That's the message I'm getting from the agenda-pushing paper, and I'm about at the end with them.
"Big banks easing mortgage terms for at-risk borrowers; Bank of America, Chase hope move will avoid defaults" July 03, 2011|By David Streitfeld, New York Times
NEW YORK - As millions of Americans struggle in foreclosure with little hope of relief, big banks are going to borrowers who are not even in default and cutting their debt or easing the mortgage terms, sometimes with no questions asked.
Two of the nation’s biggest lenders, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, are quietly modifying loans for tens of thousands of borrowers who have not asked for help but whom the banks deem to be at special risk.
Rula Giosmas is one of the beneficiaries. Last year she received a letter from Chase saying it was cutting in half the amount she owed on her condominium.
Giosmas, who lives in Miami, was not in default on her $300,000 loan. She did not understand why she would receive this gift - although she wasted no time in taking it. And the people that needed help they foreclosed upon.
Of course, it was ALL PART of the PLAN! HARD ASSETS to back up the worthless paper they are now shoveling on people.
Banks are proactively overhauling loans for borrowers like Giosmas who have so-called pay option adjustable rate mortgages, which were popular in the wild late stages of the housing boom but which banks now view as potentially troublesome.
Before Chase shaved $150,000 off her mortgage, Giosmas owed much more on her place than it was worth. It was a fate she shared with a quarter of all homeowners with mortgages across the nation. Being underwater, as it is called, can prevent these owners from moving and taking new jobs, and places the households at greater risk of foreclosure....
While many homeowners desperately need help to keep their homes and cannot get it, the borrowers getting unsolicited relief from Chase sometimes suspect a trick....
The rest of the piece is not about that, but how wonderful the banks are treating Americans.
--more--"
Now why would Americans suspect a trick?
"3 big lenders undercut foreclosure-prevention effort, Obama team says; But banks blame the homeowners" June 10, 2011|By Derek Kravitz and Daniel Wagner, Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The Obama administration is blaming the three largest US mortgage lenders for the failures of its foreclosure-prevention program.
Wells Fargo & Co., Bank of America, and JPMorgan Chase & Co. have failed to help enough people permanently lower their mortgage payments so they can stay in their homes, the Treasury Department said yesterday.
Related: Sunday Globe Special: Foreclosure F*** Over
Doesn't look like Treasury was much help, either!
Based on those lenders’ lackluster performance, the government is withholding financial incentives of up to $1,000 per permanent loan modification. Treasury said the three lenders incorrectly determined that many people were ineligible for the program.
Translation: the banks stole in $1,000 dollar increments, too. The greed is astonishing.
The lenders dispute the data. They say the findings are based on old reports, not audits from the first quarter of the year, as Treasury claimed. Wells Fargo is formally appealing the government’s decision.
The three lenders had received about $24 million from the government as of last month. The program, launched in 2009, was intended to help those at risk of foreclosure by lowering their monthly payments. Borrowers start with lower payments on a trial basis. But the program has struggled to convert them into permanent loan modifications.
Because it was never meant to succeed; this government serves banks, not citizens.
Otherwise, it would have paid off a the loans for far less (although then banks would have taken debt interest payment losses, so....).
More than 1.6 million homeowners received trial modifications over the past two years. Roughly 44 percent of those who applied, or about 700,000, had their mortgages permanently lowered as of April. A majority, about 843,000 homeowners, had dropped out of the program.
Those in the program receive interest rates as low as 2 percent for five years. They can repay their loans over a longer period. The median savings for those who remain in the program is about $526 per month.
Homeowners have complained that the program is a bureaucratic mess. Many have said they were disqualified after banks lost their documents and failed to return their phone calls. Banks have blamed homeowners for failing to submit paperwork.
Not only are they looters, they are liars!
The banks are not obligated to participate, so the administration can’t fine them. But Timothy Massad, Treasury’s acting assistant secretary for financial stability, said the administration can publicly shame them.
PFFFFFFFFTT!
Foreclosures are at record levels and are hurting the economy....
Of course, the agenda-pushing conventional wisdom is gas prices.
--more--"
And here at home?
"Fewer homes in Mass. lost to lenders; Lull temporary, analysts expect" July 01, 2011|By Jenifer B. McKim, Globe Staff
Real estate specialists said the dramatic falloff can be largely attributed to lenders pulling back on foreclosures, not an improving economy, and many expect the number of foreclosures to soon start increasing.
Foreclosures started to slow nationwide last year after several bank employees - now known as robosigners - acknowledged that they signed foreclosure-related documents without reviewing the paperwork. The admissions prompted widespread scrutiny of foreclosure practices, and many major US lenders voluntarily halted or delayed property-takings while they reviewed their procedures....
Grace Ross, coordinator for the Massachusetts Alliance Against Predatory Lending, based in Worcester, speculated that many foreclosures also are being stalled in the courts. An increasing number of homeowners are challenging their property seizures on the grounds they were not conducted properly....
--more--"
Related: Slow Saturday Special: Massachusetts Court Rejects Foreclosure Fraud
Of course, that is obfuscated and obscured for the most part because the BG is a bankers' paper.
And if you need to be convinced:
"Poor often don’t know benefit of banks; Study finds lots of access but plenty of reservations" by Taryn Luna, Globe Correspondent / July 6, 2011
NEW BEDFORD - With nearly 160 banking locations in the New Bedford area, Michael Goodman, an associate professor of public policy at UMass Dartmouth who oversaw the study, said the challenge is to educate people that maintaining bank accounts can help establish and build credit, increase assets, and lower household costs. A state legislative commission recently found that development of family assets, including savings accounts, is the most effective way to lift people from poverty.
“These are people who are living in a very informal economy,’’ Goodman said. “People need the opportunity to learn what the advantages are of having banking relationships, building credit history, and being able to access credit at some point in the future.’’
Related: The very essence of the banking industry
****************************
In April, the Massachusetts Legislature created a Financial Literacy Trust Fund to help provide financial education for people with low incomes.
They CUT TAXPAYER MONEY to HUSTLE PEOPLE into the DEBT SYSTEM?
Nationally, organizations such as Bank On are joining local officials, banks, and community organizations to bring free accounts and personal finance courses to low-income people. The program, sponsored by the FDIC, Federal Reserve, and Treasury Department, has spread to cities including Washington, Miami, and Seattle.
The VERY ESSENCE of the BANKING SYSTEM!
The UMass study provides a window on the views of people with low incomes and the challenges of bringing banking services to them. Some do not trust banks.
Gee, I ¢AN NOT IMAGINE WHY!
Others said they do not need an account. Still others feared being charged fees they could not afford.
Yes, they are looking at EVERY WHICH WAY to MAKE UP for LOST PROFIT!
See: Don't Buy That Debit Card
Karen Faria, 49, is among them.
The Fairhaven woman lost her job as a certified nurse assistant in March 2010 after she was diagnosed with cancer and had a mastectomy. When she wrote a check without realizing her account was $3.08 short, she was charged $90 in overdraft fees....
The bank with a heart!
The UMass study, conducted by graduate students, was suggested by the Community Economic Development Center of Southern Massachusetts, a nonprofit that advocates for low-income people. The goal was to understand barriers hindering low-income people from banking and to target programs to overcome these barriers.
The center serves 2,000 low-income people a year in the New Bedford area, most of whom seek help with income taxes. In helping people apply for the Earned Income Tax Credit, a government credit for low-income taxpayers, the center discovered that many people did not have bank accounts to deposit refunds in.
“If you don’t have enough income to imagine that you can save, or you don’t understand that you need a credit history, it’s not really on the radar screen,’’ said Goodman, the UMass Dartmouth professor. “Even if one can’t save in the short term, having that option to build assets and compound interest will give you access to a number of financial opportunities in the future.’’
I suppose the ones benefiting from the debt slavery system would think that way.
--more--"
At least they are providing jobs:
"More bank branches closing; Weak economy, tighter rules prompt decision" July 05, 2011|By Todd Wallack, Globe Staff
For the first time in 15 years, banks across the United States are closing branches faster than they are opening them, eliminating locations in Massachusetts, other parts of New England, and the rest of the country....
Overall, banks have eliminated more than 1,400 US locations in the past two years. And almost every week, more branches go dark....
The branch closings will probably affect people who have business that is difficult to conduct electronically, such as retailers trying to obtain small bills and coins, or customers who prefer giving or getting their money in person. Advocates for the poor also worry that lower-income neighborhoods will feel the brunt of branch closings, forcing more residents to turn to payday lenders, check cashing services, and other institutions that typically charge higher fees....
But PEOPLE NEED to be EDUCATED about HOW GREAT is the BANKING RELATIONSHIP!
But analysts and industry executives say the country is still brimming with banks; the number of branches per capita has nearly tripled since 1970. “I don’t think it will impact any disadvantaged neighborhoods,’’ said Bruce Spitzer, spokesman for the Massachusetts Bankers Association.
You know, we probably do need a lot less of them.
Many banks are shutting branches as a slow economy, struggling housing market, and increasing regulation push them to slash expenses.
We have been told recovery two year SIGH!
New restrictions on credit card charges, debit card fees, and overdraft penalties could potentially cost them billions of dollars a year. Banks are also seeing sluggish demand for loans and recording steep losses from foreclosures.
But the trend is also a recognition that branches are not as critical as they once were. Customers increasingly do their banking through the Internet, smartphones, and ATMs....
The recent recession and financial crisis contributed to branch closings. More than 340 banks have failed since the beginning of 2009, and many others have merged or slashed operations to stay in business....
And some banks are still expanding. JPMorgan Chase & Co., for instance, recently announced plans to build as many as 2,000 branches over the next five years, largely in California and Florida. Citibank said it would open 200 branches over the next three years in key markets....
Yeah, the BIG WALL STREET BANKS are GROWING!
“Some of the healthier banks are pursuing growth strategies and expanding,’’ said Patrick Sims at SNL, but “you are seeing increased consolidation’’ by others.
--more--"
And about those debit fees:
"Fed lowers banks’ debit fees for retailers" by Eileen AJ Connelly and Marcy Gordon, Associated Press / June 30, 2011
WASHINGTON — The Federal Reserve has taken a gentle swipe at the banking industry’s multibillion-dollar business of collecting debit-card fees from retailers.
Beginning this fall, the Fed said yesterday, banks will only be allowed to charge retailers 21 cents for each debit card transaction, plus an additional 0.05 percent of the purchase price to cover the cost of fraud protection.
The final rule is not as punitive for banks as the Fed’s earlier proposal, which had sought to cap fees at 12 cents per transaction. Banks currently charge an average of 44 cents per transaction. Shares of Visa, Mastercard, and bank stocks rose after the announcement was made.
It’s unclear how consumers will be affected by the change, required under last year’s overhaul of financial regulations.
Merchants have said reduced fees would allow them to lower prices. But banks had warned that a limit on what they can charge retailers would force them to cut other services, such as free checking....
The cap will be the first limit on debit card fees. Currently, banks negotiate such fees with merchants. A big chain such as Starbucks would likely get a better rate than a local coffee shop because it handles more customers. Fees are typically based on a percentage of the purchase price.
Yup, BIG BIDNESS WINS AGAIN!
The rule does not apply to credit cards, government-issued debit cards, prepaid cards, or cards issued by banks and credit unions with assets under $10 billion.
Banks and big payment processors said the lower cap wouldn’t cover the cost of handling transactions, maintaining their networks, and preventing fraud. They argued that they would have lost $16 billion if the 12-cent cap took effect.
Merchant groups were unhappy with the Fed’s decision.
Sandy Kennedy, president of the Retail Industry Leaders Association, said the central bank was “ceding to the wishes of the big banks and credit card companies.’’
And that is a surprise?
--more--"
At least they are providing jobs, right?
"Financial firms brace for cuts; Bank of America, Goldman join list" July 01, 2011|By Dakin Campbell, Bloomberg News
SAN FRANCISCO - Bank of America Corp. and Goldman Sachs Group are among financial firms cutting more than 1,300 workers in an effort to trim expenses and match revenue as equity and bond trading slows....
Large banks face higher costs and inhibited growth by new capital requirements and regulations, including overdraft-fee limits and proprietary-trading bans, Richard X. Bove, an analyst at Rochdale Securities LLC, said.
"The banks are reacting to these new constraints on their activities by shrinking, sending jobs and business functions overseas, and beginning to cut employment in this country, and more specifically, New York," Bove said.
Un-flipping-real!
Credit Suisse Group, the second-biggest Swiss lender, is planning to cut more than 600 jobs in its investment bank, including more than 100 in the London office, while Royal Bank of Scotland Group is paring about 200 jobs at its investment-banking unit in the UK and Europe, according to people briefed on the firms' plans.
Lloyds Banking Group, Britain's biggest mortgage lender, said today yesterday it will cut 15,000 jobs and reduce costs by an additional $2.4 billion by 2014. HSBC Holdings PLC, Europe's largest bank, will also cut about 700 employees who offer advice on financial products in branches, a person briefed on the talks said....
Actually, we could do with a lot less of them anyway.
--more--"
And BANKS are your "friend" when it comes to CAMPAIGN FUND-RAI$ING!
"Banker’s son mines gold for Obama; Gifford breaks the family mold" July 05, 2011|By Donovan Slack, Globe Staff
CHICAGO - By his own account, Rufus Gifford’s early life was everything you would expect of the son of a patrician New England banker. Privileged North Shore upbringing. Elite schools. In the summer, tennis on Nantucket.
But things shifted for the third child of Chad Gifford, who ran some of Boston’s biggest financial institutions, after Father’s Day weekend in 1993, when his family discovered he was gay....
So?
Just 36 years old, he is working at the center of the Democratic political universe as chief of President Obama’s fund-raising operation for his reelection bid. The post has solidified his status as one of the most prominent openly gay operatives in the country....
What's his sexuality have to do with.... sigh.
The agenda-pushing never stops.
--more--"
