Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
They were warned, beware of stomach bug, while in the bathroom, the train is going!!!!.....RUN, RUNNNNN!!!! Hahaha
Can you heard this rumble??? Bulls are coming! Run, run away shorties!!!! hahaha
JERRRRKKYY POWER!!!!!
Seems a code eh?
23 MILLIONS IN ONE HOUR!!!!
A lot of new faces now.....and asking for everybody answers....easy eh?!
Go FnF!
Finally are you in the scene!!!....cheers!!!!
Seems that the beast was released?
Goooooooooo FnF!!
Psycho, tomorrow will be another day...don't miss the next run
GLTY
Goooo FnF!!
Again and again....Paraphrasing to William Black, former Bank Regulator: Finance “is the only field in America where you can commit fraud with impunity and even after you get caught, you can buy your way out of it. And not with your money, mind you, but with shareholders’ money,”
Big banks are now bigger than ever. Remember who were favored with a huge amounts of money, injected by the Treasury/Fed. JP Morgan was one of the most favored banks during the crisis. They are the crem della crem of the Bankdits (but watch how you say eh! Suseptibles ears can be hurt). There any antitrust law in U.S.?
The four biggest U.S. banks -- JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo -- today have about $7.8 trillion in assets, or about 47 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, up from $6.4 trillion, or 43 percent of GDP, at the time of the crisis in 2008. The six biggest banks, a group that now includes Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, now have $9.6 trillion in assets, or nearly 58 percent of GDP.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/10/biggest-banks-even-bigger_n_3900363.html
http://www.ffiec.gov/nicpubweb/nicweb/Top50Form.aspx
I just wonder why others banks weren't helped?! :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banks_acquired_or_bankrupted_in_the_United_States_during_the_2007–2012_global_financial_crisis
http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.htm
Gl
Column: MBS investors and the $13 billion JPMorgan deal - Frankel
(Reuters) - By all accounts, JPMorgan Chase is on the verge of a record-setting $13 billion settlement with the Justice Department and other state and federal regulators that will resolve the bank's civil liability to the government for the sale of mortgage-backed securities, by JPMorgan itself and by Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual.
We still don't know precisely what admission JPMorgan will make as part of the deal, and based on the bank's shrewd blame-taking in its London Whale trade losses settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, we can assume any admissions will be tailored to limit collateral damage in private litigation. Nonetheless, regardless of how JPMorgan phrases its acceptance of responsibility, the bank's $13 billion settlement is an acknowledgment of the obvious: The mortgage-backed securities market was infested at its foundation, like a house gnawed away by termites.
So why are investors in private-label MBS still standing in the rubble of collapsed mortgage-backed trusts? We haven't seen a final allocation plan for the $13 billion settlement, but I haven't seen any indication that money has been set aside for private investors in JPMorgan, Bear or WaMu MBS offerings. To the contrary: Certificate holders are already asking whether the bank intends to shift the cost of the settlement's reported relief to underwater homeowners on to MBS trusts.
Investors in private-label MBS have experienced hundreds of billions of dollars in losses. Let's look, for instance, at JPMorgan's description of the fate of mortgage-backed securities sold by the bank and its predecessors Bear and WaMu. According to JPMorgan's 2012 annual report, the three entities sold a combined $450 billion in MBS to private investors (as opposed to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) between 2005 and 2008. More than a quarter of the original face value of the securities, or $118 billion of that $450 billion, has been liquidated, with investors suffering average losses of more than 60 percent on liquidated underlying loans. By my math, that's about $71 billion in losses for private-label JPM, Bear and WaMu MBS trusts as of the filing of the bank's annual report last December - with more likely, since the report also disclosed that $39 billion in underlying mortgage loans were at least 60 days overdue.
RIGGED BY SELLERS
So private investors in JPMorgan MBS trusts are out at least $71 billion and possibly as much as $90 billion. Of course, JPMorgan and its predecessors aren't to blame for all of those losses. Some of them, as MBS issuers have been proclaiming since the first MBS fraud suit was filed five or so years ago, were unquestionably due to the collapse of the economy. Homeowners who otherwise would have faithfully paid their mortgages, directing revenue to MBS investors, lost their jobs and defaulted on loans. It's also true that MBS purchasers were supposed to be sophisticated investors with a high tolerance for risk and their own due diligence capabilities. To return to the termite analogy, MBS purchasers - in the view of MBS defendants - shouldn't be able to claim that they relied on assurances from a seller when they didn't take care to bring in their own home inspector.
But what we've learned in the last five years - partly through private MBS litigation: first, fraud suits by bond insurers and investors suing through class actions; later, fraud claims by individual investors and breach of contract suits by MBS trustees acting at the direction of certificate holders - is that the MBS process was rigged by sellers. Mortgage originators knew they were writing loans that didn't meet their stated underwriting standards. MBS sponsors disregarded reports by their own re-underwriters about deficiencies in the loans. Credit rating agencies were more concerned with capturing their share of the lucrative market in rating complex securities than in evaluating the offerings with investors in mind. The sell side knew it was peddling heaps of junk. Many (albeit not all) on the buy side didn't share that knowledge.
PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR
The JPMorgan settlement proves that government entities will recoup at least a chunk of what they lost as a result of the banks' deception, even though state and federal regulators took far more time than private investors to recognize systemic rot in the MBS market. By the summer of 2011, when the Federal Housing Finance Agency filed a slew of securities fraud cases based on MBS purchases by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, untold private investors had already been excluded from class actions by federal judges who generally restricted such cases to trusts in which lead plaintiffs held a stake. To settle its claims against JPMorgan and its predecessors, Fannie and Freddie's conservator will reportedly receive $4 billion as part of the JPMorgan settlement. The National Credit Union Administration, which has brought MBS fraud suits on behalf of failed credit unions, is also said to be slated for a piece of the settlement, as is the New York attorney general.
Private investors haven't fared nearly as well in fraud cases. MBS class actions have been a big disappointment for certificate holders, even after the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals redefined standing to permit more claims. Some certificate holders will recover pennies on the dollar of their losses through MBS class actions. But with total MBS class action settlements totaling less than $2 billion and addressing losses in a very restricted number of trusts, I'm willing to bet that most MBS holders haven't and won't see any recovery on their losses through mass litigation.
Some individual investors with big MBS losses, including several European regional banks and U.S. investors like AIG, Allstate and Mass Mutual, decided it was worth their while to file individual fraud suits, often relying on state and common law claims after time ran out on their causes of action under federal securities laws. A few of those cases, as I reported last week, have quietly settled on confidential terms. I doubt, however, that if you added up every dollar of recovery for fraud claims asserted by private MBS certificate holders (excluding bond insurers), you'd come up with the $4 billion FHFA is said to be getting to settle its fraud suit.
CAGEY ABOUT DISCLOSURES
Investors' breach-of-contract claims may still bring recoveries that MBS fraud litigation has not. In these suits, as you know, certificate holders in a particular trust direct the MBS trustee to demand that banks repurchase, or put back, underlying mortgages that materially breach contractual representations about loan terms. In the last two years - after Bank of America agreed to settle put-back claims by private Countrywide MBS investors for $8.5 billion - certificate holders have swamped New York state and federal dockets with put-back suits. (Many of the cases have been filed by investor groups that bought MBS specifically to assert put-back claims.)
JPMorgan, for one, is cagey about its disclosures on these suits. Its third-quarter earnings report suggests that it has received $1.3 billion in put-back demands from trustees of private MBS trusts, but the bank said that the disclosure excludes claims that are the subject of pending or threatened litigation - and we already know that the big institutional investors that negotiated BofA's put-back deal have targeted JPMorgan (as well as other banks). It could be that investors in private JPMorgan, Bear and WaMu MBS are demanding breach-of-contract damages for a big percentage of the $71 billion in losses they've experienced.
Perhaps put-back settlements will bring private investors recoveries akin to those the government stands to see in the JPMorgan deal. Something's out of whack if private-label MBS holders can't mitigate their losses. Our securities regime is premised on a fair balance of information between buyers and sellers. That balance was off in the MBS market, no less for private investors than for the government.
(Reporting by Alison Frankel; Editing by Ted Botha)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/21/us-column-frankel-idUSBRE99K17C20131021
Who are responsible for what has happened? Who are guilty in this story in your opinion?
Thanks for your support
gl
Hahaha Goooooo FnF!!!
Then whose fault is it?
Don’t Worry, JPMorgan Can Take It
Indeed, $13 billion is a lot of money.
Yes, $13 billion is the largest amount paid by a financial firm in a settlement with the U.S., and it equals more than half of JPMorgan’s 2012 profit. Yet the deal encompasses investigations by three U.S. attorneys, two state attorneys general and three federal regulators.
Anyway, JPMorgan has reaped benefits from those acquisitions, both completed for less than a song. It booked a $2 billion gain when it bought $3.9 billion in Washington Mutual equity for $1.9 billion. Some of the mortgages it inherited may be performing well enough for the bank to record gains in upcoming quarters. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York financed the Bear Stearns purchase -- which came with a lucrative prime brokerage unit plus a midtown Manhattan skyscraper -- with a $30 billion loan.
Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan’s chairman and chief executive officer, is reported to have personally pursued this settlement with the federal government. If he and the bank’s board think it’s unfair, they are free to reject it. The best answer to charges of unfairness may well be their decision not to do so.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-21/don-t-worry-jpmorgan-can-take-it.html
Are you undercover, bro? Jeerrrkyyyy for FnF!!!!
"In the years ahead of the financial meltdown of 2008, the nation's banks took trillions of dollars in individual home mortgages and created investments for people seeking to capitalize on the hot housing market. Some of the mortgages were of questionable quality, given to potential home buyers with weak credit or without verifying income.
Many of the securities were then sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two private mortgage-backing firms that had the implicit backing of the U.S. government."
I do not know where the number 20B came from. The settlement is about 13B. What is that? 13B, after having done business of this magnitude? And of the total amount, only the smaller part (about 4B) will go to the hands of FnF to "consumer relief," including home loan modifications? Incredible! JP Morgan disclosed it has set aside 23 billion to handle legal costs for all the "minor mistakes" they have had in the recent pass.
Go FnF!
Corky and Curs bla bla bla, what a FnF bla bla bla....Corky and Curs bla bla bla.....what a FnF bla bla bla.....
Go FnF!!
Five things to know about JPMorgan settlement
http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/21/news/companies/jpmorgan-settlement-faq/index.html
Federal Housing Chief Holds Banks to Account
Liberal commentators such as Felix Salmon and Paul Krugman have lambasted DeMarco for his unwillingness to write down mortgage balances for underwater loans owned by Fannie and Freddie, even going so far as to demand that President Barack Obama fire him. (Bloomberg View’s editors have been more measured in their criticism, but agree that the FHFA has been making mistakes.) These criticisms miss the mark. For one thing, as Dave Dayen has noted, JPMorgan’s proposed deal with the government -- which might not have happened without DeMarco -- would actually help troubled borrowers more than twice as much as anything anyone wants the FHFA to do.
More importantly, DeMarco’s dedication to pursuing possible wrongdoing could help lay the groundwork for a more robust housing market. Almost every new mortgage originated since the crisis is either guaranteed or owned by the government. Investors aren’t willing to risk their own capital because they were burned so badly by widespread fraud last time around. I doubt that DeMarco’s modest actions will be enough to change that, but at least he has been doing what he can to advance the best interests of savers and taxpayers. Can the same be said for Mel Watt, Obama’s nominee to replace DeMarco, the Congressman from Bank of America’s hometown and a major recipient of financial industry contributions?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-21/fed-housing-chief-holds-banks-to-account.html
Geithner Feuds With Greenberg Over Book in AIG Bailout Suit
Former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner joined the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in declining to give drafts of a book he’s writing to Maurice “Hank” Greenberg for a lawsuit challenging the government’s bailout of American International Group Inc. (AIG)
Greenberg is seeking book material, interview transcripts and other documents that are irrelevant to his $25 billion class-action suit, Geithner said in a filing Oct. 18 in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington. He filed suit through his closely held Starr International Co., a shareholder in the insurer.
Greenberg, 88, the former chairman and chief executive officer of New York-based AIG, claims the September 2008 assumption of 80 percent of the insurer’s stock by the New York Fed, which Geithner headed at the time, violated shareholders’ rights to due process and equal protection of the law.
Disputed items include interview transcripts and drafts shared between Geithner, 52, and journalists Michael Grunwald and Charlie Anderson, who are helping write the book, as well as documents the U.S. Treasury Department gave Geithner when he was president of the New York Fed.
The case is Starr International Co. v. U.S., 11-cv-00779, U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Washington).
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-21/trader-ims-probed-geithner-aig-china-ipos-compliance.html
Cork and Curs...what a dueto...bla bla bla....
Go FnF!!
Christmas is closer than we think ... positive minds attract good luck, so stay positive mind. If you see Mr.Fence give him my regards. For you, the better of luck as for me!
Go FnF!
Wow! almost forgotten. Tremendous example. Sometimes the simple things contain great wisdom .... I don't know why, but that movie reminds me The Little Prince (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry)....every time you read it, you can find new things.
“Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction.” Francis Picabia
I'll see you in Green City!! Where is Mr.Fence?
Gooo FnF!!
That's the point Crawford. Most of people are wrapped in a riotous wave of "I want more", not realizing that they have more but enjoy less, to get more, and enjoy less, and so on to infinity, sometimes neglecting, the most valuable, the real wealth: The Family
Thanks to FnF maybe people have a little more aware of what is happening around us. This is the stock with more political and social influence in which ppl probably, have never before been involved, so thanks again FnF for your social work....:)
GL and Cheers!!
Politicians and Bankdits are all tarred with same brush ...
Luckily, they Can't replace what has been solidly built for more than 70 years. Even when they're ripping a big chunk, FnF will continue to be giants.
gl
Go FnF!!
Thanks. That's right Rk3. Unfortunately, folks are more concerned about the TV, video games, electronic gadgets or occupied on buy, buy and buy, just for the "necessity" created by consumerism, even if they are drowning in a sea of ??debts, people disregard of the reality. Meanwhile rot gradually invades our society, destroying the real values. I go back to quote what Einstein said: Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Of this passivity and indolence, take advantage jackals and hyenas.
Gl
Gooo FnF!!
Surely they are not related to toxic loans sold to FnF, they are paying these fines because ..... why?
JP Morgan is a role model.....!
These are only some minor errors:
*Energy Scandal: JPMorgan is now under scrutiny for an energy trading business it acquired in the 2008 takeover of Bear Stearns.
*The London Whale: It's already been a year since the news broke that a JPMorgan trader in London made several oversized bets in the credit default swaps markets that went bad to the tune of $6.2 billion.
*Enabling Madoff: While JPMorgan Chase served as Bernie Madoff's primary bank for over two decades, it never noticed anything worth reporting to regulators.
*LIBOR Scandal: JPM is among the many large financial institutions implicated in the LIBOR manipulation scandal, a key interest rate used in derivatives markets.
*Credit Card Scandals: Last year JPMorgan agreed to pay $100 million to credit card customers who said in class-action lawsuit that the bank had increased their minimum payments to generate more fee income.
*JPMorgan Wants to See More Americans on Food Stamps. That because JPMorgan Chase contracts to operate as the processor of the Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) cards in those states. JPMorgan earns a fee for each recipient, ranging from 31 cents to $2.30, depending on the state.
*Lawsuit Accuses JPMorgan Of Exposing Social Security Numbers.
*Sounds like a movie...
The big bank was mentioned, though not named, in a lawsuit brought by Paramount Pictures against Content Partners, LLC. This latest salvo is basically in response to Content Partner's 2010 lawsuit, alleging stinginess on Paramount's part when it came to parceling out profits on films like The Truman Show. Now, the studio says that Content Partners conspired with JPMorgan to steal trade secrets.
Go FnF!!
Michael Winston (Credit: Reuters/Joshua Roberts)
You may know Michael Winston’s story from a series of articles by Gretchen Morgenson in the New York Times, or from a celebrated Frontline episode, “The Untouchables,” about the lack of prosecutions on Wall Street. He was a Ph.D. who rose to the corporate elite, with stints at Lockheed Martin, McDonnell Douglas, Motorola and Merrill Lynch. He was recruited to mortgage originator Countrywide Financial with the promise that it wanted to become the “Goldman Sachs of the Pacific,” a full-service global financial corporation.
“They talked about the importance of ethics and principles, and they said they heard I was a high-integrity guy,” Winston tells Salon, noting his father had a vanity plate that read “HONOR.” Winston initially succeeded as enterprise chief leadership officer at Countrywide, getting promoted twice in 14 months and building a team of 200 working on corporate strategy.
But he could not ignore the rot at the heart of the company’s profitmaking approach.
So now, a successful high-level executive for 30 years, he has been embroiled in seven years of lawsuits with Countrywide and the company that bought it, Bank of America. His determination to speak out against multiple violations of law at Countrywide earned him retaliation, and eventually, he was frozen out of corporate boardrooms, unable to find a new job. He won a jury verdict in his case, but after two and a half more years of fighting, an appellate court reversed the ruling in highly unusual circumstances.
“I keep hearing about whistle-blower protections,” he tells Salon, exasperatedly. “It certainly didn’t happen for me.”
Now, Bank of America wants to gouge Michael Winston one last time, demanding an interest payment on money awarded to him that he never received.
“Thus far, the person who did the right thing got punished, and the person who did the wrong thing got rewarded,” Winston said. The chilling case shows that the greatest enemy for Wall Street is the man or woman who actually tries to expose its secrets.
* * *
“FUND-EM.” That’s what the license plate read when Winston pulled into Countrywide headquarters at the end of 2005. It was the car of CEO Angelo Mozilo. “What does that mean?” Winston asked a colleague.
“What if the borrower has no job?” Winston asked.
“Fund ‘em.”
“What if they have no assets?”
“Fund ‘em.”
“No income?”
“If they can fog a mirror, we’ll give them a loan.”
Winston relayed his fears about this doomed strategy to Drew Gissinger, head of Countrywide Home Loans, offering proposals on how to prioritize customer satisfaction and strong fundamentals over making dicey loans. “I was trying to save Countrywide from itself,” Winston said. These proposals were politely taken and discarded. Later Gissinger would say he never received them.
A separate triggering event had nothing to do with loans, but how Countrywide treated its employees. In addition to selling toxic mortgages, Countrywide also housed its staff in toxic buildings. One in particular, on Tapo Canyon Road in Simi Valley, Calif., was notorious for noxious air, exposed wiring and a generally hideous atmosphere. Winston worked in this building, and he and his team experienced shortness of breath, dizziness and headaches. One female employee, 35 weeks pregnant, said she was afraid to work there. Michael himself was struck by a toxic substance coming from an overhead air vent. “I thought I was being poisoned,” he said. This is at a company that made $2.7 billion in net revenue in 2006.
Countrywide claimed that it did an investigation of the air quality and found nothing wrong, when Winston knew it was still taking air samples in his office. Winston confronted his boss over this, and she replied that she lied to “prevent a panic” at the company. That’s when Winston submitted a complaint to California’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA).
The retaliation was swift. Winston’s team was assigned elsewhere, his budget was cut, and his responsibilities reduced. Winston stayed out of a sense of loyalty to the team he persuaded to join Countrywide. “Everyone I recruited sold their houses in New York and moved to California,” Winston told Salon. “If not for that, I would have been gone at the first sign of trouble. I felt an obligation to them.”
After months of hardship, the president of Countrywide, Dave Sambol, asked him to come to New York and basically lie to the credit rating agency Moody’s about its corporate governance practices. Countrywide had gone without a president and chief operating officer for five months without informing investors, and had delivered top executives outsize compensation. Countrywide wanted Winston to fabricate a story about these practices and deliver it to Moody’s. Winston refused to lie. Three weeks later, the CEO, Angelo Mozilo, demanded Winston’s termination because he wouldn’t break the law. (The termination would not come until 2008, by Bank of America when it bought the company.)
For the next several years, Winston pursued a series of court cases, first against Countrywide and then against its new corporate parent, Bank of America, over the illegal retaliation. Winston and his lawyer, a former prosecutor at the Los Angeles district attorney’s office, saw so many lies from top Countrywide executives at their trial, that they wanted to get criminal charges instituted. Winston’s lawyer actually wrote to then-DA Steve Cooley, but nothing came of it (the DA’s office claimed it was never sent the material).
To use just one of a hundred examples, Mozilo claimed under oath he was “unimpressed” with Winston, despite a large documentary record of praise. “The assumption when someone raises their right hand, you see a check go off in the head of the jury, now we’ll hear the whole truth,” Winston said. “But no part of it was truthful.” In early 2011, after a month-long trial, the jury found in Winston’s favor, awarding him $3.8 million.
Sadly, the story doesn’t end there. First, Bank of America tried to get a “judgment notwithstanding the verdict” in its favor. When a judge tossed that out, the bank “went shopping for justice,” Winston said. The company would eventually find an appellate court in California to conduct a 29-minute hearing with no transcript made of the proceedings, a highly unusual practice. It didn’t bother to hear from Winston – he was 3,000 miles away at the time of the hearing. The court heard no new information in the case, only the 2-year-old trial record, filled with “perjurious content” from Countrywide executives, in Winston’s view.
Though legal precedent requires appellate courts to not reevaluate evidence heard by a jury, in this case they did, creating new evidence requirements that they said Winston did not meet. According to the Government Accountability Project, which presented an amicus brief to Winston in the case, “respect for the jury’s determinations is the rule in California and the federal system.” Nonetheless, the appellate court reversed the jury verdict, rescinding the $3.8 million award. The court claimed that Bank of America could not be held liable for Winston’s travails, despite clear legal precedent that it assumed those liabilities when it bought Countrywide. “They reversed my verdict and they broke the law to do it,” Winston said.
* * *
Despite Bank of America taking two years to delay and appeal the verdict, Winston has no right to appeal. He sought a rehearing and then an appeal to the California Supreme Court, to no avail. He’s working on an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that his constitutional rights were violated. “The Constitution gives you the right to a trial by jury. It doesn’t say ‘only if the jury finds in favor of Bank of America,’” said Winston.
The insult on top of injury comes from Bank of America retributively seeking monetary damages from him. It filed in Superior Court to recoup roughly $65,000, allegedly the cost of posting a bond that was ordered by the trial judge after the original $3.8 million jury award. But Bank of America never paid the award to Michael Winston. “I never saw a dime and paid $600,000 in legal fees,” Winston said. The egregious demand for restitution – from a multibillion-dollar company – is a symbol of the vindictiveness of a corporate giant lashing out at someone who dared to expose them.
Winston, 62, has not been able to find work since this ordeal, despite a stellar record over three decades. Bank of America even tried to subpoena speaker’s bureaus Winston had signed up with to tell his story on the lecture circuit, causing those organizations to break ties with him. So the $65,000 is not a trivial amount for him. And the principle of having to pay Bank of America after it put him through hell for years is stinging.
The lesson is clear: If you object to the corrupt practices at financial giants like Countrywide and Bank of America, you will be marginalized and financially ruined. And even if you think you’ve won, over time you will lose. “No one who receives a jury verdict can feel safe,” Winston said. His actions – filing a health and safety complaint and refusing to misrepresent material facts for the company – are supposed to be protected by law. None of that mattered. Says Winston, “If I can’t get this case heard, why would any whistle-blower speak up?”,
just a few examples ... there are many more
http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/nation/the-top-10-richest-politicians-in-the-united-states/
http://www.rollcall.com/50richest/the-50-richest-members-of-congress-112th.html
http://www.ringoffireradio.com/2013/09/governor-rick-scott-still-hiding-money/
http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/lists/celebrity-salary/senator-salary/
Thanks for your post. Helpful T/A at the EOWs
gl
Paraphrasing to William Black, former Bank Regulator: Finance “is the only field in America where you can commit fraud with impunity and even after you get caught, you can buy your way out of it. And not with your money, mind you, but with shareholders’ money,”
Gl
Thnx for the info! Hope the earnings are good!
Foreclosures dog even wealthiest home buyers
Why banks deny mortgages to some high-earning Americans
Most lenders who offer private jumbo mortgages, which start after $417,000 in most parts of the country and at $625,501 in pricier housing markets, remain very selective and limit themselves to borrowers with the strongest credit profiles.
Borrowers who intentionally default—the ones who walked away from their homes—are less likely to be approved for another mortgage soon after. Lenders that originate private jumbos often follow guidelines set by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which require strategic defaulters to have re-established their credit profile for at least seven years after foreclosure in order to get a mortgage.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/foreclosures-dog-even-wealthiest-home-buyers-2013-10-18
Yeap never a dull moment! Hope it goes higher of the 52 week high!
Looking good today!
The difference is that the Shareholders would receive less dividends.... tiny point
Go FnF!!!
This guy doesn't know what the sarcasm is? lol
Go FnF!
Stocks in Focus: Federal National Mortgage Association (OTCBB:FNMA), Sprint Corporation (NYSE:S), Molycorp Inc (NYSE:MCP), Bank of America Corp
http://www.sbwire.com/press-releases/stocks-in-focus-federal-national-mortgage-association-otcbbfnma-sprint-corporation-nyses-molycorp-inc-nysemcp-bank-of-america-corp-360458.htm
Goooo FnF!!
Federal National Mortgage Association : News Release - Fiscal Debate Weighs on Fragile Economic..
"Our October economic and housing forecast is largely unchanged from the previous forecast as we anticipated the modest levels of consumer spending seen toward the end of the third quarter. However, fiscal uncertainties associated with the federal government shutdown, the protracted negotiations to raise the debt ceiling, and the timing of the Federal Reserve's tapering of its asset purchase program, pose significant downside risks to economic activity in the current quarter," said Fannie Mae Chief Economist Doug Duncan. "In particular, the contentious Congressional negotiations that led ultimately to Congress raising the debt ceiling may have a lingering effect on consumer attitudes and spending, as was seen following the 2011 negotiations."
"On the bright side, these fiscal policy issues appear to have had only minimal effect on the housing market to date, which continues to improve overall," said Duncan. "Notably, the rapid appreciation of home prices during the past year has contributed significantly to household net worth gains and may help to cushion some of the fallout from the fiscal policy debate. Also, the Fed's continuation of securities purchases will likely keep mortgage rates low, enabling more homeowners to take advantage of refinance opportunities."
http://www.4-traders.com/FEDERAL-NATIONAL-MORTGAGE-6383239/news/Federal-National-Mortgage-Association--News-Release-Fiscal-Debate-Weighs-on-Fragile-Economic-17372655/
What a lack of originality!! Again based on the Corker-Warner bill?
Well, just another with the same fate, trash can
Go FnF!