It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US regulator to sue banks over subprime mortgage losses

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   

US regulator to sue banks over subprime mortgage losses


www.bbc.co.uk

The Federal Housing Finance Agency said it was taking action against banks including Goldman Sachs, Barclays, Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, and HSBC.

The agency says they misrepresented the quality of the mortgages they sold during the housing bubble.

The values plunged as the US was engulfed in the financial crisis.

The FHFA oversees mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Ok, so let's say the banks get sued...who gets the money from that?
Will it really benefit anyone (like joe public).

Just how does this penalise these bankers when all they do is just take the losses out on the public and charge more for services or just fiddle the books like they always have...

With over 140bn dollars of tax payers money going on keeping these banks running, where is the help for those who really need it, like the jobless and homeless...

The mind boggles

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
$100 bucks says this case gets thrown out or the courts rule in the banks favor



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Sounds to me like the US government bailed out the banks, just to turn around and sue them to get the money back. The question is, to what end?

Or am I wrong in my thinking?



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
One quick call from ben bernake will put a stop to that.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   
That is just like sueing the American people because the bankers will just pass the costs onto them.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
What gets me is how much will it cost to bring it to court? The only folks that this will "stimulate" will be lawyers.
More fun and games brought to you by the US government!



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
It's all swings and roundabouts..

All part of keeping the cycle of money revolving. Shame really when we all know just how much good this money could do in "a perfect world"...

But that's not profitable.

And just how much are the lawyers going to take out of any 'winnings'?



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Extralien

And just how much are the lawyers going to take out of any 'winnings'?


I suppose it depends on who wins.

If the government wins, then the federal attorneys get the same pay check they get on the first of every month (since they are salaried). If the defense wins, then they will get whatever their hourly rate is since there would be no "award" being given to the defense (of course, the defense could counter sue for attorney's fees...which no doubt would be jacked up...BUT, I would love to see them TRY to collect on that).

I suspect, though, that the Federal Government would not dare move forward with this case unless it was beyond airtight.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Extralien
 


In my opinion, and at this point in the game I say for any bank that gets convicted of all these crimes, any and all people with outstanding mortgages are free and clear with a clean title. That is the best restitution possible for the situation.
edit on 2-9-2011 by Skewed because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
More than likely, the fed gov't will win the lawsuit, and the banks will have to pay out some obnoxious amount of money, of which, ben and friends will find a way to create the money out of thin air and loan it to them with 0 interest forever....
on a brighter note, there's a couple of the con artists heading to jail at least!!!

www.roanoke.com...

nice little scam they had going there. they should be right at home with those doctors that have been found playing just about the same scam...find someone stupid enough to agree to needless surgery, put them under, do as little as you wish, and then well, overinflate the bill, and charge medicare, or medicaid...then well, they can split the money.....

even if it's just a matter of the fed secretly giving them the money to pay off all the claims, well, I'd love to see the truth come out and the banks involved get dragged through the mud....
they kind of deserve it at this point!



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Extralien
 


Hmmm. If lawsuit proceeds go into public coffers, it could be a good thing.

And if people stop using the the services that banks overcharge for and profit too much from, maybe they'll get the message.

Oooo - how 'bout a good old-fashioned boycott? Stop using banks altogether and take your business to your local member-owned, member-run banking co-op?



...No. I am NOT a commie. Just PO'd, fed up and looking for alternatives.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Skewed
 


Brilliant idea, but you've still got the issue of all of those whom have already lost everything.

I hate to imagine the cost on the individuals from an emotional point of view.. ie, family break ups etc.

It's not always about the loss of material things but the 'humanity' side of it never really comes into the equation unless it's shell shock or the like..



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skewed
reply to post by Extralien
 


In my opinion, and at this point in the game I say for any bank that gets convicted of all these crimes, any and all people with outstanding mortgages are free and clear with a clean title. That is the best restitution possible for the situation.
edit on 2-9-2011 by Skewed because: (no reason given)


I would almost agree with that....except...I bought a home well within my means, while many others overextended themselves so they could buy much more than they needed. So, if we are all free and clear, then I am (in a round about way) being punished for being responsible.

If "free and clear" is the outcome, then I want additional restitution to balance the scales.

Honestly, if you took on the responsibility of debt, then I believe you are obligated to see your responsibility through; regardless of how the other party may have acted.

Of course, a bit of punitive damages awarded to the home owner would be nice.

edit on 2-9-2011 by Aggie Man because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Do you Americans not see this, it is just a way to send more money to your government from your pockets. Bank of America has money and it is all yours, they get fined but they just adjust their pricing and you pay more, the bankers will still walk home with their full bonuses as usual. The banker never loses, you do.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by michael1983l
 


ya, ya, they are too big to fail....
guess what, we are getting too small to care!!!!!

there's a little credit union that has been coming to my shop for years now, wanting my business....
I don't need bank of america, or the others....



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Extralien
reply to post by Skewed
 


Brilliant idea, but you've still got the issue of all of those whom have already lost everything.



It is bad all over.

I am not sure there is an answer for those that had lost everything. It sucks, but hopefully those people have not let it get them down and adapted and did the best they could. But at the end of the day, I think the answer as bad as it may be is, that's life.
edit on 2-9-2011 by Skewed because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 



Good and I only wish more Americans would do the same as you. Starred



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Was it not Moodys that rated the sub-prime mortgage bundles as AAA? Was it not AIG(American International Group) that came along to insure them? Who exactly mispresented the deal? I thought when taking up any investment you should be aware of the risks, so how exactly where they AAA material?

The banks can claim anything they want and if, individually or collectively, found to mispresent the associated risk then they too are responsible, but I find it suspicious that moodys and AIG are getting off the hook so easy.

I know it sounds assinine but my hunch feeling says it was a broad wall street conspiracy to bring america down and create a one world currency from the resulting instability.

All this investigating, while better than nothing, will probably fall short.....way short of true justice!



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man

I would almost agree with that....except...I bought a home well within my means, while many other overextended themselves to buy much more than they needed. So, if we are all free and clear, then I am (in a round about way) being punished for being responsible.

If "free and clear" is the outcome, then I want additional restitution to balance the scales.

Honestly, if you took on the responsibility of debt, then I believe you are obligated to see your responsibility through; regardless of how the other party may have acted.

Of course, a bit of punitive damages awarded to the mortgage holder would be nice.

edit on 2-9-2011 by Aggie Man because: (no reason given)


Well, if it were left up to me, the convicted bank is done, no longer exists. All assets confiscated, if by any chance there is any money left, then whatever is left after legitimate expenses could be distributed among all of their customers.

As far as you seeing extra restitution for being responsible, does anyone ever receive extra payments for being responsible? I know I do not make any more money for being responsible. But I see your point. The balance you suggest would come from would be by creating balance within the community, which in turn does affect you, indirectly. I think this is a situation where the people just need to cut their losses and move on, the bright side is the criminal element has been removed from existence.

I think what we will see if any of this starts hitting the court rooms is that certainly there were people that did in fact make bad financial decisions and well deserving of negative affects of their decisions. We will also see that there are also people out there that were complete victims of the banks decisions, and the people had made no bad decisions at all. I think the depth of this problem is so deep that it is entirely possible for it to be swept under rug, when things start getting laid out on the table and the enormity of this is fully realized, no one will want to take it on.


edit on 2-9-2011 by Skewed because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join