It looks more and more like the foreclosure scandal is a symptom of a larger problem.
American Banker’s Jeff Horwitz has another excellent report today on JPMorgan Chase’s debt-collection practices, which his sources say included robosigned affadavits, shredded documents, jury-rigged computer systems, hired sketchy third-party lawyers, fired whistleblowers, and emphasized recovering money at the cost of accuracy and ordered employees to take shortcuts to do so. All of this resulted, in the testimony of a whistleblower, in thousands of accounts Chase sold to debt collectors where it didn’t even have the balances correct. If you had to bet whether the “vast majority” of the balances were too high or too low, which would you guess? You’d be right.
This story sheds more light on why Chase suddenly quit launching debt-collection lawsuits last year. The Banker also reports that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has been investigating Chase’s practices since at least late last year.
They’re investigating things like this:
Among the files Chase was selling, Almonte said, were former Providian Financial Corp debts that had previously belonged to the failed Washington Mutual. (JPMorgan acquired Wamu’s assets from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in 2008.) The Providian files had been labeled with a code that that the credit card litigation group used to signal “toxic waste,” she says.
Another person familiar with the files confirmed that the Providian accounts were commonly referred to with that term. The debt had long been considered unreliable and lacked documentation. It was never supposed to be sold, this person says.
A review of state court records shows that second-hand debt buyers are suing people who allegedly owe money on the Chase-Wamu-Providian accounts, however. Informed that the files have surfaced in court, the former Chase employee who confirmed the files’ “toxic” status was appalled.
And this:
It’s worth emphasizing the similarities between what the Banker is reporting here and what happened in the foreclosure scandal, which the big banks, including Chase, just settled for $25 billion (which to be sure is not all being paid by the banks).
It raises the question of whether Chase was an outlier in debt colletion of if this was —like robosigning and forging documents in foreclosuregate, which the banks pooh-poohed the foreclosure scandal as “technicalities.” —effectively the industry standard. We have part of the picture, but not a complete one. Horwitz and the Banker have been on this angle, too, naturally.
The Chase story raises even more fundamental questions about trust. If a giant bank like JPMorgan Chase can’t figure out (or doesn’t want to figure out) how much it is actually owed by people it’s sent to collections, it raises questions about the plumbing of the financial system:
TSYS only handles current accounts, however. When customers stop paying credit card bills, their accounts are passed to TCSF, for collections and litigation, and eventually to RMS for charge-offs.
Each of Chase’s systems handles its own tasks just fine. The problem employees faced is that TCSF and RMS can only talk to each other through TSYS, and each of the systems operates by its own rules. This means that when presented with the question of how much a customer owes, each might spit out a different answer.
Which makes me think: I can’t remember the last time I balanced a checkbook.

Taibbi does a followup on this story which is interesting considering all the backlash whistleblowers get around here:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/j-p-morgan-chases-ugly-family-secrets-revealed-20120313
"One of the things we were promised by the lawmakers who passed the Dodd-Frank reform bill a few years back is that this would be a new era for whistleblowers who come forward to tell the world about problems in our financial infrastructure. This story now looms as a test case for that proposition. American Banker reporter Jeff Horwitz did an outstanding job in this story detailing the sweeping irregularities in-house at Chase, but his very thoroughness means the news may have ramifications for Linda, which is why I'm urging people to pay attention to this story in the upcoming weeks...
She has been repeatedly harassed and has gone through all sorts of personal hardship as a result of this incident. She filed a whistleblower claim with the SEC as part of the new whistleblower program created by Dodd-Frank, but so far there's been no progress there...
Almonte, after being fired, entered into a modest settlement with Chase that prohibited her from coming forward publicly. At the time she entered into the settlement she was in an extremely desperate state, and she made a bad decision, taking a very bad deal.
Still, like Jeffery Wygand, the tobacco scientist from the movie The Insider, she was sitting on top of a story that, morally speaking, should not ever be protected by a confidentiality agreement -- and the subsequent lack of regulatory action eventually moved her to speak out to people like Horvitz and me. Of course, now that her story is out there in public, the concern is that the bank will move swiftly to take her to court.
This person does not have any money, so an action by Chase at this point would be purely punitive, to send a message to future whistleblowers. They'll be more likely to do it if they think no one is paying attention. I'll keep you posted on that score.
In the meantime, please check out Horvitz's piece. It should give everyone who has a credit card pause."
This is a nasty industry.
#1 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 14 Mar 2012 at 12:24 PM
And it looks like more whistleblowers have come out:
http://www.iwatchnews.org/2012/03/09/8359/new-whistleblower-cases-allege-continued-bank-fraud
And others are making big public appeals to their former employers to change their culture:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/opinion/why-i-am-leaving-goldman-sachs.html
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 14 Mar 2012 at 12:34 PM
Not that thos appeals are making a difference:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/guy-who-rented-all-94-rooms-of-aspen-hotel-for-party-scores-awesome-new-goldman-job-20120312
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 14 Mar 2012 at 12:36 PM
Documents weren't simply misplaced: Chase shredded incoming correspondence such as records of borrower payments and counter-judgments extinguishing debts, Almonte alleged in her wrongful termination suit.
While none of the people who spoke with American Banker witnessed this, McGinn says she also heard colleagues acknowledge that some correspondence had been destroyed.
padikiller responds: I see the Chittum 5000 Black Helicopters are cruising along in attack formation again!
Now THERE is some rock-solid evidence!
Hearsay from former employees.
Stop the damned presses!
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 14 Mar 2012 at 02:27 PM
Oh, I beg your pardon...
We have not only hearsay from a former employee but also the uncorroborated allegations take from a lawsuit filed by a disgruntled employee!
Proof positive in the realm of Thimbilistic Chittumism!
#5 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 14 Mar 2012 at 03:27 PM
Whistleblowers are all disgruntled employees who persecute innocent banks. Got it.
http://www.housingwire.com/article/jpmorgan-settles-veteran-loan-case-45-million
If only the rest of the world got the message, maybe those deadbeat troops wouldn't have caused JP Morgan such a headache.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 14 Mar 2012 at 08:23 PM
Oh look, it's me being a broken record again:
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/03/senator-grassley-calls-attorney-general-holders-bluff.html
Eric Holder is poison, like Geithner, like Summers. The people of the elite white collar persuasion will never suffer full investigation/penalty under the law. Why? Let's look at BP:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/12/bp-oil-spill-gulf-of-mexico-oil-lobbyists_n_1335556.html
"BP didn't just find itself spending hefty sums on legislation related to the Gulf spill. The company fought efforts to close tax loopholes that it and others in the oil industry enjoy. It paid Covington & Burling LLP $450,000 to help ensure that sanctions being placed on Iran exempted a BP-led natural gas project, according to disclosure reports."
Eric Holder's old firm is a BP lobbyist. They are members of the club. Obama will likely have to hit BP up for campaign cash. What does this mean?
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 15 Mar 2012 at 02:49 AM
It will likely mean this:
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2011/03/new_bp_oil_spill_task_force_is.html
"David Uhlmann, a law professor at the University of Michigan, was Stewart's boss at the Environmental Crimes Section from 2000 to 2007. Uhlmann said it's surprisingly late in such a critical case for the Justice Department to start up a task force -- and odd to do so with the Criminal Division in charge.
He said the Criminal Division could be more willing to let corporations escape with a deferred prosecution agreement, a tool that's become more popular in the last decade. Such an agreement allows corporate defendants to escape the stigma of a criminal conviction by admitting wrongdoing, paying large fines and meeting various deadlines for reforming their operations.
"A deferred prosecution for causing the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history would be a miscarriage of justice," Uhlmann said. "The Criminal Division should just say no to a deferred prosecution, but the shift of the case to the Criminal Division may put the possibility of a deferred prosecution on the table.""
May put a deferred prosecution on the table? Deferred prosecutions are always on the table baby!
We're living through the end of American Psycho, where Bateman veneer of sanity collapses and he's a plain psychotic to everyone looking, but no one is. No one cares to contain him. He cannot be brought down:
"there is no catharsis; my punishment continues to elude me, and I gain no deeper knowledge of myself. No new knowledge can be extracted from my telling. This confession has meant nothing."
These people could destroy the world and the government would ask if they would like to cut a deal - no guilt, no wrong doing, just a fine and a promise not to do it again.
How many times are we going to let them destroy our world? How many times are we going to let them off with a deal?
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 15 Mar 2012 at 03:12 AM
What our executive club, deferred prosecution mentality has led to:
http://robertreich.org/post/19266068257
"But America’s problem isn’t a breakdown in private morality. It’s a breakdown in public morality. What Americans do in their bedrooms is their own business. What corporate executives and Wall Street financiers do in boardrooms and executive suites affects all of us.
There is moral rot in America but it’s not found in the private behavior of ordinary people. It’s located in the public behavior of people who control our economy and are turning our democracy into a financial slush pump. It’s found in Wall Street fraud, exorbitant pay of top executives, financial conflicts of interest, insider trading, and the outright bribery of public officials through unlimited campaign “donations.”
Political scientist James Q. Wilson, who died last week, noted that a broken window left unattended signals that no one cares if windows are broken. It becomes an ongoing invitation to throw more stones at more windows, ultimately undermining moral standards of the entire community
The windows Wall Street broke in the years leading up to the crash of 2008 remain broken. Despite financial fraud on a scale not seen in this country for more than eighty years, not a single executive of a major Wall Street bank has been charged with a crime."
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 15 Mar 2012 at 12:43 PM
Thimbles quoted some liberal: "What Americans do in their bedrooms is their own business."
padikiller responds: Unless you're Sandra Fluke, that is... In which case your sex life (or the sex lives of your buddies) deserves a public airing in the Capitol and financing by others by force of the Gubmint...
#10 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 16 Mar 2012 at 12:06 AM
Bank of America gets trashed by taibbi:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/bank-of-america-too-crooked-to-fail-20120314
But damn if it will make a difference. Contrast the difference between justice for BoA, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and the rest of the crooks and ordinary Americans:
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/efficient-frontier-tradeoffs-and-plea-bargaining/
"An increase in plea bargains should require an almost mechanical tradeoff in a decrease in average sentence length. If you are taking a plea bargain you should get a shorter sentence than if you had gone to trial and lost, therefore more guilty plea bargains should increase the proportionate of shorter sentences, lowering that number.
Yet during this time period you had both go up. No tradeoff! Which you can do if you pass harsh mandatory minimum sentencing, remove discretion from judges and legally threaten people with harsher sentences for exercising their constitutional rights.
Stuntz also argues that arrests went up almost sevenfold with only a 60 percent increase in prosecutors – which gives you a sense of how efficiently this machine runs now."
One group of "legally defined" people get deferred prosecutions and bailouts potentially in the trillions and certainly in the billions. The other group of people get increased sentences and their constitutional right to trial coerced away, nowadays on silly laws lobbied for by private prison companies to fill their cells and boost their revenues.
Can anyone tell me what kind of damn country allows this?
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 16 Mar 2012 at 01:02 AM
Well, it's Taibbi this time, so next time it will be Krugman, right, Thimbles?
Whatever "rortybomb" has next on the menu.
He's got both kinds of spin... Liberal AND Progressive.
Thimbilistic Chittumism requires pointed, but entirely vague, accusations of fraud and thievery against unspecified "Wall Street" villains.
What Thimbilistic Chittumities do is take the unspecific allegations of disgruntled, fired employees who are suing their former employers for big money (otherwise known as "whistleblowers" in Chittumland) and they regurgitate and amplify these uncorroborated allegations, presenting them to readers as the Gospel Truth. Oh, and toss in a little hearsay to keep it interesting.
What they never do, is actually accuse any specific person of committing an actual crime or of committing any particular act of malfeasance...
Well... Almost never. Because when they do, they end up libeling people and things.
#12 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 16 Mar 2012 at 12:18 PM
I know Padi, we hate to libel people. Especially black muslim communists.
Meanwhile, the black muslim communist plan to persecute banks out of existence continues:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/03/16/ex-cbo-staffers-warnings-about-foreclosures-ignored/
"Dr. Lan Pham, a former senior staffer financial economist for the Congressional Budget Office, was fired from the organization for her attempts to quantify the economic implications of foreclosures and foreclosure fraud. The CBO rejected her analysis and even dismissed the notion that foreclosures cause a negative hit to the economy. The letter, from February 2011, was just released publicly today...
The release of this information should cause grave concern as to the legitimacy of CBO reports, and highlight the conspiracy of silence about foreclosure fraud issues, which official Washington simply does not want to deal with."
Only Maoists simply loath to deal with foreclosure fraud.
#13 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 16 Mar 2012 at 02:24 PM
Meanwhile, on the black muslim communist front, the elites defend elites and Obama protects the banks instead of overturning their tables like a good 'messiah' should.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/when-populism-is-sound/
"“Populism” is a loaded term in modern American politics. On the one hand, it conveys the idea that someone represents (or claims to represent) the broad mass of society against a privileged elite. This is a theme that plays well on the right as well as the left – although they sometimes have different ideas about who is in that troublesome “elite.”...
But there is still an undercurrent of resistance in Washington to policy ideas with widespread popular support. For example, when President Obama said to leading bankers in March 2009, “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks,” he was suggesting that people favoring a resolution process for large financial institutions — closing them down in an orderly fashion — were akin to some kind of a peasants’ revolt.
According to Mr. Obama’s framing of the issues, the administration sided with large banks that were in trouble at the beginning of his administration — and bailed them out repeatedly and on generous terms — because this was the responsible thing to do.
This was a mistake, with lasting consequences for the American economy, because it further entrenched the power of these banks and the people who ran them into the ground...
In early 2009, the people who wanted to arrange the orderly liquidation of failed banks in the United States included Sheila Bair, the entirely reasonable and middle-of-the-road head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Ms. Bair was also an outspoken advocate of higher capital requirements and meaningful financial reform more broadly.
According to the definitive account published recently by Jesse Eisinger of ProPublica, she was opposed and largely thwarted not just by top political appointees (e.g., at the Treasury) but also by the Federal Reserve."
Because that's what black muslim communists do, is save the worst (often white) people within the worst banks from the impartial hands of justice and the market.
Does anyone get the feeling that the loudest critics of Obama have NO idea what they are talking about?
#14 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 17 Mar 2012 at 05:45 PM