BofA settles for some $17BILLION...

[Amazon 7]

kelpdiver

***
And all those people, other than the millions of borrowers who lost everything, and of course lawyers as usual and by design, made huge profits.

The largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world..... from main street to Wall Street and members of the bar.

Who are "these people?" As noted, many financial companies went out of business. Mine got acquired by assholes and that pushed me out the door (to a happier place) unless I was willing to move to Delaware. It delayed my home purchase by 2 years - a considerable cost. On the up side, that home money that I instead invested paid off very well and enabled me to put 20% down when I find it settled enough with my new job to make the commitment.

And yes, it's unkind to say, but that was funded by people like you who sold at the bottom.

There you go again.......... I did not sell at the bottom.. other than some underwater stock options that suffered severe price manipulation that went from well over 60 thousands of dollars at the time they were "selling" a lot of us on the deal... that when the actual price was set by the market on a given date turned out to be pennies on the dollar. Then the government wanted taxes on the highest figure... until my lawyer and I showed them that in point of fact the proceeds of that sale was just 2300 dollars not 60000 that they wanted back taxes on underreported proceeds to be paid on a couple years after the fact.

My home has recovered to be no longer underwater... and even thru all the assinine contracts and the contract houses cutting most of the contractors by up to 50%.... I actually did just fine. So smoke on that diver boy

MOST of the people who perped this travesty on America did just very very well....

[billvon 2,400]

>other than the millions of borrowers who lost everything, and of course lawyers as
>usual and by design, made huge profits.

And other than the borrowers who flipped serially and made millions, the borrowers who defaulted and got free houses out of the deals, and the lenders who lost everything.

[Amazon 7]

billvon

>other than the millions of borrowers who lost everything, and of course lawyers as
>usual and by design, made huge profits.

And other than the borrowers who flipped serially and made millions, the borrowers who defaulted and got free houses out of the deals, and the lenders who lost everything.

I would have to say on balance.... that a hell of a lot more people lost everything... than those who profited. The state of our economy is a hint... years later and families are beginning to recover... some.. but many will probably never recover.

[kelpdiver 2]

Amazon

There you go again.......... I did not sell at the bottom.. other than some underwater stock options that suffered severe price manipulation that went from well over 60 thousands of dollars at the time they were "selling" a lot of us on the deal... that when the actual price was set by the market on a given date turned out to be pennies on the dollar. Then the government wanted taxes on the highest figure... until my lawyer and I showed them that in point of fact the proceeds of that sale was just 2300 dollars not 60000 that they wanted back taxes on underreported proceeds to be paid on a couple years after the fact.

You gave us quite the sob story about your 401k/generic retirement accounts losing most of their value and not recovering. When probed for details, it was clear that you shifted assets into cash assets at the absolute wrong time and missed the recovery that those of us who stood pat enjoyed.

Are you saying this was made up? Dramatic theater, nothing more?

[Amazon 7]

kelpdiver

***
There you go again.......... I did not sell at the bottom.. other than some underwater stock options that suffered severe price manipulation that went from well over 60 thousands of dollars at the time they were "selling" a lot of us on the deal... that when the actual price was set by the market on a given date turned out to be pennies on the dollar. Then the government wanted taxes on the highest figure... until my lawyer and I showed them that in point of fact the proceeds of that sale was just 2300 dollars not 60000 that they wanted back taxes on underreported proceeds to be paid on a couple years after the fact.

You gave us quite the sob story about your 401k/generic retirement accounts losing most of their value and not recovering. When probed for details, it was clear that you shifted assets into cash assets at the absolute wrong time and missed the recovery that those of us who stood pat enjoyed.

Are you saying this was made up? Dramatic theater, nothing more?

Loral... tanked... Several other stocks tanked... nothing to sells worthless now... I could use the stock certificates for wall paper. I was really scared at the time.. a lifetime of work transferred to crooks....so sad too bad..

My 401k's and IRA's all recovered nicely over a long period of time TOO long.. they were damn near worthless so why try to sell but it appears you are the one who assumed much. I took some bad advice from people I thought were ethical.. I was wrong in my character judgements... I have become a lot more astute since then.
Now my mother on the other hand did do that.. pretty much bankrupted her...but hey as long as some crook there on wall street got it all without an entire life time of work like she did that is great in your mind it appears.
Same thing happened tor quite a few other retiree's who now have nothing.
Winners and losers... no matter how much crooked it takes to "win" is not how I choose to live life. YMMV

[Rick 67]

billvon

>other than the millions of borrowers who lost everything, and of course lawyers as
>usual and by design, made huge profits.

And other than the borrowers who flipped serially and made millions, the borrowers who defaulted and got free houses out of the deals, and the lenders who lost everything.

yep I know a few people that "lost" their houses. They took interest only loans they could not afford ended up defaulting but (at least in 1 case that I personally know of) ended up living in the house for 4 years without making a payment before they finally got foreclosed on

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[billvon 2,400]

>They took interest only loans they could not afford ended up defaulting but (at
>least in 1 case that I personally know of) ended up living in the house for 4 years
>without making a payment before they finally got foreclosed on

Yep. In one case I know of, someone simply didn't pay their mortgage for years, then got a friend to buy the house when they were foreclosed on for almost half the price - and thus got the house back. Defrauded the bank for almost a quarter million.

[billvon 2,400]

>I would have to say on balance.... that a hell of a lot more people lost everything...
>than those who profited.

Agreed, and true of banks as well. Lehman Brothers went bankrupt, and Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch were sold for pennies on the dollar to other companies. Altogether 102 banks went bankrupt in 2008-2009.

[Boomerdog 0]

Quote

Feds are still considering charging Angelo Mozilo, head of Countrywide.

But after six years, no indictment. Why?
Bank Robbers and Politicians love banks because as Jesse James aptly put it, "That's where the money is."
In all of the well meaning posts here, few if any note the US Government's culpability in all of this via The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. All those wascaawy robber baron bankers; all of them are at fault. And please don't misunderstand me, I have no love lost for these guys. Few if any stood up to the Government and said, "Halt, this is no good, these are high risks loans that will ruin all of us just for the sake of getting people into housing who in hard reality, could not afford the mortgage in the first place." And the beat goes on.
BofA folded and paid the fine for the consequences would have been criminal penalties so they looked at the actuarials and decided to cut their losses.
Yet we've seen NO indictments of these Robber Barons. Many here have contempt and scorn for these people (I'm not a big fan either) but these executive bankers are far from dumb. They know the kabuki dance with the pols and they know how to play that game very well. None of them want to go to jail and they keep good records of every call, memo, conversation they have with elected leaders. They have the $$$ to buy the best lawyers and private investigators and come the day one of them is indicted, all of the records, conversations, e-mails with our elected leaders is going to come out at trial. Wall Street Bankers don't like jail; no caviar or Dom Perignon in the Big House. Senators and Members of Congress may enjoy a wide berth of criminal immunity, but the testimony will damn a lot of pols. Both sides know this, hence the kabuki dance. The financial crisis bailed out K Street and Wall Street. Main Street got royally screwed and it wasn't JUST the bankers who created this mess. If Mozilo is ever indicted, it'll be a show trial with a slap on the hands and the public gets thrown a bone so they can tell us, "Your elected leaders are watching out for you little people on Main Street." Spare me the bullshit!

[kelpdiver 2]

that's a great populist rant, but a bit light on facts.

To reiterate, BofA settled for acts committed by Countrywide before acquiring the company. There's no risk of criminal liability for the acquiring company.

And simplify things nicely - screwing up is not a criminal act. Nor is being reckless as a salesman. It reminds me of the number of times people have insisted that Obama/Bush/Clinton should be impeached. You don't impeach a politician for doing shit you don't agree with. You do it for criminal acts.

[DanG 1]

Quote

In all of the well meaning posts here, few if any note the US Government's culpability in all of this via The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.

It's been noted repeatedly, and then repeatedly debunked.

- Dan G

[Andy9o8 0]

kelpdiver

To reiterate, BofA settled for acts committed by Countrywide before acquiring the company. There's no risk of criminal liability for the acquiring company.

Eh, not so fast. You see, once Countrywide formally merged into BoA, Countrywide's severely impaired portfolio became part of BoA's portfolio. At that point, BoA had an affirmative obligation to disclose such portfolio impairments in its quartly 10-Qs, and in its annual 10-Ks - yet it failed to do so. And BoA compunded this regulatory non-disclosure by issuing press releases and speeches by its top echelon of executives - intended to be consumed and relied upon by investors - deliberately mischaracterizing (read: concealing) the impaired nature of its portfolio and its resulting risk of repurchase liability. And BoA did so not out of mere negligent ignorance of the impairments, it did so with full knowledge - the legal word is "scienter" - of those impairments. And it did so partly through former Countrywide executives who had become BoA executives in the merger, as well as by long-standing BoA execuives

Therefore, the failure to disclose was part and parcel of a deliberate course of deceptive conduct, committed not only by Countrywide pre-merger, but also by BoA itself post-merger (and, in fact, even prior to the merger being formally consummated).

Thus: It's not true that BoA "merely inherited Countrywide's liabilities, but not its sins". Rather, BoA actively engaged in the ongoing course of conduct of those sins itself, both pre- and post-merger. And these fraudulent acts were committed not only by legacy Countrywide executives, but also by long-standing BoA executives.

Not all of this is part of the fact patterns behind the government-brought cases that have already settled (although some of it is), but it is part of the facts asserted, and for which there is ample proof, in several class-action lawsuits brought by private investors and monoline insurers which have not yet gone to trial.

[kallend 1,625]

kelpdiver

To reiterate, BofA settled for acts committed by Countrywide before acquiring the company. There's no risk of criminal liability for the acquiring company.

However, the Countrywide execs who perpetrated the misdeeds are still walking around scot-free. Along with a lot of other execs from the financial services industry who scammed the public and trashed the economy.

The defense of the ratings agencies who gave AAA ratings to junk seems to revolve around their first amendment right to lie.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

kallend

***

To reiterate, BofA settled for acts committed by Countrywide before acquiring the company. There's no risk of criminal liability for the acquiring company.

However, the Countrywide execs who perpetrated the misdeeds are still walking around scot-free. Along with a lot of other execs from the financial services industry who scammed the public and trashed the economy.

The defense of the ratings agencies who gave AAA ratings to junk seems to revolve around their first amendment right to lie.

On a pertinent note..... They are now running a company called PennyMac and BOA is offloading thousands of the old Countrywide home loans to them. .

http://www.pacbiztimes.com/2014/07/18/pennymac-counts-on-family-countrywide-ties/


PenneyMac has "issues" with actually being capable of keeping track of loan payments being made

http://pennymac.pissedconsumer.com/

But p[robably great for running up spurious fees to add to their bottom line

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

***

To reiterate, BofA settled for acts committed by Countrywide before acquiring the company. There's no risk of criminal liability for the acquiring company.

However, the Countrywide execs who perpetrated the misdeeds are still walking around scot-free. Along with a lot of other execs from the financial services industry who scammed the public and trashed the economy.

The defense of the ratings agencies who gave AAA ratings to junk seems to revolve around their first amendment right to lie.

So go after them. It's not that complicated. This mentality of "some people on Wall Street did unethical shit that I mistakenly believe caused the crash so it's ok to attack anyone is finance" would be fine in Iraq or China, but here we actually have law.

But at the risk of wasting time, what's the difference between Lehman leveraging themselves on bad investments versus a dishwasher in Vallejo leveraging himself to buy an extra home to flip?

Bonus question - what caused the Great Depression? Is there a single answer?

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

So go after them. It's not that complicated.

I see you conveniently aren't responding to Andy. How come? As you say; It's not that complicated.

[kelpdiver 2]

SkyDekker

Quote

So go after them. It's not that complicated.

I see you conveniently aren't responding to Andy. How come? As you say; It's not that complicated.

the problem with Andy is that he won't backstop his assertions with proof. So he's pushing the grey area of legal decorum and ethics in talking about it, but not violating it flat out with disclosure. But that removes any point in me discussing the topic further with him. It's like giving a deposition to GW on torture or Iraq and him citing Executive Privilege whenever he wants, but still make unsubstantiated claims when convenient.

Summarizing his statement, BofA has a bit of guilt here. And no doubt is financially liable for all the issue since it acquired all of CW's debts and assets. But when we're talking about the distribution of blame in this settlement, the vast majority is related to activity before the acquisition and to not acknowledge that (as Kallend did in the thread start) is a lie of omission.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

the problem with Andy...

According to my wife, this list, by definition, is infinite.

Quote

the vast majority is related to activity before the acquisition and to not acknowledge that is a lie of omission.

Long story short (it's there in the evidence that will come out in court, probably at the pre-trial "motions for summary judgment" stage, and then again at trial), it was not the vast majority; truthfully, it was about half. The rest were sins of COMmission by BoA.

Hey, trust me on this.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

the problem with Andy is that he won't backstop his assertions with proof.

You mean like you stating BoA bought the liabilities and not the sins......without providing any proof?

You both have stated your opinions on the matter. Claiming his isn't valid because he hasn't provide proof....wgile not providing proof sustantiating your own opinions is somewhat hypocritical.

[kelpdiver 2]

SkyDekker

Quote

the problem with Andy is that he won't backstop his assertions with proof.

You mean like you stating BoA bought the liabilities and not the sins......without providing any proof?

You both have stated your opinions on the matter. Claiming his isn't valid because he hasn't provide proof....wgile not providing proof sustantiating your own opinions is somewhat hypocritical.

I don't need to prove that events committed by Countrywide prior to BofA's purchase are not events committed by BofA. That's simple factual information. 2007 < 2008.

And no, I didn't say his is invalid, but rather than it's impossible to debate something that cannot/will not be submitted. Inadmissable evidence in the court of SC, if you will. The DA is not supplying evidence to the defense for examination.