kallend 1,625 #1 August 22, 2014 ... for its role in writing and securitizing risky home loans in the run-up to the housing crisis. Bank of America stock went up over 4 percent. So the stock goes up because they announced there’s a settlement. That tells you how Wall Street perceives this settlement to be a slap on the wrist. And not a single banker was punished here, not one. They get to keep their bonuses, their positions, their promotions and everything else, and the bank gets to use shareholders’ money to pay off the taxpayers.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 291 #2 August 22, 2014 This is a crime in which the death penalty might actually affect future behavior of others... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #3 August 22, 2014 kallend... for its role in writing and securitizing risky home loans in the run-up to the housing crisis. Bank of America stock went up over 4 percent. So the stock goes up because they announced there’s a settlement. That tells you how Wall Street perceives this settlement to be a slap on the wrist. And not a single banker was punished here, not one. They get to keep their bonuses, their positions, their promotions and everything else, and the bank gets to use shareholders’ money to pay off the taxpayers. The usual necessary fact checking for Kallend rants against banks. 1. Feds are still considering charging Angelo Mozilo, head of Countrywide. 2. The bulk of this settlement concerns Countrywide, which BofA purchased in 2008. BofA bought its liabilities, but not its sins. 3. Stock going up doesn't imply it's a hand slap, but rather that the uncertainty has been removed or the cost was less severe than feared (and priced into the stock). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #4 August 22, 2014 headoverheelsThis is a crime in which the death penalty might actually affect future behavior of others... they do that in China a lot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weekender 0 #5 August 22, 2014 kallend... for its role in writing and securitizing risky home loans in the run-up to the housing crisis. Bank of America stock went up over 4 percent. So the stock goes up because they announced there’s a settlement. That tells you how Wall Street perceives this settlement to be a slap on the wrist. And not a single banker was punished here, not one. They get to keep their bonuses, their positions, their promotions and everything else, and the bank gets to use shareholders’ money to pay off the taxpayers. banks set aside a reserve for litigation and carry a litigation risk when settlements are pending. once settlements are agreed, the risk is removed and they tend to pop. countrywide credit went bankrupt and BAC bought them. most of the litigation settlement was for the actions of countrywide. thousands of bankers at countrywide and BAC lost their jobs. no jobs, no promotions, no bonus's. the bank sets aside revenue's for litigation charges. this is made public and shareholders are well away of it and can choose to no longer own the shares. BAC has actually attempted to increase the dividend to shareholders but the Fed has limited it. the stock has also risen nicely since the crisis, so shareholders are richer not poorer. everything you said is wrong. stick to babysitting, finance is to complicated for you."The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #6 August 22, 2014 weekender***... for its role in writing and securitizing risky home loans in the run-up to the housing crisis. Bank of America stock went up over 4 percent. So the stock goes up because they announced there’s a settlement. That tells you how Wall Street perceives this settlement to be a slap on the wrist. And not a single banker was punished here, not one. They get to keep their bonuses, their positions, their promotions and everything else, and the bank gets to use shareholders’ money to pay off the taxpayers. banks set aside a reserve for litigation and carry a litigation risk when settlements are pending. once settlements are agreed, the risk is removed and they tend to pop. countrywide credit went bankrupt and BAC bought them. most of the litigation settlement was for the actions of countrywide. thousands of bankers at countrywide and BAC lost their jobs. no jobs, no promotions, no bonus's. the bank sets aside revenue's for litigation charges. this is made public and shareholders are well away of it and can choose to no longer own the shares. BAC has actually attempted to increase the dividend to shareholders but the Fed has limited it. the stock has also risen nicely since the crisis, so shareholders are richer not poorer. everything you said is wrong. stick to babysitting, finance is to complicated for you. Clearly, as an insider in this business, you have NO IDEA how much this pisses off real people. Taxpayers footed the bill for all this, and no heads have rolled at the top of the industry.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #7 August 22, 2014 kelpdiver***... for its role in writing and securitizing risky home loans in the run-up to the housing crisis. Bank of America stock went up over 4 percent. So the stock goes up because they announced there’s a settlement. That tells you how Wall Street perceives this settlement to be a slap on the wrist. And not a single banker was punished here, not one. They get to keep their bonuses, their positions, their promotions and everything else, and the bank gets to use shareholders’ money to pay off the taxpayers. The usual necessary fact checking for Kallend rants against banks. 1. Feds are still considering charging Angelo Mozilo, head of Countrywide. Considering is not the same as actually doing anything. Quote 2. The bulk of this settlement concerns Countrywide, which BofA purchased in 2008. BofA bought its liabilities, but not its sins. Liabilities include sins. Quote 3. Stock going up doesn't imply it's a hand slap, but rather that the uncertainty has been removed or the cost was less severe than feared warranted FIFY... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weekender 0 #8 August 22, 2014 kallend******... for its role in writing and securitizing risky home loans in the run-up to the housing crisis. Bank of America stock went up over 4 percent. So the stock goes up because they announced there’s a settlement. That tells you how Wall Street perceives this settlement to be a slap on the wrist. And not a single banker was punished here, not one. They get to keep their bonuses, their positions, their promotions and everything else, and the bank gets to use shareholders’ money to pay off the taxpayers. banks set aside a reserve for litigation and carry a litigation risk when settlements are pending. once settlements are agreed, the risk is removed and they tend to pop. countrywide credit went bankrupt and BAC bought them. most of the litigation settlement was for the actions of countrywide. thousands of bankers at countrywide and BAC lost their jobs. no jobs, no promotions, no bonus's. the bank sets aside revenue's for litigation charges. this is made public and shareholders are well away of it and can choose to no longer own the shares. BAC has actually attempted to increase the dividend to shareholders but the Fed has limited it. the stock has also risen nicely since the crisis, so shareholders are richer not poorer. everything you said is wrong. stick to babysitting, finance is to complicated for you. Clearly, as an insider in this business, you have NO IDEA how much this pisses off real people. Taxpayers footed the bill for all this, and no heads have rolled at the top of the industry. all my points stated are valid and true. your's are not and nothing more than angry emotional outburst. im as real a person as you. you like to paint me as a monster because i dont believe your caricatures of a business you have no experience or knowledge of. as evidenced by your childish attempt to explain valuations. laughable, truly grade school stuff. i care more about the strength of the financial industry than most because my livelihood depends on it. i wish Mozell went to jail, i cheered when they caught Madoff, Raj Rajaratnam, Steve Cohen etc... financial scandals impact me in a direct personal way. ive been part of meetings with Finra and the SEC to better our industry. i play fair and hate when others do not because it hurts the rest of us. but i live in reality and understand litigation charges and valuations. so when you post falsehoods i will call you out."The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #9 August 22, 2014 >Clearly, as an insider in this business, you have NO IDEA how much this pisses off real people. If pissing off people were actionable, Justin Bieber would be in jail far sooner than any BofA executives. >Taxpayers footed the bill for all this And, initially, benefited from easy loan terms, a burgeoning real estate market and the ability to make fortunes by flipping houses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #10 August 23, 2014 Now it's Goldman Sachs: online.wsj.com/articles/goldman-sachs-close-to-settling-fhfa-lawsuit-for-more-than-1-billion-1408737438 Every one of these fraudulent deals was initiated by a person and approved by a person, yet no-one is being indicted,... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #11 August 23, 2014 billvon>Clearly, as an insider in this business, you have NO IDEA how much this pisses off real people. If pissing off people were actionable, Justin Bieber would be in jail far sooner than any BofA executives. I don't think Bieber has defrauded anyone.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BartsDaddy 4 #12 August 23, 2014 You ever see one of his performances. He is defrauding anyone expecting entertainment. Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weekender 0 #13 August 23, 2014 kallendNow it's Goldman Sachs: online.wsj.com/articles/goldman-sachs-close-to-settling-fhfa-lawsuit-for-more-than-1-billion-1408737438 Every one of these fraudulent deals was initiated by a person and approved by a person, yet no-one is being indicted, because its not fraud its failure to disclose. when offering a security you must disclose what due diligence you did. if there is a mistake, in this case they were far more risky then expected, you can be held responsible. in this case, they are essentially giving a refund. thats not fraud. you might not like it. mostly because as you proved with your juvenile attempt at stock valuations earlier, you dont understand finance. the gov't regulators are well educated professionals. the people at the Fed, Finra and the Sec are not politicians or bumbling bureaucrats. unlike you they understand finance. if they thought it was fraud then it would have been prosecuted as such. it wasnt because it isnt. you dont like it and your mad but that doesnt change the facts."The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #14 August 23, 2014 Sorry, but you are a classic example of 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #15 August 23, 2014 Iago*********... for its role in writing and securitizing risky home loans in the run-up to the housing crisis. Bank of America stock went up over 4 percent. So the stock goes up because they announced there’s a settlement. That tells you how Wall Street perceives this settlement to be a slap on the wrist. And not a single banker was punished here, not one. They get to keep their bonuses, their positions, their promotions and everything else, and the bank gets to use shareholders’ money to pay off the taxpayers. banks set aside a reserve for litigation and carry a litigation risk when settlements are pending. once settlements are agreed, the risk is removed and they tend to pop. countrywide credit went bankrupt and BAC bought them. most of the litigation settlement was for the actions of countrywide. thousands of bankers at countrywide and BAC lost their jobs. no jobs, no promotions, no bonus's. the bank sets aside revenue's for litigation charges. this is made public and shareholders are well away of it and can choose to no longer own the shares. BAC has actually attempted to increase the dividend to shareholders but the Fed has limited it. the stock has also risen nicely since the crisis, so shareholders are richer not poorer. everything you said is wrong. stick to babysitting, finance is to complicated for you. Clearly, as an insider in this business, you have NO IDEA how much this pisses off real people. Taxpayers footed the bill for all this, and no heads have rolled at the top of the industry. Yep. During the S&L debacle of the 70s-80s they put THOUSANDS of people in jail. This time? Nada Not sure about "thousands". Over 1000 were convicted and some big time players (Keating, Paul) got lengthy prison terms. Should happen this time too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 186 #16 August 23, 2014 kallendNow it's Goldman Sachs: online.wsj.com/articles/goldman-sachs-close-to-settling-fhfa-lawsuit-for-more-than-1-billion-1408737438 Every one of these fraudulent deals was initiated by a person and approved by a person, yet no-one is being indicted, Indicted, hell! Get a rope... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #17 August 24, 2014 >I don't think Bieber has defrauded anyone. But he's rich, and he claims to be talented (clearly fraud) - and you have NO IDEA how much he pisses off real people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #18 August 24, 2014 billvon>I don't think Bieber has defrauded anyone. But he's rich, and he claims to be talented (clearly fraud) - and you have NO IDEA how much he pisses off real people. I'm really surprised that you equate a mediocre teen idol with the folks who crashed the US economy (and by extension a lot of the rest of the world) and cost US taxpayers $(hundreds of billions)... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyBoyd 0 #19 August 24, 2014 "because its not fraud its failure to disclose. thats not fraud." Look in the mirror and say that to yourself slowly. If you still believe it, you have been in the banking industry way too long. If I said that to my boss, I'd be piling my stuff in a box and heading out to my car with my head hung low. I guess bankers say that, laugh, and head out for a 3-martini lunch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #20 August 24, 2014 >I'm really surprised that you equate a mediocre teen idol with the folks who >crashed the US economy (and by extension a lot of the rest of the world) and >cost US taxpayers $(hundreds of billions) Again, you have NO IDEA how much he pisses people off. And which one banker cost the US economy hundreds of billions? If it was all one person, by all means, throw the book at him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #21 August 24, 2014 kallend Sorry, but you are a classic example of 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.' I've been out of the financial sector for 3 years now. My salary is quite safe. But he's still right, and you're still wildly wrong. I pointed out how, simultaneous with his attempt to do so. As for causing the crash - that was a big team effort. And as noted, several companies and a lot of people's jobs in the financial sector disappeared because of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #22 August 24, 2014 kelpdiver *** Sorry, but you are a classic example of 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.' I've been out of the financial sector for 3 years now. So you admit to being part of the cabal that trashed the world's economy. So much for your credibility.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #23 August 25, 2014 kallend So you admit to being part of the cabal that trashed the world's economy. So much for your credibility. I admit to being part of society that isn't ignorant on the subject. You come off as a Flat Earther. You know this- which is why you spend all your efforts trying to diminish the reputation of anyone that brings factual information into the discussion. You spend no time trying to counter those facts. I wasn't a trader, so no actions I took resulted in direct compensation. My firm make the vast majority of its revenue based on AUM, so there was no benefit to a crash for us. Quite the opposite. My firm was sold off for to bolster the asset sheet for the parent company. A rare case where the purchased was more advanced than the purchaser. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weekender 0 #24 August 25, 2014 kallend ****** Sorry, but you are a classic example of 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.' I've been out of the financial sector for 3 years now. So you admit to being part of the cabal that trashed the world's economy. So much for your credibility.you are just ignorant on the topic and insult me rather than add anything of value to the conversation. there were alot of things done wrong which led to the crisis. you ignore all, rather choosing to post emotional insults. fore those reasonably minded people, i will more clearly explain my post as to why it isnt fraud and its failure to disclose. when selling a security, as i mentioned earlier, you must disclose your due diligence. you must disclose what work you have done and show it to the buyside. in the mortgage case, the banks hired independent ratings agencies to check their work. those agencies, as well documented, rated many of the securities much higher than they should have. the banks showed those ratings as their due diligence. so the ratings agencies and the banks disclosed their work showing, incorrectly as history has proven, the securities to be low risk. they were wrong. thats not fraud. thats bad analysis."The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weekender 0 #25 August 25, 2014 AndyBoyd"because its not fraud its failure to disclose. thats not fraud." Look in the mirror and say that to yourself slowly. If you still believe it, you have been in the banking industry way too long. If I said that to my boss, I'd be piling my stuff in a box and heading out to my car with my head hung low. I guess bankers say that, laugh, and head out for a 3-martini lunch. i sleep well at night and have no problem looking in the mirror. insulting me doesnt change any of the facts. the US gov't regulators all agree with me. its not fraud. i explained more clearly why in my previous post. my entire explanation comes from the comments made by the regulators not the bankers. i have the facts as stated by the US Gov't on my side. 3-martini lunch, cmon. i am certain you got that from a TV show and dont actually know any investment bankers. for the record we also have big black canes and wear top hats, tails and monocles in one eye. there is a big sack on my desk with a giant dollar sign on it too. edit to add pic of me at work. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/The_Subsidised_Mineowner.jpg/220px-The_Subsidised_Mineowner.jpg"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites