TampaYankee

It sounds radioactive. Yikes!

One more example in long list of cases of theft by fraud committed by the Big Boys with a wrist slap and fine ultimately paid by the taxpayers. None of the big boys ever go to jail. Wonder why?

Wells Fargo Illegally Pushed Borrowers Into Subprime Mortgages, Falsified Loan Documents, Fed Says Shahien Nasiripour shahien@huffingtonpost.com WASHINGTON -- Perhaps more than 10,000 Wells Fargo borrowers were inappropriately steered into more expensive subprime mortgages or had their loan documents falsified by bank personnel, the Federal Reserve said Wednesday. The bank, the largest U.S. mortgage lender, agreed to pay $85 million to settle civil charges. On Tuesday, the company announced that it turned a $3.9 billion profit last quarter. It's made $7.7 billion in profit thus far this year. The fine is the largest the Fed has ever imposed in a consumer case, the central bank said. It's also the first formal enforcement action taken by a federal bank regulator against allegations that banks steered borrowers into high-cost, subprime loans, it added. Wells Fargo did not admit wrongdoing. "The alleged actions committed by a relatively small group of team members are not what we stand for at Wells Fargo," John Stumpf, the bank's chief executive and chairman, said in a statement. The bank has already voluntarily compensated 600 customers, the statement said. The fraudulent activity took place over four years from early 2004 to the autumn of 2008, according to the Fed. The bank must compensate borrowers for losses, some of whom could receive more than $20,000. At least 3,700 borrowers will be compensated, the Fed estimated. Wells Fargo has to review a subset of borrowers who took out subprime loans to determine whether they were illegally steered into more expensive mortgages. The case is another blow to the bank's once-pristine reputation. It's widely touted as the cleanest mortgage lender of the biggest U.S. banks, even though the company has faced multiple lawsuits alleging it pushed black borrowers toward predatory loans; misled investors about the risks of mortgage-backed securities it sold; and employed so-called "robo-signers," the agents that lenders employed to process foreclosure filings en masse without examining the underlying paperwork. Last year, as the robo-signing fiasco forced its competitors to make embarrassing admissions or halt home seizures, Wells Fargo resisted, arguing that its procedures were sound. Depositions in lawsuits later revealed that its employees also acted as robo-signers. Confidential audits by the the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s inspector general accuse the bank of defrauding taxpayers in their handling of foreclosures on homes purchased with government-backed loans, The Huffington Post reported in May. Federal investigators concluded that senior managers at Wells Fargo, the fourth-largest U.S. bank by assets, broke civil laws. As part of their investigation, auditors interviewed a pair of South Carolina public notaries who improperly signed off on foreclosure filings for Wells, sources briefed on the findings told HuffPost. Wednesday's settlement with the Fed also includes allegations of fraud. In a multi-year investigation, regulators found that Wells Fargo employees altered or falsified borrowers' loan documents, inflating their incomes in order to qualify them for loans. The bank's internal accountability measures were inadequate to detect and prevent such abuses, the Fed said, at least the second time this year the Fed found Wells Fargo lacking adequate safeguards to prevent abuse and wrongdoing. Wells Fargo's employees were likely driven to such lengths in order to meet company goals. The unit responsible for the bulk of the wrongdoing, Wells Fargo Financial, drove its employees to originate a minimum amount of loans or risk losing their jobs, the Fed said. Employees were also expected to hit loan targets in order to receive bonuses. That unit has since been disbanded. Sixteen former employees have been barred from working in the banking industry, the Fed said. Investigators also found that borrowers were pushed into more expensive mortgages in part because Wells Fargo employees could boost their bonuses if they hit subprime targets. Borrowers who otherwise would have qualified for lower-interest mortgages weren't told so, nor were they told that it was "generally more advantageous for the salesperson to sell a nonprime, rather than a prime, loan," the Fed said. Such practices broke federal consumer protection rules, as well as numerous state laws governing fraud and unfair or deceptive practices, the Fed said. The Fed's investigation primarily involved mortgage loans originated in Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas and New Mexico. The Fed declined to say what led to the investigation, or provide any details on the actual probe itself. In addition to compensating harmed borrowers, the Fed also instructed Wells Fargo to pay homeowners whose homes were seized as a result of the bank's wrongdoing the modest sum of $7,000. Perhaps thousands of borrowers were forced to make higher mortgage payments than they otherwise would have made thanks to the bank's actions. Fewer than 4 percent of the about 300,000 mortgage loans made by the lender during the period under review are eligible for restitution, the company estimated. ***** Shahien Nasiripour is a senior business reporter for The Huffington Post. You can send him an email; bookmark his page; subscribe to his RSS feed; follow him on Twitter; friend him on Facebook; become a fan; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 1-917-267-2335. See original article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/20/wells-fargo-subprime-fraud_n_905198.html

Based on McConnell's comments "that the Senate not will not confirm anyone for this position" Obama should proceed immediately with a recess appointment at the first opportunity which is likely to be the August recess after the Debt Ceiling vote.

Hallelujah!!!!!! Not so much that a gay judge was confirmed but that ANY judge was confirmed by the Senate. It's great that is the first openly gay judge. But the GOP has had a strangle hold on judicial appointments by this administration even though Obama has nominated many moderates.

I don't know what you mean by conscripted "mortgage relief" but I agree that what Obama has done has failed miserably. And simply there is no excuse for it. Doing nothing wouldn't have been essentially any worse IMO

It seems we have orthogonal polarity receivers. We observe the same play but see totally different images and hear totally different dialog. The GOP has issued the inflexible position of no new revenues -- not new or more tax or higher rates rates but revenues, any revenues through loophole closing. I could go on about Obama offering entitlement reforms and cuts but you would say the GOP doesn't believe him to which I would say: call his hand. Sit at the table with a potential increase of 1 trillion in new revenues and force him to come up with 3 trillion in cuts to reveal him as the liar the GOP wishes to paint him. It is easy to do. It might produce what the GOP says we desperately need: cut spending and deficit reduction. Why doesn't the GOP have the courage of their convictions that the deficit and spending are the most critical problems facing the nation. I would think that the GOP would love either outcome. Where are they? Being stubborn and inflexible it appears to me and most of the country, if you believe polls.

I appreciate all the discourse on Tokyo. The insights are very interesting. I know the trip would much more interesting if I spoke the language. I also know there are several other places I would go for conventional sightseeing. However, I do like Asian men and at the top of the list are Japanese. I have been intrigued over the last decade by them and by the attitudes and mores surrounding sexual aspects of their culture. It has the potential to be a great opportunity to experience for a week. I know I should sound more high minded in my selection but the truth is that I can get a lot of foreign culture and vistas through books, newspapers and online. I can't get the on-the-street cultural aspects, and experience the guys online. List this as an itch that needs to be scratched.

Interesting comment of her's that I had not heard before. Thanks for reporting it here. Murdoch set journalism back long before this. As for Americans consuming his tripe, that has been more limited IMO than your comment espouses. True, he has infected the NY market and a small corner of the viewing public with Cable Trash News. IMO the far worse infection he has transmitted has been to our main stream press which seeming has bought in to the legitimacy of his trash news operations -- at least publicly, and assisted in propagating Murdoch's trash.

I can think of several reasons I won't bore everyone with. However, I'm doubtful she will run. She is basically an academic at heart I believe and will return to Harvard. IMO, at this point in time, Brown will be returned unless some unforeseen opponent with gravitas emerges. Without that the only way he loses if is the Tea Party fails to show up. Here's hoping they choose principle over pragmatism.

So was I Conway, for 35 years. I had no complaints either. Fortunately we had/have that opportunity at salary levels that allowed us a comfortable living. I'm reminded of an encounter several of us grad students had with the chairman of our Dept. way back in early 70s, at a party at his home. When one of the grad students remarked that graduate student stipends had not been increased in years ($260/mo) he replied: I don't know why you can't live on your income, I live on mine. Needless to say, we were unimpressed universally. So for exempt that are not so well paid or nonexempt who might be made exempt which are also not so well paid, our good fortune does little to mitigate their pain just as my Chairman failed to do in his comment.

Do you really think these people do not know where the grist for their mill comes from... unless they do not want to know? Come on. These were sensational stories with apparently inside info. Come on!

That bill won't go anywhere if it is the Cut Cap and Balance bill, for a variety reasons. I would never elect anyone who voted for a balanced budget amendment. NEVER. Not that I am against a balanced budget. However, there are times the government needs to spend in excess of revenues on an interim basis-- wars are one example. Wall St crashes are another. The Congress has the power and responsibility to govern and control spending. Let them do it in a compromise that both can swallow and face the voters for approval. I don't want to live in a country where one party can control the big issues -- either party. More importantly, the GOP has revealed it's strategy. What it cannot get through fiat or compromise it will get through obstructionism. THe GOP would love nothing more than to starve the Social Security and Medicare out of the Budget. All they would have to do is vote nyet or possibly even fail to vote, depending on the Amendment language. I do not perfer government by minority party obstructionism. I certainly do not want the fate of SS and Medicare held hostage to it. That is just where they want to maneuver circumstances. The 2.4 Billion version won't fly without $.5 billion in revenues included. That was an artifact of the Biden talks. If you believe the Tea Party Congressmen, they won't vote for anything without a Balance Budget Amendment or 4 trillion cuts without revenues. I think they are going home unhappy. Whatever passes the House will have to have Dem support. That is another reason your scenario won't happen. IMO Obama will stick with the $4 trillion with revenues until the end and will compromise to 2.4 with revenues. Failing agreement on either of those then either a 1 trillion without revenues or a clean bill. If he can get some commitments on legislative initiatives (trade deals and judicial confirmations) or unemployment and infrastructure he might accept the trilliion deal. He has already won the high ground in this fight in the public arena. If the the GOP continues to play intransigent hardball he'll continue to beat them like a rented mule.

Breaking Bad has great writing and acting. I get mesmerized if I stop by and it is a show I have not seen. However, it is too dark for me, more than once in a blue moon. I try to scoot by the channel with my remote control when in the neighborhood. It's sorta like looking at an auto accident.

Tokyo.

The English upper crust are nothing if not classicists.

Richard Cordray To Lead Consumer Financial Protection Bureau President Barack Obama will nominate former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the White House announced Sunday. "American families and consumers bore the brunt of the financial crisis and are still struggling in its aftermath to find jobs, stay in their homes, and make ends meet," Obama said in a statement. "That is why I fought so hard to pass reforms to fix the financial system and put in place the strongest consumer protections in our nation’s history. Richard Cordray has spent his career advocating for middle class families ... and looking out for ordinary people in our financial system.” Cordray currently serves as the CFPB's director of enforcement. His appointment, first reported by the Columbus Dispatch, comes on the heels of a Wall Street Journal report on Friday that Obama was not expected to nominate Elizabeth Warren, who was instrumental in setting up the agency but faced stalwart opposition from Republicans. The Journal named Cordray as a possible nominee to lead the agency. Elizabeth Warren confirmed the news of Cordray's nomination in a statement to The Huffington Post. "Rich has always had my strong support because he is tough and he is smart-and that's exactly the combination this new agency needs," she said. "He was one of the first senior leaders I recruited for the agency, and his work and commitment have made it clear that he will make a stellar director." Progressives had long pushed for Obama to nominate Warren to lead the CFPB, and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee expressed disappointment at the news that he would not do so. "With her track record of standing up to Wall Street and fighting for consumers, Elizabeth Warren was the best qualified to lead this bureau that she conceived -- and we imagine Richard Cordray would agree," PCCC co-founder Stephanie Taylor said in a statement. "That said, Rich Cordray has been a strong ally of Elizabeth Warren's and we hope he will continue her legacy of holding Wall Street accountable." President Obama thanked Warren o Sunday for helping to build the CFPB. “I also want to thank Elizabeth Warren not only for her extraordinary work standing up the new agency over the past year, but also for her many years of impassioned leadership, and her fierce defense of a simple idea: ordinary people deserve to be treated fairly and honestly in their financial dealings," the president said. "This agency was Elizabeth’s idea, and through sheer force of will, intelligence, and a bottomless well of energy, she has made, and will continue to make, a profound and positive difference for our country.” The CFPB is set to launch on July 21. In May, 44 Republican senators sent a letter to President Obama stating that they will not confirm any nominee to head the agency without changes to the Dodd-Frank financial reform law enacted last year. "Under the Dodd-Frank financial regulation act, the director is given unfettered authority to regulate businesses that extend consumer credit," Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) wrote in a statement about the letter. "Although the director will also have hundreds of millions of dollars of public money at his or her disposal, no checks and balances are provided on how it is spent." The Republican senators proposed creating a five-member board of directors to run the CFPB instead, along with subjecting the agency to the appropriations process and giving bank regulators greater oversight of its operations -- all moves that seemed designed to weaken the agency. Warren, for her part, is said to be considering a run for Senate in 2012, challenging Sen. Scott Brown in Massachusetts. The American Prospect's Robert Kuttner reports: Meanwhile, she has been quietly exploring option B, running against Senator Scott Brown next year in Massachusetts, urged on by much of the Democratic leadership (I’ve always argued that this was the bigger stage and more important use of her talents) In Massachusetts, the Democratic field right now is stunningly weak, and Warren is the one candidate who can galvanize voters and take back the seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy. HuffPost asked Brown about a Warren candidacy last week, and Brown declined to engage, saying he was focused on the debt ceiling debate and avoiding default. See original article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/17/richard-cordray-cfpb-elizabeth-warren_n_900967.html

Sorry to see Obama back away from her for head of the Consumer Protection Agency.

i wonder if this is part of the cover up? Yeah, I sound like a Conspiracy Theory type here. However, this will certainly stifle her testimony before Parliament. just in time. You'd think the police might have the presence of mind to wait until after that testimony for obvious reasons. I don't think she was a real flight risk. Flight to where? Just curious. I'm not usually a Conspiracy type but one must admit that the arrest timing is very ill chosen.

He may have crapped irrevocably in his UK nest. I think he'll be happy to consolidate his holdings in the USA at this stage of his life and let most of the UK go. That is assuming they do not find any smoking guns over here. If he can hold on to some UK papers he may try but if circulation falls too low or his stockholders start bailing on him he'll sell out while they have value. The question is: do any potential new owners want the tainted properties. There have been rumors of attempts to sell some of the papers with no takers so far.

I agree. However, it has weakened him tremenously and given his age not sure he can bounce all the way back. I think this will taint his son irrevocably. Most of the business entities will go on with or without him. Personally I don't watch any of them with the exception of Glee infrequently so I wouldn't miss them. With the possible exceptions of losing a few papers in the UK and Australia, they will go on with or without him. I think this gives him an unwarranted pass. The News of the World was his flagship news organization -- very powerful in Gr. Britain. You bet he kept an eye on it through his hand chosen minions and on his own. This guy didn't get to where he is by losing touch with his business operations. Couple that with the fact that there appear to be hundreds of intances, if not more, over years of phone hacking of politicans, government leaders and individual persons of no particular celebrity other than misfortune that had befallen them, and bribes to law enforcement too. It is hard not to believe that either he knew how this information was being gathered or alternatively that he proactively chose not to know for plausible deniability. At the worst his actions were criminal, at the best, gross managerial malfeasance. Malfeasance doesn't go with his track record over the last fifty years. However, I expect that they won't tie him directly to it. It will stop with his son, the woman running the UK operation and the Wall St Journal top guy, her former boss way back when.

The look none too happy there either.

I feel your outrage. Unfortunately, most clubs don't look past the bottom line. I know that has to take precedence but it seems only obvious that some accommodation is appropriate on occasion. Also employees do not like to make such exceptions on their own and are reluctant to bother the boss about it. After all it is just one customer they will lose. Not an excuse, just an explanation. I'm glad the situation was finally disposed of favorably. Ultimately, that is to their credit.

Gawd, I love this lady! Someone is finally standing up against the Washington whitewash. IMO Obama's biggest failure has been to address the jobs and mortgage crisis and unleashing the DOJ to bring banks and bankers to justice for premeditated theft and other malfeasance in their fiduciary responsibilities. Elizabeth Warren for Treasury Secretary and Sheila Baird as Chief Economic Adviser! Why is it that these women have clearer vision and more balls than Holder and Obama? Geitner's balls are in the hip pocket of Wall St. I think the answer is that money talks and these ladies are not interested in running for office or occupying a corner office on Wall St. Just my opinion.

Elizabeth Warren: Government Hasn't Sufficiently Probed Foreclosure Abuses Shahien Nasiripour shahien@huffingtonpost.com WASHINGTON -- A top Obama administration official on Thursday questioned the scope of the state and federal investigations into alleged mortgage abuses and "illegal" foreclosures perpetrated by the nation's largest mortgage companies, marking the first time a senior White House official publicly broke ranks with the administration over the issue and raising fresh questions about the wisdom of the government's rush to settle with the firms. Elizabeth Warren, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, told a congressional panel that government agencies may not have sufficiently investigated claims that borrowers' homes were illegally seized by banks such as JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial. "I think there's a real question about whether there's been adequate investigation," said Warren, the temporary custodian of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, a new federal agency charged with protecting borrowers from abusive lenders. Her statement came in response to questions from Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), a former federal prosecutor who asked Warren why her agency needed to oversee such abuses when the U.S. Department of Justice is already probing such matters. Warren, a passionate consumer advocate, has long questioned whether the state and federal probes have been comprehensive, according to people familiar with her views. The investigations were launched last year amid news reports that the lenders were at times improperly repossessing borrowers' homes and breaking state laws and federal rules in the process. But she had not publicly shared that view, which is widelyspread among individuals with direct knowledge of the probes, until the Thursday appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. She's the first senior administration official to publicly question the thoroughness of the investigations led by the Justice Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Treasury Department, Federal Trade Commission, all 50 state attorneys general and more than 30 state bank regulators. The nation's five largest mortgage firms have saved more than $20 billion since the housing crisis began in 2007 by taking shortcuts in processing troubled borrowers' home loans, according to a confidential presentation prepared for state attorneys general by Warren's agency. That estimate suggests large banks have reaped tremendous benefits from under-serving distressed homeowners, a complaint frequent enough among borrowers that federal regulators have acknowledged the industry has fundamental shortcomings, including a penchant to abuse borrowers, and is in need of reform. Warren's claim lends further credence to the view that the various government agencies are being reckless by negotiating an agreement with the five banks -- the largest mortgage servicers in the country -- that would settle accusations they abused homeowners and broke various laws in exchange for penalties and mortgage relief for struggling borrowers that could reach up to $30 billion. State and federal prosecutors are pressing to complete a proposed settlement with the five companies even though they've only initiated a limited investigation that hasn't examined the full extent of the alleged wrongdoing, The Huffington Post reported Monday, citing interviews with more than two dozen officials and others familiar with the state and federal probes. Representatives of Justice, HUD and Treasury all declined to comment. Some officials, as well as others with experience sitting across the negotiating table with major banks, say the government is making a critical mistake that jeopardizes the public interest by seeking a deal before amassing a credible threat of successful prosecution by way of a comprehensive probe: In essence, they say, the government would give servicers a blanket pass for widespread alleged acts of fraud and extract too little in return, all while operating from a relative position of weakness. Though those working towards a quick settlement say the eventual agreement with the banks will only cover mortgage servicing deficiencies that harmed borrowers and foreclosure abuses like so-called "robo-signing," many fear that the fines will be extracted in return for a broad release from mortgage-related liability. The banks are willing to pay higher fines in return for a comprehensive release from such claims, people involved in the talks said. "It’s got to be done right. We’re not going to do it and be subject to double and triple jeopardy," said Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, the second-largest U.S. bank by assets, about a proposed settlement agreement with state attorneys general during a conference call Thursday with analysts. "We’d rather litigate it." Eric Schneiderman, New York's attorney general, is probing whether mortgages bundled into securities were done in accordance with state laws, people familiar with the probe said. He's also pursuing a variety of investigations to determine whether Wall Street firms cheated investors when selling them these securities, sources said. Schneiderman doesn't want a proposed settlement agreement to interfere with his ongoing investigations, people familiar with his views said. People involved in the talks said they're aware of his probes and would not construct a settlement agreement that would constrain his investigations. The government's desire to settle rather than conduct comprehensive probes is due to a variety of factors, people with direct knowledge of the ongoing talks said. For one, the state legal officers are hindered by federal laws that restrict their ability to investigate national banks. Of the five companies being targeted, all but Ally are national banks. These institutions are overseen by federal bank regulators, particularly the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The two bank watchdogs issued their own reports earlier this year, castigating the companies' faulty mortgage practices, but have said they can't share specifics for individual firms, supervisory reports or any underlying documentation that formed the basis of their findings, citing federal rules prohibiting their disclosure. The federal bank regulators' review examined just 2,800 loan files, or 0.1 percent of the nearly 2.9 million homes that received a foreclosure filing last year, according to calculations made using data from the OCC and RealtyTrac, a data provider. Only about 200 loans each were examined at banking behemoths JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citi and Wells, Julie L. Williams, the No. 2 official at the OCC and the agency's chief counsel, told a House panel last week. Those four firms collectively service $5.7 trillion in home loans, or more than half of all outstanding residential mortgages, according to Inside Mortgage Finance. Some regulators have criticized their review. With near-exclusive oversight authority, the Fed and OCC have access to the most sensitive bank documents, but they said they were prevented from sharing them. Meanwhile, the state officials, who are charged with protecting their constituents, could push for expanded investigative powers, but they would likely face a hard slog in court. A 2009 U.S. Supreme Court case, Cuomo v. Clearing House, restricts state attorneys general from subpoenaing documents from national banks until they've filed lawsuits. The process of requesting documents prior to such action, known as pre-trial discovery, typically yields valuable information that can strengthen a prosecutor's case. But thanks to that Supreme Court's decision and another from 2007 -- Watters v. Wachovia, which determined that state officials lack the authority to regulate subsidiaries of national banks, based on a policy known as preemption -- the state prosecutors as a group are reluctant to pick a fight in court with the banks. It's unclear whether they'd succeed. Also, their request for documentation would probably draw opposition from the OCC, people involved in the talks said. The OCC has intervened in several lawsuits launched by state officials in recent years on behalf of the banks it oversees. Other factors include the state of the housing market and the states' financial resources. A thorough probe would likely take more than a year. Meanwhile, the housing market remains depressed as foreclosures continue to pile up, borrowers are falling behind at elevated rates and the so-called "shadow inventory" of distressed homes being kept off the market grows. If the state and federal officials wish to use the settlement talks as a vehicle to prevent foreclosures by using levies on banks to reduce monthly mortgage payments for troubled borrowers, time is slipping, people familiar with the matter said. Home prices are sliding and won't begin to improve until next year, forecasts show. In addition, state officials are hobbled by their budgets. States had a cumulative budget deficit of nearly $84 billion in the 2011 fiscal year, according to an April report by the National Conference of State Legislatures. That gap is expected to swell to $86 billion for the 2012 fiscal year. Kamala Harris, California's attorney general, recently announced that her office would be forced to curtail its housing-related probes due to budget cutbacks. Despite those headwinds, government officials are poised to extract as much as $30 billion from the five mortgage companies for their alleged abuses. Warren's admission, which came in response to questions asking why her agency initially advised state and federal officials on mortgage issues, was overshadowed by an otherwise partisan and combative congressional hearing during which Republicans attacked the consumer advocate and longtime Harvard Law professor for trying to protect consumers from unscrupulous lenders. Separately, Democrats and Republicans on the committee agreed to request documents from major mortgage firms regarding improper foreclosures of borrowers in the military. The requests weren't subpoenas, though. Shahien Nasiripour is a senior business reporter for The Huffington Post. You can send him an email; bookmark his page; subscribe to his RSS feed; follow him on Twitter; friend him on Facebook; become a fan; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. See original article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/15/elizabeth-warren-foreclosure-investigation_n_899659.html