Fitch cuts Ratings on Goldman, Deutsche, five other large banks


COMBO Title and Securitization Search, Report, Documents, Analysis & Commentary CLICK HERE TO GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION REPORT

EDITOR’S COMMENT: Why would regulatory challenges be a threat to the financial viability of the Banks? answer: because the challenges they are talking about drive a stake though the heart of lies perpetuated by those Banks. the result is that they could be required to tell the truth. If they tell the truth, then they have a double whammy — (1) they don’t actually have the assets they report on their balance sheet which would immediately put them in violation of reserve requirements causing the immediate takeover and dissolution of those Banks and (2) they have a huge liability which is also not properly reflected on their balance sheet for damages and buybacks and potentially punitive damages for lying to investors and borrowers. Overstated assets and understated liabilities would place the Banks in negative net worth position and that would cause them to collapse.

This would actually be more of a change in our political system than in our financial system, notwithstanding the scare tactics of TBTF (too big to fail), which is nothing more than a living lie. Dissolution of the mega banks would shift Market power back to the more than 7,000 OTHER banks, and cut the amount of Bank money in politics by about 95% thus breaking the Bank oligopoly. A more decentralised Banking system would result in more intelligent loans being available to credit worthy start-ups and expansion of small businesses, who account for more than 70% of all U. S. Employment. Employment would rise because new jobs would be created. As more people went back to work, more taxes would be paid, thus giving Federal, State and local governments desperately needed tax revenue.

So overall the rating agencies are in agreement: the Mega Banks may be in for hard times. The only reason it isn’t a certainty is they don’t know if the public has the political will to kick the incumbents out of office and restore “order” to our political and economic system.

Fitch cuts Goldman, Deutsche, five other large banks <>

17 Responses

  1. “The more deeply I am looking into what is going on and the less sense it makes, in the big scheme of things”

    Im afraid I take the opposite view—the more i see the better i understand–and what I see and understand is not good.

    The end game here is to push as much of the fault for securitization of inadequately underwritten loans onto FANNIE_FREDDIE. Bad underwriting we know means blatantly predatory–false pumped appraisals, negative amortization, illussory teaser rates, falsified [by brokers] loan applications—-steep fees for the worst loans in oder to trigger forfeitures of homes to servicers rather than ongoing payouts to investors. I probably missed some things but that pretty well sums it I think.

    So WALL STREET that conceived this now asserts the only solution is to terminate the great evil machines FREDDIE and FANNIE. The evil that needs corrected per wall street? Fixed rate conventional loans for homebuyers. Now they are after NEWT for supporting these two FOR THAT SINGLE PURPOSE. Did newt approve the bad underwriting—concealed as deeply as it was–i doubt it—in fact it seems that the part he saw was the pumped prices and said stop.

    So wall Street today needs more dumb counterparties to bet that interest rates wont rise ——-homeowners with ARMs fit the bill. Does anybody with any experience in life actually believe that printing 50% of all US $$$$ spent by the govt , printing all the defense $$$$, printing $1 trillion europe ECB bailout $$$ —printing bank bailout $$$$———etc print print whir whir —that all this could have any other result but huge jumps in inflation and ultimately interest rates?

    The investment bankers need another set of big bets to take—and another group of fools to step up that fixed roulette wheel. There are still a few people out there with assets and no wall street investment banker can sleep at night while there is still money to be stolen–ask Don Corzini.

  2. Come to remember…

    All those C-rated insurance companies I was just alluding to ended up in “rehab” for a while and in liquidation when rehab didn’t perform its magic. Individual states created a pool among all the surviving ones during rehab to make sure that all the losses would be paid on any policy already underwritten and, while in rehab, nothing further was being underwritten. It was a fairly swift process.

    So, here we are, with banks that should have been placed in rehab as early as 2007 when the S^*%! hit the fan and could have been properly liquidated by now.

    Isn’t there any mercy killing for beasts’ prolonged agony anymore? Don’t we know how to give the ax anymore?

    Damnit! Whatever happened to survival of the fittest?

  3. Those ratings seem more like a joke than anything else.

    Not one of those entities is worthy of any rating above a high D, possibly a low C if we want to be generous.

    In my years as a now-reformed adjuster, I have worked for a number of insurance companies and I can clearly remember a few of them being downgraded to C for improper and inadequate reserving (too high or too low reserves, which either way impact on shareholders investments).

    Here we have banks and financial institutions, guilty of demonstrated and proven multiple frauds and the resulting collapse of worldwide economies, owing trilions to shareholders, investors, taxpayers, governments or anything they could possibly have gone after for a few bucks… and they’re still getting an A. How can we possibly explain to our school kids what getting an “A” in anything means when they hear that A-rated banks caused mom and dad to lose their job and their house? That “A” is the reflection of a job well-done and as close to excellence as one can get?

    The more deeply I am looking into what is going on and the less sense it makes, in the big scheme of things. What basis is used to give ratings when their is no livable economy left to speak of?

    WHAT AM I MISSING??? Where the hell is excellence?

  4. I can see a number of rational-sounding words in this and a “sort of” description of a forensic trail, but with no disrespect the whole thing seems a bit run on and dislocated. I would prefer to attribute this to speedy writing rather than lack of understanding–but I for one would prefer a restatement in paragraph form laid out in a timeline format so I can follow the chain of events and bases for them that you describe.

  5. expert wintess and not an attorney and not intended for legal advice. contact your local bar for more information

  6. . The Mortgage or Deed of Trust is assigned from the Originator directly to the Trustee for the Securitized Trust.

    NOT TRUE !

    2. The Mortgage or Deed of Trust is assigned months and sometimes years after the date of the origination of the underlying mortgage note.


    3. The Mortgage or Deed of Trust is assigned from the initial aggregator directly to the Securitized Trust with no assignments to the Depositor or the Sponsor for the Trust.




  7. Reuben

    Mers corp. is part of the Purchase and Sale scheme and fits the IRS code for a nominee . We therefore leave it alone.

    Your loan is sold we know that under strict accounting rules. It is then converted to paid in capital and shares held by the common stock holder. It is the diluted to ten times a multiple for good will. If that is not enough the certificates of deposit are then pledged with a outside Bank and not an NA. This moves the principal debtor into the role of a back seat and guarantor.

    Attack Mers and you throw away the greatest argument you have – Mers does have standing –and can fulfill a five year bond at time of liquidation . The problem is you never granted MERS or any nominee that right to represent your interest in a claim upon a default of the principal debtor. Mers Corp is repented by a debt collector for a loan you’re not held responsible.

    And you are writing a QWR alleging contra evidence against the best argument you can bring into court .

    Re: Jones Loan No. 01-00000 for QWR

    Dear Counsel

    Thank you for writing to me in reference to the correspondence dated January 1st 2011. Your obviously are not aware that the outstanding balance due is in fact affirmed as an amount held in default bby your client.

    The outstanding amount due was charged and the election to write off the amount you referenced is subject to collection claim. Your office is engaged directly or indirectly under the indemnification provided by the FDIC Loss Risk Share Program for member thrifts. By the agencies own admission your pursuing a claim for charge off to an interest in equitable title for shares of a Special Purpose Vehicle.

    By the federal appointed receivers own admission the charges and write down are for claims and not an interest, for converted mortgages transferred into the REMICS paid in capital account. The transfer of mortgages is deemed a novation and the common stock shares are distributed to voting rights and no more than a 10% ownership.

    If this is not enough the common stock is then diluted to up to 10 times goodwill.

    The capitation efforts of the FDIC fail under the Safe Harbor provisions the FDIC failed to remove from a borrower defenses back last October. This is substantive for the agency and receivers election to pursue collections efforts and for engaging your services. However your service are SOLEY for purposes’ of publication under the FDCPA.

    I therefore ask you to consider my affirmation and support for the amount due outstanding as a balance owed by a FDIC member Bank for uninsured “depositor” consideration and liabilities held under a counter party agreement. Whereas the counterparties agreement is to a five year zero coupon bond , held in default and subject to US government subrogation claims, I elect to affirm your request for determining the validity of the subject matter debt.
    The scheme which levered American homes such as mine is in fact the pursuit of claim I am also pursuing alongside your efforts.

    The mortgage I received was not only derecognized under FAS 140 and GAAP rules under the FASB pronouncements and codified rules but also raises a question of how your client achieved “bare and legal” title to my homes equity .

    I do therefore affirm the balance due as a mortgage loan I was given and lost to the structured financing scheme for raising capital under an alternative US treasury program. I affirm the balance due is for a conditional contract upon which the consumer household cannot be held to a condition subsequent, have been placed in the role of a “Guarantor” , for divested mortgage into shares and from the dilution of shares into usurious Goodwill and then pledged for liquidity purposes, all so parties to the transaction could stack debt upon debt or allow “Peter to pay Paul” in a classic ponzi financing charade.

    In my affirming your declaration request for balance outstanding, let me state the obligation in reference may not be my personal obligation and is in fact unenforceable as a secured debt.

    It does stand however as an obligation owed by another party.


    Joe Lunch Bucket ,

    Cc MersCorp in Joinder of Consumer Claims

  8. Extremely touching letter from Atty Thomas Cox to nationwide foreclosure defense attorneys, asking them to step up to the plate and do more to help homeowners.

    The guy came out of retirement to volunteer his time and expertise and just recently realized that the judicial system will not do much to inititae change and bring justice.

    If you agree with him and have a few bucks, support Mandelman.

  9. […] Filed under: bubble, CDO, CORRUPTION, currency, Eviction, foreclosure, GTC | Honor, Investor, Mortgage, securities fraud Tagged: bankruptcy, BOA, borrower, Chase, Citi, countrywide, Deutsch, disclosure, Fitch, foreclosure, foreclosure defense, foreclosure offense, foreclosures, fraud, Goldman, JPM, LOAN MODIFICATION, modification, quiet title, ratings, rescission, RESPA, securitization, TILA audit, trustee, WEISBAND Livinglies’s Weblog […]

  10. To provide a stabil record.I insert the whole text of the article re downgrade. I think it may be that the threat to banks is directly or derivatively related to the failure to pay debts absent aid by several peripheral european nations. Italian bonds at 80-90Cents in soft illiquid market. The regulation that is bothering them is not eminating from the various US miniscule challenges such as the latest joke OCC review. HARP-HAMP-OCC —all cruel political cynacism.
    The thing they fear is the core European nations and the injured periphperals applying long arm statutes to reach their head office players —like a standing warrant for blankfein and corzine in europe –outside London anyway.

    Maybe use somithing like Mossad to go seize them and return them for trial before the international court of justice.
    Fri Dec 16, 2011 10:12am EST

    (Reuters) – Fitch Ratings, the third-biggest of the major credit rating agencies, on Thursday downgraded Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and five other large banks based in Europe and the United States, citing “increased challenges” in the financial markets.

    Fitch cut long-term ratings on Barclays Plc and Credit Suisse AG by two notches to ‘A’ from ‘AA-‘.

    The agency cut by one notch its long-term ratings on Bank of America Corp, BNP Paribas, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank AG and Goldman Sachs Group.

    The financial market challenges the banks face “result from both economic developments as well as a myriad of regulatory changes,” Fitch said in an announcement issued shortly after regular market hours in New York.

    In a separate announcement about the downgrade of Citigroup, Fitch cited “policy momentum” against using taxpayer money to support banks during a crisis.

    Fitch’s actions follow downgrades by Standard & Poor’s of several major banks at the end of last month. S&P’s moves came as part of an overhaul of its ratings methods to incorporate lessons learned in the financial crisis. Moody’s also issued downgrades recently.

    Jerry Dubrowski, a spokesman for Bank of America, which has had ratings cut by all three agencies, said in an email, “This decision is driven more by concerns about the global economy than the specific credit quality of Bank of America. We continue to maintain strong liquidity levels and to build capital.”

    Fitch on Thursday also affirmed its long-term ‘A’ ratings on JPMorgan Chase & Co, Morgan Stanley and UBS AG, as well as its ‘A+’ rating on Societe Generale.

    (Reporting by David Henry and Walter Brandimarte in New York and Rick Rothacker in Charlotte, North Carolina; Editing by Steve Orlofsky and Richard Chang)

  11. Oh, and Ann, thanks for posting the Gardner stuff. He’s always got the goods.

  12. O.Max Gardner’s 65 tips for fraudulent documents:
    I went over the list, I have 31 of them on my docs. Does that mean I have some type of case here? Please comment-

  13. My remark about the possible poor argument came from a law site here, not from me. Don’t want to offend anyone….I know it’s tough out there….

  14. MN just took another step into the way back machine, as if Jackson v. Mers wasn’t Cro-Magnon enough.

    In what would appear to be poorly argued pro se, and banker removed to Federal to boot. It says Minnesota law doesn’t require the bank to hold the note and the mortgage.

  15. Max Gardner’s Top Tips for Fake Mortgage Documents

    Max Gardner’s Top Tips for Fake Mortgage Documents
    Written by: Oliver Max Gardner III

    Posted 2 days ago. 8 helpful votes, 0 comments

    1. The Mortgage or Deed of Trust is assigned from the Originator directly to the Trustee for the Securitized Trust.

    2. The Mortgage or Deed of Trust is assigned months and sometimes years after the date of the origination of the underlying mortgage note.

    3. The Mortgage or Deed of Trust is assigned from the initial aggregator directly to the Securitized Trust with no assignments to the Depositor or the Sponsor for the Trust.

    4. The Mortgage or Deed of Trust is executed, dated or assigned in a manner inconsistent with the mandatory governing rules of Section 2.01 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

    5. The assignment of the Mortgage or Deed of Trust is executed by a legal entity that was no longer in existence on the date the document was executed.

    6. The assignment of the mortgage or Deed of Trust is executed by an entity whose name is different than the entity named in the original document (i.e., National City Bank Corporation in lieu of ABC Corporation as a division of National City Bank).

    7. The assignment was executed by a party pursuant to a Power of Attorney but no Power of Attorney is attached to the instrument or filed with the instrument or otherwise recorded with local land registry.

    8. The mortgage note is allegedly transferred in a single document along with the Mortgage or Deed of Trust (i.e., “Assignment of the Note and Mortgage”). You cannot “assign” a mortgage note. You can only “negotiate” a mortgage note under Article 3 of the UCC.

    9. The assignment is executed by a party who claims to be an “attorney in fact” for the assignor.

    10. The assignment is notarized by a notary in Dakota County, Minnesota.

    11. The assignment is notarized by a notary in Hennepin County, Minnesota.

    12. The assignment is notarized by a notary in Duval County, Florida.

    13. The assignment is executed by an officer or secretary of MERS.

    14. The assignment is notarized by a secretary or paralegal employed by the attorney for the mortgage servicer.

    15. The assignment is executed or notarized by an employee of MR Default Services, Promiss Solutions LLC, National Default Exchange, LP, LOGS Financial Services, or some similar third-party.

    16. The endorsement on the note is actually on an allonge affixed to the note. In most states, an allonge cannot be used if there is a sufficient amount of room at the “foot” or the “bottom” of the original note for the endorsement.

    17. The allonge is not “permanently” affixed to the original note. The term permanent excludes the use of staples and tape and as a result you must use a sold fastener such as glue. Allonges are commonly referred to “in the business” as “tear-off fraud papers.”

    18. The note proffered in evidence is not the original but a copy of the “certified copy” provided to the debtors at the closing.

    19. The note is endorsed in blank with no transfer and delivery receipts. It is fine to endorse a note in blank, in which case it becomes “bearer” paper under the UCC. However, in order to prove a true sale from the Sponsor to the Depositor you must have written delivery and transfer receipts and proof of pay outs and pay in transactions.

    20. The note proffered in evidence is not endorsed at the foot of the note or on an affixed allonge.

    21. The assignment of the mortgage or deed of trust post-dates the filing of the court pleading.

    22. The assignment of the mortgage or deed of trust is executed after the filing of the court pleadings but claims to be “legally effective” before the filing. For example, the deed of trust is assigned on June 1, 2009, with an effective date of May 1, 2007.

    23. The parties who executed the assignment and who notarized the signature are in fact the same parties.

    24. The signor states that he or she is an “agent” for the executing entity.

    25. The signor states that he or she is an “attorney in fact” for the executing entity.

    26. The signor states that he or she is an employee of the executing entity but claims to have custody and control of the records of the entity.

    27. The signor of the document makes statements about the status of the mortgage debt based on his or her review of the “records of the plaintiff” or the “records of the moving party.”

    28. The proponent of the original note files an Affidavit of Lost Note.

    29. The signor claims that the allegations in the court pleading are correct but the assignment of the mortgage and/or delivery and transfer of the note occurs after the law suit or the motion for relief from stay was filed.

    30. One or more of the operative documents in the case is signed by one of the attorneys for the mortgage servicer.

    31. The default payment history filed in the case is prepared by the attorney for the mortgage servicer or a member of his or her staff.

    32. The affidavit filed in support of legal fees is not signed by an attorney with the firm involved in the case.

    33. The name of one or more of the signors is stamped on the document.

    34. The document is a form with standard “fill-in-the-blanks” for names and amounts.

    35. The signature of one or more parties on the document is not legible and looks like something a three year old might have done.

    36. The document is dated and signed years before the document is actually filed with the register of real estate documents or deeds or mortgages.

    37. The proffered document has the word C O P Y stamped on or embedded in the document.

    38. The document is executed by a notary in Denton County, Texas.

    39. The document is executed by a notary in Collin County, Texas.

    40. The document includes a legend “Hold for” a named law firm after recording.

    41. The document was drafted by a law firm representing the mortgage servicer in the pending case.

    42. The document includes any type of bar code that was not added by the local register or filing clerk for such instruments.

    43. The document includes a reference to an “instrument number.”

    44. The document includes a reference to a “form number.”

    45. The document does not include any reference to a Master Document Custodian.

    46. The document is not authenticated by any officer or authorized agent of a Master Document Custodian.

    47. The paragraph numbers on the document are not consistent (the last paragraph on page one is 7 and the first paragraph on page two starts with number 9).

    48. The endorsement of the note is not at the “foot” or “bottom” of the last page of the note. For example, a few states allow an endorsement on the back of the last page of the note but the majority requires it at the foot of the note.

    49. The document purports to assign the mortgage or the deed of trust to the Trustee for the Securitized Trust before the Trust was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. This type of registration is normally referred to as a “shelf registration.”

    50. The document purports to transfer the note to the Trustee for the Securitized Trust before the date the Trust provides for the origination date of instruments in the Trust. The Prospectus, the Prospectus Supplement and the Pooling and Servicing Agreement will clearly state that the pool of notes includes those originated between date X and date Y.

    51. The document purports to transfer the note to the Trustee for the Securitized Trust after the cut-off date for the creating of such instruments for the Trust.

    52. The origination date on the mortgage note is not within the origination and cut-off dates provided for the by terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

    53. The “Affidavit of a Lost Note” is not filed by the Master Document Custodian for the Trust but by the Servicer or some other third-party.

    54. The document is signed by a “bank officer” without any designation of the office held by the said officer.

    55. The affidavit includes the following language on the bottom of each page: “This is an attempt to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose.”

    56. The document is signed by a person who identifies himself or herself as a “media supervisor” for the proponent.

    57. The document is signed by a person who identifies himself or herself as a “media coordinator” for the proponent.

    58. The document is signed by a person who identifies himself or herself as a “legal coordinator” for the movant.

    59. The date of the signature on the document and the date the signature was notarized are not the same.

    60. The parties who signed the assignment and who notarized the signature are located in different states or counties.

    61. The transferor and the transferee have the same physical address including the same street and post office box numbers.

    62. The assignor and the assignee have the same physical address including the same street and post office box numbers.

    63. The signor of the document states that he or she is acting “solely as nominee” for some other party.

    64. The document refers to a power of attorney but no power of attorney is attached.

    65. The document bears the following legend: “This is not a certified copy.”

  16. Neil, did you listen/read to Max Keiser and Yves Smith on re-hypothetication (hyper-hypothetication). Zero hedge covered the topics also yesterday.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: