Bank of America is going to fork over $8.5 billion to mortgage-bond investors lied to by Countrywide Financial, the Wall Street Journal scoops. But the feds can’t find anybody at the company to charge with a crime?
You don’t settle anything for $8.5 billion unless you know you’ve done a lot of things very wrong. In this case, it was doings at Angelo Mozilo’s predatory lender Countrywide before BofA foolishly agreed to buy it in 2008.
The New York Times doesn’t ever get around to telling us just what Countrywide did that would prompt Bank of America to fork over such an ungodly amount of money. We’re told the investments “soured” and that Countrywide “symbolizes the excesses of the housing boom” and down in the tenth graph that BofA, JPMorgan Chase, and Citigroup “bundled troubled home loans and sold them as sound investments,” but that doesn’t really tell us what happened here.
The Journal is a bit better:
The dispute between Bank of America and the mortgage investors began last fall when they alleged in a letter to the bank that securities they scooped up before the financial crisis from Countrywide Financial Corp. were full of loans that didn’t meet sellers’ promises about the quality of the borrowers or the collateral. The investors also alleged Countrywide failed to maintain accurate files while managing the loans.
But I think we could have used some more detail on what exactly happened there. Both stories are awfully BofA-centric, focusing on what the settlement means for the bank. That’s fine, but more context on what it means for investors and what this tells us about what happened during the bubble would have been nice. Like, were there any actual bad actors here, or did the toxic CDOs assemble themselves and pitch lies to investors about their contents?
Both papers report that the settlement would cover all $424 billion of mortgage bonds issued by Countrywide. Yves Smith points out that means the $8.5 billion settlement is 2 percent of the total, which she calls a “screaming bargain.” One thing I’d like to have known is how much those $424 billion in bonds are worth now or at least a rough estimate of the value they’ve lost.
The Journal notes that this will only increase the pressure on Bank of America’s peers to agree to giant settlements for screwing investors.
Smith also says this about why BofA settled:
…the issue would not just be Bank of America’s exposure to losses but the damage that could be done in discovery. And that damage comes on multiple fronts: the continuing bad press and resultant damage to the stock price of the sordid details of of how dreadful Countrywide was, and the revelations serving as grist for litigation by other investors….
More broadly, this development at a minimum shows that Bank of America to be running scared. I wonder what other shoes might be about to drop on the mortgage front.
I’m glad Smith brings that up about discovery. It’s almost never mentioned in news coverage of settlements, but it ought to be: A good part of the point is to stop damaging information from coming out in court.
The size of this settlement also raises questions about what federal regulators are doing. How come private investors can do this but regulators can’t?
Re: discovery...It was an excellent point. That's why lawsuits against auditors almost always settle. They don't want the secrets of the trade - how the sausage is made - to come out in discovery. The audit opinion is a worthless product required by government fiat that feeds an oligopoly and gives false comfort to investors, at least the unsophisticated ones.
#1 Posted by Francine McKenna, CJR on Thu 30 Jun 2011 at 05:19 PM
What about those of us who were given falsely concocted loans based on assurances from Brokers that "everything is fine and we can always refinance at a later date"?? what about Countrywide charging thousands of dollars in interest up front on modifications?
#2 Posted by Mona Bloom , CJR on Thu 21 Jul 2011 at 11:30 AM
The $108 million payout for Countrywide, what a joke! I got my check today, $18. Yes, eighteen dollars!
#3 Posted by Jill, CJR on Mon 1 Aug 2011 at 07:23 PM
Allow me a few bullets.
Details about what they did - acted just like drug lords. They "stepped" on the product and passed it on for sale. They have three sets of books / files - one for the customers, one for the Agencies and auditors, and the third (with all the details of the scam) for themselves. One can also assume that there are very many indirect forms of the proverbial brown envelopes. In short, it is organized crime which cannot be engaged in without significant corruption in the business and political sphere.
Is there other damaging information? Yes such money laundering. Wells Fargo and B of A were involved in money laundering for the narco mafia in Mexico. Wells Fargo laundered and estimated $400 billion over a six year period and settled for $160 million. In 100 dollar bills, $400 billion weighs approximately 8, 800,000 pounds and covers 16 square miles – but they missed it. The justice department folds like a fan every time.
So what is the justice department doing - settling at a record rate and executives such as Robert Rubin can sign off on Sarbanes-Oxley and never fear criminal charges.
It is all fraud and grand theft financial - there is no elite corporate, political, or criminal justice leadership – just very well organized financial crime. All the gangs add up to a loosely cooperative cartel.
There is no free market only a rigged one. There is no “perfect” completion, but rather oligarchy. And the justice department at the highest levels is in on the scam – their technique – settlement.
The public got its poster boy Madoff - now they should go away and be good American mushrooms.
By the way has anyone ever figured out what John Negroponte was engaged in when he was “Uberfuhrer” at the SEC? Cyber shredding! Is he still there? Anyone, anyone? Bueller, Bueller?
#4 Posted by Paul Camacho, CJR on Thu 22 Dec 2011 at 12:38 PM
Ah Exuse me Federal Agents..who wrote the mortgages out and presented them to the buyers and then looked over documents and notarised them and then sold them to countrywide? Why did 210,0000 employed workers walk away from homes? Is is because the mortgage department called the Home retention department was not listening and helping? Why did the lawsuit require subpoena of everyhome that foreclosed in 2006-2009? Why was the investors insistent on 80/20 or 70/30 instead of a fixed conventional. Screw the balloon rate. Why would a mortgage lender even consider allowing this type of mortgage to be sold? This is a high risk that will never pay off . No mortgage is higher than a 9 percent and any other rate over that is an line of credit in which the mobsters use the terminology :"Loan sharking". In today's world we do not offer "loan Sharking" It is illegal and it causes death amongst our nation. Noone should be subjected to a loan shark.
Lisa Pilato
#5 Posted by lisa pilato, CJR on Sat 31 Dec 2011 at 01:43 PM
Keep online. The positive attribute was to sell homes upfront so that the investors would gain a profit to invest. What did this do for our economy? If 210,000 people walked away just in the time frame of 2007-2009 how can a mortgage lender(s) really have time to compute all huds? This just know got resolved after Mr. Obama in May 2009 granted fannymae. MHA still exists however with the new labor market we can pay off these loans but they must be recalucated. What would happen if the mortgage fixed rate was to be paid off and than they want to invest in another duplex what would you do with the balloon rate called "loan Sharking" (20 percent). No mha goverment would ever participate in this type nor would the whitehouse or the capital of dca. This is a very risky but shady way of selling homes and the investor(s) uses this to front other homes. Yes loan sharking in real estate. In the days prior callede " the good old boys" You would walk in to a joint and demand a loan the mafia would give you the funds at a high rate and than demand if you did't pay it off when they wanted you to they would not only hurt your family but shoot you down in the streets of ny. Today we do not do business this way. We use the lates t technology and offer the lowest rate on the table. Like 1 percent. Even 0 percent for the first 4 years and than on the fith year we offer 2 percent.
Lisa
#6 Posted by lisa pilato, CJR on Sat 31 Dec 2011 at 01:59 PM