Citigroup pays $158 million in mortga...

Citigroup pays $158 million in mortgage fraud pact

There are 39 comments on the Reuters story from Feb 15, 2012, titled Citigroup pays $158 million in mortgage fraud pact. In it, Reuters reports that:

Often ignored as an economic laggard, the Philippines has beaten India to win the top spot for offshore call center outsourcing.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Reuters.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
peter tucker

Pinckney, MI

#23 Mar 9, 2012
This is Boring. If it were private.....you would be paying higher prices/rates to make up for it. You do not get it. The market takes care of itself...with governemnt or no government and will outlive you. You are known as a literal "strict constructionist" when it comes to Constitution..Learned this in grammar school. Last time with this shit. Find a bond buyer or email Fox News with your "opinion" It is dangerous idiots like you who still think"right to bear arms" means you can have a Magnum in your glove compartment,AK 47 in your bedroom, and a snub nosed 38 up your ass. It meant one thing..at the time... and that is right to have and establish a standing Army. This is not 1789.. Jesus UGH
argsag

Guangzhou, China

#24 Mar 9, 2012
sdfhadafhdafhda
Captain Obvious

Euless, TX

#25 Mar 9, 2012
You keep saying that if it were a public entity the we would have had to foot the bill. Actually AIG, Citi, Merril Lynch, Chase, Bank of Americ, etc., etc., are all publicly held companies, yet, we bailed them out.

We didn't just bail them out due for the government insured loans, we bailed them out for all the other extremely stupid, and criminal, things they were doing.

Any of the mortgages that weren't backed by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae were held en totale by the lending institutions, it's just that these brokers were too busy trying to package them into derivatives and other devices to care about whether or not the person receiving the loan was actually credit worthy.

Any time any of these mortgages got checked, and refused, they'd just rebundle it into another package, instead of fixing it. Why? Because when creating these bundles only 10% of the mortgages, AT BEST, were being checked (more likely closer to 1%), so they had pretty good odds that in rebundling it, it would be missed the next time around.

This was fraud, and the government not only has authority to 'meddle' with it, it's the exact reason we have government.

The only institutions that I'm aware of that really didn't receive much of a bailout, if any, were the semi-governmental Fannie and Freddie... I'm not aware of them really receiving all that much of a rescue from anybody, and, if I'm not mistaken they're still on the verge of completely going out of business.

Fannie and Freddie were good ideas for a multitude of reasons, but they were abused and defrauded.

People need to go to jail for what happened. I realize this may elicit another troll from 'peter' but, even he admits in his posts that there was fraud, so again I have to ask, why hasn't any executive from any of the institutions complicit in this giant fraud been sent to jail?

No, they all got to keep the billions in bonuses and options they 'earned' during this period, they've all got their multi-million dollar parachutes and they're sitting pretty.

The rest of us are taking it on the chin, and if we were to have attempted to knowingly lie on our applications, we'd probably be facing charges, or be in prison already...

I really am beginning to believe we need to bring back the guillutine and give some bankers their ultimate hair cuts...
peter tucker

Lansing, MI

#26 Mar 9, 2012
Rhetorical crap. What is done is done. Can not reason with somebody who does not think that the "Freddies" were not bailed out. Again..unfair cruel world. Focus on something besides the love to hate the banks syndrone, and your children's "debt" Find a bond buyer.Fig Newton lined his pockets with the Freddies. Sure he is your hero. Remember the S/L crisis? Mike Milliken??? Shit rolls downhill. Gingrich actually said" Alabama is critical" To whom??? Why not something critical to everybody??? Why is Pelosi Majority Leader..a woman? Have not seen her cry in public once. Make yourself useful. Troll away
guest

United States

#27 Mar 9, 2012
peter tucker wrote:
This is Boring. If it were private.....you would be paying higher prices/rates to make up for it. You do not get it. The market takes care of itself...with governemnt or no government and will outlive you. You are known as a literal "strict constructionist" when it comes to Constitution..Learned this in grammar school. Last time with this shit. Find a bond buyer or email Fox News with your "opinion" It is dangerous idiots like you who still think"right to bear arms" means you can have a Magnum in your glove compartment,AK 47 in your bedroom, and a snub nosed 38 up your ass. It meant one thing..at the time... and that is right to have and establish a standing Army. This is not 1789.. Jesus UGH
The Constitution is still in full force and effect, even though that pisses you libtards off. LOL!
guest

United States

#28 Mar 9, 2012
Captain Obvious wrote:
You keep saying that if it were a public entity the we would have had to foot the bill. Actually AIG, Citi, Merril Lynch, Chase, Bank of Americ, etc., etc., are all publicly held companies, yet, we bailed them out.
We should not have bailed them out! There is a huge difference between a company whose stock is sold to the public and a truly public company that is owned by the government. Don't confuse the two.
We didn't just bail them out due for the government insured loans, we bailed them out for all the other extremely stupid, and criminal, things they were doing.
Yep, and while Chris Dodd and Barney Frank ride off into the sunset with millions of taxpayer dollars, our grandchildren will be paying off the trillion dollar debt we left them.
Any time any of these mortgages got checked, and refused, they'd just rebundle it into another package, instead of fixing it. Why?
Because there was no incentive to guard against default because big daddy government would pick up the tab. If private insurance companies stood to lose a boat load of money, you can be damn sure they would never have agreed to cover the losses, and those financial institutions would not have made such boneheaded extremely risky ventures.

The market will correct itself and guard against idiotic business decisions IF GOVERNMENT DOESN'T BAIL THEM OUT. If there is no pain, there is no incentive to guard against stupidity.
This was fraud, and the government not only has authority to 'meddle' with it, it's the exact reason we have government.
No, it's not. Federal government has three main functions, none of which include covering their asses for losing a ton of taxpayer money in an insurance scheme it should never have been involved with in the first place.
The only institutions that I'm aware of that really didn't receive much of a bailout, if any, were the semi-governmental Fannie and Freddie.
You better check your facts. Freddie and Fannie have cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, and there's much more to come.
Fannie and Freddie were good ideas for a multitude of reasons, but they were abused and defrauded.
Bullshit. It's never a good idea for government to loan money to anyone, much less to people who don't qualify and are people at high risk of default.
People need to go to jail for what happened.
If it was a private insurance company that got fleeced instead of the federal government, it would be a civil matter, not criminal. The only reason this is news is because left wingers who support government socialism are trying to save face.
The rest of us are taking it on the chin...
Exactly! And if government wasn't in the loan underwriting business, we wouldn't be taking it on the chin, or up the ass for that matter.
I really am beginning to believe we need to bring back the guillutine and give some bankers their ultimate hair cuts...
It ain't the bankers who need it my friend, it's every politician who refuses to obey the mandates of the U.S. Constitution.
april

United States

#29 Mar 10, 2012
Why are the big banks, still being ALLOWED TO RUN PREDATORY FINANCE COMPANY'S , CITIGROUP HAS ONEMAIN FINANCIAL, THEY CHANGED THE NAME FROM CITIFINANCIAL, TRYIN TO HIDE FROM THE PUBLIC...THE INTEREST IS EXTREME, WHY HASN'T THE U.S. PUT A CAP ON THE INTEREST OR SHUT THEM DOWN
peter tucker

Pinckney, MI

#30 Mar 10, 2012
Surprise...surprise with runon dribble. Done here. Have fun digging up cans of food from your back yard
peter tucker

Pinckney, MI

#31 Mar 10, 2012
What a Nazi Boy...dinner at his house is fun
guest

United States

#32 Mar 11, 2012
april wrote:
Why are the big banks, still being ALLOWED TO RUN PREDATORY FINANCE COMPANY'S , CITIGROUP HAS ONEMAIN FINANCIAL, THEY CHANGED THE NAME FROM CITIFINANCIAL, TRYIN TO HIDE FROM THE PUBLIC...THE INTEREST IS EXTREME, WHY HASN'T THE U.S. PUT A CAP ON THE INTEREST OR SHUT THEM DOWN
No one has ever been forced to sign a contract borrowing money from Citigroup or any other bank. If people willingly agree to the terms of a loan contract, you can hardly call it "predatory lending". That's just a buzzword government is using in order to stir up public discontent with the banking system so that they (government) can grab more power.

Wake up.
peter tucker

Pinckney, MI

#33 Mar 11, 2012
Huh???? Oh brother. Hey I need to borrow 8 million. I assume that do not have to sign anything.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#34 Mar 11, 2012
peter tucker wrote:
Huh???? Oh brother. Hey I need to borrow 8 million. I assume that do not have to sign anything.
$8m?!

Peter Tucker, based on your current financial situation and your past and current credit history, a lender won't lend you anything above a penny. That is:$0.01 in US Currency in case you have no clue what a "penny" is in American lingo.
guest

Erie, PA

#35 Mar 11, 2012
peter tucker wrote:
Huh???? Oh brother. Hey I need to borrow 8 million. I assume that do not have to sign anything.
Taking out a loan is a voluntary choice YOU make. No one has ever been forced to borrow money nor sign a loan contract.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#36 Mar 11, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Taking out a loan is a voluntary choice YOU make. No one has ever been forced to borrow money nor sign a loan contract.
And don't forget this: "When the applicant is willing to lie on its credit application and misrepresent its income just because the FICO score allowed the applicant to do so." "Then, when things falls apart and income is no longer available, as it used to be, they are the first ones crying foul and acting as a victim of a banker's greed."

Isn't this what is referred as "selective memory"?
Captain Obvious

Euless, TX

#37 Mar 12, 2012
Let me make this clear:

I too agree that the government should have never given a single dime to a private entity. I am not at all arguing that the government should have.

What I am arguing is the reasoning that the financial industry did what it did, based solely on the fact that the government WOULD bail them out. No, not true. They did what they did because the government institutions that were supposed to be regulating their actions, ensuring that they were following the law and ethical business practices were asleep at the helm.

Laws were broken.

Yet no one has gone to jail over this.

Also, those of you trying to pass ALL the blame on to the persons receiving the loans need to keep in mind that the vast majority of the loans were applied for honestly.

There are countless stories on the net where lenders would create these loans and tell the borrower, "Hey don't worry, just refinance in two years and you won't have to worry about the rediculous rate changes we're putting in here. You know real estate, it can't do anything but increase in value..."

These lending institutions were legally obligated to make loans only to credit worthy individuals, but we see that they were more interested in selling off any and all loans, so the more loans they made, whether good or bad, the more they could make, so after a while most of the credit worthy people had their loans all that was left was to invent packages that could be skewed to fit people who had absolutely NO chance of paying off the loan.

No one held a gun to the lenders heads. They were the experts. This nation has CONSCIOUSLY done its best to keep the majority of american public ignorant to financial matters. Hell, my highschool economics class brushed over most personal finance matters. Coming out of highschool and into college we had very little clue about compound interest, credit worthiness, mortgages, fixed verses adjustable.

No clues... And unless it was your chosen field in college, you weren't likely to get much exposure to these things until AFTER you'd gotten yourself into so much trouble, bankruptcy would be the only answer.

That left a significant majority of Americans susceptiable to the lies and exaggerations of the 'experts', lenders, real estate agents, and appraisers.

If the lender and real estate agent tell me that, "Yes, we can work this 500,000 dollar loan out so that you on your 45k/year income can afford it, no worries." Guess what, I as a person ignorant to the realities of finance are apt to believe them.

Why isn't there much 'credit' flowing now days? Because the lenders have mostly returned to the lending standards we had prior to this mess. Unless you can REALLY afford the loan, you're not going to get it.

Gee, what a concept.
peter tucker

Pinckney, MI

#38 Mar 12, 2012
"the government institutions that were supposed to be regulating their actions, ensuring that they were following the law and ethical business practices were asleep at the helm."
True....to extent. The really frightening and scary part is these reactionary conservative(that is mild description) "NUTS" and their anal obsession with an anomaly they refer to as "tax and spent" gut and decimate all pubic/private services in the name of their unborn grandchildren and what they call " debt" and then unleash their foul bitching when something does not "work"ie. Cut regulatory organizations like SEC and then say the system is "broken" when insider trading isrampant. That is convenient!! Only when their car falls thru 60 year old side street and the one fire engine in city of 2 million can not cope...might get it..but doubt it. Sleep well
guest

United States

#39 Mar 12, 2012
Captain Obvious wrote:
What I am arguing is the reasoning that the financial industry did what it did, based solely on the fact that the government WOULD bail them out. No, not true.
Yes, absolutely true! Those financial institutions would never have made such risky loans if their own money was in danger of being lost. They only made those loans because government insurance would cover any losses they would suffer. There was no downside for them, even though it cost the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars so far, and trillions in debt yet to come.
They did what they did because the government institutions that were supposed to be regulating their actions, ensuring that they were following the law and ethical business practices were asleep at the helm.
Partially true, but it doesn't negate the fact that they would not have made those risky loans if the government hadn't provided insurance to cover their losses.
Laws were broken. Yet no one has gone to jail over this.
It's a civil violation, not criminal. Again, if not for government bureaucrats scrambling about to cover up their own failures for being asleep at the helm as you put it, and if it was private insurance money and not taxpayers' money being lost, we wouldn't have heard anything about this issue unless you happened to notice a small headline on page 48 of the WSJ.
Also, those of you trying to pass ALL the blame on to the persons receiving the loans need to keep in mind that the vast majority of the loans were applied for honestly.
Anyone who takes out a loan and willingly agrees to the terms of the contract has no one to blame but themselves. Trying to blame the lending institution is ridiculous, especially when they are described as "predatory". What a laugh. Many people make it sound like lending institutions forced people to take out loans. Nothing could be further from the truth.

continued...
guest

United States

#40 Mar 12, 2012
continued...
There are countless stories on the net where lenders would create these loans and tell the borrower, "Hey don't worry, just refinance in two years and you won't have to worry about the rediculous rate changes we're putting in here.
And those who believed the lies are responsible for their own stupidity. Sounds to me like you want to blame everyone except the ones truly responsible - the dummies who willing signed the contract.
These lending institutions were legally obligated to make loans only to credit worthy individuals, but we see that they were more interested in selling off any and all loans, so the more loans they made, whether good or bad, the more they could make...
They were under pressure from liberals in government to relax qualifications so that more people could purchase a home, with government agreeing to insure the loans if they went bad.

You're making my case that the banks wouldn't have made those loans if government hadn't insured them.
No one held a gun to the lenders heads.
Of course not, but government insurance made it very attractive to make bad loans. Suppose you wanted to gamble on a football game. You might bet $100, but if I tell you I'll cover any losses you may incur up to $10,000, you'd bet $10,000 since you weren't at risk of losing any money and you stood to gain $10,000 if you won the bet. Same thing with the risky loans made by the banks.
This nation has CONSCIOUSLY done its best to keep the majority of american public ignorant to financial matters. Hell, my highschool economics class brushed over most personal finance matters.
That doesn't release borrowers from responsibility for willingly agreeing to loan contracts that are very favorable to the bank.
Coming out of highschool and into college we had very little clue about compound interest, credit worthiness, mortgages, fixed verses adjustable....
Boo hoo hoo. It's time you put on your big girl panties and stop blaming everyone else for your own failures.
Guess what, I as a person ignorant to the realities of finance are apt to believe them.
And your stupidity is somebody else's fault because of what? Come on man, every computer has a calculator that will figure loan payments simply by entering the amount borrowed, the interest rate and the time frame involved. Amortization tables are easily found simply by searching for them on google. Get real.

It's timeyou put the blame where it rightfully belongs - right in the lap of the idiots signing contracts for loans they didn't have the ability to repay, and on government for providing loan insurance which will end up costing the taxpayers trillions of dollars.
peter tucker

Pinckney, MI

#41 Mar 12, 2012
This is not syllogism. Bond buyer anyone?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

CitiMortgage Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Five big banks face criminal charges and $5 bil... (May '15) Jul '16 swedenforever 54
News Bank of America Cuts This High Profile Name (Mar '13) Jun '16 integrity watch 5
News Citigroup Seizes 89 New York City Taxi Medallio... (Jun '15) Jun '15 Dan Nietzsche 1
News Elizabeth Warren tells Wall Street: 'Bring it on' (Mar '15) Apr '15 SirPrize 5
News Morning 10: $7B Citigroup settlement | Sotheby'... (Jul '14) Mar '15 Sydney 4
News A Midwestern Cow Girl Blew The Lid Off Of Citig... (May '12) Mar '15 Sydney 5
News Why Citigroup and Its Shares Are Poised to Make... (Jan '15) Jan '15 To Make A Dive 2
More from around the web