyists wrote ending reasonable banking industry regulation installed in the 1930s in response to the Depression. And when the greed they enabled threatened the foundations of our economy, under Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, it was the bankers who were assisted into lifeboats that had no room for ordinary people.
Not surprising then to find all of the power players in on the latest deals: the Obama administration that had bailed out the banks but not troubled homeowners; the regulators and Fed officials who all looked the other way when the housing bubble was inflated; and the state attorneys general who backed away from going after the perpetrators of robo-signed mortgages and other scams used to foreclose homes.
But now Schneiderman has a chance to derail the deals, given that he is supported by the state’s tough 1921 Martin Act, which one of his predecessors as New York state attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, had used to good advantage in exposing the financial behemoths that are so heavily based in New York. The Wall Street Journal describes the Martin Act as “one of the most potent prosecutorial tools against financial fraud” because, as opposed to federal law, it doesn’t carry the more difficult standard of proving intent to defraud.
Last week, it was revealed that Schneiderman’s office has demanded an accounting from Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs as to the details of their past practice of securitizing those mortgage-based packages that proved so toxic. Maybe he will fail against such powerful forces, as did Spitzer and later Andrew Cuomo, but it is a test worth watching, since no one else, from the White House on down, seems to be concerned with holding the bailed-out banks accountable for the massive pain and suffering they inflicted on the public.

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Largest Banks Likely Profited By Borrowing From Federal Reserve, Lending To Federal Government

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/26/fed-lending-helped-wall-street_n_853884.html]

There are nearly 4000, yes 4000 comments, posted ....

A newly-released study from the Congressional Research Service bolsters claims that the nation's largest banks profited off the Federal Reserve's financial crisis-era programs by borrowing cash for next to nothing, then lending it back to the federal government at substantially higher rates.
The report reinforces long-held beliefs that the banking system in essence engaged in taxpayer-financed arbitrage: They got money for free, then lent it back to Uncle Sam while collecting juicy returns. Left out of the equation are the millions of everyday borrowers, like households and small businesses, who were unable to secure loans needed to tide them over until the crisis ended.
The Fed released records under pressure in December and March that showed the extent of its largesse. The CRS study shows for the first time how some of the most sophisticated financial firms could have taken the Fed's money and flipped easy profits simply by lending it back to another arm of the government.
The report was requested by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who likened the crisis-era emergency loans to "direct corporate welfare to big banks," in a statement. The cash likely was lent back to Uncle Sam in the form of Treasuries and other debt "instead of using the Fed loans to reinvest in the economy," Sanders added.
In all, more than $3 trillion was lent to financial institutions from the Fed, and terms were generous. Junk-rated securities were pledged as collateral for taxpayer-backed loans. The Fed did not provide conditions for how the money was to be used.
As part of one Fed program, on 33 separate occasions, nine firms were able to borrow between $5.2 billion and $6.2 billion in U.S. government securities for four-week intervals, paying one-time fees that amounted to the minuscule rate of 0.0078 percent.
In another, financial firms pledged more than $1.3 trillion in junk-rated securities to the Fed for cheap overnight loans. The rates were as low as 0.5 percent.


During one three-month period in 2009, Bank of America borrowed more than $48 billion at rates ranging from 0.25 to 0.5 percent. Meanwhile, the largest U.S. lender tripled its holdings of Treasuries and other taxpayer-backed debt to about $15 billion -- securities that yielded 3.5 percent.
During the third quarter of 2009, the bank borrowed $2.9 billion from the Fed through a program that charged 0.25 percent interest. In that same period, Bank of America increased its holdings of taxpayer-backed federal debt by $12 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service. Those securities yielded an average of 3.2 percent.
"Bank of America provided vital support to the economy throughout the financial crisis and we continue to support businesses and individuals today through our lending and capital raising activities," spokesman Jerry Dubrowski said in an email.
In another period, JPMorgan Chase, the second-largest bank, swelled its holdings of taxpayer-backed federal debt by $20 billion, which yielded 2.1 percent, while at the same time borrowing $29 billion from the Fed at a rate of 0.3 percent.
JPMorgan did not respond to a request for comment.
In contrast, during the first year of the Obama administration, small businesses shuttered due to lackluster sales and a lack of credit, foreclosures surged, and credit contracted at one of the quickest rates on record.
"Why wasn't the Fed providing these same sweetheart deals to the American people?" asked Warren Gunnels, senior policy adviser to Sanders. "The Fed was practicing socialism for the rich, powerful and the connected, while the federal government was promoting rugged individualism to everyone else."
At the time, Fed officials said its bailout programs were necessary to restart the flow of credit. If money couldn't flow to lenders, households and businesses would be next. Even more layoffs and foreclosures could have ensued, officials argued.
Lending, however, decreased, according to Fed and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation data. Mortgage rates dropped, but mortgages were harder to come by. Credit card lines were slashed. Loans were called in. New financing plunged. In 2009, outstanding credit to U.S. households declined by $234.5 billion. For non-corporate businesses, credit plunged $296.1 billion, Fed data show.
Sanders said the spread between firms' borrowing rates and their lending rates to Uncle Sam amounted to "free money." For Bank of America during the third quarter of 2009, the spread was nearly 3 percent.
Dubrowski countered by pointing out that Bank of America "extended $184 billion in credit to individuals and businesses" during that time.
The author of the CRS report, Marc Labonte, cautioned that "correlation does not prove causation."
"There is no information available on how banks used specific funds borrowed from the Federal Reserve," he wrote.
The Federal Reserve declined to comment.
CRS on the Federal Reserve's Bailout



, , , , , , , JPMorgan Chase , Morgan Stanley , Wells Fargo , Wall Street Bailout , Business News