Bank of America to pay $335M to settle Countrywide bias charges Read more: http://ww

[Cuyo]

That's kinda my point.

First there was the shotgun marriage between BoA and Merrill...The purchase of Countrywide sure seems a tad shady....Now they have to take on a lawsuit because of actions of Countrywide before they bought it?

wow....

Ummm... Yeah, of course you assume liabilities for a company you acquire. There are ways, eg asset purchase, which avoid this liability, but obviously they didn't do it that way.

What, did you think that the moment a company is sold, all liabilities are forgiven?

 

[Full-Auto]

Bank of America to pay $335M to settle Countrywide bias charges - Connecticut Post

Motherfucking nonsense........

These are the same fucks that got free credit and destroyed our economy...

Besides, I would like to know on what basis can minorities make this claim?? its not exactly like race is a question when applying for credit these days...

umm, who are you referring to about "destroyed our economy", the banks or minorities?

Minorities..of course.

Nothing to do with the predatory lending scams of mortgage agents.

A point that can not be denied......................

Government opened the door and encouraged poor practices.

 

[Sallow]

Not when a white man is charged sub prime fees when he doesn't qualify for a su bprime loan because hes white..

Using the logic of this ruling interest rates should be based on race, as well as surcharges...

no, it should be based on credit rating.... and if you have a credit rating that would qualify you for a prime loan, yet you are only given sub prime loan.... and it is based on your race..... then that is discrimination......

i dont remember if i stated my race when i got my house loan, but if it can be proved that it was based on race, then the suit is valid.....

i didnt see anything in the article that showed how it was proved that the loans were based on race, so will hold judgement one way or the other until i have found how how it was proven it was race based......

You ever hear of the CRA????

It absolutely SHOULD be based on your credit rating ........ I could give a fuck less about race...

CRA was not about forcing anyone to give anyone loans.

It was about getting rid of the policy of "red-lining" neighborhoods. And it led to the rebuilding of many blighted areas.

 

[Sallow]

umm, who are you referring to about "destroyed our economy", the banks or minorities?

Minorities..of course.

Nothing to do with the predatory lending scams of mortgage agents.

A point that can not be denied......................

Government opened the door and encouraged poor practices.

Well you are sort of right for the wrong reason.

It's more to do with getting rid of Glass-Steagall.

 

[LeftofLeft]

For anyone who has ever gone through the mortgage acquisition process, it is grueling. It is opening up the good, the bad, and the ugly on every and any asset and debt you have and then compiling a score for you which will determine if you will be paying the lowest rate due to a high credit score or pay a higher rate and sub-prime fees due to a low credit score.

In my eyes, the only way institutions can be charged with racism is to compare a minority credit score vs. a non-minority credit score (WHITE) and then compare their mortgage outcomes. Show us where and how all things were equal yet the minority got the less favorable mortgage?

OR, in the spirit of having an honest discussion about race in America, do non-whites have a higher rate of late payments, loan defaults, less savings which lead to higher rates of sub-prime mortgages among non-whites?

 

[Full-Auto]

no, it should be based on credit rating.... and if you have a credit rating that would qualify you for a prime loan, yet you are only given sub prime loan.... and it is based on your race..... then that is discrimination......

i dont remember if i stated my race when i got my house loan, but if it can be proved that it was based on race, then the suit is valid.....

i didnt see anything in the article that showed how it was proved that the loans were based on race, so will hold judgement one way or the other until i have found how how it was proven it was race based......

You ever hear of the CRA????

It absolutely SHOULD be based on your credit rating ........ I could give a fuck less about race...

CRA was not about forcing anyone to give anyone loans.

It was about getting rid of the policy of "red-lining" neighborhoods. And it led to the rebuilding of many blighted areas.

But that is where it lead. Too many you tube videos for that to be challenged.

 

[occupied]

Anyone notice something about this story? It says BOA is PAYING to settle rather than appealing the ruling. It means that they are getting off very cheap.

 

[kaz]

I agree with you, however it was the CRA that gave these fucks houses and the CRA was purely based on race. Now they're demanding free money all because they were forced to be lend to in the first place???????????

This is the cherry on top of the sundae.....

Government intrusion on behalf of minorities hasn't worked. They've done things like prevent companies from using zip code in ratings to "protect" black areas. The result has been an increase in costs warping market prices. Moral Hazard for those who pay below market rates because of it increase costs more across the board. And other insurers pull out which also increases rates. The result is the "minority" areas don't end up with lower rates at all, other areas end up with higher rates.

That is the reality of government intervention. I understand that even though you and Oddball are typically on the free market side the idea of discrimination bothers you, it does me too. But government as a solution to the problem? You guys are letting your emotion dominate your logic. That is the lure of liberalism. So is the result I pointed out.

I'm 31 years old - I don't understand discrimination....

I do notice trends tho...

And what trend have you noticed with regard to government intervention in free markets? Does it lead to freer markets and lower price? I haven't. Here's a trend I have seen, that that government uses investigation themselves to control markets.

 

[Mr.Nick]

no, it should be based on credit rating.... and if you have a credit rating that would qualify you for a prime loan, yet you are only given sub prime loan.... and it is based on your race..... then that is discrimination......

i dont remember if i stated my race when i got my house loan, but if it can be proved that it was based on race, then the suit is valid.....

i didnt see anything in the article that showed how it was proved that the loans were based on race, so will hold judgement one way or the other until i have found how how it was proven it was race based......

You ever hear of the CRA????

It absolutely SHOULD be based on your credit rating ........ I could give a fuck less about race...

CRA was not about forcing anyone to give anyone loans.

It was about getting rid of the policy of "red-lining" neighborhoods. And it led to the rebuilding of many blighted areas.

The fuck it wasn't

It was about using banks as a welfare program......

Why even have a welfare program if we can just make the banks foot the bill??? Well that was Clintons logic... Guess what??? it came back to bite us in the ass because the CRA was tremendously abused under amendments to the program manifested by Clinton who guilted republicans into signing them calling them racists if they didn't....

 

[kaz]

That's kinda my point.

First there was the shotgun marriage between BoA and Merrill...The purchase of Countrywide sure seems a tad shady....Now they have to take on a lawsuit because of actions of Countrywide before they bought it?

wow....

Ummm... Yeah, of course you assume liabilities for a company you acquire. There are ways, eg asset purchase, which avoid this liability, but obviously they didn't do it that way.

What, did you think that the moment a company is sold, all liabilities are forgiven?

It wouldn't have been approved by the government as an asset purchase

 

[Mr.Nick]

Government intrusion on behalf of minorities hasn't worked. They've done things like prevent companies from using zip code in ratings to "protect" black areas. The result has been an increase in costs warping market prices. Moral Hazard for those who pay below market rates because of it increase costs more across the board. And other insurers pull out which also increases rates. The result is the "minority" areas don't end up with lower rates at all, other areas end up with higher rates.

That is the reality of government intervention. I understand that even though you and Oddball are typically on the free market side the idea of discrimination bothers you, it does me too. But government as a solution to the problem? You guys are letting your emotion dominate your logic. That is the lure of liberalism. So is the result I pointed out.

I'm 31 years old - I don't understand discrimination....

I do notice trends tho...

And what trend have you noticed with regard to government intervention in free markets? Does it lead to freer markets and lower price? I haven't. Here's a trend I have seen, that that government uses investigation themselves to control markets.

You do realize I preach Austrian school economics ...

I totally agree that dictated economies don't work, nor does Keynesian economics er mixed economies.

Geez...

 

[kaz]

Minorities..of course.

Nothing to do with the predatory lending scams of mortgage agents.

A point that can not be denied......................

Government opened the door and encouraged poor practices.

Well you are sort of right for the wrong reason.

It's more to do with getting rid of Glass-Steagall.

No one blamed minorities in this but you. Typical liberal argument. When you have no content, no ideas and what you've done doesn't work, ad hominem is all you have left.

 

[Sallow]

You ever hear of the CRA????

It absolutely SHOULD be based on your credit rating ........ I could give a fuck less about race...

CRA was not about forcing anyone to give anyone loans.

It was about getting rid of the policy of "red-lining" neighborhoods. And it led to the rebuilding of many blighted areas.

But that is where it lead. Too many you tube videos for that to be challenged.

No it ain't.

What "led" to it..was making pizza delivery guys into Mortgage agents and dangling high bonuses in front of their eyes for high volume.

The whole thing needs to be investigated. We are seeing stories of BOA foreclosing on some houses where the mortgages are paid..or on schedule. Barring that..debt needs to be restructured.

 

[Full-Auto]

A point that can not be denied......................

Government opened the door and encouraged poor practices.

Well you are sort of right for the wrong reason.

It's more to do with getting rid of Glass-Steagall.

No one blamed minorities in this but you. Typical liberal argument. When you have no content, no ideas and what you've done doesn't work, ad hominem is all you have left.

Lets up the ante...................... The obama admin went AFTER WASH MUTUAL FOR 900 MILLION. They accepted 64 million that insurance covers. Meaning only their reputation is smudged. Obama convenience at its finest.

 

[Sallow]

A point that can not be denied......................

Government opened the door and encouraged poor practices.

Well you are sort of right for the wrong reason.

It's more to do with getting rid of Glass-Steagall.

No one blamed minorities in this but you. Typical liberal argument. When you have no content, no ideas and what you've done doesn't work, ad hominem is all you have left.

Ah Bullshit.

That's implicit in every fucking conservative argument about this..it's the brown/black guy's fault.

No way it could be the banksters, hedge fund managers and derivative whiz kids.

 

[kaz]

I'm 31 years old - I don't understand discrimination....

I do notice trends tho...

And what trend have you noticed with regard to government intervention in free markets? Does it lead to freer markets and lower price? I haven't. Here's a trend I have seen, that that government uses investigation themselves to control markets.

You do realize I preach Austrian school economics ...

I totally agree that dictated economies don't work, nor does Keynesian economics er mixed economies.

Geez...

I know we are going to far more agree then disagree. But my point which you haven't addressed is that government investigation is in itself an assault on free markets and our government is belligerent in doing so. My career was split between management and management consulting. As a consultant I made a lot of money on government investigations. For example, I worked for insurance companies on the Spitzer started government witch hunt and for a major retailer on the PCI investigations. The government uses the investigations themselves as massive power over their victims. They send endless demands for data and documentation on procedures and when they say jump companies ask how high. This is not a trivial point. Government should not be investigating this or they have already greatly furthered their power regardless of the outcome.

 

[Mr.Nick]

CRA was not about forcing anyone to give anyone loans.

It was about getting rid of the policy of "red-lining" neighborhoods. And it led to the rebuilding of many blighted areas.

But that is where it lead. Too many you tube videos for that to be challenged.

No it ain't.

What "led" to it..was making pizza delivery guys into Mortgage agents and dangling high bonuses in front of their eyes for high volume.

The whole thing needs to be investigated. We are seeing stories of BOA foreclosing on some houses where the mortgages are paid..or on schedule. Barring that..debt needs to be restructured.

Do realize you turn ignorance and mental retardation into an art form?

No, the CRA created forced lending and I have been bitching about it online for a decade..

The CRA was one of the many reasons why I got passionate about politics...

 

[GWV5903]

"The investigation found Countrywide put more than 200,000 black and Hispanic borrowers into sub prime loans carrying high interest rates when those borrowers qualified for standard loans."

This statement makes no sense, if they qualified for FHA financing at the time in question the LO would run them through DU and ultimately make more money on the yield spread...

"In 2004, the ACORN Bridgeport chapter raised this issue in a report claiming widespread discrimination in sub prime loans in Bridgeport.

That report said 34.4 percent of mortgages taken out by blacks in Bridgeport were sub prime, while 22.9 percent of Latinos were given sub prime loans. Only six percent of the loans to whites in Bridgeport were sub prime during the same period"

And this means what? Pure bullshit, Holder should be in jail for Fast & Furious and he is out delivering this BS???

Rob Varnon's use of Acorn's accusation paints a very clear picture, blame whitey...

 

[Mr.Nick]

And what trend have you noticed with regard to government intervention in free markets? Does it lead to freer markets and lower price? I haven't. Here's a trend I have seen, that that government uses investigation themselves to control markets.

You do realize I preach Austrian school economics ...

I totally agree that dictated economies don't work, nor does Keynesian economics er mixed economies.

Geez...

I know we are going to far more agree then disagree. But my point which you haven't addressed is that government investigation is in itself an assault on free markets and our government is belligerent in doing so. My career was split between management and management consulting. As a consultant I made a lot of money on government investigations. For example, I worked for insurance companies on the Spitzer started government witch hunt and for a major retailer on the PCI investigations. The government uses the investigations themselves as massive power over their victims. They send endless demands for data and documentation on procedures and when they say jump companies ask how high. This is not a trivial point. Government should not be investigating this or they have already greatly furthered their power regardless of the outcome.

Dude I have state numerous times that I literally hate government interference in our markets and quite frankly believe our economy is shit because government not only dictates our present market but wants to be paid to do it so they create all these taxes and regulations to do that which hinder our economy.....

I suppose states can govern how they see fit but the federal government???

 

[Oddball]

no, it should be based on credit rating.... and if you have a credit rating that would qualify you for a prime loan, yet you are only given sub prime loan.... and it is based on your race..... then that is discrimination......

i dont remember if i stated my race when i got my house loan, but if it can be proved that it was based on race, then the suit is valid.....

i didnt see anything in the article that showed how it was proved that the loans were based on race, so will hold judgement one way or the other until i have found how how it was proven it was race based......

You ever hear of the CRA????

It absolutely SHOULD be based on your credit rating ........ I could give a fuck less about race...

CRA was not about forcing anyone to give anyone loans.

It was about getting rid of the policy of "red-lining" neighborhoods. And it led to the rebuilding of many blighted areas.

And where did most of the high risk lendees live?...Oh yeah, the red-lined neighborhoods.

And little, if any, of the urban blight got rebuilt....The practice just pushed the high-riskers out into the 'burbs.