Foreclosure compensation checks arrive, but anger some homeowners
Families who endured years of anguish or lost their homes due to banks wrongly reporting they were behind on their mortgage payments are calling the compensation payments resulting from a government settlement, many of which number in the low hundreds, “insulting.” NBC’s Lisa Myers reports.
By Lisa Myers and Rich Gardella
NBC News
Millions of American homeowners who have struggled with foreclosures are now receiving checks for compensation from the companies that serviced their mortgages — part of the federal government’s efforts to resolve the foreclosure crisis. But some of those receiving checks tell NBC News that the payments are an insult that neither punishes the banks enough for “deficient” practices nor helps harmed homeowners recover.
Karen Pooley, 50, of Seattle, told NBC News that she fell behind on her mortgage after losing her job in the building industry in early 2009, and received a notice of default in February 2010.
Pooley said she’s been fighting to save her home from foreclosure for the past three years. Believing that her servicer did not follow legal procedures, she said she has contested the foreclosure through her state’s foreclosure process, and managed to stop three foreclosure sales. She said she also has tried to get authorities to investigate.
Last month, she received her settlement payment, a check for $300.
“It was more than pathetic. It was insulting,” Pooley told NBC News. “I spent more in money on postage providing government agencies with detailed descriptions of what had happened in my case.”
Timothy Platt, 52, a truck driver from Indianapolis, told NBC News he’s also been fighting to save his home from foreclosure the past three years. He claims his servicer made a mistake, declaring he and his wife behind on their mortgage when they were not. Platt is suing the servicer, but has found trying to prove his case frustrating.
“They (the banks) have misrepresented the facts,” he wrote to NBC News in an email last month, “they have insisted on pursuing foreclosure.”
On Thursday morning, Platt emailed NBC News, saying his settlement check had just arrived. It was for $500.
“It’s kind of like a, like a slap in the face,” Platt told NBC News during a stopover in Chicago. “We’ve been trying to work through this for three years now, and we have no help whatsoever, and we’ve lost lots.”
Both homeowners believe their mortgage servicers are in the wrong. Each has gone to court to prevent the servicers from taking their homes. Their respective servicers declined to comment to NBC News.
The compensation payment checks, which range from $300 up to $125,000, are part of the Independent Foreclosure Review Payment Agreement announced in January between federal regulators and 13 mortgage servicing companies, which were subject to enforcement actions for “deficient practices in mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing.” Deficient practices have included errors and misrepresentations and the “robo-signing” of documents.
The regulators are the U.S. Treasury’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The recipients of the checks are mortgage loan borrowers whose homes were in any stage of a foreclosure process during 2009 or 2010, and whose mortgage servicers were among the 13 companies, or their subsidiaries or affiliates. Compensation payment checks, which began going out April 12, have so far been sent to 3.7 million homeowners. In all, 4.2 million eligible mortgage loan borrowers will receive them.
The 13 servicers are: Aurora, Bank of America, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, MetLife Bank, Morgan Stanley, PNC, Sovereign, SunTrust, U.S. Bank, and Wells Fargo.
According to the OCC’s online FAQ about the agreement, the servicers agreed “to provide more than $9.3 billion in cash payments and other assistance to help borrowers. The sum includes $3.6 billion in direct cash payments to eligible borrowers and $5.7 billion in other foreclosure prevention assistance, such as loan modifications and forgiveness of deficiency judgments.”
By comparison, the five largest banks alone – Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorganChase, Bank of America – earned $60 billion in total profits last year.
Payout guided by ‘the matrix’ What determines how much homeowners receive?
The largest payouts – $125,000 – are going to 1,082 members of the military wrongly foreclosed upon, and to just 53 homeowners across the country foreclosed upon even though they never missed a mortgage payment. But most of the recipients – almost 2 million homeowners – will get the smallest payments of $300 to $600.
“In determining the payment amounts,” reads a recent OCC press release, “borrowers were categorized according to the stage of their foreclosure process and the type of possible servicer error. Regulators then determined amounts for each category, using the financial remediation matrix published in June 2012 as a guide, incorporating input from various consumer groups.”)
Now let’s be honest. We all know that unless something goes extremely wrong we will not be seeing any zombies like the ones in the Hollywood Horror flicks B or otherwise. The CDC claims they are using the term tongue in cheek to get younger people interested in preparedness. Ok, I can deal with that. However, more than just the CDC are referring to zombies. So what exactly are they referring to if they are not talking about the brain eating , gnaw on your entrails kind of zombie?
Well in most instances they are referring to those who have laughed when approached with the concept of preparing for a potential disaster. Neighbors, Co- workers, family members, people that we run into in our everyday lives You know who they are , we have all run into them now and again. Some maybe more than others. Or the multitude that will become ill from lack of medicine, water, hygiene as well as accidents.
Now I really think that referring to these people as zombies is a bit over the top. However, I think we can agree that in a disaster scenario where despair , hunger or perhaps injury of themselves or a loved one will propel anyone of these individuals to an act of violence in the grips of fear .
All one need do is watch a video of the Black Friday Madness, or what happens during a blackout to understand what the potential for violence and lawlessness can be. Think Hurricane Katrina and the scenario in New Orleans. Think Hurricane Sandy and the multitude of people who were unprepared. How many resorted to dumpster diving because they had nothing to eat in their homes and there was nothing available in the surrounding area. If Occupy had not taken it upon themselves to start helping when FEMA and the government failed to do their job, what could have developed?
Now let’s go a bit further and imagine with all the people affected by Hurricane Sandy. What happens if there are neighbors that they are aware of had been storing food and water. The government is not helping. FEMA is not helping. Occupy had not been a factor. Their children are going hungry, they have elderly that must be cared for and they neither have food nor supplies. Now please understand I am an eternal optimist and I believe there are a lot of good people out there. However, if there is something life has taught me is that there are not so good people out there as well. This is what you must prepare for. The good people, the ones that understand that violence is not the answer will not be an issue.
What do you do about the ones who are?
Have you considered it?
Have you prepared?
Can you tell me aside from the fact that zombies are dead and out to eat you rather than your supplies what the difference would be? In either case they would threaten the survival of your loved ones and yourself. And , well there is always the possibility that the development of mutant and killer virus’ in government and military research labs should be a concern to everyone.
As we already know things will be difficult enough with the sheer amount of people that will be sickened and dying in a scenario such as this lasting an extended period of time especially in a collapse , as the following article details……
Electricity hasn’t been around all that long. For most of our history mankind has managed very well without it. Large numbers of people around the world still live without an electricity supply. If the grid goes down does it really mean the end of the human race?
On June 3rd I did a post about pandemics. I said in the introduction, that in my opinion only two things could be serious enough to put an end to humans. Pandemic and grid failure. Looking at the figures for the 1918-1920 pandemic, and using those percentages with current population, it seems I may have been wrong in my assumptions about pandemics.
So, onto grid failure, which to cover all the things that would be affected, and the speed at which they would be affected would need a large book, it is way too big a subject for an article. This article is based the things we have all heard, that 99% of the population of the United States would be dead within a year and that the world population will plummet. Let’s see.
I have chosen 2010 as the year all of the figures relate to, as that is the closest year that has a full set of statistics available. Figures are taken from World Health Organization records, love them or hate them they are very good pen pushers and compile statistics about anything and everything.
Okay, we all know that if the grid goes down, so does everything else in short order. Food supply chain, large scale agriculture,hospitals, traffic lights, everything that we regard as part of the very fabric of our lives. We have come to rely on electricity to such an extent that should it vanish from our lives it really would mean the end of the world as we know it. The question is though, would it be an extinction level event?
In 2010 there were 133,000,000 million births and 57,000,000 deaths from all causes. The WHO records the following for 2010:
34,000,000 known type 1 diabetics world wide.
64,234,000 known COPD (chronic obstructive airways disease sufferers)world wide.
22,800,000 known cancer sufferers world wide.
These conditions are considered to be those that contribute most to the mean global death rates. Now I am not a statistician, and it is impossible to know the life expectancy of the people suffering from these conditions, so, for the purposes of the exercise I am going to assume they all die in the first year.
This would add 120,000,000 deaths to the 57,000,0000 ‘usual’ deaths giving us 177,000,000 deaths for the first year. On top of this there would be a rise in the murder rate, the death rate from heart attacks would soar, mainly due to unfit people having to engage in hard physical labor, and deaths from lack of medication and medical intervention would skyrocket, as would deaths from malnutrition and disease.
Then we have those in the Prepper and non Prepper community usually at odds with the way one or the other chooses to prepare . As well as their outlook. Not to mention those who outright ridicule and insult those who seriously prepare for a future unseen disaster scenario. Anyone who has seriously embarked on preparing and have tried to explain to family and friends why they should as well, have experienced this. So you are well aware of what I mean when I say this…..
Why is there such a chasm between preppers and non-preppers? It’s because of ignorance on BOTH sides.
1. Preppers look down on non-preppers.
Many seem to be thinking that non-preppers are silly, ignorant little children.
2. Non-preppers think that preppers are insane.
They think that preppers are focused on ridiculous problems and wasting money on solutions that they will never use.
Both are wrong.
Most people ARE preppers.
You might be a prepper if:
*you check your car’s spare tire
*you keep bandaids in your house
*you are saving money for a rainy day
*you keep a can of Fix-a-flat in your car
Those are preps!
There are more preppers than either side is willing to admit.
WE aren’t arguing apples and oranges. We are arguing about how many apples we need. It’s a matter of scale.
It isn’t a matter of intelligence. It’s a matter of having different priorities.
And then we have those unprepared neighbors that you spoke to early on and tried to get them to think seriously about prepping. All they would do was kid you about your preparing for the end of the world. Laugh a little at you , shake their heads and walk away always turning your concerned advice into jokes and an opportunity to poke fun at you. If not just outright call you nuts?
The following is an episode from the Twilight Zone. Yes it is just a show , it’s not real. However, if you watch it , you will see in the developing drama that everything that happens is indeed plausible. If you watch it you can see how a scenario like that can easily develop even among people you thought you knew well. One never knows and can never be sure how any one individual will react or behave in a situation such as this. Watch the videos and think about it….. I bet the possibility of it taking place won’t seem so crazy then…..
A Twilight Zone episode called “The Shelter” illustrates one scenario in being surrounded by people who are unprepared yet know you have been preparing and scoff at your efforts. I thought I would share this with everyone and thank DEMCAD for bringing it to my attention
Here we have a situation that is growing incrementally with every passing day in the US alone. We have seen the devastating circumstances in Greece, Spain and throughout the Middle East. Austerity, government corrupt exorbitant spending, rising food and energy prices, loss of jobs, corrupt banks and financial institutions, etc , etc , etc.
The number of homeless can no longer be ignored. For those who deny that there is a problem and that the economy is indeed recovering. Those who choose to believe the lies and the manipulated numbers for unemployment and job creation wake up and face reality. The homeless of today are working middle class that have lost their jobs, their homes . They live in tent cities, in their cars, in public parks when they can. They hide their homelessness and their need due to pride and those who refuse to see the truth accept the subterfuge because it is easier to lie to themselves than admit that it could very well happen to them.
Why do you lie to yourselves?
How long do you believe you can keep those blinkers on?
Do you really believe that ignoring reality will change it or make it go away?
The longer it is ignored the longer it goes unchallenged the worse it will get.
How many children have to be homeless for those of you in denial to get it ?
How many children in the US have to go hungry before you can deal with the truth of what is going on beneath your very nose?
I don’t know about you , but I see people now more than ever on the street asking for help because they are homeless and unemployed. Today a man with a sign stating that they were homeless and he had 3 children with him. Everyone looking the other way.
How can you live with yourself?
I gave what I had. Granted I don’t have much but no matter how bad off I am I have a roof over my head and even if it is peanut butter sandwiches I have food to eat even on the worst day. So many just passed by this man and his children not even giving them a passing glance. How sad , how very sad that we have turned into this kind of Nation.
Well I am here to disturb your little fantasy world. These are videos of the very real homeless situation in this country. If you know of anyone in denial please bring it to their attention. If you have heard but are not sure you believe , please take some time to watch and see the suffering , the need and the tragedy that has befallen these people. Understand that this could happen to anyone and it is not reason to look down nor feel ashamed.
As time goes by one must understand that this situation will continue to worsen, unless by some miracle the lunacy that has gripped the government and the financial world is dealt with. For those who are preppers I urge you to take this into account. I know things are tight for most, trust me I know this very well as I sometimes find it difficult to purchase staples for our everyday living . Much less items for storage. I think about this often and every time I buy an item for my storage I think of how it can be used or prepared to maximize the amount of people it can feed . Thereby , ensuring that I will be able to feed any additional people that may show up in need and hungry.
The government will not be helping, look at the victims of Hurricane Sandy. What kind of help did they receive? It will be up to us to take care of each other. Which means preparing to extend a hand to those who were unable or too poor to prepare.
This MC-TV documentary tells the story of one homeless person in rural Western Illinois. Thru her story we see the special challenges that confront those individuals who find themselves homeless in area with limited services.
……
Homeless In America Families Living In Cars
……
homeless in america…….part 1
……
“Signs of The Time” a homeless documentary
Published on Jun 25, 2012
A feature documentary about homelessness in the Seattle and surrounding areas
I know there are quite a few people who have been preparing for quite sometime. Just as I know there are people who recently started or are starting now to prepare. Please, please take this to heart and understand what the possibilities are so that you can properly prepare and survive whatever may occur. Please know that I am not trying to belittle anyone. This has been on my mind for quite sometime and I simply did not know how to present it . Ready or not , presentable or not here it is . Please accept it in the spirit in which it has been given. A heartfelt wish that all who read this may prepare , be safe and help as many people as they are able.
One of America’s biggest banks may be getting another government bailout. This week it was revealed that the New York Fed struck a secret deal with Bank of America over its toxic mortgages. The deal spares the banking giant from billions of dollars in legal claims. Victim’s of B of A’s banking practices, are still losing their homes, but fighting to keep Wall Street accountable.
The following is an interview done by Doug Hagman of Canadian Free Press The first published article in August of 2012 Part I is here. Part II published in December of 2012 is here.
The information brought forth in these two article are bone chilling and very accurate in the case of the events we now see unfolding before us. I am making this available in hopes that it will wake those who are asleep and will fortify those who have known all along that something was horribly wrong. May it not be too late for us as a Nation. Becase if what is being revealed in this interview is fact,we are in for the fight of our lives. Or at least those of us who want to remain free……… Wherever possible I have added the videos or articles that pertain to the specific information being brought forth in the interview.
The following information was provided to me by my DHS contact on two different occasions. Information from my first contact was previously published in two parts . I was asked to withhold the final portion of the information that was provided to me at that time until after the inauguration. The following resumes where part II left off. At the request of this source and for the sake of continuity, the following combines the information withheld and the information from our most recent contact on 4 February 2013.
DH: Do I have your permission to record this conversation?
RB: Please do.
DH: We’ve spoken at different times since the information you gave me was published. You have since given me additional information on top of the information you asked me to withhold until after the inauguration. First, what was the reason for asking me to wait to publish the remainder of our discussion until after the inauguration?
RB: This bunch, top level DHS brass, is clamping down on leaks. One way they are finding leakers is to put out false information specific to certain individuals. They can trace the information directly to the leaker due to the nature and specificity of the information. It was part self-preservation, part vetting one of my closest and most important contacts. It was a test to assure that I am not being used for disinformation purposes or being targeted as a leaker. It was something I felt I had to do, and I’m glad I did. I feel more comfortable now about my sources.
DH: So, if I understand you correctly, your sources “passed” whatever test you were performing?
RB: Yes.
DH: And you still have access to information, I mean, whistleblower type information?
RB: I know what you mean, so I guess that’s one way to put it. Okay.
DH: For continuity and to refresh your memory, I’m going to play the remainder of our recorded interview from our contact last month.
[At this point, we listened to the dialogue previously recorded. After the recording concluded, this DHS source suggested that we combine new information with the previously recorded information to avoid unnecessary repetition. It was agreed and the recorder was turned back on with his consent].
DH: Just to be clear, let me hit this again. The main reason you asked me to wait to publish your previous statements had more to do with you, your sources and well, your own self preservation than the content of our discussion.
RB: I guess you could say that. But the information is still valid and becomes even more important when combined with the latest information I have for you.
DH: Okay, we can get on with it, then.
RB: First of all, two days after the inauguration, at exactly 7:00 a.m. on January 23, something called “the Cyber-Warriors for Obama Project” was activated. I heard about this the week after the election, but only saw a hardcopy draft in late December. From what I was told, I believe this is a project that is being paid for through funds from Obama’s political corporation, the 501(c)4 Organizing for Obama, I believe it’s called. I can’t be sure, but that’s what I was told.
At that time, I was shown a white, three-ring binder with Obama’s circular campaign logo imprinted on the outside of the binder with the name “Cyber-Warriors for Obama” printed in blue across the top. Inside were the names and e-mail addresses of 3,575 “cyber assets,” or “warriors,” listed in alphabetical order under about a dozen or so “team leaders.” From a separate sheet I was shown, most of these “assets” are being paid just over minimum wage, but as I understand it, they work from home and have no overhead. I believe there are about two dozen supervisors who make substantially more.
Now I only had the binder for a minute, and could not take it from the room I was in, so this is strictly from memory.
It was tabbed, and one section with the word “targets” had a list of religious web sites, web sites I recognized as Christian. Another section was a listing of conservative Internet sites. There was another tab with the label “problem sites” that seemed quite extensive. I looked at that section, and it was broken down further into “birther” sites, “pro-gun” sites, “anti-abortion” sites, just to name a few.
There was also a section of the usual news sites, like CNN, ABC, you know. Numerous e-mail addresses were conspicuous under each news organization, which also included Fox… [unintelligible]. I figured you were going to ask.
The first page of the binder had bullet points labeled “objectives” and instructions for the cyber-assets. There was also a very detailed non-disclosure agreement with the word “DRAFT” typed in big, light grey letters across the body of the two-page agreement. The agreement and the instructions were typed on white paper with a warning, printed in red on each page, that the document was not to be copied or disseminated.
DH: Where did you see this? I mean, was it at DHS?
RB: Yes, and that’s as much as I can say on the location.
DH: What’s the magic behind the number 3,575?
RB: I asked the person showing me [the binder] that question. Supposedly, it has to do with their budget, or the project funding.
DH: Go on.
RB: The instructions seemed very specific. Infiltrate web forums, collect screen names, avatars, and posters’ tag lines, and attempt to resolve these to their actual identities. I read one paragraph that listed circumstances when the “asset” was only to monitor but do not disrupt without authorization. There was another section titled “Divert, Disrupt and Destroy,” listing “how to’s” in certain cases.
There was also a section on maintaining a social media presence, and another on the most effective use of Twitter.
Lastly, there was a “reference section,” which included statistics, specific language to use to marginalize different posters, and effective methods to discredit people while maintaining a sense of legitimacy.
It was surreal, to say the least.
Oh, one more thing that’s important. As I said, these “kids,” or young people I believe, are known collectively as “Cyber-Warriors for Obama.” The subheading was “And the truth shall set you free.” Truth? Really? They were hired on their hacking abilities, or more precisely on their abilities to make postings through proxy servers and effectively use alternate identities and multiple e-mail addresses. Their purpose is to spread disinformation, not truth.
There were also motivational statements on various pages, including one that referred to Obama as the “Pharaoh of the Internet,” which I thought was an odd characterization.
But what’s important is that suddenly, through the use of Internet aliases, multiple e-mail addresses, and screen names, a project that employs 3,575 people will have the appearance and effectiveness of maybe 10,000 or more different people.
*************************************************************************************
DH: Do you know if these “team members” have their own copies of the binder you saw?
RB: No. I was told that these people were hired through the campaign offices located throughout the country, and that training meetings were held at various locations. The binders were for instructional purposes, not to hand out. Although I think the people have, or were given, a list of web sites.
I don’t know any more on the actual mechanics of the project.
DH: During our previous contact, you said that we should listen to Obama’s comments about the economy, I mean during the inaugural speech. What’s so significant about that?
RB: Well, this is perhaps the most important issue people need to understand. There will be, and was, talk of a recovery and a stronger economy, but it’s all propaganda. As you heard me say in the recording you just played, the complete inaugural address will be a “Baghdad Bob” moment, and it was. Many economists will use false figures and statistics to deceive the American people. People must not downplay the importance of the economic aspect of this address. The sudden collapse of the U.S. dollar (however it actually plays out) and everything that goes with it (such as social chaos and riots) will be one part of a plan that was set in motion a long time ago.
DH: During our previous contact, you said that we should listen to Obama’s comments about the economy, I mean during the inaugural speech. What’s so significant about that?
RB: Well, this is perhaps the most important issue people need to understand. There will be, and was, talk of a recovery and a stronger economy, but it’s all propaganda. As you heard me say in the recording you just played, the complete inaugural address will be a “Baghdad Bob” moment, and it was. Many economists will use false figures and statistics to deceive the American people. People must not downplay the importance of the economic aspect of this address. The sudden collapse of the U.S. dollar (however it actually plays out) and everything that goes with it (such as social chaos and riots) will be one part of a plan that was set in motion a long time ago.
DH: And you are getting this from your current intelligence sources? Frankly, I’m not sure I completely understand the connection between DHS and what’s going on with the economy. Seems like it should be separate.
RB: What’s not to understand? The economic devastation that will take place is an attack, a planned attack on the U.S. Just look at it that way. This “regime” already knows the outcome, which is the debasement of our national currency. Like I said, it’s been in the works most recently since the 1990s. A collapse does not happen without a lot of pain -people losing everything in their retirement accounts, savings and so on. Don’t you think that will cause one hell of a national security problem? And who is running our national or domestic security? DHS.
Oh, and one of the reasons I wanted to include more recent information into our discussion relates to something you did last month, after our talk. I know you said you did not want to source your own work, but there was one important radio program you did that caused a very angry response inside DHS.
DH: How so?
RB: You had a financial insider on your program who went by some letter, like the first or last letter of his name.
DH: Yes, that was “V” who is a source for Steve Quayle. We did a program at the beginning of January, I think – I’d have to look. [Edited to add that the actual program was 11 January 2013.]
RB: Yeah, that was it. If you ask your network, I think you’ll find a request was made for the transcript of that program by DHS. The information given by that source was protected, or confidential, especially regarding the actions of big bankers here in the U.S. and the foreign markets. These international bankers are playing a big role in killing the U.S., and although they’re bold, they still don’t want certain things disclosed before their time.
DH: But that information had nothing to do with national security. I mean, how would this relate to DHS?
RB: Now you’re giving me a headache [laughter]. Let me spell it out for you, and this is the crux of everything. We have Obama (or whatever his real name is) in the Oval Office. You’ve said it before, that America is a “captured operation.” Well, it is, and every top level operative at DHS and Justice knows it. They have his dossier.
Think about Obama’s mother working in microfinance with Timothy Geithner’s father. What are the odds? And that’s just one “coincidence.”
A lot of people won’t get this until it’s too late, or maybe never get it. But take a good look at Obama and the people who surround him. Look at the 2008 economic crisis under Bush. Look at the run up to where we’re at today. The orchestrated boom of the 1990s. The GLB Act signed into law under Clinton that changed the complexion of our domestic economy. Look at the people who are still around, the architects of this. It’s a big lie! It’s all been rigged, and the insiders know this! Look at the continuity of agenda since “Bush senior.”
Now listen to what I am telling you. This is a continuing operation that involves many of the same people on both sides of the aisle in Washington. This is one of the reasons why no one wants to talk about Obama’s past. He is the product of a continuing intelligence operation, put in power to oversee the dismantling of the U.S., with the economy being the lynchpin of our destruction. Obama, Jarrett, and the Clintons are in constant contact with all high level operatives inside the DHS. Perhaps not directly in all cases but through their contacts. They are working together to see to it that the U.S. economy is brought down, robbing the people of their wealth and then blaming partisan politics for the crash.
For the first time in recent history, you’re going to see people hungry and out in the streets. Those unprepared or those thinking this is all [expletive deleted], desperate and begging for food. Think Katrina, but on a national scale. That’s what is being planned for Americans, and few people are willing to see what’s happening, or willing to believe it. Now here’s where DHS, my sources and information comes in.
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama did some cherry-picking Tuesday night in defense of his record on jobs and laid out a conditional path to citizenship for illegal immigrants that may be less onerous than he made it sound.
A look at some of the claims in his State of the Union speech, a glance at the Republican counterargument and how they fit with the facts:
OBAMA: “After years of grueling recession, our businesses have created over 6 million new jobs.”
THE FACTS: That’s in the ballpark, as far as it goes. But Obama starts his count not when he took office, but from the point in his first term when job losses were the highest. In doing so, he ignores the 5 million or so jobs that were lost on his watch, up to that point.
Private sector jobs have grown by 6.1 million since February 2010. But since he became president, the gain is a more modest 1.9 million.
And when losses in public sector employment are added to the mix, his overall jobs record is a gain of 1.2 million.
OBAMA: “We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas.”
Everybody is looking at the gun “problem” in America. Fights over the Second Amendment. State laws that go against the Constitution. Blame it on Sandy Hook or Colorado. Tell people we need to be disarmed because it’s for the children. It’s all [expletive deleted]. Most people know it’s all [expletive deleted], but that’s where their rational assessment stops. Why do you think the people in power want to -no – need to disarm the public? It’s because they are planning an economic collapse, and an armed and informed populace is a danger to their plan.
In the aftermath of a deadly shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Conn., President Obama addresses the nation on gun control and also talks about ongoing fiscal negotiations.
Caught on Camera: Joe Biden admits gun control will not stop mass shootings or save lives
Published on Feb 3, 2013
Joe Biden was caught on camera in Washington saying that new gun control laws will notprevent another mass shooting or lower the number of gun deaths. Yet the President and Biden are telling us that we MUST pass gun control even if it saves just one life.
Gun Control — No matter what your opinion, you need to see this
Published on Feb 6, 2013
Gun Control — No matter what your opinion, you need to see this
The Constitutional government of the United States has been overthrown, and the American people have been captured. The only question now is what are we, as true Americans believing that our Constitution is the one and only law of the land, going to do about it? It’s now simply a matter of what the blowback from the tyranny being thrust upon us will look like, how or even if it will play out.
If you are looking for normal political solutions out of this legal, financial, moral and spiritual mess of a country, I believe that time has long passed. If your hope rests in a change with the midterm elections, go back to sleep or better yet, increase the dosage of your medication. It is clearly evident by the actions and inaction of the spineless or compromised leaders in whom you’ve placed your hope and future, and the future of your children and grandchildren, that doing so again will change nothing. We are a captured operation, and partisan politics is nothing more than theater to divert your attention from the iron fist of tyranny that is about to change life as you know it.
You must understand that our nation today is ruled not by democrats or republicans, but by the party of royalty with a European mindset and a Globalist agenda. The morphing from a two-party system into one of elite royalty did not happen overnight, but incrementally and under the proverbial radar of a deliberately distracted public.
Much of what you see, hear and read is a lie so big that you don’t recognize it as a lie, and so bold that it operates without question or impediment right in front of us. There are plenty of writers and talkers who will sugar-coat the lie or participate in political theater for air time, print space or a paycheck, but I refuse to be one of them. Allow me to walk you through my investigative findings into the “Obama conspiracy” to show you just how deep the lie goes. By the end of this summary report, I hope that you will better understand the lie, the objectives of those involved, and the fate intended for us all.
They are not coming for our guns
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.” -Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Would you believe me if I wrote that the government is not after our guns? Probably not, as it certainly looks that way with the pending executive orders and new gun legislation. Well, the guns are secondary. I urge you to think bigger, “think outside of the box.” Make no mistake about this, they will come after our guns, but they are coming after us.
DH: Wait, wouldn’t it make sense to let the guns stay in the hands of the people and have the people shoot it out among themselves? Wouldn’t this fit in with their desire for chaos, and make it easier for Martial Law to be implemented?
RB: In a way, but you’re still not thinking big enough. The way this is being planned includes that scenario, but they are very afraid that once total chaos breaks out, they will become the targets. So to a point you’re right, but then a crackdown must take place.
DH: But the elected ones are well protected.
RB: Yeah, but you are not thinking like them. There are several scenarios or models they have commissioned. They exist in printed form and have been given to Obama and Jarrett specifically. It’s war gaming with the American people. That caused some mid-level military people with a conscience to ask what the hell is going on, and some even refused to take part in these exercises. By the way, Napolitano is the go-to person for these models.
Anyway, there is a fear that their own people won’t be loyal to them when everything begins to implode. You’ve been seeing purges lately. Remember what Jarrett supposedly said about being “hell to pay” after the re-election? That process has started.
These are just three of the many that have taken place in the last 6 years. There are so many more ranging from the Gay members of Reverend Wrights church of which Obama was a member and had been tied to Obama in intimate ways. Just as you will find the mysterious deaths of 0/11 witnesses. This is more than just Obama this has to do with those who are truly in control and are tightening the noose. Dont believe me do your own research look up all the mysterious deaths and see what you find for yourself.
~Desert Rose~~
…
Bizarre last Days of Top White House Aide Found Murdered and Dumped in Landfill – Alex Jones Tv
Uploaded on Jan 5, 2011
Disorientated and wearing just one shoe’: Bizarre last sighting of top White House aide found murdered and dumped in landfill
John Wheeler III DC Murder Mystery: Parking Lot Footage
Whistleblower Andrew Breitbarts Convenient Death
Published on Oct 14, 2012
Radio host Alex Jones talked about the death of Andrew Breitbart. He was suspicious of the circumstances surrounding the conservative blogger’s demise, since it fell on the very day that Breitbart had previously announced plans to release damning videos of Barack Obama. Additionally, Jones contended that the swift media reports claiming that Breitbart died of “natural causes,” despite subsequent news releases saying it would take weeks before that could be determined, was “a big sign that this was some type of staged event.” While he washopeful that Breitbart’s death was not the result of a nefarious plot, Jones declared that “we would be fools” not to consider the quizzical timing of the journalist’s passing.
Andrew Breitbart (/ˈbraɪtbɑrt/; February 1, 1969 — March 1, 2012) was a conservative American publisher, commentator for The Washington Times, author, and occasional guest commentator on various news programs, who served as an editor for the Drudge Report website. He was a researcher for Arianna Huffington, and helped launch her web publication The Huffington Post.
He owned the news aggregation site, Breitbart.com, and five other websites: Breitbart.tv, Big Hollywood, Big Government, Big Journalism, and Big Peace. He played key roles in the Anthony Weiner sexting scandal, the resignation of Shirley Sherrod, and the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy.
Death
On March 1, 2012, Breitbart collapsed while walking in Brentwood. He was rushed to Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, where he later died. He was 43 years old. An autopsy by the Los Angeles County Coroner’s Office showed that he had cardiomegaly and died of heart failure. The toxicology report showed “No prescription or illicit drugs were detected. The blood alcohol was .04%. No significant trauma was present and foul play is not suspected.” Personal friend of Breitbart, Bill Whittle, had said that Breitbart had a “serious heart attack” just months before his passing.
In remembrance, Republican presidential candidates Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich praised Breitbart. Santorum called Breitbart’s passing “a huge loss” that strongly affected him, while Romney said Breitbart was a “fearless conservative”, and Gingrich called him “the most innovative pioneer in conservative activist social media in America….”
His funeral was held March 6, 2012, at a Jewish cemetery in West Los Angeles. Attendees included his father-in-law Orson Bean, Matt Drudge, Herman Cain, Thaddeus McCotter, Greg Gutfeld, Ed Morrissey, Guy Benson, and Rob Long.
Andrew Breibart’s LA Coroner Dies!
Published on Apr 29, 2012
Medical examiners in Los Angeles are investigating the possible poisoning death of one of their own officials who may have worked on the case of Andrew Breitbart, the conservative firebrand who died March 1, the same day Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced probable cause for forgery in President Obama’s birth certificate.
Michael Cormier, a respected forensic technician for the Los Angeles County Coroner died under suspicious circumstances at his North Hollywood home April 20, the same day Breitbart’s cause of death was finally made public.
“There are mysterious circumstances surrounding his death,” said Elizabeth Espinosa, a news reporter for KTLA-TV. “We’re told detectives are looking into the possibility that he was poisoned by arsenic.”
Cormier, 61, had been rushed to Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Burbank after complaining of pain and vomiting.
Andrew Breitbart’s Assigned Coroner Dead? Poison Suspected
Published on May 2, 2012
Medical examiners in Los Angeles are investigating the possible poisoning death of one of their own officials who may have worked on the case of Andrew Breitbart, the conservative firebrand who died March 1, the same day Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced probable cause for forgery in President Obama’s birth certificate.
Michael Cormier, a respected forensic technician for the Los Angeles County Coroner died under suspicious circumstances at his North Hollywood home April 20, the same day Breitbart’s cause of death was finally made public.
“There are mysterious circumstances surrounding his death,” said Elizabeth Espinosa, a news reporter for KTLA-TV. “We’re told detectives are looking into the possibility that he was poisoned by arsenic.”
Help Sheriff Joe blow the lid off Obama’s fraud. Join the Cold Case Posse right now!
Cormier, 61, had been rushed to Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Burbank after complaining of pain and vomiting.
“He was transported there early in the morning, and passed away late at night,” Ed Winter, assistant chief of operations and Cormier’s colleague at the Los Angeles County Department of Coroner, told KTLA. “It affects everybody when you lose a co-worker, but we’ll proceed and do our job and try to figure out why Michael died.”
The hospital then notified Los Angeles Police about Cormier’s death.
“At this point we haven’t ruled out foul play,” police Lt. Alan Hamilton told the Los Angeles Times. “It is one of the things being considered. We are waiting for the coroner’s results.”
Toxicology results are not expected for five to six weeks.
Sources told the Times several hazardous materials experts and officers searched Cormier’s home in search of what may have caused his sudden demise.
Michael Cormier
“The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that finding the presence of poison does not necessarily mean the death was a homicide, because the substance could have accidentally entered his system,” the Times reported.
Hamilton also noted investigations are standard procedure when there’s a suggestion of anything other than natural causes in someone’s death.
It’s still unclear if Cormier personally worked on the probe into Breitbart’s death, and WND has left messages with the coroner’s office seeking comment.
On April 20, the same day Cormier died, the coroner’s office released its findings into the death of Breitbart, stating the 43-year-old conservative media powerhouse died of natural causes, listing cause of death as heart failure.
“No prescription or illicit drugs were detected. The blood alcohol was .04%,” the official report said. “No significant trauma was present and foul play is not suspected.”
Breitbart was founder of BigGovernment.com among other websites.
The night before Breitbart died, WND senior staff reporter Jerome Corsi arranged for Breitbart to interview Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who the very next day held a news conference to announce there was probable cause to believe President Obama’s birth certificate released on April 27, 2011, was a forgery, as well as Obama’s Selective Service Card.
“I have known Andrew for nearly 15 years and considered him a friend. His passion and energy for seeking the truth will be greatly missed by the nation
“What or Who killed Andrew Breitbart? Now the Coroner is dead! What did he know?” by Fred Brownbill
“What or Who killed Andrew Breitbart? Now the Coroner is dead! What did he know?” by Fred Brownbill http://www.saveamericafoundation.com/…
DH: Okay, but wouldn’t they be safer by speaking out, by telling everything they know? Some ordinary people might call them cowards. Why not just go public[interrupted/over talk]
RB: Yeah, how’d that work out so far? And go public to who? CNN? They are in real danger, and so are their families. Anyone close to them. Even if one or two would go public, how do you think that would work out for them? I’ll tell you how. They would make [Senator] McCarthy look like an American hero, which he was, but that’s… They’ve made it so that no one will be able to make any real difference to their agenda. They know that.
DH: So no one is going to say anything – ever?
RB: That’s not what I said. Some will talk when the time is right. Some have “insurance policies” that will be used at the right time, when they will make the most difference.
DH: I feel like we’re getting off point. So, what is being planned?
RB: The DHS will oversee the domestic crackdown that will happen when the perfect storm bears down on us. And the perfect storm is the economy, meaning the U.S. dollar collapse and hyperinflation, racial or class riots sparked by a high-profile incident, and another mass causality event involving guns. Watch for these three things to happen all at once, or in close succession.
The polarization caused by these events will be sufficient to cause a second civil war.
DH: When? How soon will all of this happen?
RB: I don’t have a crystal ball, but I have seen various reports referencing unprecedented “drills” to take place in later March and April. I’ll mention this because I know a lot of people on the inside at DHS have seen this. A document called “Operation Thunderdome.” It’s maybe 50 or 60 pages, I’m not certain. It describes an economic collapse in the U.S., followed by an attack on the government by “a made-up patriotic group.” It combines gun owners, Constitutionalists, and even Christians into an enemy group that pulls off an attack in Washington.
But don’t fall into the trap of trying to pick the time of these events. Their plans are flexible, but their objectives are carved in stone.
DH: Sounds like a Reichstag type event- sometime.
RB: Exactly. Maybe not just one. They have plans and back-up plans and back-ups for the back-ups. And in spite of the warnings, and history, enough people will be outraged and side with the government. This brings me to my final point. What do you think all of the prepositioning of paramilitary assets, caches of ammunition, and the opening of non-descript buildings owned or leased by the federal government are for?
It’s for you and people like you. It’s for those who are turned in by their neighbors, friends, co-workers, and others who are hungry, broke and broken. What we are about to experience will be like it was during the Civil War, only worse. People will be outgunned, surveillance will be everywhere, and it will be much more difficult to hide and fight back. Not impossible, but more difficult.
DH: So you’re painting a picture of a Mad Max scenario, hence the reference to Thunderdome?
RB: Believe it or not, part of the model, or at least one of them, includes the depiction of a somewhat “normal” society, at least after the initial “hostilities.” People will be controlled by the national government, centralized – in order to escape the chaos. Think of it this way. You want food and medical care? You will not be able to own a gun, period. The current federal legislation is all window dressing – a distraction. No one expects anything meaningful to pass. It won’t have to. States, yes, but those states are lining up for federal money. The elected leaders are of the same ideology as Obama, but aside from those, we’ll see many people turning in their weapons for food, shelter, medical care, and false guarantees of safety. That’s what the new normal will look like.
As I said, you’ve got to think bigger – much bigger. The lies are bigger than most people can imagine. The people at the top are laughing at us. Think about that. They are laughing at us because it’s right in front of our noses. And you know, the bigger the lie…
DH: Yes, the more people will fall for it.
RB: Right. I think we’re done here for now. I’ve given you as much information as I know, as I have seen. Watch the economy – the indicators. Watch for a false flag. We are being baited. Let people pooh-pooh this information, seek information through FOI requests. Not gonna happen. We’re talking about an operation so black and so big, and one that has to be done in the next few years, under Obama.
This is something that is international in scope. The plan is international, and is dedicated to the dismantling or destruction of America. It’s happening right in front of us, but too few can actually see it.
DH: I’m sure you, well… We’ll be accused of scaring people without citable evidence.
RB: People need to wake up. Believe me or don’t. It’s their choice.
Douglas Hagmann, founder & director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website.
This work may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, health and social justice issues, etc. As this information is being presented in a way not made available by the copyright holder for furthering the delivery of said information to a public that would otherwise not be made aware of its content and message. Thereby extending their reach and furthering their message we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
President Barack Obama speaks in the National Archives beneath a mural of the Constitutional Convention, which depicts James Madison handing the final draft of the Constitution to George Washington. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
(CNSNews.com) – During Barack Obama’s first term as president of the United States, the debt of the federal government increased by $5.8 trillion, which exceeds the combined debt accumulated under all presidents from George Washington through Bill Clinton.
The new federal debt accumulated in Obama’s first term equaled approximately $50,521 for each of household in the country.
On Jan. 20, 2009, when Obama was first inaugurated, the total debt of the federal government was $10,626,877,048,913.08, according to the U.S. Treasury. As of the close of business on Jan. 17, the last day reported by the Treasury before Obama’s second inauguration, the total debt of the federal government was $16,432,631,489,854.70.
Thus, from Obama’s first inauguration to his second, the federal government’s debt grew by $5,805,754,440,941.62.
I have a feature in the new issue of Rolling Stone called “Secrets and Lies of the Bailout,” which focuses in large part on the seemingly intentional policy of deception in the government’s rescue of the financial sector. The government didn’t just bail out Wall Street with money: It also lied on Wall Street’s behalf, calling unhealthy banks healthy, and helping banks cover up just how much aid they were getting in secret.
Proponents of the bailouts will say that whatever the government did, it worked. The economy didn’t collapse as it appeared it might in late 2008, and the stock markets are puffed up all over again, as financial companies in particular are back making huge profits.
But in the course of researching the magazine piece, we discovered definite victims of the myriad deceptions that became a baked-in feature of the bailouts. One of those victims was a southern investment broker who lost lots of his own money, lost money for family members who’d invested with him, and (maybe worst of all) lost plenty of his clients’ money, when he made investment decisions based on what turned out to be incomplete information.
If this particular broker had known exactly how far the bailouts reached, neither he nor his clients would ever have lost so much. But during the crisis it was decided, by people deemed more important than small-town investment advisers and their clients, that the full story of the bailouts didn’t need to be told.
As a result, George Hartzman and his clients got creamed. In recent years we’ve heard a lot about how the bailouts saved the world. This is the other side of the story.
***
George Hartzman is easy to like. The easygoing North Carolinian has every salesman’s ability to grab you from the first moment with humor and charm, but what makes him a little bit of a different kind of cat – and I suspect some of this change developed after he joined the growing population of financial crisis-era whistleblowers, dismissed from a Wells Fargo brokerage after making complaints about what he felt were bailout-related abuses – is that the humor is often self-directed. He loves to tell stories about all the goofy, sometimes-dicey sales jobs he’s taken over the years, and the hard work he put in to get really good at each and every one of them.
“Hell, I even sold encyclopedias,” he says, laughing. “You just look ‘em in the eye and say, ‘Listen, do you want your kids to go to college, or not?’” He laughs again. “What are they going to say?”
Now 45 years old, George as a younger man sold it all – copiers, above-ground aluminum swimming pools, even vinyl siding, a job which he describes as selling “relatively bad things to the relatively elderly.” In down times, he waited tables and tended bar at a restaurant/nightclub in a tough section of Greensboro, where he said the rule was, “you don’t take out the trash through the back door without somebody with a gun.”
But throughout it all, he wanted to be in finance, wanted to buy stocks and bonds and actually make money for people, as opposed to just talking old folks into buying stuff they maybe didn’t need. Eventually he got his chance, working at several national brokerage firms through the 2000s, paying his dues as the guy who sucked it up for the endless cold calls.
“Do you have any money, anywhere, that’s earning less than 7 percent right now?” he says, chuckling as he quotes his old self. “I must have said that line, I shit you not, not less than 100,000 times.”
Eventually, George found himself selling retirement and investment plans as a broker for the granddaddy of Carolinian megabanks, Wachovia. Working out of the Greensboro, North Carolina area, he handled dozens of clients, including himself and several of his family members, and by 2007 had settled in to what he thought was the good life working for Wachovia Advisors, managing tens of millions in assets for the huge national brokerage firm.
In hindsight, it’s ironic – given that the vast federal bailouts were what ultimately sank George’s career as a broker – that when Wachovia went belly-up in 2008, George’s job was initially saved by a bailout. After its collapse (caused in large part by its disastrous 2006 acquisition of subprime-laden Golden West financial), the giant bank was swallowed up in a state-aided merger by Wells Fargo, which received as much as $36 billion in cash and special tax breaks as it was finishing the merger deal.
When the merger was finished, Wells Fargo was the fourth-largest commercial bank holding company in America, and George Hartzman found himself working essentially the same job, only with a new name on his letterhead – Wells Fargo Advisors.
While brokers in most places started taking the big bath in 2007 and 2008 as the subprime market collapsed, George was quietly killing it. In both those years he made very good money for his clients, his family and himself, mainly by shorting the very companies that had inflated the subprime bubble, firms with names like Goldman, Sachs, MBIA and Merrill Lynch.
“I saw it early,” he says, a bit immodestly, but with perspective, too. “I was doing great, right up until the time I wasn’t.”
When I called former clients of George’s to check his story, they confirmed that he took a much different and more aggressive approach than your average broker. George’s clients seemed to like him a lot, and were impressed by how hard he worked at a job that a lot of storefront brokers just mail in.
“A lot of guys will just tell you that you just have to stay in the market, that in the long run, things always go up,” says John Mandrano, a former CPA who trusted a sizable portion of his retirement fund with George. “George was different. He really put a lot of thought into what he was doing. And he invested his own money, and his family’s money, so you know he had a stake in what he was doing.”
Having made money betting against Wall Street in 2007 and 2008, George planned on continuing the same strategy in 2009, even after the bailouts. In early 2009, he placed a series of short bets against the market, among other things betting against an index of real estate trusts and the S&P 500. He explained to his clients that even though the government and the talking heads in the financial press kept insisting the worst was over, he still thought a lot of firms, particularly financial firms, were in deep trouble.
“I thought they were screwed,” he says. “The numbers just didn’t add up.”
What happened instead is that the stock market went into a prolonged and seemingly miraculous rebound, with the NYSE soaring from the mid-6000s in February of 2009 to over 13,000 in recent months. George couldn’t figure out how so many seemingly insolvent companies were doing it – where was the money coming from?
Some four years after the 2008 financial crisis, public trust in banks is as low as ever. Sophisticated investors describe big banks as “black boxes” that may still be concealing enormous risks—the sort that could again take down the economy. A close investigation of a supposedly conservative bank’s financial records uncovers the reason for these fears—and points the way toward urgent reforms.
Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan’s CEO, testifying last summer before the House Financial Services Committee about his bank’s sudden $6 billion loss. (Jacqueline Martin/AP)
The financial crisis had many causes—too much borrowing, foolish investments, misguided regulation—but at its core, the panic resulted from a lack of transparency. The reason no one wanted to lend to or trade with the banks during the fall of 2008, when Lehman Brothers collapsed, was that no one could understand the banks’ risks. It was impossible to tell, from looking at a particular bank’s disclosures, whether it might suddenly implode.
For the past four years, the nation’s political leaders and bankers have made enormous—in some cases unprecedented—efforts to save the financial industry, clean up the banks, and reform regulation in order to restore trust and confidence in the American financial system. This hasn’t worked. Banks today are bigger and more opaque than ever, and they continue to behave in many of the same ways they did before the crash.
Consider JPMorgan’s widely scrutinized trading loss last year. Before the episode, investors considered JPMorgan one of the safest and best-managed corporations in America. Jamie Dimon, the firm’s charismatic CEO, had kept his institution upright throughout the financial crisis, and by early 2012, it appeared as stable and healthy as ever.
One reason was that the firm’s huge commercial bank—the unit responsible for the old-line business of lending—looked safe, sound, and solidly profitable. But then, in May, JPMorgan announced the financial equivalent of sudden cardiac arrest: a stunning loss initially estimated at $2 billion and later revised to $6 billion. It may yet grow larger; as of this writing, investigators are still struggling to comprehend the bank’s condition.
The loss emanated from a little-known corner of the bank called the Chief Investment Office. This unit had been considered boring and unremarkable; it was designed to reduce the bank’s risks and manage its spare cash. According to JPMorgan, the division invested in conservative, low-risk securities, such as U.S. government bonds. And the bank reported that in 95 percent of likely scenarios, the maximum amount the Chief Investment Office’s positions would lose in one day was just $67 million. (This widely used statistical measure is known as “value at risk.”) When analysts questioned Dimon in the spring about reports that the group had lost much more than that—before the size of the loss became publicly known—he dismissed the issue as a “tempest in a teapot.”
Six billion dollars is not the kind of sum that can take down JPMorgan, but it’s a lot to lose. The bank’s stock lost a third of its value in two months, as investors processed reports of the trading debacle. On May 11, 2012, alone, the day after JPMorgan first confirmed the losses, its stock plunged roughly 9 percent.
The incident was about much more than money, however. Here was a bank generally considered to have the best risk-management operation in the business, and it had badly managed its risk. As the bank was coming clean, it revealed that it had fiddled with the way it measured its value at risk, without providing a clear reason. Moreover, in acknowledging the losses, JPMorgan had to admit that its reported numbers were false. A major source of its supposedly reliable profits had in fact come from high-risk, poorly disclosed speculation.
It gets worse. Federal prosecutors are now investigating whether traders lied about the value of the Chief Investment Office’s trading positions as they were deteriorating. JPMorgan shareholders have filed numerous lawsuits alleging that the bank misled them in its financial statements; the bank itself is suing one of its former traders over the losses. It appears that Jamie Dimon, once among the most trusted leaders on Wall Street, didn’t understand and couldn’t adequately manage his behemoth. Investors are now left to doubt whether the bank is as stable as it seemed and whether any of its other disclosures are inaccurate.
The JPMorgan scandal isn’t the only one in recent months to call into question whether the big banks are safe and trustworthy. Many of the biggest banks now stand accused of manipulating the world’s most popular benchmark interest rate, the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), which is used as a baseline to set interest rates for trillions of dollars of loans and investments. Barclays paid a large fine in June to avoid civil and criminal charges that could have been brought by U.S. and U.K. authorities. The Swiss giant UBS was reportedly close to a similar settlement as of this writing. Other major banks, including JPMorgan, Bank of America, and Deutsche Bank, are under civil or criminal investigation (or both), though no charges have yet been filed.
Libor reflects how much banks charge when they lend to each other; it is a measure of their confidence in each other. Now the rate has become synonymous with manipulation and collusion. In other words, one can’t even trust the gauge that is meant to show how much trust exists within the financial system.
Accusations of illegal, clandestine bank activities are also proliferating. Large global banks have been accused by U.S. government officials of helping Mexican drug dealers launder money (HSBC), and of funneling cash to Iran (Standard Chartered). Prosecutors have charged American banks with falsifying mortgage records by “robo-signing” papers to rush the process along, and with improperly foreclosing on borrowers. Only after the financial crisis did people learn that banks routinely misled clients, sold them securities known to be garbage, and even, in some cases, secretly bet against them to profit from their ignorance.
When we asked Ed Trott, a former Financial Accounting Standards Board member, whether he trusted bank accounting, he said, simply, “Absolutely not.”
Together, these incidents have pushed public confidence ever lower. According to Gallup, back in the late 1970s, three out of five Americans said they trusted big banks “a great deal” or “quite a lot.” During the following decades, that trust eroded. Since the financial crisis of 2008, it has collapsed. In June 2012, fewer than one in four respondents told Gallup they had faith in big banks—a record low. And in October, Luis Aguilar, a commissioner at the Securities and Exchange Commission, cited separate data showing that “79 percent of investors have no trust in the financial system.”
When we asked Dane Holmes, the head of investor relations at Goldman Sachs, why so few people trust big banks, he told us, “People don’t understand the banks,” because “there is a lack of transparency.” (Holmes later clarified that he was talking about average people, not the sophisticated investors with whom he interacts on an almost hourly basis.) He is certainly right that few students or plumbers or grandparents truly understand what big banks do anymore. Ordinary people have lost faith in financial institutions. That is a big enough problem on its own.
But an even bigger problem has developed—one that more fundamentally threatens the safety of the financial system—and it more squarely involves the sort of big investors with whom Holmes spends much of his time. More and more, the people in the know don’t trust big banks either.
After all the purported “cleansing effects” of the panic, one might have expected big, sophisticated investors to grab up bank stocks, exploiting the timidity of the average investor by buying low. Banks wrote down bad loans; Treasury certified the banks’ health after its “stress tests”; Congress passed the Dodd-Frank reforms to regulate previously unfettered corners of the financial markets and to minimize the impact of future crises. During the 2008 crisis, many leading investors had gotten out of bank stocks; these reforms were designed to bring them back.
And indeed, they did come back—at first. Many investors, including Warren Buffett, say bank stocks were underpriced after the crisis, and remain so today. Most large institutional investors, such as mutual funds, pension funds, and insurance companies, continue to hold substantial stakes in major banks. The Federal Reserve has tried to help banks make profitable loans and trades, by keeping interest rates low and pumping trillions of dollars into the economy. For investors, the combination of low stock prices, an accommodative Fed, and possibly limited downside (the federal government, needless to say, has shown a willingness to assist banks in bad times) can be a powerful incentive.
Yet the limits to big investors’ enthusiasm are clearly reflected in the data. Some four years after the crisis, big banks’ shares remain depressed. Even after a run-up in the price of bank stocks this fall, many remain below “book value,” which means that the banks are worth less than the stated value of the assets on their books. This indicates that investors don’t believe the stated value, or don’t believe the banks will be profitable in the future—or both. Several financial executives told us that they see the large banks as “complete black boxes,” and have no interest in investing in their stocks. A chief executive of one of the nation’s largest financial institutions told us that he regularly hears from investors that the banks are “uninvestable,” a Wall Street neologism for “untouchable.”
That’s an increasingly widespread view among the most sophisticated leaders in investing circles. Paul Singer, who runs the influential investment fund Elliott Associates, wrote to his partners this summer, “There is no major financial institution today whose financial statements provide a meaningful clue” about its risks. Arthur Levitt, the former chairman of the SEC, lamented to us in November that none of the post-2008 remedies has “significantly diminished the likelihood of financial crises.” In a recent conversation, a prominent former regulator expressed concerns about the hidden risks that banks might still be carrying, comparing the big banks to Enron.
A recent survey by Barclays Capital found that more than half of institutional investors did not trust how banks measure the riskiness of their assets. When hedge-fund managers were asked how trustworthy they find “risk weightings”—the numbers that banks use to calculate how much capital they should set aside as a safety cushion in case of a business downturn—about 60 percent of those managers answered 1 or 2 on a five-point scale, with 1 being “not trustworthy at all.” None of them gave banks a 5.
A disturbing number of former bankers have recently declared that the banking industry is broken (this newfound clarity typically follows their passage from financial titan to rich retiree). Herbert Allison, the ex-president of Merrill Lynch and former head of the Obama administration’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, wrote a scathing e-book about the failures of the large banks, stopping just short of labeling them all vampire squids. A parade of former high-ranking executives has called for bank breakups, tighter regulation, or a return to the Depression-era Glass-Steagall law, which separated commercial banking from investment banking. Among them: Philip Purcell (ex-CEO of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter), Sallie Krawcheck (ex-CFO of Citigroup), David Komansky (ex-CEO of Merrill Lynch), and John Reed (former co‑CEO of Citigroup). Sandy Weill, another ex-CEO of Citigroup, who built a career on financial megamergers, did a stunning about-face this summer, advising, with breathtaking chutzpah, that the banks should now be broken up.
Bill Ackman’s journey is particularly telling. One of the nation’s highest-profile and most successful investors, Ackman went from being a skeptic of investing in big banks, to being a believer, and then back again—with a loss of hundreds of millions along the way. In 2010, Ackman bought an almost $1 billion stake in Citigroup for Pershing Square, the $11 billion fund he runs. He reasoned that in the aftermath of the crisis, the big banks had written down their bad loans and become more conservative; they were also facing less competition. That should have been a great environment for investment, he says. He had avoided investing in big banks for most of his career. But “for once,” he told us, “I thought you could trust the carrying values on bank books.”
Last spring, Pershing Square sold its entire stake in Citigroup, as the bank’s strategy drifted, at a loss approaching $400 million. Ackman says, “For the first seven years of Pershing Square, I believed that an investor couldn’t invest in a giant bank. Then I felt I could invest in a bank, and I did—and I lost a lot of money doing it.”
A crisis of trust among investors is insidious. It is far less obvious than a sudden panic, but over time, its damage compounds. It is not a tsunami; it is dry rot. It creeps in, noticed occasionally and then forgotten. Soon it is a daily fact of life. Even as the economy begins to come back, the trust crisis saps the recovery’s strength. Banks can’t attract capital. They lose customers, who fear being tricked and cheated. Their executives are, by turns, traumatized and enervated. Lacking confidence in themselves as they grapple with the toxic legacies of their previous excesses and mistakes, they don’t lend as much as they should. Without trust in banks, the economy wheezes and stutters.
And, of course, as trust diminishes, the likelihood of another crisis grows larger. The next big storm might blow the weakened house down. Elite investors—those who move markets and control the flow of money—will flee, out of worry that the roof will collapse. The less they trust the banks, the faster and more decisively they will beat that path—disinvesting, freezing bank credit, and weakening the structure even more. In this way, fear becomes reality, and troubles that might once have been weathered become existential.
At the heart of the problem is a worry about the accuracy of banks’ financial statements. Some of the questions are basic: How do banks account for loans? Can investors accurately assess the value of those loans? Others are far more complicated: What risks are posed by complex financial instruments, such as the ones that caused JPMorgan’s massive loss? The answers are supposed to be found in the publicly available quarterly and annual reports that banks file with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Financial Accounting Standards Board, an independent private-sector organization, governs the accounting in these filings. Don Young, currently an investment manager, was a board member from 2005 to 2008. “After serving on the board,” he recently told us, “I no longer trust bank accounting.”
Accounting rules have proliferated as banks, and the assets and liabilities they contain, have become more complex. Yet the rules have not kept pace with changes in the financial system. Clever bankers, aided by their lawyers and accountants, can find ways around the intentions of the regulations while remaining within the letter of the law. What’s more, because these rules have grown ever more detailed and lawyerly—while still failing to cover every possible circumstance—they have had the perverse effect of allowing banks to avoid giving investors the information needed to gauge the value and risk of a bank’s portfolio. (That information is obscured by minutiae and legalese.) This is true for the complicated questions about financial innovation and trading, but it also is true for the basic questions, such as those involving loans.
At one point during Young’s tenure, some members of the Financial Accounting Standards Board wanted to make banks account for loans in the same way they do for securities, by recording them at current market values, a method known as “fair value.” Banks were instead recording the value of their loans at the initial loan amount, and setting aside a reserve based on their assumptions about how likely they were to get paid back. The rules also allowed banks to use different methods to measure the value of the same kind of loans, depending on whether the loans were categorized as ones they planned to keep for a long time or instead as ones they planned to sell. Many accounting experts believed that the reported numbers did not give investors an accurate or reliable picture of a bank’s health.
After bitter battles, turnover on the board, worries about acting in the middle of the financial crisis, and aggressive bank lobbying, the accounting mandarins preserved the existing approach instead of switching to fair-value accounting for loans. Young believes that the numbers are even less reliable now. “It’s gotten worse,” he says. When we asked another former board member, Ed Trott, whether he trusted bank accounting, he said, simply, “Absolutely not.”
The problem extends well beyond the opacity of banks’ loan portfolios—it involves almost every aspect of modern bank activity, much of which involves complex investment and trading, not merely lending. Kevin Warsh, an ex–Morgan Stanley banker and a former Federal Reserve Board member appointed by George W. Bush, says woeful disclosure is a major problem. Look at the financial statements a big bank files with the SEC, he says: “Investors can’t truly understand the nature and quality of the assets and liabilities. They can’t readily assess the reliability of the capital to offset real losses. They can’t assess the underlying sources of the firms’ profits. The disclosure obfuscates more than it informs, and the government is not just permitting it but seems to be encouraging it.”
Accounting rules are supposed to help investors understand the companies whose shares they buy. Yet current disclosure requirements don’t illuminate banks’ financial statements; instead, they let the banks turn out the lights. And in that darkness, all sorts of unsavory practices can breed.
We decided to go on an adventure through the financial statements of one bank, to explore exactly what they do and do not show, and to gauge whether it is possible to make informed judgments about the risks the bank may be carrying. We chose a bank that is thought to be a conservative financial institution, and an exemplar of what a large modern bank should be.
Wells Fargo was founded on trust. Its logo has long been a strongly sprung six-horse stagecoach, a fleet of which once thundered across the American West, loaded with gold. According to the firm’s official history, “In the boom and bust economy of the 1850s, Wells Fargo earned a reputation of trust by dealing rapidly and responsibly with people’s money.” People believed Wells Fargo would keep their money safe—the bank’s paper drafts were as good as the gold it shipped throughout the country.
For a century and a half, Wells Fargo stock was also like gold, which is what led Warren Buffett to buy a stake in the bank in 1990. Since then, Buffett and Wells Fargo have been inextricably linked. As of fall 2012, Buffett’s firm, Berkshire Hathaway, owned about 8 percent of Wells Fargo’s shares.
Today, Wells Fargo still prominently displays the stagecoach logo at branches, in advertising, on the 12,000-plus ATMs that dot the country, and even at the bank’s museum stores. There, visitors can buy wholesome, family-friendly items: a stagecoach night‑light; stagecoach salt and pepper shakers; a hand-painted ceramic stagecoach pillbox. These are more than tchotchkes. They are emblems of the bank’s honest and honorable mission.
Buffett’s impeccable reputation has rubbed off on the bank. Wells Fargo is widely regarded as the most conservative of the nation’s biggest banks. Many investors, regulators, and analysts still believe its financial reports reflect a full, fair, and accurate picture of its business. The market value of Wells Fargo’s shares is now the highest of any U.S. bank: $173 billion as of early December 2012. The enthusiasm for Wells Fargo reflects the bank’s good reputation, as well as one seemingly simple fact: the bank earned solid net income of nearly $16 billion in 2011, up 28 percent from 2010.
To find out what’s behind that fact, you have to read Wells Fargo’s annual report—and that is where we began our adventure. The annual report is a special document: it is the place where a bank sets forth the audited details of its business. Although banks also submit unaudited quarterly reports and other periodical documents to the SEC, and have conference calls with analysts and shareholders, the annual report gives investors the most complete and, supposedly, reliable picture.
(Today, big banks have to answer to a dizzying litany of regulators—not only the SEC, but also the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and so on. The disclosure regimes vary, adding to the confusion. Banks confidentially release additional information to these regulators, but investors do not have access to those details. That regulators have these extra, confidential disclosures isn’t much comfort: given the inability of regulators to police the banks in recent years, one of the only groups that investors trust less than bankers is bank regulators.)
Wells Fargo’s most recent annual report, covering 2011, is 236 pages long. It begins like a book an average person might enjoy: a breezy journey through a year in a bank’s life. On the cover, that stagecoach appears. The first page has a moving story about a customer. The next few pages are filled with images of guys in cowboy hats, a couple holding hands by the ocean, cupcakes, and solar panels. In bold 50‑point font, Wells Fargo reports that it contributed $213.5 million to nonprofits during the year, and it even does the math to make sure we appreciate its generosity: “$4.1 million every week or $585,000 every day or $24,000 every hour.” The introduction’s capstone is this: “We don’t take trust for granted. We know we have to earn it every day in our conversations and actions with our customers. Here’s how we try to do that.”
The sheer volume of “trading” at Wells Fargo suggests that the bank is not what it seems.
Fortunately for Wells Fargo, most people do not read past the introduction. In the pages that follow, the sunny faces of satisfied customers disappear. So do the stories. The narrative is replaced by details about the bank’s businesses that range from the incomprehensible to the disturbing. Wells Fargo told us it devotes “significant resources to fulfilling all reporting requirements of various regulators.” Nevertheless, these disclosures wouldn’t earn anyone’s trust. They are littered with language that says nothing, at length. The report is riddled with progressively more opaque footnotes—the financial equivalent of Dante’s descent into hell. Indeed, after the friendly introduction, the report ought to bear a warning to the inquisitive reader intent on truly understanding the bank’s financial positions: “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.”
The first circle of Wells Fargo’s version of the Inferno, like Dante’s Limbo, merely hints at what is to come, yet it is nonetheless unsettling. One of the main purposes of an annual report is to tell investors how a company makes money. Along these lines, Wells Fargo splits its businesses into two apparently simple and distinct parts—“interest income” and “noninterest income.” At first blush, these two categories appear to parallel the two traditional sources of banking income: interest from loans and customer fees.
It was more sophisticated than we had imagined: New documents show that the violent crackdown on Occupy last fall — so mystifying at the time — was not just coordinated at the level of the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and local police.
The crackdown, which involved, as you may recall, violent arrests, group disruption, canister missiles to the skulls of protesters, people held in handcuffs so tight they were injured, people held in bondage till they were forced to wet or soil themselves — was coordinated with the big banks themselves.
The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, in a groundbreaking scoop that should once more shame major U.S. media outlets (why are nonprofits now some of the only entities in America left breaking major civil liberties news?), filed this request.
The document — reproduced here in an easily-searchable format — shows a terrifying network of coordinated DHS, FBI, police, regional fusion center, and private-sector activity so completely merged into one another that the monstrous whole is, in fact, one entity: In some cases, bearing a single name, the Domestic Security Alliance Council.
And it reveals this merged entity to have one centrally-planned, locally-executed mission. The documents, in short, show the cops and DHS working for and with banks to target, arrest, and politically disable peaceful American citizens.
The documents, released after long delay in the week between Christmas and New Years, show a nationwide meta-plot unfolding in city after city in an Orwellian world: Six American universities are sites where campus police funneled information about students involved with OWS to the FBI, with the administrations’ knowledge (p51); banks sat down with FBI officials to pool information about OWS protesters harvested by private security; plans to crush Occupy events, planned for a month down the road, were made by the FBI — and offered to the representatives of the same organizations that the protests would target; and even threats of the assassination of OWS leaders by sniper fire — by whom? Where? — now remain redacted and undisclosed to those American citizens in danger, contrary to standard FBI practice to inform the person concerned when there is a threat against a political leader (p61).
Please be warned – the statistics about the economy that you are about to read are likely to completely blow your mind. The U.S. economy is in far, far more trouble than the mainstream news would have you believe. Most Americans are still convinced that the economic downturn that we have been experiencing will soon be over and that things will shortly get back to “normal”. But that is not what is happening. What we are actually witnessing is the disintegration of the foundations of the U.S. economic system. The survival of the American middle class is now in serious jeopardy. In fact, the survival of the American way of life is now in serious jeopardy. Today, more Americans are living in poverty than at any other time in history. Millions upon millions of Americans are out of work and it now takes the average unemployed worker an average of over 35 weeks to find a job. Home sales are at near record lows. Home foreclosures are at record highs. Factories and jobs continue to leave the United States at a dizzying pace and the U.S. government has piled up the biggest mountain of debt in the history of the world with no end in sight. So yes, the U.S. economy is in a deep, deep state of crisis, and there is not much hope that things are going to get much better any time soon.
Because of the exploding U.S. trade deficit, every single month far more wealth goes out of the United States than comes into it. Every single month more good jobs and more factories leave our shores never to return. America was once the greatest industrial power on the globe, but today the U.S. is being de-industrialized at a staggering pace. Every single month state and local governments go even deeper into debt. Every single month the U.S. government goes even deeper into debt. Today, the total of all consumer, business and government debt in the United States is equivalent to approximately 360 percent of GDP. At no point during the Great Depression did we ever even come close to such a level. It would be hard to understate exactly how much danger the U.S. economy is in.
Yes, things really are that serious.
The following are 44 statistics about the U.S. economy that will send a deep, deep chill down your spine….
The following information was provided to me by my DHS contact on two different occasions. Information from my first contact was previously published in two parts . I was asked to withhold the final portion of the information that was provided to me at that time until after the inauguration. The following resumes where 
By Michael,
