Posted on 06/20/2008 5:14:47 PM PDT by SE Mom
National Review Online has obtained an internal Bank of America "discussion document" (pdf here) on the subject of the FHA Housing Stabilization and Homeownership Retention Act of 2008, a.k.a. the Dodd-Shelby mortgage-lender bailout bill.
Yesterday, Tim Carney reported that the prevailing sentiment on Capitol Hill is that the Dodd-Shelby bill "is exactly what Bank of America and Countrywide wanted." BofA is in the process of acquiring Countrywide. Countrywide is currently embroiled in a scandal over its V.I.P. program, under which several powerful politicians, including Sen. Chris Dodd, got preferential loan rates.
This discussion document (dated March 11, 2008) would appear to support the contention that BofA essentially wrote the bailout section of the bill. Almost all of BofA's preferences are mirrored in the Dodd-Shelby legislation. The BofA document even offers PR tips, such as "We believe that any intervention by the federal government will be acceptable only if it is not perceived as a bail-out of the bond market."
The president has threatened to veto Dodd-Shelby because it would "unfairly benefit lenders who made bad loans." The Senate will resume debating the bill on Monday.
The BofA doc is worth posting here for a couple of reasons: First, the similarities between BofA's ideal bill and the bill before the Senate are obvious even to the layperson — read the document, then read David C. John's analysis of the bailout and see for yourself.
Second, we'd invite our readers with some expertise in this area to look over the document for things we might have missed. Opponents of the bailout are lucky that a few tenacious Republicans (Kit Bond, DeMint et al) were able to hold up the bill and keep it from passing as quickly as expected. The fight resumes next week, so take a look at this document and keep digging.
Open borders and the mortgage mess
I'd be interested to see if illegals are getting bailed out in this legislation.
Dodd was exposed for making what seems to be a sweet deal for small change.
What evidence is there that he is actually repaying the loan? What are the terms of the loan? Does he make money by having but not paying the loan?
The whole loan agreement and deed of trust must be provided to assure there is no bribe or graft.
Thanks!
I'm no green eyeshade guy, but it makes interesting reading to my mind...
Well it seems to run in Dodd’s family..... remember his dad (Sen. Thomas Dodd) in 1967 was censured for spending campaign cash ($116,000.... which was a lot back then) on personal expenses. I remember watching CSPAN one night before the Iowa caucus and he was holding an event in someone’s home when he went on this little somber rant about how he works everyday to bring a good name back to his family after what his father did.
What a two faced crook!!!
He doesn't seem to be going about it the right way, does he.
Excellent find- and gives another part of the puzzle(s). I don’t know if they are- I haven’t read the bill- all I needed to know was it tells credit card companies they must report all transactions to the feds.
Bill Requires All Credit Card Companies to Report ALL Transactions to the Government
bookmark for later.
You appear to be confusing mortgage brokers with originators from a bank, as this bill while bank friendly is not mortgage broker friendly.
CFC revenue generation has dropped to little more than a quarter of what it was same period last year (YoY), not surprisingly with RE loan market what it is. We are not even talking about profits at the moment, even if skewed by non-cash portfolio writedowns. And its balance sheet is upside down (negative tangible BV), just like many mortgages it serviced in the last couple of years.
Yes, it can be downsized and streamlined and eventually made profitable, but BoA did not have to pay such a high price for essentially bankrupt company - granted, some of that price covered $2B in bridge loan commitment that BoA made at around $15 per share.
In other words, if all they wanted was to get their hands on CFC loan portfolio then they already had first dibs on it. All they had to do was to wait a day or two and, after CFC declared bankruptcy, BoA could buy them for pennies a share - they did not have to rush out and buy them next morning after being assured that there would be no problems from regulators and antitrust and the Hill. They would wind up with exactly same portfolio of loans for a pittance, not unlike JPM with Bear Stearns (having a potentially good portfolio, but no liquidity and losing its BD business due to collapse in confidence and facing a run on the bank).
BofA will come out of this deal smelling like a rose.
Possible, even likely, especially if BoA related provisions in this bill pass, but given recent disclosures about sharp deterioration in Countrywide business and balance sheet, it will take much longer and "unnecessarily" expensive - there was a different reason other than "greed" in urgency of BoA's acquisition of CFC. And they didn't (and couldn't) have the benefit of Fed's involvement like JPM did later.
IMO, both JPMorgan Chase (under Dimon) and BoA (really NationsBank, NC) are well managed companies.
HR 5818- Neighborhood Stabilization Act of 2008
From the link:
Section 16 provides that illegal aliens are ineligible for assistance, though never mandates a card-check.
Now I'm gettin' really torqued off....
People were evicted because they couldn’t get Dodd’s VIP rates.
Mr. Dodd ............ If anyone had said to me, ‘We’re giving you some special treatment here,’ I would have rejected it.
RIGHT!
...and perhaps paid $2-3000 less for his Connecticut home.Over 30 year loan:
He saved roughly $200 per month on his combined payments.
got it. thanks
43% of $400 Billion is one big ass number.
ping
When you are in “public/private” partnerships with what was formerly a private business, the business, as your partner can write legislation favorable to themselves, because the goal of a “public/private” partnership is for the government to take profit from the business, and the business to be a full and active ‘partner’ of the government.
Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Citibank to name a few, all
“partnered” with the federal government to give loans to illegal aliens and to give loans to Mexicans in Mexico, as part of the Partnership for Prosperity plan President Bush set forth a few years ago. All the hubbub about subprime loans on the part of the government is feigned, it was they who encouraged the banks to make these bad loans. The banks, in return, got federal policy relaxed, and got special deals from the Mexican government to operate in Mexico, and to be a source for foreigners in this country to send their remittances out of country (that’s a $90 billion a year business for the US alone).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.