The Indymac Slap in our Face

[Arraya]

The way the video was framed was inaccurate however it was correct. Just as CR was accurate in sense but also wrong. Life is full of paradoxes. It boils down to how One West interprets Shared-Loss agreement which appears to be differently than all other banks.

No conspiracy, just a bank interpreting the rules differently and probably has some good lawyers to back them up. Whether what they are doing is “wrong” is up to a judge to decide. Which boils down to their aversion to modifications which apparently could amount to fraud. Again, that is a legal interpretation on the word intent.

It’s the conspiracy of self interest backed up with lawyers. Pretty common in the business world.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Arraya]

[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?

[Arraya]

[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?

[Arraya]

[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?

[Arraya]

[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?

[Arraya]

[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?

[air_ogi]

And 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.

[air_ogi]

And 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.

[air_ogi]

And 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.

[air_ogi]

And 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.

[Author]

Posts