FedUpUSA

Archive for the ‘Bank of America’ Category

Bank Of America To Stop Charging 31,200% Interest

Posted by Karl Denninger

No, that’s not a misprint.

Let’s say you went to Starbucks and bought a $5 Latte.  You swiped your debit card and didn’t have the $5 in your account.

Bank of America would charge you a roughly $30 overdraft fee, amounting to 600% of your purchase for a loan of that $5 for as little as one day.  That’s bad enough.

Let’s assume you paid that overdraft fee (and the $5) in one week.  There are 52 weeks in a year and the bad news is that when computing the annual percentage rate you must divide the interest charged by the percentage of a year you held the money to get the APR.  Thus, 31,200% interest on an “annualized” basis, assuming you pay it in one week (it’s 218,400% if you pay it off the next morning!)

The bank will soon stop doing this, and in fact is mandated to do so without getting permission first for each transaction, as of June 1st.

The question that should be asked is why we should have to wait until June 19th for new accounts, or August 1st for existing accounts, never mind why this sort of outrageous behavior has been permitted in the first place.

Guido on the corner typically will charge you something obscene like 500% interest over the course of a year.

The banksters put Guido to shame.

How much do the banksters make off this?  Some $1.77 billion annually, at last count.  None of which, I might add, will be refunded to their customers.

The banking industry has claimed that changes like this will “restrict credit” to lower-income customers, who allegedly “need” that credit. 

I will simply observe that nobody “needs” a 31,200% interest rate loan except the bank that has been given license to rob the public blind – literally.

If you were wondering who the Congress and Fed work for, it clearly is not you.

The open question, and one that I cannot seem to find a reasonable answer to, is why we, the people, continue to allow both a Congress and Federal Reserve to sit in control of our government and financial system when they permit and endorse actions that constitute financial rape of such an egregious nature that absolutely everyone can understand it.

Bank of America Gaming Government Loan Guarantees

Submitted by bmoreland

I have long suspected that it was only a matter of time before banks began to adjust their Collection efforts to reflect Government Guarantees on their loan portfolios.

Simply put, imagine you are a bank with $100 billion in loans. Of this, $20 Billion is guaranteed by the government, $80 billion is your own money. If you managed the collection organization responsible for servicing this debt wouldn’t you be just a wee bit tempted to make sure that your $80 billion was getting the priority?

The table below details the past 12 quarters of Total Loans for Bank of America along with the portion that is Noncurrent:

The Noncurrent percentage has jumped from 5.30% in Q3 to 6.75% in Q4. Quarter on Quarter there is another $12.44 Billion in Noncurrent loans.

The next table details the same 12 quarters and reviews what portion of the Noncurrent loans are guaranteed by the Government (er, you and me the taxpayer):

Bank of America has had a massive jump in the Noncurrent loans that are Governement Guaranteed. The Quarter on Quarter jump is… wait for it… $11.40 Billion.

So, magically, the incremental $12.44 Billion that has become Noncurrent Quarter on Quarter at Bank of America has a guarantee on $11.40 Billion. Nearly 92% of the jump in their Noncurrent loans are covered by us, the taxpayer.

This is no consipiracy theory discussion – these are cold hard facts supporting what any reasonable actor would do in the situtation. If the government is going to cover my losses on a portion of my loan portfolio I can damn well guarantee you I’d be moving my best collectors to the portfolio I’m responsible for. The government can have my new hires, my undesirables, my slow workers, etc…

I highly doubt that we’ll ever hear about this, but this is yet another massive shift from the taxpayer to the banks.

“Mistaken” Foreclosure Or Felony Criminal Conduct?

Posted by Karl Denninger

Oh, the Tampa Bay fishwrapper tries to claim that this was a “foreclosure” on the wrong house:

SPRING HILL — Charlie and Maria Cardoso are among the millions of Americans who have experienced the misery and embarrassment that come with home foreclosure.

Just one problem: The Massachusetts couple paid for their future retirement home in Spring Hill with cash in 2005, five years before agents for Bank of America seized the house, removed belongings and changed the locks on the doors, according to a lawsuit the couple have filed in federal court.

Let me be clear: To foreclose on something you must first be holding a mortgage on that thing.

Bank of America did not “foreclose” on anything as the home in question was purchased for cash and thus owned free and clear. 

Bank of America had no more right to be present upon that property for any purpose whatsoever than a crack dealer, gangster or other street thug.

The firm, by their proxies acting at their direction, allegedly unlawfully broke into someone’s home, stole their possessions and destroyed them, and then unlawfully denied the rightful owners access to their own property.

In the State of Florida (and many other states), if you do this while someone is present in their home, you are presumed to be acting with the intent to do great bodily harm or worse, and the occupant(s) are authorized under the Castle Doctrine to use deadly force to stop you.

Bank of America will undoubtedly claim it was all an “innocent mistake.” 

But that’s not likely to hold water if this allegation proves up:

The bank had an incorrect address on foreclosure documents — the house it meant to seize is across the street and about 10 doors down — but the Cardosos and a Realtor employed by Bank of America were unable to convince the company that it had the wrong house, the suit states.

In other words Bank of America allegedly was told they were attempting to seize the wrong house and yet did it anyway.

Lawsuit?

This looks like criminal conduct to me with the line being crossed when the bank refused to listen to their own Realtor who told them they had the wrong house.

If I was to try such a stunt myself I would be lucky if I was not filled full of .40 caliber holes by the occupants of said home and I would deserve exactly that fate for not only attempting to seize the wrong house but intentionally and willfully ignoring warnings that I was trying to seize the wrong house.

Of course when you’re a big TARP’D bank and everyone in our government including the President himself has declared that you are effectively above the law things are just a bit different than when you’re an ordinary person with an obligation toward law and order.

This is the bank’s alleged reply:

“We have reached out to the Cardosos’ representatives and hope to have the opportunity to work with them to properly assess and address their allegations,” the statement said. “We are reviewing the allegations in the lawsuit, the actual events that led to them and the causes of those events, and will consider any hardship that resulted.”

Bank of America will consider? 

Bank of America will assess?

How about this response to your lawyering jackasses:

Blow it out your ass Bank of America.

This is MY reply and is addressed to ALL AMERICANS:

Do you support this sort of crap?  Is this what AMERICA stands for?  Breaking and entering into someone’s PAID IN CASH home DESPITE being warned they had the wrong house, stealing and destroying the contents thereof and other acts that, were you or I to engage in them would rightfully result in felony prison time – or worse?

If you do not, then you have an affirmative obligation to not only not do business with these SPECIFIC Banksters yourself but also to refuse to do business with anyone who does.

Further, YOU have an affirmative obligation if you live in this area and honor the rule of law to DEMAND that the District Attorney bring FELONY CRIMINAL CHARGES against everyone involved up and down the line for the unlawful act of entering upon this property, taking and destroying the contents therein and unlawfully denying the rightful owners access to their home.

Mistakes stop being innocent errors when you are told of your mistake and yet continue pursuit of your wrongful conduct, and if this newspaper account is accurate that is exactly what happened.

THE POWER TO STOP THIS CRAP STARTS WITH WE THE PEOPLE.

Bank of America Forecloses On House That Couple Had Paid Cash For

By Tony Marrero, Times Staff Writer

SPRING HILL — Charlie and Maria Cardoso are among the millions of Americans who have experienced the misery and embarrassment that come with home foreclosure.

Just one problem: The Massachusetts couple paid for their future retirement home in Spring Hill with cash in 2005, five years before agents for Bank of America seized the house, removed belongings and changed the locks on the doors, according to a lawsuit the couple have filed in federal court.

Early last month, Charlie Cardoso had to drive to Florida to get his home back, the complaint filed in Massachusetts on Jan. 20 states.

The bank had an incorrect address on foreclosure documents — the house it meant to seize is across the street and about 10 doors down — but the Cardosos and a Realtor employed by Bank of America were unable to convince the company that it had the wrong house, the suit states.

“Their own real estate agent told them, and nevertheless Bank of America steamrolled right ahead,” said Joseph deMello, an attorney in Taunton, Mass., who is representing the couple. “This is a nightmare for anyone, and it affected my hard-working clients a lot.”

The Cardosos are seeking unspecified damages from Bank of America. The company showed negligence, trespassed and caused the couple emotional distress and financial hardship, especially because a tenant renting the home at the time got worried and left, according to the complaint. It’s still unclear if the couple’s credit rating has been affected, deMello said.

The suit names other defendants listed as “John Doe” who could include “employees, agents, contractors or other persons, ordered, hired, or told by BOA to trespass on the plaintiffs’ property and to dispose of the plaintiff’s personal possessions.”

The suit also charges the company with defamation and libel. DeMello said the Cardosos are part of a Portuguese community in the area, and the foreclosure tarnished their reputation.

Charlie Cardoso is an unemployed construction worker, and his wife is disabled. They paid $139,000 for the three-bedroom pool home in the tidy neighborhood a few blocks south of Spring Hill Drive, records show. It was Charlie’s life savings, the complaint says.

“We have a lot of friends there, and all the time we’ve been telling them the house has been paid (for),” a tearful Maria Cardoso said in an interview with WCBV-TV in Boston last month.

The couple, reached at home in New Bedford, Mass., referred a St. Petersburg Times reporter to deMello.

According to the complaint, here is what happened:

Last July, the couple’s tenant called the Cardosos in a panic. The single mother of two teenagers accused the couple of lying when they told her she could rent the house as long she wanted. Three men were there to clean out the house and change the locks, she told them.

Charlie Cardoso talked to a real estate agent for Bank of America, who said he would inform the company that it had the wrong house. The couple thought that was the end of the ordeal.

It wasn’t. A landscaper Bank of America hired in August to mow the grass on the property broke a fence to bring in his equipment. The tenant got spooked and moved out just before Christmas.

On Jan. 5, a friend of the Cardosos who was helping the tenant pick up belongings found men putting a lock box on the front door. The workers said the house belonged to Bank of America. The friend called the Cardosos.

When Charlie Cardoso called the bank, a representative told him there was a mistake, the problem would be fixed, and he would get a return call. The call never came. The lock box remained.

Four days later, Cardoso and his son drove to Florida, missing the homecoming of another son who was returning from Iraq for a two-week leave.

Cardoso had to prove to police that he owned the house. The next day he broke in through a back door and used bolt cutters to remove the lock box. The water and electricity had been turned off, and pipes had frozen.

The couple filed suit 10 days later.

Possessions the couple had stored at the home, including photos, clothes, tools and small appliances, had been removed and are presumably lost, the complaint states.

In September, three months after Bank of America started foreclosure on the Cardosos, it also foreclosed on the nearby home, records show.

The bank declined to comment to the Times beyond an e-mailed statement.

“We have reached out to the Cardosos’ representatives and hope to have the opportunity to work with them to properly assess and address their allegations,” the statement said. “We are reviewing the allegations in the lawsuit, the actual events that led to them and the causes of those events, and will consider any hardship that resulted.”

Beyond financial damages, the Cardosos want something else.

“Bank of America or somebody should apologize,” Charlie Cardoso said during last month’s television interview.

At least one bank has acknowledged the record number of foreclosures from the mortgage meltdown has increased the likelihood of such mistakes.

Citi-Residential started the foreclosure process on a home in Kissimmee in 2008 — changing the locks and emptying the pool — even though the owner, who lives in London, didn’t have a mortgage with the company, according to a report by Orlando TV station WFTV. Company officials said the high number of foreclosures they were dealing with in Central Florida contributed to the error.

DeMello said he has been fielding calls from other homeowners throughout the country with similar complaints.

As for the Cardosos, they still want to retire in Florida.

“They just don’t know if they’re going to be able to be in that neighborhood because of the uncomfortable feeling they have right now,” deMello said. “Hopefully that will change.”

Times researcher Shirl Kennedy contributed to this report. Tony Marrero can be reached at tmarrero@sptimes.com or (352) 848-1431.

Ken Lewis: If I’m Going Down, Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke Are Coming Down With Me

No WAY is Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis going to be the only one to answer for the acquisition of crappy Merrill Lynch and its crappy bonuses, “a person close to Lewis’s defense team” (who may or may not be Ken Lewis himself) tells Charlie Gasparino today on the Daily Beast. NO WAY will he be a scapegoat, alone, for the people who twisted his arm to go through with the Merrill deal by telling him he would be fired if he didn’t. “If this thing goes to trial you can expect both Paulson and Bernanke to be on the witness list.” If he’s going down, he’s bringing them down, too. Bringing them down to Chinatown. Order in the court!

What Took You So Long? (Put-Backs and Blow-Ups)

Posted by Karl Denninger

IRA put forward a nasty report on the “putback and blowup” risk issue related to the banks and fraudulent mortgages:

The wave of loan repurchase demands on securitization sponsors is the next area of fun in the zombie dance party, namely the part where different zombies start to eat one another. The GSE’s are going to tear 50-100bp easy out of the flesh of the banking industry in the form of loan returns on trillions of dollars in exposure, this as charge-offs on the several trillion in residential exposure covered by the GSEs heads north of 5%. The damage here is in the hundreds of billions and lands in particular on the larger zombie banks, especially Bank of America (BAC) and Wells Fargo (WFC).

….

The action “arises out of the alleged fraudulent acts and breaches of contract of Countrywide in connection with fifteen securitizations of pools of residential second-lien mortgages” Take particular care to savor the fact that these are second lien pools and that, where defaults have occurred on the primary mortgage, loss severities on the seconds will tend to be 100%. Or the cost could be more than par if you count the cost of remediation and recovery efforts.

Sigh…. how long does it take folks?

On April 20th, 2007 I wrote the following:

Why? Because every last one of the stated income loans that has been made can be PUT BACK ON THE LENDERS IF IT DEFAULTS.

And by the way, this is not limited to Countrywide (CFC). It applies to IndyMac, Downey, AHM, Washington Mutual and every other lender in the ALT-A space.

Let me restate that again so that everyone gets it – every single ALT-A lender is at risk of having every defaulted loan – no matter how long it has been since it was securitized and sold off – PUT back on them if there is any material misstatement in the paperwork!

To those of you who are claiming that this is a “Subprime” problem, that it is “contained”, that it is limited to “poor people who can’t pay their bills” or anything like that, let me point out that you are one hundred percent full of crap.

Emphasis in the original.

And on April 17th:

So while mortgage companies may maintain that they have “little” exposure to defaults because they sold these loans off to the bond market without recourse, if in fact 60 percent of the ALT-A stated income products have incomes fraudulently inflated by 50% or more those mortgage companies can probably be forced to take back each and every one of those loans.

HALF of all stated-income loans?

This will BANKRUPT every single one of these companies if it happens.

Now go look at the big bank’s balance sheets for second line (HELOC, silent seconds, etc) exposure.  70% of the outstanding dollar volume was written in California, Florida, Nevada and Arizona – on bubble houses.  The clear majority of those have a first that is underwater and thus the recovery value on those HELOCs, if they default or are “put back” due to fraud, IS ZERO.

When you look at these large banks balance sheets and then take out of their capital the likely losses under this sort of analysis you find that every single one of them will be driven into regulatory capital trouble at best.

This is just one of the issues we have ducked instead of facing.  The other big one is commercial real estate securitizations – S&P put out a report the other day in which it essentially said “if the banks have to eat the reduced value now they’re all insolvent.”

We in fact have fixed none of the underlying issues that brought down Fannie, Freddie, AIG, Bear and Lehman.  The only reason we have seen supposed “improvement” in the markets is that the government has given permission to lie to financial institutions in the exact same form and fashion (that is, hiding actual liabilities and probable losses) that brought down ENRON.

But the underlying loss is still real, still present, and still out there.  Refusing to recognize it doesn’t make it go away.  It just sweeps it under the carpet with the hope (wish really) that the institution will be able to screw you, the consumer, out of enough money to cover the shortfalls before they’re forced to recognize the already-occurred losses and thus declare bankruptcy.

If this was all “the government” that was stuck with these bad loans that were unmarketable (since they have a zero recovery value under legal collection methods they truly can’t be sold for more than a few pennies to one of those “shark” companies that cheats on the law when it comes to those rules) we might have a situation where the government could try to shift it onto the taxpayer through opaque bailouts of Fannie, Freddie and The Fed.

But a good part of this debt was in fact securitized and distributed.  Those holders, such as the FHLB that recently filed suit, aren’t the government and have no reason to sit there and absorb a loss that occurred as a consequence of allegedly-fraudulent underwriting.  For that matter neither does Fannie and Freddie, as despite their “conservatorship” they remain a publicly traded corporation and intentionally absorbing losses caused by other party’s frauds could open their directors and officers up to a derivative action (read: lawsuits a-plenty.)

No folks, these losses won’t be “buried and monetized.”  They will travel back up the chain to the last remaining standing organization that touched them, which just happens to be the zombie banks, since all the “independent brokers” that fed the bilge into these securitization factories are long gone, dead and buried.  Thus the ticking bomb will wind up exploding on the balance sheets of those “too big to fix” institutions we refused to resolve last year because we lacked the political will to go in a close one or more of these banks, and when it happens….. it will rock our world.

You’ve had nearly three years warning Washington – and investors.

When – not if – this goes off I don’t want to hear “nobody saw it coming” from The Halls of Congress and elsewhere in DC because I will be happy to run a campaign advertisement against anyone who so bleats with a copy of my TICKERS from 2007 documenting that in fact some people did see it coming – and were intentionally ignored.

(The Supreme Court recently made such speech legal…. and for that I must extend my heartfelt thanks!)

Thieves Guild: Bank of America Flubs Foreclosure, Seizes Wrong House — AGAIN

Hat-tip Consumerist.

For some, the slogan “practice makes perfect” is a motto of encouragement to try again, try harder and achieve perfection. For Bank of America, it should be taken as a strong hint to try and do the right thing the first time, not to try and find a better way to seize the wrong house and then attempt to abstain from any recognizable responsibility.

It should be, but it’s not.

BoA has apparently attempted to foreclose on the wrong house once again, according to an article by Laura Elder in the Galveston County Daily News:

GALVESTON — A West End property owner is suing Bank of America Corp., asserting its agents mistakenly seized a vacation house he owns free and clear, then changed the locks and shut the power off, resulting in the smelly spoiling of about 75 pounds of salmon and halibut from an Alaska fishing trip and other damages.[...snip...]

Agents working for Bank of America cut off power to the property by turning off the main switch in the lower part of the house, according to the lawsuit. They also changed the locks, so Schroit was unable to reach the switch to turn the power back on, according to the lawsuit.

[...snip...]

“The property sustained water damage, potential mold contamination arising from the standing freezer residue, water, heat and high humidity conditions during the time the electrical power was off,” according to the lawsuit.

This marks the second time known this has known to occur. The Wheelright, Ky, homeowner in that incident filed a lawsuit against the bank for a similar incident: the locks were changed, and the bank refused to pay any damages other than replacement locks.

Accidents happen, but the bank’s responsibility for its actions doesn’t cease to exist simply because it’s a corporate behemoth. If an average person had “accidentally” shut off power to someone else’s home, changed the locks and caused untold damage, that person would be held liable in both criminal and civil court for the actions — amends and liability would most certainly be assigned.

Bank of America’s incapacity to deal responsibly with “errors” that significantly impact the public should be a wake-up call that the bank has other serious issues that need to be addressed, and that the rights and liberties of “corporate personhood” should not ever exceed the rights and liberties of real living people.

For some reason Zero Hedge is prone to take a great deal of heat (both directly radiated and reflected) whenever we opine on the (rather obvious to us) prospect that interest rates might actually (quelle surprise) rise in this environment.  Today, rather than engage in “we told you so” gloating, or endure the repetitive pleadings of commentators that this or that Treasury auction was really a success if you just look a little deeper at the figures, we’ll just quote Bloomberg quoting other fixed income observers on today’s auction of two years, in an article “ambiguously” titled “U.S. 2-Year Yields Highest Since October After $44 Billion Sale.”

Treasury two-year note yields reached the highest levels since October as an investor class that includes foreign central banks bought the least of the debt in five months at today’s record-tying $44 billion auction.

Indirect bidders purchased 34.8 percent of the notes, the lowest amount since July, and below the average for the past 10 sales of 45 percent. Treasuries of all maturities have fallen 3.6 percent this year, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch indexes. That would be the worst performance since at least 1978, when Merrill began collecting the data.

We aren’t really sure how this will be spun into a “good thing,”™ but we are sure that someone will find a way.  Back to you, CNBC.

From Bloomberg, Citigroup Stock Sale Discount Prompts Treasury to Delay Disposal of Stake :

Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) — Citigroup Inc.,
the last of the four largest U.S. banks to seek funds to exit a
taxpayer bailout, raised $17 billion by selling stock for a price so
low that the U.S. delayed plans to shrink its one-third stake in the
lender.

Citigroup sold 5.4 billion shares at
$3.15 apiece, less than the $3.25 the government paid when it acquired
its stake in September. The New York-based bank said the Treasury won’t
sell any of its shares for at least 90 days.

Investors demanded a bigger discount from Citigroup than Bank of America Corp. or Wells Fargo & Co.,
which together raised more than $31 billion this month to exit the
Troubled Asset Relief Program. Wells Fargo, which trumped Citigroup’s
bid to buy Wachovia Corp. last year, leapfrogged its rival by
completing a $12.25 billion share sale Dec. 15. JPMorgan Chase &
Co. repaid $25 billion in June.

“The market cast its vote and they’re low down on the ballot,” said Douglas Ciocca,
a managing director at Renaissance Financial Corp. in Leawood, Kansas.
“Citigroup needs to show steps to reinstall the quality of the brand.”

With
the sale, Citigroup’s common shares outstanding increased to 28.3
billion. That’s up from 22.9 billion as of Sept. 30 and 5 billion at
the end of 2007.

“More shares outstanding means less value per share,” said Edward Najarian,
an analyst at International Strategy and Investment Group in New York,
who has a “hold” rating on the shares. “The whole structure of their
deal to pay back TARP wasn’t very good for common shareholders and that
is being reflected in the pricing.”

I think
one of the most important points are being missed. Most of these banks
swore that they didn’t need TARP. Despite this, in order to return it,
they must go back out to the capital markets. Why do you have to hit
the market to return a loan that you said you didn’t need, unless you
needed it? This obvious lie has went unchallenged.

It gets
worse. Citi is diluting the hell out of it shareholders, as well as all
of the other TARP banks that are selling shares. Some may even be
taking on debt. They are doing this primarily to gain the freedom to
declare bonuses at higher rates despite uncertain credit condition
surrounding the toxic assets that caused the problem in the first
place. Why in the world would any lender or shareholder agree to
dilution and/or higher debt service “primarily” to pay higher bonuses
to employees in the highest compensated (as a percent of net revenue)
industry in the world???

Imagine if you ran this business, you
have rocky times during a recession with revenues in nearly all aspects
of your business down save the blatant risk taking of trading, and you
go to your bank and say I need a big loan so I can pay myself a $20
million bonus increase.
Do you think Citibank would give you this
loan? They expect it from their shareholders. The same goes for
Goldman, JPM, BAC, etc.

Also from Bloomberg: Weak Banks Should Face Curbs on Bonuses, Dividends, Basel Regulator Says

Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) — Global regulators urged national
authorities to limit bonus and dividend payments by banks with
weakened capital safety nets as part of proposals to reduce
risks to the financial system.

Banks should increase the quality of the capital they hold
to cope with losses, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision
said in a report on bank capital and liquidity published today.
Banks with depleted capital buffers shouldn’t use predictions of
recovery to justify generous dividends to investors and
employees, the committee said.

Global regulators have been wrestling with plans to
increase supervision of banks following the worst economic
crisis since World War II. The Group of 20 Nations agreed in
April that banks should be required to hold more and better
quality capital to reduce risks to the financial system.

“It’s not acceptable for banks which have depleted their
capital buffers to try and use the distribution of capital as a
way to signal their financial strength,” the committee’s
statement said. “The proposed framework will reduce the
discretion of banks which have depleted their capital buffers to
further reduce them through generous distributions of
earnings.”

It’s amazing that this even needs to be said.