Zal de industrie van de Hypotheek betalen voor Zijn Misdaden?
Door Danny Schechter | Er is een tijd in het leven van elke schrijver wanneer u zich vindt vrezend dat u een de telefoonmachine van de robovraag - steeds weer en met herhalend het zelfde bericht verminderende resultaten bent geworden.
Zo voelde ik na 8 maanden die van stilte na de etikettering van de kredietcrisis een „subcrime“ schandaal, uit bij de frauduleuze activiteit bij zijn kern geselen en het onderzoek en de vervolging van wrongdoers verzoeken. Bijna keurde geen media afzet deze manier om het probleem goed te ontwerpen, hoewel zoals gebruikelijk, de Britse pers voor zijn Amerikaanse neven in het zetten van de schuld op de bankiers, niet de leners was.
Toen FBI een sonde van 14 hypotheekbedrijven aankondigde, dacht ik dat definitief sommige onderzoekers op het geval waren. Maar toen, gelekte meldde het woord dat zij slechts na kleine vissen zelfs als grote banken gingen verliezen in miljarden.
De diefstallen van de bank zijn altijd omhoog de FBI steeg geweest, en toch is dit een geval van bankheist, misschien één van grootst in geschiedenis. Slechts was het de banken die het heisting deden.
De New York Times gemeld 5 Mei dat een nieuw misdadig onderzoek definitief aan de gang was.
Een g-Mens verklaarde anonymously: Het „recentste onderzoek is breder en dieper. Dit is een blik over de hele linie bij de hypotheekindustrie, en het heeft a lot more impuls in recente weken wegens de banken' inkomenstekort.“ gekregen
Bij laatste, institutionele fraude kan op de agenda staan. Bij laatste, diepere vragen worden gevraagd. Er zijn sommige Congreshoorzittingen geweest maar tot dusver is niets toegenomen op sluisdeur-Type een niveau dat diepgaande onderzoeken veroorzaakt die door dagvaardingen van brandstof worden voorzien.
Langzaam, erkent oh zo langzaam, nieuwsafzet dit een groot misdaadverhaal is, één jarenlang misten zij, of op zijn minst sinds 2002 toen subprime de effecten voor verkoop begonnen worden verpakt.
Meldt De Onafhankelijke van Washington:
“As loans made to borrowers with decent credit begin to fail at a surprisingly rapid rate, it’s becoming clear that widespread fraud helped support the entire mortgage system — from borrowers who lied on their loans, to brokers who encouraged it, to lenders who misled some low-income borrowers, to the many lenders, investors and ratings agencies that conveniently and deliberately looked the other way as profits rolled in.
Despite its widespread role, fraud hasn’t yet been at the forefront of proposed rescue plans, which center on refinancing people out of loans now resetting to higher rates.”
Why would reputable bankers and respected investment houses engage in these dishonest activities? The short answer: money, and lots of it.
Sales from Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) jumped from $157 billion in 2004 to $559 billion in 2006 according to a study for the North Star Fund by Kevin Connor. Ten investment banks in all were underwriters for 70% of some $486 billion in securitizations in 2006.
The banks had a motto: “It’s all about capital.”
Subprime-related securities produced large multi-million dollar bonuses for traders and executives as well as high revenues for the firms. In the years when business was booming CEOs at big firms were making $10 to $50 million annually apiece. Collectively, in 2006, a year before their fall, the big banks earned a stunning $130 billion.
Even after these practices came to light, hefty bonuses continued. Wall Streeters walked away with $31 billion at the end of 2007, only one billion less than the year before. Executives who were fired still received multi-million dollar payoffs.
Most media outlets considered this business as usual, not shocking or illegal.
Not even when some of these loans were called “liars’ loans” in the industry as when loan orginators colluded with or advised borrowers on how to lie on their applications. It was all done with a wink and a nod, reported the Washington Independent. They interviewed many insiders and experts who contended that:
” … pervasive fraud was, indeed, a problem — on the lender’s side. At the peak of the housing boom, they say, the nation’s mortgage system was set up to promote and encourage outright fraud in order to close a loan — and everyone, from brokers to loan officers to Wall Street, looked the other way. Borrowers also were put into products like payment-option arms that were unsuitable — and lenders knew it. “They were pushed like Vioxx, with very little regard for their dangers,” said Kathleen Keest, senior policy counsel with the Center for Responsible Lending, a research group that investigates predatory lending.
Wall Street was not a passive player either because of all the money they made from “subcrime” transactions. In some cases they paid more for loans with predatory characteristics. Loan originators at the local level — as sleazy as many were — reported that it was the Wall Street firms that dictated the types of loans they wanted and their underwriting criteria. Thus the so-called “secondary market” was really in charge.
This is why I and others insist this was a Wall Street crime wave built around predatory practices. The people who had the most were deeply complicit in ripping off the people who had the least. What’s worse, they had no legal liability in these unscrupulous deals.
How did America’s leading business magazine respond after the credit crisis brought Wall Street to its knees? Fortune called the credit crisis “both totally shocking and utterly predictable.” For them it was shocking not because of the human devastation or the millions of families who were cheated and faced foreclosure or because of the rippling effects on our society, but because the “best minds in the business … managed to lose tens of billions.”
And “predictable?” Again, not due to the lack of regulation or the enabling of shoddy products by our government but “because whether it’s junk bonds or tech stocks or emerging-market debt, Wall Street always rides a wave until it crashes.” What a contrast to the usual celebratory coverage, but also what a cop-out to explain it all away.
Warren Buffet, perhaps America’s most successful investor, sounded disgusted:
“Wall Street is going to go where the money is and not worry about consequences; Wall Street is reaping what they’ve sown,” he shrugs. Said his vice chairman: “If this were an Alice in Wonderland fable, you’d say it’s too extreme. It wouldn’t work as satire. Adults are not going to behave this way.”
But adults did — and continue to. So far, they have been well rewarded as well. The question is: what are the rest of us, and our prosecutors, going to do about it?
See More:FBI Money USA NewsHave Your Say: Will the Mortgage Industry Pay for Its Crimes?
Please note, only selected comments will be published.
Or discuss this report in our our new forums
This entry was posted on Friday, May 9th, 2008 at 4:32 pm and is filed under Business News, General . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Free Newsletter
Loading ...Related News
- Alistair Darling in £50bn gamble to aid banks
- Banks scourged by falling dollar
- Defiant Brown defends his economic record
- A Generalized Meltdown of Financial Institutions
- Where Was Media When Sub-Prime Disaster Unfolded?
Email This Page To A Friend
Latest Headlines
- Officers routinely lied to obtain search warrants
- Will the Mortgage Industry Pay for Its Crimes?
- Judge May Make CIA Torture Memo Public
- Roots of surveillance standoff go back decades
- U.S. deploys more than 43,000 unfit for combat
- UN suspends aid flights after Burma impounds food
- BBC kept £106,000 of charity cash
- Peak Food: Blaming the Victims
- The Challenge Of Modern Slavery
- Ex-MI5 chief warns over detention
More Breaking News
Archive
