The Indymac Slap in our Face

[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.

[jpinpb]

I am facing foreclosure

I think I got it to work now.

[jpinpb]

I am facing foreclosure

I think I got it to work now.

[jpinpb]

I am facing foreclosure

I think I got it to work now.

[jpinpb]

I am facing foreclosure

I think I got it to work now.

[jpinpb]

I am facing foreclosure

I think I got it to work now.

[davelj]

[quote=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?[/quote]

I don’t know that OneWest is acting differently from other banks THAT HAVE LOSS-SHARING ARRANGEMENTS COVERING LARGE PORTFOLIOS OF SFR LOANS. Most of the bank failures to date are of commercial banks, so OneWest is somewhat unique in that it acquired a failed bank with lots of SFR exposure. I would assume that having the loss-sharing arrangement has altered their decision making vis-a-vis mods relative to banks that don’t have such arrangements. Since their losses are “more” protected (via loss sharing) they don’t HAVE to think about the modification issue as much. They have more choices.

But the real bottom line is… that I don’t care about what goes on at the micro level. There’s a loss-sharing agreement in place that covers the aggregate portfolio. I guarantee you that the real losses in the IndyMac portfolio are going to be far greater than any cumulative gains booked a la the video’s math (if the math is even correct, that is). So, I really don’t care. The FDIC is going to fight tooth and nail to shell out the least amount of money under these agreements, which is why some bidders are wary of them.

I think this is largely a red herring – albeit one with some small grain of truth – contrived by folks who don’t know what they don’t know (“financial retards” is your term, not mine). As usual.

Here are my questions:
(1) Why do you care about how OneWest deals with their (deadbeat) borrowers (as you have nothing to do with either)?
(2) Why do you care about how an agreement between OneWest and the FDIC is administered (as you have nothing to do with either)?

Frankly, I don’t care if OneWest makes $10 billion or not one red cent. And if ANYONE should care, it should be me, as I’m actually in the banking industry! After all, it’s banks that I either have an ownership stake in or consult with that will be paying for the net losses here. And I simply don’t care because life is too short.

[davelj]

[quote=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?[/quote]

I don’t know that OneWest is acting differently from other banks THAT HAVE LOSS-SHARING ARRANGEMENTS COVERING LARGE PORTFOLIOS OF SFR LOANS. Most of the bank failures to date are of commercial banks, so OneWest is somewhat unique in that it acquired a failed bank with lots of SFR exposure. I would assume that having the loss-sharing arrangement has altered their decision making vis-a-vis mods relative to banks that don’t have such arrangements. Since their losses are “more” protected (via loss sharing) they don’t HAVE to think about the modification issue as much. They have more choices.

But the real bottom line is… that I don’t care about what goes on at the micro level. There’s a loss-sharing agreement in place that covers the aggregate portfolio. I guarantee you that the real losses in the IndyMac portfolio are going to be far greater than any cumulative gains booked a la the video’s math (if the math is even correct, that is). So, I really don’t care. The FDIC is going to fight tooth and nail to shell out the least amount of money under these agreements, which is why some bidders are wary of them.

I think this is largely a red herring – albeit one with some small grain of truth – contrived by folks who don’t know what they don’t know (“financial retards” is your term, not mine). As usual.

Here are my questions:
(1) Why do you care about how OneWest deals with their (deadbeat) borrowers (as you have nothing to do with either)?
(2) Why do you care about how an agreement between OneWest and the FDIC is administered (as you have nothing to do with either)?

Frankly, I don’t care if OneWest makes $10 billion or not one red cent. And if ANYONE should care, it should be me, as I’m actually in the banking industry! After all, it’s banks that I either have an ownership stake in or consult with that will be paying for the net losses here. And I simply don’t care because life is too short.

[davelj]

[quote=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?[/quote]

I don’t know that OneWest is acting differently from other banks THAT HAVE LOSS-SHARING ARRANGEMENTS COVERING LARGE PORTFOLIOS OF SFR LOANS. Most of the bank failures to date are of commercial banks, so OneWest is somewhat unique in that it acquired a failed bank with lots of SFR exposure. I would assume that having the loss-sharing arrangement has altered their decision making vis-a-vis mods relative to banks that don’t have such arrangements. Since their losses are “more” protected (via loss sharing) they don’t HAVE to think about the modification issue as much. They have more choices.

But the real bottom line is… that I don’t care about what goes on at the micro level. There’s a loss-sharing agreement in place that covers the aggregate portfolio. I guarantee you that the real losses in the IndyMac portfolio are going to be far greater than any cumulative gains booked a la the video’s math (if the math is even correct, that is). So, I really don’t care. The FDIC is going to fight tooth and nail to shell out the least amount of money under these agreements, which is why some bidders are wary of them.

I think this is largely a red herring – albeit one with some small grain of truth – contrived by folks who don’t know what they don’t know (“financial retards” is your term, not mine). As usual.

Here are my questions:
(1) Why do you care about how OneWest deals with their (deadbeat) borrowers (as you have nothing to do with either)?
(2) Why do you care about how an agreement between OneWest and the FDIC is administered (as you have nothing to do with either)?

Frankly, I don’t care if OneWest makes $10 billion or not one red cent. And if ANYONE should care, it should be me, as I’m actually in the banking industry! After all, it’s banks that I either have an ownership stake in or consult with that will be paying for the net losses here. And I simply don’t care because life is too short.

[davelj]

[quote=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?[/quote]

I don’t know that OneWest is acting differently from other banks THAT HAVE LOSS-SHARING ARRANGEMENTS COVERING LARGE PORTFOLIOS OF SFR LOANS. Most of the bank failures to date are of commercial banks, so OneWest is somewhat unique in that it acquired a failed bank with lots of SFR exposure. I would assume that having the loss-sharing arrangement has altered their decision making vis-a-vis mods relative to banks that don’t have such arrangements. Since their losses are “more” protected (via loss sharing) they don’t HAVE to think about the modification issue as much. They have more choices.

But the real bottom line is… that I don’t care about what goes on at the micro level. There’s a loss-sharing agreement in place that covers the aggregate portfolio. I guarantee you that the real losses in the IndyMac portfolio are going to be far greater than any cumulative gains booked a la the video’s math (if the math is even correct, that is). So, I really don’t care. The FDIC is going to fight tooth and nail to shell out the least amount of money under these agreements, which is why some bidders are wary of them.

I think this is largely a red herring – albeit one with some small grain of truth – contrived by folks who don’t know what they don’t know (“financial retards” is your term, not mine). As usual.

Here are my questions:
(1) Why do you care about how OneWest deals with their (deadbeat) borrowers (as you have nothing to do with either)?
(2) Why do you care about how an agreement between OneWest and the FDIC is administered (as you have nothing to do with either)?

Frankly, I don’t care if OneWest makes $10 billion or not one red cent. And if ANYONE should care, it should be me, as I’m actually in the banking industry! After all, it’s banks that I either have an ownership stake in or consult with that will be paying for the net losses here. And I simply don’t care because life is too short.

[davelj]

[quote=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?[/quote]

I don’t know that OneWest is acting differently from other banks THAT HAVE LOSS-SHARING ARRANGEMENTS COVERING LARGE PORTFOLIOS OF SFR LOANS. Most of the bank failures to date are of commercial banks, so OneWest is somewhat unique in that it acquired a failed bank with lots of SFR exposure. I would assume that having the loss-sharing arrangement has altered their decision making vis-a-vis mods relative to banks that don’t have such arrangements. Since their losses are “more” protected (via loss sharing) they don’t HAVE to think about the modification issue as much. They have more choices.

But the real bottom line is… that I don’t care about what goes on at the micro level. There’s a loss-sharing agreement in place that covers the aggregate portfolio. I guarantee you that the real losses in the IndyMac portfolio are going to be far greater than any cumulative gains booked a la the video’s math (if the math is even correct, that is). So, I really don’t care. The FDIC is going to fight tooth and nail to shell out the least amount of money under these agreements, which is why some bidders are wary of them.

I think this is largely a red herring – albeit one with some small grain of truth – contrived by folks who don’t know what they don’t know (“financial retards” is your term, not mine). As usual.

Here are my questions:
(1) Why do you care about how OneWest deals with their (deadbeat) borrowers (as you have nothing to do with either)?
(2) Why do you care about how an agreement between OneWest and the FDIC is administered (as you have nothing to do with either)?

Frankly, I don’t care if OneWest makes $10 billion or not one red cent. And if ANYONE should care, it should be me, as I’m actually in the banking industry! After all, it’s banks that I either have an ownership stake in or consult with that will be paying for the net losses here. And I simply don’t care because life is too short.

[Arraya]

haha… I really don’t care about it. Other than to figure out what is going on. It is the subject of morning which is an interesting case. I think the I am facing foreclosure has the best perspective on it even if it is a little flawed.

You’re correct, though, it is not a very exciting subject. The global debt bomb going off is much more exciting.

[Arraya]

haha… I really don’t care about it. Other than to figure out what is going on. It is the subject of morning which is an interesting case. I think the I am facing foreclosure has the best perspective on it even if it is a little flawed.

You’re correct, though, it is not a very exciting subject. The global debt bomb going off is much more exciting.

[Arraya]

haha… I really don’t care about it. Other than to figure out what is going on. It is the subject of morning which is an interesting case. I think the I am facing foreclosure has the best perspective on it even if it is a little flawed.

You’re correct, though, it is not a very exciting subject. The global debt bomb going off is much more exciting.

[Arraya]

haha… I really don’t care about it. Other than to figure out what is going on. It is the subject of morning which is an interesting case. I think the I am facing foreclosure has the best perspective on it even if it is a little flawed.

You’re correct, though, it is not a very exciting subject. The global debt bomb going off is much more exciting.

[Author]

Posts