-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
-
Hello all! We will be performing a website & forum update soon. You may get logged out so now is the time to make sure your email address in your account is correct - go to your account to check it and update it now. Send us a message with your username and/or email address if you need help.
Feel sorry for these people?
- Thread starter Capricious
- Start date
Bobby J
Beach Fanatic
Yeah. That's real ethical!
SHELLY
SoWal Insider
Schumer: Probe Countrywide Advances
U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer on Monday called for federal regulators to probe more than $50 billion in advances made by the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta to troubled mortgage giant Countrywide Financial.
In a letter dated Nov. 26 to Chairman Ronald Rosenfeld of the Federal Housing Finance Board, Schumer (D., New York) expressed "serious concern" that loans Countrywide Bank was pledging as collateral for those advances "may pose a risk to the safety and soundness of the FHLB system as a whole."
FHLB Atlanta has made $51.4 billion in advances to Countrywide Bank as of Sept. 30, Schumer wrote, citing the most recent Securities and Exchange Commission filings. The amount represents 37% of the bank's total outstanding advances and the $62.4 billion in loans Countrywide has put up as collateral represents 78% of its total mortgage holdings, Schumber said.
----------------------------------------------------
:scratch:Now why would Chuck think that these cash advances to Countrywide would be a problem???
HINT #1: The home-loan banks were created by Congress in 1932 to prop up failing banks and provide money for housing. They borrow money through global bond issues on the strength of investors' belief that the U.S. government would rescue them in a crisis.
HINT #2: Darlene Stutzman & others of her ilk.
/
U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer on Monday called for federal regulators to probe more than $50 billion in advances made by the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta to troubled mortgage giant Countrywide Financial.
In a letter dated Nov. 26 to Chairman Ronald Rosenfeld of the Federal Housing Finance Board, Schumer (D., New York) expressed "serious concern" that loans Countrywide Bank was pledging as collateral for those advances "may pose a risk to the safety and soundness of the FHLB system as a whole."
FHLB Atlanta has made $51.4 billion in advances to Countrywide Bank as of Sept. 30, Schumer wrote, citing the most recent Securities and Exchange Commission filings. The amount represents 37% of the bank's total outstanding advances and the $62.4 billion in loans Countrywide has put up as collateral represents 78% of its total mortgage holdings, Schumber said.
----------------------------------------------------
:scratch:Now why would Chuck think that these cash advances to Countrywide would be a problem???
HINT #1: The home-loan banks were created by Congress in 1932 to prop up failing banks and provide money for housing. They borrow money through global bond issues on the strength of investors' belief that the U.S. government would rescue them in a crisis.
HINT #2: Darlene Stutzman & others of her ilk.
/
Last edited:
Agreed. In business , there is legal and illegal but there are no ethics. This may sound harsh to some but I am just speaking the truth as I see it.
If the ethic-huggers spent more time complaining about corporate greed and manipulation of the political and legal system ( to there advantage ) rather than some minimum wage guy getting out of a $20000 loan , the world would be a much better place.
Capricious
Beach Fanatic
"..So when this lender charges 30 bucks on a 99 cent NSF check is that a good deal? Or is it a bad deal? Or just a deal is a deal with the bank?..."
Having never written a N.S.F check, I have no experience with the
fees, and so am not qualified to comment.
Having never written a N.S.F check, I have no experience with the
fees, and so am not qualified to comment.
Capricious
Beach Fanatic
"..If the ethic-huggers spent more time complaining about corporate greed and manipulation of the political and legal system ( to there advantage ) rather than some minimum wage guy getting out of a $20000 loan , the world would be a much better place...."
The difference is that you make a deal and live with it.
If the CEO "back dates" stock options, then it is unethical.
If the CEO collects a lot of money because of the employment
contract he/she negotiated, and the company agreed to, then
it is ethical.
The difference is that you make a deal and live with it.
If the CEO "back dates" stock options, then it is unethical.
If the CEO collects a lot of money because of the employment
contract he/she negotiated, and the company agreed to, then
it is ethical.
Last edited:
The difference is that you make a deal and live with it.
If the CEO "back dates" stock options, then it is unethical.
If the CEO collects a lot of money because of the employment
contract he/she negotiated, and the company agreed to, then
it is ethical.[/quote]
What if the CEO is buddies with the board and this comes into play in the negotiations? What if he used to be on the board ?
What if after is appointment , he increases board reimbursement via stock or cash and other benefits ( free rides on the company jet..etc )
All legal but is it ethical? Anyone have a problem with this scenario?
If the CEO "back dates" stock options, then it is unethical.
If the CEO collects a lot of money because of the employment
contract he/she negotiated, and the company agreed to, then
it is ethical.[/quote]
What if the CEO is buddies with the board and this comes into play in the negotiations? What if he used to be on the board ?
What if after is appointment , he increases board reimbursement via stock or cash and other benefits ( free rides on the company jet..etc )
All legal but is it ethical? Anyone have a problem with this scenario?
The difference is that you make a deal and live with it.
If the CEO "back dates" stock options, then it is unethical.
If the CEO collects a lot of money because of the employment
contract he/she negotiated, and the company agreed to, then
it is ethical.[/quote]
Here is another one to ponder. You are in charge of marshalling a bill through Congress to help Big Pharma under the guise of really helping seniors. Once you suceed in this role, you leave Congress and become CEO of big Pharma's lobbying group. Legal ...yes but is it ethical business?
see link http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/drugs/2004-12-15-drugs-usat_x.htm
If the CEO "back dates" stock options, then it is unethical.
If the CEO collects a lot of money because of the employment
contract he/she negotiated, and the company agreed to, then
it is ethical.[/quote]
Here is another one to ponder. You are in charge of marshalling a bill through Congress to help Big Pharma under the guise of really helping seniors. Once you suceed in this role, you leave Congress and become CEO of big Pharma's lobbying group. Legal ...yes but is it ethical business?
see link http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/drugs/2004-12-15-drugs-usat_x.htm
Capricious
Beach Fanatic
"..Anyone have a problem with this scenario..."
If so, sell the stock.
If so, sell the stock.
Capricious
Beach Fanatic
"...you leave Congress and become CEO of big Pharma's lobbying group. Legal ...yes but is it ethical business? .."
Obviously the voters voted for the wrong person.
Blame them.
Obviously the voters voted for the wrong person.
Blame them.