Redcellar Posted September 3, 2011 Author Share Posted September 3, 2011 As if UK Government would allow RBS to go into administration to get out of litigation. As is UK Government would be even allowed such a course of action by its crooked bankster paylords! There will be some pathetic excuse like its "good for London" or "saving the UK's banking reputation" or some such bollax It'll be five to ten years fdown the line anyway. Long long court case and appeals process. But in the interim what will happen? You can't expect to get a good sale of new share issues (therefore remains tax payer owned). Banks won't securitize so lending will be very very restricted. Banks will up profits in expectation of a negative outcome, in other words we pay more for everything. And they said the recession was over and we could manage our way out of a double dip. Not without free flowing credit you can't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 Fred Goodwin ought to be starting to feel a tad nervous now. Remember the original Natwest Three? The 'merkins were prepared to prosecute, the Brits (including the press) thought it outrageous. Sir Fred is innocent until proven broke (yeah, right) or extradited on his flying pig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcellar Posted September 3, 2011 Author Share Posted September 3, 2011 Remember the original Natwest Three? The 'merkins were prepared to prosecute, the Brits (including the press) thought it outrageous. Sir Fred is innocent until proven broke (yeah, right) or extradited on his flying pig. Their jails are seriously nasty places. Even more so at the County lockup pending trial. Would they dare? Don't drop the soap Mr Banker man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jareth Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financial-crime/8738651/SFO-joins-US-inquiry-into-bank-practices.html From the article: "The lawsuits are looking at allegations banks failed to conduct proper due diligence in the sale of mortgage securities to the giant US mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." Why would Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been *buying* securitised mortgages? They were helping to create the toxic crap that went into them. Unless there has been some very obvious fraud going on by the banks (as opposed to mortgage brokers and liar loans) it is surely going to come back to the ratings of these investments. If so the excuse is easily determined - at the time the rating was given it was correct but the circumstances that achieved that rating no longer apply so the rating must be lower. The notion that a AAA rated product is without risk for the life of the investment was a mania that took hold in too many minds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crash2006 Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 The banks could argue that they were following the ratings agencies and the government part in the loss of American jobs/housing market./ debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcellar Posted September 3, 2011 Author Share Posted September 3, 2011 From the article: "The lawsuits are looking at allegations banks failed to conduct proper due diligence in the sale of mortgage securities to the giant US mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." Why would Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been *buying* securitised mortgages? They were helping to create the toxic crap that went into them. Unless there has been some very obvious fraud going on by the banks (as opposed to mortgage brokers and liar loans) it is surely going to come back to the ratings of these investments. If so the excuse is easily determined - at the time the rating was given it was correct but the circumstances that achieved that rating no longer apply so the rating must be lower. The notion that a AAA rated product is without risk for the life of the investment was a mania that took hold in too many minds. But that is what is at the heart of it all. It would have been correct if the portfolio was as advertised. But in reality an ever increasing % of the portfolio was being made up of subprime lending. The buyers were not made aware of this fact. It was like painting a dog turd with gold. All people saw was a gold brick and the ratings agencies said AAA. Each time the amount of gold would decrease and the amount of turd increased. The argument comes down to, was it fraud. Was the product missold. Seems the facts speak pretty loudly for themselves, but finding proof took them years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 And they said the recession was over and we could manage our way out of a double dip. Not without free flowing credit you can't. Time to take your money out of zombie banks and invest in the economy instead. On a longer-term view, Private Equity could be a good sector to be in. Just keep clear of the kind of predatory PE that relies on high leverage - not just 'cos it can be destructive (as in the meeja image of PE), but also 'cos they won't find the banks so keen to throw money at them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 Man Dies From Toothache, Couldn't Afford Meds http://abcnews.go.com/Health/insurance-24-year-dies-toothache/story?id=14438171 A 24-year-old Cincinnati father died from a tooth infection this week because he couldn't afford his medication, offering a sobering reminder of the importance of oral health and the number of people without access to dental or health care. According to NBC affiliate WLWT, Kyle Willis' wisdom tooth started hurting two weeks ago. When dentists told him it needed to be pulled, he decided to forgo the procedure, because he was unemployed and had no health insurance. Puts the bank stuff into perspective doesn't it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcellar Posted September 3, 2011 Author Share Posted September 3, 2011 Man Dies From Toothache, Couldn't Afford Meds http://abcnews.go.com/Health/insurance-24-year-dies-toothache/story?id=14438171 Puts the bank stuff into perspective doesn't it. It's all linked. The populous seem to happily overlook the suffering and deaths caused by white collar crime. It's a victimless crime isn't it. (Tell that to the man who passed away) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 It's all linked. The populous seem to happily overlook the suffering and deaths caused by white collar crime. It's a victimless crime isn't it. (Tell that to the man who passed away) Yep, of course it is all linked. Unemployed in the US is increasing, that does not include the vast numbers who no longer officially exist on the figures... but no one seems to care at the top in the US because they are all focused on bankers. It is immoral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/ Do you remember how we told you that the Democrats and groups associated with them leaned on banks and even sued to get them to make bad loans by abusing the Community Reinvestment Act (see HERE and HERE)? The abuse of this act by ACORN and officials like Janet Reno was a factor in causing the economic crisis. The harassment suits filed under this act were used to get banks to lower credit standards and hand out high risk loans. We have dug up the lawsuit below while researching Obama’s legal career. It is a typical example of an ACORN harassment lawsuit.In these lawsuits, ACORN makes a bogus claim of Redlining (denying poor people loans because of their ethnic heritage). They protest and get the local media to raise a big stink. This stink means that the bank faces thousands of people closing their accounts and get local politicians to lobby to stop the bank from doing some future business, expansions and mergers. If the bank goes to court, they will win, but the damage is already done because who is going to launch a big campaign to get the bank’s reputation back? It is important to understand the nature of these lawsuits and what their purpose is. ACORN filed, or threatened to file, tons of these lawsuits and ALL CRA suits allege racism (usually the press involved and such with the threat of the CRA lawsuit is enough to get the bank to give in and put them in a catch 22, they also had a willing Janet Reno Justice Department to work with – see below for more on Reno). As we have said in our series or articles analyzing every aspect of this story (links at the very bottom of this post), the series of ACORN harassment lawsuits and intimidation against banks to lower credit standards was not the sole reason for the mortgage crisis, it was one important layer of many that brought us to the mortgage crisis and the largest financial scandal in the history of the world. This is going to get very interesting. Will the bankers decide to sue the govt? If this gets into court it's going to be one hell of a court case, I hope it's televised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algobet Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 success or fail, whatever happens the bonuses wont be paid back......unless they can prove some individual knowingly put the non-qualifying mortgages in the cdos. of course the lawyers wont go after the individual bankers but the bank since it has more money - in face endless cash as the govt will just print the damages awarded Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormymonday_2011 Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 (edited) success or fail, whatever happens the bonuses wont be paid back......unless they can prove some individual knowingly put the non-qualifying mortgages in the cdos. of course the lawyers wont go after the individual bankers but the bank since it has more money - in face endless cash as the govt will just print the damages awarded Maybe but I think these cases are as much about politics as economics. It about getting some high profile individuals in court prior to the 2012 US Presidential elections rather than just recovering the cash losses resulting from securitization. Indeed, I have a sneaking suspicion that the plaints against the companies is in part to force them to divulge information that can be used to sue the office holders and directors who ran the businesses prior to the banking crisis. Edited September 3, 2011 by stormymonday_2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billybong Posted September 4, 2011 Share Posted September 4, 2011 (edited) So the US isn't buying the MicBrown's story that it all started in America. It looks like the US thinks a lot of it started in the UK. The BoE hasn't been mentioned so far in the news in that connection and it's involvement with the banks in all that dodgy stuff. Edited September 4, 2011 by billybong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.