Do it again and I will simply ignore you and let your ignorant beliefs stand on its own, without further attention from me, as I had done to others.
Condescension? Hardly. I am trying to educate you so that you stick to facts and reason. Obviously, this is a difficult - even comical - task.
I've pointed out the facts straight from the FBI, and you fail to give one iota of intelligent comment on their findings.
If you don't find the FBI as a credible third party source, then I guess there is no point in discussing the topic further. They are quite clear in
their findings, your opinion to the contrary notwithstanding.
But then, look again, WHO were the approving bank officers? It's BILLIONS of dollars that had been scammed. A honest man who tries to delay a loan
repayment of a few grand for just one or 2 months gets tossed to the cleaners. Responsible and trusted bankers don't know what's happening for
years?Who are you trying to fool in your support of the banking industry?
You are correct. Banks got scammed by criminal borrowers to the tune of billions upon billions of dollars. At least we can agree on something.
The evidence is in the FBI reports on Mortgage Fraud. Read them. They are quite detailed and extensive. You might actually learn something about
the topic at hand, instead of throwing baseless accusations at the banking industry, none of which have any merit.
Just because you accuse the banking industry of being irresponsible, does not make it so. Banks were the victims of Mortgage Fraud. The evidence is
in the FBI files, as well as in the sheer fact that hundreds of banks were defrauded and shut down as a result.
A honest man who tries to delay a loan repayment of a few grand for just one or 2 months gets tossed to the cleaners.
Only in your upside down, backwards, warped view of banking would you side with someone that defaults on their loan obligations. An honest man would
never default on their loan, and would make good on their promises.
60% of re-negotiated loans end up back in default. Up to 70% of first payment defaults are from applicants that lied on their mortgage loan
applications. Again, this data is in the FBI files I supplied, if you would only read them.
OUT of the 300 banks that had folded, only a miserable few were convicted., thankfully support and dedication from the authorities. What happened to
the rest, such as whales in JP Morgan and Barclays as well as the many other connected links?
Now, you are changing your story. At first, you said that absolutely no one had been convicted. I proved you wrong by citing evidence of a number of
specific cases where prosecutions took place.
I cited big banks fraudsters - such as the CEO Farkas that defrauded Colonial Bank, as well as small community bank fraudsters that ended up in
Your statement that no one has been prosecuted is patently false. If you have evidence of wrongdoing at Chase or Barclays - then go ahead and present
concrete evidence and support for your accusations.
As to your statement that banks are pressured to conform to govt's desires, you are purely basing it on unsupported fantasies, not even
generalisation, but conjectured self opinion to lay blame on others than banks for their wrong doing. Till date, there is NO evidence of any US govt
pointing a gun at the head of ANY banker and forcing him to lend or manipulate the trusted bank funds for fraud.
Once again, you are mistaken. It's called the Community Reinvestment Act. I am no fan of Wikipedia, but nonetheless, it does provide an adequate
description of the act here:
And I quote:
"The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901
et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all
segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods."
Or, in translation, banks are required to lend to sub-prime, low income borrowers or they face steep penalties.
Yes, this is evidence that government forced banks to lend to unqualified borrowers:
"Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards
throughout the banking industry. He also charges the Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA.
In a commentary for CNN, Congressman Ron Paul, who serves on the United States House Committee on Financial Services, charged the CRA with "forcing
banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks."
In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Austrian school economist Russell Roberts wrote that the CRA subsidized low-income housing by pressuring banks
to serve poor borrowers and poor regions of the country."
2 well-respected economists, the Wall Street Journal, and famed politician Ron Paul disagree with you.
You are, once again, sadly misinformed.
edit on 7-7-2012 by CookieMonster09 because: (no reason given)