BANK OF AMERICA FRAUD COVERUP

BANK OF AMERICA FRAUD COVERUP! 

TOPICS: MORTGAGE FRAUD, FRAUD, BANKS, ERIC HOLDER, HOUSING, LOANS, LENDERS, HOUSING BUBBLE, BANK OF NEW YORK, DEUTSCHE BANK, US BANK, BUSINESS NEWS, POLITICS NEWS, FORECLOSURE

Eric Holder (Credit: AP/J. Scott Applewhite)

Bank of America still in hot water.

By now we know the details of the housing crisis...big banks bought up millions of mortgages, packaged them into securities and sold them mostly to Chinese investors. Ultimately, banks could not demonstrate they owned the notes/loans. Lenders failed to follow statute when it came to transfers of ownership. Record numbers of foreclosures resulted from these usurpations. Banks got caught red handed covering up the fraud with false documentation.

Big banks paid large fines....sanctioned by Federal authorities. Of course the fines paid with the American Publics hard earned money! Still no oversight, go figure.

Bank accounts could be at risk, mortgages are obviously at risk!

Do you have an account or mortgage with Bank of America?

You may be at risk, for more information:

Foreclosure what a Big Myth

http://mythbehindforeclosure.com

Banks Cling to Bundles Holding Risk

APRIL 19, 2014

Continue reading the main story

Fair Game

By GRETCHEN MORGENSON

The Volcker Rule doesn’t go into effect until 2015, but that hasn’t stopped big bankers and their supporters in Washington from trying to undermine it.

The latest fight involves another complex Wall Street creation, a financial instrument known as a collateralized loan obligation.
Big banks want to be allowed to own them 

but regulators say such holdings can be

 hazardous and may allow the banks to

 evade the Volcker Rule’s prohibition on risky trading.

There have been countless battles over the 

Volcker Rule since it was first conceptualized

 in the Dodd-Frank law in 2010. Paul A. Volcker, 

the former Federal Reserve chairman for whom

 the rule is named, hasn’t talked about most of 

these fights, but this one is important enough that 

he has come forward to discuss it.

What are collateralized loan obligations, or C.L.O.s? 

Translated into simple English, they are bundles of 

mostly commercial loans that are sold in various pieces 

to investors. They are similar to collateralized debt obligations, 

or C.D.O.s — those instruments that imperiled so many

 institutions in 2008 — but C.L.O.s are simpler and in some

 cases less risky. The loans in C.L.O.s provide money to
 companies, many of them subject to leveraged
 buyouts, that might not receive bank funding.

Some $431 billion worth of C.L.O.s are currently
outstanding, according to the most recent figures
 from the Securities Industry and Financial Markets
 Association. Roughly $150 billion worth were issued
 before 2009. That group represents the riskiest 
securities in the asset class, regulators say. 
Another $150 billion in C.L.O.s, issued after 2009, 
contain fewer problematic assets; those remaining, 
raised after the pending Volcker Rule restrictions
 had been announced, are viewed by regulators as 
the least risky of all.

Insurance companies, pension funds and foreign banks
 own most C.L.O.s. But large United States banks hold
an estimated $75 billion worth, and would have to divest
many of them under the Volcker Rule. Being forced to
sell these holdings is what the banks find objectionable.

Under the rule, banks are not allowed to have ownership
 stakes or relationships with hedge funds or private equity
firms. Many C.L.O.s are issued and overseen by hedge
 funds and private equity firms, though, making C.L.O.s
just the kind of trading vehicles the Volcker Rule intended

 to exorcise from bank balance sheets.

Not all C.L.O.s are off limits under the Volcker Rule,
which lets banks hold them if the asset contains only
commercial loans throughout the holding period. This
 means that banks cannot own C.L.O.s if they contain
bonds, equity interests or other assets.

Regulators were justified in setting these limits. Bonds,
equity investments and other assets can be riskier than
relatively simple commercial loans, they concluded, and 
could allow for the kind of risky trading that the

 Volcker Rule was trying to prohibit.

Recall that the Volcker Rule was intended to bar banks
 with insured deposits from making large and risky trading 
bets. The rule was lawmakers’ attempt to reinstate some 
of the taxpayer protections

 lost when Congress gutted theGlass-Steagall Act in 1999.

But the big bank crowd contends that regulators have
overreached. At a January hearing convened by the House
Financial Services Committee, Jeb Hensarling, a Texas
 Republican who is its chairman, called the Volcker Rule 
a job destroyer that “will harm numerous of our capital 
markets: equity, joint ventures, C.D.O., venture capital 
and especially the C.L.O. market.”

Continue reading the main story

Continue reading the main story

Change is here! Right Now! Starting with You!

SMALL BUSINESS NEWS

SMALL BUSINESS NEWS

Small businesses have a better bet seeking loans with small banks
 than with big ones. Small business loan approval drops to 18.8
percent at big banks in March. (Those are banks with assets of
$10 billion or more.) The new figure represents a drop from 19.1
 percent in February.

The drop in lending at bigger banks is not part of an overall
slowdown in lending either. A year-over-year comparison
shows lending increased by 20 percent at big banks over
the last year overall. The figures come from the Biz2Credit
Small Business Lending Index.

The index is based on a monthly analysis of 1000 loan
applications on Biz2Credit.com.

In a prepared release issued with the monthly index report,
Biz2Credit CEO Rohit Arora explains: “Big banks rely on tax data to
process non-SBA loans. Since tax season is always a busy time of the
year for CPAs who are preparing tax returns, they have less time to pull
together statements for business owners seeking loans. This slows the
 loan application process. Big banks typically process more conventional
loans from larger firms than SBA Loans, which are more popular with
companies that need less than $350,000.”

At the same time, small business loans at small banks are on the
upswing. Loan approvals for small businesses at small banks rose
from 51.4 percent to 51.6 percent over the same period.

Rohit gave one possible reason for the increased lending at these
smaller institutions. That would be the increased popularity of the
Small Business Administration’s Small Business Loan Program and
 SBA Express with these lenders. The SBA offers to guarantee up to
85 percent of these loans with no guarantee fees, which Rohit says
 has made them very popular.

However, another reason could be the increased flow of higher
quality borrowers who are less interested in alternative lenders like
merchant advance services as the economy improves. Rohit says
 these borrowers are increasingly shopping around for better lending
 rates and terms with small banks and institutional lenders like credit
funds and insurance companies.

Learn more about what it takes to qualify for a small business loan by
visiting theBiz2Credit tool on Small Business Trends.

Change is here! Right Now! Starting with You!

By David Weidner, MarketWatch 

Bloomberg NewsEnlarge Image

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — If you had any doubts the banking landscape had changed in the years since the financial crisis, the past two weeks should have cleared the picture for you.

From Citigroup Inc.’s C +0.02%  surprisingly strong results, to Wells Fargo & Co.’sWFC +0.06% Steady Eddie growth to disappointments and losses at J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. JPM +1.42%   and Bank of America Corp. BAC -0.06% , there are clear winners and losers emerging as the detritus of the credit crisis fades.

In short, we found that banks that can write quality loans that produce steady returns are thriving. We found that banks that continue to depend on trading income and other market-sensitive revenue are at the mercy of their trading book. And we found that some banks are still behind when it comes to remaking themselves. Either they have too many crisis ghosts in the closet, such as pending settlements, or they can’t quite embrace their inner selves as lenders, or in the case of broker/dealers, advisers and underwriters.

Click to Play

Investors still face the risk of a pullback

So, with apologies to U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob “Jack” Lew, here’s how the too-big-to-fail Wall Street institutions fared after the “stress test” of first-quarter earnings.

Citigroup Inc.: C+ This grade could have been so much higher had the bank not failed a key part of the official stress test and been granted authority to increase its dividend. That news, and to a much lesser extent the alleged fraud at its Banamex unit, made the bank’s first-quarter profit of $3.94 billion moot. The results were even more encouraging given Citi’s overseas exposure (more than 40% of revenue comes from outside the U.S. market). Since Citi can’t dole out those profits to shareholders, many investors wonder: What’s the point?

Citigroup shares are down 8% since the start of the year.

Bank of America: C If Citigroup was penalized for its stress-test results, Bank of America got the opposite deal. It passed the stress test, but it’s first-quarter results were awful: a $273 million loss driven by legal costs stemming from the financial crisis. If Citigroup is a bank that isn’t prepared for the future, B. of A. is a bank that can’t seem to get the present right. Yes, its credit profile improved. Yes, its net interest margin (the difference between the cost of a loan and the interest it receives on it) rose. Yes, itsMerrill Lynch brokerage reported record revenue. But Brian Moynihan, the bank’s CEO, and its financial officers could give no indication when the big legal clouds would clear. That’s going to hang on the stock.

B. of A. shares are up 3.4% this year.

J.P. Morgan: D For a bank that looked as if it had everything going its way after the financial crisis — fewer losses and write downs and higher profits, topping out at $19.9 billion in earnings in 2012 — J.P. Morgan can’t shoot straight. Legal costs are over $20 billion and mounting. Its dependence on trading revenue has been exposed (down $1 billion from a year earlier). Its ability to squeeze profit from net interest margins is sputtering. And, finally, J.P. Morgan missed analysts’ estimates, though it did report a $5.27 billion profit.

Change is here! Right Now! Starting with You!

Lowball short sales hurt banks and consumers

Jason Hidalgo, RGJ2:03 p.m. PDT April 21, 2014
Short sale flipping 
can mean big profit for the agents
 and investors who know how to game the market.

For the financial institutions and investors who backed the failed mortgages involved, however, questionable short sale deals literally come at a high price.

Last year, more than 10 percent of Northern Nevada’s 2,096 short sales involved double-ended deals where the same agent or listing entity represented the seller and a prearranged cash buyer. In addition to limiting the listing’s exposure to the open market, the properties also were sold far below fair market value.

A Reno Gazette-Journal investigation of 160 such deals based on Washoe County and Northern Nevada Regional Multiple Listing Service records showed an average appreciation of $48,211 per deal or flip. For banks that approved the deals, they represent more than $7 million in potential lost value had the properties been sold for fair market price.

In defending short sales that offload properties far below market value, agents and investors involved in such deals point out that banks still have final say in approving the pricing.

Change is here! Right Now! Starting with You!

California foreclosure starts rose last quarter

California foreclosure filings rose in the first quarter. (Paul Sakuma / Associated Press)

• 
  

By Andrew Khouri

April 22, 2014, 11:30 a.m. New California foreclosure starts rose in the first quarter, although they remain at pre-bust levels.

Default notices -- the first step in the state's foreclosure process -- jumped 6% from the previous quarter to 19,215, research firm DataQuick said Tuesday. New foreclosure filings rose 3.5% from the first quarter of 2013.

DataQuick analyst John Karevoll said the rise from the fourth quarter, the lowest level since 2005, probably came from lenders working through their delinquent loan pipelines and not from more financial distress.

“They may well be just working their way through a backlog, stacks of paper piled high on desks,” he said in a statement. 

GRAPHIC: Southern California's housing recovery

The year-over-year increase was the first such rise since the last three months of 2009. However, the increase came solely from a significant surge in January, as notices of default jumped 64% from a year earlier.

A series of state laws restricting the foreclosure process took effect in January 2013, holding foreclosure filings artificially low as lenders adjusted to the so-called Homeowner Bill of Rights, DataQuick said.

Default notices dropped from a year earlier in both February and March.

DataQuick said it expects foreclosure starts to continue a downward trend, although said they may tick up from one quarter to the next. 

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-foreclosures-20140422,0,5259066.story#ixzz2zeLxzTox


Change is here! Right Now! Starting with You!

Why Are Bitcoiners Going to Jail for Money Laundering While Big Banks Walk?

By Cathy Reisenwitz

BitInstant CEO Charlie Shrem, along with alleged co-conspirator Robert Faiella, was arrested by federal authorities last week for allegedly laundering more than $1 million worth of bitcoins. This is a tiny amount compared to the largest drug-and-terrorism money laundering case ever. Yet when British bank HSBC was found guilty in 2012 of laundering billions, the firm paid a fine of $1.9 billion. Authories made no arrests, and HSBC still turned a $13.5 billion profit that year.

Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi detailed the crimes HSBC helped fund, including “tens of thousands of murders” and laundering money for Al Qaeda and Hezbollah. By contrast, Silk Road users have only been shown to have bought and sold drugs. (The six murders-for-hire commissioned by alleged former Silk Road head Ross Ulbricht were never carried out.) In fact, by moving transactions online, Silk Road likely decreased the violence associated with the drug trade.

Again, no individual associate with HSBC paid any money or spent a day in jail. Shrem is currently in custody. Why is there such a disparity? Clearly the size, scope, violence or effect of the crime can’t justify the discrepancy in response. The Justice Department explained it by saying that HSBC is, in essence, Too Big to Jail.

"Had the US authorities decided to press criminal charges," said Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer during the announcement of the HSBC settlement. "HSBC would almost certainly have lost its banking license in the US, the future of the institution would have been under threat and the entire banking system would have been destabilized."

Change is here! Right Now! Starting with You!