countrywide forced poor minorities into subprime loans? hold on a minute, i've got to find some way i can blame this on the government

report 2 likes, 1 dislike   like  dislike

What was left out was that black and hispanic borrowers were given higher rates than whites with the same credit scores and profiles. So the crime was forcing them into subprime loans when they qualified for better rates.

report 3 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Mirabile dictu! I agree with eric pfeiffer. If a lender has a potential borrower with a poor credit history, he is entirely justified in charging a higher rate of interest. But then, that isn't "fair" in today's progressive political climate, is it?

report 0 likes, 3 dislikes   like  dislike

Burroughston you should read Godzilla's post and the news coverage. Do you really think someone would have to settle charges for charging higher interest to those with poorer credit scores??? THINK MAN!!! Come on todays "progressive political climate" does NOT exist. Like your post its merely an illogical imaginary device hoisted upon unsuspecting folks like yourself who buy into the bait and switch as to what is really undermining our capitalist system (hint the ever growing divide) .

No Burroughston as Godzilla and other news stories point out - its an apples to apples comparison. Minorities were steered into higher interest subprime loans even though they qualified for and whites with equal credit scores were put into loans with lower rates and better terms.

report 4 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

The alleged discrimination took place from 2004 to 2007, when Countrywide was racking up profits as the nation's largest subprime mortgage lender. But the company nearly collapsed in 2008 and was purchased by BofA in a $2 billion distressed sale. ...

BOA should have never aquired Countrywide.

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2011/06/29/bank…

The former owner of Countrywide Angelo Mozilo is the real person at fault here. BOA made a poor decesion to buy Countrywide.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages…

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Way to go CaliDems!

The citizens’ commission had pledged to create districts based on testimony from the communities themselves, not from parties or statewide political players. To get around that, Democrats surreptitiously enlisted local voters, elected officials, labor unions and community groups to testify in support of configurations that coincided with the party’s interests.
When they appeared before the commission, those groups identified themselves as ordinary Californians and did not disclose their ties to the party. One woman who purported to represent the Asian community of the San Gabriel Valley was actually a lobbyist who grew up in rural Idaho, and lives in Sacramento.

Cali is lost anyway never to return to glory days. Where the productive members of society are less in number to the non-productive. Where they stand for nothing because there is nothing left to stand for.

report 1 like, 2 dislikes   like  dislike

Wow not one Newsdome or honorable mention of MG Global and John Corzine...crickets...

report 1 like, 2 dislikes   like  dislike

I think that likely means that MF Global and John Corzine must not have been mentioned in the NYT...

report 1 like, 2 dislikes   like  dislike

Pete your random disjointed posts are the are bulletin board diarrhea. Do the CL folks come over and shit all over your house? How about a little sense and courtesy.

report 5 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

"Burroughston you should read Godzilla's post and the news coverage."

He did read it. But the inbreeding...it muddles things in those people's heads.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Thanks Thomas! Can I apply them to the FreshLoaf Subscription cost? Bet it would have been 20,000 if not for my brain freeze typos. Though lord I don't know what gets in to him some days.

Chuckie, sadly you are probably right.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

I have to say that there's an interesting question buried in the general awfulness of PistolPete's posts. Why the hell DID Bank of America buy Countrywide? It seems obvious from our current perspective that the acquisition threatens both the bank's viability and -- once BofA dies -- the stability of the financial system. But shouldn't most of that been all-but-obvious to the folks who could pull the trigger on a $2 billion purchase? This was January of 2008. The collapse of the housing market was obvious at that point.

I can only think of three reasons why this might have made sense. None speak well of the bank's leadership.

First is some kind of behind-the-scenes bidding war. Perhaps Citi or Chase were making low-ball offers that looked like they would be accepted, and the negotiators overvalued the firm because someone else placed ANY value on it at all. Which is, of course, fundamentally stupid.

Second is the possibility that some BofA insiders stood to profit personally from a bad deal, which speaks to a kind of civil fraud.

But last is most interesting. Suppose BofA knew Countrywide was going to fail, hard. And suppose they had sold boatloads of credit default swaps against a Countrywide default -- enough to tank the bank all on its own. It's possible that Bank of America bought Countrywide to eliminate a larger liability, then quietly bought back the CDS once it looked less risky under Bank of America ownership. The lawsuits and settlements might have been less expensive than paying off the CDS.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

George Chidi good point (though clearly that there is an interesting issue buried in the slew of off topic and non related PistolPete posts slathered across several message topics is merely an issue of a clock being right 2 times a day)

I would add a 4th possibility and that is tied to the way executives get compensated. On huge profit surges they get a cut. If something fails miserably it doesn't come out of their pocket and often they have golden parachutes so firing them is not great loss. So there is a huge incentive for executives to make risky decisions that offer significant short term upside since they will be compensated for that. The current bonus structure favors quarterly results vs. at the expense of long term results or vision. This is a threat to capitalism and another factor leading to the growing divide between the 1 or 3% and lower and middle classes.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

@ George Chidi and InAtl

Thanks for your practical analysis - all valid possibilities. There is a 5th one as well, which is the Bank of America ego. Ken Lewis was raised by Hugh McColl for 32 years, the way Hugh wanted him. Hugh is a little ex-Marine with the ego and manner to match, and is renowned for talking and acting big, before contemplation. He bragged about being a risk taker, and he passed it on to Ken. Hugh always wanted his bank to be the biggest, and Ken decided to finish the job.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

"I agree with eric pfeiffer. If a lender has a potential borrower with a poor credit history, he is entirely justified in charging a higher rate of interest."

you can't agree with me if you don't understand my point, dipshit

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

"@ George Chidi and InAtl Thanks for your practical analysis - all valid possibilities. There is a 5th one as well, "

LOL. Beautiful. This dumbfuck, having shat all over himself just a few scrolls up, saunters back in and attempts to insert himself into the intellectual part of the discussion as if he never said anything stupid. Fuck, man. I mean, at least wait until comment number 50 to try to pull that shit off, or use an anonymous handle...or hell, just apologize for being a goddamn dunce before you start saying stuff again. Now "that" would be pretty money.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

@ eric pfeifer & Chuckie
Intellect? You two? LOL.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

bold words from a man who thinks that it's too 'progressive' to claim that minorities aren't inherently credit risks

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

@ eric pfeifer
Did you fail your reading exam also? I wrote nothing about minorities. I wrote about potential borrowers with poor credit histories.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

"Did you fail your reading exam also? I wrote nothing about minorities. I wrote about potential borrowers with poor credit histories."

and you said so while we are discussing an article about how countrywide discriminated against minorities. in fact you specifically referenced my argument, by claiming to agree with me - and i was talking about minorities. you're either racist or you're doing that non sequitur shit pete does where he's not talking about the article at hand because he doesn't understand what's going on.

either way, you are an idiot

*ding* thank you come again

report 2 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

@ eric pfeifer
You're right, I did agree with your rant about poor minorities. My mistake.
Let me state my position more simply for you. If a lender charges a higher interest rate to a borrower because of a poor credit history, it's OK with me. If a lender charges a higher interest rate to a borrower solely because he's black or Hispanic, it's not OK with me.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

"Let me state my position more simply for you."

you state every position simply

that's another joke you won't understand, sorry to trouble you with complex concepts such as humor

"If a lender charges a higher interest rate to a borrower solely because he's black or Hispanic, it's not OK with me."

so we've established at this point that you don't understand the topic at hand and thus are adherent to my latter contingency, that you just make posts pistolpete-style without bothering to comprehend the arguments before you crap out a post

*ding* thank you come again

report 1 like, 1 dislike   like  dislike