Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
That's what I've been saying for years!!!  |
From the lower part of a post I did on Nov., 23:
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...8&postcount=39
...The predecessor of Citicorp, National City Bank, was rife with similar corruption, 75 to 80 years ago:</h3>
Quote:
Jackie Corr: Ferdinand Pecora, an American Hero
Scheduled to follow Mitchell was National City Director and Anaconda Copper Chairman John D. Ryan. ... But others would come before Pecora and the Senate. ...
www.counterpunch.org/corr01112003.html - 27k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Damnation of Mitchell - TIME
Few hours later the directors of National City Co. accepted the resignation of President Hugh Baker. Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Baker returned to Washington for ...
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...5272-4,00.html - 36k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Citibank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1933 a Senate investigated Mitchell for his part in tens of millions ... By 1969, First National City Bank decided that the Everything Card was too ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citibank - 57k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
|
samcol, "the stuff" that I posted four days ago was intended to overwhelmingly support my contention that the "free market", "free" because of a lack of 1920's government regualtion and oversight of banks and brokers, was the reason for the creation of the SEC, FDIC, and the passage by congress
of
Quote:
Glass-Steagall Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Two separate United States laws are known as the Glass-Steagall Act. The Acts (Glass & Steagall) were both reactions of the U.S. government to cope with the ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act
|
The "free market".... the banks and brokerages...lobbied for years for repeal of Glass-Steagall and they were partially successful in the last few years.
Now we're seeing a blurring of the former separation of bank and brokerage activities, and banks are less financially sound becaue they were newly permitted to take larger stakes (added risk) in their brokerage subsidiaries. This imperils the FDIC bank deposit insurance fund.
The bullshit O'Neal and Prince presided over and misled the public about, along with partial repeal of Glass-Steagall acts, lead us to this:
Quote:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/24/maga...ion=2007082417
....August 24 2007: 5:09 PM EDT
NEW YORK (Fortune) -- In a clear sign that the credit crunch is still affecting the nation's largest financial institutions, <h3>the Federal Reserve agreed this week to bend key banking regulations to help out Citigroup (Charts, Fortune 500) and Bank of America</h3> (Charts, Fortune 500), according to documents posted Friday on the Fed's web site.
....The regulations in question effectively limit a bank's funding exposure to an affiliate to 10% of the bank's capital. But the Fed has allowed Citibank and Bank of America to blow through that level. Citigroup and Bank of America are able to lend up to $25 billion apiece under this exemption, according to the Fed. If Citibank used the full amount, "that represents about 30% of Citibank's total regulatory capital, which is no small exemption,"
says Charlie Peabody, banks analyst at Portales Partners.
The Fed says that it made the exemption in the public interest, because it allows Citibank to get liquidity to the brokerage in "the most rapid and cost-effective manner possible."
So, how serious is this rule-bending? Very. One of the central tenets of banking regulation is that banks with federally insured deposits should never be over-exposed to brokerage subsidiaries; indeed, <h3>for decades financial institutions were legally required to keep the two units completely separate. This move by the Fed eats away at the principle.....</h3>
|
samcol, the FDIC insures bank deposits and it's reserves covering insured deposits of $100.000 per account, benefit the "little guy", and are paid by the little guy. FDIC member banks pay lower rates on insured accounts than they would it they were not paying FDIC deposit insurance. O'Neal, Prince, et al, have weakened the FDIC, as the preceding article makes clear.
Samcol, I urge you to rethink this:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by samcol
The heads of a company already get compensated or punished based on their decisions, it's called the free market. ....
|
<h3>I've done my damnedest to argue that the exact opposite is closer to fact.</h3>
The SEC should be filing charges against O'Neal and Prince for pimping their stocks and playing a huge part in influencing the DJIA and the S&P 500 to climb to new record highs on Oct. 9th.....
O'Neal and Prince, instead, "walk" with more than $200 million in combined final payments from the companies they led. The leadership of the SEC was appointed by Bush. The SEC was created to act in the public interest. It doesn't "need" to be dismantled, it needs to have a board appointed that will follow it's mandate.
|
The "free market" was much less regulated when thousands of banks and "building and loan" entities failed in the early '30's and left their depositers with nothing.
Real reform was instituted to restore confidence in the banks. The CNN money article shows the biggest banks "at work" to help themselves after they "structured finance" to the point that they effed themselves.
The FDIC deposit insurance lured folks who had lost their deposits in the '30's, back to the banks. Who is undermining this insurance fund? Read the CNN money article above, for the answer.
The "banks" are clearly in no position to extend anything that would cost them a dime, to any mortgage holders. You can think that they will "lose" money that was coming to them via larger mortgage "reset" payments, but it wasn't going to come to them, anyway. The borrowers are not able to pay the higher monthly "reset" payments, and it they could scrape by...falling home valuations offer them no incentive to try, or to stay in "their" homes.
The buyers of the last few years could only be held to their obligations to make mortgage payments if property continues up in value, or if they perceived themselves to be trapped because they were trying to salvage what remains of an original 20 percent or more, down payment. No one else with no or negative equity in their home, <h3>has an incentive to stay in the loan or the home,</h3> if their credit rating has deteriorated.
Citicorp has been a cancer on "the system" for 85 years. Please read the linked articles in the post above. "Free markets" become schemes. The regulations were neutered by financial industry lobbyists, and the ones still in place were not vigorously enforced. There is no intent to "bail out" or aid "the public". The banks screwed themselves, they thought they had "put" all the risk of the shakey loans onto bagholders, pension funds, other banks, etc.
The big risk to them now is fraud investigations of their lending origination, appraisal, and marketing methods. The statute of limitations, if fraud can be proven, makes them responsible to buy back MBS now selling for 27 cents on the dollar, or less, at full purchase price...in excess of a dollar on the dollar.
Ther is no intent to do anything but trap people in loans that can be squeezed longer for high monthly payments to lenders, delaying the day of recognition of the mortgagees....HEY !!! MY HOUSE IS STILL DROPPING IN VALUE, AND I CAN RENT FOR MUCH CHEAPER THAN WHAT I"M PAYING THE LENDER TO STAY IN THE LOAN.