Seeking Alpha

JPMorgan to settle GSE claims for $5.1B

  • JPMorgan (JPM) will settle Fannie and Freddie claims for $5.1B.
  • FHFA says a $4B settlement is reached over mortgage-backed securities purchased by Fannie and Freddie during 2005-07, and separate $1.1B settlements will cover representation and warranty claims. (PR)
Comments (46)
  • 2puttwo
    , contributor
    Comments (572) | Send Message
     
    Is that it? Is the extortion over, or, are the Jack Boots going to keep stomping.
    25 Oct 2013, 06:25 PM Reply Like
  • loser75
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
     
    "Is the extortion over?" You're kidding of course, there is still the London Whale, Bear Sterns, Bernie Madoff and WaMu government issues. Don't forget Blackrock and various other private companies nipping at the heels.
    25 Oct 2013, 06:40 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    I agree, JP Morgan's extortion of global markets needs to stop, thank god those Jack Boots are getting in their way.
    27 Oct 2013, 08:31 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    DV

     

    You still peddling this bitter populism?
    27 Oct 2013, 11:20 AM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    Just educating the uneducated, Tommy. You're welcome. :-)
    27 Oct 2013, 06:19 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Blind leading the blind.
    27 Oct 2013, 07:14 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    Indeed you are, but I'm trying to fix that for you, and more importantly, for everyone else. Again, you're welcome. :)
    28 Oct 2013, 07:16 AM Reply Like
  • june1234
    , contributor
    Comments (3151) | Send Message
     
    Back in the 80's during the S&L crisis a federal judge chastised the gov. for its role in that crisis. Fast forward. Government's business partner JPM pays fines = 13% of JPMs 2102 revenues. Gov. gets its cut, cost of doing business for JPM .Everybody happy. Its a rerun of same movie.
    26 Oct 2013, 09:57 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    And government officials received votes for pushing lending standards lower and consumers bought homes way over their heads.

     

    A real cesspool.
    27 Oct 2013, 11:18 AM Reply Like
  • Patent News
    , contributor
    Comments (1408) | Send Message
     
    government is a regulator, not a partner of jpmorgan or should not be.

     

    jpmorgan is not a victim but an aggressor who defrauded in the tens of billions.
    26 Oct 2013, 03:44 PM Reply Like
  • pfifla1
    , contributor
    Comments (528) | Send Message
     
    oh give it a rest. they are just the biggest guy on the block taking more than their fair share of the blame.
    26 Oct 2013, 05:04 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    Incorrect -- they have yet to take remotely their fair share of the blame. And hopefully they are not just the biggest guy to be the target of such investigations, hopefully they are just the first of many.

     

    Bankers are still too big for their britches, and they need a time out just like the whiny little toddlers that they are, before they once again ruin everything for everyone.
    27 Oct 2013, 08:33 AM Reply Like
  • pfifla1
    , contributor
    Comments (528) | Send Message
     
    If anyone is attempting to ruin it for everyone it is Obama...

     

    The banks were just doing as they were told - make everyone qualified or not - home owners.
    29 Oct 2013, 11:26 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    > make everyone qualified or not - home owners.

     

    About 2/3 of subprime loans were made by banks *not* subject to CRA. For you math whizzes, that's and overwhelming majority.

     

    Also, almost every other developed nation in the WORLD engaged in similar lending practices at the time -- tell me again how that's the U.S. government's fault? Or was it just Obama's fault in the early 2000s?
    30 Oct 2013, 07:41 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    DV

     

    You just undercut your blame game arguments. Now we can blame global hysteria and all those other non CRA players.

     

    It is difficult to have a logical argument when emotion is really the fuel for the fire.
    30 Oct 2013, 01:29 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    Pay attention Tommy -- governments are national, banks are global.

     

    Try. Please at least just try.
    30 Oct 2013, 07:50 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    To clarify for those having a hard time with these concepts: national entities can't thoroughly wreck global markets, at least not easily, but global entities can.

     

    Laws made by national governments can cause national problems. Our own Congress does its best to do this every day they are in session.

     

    But a national government can't directly cause global problems. I know you think it can because you think it's the root of all evil. After all, everyone knows that the federal government (well, just the Democrats) told Eve to eat the fruit from the forbidden tree, right? And it was all down hill from there, right?

     

    But in the real world where the rest of us live, that is not the case.

     

    The U.S. government can't dictate to, for example, Ireland, England, Spain, Sweden, France, Norway, The Netherlands, Denmark, Italy or Finland -- all of whom had housing bubbles similar to or worse than the U.S. The U.S. government can (and apparently did) spy on them relentlessly, but it cannot and did not tell them how to run their housing markets. Yet their housing markets turned into disasters anyway, without a CRA-regulated bank in sight.

     

    http://bit.ly/19TBaqi

     

    However, global banks *can* cause global problems.

     

    And they did, oh wow did they ever....
    30 Oct 2013, 08:06 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    DV

     

    See you got SA to delete my comment.

     

    You need all the help you can get.
    31 Oct 2013, 09:11 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    You can't defend your obviously flawed stance that banks can do no wrong, so you resort to personal attacks.

     

    If you had any reasonable arguments you would make them. But you don't, so you act like the amoral child bankers you so love.

     

    I'd be happy to discuss facts with you, but you seem to have run out.

     

    Try harder kiddo. You can do it, I know you can.
    31 Oct 2013, 09:32 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    DV

     

    Most of what you say starts with "you" which only proves that personal attacks is all you have ever had.

     

    Count the pronouns. Case closed. Next.
    18 Nov 2013, 02:51 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (14305) | Send Message
     
    It's amazing how brainwashed average citizens have become. The politicians must be grinning ear to ear.

     

    Washington's vote-pandering politicians promulgated the entire mess with a free-money orgy to unqualified borrowers, very many of whom had no ability -- and, often, no intention -- to repay their 100-125% "no-docs" loans. Then, after the commercial banks lost hundreds of billions, as a result (although hardly a surprise), they were and are constantly pilloried by the big-government-fawning media and by the very politicians that instigated the mess, to begin with. And, the whole way, the gullible public buys it, hook ,line and sinker.

     

    So, now, they still cheer on more regulations, fines and "punishments" for the banks, taking money away from the shareholders and the general economy -- as well as crimping further credit to qualified borrowers -- so it can be filtered back to ruinously-wasteful Big Government, which has only its own dominance and unfettered growth, as an objective. And, all the while, many of the folks that never paid their loans are still laughing robust belly laughs, living after five years in homes they never paid for and still aren't.

     

    When P.T. Barnum said, "one's born every minute," he overestimated the American public, apparently.
    27 Oct 2013, 01:30 PM Reply Like
  • loser75
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
     
    Excellent, excellent, excellent, well written and accurate.
    30 Oct 2013, 08:49 AM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4107) | Send Message
     
    “The few who can understand the system (check money and credits, will either be so interested in it’s profits, or so dependent on its favors, that there will be no oppositions from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of the people mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.” -- Rothschild Brothers of London
    27 Oct 2013, 01:46 PM Reply Like
  • loser75
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
     
    The ignorant won't understand this or even care.
    30 Oct 2013, 09:03 AM Reply Like
  • Moon Kil Woong
    , contributor
    Comments (11527) | Send Message
     
    Great, where's the check to the public that got ruined by all the real estate fraud which ruined the entire economy? These settlements do nothing because none of it helps the public and the economy that was the victim of their deeds. Rather the funds go to the government which is actively supporting them and other TBTF banks to steal marketshare from smaller, leaner, better banks under the guise the government supports them so they are safer than non-state protected banks.

     

    Let's look at reality here. Without the tacit guarantee the US will not let TBTF banks go under and their depositors will be protected no matter how much they deposit their would be a flood of money leaving them, not a flood of money migrating to them. They are, in essence just like the quazi-state banks you see in any socialized country like Cuba, China, Venezuela, and others. America needs to patently reject them, withdraw money rom them and vote out anyone supporting them unless they support a state run financial system and an end to real capitalism (apparently the people hoisting nationalization on America are calling things like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac capitalism even though they are more communist than capitalist. After all they are state run, don't care about profitability, and their mission is to artificially manipulate the market not adhere to supply and demand or capitalism in any sense of the word much like TBTF banks and the Federal Reserve).
    27 Oct 2013, 03:43 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    The targeting of banks and especially large banks is a disservice and distraction from real analysis and debate. Large banks are an outcome not an input into the debate.

     

    The inputs are large government burdened by commitments and promises that needs large banks to float their debt domestically and internationally along with a citizenry too highly leveraged that wants debt and want it now. Banks serve debt and to the extent the government and population want debt and want it as cheap as possible they grow the banking sector. Banks are not competing for deposits nationwide they are competing for loans.

     

    Finally all the complaining about banks has become totally irrational. Does anyone complain about retailers leveraging global footprints to deliver apparel to the local store? Pushing credit to buy more clothes? Coming out with new lines of clothes every season and thereby costing consumers thousands of dollars? Or the hip new artist continuing to release hit records and taking money every week from a ear bud wearing public so the artist can live a stupid lifestyle and appear in People magazine?

     

    And Lord help us we all have to buy groceries. Why can't someone just give them to me for free? On my front step with a French maid.

     

    Let's just all go back to farming so we can blame the cows for not giving enough milk and kicking the milk pail. At least the blame will stop at the end of the driveway.
    27 Oct 2013, 07:12 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (14305) | Send Message
     
    TVP:

     

    No, we'll blame the neighbor for casting a spell on the cows.
    27 Oct 2013, 07:25 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4845) | Send Message
     
    Tack

     

    True. LOL!
    27 Oct 2013, 09:11 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    No one is assaulting capitalism or free markets or the fabric of time and space.

     

    What's being assaulted is banking scumbaggery. Retailers, artists, and grocers don't blatantly (and illegally) lie, cheat, and steal to push their products. Banks do.

     

    It is completely rational, indeed productive to complain about (and sue about) fraud.

     

    Now go play, go back to your fantasy land where big bad gubmint is the one and only root of all evil.
    28 Oct 2013, 07:25 AM Reply Like
  • pfifla1
    , contributor
    Comments (528) | Send Message
     
    I know plenty of people who went into banks pretending to be something they were not. Based on the regulations at the time were able to "state earnings" instead of proving them, you need to do a little research on who really loosened up the regulations in the first place. JPM was one of the first to stop doing sub prime prior to the collapse while their peers kept churning it out. Its not the banks that forced these scumbags to lie about how much they made and take on more debt than they could afford. It was their own poor decisions. its time our country takes a little personal responsibility. Without idiots willing to sign on the dotted line for a house that just experienced a 150% increase in price literally overnight thinking there is no ceiling in sight for the price of a 3/2 that backs up to an interstate Sure it is all the bank's fault. Thank god Obama and his band of goons can come in and impose fines that will never get close to reaching the people effected, all while dragging down banks, who will just restrict lending to qualified small businesses and future home owners, further compounding the trouble we are already in. whew D_Virginia you got all the answers!
    29 Oct 2013, 11:51 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (14305) | Send Message
     
    pf:

     

    Nailed it. And, the same fraudsters that stole the money, that they had no ability and/or intention to repay, in many cases have been allowed to remain in their homes rent free, for years, now. They must find it difficult to restrain uncontrollable belly laughs.

     

    And, here's much of the idiot public cheering on lawsuits, fines and new regulations for the banks, while they complain that they can't get a loan and that the economy is moribund. PT Barnum had it stated perfectly when he said a sucker was born every minute.
    30 Oct 2013, 07:06 AM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    > Based on the regulations at the time [borrowers] were able to
    > "state earnings" instead of proving them

     

    So obviously you agree that the banks ought to be subject to much more regulation that keeps them from being incredibly stupid. Excellent!

     

    And actually you're wrong (but you're used to that I'm sure), borrowers put less than a $1T hole in the economy -- banks leveraged that up to a $12T+ hole. Go bankers go!

     

    For hundreds of years, probably thousands, borrowers have been trying to borrow more than they should. This is not new. What was new was that the institution of lending historically had commons sense, and didn't let borrowers borrow more than they should. Until the late 90s and early 2000s..... Go bankers go!

     

    You might look at simple facts and consider that maybe banks don't pee rainbows and poop unicorns like you seem to believe that they do.
    30 Oct 2013, 07:46 AM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10690) | Send Message
     
    Can someone explain why the government - under duress from the Fed, bails out the banks giving them billions and then turns around and sues them for billions?
    27 Oct 2013, 11:42 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (14305) | Send Message
     
    AFTER being paid back in full, with interest....

     

    Answer: Because Big Government has an insatiable appetite and needs to grub endlessly for more money in each and every way.
    27 Oct 2013, 11:59 PM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    Spell it with me now kids: B-A-N-K-I-N-G F-R-A-U-D. Good boy. Here is your lollipop.
    28 Oct 2013, 07:20 AM Reply Like
  • loser75
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
     
    The Obama government not only loaned big banks money, it also bailed out General Motors and Chrysler. Why? To keep the financial system from collapsing, and in the case of GM and Chrysler to buy votes and support the unions. Why are they now suing the banks? Because the banks have returned to profitability, and the Obama government will use any excuse to grab money. We don't hear the Obama government suing GM, even though the government is paying the retirement benefits that GM defaulted on, even though those benefits were lost due to gross mismanagement of the company.
    28 Oct 2013, 08:42 AM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10690) | Send Message
     
    Big government needs to grub.....and yet the Fed still thinks we need to prop up an unstable banking industry. Perhaps Bernanke should walk over to DOJ and 'splain things to them.
    28 Oct 2013, 09:14 AM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    > We don't hear the Obama government suing GM

     

    We also don't see GM committing blatant large scale financial fraud. What a coincidence! :-)
    28 Oct 2013, 09:49 AM Reply Like
  • loser75
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
     
    Your ignorance is astounding. The "new" GM is following the same practices, promising retirement benefits, extorted by the union, that they know can not be sustained and will eventually be paid by taxpayers (you know, of course (sarcasm), "government " pays for nothing, they just take taxpayer money and give it away while lining their own pockets).
    29 Oct 2013, 10:43 AM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    No one is saying GM is necessarily a well-run business. But they aren't selling go carts and calling them luxury sedans -- JPM was (and almost certainly still is).

     

    Sorry kiddo, facts are facts, and more importantly, fraud is fraud.
    29 Oct 2013, 08:25 PM Reply Like
  • loser75
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
     
    Yes, facts are facts, you should learn what the facts are. I saw Henry Paulson (Treasury Secretary under Obama during the financial crisis) on TV the other night. He admitted that he and others convinced J Dimon to save Obama by acquiring Bear Sterns and Washington Mutual in the interest of the world economy. However, when asked if there was any discussion of protecting JPM from criminal actions perpetrated by Bear Sterns and WaMu prior to the acquisition, Mr. Paulson, being politically astute, avoided answering the question but managed a "cat that swallowed the canary" type grin. Of course, I would not expect any Obama supplicants to comprehend or admit the truth.
    30 Oct 2013, 09:46 AM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    JPM was grinning ear to ear when it made those acquisitions (for pennies on the dollar). It also noted its preparedness to deal with any litigation fallout.

     

    Funny how memories are so short...
    30 Oct 2013, 07:51 PM Reply Like
  • AaronFunding
    , contributor
    Comments (1275) | Send Message
     
    Loser: you are appropriately named. Henry Paulsen was Obama's Treasury Secretary? Jamie Dimon saved Obama by purchasing WaMu and Bear Stearns? Seriously?

     

    With out picking a political fight, it is pretty clear that Obama was a Senator from Illinois running for President during all the above.

     

    It is certainly up for debate if Obama did a good job of rescuing our economy, or if he engaged in politics with federal policies in trying to pull the country out of the Great Recession, but there is no question of Obama causing the crash and burn of our economy. Obama just was NOT the President at the time. It was that Mission Accomplished guy.
    3 Nov 2013, 12:30 PM Reply Like
  • loser75
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
     
    So, according to your warped economic system, JPM got a couple of bankrupt companies, ready to be liquidated, for pennies on the dollar. Why did Obama's minions have to high pressure Dimon into taking over the companies? Why were there not dozens of other firms chomping at the bit, trying to take them over? Why didn't Obama just let them go into bankruptcy? But, excuse me for exposing you to facts that you can't comprehend.
    31 Oct 2013, 08:28 AM Reply Like
  • D_Virginia
    , contributor
    Comments (2280) | Send Message
     
    > Why didn't Obama just let them go into bankruptcy?

     

    Because Obama wasn't president in 2008.

     

    What was that about not comprehending? :-)
    31 Oct 2013, 05:26 PM Reply Like
  • svy
    , contributor
    Comments (57) | Send Message
     
    If your money market fund has some investment in GSEs - fannie mae discount notes, federal home loan bank discount notes, federal home loan banks, federal home loan mortgage corp., federal national mortgage assn. & freddie mac discount notes with maturity dates in Feb 2014

     

    and the US government were to "default" on this next round of debt limit debates would these GSEs be impacted?
    16 Nov 2013, 12:43 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs