- This topic has 140 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 15 years ago by
davelj.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 13, 2010 at 12:01 PM #513707February 13, 2010 at 12:08 PM #512798
davelj
Participant[quote=Arraya]
As a result, OneWest appears to simply ignore the intent and just foreclose (as far as I can tell).
So, OneWest’s failure to modify loans may actually amount to fraud on the Treasury and US taxpayers.
[/quote]Let’s see… I’m supposed to take seriously a legal analysis that (1) misidentifies the primary parties to the transaction (What do the Treasury and the taxpayers have to do with the loss-share arrangements?), and (2) includes the caveat “as far as I can tell” (which tends not to hold up well in court).
I suspect that by the time a “real” analysis is performed on this issue at the micro level, neither OneWest, the FDIC nor their detractors will be covered in glory.
February 13, 2010 at 12:08 PM #512946davelj
Participant[quote=Arraya]
As a result, OneWest appears to simply ignore the intent and just foreclose (as far as I can tell).
So, OneWest’s failure to modify loans may actually amount to fraud on the Treasury and US taxpayers.
[/quote]Let’s see… I’m supposed to take seriously a legal analysis that (1) misidentifies the primary parties to the transaction (What do the Treasury and the taxpayers have to do with the loss-share arrangements?), and (2) includes the caveat “as far as I can tell” (which tends not to hold up well in court).
I suspect that by the time a “real” analysis is performed on this issue at the micro level, neither OneWest, the FDIC nor their detractors will be covered in glory.
February 13, 2010 at 12:08 PM #513366davelj
Participant[quote=Arraya]
As a result, OneWest appears to simply ignore the intent and just foreclose (as far as I can tell).
So, OneWest’s failure to modify loans may actually amount to fraud on the Treasury and US taxpayers.
[/quote]Let’s see… I’m supposed to take seriously a legal analysis that (1) misidentifies the primary parties to the transaction (What do the Treasury and the taxpayers have to do with the loss-share arrangements?), and (2) includes the caveat “as far as I can tell” (which tends not to hold up well in court).
I suspect that by the time a “real” analysis is performed on this issue at the micro level, neither OneWest, the FDIC nor their detractors will be covered in glory.
February 13, 2010 at 12:08 PM #513459davelj
Participant[quote=Arraya]
As a result, OneWest appears to simply ignore the intent and just foreclose (as far as I can tell).
So, OneWest’s failure to modify loans may actually amount to fraud on the Treasury and US taxpayers.
[/quote]Let’s see… I’m supposed to take seriously a legal analysis that (1) misidentifies the primary parties to the transaction (What do the Treasury and the taxpayers have to do with the loss-share arrangements?), and (2) includes the caveat “as far as I can tell” (which tends not to hold up well in court).
I suspect that by the time a “real” analysis is performed on this issue at the micro level, neither OneWest, the FDIC nor their detractors will be covered in glory.
February 13, 2010 at 12:08 PM #513712davelj
Participant[quote=Arraya]
As a result, OneWest appears to simply ignore the intent and just foreclose (as far as I can tell).
So, OneWest’s failure to modify loans may actually amount to fraud on the Treasury and US taxpayers.
[/quote]Let’s see… I’m supposed to take seriously a legal analysis that (1) misidentifies the primary parties to the transaction (What do the Treasury and the taxpayers have to do with the loss-share arrangements?), and (2) includes the caveat “as far as I can tell” (which tends not to hold up well in court).
I suspect that by the time a “real” analysis is performed on this issue at the micro level, neither OneWest, the FDIC nor their detractors will be covered in glory.
February 13, 2010 at 12:11 PM #512803Arraya
Participant[quote=davelj][quote=Arraya]
As a result, OneWest appears to simply ignore the intent and just foreclose (as far as I can tell).
So, OneWest’s failure to modify loans may actually amount to fraud on the Treasury and US taxpayers.
[/quote]Let’s see… I’m supposed to take seriously a legal analysis that (1) misidentifies the primary parties to the transaction (What do the Treasury and the taxpayers have to do with the loss-share arrangements?), and (2) includes the caveat “as far as I can tell” (which tends not to hold up well in court).
I suspect that by the time a “real” analysis is performed on this issue at the micro level, neither OneWest, the FDIC nor their detractors will be covered in glory.[/quote]
That’s a good question Dave.
Why don’t you tell us why One west is acting differently from other banks?
Or is this all contrived paranoia of the financially retarded.
Why is one west not doing modifications?
February 13, 2010 at 12:11 PM #512951Arraya
Participant[quote=davelj][quote=Arraya]
As a result, OneWest appears to simply ignore the intent and just foreclose (as far as I can tell).
So, OneWest’s failure to modify loans may actually amount to fraud on the Treasury and US taxpayers.
[/quote]Let’s see… I’m supposed to take seriously a legal analysis that (1) misidentifies the primary parties to the transaction (What do the Treasury and the taxpayers have to do with the loss-share arrangements?), and (2) includes the caveat “as far as I can tell” (which tends not to hold up well in court).
I suspect that by the time a “real” analysis is performed on this issue at the micro level, neither OneWest, the FDIC nor their detractors will be covered in glory.[/quote]
That’s a good question Dave.
Why don’t you tell us why One west is acting differently from other banks?
Or is this all contrived paranoia of the financially retarded.
Why is one west not doing modifications?
February 13, 2010 at 12:11 PM #513371Arraya
Participant[quote=davelj][quote=Arraya]
As a result, OneWest appears to simply ignore the intent and just foreclose (as far as I can tell).
So, OneWest’s failure to modify loans may actually amount to fraud on the Treasury and US taxpayers.
[/quote]Let’s see… I’m supposed to take seriously a legal analysis that (1) misidentifies the primary parties to the transaction (What do the Treasury and the taxpayers have to do with the loss-share arrangements?), and (2) includes the caveat “as far as I can tell” (which tends not to hold up well in court).
I suspect that by the time a “real” analysis is performed on this issue at the micro level, neither OneWest, the FDIC nor their detractors will be covered in glory.[/quote]
That’s a good question Dave.
Why don’t you tell us why One west is acting differently from other banks?
Or is this all contrived paranoia of the financially retarded.
Why is one west not doing modifications?
February 13, 2010 at 12:11 PM #513464Arraya
Participant[quote=davelj][quote=Arraya]
As a result, OneWest appears to simply ignore the intent and just foreclose (as far as I can tell).
So, OneWest’s failure to modify loans may actually amount to fraud on the Treasury and US taxpayers.
[/quote]Let’s see… I’m supposed to take seriously a legal analysis that (1) misidentifies the primary parties to the transaction (What do the Treasury and the taxpayers have to do with the loss-share arrangements?), and (2) includes the caveat “as far as I can tell” (which tends not to hold up well in court).
I suspect that by the time a “real” analysis is performed on this issue at the micro level, neither OneWest, the FDIC nor their detractors will be covered in glory.[/quote]
That’s a good question Dave.
Why don’t you tell us why One west is acting differently from other banks?
Or is this all contrived paranoia of the financially retarded.
Why is one west not doing modifications?
February 13, 2010 at 12:11 PM #513717Arraya
Participant[quote=davelj][quote=Arraya]
As a result, OneWest appears to simply ignore the intent and just foreclose (as far as I can tell).
So, OneWest’s failure to modify loans may actually amount to fraud on the Treasury and US taxpayers.
[/quote]Let’s see… I’m supposed to take seriously a legal analysis that (1) misidentifies the primary parties to the transaction (What do the Treasury and the taxpayers have to do with the loss-share arrangements?), and (2) includes the caveat “as far as I can tell” (which tends not to hold up well in court).
I suspect that by the time a “real” analysis is performed on this issue at the micro level, neither OneWest, the FDIC nor their detractors will be covered in glory.[/quote]
That’s a good question Dave.
Why don’t you tell us why One west is acting differently from other banks?
Or is this all contrived paranoia of the financially retarded.
Why is one west not doing modifications?
February 13, 2010 at 12:13 PM #512808air_ogi
ParticipantAnd this is why you don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.
The loss sharing agreement covers the whole portfolio, not individual assets.
It goes like this:OWB buys the portfolio at 70c on the dollar.
It takes first 20% of loss on the written down value of the porfolio. FDIC shares the rest.I don’t see why this is so difficult to understand.
And Soros’ hedgefund is a minority shareholder in this. You don’t mention that Saudi Arabia is one of largest owners of Fox News every time you quote their article.
February 13, 2010 at 12:13 PM #512956air_ogi
ParticipantAnd this is why you don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.
The loss sharing agreement covers the whole portfolio, not individual assets.
It goes like this:OWB buys the portfolio at 70c on the dollar.
It takes first 20% of loss on the written down value of the porfolio. FDIC shares the rest.I don’t see why this is so difficult to understand.
And Soros’ hedgefund is a minority shareholder in this. You don’t mention that Saudi Arabia is one of largest owners of Fox News every time you quote their article.
February 13, 2010 at 12:13 PM #513376air_ogi
ParticipantAnd this is why you don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.
The loss sharing agreement covers the whole portfolio, not individual assets.
It goes like this:OWB buys the portfolio at 70c on the dollar.
It takes first 20% of loss on the written down value of the porfolio. FDIC shares the rest.I don’t see why this is so difficult to understand.
And Soros’ hedgefund is a minority shareholder in this. You don’t mention that Saudi Arabia is one of largest owners of Fox News every time you quote their article.
February 13, 2010 at 12:13 PM #513469air_ogi
ParticipantAnd this is why you don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.
The loss sharing agreement covers the whole portfolio, not individual assets.
It goes like this:OWB buys the portfolio at 70c on the dollar.
It takes first 20% of loss on the written down value of the porfolio. FDIC shares the rest.I don’t see why this is so difficult to understand.
And Soros’ hedgefund is a minority shareholder in this. You don’t mention that Saudi Arabia is one of largest owners of Fox News every time you quote their article.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.