CBS Atlanta News Special: Foreclosure Fraud in Georgia

410 days and Counting. Stuck on Step One of Save Your Home From Foreclosure.

Diary of a Real Estate Rookie by Alison Rogers Page 23 (I can't even get past Step One Thanks you thieving bastards at JPMorgan Chase that have NO IDEA how to treat people, or EVEN what the HELL IS GOING ON...Thanks a LOT for this undeserved BRAIN DAMAGE.)

1. Contact your Lender. Most delinquents ignore letters from the bank, hoping that the problem will go away. Chances are it won't but you have a better shot if you talk to your bank; they'd rather have money than take back your house."


I read and re-read this steps, I have to say, perhaps this is the normal way that banks would operate sure they would rather take your money than take your house.  However, JPMorgan Chase leaves nothing to the imagination on this one.  410 days my dear JPMorgan Chase...and still nothing.

As special and interesting as this has all been, I have thourally enjoyed reading about all the litigation and will throw my hat in the ring.  I will CHALLENGE YOU...You have a lot of explaining to do.

I see that there is a cap on your lawsuits, so I have done the math for you. $720,000.00
Hope you had fun meeting with Congress, I won't be that nice.  Have a wonderful weekend...Until we meet I'm still praying for you. :)  xoxoxooxoxoxxo

Under the Radar Screen

John Wasik, Contributor

I write about investments, financial planning and personal ecology

Follow on Forbes (22)

|

2/09/2012 @ 11:25AM |605 views

Scams On FINRA's Radar Screen

+ Comment now

FINRA, the brokerage industry’s self-regulator, recently announced a list of priorities for 2012. It’s a “who’s who” list of suspect and junk investments the regulator is officially targeting (http://www.finra.org/Industry/Regulation/Guidance/P122861).

FINRA, Transparency And Efficient Markets David Kaplan Contributor

Wall Street Compliance Practices Come Under Scrutiny by FINRA and the SEC Bill Singer Contributor

Bill Singer's 2011 Wall Street Regulatory Hall of Shame Bill Singer Contributor

UBS Loses Million Dollar Promissory Note Arbitration Against Former Employee Bill Singer Contributor

While it’s not a direct letter to the investing public — it’s to FINRA members who are compliance officers — it provides some important insights on the worst investments being sold. Its bureaucratic language highlights some egregious sales practices.
FINRA highlights some major marketing abuses such as “yield chasing” and “cash flow characteristics.” In Main Street parlance, brokers often target older investors who are sick of the lousy yields they are getting in CDs and money-market funds and tie them up in products that promise much more but lock up their money for years.
One of the worst abuses is selling products that pretend to offer high yields, but are highly illiquid, risky and complex. The generic term for these traps for unsuspecting investors is “structured” products. They usually contain derivatives, that is, they are expensive wagers based on other vehicles such as stocks, bonds, mortgage securities, commodities or currencies.
Some of the most notorious structured products, often tagged as “principal protected” or “reverse convertibles,” have gone belly up, fleecing investors for billions. The most high-profile case has been Lehman principal-protected notes, which were sold as high-yield bonds. When Lehman collapsed in 2008, investors were left holding the bag. Many are still trying to get their money back.
I’ve written extensively about this problem and published an in-depth report (http://www.demos.org/publication/how-safe-are-your-savings-how-complex-derivative-products-imperil-seniors-retirement-sec) and article (http://www.theinvestigativefund.org/investigations/economiccrisis/1473/how_safe_are_your_savings/) on the subject.
Although FINRA has fined a handful of structured products marketers, they’ve been characteristically sheepish about policing the $45 billion industry, which flies under the radar and wasn’t curbed in the Dodd-Frank financial reforms. Nearly every major investment bank and broker still sells these products.
Here’s a sampling of some actions FINRA took in 2010 to punish minor players:
FINRA fined H&R Block Financial Advisors (HRB) $200,000 and suspended a broker for the firm for selling reverse convertibles to a retired couple (Block neither admitted nor denied the charges). Ferris Baker Watts LLC was fined $700,000 for “inappropriate sales” of these products. The firm had sold the notes to an 85-year-old couple. Some $190,000 was paid to 57 Ferris account holders who lost money (both firms neither admitted nor denied the charges).
While FINRA has pushed for better compliance with its loose suitability standards — and has issued more recommendations and rules — the enforcement has been lax in this area. Remember FINRA is a self-regulator. It’s an industry that purports to police itself.  You can draw your own conclusions as to what that means in practice.
What else is on FINRA’s radar screen? Quite a bit. Many of these products have been around for years, although no regulator has been able to effectively curb them:

• 

  Image via Wikipedia

JP Morgan Creative Finances May Just Get You Somewhere! (No where I want to be, but you seem to be enjoying the ride!)

"Creative Financing"

 

Could JP Morgan be sued by Stockholders for Creative Mortgage Putback Accounting?

Posted by Teri Buhl under Bank Fraud
[12] Comments

I was on Max Keiser’s show yesterday talking about JP Morgan’s triple-digit billion mortgage repurchase litigation problem that they refuse to accurately reflect on their financial statements. A problem that is now compounded by the fact their regulator, the SEC, has told them they want to sue Jamie Dimon’s bank for securities violations or bring an enforcement action against them, which could validate some of the RMBS fraud claims in the eyes of New York judges overseeing the $120 billion in litigation. What I didn’t realize was how much of a blatant accounting cover up this mortgage repurchase issue is –one that some analysts think could led to a massive accounting fraud suit against JP Morgan and their auditor PricewatershouseCoopers.
In a May 18th newsletter by Robert Christensen a senior advisor to Chicago-based financial forensics Natoma Partners he writes, “What I have found is that the reserves required for repurchase of loans that did not meet the reps & warranties have been consistently and massively underestimated.”
Christensen, a former head of audit for financial service companies at Authur Andersen, boldly points out, “These provisions have actually increased from the previous two quarters (for the major banks $C, $WFC, $BAC, $JPM he covers) for all the banks except for JP Morgan Chase.”
I had the chance to interview Christenson yesterday who helped me understand it’s not just the fact that the bank’s mortgage putback reserves are low (and thus they don’t have to set aside more capital) it’s the fact that accounting procedure called for the banks to actually set up putback reserves during the mortgage go-go years of 2005-2008. NOT after their customers got lawyers involved demanding they honor the security warranties and buy back these totally toxic garbage never-paid-their-mortgage loans. So while we are seeing banks lobe on billions of putback reserves this is really a game of catch up that the auditors watchdog (PCAOB) and the SEC could currently be investigating the banks and their auditors for not accounting for the problem right in the first place. You can see a hint of this in a correspondence letter filed by the SEC between them, BofA and their auditor asking questions about mortgage repurchase accounting and if their methods are in error. The banks response to the SEC is unfortunately redacted so we can’t see it but I have to question why they’d redact it if it was a bad news answer. If the SEC is asking BofA these questions I’d be interested in seeing if JP Morgan got similar questions.
JP Morgan’s auditor PwC does this whole other ‘creative accounting’ move to make it difficult for the SEC or their investors see what kind of real private label mortgage repurchase liability they think they have. They simply moved the whole category into litigation reserves. A lovely little accounting bucket Francine McKenna of retheauditors.com told us last week doesn’t have to be broken out. Now what’s interesting is Christensen told me of the four banks he covers JP Morgan is the only one who does this! Yep somehow PwC, who also audits Bank of America, has allowed JPM to sweep their massive private label rmbs putback risk under the table so main street investors can’t even see how many billions the bank thinks it will have to pay rmbs investors they allegedly stole billions from. It’s interesting to note that BofA has it’s own set of billion dollar RMBS fraud and putback lawsuits but PwC doesn’t follow the same kind of ‘creative accounting’ with their repurchase liability risk?
The only putback detail we get to see from JP Morgan, starting on page 38 of their Q1 10-Q, is all the GSE putbacks they had to pay back. They do mention the average loss severity on the resi mortgage loans in the securities is a whopping 58% but then that’s a self-determined number. And given the way their $2bn erroneous derivative trading loss keeps growing (reports now say it could be a $6bn trading loss) I don’t see how we can trust a lot of JP Morgan’s estimates these days.
McKenna who’s been warning about the banks underestimated putback reserves since 2007 told me, “We are seeing PCAOB citing auditors for not pushing back on banks on mortgage loan loss reserves and litigation contingencies. But their inspection reports are not timely and do not name the bank they are finding auditing faults with. So it’s worthless to outsiders or general investors.”
Now for JP Morgan to stop using this creative accounting to mask their mega billion rmbs putback problem the PCOB and the SEC would have to lay down an iron hand and publish some kind of public infraction or fine against PwC and JP Morgan. And if that happened well…I’d expect a bucket of class action stockholder lawsuits to pop up against JP Morgan and PwC. You know kind of like those Enron or the Telecom suits that labeled the auditors accomplices in financial crimes.

Something To Laugh At

I imagine that it went something like this.....meanwhile no one wants to be associated with "them" that includes me....however, I'm a bit stuck aren't I?  You know...if they would talk with me...if I had the money to get them to talk to me, "for informational purposes only" Cause that seems nothing like extortion....SMH  YOU gotta Laugh Guys....it's all absurd.

Oh, SOOOOO HOPEFUL!!!!!!!!!!

Fickle fickle that Darn Thing Called a "MEMORY"

 

 

Networks Forget JPMorgan Chase CEO Dimon Used to be Close Friends with Obama

By Mike Ciandella | June 05, 2012 | 11:46

2

JPMorgan Chase CEO and Chairman Jamie Dimon and President Obama were once friends, but the three major networks were quick to forget this once JPMorgan Chase lost more than $2 billion. Earlier this year, Dimon was one of only three CEOs who had special access to the White House and Treasury Secretary Geithner, according to Associated Press.
Now the Obama Administration and the media have made Dimon into a poster child for why a lack of government control in the banking sector is a bad thing, while at the same time they have distanced Obama from the controversy surrounding his former friend. Dimon used to be regarded, as Politico so aptly put it, as a “blunder-free Master of the Universe.” He was also referred to as the president’s “favorite banker” three separate times by The New York Times. Dimon will be testifying before the Senate Banking Committee regarding the JPMorgan Chase debacle on June 13.
Between May 12, when news of the loss first came out, and May 22, ABC, CBS and NBC made no mention of the relationship between Dimon and the current administration. However, in 2011, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal all repeatedly mentioned Dimon’s relationship to the Obama administration and Geithner. Former Chief of Staff under Obama, Bill Daley, also a former JPMorgan executive, agreed he was friends with Dimon in a New York Times interview in October 2011, while he was serving as Chief of Staff.
According to an Oct. 8, 2009, AP story Dimon and Geithner had established a relationship during Geithner’s time as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. A CNBC writer speculated about Geithner’s response in a PBS interview, when he was asked if Dimon should step down from the board of the Federal Reserve Bank. While Giethner did not say yes, he “did not categorically dismiss the notion” either and John Carney of CNBC wrote that it was “being interpreted by some very smart people as a signal that Geithner wants Dimon off the Fed board.”
JPMorgan Chase’s financial loss comes just two months before a new set of government regulations known as “the Volcker Rule” take effect. Since then, the Obama Administration has been using Dimon’s trading losses to advocate for these new regulations. The Volcker rule would place restrictions on banks and other financial institutions that would limit certain types of speculative trading. Proponents of the rule say it adds a level of security by preventing institutions from making certain risky ventures with their clients’ money. But the media seem unable to recall that the poster child used to be Obama’s friend.
Dimon has been an outspoken opponent of the Volker Rule. He once quipped in an interview with Fox Business Feb. 13 that the author of the rule, Paul Volcker, “by his own admission, has said that he doesn’t understand capital markets.” Dimon said that his losses came at a “very unfortunate, inopportune time,” since it will provide lawmakers with a justification for new regulations, according to a Wall Street Journal article from May 14.
The Washington Post reported on May 16 that Dimon said, while he agreed with the intent of the rule, he thinks it is important to be able to hedge risks. The Obama Administration has argued that since JPMorgan Chase and Dimon could make such a mistake, regulations need to be put in place to prevent similar losses in smaller banks with less capable CEOs that may not be able to recover from such a hit. The president himself said in an interview on ABC’s “The View” “JPMorgan is one of the best managed banks there is. Jamie Dimon, the head of it, is one of the smartest bankers we’ve got. And they still lost $2 billion and counting … this is why we passed Wall Street reform.” And so Dimon’s former friends used his financial blunder as a rallying call for the very regulations that he fought so hard against.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-ciandella/2012/06/05/networks-forget-jpmorgan-chase-ceo-dimon-used-be-close-friends-obama#ixzz1wx8Un3su

FDIC Sues JPMorgan Chase and Others Over Mortgage Debt Losses (insert gasp here)

FDIC sues Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, others over mortgage debt losses

Orlando Business Journal

Date: Tuesday, May 22, 2012, 6:36am EDT - Last Modified: Tuesday, May 22, 2012, 6:41am EDT

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has filed three lawsuits against several banks, including Bank of America    , Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase, seeking a combined $92 million, Reuters reports.
The lawsuits accuse the banks of misrepresenting the risks of residential mortgages, which caused losses for investors once the poor quality and defective underwriting became evident, according to Reuters.
Two of the lawsuits were filed in Manhattan federal court and seek $72 million. The third suit was filed in Los Angeles federal court and seeks $15 million.
Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase are the second- and sixth-largest banks in Central Florida, respectively.

                 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Is anyone keeping track of the lawsuits??  I'm having trouble...there are now sooooo many! Gosh.
I do find it very interesting that the FDIC is suing them....(ironic, my lawyer and I were talking about them just the other day)  So thought I would share a little bit of information about the "FDIC"

Who is the FDIC? (This is from their site directly and can be found at http://www.fdic.gov/about/learn/symbol/index.html

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) preserves and promotes public confidence in the U.S. financial system by insuring deposits in banks and thrift institutions for at least $250,000; by identifying, monitoring and addressing risks to the deposit insurance funds; and by limiting the effect on the economy and the financial system when a bank or thrift institution fails. An independent agency of the federal government, the FDIC was created in 1933 in response to the thousands of bank failures that occurred in the 1920s and early 1930s. Since the start of FDIC insurance on January 1, 1934, no depositor has lost a single cent of insured funds as a result of a failure. The FDIC receives no Congressional appropriations – it is funded by premiums that banks and thrift institutions pay for deposit insurance coverage and from earnings on investments in U.S. Treasury securities. The FDIC insures more than $7 trillion of deposits in U.S. banks and thrifts – deposits in virtually every bank and thrift in the country. The standard insurance amount is $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, for each account ownership category. The FDIC's Electronic Deposit Insurance Estimator can help you determine if you have adequate deposit insurance for your accounts. The FDIC insures deposits only. It does not insure securities, mutual funds or similar types of investments that banks and thrift institutions may offer. (Insured and Uninsured Investments distinguishes between what is and is not protected by FDIC insurance.) The FDIC directly examines and supervises more than 4,900 banks and savings banks for operational safety and soundness, more than half of the institutions in the banking system. Banks can be chartered by the states or by the federal government. Banks chartered by states also have the choice of whether to join the Federal Reserve System. The FDIC is the primary federal regulator of banks that are chartered by the states that do not join the Federal Reserve System. In addition, the FDIC is the back-up supervisor for the remaining insured banks and thrift institutions. The FDIC also examines banks for compliance with consumer protection laws, including the Fair Credit Billing Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Truth-In-Lending Act, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, to name a few. Finally, the FDIC examines banks for compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) which requires banks to help meet the credit needs of the communities they were chartered to serve. To protect insured depositors, the FDIC responds immediately when a bank or thrift institution fails. Institutions generally are closed by their chartering authority – the state regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or the Office of Thrift Supervision. The FDIC has several options for resolving institution failures, but the one most used is to sell deposits and loans of the failed institution to another institution. Customers of the failed institution automatically become customers of the assuming institution. Most of the time, the transition is seamless from the customer's point of view. The FDIC employs more than 7,000 people. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C., but conducts much of its business in six regional offices, three temporary satellite offices and in field offices around the country. The FDIC is managed by a five-person Board of Directors, all of whom are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, with no more than three being from the same political party. FDIC Mission, Vision, and Values (http://www.fdic.gov/about/mission/index.html Mission The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is an independent agency created by the Congress to maintain stability and public confidence in the nation's financial system by: insuring deposits, examining and supervising financial institutions for safety and soundness and consumer protection, and managing receiverships. Vision The FDIC is a recognized leader in promoting sound public policies, addressing risks in the nation's financial system, and carrying out its insurance, supervisory, consumer protection, and receivership management responsibilities. Values The FDIC and its employees have a tradition of distinguished public service. Six core values guide us in accomplishing our mission: Integrity We adhere to the highest ethical and professional standards. Competence We are a highly skilled, dedicated, and diverse workforce that is empowered to achieve outstanding results. Teamwork We communicate and collaborate effectively with one another and with other regulatory agencies. Effectiveness We respond quickly and successfully to risks in insured depository institutions and the financial system. Accountability We are accountable to each other and to our stakeholders to operate in a financially responsible and operationally effective manner. Fairness We respect individual viewpoints and treat one another and our stakeholders with impartiality, dignity, and trust.

Chase Mortgage Prepayment Penalty Class Action Lawsuit (Insert OMG HERE)

I added this picture for the element of effect, imagine this, JPMorgan Chase "allegedly" delays crediting payments to maximize interest and increase their profits!! (If we conducted a poll, I don't think anyone would be surprised, lease of all me...You know Chase just makes money "appear" and then they use it how they see fit...and if they want you to "disappear" they can do that too...all the while increasing their bottom line...it's business after all...screw the rules, laws or regulations...CHASE is simply too big to fail...Right?!??!?!)

Chase Mortgage Prepayment Penalty Class Action Lawsuit
By Mike Holter

An angry homebuyer has filed a federal class action lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase Bank claiming it manipulates the order of processing and/or illegally delays crediting advance payments made on mortgage principals in order to maximize interest and increase its profits.

Lead Plaintiff Kevin Kratzke claims that “Chase, unlike other banks, holds advance principal payments in an undisclosed suspense account and purposefully delays crediting of such payments in order to maximize interest accrual on money that, under the terms of the loans, it has not earned.”

This violates the borrower’s right to prepay, as specifically outlined in their loan contracts, and amounts to illegal “pre-payment penalties,” Kratzke says. This policy has allowed Chase to reap “thousands and thousands of dollars” in illegally obtained gains from thousands of customers over the course of their 15- to 30-year loans.

"Chase's policy and practice shortchanges borrowers who may make modest advance principal payments on their mortgages, with the magnified effect of allowing Chase a windfall in collecting additional payments from continuously accruing interest. The net effect to impose a 'pre-payment' penalty in the form of accepting but holding advance principal payments [is] to increase the bank's bottom line and to breach its 'order of payment' crediting agreement found in the standard and conforming Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae mortgage/deed of trust loans secured in real estate," the class action lawsuit states.

The class action lawsuit further accuses Chase of purposefully programming its computers to delay crediting loan payments when the loan is current and no payment is due.

The Chase class action lawsuit is brought on behalf of all individuals and/or entities in the U.S. who obtained a Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae mortgage serviced by JPMorgan Chase; who were completely current and not in arrears of their mortgage/deed, and who voluntarily submitted advance principal payments toward their principal balance owed; and who were subject to JPMorgan Chase’s policy, pattern and practice of delayed crediting of such advanced principal payments.

If certified, the class action lawsuit will seek class damages for breach of contract and unfair and deceptive trade, an injunction, court costs, and more.

A copy of the Chase Bank Mortgage Prepayment Penalty Class Action Lawsuit can be read here.

The case is Kevin Kratzke v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Case No. 12-cv-2094, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California.

DORA Department of Regularoty Agencies and WE HAVE A DATE! :)

DORA, Department of Regulatory Agencies

So, a quick run down on last nights "happenings" turns out that there is a company that over sees consumer rights.  "Dora is dedicated to preserving the integrity of the marketplace and is committed to promoting a fair and competitive environment in Colorado. Consumer protection is our mission."

So, today I'm heading downtown, and this song will be blasting from my radio all the way! :)

Gosh, Maybe, just maybe someone can help. Imagine that?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ How Much Do You Think This Has Cost You $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

:) thought this was an appropriate share for the day...."Fierce" I think I like it...I like it A LOT.

This is where I'm at...and it is a Beautiful Place to be,  Funny, "If it isn't Okay, then it isn't the END, It will BE OKAY in the End."

Thought of the day, "Can you put a Dollar $ figure on how much this has cost you?"  Sure, how many zeros do you think would sum things up??  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL  EXACTLY.

Meet My New Friend, I Just Need a Minute, or 5 of your time!

  Meet John W. Suthers the 37th Attorney General of Colorado.  I'm gonna go knock on some doors, see if being tenacious gets me anywhere? I'll keep you updated.  :)