The Center for Public Integrity’s Michael Hudson continues one of the most important series of the last year, on how the mortgage industry ignored or crushed whistleblowers who tried to point out systemic fraud during the bubble.
Today, Hudson turns his focus to blue-chip General Electric, which was one of the biggest and worst subprime lenders during the bubble through its WMC Mortgage Corporation unit. Hudson finds several former mortgage-company employees, including some high-level ones, to talk about fraud and how it was effectively condoned, which is sort of the formula for this series and a story in itself on pervasive fraud was. Indeed, it’s eerie how often X-acto knives, Wite-Out, and copy machines appear across various companies.
Riedel also helped work on a computer program designed to dig out fraud across the company’s loan portfolio. It sifted through a swarm of data, including evidence that many borrowers submitted multiple applications with income figures that mysteriously grew from one application to the next. Then it spit out a fraud alert flagging applications that appeared to have false information.
Riedel hoped, he says, that the company would use the data-tracking program on a real-time, wide-scale basis.
It was at a meeting about the computer program, Riedel says, that an executive declared “fraud pays” — explaining that it didn’t make sense to slow the gush of loans going through the company’s pipeline, because losses due to fraud were small compared to the money the lender was making from selling huge volumes of loans.
The anti-fraud algorithm was never put into regular use, Riedel says.
— It’s not easy to out-centrist the Washington Post editorial page, but Bloomberg View managed to do that with its editorial taking Obama to task for his recess appointments to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and National Labor Relations Board, neither of which could actually operate without new appointees.
The Post today calls it a “justifiable ‘power grab’” by the president:
Every three days or so, a lone senator enters the chamber and gavels in a seconds-long, pro forma session; a bipartisan agreement mandated that the sessions would proceed “with no business conducted.” With the Senate in session, critics argue, the president is prohibited from exercising his power to make recess appointments. Some also note that neither chamber can adjourn without the consent of the other. Lawmakers left for the holidays without such an agreement…
The Constitution vests the president with the power to fill vacant executive- and judicial-branch slots when the Senate is in recess. This power should not be undermined — indeed, nullified — through the use of ploys. To argue that phantom pro forma sessions render the Senate “open for business” is to defy common sense. The same holds true for the fiction created when lawmakers head out of town but decline to formally acknowledge an adjournment.
— You know things are bad when the Federal Reserve is weighing in on the side of consumers, pushing the Obama administration and the rest of the federal government to, like, do something about the housing market, which has been collapsing for half a decade now.
The Financial Times focuses on how New York Fed chief William Dudley is even calling for principal reductions, funded by investors and taxpayers, in order to stabilize the market.
The New York Fed chief say taxpayers could help save hundreds of thousands of households that experience a debilitating job loss from foreclosure over the next few years by providing them with a temporary loan to cover their monthly mortgage.
Although taxpayers would spend about $15bn a year, he said, the cost would largely be recouped through repayments and the savings achieved by staving off mass foreclosures.
To prevent a “bail-out” of lenders, Mr Dudley said that creditors should be required to reduce borrowers’ “excess debt” as a condition of taxpayer aid.
No comment from the Obama administration, whose half-hearted policies spent less than 5 percent of the meager funds allocated for homeowner bailouts.

Quick note. A link needs a fix. Should be "The Center for Public Integrity’s Michael Hudson continues one of the most important series... Cheers.
#1 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 6 Jan 2012 at 11:08 PM
Here come the Chittum 5000 Black Helicopters again!... In full Whisper Mode, of course!
Once again... We have yet another of Ryan's so-called "whistleblowers" (otherwise known as a disgruntled ex-employee with a huge ax to grind) who claims, without corroboration of any sort of course, that at some unspecified "meeting" at some unspecified place at some unspecified time, some unnamed GE "executive" allegedly said "fraud pays".
STOP THE DAMNED PRESSES!...
I mean, if your mother says she loves you... Check it out.. Journalism 101, and all that.
But if some "whistleblower" says that some guy said something that made some corporation look bad at some place at some time.... Now, that IS an "important story" in Chittumland (unless the corporations happen to be Solyndra or MF Global, which Ryan says aren't worth bothering about).
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 7 Jan 2012 at 04:30 PM
It appears the SEC is reacting to well deserved judicial activism.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/business/sec-to-change-policy-on-companies-admission-of-guilt.html
"Under the new policy, a civil settlement will cite the admission of conduct or conviction in the corresponding criminal case, Mr. Khuzami said. But the S.E.C.’s enforcement staff will have discretion whether to use relevant facts from the criminal case in its own court documents for the civil case.
Last year, the S.E.C. encountered the conflict between simultaneous admission and nonadmission of facts in three other cases involving bid-rigging by large Wall Street firms. S.E.C. officials declined to comment on whether additional cases could result from the Wall Street bid-rigging.
Mr. Khuzami said the policy change had been under consideration since last spring and had been discussed with commissioners “over the last several months.”..
In drafting a settlement of securities fraud charges, companies frequently seek the “neither admit nor deny” language for fear that their acknowledgment of the conduct could be used against them in shareholder lawsuits seeking damages. But legal experts say that safe harbor does not apply when a company has admitted facts in a criminal case...
In November, Jed S. Rakoff, a Federal District Court judge in New York, rejected an S.E.C. settlement with Citigroup over securities fraud charges and was sharply critical of the practice. He said the “neither admit nor deny” language deprived the court of the facts necessary to determine if the punishment was adequate because it meant that there were no established facts on which to base a decision."
Still, so freaking weak. They're still going to let companies to pay fines without admitting guilt, they just won't do it when the justice department has also pressed charges. Baby steps to justice I guess.
As Taibbi said:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/iowa-the-meaningless-sideshow-begins-20120103
"The real fight against the status quo is coming in places like the Supreme Court of Montana, which with this recent ruling correctly identified the real battle lines in the upcoming political season by boldly rejecting the concept of unlimited corporate campaign spending.
It’s coming in places like the courthouse of federal Judge Jed Rakoff, who recently rejected a dirty settlement deal between the SEC and Citigroup. It’s on the streets in the OWS protests and even in the Tea Party, which in recent years unseated countless Republican party lifer-stooges over their support of the bailouts (like Utah Senator Robert Bennett, who was hounded at a party convention with chants of “TARP, TARP, TARP!”).
This widespread and growing movement against the twin corrupting influences of money on our politics and state patronage on big business is going on everywhere – on the streets, in these courthouses, in the homes of people refusing to move after foreclosure, even in the antitax movements and the campaigns against state pensions.
The only place we can be absolutely sure this battle will not be found is in any national presidential race between Barack Obama and someone like Mitt Romney."
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 8 Jan 2012 at 05:56 PM
OK...
It's Taibbi this time....
So it must be for Enron advisor Paul Krugman in the next Thimbles post....
Predictable yes, though tiresome, indeed...
Thimbles has both kinds... Country AND Western....
If any of your screwy leftists (who can no longer be called "commies" under Pravda's... er, I mean CJR's new commenting policy) can actually name a real, living human being who committed an actual, identifiable crime at some truly existent point in the history of the present Universe... Then by all means, I'm with you!
But until and unless one of you guys can do this... Spin down the rotors on your Chittum 5000 Black Helicopters and engage the Reality, dudes...
The world will be a better place for it.
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 9 Jan 2012 at 01:15 AM
Do not presume that you have standing to lecture anyone on "tiresome", Padi; especially with that pull cord on your back rendering you capable of 5, maybe 6, unique posts.
"Whirrrrr! 5000 black helicopters in whisper mode. Whirrrr! Pravada -no I mean cjr's- commenting policy. Whirrrr! Give me the name of a climate computer model... I'm desperately lonely. Whirrrr!"
Physician, try not to suck thyself.
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 9 Jan 2012 at 02:13 AM
poor little padi that oligarch lap dog.
#6 Posted by sergio, CJR on Mon 9 Jan 2012 at 10:52 PM
I suppose "oligarch" is the new "plutocrat"....
Well, give it a rest.
If and when you guys can do a little better than "some disgruntled ex-employee with a financial incentive says in some press release that at some unspecified place at some unspecified time some unspecified person said something that makes a company look bad"....
If and when you can do better than this...
Then I'll join you on your Chittum 5000 Black Helicopter mission..
#7 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 10 Jan 2012 at 08:24 AM
You see in Padiworld, when massive documented fraud takes place in the making of mortgages (so much so that robo-signers are hired to forge the documents necessary to clean it up), in the selling of securities (so much so that senate committees have to discuss in detail the intricacies of "that was a shitty deal" emails), and in general business everywhere (thus the banks are paying billions to settle suits brought by the government to cover their crimes without admitting guilt and offering billions more to get a blanket agreement to protect them from prosecution) all the bad stuff was done by gnomes. Nameless gnomes. Anyone who says different is disgruntled or is ridding on the Black Helicopter Ride in Looney Lib Land, where every liberal looks like Jafar and attacks innocent banks for doing good business. *Wields Jafar cane* "Soooocialism! Freeeee Health Care!"
In the real world, we have the evidence of crime listed above and no police willing to investigate it, and padi wishes the tricksie journalists would stop talking to former and current employees that keep saying "yeah, all that shoddy paperwork? We were totally doing it. And the executives knew about it. We were making huge bank, you know."
It would be awesome if padi could just convince us all to blame Freddy and Fannie and forget the banks.
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 10 Jan 2012 at 11:24 AM
Thimbles whines and prevaricates: "padi wishes the tricksie journalists would stop talking to former and current employees"
padikiller responds: Hardly...
Indeed,as I have plainly argued, they need to talk them more!....
Like maybe by asking a few of those "question-thingies" that "journalists" are supposed to be asking, instead of giving disgruntled, financially motivated former employees anti-corporate soapboxes on which to stand...
A few of the question-thingies to be asked:
1. WHO committed a crime that you witnessed?
2. WHEN did it occur?
3. WHAT was the crime?
4. WHERE did it happen?
5. WHY haven't you reported this crime to the police?
6. DO you have a financial or other motive related to your claims of misconduct?
7. If you refuse to answer questions 1-6 above... WHY do you refuse?
The day we see Chittum or any of his so-called "professional alt.journalist" buddies asking any of these questions of his purported "whistleblowers" will be a snowy day in Hell, that's for sure...
#9 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 10 Jan 2012 at 01:39 PM