Supervisors directed banks’ mortgage misconduct, HUD report says

[Eugene]

Source: Washington Post

Supervisors directed banks' mortgage misconduct, HUD report says

By Brady Dennis, Updated: Tuesday, March 13, 1:54 PM

Employees at major banks who churned out fraudulent foreclosure documents, forged signatures, made up fake job titles and falsely notarized paperwork often did so at the behest of their superiors, according to a federal investigation released Tuesday.

By now, it’s well documented that the nation’s biggest banks routinely “robosigned” legal papers to keep up with the wave of foreclosures brought on by the housing bust. But the new report from the inspector general of the Department of Housing and Urban Development reveals that those shoddy practices often came at the direction of managers at the banks, and that employees in some cases were judged by how fast they could get new foreclosure filings out the door.

“I believe the reports we just released will leave the reader asking one question: How could so many people have participated in this misconduct?” David Montoya, HUD inspector general, said in a statement. “The answer: simple greed.”

HUD investigators launched their inquiries soon after news of the banks’ practices caused a national uproar in late 2010, and government officials used their findings as they negotiated a recent landmark $25 billion settlement with the banks.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/supervisors-directed-banks-mortgage-misconduct-hud-report-says/2012/03/13/gIQAqCzq9R_story.html

[Trillo]

1. Seems a false deduction to presume all employees work because they're greedy.

Seems kind of like a limbaughism.

[Igel]

2. Indeed.

The entire enterprise is trying to figure out where 100% of the blame goes, when no one group qualifies for 100% of the blame.

Local families that were foreclosed on signed statements saying what their job titles and annual incomes were. It doesn't matter who filled in the numbers--they signed them because they were greedy. They wanted the most house they could get.

The numbers that were provided were filled in largely by mortgage brokers. They were greedy.

A good number of the loans were unreasonable. But the families either couldn't get better loans, didn't know they could get better loans, or figured it didn't matter--the houses would appreciate and they'd refinance at a profit. They were greedy, but I repeat myself.

The brokers gave out subprime loans to some who could have afforded better. Or they talked up crappy loan deals. Again repeating myself, they were greedy.

The people that bought up the loans and diced and sliced them were also greedy.

The politicians that outlawed "redlining" when it was based on having fairly conservative standards and pressuring lenders to weaken those standards were also greedy. Their actions gained them endorsements and votes. Not greedy for money, these politicians were greedy for votes and power.

And that's for starters. But pretty much most members in every group think that since somebody else was obviously greedy and irresponsible nobody'll notice that they, too, were greedy and irresponsible.

I still focus on the grass roots. I expect others to be willing to gamble with my personal wealth if I let them, so I do my best not to. People gambled with their own houses and personal wealth and lost and want to say that they have no responsibility to look out for themselves--that's a job for others.

[Trillo]

3. That's a bit confusing....

Is it greedy to work subsistence wages in a debt-based financial system of scarcity? Many of us have read of the Stanley Milgram experiment. Work for a boss, do what they say, or get fired right now. It really is that simple for most people. Milgram sort of backed that up with science. The majority of people do what they're told. Perhaps some employees with unions don't experience it quite as harshly as that, but it's my understanding the basic rule still exists.

I've been trying to think of a group that shows the least amount of greed. The one that kept popping to mind would be the chronic, long-term homeless. People can either give everything of material value away, or not aquire it in the first place, live as a homeless person, perhaps solely on the generosity of others, but we often read that this results in unusually common or frequent contact with cops, at times jail, and once in awhile with reporters calling your living area, "an encampment". Few people would choose to live that way, and it breaks a basic rule of blending in to ones surroundings. It's often said the nail that sticks up gets hammered down.

So, most people are simply blending into their surroundings, trying to do what they see others do, and trying to figure a way to buy food, clothing, and shelter. That is the great greed?