JPMorgan agrees to tentative $13 billion settlement over bad mortgages

[le roi]

Originally Posted by AKA Bubbleup

So let me get this straight. A bank that did not require or request government assistance during the 2008 meltdown

Oh, you can bet your sweet ass that J.P. Morgan requested assistance .... for their counterparties.

If JPM's counterparties had gone bankrupt, so would JPM. They had a dog in this hunt, and that's why they went along with the program.

was 'asked' by the administration to take on the portfolios of failed/ failing banks.

By the bush administration, yes ...

and they had every opportunity to say 'no, we will not buy this organization and take on its liabilities.'

Then the same adminsitration and it's justice department goes after the solvent entity and fines them to the tune of $13 B for absorbing the very thing they were asked to hold in the first place?

Not exactly. Only a portion of these lawsuits are related to the entities JPM bought in '08. The other portion is wrongdoing from JPM operating under the JPM name.

Why someone out there feels compelled to lie on J.P. Morgan's behalf on the city-data forum is beyond me.

And everyone here so far is firing out the battle cry 'Justice - FINALLY'...

Oh BTW: that $13 B will be exhausted via gov't spending in a little less than 3 days. (by the same folks who set up JP Morgan and the same folks that forced the banks to approve these risky loans in the first place)

the government never forced anyone to make subprime, nonconforming loans.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by DJboutit

JPMorgan Chase, the nation’s largest bank, has reached a tentative agreement with the Justice Department to pay a record $13 billion to resolve allegations that it knowingly sold faulty mortgage securities that contributed to the financial crisis, a person familiar with the talks said Saturday.

JPMorgan agrees to tentative $13 billion settlement with U.S. over bad mortgages - The Washington Post

Finally they taking action against they groups that caused the melt down in the first place

Why does JP Morgan have to pay for WaMu's mistakes ???

[CDusr]

It was the London Whale fiasco that did them in. However, seriously doubt JPM will suffer much.

They all have been settling with the banks to sweep the foreclosure fraud underneath the rug.

[le roi]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

Why does JP Morgan have to pay for WaMu's mistakes ???

like i said, they aren't all wamu's mistakes. some of these were JPM mistakes made under the JPM name.

[Goodnight]

Originally Posted by fibonacci

Meh, that is just pocket change over the long run for JPM. When are people going to jail? That would be more of a deterrent than a fine.

Jail terms are more meaningful than the money involved, without criminal convictions these abuses will continue. Traders will continue to do the same unless there is a deterrent, giving up a relatively small amount of stockholders profits in return for allowing these people to continue does nothing.

[krichton]

13 billion is a lot of money, and would probably bankrupt even some of the richest companies, but it's probably a drop in the bucket to JP Morgan. This fine is nothing to do them.

[Wendell Phillips]

What President Obama didn't do (and what he should have done) was to put every member bank into federal receivership until Congress enacted effective remedial legislation eliminating proprietary trading by bank entities, both directly and indirectly through their parent holding companies. There would be no more gambling on the taxpayer's account, and no more bonuses. Why, you ask (anticipating your next question)? Because the money you deposit in a bank is not in the bank, and it’s not your money. When you open a bank account and make a deposit, you surrender legal title to the money deposited. The money deposited becomes an asset of the bank, and the depositor’s account is held as a liability of the bank. At best, the depositor has an unsecured contract claim against the bank for the funds deposited. Hence the need for insured deposits to maintain stability and confidence in the banking system.

For the same reason, banks should be prohibited from speculating on high-risk securities (i.e., derivatives) - including trading their own debt securities - on the financial markets. The banking lobby’s argument that the banks should be given carte blanche to trade in financial derivative contracts to be competitive in world markets belies the responsibility for the risk of loss to be borne by the government, and, ultimately, the taxpayer; not to mention that derivatives are traded “over the counter” and carried “off balance sheet”, which undisclosed transactions violate all rules of bank accountability. (Even to this day, the government does not know where all the TARP money went!) It is up to Congress to act. The question is whether Congress has the political will to stand up to the banking lobby as Senator Warren is doing. Without a regulated banking system, there can be no security for commerce, and, ultimately, financial collapse and economic chaos.

[HappyTexan]

$13 billion is pocket change to JPM compared to what they made on Wall Street.
Heck they can pay that fine with what they make off of processing the nation's EBT cards and unemployment for the states.

The USG rolls over yet again.