Record penalties for JPMC

[Andy9o8 2]

Whatever, I'm not going to keep repeating myself. You want to argue endlessly with a litigation attorney, give your wife my compliments when you're both home this evening.

[weekender 0]

Andy9o8

Whatever, I'm not going to keep repeating myself. You want to argue endlessly with a litigation attorney, give your wife my compliments when you're both home this evening.

I'm sorry you feel i am being difficult. your words, ive attached below, are quite inflammatory. they are also the exact opposite of what has been reported and what ive heard from everyone i know in the business. i could be wrong but you have done nothing to disprove my beliefs. Have a good night. i hope you understand i am not a jerk, i am a reasonable skeptic.

"I'm closely familiar with much of the whistleblower accounts and inside emails and multiple internal working drafts of financial statements that substantiate the conspiracy. It wasn't mere incompetence, it was willful, deliberate fraud."

(edited to add quotes)

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[Andy9o8 2]

I know they're inflammatory. I'm opinionated in SC, but I don't just pop off. "Closely familiar" means I've actually read them with my own eyes. I stand by my posts, as written.

[kelpdiver 2]

if you're going to say this evidence is public records, then you ought to be able to provide more of a pointer, Andy.

[Andy9o8 2]

The pleadings (complaint, etc.) are public record. The parties are now in the discovery phase, which is where the evidence is now. The items become public record when they're appended to pretrial motions (whic haven't been filed yet) or when they're admitted into evidence at trial.

[ManagingPrime 0]

People seem to be confusing the facts around this JPM settlement and the BAC trial.

This has nothing to do with CDO's, derivatives, "liar loans", etc.

The cases tend to revolve around the fact that originators (JPM, CW, WAMU, BAC, etc.) all had a TON of fannie and freddie loan volume. Operations departments became seriously bogged down and management decided to "streamline" operations, essentially doing less due diligence during the underwriting phase of these loans. Compliance and quality control departments within these lenders made note of the deteriorating loan quality due the streamlined process, the deficiencies were ignored and the loans were packaged up and sold to fannie and freddie with assurances that all due diligence was performed....it was not...the lenders knew this and still represented and warranted that it was...fraud...case closed.

Interesting enough, this money is all going to the US treasury via net sweep agreements.

[Andy9o8 2]

Good write-up; you're 99.8% correct. The only exception is that liar's loans were at least a part of the credit-impaired portfolio purchased from CW, but the DOJ had some holes in the evidence substantiating that fact, so they made the tactical decision to emphasize only their strongest evidence.

[weekender 0]

ManagingPrime

People seem to be confusing the facts around this JPM settlement and the BAC trial.

This has nothing to do with CDO's, derivatives, "liar loans", etc.

The cases tend to revolve around the fact that originators (JPM, CW, WAMU, BAC, etc.) all had a TON of fannie and freddie loan volume. Operations departments became seriously bogged down and management decided to "streamline" operations, essentially doing less due diligence during the underwriting phase of these loans. Compliance and quality control departments within these lenders made note of the deteriorating loan quality due the streamlined process, the deficiencies were ignored and the loans were packaged up and sold to fannie and freddie with assurances that all due diligence was performed....it was not...the lenders knew this and still represented and warranted that it was...fraud...case closed.

Interesting enough, this money is all going to the US treasury via net sweep agreements.

i dont understand your timeline. JPM and BAC were not originators of the Wamu and Countrywide loans. they bought the co's after the crash at a huge discount. at this point all MBS derivatives were worthless at the taken out co's. JPM and BAC did not then turnaround and sell them. they were marked at basically "no bid" or no value. they could not sell something that had no value or market. all the fraud took place at the previous entities not JPM and BAC.

can you show me where i am wrong? all the recent newspaper articles show my timeline. so i honestly dont understand yours.

(edited material spelling error)

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[ManagingPrime 0]

The settlement is for loans packaged and sold to FNMA by BS, WAMU AND JPM...this was happening with every originator and packager.

The JPM settlement was not just for the misdeeds of bear stearns and washington mutual before the acquisition. Even JPM admits this by saying that these two accounted for 80% of the bad loans that were packaged and sold to F&F.

Originating loans that were not quite up to snuff and then selling them to F&F was SOP with all the major lenders...JPM and BAC are special cases in the sense that they inherited so much bad paper, but they were just as guilty. It is however convenient for BAC and JPM that they can point to CW, WAMU and BS and say "it was those bad companies not we were forced to buy...not us".

[ManagingPrime 0]

Andy9o8

Good write-up; you're 99.8% correct. The only exception is that liar's loans were at least a part of the credit-impaired portfolio purchased from CW, but the DOJ had some holes in the evidence substantiating that fact, so they made the tactical decision to emphasize only their strongest evidence.

It's difficult to use a history of 20 DU findings on the same loan with varying program codes and income and asset figures until and"Approve/Eligible" comes back as evidence, I'm guessing because you would have to prove intent. You're right, it's a lot easier when management is shooting emails back and forth to each other about how their loans are crap.

[weekender 0]

ManagingPrime

The settlement is for loans packaged and sold to FNMA by BS, WAMU AND JPM...this was happening with every originator and packager.

The JPM settlement was not just for the misdeeds of bear stearns and washington mutual before the acquisition. Even JPM admits this by saying that these two accounted for 80% of the bad loans that were packaged and sold to F&F.

Originating loans that were not quite up to snuff and then selling them to F&F was SOP with all the major lenders...JPM and BAC are special cases in the sense that they inherited so much bad paper, but they were just as guilty. It is however convenient for BAC and JPM that they can point to CW, WAMU and BS and say "it was those bad companies not we were forced to buy...not us".

ok thanks. i have read and understand the bigger picture. the OP put up a link to a specific case. the one he was speaking of was against a women who worked at Countrywide before the buyout. her actions were as a Countrywide employee and BAC is liable because of the purchase. my response to him was in reference to his link and post.

that explains why i did not understand your timeline. you were looking at the macro picture and i was not.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[ManagingPrime 0]

No worries.


As someone involved in the industry I see a lot of comments, even by people who claim to be in the industry, that indicate 5+ years later people still don't understand the roles played by the govt, gse's, banks, consumers, ratings agencies, etc. in the whole mess.

In regards to the specefics of the BAC and JPM cases as discussed on DZ, seems there is a better grasp than many "professionals" have.

[weekender 0]

ManagingPrime

No worries.


As someone involved in the industry I see a lot of comments, even by people who claim to be in the industry, that indicate 5+ years later people still don't understand the roles played by the govt, gse's, banks, consumers, ratings agencies, etc. in the whole mess.

In regards to the specefics of the BAC and JPM cases as discussed on DZ, seems there is a better grasp than many "professionals" have.

to make things more clear to all. i consider myself an expert on cash equities and compliance. i have quite of bit of knowledge of the industry overall but made it clear i am not a historian. all my comments have been about previous acts at the bought out companies and how JPM and BAC may be held liable. that doesnt mean they actually committed those specific acts. i just thought fingers should be pointed at the actual bad party.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[weekender 0]

ive posted in this thread a lot and not everyone has had a chance to reply to me. im not working tomorrow so will not be reading and posting till monday. i wanted to be fair in case anyone wanted to reply to any of my posts.

if im not at work i only use my computer to look at porn and Gillian Jacobs' twitter page.

everyone have a nice weekend.

"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante

[OHCHUTE 0]

weekender

***I didnt say they were "secret", theyre in discovery and trial hasnt started yet. I'm not going keep arguing with you. You're miscasting much of what I'm saying so you can argue against it, like it's some kind of candidates' debate. I won't play that game. As I said,your skepticism really makes no difference.

i am being completely reasonable. on two separate occasions you have claimed to have seen documents that prove your argument. documents that you claim you cannot share.

I am not a historian nor an attorney but i am no fool either. i am someone who works in I-banking and has for 20 years. i know the heads of compliance at every major bank and my wife is a litigation attorney. your claims go against everything i have read or heard. all ive asked you to do is prove it to me in some way.

that is not unreasonable nor argumentative.

Weekender final capitalized first word of his sentence, "I" which is a good sign he's trying.

[OHCHUTE 0]

But his subsequent posts indicates he just can't be motivated enough to hit the shift key to capitalize the first word of the sentences he's writes. You got to figure if a guy can't capitalize the first word of his sentences he has no business claiming he's an expert at finance.

Facts are the firm that bought BOA might have known what Mozlly and his gang were up to before buying Countrywide. But if you have guy's as good as weekender looking over books, then it is possible the firm buying BOA wouldn't have a clue.

[kelpdiver 2]

OHCHUTE

But his subsequent posts indicates he just can't be motivated enough to hit the shift key to capitalize the first word of the sentences he's writes. You got to figure if a guy can't capitalize the first word of his sentences he has no business claiming he's an expert at finance.

Facts are the firm that bought BOA might have known what Mozlly and his gang were up to before buying Countrywide. But if you have guy's as good as weekender looking over books, then it is possible the firm buying BOA wouldn't have a clue.

Are you seriously making a capitalization flame with so many errors in the posting? With you it's hard to tell if this is intelligent trolling or just you being you.

[kallend 2,026]

Somewhat amusing to review the threads on the mortgage meltdown from back in 2009, to see the right wingers on here vigorously defending the big banks and blaming investors/fannie/freddy/Clinton for the crash.

Now it appears that the big banks were in fact fraudulent.

...

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

[kelpdiver 2]

kallend

Somewhat amusing to review the threads on the mortgage meltdown from back in 2009, to see the right wingers on here vigorously defending the big banks and blaming investors/fannie/freddy/Clinton for the crash.

Now it appears that the big banks were in fact fraudulent.

there was enough blame to spread around pretty far, though trying to reach back 8 years to Clinton seemed like one of the bigger stretches.

[OHCHUTE 0]

kelpdiver

***But his subsequent posts indicates he just can't be motivated enough to hit the shift key to capitalize the first word of the sentences he's writes. You got to figure if a guy can't capitalize the first word of his sentences he has no business claiming he's an expert at finance.

Facts are the firm that bought BOA might have known what Mozlly and his gang were up to before buying Countrywide. But if you have guy's as good as weekender looking over books, then it is possible the firm buying BOA wouldn't have a clue.

Are you seriously making a capitalization flame with so many errors in the posting? With you it's hard to tell if this is intelligent trolling or just you being you.

Errors? Where? I'll make changes.

I may make a few errors; however, I doubt you'd find me making consistent, careless, continued, and repeatable offenses including: NOT CAPITALIZING EVERY FIRST WORD OF EVERY SENTENCE, which one person does for every sentence he writes. Yet when it come to talking about himself, with use of "I," when starting to talk about himself, he extends his pinky to ensure the "I" is capitalized. Now if he could do it for himself, perhaps he might consider other first words of sentences are just as important, that they too might be capitalized.

[Andy9o8 2]

People are pooping on you now because you're such a poop. We all tried to tell you this months ago, before we finally gave up listening to you, but you ignored us. Now, you reap what you sow. The fault, Sir, lies in your mirror.

BTW, even Promise5 has finally manned-up enough to make that first jump to get her ticket punched to be in here. When will you? You're being out-classed by a little girl.