Friday, July 13, 2012

Signing of Homeowners Bill of Rights Three Years Late Anda $1 Trillion Short

 By: Patrick Porgans
Planetary Solutionaries

On Wednesday, California Gov, Jerry Brown, signed the “Homeowner Bill of Rights” into law (SB 900 and AB 278. This bill purportedly will curtail banks from fraudulent foreclosures.

Reportedly, Brown tweeted that “this law will stop banks from foreclosing on Californians who are trying in good faith to renegotiate their mortgages.”

State Attorney General Kamala Harris campaigned for the legislation, and added a presentation on her website on how it will benefit California families.

Critics point out that the bill does not take effect until the beginning of the year and servicers aren’t obligated to consider applications for loan modifications or appeals submitted before Jan 1, 2013. Occupy Fights Foreclosures, a subcommittee of Occupy LA, is calling for an immediate moratorium on foreclosures to protect the thousands of families facing foreclosures right now.

In the meantime, there are many among the millions of foreclosure victims of the bank-induced subprime-mortgage crisis, robo-signing; derivatives-hedge betting, Wall Street bailout and fraud view it as more political grandstanding, years late and, according to some estimates, $1,000,000,000,000.

In California alone, the total cost of the foreclosure crisis to homeowners, the property tax base, and local governments could add up to at least $650 billion and possibly reach as much as $1 trillion? That’s just one of the major findings of a report, released by a coalition of faith, community and labor groups in California that are demanding that Wall Street pay its fair share to helping California recover from this devastating crisis.

Many are questioning the government’s ability to use or enforce existing laws designed to protect victims of crime. Others question the need for such a law so late in the game; after all, it is estimated that by year’s end two-million foreclosures would have taken place in the Golden State.

Government insiders contend the new law is a clever way to promote the illusion of protection and accountability. They may have a point, the fact that the state’s Constitution, Article I, already provides protection for victims of crime. Supporters of the bill point to the positive benefits contained in the bill.

Critics question why make new laws when existing ones are not being enforced. Although the banks have agreed to a multibillion dollar settlement, and have paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines levied by the Security Exchange Commission; all this has been without an admission of guilt.

A ranking Congressman recently summed it up like this during a hearing attended by the major bank executives testifying before Congress. He said, members of his constituency have and continue to rob banks, should we grant them the same prosecutorial discretion and/or immunity as the banks’ are presently seeking?

The Rule of Law, in its most basic form, is the principle that no one is above the law. The rule follows logically from the idea that truth, and therefore law, is based upon fundamental principles which can be discovered, but which cannot be created through an act of will.

Political insiders recognize that Brown and state’s attorney general Kamala Harris can make a lot of political “hey” out of the enactment of this new victims’ rights law, which, coincidentally, came out after the signing of the attorneys generals settlement with the five major banks involved in the subprime mortgage crisis.

The promises made by five of the nation's largest banks under the much-ballyhooed $25 billion mortgage settlement have a surprisingly short shelf life. Read more


Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Signing of homeowners bill of rights three years late and a $1 trillion short

Planetary Solutionaries, Article by Patrick Porgans, Solutionist

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT – IMMEDIATE RELEASE     11 July 2012
Los Angeles, CA USA 

Today, California Gov, Jerry Brown,signed the “Homeowner Bill of Rights into law (SB 900 and AB 278. This bill purportedly will curtail banks from fraudulent foreclosures. 
Reportedly, Brown tweeted that “this law will stop banks from foreclosing on Californians
 who are trying in good faith to renegotiate their mortgages.”

State Attorney General Kamala Harris campaigned for the legislation, and added a presentation on her website on how it will benefit California families.

Critics point out that the bill does not take effect until the beginning of the year and servicers aren’t obligated to consider applications for loan modifications or appeals submitted before Jan 1, 2013. Occupy Fights Foreclosures, a subcommittee of Occupy LA, is calling for an immediate moratorium on foreclosures to protect the thousands of families facing foreclosures right now.

In the meantime, there are many among the millions of foreclosure victims of the bank-induced subprime-mortgage crisis, robo-signing; derivatives-hedge betting, Wall Street bailout and fraud view it as more political grandstanding, years late and, according to some estimates, $1,000,000,000,000.

In California alone, the total cost of the foreclosure crisis to homeowners, the property tax base, and local governments could add up to at least $650 billion and possibly reach as much as $1 trillion? That’s just one of the major findings of a report, released by a coalition of faith, community and labor groups in California that are demanding that Wall Street pay its fair share to helping California recover from this devastating crisis.

Many are questioning the government’s ability to use or enforce existing laws designed to protect victims of crime.Others question the need for such a law so late in the game; after all, it is estimated that by year’s end two-million foreclosures would have taken place in the Golden State. 
Government insiders contend the new law is a clever way to promote the illusion of protection and accountability. They may have a point, the fact that the state’s Constitution, Article I, already provides protection for victims of crime. Supporters of the bill point to the positive benefits contained in the bill. 
Critics question why make new laws when existing ones are not being enforced. Although the banks have agreed to a multibillion dollar settlement, and have paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines levied by the Security Exchange Commission; all this has been without an admission of guilt.
One ranking Congressman recently summed it up like this during a hearing attended by the major bank executives testifying before Congress. He said, members of his constituency have and continue to rob banks, should we grant them the same prosecutorial discretion and/or immunity as the banks’ are presently seeking?

The Rule of Law, in its most basic form, is the principle that no one is above the law. The rule follows logically from the idea that truth, and therefore law, is based upon fundamental principles which can be discovered, but which cannot be created through an act of will. 

Political insiders recognize that Brown and state’s attorney general Kamala Harris can make a lot of political “hey” out of the enactment of this new victims’ rights law, which, coincidentally, came out after the signing of the attorneys generals settlement with the five major banks involved in the subprime mortgage crisis. 

The promises made by five of the nation's largest banks under the much-ballyhooed $25 billion mortgage settlement have a surprisingly short shelf life.

Under the deal struck in February, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Ally Financial pledged to stop the illegal practices that sparked false documentation and "robo-signing," which helped push many homeowners into foreclosure and caused endless headaches for millions of other borrowers.

But the legal agreements among the banks, and the states and federal government hold for only three-and-a-half years; the pledge runs out in 2015.

Others argue that Golden State’s Constitution, Article I, already provides a Victim’s Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, at this point, concerns as to the applicability of the existing victims’ rights law, left unchallenged, may become a moot point, upon signing of the new law.

Supporters of the bill point to the positive benefits contained in the bill, and as a step forward. Opponents contend that it is more like two-steps backwards. 

Planetary Solutionaries point to the simple fact that both Brown and Kamala had the authority to stop foreclosures at least three years ago, and failed to do so. 

To Brown’s credit, he did threatened to stop foreclosures when he served as state attorney general; however, that did not happen. 

Kamala reportedly ran her campaign on the hold the banks accountable and stop bank foreclosures.
Despite all the rhetoric the Golden State and its taxpaying residents are the victims of the bank-induced mortgage crisis causing significant economic impact and financial disruption.

Brown could have also exercised his authority to “Declare a State of Financial Emergency”, which is also provided for in the State’s Constitution, Article IV, section 10(f). 

Brown exercised this authority in January 2011, at which time he “declared a state of fiscal emergency in California" due to the state’s unrelenting budget crisis. 

Although foreclosure victims appealed to Brown to and Kamala to exercise their respective authority to stop the bank-induced foreclosure, they opted not to do so. The appeal was meant as a means to stabilized the crisis and ensure a flow of much needed tax revenues to aid the state’s deficit-ridden General Fund.

California's lawmakers approved a $92.1-billion FY2013 budget on June 15, 2012, with a Senate vote of 23-16 and an Assembly vote of 50-25, along party lines. Gov. Brown signed the budget on June 28, 2012, after vetoing $195 million in spending, $91.3 million from the general fund and $66.8 from special funds and federal funds.

The money to fund the General Fund comes predominately from sales, income, real estate and property taxes.

Brown critics claim that as a two-time governor he should have known that the mortgage crisis and related foreclosures would take a terrible toll on tax revenues used to for the deficit-ridden General Fund.

The cost to the taxpayers for each of those many foreclosures will amount to an estimated $38 billion, alone. The loss in property values exceed $600 million, combined with the loss in tax revenue to local and state treasuries more than $1,000,000,000,000, The nationwide government-bank settlement amounted to just $25 billion.

Although contact was made with the designated agencies responsible for collecting and distributing taxes collected by the state, none could provide the amount of tax revenue losses and related foreclosure costs incurred to date.

Instead of stopping the financial hemorrhaging, and ensuring anticipated tax revenues, Brown, along with his predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger succeeded in axing out more than $100 billion in General Fund budget cuts in the previous three state approved budgets.

California’s Draconian budget cuts continue to take their toll on education, safety-net services, jobs, and, other related taxpayer-funded social programs.

Under Brown and Schwarzenegger’s fiscal austerity plan, using the same finance director, Ana Matosantos, they have been pushing the issuance of tens-of-billions of dollars in new debt, via the sale of General Obligation (GO) bonds, for water and water-related programs, and the high-speed rail; a plan that could cost taxpayers as much as $68 billion. 

Currently there are $147 billion in authorized GO bonds; $80 billion of which has been issued. According to state treasurer Bill Lockyer, It will cost us two dollars for every dollar borrowed and spent....

Bond measures that appear on statewide ballots include a disclaimer that goes something like this: “This measure appropriates money from the General Fund to pay off bonds.” 

Translation:“This measure does not raise your taxes to repay the bondholders.” Instead, bond debt is repaid from the same limited pot of money that funds our schools, universities, safety-net programs, criminal justice system, and other key public structures. Because voters don’t have to weigh the value of what the bonds would buy against their willingness to pay for them, bonds may look a bit like free money to many California voters, according to the California Budget Project.

However, a recent report from State Treasurer Bill Lockyer makes clear that bonds are no free lunch. Debt service – principal and interest payments – on outstanding bonds will cost the state an estimated $6.9 billion in 2011-12, equal to 7.8 percent of General Fund revenues.

At its peaking 2007-2008, General Fund spending was $103 billion. Given the deep spending cuts included in the 2011 Budget and the 2012 Budget, overall General Fund spending is now $91.3 billion, $11.6 billion lower than five years earlier. General fund spending as a share of the state’s economy is down to its lowest level since 1972-1973, when Brown served as governor.

The repayment of those bond come essentially off the top of the taxes paid into the General Fund. Currently, depending on government’s numbers, the debt service represents about eight or nine percent of the fund. Estimates by the state indicate that total annual debt service on GO bond could eat up as much as 12% of the fund in the near future.

Although, the use of GO bonds is an established method of funding state projects, serious questions have been raised, that remain unanswered, regarding the alleged misuse of GO bonds.

About a half of dozen of the state’s 100 billionaires have and continue to be the recipients of billions of dollars of profits and give-away programs derived from the issuance, sales and distribution of GO bonds which are repaid from the deficit ridden General Fund.

Brown recently said that the lion’s share of the state’s portion of the settlement will go into the General Fund. A matter that will be the subject of an upcoming series of articles, which raises doubts about the seriousness of the state’s recurring budget and general fund crises and examines how the issuance of GO bonds amount to a shift in the state’s annual debt load. 

Essentially, how some of California's billionaires are using the public’s credit rating, tax base, natural resources, and key-politically held offices to amass and sustain their fortunes as the expense and to the demise of its residents.#

For more information contact pp@planetarysolutionaries.org

Friday, June 22, 2012

SEC's "Enforcement Actions" Stemming from Bank-Induced Financial-Housing Crises - As a Vicitim of the Financial Crises How Much Did You Receive, If Anything?


SEC Enforcement Actions Addressing Misconduct That Ledto or Arose From the Financial Crisis
*         Key Statistics (through June 6, 2012)

Concealed from investors risks, terms, and improper pricing
in CDOs and other complex structured products:

Citigroup - SEC charged Citigroup's principal U.S. broker-dealer subsidiary with misleading investors about a $1 billion CDO tied to the housing market in which Citigroup bet against investors as the housing market showed signs of distress. The proposed settlement would require a payment of $285 million by Citigroup that would be returned to harmed investors. (10/19/11)
Goldman Sachs - SEC charged the firm with defrauding investors by misstating and omitting key facts about a financial product tied to subprime mortgages as the U.S. housing market was beginning to falter. (4/16/10)

o       Goldman Settled Charges - Firm agreed to pay record penalty in $550 million settlement and reform its business practices. (7/15/10)
*         ICP Asset Management - SEC charged ICP and its president with fraudulently managing investment products tied to the mortgage markets as they came under pressure. (6/21/10)
*         J.P. Morgan Securities - SEC charged the firm with misleading investors in a complex mortgage securities transaction just as the housing market was starting to plummet. J.P. Morgan agreed to pay $153.6 million in a settlement that enables harmed investors to receive all of their money back. (6/21/11)

*        Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. - SEC charged the St. Louis-based brokerage firm and a former senior executive with defrauding five Wisconsin school districts by selling them unsuitably risky and complex investments. (8/10/11)

o       RBC Capital Markets - SEC charged the firm for misconduct in the sale of unsuitable CDO investments to five Wisconsin school districts. The firm settled the charges by paying $30.4 million to be distributed to the school districts through a Fair Fund. (9/27/11)

*         Wachovia Capital Markets - SEC charged the firm with misconduct in the sale of two CDOs tied to the performance of residential mortgage-backed securities as the housing market was beginning to show signs of distress. Firm settled charges by paying more than $11 million, much of which will be returned to harmed investors. (4/5/11)


Made misleading disclosures to investors
about mortgage-related risks and exposure:

  American Home Mortgage - SEC charged executives with accounting fraud and misleading investors about the company's deteriorating financial condition as the subprime crisis emerged. Former CEO settled charges by paying $2.45 million and agreeing to five-year officer and director bar. (4/28/09)
BankAtlantic - SEC charged the holding company for one of Florida's largest banks and CEO Alan Levan with misleading investors about growing problems in one of its significant loan portfolios early in the financial crisis. (1/18/12)

*        Citigroup - SEC charged the company and two executives with misleading investors about exposure to subprime mortgage assets. Citigroup paid $75 million penalty to settle charges, and the executives also paid penalties. (7/29/10)
Countrywide - SEC charged CEO Angelo Mozilo and two other executives with deliberately misleading investors about significant credit risks taken in efforts to build and maintain the company's market share. Mozilo also charged with insider trading. (6/4/2009)

o       Mozilo Settled Charges - Agreed to record $22.5 million penalty and permanent officer and director bar. (10/15/10)
Franklin Bank - SEC charged two top executives with securities fraud for misleading investors about increasing delinquencies in its single-family mortgage and residential construction loan portfolios at the height of the financial crisis. (4/5/12)

*       Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - SEC charged six former top executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with securities fraud for misleading investors about the extent of each company's holdings of higher-risk mortgage loans, including subprime loans. (12/16/11)
IndyMac Bancorp - SEC charged three executives with misleading investors about the mortgage lender's deteriorating financial condition. (2/11/11)

*       New Century - SEC charged three executives with misleading investors as the lender's subprime mortgage business was collapsing. (12/7/09)
Executives Settled Charges - Paid more than $1.5 million and each agreed to five-year officer and director bars. (7/30/10)

*        Option One Mortgage Corp. - SEC charged the H&R Block subsidiary with misleading investors in several offerings of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities by failing to disclose that its financial condition was significantly deteriorating. The firm agreed to pay $28.2 million to settle the charges. (4/24/12)
Thornburg executives - SEC charged three executives at formerly one of the nation's largest mortgage companies with hiding the company's deteriorating financial condition at the onset of the financial crisis. (3/13/12)







Concealed the extent of risky mortgage-related and other investments
in mutual funds and other financial products:

*         Bear Stearns - SEC charged two former Bear Stearns Asset Management portfolio managers for fraudulently misleading investors about the financial state of the firm's two largest hedge funds and their exposure to subprime mortgage-backed securities before the collapse of the funds in June 2007. (6/19/08)
Charles Schwab - SEC charged entities and executives with making misleading statements to investors in marketing a mutual fund heavily invested in mortgage-backed and other risky securities. The Schwab entities paid more than $118 million to settle charges. (1/11/11)

 Evergreen - SEC charged the firm with overstating the value of a mutual fund invested primarily in mortgage-backed securities and only selectively telling shareholders about the fund's valuation problems. Firm settled charges by paying more than $40 million, most of which was returned to harmed investors. (6/8/09)

*        Morgan Keegan - SEC charged the firm and two employees with fraudulently overstating the value of securities backed by subprime mortgages (4/7/10)
Morgan Keegan Settled Charges - Firm agreed to pay $100 million to the SEC and the two employees also agreed to pay penalties, including one who agreed to be barred from the securities industry. (6/22/11)

OppenheimerFunds - SEC charged the investment management company and its sales distribution arm for misleading statements about two of its mutual funds that had substantial exposure to commercial mortgage-backed securities during the midst of the credit crisis in late 2008. (6/6/12)

*        Reserve Fund - SEC charged several entities and individuals who operated the Reserve Primary Fund for failing to provide key material facts to investors and trustees about the fund's vulnerability as Lehman Brothers sought bankruptcy protection. (5/5/09)
State Street - SEC charged the firm with misleading investors about exposure to subprime investments while selectively disclosing more complete information to specific investors. State Street agreed to repay investors more than $300 million to settle the charges. (2/4/10)

o      Two Former State Street Employees Charged - Accused of misleading investors about exposure to subprime investments. (9/30/10)
TD Ameritrade - SEC charged the firm with failing to supervise representatives who mischaracterized the Reserve Fund as safe as cash and failed to disclose risks when offering the investment to customers. Firm settled charges by agreeing to repay $10 million to certain fund investors. (2/3/11)







Others

*       Bank of America - SEC charged the company with misleading investors about billions of dollars in bonuses being paid to Merrill Lynch executives at the time of its acquisition of the firm, and failing to disclose extraordinary losses that Merrill sustained. Bank of America paid $150 million to settle charges. (2/4/10)
Brooke Corporation - SEC charged six executives for misleading investors about the firm's deteriorating financial condition and for engaging in various fraudulent schemes designed to conceal the firm's rapidly deteriorating loan portfolio. Five executives agreed to settlements including financial penalties and officer and director bars. (5/4/11)

o       Former CEO Settled Charges - The sixth executive agreed to an officer and director bar and financial penalty. (9/8/11)
Brookstreet - SEC charged the firm and its CEO with defrauding customers in its sales of risky mortgage-backed securities. (12/8/09)

o      Judge Orders Brookstreet CEO to Pay $10 Million Penalty - Stanley Brooks and Brookstreet Securities ordered to pay $10,010,000 penalty and $110,713.31 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest. (3/2/12)
Brookstreet Brokers Charged - SEC charged 10 Brookstreet brokers with making misrepresentations to investors in sale of risky CMOs. (5/28/09)

Colonial Bank and Taylor, Bean & Whitaker (TBW) - SEC charged executives at the bank and the major mortgage lender for orchestrating $1.5 billion scheme with fabricated or impaired mortgage loans and securities, and attempting to scam the TARP program.

o       Lee Farkas, Chairman of TBW (6/16/10) 
     Desiree Brown, Treasurer of TBW (2/24/11)
Catherine Kissick, Vice President at Colonial Bank (3/2/11)

o       Teresa Kelly, Supervisor at Colonial Bank (3/16/11)
Paul Allen, CEO of TBW (6/17/11)

*      Credit Suisse Group - SEC charged four former veteran investment bankers and traders for their roles in fraudulently overstating subprime bond prices in a complex scheme driven in part by their desire for lavish year-end bonuses. (2/1/12)
UCBH Holdings Inc. - SEC charged former bank executives with misleading investors about mounting loan losses at San Francisco-based United Commercial Bank and its public holding company during the height of the financial crisis. (10/11/11)

o       SEC charged former bank executive with misleading the bank's independent auditors regarding risks the bank faced on certain outstanding loans. (3/27/12)







Key Statistics (through June 6, 2012)

Number of Entities and Individuals Charged
104
Number of CEOs, CFOs, and Other Senior Corporate Officers Charged
55
Number of Individuals Who Have Received Officer and Director Bars, Industry Bars, or Commission Suspensions
25
Penalties Ordered or Agreed To
> $1.27 billion
Disgorgement and Prejudgment Interest Ordered or Agreed To
> $424 million
Additional Monetary Relief Obtained for Harmed Investors
$355 million*
Total Penalties, Disgorgement, and Other Monetary Relief
$2 billion

* In settlements with Evergreen, J.P. Morgan, State Street, and TD Ameritrade

http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/enf-actions-fc.shtml