Pilant's Business Ethics

Business Ethics Blog

Tag: Rortybomb (Page 1 of 2)

Michael Bloomberg: ‘It Was Not The Banks That Created The Mortgage Crisis’ [WATCH]

Republican backed nominee Michael Bloomberg

Image via Wikipedia

Michael Bloomberg: ‘It Was Not The Banks That Created The Mortgage Crisis’ [WATCH]

The saddest thing about this is that he might very well believe this nonsense.

This idea has been debunked so many times, it’s ridiculous but it’s like one of those vampire movies, there’s always a sequel.

Here’s a good take down from Rortybomb.

James Pilant

“I hear your complaints,” Bloomberg said at a Tuesday business breakfast. “Some of them are totally unfounded. It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp.”

Michael Bloomberg: ‘It Was Not The Banks That Created The Mortgage Crisis’ [WATCH]

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Elizabeth Warren Is Still the Best Choice for CFPB Director (via Rortybomb)

Just like the writers at Rortybomb I have long believed that Elizabeth Warren was the best choice.

I have written about this before. You can read my July 26, 2010 post – Elizabeth Warren Should Be The Head Of The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or the July 24th, 2010 post –  Treasury Makes A Mistake – Claiming They Are Not Blocking Elizabeth Warren (via The Baseline Scenario).

Please read the post and add Rortybomb to your favorites.

James Pilant

Why Elizabeth Warren Is Still the Best Choice for CFPB Director The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau just launched its website. Meanwhile, Shahien Nasiripour has a story that found “… if the White House can’t get a nominee through the Senate by July, the bureau will lack the authority to supervise nonbank lenders, according to a Jan. 10 report by the inspectors general of the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve obtained by The Huffington Post.” One of the main reasons for creating a Consumer Financi … Read More

via Rortybomb

BOA: BAD BANK, BAD BANK, WORSE BANK (via Livinglies’s Weblog) Part of The Foreclosure Crisis

Right!

This is how I feel as well. It’s a good read. Be warned, he’s really upset. But so am I when I’m dealing with this issue.

Here is my writing on the same subject. You can see that I get passionate about foreclosures too.

Robo-Signing Foreclosure Freeze Update (via Foreclosureblues)

Lots of Links on the Foreclosure Fraud Crisis (via Rortybomb)

“We Can Either Have a Rational Resolution to the Foreclosure Crisis or We Can Preserve the Capital Structure of the Banks. We Can’t Do Both” (via Foreclosureblues)

Sheldon Whitehouse Weighs In On The Foreclosure Crisis

Third Way Comments on Foreclosure Fraud Policy in the Post-Ibanez Landscape (via Rortybomb)

Foreclosure Speed Made Loan Modifications Impossible

The Vast Majority Of Foreclosures Were Done Correctly?

In total, I have 46 posts about the mortgage crisis.

James Pilant

BOA: BAD BANK, BAD BANK, WORSE BANK COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary Bank of America to Create Troubled Loans Unit BANK STILL ATTEMPTING TO KEEP FORECLOSURES A POLITICAL ISSUE AS LEGAL OPTIONS RUN OUT EDITOR’S NOTE: As for what this means for homeowners, it is obvious that BOA is trying to come up with some formula that will be politically acceptable the final result of which will still be that they will get hundreds of thousands o … Read More

via Livinglies’s Weblog

Enhanced by Zemanta

Third Way Comments on Foreclosure Fraud Policy in the Post-Ibanez Landscape (via Rortybomb)

Once again another policy recommendation that would free the banks and their mortgage foreclosure lackeys for any responsibility for their acts. It never stops. It never will. A citizen would be found in contempt and thrown in jail for what they have done. A citizen would have been tried in court for selling property they did not own and covicted of fraud. And if a citizen went to court and said we don’t need any legal documents from the court house, we have a computer system, they would be laughed to scorn.

Read Rortybomb and get the full scope of these apologists’ recommendations.

James Pilant

You can tell that the landscape is changing.  Third Way has just released a memo titled Fixing “Foreclosure-gate” which details out a policy solution to the current foreclosure fraud crisis. That the post-Ibenez landscape is so drastically different that groups are mobilizing in a policy way should tell us that things may move in Congress, and we need to be ready. There’s been some fantastic writing on the memo that I’ll point you to – Yves Smith … Read More

via Rortybomb

Banks Suffer Major Setback: The Use of MERS – electronic property transfers – is not valid for mortgage foreclosures

When foreclosing on mortgages the banks have been skipping the rule of law. They have not followed the rules for the transfer of property preferring to pretend that their electronic records, MERS, are a viable substitute. I never believed the courts would go along with that and the Massachusetts court did not. Here’s the story from that excellent blog, Rortybomb.

From RortybombBig Week in Foreclosure News

The biggest news is the decision in Massachusetts’ “Ibanez case”, where the Massachusetts Supreme Court voided the seizures of two homes by Wells Fargo and US Bank based on their inability to show that they owned the mortgages at the time of foreclosure. Tracy Alloway walks you through the case, David Dayen has more including the PDF of the decision, and analysis from Yves Smith and Felix Salmon.

From the opinion: “Where, as here, mortgage loans are pooled together in a trust and converted into mortgage-backed securities, the underlying promissory notes serve as financial instruments generating a potential income stream for investors, but the mortgages securing these notes are still legal title to someone’s home or farm and must be treated as such.”

They ruled through Massachusetts law instead of New York law, so no answers on looming New York trust law. Bank stocks are down. This is likely to have major implications down the road. We’ll have more on this opinion later.

I do not believe the ruling will stand. Congress will ride to the rescue of the banks legalizing their reckless disregard for state law and afflicting the suffering homeowners with even more pain. Congress will enact it. Obama will sign it. He will then explain it as a major legislative victory. Everything he does merits a press release and a couple of morning show appearances demonstrating his successful legislative record.

I wish there was someone somewhere who was as concerned with the rights and privileges of the American middle class and less concerned with the welfare of the banks.

James Pilant

Enhanced by Zemanta

Banks Suffer Major Setback

When foreclosing on mortgages the banks have been skipping the rule of law. They have not followed the rules for the transfer of property preferring to pretend that their electronic records are a viable substitute. I never believed the courts would go along with that and the Massachusetts court did not. Here’s the story from that excellent blog, Rortybomb.

From RortybombBig Week in Foreclosure News

The biggest news is the decision in Massachusetts’ “Ibanez case”, where the Massachusetts Supreme Court voided the seizures of two homes by Wells Fargo and US Bank based on their inability to show that they owned the mortgages at the time of foreclosure. Tracy Alloway walks you through the case, David Dayen has more including the PDF of the decision, and analysis from Yves Smith and Felix Salmon.

From the opinion: “Where, as here, mortgage loans are pooled together in a trust and converted into mortgage-backed securities, the underlying promissory notes serve as financial instruments generating a potential income stream for investors, but the mortgages securing these notes are still legal title to someone’s home or farm and must be treated as such.”

They ruled through Massachusetts law instead of New York law, so no answers on looming New York trust law. Bank stocks are down. This is likely to have major implications down the road. We’ll have more on this opinion later.

I do not believe the ruling will stand. Congress will ride to the rescue of the banks legalizing their reckless disregard for state law and afflicting the suffering homeowners with even more pain. Congress will enact it. Obama will sign it. He will then explain it as a major legislative victory. Everything he does merits a press release and a couple of morning show appearances demonstrating his successful legislative record.

I wish there was someone somewhere who was as concerned with the rights and privileges of the American middle class and less concerned with the welfare of the banks.

James Pilant

On Fighting And Losing Well, Financial Reform Edition (via Rortybomb)

On Fighting And Losing Well, Financial Reform Edition (via Rortybomb)

Rortybomb is one of my favorite web sites. Here, is a discussion of the efforts necessary to shape the new regulations on financial transactions in a more effective way. It’s a very sad story to me because the people (the President) we thought would be pushing for effective legislation were only interested in photo op legislation when the country needed better. You can’t have strong business ethics without your elected official having a strong devotion to law, justice, and in particular, accountability.

James Pilant

From Rortybomb

Last week I wrote about President Obama and losing poorly, about how he loses in a way that doesn’t build toward long-term liberal goals, that leaves his enemies stronger and in control of the narrative while splitting his supporters. I want to talk about this argument and financial reform, specifically how the progressive community was able to overcome it. I would argue that the progressive community fought financial reform well for two key reasons.

A Community of Experts

The first is that Americans for Financial Reform (AFR), Roosevelt Institute, the financial blogosphere and many others found a large number of experts, built them up and deployed them in ways that pushed for stronger concrete changes. On Roosevelt’s end alone, our Make Markets Be Markets conference and Will It Work? How Will We Know? conferences took experts working in a variety of different places and on a number of individual topics and brought them together.

These were experts in their fields who had a different, stronger vision of how the financial sector should be regulated than what was proposed by Treasury. They made strong recommendation, markers for what serious reform would look like. This builds us for the long run, as there are now experts with a strong vision who have been tested in the public sphere, experts that wonks, media, lawmaker and regulators can call on for expertise in the future. That’s building a community.

(It was also fun! Frustrating, hard-work, a complete pain-in-the-ass, disappointing at times, but fun. Matt Stoller pointed that out to me, that this kind of political community building should be fun, along with the smart insight that financial reform battles that are lost need to be lost in a way that builds coalitions. How many liberal groups had a fun 2010?)

For the second reason, you will have to go to the full article.

Rortybomb is eloquently stating what I and many others have come to realize, the President is not on our side. It doesn’t matter what he said. It doesn’t matter what he did. He’s not on our side.

So, we have to fight for issues just as if he were a neutral or hostile politician. This involves experts and grass roots campaigning.

If there was anything more plain in 2008 than the need to put a stop to the casino style gambling on Wall Street, I would have been hard pressed to name it. Yet, the President let this thing sit for almost a year and a half till a good part of the outrage died and then the President deliberately tried to weaken the bill and to some extent succeeded. This is pathetic.

Well, it’s not getting any better. The President of the United States has thousands of issues upon which he has not yet caved, not yet surrendered or not yet modified to the interests of monied interests. We get to watch.

James Pilant

P.S. If you would like a simple, easy new year’s resolution that will benefit you for the entire year, click on the link to Rortybomb and then add it to your favorites. You’ll never regret it. jp

From around the web –

From the web site, Long Crisis, Thoughts on a Brave New World:

In his statements, Obama, emphasizing the connection between Wall Street and ordinary citizens, recalled a speech he gave two years earlier at the same spot. “I believe in a strong financial sector that helps people to raise capital and get loans and invest their savings. That’s part of what has made America what it is,” the president said.

“But a free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it,” he said. “That’s what happened too often in the years leading up to this crisis. Some — and let me be clear, not all — on Wall Street forgot that behind every dollar traded or leveraged, there is a family looking to buy a house, pay for an education, open a business, save for retirement. What happens on Wall Street has real consequences across our country, across our economy.”

From the web site, RomanticPoet’s Webblog:

The Chris Dodd financial reform bill is totally unnecessary, unwarranted and will be harmful to the Republic. The “too big to fail” concept is not the reason for the economic crisis. The problem is not Wall Street as a whole, but the hedge fund short sellers on Wall Street. They call themselves the “alternative investment community” and have organized themselves into a special interest group called the Managed Funds Association (MFA).

In order to understand where Dodd went wrong, the public must learn to differentiate between what I call the “good” Wall Street and the “bad” Wall Street, and what roles they play in our economy.

And finally from the web site, Rortybomb: (Yes, same guys!)

This is not to say that the administration is against reform. But it is to say that the problem I see is that they think what we had was a crisis where regulators didn’t have enough powers, not that the financial sector in 2007 was too dangerous and too risky. They did push hard for the CFPA, and I am thankful for that. But if they had put any effort to move just a few of the items above, even watered down versions, I could feel comfortable criticizing Feingold for not voting.

(I also want to note Ezra Klein here: “If he wants to vote no, he should vote no. But he should vote against the Republican filibuster.”)

But I didn’t see any effort. Perhaps there are some examples. What documentable examples do you know of? And at what moment did Geithner and Treasury push for something stronger?

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Federal Reserve Proposing Mortgage Rule to Eliminate Key Foreclosure Protections (via Rortybomb)

Rortybomb has it right here. The Federal Reserve is rushing into to save the banks from their forclosure fiasco. I have blogged on this. I was expecting Congress to rush to the banks’ aid but apparently the Federal Reserve is going to beat them to it.

The banks, the forclosure industry, they never seem to lack for friends in all the right places. Have you noticed that? Where are the homeonwners’ friends? Where are our friends? Is the only value in this society cold hard cash?

Read this. It’s good writing.

James Pilant

In the early 2000s the subprime lender Household Finance settled the largest consumer fraud settlement in U.S. history. Household Finance paid a whopping $484 million in fines to a joint settlement with a group of attorneys general. One month later Household was acquired by HSBC, the London financial giant, for $16.4 billion, setting off a bidding war on subprime dealers by the highest parts of Wall Street. It's like they were being rewarded, ins … Read More

via Rortybomb

Progressivism, Liberaltarianism, Roll-Out Neoliberalism. (via Rortybomb)

This is hard going. It deals with the philosophy behind regulation and the policies against regulation. But it’s not that simple. Like all reality there is a mix of characteristics. If you want to improve your grasp of the intellectual background of the economic wars in our government, this is a good piece to read.

James Pilant

Will Wilkinson blames progressive financial reforms for the revolving door Peter Orszag recently went through. Oh no, not progressive financial reform.  That's where I live! Our Peter Orszag problem: Mr Fallows hits the nail on the head, but what this structural injustice means, politically and ideologically, remains unclear. In my opinion, the seeming inevitability of Orszag-like migrations points to a potentially fatal tension within the progre … Read More

via Rortybomb

Why The Tax Cut Deal Isn’t Cutting It. (via Rortybomb)

Rortybomb is great. I wanted to take a paragraph out and quote him but I couldn’t pass up the graph, so, I reblogged.
Give him a read. It’s richly merited.

James Pilant

Why The Tax Cut Deal Isn't Cutting It. I want to be sold on this tax cut deal on the economics, but the more I look at it the less I'm impressed with it. According to Ezra Klein, the White House is circulating this diagram around the Hill.  James Kwak dissects this chart and the narrative that "Obama won" on this deal; I'll do the same.  Let's take the "What We Got" apart. Child Tax Credit From the Republican Pledge To America (pdf): …these looming tax hikes will hurt every family i … Read More

via Rortybomb

Page 1 of 2

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén