Reply #4: More idiocy

[ProSense]

"It is high time to describe the Obama Administration by its proper name: corrupt."

From the NYT article.

<...>

In an interview on Friday, Mr. Donovan defended his discussions with the attorney general, saying they were motivated by a desire to speed up help for troubled homeowners. But he said he had not spoken to bank officials or their representatives about trying to persuade Mr. Schneiderman to get on board with the deal.

“Eric and I agree on a tremendous amount here,” Mr. Donovan said. “The disagreement is around whether we should wait to settle and resolve the issues around the servicing practices for him — and potentially other A.G.’s and other federal agencies — to complete investigations on the securitization side. He might argue that he has more leverage that way, but our view is we have the immediate opportunity to help a huge number of borrowers to stay in their homes, to help their neighborhoods and the housing market.”

And Alisa Finelli, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department. said: “The Justice Department, along with our federal agency partners and state attorneys general, are committed to achieving a resolution that will hold servicers accountable for the harm they have done consumers and bring billions of dollars of relief to struggling homeowners — and bring relief swiftly because homeowners continue to suffer more each day that these issues are not resolved.”

<...>

Yves Smith spends all her time spinning corruption by cherry picking rumor from MSM articles and anti-Obama blog posts. The basic premise is to give the impression that the admistration is doing nothing about the financial fraud that led to the crisis. Her hyperbole based on the NYT article is absurd!

Foreclosure Talks Snag on Bank Liability

<...>

U.S. and state officials dismissed the push for broad immunity as a "nonstarter," according to a federal official involved in the talks, but they have countered with a narrower offer. It would cover robo-signing and other servicer-related conduct but leave banks open to potential legal action for wrongdoing in fair lending and securitization, according to people familiar with the situation. Attorneys general in California, Delaware, Massachusetts and New York have said they are investigating mortgage-securitization practices.

<...>

Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto said she is "going to be very cautious" about any release that could affect investigations or litigation. Ms. Masto has alleged that Bank of America violated the law in its handling of troubled loans. "A broad release isn't going to do … any good (for me) or the people of my state."

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley recently said she won't let banks escape potential legal liability for claims related to securitization and use of the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems "until we know all the facts and all of the damage." Doing otherwise "is like buying a used car without looking under the hood. There's a good chance you will get a lemon."

<...>

Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden has also begun investigating securitization and other mortgage-industry practices. "We would oppose any settlement that would release claims broader than servicing conduct," says Delaware Deputy Attorney General Ian McConnel."That would include origination, securitization and (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) claims."

Why the bank-settlement talks are likely to drag on indefinitely

Today brings dueling stories in the NYT and the WSJ on the status of the bank foreclosure-settlement talks. At issue is the question of whether the banks should be given immunity with respect to lawsuits surrounding their securitization shenanigans. Here’s the WSJ, saying quite clearly that they won’t:

U.S. and state officials dismissed the push for broad immunity as a “nonstarter,” according to a federal official involved in the talks, but they have countered with a narrower offer. It would cover robo-signing and other servicer-related conduct but leave banks open to potential legal action for wrongdoing in fair lending and securitization, according to people familiar with the situation. Attorneys general in California, Delaware, Massachusetts and New York have said they are investigating mortgage-securitization practices.

In the NYT, by contrast, Gretchen Morgenson says that New York’s Eric Schneiderman is pushing back against a federal attempt to give banks immunity on such matters:

Mr. Schneiderman and top prosecutors in some other states have objected to the proposed settlement with major banks, saying it would restrict their ability to investigate and prosecute wrongdoing in a variety of areas, including the bundling of loans in mortgage securities.

So, is immunity with respect to mortgage securitization a nonstarter, or is it the whole reason why banks would dream of signing the settlement in the first place? I suspect it might be both. If I was a bank, I wouldn’t dream of paying billions of dollars in return for a narrow settlement precluding further prosecution about robo-signing and the like: it just wouldn’t make economic sense to do so. At the same time, if I were Schneiderman, in the middle of a detailed investigation into what banks’ mortgage departments got up to in the run-up to the crisis, I certainly wouldn’t want that investigation rendered moot and toothless before it had even been concluded.

<...>