Bank of America sued for $10 trillion, shares down 16%
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 01, 2024, 08:52:48 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Economics (Moderator: Torie)
  Bank of America sued for $10 trillion, shares down 16%
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Bank of America sued for $10 trillion, shares down 16%  (Read 731 times)
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,915


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 08, 2011, 11:34:36 AM »

Link

Here it is, guys. It has arrived!
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,915


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 08, 2011, 05:52:24 PM »

Here is the text of the lawsuit. We are still cleaning up the mess from 2005-2007. That's what this is about.

---

"This case arises from a massive fraud perpetrated by Defendants Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, and Countrywide that has resulted in more than $10 billion in damagesto AIG, and ultimately American taxpayers. AIG brings this action as part of its overall effortsto recoup such damages from these defendants and other parties.2.
 
Between 2005 and 2007, Defendants fraudulently induced AIG to invest in nearly350 residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) at a price of over $28 billion. Driven by asingle-minded desire to increase their share of the lucrative RMBS market and the considerablefees generated by it, Defendants created and marketed RMBS backed by hundreds of thousandsof defective mortgages.3.
 
The Offering Materials used to sell the RMBS fraudulently misrepresented andconcealed the actual credit quality of the mortgages by providing false quantitative data about theloans, thus masking the true credit risk of AIG’s investments. The Offering Materials alsofalsely claimed that the mortgages had been issued pursuant to objective underwriting guidelines.In fact, the loan originators, including Defendants, encouraged borrowers to falsify loanapplications, pressured property appraisers to inflate home values, and ignored obvious red flagsin the underwriting process.4.
 
The stated underwriting guidelines had been replaced by an undisclosedgoverning principle: Defendants would originate or acquire any loan that could be sold to third- party investors like AIG through RMBS securitization, no matter how risky."

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/bank-of-americas-no-good-very-bad-day/
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 08, 2011, 06:48:48 PM »

BAC was basically a zero after it bought Countrywide and it compounded its zero when it got Merrill Lynch.  Sometimes the buzzards just have to wait.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,915


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 08, 2011, 06:59:08 PM »

BAC was basically a zero after it bought Countrywide and it compounded its zero when it got Merrill Lynch.  Sometimes the buzzards just have to wait.

I think they were hoping to stretch out the loss recognition over 10, 20 years like the Japanese banks. That way, new, profitable loans would make up for the losses.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 08, 2011, 08:53:54 PM »

BAC was basically a zero after it bought Countrywide and it compounded its zero when it got Merrill Lynch.  Sometimes the buzzards just have to wait.

I think they were hoping to stretch out the loss recognition over 10, 20 years like the Japanese banks. That way, new, profitable loans would make up for the losses.

The Japanese banks had to be bailed out on numerous occasions within those 10-20 years.  They must be hoping for the same.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,915


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 08, 2011, 08:55:50 PM »

BAC was basically a zero after it bought Countrywide and it compounded its zero when it got Merrill Lynch.  Sometimes the buzzards just have to wait.

I think they were hoping to stretch out the loss recognition over 10, 20 years like the Japanese banks. That way, new, profitable loans would make up for the losses.

The Japanese banks had to be bailed out on numerous occasions within those 10-20 years.  They must be hoping for the same.

Well of course. Part of the bailout is also the higher ups calling up the folks at the NY AG office, AIG, etc. and telling them to cool it with the lawsuits. That's what they did in 2008 and 2009, but then they dropped the ball.
Logged
patrick1
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,865


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2011, 11:35:26 PM »

Pretty big difference between $10billion(the actual #) and $10 trillion.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,562
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 14, 2011, 03:26:07 PM »

   
Bank of America sued for $10 trillion, shares down 16%

That's a lot of money.  Do you think they are good for it?





the funny thing is that BoA is so huge, I believe the thread title as was before I clicked (unlike the time my professor stated the NHL was losing $270 billion a year prior to the 04-05 lockout).
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.21 seconds with 12 queries.