Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was never said they did. They said they did not but these kinds of loans were desired by the administrations to get more people into houses to get themselves more votes.
So fraud it is.
Nope. The SEC and the DOJ disagree.
The ratings agencies committed no illegal activities and no fraud. Their PUBLIC DISCLOSURES spell it all out. This is on the MBS-issuers, the largest of which, BY FAR, are the GSEs.
The ratings agencies committed no illegal activities and no fraud. Their PUBLIC DISCLOSURES spell it all out. This is on the MBS-issuers, the largest of which, BY FAR, are the GSEs.
So then the investors weren't responsible then if it was disclosed.
The ratings agencies committed no illegal activities and no fraud. Their PUBLIC DISCLOSURES spell it all out. This is on the MBS-issuers, the largest of which, BY FAR, are the GSEs.
You can't rate something without the information to rate it. They did.......bribes, fraud, greed and corruption.
Sadly, this has continued the last 8 years also but so many who complain refused to hold Obama also accountable and are so willing to vote for even more of it.
So then the investors weren't responsible then if it was disclosed.
That's exactly what I've been saying. The MBS-issuers are culpable. The ratings were based on the info they provided to the ratings agencies. And the largest MBS-issuers BY FAR are the GSEs.
Stop right there. What trust in the ratings agencies? The ratings agencies PUBLICLY DISCLOSED to investors that they:
1) Do not engage in any due diligence or otherwise seek to verify the accuracy or quality of the loan data underlying the MBS pools they rate.
2) Are under no obligation to perform, and do not perform, due diligence.
3) Note that the assignment of a rating is not a guarantee of the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the information relied on in connection with the rating.
All verified and admitted by the SEC.
Any trust that was placed would have had to have been put into the accuracy of the info the MBS-issuers (the largest of which were the GSEs) provided to the ratings agencies.
Stop? What trust you ask?
Just what exactly do you think these agencies were paid for?
It charged up to $750,000 per deal it rated, which meant that S&P viewed the investment banks that issued the securities as its main customers, according to the complaint.
In August 2004, the head of S&P's commercial mortgage-backed securities sent an email to her colleagues and said they planned to meet to discuss adjusting criteria "because of the ongoing threat of losing deals."
Earlier in May, an analyst wrote, "We just lost a huge Mizuho RMBS deal to Moody's due to a huge difference in the required credit support level ... our support level was at least 10% higher than Moody's," the complaint said.
S&P had planned in 2004 to update its model for rating mortgage securities by including a broader data set of past loans, which would provide more accurate comparisons for the more risky loans that were being packaged.
In 2006, S&P loosened assumptions on its ratings of collateralized debt obligations, which one of the firm's analysts described as creating a loophole big enough to drive a Mack truck through.
Asked who came up with the idea, the analyst referred to a couple of colleagues and said: "I am interested to see if any career consequences occur. Does company care about deal volume or sound credit standards?"
By July 5, 2007, as the credit crisis began taking hold, a new S&P structured finance analyst told an investment banking client: "The fact is, there was a lot of internal pressure in S&P to downgrade lots of deals earlier on before this thing started blowing up. But the leadership was concerned of p*ssing off too many clients and jumping the gun ahead of Fitch and Moody's."
Six days later, the analyst alluded to a climactic scheme in the movie "Trading Places" by adding: "You should see how it is here right now. It's like a friggin trading floor. 'Downgrade, Mortimer, downgrade!!!'"
I mean yes, there is what the spokespeople say on behalf of S&P and the others, even the disclosures and disclaimers to a point, but to suggest people were not paying good money for these ratings, with trust they could have some confidence in those ratings for investment purposes? Ignore the findings and fines and all the rest? Hard for me to do anyway...
You can't rate something without the information to rate it. They did.......bribes, fraud, greed and corruption.
No evidence of that. Sure didn't surface during the DOJ's investigation of S&P.
Again, given the ratings agencies' public disclosures, MBS-issuers provided the info on which financial products based on those MBS were rated. And the largest MBS-issuers BY FAR are the GSEs.
Quote:
Sadly, this has continued the last 8 years also but so many who complain refused to hold Obama also accountable and are so willing to vote for even more of it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
