Mortgage Professional America forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

SEC points finger at brokers in BofA suit

Notify me of new replies via email
Mortgage Professional America | 07 Aug 2013, 05:49 AM Agree 0
The SEC has accused mortgage brokers of originating the majority of the bad mortgages that went into an $855m mortgage-backed security deal that has landed a lawsuit at Bank of America’s door
  • CharlieG | | 07 Aug 2013, 09:15 AM Agree 0
    Always, always, always blame the brokers. BofA underwrote and approved all of the mortgages the brokers submitted so the blame lies squarely with them. PERIOD!
  • Dan | | 07 Aug 2013, 09:22 AM Agree 0
    The SEC should state that the guidelines brokers used to originate those mortgages were underwriting guidelines issued by BofA and its subsidiaries.
  • Jeff | | 07 Aug 2013, 09:25 AM Agree 0
    They just happened to omit that 70% of all of their business was coming from wholesale. The issue were proportionality equal across all BOA mortgages which clearly proves that the issue was the BOA process which they created, managed and underwrote. Obviously, there is no lack of corruption at every level and no lack of finger pointing either. If you want to get rid of the weed, cut out the root. BOA created a poor process that was unfortunately abused by some unethical people in every form of lending. However, the corruption started at the very top and trickled down. An undisputable fact.
  • Brian L. | | 07 Aug 2013, 09:30 AM Agree 0
    Call me crazy but didn't Bank of America have to approve the Broker Loans. I understand there were fraudulent mortgages. Those mortgages were a small percentage , and happened accross the board in any finance industry. To place blame on Brokers is absurd. At some point and time the comapanies that bought and sold mortgages need to accept responsibility. They were the ones making the money during those years!! No way were 7 out of 10 deals misrepresented by brokers.
  • Ken Wulff | | 07 Aug 2013, 09:31 AM Agree 0
    It's not all BofA's fault. They made the mistake of suppling Countrywide with funds to lend backed by CW stock. The rest of the story is that banks such as Deutch Bank were infusing the US with more money than could placed in good mortgage demands. Then creating new programs that scewed the WAC to make it even more inviting to invest in US mortgages. Originators were only the facilitators of these programs.
  • Nancy Viejo | | 07 Aug 2013, 09:33 AM Agree 0
    I beg to differ that the SEC does not know the difference between, at the time, unlicensed originators working for Mortgage Lenders as opposed to fully licensed and regulated mortgage brokers using the same wholesale channel. How is it that the government continually denies there is a difference? Licensed Brokers cannot underwrite, fund or develop guidelines on any mortgage product.
  • SEC Doesen't understand proportions. | | 07 Aug 2013, 09:57 AM Agree 0
    At the time these mortgages were done 70% of ALL mortgages were being done by Brokers, therefore this proportion is expected. The SEC using this proportion to imply Brokers were complicit does not inspire confidence in them. Just like bank LO's, Brokers do not determine guidelines or approve mortgages but they continue to be a convenient scapegoat.
  • Elaine R | | 07 Aug 2013, 09:58 AM Agree 0
    And whose fault are these "bad mortgages"????
    If an underwriter approved them; DU issued an "accept", and the wholesaler not only closed the mortgage, but failed to do post closing q.c.........why is that the brokers fault? This crap makes my blood boil!!!
  • Marc S | | 07 Aug 2013, 09:59 AM Agree 0
    Note to the SEC. You're using the old talking points. The Facts: BOA developed their own mortgage products and guidelines. Moreover, they were the underwriters of every mortgage submitted by a broker. This means, all broker mortgages were approved and quality controlled by BOA. Please explain how any of this could be the brokers fault? You need to be more responsible as a federal agency. Lastly, GAO reports state, you were AWOL during the crisis as a regulator. I guess the best defense is a good offense.

  • Mike | | 07 Aug 2013, 10:06 AM Agree 0
    I think the SEC should take a look at the Countrywide mortgages BOA acquired in the melt down and stop pointing the finger at brokers. Just another tactic to protect the big banks that ultimately underwrote these mortgages.
  • R Miller | | 07 Aug 2013, 10:35 AM Agree 0
    Wait a minute. Brokers did not approve the mortgages, B of A underwriter's issued the approvals. Brokers did not order the appraisals. B of A's appraisal management company ordered and reviewed the appraisals, then B of A's underwriters reviewed the appraisals again. If something was wrong with the mortgages, then look at the staff at B of A. No true broker approved or closed any mortgage. Bank of America did the approving and the closing.
  • Tim | | 07 Aug 2013, 10:42 AM Agree 0
    Boy is that odd news. Lets see BofA used the same underwriters on both its Brokered and Retail mortgages, so why the difference. Could it be they bought the mortgages in its correspondent channel and never underwrote the files, or were the filed mixed with prime retail and sub prime wholesale mortgages to the MBS buy the higher interest rate they desired> Hmm
  • Keith Durgin | | 07 Aug 2013, 10:54 AM Agree 0
    Once again the brokers are the bad boys here. Brokers didn't underwrite and approve the mortgages. Brokers didn't design the product matrixes used by BofA. But it's the broker's fault for the misrepresentation of the MBS sales ?? Anytime someone points a finger at the Broker's they should realize they've got 3 of their own fingers pointing right back at them.
  • Bob Cranmer-Brown | | 07 Aug 2013, 11:19 AM Agree 0
    I wonder if these mortgages were funded through Countrywide brokers? At Transpac Mortgage Group, if we had a client who could not afford the monthly payments or verify their income we would decline the business and send them to Countrywide or Bank of America. The clients would call back and say they approved for a mortgage. My experience is that B of A and Countrywide were much more lax than the brokers.
  • SEC Doesen't understand proportions. | | 07 Aug 2013, 11:28 AM Agree 0
    At the time these mortgages were done 70% of ALL mortgages were being done by Brokers, therefore this proportion is expected. The SEC using this proportion to mislead and imply Brokers were complicit does not inspire confidence in the SEC's accusations. Just like bank LO's, Brokers do not determine guidelines or approve mortgages but they continue to be a convenient scapegoat.
  • Patti | | 07 Aug 2013, 11:44 AM Agree 0
    Is it just me, or is Bank of America blaming brokers for their own underwritng failures? The above mentioned problems would only be approved by BofA. Surely the SEC knows that ....don't they?
  • Cary Michael | | 07 Aug 2013, 11:52 AM Agree 0
    Who did the underwriting?

    Oh yea BofA did the underwriting.

    So if they were so "Toxic" why did they approve and fund the mortgages?

    BTW the broker channel was 80% of the market so their "numbers" are faulty logic.
  • R Stevens | | 07 Aug 2013, 11:56 AM Agree 0
    The article mentions that 70% of the mortgages were originated by brokers. At the time, about 60-70% of all secondary market mortgages were originated by brokers. So, essentially the BofA portfolio in question was likely statistically comparable to any portfolio at the time as it relates to sourcing channel.
  • Wm Matz | | 07 Aug 2013, 12:06 PM Agree 0
    Has the SEC ever heard of "underwriting"? Brokers typically deal with a variety of lenders. It is lenders who enforce the underwriting standards. If lenders -expressly or implicitly - advertise that they will accept junk, they will get junk. That is what happened during the boom, because the lenders knew they could sell the junk into the Wall St securitization machine. Some wholesale reps would even put the broker mortgage packages together to ensure it would pass. I believe it was the Senate Finance Committe report on WaMu that referred to WaMu operations as "a conveyor belt of toxic sludge". So once again, the lenders [and Wall St] seek to divert blame, with the help of the Feds.
  • Bob VG | | 07 Aug 2013, 12:22 PM Agree 0
    Who Funded those terrible mortgages? Who laid out the guidelines for those terrible mortgages? Who underwrote those terrible mortgages? Who priced those terrible mortgages?

    Who??: BofA- period or whomever they bought 'em from (Countrywide, etc)

    Sure there were some crooked brokers- still are.
  • Bruce | | 07 Aug 2013, 01:44 PM Agree 0
    Here we go again - it's the brokers fault so lets pile on more regulation to thin them out. I wonder how many were former Countrywide mortgages with approvals with a 460 credit score. I guess it's the brokers fault for the programs the big boys and wall street came up with and ultimately failed.
  • stan brody | | 07 Aug 2013, 04:12 PM Agree 0
    No surprise here... The lenders and wall street created the mortgage products... Countrywide, aka BofA even offered one product requiring that the 1003 contain only the most basic data... i.e., name, address, DOB, SSN.... ZERO DOCUMENTATION!!! They set the criteria... Brokers were instructed to leave the 1003 void of any additional information... where were the "rating" agencies in this process???? Any child having made it through 3rd grade could determine that the mortgage pools rated as investment grade were anything but that... so folks, I have a deal for you... it the Chairman of the "we still cannot find first base" SEC or Bank of America can name the the broker who created those sub-prime products, I will donate $1,000 to the V Foundation for cancer Research in his/her/its name... if they cannot, I will still donate the check in my name... and all that he/she/it needs to do is make a public apology for denigrating an entire industry
  • NoSpinJustTheFacts | | 08 Aug 2013, 04:52 AM Agree 0
    This appears to be a continuation by the Obama Administration to eliminate the low cost mortgage origination sector (mortgage brokerages) and fatten the profits of the largest banks by eliminating this competition.

    It is a well known fact that originators do not create the underwriting guidelines (risk management) for home mortgages and do not underwrite the mortgages.

    Originators by law (ECOA) must present to every applicant all mortgage options available and the applicant must choose which mortgage they want to pursue to be underwritten.

    This article does not provide that the complaint list that material underwriting errors (never done by Mortgage Brokerages). It also leaves out another fraud committed by the SEC, which stated BoA had closed its Wholesale division by time BoA issued BOAMS 2008-A in 2008 due to knowing Wholesale mortgages were toxic. FACT: BoA did not close its Wholesale division until October 7, 2010.

    Thus, I can present many examples of the fraud/misrepresentations by the SEC in its complaint. The President Obama and his administration continue their scandals as they have with blaming mortgage brokers for the housing crisis, the President on 9/26/11 Town Hall meeting, on 7/13/13 Cordray confirmation and Raj Date 6/11/12 ABA Conference.

    President Obama and his team are die hard propagandist, it is the sole reason our country being so torn apart; divide and conquer. This article as written, supports the propaganda versus providing insightful facts.
  • Richard Scholtz | | 08 Aug 2013, 07:44 AM Agree 0
    It was my experience to have a mortgage go no-where through the wholesale side at Countrywide and/or BofA....only to have the mortgage be taken through their retail channel and it sail through with no conditions or stipulations.
    I interviewed for Countrywide's Call Centre in Pasadena....and declined because all they did was shovel garbage. Funny how brokers are still being blamed by lenders who have not had a broker channel for the last 7 years.

    I guess mortgage brokers are the Al-Qaeda of finance - mythical evil creatures you can never be rid of ....but blamed for bad weather, pension defaults, and childhood obesity.
  • MilliS | | 08 Aug 2013, 08:48 AM Agree 0
    I'm BETTING THE BANK that a huge percentage of Brokers submitted mortgage apps for great mortgages and were told by Countrywide (at the last minute) that mortgage wasnt available anymore, offering the Buyer the CRAP mortgage. Against the Brokers advice, the Buyer took that mortgage so they wouldnt lose thehouse OR the deposit, and shortly they were in trouble because thats the way the mortgage is designed. WHO designed and forced that mortgage? (This was my personal experience until I finally stopped submitting mortgages to Countrywide/BodA - just couldnt stomach it anymore, inspite of the pay). UGH!
  • coyle beard | | 08 Aug 2013, 10:10 AM Agree 0
    I would expect as much, every time I turn over a rock in the Mortgage Industry there is a snake called Countrywide, the depth of their corruptness is never ending!!!!
  • Joe H. | | 08 Aug 2013, 11:50 AM Agree 0
    Well there is more to it, on the B of A Securities side and eventually the MLPFS side... Undoubtedly the security side of the house was begging for originations, that could be packaged and sold to the Street. Consequesntly the guidelines were loosened as underwriting will underwrite whatever the investors will purchase. It is a risk based appetite. The spreads on these pools, were enormous, like in the beginning day's of CMO's and CDO's with A,B,C and D traunches, the largest and most illiquid market in the world I used to call it back in the day when I was making markets in this crap. This is all a result of the elimination of Glass-Stegal, the Government needs to squarely itself also... as what do you think is going to happen when you leave sailors with seabags full of money alone in the whore house?
  • jlf | | 08 Aug 2013, 04:06 PM Agree 0
    All are silent on the issue of the consumer - even the SEC. Demand drove proliferation of high-risk products. Bank of America bought Merrill Lynch, who bought First Franklin from National City Bank. National City launched First Franklin as a way to deliver (cash in on) subprime market while insulating the bank from the risk and negative image; by design, these products were delivered (pushed) through the broker channel. The first 100% LTV purchase I was aware of was a condo that appraised lower than sale price; the borrower did not have extra funds and seller refused to lower the price. When First Franklin approved a 100% LTV, I told the mortgage officer it would never close; it did close, in record time. That was spring of 2004; by the end of the year, I could not sell an FHA mortgage, even if the borrowers had the 3% down payment (not a misprint, that was the minimum down at the time).
    Brokers do not write the guidelines or underwrite the mortgages - we explain and sell mortgage programs designed by folks at a higher pay grade than us: The Banks. Yet the cause of the mortgage melt down continues to be attributed to us, in spite of a wealth of data that proves otherwise.
    Consumers were duped, the same as the secondary market was; consumers do need protection, sometimes from unscrupulous mortgage bankers and products, and sometimes from themselves. Regulation is providing this protection, ONLY IN THE NON-BANK, BROKER CHANNEL. It is time to require ALL mortgage mortgage originators to be screened, finger-printed, competency tested and held to standardized and approved continuing education, the same as BROKER ORIGINATORS ALREADY ARE. Protect consumers and our economy from greed and uncredentialed MLOs - require every residential mortgage originator to be licensed (not merely registered) and tracked under the National Mortgage Licensing System (NMLS). Mortgage origination is a profession; regardless of how the company or institution the originator works for is organized, the individuals working directly with mortgage consumers need to be credentialed and tracked by a unified set of nationally designed and recognized standards.
  • Michael | | 08 Aug 2013, 09:01 PM Agree 0
    Bank of America did not have any correspondent division back in 2008 as it had been closed 6 or 7 years earlier. Interestingly, Banc of America Securities actually was the investor for Loan City. We used to complain at BofA how Loan City was getting better guidelines and better pricing. I think that the majority of mortgages (if not all of them) were Loan City broker originated mortgages, underwritten by Loan City, and sold to Banc of America Securities. These were not 'broker direct' mortgages. They were more of the pass through mortgage banker scenario. I don't know if Loan City had a correspondent division back then, but their main 'sugar daddy' was Banc of America Securities. There is more to this pool of mortgages that what the headlines suggest.

    SEC needs to point the finger at themselves for not properly regulating Banc of America Securities (aka Wall Street).
  • Cheyenne | | 10 Aug 2013, 01:42 PM Agree 0
    The true guilty party is the person or institution who developed the NINA mortgages. NINA means "No Income No Asset verification") Washington Mutual and BOA reps kept coming in our brokerage offices and telling us to "make it work - get the applicant qualified - no one was going to verify income or assets (savings, IRAs etc). Make it work meant if a person was a Gardener making $25,000 a year state he is a Landscape Architect making $125,000 a year - and he would qualify for the mortgage. Whoever created that kind of mortgage is at fault along with WaMu and BoA
  • Cheyenne | | 10 Aug 2013, 07:34 PM Agree 0
    Who created the NINA (no income, no asset verification) mortgages? Washington Mutual, BoA and Countrywide would be my guess, but all lenders used them and approved whatever we put down without verifying. I was an assistant to a mortgage broker who had clients who barely spoke English ask if it wasn't wrong to put down money they didn't earn. She told them no,it isn't wrong, no one is going to check it's a NINA mortgage, and besides it is the only way you will qualify for you house - and you do want the house don't you. (She herself was a Baltic area immigrant)
  • Anne E James | | 11 Aug 2013, 11:40 AM Agree 0
    We all agree we're suprised by the SEC's sudden vicious remergence of 'blame the broker'-beating a dead horse that's been put down a few years ago along with the legend "Use a bank or your mortgage won't get done" the Realtors believed for about a year after the meltdown. Very calculated by banks but shocking to hear the SEC come back with these lies again! However, Joan T. who commented her mortgage broker 'had clients who barely spoke English' making little money and she did (the broker) the NINA mortgages for them because the mortgage reps from BofA, Countrywide, etc... told her 'it was ok' makes the SEC statement look valid. I mean, c'mon, how many of us commenting here did those mortgages for people that bad of faith? Did you knowingly make an option arm at 1% the first year to qualify McDonald's workers? If you did, you probably would be 'flushed out' by now because you'd be too stupid to pass the NMLS test. Love most of the comments. Great American Banker article in email box today:Is There a More Contemptible U.S. Bank Than B of A?
  • mVogel | | 12 Aug 2013, 06:19 AM Agree 0
    I'm so sick and tired of this. They all provided the mortgage programs to the Broker Community and then they underwrote and approved the mortgages. At no time did a Broker make an underwriting decision. SEC,BOA - take your finger and turn it around and point it at yourself. Idiots!
  • Jennifer Durham | | 12 Aug 2013, 10:23 AM Agree 0
    Years ago, I remember underwriting for B of A. I was a contract PMI underwriter and if I did not approve the mortgage, they grabbed it out of my hands and walked over to the contract underwriter across the office to underwrite.
  • Gordon Schlicke | | 12 Aug 2013, 02:16 PM Agree 0
    Think of this parallel: An Army Colonel gives and order that is unethical. The order is carried out resulting in an unconscionable act. The sergeant who pleads he was only following orders is not dismissed from guilt. To what extent should brokers have recognized that the terms of these mortgages were outrageous, likely to lead to default? Attorneys will argue that brokers could have rejected these products because of the fiduciary duty they had to clients. There is enough room for the guilt to be spread around.
  • NANA | | 12 Aug 2013, 04:49 PM Agree 0
    I am sorry anyone who sold those mortgages brokers or banks are all to blame. Just because a product is there did not mean you had to commit mortgage fraud, by glorifying someone position to justify a salary. It does not matter that a rep told you that no one would check. We are no right from wrong and no matter what we should do the right thing. Ethics was not considered during this process. So anyone who was unethical enough to originate these mortgages knowing that they people applying for this committed an unjust act. Bottom line. Sorry.
  • Patti | | 12 Aug 2013, 10:01 PM Agree 0
    I was an underwriter that approved those mortgages. Let me tell you for a fact, if the income was ridiculous and you had half a brain, you could see the fraud. I declined some of them on the basis that the stated income was not reasonable. Any underwriter worth his or her salt can dig around and find out more about that borrower than what is on that 1003. The programs usually had some small measure of a way out. That's why the lenders are at fault. They didn't take at least the tiny loophole they were offered The program guidelines came from corporate and corporate said approve them if they fit. You can't always blame the investor for the guidelines if you are such a pushover you can't make a decision based on what you can see in front of you. The NINA was the deal breaker. These mortgages were driven by greed from the WallStreet planning room to the LO selling them The bar for LO integrity should have been raised many years ago. It was like a bidding war for market share that got out of hand. The companies that didn't do them are just as gone as the ones who did. B of A didn't have anything Wells Fargo wasn't trying to duplicate, and so on and so on. 3 questions always stood out to me. Is it legal? Is it Ethical? Is it salable? That's about all I had to work with.
  • Ian Shuter | | 13 Aug 2013, 09:25 AM Agree 0
    Regardless of who did what, everyone knows that at the end of the 1003 there is a declaration, anyone who knew or suspected that a borrower was signing a 1003 contained false information in it is as guilty as anyone else. No excuses, those people made conscious decisions and we all have had to live with them. Their reckless disregard of quality lending and its replacement with volume directly led to the troubles we are in, that goes for brokers, realtors, underwriters, processors, sales managers, settlement agents, attorney's, mortgage officers, borrowers, sellers, investors and so on.
  • Bill in Florida | | 13 Aug 2013, 09:32 AM Agree 0
    I'm tired to the bone hearing everyone that doesn't have a claim to fame of being a mortgage broker pass the buck! I can honestly say that I closed two "2" NINA mortgages during that period and got chastised by every wholesale rep coming through my door for not selling them. Why didn't I? Because I was one of two people that had the Florida Pilot roll-out of the program in the mid 80's through Citi who actually created it and by 1992 it crashed and burned for them and Fannie/Freddie saw the 7%+ delinquency and defaults rising and both nearly cut them did. Citi went from being the largest producer in the country at one time (2 to 1) to having to eventually close 4 of 5 national process shops went they were forced to go conforming conventional once again. In the early 200's every rep that walked into my office pushed nothing else to speak of and if you asked an underwriter their opinion of the NINA type mortgages all you'd get is..."I know but that's the market and the guidelines". When values started to skyrocket due to the easy money on the liar mortgages I'd ask an underwriter many times how they felt about a house whose value jumped $30k to $50k and more in 3 to 6 months. The response everytime was "well if there weren't comps to back it up they would have a problem, but if they don't sign it they next UW would". Brokers that sold these things wer given these and everyone in the market wanted, expecteed and chastised you if you didn't offer it. These fools that argue they'd stand up in front of their boss and tell them they didn't want to do the job they were hired for when everyone in the market did are truly idealistic idiots.
  • Bill in Florida | | 13 Aug 2013, 09:38 AM Agree 0
    And for these folks that like to throw around the term "those that commited fraud" don't know what they are talking about. The programs that became what were called liar mortgages later, were originally sold as products for the borrower who had the cash flow, they simply wrote everything off on paper but had a firm track record of paying their bill's and liquid assets in the bank with the exception of the no asset mortgages. I didn't like them because of my history with them 10 yrs earlier and lost a true fortune by not doing them, but I slept at night. The lenders didn't didn't lose any sleep as they raked in billions. But go ahead and run your mouth those folks out there that want to blame brokers, when you don't know what you are speaking about. Be a lemming...I'd just wish you'd jump of the moral cliff with the TRUTH.
  • Buffalo Mike | | 13 Aug 2013, 12:13 PM Agree 0
    Bank of America had a choice to offer these types of programs to the marketplace via retail, wholesale or correspondent lending. Like any prudent bank, they could have decided the risk outweighed the potential profit margin. They chose to go with the profit potential and are now looking to blame a segment of the market that has the least amount of control on product and underwriting decisions. When you open yourself up to the marketplace – you set the rules and have the capability to accept or reject. It appears that acceptance was the norm and it’s time to stop pointing and start moving forward to regain your reputation. The public is forgiving but you must forgive yourself to move forward. Other banks of your size are well ahead because they have decided to move forward…
  • Wm Matz | | 13 Aug 2013, 05:26 PM Agree 0
    The problem is not with the NINA, NI, or NINANE mortgages per se. It is that greed drove the lenders to expand the guidelines to where the mortgages were sure to go bad.

    E.g., a 65% LTV mortgage will be pretty safe, assuming a solid appraisal. But when the guidelines are changed to allow a NINA at 80 or 90 or even 100%, the risk of default is dramatically increased.

    Instead of the current meat axe approach of eliminating the programs, a better approach would have been just to tighten the guidelines.
    These "exotic" mortgage programs are needed for some borrowers. The lack of programs has effectively trapped many borrowers in their old mortgages, as they cannot qualify under the changed underwriting standards. So the problem was not bad mortgages, but rather bad guidelines and bad [or no] underwriting.
  • Bayview Mortgage Inc | | 14 Aug 2013, 09:42 AM Agree 0
    Who underwrote the Loans? The underwriters were at fault. How many underwriters with bad mortgages were banned from underwriting new mortgages. None . You put candy infront of a child. the child will eat it all.
  • Stan Brody | | 14 Aug 2013, 09:54 AM Agree 0
    Going back to my original comment... an explanation of the process and the part played by wall street in creating the bubble... depending on your region, upwards of 80% of all mortgages were closed by Mortgage Bankers... NOT the banks... with zero deposit base, working off of a wholesale credit line... thus every closed mortgage had to be sold into the secondary markets. Most often in pools... EVERY pool carried a cover ("laundry") form containing the basics of each mortgage in that pool... three columns were all than anyone needed to review to determine the credit worthiness of that pool. Credit score used to approve, DTI ratios and LTV... thus as noted previously, any child capable of adding a column of numbers and then dividing the result by the number of mortgages in the pool would have determined the average credit score, DTI and LTV... aka, the credit worhiness of that pool!!!

    In order to sell the MBS's, THE KEYS to the wall street scheme were the rating from the agencies and the icing on the cake was the (bogus) CDO's written by the ilk of A.I.G..... without these two items, the entire plot could never have happened...

    YES, we brokers ought to have known better than to write a mortgage at 106%LTV to a person with feces for credit and no skin in the game... and as an industry we, the public Realtors all said "no" then there would have been no sale!... Had the cacophony of condescending conceited clueless clowns of congress refused to be bought off, and retained the controls on the financial sector that had, in general, protected the system, none of this could have occurred... thus there is plenty of blame to go around... HOWEVER, the FBI, rated on the number of convictions is obtains, ONLY goes after the low hanging fruit... brokers, borrowers, appraisers and an occasional Realtor... those that do not have the financial wherewithall to defend themselves... NOT ONE.... NOT ONE of the wall street geniuses who actually created this scheme have been charged with anything stronger than a (fixed) parking ticket... Lllod Blankfien, in assembling the infamous Abacus Fund (betting against the market) knew in advance exactly just how rigged that fund actually was!!! Taking insider trading to new heights...

    Mark my words, the current suits against S&P and Moody's will never see the inside of a court room... they will agree to settle for a nominal multi-billion dollar fine and the ubiquitous no admission of guilt... the AG's will shout to the rafters that they got the bastards... and we go back to business as usual... The simple fact being that in any extended trial, the facts of the culpability of major wall street players will be disclosed... wall street simply cannot afford the criminal cases that ought to follow...
  • Gordon Schlicke | | 15 Aug 2013, 02:48 PM Agree 0
    Why did none of "the big guys" get fined and jailed? Prosecutors must prove they intended to defraud. Hard to prove they designed programs to destroy the very industry supplying them a reason to exist. Holder has said this more than once when questioned why he hasn't been successful in punishing them.
  • CA Ray | | 19 Aug 2013, 09:26 AM Agree 0
    It is interesting to see how the greed and corruption of the banking, multinational corporations, and special interests control everything. Who does the SEC think they are kidding? Our government has conspired and is still conspiring with the banks, the SEC, the treasury, and every other sector of the financial and political world to create this SCAM. This has been the largest most devastating scheme in recorded history. The corruption my friends runs much deeper than anyone suspects or will admit. What really happened, and is happening again BTW, is the largest and most devastating redistribution of wealth this county has ever seen. The whole scheme was contrived, orchestrated, and executed by all the conspirators in the upper echelons of government, financial institutions, and the the supper elite. Don't fool yourselves we have seen the largest redistribution of wealth coming from the middle class to the super wealthy. Beware they are not done yet. The current administration has been scheming to destroy the middle class from before it was ever put into power. They say they want class less world economy, but what they really seek is two classes, the super rich and the peasant poor. All that you have to do is open your eyes to see it all around you. The creation of and proliferation of the "Entitlement Society" that has been created through unenforced immigration laws, racial and ethnic isolation and division tactics and legislation, and let's not forget the runaway money printing that has been deployed to monetize the debt.
    Why is it that the United States of America the purported "freest nation on Earth" is the most prejudiced society on earth? This is evidenced in every aspect of our lives. It is even evidenced by our industries own FNMA 1003 form. Look at your application page 4. The Government monitoring section clearly is in place to encourage discrimination. Why is it that there is a newly created sub-ethnic class of White? The Hispanic population is just as "White" as any other Caucasian. They come from Spain which is European from lineage. When can this nation be truly color blind? It will never happen when we have a standing half-white president that plays the "Race Card" in order to divide the country. I remember seeing mention of this policy in some of the other posts here, DIVIDE AND CONQUER. The problem goes much deeper than blaming the Brokers for the crash. It is a systemic pollution of our society in every aspect. The Constitution and our very freedom is on the line here...just my two cents worth....
  • Broker 1995-2008 | | 21 Aug 2013, 07:41 PM Agree 0
    Blaming mortgage brokers for originating Stated Income & NINA mortgages is like blaming car salesmen for selling vehicles which end up being recalled.
Post a reply