Feds file suit over S&P mortgage bond...

Feds file suit over S&P mortgage bond ratings

There are 17 comments on the www.usatoday.com story from Feb 5, 2013, titled Feds file suit over S&P mortgage bond ratings. In it, www.usatoday.com reports that:

The Justice Department late Monday hit Standard & Poor's with civil fraud charges, alleging the nation's largest credit rating firm gave overly rosy appraisals to securities that led to the national financial meltdown.

The government said in its complaint that S&P misled investors by stating that its ratings were objective and "uninfluenced by any conflicts of interest." It said S&P's desire to make money and gain market share caused S&P to ignore risks posed by the investments between September 2004 and October 2007

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.usatoday.com.

TET 102

Nha Trang, Vietnam

#1 Feb 5, 2013
S&P standard & poll!!!!;)

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#2 Feb 5, 2013
S & and the others too, shold be subject ti CAPITAL UNISHMENT.

Rating flypaper as a good investment, while downgrading perfectly safe municipal paper.

What a bunch of greedy crooks.
The ENABLED the GW BUSH credit crunch which led to the Great Bush Deression.

DEREGULATION didn't work, and so those who manipulated the market under deregulation must be punished more severely; because they took advantage of their fellows.

“Open your eyes”

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

#3 Feb 5, 2013
Mr_Bill wrote:
S & and the others too, shold be subject ti CAPITAL UNISHMENT.
Rating flypaper as a good investment, while downgrading perfectly safe municipal paper.
What a bunch of greedy crooks.
The ENABLED the GW BUSH credit crunch which led to the Great Bush Deression.
DEREGULATION didn't work, and so those who manipulated the market under deregulation must be punished more severely; because they took advantage of their fellows.
Nothing is going to happen. All charges will be dropped. Watch.

Look at this justice departement. Eric Holder and the Justice Department were going after Goldman Sacks and JP Morgan for market manipulation and fraud. After a month, they dropped all charges. Why?

Well, think it would have anything to do with the amount of money that Goldman and Morgan gave to the Obama campaign? No, could not be that.

Then maybe it was because the defending law firm for Goldman Sacks and JP Morgan is the exact same law firm that Holder worked at prior to going to the State Department. No, could not be that.

I wonder why then.

This, it's all smoke and mirrors. It is a reality show. the show is act like they are doing something but behind the scenes, it is business as usual.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#4 Feb 5, 2013
Kahoki wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing is going to happen. All charges will be dropped. Watch.
Look at this justice departement. Eric Holder and the Justice Department were going after Goldman Sacks and JP Morgan for market manipulation and fraud. After a month, they dropped all charges. Why?
Well, think it would have anything to do with the amount of money that Goldman and Morgan gave to the Obama campaign? No, could not be that.
Then maybe it was because the defending law firm for Goldman Sacks and JP Morgan is the exact same law firm that Holder worked at prior to going to the State Department. No, could not be that.
I wonder why then.
This, it's all smoke and mirrors. It is a reality show. the show is act like they are doing something but behind the scenes, it is business as usual.
Perhaps they'll send Martha Stewart back to jail.
TET 102

Nha Trang, Vietnam

#5 Feb 5, 2013
Mr_Bill wrote:
S & and the others too, shold be subject ti CAPITAL UNISHMENT.
Rating flypaper as a good investment, while downgrading perfectly safe municipal paper.
What a bunch of greedy crooks.
The ENABLED the GW BUSH credit crunch which led to the Great Bush Deression.
DEREGULATION didn't work, and so those who manipulated the market under deregulation must be punished more severely; because they took advantage of their fellows.
Warrent Bufffet&Bill Gay bet yo Chucky hate goooo!!! ;-000

“Open your eyes”

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

#6 Feb 5, 2013
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps they'll send Martha Stewart back to jail.
She goes to jail for insider trading, while Pelosi, Reed, McLame, and of these jokers make deals using insider information and get a walking pass.

America's new form of Nobility.

And people still vote and support these crooks.
TET 102

Nha Trang, Vietnam

#7 Feb 5, 2013
Kahoki wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing is going to happen. All charges will be dropped. Watch.
Look at this justice departement. Eric Holder and the Justice Department were going after Goldman Sacks and JP Morgan for market manipulation and fraud. After a month, they dropped all charges. Why?
Well, think it would have anything to do with the amount of money that Goldman and Morgan gave to the Obama campaign? No, could not be that.
Then maybe it was because the defending law firm for Goldman Sacks and JP Morgan is the exact same law firm that Holder worked at prior to going to the State Department. No, could not be that.
I wonder why then.
This, it's all smoke and mirrors. It is a reality show. the show is act like they are doing something but behind the scenes, it is business as usual.
FLer! U have to Dr. Bills Obey NY!!! ;-000h, FL capita is less dan NY cupital!!! ;-000000
Robert

Lithia Springs, GA

#8 Feb 5, 2013
Mr_Bill wrote:
S & and the others too, shold be subject ti CAPITAL UNISHMENT.
Rating flypaper as a good investment, while downgrading perfectly safe municipal paper.
What a bunch of greedy crooks.
The ENABLED the GW BUSH credit crunch which led to the Great Bush Deression.
DEREGULATION didn't work, and so those who manipulated the market under deregulation must be punished more severely; because they took advantage of their fellows.
To be more accurate you should say the Bush era recession, proceeded the Obama era recession and was caused by the Clinton era deregulation. Bush had little to do with the problem, at worst you could say he did not do enough to sound the alarm and failed to recognize the coming disaster which had been in the making for a long time.

I doubt the people will pay and the rating companies are defiantly one of those who should pay, the investment instruments were carefully stripped of the necessary information to rate them properly and s&p were bound to have known that, the only ethical thing to have done was to say you buy these bonds at your own risk, we can't rate them.

They need to go after the ones who packaged these mortgages together in a way to obscure the risk but I doubt they will be successful at getting the wealthy investment people I am sure they paid their underlings well to do the dirty work and keep them insulated.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#9 Feb 5, 2013
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
To be more accurate you should say the Bush era recession, proceeded the Obama era recession and was caused by the Clinton era deregulation. Bush had little to do with the problem, at worst you could say he did not do enough to sound the alarm and failed to recognize the coming disaster which had been in the making for a long time.
I doubt the people will pay and the rating companies are defiantly one of those who should pay, the investment instruments were carefully stripped of the necessary information to rate them properly and s&p were bound to have known that, the only ethical thing to have done was to say you buy these bonds at your own risk, we can't rate them.
They need to go after the ones who packaged these mortgages together in a way to obscure the risk but I doubt they will be successful at getting the wealthy investment people I am sure they paid their underlings well to do the dirty work and keep them insulated.
It was a depression, one long depression.

And in all fairness, Obama has ended it.

And Bush's complete failure to regulate led to such abuses as the credit crunch, and Enron too. Not Clinton, BUSH II.

And yes, the mortgage-backed securities, deivatives,'debt insurance,'and other cheesy instrumentswill have no big-wig fingerprints.

And all were products of Bush-ear dereg.
Robert

Lithia Springs, GA

#10 Feb 5, 2013
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a depression, one long depression.
And in all fairness, Obama has ended it.
And Bush's complete failure to regulate led to such abuses as the credit crunch, and Enron too. Not Clinton, BUSH II.
And yes, the mortgage-backed securities, deivatives,'debt insurance,'and other cheesy instrumentswill have no big-wig fingerprints.
And all were products of Bush-ear dereg.
Absolutely not, it was not a depression, not enough loss in gdp, not enough bank failures, not enough unemployment for that. Just talk to an old person who when though the depression to understand the difference.

Bush did not deregulate the backs that was done in a joint effort by a republican congress and democratic president bill clinton. That was followed by dramatic relaxation of lending standards throughout the industry. There was a fight over regulating the derivatives market and the fight went on from 1996 to 1999 when congress passed legislation prohibiting the CFTC from regulating the derivative market. Alan Greenspan, the Secretary of the Treasury and the SEC chairman was against it and won out. The stage was set before Bush was even in office and when bush said something about the problem he was derailed by the likes of Barney Frank. Deregulation was not Bush's fault the worst that could be said about him is that he was unable to undo the mess that was created for him.

What bush era deregulation did bush sign?????? You are flat wrong on that, Clinton signed the bill to get rid of Glass Stegall and Clinton signed the bill preventing the regulation of derivatives by the CFTC.

“Open your eyes”

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

#11 Feb 5, 2013
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a depression, one long depression.
And in all fairness, Obama has ended it.
Now that right there. That is comical.

Just when you are on the verge of true critical thinking and seeing the shell game for what it is. You say something DNC flag carrying comment like that.

Look at the numbers, they don't lie. 4th quarter results showed a negative in GDP growth comparable to the third quarter? Why? Because the Fed was dumping money into the system to give a false illusion of growth. When the 4th quarter results came out in Jan, the curtain was opened on the money pumping.

You may think there is no depression, but, there is. Gas going up, food going up, everything is going up due to costs, pay is shrinking, retirement funds are being raided through the derivative markets.

The growth that you will probably quote from some MSM article will be a complete lie. These people are incompetent and inept. Want the truth, look at this past Saturday's FT. And the think the same people are going to fix the problem they created is stupidity.

It is not going to get better. We are in the midst of a currency war.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#12 Feb 5, 2013
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely not, it was not a depression, not enough loss in gdp, not enough bank failures, not enough unemployment for that. Just talk to an old person who when though the depression to understand the difference.
Bush did not deregulate the backs that was done in a joint effort by a republican congress and democratic president bill clinton. That was followed by dramatic relaxation of lending standards throughout the industry. There was a fight over regulating the derivatives market and the fight went on from 1996 to 1999 when congress passed legislation prohibiting the CFTC from regulating the derivative market. Alan Greenspan, the Secretary of the Treasury and the SEC chairman was against it and won out. The stage was set before Bush was even in office and when bush said something about the problem he was derailed by the likes of Barney Frank. Deregulation was not Bush's fault the worst that could be said about him is that he was unable to undo the mess that was created for him.
What bush era deregulation did bush sign?????? You are flat wrong on that, Clinton signed the bill to get rid of Glass Stegall and Clinton signed the bill preventing the regulation of derivatives by the CFTC.
You suffer from a misunderstanding.

The credit crisis was not caused by "deregulating banks."
Banks were not 'deregulated.'
Banks did not cause the mortgage-driven part of the credit crisis, that was the 'no verification' mortgage brokers, not registered banks.

"Mortgage Brokers" operated virtually unregulated.

The "bank deregulation" you refer to, I think, was actually more regulation, to end bank RED LINING.

And, those former 'red lined' mortgages; mostly made to minority group working class people, defaulted at the same, low rate as the non red-lined loand wto working class homeowners.

I myself have always said the safest loan tyou can make is to a peasant, for his own land. Obsolete reference, but it carries through.
Robert

Lithia Springs, GA

#13 Feb 5, 2013
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
You suffer from a misunderstanding.
The credit crisis was not caused by "deregulating banks."
Banks were not 'deregulated.'
Banks did not cause the mortgage-driven part of the credit crisis, that was the 'no verification' mortgage brokers, not registered banks.
"Mortgage Brokers" operated virtually unregulated.
The "bank deregulation" you refer to, I think, was actually more regulation, to end bank RED LINING.
And, those former 'red lined' mortgages; mostly made to minority group working class people, defaulted at the same, low rate as the non red-lined loand wto working class homeowners.
I myself have always said the safest loan tyou can make is to a peasant, for his own land. Obsolete reference, but it carries through.
Can't you read, I never once mentioned the red line banking issue you must have go that from listening to rush Limbaugh or something, i am not that guy. The red line issue you talk about is the community reinvestment act. The CRA dealt with things like the red lining you were talking about and Clinton did expand that program but I never mentioned it because other things were more of a factor.

The banks were deregulated in the Clinton era, just go to google and type in banking deregulation and read about the Gramm Leach Bliley Act, it repealed Glass Stegall and removed the barriers in the law between banks and security companies. This is why we had to do the bailout, had the banks been kept separate then we could have just let the companies who bought the bad mortgages do down the tubes and say sorry guess it sux to be you. Another critical thing that happened was the fight fought by Clinton appointee Brooksley Boorn over regulating the derivatives market, she saw the problems and felt her agency should be regulating it but ran into a wall trying to get it done, congress at the urgence of the treasury department passed legislation which restricted the CFTC in 1999.

I say again you say Bush deregulated the banks, what bill did he sign or executive order did he use. It is not out there. The domino s are real simple, real estate bubble inflated prices and values, too many sub-prime loans, the loans were packaged with other investments to obscure their risk, everyone owned them including banks, everything was ok as long as prices kept going up but the music eventually stopped. It is just not bush s fault.

“Open your eyes”

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

#14 Feb 5, 2013
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't you read, I never once mentioned the red line banking issue you must have go that from listening to rush Limbaugh or something, i am not that guy. The red line issue you talk about is the community reinvestment act. The CRA dealt with things like the red lining you were talking about and Clinton did expand that program but I never mentioned it because other things were more of a factor.
The banks were deregulated in the Clinton era, just go to google and type in banking deregulation and read about the Gramm Leach Bliley Act, it repealed Glass Stegall and removed the barriers in the law between banks and security companies. This is why we had to do the bailout, had the banks been kept separate then we could have just let the companies who bought the bad mortgages do down the tubes and say sorry guess it sux to be you. Another critical thing that happened was the fight fought by Clinton appointee Brooksley Boorn over regulating the derivatives market, she saw the problems and felt her agency should be regulating it but ran into a wall trying to get it done, congress at the urgence of the treasury department passed legislation which restricted the CFTC in 1999.
I say again you say Bush deregulated the banks, what bill did he sign or executive order did he use. It is not out there. The domino s are real simple, real estate bubble inflated prices and values, too many sub-prime loans, the loans were packaged with other investments to obscure their risk, everyone owned them including banks, everything was ok as long as prices kept going up but the music eventually stopped. It is just not bush s fault.
And cannot forget about the repeal of the Sherman Anti Trust Act as well.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#15 Feb 5, 2013
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't you read, I never once mentioned the red line banking issue you must have go that from listening to rush Limbaugh or something, i am not that guy. The red line issue you talk about is the community reinvestment act. The CRA dealt with things like the red lining you were talking about and Clinton did expand that program but I never mentioned it because other things were more of a factor.
The banks were deregulated in the Clinton era, just go to google and type in banking deregulation and read about the Gramm Leach Bliley Act, it repealed Glass Stegall and removed the barriers in the law between banks and security companies. This is why we had to do the bailout, had the banks been kept separate then we could have just let the companies who bought the bad mortgages do down the tubes and say sorry guess it sux to be you. Another critical thing that happened was the fight fought by Clinton appointee Brooksley Boorn over regulating the derivatives market, she saw the problems and felt her agency should be regulating it but ran into a wall trying to get it done, congress at the urgence of the treasury department passed legislation which restricted the CFTC in 1999.
I say again you say Bush deregulated the banks, what bill did he sign or executive order did he use. It is not out there. The domino s are real simple, real estate bubble inflated prices and values, too many sub-prime loans, the loans were packaged with other investments to obscure their risk, everyone owned them including banks, everything was ok as long as prices kept going up but the music eventually stopped. It is just not bush s fault.
You are right about Glass- Stegall; but the real failure I speak about was the Bush administation deliberate failure to enforce existing regulation, and to let these things happen.

And I agree with Kahoki that Both Clinton & Obama are corporate shills too; but disagree that there is no substantive difference.

“Open your eyes”

Since: Sep 09

Central Florida

#16 Feb 5, 2013
Martin Wolf (Financial Times) points out that the real problem is global weakness in demand, and China is understandably trying to avoid what happened Japan’s ramped-up currency, which led to the Lost Decade:

“We’re in the midst of an international currency war, a general weakening of currency. This threatens us because it takes away our competitiveness.” Thiscomplaint by Guido Mantega, Brazil’s finance minister, is entirely understandable. In an era of deficient demand, issuers of reserve currencies adopt monetary expansion and non-issuers respond with currency intervention. Those, like Brazil, who are not among the former and prefer not to copy the latter, find their currencies soaring. They fear the results.

***

Here there are three facts, relevant to today’s currency wars.

First, as a result of the crisis, the developed world is suffering from chronically deficient demand. In none of the six biggest high-income economies – the US, Japan, Germany, France, the UK and Italy – was gross domestic product in the second quarter of this year back to where it was in the first quarter of 2008. These economies are now operating at up to 10 per cent below their past trends. One indication of the excess supply is the decline in core inflation to close to 1 per cent in the US and the eurozone: deflation beckons. These countries hope for export-led growth. This is true both of those with trade deficits (such as the US) and of those with surpluses (such as Germany and Japan). In aggregate, however, this can only happen if emerging economies shift towards current account deficit.

***

China is overwhelmingly the dominant intervener, accounting for 40 per cent of the accumulation since February 2009. By June 2010, its reserves had reached $2,450bn, 30 per cent of the world total and a staggering 50 per cent of its own GDP. This accumulation must be viewed as a huge export subsidy.

Never in human history can the government of one superpower have lent so much to that of another.

***

It is not hard to see China’s point of view: it is desperate to avoid what it views as the dire fate of Japan after the Plaza accord. With export competitiveness damaged by its soaring currency and pressured by the US to reduce its current account surplus, Japan chose not the needed structural reforms, but a huge monetary expansion, instead. The consequent bubble helped deliver the “lost decade” of the 1990s. Once a world-beater, Japan fell into the doldrums. For China, self-evidently, any such outcome would be a catastrophe.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-in-a-globa...

Follow the time line. The Trends Research Institute has nailed this one.

The crash of 1929
Depression
Currency Wars
Trade Wars
World War

The crash of 2008
Depression (some will say recession, economic collapse is what it is)
Currency Wars (They started)
Trade Wars (Beginning with the devaluing of the currencies to increase countries exports)
World War
hitem

South Boston, VA

#17 Feb 5, 2013
For all there billions made illegally, they will have to pay a few million, aka the government will get there payoff in fines and all you sorry saps will get nothing in return!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 4 undocumented immigrants arrested in Trenton 3 min DR X 19
News Global backlash grows against Trump's immigrati... 3 min HITLER Alt-Right ... 2,528
News George W. Bush on press and presidency: a Power... 5 min Lawrence Wolf 29
News DHS: Trump Border 'Wall' to Cost $21.6B, Take 3... 7 min Jose Patton 506
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 7 min JRB 237,879
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 14 min Waikiki ripoff 36,588
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 17 min Copout 1,498,594
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... (May '16) 33 min Copout 21,415
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 36 min Enter 413,245
News Appeals court upholds MD assault weapons ban 1 hr 16 TEEN SHOTS 49
More from around the web