While the Feds have been pressuring the State AGs about the misshapen, federally bailed out banks, perhaps they should have been more concerned about a legal team in DC.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is seeking to rescind numerous transactions, and is looking for additional claims, civil penalties and punitive damages in cases alleging misconduct.

I presume the cases, filed on behalf of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, involve a fiduciary obligation to Fannie & Freddie (i.e., taxpayers) as Conservator — and  not the White House. Hence, we shall see how this develops, and if the banker loving Congress AND President will wrongheadedly intervene.

Consider the numbers just versus Bank of America and holdings:

• Bank of America suit covers $6 billion in securities (PDF)

• Merrill Lynch suit covers $24.8 billion in securities (PDF)

• Countrywide suit covers $26.6 billion in securities (PDF)

Total:  $57.4 billion

In addition to Bank of America/Merrill Lynch, the FHFA also filed complaints against JPMorgan, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Barclays, Nomura Holdings, HSBC Holdings, Societe Generale SA, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank and First Horizon National Corp in federal court in Manhattan.They also sued Ally Financial, Countrywide Financial Corp, General Electric Co. and Morgan Stanley in state court in Manhattan, and sued Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc in federal court in Connecticut.

There is a lot more here than meets the eye . . .


For more info, see:

• FHFA Filings in PLS Cases, September 2, 2011 (FHFA.gov)

• Federal government sues major banks over Fannie and Freddie losses (Washington Post)

• Federal Regulators Sue Big Banks Over Mortgages (NYT)

• Big Banks Face Suits on Mortgage Bond Losses (WSJ)

• Bank of America, JPMorgan Among 17 Banks Sued by U.S. for $196 Billion (Bloomberg)


FHFA Filings in PLS Cases, September 2, 2011:
Ally Financial Inc. f/k/a GMAC, LLC
Bank of America Corporation
Barclays Bank PLC
Citigroup, Inc.
Countrywide Financial Corporation
Credit Suisse Holdings (USA), Inc.
Deutsche Bank AG
First Horizon National Corporation
General Electric Company
Goldman Sachs & Co.
HSBC North America Holdings, Inc.
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Merrill Lynch & Co. / First Franklin Financial Corp.
Morgan Stanley
Nomura Holding America Inc.
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC
Société Générale

Category: Bailouts, Credit, Legal

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

46 Responses to “FHFA Lawsuit vs Bank of America, Merrill & Countrywide”

  1. TripleB says:

    What’s really going on here? The administration trying to look tough (2.5 years late) ahead of the next election? What’s the backstory on the Warren Buffett BofA investment, a few days after meeting with Obama, in light of this lawsuit?

    I just watched Inside Job last night. I don’t know why there wasn’t a revolution in this country. I guess everyone was too busy standing in line for the latest iPhone.

  2. philipat says:

    Interesting that Wells Fargo isn’t on the list? I’m sure that Wachovia behaved like saints and equally sure that Uncle Warren had nothing to do with the decision?

  3. dawase says:

    The fraud was/is SYSTEMIC. Wells and/or Wachovia are probably in the next batch.

    I’m more shocked that they’re naming names in the suits. How are there ZERO criminal indictments so far?

  4. Frilton Miedman says:

    17 banks, full list with dollar amount sought by FHFA -

    1. Ally Financial Inc. f/k/a GMAC, LLC ($6 billion)

    2. Bank of America Corporation ($5 billion)

    3. Barclays Bank PLC ($4.9 billion)

    4. Citigroup, Inc ($3.5 billion)

    5. Countrywide Financial Corporation ($26.6 billion, Countrywide was bought by Bank of America)

    6. Credit Suisse Holdings (USA), Inc

    7. Deutsche Bank AG ($14.2 billion)

    8. First Horizon National Corporation ($883 million)

    9. General Electric Company ($549 million)

    10. Goldman Sachs & Co. ($11.1 billion)

    11. HSBC North America Holdings, Inc. ($6.2 billion)

    12. JPMorgan Chase & Co. ($33 billion)

    13. Merrill Lynch & Co. / First Franklin Financial Corp. ($24.8 billion)

    14. Morgan Stanley

    15. Nomura Holding America Inc. ($2 billion)

    16. The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC ($30.4 billion)

    17. Société Générale ($1.3 billion)

  5. alnval says:

    My ignorance of the law is monumental but I’ve been able to count using the base 10 for a long time. What redress is the complainant allowed to pursue in these kinds of civil cases especially as the complainant is demanding a jury trial? Are penalties involved? Is the taxpayer the beneficiary of any recovery? Does anyone know of an easily accessible precedent?

  6. JimRino says:

    By the way did anyone else check into right wing prostitute radio?
    I did.

    All the talking points on 9/2 where whoring it up for the Banks, Defending Fraud, and demanding that the US Taxpayer take the FULL Hit for Wall Street/Banker Fraud.

    It was Amazing.

  7. holulu says:

    CNBC was suggesting that gov. law suite to banks is going to make economic situation worse. No one said that it is not about law suite it is all about fraud.

  8. Chief Tomahawk says:

    Good thing CNBC is rolling out the Million Dollar Portfolio Challenge. Just in time for every contestant to plow into FAZ, etc.

  9. atandon says:

    IMHO, All banks will try to transfer the guilt on rating agencies (especially S&P). This looks like a “fix” exercise for S&P.

  10. budhak0n says:

    This goes nowhere. In a shell game of epic proportions, it makes very little sense or has zero effect if all you do is blame it on the turtle that provided the shell.

    The “borrowers” are the guilty parties. It’s your job, as a borrower, to know what is what. If a bank scores you, and they give you the money, and then you turn around and doink everyone on the list. It’s not really the bank’s fault that you’re a deadbeat.

    The only saving grace of any of this is it “MAY” … just “may” lead to somebody finally scrapping companies like TRW, Equifax and Experian. Doubt it highly.

    This entire absolute NONSENSE about how borrowers should be permitted writedowns on their notes is just that.

    You borrowed X. Who really cares what it’s worth now? If you couldn’t pay back X, then you shouldn’t have borrowed X.

    All of this nonsense just makes it so that people will absolutely NOT do business with other people. Why should I sell you anything? Why should I provide you a service? The money you’re paying me was probably stolen anyway.

    Pretty funny stuff.

    Oh and where’s the fraud? Speculation is not fraud.

  11. budhak0n says:

    Oh and how come in America, EVERYTHING always gets reduced to the little guy fighting back against the big bad “oppressor”.

    The flavor of the month now is how all those rich people screwed me. America’s core problem is that nobody’s allowed to be successful.

    Every PC moron on the planet, or activist, or crackpot with a keyboard( present company included) has always been permitted the grace of an opinion but to always blame EVERYTHING on forces larger than yourself is simply a lesson in LOSERville.

    Yo man, how could I have made sure my house wasn’t infested with fleas and ants? My insurer wanted me to pay for homeowners! It’s absolutely nuts what’s gone on here the past few years.

    Everybody knew the purging of the greatest generation would be kooky but this takes the cake.

    What do you mean my fraudulently propped up “company” built on decades of scandals and failed S&L loans is bankrupt? Don’t you know Trump used to have a 100 foot boat?

    My neighbor built a million dollar house. My gardener makes 12 hunge doing Yoga on the side. Beautiful American insanity at it’s best. What ? No money left for me at medicaid? Things just aint Fair!

    Waaaah … waaaaaah …. wahhhhhh. But YOU just don’t understand !

    Bunch of spoiled babies you ask me.

  12. philipat says:

    @Buddhacon. Rant over?

    I agree that the concept of personal reponsibility is sadly absent in the US these days. It happens in all socialist entitlement societies I’m afraid.

    However, fraud is, well, fraud.

    Go back to doing “God’s work”.

  13. HEHEHE says:

    Hmmm Warren Buffet invests $5B in Bank of America.

    Hmmm Warren Buffet is the largest holder of Wells Fargo shares.

    Hmmm FHFA sues 17 banks for billions re stinky MBS deals.

    Hmmm Wells Fargo isn’t one of the 17 banks – despite fact Wells owns Wachovia who issued some of the stinkiest MBS deals that were dealt.

  14. HEHEHE says:

    Obama “Warren ol’ buddy I need you to put some $5B into BAC because what the world needs is some confidence in our good ol’ confidence scheme.”

    Warren “What do I get other than some preferred with a fat dividend?”

    Obama “Well I hear the FHFA is going to be suing the banks next week. how about we have them hold off on suing Wells until you reduce your exposure a bit?”

    Buffet “Deal!”

  15. Seaton says:

    Philipat’s got it right, the first few postings. I’m curious, too, about W.B. & B.O. meeting, Wells Fargo’s missing. Also, S&P and Moody’s & whoever else were rating agencies—how come they’ve not been included? “Next lawsuit”? Hmm. American public, to say nothing else of rest of the world, are obviously fed-up with the shenanigans & mulligans—perp-walks are necessary. Bring back the guys that did the Keating 5, etc. Bring back the Sheriff of Wall Street, etc. Disgraceful.

  16. paloo says:

    1. For those wondering about WellsFargo, worry not: (a) they’re in the primordial goo of this mess (plough through the Citigroup filing) and (b) there’s still time for them as the statute runs out next Wednesday. Quaere also whether some of these defendants may cross-claim against Wells for having breached their reps and warranties.

    2. Why it takes 2.5 years? Gosh, read through only a single one of these filings (I am panting after skimming two – GS and C) and you can see why it takes time. I doubt O or the WH was necessarily involved or driving this, can’t see this as anything but a major distraction given the impact on markets and needing to fix a bank problem… again.

    3. Cue bank wailing that systemic risk trumps rule of law. Will we learn?

    There’s enough grist for the mill here to last months, and certain that the financial pubs will have a busy weekend – in advance of a crazy week to come.

    Let’s see – Greek defaulting on loans, Berlusconi unable to keep Italy solvent, O jobs speech facing tremendously underwhelming odds of success, zero jobs growth, recessionary environment ahead of us, anemic consumer demand despite burps and hiccups now and then, slowing of growth in NICs, Lagarde saying banks undercapitalized in Europe, and a quiet Super-Committee working out a bipartisan approach to solving the debt crisis 11 months before an election.

    Where’s the upside here?

  17. HEHEHE says:

    You might want to ask yourself why John Paulson has never faced any civil/criminal liability re the Abacus deal? I guess if you have your hedge fund dump all kinds of $ into BAC etc after you make a killing shorting MBS you show the boys running the show you’re willing to play ball.

  18. HEHEHE says:

    Of course these are all just conspiracy theories of a wingnut with no proof.

  19. A says:

    Same old, same old. The criminals (the bank executives) consult with their legal counsel, estimate the true cost of the lawsuits, factor that into the P&L forecast, let out a big yawn and then move on to the next corrupt program. Well, there is one difference this time around: an election demanding some sort of ‘action’ from the incumbents to snow the voters. History certainly rhymes.

  20. hammerandtong2001 says:

    Another front opened in the entirely justified legal offensive against predatory financial cabals.

    A quick read of the filings against BAC (still reading the others) show the allegations are focused on only the front end of the mortgage fraud business:

    1. Loan origination process did not follow and, in many cases, circumvented underwriting procedure;
    2. The resulting loans were securitized for investment purchase and represented to Fannie and Freddie as something they were not;
    3. The marketing materials, supporting prospectuses and investment information registered with SEC amd elsewhere were therefore false;
    4. FHFA wants a refund. Entirely consistent with a 100% putback of all MBS rescurities (with BAC) during the two year period: 10/2005 – 11/2007.

    This action does not include ( at least the ones I’ve reviewed so far) related potential allegations, such as whether the MBS securities themselves were even valid investment vehicles in the first place – in view that the securities were essentially “unsecured” due to endemic chain of title breakdowns. Nor does it cover foreclosure issues, robo-signing, and more chain of title fraud.

    The point in the thread above regarding lowered levels of personal responsibility, and the “failure” of borrowers to uphold their “obligations,” is an interesting societal commentary, but it has nothing to do with this suit and the allegations contained therein. Underwriting standards actuarially predict and forecast the ability of borrowers to repay with extremely high confidence levels.

    The allegation in the BAC suit filed is not whether a loan to an underqualified borrower should have been made — or whether it should be repaid. The allegation is: that loan — and the resulting risks associated with that loan — were materially MIS-represented.


  21. Hurricaner says:


    Interesting that Wells Fargo isn’t on the list? I’m sure that Wachovia behaved like saints and equally sure that Uncle Warren had nothing to do with the decision?

    Wachovia and the POS they acquired (aka World Savings) were portfolio lenders, and didn’t bundle the mortgages into MBS…could that be why they were left off the suit (much less juicy reason than the Buffet conspiracy proposed by some). Don’t know…just a guess.

  22. budhak0n says:

    I understand the nature of the “lawsuit” and the legal concepts being cited ;0]

    Better than you might imagine.

    I also understand where a lawsuit originated by the FHFA eventually leads us. ;-)

    Perhaps my expanding of the material to include a message directed to all those wonderful people out there who are every day getting it stuck to them “BY THE MAN” was unwelcome.

    But most Truth in today’s world enjoys an unwelcome status. Oh well.

  23. budhak0n says:

    So seriously, if they win does that mean that a guy in DC with his cushy government job gets to bid higher on his Georgetown home than a guy or gal in NYC or Boca? Really, does it even matter at this point?

    It “is” what it “is”… and all the harry potter wands in the world are not going to change it.

  24. rktbrkr says:

    How does this tie into the $3B BAC settlement with Fannie & Freddie in Jan this year, can anybody splain that?


  25. Robespierre says:

    @budhak0n Says:

    “But most Truth in today’s world enjoys an unwelcome status. Oh well.”

    And you must be the self appointed provider of the “Truth” and anyone who thinks differently is for sure wrong!

  26. paloo says:

    Initial retort from Deutsche is the “sophisticated investor defence”:

    “The claims brought by the FHFA are unfounded,” said Frank Kelly, a spokesman for Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank. “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the epitome of a sophisticated investor.”

    See http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-03/jpmorgan-bofa-among-17-banks-sued-by-fhfa-over-196-billion-in-securities.html

    Bad move. Problem with that puppy is that a sophisticated investor who would insist on reps and warranties that what they were buying was actually there. There being no ‘there’ there, leaves the admittedly sophisticated investor with, gosh, a contractual remedy.


  27. rktbrkr says:

    The ML bad paper total even exceeds the Cuntrywide amount, they’ve been overlooked. JP Morgan which portrayed itself as being a notch above the rest is also in the big leagues.

    I think Wells Fraudco is a separate action, maybe they cut a deal.

    F&F settled for about 1% with BAC in Jan, they have been a back door bailout mechanism for the banksters I’ll be surprised if they go to the mat with this suit. I’m sure there were discussions about this among Uncle warren, Moynihan and O’B, i.e., I think a fix is in for another miniscule settlement. O’B can claim he’s tough on crime and Uncle Warren and the banksters will prosper. The head of FHFA is an “acting” O’B appointee which is about as tenuous a position as possible in this situation, if he doesn’t roll he’ll be former acting head of FHFA.

    Understandable timing of thw announcement right before the big holiday weekend, wonder how the bank stock prices moved BEFORE the announcement?

  28. Bill Wilson says:

    This whole thing feels like a sham to me. I certainly hope that I’m wrong.

    Is there really a group of dedicated bureaucrats at the FHFA, who are bravely upholding the rule of law and sticking up for the taxpayer? I’d like to think so, but I doubt it.

    I see a settlement in the future where the defendants admit no guilt and the taxpayer foots the bill. I hope to be proven wrong.

  29. louis says:

    “It’s not really the bank’s fault that you’re a deadbeat.”

    If they want to bake in higher interest on a note for a walk away clause and then an ower decides to exercise it , what’s the problem?

  30. contrabandista13 says:

    After all is said and done, let’s just say that this suit is a step in the right direction….. This is not something you can just sweep under the rug……

  31. Sunny129 says:

    ‘The point in the thread above regarding lowered levels of personal responsibility, and the “failure” of borrowers to uphold their “obligations,” is an interesting societal commentary’

    The Fiduciary duty and doing due diligence to make sure that the borrower is qualified and able to repay the loan belongs to LENDERS and NOT the borrowers of any kind, under any circumstances! Blaming them as a part of the problem is pathetic execuse and can only come from a Bankster or their minions in the MSM!

  32. Molesworth says:

    Ditto @Sunny129
    When I re-fied my house in 2006 the lenders badgered and badgered and badgered me to ‘up’ the amount and take on more debt.
    I didn’t want more $$ in my pocket; they wanted me to take $$ more debt.

  33. SANETT says:

    Bailing them out then suing them….kind of like Dracula giving someone a transfusion before bitiing them.

  34. Clay says:

    The banks should be held accountable for any negligence/gross negligence on their part, and apparently there was plenty. (And yes, we know there was fraud, but that is much more difficult to prove and this is a civil lawsuit.)

    Case in point…..true story:
    I talked with a former employee in the risk mgt dept of a very large bank here in Charlotte last year who told me that he witnessed a massive volume of mortgage loan applications (several hundred) get approved on the same day at some event gathering in one large room several years ago. I think he said the group invited by the bank was primarily hispanics. Loan applicant info would be fed into their computer program and if applicant loan to income ratio was to high, the bank employees would arbitrarily adjust the income or debt amounts on the software until the applicant would be approved by the software, or whatever other adjustments were needed to get the applicant approved. The stack of approved loan applications on a table at the end of the day was humongous. He said that that almost all prospective mortgage loan attendees there had been approved for a loan, and he was appalled by the whole situation. He also said that criticizing bank policies/procedures was a big no-no, and that employees had better exercise a great deal of tact when offering suggestions to management……or else.

    Obviously this recount is about fraud on the bank’s part (and some borrowers) and again this lawsuit is a civil case. It’s my understanding that the standard of proof in civil court is a bit lower than that in the criminal courts, and therefore much less expensive and time consuming.

    I presume that strict or stricter statutory or regulatory lending standards and applicable penalties for noncompliance thereon are currently in place, and similar requirements are in place for borrowers also.
    If not, they should be.

    These asshat banks should be held accountable. They made these idiotic loans, then proceeded to wrap them up in nice looking packages and sold them. (BTW, I glanced over the court doc filing against BAC)

    And, I agree with Chris Whalen. BAC should probably be forced into Chp 11 bankruptcy to finalize/settle claims regarding this mortgage mess and start anew with a relatively clean slate.

    I know….not good for shareholders and creditors, including Uncle Warren.
    Maybe he would like to rescind that hug.

  35. Tarkus says:

    There is NO way that the figure of $57.4 billion for those 3 entities can be right, because the state AG’s (with a few notable exceptions) were working out a deal for the whole industry that only amounted to $30 Billion.

    Since the implication is that an actual aggregate amount of restitution should be massively larger, implying further that most state AG’s are selling their constituents out for a paltry sum, the report is obviously in error.

    Here’s a test when listening to pundits on TV – Can you shuffle a Settlement advocate’s argument to be rephrased as “If they have to obey the law, it will hurt the economy.” ?

    If so, have a beer!! :-)

    Alternate – can you rephrase the argument to be “Fraud is now a legitimate business model.”?

    If so, have another beer!! :-)

  36. Marc P says:

    From the point of view of a scam artist, not getting sued is a great thing. However, it’s even better to get sued and then get the suit dismissed with no admission of fault and no criminal charges in exchange for a confidential payment of a pittance.

  37. Marc P says:

    SANETT Says:
    September 3rd, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    Bailing them out then suing them….kind of like Dracula giving someone a transfusion before bitiing them.


    Great analogy. Consider the point of view of the banks. It’s like holding up a rich guy in a dark alley, taking his wallet, then handing him back $10 for cab fare.

  38. Boots or Hearts says:

    There is a lot of abuse on the part of homeowners. In Florida and the metro Phoenix area, I know several people …

    [ *Snip* anecdotal jibber jabber deleted ]

    I do not think forced write downs of principal balances on the part of banks is the answer in these situations. The better path is foreclosure and subsequent sale to a more worthy, fiscally responsible buyer (with proper underwriting).


    BR: Everything you wrote was anecdotal, meaningless shite — except the last 2 words: “proper underwriting”

    If you understood that better, you would grok how the rest of your comment would not matter in the least.

  39. streeteye says:

    Some days I wake up and think the smart bet is always that we muddle through. Other days I think it’s as if the government was actually trying to provoke a banking crisis as if they think it might be useful.

    Monetary dithering, fiscal drag and government job cuts, and now lets sue the banks for a big chunk of their inadequate capital base.

    This is why we can’t have nice things. Apparently we can have a functioning banking system or the rule of law, but not both.

  40. Boots or Hearts says:

    First, in my opinion it is OK for wall st and the banks to take a loss for making bad loans, though Washington would like us to think otherwise. I did not agree with the bailing out of the big banks and their bondholders.

    However I strongly disagree that there is no responsibility on the part of the borrower. There certainly is and should be. Just because money/credit is available (was) does not mean one should recklessly reach in and overextend themselves.

    The same people who suggest borrowers not paying on their mortgage are blameless victims are often quick to also say that buyers of MBS portfolios that were rated AAA have no recourse to sue the seller, as they should have done their own risk assessment and research.

    Individuals are responsible for themselves and their own risk taking when they purchase a stock, or bond or fund, and if they borrow on margin they can be forced to liquidate. Are the rules or responsibilities different for housing as an asset class?

    Caveat emptor seems to be something people wish to apply when it suits them, much like children want to say “im old enough to do this now (like play outside after dark) but when it is time to take out the trash or cut the lawn they are suddenly too young.

  41. philipat says:


    “Wachovia and the POS they acquired (aka World Savings) were portfolio lenders, and didn’t bundle the mortgages into MBS…could that be why they were left off the suit (much less juicy reason than the Buffet conspiracy proposed by some). Don’t know…just a guess.”

    Fair point and I had also considered that. But if this is the case, why are Countrywide (separate from BAC) and some of the others listed?

  42. Michael Olenick says:

    “You borrowed X. Who really cares what it’s worth now? If you couldn’t pay back X, then you shouldn’t have borrowed X. … Oh and where’s the fraud? Speculation is not fraud.”

    One major problem; but-for the bailouts the notes (that is, the loans) would have been sold in liquidation for a few cents on the dollar to vulture investors more than willing to write-down principal to get paid.

    Instead, the notes — the collateral — was labeled “illiquid” and bailed-out with massive subsidies. That allowed one side of a private contract to pretend they’d done nothing wrong, and to continue insisting on “personal responsibility” for the counter-party.

    The only reason nobody cares “what it’s worth now” are these ongoing bailouts, because otherwise new banks would be scrambling to refi for “what it’s worth now” because it’d sell for less at a foreclosure auction.

    Bailout Nation isn’t capitalism, it’s not the free market; it’s a new feudalism, where trickle-down has transformed into a theory where the great many are forced to subsidize the privileged few. It’s not democratic, it’s not free market, and it’s not sustainable.

  43. AHodge says:

    i tend to accept
    1 that this is mostly a genuine FHFA attempt to clean up loans wrongfully sold
    2 that warren got some sort of reassurances for helping out –meaning a sign that uncle sugar firmly behind BAC

    but must confess there is some apparent contradiction here–either one of the above is wrong. or there is some reassurance for BAC preferred.
    or the govt is still firmly like 08 09 in the complete rescue of everyone big in a way warren believes give some protection

    it seems unlikely that buffetts Quid for BofA is a pass for Wells by the govt
    he only owns $8bio? compared to the Bof A 5 bio
    like most of this group I thinks O and Co still in the tank for the banks.
    But everything they have done is with far less fingerprints and risk including going to jail than a fix for Wells here?
    it also poss that most the Wells toxics are awful home equity held themselves not passed
    or what they passed less criminal?

    as Buffetts price was not only 6% forever but also possibly tens of billions of free options
    a Wells pass also would be obscenely overpaying, rather than jus massively overpaying

    Barry says it all for now
    more than meets the eye
    more to be learned

  44. AHodge says:

    rescinding” might be putting the loans back to BAC etc so they can (also) lie about them rather than forcing the FHFA to?

  45. AHodge says:

    so one question might be how much has fannie etc already written down on these loans
    from the look they not all in default
    just didnt meet underwriting-tho default would also be a good clue on the underwriting.

  46. AHodge says:

    re why earlier Bof A with FF was not a real settlement
    the govt did not say this cleans up most
    per the article onlyonly Bof A and paul miller
    the latter a massive bank stooge as evidenced by his of today

    “U.S. government-backed firms and agencies should “stop punishing banks” and suspend demands for mortgage repurchases because they are impeding an economic recovery, according to Paul Miller of FBR Capital Markets & Co.”

    chris whalen did not say it mostly solved
    but did call it a gift?
    but how much of a gift remanins to be seen, clearly not a mostly fixed gift

    any fund manager that relied on this to stay long BAC clearly should be in another line of work