Elizabeth Warren destroys bank regulators for lack of action

[Deleted member 4644]

http://youtu.be/2F6YkBa_Tig

She is phenomenal. Rips them a new one for failing to take banks to trial for breaking the law.

 

[kage69]

That woman is awesome.

 

[Doppel]

I can't believe she still talks like this and Washington hasn't screwed hr out of her principles yet.

 

[monovillage]

She's on the warpath!

 

[Genx87]

She hit the nail on the head in the last 20 seconds. And this is something I have asked over the past couple of months. Where are the prosecutions of the big banks from the 08 melt down? I posted an article a month ago that showed the DoJ did their best to avoid even looking into possible frauds. But they are quick to squash small time players and pat themselves on the back.

 

[sactoking]

I can't believe she still talks like this and Washington hasn't screwed hr out of her principles yet.

She's still too new, recently-elected I think.

I do find it amusing that she's railing on them for administrative settlements in lieu of trials; that's pretty much the preferred method for every regulatory agency everywhere, because there's no risk of losing.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Paying a small percentage of ill-gotten profits for breaking the law is not a disincentive to break the law. Putting the people responsible in jail might make a huge difference.

Ordinary people can go to jail for not paying parking tickets. Why not people whose crimes are orders of magnitude greater?

Is there a "Crimes for Dummys" book with a chart that shows how big your crime must be to assure that you will not go to jail?

 

[momeNt]

She doesn't get it.

It is essential for banks to operate with immunity, if people lose confidence in the banks, everything collapses. Banks prop up the entire economy through lending, if anything she has said manages to hurt a bank, the effects will be devastating. Too big to fail is also too big for trial.

Somebody will call her into their office and tell her what's up soon enough.

 

[sunzt]

She doesn't get it.

It is essential for banks to operate with immunity, if people lose confidence in the banks, everything collapses. Banks prop up the entire economy through lending, if anything she has said manages to hurt a bank, the effects will be devastating. Too big to fail is also too big for trial.

Somebody will call her into their office and tell her what's up soon enough.

hmm i think people already lost confidence... Also, the fed reserve is proping it up just as much, which may be a huge reason for the lack of trials.

 

[glenn1]

She hit the nail on the head in the last 20 seconds. And this is something I have asked over the past couple of months. Where are the prosecutions of the big banks from the 08 melt down? I posted an article a month ago that showed the DoJ did their best to avoid even looking into possible frauds. But they are quick to squash small time players and pat themselves on the back.

What does she propose putting them on trial for? Or you for that matter? Citing "the 08 meltdown" isn't a crime, and the major causes of it were not then crimes (and often aren't now). How do you criminalize long-tail risks? Should we put AIG on trial for writting too many CDS contracts, causing counter-party risk? Banks for the "crime" of being too lenient with home mortgage underwriting standards? The sell-side Street firms for selling crap, despite centuries of caveat emptor regulation of product sales to sophisticated investors?

 

[sunzt]

What does she propose putting them on trial for? Or you for that matter? Citing "the 08 meltdown" isn't a crime, and the major causes of it were not then crimes (and often aren't now). How do you criminalize long-tail risks? Should we put AIG on trial for writting too many CDS contracts, causing counter-party risk? Banks for the "crime" of being too lenient with home mortgage underwriting standards? The sell-side Street firms for selling crap, despite centuries of caveat emptor regulation of product sales to sophisticated investors?

While they can sell deliberate crap, however, there was a concerted effort by the institutions selling the crap AND the rating agencies rating the crap to hide and misrepresent that fact that what was being sold was indeed CRAP. To top it off, those same players bet against the crap they were selling because they knew craphouse was going to fall!

That sounds like fraud, misrepresentation, collusion, and (to a certain extent) market manipulation.

 

[glenn1]

While they can sell deliberate crap, however, there was a concerted effort by the institutions selling the crap AND the rating agencies rating the crap to hide and misrepresent that fact that what was being sold was indeed CRAP. To top it off, those same players bet against the crap they were selling because they knew craphouse was going to fall!

That sounds like fraud, misrepresentation, collusion, and (to a certain extent) market manipulation.

How is this any worse than what occurred during the Dot Com bubble? If anything, some of the junk being sold then was even more brazen. And a lot of the 'crap' actually was a reasonable financial instrument to invest in - until suddenly everyone decided it wasn't, pretty much all at the same time. I'm not sure how you can prosecute someone for participating in a financial bubble.

 

[Zebo]

To bad Dorner wasnt a disgruntled xbanker.

 

[pauldun170]

What does she propose putting them on trial for? Or you for that matter? Citing "the 08 meltdown" isn't a crime, and the major causes of it were not then crimes (and often aren't now). How do you criminalize long-tail risks? Should we put AIG on trial for writting too many CDS contracts, causing counter-party risk? Banks for the "crime" of being too lenient with home mortgage underwriting standards? The sell-side Street firms for selling crap, despite centuries of caveat emptor regulation of product sales to sophisticated investors?

How is this any worse than what occurred during the Dot Com bubble? If anything, some of the junk being sold then was even more brazen. And a lot of the 'crap' actually was a reasonable financial instrument to invest in - until suddenly everyone decided it wasn't, pretty much all at the same time. I'm not sure how you can prosecute someone for participating in a financial bubble.

Saved me some typing...

She's playing political theater.

 

[Ausm]

That woman is awesome.

Anyone Wall Street loathes is a benefit to Society.

 

[Zebo]

Saved me some typing...

She's playing political theater.

You guys are ignorant as to the litany of theft, fraud, deception and lies. Start here.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/85355086/AG-Settlement-Complaint

 

[nehalem256]

What does she propose putting them on trial for? Or you for that matter? Citing "the 08 meltdown" isn't a crime, and the major causes of it were not then crimes (and often aren't now). How do you criminalize long-tail risks? Should we put AIG on trial for writting too many CDS contracts, causing counter-party risk? Banks for the "crime" of being too lenient with home mortgage underwriting standards? The sell-side Street firms for selling crap, despite centuries of caveat emptor regulation of product sales to sophisticated investors?

If the people on Wall Street demand to be paid like "gods" then they should be held to that standard.

And I have seen stories that go far beyond "being too lenient".

 

[sunzt]

You guys are ignorant as to the litany of theft, fraud, deception and lies. Start here.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/85355086/AG-Settlement-Complaint

Main points:

The Banks’ Unfair, Deceptive, and Unlawful Servicing and Origination Processes

The Banks’ Unfair, Deceptive, and Unlawful Loan Modification and Loss Mitigation Processes

Wrongful Conduct Related to Foreclosures

Unfair and Deceptive Origination Practices

Failure to Comply with Underwriting Requirements

Failure to Comply With Quality Control Requirements

goes on and on............

 

[pauldun170]

You guys are ignorant as to the litany of theft, fraud, deception and lies. Start here.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/85355086/AG-Settlement-Complaint

Main points:

The Banks’ Unfair, Deceptive, and Unlawful Servicing and Origination Processes

The Banks’ Unfair, Deceptive, and Unlawful Loan Modification and Loss Mitigation Processes

Wrongful Conduct Related to Foreclosures

Unfair and Deceptive Origination Practices

Failure to Comply with Underwriting Requirements

Failure to Comply With Quality Control Requirements

goes on and on............

You listed the section titles.
Can you list the actual point of each section?
Can you please describe what this document is and what it is all about?

 

[monovillage]

I'm sure she'll be just as effective as the Occupy Wall Street movement she helped to start is and we all know what monumental changes the Occupy movement brought to this country.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...s-intellectual-credit-for-occupy-wall-street/

 

[sunzt]

You listed the section titles.
Can you list the actual point of each section?
Can you please describe what this document is and what it is all about?

The banks abused the foreclosure process and did not go through proper procedures and oversight when executing foreclosures. Failures include charging excessive fees when an account enters default, failing to maintain accurate account statements, improper oversight of third-party contractors and misleading borrowers.

Mortgage lenders and their services approved by the FHA are required to avoid the foreclosure of single-family residential mortgages insured by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Banks were supposed to modify the mortgages for borrowers in default under the terms of the 2008 bailout.

"In the course of their conduct, management and oversight of loan modifications in the plaintiff states, the banks have engaged in a pattern of unfair and deceptive practices,"

"During the period 2003 through April 30, 2009, Countrywide knowingly failed to comply with HUD regulations and requirements of the Direct Endorsement Program governing the origination and underwriting of FHA-insured loans. As a result, the FHA has thus far incurred hundreds of millions of dollars in damages with respect to claims paid for loans that Countrywide knowingly made to unqualified borrowers. Additionally, thousands of the Countrywide loans are currently in default and have not yet been submitted as claims to the FHA."

Since many borrowers in foreclosure are members of the military, the banks are in violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

"The banks wrongfully charged interest rates in excess of 6 percent per annum to servicemembers who were on military service or otherwise protected by the SCRA on mortgage debts that were incurred by servicemembers or servicemembers and their spouses jointly before servicemembers entered military service and after servicemembers had made valid requests to lower their interest rates, as provided for by the SCRA."

In addition to the SCRA claim, it goes into unfair and deceptive consumer practices, violations of the False Claims Act, violation of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989. You can read the link for more info.

Total settlement of about 25B.

 

[Thebobo]

I'm sure she'll be just as effective as the Occupy Wall Street movement she helped to start is and we all know what monumental changes the Occupy movement brought to this country.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...s-intellectual-credit-for-occupy-wall-street/

Well at least they tried.

 

[ivwshane]

She's still too new, recently-elected I think.

I do find it amusing that she's railing on them for administrative settlements in lieu of trials; that's pretty much the preferred method for every regulatory agency everywhere, because there's no risk of losing.

Yes and that's precisely the problem, no accountability. Do the fines outweigh the profits gained from their corrupt practices? No. Then what's the incentive for not being corrupt?

What does she propose putting them on trial for? Or you for that matter? Citing "the 08 meltdown" isn't a crime, and the major causes of it were not then crimes (and often aren't now). How do you criminalize long-tail risks? Should we put AIG on trial for writting too many CDS contracts, causing counter-party risk? Banks for the "crime" of being too lenient with home mortgage underwriting standards? The sell-side Street firms for selling crap, despite centuries of caveat emptor regulation of product sales to sophisticated investors?

If there wasn't a crime then why are the banks agreeing to settlements?

 

[Acanthus]

What does she propose putting them on trial for? Or you for that matter? Citing "the 08 meltdown" isn't a crime, and the major causes of it were not then crimes (and often aren't now). How do you criminalize long-tail risks? Should we put AIG on trial for writting too many CDS contracts, causing counter-party risk? Banks for the "crime" of being too lenient with home mortgage underwriting standards? The sell-side Street firms for selling crap, despite centuries of caveat emptor regulation of product sales to sophisticated investors?

The rating agencies clearly broke all of their ethical obligations with rating of the CDOs. They gave them false ratings knowingly and sold them that way without disclosure.

This constitutes fraud on massive, multi-billion dollar scale.

 

[hal2kilo]

She doesn't get it.

It is essential for banks to operate with immunity, if people lose confidence in the banks, everything collapses. Banks prop up the entire economy through lending, if anything she has said manages to hurt a bank, the effects will be devastating. Too big to fail is also too big for trial.

Somebody will call her into their office and tell her what's up soon enough.

tapping meter.