Why isn't Wall Street in jail?

[Sallow]

idiots. the markets don't control government...GOVERNMENT CONTROLS THE MARKET.

Banks gave bad loans because the government strong armed them into doing it. The bubble burst. Banks were the scapegoat.

Banks decide not to give out bad loans. People blame them for being greedy, government propagates.

You idiots are being played. Government is the problem, not the banks and not the free marketers.

 

[Liberty]

idiots. the markets don't control government...GOVERNMENT CONTROLS THE MARKET.

Banks gave bad loans because the government strong armed them into doing it. The bubble burst. Banks were the scapegoat.

Banks decide not to give out bad loans. People blame them for being greedy, government propagates.

You idiots are being played. Government is the problem, not the banks and not the free marketers.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?play=1&video=1014330724

http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2011/02/07/loan-modification-plans-fail-banks-not-to-blame/

http://www.thedailybell.com/1216/Blame-Central-Banking-Not-Banks.html

http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics/global/greedy-bankers-52028.aspx

The only bank that has any legitimate blame is the central bank, the federal reserve. To blame privately owned institutions is a very big mistake.

 

[Trajan]

Over drinks at a bar on a dreary, snowy night in Washington this past month, a former Senate investigator laughed as he polished off his beer.

"Everything's fucked up, and nobody goes to jail," he said. "That's your whole story right there. Hell, you don't even have to write the rest of it. Just write that."

I put down my notebook. "Just that?"

"That's right," he said, signaling to the waitress for the check. "Everything's fucked up, and nobody goes to jail. You can end the piece right there."

Nobody goes to jail. This is the mantra of the financial-crisis era, one that saw virtually every major bank and financial company on Wall Street embroiled in obscene criminal scandals that impoverished millions and collectively destroyed hundreds of billions, in fact, trillions of dollars of the world's wealth — and nobody went to jail. Nobody, that is, except Bernie Madoff, a flamboyant and pathological celebrity con artist, whose victims happened to be other rich and famous people.

Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail? | Rolling Stone Politics

because, like it or not, and I don't as I to took my share of lumps, what they do was legal by and large. Was it morally corrupt, yes, I would probably agree with that, depending on the circumstance.

However, what they created and how they created it like it or not was inside the rules, oh yes there were and are I am sure discovered and undiscovered violations but?

The SEC as has been written apparently didn't do their jobs, either correctly or due to political pressure which is probably one in the same. But they are always playing catch up, when Walls t. creates a new vehicle for sale or a method to hedge, we are playing catch up, at the end of the day if someone is selling what they think is a basket of shit, yet they have a buyer, is it really governments job to stop the transaction?

You cannot really define or that is regulate risk in every context.

Caveat emptor.

 

[Sallow]

Because they own the Attorney General, who controls The Department of Justice. They also own The President, who appointed the Attorney General. Just as they own most of The Senate, Who confirmed The Attorney General. who by the way, is also a member of the cabinet. ~BH

Boy I tell ya - When you're right, you're right.

Yeah, And this is one of those times where being right isn't a good thing my friend. ~BH

Absofuckinglutely.

 

[Sallow]

Over drinks at a bar on a dreary, snowy night in Washington this past month, a former Senate investigator laughed as he polished off his beer.

"Everything's fucked up, and nobody goes to jail," he said. "That's your whole story right there. Hell, you don't even have to write the rest of it. Just write that."

I put down my notebook. "Just that?"

"That's right," he said, signaling to the waitress for the check. "Everything's fucked up, and nobody goes to jail. You can end the piece right there."

Nobody goes to jail. This is the mantra of the financial-crisis era, one that saw virtually every major bank and financial company on Wall Street embroiled in obscene criminal scandals that impoverished millions and collectively destroyed hundreds of billions, in fact, trillions of dollars of the world's wealth — and nobody went to jail. Nobody, that is, except Bernie Madoff, a flamboyant and pathological celebrity con artist, whose victims happened to be other rich and famous people.

Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail? | Rolling Stone Politics

because, like it or not, and I don't as I to took my share of lumps, what they do was legal by and large. Was it morally corrupt, yes, I would probably agree with that, depending on the circumstance.

However, what they created and how they created it like it or not was inside the rules, oh yes there were and are I am sure discovered and undiscovered violations but?

The SEC as has been written apparently didn't do their jobs, either correctly or due to political pressure which is probably one in the same. But they are always playing catch up, when Walls t. creates a new vehicle for sale or a method to hedge, we are playing catch up, at the end of the day if someone is selling what they think is a basket of shit, yet they have a buyer, is it really governments job to stop the transaction?

You cannot really define or that is regulate risk in every context.

Caveat emptor.

SEC's been underfunded and undermanned for years. And Congress is talking about MORE cuts!

And I always find it interesting when people defend "Morally corrupt" behavior..because it isn't illegal..yet. Initally the Ponzi scheme was "legal". And it was only after rigorous investigation that it was finally brought down and punished.

Is it the government's job to stop these transactions? Sure. It's in the Constitution. If I am selling you something that isn't what I represent it to be..that's fraud.

 

[Trajan]

Over drinks at a bar on a dreary, snowy night in Washington this past month, a former Senate investigator laughed as he polished off his beer.

"Everything's fucked up, and nobody goes to jail," he said. "That's your whole story right there. Hell, you don't even have to write the rest of it. Just write that."

I put down my notebook. "Just that?"

"That's right," he said, signaling to the waitress for the check. "Everything's fucked up, and nobody goes to jail. You can end the piece right there."

Nobody goes to jail. This is the mantra of the financial-crisis era, one that saw virtually every major bank and financial company on Wall Street embroiled in obscene criminal scandals that impoverished millions and collectively destroyed hundreds of billions, in fact, trillions of dollars of the world's wealth — and nobody went to jail. Nobody, that is, except Bernie Madoff, a flamboyant and pathological celebrity con artist, whose victims happened to be other rich and famous people.

Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail? | Rolling Stone Politics

because, like it or not, and I don't as I to took my share of lumps, what they do was legal by and large. Was it morally corrupt, yes, I would probably agree with that, depending on the circumstance.

However, what they created and how they created it like it or not was inside the rules, oh yes there were and are I am sure discovered and undiscovered violations but?

The SEC as has been written apparently didn't do their jobs, either correctly or due to political pressure which is probably one in the same. But they are always playing catch up, when Walls t. creates a new vehicle for sale or a method to hedge, we are playing catch up, at the end of the day if someone is selling what they think is a basket of shit, yet they have a buyer, is it really governments job to stop the transaction?

You cannot really define or that is regulate risk in every context.

Caveat emptor.

SEC's been underfunded and undermanned for years. And Congress is talking about MORE cuts!

And I always find it interesting when people defend "Morally corrupt" behavior..because it isn't illegal..yet. Initally the Ponzi scheme was "legal". And it was only after rigorous investigation that it was finally brought down and punished.

so whats so interesting about it? stating the truth doesn't equate to approval or a defense other than the fact that is wasn't illegal.

Ponzi? yes you're right but playing with semantics, because as I clearly said, it was 'legal' because it got going before laws were put on the books to stop it as we play catch up.

Is it the government's job to stop these transactions? Sure. It's in the Constitution. If I am selling you something that isn't what I represent it to be..that's fraud.

your statement is problematic. Everyone who sells an asset or vehicle like that sells it because thy have to by contract, they have to do to hardship or, they will do better off without for the cash in hand now, to buy something else etc.... the buyer thinks they can or will turn it around, has a value they alone see, the seller thinking that they are holding a loser and looking for a buyer and finding one doesn't mean they broke the law, its means THEY think its going no where while someone else does, IF there is information hidden from the buyer that they are entitled to, that's not what I was referring to, we both know thats illegal.

 

[Herbie Hancock]

a better question may be why isn't chris dodd, barney frank and all the executives at fannie and freddie that created the toxic assets in the first place.

 

[Sallow]

a better question may be why isn't chris dodd, barney frank and all the executives at fannie and freddie that created the toxic assets in the first place.

Those "Toxic Assets" were the invention of John Thane.

 

[Sallow]

so whats so interesting about it? stating the truth doesn't equate to approval or a defense other than the fact that is wasn't illegal.

Ponzi? yes you're right but playing with semantics, because as I clearly said, it was 'legal' because it got going before laws were put on the books to stop it as we play catch up.

Is it the government's job to stop these transactions? Sure. It's in the Constitution. If I am selling you something that isn't what I represent it to be..that's fraud.

your statement is problematic. Everyone who sells an asset or vehicle like that sells it because thy have to by contract, they have to do to hardship or, they will do better off without for the cash in hand now, to buy something else etc.... the buyer thinks they can or will turn it around, has a value they alone see, the seller thinking that they are holding a loser and looking for a buyer and finding one doesn't mean they broke the law, its means THEY think its going no where while someone else does, IF there is information hidden from the buyer that they are entitled to, that's not what I was referring to, we both know thats illegal.

Again - Wasn't illegal yet. Remember - Deregulation allowed for financial companies to start offering loans and unlicensed agents to make them. So predatory lenders were able to get these loans in volume. The financial companies bundled these loans into derivatives and took out insurance against them collapsing. Then sold them. Technically there were no laws that covered this sort of behavior. So "Technically" it was legal. At least the way everyone "understood" the law. Personally I think a rigorous investigation would shake out a vast amount of fraud. But there is no will to do it..given the weak recovery...because it might very well usher in another collapse.

 

[Herbie Hancock]

a better question may be why isn't chris dodd, barney frank and all the executives at fannie and freddie that created the toxic assets in the first place.

Those "Toxic Assets" were the invention of John Thane.

I am not saying who created the method by which these were sold. I am stating who is responsible that they were there in the first place. Here are the offenders in order of their guilt. 1) individuals (don't buy a house you can't afford) 2) government (thinking everyone has a "right" to a house 3) people that were forced to get rid of the toxic assets they they were forced to lend to people that couldn't afford the loans

 

[impalero]

Over drinks at a bar on a dreary, snowy night in Washington this past month, a former Senate investigator laughed as he polished off his beer.

"Everything's fucked up, and nobody goes to jail," he said. "That's your whole story right there. Hell, you don't even have to write the rest of it. Just write that."

I put down my notebook. "Just that?"

"That's right," he said, signaling to the waitress for the check. "Everything's fucked up, and nobody goes to jail. You can end the piece right there."

Nobody goes to jail. This is the mantra of the financial-crisis era, one that saw virtually every major bank and financial company on Wall Street embroiled in obscene criminal scandals that impoverished millions and collectively destroyed hundreds of billions, in fact, trillions of dollars of the world's wealth — and nobody went to jail. Nobody, that is, except Bernie Madoff, a flamboyant and pathological celebrity con artist, whose victims happened to be other rich and famous people.

Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail? | Rolling Stone Politics

because, like it or not, and I don't as I to took my share of lumps, what they do was legal by and large. Was it morally corrupt, yes, I would probably agree with that, depending on the circumstance.

Everything is made legal when you have 5 financial lobbyists to every congressman.
There is no such thing as illegal when your the one with the power buying off politicians to call the shots. Like repealing the Glass Steagal Act.

However, what they created and how they created it like it or not was inside the rules, oh yes there were and are I am sure discovered and undiscovered violations but?

The SEC as has been written apparently didn't do their jobs, either correctly or due to political pressure which is probably one in the same. But they are always playing catch up, when Walls t. creates a new vehicle for sale or a method to hedge, we are playing catch up, at the end of the day if someone is selling what they think is a basket of shit, yet they have a buyer, is it really governments job to stop the transaction?

You cannot really define or that is regulate risk in every context.

Caveat emptor.

Looks like all Wall Street is, is a clever way to shuffle money around, creating exotic instruments so that the public does not see it all laid out on the table like playing blackjack.

I will celebrate the day when this crooked institution falls. Fortunately, nothing is forever as history shows, and Wall Street and well as this corrupt government will fall and many around the world will celebrate the day that happens.

 

[Sallow]

a better question may be why isn't chris dodd, barney frank and all the executives at fannie and freddie that created the toxic assets in the first place.

Those "Toxic Assets" were the invention of John Thane.

I am not saying who created the method by which these were sold. I am stating who is responsible that they were there in the first place. Here are the offenders in order of their guilt. 1) individuals (don't buy a house you can't afford) 2) government (thinking everyone has a "right" to a house 3) people that were forced to get rid of the toxic assets they they were forced to lend to people that couldn't afford the loans

This post overlooks a few things.

1. Placing the blame entirely on the indivduals that took the loans is naive, at best. Deregulation allowed for all sorts of behavior that didn't go on, historically. Lenders were shirking their due diligence and in some cases, misrepresenting the client's ability to repay the loan. Additionally they were misrepresenting the payment plan to the client. Also the economy in generally and falling real estate values exacerbated the situation that the regulations were meant to prevent.

2. Government doesn't think everyone has the "right" to own a house..but it thinks people should own houses. That's as old a concept in this country that pre-dates the founding. And it's a good thing. People with ownership in something are far more likely to care about their communities. People buying homes fuels the economy in multiple ways.

3. No one was "forced" to lend anyone anything. What was "forced" was the elimination of "red zones". That's another good thing. It's done wonders in New York City with formely blighted areas.

 

[Avatar4321]

Wall Street isn't in jail because there isn't a prison big enough to hold all that pavement, let alone the buildings.

 

[The T]

Why aren't Social Statists in Jail for wrecking Liberty of the individual and making the dependent on others via Gubmint FIAT, and a matter of LAW?

 

[Mr. Jones]

I think there should be a team of vigilantes who have an alternative method for punishing the guilty, like in the movie the Star Chamber.
The Star Chamber (1983) - IMDb

 

[waltky]

Fed goin' after big banks for mortgage crisis...

Fed says it will fine banks for foreclosure mess
April 13, 2011 - Regulators charged the biggest U.S. banks with "unsafe and unsound practices" on foreclosures, and ordered a sweeping overhaul of their mortgage operations.

The move is the strongest federal response so far to the bankers' massive, greed-driven internal control failures during the crisis of the past half-decade. It comes after a months-long federal review of the banks' handling of mortgage paperwork and foreclosure actions. But in a telling omission, the regulators didn't say how big the fines they will assess might be -- making it impossible to judge whether the action amounts to more than a slap on the wrist. Federal banking watchdogs filed enforcement actions alleging mortgage-related wrongdoing at Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and 10 others. The banks consented to the orders without, as usual, accepting or denying responsibility.

The authorities didn't announce fines, but the Federal Reserve said it believes "monetary sanctions in these cases are appropriate." The Fed didn't say when it might announce the penalties. The regulators didn't mince words about the banks' wrongdoing. The enforcement actions are meant "to address a pattern of misconduct and negligence related to deficient practices in residential mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing," the Fed said. "These deficiencies represent significant and pervasive compliance failures and unsafe and unsound practices at these institutions." The FDIC went even further, suggesting further probes of the banks are in order:

The findings of the interagency review clearly show that the largest mortgage servicers had significant deficiencies in numerous aspects of their foreclosure processing. These deficiencies included the filing of inaccurate affidavits and other documentation in foreclosure proceedings (so-called "robo-signing"), inadequate oversight of attorneys and other third parties involved in the foreclosure process, inadequate staffing and training of employees, and the failure to effectively coordinate the loan modification and foreclosure process to ensure effective communications to borrowers seeking to avoid foreclosures.

The interagency review was limited to the management of foreclosure practices and procedures, and was not, by its nature, a full scope review of the loan modification or other loss-mitigation efforts of these servicers. A thorough regulatory review of loss mitigation efforts is needed to ensure processes are sufficiently robust to prevent wrongful foreclosure actions and to ensure servicers have identified the extent to which individual homeowners have been harmed.

MORE

 

[Herbie Hancock]

What makes you think crooks like them are going to jail when you can't even get Dodd and Rangel in jail. Shit we have a treasury secretary that doesn't even pay his taxes. Remember socialism is not for the socialist.

 

[waltky]

Obama gonna make `em make it right...

Gov't Orders 14 Lenders to Reimburse Homeowners
Wednesday, April 13, 2011 Washington (AP) - The federal government on Wednesday ordered 16 of the nation's largest mortgage lenders and servicers to reimburse homeowners who were improperly foreclosed upon.

Government regulators also directed the financial firms to hire auditors to determine how many homeowners could have avoided foreclosure in 2009 and 2010. Citibank, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo, the nation's four largest banks, were among the financial firms cited in the joint report by the Federal Reserve, Office of Thrift Supervision and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, The Fed said it believed financial penalties were "appropriate" and that it planned to levy fines in the future. All three regulators said they would review the foreclosure audits.

In the four years since the housing bust, about 5 million homes have been foreclosed upon. About 2.4 million primary mortgages were in foreclosure at the end of last year. Another 2 million were 90 days or more past due, putting them at serious risk of foreclosure. Critics, including Democratic lawmakers in Congress, say the order is too lenient on the lenders. House Democrats introduced legislation Wednesday that would require lenders to perform a series of steps, including an appeals process, before starting foreclosures.

"I want to know what abuses (the government agencies) identified, which banks committed them and how their proposed consent agreement is going to fix these problems," said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the ranking member of the House Government and Oversight Committee. "Based on what I have read ... I am not encouraged at all." The other lenders and service providers cited by the agencies include: Ally Financial Inc., Aurora Bank, EverBank, HSBC, MetLife Bank, OneWest Bank, PNC, Sovereign Bank, SunTrust Banks, U.S. Bank, Lender Processing Services and MERSCORP.

MORE

 

[impalero]

What we have right now in this country, is the same thing Russia had with the Oligarch's.

If your politically connected, you can fill your pockets at everyone else's expense.

If you exist at the upper echelons, you can go through the revolving door between the public and private sector and while in office, abolish laws that get in your way and create new ways to ward off competition. When in the private sector, reap the benefits and fill your coffers with all the money you want.


We need a foreign power to come and liberate us from the cockroaches infesting our government.

Obama is nothing more than a carbon copy of Bush, sucking wall street and mega corp's woodies and a war monger continuing the game for the military industrial complex.

If you have connections, you don't need a lick of financial sense nor required to put on your bootstraps, especiall for c***nts like this.

The Real Housewives of Wall Street | Rolling Stone Politics

The Real Housewives of Wall Street

Christy is the wife of John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley. Susan is the widow of Peter Karches, a close friend of the Macks who served as president of Morgan Stanley's investment-banking division. Neither woman appears to have any serious history in business, apart from a few philanthropic experiences. Yet the Federal Reserve handed them both low-interest loans of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars through a complicated bailout program that virtually guaranteed them millions in risk-free income.

 

[waltky]

Granny says dey oughta take all their money away from `em an' give it to the poor...

The Real Culprits of the Financial Crisis
April 14, 2011 — Some three years after the collapse of the financial industry, a bipartisan report from the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has determined that banks, regulators and credit agencies all share the blame for the subprime mortgage crisis that facilitated this collapse and eventually led the country into a recession.

Washington Mutual Bank is singled out in the report for shady lending practices, while other financial institutions like Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank are criticized for dubious investment tactics. Major credit rating agencies like Moody’s and S&P are faulted for their failure to appropriately assess the risk posed by a number of investments and the government’s Office of Thrift Supervision, charged with the all-important task of regulating savings banks, is bashed for failing to do its job. “Using emails, memos and other internal documents, this report tells the inside story of an economic assault that cost millions of Americans their jobs and homes, while wiping out investors, good businesses, and markets,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who chairs the subcommittee and who co-sponsored the report along with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). “High risk lending, regulatory failures, inflated credit ratings, and Wall Street firms engaging in massive conflicts of interest, contaminated the U.S. financial system with toxic mortgages and undermined public trust in U.S. markets.”

The story of the collapse, as told in the report, essentially begins several years before the recession when Washington Mutual decided in 2005 to initiate a high-risk mortgage-lending strategy, underwriting loans to middle and lower class Americans who were traditionally turned down. Within one year, many of those loans began to default; within two years the bank suffered major financial losses from this strategy and by 2008, the company faced a liquidity crisis and was seized by government regulators and eventually sold off to Chase. The bank’s strategy had several impacts on the market. For starters, it led to a surge in demand for housing as more consumers were able to secure mortgage loans, causing a housing boom that of course ended up going bust when millions of Americans fell behind on their payments. Washington Mutual also proved to be the largest bank failure in history, which unsettled the markets, and before it collapsed, the bank began selling off some of its risky loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, contributing to their downfall as well.

While Washington Mutual may have helped kick-start the subprime mortgage crisis, other financial institutions played off of it to market investments, only to make the inevitable collapse that much worse. Goldman, which was grilled very publicly by Congress last year for its role in the meltdown, once again comes off as the leading culprit in this saga. The investment bank bundled these mortgages into larger investment packages and sold them to clients for a nice profit. But when Goldman realized the mortgage market was a taking a turn for the worse, it deliberately bet against the market even while continuing to push these mortgage-backed securities to its clients.

MORE