WHY DO WE CALL THEM BANKS?

MOST POPULAR ARTICLES

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

EDITOR’S NOTE: Wiley makes a very good point and one which ought to be considered strategically when referring to these entities in court, in articles, pleadings, memos etc. By conceding that they acted as banks, we grant them credibility they don’t deserve. Many of the entities are not even financial institutions in the true sense of the words. Many of them never did any lending and take no deposits. They were brokers, which is the most favorable way of describing the loan originator that pretender to be the lender at closing. The Banks didn’t lend any money in these securitized deals — they brokered it through conduits and in many cases never even handled the money much less funded the loan.

It would be wise to take Wiley’s advice. He is getting a lot of traction in St Louis.

They’re Not Banks – Introducing the Money Changers

As we think about how to attack the never-ending fraud brought by the financial sector, I realized something that had been brewing in my brain for some time. We sometimes overlook the power of words and their utility in a battle.

The thought came to me when I *had* to get something with one of my kids and we were forced to go to Wal-Mart. As I walked into that fluorescent behemoth blur, here was my thought.

Wal-Mart sells groceries, but it’s not a grocery store. It sells hardware, but it’s not a hardware store. It sells clothes, but it’s not a clothes store. What is it?

It’s a Wal-Mart. It is sui generis. Wal-Mart has traits from other businesses, but it has morphed into its own creation. We grew up knowing and identifying the places we went by what they sold and we still tend to want to think of things in this way. But they’re not that way anymore.

This sounds simple, but think of its applications in our context.

We have allowed Bank of America and Citi and Chase and all the other grotesque Molochs to call themselves banks. THEY’RE NOT.

They are no more banks than Wal-Mart is a grocery store. It may sell groceries, but what we have come to know and love from a grocery store has been surgically removed from Wal-Mart.

Same thing here. Bank of America is not a bank; it is a global financial monster who may happen to provide some banking services.

“Bank” is still a word in the American lexicon that connotes safety and security. It’s money in the bank, we say. Take it to the bank, we say, meaning that something is sure.

And there are still banks, ones who know their customers, hold their own notes and act in “bank-like” ways. Those are entities we generally don’t have much problem with. They may not always act like we want them to, but they are not involved in the whole-sale fraud that our adversaries are.

They didn’t act as banks in these transactions. They bundled the money and sold it, and now they act as bill collectors. That doesn’t make them a bank any more than selling a cup of coffee would make McDonald’s a coffee house.

They’re not banks. We should quit giving them the benefit of this positive connotation. I am fully convinced that part of our problem in explaining this to the American public is that they are used to not questioning bankers and doctors. They need to know that these aren’t bankers.

We need a new term. Financial machine? Financial monster? Money changers? We need something to use to distinguish them from traditional banking, and something that emphasizes their role in this situation.

I’m going to suggest “Money Changers.” I’m not calling them banks anymore. They don’t deserve it.

Posted by Dale Wiley

 

17 Responses

  1. We call them banks because scumbag was already taken!

  2. I love so many of these comments. I call it the unknown”John Doe Lender ” in my case. I dont call the bank a bank at all. I call it just about everything bad but a bank. Bank has become a bad word to us all. Not a trusting name. Kind of like the clown in horror book, I can not think of his name. We all trusted clowns and now they make children cry after that book. I always see a bad spookie guy, instead of a funny clown after Steven or Steve something thriller book. So sad. A lot of people see a bank the same way now and tell me to go to a credit union, which i was years ahead of them doing just that. I have hated banks for a long time and have considered them to be legal banksters way before it caught on.

  3. Lets hope this new law Obama failed to veto actually does some good instead of the harm it can do, and the real terrorist are put in jail without a trial. And you know whom the terrorist are! The pretender banks! The worst terrist in American history..

  4. I have been wondering why they call them banks myself. I have called them predator defendants and predator debt collectors and thieves. Not banks.

  5. Money Changers for sure !

  6. Don’t forget “money launderers.” Pimps is good though.

    Yeah, they masquerade as banks. Their advertising supports that.
    Just like insurance companies. All designed to milk our pocketbooks.
    Banks operate under the protection of the government, OCC, FDIC, and etc., under the guise of “regulations.” Otherwise, we’d see them as just plain crooks.

    Tellers will become IRS agents, no? The IRS is a bank, right?
    And a Puerto Rican trust. I’ll bet the other three-letters are banks, too.

    Obviously someone learned eons ago that people like to feel safe and secure and used that game to their own ends. Hence, social “security,” and all that. Terrorist “Homeland Security” Acts in the name of “safety.”
    And even “securitize!”

    I am so glad we are waking up to this nightmare so we can get on with something real.

    Good article. Thanks.

  7. @liesisallthey tell , just have someone forge your name on a personal check for the entire unpaid principal balance, plus arrears; if any. When they go to cash it – tell them it must have been a forgery, so just apply it to the Note and we can work it all out with the Judge.

  8. What irks me is that the Taxpayer is forced to pay the premiums for a private insurance company (The FDIC) to socialize private banking losses and exists merely to dump industry waste on our laps.

    Where are the indictments?

  9. Dale, although ultimately they are transactional, conduit, distributors, etc, they get the term “bank” from regulators, not themselves.

    For example: “Band-Aid” is a brand name from a product distributed and manufactured by Johnson & Johnson. Although the product is in actuality and adhesive bandage, we all call them band aid due to the overwhelming marketing and branding approach. The other products sold as adhesive bandages are called just that, and they cheaper than the band-aid brand. I still call them band-aids regardless if they are not actually the band-aid brand. It all transpires from learned human nature and subliminal discipline through media.

    In fact, with the repeal of “Glass Steagal”, I stopped referring to banks as banks in commentary or business with that specific title. I call them what they truly are and how they see themselves, as: Financial Service Companies.

    For convenience purposes, let’s for a moment forget that what they call themselves is a problem and that the actual structure of these institutions is what we find alarming. All of these different subsidiaries are wholly owned or are set up as special purpose entities merely to distribute debt to a pool of investors. The fact that a bank holding company can now perform investment banking services direct is what we should find alarming. That was the whole reason for Glass Steagal, separate customer deposits from the proprietary trading aspect of an investment bank (casino) verse commercial, consumer facilitation transactions.

    That Goldman Sachs, Morgan, GMAC Finance, AMEX etc.. were permitted to structure as bank holding companies simply to keep their leveraged assets in the game is the end all.

    Notice the balance sheet entry that BAC made which places consumer deposits as assets on derivative contracts. The FDIC will have to pay out the cronies / counter parties under the assumption of protecting deposits when they finally figure an avenue to unwind BAC and break it up. They are insolvent and so is Citi, and they are only open today through the stroke of a pen versus prudent and responsible operation. Take further Notice they are already transferring all of the assets, debt, servicing back to the National Associations, or bank holding Company.

    This is being done by the lovely financial community so they can hold us hostage again in the future, just like Hank Greenberg did at AIG, when they should have been shuttered. We need to polish the Volker Rule and bring financial service firms reserves in line with Basel iii now. The FRC has committed the United States of America to an even uglier path than World Policeman. We are now the lender of last resort for the entire globe because their own government or monetary union disallows them from mass printing currency. The EU has collapsed and the rest of this media crap is a mirage to disguise the socialization of global banking losses.

    International Currency during 2012, dollar dropped as world peg and reserve by 2015, and the real austerity and pain kicks in for America.

    So, as you can see, the relevance of what the “banks” should be termed is in all actuality irrelevant. They do not even rise to the level, designation or respect to be call; Money Changers since they do not even perform that function any longer. They should be called the Distributors. At least a money changer would take some risk by converting a commodity into a paper commodity on exchange rates. Today the world accepts the dollar peg or we unleash the most expensive and creative military force in the world down upon you. You are either in line, or replaced with a figure who falls in line. You know the ole global saying; You Will Accept Dollars For Oil. Just wait until we can’t print any longer.

  10. I believe the correct term is PIMP not bank !

  11. my signature on my note is forged by wells fargo so now what

  12. What is very interesting is that if you submit a FOIA request, (Freedom of Information Act) to to the FDIC and you do not have an entity that is insured by the FDIC in the ponzi scheme on your obligation or what should have been a loan, the FDIC will not have any records unless the entity went out of business and is (insured by the FDIC.) This makes plenty of cents for these “Squids”.

  13. Agreed. Any counter-claims in a non-judicial state should name “unknown alleged lenders 1 – 100”.

  14. Really great points made by author, editor and comments. We open our mouths, or take pen to paper and prejudice ourselves with admissions and characterizations that we wouldn’t make if we thought about it

  15. Why do we use ANY of these terms:
    Loan
    mortgage
    lender
    borrower

    The very language has us tacitlly admitting things that aren’t true, real, correct, or even vaguely descriptive of what we’re talking about. Yet we have to use those terms, at least at first, for people to even know what we’re talking about. Maybe we should say/write “quote” before each questionable term we’re forced to use, i.e., the quote bank quote loaned me some quote money…

  16. How about depraved idiot sticks or Mighty Morphan Money Maniacs.You still gotta call a spade a spade and a hoe is still a garden tool.These tools need to be put out of business ans no amount of name changes is going to change that.

  17. Neil- re: “banks”. I have made this point repeatedly, as I (and you) have also derided the term “lender”. They are neither. It galls me to see for sale signs with “bank owned”. If nothing else, this is a Truth-In-Advertising violation. As is a “credit bid” by a non-creditor. I made this point just the other day regarding people asking “Well who’s your lender?” or “Who’s your bank?”.
    If your “lender” went bankrupt, then they are not a bank, as banks don’t go bankrupt, they go into FDIC receivership. (thanks to Maher Soliman for repeating that again and again). And, you get a “loan” from a bank, and until we get to the bottom of this, we really don’t know what we got. ANONYMOUS rightly points out, repeatedly, that all refinances were, apart from a meager cash-out at closing, simply the churning of defaulted debt, bought at pennies on the dollar, by debt collectors, and unsecured. Any thoughts on the above? Thanks for keeping it coming.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: