• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

JPMorgan Reaches Tentative $13 Billion Settlement With Justice Department: WSJ

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
JPMorgan Chase has reached a tentative $13 billion settlement with the Justice Department over a number of investigations related to to the bank's residential mortgage-backed securities business, according to The Wall Street Journal.Tweets from The Wall Street Journal and CNBC broke the news Saturday.


Read more @: JPMorgan Reaches Tentative $13 Billion Settlement With Justice Department: WSJ

$13 billion dollar agreement with the Justice Department. How bout we also throw them all in the brink like other countries did...
 
800 billion dollar problem, obviously 13 billion punishment is fine. Probably doesn't even cover the winnings....er....earnings, of the top 5 or 6 in JP Morgan chase.
 
this has been a slow bleed of fines and settlements, seems JP has had to downgrade their earnings statements. This time is seems the 'no admission of wrong doing' and a shield from prosecution is not in effect. That apparently held up the settlement and finally JP gave in. This could be interesting.
 
Read more @: JPMorgan Reaches Tentative $13 Billion Settlement With Justice Department: WSJ

$13 billion dollar agreement with the Justice Department. How bout we also throw them all in the brink like other countries did... [/FONT][/COLOR]

hmm, this makes me wonder if JP Morgan Chase didn't switch their donations from Obama to Romney since 2008. I haven't been able to find the list of Wall Street donors from last year but I do have one from 2008. JP Morgan Chase gave Obama $808,799.00, but to make sure they had their base, butt or what ever covered, they also gave McCain $343, 505.00. This is not unusual for Wall Street Firms and Corporations to give to both candidates or both parties, a couple of the others were Goldman Sachs who gave over a million to Obama and 240,000 to McCain, Citigroup 737,000 to Obama and 338,200 to McCain, UBS AG 533,000 to Obama and 187,000 to McCain, you get the idea. Some of the others who gave to both parties and candidates were Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch etc. etc. What all these have in common is all gave more to Obama than McCain, but just in case McCain won, they wanted him owing them also.

It will be interesting to see the figures for 2012 when they come out. Want to bet it wasn't so one sided?
 
Read more @: JPMorgan Reaches Tentative $13 Billion Settlement With Justice Department: WSJ

$13 billion dollar agreement with the Justice Department. How bout we also throw them all in the brink like other countries did... [/FONT][/COLOR]

I am still confused on this settlement.

J.P. Morgan Chase purchased banks with the government support because they were one of the more solid banks during the meltdown. They purchased Washington Mutual, Bear Stearns, Bank One Corporation.

Of the $13 billion settlement, $9 billion is for the alleged wrongdoing stems from 2008 acquisitions of Bear Sterns and Washington Mutual. The remaining $4 billion is for customer relief.

If JP Morgan purchased those banks with the governments support, why are they being held responsible for what those banks did before JP Morgan purchased them?
That doesnt make sense to me.
 
I am still confused on this settlement.

J.P. Morgan Chase purchased banks with the government support because they were one of the more solid banks during the meltdown. They purchased Washington Mutual, Bear Stearns, Bank One Corporation.

Of the $13 billion settlement, $9 billion is for the alleged wrongdoing stems from 2008 acquisitions of Bear Sterns and Washington Mutual. The remaining $4 billion is for customer relief.

If JP Morgan purchased those banks with the governments support, why are they being held responsible for what those banks did before JP Morgan purchased them?
That doesnt make sense to me.

It's not what they did, it's how they did it. They went in to these acquisitions with the intent of breaking the stop loss limits, essentially using bailout money to purchase the troubled banks and then foreclosing everything they could get their hands on. The agreement was that losses would be limited and the government would cover the rest. JPMC took full advantage of this without even trying to help homeowners keep their homes. At the time we had finished a forbearance program with WaMu and were awaiting paperwork for the refi. Chase moved in, claimed to have no knowledge of the program, told us we would have to start over with them, and then refused to even accept application. Our house was on the courthouse steps in 3 weeks. This is of course a dog and pony show, as FM ended up with all those foreclosed homes, and the government now has controlling interest in the housing market. What this means is that the banks and federal government skimmed trillions of dollars in equity off of the housing market. It was the single biggest theft in history, and the result is that they can do it again. Last year we got a settlement check for $1300 for "improper filing" by Chase, doesn't change that we lost $30,000 in the deal. They shouldn't be fined, they should be shot.
 
It's not what they did, it's how they did it. They went in to these acquisitions with the intent of breaking the stop loss limits, essentially using bailout money to purchase the troubled banks and then foreclosing everything they could get their hands on. The agreement was that losses would be limited and the government would cover the rest. JPMC took full advantage of this without even trying to help homeowners keep their homes. At the time we had finished a forbearance program with WaMu and were awaiting paperwork for the refi. Chase moved in, claimed to have no knowledge of the program, told us we would have to start over with them, and then refused to even accept application. Our house was on the courthouse steps in 3 weeks. This is of course a dog and pony show, as FM ended up with all those foreclosed homes, and the government now has controlling interest in the housing market. What this means is that the banks and federal government skimmed trillions of dollars in equity off of the housing market. It was the single biggest theft in history, and the result is that they can do it again. Last year we got a settlement check for $1300 for "improper filing" by Chase, doesn't change that we lost $30,000 in the deal. They shouldn't be fined, they should be shot.

So it was a government / JP Morgan deal...that they were basically scamming the equity out of homes and keeping the profits...then the government turns around and fines them for it? Even tho they were making money together off doing this?
 
So it was a government / JP Morgan deal...that they were basically scamming the equity out of homes and keeping the profits...then the government turns around and fines them for it? Even tho they were making money together off doing this?

Yes. That's how they keep bankers from being shot in the streets. And it wasn't just JP, other big banks were involved as well. Think of it as hush money to the public.

So these days I am disgusted to hear commercials on the radio for refis, the HARP program (new and improved!) where even if you are upside down in your home you can still pull more equity! And ads for adjustable rate mortgages! Is our collective memory really that short? Well, apparently it is. These are the kinds of practices that got us in to the mess to begin with, and evidently people just don't learn.

But see, after the meltdown there is an added clause in new mortgages and refis, it is a personal indemnity clause. See, back when the real estate market was relatively safe, the agreement went like this: You make the house payments, and you get to live there. If you stopped making the payments, the bank took it back. There was even Private Mortgage Insurance if you owed more than 80% of the home value. This insurance was not for YOU, it was for the bank. It was there so if the bank took your house back and was not able to recover the amount owed the insurance company would cover the difference. An interesting aside on that, when you paid your home down to 80% of value you could request the PMI removal. By law the lender was not required to release it until you got below 78%.

But what happened when the bubble burst is that even with the PMI banks were losing money, except in the case of massive foreclosures. Once the lenders lost a predetermined aggregate amount the federal government covered them dollar for dollar. You see what JPMorgan (and others) did? They took federal money to buy bad loans (acquiring other smaller banks with lots of bad paper, which in effect they bought at a huge discount) and then foreclosed anything they could (using the lax rules provided by the federal government which turned it's back on things like robosigning until there was enough public outcry, in which case they ordered some of the money be given back. My cut was 4 1/3% of my actual loss) until they reached that threshold and then started cashing in on the loaned amounts at the value of the homes before the crash. So the banks didn't have to ride it to the ground, WE did. The tax payers. And the government got their money back because after the foreclosures, they held the titles via FM, which they then resold. Slick, huh?

So now the government hold a controlling interest of home titles and mortgages. The fed is holding the interest rates artificially low. The lenders are offering the same bad deals for refis (with the exception of that personal indemnity clause). government spending is up, and the fed is still buying bonds with newly "printed" money, which means they are flooding the market with money that has no backing. Eventually the fed will not be able to hold down the pressure anymore, and interest rates will jump up leading to another round of foreclosures. Here we go again. Except this time, whatever the difference in what you owe and what the bank dumps the house for will still be your responsibility. See, the risk used to be shared between the bank and the homeowner (not quite fairly, since the homeowner was paying to insure the top 20% for the bank anyway), but now there is basically no risk to the lender. So long do you think it will be (given the "recovery" in housing) before they do it all again? I'm thinking just long enough that the average plebe forgets how this went down the last time and accepts it again. Cogs in a wheel people. We're not Citizens anymore, we are Consumers. And we will be allowed to have our toys as long as we are willing to accept our roles as money mills for the government and the banks which of course are To Big To Fail.
 
Yes. That's how they keep bankers from being shot in the streets. And it wasn't just JP, other big banks were involved as well. Think of it as hush money to the public.

So these days I am disgusted to hear commercials on the radio for refis, the HARP program (new and improved!) where even if you are upside down in your home you can still pull more equity! And ads for adjustable rate mortgages! Is our collective memory really that short? Well, apparently it is. These are the kinds of practices that got us in to the mess to begin with, and evidently people just don't learn.

But see, after the meltdown there is an added clause in new mortgages and refis, it is a personal indemnity clause. See, back when the real estate market was relatively safe, the agreement went like this: You make the house payments, and you get to live there. If you stopped making the payments, the bank took it back. There was even Private Mortgage Insurance if you owed more than 80% of the home value. This insurance was not for YOU, it was for the bank. It was there so if the bank took your house back and was not able to recover the amount owed the insurance company would cover the difference. An interesting aside on that, when you paid your home down to 80% of value you could request the PMI removal. By law the lender was not required to release it until you got below 78%.

But what happened when the bubble burst is that even with the PMI banks were losing money, except in the case of massive foreclosures. Once the lenders lost a predetermined aggregate amount the federal government covered them dollar for dollar. You see what JPMorgan (and others) did? They took federal money to buy bad loans (acquiring other smaller banks with lots of bad paper, which in effect they bought at a huge discount) and then foreclosed anything they could (using the lax rules provided by the federal government which turned it's back on things like robosigning until there was enough public outcry, in which case they ordered some of the money be given back. My cut was 4 1/3% of my actual loss) until they reached that threshold and then started cashing in on the loaned amounts at the value of the homes before the crash. So the banks didn't have to ride it to the ground, WE did. The tax payers. And the government got their money back because after the foreclosures, they held the titles via FM, which they then resold. Slick, huh?

So now the government hold a controlling interest of home titles and mortgages. The fed is holding the interest rates artificially low. The lenders are offering the same bad deals for refis (with the exception of that personal indemnity clause). government spending is up, and the fed is still buying bonds with newly "printed" money, which means they are flooding the market with money that has no backing. Eventually the fed will not be able to hold down the pressure anymore, and interest rates will jump up leading to another round of foreclosures. Here we go again. Except this time, whatever the difference in what you owe and what the bank dumps the house for will still be your responsibility. See, the risk used to be shared between the bank and the homeowner (not quite fairly, since the homeowner was paying to insure the top 20% for the bank anyway), but now there is basically no risk to the lender. So long do you think it will be (given the "recovery" in housing) before they do it all again? I'm thinking just long enough that the average plebe forgets how this went down the last time and accepts it again. Cogs in a wheel people. We're not Citizens anymore, we are Consumers. And we will be allowed to have our toys as long as we are willing to accept our roles as money mills for the government and the banks which of course are To Big To Fail.

It still gets me tho...the government in bed with the big banks to make money then fines the big banks for their part in making the money while the government walks away with an even larger portion of that same money. And the low information voter looks at this situation and praises government "for doing something" about out of control banks and their obscene profits...its nothing more than a friggin joke.
 
It still gets me tho...the government in bed with the big banks to make money then fines the big banks for their part in making the money while the government walks away with an even larger portion of that same money. And the low information voter looks at this situation and praises government "for doing something" about out of control banks and their obscene profits...its nothing more than a friggin joke.

Hardly seems logical, does it? But look at what is happening today with the hearing on Obamacare. The contractors and subcontractors are being grilled about why it doesn't work. They are all claiming that their individual parts worked fine. It's all a show of course, expect Obama and friends to make a big deal out of the companies having to fix it at their own expense or to give back some of the money. This is to create an "us and them" relationship in order to make the government seem like the victim. Keep in mind that this was a project that cost over $600 million, far above what it should actually cost to build a site capable of what it was supposed to do.

A few years back a few friends and I hatched an idea to build a peer to peer lending site similar to Prosper.com . Back then Prosper was still actually peer to peer, and the concept was relatively new. The SEC didn't have any rules in place for this type of business. It was nation wide with millions of investors and borrowers. Since that time the climate has changed and they have partnered with a bank to get around individual state taxes and regulations that have been applied to them. Anyway, we came up with a variation of what they do, and the plan was sound. My idea was to launch it and get it going, and within 2 to 3 years sell it as an operating network.

I had 3 partners in this venture. One is a corporate bull****ter, AKA consultant who would be responsible for launching and PR. Another was an accountant who's business would be expanded to handle the processing, The third was Citymind Group LLC, a web design company. Look these guys up, they are very good at what they do. They developed the tracking software for UPS along with several NASA and military applications. We were going to need a site that could handle nation wide traffic with enough security to safegaurd people's bank and personal information and form data that would consolidate the information and present it to accounting for processing in the simplest was possible. The time estimate to build the code and test it was 6-8 months and the total cost was estimated at $1.2 million. Think about that. So far the Obamacare web site and it's peripherals have cost us 50 times that, they have had 3 years to do it, and it doesn't work. There is certainly enough padding in there for the companies to take a hit publicly, and I fully expect the companies to be out of business in a couple of years with the executives walking away with huge retirement packages. That's how this works. Think Solyndra. What we are seeing is money laundering for the Democrat party with no expectations of positive results. This is nothing but a show for the public, a step toward single payer, and a still successful strategy by the Obama administration to walk away from all of the problems it causes without taking any responsibility for any of it. Just how much did CGI give to the Obama campaign? How much more will the party get?

BTW in the end the reason we didn't get off the ground was that one of the partners at Citymind and I disagreed about the end game of the business. He did not see how our model was so much different than what anybody else was doing to make it exceptionally unique, and there was no way to protect our process from being copied, and he was right. My perspective was that the amount of research it took to understand and build such a business was daunting enough to prevent many others from doing it (I designed it and did most of the research which took several months and tons of research) and that in the end it did not matter as we would have been only the third company to use this structure, and my intent was to sell it anyway. By the time we finally came to the conclusion that we needed a different web design company and found a couple of candidates the window was closing as the SEC was actively going after Prosper wanting a piece of their pie. Prosper is still operating, and while they no longer list how much business they have done on their home page it was upwards of $500,000 at the time, just 2 years after their launch.
 
Last edited:
Tech, you have an excellent grasp of exactly what and how it all went down, AND, how the game is still being played. I have been beating this drum for years, even before the housing crisis, just like the drum that the total GDP of the entire world is something to the tune of $47T annually, yet the total estimated world debt is 787T. Money is perceived value, NOT actual value, and anyone with a smidgen of common sense can see how it will all go down eventually. There's nowhere near that amount of Gold and rare or precious items to cover the amount of money in world GDP. I ask, how much value does your dollar really have? The game was reset with the appropriate level of government blame on Wall St., but it wasn't all WS to blame, and they're all in on it again, right under our very noses, and laughing over brandy, and Cubans.


Tim-
 
Tech, you have an excellent grasp of exactly what and how it all went down, AND, how the game is still being played. I have been beating this drum for years, even before the housing crisis, just like the drum that the total GDP of the entire world is something to the tune of $47T annually, yet the total estimated world debt is 787T. Money is perceived value, NOT actual value, and anyone with a smidgen of common sense can see how it will all go down eventually. There's nowhere near that amount of Gold and rare or precious items to cover the amount of money in world GDP. I ask, how much value does your dollar really have? The game was reset with the appropriate level of government blame on Wall St., but it wasn't all WS to blame, and they're all in on it again, right under our very noses, and laughing over brandy, and Cubans.


Tim-

Well I kind of got a crash course on it a few times. The first was when Enron went down and my parents lost a third of their retirement, as did the Florida teacher's union. The government stepped in and covered the union, but not my parents. that got me looking at things differently.

The next was my foreclosure. Now, to be honest mine was not as undeserved as many were. We were behind on ours because of starting a new business at the time the economy was taking a dive (never saw that coming, certainly would not have picked that time to start a new business) and we had to make a decision as to whether we would give up the house and me get a regular job (my wife was in school at the time) or keep pursuing the business. We determined that a house is just a wooden box you put your stuff in and there were lots of them, and it made more sense to let the house go and keep the business. Thing is we worked out a deal with WaMu and made good on it (as did they) and then watched as Chase fast tracked the foreclosure on a mortgage that had only steps to go before it was fixed. After that there was the research involved in firing up the lending business and learning the ins and outs of federal and state regulation involved to make it happen. So I have a pretty good window on how this stuff works. So I came by it honestly having been directly and indirectly affected by it all.
 
Back
Top Bottom