Uh and this tiny problemo - what due diligence was performed by the Fed and/or US Treasury BEFORE they bought, more likely removed $2T MBS and related derivatives from certain banks largely from a certain Federal Reserve district east of the Hudson??? And that most if not all so called "profits" from same are due to...the newly minted dinero; just as if when you walk in the door of a casino - they hand you $1000 dollars in chips - then you walk out thinking you're a winner when you walk out with more than you had in your wallet!
So what were the bank examiners of yore doing? A lite review - it appears. And for that they received full, 100% pay, benefits, pensions and health care - all courtesy of us. And we continue to pay for this?
And today FDIC's Ms Bair joins in to trumpet aka "signal" that:
1- It could take months including a "global solution" for banks "to work things out".
And - Bair acknowledged that there were warning signs that the servicing standards were eroding, which should have caused market participants and regulators to question existing practices. “Servicing fees declined significantly over the past several years,” Bair said. “We should have been asking how servicers were able to achieve such efficiencies without sacrificing quality,” Bair said. “Those kinds of questions were not asked.”
2- That Fannie and Freddie should NOT enjoy the implicit g'mint guarantee as here on Marketwatch
And in particular a commenter on the above story posted this:
Makes sense, thats why it'll never happen. Its in the politicians best interet to keep the on going US Housing Ponzi scheme up and running. We wouldn't want the free markets to determine the price of housing, because gasp, they might go down and ruin the Wall St. bonuses.
There you have it...and remember two things:
1) No one put a gun to the head of any banker:
a) to issue a mortgage
b) to create mortgage backed securities (MBS)
c) to sell MBS to investors
d) to leverage their own holdings of MBS 20, 30, or 40 or more to $1
e) to issue any ZERO down mortgages - which by definition, are 100 times leverage
f) then to leverage pools of "e" 20 to $1 - creating minimum 2,000 X financial leverage!!!
g) to, subject to proof, divert hundreds of billions of customers' money market funds into bank deposit accounts - at their own affiliated ILCs - then to loan same funds NOT to arms - length commercial borrowers as required by charter - BUT to their own affiliated, controlled entities...
2- NO BANKER, upon receiving a bonus check - back in the day a) raised their hand and b) asked or stated if it was too much...huh?
And see this writer's post to the FDIC's request about RIN 46 in December 2009 aka when it comes to "control" report it...
And was it me or did it both sound and look like in his presentation today, Mr Bernanke got kicked south of the belt by those same banksters' STD's er...MBS???