Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae sued eighteen different financial institutions for participating in unethical and unlawful behavior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flghtr65
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae sued 18 different Wall street financial institutions for being deceived.
First, you can't sue anyone for being "unethical". Unlawful yes, unethical no. Fraud is illegal. Stupid people are deceived. Lawyers always tell their clients to act stupid and pretend they were deceived so it looks like they were defrauded.
Second, you keep mentioning 18 lawsuits filed by Fannie and Freddie. Only 18? Why so few? How many Wall Street firms and others sued Fannie and Freddie? I seem to recall it was a legal clusterfuck. Everyone was suing everyone. What's your point, flighty? Wall Street lawyers had a field day. The DOJ or Fannie or Freddie would make allegations in one lawsuit that were directly contradicted by their arguments in another lawsuit. With so much shit flying, it's no wonder nearly everyone settled out of court. You still can't explain the difference between a court-ordered judgment and an out-of-court settlement.
Yeah flighty, it was complicated. There's plenty of blame to go around for the 2008/09 financial crisis. But you lib-retards can't handle complexity. You need to lie and over-simplify and revise history into false talking points that promote your phony lib-retard agenda.
Yeah flighty, it was complicated. There's plenty of blame to go around for the 2008/09 financial crisis. But you lib-retards can't handle complexity.
It was not that complicated. Greedy bankers had false information put on the prospectus and marketing materials for mortgage-backed bonds. Your reputard-retard ass refuses to call a scam a scam.
From the link:
Almost all the prospectuses and sales material on mortgage-backed bonds sold from 2005 until 2007 were a compound of falsehoods. And as the bubble peaked and started to collapse, executives repeatedly lied about their companies' financial condition. In some cases, they also concealed other material information, such as the extent to which executives were selling or hedging their own stock holdings because they knew their firms were about to collapse.
In some cases, we have evidence of senior executive knowledge of and involvement in misrepresentations. For example, quarterly presentations to investors are nearly always made by the CEO or chief financial officer of the firm; if lies were told in these presentations, or if material facts were omitted, the responsibility lies with senior management. In other cases, such as Bear Stearns, we have evidence from civil lawsuits that senior executives were directly involved in selling securities whose prospectuses allegedly contained lies and omissions.
I did not lie IBidiot. The government did NOT tell local lenders to stop doing credit and income verification checks. The government did not tell local lenders to give someone a mortgage five times the size of their income. Your post does not prove anything. Your post just states that the government said it was okay to give someone a mortgage with less than 20% down. The buyer/ loan applicant was still suppose to be employed and not get a loan greater 2.5 times the size of their income. Local lenders broke these rules because they knew an investment bank from Wall Street was going to buy the mortgage from them. This is why local lenders wanted to process as many mortgages as they could. The investment bank knew that the sub-prime mortgage that they purchased was going to get sold. They had a scam going. See post 437.
The ladies here say you don't have a "long member", you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM. They say it's small and dinky, smaller than your pinkie; just like your IQ, you Mussulman-luvin, Hitler worshipping, lying, hypocritical, racist, cum-gobbling golem fucktard, HDDB, DEM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flghtr65
I did not lie IBidiot. The government did NOT tell local lenders to stop doing credit and income verification checks. The government did not tell local lenders to give someone a mortgage five times the size of their income. Your post does not prove anything. Your post just states that the government said it was okay to give someone a mortgage with less than 20% down. The buyer/ loan applicant was still suppose to be employed and not get a loan greater 2.5 times the size of their income. Local lenders broke these rules because they knew an investment bank from Wall Street was going to buy the mortgage from them. This is why local lenders wanted to process as many mortgages as they could. The investment bank knew that the sub-prime mortgage that they purchased was going to get sold. They had a scam going. See post 437.
Indeed, U B an Idiot, and U B lying again, flighty.
Quote:
The Community Reinvestment Act was not a static piece of legislation. It evolved over the years from a relatively hands-off law focused on process into one that focused on outcomes. Regulators, beginning in the mid-nineties, began to hold banks accountable in serious ways. Banks responded to this new accountability by increasing the CRA loans they made, a move that entailed relaxing their lending standards....
The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages....
Regulators instructed banks to consider alternatives to traditional credit histories because CRA targeted borrowers often lacked traditional credit histories. The banks were expected to become creative, to consider other indicators of reliability....
The government pushed for greater mortgage securitization in an effort to increase CRA lending. At the behest of HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, Fannie and Freddie promised to buy $2 trillion of "affordable" mortgages. The government was intentionally decreasing the risks to the original lenders in order to increase loans to low-income borrowers, and minorities in particular. In short, you can't blame securitization without coming back around to the CRA....
A huge driver of the demand for subprime loans was the demand for CRA bonds. Banks operating under the CRA could meet their obligations by buying up CRA loans or MBS built from CRA loans. The CRA created a demand that the mortgage servicers were meeting....
... the Clinton adminstration threatened to subject the mortgage companies to the CRA if they didn't comply voluntarily. They promptly agreed to increase their CRA-type lending in order to escape the kind of public scrutiny that comes with official CRA regulated status.
Regulators were required to issue public, written performance evaluations of banks, including a system that rated bank compliance as Outstanding, Satisfactory, Needs To Improve or Substantial Non-Compliance. This public scrutiny began to push banks to make more loans to low-income borrowers, a process that often involved putting in place relaxed lending standards.
Shortly afterward, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac addressed bank fears that the low-income lending with relaxed standards would unduly increase risk by beginning to securitize "affordable" mortgages. This was the beginning of subprime lending. It was the "pull" factor that complimented the "push" factor of the CRA.
The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, which opened the door for interstate banking and encouraged a new wave of banking M&A, made the ratings under the CRA a test for determining whether acquisitions would be allowed. That same year, the Fed refused to allow a Hartford, Connecticut bank to acquire a New Hampshire bank on fair housing and CRA grounds.
This was the first time the Fed had ever taken this kind of action, and it had profound effects through the banking sector. It sent a strong signal to the banks that the Fed would closely scrutinize lending practice, limiting the ability of banks to grow or make acquisitions if they were found to have insufficient low income or minority lending.
The CRA defenders like to claim that the statute did not require these things, but the enforcement of the act did. Banks knew what kind of lending would increase their CRA compliance and meet with the approval of the regulators...
... there can be no doubt that the regulators were pushing for "no down payment" loans and 100 percent loan-to-value ratios. They also urged automated under-writing and reliance on credit scoring, two more factors that have since been viewed as contributing to overly-risky lending.
Over the last decade, Treasury studies have shown that CRA helped to spur $1 trillion in home mortgage, small business, and community development lending to low- and moderate-income communities. Banks and thrifts have increased the share of their home purchase lending going to low-income communities. One estimate by Harvard University’s Joint Center on Housing found that CRA’s effect on increasing home mortgage lending to low-income borrowers was equivalent to a 1.3 percentage point decrease in unemployment for these households.
Reforms put in place in 1995 reduced compliance costs for all banks and streamlined CRA even further for the smallest institutions. Large banks are evaluated on their home mortgage, small business and community development lending, community development investments and retail services, while the smallest banks face a simple lending test with no requirement to report on small business lending....
banks in holding companies have available to them the full expertise of the holding company to develop programs to meet community needs under CRA. The holding company and its subsidiaries can offer a range of services to the bank in helping it to meet its CRA performance goals, such as innovative loan products, securitization, and investment expertise. The holding company and its affiliates do affect a bank’s CRA performance, and the bank should therefore be assessed using a CRA test—for large retail institutions—that takes account of the expertise of the parent institution.
First, you can't sue anyone for being "unethical". Unlawful yes, unethical no. Fraud is illegal. Stupid people are deceived. Lawyers always tell their clients to act stupid and pretend they were deceived so it looks like they were defrauded.
Second, you keep mentioning 18 lawsuits filed by Fannie and Freddie. Only 18? Why so few? How many Wall Street firms and others sued Fannie and Freddie? I seem to recall it was a legal clusterfuck. Everyone was suing everyone. What's your point, flighty? Wall Street lawyers had a field day. The DOJ or Fannie or Freddie would make allegations in one lawsuit that were directly contradicted by their arguments in another lawsuit. With so much shit flying, it's no wonder nearly everyone settled out of court. You still can't explain the difference between a court-ordered judgment and an out-of-court settlement.
Yeah flighty, it was complicated. There's plenty of blame to go around for the 2008/09 financial crisis. But you lib-retards can't handle complexity. You need to lie and over-simplify and revise history into false talking points that promote your phony lib-retard agenda.
No Bro its pretty simple. Bush, his cronies and their personal wars bankrupted the Country. The and the Clinton's lined their pockets. Obama saved it. Thats the correct post it note version bro. Dip shits like are top stupid to see that. Maybe Laura Ingram can talk about it this week since she will have some free time
but back to the actual thread
close at 24,103 on friday.
The current issue is how many of the the take the profits guys are are out and if everyone else's top end triggers have been revised.
inflation is not bad (yet), and most fundamentals are still strong.
but back to the actual thread
close at 24,103 on friday.
The current issue is how many of the the take the profits guys are are out and if everyone else's top end triggers have been revised.
inflation is not bad (yet), and most fundamentals are still strong.
Let us not forget the potential trade war looming....
Again,
So what are your interest rate targets and dates dumbf? Let's get you on record.
You got me on record...
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF
Did you think Trump replaced Yellen with me?
I doubt they raise them to much. Unless they are wanting to sweep the Dems in office in 2018!
The Feds are not on bambino's 3% bandwagon. Nor am I , at least sustainable for any length of time....not through Trumps term for damn sure. Which he needs to counter all his fuckups!
The Fed did not raise rates too much and the Dems still took the House.
We shall soon see if Trump's low GDP promise will hurt him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bambino
I’ll bet that Trumps GDP will average 3% or over this year BOGUSMAGEE. You in? Post a link that says the Feds aren’t on the GDP bandwagon. They certainly weren’t during the Obama years.
Is this where you started making a fool of yourself?
Not in general, I know that happened at birth but in regards to your GDP bet.
Here is some thing most in this thread ignore. Since Reagan EVERY president added more to the debt that all presidents before him combined. It was not just Obama. Bush did the same. You act as if because Obama is gone things will be fine. No it will not because factors in place before Obama took office are still in place.
Hmmmm….BL seems spot on so far.
Trumps deficits are going up while Obama were going down!
