Did Wall Street Just Pull Another Coup?

This article is part of our Rising Star Portfolios series. You can read about the Dada Portfolio here.

Of the major banks implicated in various mortgage scandals -- JPMorgan, (NYSE: JPM  ) , Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC  ) , and Citigroup (NYSE: C  ) -- perhaps none is seen to be as vulnerable as Bank of America (NYSE: BAC  ) .

Last Monday, B of A took the first step in its effort to "put these issues behind us," with the announcement it had reached a $3 billion agreement with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to clear up charges that it had misrepresented the quality of loans it sold the two government-sponsored enterprises. The remedy would be to "put back" -- or force Bank of America to buy back -- shoddy loans.

The put-back threat had been significant not just for its scale, but also its surprise; many had assumed regulators would continue to turn the other cheek for Wall Street. My colleague Anand Chokkavelu wasn't alone in reminding us that "during the financial crisis, the government has shown a great will to ensure the prosperity of too-big-to-fail banks."

One senior banker freaked out to CNBC's John Carney at the time Fannie and Freddie threatened to recoup taxpayer money via put-backs, "This is a serious threat to financial stability. There's no way Tim [Geithner] and Ben [Bernanke] let this play out." The banker's quote would seem to confirm that Wall Street's business model is to blow its bailout on earth-shattering pay -- about $280 billion for 2009 and 2010 -- instead of reserving enough for claims on its own shenanigans. Wall Street then becomes dangerous enough that a collapse would wreck the financial system, and the companies head back to the trough. Bailout, repeat.

So did Wall Street just pull another coup? Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) questioned whether the settlement amounted to a "backdoor bailout that props up the bank at the expense of taxpayers." Investors last Monday seemed to confirm her suspicion by rewarding Bank of America with a 6% gain that valued the bank at an additional $8.6 billion.

But Fannie and Freddie have been doing a surprisingly decent job pressing claims against the banks. Firedoglake's David Dayen maintains that the repurchase agreement was about in line with what could be expected. Maybe cheerful investors think the deal foreshadows a speedy resolution to other outstanding problems, or maybe they're just missing the bigger picture.

The bigger picture
The settlement with the GSEs probably isn't the end of Bank of America's legal woes.

First, private investors such as PIMCO, BlackRock (NYSE: BLK  ) , and Legg Mason (NYSE: LM  ) may press put-back claims as well, even though they have a tougher hurdle to clear than the GSE's.

Second, even this agreement may be overstated in the media. An upbeat Bank of America press release announced, "Bank of America believes that it has addressed its remaining exposure to repurchase obligations for residential mortgage loans sold directly to the GSEs." However, some analysts questioned that reaction. In fact, Bank of America's CFO said he expects future claims from Fannie.

Finally, the GSE press release noted that "none of the agreements address representations and warranties with regard to mortgage servicing or foreclosure processing." In other words, $3 billion may get Bank of America off the hook for alleged misrepresentations about the quality of some of the mortgages it sold to Fannie and Freddie, but it doesn't address all the GSE claims, nor does it address many other outstanding issues. These include consumer abuse and foreclosure fraud accusations related to possibly unnecessary foreclosures that garner fees, accusations that servicers failed to live up to mortgage modification obligations, and charges that originators bungled the bundling of mortgage-backed securities in the first place.

The potential remaining civil and criminal liabilities are large -- otherwise bankers and the Congressional Oversight Panel wouldn't be worried that mortgage "irregularities" may present systemic threats a mere two years after the last time taxpayers bailed out Wall Street.

Unfortunately, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, who's heading up the 50-state investigation, may be backing off from "we will put people in jail" in favor of the more genteel "our focus is to reform the servicing process and that's inherently civil, not criminal."

It remains to be seen whether Wall Street is not only "too big to fail" but also "too big to prosecute."

If you'd like me to keep you posted on issues related to financial reform and investor advocacy, just send a blank email to imoscovitz@fool.com.

You can follow the Dada Portfolio on Twitter @TMFDada, or visit our discussion board here.

This article is part of our Rising Star Portfolios series, where we give some of our most promising stock analysts cold, hard cash to manage on the Fool's behalf. We'd like you to track our performance and benefit from these real-money, real-time free stock picks. Click here to see all of our Rising Star analysts (and their portfolios).

Ilan Moscovitz doesn't have an interest in any of the companies mentioned in this article. BlackRock is a Motley Fool Inside Value recommendation. The Fool owns shares of JPMorgan, Legg Mason, and Wells Fargo. Through separate portfolios, the Fool is both long and short on Bank of America. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


Read/Post Comments (2) | Recommend This Article (5)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On January 11, 2011, at 10:30 AM, OneLegged wrote:

    Too big to prosecute? I think that has already been proven. Texas schools are giving 6-year-olds citations that require them to appear in court for offenses such as disrupting class and at the same time our government is giving Wall Street free bail-out money that weighs in in trillions of dollars for defrauding the entire world and crashing the economies of nearly every country on earth. When's the last time one of these companies has seen the inside of a courtroom? The fact that there have not been 1000s of charges filed shows just how captured out political system is by these banksters. Greed followed, by corruption followed by huge pay checks. Of the people by the people and for the people.

  • Report this Comment On January 11, 2011, at 12:12 PM, MegaEurope wrote:

    "The banker's quote would seem to confirm that Wall Street's business model is to blow its bailout on earth-shattering pay -- about $280 billion for 2009 and 2010 -- instead of reserving enough for claims on its own shenanigans."

    Total non sequitur. Your claim comes from your preconceived biases, not from the banker's quote at all.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 1419839, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/20/2014 12:04:16 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement