Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  2 3 4 5 6  Next ›  Last »  (26 total)
starting over at 60
10:13 PM on 02/19/2009
maybe this clown "should be taught" how to be an ethical banker. if bankers were honest this mess we are in would not have happened.
10:11 PM on 02/19/2009
Transfer your money to a credit union. Read up on them. They are more democratic than regular banks.
10:00 PM on 02/19/2009
That's it. I am closing my Wamu account. I am sure there are a lot of people who have LOST THEIR JOBS and find it impossible to pay their mortgages. What arrogance to assume that people need to be preached to about the importance to pay their frigging mortgage! Do you think they want to lose their homes? Ugh!
02:38 PM on 02/20/2009
Although i dont like his arrogance one bit, I think he was trying to say that he did not believe cutting principal for those who are upside down (oweing more on their homes than the current value) is the right thing to do. I agree with him. There are MORE people who HAVE paid their mortgages through the years....through UP and DOWN real estate bubbles, job losses and everything else life dished out. Perhaps if these loans can be modified with payments affordable the future ...these upside down homeowners will find themselves in a position of capital gains and feel happy they stuck with it.

What I had HOPED the Govt would do is STIMULATE the economy by requiring that ALL HOMELOANS without question would reduce all interest rates to 3% 30 yr fixed rate loans. This is IMMEDIATELY stimulate the economy ...more cash in the hands of spend and help revive the economy.....and much more affordable to those who got themselves into signing loan docs they didn't understand (sub prime adjustable rate mortages with teaser rates).
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
To Love One Is To Love All
02:40 PM on 02/20/2009
Yeh ! what Meah said
09:43 PM on 02/19/2009
" But they're supposed to pay the mortgage, and we should teach the American people, you're supposed to meet your obligations, not run from them."

One of your obligations sir is that you are not supposed to sell mortgages to people you know cannot afford them. One of your obligations sir is not to run your business so recklessly that you endanger not only your employees and shareholders best interest but in fact the economy of a great portion of the world. I believe people should live up to their obligations but I wont stand for idiots like this giving the American people lectures on "meeting your obligations." Unbelievable.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
To Love One Is To Love All
02:41 PM on 02/20/2009
I concur with your statement
02:43 PM on 02/20/2009
Chase also pays bonuses even TODAY to bank employees who open up credit card accounts for people with NO verification of ability to repay the credit line. They dont care......they suck people in ...hope they'll over extend....stupidly run up debt and then ........up the interest rate to 32%. I think banks today are using credit card interest rates as a way to offset the mortage losses.

This CEO is arrogant .....if he wants to be a teacher to the American public.....maybe the FEDS shoujld insist that he be paid NOT ONE CENT MORE than we pay HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS...something like $35,000 per year with NO BONUSES.
09:40 PM on 02/19/2009
This Chase CEO definitely does not understand what is occurring. His actions and others contributed to this along with Clinton, Rubin, Bush, Cox, Frank, Dodd, Raines and Johnson. He needs to take credit for the train wreck he helped with rather than dumping on customers. If the banks fold...let'em.
09:03 PM on 02/19/2009
Do you think he listens to Rush Limbaugh?
08:26 PM on 02/19/2009
Go fornicate elsewhere!
I am alive.
06:28 PM on 02/19/2009
"...they're supposed to pay the mortgage, and we should teach the American people, you're supposed to meet your obligations, not run from them. Because you have a mortgage doesn't mean you should run away as it goes down."

Yes, "they" should pay the mortgage. But, money lenders who wanted to make a quick buck, approved people they KNEW would never be able to sustain payments on their mortgages.
I mean, why should the money lender care, they were gonna sell the mortgages to some sucker company on down the line. I guess the companies buying those mortgages should have checked better to be sure they weren't buying bad debts.
I guess reality has finally smacked some borrowers in the mouth and now they realize, "WOW! I really should have listened to that inner voice that said, You cannot afford these payments... DON'T SIGN!!!" What else can they now do but, "run away"???
Companies should not have authorized CEO's and other company officials to be given bonuses that were equal to the bad debts! And, if the companies did not have enough sense not to authorize the bonuses, the officers that were given the bounses should have turned them DOWN.

Should, should, should... you can use your 20-20 hindsight all you want, but the fact is, this man and his "band of brothers" built this house of cards... the mess is here now, we all have to clean up the mess!
Always Progressive and loving the CONs meltdown.
06:39 PM on 02/19/2009
Speaking of House of Cards, CNBC just aired a wonderful documentary with that name that goes into many details of the way the toxic loans were sold off in budles to unsuspecting buyers.

I particularly liked the peice disputes the lie that 'the Government MADE the banks make these loans".

One ot the loaners of these types of loasn stated that everyone was doing it. If he didn't do it, his company would go under. And Wall Street kept asking for more.
Always Progressive and loving the CONs meltdown.
06:13 PM on 02/19/2009
Because you have a mortgage doesn't mean you should run away as it goes down."

I agree, poor judgement on the part of some people. But I would add - "Because you ran a bank into the ground due to your bad judgement doesn't mean that you ask for bailout money".
06:28 PM on 02/19/2009
OK. This is the last time I'm going to say anything. Chase did not ask for bailout money. Paulson got all the main banks in a room and told them we are going to buy equity in all of you. Chase said we don't need it. Pauson said you have no choice.
If you have a link demonstrating Chase asked for bailout fronm the government POST it. I do not mind being wrong, but please demonstrate what you are saying is true. You can get the bare bones of the story from frontline at (altho' that is not the only source).
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Ma Hound Dog!
06:38 PM on 02/19/2009
You are right. Chase never got caught with their pants down, but this doesn't mean that they were not getting their hands dirty dealing in the subprime market. They knew exactly from the start how to play the 'hot potato' game and not get stuck holding onto the goods when the music stopped. They are just as guilty as all of the other banks in dealing with subprime loans, and I think that this is the take home message for the WaMu take over. They were told by the feds either take over WaMu or we're going to look into all of those subprime mortgages you made a short time back. So true, they didn't ask for any money, but they were more than fully aware of the problem which makes them just as guilty.
06:48 PM on 02/19/2009
You're absolutely 100% correct... Its a well known fact that Jamie Dimon and Chase were a giant among midgets in the banking industry and that he was one of 3 banks that didn't need and didn't want any government money. But I can tell you now that these people are more interested in pointing fingers and fanning flames regardless as to whether or not their hate mongering has any factual basis in truth or is being directed towards to the appropriate people. These guys are so misguided and misinformed, that half of them actually think that every bank that took TARP money, whether they were forced to or not, actually needed it... and the other half actually think that the money was just a flat out gift instead of a loan that the banks are actually paying interest on (technically its an investment that pays a high dividend -- but essentially its a loan).

This guy was one of the only banker's that actually did his job and ran his bank properly, but I don't think facts are too important to these people... they're just generally grumpy and looking to be angry.
06:29 PM on 02/19/2009
....or get a huge bonus for being a f*ck up
Whatever You Are, Be a Good One. --A.Lincoln
08:49 PM on 02/19/2009
Jamie Dimon voluntarily reduced his own salary last year. I believe he worked for $1 in 2008. It was a big story at the time. He also has refused his 'bonuses' of late.

He's really a 'no b.s.' kind of businessman. He is blunt and practical in all of his dealings.

And Chase is better off than most banks right now because they didn't give out as many bad loans in the first place. A few years ago, Chase appeared to be losing in the housing boom--but it was only because they wouldn't play (as) dirty to get rich quick.

Since I am in banking, I thank my lucky stars today that I went to Chase. But even I have my fingers crossed these days.
06:10 PM on 02/19/2009
OK. Let me say this again. As far as I know Chase is NOT a failed bank. They were not substatially involved in sub-prime lending (until they aquired or "saved" WaMu- an act which can at least be viewed in part as a useful action by them). The government held a meeting of all the major banks and injected capitol into all of them them (over the objections of some), at least in part because they didn't want to single out those banks that were failing, but also inorder to avoid giving those failing banks an unfair competitive advantage.

Second. It seems to me that there are very few "rights" in this mess. Homeowners who took out mortgages which they could never afford, those who lent money on the basis of unverified earnings and those of us who decided we were rich on the basis of paper values on our property that were not remotely linked to what we earned. Clearly many banks and many bankers behaved recklessly, and should have known better.
06:14 PM on 02/19/2009
Third- it is also clear that we only complain about moral hazard only when it suits us. If you bought a house that has gone down in value you want someone else (your lender, your fellow taxpayers) to eat your loss, because it clearly is not your fault. However, if your property had gone up in value would you have wanted to give that money to your lender, or to the person that you bought your property from? No you would not. You would have congratulated yourself on how smart and prescient you were to buy at that price at that time. Once again, I am astonished that I should write anything supportive of Banks or of Bankers, but unlike others, it seems to me that Chase (unless there is something factual I am missing) avoided the worst excesses of the last few years, and deserves at least some credit for that.
06:42 PM on 02/19/2009
Okay, how about this: When I bought my home 3 years ago I took out a line of credit from Chase which was part of the sales transaction. Never thinking I would need it - but it is a good safety net. I am not behind on any payments... yet, but last Friday I wanted to tap into that line of credit to pay off all my cards before they raise the interest any higher. CHASE took it upon themselves to CANCEL my Line of Credit at the end of October WITHOUT any notification to me. When I called them to find out what was going on, they said because my home has dropped in value since it was purchased, they put a block on my line of credit. To get it back I need to have my home appraised for the same value it was when purchased 4/2006. What home in America is worth more today than 3 years ago? This is a disgusting way to treat a customer. Chase is horrible and this man is a pig to sit there and act that way. They are not going thru with their promise to me, so what does that make them? They took money from taxpayers?! Their actions are reprehensible.
05:54 PM on 02/19/2009
This is completely ridiculous.

Loan documents are contracts. Contracts which have legal requirements and consequences for each party involved. In the US, contracts are broken by people and businesses ALL THE TIME. There is nothing immoral or illegal about this, provided people abide by the stipulated consequences of breaking the contract.

That said, if you bought a $500k house on an interest-only loan 2 years ago and it is now worth only $300k but you are paying interest on the original $500k and have no equity then why would you NOT walk away from the contract? Sure, there are some fees and penalties, etc. But this is the way business in the US works. And the CEOs of major financial institutions know that better than anyone else.
06:37 PM on 02/19/2009
Good point!
06:47 PM on 02/19/2009
I could not agree more.

I would add that a bank CEO would never say that a bank has a moral or ethical obligation to the borrower.

The banks are just upset because many of the houses they are foreclosing upon are worth less than what is owed on the loan. Do you know what the banks say when they foreclose upon a house that is worth more than what is owed? "Nothing personal, just business."
07:34 PM on 02/19/2009
Or they could just stop lending which they are entitled to do.
05:47 PM on 02/19/2009
Used to be that the mortgage holder would send a representative to the Sheriffs auction on a foreclosed property and bid the payoff amount for the mortgage to protect their investment. They could still do the same. No risk to the bank if the buyer stops paying, right?
05:40 PM on 02/19/2009
An underwater mortgage is the mother of all toxic assets. If banks can have a Toxic Asset Relief Program, why can't mortgage holders? They don't, so they have to make their own, put the keys in the mailbox and walk on down the road.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:29 PM on 02/19/2009
Mr. Dimon: Hasn't your therapist ever told you that there are no shoulds?

Best idea: Let the banks BK.

No more TARP!
05:28 PM on 02/19/2009
It is not being underwater so much as paying for something that is way overvalued. When I bought my house in Sep 06 the selling price was 344K. (now before all you redstaters start hyperventilating, this is in Sacramento which is just a large suburb of SF as far as cost of living is concerned). The house is now worth 250-260K. (maybe-no one is buying so it is hard to tell) My mortgage is still the same as if my house was worth the 344K. Is that right? I would like to go into bankruptcy court and get a modification that would seem like a fair option but we will see. (It is like spending for a meal at Le Cirque and being served McDonald's food.
05:32 PM on 02/19/2009
I expect a write down. It only makes sense.
06:19 PM on 02/19/2009
demfemme - You are missing the point. Your mortgage payment is going to pay back the amount that you borrowed. That is why your mortgage payment remains the same even though your house has decreased in value. Also, what if your house had increased in value to $500,000? Should the bank be able to come to you and make you pay more?
Whatever You Are, Be a Good One. --A.Lincoln
08:56 PM on 02/19/2009
EXACTLY! Nobody was complaining when their home prices were going the other way!