JP Morgan Chase’s Several Week Timeline

In addition to dropping MERS today, JP Morgan Chase had an earnings call at which Jamie Dimon was asked questions about JPMC’s foreclosure fraud. Calculated Risk has a transcription (both the AP and WSJ attribute these comments to Dimon, though CFO Douglas Braunstein made comments about the foreclosure fraud as well). But I just wanted to note the contradictory stories Dimon is telling about timing.

Analyst: I was wondering if you could give us any sense for timing of resolution in terms of reopening these 115,000 cases?

JPM: It’s going to take several weeks to go through the files and make sure and correct any errors that are in there. The underlying stuff is all accurate. So that’s the key substance. Obviously we know there’s a lot of state AGs and we have conversations with them. We’re hoping [to get back to] the normal process — for us, the sooner the better for everybody involved. We don’t think there are cases with people have been evicted out of homes where they shouldn’t have been. These foreclosures go through multiple process, so we’re hoping it will be sooner rather than later and those conversations are starting to take place.


Analyst: And the foreclosure stuff, outside of how it directly may impact you or somebody else, how do you look at the drag it may have on the housing market, kind of the macro impact, what do you think about that?

JPM: Again, I hope — this is a hope. This is not a knowledge. Is that when people take a deep, sigh breath, go back to the right, look to the substance underlying the files and go back to modifying, foreclosing and doing the right thing, all told, it could be a blip. Talking about three or four weeks it will be a blip in the housing market. If it went on for a long period of time it will have a lot of consequences, most of which would be adverse on everybody.

Analyst: The foreclosure suspension, it’s a matter of weeks instead of months, did I hear you say that?

JPM: No. I didn’t say weeks to clean up the files. We actually have to have little in depth conversations with regulators and AGs and stuff like that. So I don’t know exactly when. I’m hopeful that it all starts to move at one point. I don’t know if it’s going to be three weeks or five. But I think it will be a real shame if we don’t get this resolved and moving again.

Analyst: In all likelihood you should be allowed to foreclose as we go into next year.

JPM: I hope so. It’s not up to me. [my emphasis]

First, note the clear reversal. At first, Jamie Dimon says it will take several weeks to “correct any errors” (meaning, to write new affidavits with proper notarizations to replace the ones he admitted to earlier). When asked about the overall impact on the housing market, Dimon gives a classic, “nice economy you’ve got here; it’d be a pity if it died if it takes us longer than three or four weeks to fix ‘our errors.'” But based on that statement, an analyst clarifies that he imagines it will take weeks. To which Dimon response, “I didn’t say weeks to clean up the files.”

But he did.

The real reason for his squirminess–aside from the fact that he all but admits that his company had fabricated affidavits and notarizations, amounting to fraud on courts in multiple states–appears to be the awareness that 50 Attorneys General and some unnamed regulators have him by the balls and will tell him, MOTU Dimon, when he can start foreclosing again. (Nowhere does he admit to doubt that JPMC will be able to foreclose.) He seems to be hoping that if the regulators and prosecutors just look at the “substance underlying the files”–that is, look at the delinquent payments rather than the insufficient paperwork–they’ll green light foreclosures and we can all go on to pretend that the banksters haven’t been engaged in systematic fraud to hide their larger systematic fraud.

But I do find it remarkable that in an earnings call, Dimon all but admitted to fraud, admitted that the Attorneys General will dictate what happens going forward, and yet didn’t lay that out (or the underlying problem of fraud built on fraud) as an earnings risk. It’ll be interesting if JPMC admits the legal jeopardy to the SEC.

  1. wavpeac says:

    And he hopes they don’t look into the accuracy of the debt. I also think this is why it’s okay for us to focus on the “paper work” right now, but there is a concerted effort going on to keep it out of the news that the balances on these loans may be bogus.

  2. crowinghen says:

    Jamie’s making a lot of admissions, some inadvertent, no doubt, today. This was from a Reuter’s release this morning:

    But JPMorgan Chief Executive Jamie Dimon said during the earnings call that the bank’s management was comfortable that serious issues will not be found, and any added costs from the review will be incremental.

    “There’s almost no chance we made a mistake,” said Dimon.

    So, in the quotes in the post, he’s saying they haven’t been doing the right thing, and in the Reuters quote, he’s saying there’s almost no chance they made a mistake. They did things wrong, and apparently he doesn’t think they ‘made a mistake’. So is he also admitting it was deliberate?

    I was amazed when I saw this quote….and then shortly after saw that they stopped using MERS….did he quickly figure out no one was going to buy his ‘no mistake’ line?

      • crowinghen says:

        The fraud part was my take. Actually I later saw that quote in another story and after his quote about not thinking there was a mistake, in the new article it added that the quote was in reference to the affidavits. No mistakes? Yeah, right.

        I read last night at (there was a link to the judges statement) that a judge in a foreclosure case in FL came out and stated that Chase and another bank and the attorneys (who kept changing who the plaintiff was–who owned the note)had committed fraud on the court. (As it turned out the note was owned by neither of the banks that the attorney stated, but by Fannie Mae.)

        The bank I worked for was purchased by Bank One and shortly after that, Jamie took the helm at Bank One, then of course (after I left) Bank One became part of JPMorgan/Chase and Jamie ended up CEO there. I was happy when my job was eliminated….processes were being sliced and diced, way too much horizontal integration, and jobs were dumbed down to where the employee was just supposed to do their job without thinking about the whole process. Banking–at least in the big banks — was changing and not for the better. After 25 years in banking I vowed never to work for a bank again. Now I will only bank with family-owned banks in my state….big enough to offer convenience and real employees on the other end of the phone, and committed to not being bought out by the big boys.

      • Gitcheegumee says:

        Makes me think of the term “friendly fire”. In MOTUspeak this would be termed “friendly fraud.”

      • cregan says:

        Maybe I have missed something. I haven’t seen anything (other than posts here) in the press about anything other than robo signing. Is there anything out there, other than blog posts, that mentions some proof of that?

        Even the AG joint statement only referred to “procedural problems” (or deficits or similar term) with the foreclosure proceedings.

        That is distinguished from whether someone feels someone “hoodwinked” them into signing a loan. A legitimate concern, but not one I have seen yet is part of any of these inquiries–for the banks for AG’s. I really don’t think anyone is going to go back and re-argue that point again–except on a case by case basis.

        I think the time for “they cheated me into the loan” or “misrepresented the loan” has passed in the minds of the AG’s and the WH and most everyone else in any position to do something.

        Again, to me, the losing the loan docs argument is a great legal one, but if you haven’t been paying the payments for nearly 17 months (as I understand is how long most of these have been going on), I don’t think that matters.

        I think CBO or someone like that did a study that more than the majority of those who modified their payments fell back into default again anyway.

        Now, if you want to argue the banks haven’t done enough to modify loans–I’m all with you.

        • wavpeac says:

          I have two friend who got a loan mod, and have read many complaints about the loan mods on line. My understanding is that they refinanced the bogus fees. So what happened is that many people had 20,000.00$ added to the balance of their loan in fees that would not be removed. Then they would refinance that balance and this would end up not affecting the bottom line as much, even if the interest rate changed significantly. We still are not discussing these fees which in many cases are completely bogus. Fees for cashing checks, property inspection. The bulk of fees on my loan are simply called “miscellaneous”. They just folded the fees into the new loans and gave a better interest rate. Tricky.

  3. phred says:

    Obviously we know there’s a lot of state AGs and we have conversations with them.

    I bet MOTU Dimon is most displeased with this. I bet he prefers to give TurboTim a call and be done with it. But no. He has to suck up to 50 AGs, plus regulators:

    We actually have to have little in depth conversations with regulators and AGs and stuff like that.

    I love that phrasing, “we actually have to have little conversations”. Horrors! How inconvenient. How tedious and unseemly for a MOTU to “have to have a conversation” with anyone he does not wish to.

    At this point, Dimon ought to be grateful if the AGs and regulators return his calls. They should just have their administrative assistants tell him that their attorneys will see his attorneys in court.

  4. 1der says:

    Jamie Dimon has met regularly with Obama since he moved into the “People’s House” and at one time was considered to replace our current Wall Street Sec. Treasury. Here’s Mr. Dimon a year ago on foreclosures:

    MARCY KAPTUR: Let me give you a reality from ground zero in Toledo, Ohio. Our foreclosures have gone up 94 percent. A few months ago, I met with our realtors. And I said, ‘What should I know?’ They said, ‘Well, first of all, you should know the worst companies that are doing this to us.’

    MARCY KAPTUR: I said, ‘Well, give me the top one.’ They said, ‘J.P. Morgan Chase.’ I went back to Washington that night. And one of my colleagues said, ‘You want to come to dinner?’ I said, ‘Well, what is it?’ He said, ‘Well, it’s a meeting with Jamie Dimon, the head of J.P. Morgan Chase.’ I said, ‘Wow, yes. I really do.’ So, I go to this meeting in a fancy hotel, fancy dinner, and everyone is complimenting him. I mean, it was just like a love fest.

    MARCY KAPTUR: They finally got to me, and my point to ask a question. I said, ‘Well, I don’t want to speak out of turn here, Mr. Dimon.’ I said, ‘But your company is the largest forecloser in my district. And our Realtors just said to me this morning that your people don’t return phone calls.’ I said, ‘We can’t do work outs.’ And he looked at me, he said, ‘Do you know that I talk to your Governor all the time?’ He said, ‘Our company employs 10,000 people in Ohio.’

    MARCY KAPTUR: And I’m thinking, ‘What is that? A threat?’ And he said, ‘I speak to the Mayor of Columbus.’ I said, ‘Why don’t you come further north?’ I said, ‘Toledo, Cleveland, where the foreclosures are just skyrocketing.’ He said, ‘Well, we’ll have someone call you.’ And he gave me a card. And they never did. For two weeks, we tried to reach them. And finally, I was on a national news show. And I told this story. They called within ten minutes. And they said, ‘Oh, we’ll work with you. We’ll try to do some workouts in your area.’

    We planned the first one after working with them for weeks and weeks and weeks. Their people never showed up. And it was a Friday. Our people had taken off work. They’d driven from all these locations to come. We kept calling J.P. Morgan Chase saying, ‘Where’s your person? Where’s your person?’ And they finally sent somebody down from Detroit by 3:00 in the afternoon. But out people had been waiting all morning and a lot of people that’s how they treat our people.

    Douchebag fuck-wad extraordinaire who has nothing to say that will help understand this mess or that I want to hear.

    • phred says:

      Thanks for the reminder about the fact Dimon was floated as a possible replacement for Timmeh. Kinda makes you wonder if keeping rampant bankster fraud under wraps has been the sole objective of O’s economic team all along.

    • Fractal says:

      Douchebag fuck-wad extraordinaire who has nothing to say that will help understand this mess or that I want to hear.

      What you said. Special seats are reserved in Hell for these motherfuckers.

    • progress says:

      Awesome link 1der.

      SIMON JOHNSON: To spend more time in Washington, more time cultivating all those relationships on Capital Hill and in the executive branch. And you know what else Jamie Dimon said to his shareholders? To his shareholders meeting this year, he said, with regard to 2008, the year of what we regard as the greatest financial crisis, an absolute human tragedy. He said, Jamie Dimon said to his shareholders, ‘This was perhaps our best year ever.’

      We spent so many blogs about a family who lost their home because fire-fighters did not douse it for not paying dues. Here millions have lost their homes because homes went under-water or lost jobs, tax payer bailouts happened which were totally unnecessary and it was called a best year for the bank. Cannot believe these are the words said to shareholders and they listened to it.

      BILL MOYERS: A reality check. Not one CEO of a Wall Street bank was there to hear the President. What do you make of that?

      SIMON JOHNSON: Arrogance. Because they have no fear for the government anymore. They have no respect for the President, which I find absolutely extraordinary and shocking. All right? And I think they have no not an ounce of gratitude to the American people, who saved them, their jobs, and the way they run the world.

      President needs to stop attending $30,400 a plate dinner, mocking public option supporters which encourages this kind of behavior and welcome hatred of 1% as FDR would have done.

      SIMON JOHNSON: Another Great Depression. Right? If you don’t fix the financial system, Bill. If you allow them to have the same attitude. If you- if you actually allow them to increase their economic power, their ability to take risk, and their belief that they can shove the losses onto the government. And that’s why they didn’t show up to President Obama’s speech on Wall Street.

      BILL MOYERS: Why don’t they respect him?

      SIMON JOHNSON: Because they think that the next time they won’t even have to ask. They’ll just be given the bailout that they want.

      As long as Social Security is active with current foot-print and potency we will not get another Great Depression because social security keeps 30 to 40% of the economy totally de-linked from wall street always humming. If they were able to they would have got depression by now for super bailout bonanza and real asset accquistion at dirt cheap prices.

  5. janeeyresick says:

    Don’t you think it’s interesting that he refers to “going back . .. to doing the right thing”?

    I find that admission fascinating.

    • Fractal says:

      Yves Smith over at Naked Capitalism has been reaming out the banks on everything for years. Her coverage of the foreclosure fraud pandemic is just the icing on the cake. While she was away for a summer break, Naked Capitalism posted “Summer Reruns” of warnings & data-based prophecies she put up during 2006-2008. A Summer Rerun still pops up every now & then. Just remarkable insights and prescience.

  6. wavpeac says:

    “little in depth conversations with the A.G’s…” I have to tell you, I think that during the Bushco ad, many of the A.G’s worked with the administration to cover up the fraud.

  7. prostratedragon says:

    I really would like to know what is meant by JPMC withdrawing from MERS.

    I happen to be in the midst of Christopher Peterson’s article on the changes to the land recording system that resulted from the introduction of MERS and the use of that …well, whatever it is… by the banks to bypass the established public recordation system. Peterson shows 3 flowcharts that describe how the use of MERS has caused a rupture in the relationship between the securitization SPV that supposedly holds the mortgage and the borrower’s note as assets, and the county recorders of land documents. In chart A (p. 1367), the trust and any intermediary going backward from it to the originator of the loan are recorded as assignees of the payments; the trust is also the holder of the mortgage lien.

    The other two charts (pp. 1369 and 1372) show how MERS is introduced as either the purported assignee to the payments, or the purported owner of the mortgage, with whichever being recorded at the county office, even though the actual note and mortgage are still delivered to the trust. That is, MERS is of record at the public office, and the actual trust is not, severing the relationship between the true documents and the public history of the land title.

    So is JPMC going back to chart A instead of doing chart B or C? It surely can do that with any new loans it makes, but how is it going to undo what’s been done for its millions of outstanding MERS loans? Mr. Dimon seems kind of vague on that.

      • prostratedragon says:


        I don’t have a mortgage right now, but I’ve been trying to figure out how to, you know, just casually happen to mention something to one or two close family & friends who do [shudder].

      • beowulf says:

        It won’t. When the State takes land by eminent domain, it creates a new title. The land granted by the King has, at long last, returned home to the King.

        If there is a dispute as to who actually deserves the money owed for the taking, I imagine the State agency would just get its clean deed by paying into the clerk of the court and then let the disputing parties fight it out for the prize. In the meantime, there are roads to build.

      • prostratedragon says:

        They’ve really done it this time, haven’t they?

        I guess any process where demonstrating legitimacy of either current or a chain of ownership is critical (was that the Queen of England who just fainted?) has now had some sand thrown in the gears.

        To bang and whimper you can add the honking of a clown nose.

  8. harpie says:

    Fannie, Freddie Ditch Foreclosure King; Andy Kroll; 10/13/10

    Amidst the country’s rapidly snowballing foreclosure debacle, some pretty big news: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have temporarity dropped the Law Offices of David J. Stern as one of their go-to firms for handling foreclosures in Florida. Stern’s firm is often referred to as a “foreclosure mill,” and has come under fire from defense attorneys, ex-employees, and the state attorney general for a range of improprieties.

    Why We Need a Consumer Protection Bureau; Andy Kroll; 10/12/10

  9. cbl2 says:

    loosely related:

    The N.Y. State Banking Department has suspended home foreclosure actions by mortgage loan servicers, requiring that they conduct internal reviews of their foreclosure practices.


  10. Gitcheegumee says:

    Key Democrat accuses banks of ‘fraud’ in home foreclosure controversy

    By Michael O’Brien

    October 13, 2010

    A key Democrat accused banks of “fraud” in the emerging controversy over whether foreclosures have been properly administered.

    Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee, suggested the recent epidemic of foreclosures are a result of collusion in the banking industry.

    “This is massive collusion and fraud,” she said during an appearance on CNBC.

    “It’s proven by the fact that you have millions of people in foreclosure who should have never been in foreclosure,” she added. “This just didn’t happen because there were a lot of irresponsible people. Think about it, this is unprecedented that this many people, all of a sudden, would be in foreclosure.”

    “These exotic products that were put on the market tricked them into mortgages they could not afford,” she said.

    Read the full article at:

  11. DeadLast says:

    “If it went on for a long period of time it will have a lot of consequences, most of which would be adverse on everybody.”

    Sounds like a threat to me.

    Also, pulling out of MERS does not mean that the paperwork is now clean. MERS was the paper-digital screw-up. JP Morgan Chase believes that they can throw contract law under the bus because not doing so would be bad, very bad.

    As EW said, the banks want to look at the borrowers’ payments and not what his contractually and statutorily guaranteed. They are trying to cover up the fact that they don’t know who owns the loans — rather if they get the money, they do know who to pay off. Then if no one is asking questions, the problems will magically disappear.

    • bluedot12 says:

      This is where I get foggy. If they have been collecting money from someone all these years don’t they know who to pay? Are we really saying they have been paying the wrong person and that person doesn’t know it?

  12. Mauimom says:

    Jamie Dimon says it will take several weeks to “correct any errors” (meaning, to write new affidavits with proper notarizations to replace the ones he admitted to earlier)

    This struck me too.

    How many thousand [or hundred thousand] mortgages are we talking about? How many pages of documents for each?

    I wonder where they plan to find the notaries to “authenticate” those fabulous prior affidavits. I wouldn’t put my career on the line for these losers.

    • Fractal says:

      How many thousand [or hundred thousand] mortgages are we talking about?

      One of today’s Bloomberg news postings online said JPM this week raised the total number of foreclosures it expects to “review” to 115,000.

      • Fractal says:

        D’OH! Which was the opening question in the transcript at the top of Marcy’s diary:

        I was wondering if you could give us any sense for timing of resolution in terms of reopening these 115,000 cases?

  13. Fractal says:

    Last line of Marcy’s diary:

    It’ll be interesting if JPMC admits the legal jeopardy to the SEC.

    JPMorgan is the filer name for 146 different entities that file with the SEC and are retrievable on the SEC’s “EDGAR” online database.

    For a giant operation like JPMorgan, the easiest way to search is to type its stock ticker symbol “JPM” into the search tool here. It filed a raft of prospectuses in the past several days, but one of its ten filings today (Oct. 13) was its Form 8-K.

    The index to today’s Form 8-K gives separate links for the filing & exhibits (usually press releases, earnings releases or financial supplements). The earnings release (Exhibit 99.1) said today’s conference call can be replayed several ways:

    A replay of the conference call will be available beginning at approximately noon on Wednesday, October 13, through midnight, Friday, October 29, by telephone at (800) 642-1687 (U.S. and Canada) or (706) 645-9291 (international); use Conference ID #11701267. The replay will also be available via webcast on under Investor Relations, Investor Presentations. Additional detailed financial, statistical and business-related information is included in a financial supplement. The earnings release and the financial supplement are available at

    The financial supplement (Exhibit 99.2) is a complete gob-stopper, please don’t read the entire thing. At the end of its 44+ pages there are some useful definitions of JPMorgan’s “Mortgage Servicing Revenue” (MSR) from its mortgage pipeline and warehouse, including bulk purchases of mortgages.

    Not a word in the entire 8-K filed today about potential litigation risks arising from the foreclosure fraud pandemic. Since the quarterly reporting period ended Sept. 30, JPM may not have been obliged to mention its self-imposed foreclosure pause or the 50-state Attorneys General investigation.

    • qweryous says:

      See my comment concerning MERS at yesterdays EW: Foreclosure Crisis May Well Be Catastrophic In Any Case.

      The question is: Of the 146 JP Morgan entities- how many of those entities had employees that were among the thousands of “assistant secretaries’ that William Hultman appointed to MERS?

      The evidence that this was any kind of arms length relationship between MERS and these thousands of “assistant secretaries’ with MERS signing power- who were not employed or paid by MERS is seems lacking.

  14. tejanarusa says:

    Having been thoroughly trained by Chase in how to give bad news the best possible spin, and how to keep avoiding directly stating the actual bad news, I’m not surprised Dimon managed to avoid any direct reference to earnings risk. That’s the absolute, utlimate no-no, doncha know. He’d have to be under oath, answering direct questions posed in a series of Socratic questions designed to pin him down and allow him no way out before he’d ever make such a statement.

    Thanks god I no longer have to confess to being a Chase employee.

    (Oh, and they are hiring, people with mortgage experience, able to turn out large quantities of work under strict time and production metrics. The same crap that got them all into this. They will not change.)

    I’m beginning to think we should have simply nationalized the banks, though in 2008 I wouldn’t have gone that far.

    Definitely we should have tossed out the management. They.will.not.change.

    • laurastrand says:

      Yeah! What you said. Nationalize the banks. Then reclaim the airwaves. I can’t wait to hear the hue and cry for government assistance when these MOTU’s are out of work, and trying to pay their lawyers from last years bonuses. Elizabeth Warren – we are ready for your close-up.

  15. beowulf says:

    The underlying stuff is all accurate. So that’s the key substance.

    That’s good enough for me, I’m going to load up on Citi stock. Ha ha, no not really. Dimon just made a very expensive assertion of fact.

    Citi and the other banks must have known about this time bomb for years. The excellent Christopher Peterson article mentioned above isn’t news. There was a corporate bankruptcy case (can’t go into specific details) a couple of years ago that a friend of mine was involved with, I remember emailing him an earlier paper by Peterson on the same point. My friend brought up the article to the senior creditor in front of the bankruptcy judge (who was fascinated by it) and the creditor’s lawyer about had a meltdown.

    There’s nothing like a bankruptcy court musing about how secure the secured creditor really is to encourage a healthy change of attitude. My buddy ended up walking away with enough in new financing to pay off the unsecured creditors and back taxes and keeping the property anyway. What the creditor (which was not Citicorp, I should add) didn’t want was this all to be publicized.

    • beowulf says:

      Sorry, wasn’t thinking. Obviously I meant JP Morgan and not Citi (and JPM wasn’t senior creditor in that bankruptcy case either).

    • PJEvans says:

      If it gets all the way to the bottom it’s safe. Unfortunately, it’s also in a place with no escape.

  16. ThingsComeUndone says:

    There is all this talk of foreclosures hurting the housing market but me and my sister own our condo. If all the bank foreclosures get off the market well less supply means higher home prices!
    I hope JP Morgan and BOA stay true to form drag their feet, hire the cheapest temps they can find etc. Because the longer this issue is unresolved the higher home prices should get.
    I think 6 months would do it. Once homeowners trying to sell figure this out public opinion will change quick.

  17. papau says:

    I am hard pressed to see how 50 AG’s “filing” at once hurts the banks – indeed it makes possible the best case solution that allows avoiding massive fines and penalties – that being a nationwide agreement to run foreclosures through an agreed entity that will agree that each foreclosure meets the rules – no harm/no foul just do it right in the future (and perhaps do a review to get the paperwork better in past cases.

    The AG’s will solve little – it will require Congress to get “ownership” transfer – with rights to foreclose and rights to modify mortgages – defined in securitization. And that is not going to happen so we can expect speeches and foreclosures continuing by courts ignoring the problem – or a USSC decision that orders a solution to be a given process – the latter of course to be preferred if we want “rule of law”.

    But the 50 AG thing is not going to result in anything worse than the current situation that existed yesterday getting a review board that slows foreclosures to a snails pace.

    I did see where the doc review that took 30 sec. – max. – was matched in Florida where the court time per foreclosure was under 30 seconds.

    Sometimes it hurts too much and all you can do is smile.

  18. rapier says:

    It is going to be fascinating watching how they fix and finesse this and by this I don’t mean just the document dust up. I mean the MBS holders coming back to them for payment in full. Civil ad criminal suits against the TBTF banks.

    Watch and learn people. The empire creates its own reality.

  19. GlenJo says:

    Man, the phones between Dimon and all his best buddies Obama and Geithner must be ringing tonight. I’m sure he’s planning to have his tame Feds squash all fifty states with fifty re-takes of the infamous Brooksley Born – Larry Summers phone call:

    “In one call, Summers said, “I have 13 bankers in my office and they say if you go forward with this you will cause the worst financial crisis since World War II.”

    With any luck, effective control of this crisis will be removed from Geithner. He has repeatedly rolled over for the TBTF banks, neutering his job as Secretary of the Treasury, and ignored his responsibility to protect the American people from massive financial system fraud.

    • Gitcheegumee says:

      You might be interested in the assertions of BoA’s Ken Lewis of his treatment regarding the acquisition of Merril Lynch,courtesy of Hank Paulson.

      Bank of America reports threat by Fed – Washington Times

      Jun 12, 2009 … Bank of America’s chief executive Thursday for the first time said … the Federal Reserve threatened to remove top executives of the bank … Aug 24, 2010 …

      Bank of America –

      Apr 28, 2009… he was acting at the direction of Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, … No wonder no banker in his right mind trusts the Fed or Treasury, … The men who nearly ruined Bank of America have some explaining to do. ……/SB124078909572557575.html – Cached

      • GlenJo says:

        Yes, I was aware of that. What it demonstrates is the tremendous influence the Treasury Sec. can wield. What’s astonishing to me is that Geithner seems to have decided (like his boss Obama) is that it’s too tough to actually do the job of ensuring a fair and functional banking system so he ends up just pissing on the American people. Seems to be a waste of a perfectly good cabinet position, but then I hear the same complaints about his boss.

  20. djfourmoney says:

    How come this isn’t all over MSNBC? Which is why I’m slowly turning off this channel. No talk of all the homeless RIGHT IN NEW YORK, right outside their studios.

  21. Hoofin says:

    Marcy, wasn’t Dimon really just saying that if the AG’s politick the situation for more than three or four weeks, it could be a problem? I don’t get where he’s saying the files will be cleaned up in three to four.
    He didn’t say that exactly.

    The gist is that if the AGs don’t let any foreclosures go through (not just the questionable ones), they have a problem.

    I agree he uses the typical corporate veiled threat. Essentially, if they aren’t allowed to rise above the actual, you know, law, then there’ll be hell to pay. Corporations who are a law unto themselves.

  22. robbep says:

    When asked what republican he trusted he said Judd Gregg!!!!!! Judd Gregg!!!!! Are you fcking kidding me? He still has not learned his lesson has he. Boy is he slow.

  23. smcclurk says:

    This is no blip. This feels just like March 2008 when Bear Stearns went down and all of the financial hucksters congratulated themselves on stopping any kind of possible financial contagion. They kept saying how Bear Stearns was a one-off case when it was really the tip of the iceberg. Figure in a few more months the true depth of the fraud will be made shockingly clear.

    • GlenJo says:

      I know this will sound weird, but I hope so.

      It was so obvious to me back then that it was absolutely essential to force the TBTF banks out of business, and force the failed Wall St firm out of business. People viewed that as a kooky idea, but hopefully many will rethink this position.

      It would be quit easy for the states and Fed to set up fifty state banks, and give them access to the Fed window, essentially set up a banking system which the US public can switch to while the failed firms are restructured. Restructuring is the NORMAL process. Forcing the Fed, Treasury, SEC and FDIC to PROTECT the American people form the corrupt system should be the goal, not continuing to prop up a corrupt system which crashed the world economy.

      Would it hurt? Yes it would, but it would put the people that caused this mess OUT OF BUSINESS so it would hurt them a lot worse.

      We are in a fight to wrest control of our government back from these corrupt banks. Destroying them is necessary.

  24. bluedot12 says:

    If anyone is interested you can listen to today’s webcast by Dimon on the JPM website and access other financial info. (I have not done so, but it is there.) The market evidently was not happy today with JPM as the stock was down 1.39% when most others were up.

  25. bluedot12 says:

    Ps there are several slides in the JPM presentation today on their foreclosure process and they say the signers did not review the files adequately and there were some problems with notarization. All’s good, I guess. somewhere in there they said it would not be good to delay foeclosures for too long as it would hurt the market. Glad they got that in.

    • bobschacht says:

      Thanks for this link!
      Shorter Galbraith: the most massive fraud in world history.

      Score another one for Jaime.

      He must be REALLY unpopular over at Treasury.

      Bob in AZ

  26. cregan says:

    Also, in my state, the loan documents (meaning loan note–with terms–and deed) are recorded in the county records in full. So, even if “lost” they aren’t really–they are in the county records and part of the public record.

    • PJEvans says:

      Are you sure it records who actually holds the mortgage? Not the deed and the note the buyer has, but the actual holder.
      Because that’s a lot of the problem right there; the ‘securitization’ process sliced, diced, and pulped the mortgages into a formless mass of stuff they could sell to people who really thought that real estate was a safe investment.

      Also try:
      foreclosures on people who were not behind in their payments
      foreclosures on the wrong property
      foreclosures by two (or more) different parties on the same property for the same mortgage.
      And probably some other variations I’ve forgotten.

      • R.H. Green says:

        Can you (or anyone still around at this hour) help me to an understanding of what is being referred to by the words: “sliced and diced” also “chopped up” when talking about mortgages being prepared for sale as Mortgage-Backed Securities?

        • bobschacht says:

          I’ll try. The premise of the whole scam is that, say you’ve got 10 loans that look pretty bad. Well, mix them up with 90 other loans and the good loans will compensate for the bad loans, so that in the aggregate, you’ll wind up ahead. It’s all a bet, see? That’s why they call these things gambling houses. But in the process of pooling all these loans, it’s a nuisance to keep the paperwork regarding the titles in ship shape. So they get sloppy about that.

          And then loan pools get piled into other loan pools, and the whole thing escalates. If you’ve got a pool of 100 loans and its not performing real well, well heck, you just pool it with 9 other loan pools and in the aggregate, you’ll come out ahead. Maybe. If you’re lucky. And you’re one more layer away from the actual titles.

          And then some insiders know more than other insiders which loan pools are good, and which are toxic waste. And sometimes fraud is committed by misrepresenting the value and viability of these loan pools.

          And, believe it or not, this is all done in the name of managing risk (and maximizing profits).

          That’s just the beginning. I don’t know how to describe the more complex epicycles that are constructed on these loan pools.

          That’s my understanding, anyway.
          Bob in AZ

      • cregan says:

        YOu might have a point. But, to me, it is a legal point. And, really, it only has to do with maybe who now owns the property, as opposed to whether the person who hasn’t made any payments for 10 months deserves to stay.

        Again, remember that money taken back through foreclosures is likely going to cycle through to someone else in a new loan.

        Lastly, none of that is cited as the “why” for the halt to foreclosures or even the AG investigation.

    • qweryous says:

      Maybe. Or Maybe not.

      Wanna ask JP MOrgan? Maybe MERS? Ask the local foreclosure mill?

      Have they been doing what they are supposed to do WRT local laws?

      Or is there a “rocket docket” in your state?

      What about in addition to PJEvans @ 61-

      Foreclosures on people who had no mortgage? ( Maybe duplicates “foreclosures on people who were not behind on their payments” but still another interesting data point).


      Link to different site with same story- probably so useful information in the comments if one takes the time.

      • cregan says:

        Obviously, people who had no mortgage or weren’t behind in their payments should not be foreclosed on. But, these people have very good individual remedies for their situation and don’t really need a halt.

        And, I would guess it is a very, very tiny percentage of the total cases. I’ve actually never heard of one.