Skip to main content

You've heard the story a gazillion times from your conservative friends or relatives: Fannie Mae (i.e., code for the Big Bad Federal Government) and its mortgage loan practices (i.e., giving mortgages to those lazy, shiftless people with non-white skin tones - John Boehner and his spray tan aficionados excluded, of course) caused the housing market to collapse and the ensuing financial crisis that for some strange reason we keep calling the "Great Recession."  Big Banks were just innocent bystanders (not) helpless to defeat the Big Guvmint villains at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  The purveyors of cow manure on the right are still spreading this story.  Some even claim it was all your fault, Mr. and Ms. America.

And yet, if that is true, why did the Bank of America just agree to pay Fannie Mae $12 BILLION ($11.65 Billion to be precise, but allow me to round up) to make claims against BOA for fraud in the sale of "toxic subprime mortgages" by Countrywide to Fannie Mae go away?  How in the world did the Right Wing's favorite whipping boy (or is it girl?) manage to force Bank of America to slink away with its tail between its legs, rather than face a trial on claims that any conservative tea party loving winger would reflexively tell you were bogus?  Good question, since that is exactly what just happened:


Fannie Mae argued that [BOA] had sold it toxic home-loan debts between 2000 and 2008. [...]

The agreement brings to an end a long-running dispute between Fannie Mae and Bank of America.

"A favourable resolution of this long-standing dispute between Fannie Mae and Bank of America is in the best interest of taxpayers," said Bradley Lerman at Fannie Mae. [...]

Bank of America said the settlements were "a significant step in resolving our remaining legacy mortgage issues".

In October, the US government sued the bank for alleged mortgage fraud, accusing subsidiary Countrywide Financial of selling thousands of toxic home loans to Fannie Mae and the government's second mortgage agency Freddie Mac.

Earlier in the month, it took similar action against the banks Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase.

Looks like BOA cut and ran, rather than press the argument that their subsidiary "knew nothing, nothing" about the fraud perpetrated on Fannie Mae.  No doubt they got off light.  Yet BOA's executuves can walk away claiming they and their predecessors at Countrywide did nothing wrong.  It should be noted that BOA previously settled similar claims with Fannie Mae and its sister corporation, Freddie Mac for pennies on the dollar back in January 2011, a deal that was roundly criticized at the time as being far too generous:

In this week’s settlement, BofA agreed to pay $1.28 billion to Freddie Mac for claims involving $127 billion in loans made through 2008 by Countrywide Financial, which BofA acquired that year. The bank agreed to pay $1.52 billion to Fannie Mae. [...]

Those criticizing BofA’s settlement, which has been described as a “gift” and a “backdoor bailout,” included California Rep. Maxine Waters (D-L.A.).

“I’m concerned that the settlement between Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Bank of America over misrepresentations in the mortgages BofA originated may amount to a backdoor bailout that props up the bank at the expense of taxpayers,” Waters said in a statement Jan 4. “Given the strong repurchase rights built into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s contracts with banks, and the recent court setback for Bank of America in similar litigation with a private insurer, I’m fearful that this settlement may have been both premature and a giveaway.”

Considering that US taxpayers (i.e., your Federal Government) have spent roughly $140 BILLION since 2008 propping up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I'd say BOA got off with a wrist slap.  But then again, considering how much money the Federal Reserve and the Treasury have shoveled the Big Banks' way since 2008, that should come as no surprise.  For just one example, look at the Center for Public Integrity's 2009 report on funds given to BOA and other Big Banks and Mortgage Companies (including Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Stanley, etc.) under the HAMP program, supposedly to fix the mess these great and grand financial institutions created:

Firms that fed off the subprime lending frenzy that devastated the banking system are lining up to collect more than $21 billion in taxpayer funds meant to help bail out borrowers now in trouble on their loans.

The funds come from the federal government’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), begun in February by the Obama administration to coax lenders into modifying mortgages that might otherwise result in foreclosure. According to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of public records, of the 25 top participants in the program, at least 21 were heavily involved in the subprime lending industry. Most specialized in servicing subprime loans, but several both serviced and originated the loans.

When you add in the TARP bailout, and the Big Banks continuing access to money under-the-radar bailout by the Federal Reserve, what's a few billion dollars in fines, etc. to settle the securities fraud claims of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?  Peanuts, my friends.  Peanuts.  No seriously:

A report just released by the US Government Accountability Office explains how the Federal Reserve divvied up more than $4 trillion in low-interest loans after the fiscal crisis of 2008, and the news shouldn’t be all that surprising.

When the Federal Reserve looked towards bailing out some of the biggest banks in the country, more than one dozen of the financial institutions that benefited from the Fed’s Hail Mary were members of the central bank’s own board, reports the GAO. At least 18 current and former directors of the Fed’s regional branches saw to it that their own banks were awarded loans with often next-to-no interest by the country’s central bank during the height of the financial crisis that crippled the American economy and spurred rampant unemployment and home foreclosures for those unable to receive assistance.

Although the crisis continues to have an effect on Americans that were devastated by the recession, the banks that survived the near meltdown were largely able to do so because some of their CEOs sat on the same Federal Reserve board the decided on how to dish out trillions of dollars. [...]

n a press release published on the official US Senate website for Mr. Sanders, the lawmakers singles out JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon over an alleged conflict of interest that could have contributed to the bailout his bank received through the Fed. Sanders also calls out General Electric CEO Jefferey Immelt for sitting on the same Federal Reserve board that approved massive funding to GE during a time of financial insecurity in the United States.

How much government money have BOA and other Banksters vaccuumed out of the Federal Reserve or "graciously accepted" from the Federal Government?  At least SEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS, my friends, as of 14 months ago.  And what are these "job creators" doing with all that essentially free cash?  Not creating jobs.  

No, as this rec list diary points out they are speculating in commodities, such as copper and, in the near future, likely essential food crops, and oil.  These same banks are freezing out home buyers in many regions of the country by using their massive profits and federal handouts to speculate in residential real estate.

I certainly understand how all this money being dumped into the Big Bank's ever expanding maw is helping out some Americans - those who work for Wall Street, that is.  I fail to understand how it's doing much for the rest of us.  But hey, Bank of America is going to pay Fannie Mae twelve billion dollars.

Can I hear a Hallelujah, Brothers and Sisters?

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (17+ / 0-)

    "If you tell the truth, you'll eventually be found out." Mark Twain

    by Steven D on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:17:32 AM PST

  •  BoA (Countrywide) violated the terms (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    virginislandsguy, FG

    of their contract with Fannie Mae - a civil matter only.

    The idea that the execs are "criminals" is preposterous.

    "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

    by shrike on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:23:14 AM PST

    •  Read this: (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Steven D, Sandino, 3goldens, allenjo

      US suit alleges 'brazen' fraud at Countrywide

      that's the first google offering when you enter "countrywide fraud"

      "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi // Question: "succeed" at what?

      by nailbender on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:04:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  these days you really need to add a snark tag (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      3goldens
      The idea that the execs are "criminals" is preposterous.

      "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

      by allenjo on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:13:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It is WIDELY acknowledged that Countrywide... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sandino, 3goldens, Nailbanger

      ...CEO Angelo Mozilo, and many other senior executives of the firm, committed fraud. Of course, when it comes time to acknowledge this in the court papers, they "neither confirm or deny" that. Of course, if you think an individual (Mozilo) paying somewhere in the neighborhood of $75 million in personal fines was for parking tickets (much of which he was reimbursed by BofA, due to the terms of his employment contract, as are so many of these senior executives), then you're living in an alternate universe.

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:15:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Mozilo was indicted but settled during the trial (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        virginislandsguy

        and they only got him for stock manipulation/insider trading - that $75 million.

        And Mozilo was the sleaziest of the lot.  They really wanted him but failed.

        Very similar to Franklin Raines in the end.

        "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Thomas Paine

        by shrike on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:27:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your comment does Raines a disservice. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sandino, 3goldens, allenjo, Nailbanger

          The REALITY is that no senior executives of the TBTFs have been prosecuted (criminally); therefore, none are serving--or have served--any jail time. Period.

          "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

          by bobswern on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:48:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No Prosecutions of Top Figures (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            3goldens, bobswern, KenBee

            And now we do have this different set of rules for bankers......

            We all know that Wall Street is living high on the hog as far too many on Main Street are still struggling to survive.

            These continuing of no criminal prosecutions, only these  slaps on the wrist and fines, without admission of wrong doing, each is a slap in the face to every person struggling - this 2 tier level of what passes on justice in the US today.

            In Financial Crisis, No Prosecutions of Top Figures
            “It’s consistent with what many people were worried about during the crisis, that different rules would be applied to different players.It goes to the whole perception that Wall Street was taken care of, and Main Street was not.”

            "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

            by allenjo on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:05:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, DRo, Wino, 3goldens

    have personhood. However, that does not make these faux people, citizens. Citizens honor the American ideal of "We the People." Corporations are not obligated under the Constitution to do so.

    Thus, corporations are non-citizens and are damaging the nation by their greed and avarice.

    BoA isn't a citizen, so in order to continue to plunder, they have to pay a ransom at times. It is called, "Cost of doing business."

    Poverty and Income Inequality isn't Democratic, Justice or American. It is Tyranny.

    by Wendys Wink on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:30:59 AM PST

  •  I still like the French solution.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens

    ... 1789.

    •  Right. Blood in the gutters and Napoleon in the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FG

      wings.   If you're jesting, it falls flat with me.

      "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi // Question: "succeed" at what?

      by nailbender on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:08:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  When government fails its people so badly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KenBee

      civil unrest starts to grow........

      While I do not think that likely in my lifetime, if this government continues on with one set of laws/standards for the wealthiest -and ignores the needs of the rest of the population, there will come a breaking point.

      "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

      by allenjo on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:42:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Followed by the French solution of ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Jester, FG

      ...1793-94, which is, I suspect, what you really meant. Wily-nily decapitation didn't exactly produce great benefits for la plèbe.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 01:14:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Divest from the big banks if you can (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Steven D, 3goldens

    No stocks.
    No accounts there of any kind, unless paying off loans.
    Refinance a mortgage if it is at all possible.  Lots of places with 3% loans....15 or 30-year.  

    Just, get out from under them.  There are ALOT more of us than them and we need to make our power known.

    David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

    by PsychoSavannah on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 09:04:59 AM PST

  •  Anatomy of a Financial Collapse (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandino, 3goldens
    The 650-page report, “Wall Street and the Financial Crisis: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse,” was released Wednesday by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, whose co-chairmen are Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, and Tom Coburn, a Republican of Oklahoma. The result of two years’ work, the report focuses on an array of institutions with central roles in the mortgage crisis: Washington Mutual, an aggressive mortgage lender that collapsed in 2008; the Office of Thrift Supervision, a regulator; the credit ratings agencies Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s Investors Service; and the investment banks Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank.
    “The report pulls back the curtain on shoddy, risky, deceptive practices on the part of a lot of major financial institutions,” Mr. Levin said in an interview. “The overwhelming evidence is that those institutions deceived their clients and deceived the public, and they were aided and abetted by deferential regulators and credit ratings agencies who had conflicts of interest.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/...

    "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand?" David Crosby

    by allenjo on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 10:10:04 AM PST

    •  If you rob a bank... (0+ / 0-)

      and then return the money, you are still guilty of bank robbery, no?  And you still go to jail.

      If you are a bank, paying these billions does not erase the crime of fraud you perpetrated, so all applicable penalties can be applied.  Including investigation of which individuals caused the corporation to do it.  Ask Bernie Madoff about this;  you can find him in prison in North Carolina.  With good behavior, he can get out in 2139.

  •  It's about time (0+ / 0-)

    that civilized nations stopped talking about "central bank independence" from POLITICAL control, and started giving more serious thought to keeping the reins of monetary regulation out of the hands of those to whom their corruption gives the greatest benefit: private commercial banks.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site