Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Feds sue big banks over Subprimes
#1
It's something you can't be against. IMO it's excellent news. Doesn't look like small potatoes like Madoff. This time it's all the biggest.

AP Wrote:Among those targeted by the lawsuits were Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., JP Morgan Chase & Co., and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. ....The Royal Bank of Scotland, Barclays Bank and Credit Suisse.... Ally Financial Inc., formerly known GMAC LLC, Deutsche Bank AG, First Horizon National Corp., General Electric Co., HSBC North America Holdings Inc., Morgan Stanley, Nomura Holding America Inc., and Societe Generale.
link
Reply
#2
I haven't followed it all that closely....yet. But at first blush, it looks like a typical attempt to make the Jackass base view the Bamster as being hot on the trail of evil-doers, i.e. Big Business. Note that Freddie and Fanny are immune to all this. In fact, they are being touted as the real victims in this affair.

If they were all this bad, why weren't they prosecuted earlier, and not just as the reelection season begins? Picking out the REAL reason behind this, appears to be far easier than the Messiah would like for us to see.

This will definitely be on Fox Business tonight. I'll be listening intently too.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#3
This is insanity and not good.

The state encouraged the loosening of loan standards, they encouraged these bankers, the POTUS in 2000 sued the bankers to force them to lower loan standards as a left wing activist and won and now in an extended semi depression after we spent ~ $1 trillion US to bail them out, he's going to now sue them?

About as damned stupid as sucking a hog's ass.

What he should do is ARREST their CEOs if he thinks they violated the law.

All this accomplishes is transferring some more taxpayer cash to the use of the state for future evil uses.
Reply
#4
I think we tie Israel's hands too much and this IMO, is done so we don't have to militarily ally with them when they have to defend themselves against all of the mid east at once.

So, how do you turn them loose to defend themselves in a way we can stay out of it? I can't see it.

I also think we ally ourselves so closely with them because they are our hope of a free middle east. They are the "shining example" of freedom there. Pipe dreams really. Like I said, a free and functional mid east is a fantasy. We also need to admit that not every country is going to be free. Admit that some kingdoms work and leave it be. Dictatorships happen and will continue to happen, just learn to stop doing any kind of trade or business with them. It's not like they are begging for our stuff, is it? They just expect aid and food when they think we owe them help in a disaster.
[Image: PancakeBunny.jpg] I have no idea what you're talking about so here's a bunny with a pancake on it's head
Reply
#5
JOhnL, not even during election campain you would have a governement suing all the banks at once. This is unprecedented.
(I'll spare you my expressions of praise to Obama this time)

Any president who would try this in another circumstance would be certain to lose the elections if he did even 1/10th of that. This time is different because the popular support will offset the lack of support from the financial elites.
O' is doing what poeple want to see to be done and do it because it should be done at the same time.

You can say he's less manly than Putin, yet it takes balls to attacks all the major banks, including foreign ones. Even a Swiss one!

Freddie and Fanny are immune because they are owned by the governement and because they bought their assets from these banks. If you sue the banks you can't logicaly sue Freddie and Fanny even if you wanted it.

Also note that the governement is sueing the banks after exiting their stock holdings in these banks and after their loans have been repaid with a profit!

Palladin
Forcing banks to issue loosy loans off leftwing ideal was insane, I agree. But these loosy loans commnly known as "subprime" were not supposed to be resold as risk-free mortgage based securities (MBS).

These banks knew that these loans were junk and intentionaly sold them to individual investors like you and me, who wanted to place their hard earned savings into something safe. They lied to million of poeple.

Their trick was to mix 80% of subprime mortgage with 20% of less risky mortgages and sell the packs as 100% risk free.

I wrote that here at least 10x, but i feel it's like I'm losing my time...
Reply
#6
Fred,

Everyone knows the big bankers are criminals that has a brain. Everyone ought to know our government and they are in a criminal enterprise together I would think by now.


I can't speak for your state, our's works with specific "pay to play" corporations like this to enhance the profits of both sides.


There is no chance Obama or any US POTUS is "after" these bankers. We just gave them $ US 1 trillion didn't we? You think now with the bad loan problems still existing Obama is stupid enough to endanger their balance sheets in this recession?

He isn't. This is a ploy to get more cash or more debt liability from the US taxpayer into their hands, not a move towards any justice. Obama is already discussing a new bailout, Fred, please wake up.

These uber wealthy Americans have plans for our cash and Obama serves them well. IF Obama wants justice, let him charge a CEO with a crime and if found guilty imprison him. That will be the damned day.

That only happens to those who don't pay to play.

Here's a deal to watch. AT&T got told they couldn't buy a competitor firm by Obama's justice department. Let's see if AT&T buys into the system and gets to buy it in about a year.

Nothing is not for sale with the US government.

Reply
#7
Stumbled upon an interesting (somewhat related) article: Braun and Raddatz (2010 WBER)

Quote:Banking on Politics: When Former High-ranking Politicians Become Bank Directors
New data are presented for a large number of countries on how frequently former high-ranking politicians become bank directors. Politician-banker connections at this level are relatively rare, but their frequency is robustly correlated with many important characteristics of banks and institutions. At the micro level, banks that are politically connected are larger and more profitable than other banks, despite being less leveraged and having less risk. At the country level, this connectedness is strongly negatively related to economic development. Controlling for this, the analysis finds that the phenomenon is more prevalent where institutions are weaker and governments more powerful but less accountable. Bank regulation tends to be more pro-banker and the banking system less developed where connectedness is higher. A benign, public-interest view is hard to reconcile with these patterns.
Reply
#8
It's in many industries. The Bush homeland security director now sells "homeland security" those Xray machines in airports.

America is open for business, to sell itself to the highest bidder from the in crowd.
Reply
#9
Yes, Palladin, I'm also pessimistic but it's unprecedented notheless and a glimmer of hope.
I don't expect bank CEOs to go to jail. But still better than nothing.

It's better than nothing because it gets us closer to the truth. The truth is going to be exposed with humiliation.
It's better than let it become forgotten.
Reply
#10
The fact that average middle and working class incomes were stagnant or in decline also contributed to this crisis. Unlike the banking sector, no single person can be identified as responsible.

Prosecuting bankers does not address the true cause of the crisis and accomplishes very little.
Reply
#11
But such a thing is politically expedient I guess.
Reply
#12
GommiI disagree: Banks and Rating Agencies are obvious culprit for at least 90% of the causes of the crisis.
The problem is that banks and agencies are not poeple and cannot be jailed. They can be fined but that still won't touch the persons who did the bad things, as they will still get bonuses no matter what.

To get poeple jailed you will need proofs realy difficult to get. It's very difficult to judge the real responsabilities of all these poeple.
So many poeple were involved in these frauds, that you will have to arraign thousands of suspects. Not just a dozen of CEOs.
There was fraud at every levels.

G4 Obama could have done nothing and that would have changed nothing. I don't think poeple are going to vote Obama because he sued the banks.
He may loose the election just because unemployement is rising. Suing the banks won't help.

There is another reason why they may sue the banks seriousely. The very fact that they do it means that they mean it. Suing the bank just for the sake of justice is useless. They sue the banks because too many poeple have lost money, too many rich and influencial poeple. It destabilized the economy and million of poeple lost their jobs, but that's just a statistical detail in comparison to influencial billionaires losing their billion and be upset about it.
Reply
#13
Suing the banks is just a desperate way to get them to reduce either the total debt owed by "citizens" or the interest due. A pure political ploy, especially to misdirect people's attention from 1) their own cupidity and 2) the culpability of previous government actions and to reinforce the idea that "gummint is on your side".
Jefferson: I place economy among the first and important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.
Reply
#14
Many subprime loans were not in that category until the change in home values made many things unpalatable. Is a loan toxic if the monthly payments are well within the homeowner's income level - until after he loses his job? There are categories of jobs, where the worker always lives paycheck by paycheck. Most constructions workers are considered well-paid, yet they are only secure in their income due to whatever project they are on. Normally, at the end of a project they just move to a new one, without a hiccup. Nowadays, even being several months between jobs without that weekly paycheck, with lowered equity due to property devaluation, will destroy that security.

20/20 hindsight will make the CFOs and CEOs all criminals, but on a slipping, sliding playing field, the best athletes can take a tumble.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)