The People vs. Bank of America: B of A Giveth and It Taketh Away

Since the administration still has not found its 21st century Ferdinand Pecora to let the public know what the Banksters have been up to, I decided to do some investigating myself. The usual disclaimers. My specialty is health care. If anyone knows more about banking and economics and wants to add or correct anything, please do so. I am just tired of not hearing more specifics about these banks which are robbing us blind.

Did you know that Bank of America is one of the big culprits in the predatory lending scandal? It is currently up to its eyeballs in toxic mortgages. That used to be a bad thing. In 2008, owning a lot of bad mortgages became cause for celebration in the U.S., because that meant that you qualified for billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts for the crime of redlining---targeting minorities and other vulnerable folks to receive adjustable rate mortgages when they qualified for fixed rate mortgages. Only America under Bush-Cheney would reward corporate criminals with such large sums of money.

And, did you know that Bank of America is also involved in vulture funds? That means it buys (through its partner corporations ) huge packages of so called toxic mortgages (also known as the homes of American taxpayers) for a fraction of their value after they have been foreclosed, because some bank like Bank of America or one of its subsidiaries sold the homeowner an adjustable rate mortgage that the owner could never possibly repay?

That is why this journal is subtitled Bank of America Giveth and It Taketh Away .

If what Bank of America is doing is not a crime, it ought to be.

I. Bank of America Has ALWAYS Been a Mortgage Predator

They will claim that everyone was doing it. They will say Bush-Cheney created a climate of corruption . They will blame Phil Gramm. They will say that they only recently got involved in the mortgage mess, as a public service to their country, when they bought Countrywide to save it from going under. Don’t believe them. Bank of America was notorious for its deceptive and illegal lending practices even before Bush was selected by the Supreme Court in 2000.

Note that in 2000, Bank of America was already the largest subprime lender in the country

http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/109/bradley.html

at a time when minorities were being offered a disproportionate share of the subprime loans, even though a study done by Freddie Mac and Standard and Poors indicated that 63% of these home buyers qualified for an A grade or A minus mortgage. The mortgage writers responded by claiming that it was not their job to give mortgage buyers the best deal. The implication was that it was their job to stick them with the worst possible mortgage that they could possible trick them into signing, even if it meant that the mortgage would go into default. Federal regulation under Clinton was lax. Under Bush it would become worse than lax. The Bush administration would actually make it illegal for state attorney generals to go after those who engaged in deceptive of fraudulent lending practices.

http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/r21707830-How-the-Bush-Administration-Protected-Predatory-Lending



With no one to regulate them, folks like Bank of America continued to prey upon minorities during the Bush years.



http://www.innercitypress.org/bofa.html

Note that B of A did not actually deal in mortgages. Instead, it sold bonds. Kind of like selling the smell of food instead of selling the food itself. From Greg Pallast.


http://www.gregpalast.com/elliot-spitzer-gets-nailed/

Now, we have paid shills like Santelli with his not so subtly racist message on the floor of the New York Stock exchange trying to convince Americans that banks were justified in ripping off minority home buyers, presumably because it isn’t really a crime if it is white on Black or white on Brown crime But what about all the whites who are about to lose their homes? And elderly Americans? And women? And the disabled? Are only young, straight healthy white males protected from predatory mortgage schemes? And what about the teachers and firemen who invested their pensions in those mortgages? Suddenly teachers and firemen are not protected either? Is the new lesson supposed to be that home ownership is bad in 21st century America?



II. Connect the Dots

Dot number one. Bank of America buys Countrywide in early 2008

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22606833/page/2/

January, 2008, the Bush administration, which never met a merger it did not like (except for the one Qwest wanted, but then Qwest said “no” to domestic spying) had nothing to say when Bank of America acquired the largest mortgage lender in the nation, Countrywide for $4 billion and stock.




Recently, Bank of America has tried to position itself as some kind of knight in shining armor, because it agreed to foot the bill for the $8.68 billion settlement between Countrywide and eleven states which sued the mortgage company for its fraudulent practices.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/10/countrywide_settlement.html

Yes, eight billion dollars sounds like a lot of money for Bank of America to pay for a company that it bought. However, as this article from CNN Money points out, Bank of America’s purchase of Countrywide is being subsidized by the U.S taxpayer, because Bank of America can write off all of Countrywide’s losses from B of A's own taxes for the next five or more years.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/11/news/companies/sloan_countrywide.fortune/index.htm?section=money_topstories

And do not forget, that Bank of America gets taxpayer bailout billions for all the so called toxic mortgage debt that it has acquired through its mergers.

Dot number two. Bank of America buys Merrill Lynch.

Bank of America grew even more behemoth by acquiring Merrill Lynch, the proud possessor of “billions of dollars in assets tied to mortgages that have plunged in value.” Note that there is a truism which claims that banks do not want to own property. I have always wondered why this is so. Apparently it is no longer true, as I will discuss in more detail in a moment. This deal took place last September. MSNBC does not comment on the best part of the deal, because they did not know (but I will bet you a nickel that B of A did) that Merrill Lynch’s dowry would include billions of dollars in free federal bailout money for all those supposedly “worthless” assets.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26708958/

Again, Bank of America was portrayed as a hero for rescuing another failing bank, when in fact it was taking advantage of a situation that it helped to create to fashion itself into a dangerously large corporate giant---and rob the tax payers to the tune of $45 billion.

Dot number two and a half. Bank of America acquires a controlling interest in BlackRock (a major vulture fund) through its acquisition of Merrill Lynch)

Since MSNBC did not talk about BlackRock as one of Merrill Lynch’s assets, I will do it. People forget that there is money to be made from the misfortune of others. A few years ago, one of the biggest businesses in this country was paying winos to pretend to be home buyers so that you could buy up real estate at inflated prices, to inflate the values of your other properties, sell them to people at outrageous prices and make a quick profit. Now, one of the biggest business opportunities in this country is snatching up whole parcels of foreclosed real estate for a fraction of the true market value. Really savvy real estate investors who drove the market prices up through the first scam will now be reaping rewards as people who bought high are having to bail out as their values tumble back to normal.

Here is an article about what BlackRock does.

http://www.mortgagelawnetwork.com/vulture-funds-buy-residential-mortgages/



http://www.bullishbankers.com/blackrock-navigating-financial-markets/

In late January, directors at both Bank of America and BlackRock made large purchases of their own stocks.

http://www.gurufocus.com/news.php?id=46266

All of this leads me to believe that Bank of America expects BlackRock to be a money making division for the banking giant. Now consider. The nation’s largest generator of toxic mortgages, a bank which claims that all its bad loans came from Merrill Lynch but which actually generated 25% of them itself

http://www.innercitypress.org/bofa.html

is also in the business of buying up properties which are about to be foreclosed for a fraction of their value. There is something wrong with this picture. Can you figure out what it is?

A bank which knows that one of its partners can snatch up foreclosed properties no longer has anything to fear if a home buyer defaults. It can write as many subprime loans as it likes, take all the risks that the market will allow, rake in profit, watch people lose their homes and then turn the property over to its resale division, which will sell it again through the bank’s mortgage division. And, if the taxpayers are paying the difference between what the mortgages used to be worth and what the property can fetch now (or a few years from now) on the real estate market, it is a win-win scenario for B of A. There is no way that they can lose.

Indeed, the only ones who will lose are the American tax payers who will end up owning nothing for their billions of dollars thrown down the banking drain, since B of A will almost certainly write off any property sold to its partner, BlackRock as a “loss”.

In this way Bank of America turns into one great big Worm Oroborous, swallowing the country’s home buying dollars in its greed. Since any American who owns a home outright is an outrage to the hungry beast, it desires an economic climate in which people will be forced to take out a mortgage in order to pay their medical expenses or send their kids to college or pay their credit card debt.



III. Bank of America Donated As Much $$$ As Usual Last Year to Politicians. How Did They Manage That?

With all the banks in the United States holding out their hands to the U.S. tax payers, demanding bailouts, you would think that they would have had to tighten their belt buckles. But no, banks like B of A gave just as much to politicians and spent just as much on lobbying last year as any other year. Makes you wonder where those bailout dollars went.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/business/story/307073.html



If these guys had millions to throw around to politicians (and for bonuses and planes and the Super Bowl), why were we giving them billions? In the next couple of years, they will be able to give even more than they have given during the Bush administration, when they knew that they could count upon federal regulators to help them out. There is enough money in the bailout slush fund to buy all the Senate Republicans and dozens of Santellis. Remember the strategy session called by Bank of America three days after it got billions in bailout money to coordinate a contribution strategy to defeat a labor bill and keep Coleman and other Republicans in the Senate?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/27/bank-of-america-hosted-an_n_161248.html



Just for the record, there have been three Bush Rangers among the top brass at Bank of America (but we could have guessed that). And their campaign spending in the past has been slanted towards the Republicans.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bank_of_America_Corp.

As if that was not enough to endear then to Bush-Cheney, they have been big financial supporters of the coal industry especially the process of extracting coal by mountaintop removal . However, now that Obama is the President, they have vowed to phase out their support for the latter activity. I guess they figure it will not endear them to him the way it did to Dick Cheney.

We know that all politicians require large sums of money to get elected and re-elected, so corporations with money have tremendous clout in DC. With the American people facing a recession, a banking industry flush with cash is in a great position to direct the course our country will take in the next two years.

Yes, I know that it's not fair. We are on the verge of a Second Great Depression because of the banksters' greed and incompetence. And now, because George W. Bush helped them pull off the scam of the century, both with the mergers and the bailouts, a handful of banks like Citibank, Morgan Chase, Goldman Stanley and Bank of America have all the marbles. Politicians will have to go begging to bank CEOs for favors like they are some kind of Mafia dons.

Sucks living in post-Bush America.





IV. Civil Action Against Bank of America

I am not going to comment. I am just going to link a few of the many you can find online to give you an idea of how Bank of America conducts business as usual.
http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2008/07/14/daily48.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/10/31/ST2008103102190.html
http://uk.reuters.com/article/bankingfinancial-SP/idUKN0529923720081205
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/548590/
http://www.pogowasright.org/blogs/dissent/?p=502
http://www.lawcash.com/attorney/4100/bank-america-lawsuit.asp
There is a whole lot more. These were just the first ones I ran across.

Conclusion: Bank of America is Now the Second Largest Bank in the U.S. and It Wants YOUR Money

In the space of a single year, Bank of America grew like Godzilla, and because we were all so scared of the Second Great Depression, no one really paid any attention to what it meant when the Bush administration allowed B of A to acquire Countrywide and then Merrill Lynch (and BlackRock) and $45 billion no strings attached taxpayer dollars. We all know that monopolies are bad, correct? Well, Bank of America now controls home buying and selling in this country, all the way from the first redlining opportunity, when the mortgage writer sizes you up to see if you are so desperate to get your child into a chemical treatment facility that you will sign the papers for the adjustable rate mortgage on your home….. to the vulture fund that will kick you out of the home you have occupied for twenty years.

They have a huge slush fund which they can use to bribe politicians and influence public opinion. If their bad business practices put them at financial risk, they can hold America hostage again---and blame the same minorities that they have been victimizing.

They have proven time and again that they do not possess anything resembling ethics .Bank of America makes money the oldest of ways. They take it. Considering the way that our country got its start, I guess that Bank of America is aptly named, but still---

Can we just go ahead and nationalize their bank? It is called “Bank of America” and after all the money we have poured into it, I think we have more than paid for it. Either that, or break up their monopoly and have a team from the DOJ and the SEC search their books. Oh, and the FEC for good measure. I think it will be time well spent.

must've cost us a pretty penny.

and thinking- a LOT of people are going to get screwed, INCLUDING the banks themselves.

As a matter of fact, I think I posted about it right here on DU.

Bush really had no clue about banks only that they gave his guys money

... the difference between Bank of America and Credit Union

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5052589

Yours is very informative. Thank you! K&R :)

It's kind of like reading about the torture. It's just more than you can take.

Really...thanks. I'm just trying to express how bad I think this is. So bad you just...

I don't know how to express it. I thought that the worst thing I knew--aside from the million innocent people the Bushwhacks slaughtered for their oil, and the prisoners tortured for reasons I don't think we know yet--was about the voting machines. But this is the why of the voting machines run on 'TRADE SECRET' code, owned and controlled by a handful of Bushwhack corporations, all over the country, in every state, with virtually no audit/recount controls--isn't it? This is the main why of it. Not just the war profiteering. The long term uses of the 'TRADE SECRET' code for the building of massive financial empires out of the ruins of our country, and other peoples' countries. It's not just the filthy campaign contribution system. It's the control of election outcomes that is the final hook into our so-called leaders, and why they are ever so silent about the privatization of our voting system.

Insidious the drug war is to the propping up of the banks.

Drug cartels use a "clean" member of the head family to purchase a bank and then that bank is used to launder the monies.

Clinton Administration had to back out of two investigations into Mexican drug cartels on account of the fact that various of our people in Mexico would have been assassinated had the investigations continued.

And of course, I don't think George W Bush was concerned about investigating the drug cartels at all. (Don't mean to imply too much that maybe some of those cartel tentacles led back to his dad or his Bro, Jeb. But if that is what is happening, maybe I don't need to imply anything?)

The banking industry and the drug war is so interwoven that the only way that we will ever get free from the odious drug laws (ie legalizing of marijuana) is if someone comes along and creates our own Central bank, free from being beholden to outside interests. I keep hoping that Obama will see the light, but he seems spell bound by Geithner and the other creeps he has as advisers.

I'd like to ask a question of those who have been doing research. How many of these mortgages were defaulted due to people being unable to pay them as compared to people walking away from the mortgages because the property value had sunk to the point where the mortgage holders were "upside down"?

Just an intuitive response here, not based on any statistics, but my feeling is that we haven't really hit any massive walk-away from homes that have "upside-down" mortgage principal to home value. That day may well yet come, as home prices continue to fall, but I'm in an area of California where values have fallen a LOT (perhaps 40% since the peak), and the foreclosures I hear about are related to loss of income, or to low teaser rates that reset. The ARM issue is huge. People were that people, on the average, live in their homes for less than a certain period anyway (perhaps 5 years?), which in our area is mostly true. So they would likely sell their home before the reset. And if they didn't, they could just refinance, and could pull equity out of the home in the process. This only works, of course, if home values keep going up.

I'm on a fixed-rate 30 yr mortgage myself. My home is just now approaching the "upside-down" state. As long as people have hopes of an eventual recovery and can afford their mortgage, most of them will stay in their homes, waiting for an eventual upswing. Walking away from an upside-down mortgage is a really desperate thing to do, hopefully it won't become common.

edited for improper sentence construction and punctuation

Welcome to the end of America, brought to you by unbridled greed and deregulation. I feel like I've just wakened from a nightmare, only to find I wasn't asleep!

n/t

I hated it but I stayed there for my retirement account, which is now worth nothing.


When I have more time, I will tell you all a story...

While there are many valid issues with BofA, the OP and many of the linked articles are very misleading (accidental or deliberate?) and should not go unquestioned here at DU. "Facts" are cherry-picked, sometimes out of context, and strung together to build a case against BofA as the biggest villan on Wall Street.

Some of the "points" being repeated here probably originated in the ongoing short selling attacking various financial institutions and many other publicly-traded firms. Consider what happened wrt VW late last year. A lot of this activity is ultimately driven by large private equity groups prepared to buy at the fire sale after having set the fire, although everyone now seems to have joined in.

Before you pile on attacking BofA, double check your sources and their claims. My only connection to BofA is as a typical small retail customer (e.g. checking, credit card) for over 40 years who has had modest complaints with them. From my perspective on them and from my long-term involvement with Wall Street, I find the OP to be based on several myths and misconceptions:

1. BofA is not really part of Wall Street. (Some recent acquisitions are/were.)

At its core, BofA is really "North Carolina National Bank" (later shortened to "NCNB"), formed by merging over time various banks across the state of NC. (Wachovia and several others had similar origins in NC.) Wall Street ignored them as unimportant, just another bunch of Southern rubes not up to doing important things like stocks, bonds, M&A and the resulting big paychecks. If you were important, your HQ would be in NY -- or at least in a financial center: Boston, Chicago, SF, and (for a while) Dallas. WS did not see that NCNB was developing the skills, infrastructure, and the people for later expansion. NCNB did this by focusing on meeting the retail banking needs of the individual and small business customers in the community, treating its customers fairly, avoiding risky ventures, and being a respected part of the community. Being a very good Bank.

2. With the 1980's came the rise of "interstate banking". Until then, laws and regulations, mostly by states, made it nearly impossible for a bank to expand into another state directly or by acquisition. During this era of deregulation, most of these barriers were removed or were taken from the states and made a Federal responsibility. At the time, nearly everyone expected the large money-center banks would acquire the regionals, reaping the rewards of economies of scale. The regionals feared this was likely. NCNB had other plans. Mostly by luck and a quirk of timing and law, it already had a tiny presence in Florida and used this to enter the FL market early. As regional or state rules changed, NCNB merged/acquired banks in neighboring states, sending in those in-house trained managers at all levels to the acquired operations, spreading the NCNB way. The Hugh McColl way.

NCNB becomes NationsBank. The "oil patch recession" and the savings and loan scandals were much like today but were more localized and involved fewer derivates and such. Texas was particularly hard hit, many high-flyers left with little more than a hat and an ego. Add the insult of some unknow bank in NC or SC taking over some of the largest banks in Texas, literally "taking over" -- sending in a herd of managers to "ride herd" on the Texas way and many of these new managers were women! Of course, not everything was being changed. More-conventional and sounder banking practices were coupled with the enormous task of cleaning up the non-performing assets/loans/properties. It was Hell for everyone, on all sides. Many people still lost nearly everything they had; many likely still hate and despise NationsBank/BofA whether for cause or just proximity. Over time, NationsBank was so effective in this cleanup that some charged that the assets had been sold at too great a discount by the RTC. Certainly possible, but there were not a lot of qualified buyers lining up at the time.

This effort took a lot resources, a "gamble" backed by confidence in a large and experienced team that understood what they were getting into.

Wall Street took notice, and they did not like what they saw. Even as NationsBank, Wachovia, et al continued to move up the list of largest banks, they remained in NC. When NationsBank acquired by merger the original BofA (of SF), it was presented as a merger of equals and pundits expected a HQ in SF or maybe a new one in NYC (of course!). BofA-SF had actually taken too much risk and there were hidden losses from trading and from lending for things like derivative trading. When these were unearthed in a few months, McColl removed many of the BofA-SF executives and forbid such practices.

BofA-SF had acquired several large banks itself before being acquired, and a lot of work remained to integrate the various operations. Some of these and others like Fleet have brought their own set of problems including their own histories and abuses, now all merged into the BofA-NC history, balance sheet, legal actions, etc.

The recent additions, bought at a discount (Countrywide) or "forced" to buy by the Fed (ML), are big challenges. But from my limited vantage point, it appears that NCNB/BofA is again acting as a bank and working through the portfolio. I find it interesting that the woman VP of IT is leading that effort.

NCNB/BofA is still not part of the "club" that dominates Wall Street, the Fed, and much of Congress.Little love in either direction. Some of these people seem to relish exercising their power and position to take BofA down a bit. I see others gleeful at any prospect that BofA might fail. Don't foreget the short sellers.

Not sure what is up with the OP.

I just hope that BofA will continue acting as a bank while cleaning up a lot of mess. I have more confidence in them than I have with the smart guys in DC and NY.

They all gave money to W. and they are all corrupt. Being from North Carolina does not make B of A better than the others. I am a southerner myself, and I know that there are plenty of con men from the south. It just means that there are less likely to be Jewish people in positions of power at the company, because southerners are so bigoted, even against Jewish people.

Let's see. Here is a listing for B of A executives. Anglo names. Irish names. All whiter than white.

http://newsroom.bankofamerica.com/index.php?s=company_bios

Here is a listing for Goldman Sachs executives.

http://www2.goldmansachs.com/our-firm/about-us/leadership/executive-officers.html

You know, that is just about what I figured I would find.

I have absolutely nothing against a bank being in "New York" ( all southerners know that when other southerners complain about something being in "New York" they are really complaining about Jewish people).

Certainly not what I was saying. I am Southern and have NY Jewish cousins. NYC has one the largest Jewish populations anywhere, so a company with most of its operations in NYC would employ Jews than would one that is national. One in NC, more AAs than one in ND.

My main point is bank vs investment banking.

We have a car loan with Bank of America which is due on the 10th of the month. On the 11th, I received a call @ work demanding payment. The dude treated me like a skip trace who hadn't paid in a year. Acted like it was quite a feat to catch me @ work...a job that I have been @ for 18 years. Really nasty.

We had never missed a payment in three and half years and a day late payment warranted a call @ work?

I knew right then that Bank of America had trouble.

Simply put, there never would have been fraud settlements on a massive scale unless there had been massive fraud on the part of the banks -- and that fraud was perpetrated on the borrowers.

That is why I am so glad that you gave this observation and link: "$8.68 billion settlement between Countrywide and eleven states which sued the mortgage company for its fraudulent practices.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008... "

That quote and link should be sent to every media outlet trashing home buyers in foreclosure ...

Thanks,also, for your always thoughtful posts.