Bank of America fine $17 Billion dollars

[si73]

Dear oh dear. Did you even read the article?

Who are dividends paid to?

Yeah I also read this one too.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28880307

Might read a few more. My point still stands, if the fine they negotiated is $17bn how much was the embezzlement?

 

[chr1s1973]

No, I'm suggesting you're talking shite. It's f***ing gibberish man.

Ok, let's start again. There was a lot of hubris in those times. Banks lending without proper checks and to people they shouldn't have, assuming/ hoping the economy and housing market would always go up. That debt was then bundled up, leveraged and sold on. Within that, there were some outliers who outright lied about or fraudulently represented buyers' incomes and then others who misrepresented the credit quality of this debt, this was not everybody.

This was a long time ago now. The offenders have largely left their jobs, or those jobs don't exist any more, the regulations and scrutiny are considerably more tight and the things that happened then, largely wouldn't be able to happen now, nor would there likely be the chance that the people who essentially committed fraud, be allowed to get away with it. What you thought was so funny, was me saying that we can't go back in time and add regulations which had been loosened under Clinton over here and Blair over there.

Bank of America bought Countrywide Financial after they went out of business, then did the same with Merrills. The latter in particular was in the same way as Lloyds bought HBoS; to stop them going completely and creating an even more systemic shock. So today (yesterday) BoA settled with this branch of the government on charges of offenses of mis-selling that was not actioned by BoA, but by Merrills and Countrywide.

My opening paragraph was intended to be a synopsis of a small part of what happened. Obviously you didn't understand that, does this make more sense to you?

 

[---Nemo---]

Ok, let's start again. There was a lot of hubris in those times. Banks lending without proper checks and to people they shouldn't have, assuming/ hoping the economy and housing market would always go up. That debt was then bundled up, leveraged and sold on. Within that, there were some outliers who outright lied about or fraudulently represented buyers' incomes and then others who misrepresented the credit quality of this debt, this was not everybody.

This was a long time ago now. The offenders have largely left their jobs, or those jobs don't exist any more, the regulations and scrutiny are considerably more tight and the things that happened then, largely wouldn't be able to happen now, nor would there likely be the chance that the people who essentially committed fraud, be allowed to get away with it. What you thought was so funny, was me saying that we can't go back in time and add regulations which had been loosened under Clinton over here and Blair over there.

Bank of America bought Countrywide Financial after they went out of business, then did the same with Merrills. The latter in particular was in the same way as Lloyds bought HBoS; to stop them going completely and creating an even more systemic shock. So today (yesterday) BoA settled with this branch of the government on charges of offenses of mis-selling that was not actioned by BoA, but by Merrills and Countrywide.

My opening paragraph was intended to be a synopsis of a small part of what happened. Obviously you didn't understand that, does this make more sense to you?

I can understand it if that's what you mean. It's still bollocks mind. It will happen again, and again, and again. Do you really believe regulations will stop these people? Really? Carry on swallowing, you'll do well for yourself. Try not to be the sacrificial innocent thrown to the wolves when the music stops though. The people you're defending neither love nor appreciate you.

 

[chr1s1973]

Didn't the whole of the banking phenomenon in Charlotte, and I'm gonna project a hypothesis here and guess that you're now working for BoA there now, precisely come about because of the greed and blind competitiveness of the likes of Storrs and McColl, then latterly Crutchfield, Lewis & Thompson who went on stupendously crazing buying sprees once the regulations allowed them to spread beyond 1 branch per state, and then to go national?

If memory serves, BoA even tried to buy Merrill Lynch, going on the verge of tits up before a $45 Billion handout from the taxpayer?

BoA ballsed up with Countrywide, Wachovia ballsed up with Golden West, Lloyds ballsed up with RBS, Coop ballsed up with …

Spot the pattern yet, and you still think it wasn't down to greed? They thought they were invincible while the dice were rolling out the 7's then they threw one hand too many. That, my friend, is greed, plain & simple.

I don't work for BoA.

From memory, the rules on branches were relaxed in the 70s weren't they? Probably, but even in 2008, there was a lot more competition on a retail banking level and depth than at home, the probably was the size of these behemoths and too big to fail.....Boring.

Which "handout" are you talking about? TARP? The bailouts (most of which were repaid here very quickly and again, were a short term funding issue due to the systemic failure after Lehmans). I don't remember exactly when BoA bought Merrills, I'm pretty sure it was a Thursday but it was one of a succession of failures at the time, when each week they were having these meetings with officials and firms to try and sort something out to stop liquidation, therefore a hard default. Things moved very quickly and got a lot worse for these guys after Lehmans went though, when there was nobody else left to buy this shit.

As I say, one of the major issues then was marking this shit to market and the lack of proper pricing. I think BoA thought they were getting a bargain in Countrywide, but the world didn't know the extent of these companies fuck ups. As I say, some of the latter ones, particularly Merrills and HBoS was the governments desperately looking for someone who was liquid and could take some of the systemic risk out of the system and the likes of Lloyds and BoA (both ultra, ultra conservative banks before all of this happened) will have thought they were getting a bargain, once liquidity returned.

I don't know what this "greed" is, it's like when people bang on about greedy footballers. You seem to be saying that if someone offers you something that seems to be worth a tenner for a fiver, you should just pass it up because you don't want to be greedy (turns out you should have let the fuckers rot as it was actually worth a pound).I don't see how that tallys to human nature.

I can understand it if that's what you mean. It's still bollocks mind. It will happen again, and again, and again. Do you really believe regulations will stop these people? Really? Carry on swallowing, you'll do well for yourself. Try not to be the sacrificial innocent thrown to the wolves when the music stops though. The people you're defending neither love nor appreciate you.

Ok, I'm glad you know more than me about it. What do/ did you do for a living?

 

[Hair Flick]

I don't know what this "greed" is, it's like when people bang on about greedy footballers. You seem to be saying that if someone offers you something that seems to be worth a tenner for a fiver, you should just pass it up because you don't want to be greedy (turns out you should have let the fuckers rot as it was actually worth a pound).I don't see how that tallys to human nature.

I think you just about summed up exactly what greed is there tbh, and the bracketed bit is what happens when blind greed comes back to bite you on the arse.

 

[chr1s1973]

I think you just about summed up exactly what greed is there tbh, and the bracketed bit is what happens when blind greed comes back to bite you on the arse.

I just don't see it. I mean, why is it blind greed? You are talking like they knew and did it recklessly, or somehow these deals were too good to be true and nothing is too good to be true kind of situations.

Capital requirements and liquidity rations were so much lower then, it seemed like they just didn't have enough cash, but had solid assets (business). Which was what happened to Wachovia and why even the likes of Goldmans had to borrow from the government in the end. It's like I keep saying, hindsight.You are assuming that they knew things that hadn't happened yet.

Another way of looking at it is BoA got a prestigious brand (which they still use by the way and the general public still respect) and if they'd left those institutions to rot, it could have killed them.

I can understand it if that's what you mean. It's still bollocks mind. It will happen again, and again, and again. Do you really believe regulations will stop these people? Really? Carry on swallowing, you'll do well for yourself. Try not to be the sacrificial innocent thrown to the wolves when the music stops though. The people you're defending neither love nor appreciate you.

Honestly, look up Dodd-Frank and Basel III, the regulations have been sweeping. It isn't about "these people", there will always be people who break rules and the law, hopefully they get caught and punished, but the system was the problem. Capital requirements, the Volker rule, higher risk, monitoring and compliance requirements and loads of other stuff means as long as this stays in place, means we'll never see the same thing again. I'm not saying that no bad things will happen, but not like that.

Oh no, you know better, that's right.

Yeah I also read this one too.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28880307

Might read a few more. My point still stands, if the fine they negotiated is $17bn how much was the embezzlement?

You read both of those articles, yet still are going on about "embezzlement"?

 

[monkeytassle]

Goldman taught Greece how to misrepresent it's debt ffs

Stop being flippant. Greece employed Goldman to do it.

I can understand it if that's what you mean. It's still bollocks mind. It will happen again, and again, and again. Do you really believe regulations will stop these people? Really? Carry on swallowing, you'll do well for yourself. Try not to be the sacrificial innocent thrown to the wolves when the music stops though. The people you're defending neither love nor appreciate you.

These people mate are the same as you and I. Whether you like it or not.

I'm not going to argue about it. Greedy people profited from people's greed. Greedy people watched it happen and it all felt apart. That's the jist of the 08 crisis.

Then it happened again at a sovereign level 2 years later man

I'll have a little look when I get to work but some of the penalties have been massive of late. Jp, BNP, bofa, citi, Wells fargo, credit suisse, Deutsche. I reckon over 100bn there. The US fed/treasury made a tidy profit from the emergency funding and share bailouts too.

There's many sides to this story.

 

[ouro]

@chr1s1973 : As I recall, you have said a couple of times that nobody saw it coming, everyone thought the economy & housing market would keep rising... People did see it coming, including govt. advisers.
Quite apart from that, if you are employed as a professional in some field of finance surely it is your job to figure this shit out and not take blind guesses and gambles? If a plumber 'fixed' your boiler and it blew up I daresay 'I didn't expect that!' Would not be seen as a valid excuse.

 

[monkeytassle]

@chr1s1973 : As I recall, you have said a couple of times that nobody saw it coming, everyone thought the economy & housing market would keep rising... People did see it coming, including govt. advisers.
Quite apart from that, if you are employed as a professional in some field of finance surely it is your job to figure this shit out and not take blind guesses and gambles? If a plumber 'fixed' your boiler and it blew up I daresay 'I didn't expect that!' Would not be seen as a valid excuse.

Pass the parcel man. It was easy to make money pre 08. Just buy stuff with borrowed money. Both at a retail and institutional level. Just hope you're not the mug holding the grenade when it stops.

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

I don't like the way people bandy the word greed around these days, as if ambition and wanting more money is a crime. So can you be more specific?

If someone breaks rules or makes the economy or markets less efficient through cheating then they are wankers and should be punished, it seems like a hell of a lot more are caught and punished these days.

Who adds value to society these days anyway? You could say that by making money markets efficient and enabling people to borrow money to buy things they otherwise wouldn't have been able to adds value to society. Using a credit card to pay for things, higher security, moving money instantly and so many other things adds efficiency and value. What kind of "bankers" are you talking about?

Generally, I find these arguments to be flawed. People want to live in the past and want things to be the way they were before technology changed things, the brunt of this service-based, recycling of money economy we have is taken out on "bankers", whatever they are.


It's all a function of trends to me, whoever someone decides should be the bad guy. Santander misrepresented their balance sheet by using out-dated accounting methods which were meant to be banned by the EU, that let them pick up bargain banks that were struggling due to liquidity. Nobody has ever taken any action against them over it, if they'd represented their assets appropriately then they'd have been as weak as Lloyds (before they realised they were completely fucked by HBoS).


Anyway, are we not talking about the Sub-prime crisis?

It's all a function of trends?

What utter waffle.

 

[SuperGerryHarrison]

The banks were, of course, implicit in the financial crisis. That's not to be avoided or forgot.

What's less publicised is the part large swathes of society played. Not many people were complaining when they were getting cheap mortgages at 120% LTV. Not many businesses were complaining when getting unsecured covenant light loans at 0.50%.

Everyone was greedy and many people in society made millions out of this period who were not bankers.

 

[monkeytassle]

The banks were, of course, implicit in the financial crisis. That's not to be avoided or forgot.

What's less publicised is the part large swathes of society played. Not many people were complaining when they were getting cheap mortgages at 120% LTV. Not many businesses were complaining when getting unsecured covenant light loans at 0.50%.

Everyone was greedy and many people in society made millions out of this period who were not bankers.

fair appraisal. banks were the conduit for the greed explosion.

 

[Cockney Mackem]

PS I also don't like it when people blame or criticise institutions and individuals when they were not to blame. People should rightly be livid with the former HBoS, Northern Rock, Bradford and Bingley and f***ing RBS. Countrywide and all of the others over here too. However, HSBC, Barclays, Goldmans, JP Morgan et al were not involved directly in anything that led to the problems. Some Chief Exec who guided a company through the bad times and their company thrived get a huge bonus, people say he shouldn't have it as the "bank" have done x,y,z.

Send wankers like Goodwin, Applegarth and the detestable Jon Corzine to jail. Those, that Labour let those two off was disgusting, never mind that they got those bonuses. Mind-boggling. But you have to apportion blame appropriately.

Goldman, JP Morgan, HSBC and Barclays have all been fined for criminal activity. HSBC were laundering drug money.

 

[HellsBells]

PS I also don't like it when people blame or criticise institutions and individuals when they were not to blame. People should rightly be livid with the former HBoS, Northern Rock, Bradford and Bingley and f***ing RBS. Countrywide and all of the others over here too. However, HSBC, Barclays, Goldmans, JP Morgan et al were not involved directly in anything that led to the problems. Some Chief Exec who guided a company through the bad times and their company thrived get a huge bonus, people say he shouldn't have it as the "bank" have done x,y,z.

Send wankers like Goodwin, Applegarth and the detestable Jon Corzine to jail. Those, that Labour let those two off was disgusting, never mind that they got those bonuses. Mind-boggling. But you have to apportion blame appropriately.

Funny how I remember Barclays et al lending at the same stupid multiples as HBOS in the deals I was syndicating at the time.

 

[monkeytassle]

Goldman, JP Morgan, HSBC and Barclays have all been fined for criminal activity. HSBC were laundering drug money.

technically I don't think goldman have been fined for criminal activity.

 

[Cockney Mackem]

I just don't see it. I mean, why is it blind greed? You are talking like they knew and did it recklessly, or somehow these deals were too good to be true and nothing is too good to be true kind of situations.

Capital requirements and liquidity rations were so much lower then, it seemed like they just didn't have enough cash, but had solid assets (business). Which was what happened to Wachovia and why even the likes of Goldmans had to borrow from the government in the end. It's like I keep saying, hindsight.You are assuming that they knew things that hadn't happened yet.

Another way of looking at it is BoA got a prestigious brand (which they still use by the way and the general public still respect) and if they'd left those institutions to rot, it could have killed them.


Honestly, look up Dodd-Frank and Basel III, the regulations have been sweeping. It isn't about "these people", there will always be people who break rules and the law, hopefully they get caught and punished, but the system was the problem. Capital requirements, the Volker rule, higher risk, monitoring and compliance requirements and loads of other stuff means as long as this stays in place, means we'll never see the same thing again. I'm not saying that no bad things will happen, but not like that.

Oh no, you know better, that's right.


You read both of those articles, yet still are going on about "embezzlement"?

Interesting that you say it's the system to blame for not controlling what the banks did but normally you're such an avid proponent of the current American conservative view that corporations should be allowed to do what they want and let the Invisible Hand run things

technically I don't think goldman have been fined for criminal activity.

Sorry, I keep forgetting, they just get away with their fraud and insider trading

 

[monkeytassle]

Sorry, I keep forgetting, they just get away with their fraud and insider trading

let it go man. unless you can back it up.

 

[HellsBells]

Honestly, look up Dodd-Frank and Basel III, the regulations have been sweeping. It isn't about "these people", there will always be people who break rules and the law, hopefully they get caught and punished, but the system was the problem. Capital requirements, the Volker rule, higher risk, monitoring and compliance requirements and loads of other stuff means as long as this stays in place, means we'll never see the same thing again. I'm not saying that no bad things will happen, but not like that.

Oh no, you know better, that's right.

All keep me in a job.

 

[ouro]

The banks were, of course, implicit in the financial crisis. That's not to be avoided or forgot.

What's less publicised is the part large swathes of society played. Not many people were complaining when they were getting cheap mortgages at 120% LTV. Not many businesses were complaining when getting unsecured covenant light loans at 0.50%.

Everyone was greedy and many people in society made millions out of this period who were not bankers.

Going back a good few years I, like many others re-mortgaged every few years for a better deal / cashback. Each time I did, I had to endure an oleaginous cretin cajoling and encouraging me to borrow more on the strength of the increasing value of my property. 'Don't you fancy treating yourself to a new car? A holiday of a lifetime?' No mate, I don't. I know two lads that went down that road and they both ended up having their houses repossessed.

 

[monkeytassle]

Going back a good few years I, like many others re-mortgaged every few years for a better deal / cashback. Each time I did, I had to endure an oleaginous cretin cajoling and encouraging me to borrow more on the strength of the increasing value of my property. 'Don't you fancy treating yourself to a new car? A holiday of a lifetime?' No mate, I don't. I know two lads that went down that road and they both ended up having their houses repossessed.

steady on. word of the day that.

we need a new mortgage system. a visible one that you can't just magic up the money for.