I could barely suppress a laugh when reading about Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan begging Tim Geithner to settle the foreclosure fraud issue so they can get out from under their liability. As Yves Smith points out, if Tim Geithner had the power to get Bank of America out of their mess, he surely would have done it by now, before their stock dipped 36% in the last three weeks. Geithner simply doesn’t have jurisdiction over state courts, where many judges are simply not going to allow foreclosures when standing to foreclose cannot be proven (Moynihan apparently distinguished on a conference call between “states where foreclosure can take place” and “states where foreclosure is going through very slowly,” and he might as well have been distinguishing between states that respect the rule of law and states that don’t). Geithner may try, but he cannot compel Attorneys General in both parties to settle for pennies on the dollar and relinquish all of their liability for consumer protection violations and fraud upon state courts. He cannot influence investors who see a giant meal ticket in the form of forcing big banks to repurchase faulty mortgage backed securities. If there was a magic bullet in this debacle, it would already have been fired.
The problem is enough AGs are proceeding with mortgage lawsuits against banks so as to render that advantage moot. New York’s Eric Schneiderman is moving ahead in a very systematic way, and Delaware’s Beau Biden seems to be moving in concert. Massachusetts’ Martha Coakley is also pushing ahead, albeit on different mortgage issues. Nevada’s Catherine Masto has a major anti-Countrywide suit outstanding that she has no intention of dropping. Kamala Harris in California has nibbled at some foreclosure related issues and may proceed on a broader basis. Colorado’s John Suthers is apparently also likely not to participate in the settlement, which means he may file litigation.
Moreover, any state AG settlement does not restrict private parties’ rights to sue. It won’t stop the $10+ billion AIG action against Countrywide, nor will it bar the various private efforts to derail BofA’s $8.5 billion mortgage settlement. And it will not stop borrowers from using chain of title issues to fight foreclosures.
Best part of this article was learning in the last line that Lawrence DiRita, a former spokesman for Donald Rumsfeld, now flaks for Bank of America. Poetic.
So having figured out that the Feds cannot come riding to the rescue with another back-door bailout, Bank of America has settled on Plan B. They’ve decided to smear the AGs who are doing their job.
And they’re doing it in a very roundabout way. They’ve trotted out Kathryn Wylde, the President of the Partnership for New York City, to attack Eric Schneiderman for his intervention in the Bank of America settlement with investors over mortgage backed securities. Wylde is going to bat for BofA as well as the Bank of New York Mellon, the trustee for the MBS in the settlement. And she is actually arguing that Schneiderman, by defending the rights of investors and seeking the truth on out and out securitization fraud, is threatening the existence of the financial sector in New York City. No, really.
A BNY Mellon spokesman told me the bank didn’t want to comment on the broader implications of the AG’s filing, but directed me to Kathryn Wylde, CEO of the Partnership for New York City, a business development non-profit. She said that the AG’s “careless action” hurts New York’s standing as a financial center.
“It’s disappointing from the standpoint of the business community that the AG would make a fraud accusation against a major financial institution — in the press,” she told me. “And to not have any consultation with the institution? The bank was blindsided by what appears to be an outrageous charge.” (The AG’s press office didn’t respond to my request of comment.)
BNYM DIRECTED the reporter to Wylde, incidentally. Wylde has done this before, back in November 2009, arguing that breaking up big banks would hurt New York City. This would be outrageous enough on its own. But Wylde happens to sit on the board of directors for the New York Federal Reserve (sub. reqd.).
So you have a board member for an federal overseer of banks on Wall Street (Wylde claims that the NY Fed “serves no regulatory function,” which is just absolutely not true) attacking a state regulator for stepping into a settlement where he has found massive fraud in a preliminary investigation. She’s taking up for BNYM, which the NY Fed oversees, against the state Attorney General. This is just a classic case of regulatory capture.
There’s almost no way this is not coordinated. Wylde is pretty powerful in New York circles, I understand, and she’s raising fears of a slowdown to New York City’s main economic engine to stall regulatory oversight. The banks must continue looting, the story goes, or they’ll stop creating jobs in Manhattan. I don’t think Schneiderman is likely to fold under this attempt at pressure, especially because the evidence keeps moving in his favor, rather than the other way. The New York Post, of all papers, has a damning story on this today.
In a staggering 92 percent of the claims brought by creditors asserting the right to foreclose against bankrupt families in New York City and the close-in suburbs, banks and mortgage servicers couldn’t prove they had the right to kick the families out on the street, a three-month probe by The Post has shown [...]
The Post dug through more than 150 Chapter 13 bankruptcy filings from June 2010 in New York’s Eastern and Southern federal court districts — covering the five boroughs, Long Island and nearby northern counties including Westchester–in search of local foreclosure or pre-foreclosure cases. We then put together a random sample of 40 cases where creditors such as banks — but more often loan servicers — filed proofs of claim for first mortgage debt.
The research unearthed claims riddled with robosigners, suspiciousdocuments and outrageous fees. And in a stunning 37 out of 40 cases, The Post discovered a broken chain of title from the original lender to the company now making claim against a local family for its home and thousands of dollars in questionable fees.
This is essentially the same investigation that Abigail Field undertook for Fortune a couple months ago. The New York freakin’ Post now joins Fortune in having done more of an investigation into foreclosure fraud than the 50-state foreclosure fraud task force.
But some of the AGs who believe in their job description are starting to catch up here. And try as the elites and oligarchs might to stop them, a tipping point is being reached where the public may understand just how much the mortgage industry wrecked the system of private property in this country.
UPDATE: Clearing up something from up above – Wylde specifically claimed that the board of directors of the NY Fed serves no regulatory function, not that the NY Fed itself doesn’t. She’s on solid ground with that statement, which I misinterpreted. It hardly negates the position she’s put herself into with this attack. There is such a thing as appearance of impropriety. And Wylde has played this game before, equating any regulatory effort on a bank to destroying New York City. And that’s not in any way above board.




20 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Actually, you’re wrong. Wylde said that the board of directors of the NY Fed serves no regulatory function, which is absolutely TRUE.
That’s some awfully thin ice Wylde is skating on…
You’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
Federal Reserve Act, Section 4. Federal Reserve Banks
…
General Corporate Powers
Sixth. To prescribe by its board of directors, by-laws not inconsistent with law, regulating the manner in which its general business may be conducted, and the privileges granted to it by law may be exercised and enjoyed.
Seventh. To exercise by its board of directors, or duly authorized officers or agents, all powers specifically granted by the provisions of this Act and such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking within the limitations prescribed by this Act.
…
6. Board of Directors
Every Federal reserve bank shall be conducted under the supervision and control of a board of directors.
..
8. Administration of Affairs; Extension of Credit
Said board of directors shall administer the affairs of said bank fairly and impartially and without discrimination in favor of or against any member bank or banks… Each Federal reserve bank shall keep itself informed of the general character and amount of the loans and investments of its member banks with a view to ascertaining whether undue use is being made of bank credit for the speculative carrying of or trading in securities, real estate, or commodities, or for any other purpose inconsistent with the maintenance of sound credit conditions… The chairman of the Federal reserve bank shall report to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System any such undue use of bank credit by any member bank
It’s not “thin ice.” Wylde’s statement was true, and your statement was false. End of story.
Because of the peculiar structure of the Fed, being on the board of directors of the NY Fed is mostly a ceremonial role. They have no regulatory role. The only thing of real consequence that the board does is hire the NY Fed president, which they only do once every 5 years. And even that isn’t as important as bloggers like to portray — bank regulations are written by the Board of Governors in DC (who are presidentially-appointed and Senate-confirmed), not by regional Fed presidents. It’s the difference between examination authority and rulewriting authority — regional Fed banks have the former, but not the latter. But board members of the NY Fed have no direct role in either examinations or rulewriting.
I’m not saying Wylde isn’t a hack — I’m sure she is. But she made an unambiguously true statement, which you ridiculed as false.
I did not read your whole article, but my impression of things is different then yours. I have always had the impression the JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs would be the last two standing. Of course Goldman was not a bank and is now. I don’t know who determines what, but Goldman became a bank in the middle of the collapse. I’m sure it probably helped that Paulson had 800 million dollars of shares. Further Goldman and Morgan, have settle many times for fines instead of prosecution for their fraudulent activities. What I am trying to say, I don’t believe B of A is a most favored child of TPTB.
Investors are the folks that in January – 6 months ago – purchased massively discounted MBS’s, and now want to be paid 100 cents on the dollar
They are hedge funds
Seems weird for those on the left to cheer the hedge funds destroying stockholder value.
The AG’s see real Countrywide fraud – and BofA did buy Countrywide in 2008 – so they have a problem.
But the glee in seeing that they have a problem is a bit mis-placed. Countrywide was the villain – and BofA is trying to clean it up.
True – why Citi and BofA are being cut down may be political – not supporting the right folks. Or the hedge funds just chose them to destroy shareholder value – just bad luck. God forbid hedge fund behavior be regulated.
The left should be pushing for help for homeowners rather than the rights of the hedge funds to destroy.
The term “investors” in the post sounds so innocent.
Good try, beowulf, but you’re wrong. This isn’t my opinion, it’s simply a fact. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the structure of the Federal Reserve knows that board of directors of regional Fed banks is specifically prohibited from any involvement in regulatory matters.
See here:
And from the NY Fed’s bylaws:
That’s as unambiguous as it gets: the board of directors of the NY Fed has no regulatory function. Period.
Hey – try the decafe.
I never said her statement was false.
But I did laugh! It’s thin ice whether or not any lines were crossed.
You said her statement was “just absolutely not true.”
If you’re still sticking with the false statement in your post, even after I’ve literally shown you the bylaw that proves it’s false, then I’ll lose a lot of respect for you.
somewhere there is a hair that needs splitting.
While I can’t comment on what powers the NY Fed does or does not have, I can comment on what IL AG Lisa Madigan is not doing. I had the occasion to discuss foreclosure issues at length with one of her staffers this weekend, along with some other very smart people I know, and the upshot of the conversation is that homeowners are barking up the wrong tree with the missing and fraudulent document issue. AG Madigan is also very reluctantly discussing the robo-signing issues with some county recorders, but I didn’t get the impression that anyone here in Illinois thinks that’s a big deal that should get the full court press. She already settled a Countrywide deal, so I don’t see her going back to that well again.
Basically, the AG is generally thought well of and does have a reputation of caring about the citizens in this state, but when it comes to foreclosure issues, we are apparently on our own. The extent of her office has been to sponsor dog and pony shows telling people how long the timeline is before they have to leave their homes and putting together a snazzy new booklet explaining predatory lending and the current foreclosure process. They do not seem to have any interest in preventing fraudulent foreclosures or otherwise assisting homeowners fight the banks or be made whole in any way. I could be wrong, but in this case I don’t think I am.
Ha, point out ANYBODY that has acted like a REGULATOR at the NY Fed. Surely they would get their a$$ fired for such stupidity.
Uh, I am not davidg. And thus you are attributing your ire to the wrong person! If you don’t fix that I’ll lose a lot of respect for you!
Timothy Geithner may not be able to effect a rescue for Bank of America…BUT…his boss sure can, through offering legislation. And Obama is no stranger to ex post facto legislation which ends of giving corporations having done illegal things a get-out-of-any-difficutlties-free card. Think telecomms and illegal wiretapping.
Obama could call it a jobs program….
Or just another bankster rescue.
And he would get Dem support.
Found this very odd editorial in the New York Daily News today before seeing DD’s piece…
It’s legal, but wrong, for Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to pocket campaign cash
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/08/15/2011-08-15_erics_cashflow_problem.html
So he’s funding his efforts at curbing corruption legally. And who would have a problem with that except the people he’s going after. Interesting timing.
BofA is no villain?
Have your tried to do business with them?
Are you familiar with their Recontrust conflict-of-interest?
And they bough the successor liability of countrywide. Had they purchased it in Bankruptcy, they could have avoided the successor liability.
Greed got them in trouble, greed keeps them in trouble.
No-one cares about homewoners.
Bond holders, ah, they have the full attention of our AGs. Bond holders have money.
UPDATE: Clearing up something from up above – Wylde specifically claimed that the board of directors of the NY Fed serves no regulatory function, not that the NY Fed itself doesn’t.
She’s on solid ground with that statement, which I misinterpreted.I’m sorry David, now you’re both wrong.
6. Board of Directors
“Every Federal reserve bank shall be conducted under the supervision and control of a board of directors.”
“Supervision and control” is a term of art related to the common law doctrine of respondeat superior (“let the master answer”).
“the right of supervision and control imposes vicarious liability on a principal for the negligent acts of its agent committed within the scope of his employment… The power of control is the test of liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.”
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/812/812.F2d.170.86-1049.html
“The Board’s powers and duties shall not extend to those activities falling exclusively within the statutory authority of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or any other federal agency, including but not limited to activities pertaining to the supervision and regulation of financial institutions.”
The key word is “exclusively”, there are some activities only the Fed Governors can perform (for example setting the transaction fee schedule) that regional banks cannot intrude on. But for non-exclusive activities, the FRA grants each regional Fed bank (again, operating under the supervision and control of its Board)a measure of supervisory and regulatory authority; as to financial institutions in particular, quoting FRA again:
Each Federal reserve bank shall keep itself informed of the general character and amount of the loans and investments of its member banks with a view to ascertaining whether undue use is being made of bank credit for the speculative carrying of or trading in securities, real estate, or commodities, or for any other purpose inconsistent with the maintenance of sound credit conditions… The chairman of the Federal reserve bank shall report to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System any such undue use of bank credit by any member bank.
And just to save you the trouble of looking this up, if the New York by-laws and the Federal Reserve Act conflict, the Act of Congress prevails.
Are you kidding me?
BOA, Chase, Citi, Wells are all in the same boat.
Ask yourself, why would they buy damaged goods like Wachovia, WAMU, Countrywide and the rest of the failed banks?
They didn’t buy and promissary notes and DOT’s/Mortgages. They bought the servicing rights which was a license to steal. They new they could screw the investors because they countrolled all the loan level files and none of the docs were ever transferred to the trusts.
Then they knew they could foreclose on the property of the homeowners who were screwed fromt he start when they were financed not by the banks but by all the money from wall street who were also screwed from the start.
Ask yourself how any back could be making money if unemployment is what it is, people aren’t paying the mortgages, etc.?
Because they’re stealing homes and pocketing the cash and telling the investors they lost as well.
The investors are willing to settle for pennies on the dollar, why? Because they’ve aready been paid as well through insurance, CDO’s, CDS, and any other creative financial instrument they could create that made money from thin area.
If the AG’s don’t stop them then they may as well put Dimon in the White House. After all one of his right hand men is already there….