Tweet
http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.co...ce=patrick.net
Marion Post Wolcott Soul Trailer December 1940
"Itinerant preacher from South Carolina saving souls of construction workers at Camp Livingston job near Alexandria, Louisiana"
Ilargi: I watched footage today of adult women and men who’d been abused by priests when they were kids, and whose main concern was to regain their faith and their place in the church. They even traveled all the way from the States to the Vatican, hoping the pope would actually and personally receive a letter they wrote. Of course the Vatican just brushed these poor folks off without a listen. Got to do better than a letter if you want your faith back, so seems to be the message. The Vatican has paid over $1 billion in hush and blood money so far, and them robes don’t come cheap. 10 hail mary’s and an open wallet might get you right back where you once thought you belonged. And do bring the kids.
There isn't really any difference between blind faith in Rome and blind faith in Washington, though, is there? Benedict, Obama, they all have a billion souls depending on them for faith, hope, charity and salvation. And whatever they do to you, you keep coming back for more. Because in your eyes, they’re the only game in town.
Or so I was thinking anyway when I saw that JPMorgan announced a $3.3 billion profit, while the bank still owes the US taxpayer $41 billion+. Now, I can't speak for you, but if someone owes me a big wad of cash, and instead of paying me back first, goes all prancing about town ordering champagne and farm fish eggs, I’m thinking kneecaps. Not the White House, though. And I know why. The $41 billion (and a lot more if you include the WaMu and Bear Stearns takeovers) is not owed to the White House. It’s owed to you, poor sodding anonymous you.
Major US banks have close to half a trillion dollars worth of junior lien mortgage loans on their books. Junior basically means anything not first mortgage, like home equity loans (my house is an ATM), second mortgages (an ATM with a different name), and more creativeness like that. All quite jolly and innovative and brilliant, providing it’s not your money at stake. But it is, and that’s the catch.
The problem with the junior liens is that they will be wiped out first, under "normal" circumstances, when a loan goes bad, when there’s a default, a repo, ... or even a modification. The big lenders got rid of just about any and all first lien loans through securitization, but they hold just a little bit more of the juniors still on their own books. And like so many other US loan portfolio's, government endorsed reality- and gravity-bending of FASB accounting standards make them look real fine and healthy, thank you very much.
Shahien Nasiripour lays it all out for everyone to see in the HuffPost:
Another round of bail-outs? Well, yes please, but we can wait till November, and we’ll get by on the 0% borrowing and 5% lending back to the government scheme. For now, that is.
Whether it’s a priest molesting your kid, or an elected representative molesting yours and your kid's future welfare, it's, down the line, not that much of a difference, is it?
Yeah, the stock markets are up, S$P 500 crossed 1200, Hurrah and Hallelujah. But guys, one more time, that S$P 1200 number is 100% dependent on the fact that Washington has thrown YOUR money into the casino pit. That’s why there's happy traders out there, that’s why there’s pundits and TV stations declaring victory over the recession. Without your money, 90% of Wall Street would be a ghost street. And instead of insisting on payback, Obama lets JPMorgan declare a new spring with a $3.3 billion profit, without demanding your $41 billion back first. Even though JPMorgan would have been a dead duck in the polluted shallow water without your money. Is that what you elected him to do?
I’m thinking the politicians in Washington have the idea that they can do with as much of your money as they want whatever they see fit to do with it, including furthering their own careers, and that they’ve completely lost sight of who pays for all that. And I’m wondering where the difference lies between a priest abusing your confidence and a politician doing the same. Maybe it’s time to make up your own mind for a change, and simply get out of the game on all ends.
"Itinerant preacher from South Carolina saving souls of construction workers at Camp Livingston job near Alexandria, Louisiana"
Ilargi: I watched footage today of adult women and men who’d been abused by priests when they were kids, and whose main concern was to regain their faith and their place in the church. They even traveled all the way from the States to the Vatican, hoping the pope would actually and personally receive a letter they wrote. Of course the Vatican just brushed these poor folks off without a listen. Got to do better than a letter if you want your faith back, so seems to be the message. The Vatican has paid over $1 billion in hush and blood money so far, and them robes don’t come cheap. 10 hail mary’s and an open wallet might get you right back where you once thought you belonged. And do bring the kids.
There isn't really any difference between blind faith in Rome and blind faith in Washington, though, is there? Benedict, Obama, they all have a billion souls depending on them for faith, hope, charity and salvation. And whatever they do to you, you keep coming back for more. Because in your eyes, they’re the only game in town.
Or so I was thinking anyway when I saw that JPMorgan announced a $3.3 billion profit, while the bank still owes the US taxpayer $41 billion+. Now, I can't speak for you, but if someone owes me a big wad of cash, and instead of paying me back first, goes all prancing about town ordering champagne and farm fish eggs, I’m thinking kneecaps. Not the White House, though. And I know why. The $41 billion (and a lot more if you include the WaMu and Bear Stearns takeovers) is not owed to the White House. It’s owed to you, poor sodding anonymous you.
Major US banks have close to half a trillion dollars worth of junior lien mortgage loans on their books. Junior basically means anything not first mortgage, like home equity loans (my house is an ATM), second mortgages (an ATM with a different name), and more creativeness like that. All quite jolly and innovative and brilliant, providing it’s not your money at stake. But it is, and that’s the catch.
The problem with the junior liens is that they will be wiped out first, under "normal" circumstances, when a loan goes bad, when there’s a default, a repo, ... or even a modification. The big lenders got rid of just about any and all first lien loans through securitization, but they hold just a little bit more of the juniors still on their own books. And like so many other US loan portfolio's, government endorsed reality- and gravity-bending of FASB accounting standards make them look real fine and healthy, thank you very much.
Shahien Nasiripour lays it all out for everyone to see in the HuffPost:
JPMorgan Chase Argues Against Mortgage Modifications, Citing Sanctity Of Contracts
It is of course completely idiotic that JPMorgan first suggests mortgage mods might bring the bank down, only to declare "healthy" profits 2 days later. There’s only one issue at play here, really: JPMorgan has such a huge amount of decrepit mortgages on its books that the ability to keep them there without any modifications is the one thing that allows the bank to announce a profit, which in turn permits it to pay out dividends and bonuses, as well as dupe investors into believing that its shares are properly valued, not hugely inflated through federally sanctioned accounting tricks. No modifications, no forced write-downs.If a borrower loses his home to foreclosure, the first lien is repaid first off the subsequent sale. Whatever proceeds are left go to second and subsequent liens; if nothing is left -- for instance, if an underwater borrower is foreclosed on and the sale of the foreclosed home doesn't even satisfy the outstanding first lien -- then the second and subsequent liens are worthless. They don't get a penny. Based on that priority of payments, holders of first lien mortgage debt argue that those holding junior liens should take the first hit when it comes to modifying mortgages -- after all, if the home enters foreclosure, that's how it will play out.
Since nearly all mortgage modifications involve homeowners who are likely to default, investors argue that the second-lien holders should write down their holdings, take their losses, and get out of the way so troubled homeowners -- free of junior-lien debt obligations -- will have a chance to stay in their homes. Investors, after all, want homeowners to stay in their homes so they can continue getting paid; a foreclosed home rarely results in a profit to investors. Megabanks, thus, should reduce the amount borrowers owe them on those junior liens, argue investors, economics, consumer advocates and mortgage bond analysts.
[..] the big banks that own that junior lien debt aren't going to cut mortgage principal and take losses on their holdings without a fight, as emphasized by JP Morgan Chase's Lowman in his remarks. "Realistically, as the process winds through, those second [liens] are going to get wiped out," White said. "[The banks are] just in denial about that." The problem is so huge -- $448 billion huge -- that if the banks were to write down their positions and take the appropriate losses, some think it could necessitate a second bailout. But until those homes are actually sold in a forced sale -- like a foreclosure sale -- the banks can keep pretending their holdings are worth more than they really are, White said.
"I guess the banks would rather keep getting those monthly payments," he said. "And if they can get payments for another six months to a year, they figure, why not? "The problem with that logic is if the home is foreclosed, the second lien is going to go away,"[..]
Since nearly all mortgage modifications involve homeowners who are likely to default, investors argue that the second-lien holders should write down their holdings, take their losses, and get out of the way so troubled homeowners -- free of junior-lien debt obligations -- will have a chance to stay in their homes. Investors, after all, want homeowners to stay in their homes so they can continue getting paid; a foreclosed home rarely results in a profit to investors. Megabanks, thus, should reduce the amount borrowers owe them on those junior liens, argue investors, economics, consumer advocates and mortgage bond analysts.
[..] the big banks that own that junior lien debt aren't going to cut mortgage principal and take losses on their holdings without a fight, as emphasized by JP Morgan Chase's Lowman in his remarks. "Realistically, as the process winds through, those second [liens] are going to get wiped out," White said. "[The banks are] just in denial about that." The problem is so huge -- $448 billion huge -- that if the banks were to write down their positions and take the appropriate losses, some think it could necessitate a second bailout. But until those homes are actually sold in a forced sale -- like a foreclosure sale -- the banks can keep pretending their holdings are worth more than they really are, White said.
"I guess the banks would rather keep getting those monthly payments," he said. "And if they can get payments for another six months to a year, they figure, why not? "The problem with that logic is if the home is foreclosed, the second lien is going to go away,"[..]
Another round of bail-outs? Well, yes please, but we can wait till November, and we’ll get by on the 0% borrowing and 5% lending back to the government scheme. For now, that is.
Whether it’s a priest molesting your kid, or an elected representative molesting yours and your kid's future welfare, it's, down the line, not that much of a difference, is it?
Yeah, the stock markets are up, S$P 500 crossed 1200, Hurrah and Hallelujah. But guys, one more time, that S$P 1200 number is 100% dependent on the fact that Washington has thrown YOUR money into the casino pit. That’s why there's happy traders out there, that’s why there’s pundits and TV stations declaring victory over the recession. Without your money, 90% of Wall Street would be a ghost street. And instead of insisting on payback, Obama lets JPMorgan declare a new spring with a $3.3 billion profit, without demanding your $41 billion back first. Even though JPMorgan would have been a dead duck in the polluted shallow water without your money. Is that what you elected him to do?
I’m thinking the politicians in Washington have the idea that they can do with as much of your money as they want whatever they see fit to do with it, including furthering their own careers, and that they’ve completely lost sight of who pays for all that. And I’m wondering where the difference lies between a priest abusing your confidence and a politician doing the same. Maybe it’s time to make up your own mind for a change, and simply get out of the game on all ends.
Comment