Simon Johnson on Business Model of Lie More

Featured Products and Services by The Garfield Firm


LivingLies Membership – If you are not already a member, this is the time to do it, when things are changing.

For Customer Service call 1-520-405-1688

Editor’s Comment:  

Anyone who is curious why I named this blog LivingLies will have all their questions answered by this well-articulated article by Simon Johnson, Chief economist of the World Bank, author of 13 Bankers, and the main writer for http://www.baseline Johnson is first among the world of economists who instantly knew the severity of the culture of lying and deception at the TBTF banks. He is joined in these views by the Financial Times, normally rabidly pro-bank and no less than the Governor of the Bank of England who apparently coined the phrase “Lie More” to replace what was the only index that mattered in the world of finance and bond trading.

The consequences of this culture of lying will be laid bare in the weeks and months and years to come. But as Johnson points out, the days are over when anyone trusts a bank or bank statement. Representations of bank officials once considered as good as gold or what used to be called good as Libor, are now going to be subject of scrutiny and will no doubt reveal a pattern of deceit even deeper than thes we already know about the mortgage meltdown and the trading scam resulting from intentionally manipulating Libor — the gold standard of all indexes.

Lie-More As A Business Model

By Simon Johnson

On Monday, Bob Diamond – the CEO of Barclays, one of the largest banks in the world – was supposedly the indispensable man, with his supporters claiming he was the only person who could see that global megabank through a growing scandal.  On Tuesday morning Mr. Diamond resigned and the stock market barely blinked – in fact, Barclays’ stock was up 0.3 percent.  As Charles de Gaulle supposedly remarked, “the cemeteries are full of indispensable men.”

Mr. Diamond’s fall was spectacular and complete.  It was also entirely appropriate.

Dennis Kelleher of Better Markets – a financial reform advocacy group – summarized the situation nicely in an interview with the BBC World Service on Tuesday.  The controversy that brought down Mr. Diamond had to do with deliberate and now acknowledged deception by Barclays’ staff with regard to the data they reported for Libor – the London Interbank Offered Rate (with the abbreviation pronounced Lie-Bore).  Mr. Kelleher was blunt: the issue in question is “Lie More” not Libor.  (See also this post on his blog, making the point that this impacts credit transactions with a face value of at least $800 trillion.)

Mr. Kelleher’s words may seem harsh, but they are exactly in line with the recently articulated editorial position of the Financial Times (FT) – not a publication that is generally hostile to the banking sector.  In a scathing editorial last weekend (“Shaming the banks into better ways,” June 28th), the typically nuanced FT editorial writers blasted behavior at Barclays and nailed the broader issue in what it called “a long-running confidence trick”:

“The Barclays affair may lack the spice of some recent banking scandals, involving as it does the rather dry “crime” of misreporting interest rates.  But few have shone such an unsparing light on the rotten heart of the financial system.”

The editorial was exactly right with regard to the cultural problem – within that Barclays it had become acceptable or perhaps even encouraged to provide false information.  It underemphasized, however, the importance of incentives in creating that culture.  The employees of Barclays were doing what they were paid to do – and the latest indications from the company are that none of their bonuses will now be “clawed back”.

Martin Wolf, senior economics columnist at the FT and formerly a member of the UK’s Independent Banking Commission, sees to the core issue:

“banks, as presently constituted and managed, cannot be trusted to perform any publicly important function, against the perceived interests of their staff. Today’s banks represent the incarnation of profit-seeking behaviour taken to its logical limits, in which the only question asked by senior staff is not what is their duty or their responsibility, but what can they get away with.”

This matters because, “Trust is not an optional extra in banking, it is, as the salience of the word “credit” to this industry implies, of the essence.”

As the FT editorial put it, “The bankers involved have betrayed an important public trust – that of keeping an accurate public record of the key market rates that are used to value contracts worth trillions of dollars”.

In the words of Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, “the idea that my word is my Libor is dead.”  Translation: No one will believe large banks again when their executives claim they could have borrowed at a particular interest rate – we will need to see actual transaction data, i.e., what they actually paid.  Presumably there should be similar skepticism about other claims made by global megabanks, including whenever they plead that this or that financial reform – limiting their ability to take excessive risk and impose inordinate costs on society – will bring the economy to its knees.  It is all special pleading of one or another, mostly intended to rip off customers or taxpayers or, ideally perhaps, both.

Mr. Kelleher has the economics exactly right.  Global megabanks have an incentive to deceive customers, including both individuals and nonfinancial corporations.  Their size confers both market power and the political power needed to conceal the extent to which they are engage in economic fraud.  The lack of transparency in derivatives markets provides them with an opportunity to cheat, but the abuses are much wider – as the Libor scandal demonstrates.

The rip-off is not just for retail investors; chief financial officers of major corporations who should be up in arms.  Boards of directors and shareholders of companies that buy services from big banks should be asking much harder questions about all kinds of derivatives transactions – and who exactly is served by the terms of such agreements.

As Mr. Kelleher puts it on his blog,

“They like to call themselves “banks,” but they aren’t banks in any traditional sense. They are global behemoths that are not just too-big-to-fail, but also too-big-to-regulate and too-big-to-manage. Take JP Morgan Chase for example. It has a $2.35 trillion balance sheet, more than 270,000 employees worldwide, thousands of legal entities, 554 subsidiaries and, as proved by the recent trading losses in London, a CEO, CFO and management team that has no idea what is going on in their own bank.”

“Let’s hope for the sake of the global financial system, the global economy and taxpayers worldwide that Mr. Diamond’s resignation is the first of many. What is needed is a clean sweep of the executive offices of these too-big-to-fail banks, which are still being governed by the same business model as before the crisis: do whatever they can get away with to get the biggest paychecks as possible. (Remember, CEO Diamond paid himself 20 million pounds last year and was the UK banking leader insisting that everyone stop picking on the banks.)

Lie-more is just the latest example of why that all has to change and the sooner the better”





21 Responses

  1. […] Read more… Posted in Banks, MERS, News Around The Country, States « Buying U.S. Foreclosures: A Risky Business Registers of Deeds in Five NC Counties Take Issue with Fannie and Freddie’s Tax Exempt Status » You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. […]

  2. Libor Scandal May Cost Banks $35 Billion: Study

    “Relative to the size of the 16 banks at risk of lawsuits in the Libor scandal, $35 billion is chump change. But it will be another blow to the banks’ ability to hold enough capital to satisfy higher regulatory requirements in the wake of the financial crisis. And the damage the Libor scandal does to the sector’s ability to push back against regulations is priceless.”

  3. @dcbreidenbach

    I dunno, but if they can they should grab that liar Obama’s too. Sadly, even giving out the Nobel Peace Prize is now nothing more than a farce. I can’t think of anyone LESS deserving than a president who arbitrarily orders the deaths of Americans without due process, and orders an attack on a foreign nation without the approval of our congress. Not only does it fly in the face of logic to give this murderer a prize for Peace, killing people with drones is as cowardly as it gets, a disturbing embrace of secrecy, stealth and covert attacks, that are carried out with brutality. He embodies everything we don’t want in a president. Arrogance, emotional disconnect from the people, and an insatiable thirst for executive power. The last thing on his mind is peace.

  4. Sorry Neil. I thought my video links this morning were on point.

  5. The harsh reality is that Im not kidding—they were putting out reams of sustainable development plaaning in late 1990’s early 2000s—and then al Gore was vindicated by winning the Nobel Prize. The vision of the future is that you should move back into the heart of Atlanta and walk to work—-and be able to walk to your culture center and uplifting public works. and not make CO2 which was the #1 most important thing that Al Gore and his Brazilian ethanol and solar and natural gas clients believe is most important to their bottom line. Maybe if algore had been a little more interested in what was happening in the financial industry he was sworn to watch as VP—-and a little less on cattle flatulanc–maybe the situation would be different today. Can they clawback a Nobel Prize?

  6. None of those alternatives are viable for the masses of underemployed or unemployed Americans, who are lucky to have their 9 or ten year old car that’s finally paid for, (because they’re LIVING in it) or whose relative proximity to public transportation doesn’t permit taking the bus or train. They need their car to go get groceries and look for work. In the Atlanta area, a bicycle ride to town is twenty or more miles; depending on traffic it could take two hours.
    Drenched in the rain and frozen when it’s winter, these trips subject bike riders to multiple hardships and it’s dangerous to boot.
    I can’t think of a better example of the lack of alignment between the interests of the common man and the DOE. Government has become completely disconnected from the harsh realities people face daily. Government fat cats aren’t living in their cars, like millions of us are.

    It’s simply disgusting that our government feels the need to prop up the obviously criminal financial industry that has wreaked havoc on those of us that elected them and entrusted them.

  7. Any representative of this Administration Dept of Energy will cheerfully tell you that you have all sorts of choices —there is no monopoly just because JPM might come to control most gallons at one point in the chain or another. The new anti-trust standards apllied allow functionality competition–not merely product competition. what does this mean?
    You can buy a natural-gas conversion for your vehicle for only $5000
    You can use E-85 ethanol–
    You can use a plug in electric vehicle.
    You can use a bicycle–train–subway–walk

    The DOE and EPA see no harm in monopoly bt bankoilcos–even if but one or two–because you can still use the other more politically acceptable modes of transport. Monopoly pricing of petro-products is socially positive because the price will increase and you will be driven to lower cost more CO2 friendly transport modes. The oil industry has already become highly concentrated in various markets with 2-4 players being almost exclusively present in most markets—this feature–approaching monopoly marketing–that is the real draw for the big banks—-monoply markets are much more profitable and support a much more depedable level of bonus payouts.

  8. What’s it going to take for congress to wake up and realize that these Wall Street banks must be stripped of all loot and put in a neck noose?
    Chase has a criminal history that would fill up twenty forums. Now they are going to monopolize the oil industry? I guess when the rest of us can’t leave our neighborhoods and congress is forced to pay $400 for a tank of gas, they’ll wake up and smell the stench of what they are allowing to happen, failing to do anything about, and sentencing the people of this planet to. Why can’t they see? Granted they may get their news from CNN or Focks, but how can anyone fail to adequately grasp what happened with Barclays is going on in all of these banks; FINANCIAL CRIME that is destroying America in ever larger leaps and bounds? That crime is expanding to the oil industry, then the utilities, then sources of food, then man is pretty much done except for these psychopaths on Wall Street who originated in Brittain. They’ve been bent on destroying our country and our freedoms for centuries, and thanks to the idiots we have elected to represent our interests, they are getting there. The entire financial system has to go. Rescind the Federal Reserve Act and revoke the business licenses of all these entities and banks that are subsidiaries, too. Letting these people go scott free who have destroyed the lives of so many decent, hard working, productive people, uprooted 2.3 children from their homes, and put profits in the pockets of people who broke the law to get them has to stop. If congress continues to do nothing, then we must take the matter into our own hands and make a massive citizen’s arrest. We need to impeach Obama and round up the puppet masters who rule from the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Com. It’s these people who are behind the death of America, every bit as much as the TBTJ banks are.


    Banking Is a Criminal Industry Because Its Crimes Go Unpunished
    Posted: 07/16/2012 8:23 am

    by Charles Ferguson—Director of the Wall Street documentary ‘Inside Job’; Author of ‘Predator Nation’


    “…So, July 2012 really isn’t abnormal at all. The reason for this is very simple. Over the past two decades, the financial services industry has become a pervasively unethical and highly criminal industry, with massive fraud tolerated or even encouraged by senior management. But how did that happen?

    Well, deregulation helped, of course. But something else was far more important. It is the one critical factor that unites all of the episodes cited above, including those of this month. This critical unifying factor is the total number of criminal prosecutions of major firms and senior executives as a result of all of these crimes combined.

    And what is that number?


    Literally zero. A number that neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney shows the slightest interest in changing.”

  10. “And I really would like NAMES for the givers of such largess”

    There is a movie that has em all assembled –there are contempoaneous news articles—–it was a painful time—–decisions were made in a hurry to fix a problem that was caused by the faolure of several TBTF operations—-the problem was plugged by consolidated criminal ops with entites that were not involved in the home-lending larceny. they were up to other crap as it turns out.

    So we have a legacy system of super-concentrated financial entities routinely viloating antitrust rules, govt acquiescence so far.Extending to fuel—just an awful situation—bank-oil cos—cant get worse than that—

  11. to know that Goldman, Morgan stanley and JP Morgan are now the top traders in oil and gasoline in the US——-owning the inventories of several of the independent refiners—–and of course huge volumes on the water and in pipes,

    So they are demanding a carve out from the proposed Volker rules banning derivatives trading by banks —to allow their oil and fuel trading which now they say is a core business—they add that even if the rules banning paper trading of derivatives contracts come to apply –that they will still be huge traders with huge exposures because they own so many wet barrels—in storage–in pipes—and in tankers. Their argument is that since they have so much exposure to swings in the markets because they own wet bbls—that added exposure from paper contracts –ie bets—is really not effective to reduce their risk levels–so the purpose of the Volker rules has no effect on them.

    Of course the fact that they buy these “wet bbls” and the storage and shipping hardware with zero interest fed reserve loans has no relevance to this——–nothing anticompetitive—–just because all the traditional oil traders and refiners etc must go to these banks to borrow money on increasingly stringent terms in order to compete to buy the same bbls–thats irrelelevant. They need to have sizable interest rate premiums on loans to oil refiners etc because wow——that oil business is really risky what with price swings etc—-and after all its not like the oil refiners can just go borrow as much as they want at zero interest anytime they want to from a very cooperative and dependable lender like federal reserve

    so these banks say they are the best placed parties to own and provide wet bbls to the refining industry in the US because nobody else has a dependable source of financing—ie federal reserve

    Now of course pretty much any commodity or capital intensive operator is in the same shape as oil refiners——-so if these banks get away with taking control of the oil industry–in effect fixing prices—then iron copper, fertilizer, food, any of these would have the same arguments——basically the banks would be able to buy the commodities of the word with a syndicate and fix all prices

    i think they prefer the oil market because its so volatile—–a few dollars in the right place can get a missile fired at a tanker in the straits of hormuz off a dinghy—and the banks can make 5-10 dollars per bbl on tens of millions of bbls that they own—efiners and marketers just get a processing fee and handling fee for refining and distributing JP Morgans products—–now this gves new meanng to to big to fail—with them in control of your fuel–if they hit a bump–not only will you be unable to cash a check—but you wont be able to buy gasoline

    of course these 3 players that control all this stuff would never think about creting a situation to drive up prices–or collude on prices—or shut out uncooperative refiners from supply


  12. There are two classes of regulatory conduct;

    —1) state takes a direct interest

    —2) individually maintained lawsuits draw upon some statutory or regulatory design to create a cause of action

    Today there needs to be a convergence of several regimens in order to effectively execute the 2nd alternative method of civil enforcement of law. The looming question always raised is the homeowner’s interest in thr beneficiary of foreclosure. It is common nowledge that very substantial monetary benefits to foreclose/sieze/resell which bias the servicer against modification.

    The range of laws that must come together in one person with consultation or a team. Litigation, finance, SEC, UCC, real estate, debtor/creditor. The collection agency counsel collectively provide this scope –and have the ability to bring in consults to always overwhelm you given enough time and money.

    I believe the team should assemble and do the following:

    identify homes siezed by foreclosure and resold at some discount

    without substantial evidence filed in the foreclosure action to determine whether the claimant was proper

    obtain quit claim from the prior owner who was dispossessed without factual findings

    said quitclaim in the name of anybody (OWE) who wants to repossess this house under cloak of conveyance from the dispossessed owner

    the new buyer will be unable to obtain MTD on the bona fide purchaser rule uon allegation /min proof of discount—realtor statement as evidence

    the quit claim transferree has a right because his claim chain is clear—

    may not prevail in court where the homeowner possesses burden of proof

    defects in the forecosure–a legal opinion that the other party’s title is uncertain and why

    but in criminal side the defended transferee should be able to hang a jury

    if the issue s raised as criminal trespass camping on the lawn—then

    arrest—bail—trial–not guilty—camp again—

    homewner calls title insurance–they deny coverage if title is “limited warrantee”

    THIS IS CRITICAL –ADMISSION or professional assessment that there is a title defect

    new discount-homeowner pays bank—fears OWE dispossess

    stops paying on mortgage

    mortgagee expected it–the title insurer explained it

    foreclosue and you are on front yard

    you move into your house while lease is pending

    front yard camper files quiet title and moves into the house 1st

    tite will be uncertain–possessory rules require court orders to disposses

    they might also dispossess you–you cant leave

  13. IE I have an electronic subscription. It costs a lot. It is worth it because the US papers leave out things. A lot of things.

  14. @JG
    FT is a very commercial operation–its in todays paper “US Banks Step Up Oil Trade Role”

    you might see something elsewhere whereits repeated verbatim—-the article does not refer to their ownership in tankers and pipes—that is personal knowledge that is verifiable if you want to search for it——there has been a lot in past about pipes—-they also control tankage at a variety of places–or at least they lease storage. Morgan Stanly is very much into hardware. This ives it control over the timing of reporting individual transactions. Like what weeks inventory do you want to bulk up–or pull down–depending upon when you close the books on that days transaction. Goldman likes inventory. It just is happy knowing when morgan treats a batch reeived–then it has more market intelligence as to what the inventory volumes reported will be and the price—and its away nice to know which horse is going to win before you make your bets.

    It is so sad that this must even come up–the Volker Rule is completely avoidable if these guys can say they are ownrs of the product–its a financing cobvered by a bet. The US gaming taxes should apply.

  15. “….and went hat in hand to the Federal Reserve [and remember that bail out money they were forced to take] and plunked down the zero interest borrowed money to buy up these assets. They also picked up huge swaths of US pipelines.”
    Too po’ to keep their contractual commitments to the ship builders, but had, got, the dough to pick up pipelines? Borrowed at zero the money for the now discounted sale price of the ships (whose builders are prob now dancing in some welfare line, if there is one, like a lot of American former-employees, former-entrepreneurs, former-home-owners, former-tax-payers (is it any wonder states are broke?) and used their own money for the pipelines or I wonder if the pipeline moolah was part of the zero borrowed money, but more I want to know WHO bought the too po’ story and gave them the ship-money to basically rip off the ship builders? Someone commented recently that we should all go on welfare. And why not? Oh, I know why not. There’s no money left for private welfare because the tbtf’s are all ON WELFARE. Not productive rant, won’t solve anything, but dang. And I really would like NAMES for the givers of such largess. Wouldn’t you? Ms Drew, are you available?!

  16. @dcb – well, that’s a fine howdy-do. ()(*!@#*!
    Can you link the article please? thanks

  17. @ALL
    Todays London Financial Times has a nice article on a NEW BUSINESS MODEL that a handful of giant US banks have created since 2007—–control over the ownership and pricing of crude oil and refined products in the US.

    This growing share of business at the most trustworthy members of the financial industry seems to have been overlooked by the US press.

    The big players here are Goldman, JP Morgan-Chase, and Morgan Stanley. Morgan Stanley was largely left out of the profitable predatory homeloan securitization scam—and needed someplace else to catch up with its more innovative risk-taking brethren.

    Basically, in the meltdown that began in 2007-2008, the demand for crude oil and product fell–leaving a lot of tanker shipping companies in the lurch. They had contracted for construction of a fleet of the largest, safest most expensive tankers ever built. But when came time to pay the bill to pick em up—lending had frozen up——so these fine financial institutions obtained deep discounts on the ships from the distressed builders and went hat in hand to the Federal Reserve [and remember that bail out money they were forced to take] and plunked down the zero interest borrowed money to buy up these assets. They also picked up huge swaths of US pipelines.

    This has further developed into acquisition of the inventories of a number of refiners in the US. Elsewhere? Thus today many refineries and marketers simply process Goldman crude oil and distribute Goldnman gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel fuel for a processing and/or handling fee. Any price appreciation from say–a breakout of war in Iran etc benefits these three banks—and they in turn can dictate who gets supplies if there is a shortage.

    They have asked for exemption from the Volker Rule on oil/fuel derivatives because now oil/fuel is a core business for these banks—and if they are subject to so much risk from their core business—what is the point of preventing a bit more risk on paper betting? Logical argument! The implicit premise here is that they can only fail once no matter how you look at it. So if they are gonna fail because peace breaks out and oil prices come down—they may as well fail big.Of course they would never take steps to manipulate the price of oil…..they must draw the line somewhere for their traders! Fixing interest rates and betting against their financial products keeps the criminal elements of the organizations pretty busy already–so we are reasonably safe so long as they dont hire Jon Corzine or those ENRON guys. OOPs—–they already did hire the ENRON guys–but they are fully reformed now–and now they work for these bastions of integrity Goldman et al, the good old days of energy price fixing are behind—-but for Barclays fixing electricty prices in California–which is such a small market that its just not worth mentioning in mixed company.

    So folks hold onto your hats—-these guys are redefining the meaning of too big to fail. Now if one goes down—-you cant cash yourpaycheck–withdraw retirement savings [ala Spain] or use your debit and credit cards. But with this new business model—you wont be able to fill your car with gasoline–buy heating oil or fuel the tractors in the field at harvest time.

    It appears there is no such concept as enough is enough.

    Anyway good luck —and put in a little prayer of thanks to lloyd Blankfein for taking on the added burden of providing energy security as well as financial stability.

  18. “The World Bank” ? isn’t it a main instrument of global US$ forgery network, according to “The Federal Reserve Act of 1913
    and the Bretton Woods Agreement Act of 1945″ ???:
    ” 2. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were created by the ‘Bretton Woods Agreement Act’ (59, Statute 512), approved by a U.S. Congress on July 31, 1945.
    The ‘Bretton Woods Agreement Act’ is only one of many amendments/changes to the ‘Federal Reserve Act’ (38, Statute 251), approved by a U.S. Congress2 on December 23, 1913.” and confirmed by a retiree:

  19. (Re. my post here below—the GSE’s are Fannie/Freddie.)

    Please pass this on—because it’s the truth:

    “…What many are not understanding is that the Note is invalid. There can be no valid Note on collection rights. Because the prior loan is not paid off and the prior Mortgage is not validly discharged, no new note can be validly executed at the time of the last refinance. What we have is described in the second half of Footnote 35 of the November 2010 TARP Inspector General Report —-“Without the note, a mortgage is unenforceable, while without the mortgage, a note is simply an unsecured debt obligation, no different from credit card debt.”

    If anyone has ever encountered credit card collection for default, they will understand what happens. With credit card default, the collection rights are sold to distressed debt buyers — at a discount. This is accomplished by either direct sale of the collection rights, or by a credit default swap derivative. The bank, who sells collection rights (cannot sell the account itself since the account is charged-off), considers the debt paid — just not paid by you. This is the same thing with the subprime refinances, and many subprime purchases. Subprime is simply charged off GSE debt, with collection rights passed to a third party — most often the bank who was borrowers prior mortgagee. Only servicing rights are sold/transferred in subprime refinance because the loan is already in default. Borrowers just never knew, and will likely never know, what was reported about them to the GSEs.

    What happened with the subprime trusts is that they did not have to be funded at all. No notes were actually conveyed because there was no valid Note. The refinance Note was invalid because the prior note is never paid off, and the mortgage is never validly cancelled/discharged. The banks, by the subprime refinance securitization were selling securities for pass-through of collection rights payments (cash) ONLY. Security investors thought that these were backed by valid mortgage but, they were not. The trusts themselves do not transfer collection rights to security investors. The collection rights belong to the bank who purchased them from the GSEs. Again, each subprime refinance transferred the right to service those collection rights — that is all. However, banks also dispose of collection rights, and collection rights could be sold again and again. The important thing to remember is that the trusts have nothing to do with the sale of collection rights. The trusts were set up to pass-through cash payments to those collection rights only —- nothing more.

    People have to stop thinking in terms of “getting paid” twice, or that the Note “has already been paid.” This thinking has led down a very wrong path. As with credit card debt, if you do not pay the debt — you still owe it — even though a distressed debt buyer has already “paid” the bank for the right to collect. The same with the subprime refinance — still owe it — even though someone else has paid for collection rights. However, in both cases, you have a right to know WHO you currently owe. A right to know your “CURRENT” creditor. A right to know how much the current creditor PAID for the debt. A right to know the complete chain of mortgage title from the purchase of your home to current date. A right to know if your loan was ever sold to a GSE, and when that GSE disposed of your loan along with collection rights, and what was reported to that GSE about you. A right to know your real and current creditor in bankruptcy. A right to know that your “debt” is unsecured.

    Stating that the NOTE was already paid is simply incorrect and wrong. And, it is this thinking that has prevented exposure of the truth. When you start saying “I owe nothing” — you have lost from the onset. You owe, but under fraud, and violation of the law. You owe — unsecured debt procured by fraud…”

  20. same ol BS u r so right E tolle !! trust no one and I put my Credit union bank in this line also as I am waiting to get the kick in the A$$ as the plot thickens every second, thanks to the crap rollers out there “helping” (CONgre$$ and so forth) us loose everything one dirty banker at a time doing it’s dirty deeds and being paid so well to do it.. unbelievable and then they get fined (maybe )and what restitution do the people get??? NADA….!!!! time to stand on your own backbone as this will prove to be more of what you expected and PAID for. Insanity I refuse to go with the rest to stupidville. TRUST NO ONE!!! this is the cry of the day month second and decade, all want money to to right the wrong……. I say NO!! No golden rule anywhere just going for the gold …disgusting the way we can not stand “Collectively” in the interest for ALL! so terribly sad and disheartening to see what our country is today. Enough to make you want to “change status”!!!! Where is David??? Goliath is Loose!!! we will have to be “David”. no one will save us NO ONE so ya better save yourself. Blessing 2 all that give a damn.

  21. Thank God that both candidate Romney and President Obama have come down decisively on the side of prosecuting the bankers. It’s nice to know our leaders are determined to uphold….

    Bwahahawhahahah Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! Oh shit! I almost kept a straight face there! Whew! Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: