Suing Big Banks over Mortgages??

[Ocean Breeze]

Breaking News Alert

The New York Times

Thursday, September 1, 2011 -- 10:04 PM EDT

-----



U.S. Is Set to Sue Big Banks Over Mortgages



The federal agency that oversees the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is set to file suits against more than a dozen big banks, accusing them of misrepresenting the quality of mortgage securities they assembled and sold at the height of the housing bubble, and seeking billions of dollars in compensation.



The Federal Housing Finance Agency suits, which are expected to be filed in the coming days in federal court, are aimed at Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank, among others, according to three individuals briefed on the matter.





Read More:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/business/us-is-set-to-sue-dozen-big-banks-over-mortgages.html?emc=na

 

[damngrumpy]

I wouldn't doubt this for a moment and in many cases the lending agencies did not get the
actual deed as part of the lending process and some folks won't be evicted because of it.
Another round in blame the other guy, it could be the biggest game on Wall Street.

 

[taxslave]

Just playing the blame game. When ever there is a lower than expected return on an investment all the loosers look to sue for lost profits. The fact is that the investors that bought the mortgage investment bundles did not do their due diligence. It simply looked like an excellent return on a sure bet because house prices never fall, right? Had the pirimid not collapsed they would have been quite happy to take their profits and run.

 

[Cliffy]

Why aren't the people who actually lost their homes to this scam filing a class action suit against these crooks? They are the real victims here.

 

[mentalfloss]

Why aren't the people who actually lost their homes to this scam filing a class action suit against these crooks? They are the real victims here.

It's hard to organize 7423498234012498120498 people.

 

[Cliffy]

It's hard to organize 7423498234012498120498 people.

In the US all you have to do is say class action and people are lining up to sign on even if they don't know why the suit is being filed in the first place.

 

[JLM]

Why aren't the people who actually lost their homes to this scam filing a class action suit against these crooks? They are the real victims here.

Yep, but there is another problem and that is people who are so naive they can't evaluate their own financial situation. In many cases they were lured in by interest rates that were impossible to sustain for any period and the fact they needed little or no down payment. The first thing you should do when taking on a mortgage is to check out what the payments will be if (when) interest rates increase by 2 or 3%.

 

[captain morgan]

Yep, but there is another problem and that is people who are so naive they can't evaluate their own financial situation. In many cases they were lured in by interest rates that were impossible to sustain for any period and the fact they needed little or no down payment. The first thing you should do when taking on a mortgage is to check out what the payments will be if (when) interest rates increase by 2 or 3%.

It's far easier to blame someone else than it is to assume personal responsibility.

 

[Tonington]

Just playing the blame game. When ever there is a lower than expected return on an investment all the loosers look to sue for lost profits. The fact is that the investors that bought the mortgage investment bundles did not do their due diligence.

If the government requires subpoenas to investigate, just how do you expect investors to perform due diligence? The ratings agencies were saying green light.

 

[TenPenny]

The article has nothing to do with individual people's problems with their mortgages.

The issue is that the banks took bundles of sketchy mortgages, lumped them together, then sold them to investment funds as good investments, under the assumption (or fraudulent claim) that the underlying mortgages were solid, thereby giving the clump of mortgages a higher rating than they deserved.

A collection of sh!t from 45 different dogs is still dogsh!t, no matter what the banks call it.

 

[JLM]

]The article has nothing to do with individual people's problems with their mortgages.[/B]

The issue is that the banks took bundles of sketchy mortgages, lumped them together, then sold them to investment funds as good investments, under the assumption (or fraudulent claim) that the underlying mortgages were solid, thereby giving the clump of mortgages a higher rating than they deserved.

A collection of sh!t from 45 different dogs is still dogsh!t, no matter what the banks call it.

This article has a lot to do with people's problems with mortgages. With any kind of planning one must follow through the end results. Of course the banks and mortgage companies are responsible, but the ultimate responsibility (given the number of crooks in the market place) has to lie with the individual.

 

[TenPenny]

This article has a lot to do with people's problems with mortgages. With any kind of planning one must follow through the end results. Of course the banks and mortgage companies are responsible, but the ultimate responsibility (given the number of crooks in the market place) has to lie with the individual.

But that's not what the lawsuit is about. The lawsuit is about the banks bundling the mortgages and then misrepresenting their security.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Why aren't the people who actually lost their homes to this scam filing a class action suit against these crooks? They are the real victims here.

In a way a lot were also part of the problem. Easy credit and buy a home you can't possibly afford! What could possibly go wrong?

Granted unlike the bankers, they actually wound up with nothing. But they got into the mess by doing the same thing -- trying to live beyond their means and get something (a lifestyle) for no cash down.

 

[JLM]

In a way a lot were also part of the problem. Easy credit and buy a home you can't possibly afford! What could possibly go wrong?

Granted unlike the bankers, they actually wound up with nothing. But they got into the mess by doing the same thing -- trying to live beyond their means and get something (a lifestyle) for no cash down.

Absolutely, and by the way this is indirectly part of the problem- if the lenders can't identify victims that stops the entire process right there.

 

[EagleSmack]

In a way a lot were also part of the problem. Easy credit and buy a home you can't possibly afford! What could possibly go wrong?

Granted unlike the bankers, they actually wound up with nothing. But they got into the mess by doing the same thing -- trying to live beyond their means and get something (a lifestyle) for no cash down.

This is so true. Before I bought my house I saved up so much cash, tens of thousands. Then we chose a house that was suitable in a nice neighborhood. We bought a nice house that we could easily afford and still be able to save money and be able to have money for other things. Not too mention that we got rid of all of our credit cards save the American Express for big purchases.

Meanwhile people were buying massive houses, far beyond what they needed with no or little money down. Housing prices were over inflated as it was and when the economy tanked they were sitting on (for example) a $400K mortgage for a house worth $250K. What a crying shame. Why on earth did the banks lend out all this money for people who BARELY had the means to pay?

 

[TenPenny]

Why on earth did the banks lend out all this money for people who BARELY had the means to pay?

Because all the banks had to do was bundle the mortgages into packages, and sell them to investment banks and mutual funds. The banks that originally did the mortgages dumped them onto someone else, and they were free of them.

 

[petros]

So who sits on the deeds?

 

[EagleSmack]

So who sits on the deeds?

I would guess the banks... but that is a great question. The bank we got our mortgage from is a local bank and that is where the monthly payments still go to.

But I get why you asked this.

 

[petros]

I would guess the banks... but that is a great question. The bank we got our mortgage from is a local bank and that is where the monthly payments still go to.

But I get why you asked this.

Yesterday I heard something about Canadian retirees in FLA having their houses they just bought yanked from underneath them due to some problem with who actually holds the titles and any lien rights. It boggles the noggin' that the derivative ponzi is still alive and kicking.


I'll find a link. It's a really interesting program.

CBC.ca | The Current | Photogallery

Audio

 

[EagleSmack]

I wonder if we had gone to one of the big mortgage firms it would be different. Meaning we would have had to send checks to different banks as the loans were swapped back and forth.