What happens to all the borrowers waiting for the results of the Independent Review? Will the $850+/- each borrower is allotted pay for a move? The dislocations to the economy would have been much less severe if the PSAs were deemed to be voidable and the investor contracts were not held out as sacrosanct. The Bankruptcy Courts could have adjudicated all of the worthy cases as part of what they do normally. Sure, staffs would have been increased but insignificant cost compared to what we have spent to pretend to help homeowners. In fairness, some facing foreclosure were helped by the HAMP and other programs but a very small percentage. Let's face facts, HSBC just paid a mere $1.6B for taking drug cartel money and laundering it. Oh, and how about the movement of funds to Iran and who knows where else that is embargoed? HSBC was the mortgage lender that was proud to say "We don't have to do any modifications; we didn't take any federal money". I know that was said because it was said to me. The special representative from the Office of the President of HSBC (or some portion of it) called me for an explanation when my comment about HSBC was read in the Amer Bnkr or Washington Post. He promised a thorough review of the 7 cases I sent him. NEVER HAPPENED. Or maybe we look at JPMC and their modification of a first mortgage w/o considering the 2nd which they had while raising the escrow payments for force placed insurance that wasn't needed. Or the World Bank's Pick-A-Pay loans that resulted in foreclosures. Or IndyMac Mortgage, not to be confused by IndyMac Bank, which OneWest bought after IndyMac Bank was declared insolvent, and runs the Mortgage company and owns the loans the mortgage company services. I any any two other people could have made money, and a great deal of it with the deals the RMBS pools rec'd and the participants in the PSAs profited from and, of course, the BankUnited, IndyMac Bank deals. HOMEOWNERS -WHO CARES - THE ELECTION IS OVER - BUSINESS AS USUAL. THIS LATEST DEVELOPMENT SHOULD MAKE BAIN SMILE Richard Isacoff isacofflaw@msn.com

What is missing is any compensation for the millions who had higher rates forced on them , especially for adjustable rate loans based on LIBOR. $1.6B doesn't even come close. Why are we settling for meager civil penalties? Why only the Corporations where $1.6B is part of the cost of doing business. How much did they make from the manipulation? Why not look at that figure for a penalty. As a former Bank regulator, I find it hard to believe that all of the rigging went unnoticed by anyone in the Bank, besides the perpetrators. No one knew but members of this cabal? I guess with all of the world's problems in the financial arena, this is just a ho-hum exercise to placate some regulatory body and "wow" the public with $billion dollar penalties. What is the percentage the penalty represents of the gross operating revenue of UBS? Matters not I suppose. No one gives a damn anymore. Payoffs rule! Richard Isacoff rii@isacofflaw.com

I cannot dispute the stats thrown out by the experts on the Panel. However, they have not addressed the securitization of Student Loan Debt. The info on the mortgage business was not unlike the Panel's analysis of Student Loans. Most mortgagors were paying. Delinquency, while higher than expected didn't pose a threat. Even the defaults and foreclosures were deemed to be an aberration. WRONG The private student loan market and even the underwriting in the GSE realm became sloppy at best. Collection activity has become draconian. As a lender (paast life) I would tell borrowers that if they didn't pay I'd repo their dentures and first-born. Today, I'd leave out the first-born - they are on the market: "You can have him/her. Just send 'em back once college is over and paid! Lending with no risk. That's what securitization has done. Investors have the risk but as we saw after the initial panic, RMBS came back to most of value. That's why modifications have been difficult and "Principal Reductions" are treated as TREASON. Don't cut my bond payment - the new battle-cry. Address the entirety of the Student Loan debt, not just a fraction of the stats. Oh, it seems that the Panel forgot to discuss the unemployment problem. For graduates it's like "Being all dressed-up with nowhere to go"! Richard Isacoff isacofflaw@msn @riisacoff

So the suit got dismissed. At least the Plaintiffs didn't have to hire an attorney. Maybe that's part of the problem. No one is hiring attorneys. This is the era of "DYI" and Robert Shapiro, Esq. (a multi-millionaire) comes up with, or a least is the shill for, "LEGAL ZOOM". It's great that he/they advertise that the forms are approved in all 50 states (how about P.R. and American Somoa?). The usual disclaimers about not giving legal advice follow. BUT, just having the forms available is giving legal advice. Regardless it's just another hit. I have been an attorney since 1977, in private practice since 1991. Business is non-existent unless I start doing Court Appointed criminal work and that is poorly funded so... The CFPB should investigate Law Schools to see if we need bother. Maybe they should all close for a decade. If I am not going to get paid and new lawyers are not going to get jobs, may as well do something more useful. Mr. Shapiro would concur I assume.

It has been a remarkable year for any agency to accomplish anything except spending its budget. The fact that CFPB is still functional, and despite threats from Congress, carrying out its mandate, is all the proof needed to show that Mr. Cordray is a great Director. In this election year much is being said about the interests of business vs the consumer and business vs the Country, the second matter being kept to an undercurrent. That said, if anyone was of the understanding that CFPB COULD be a Regulator and not an Enforcer, their view became moot: both a Regulator and Enforcer is what CFPB has become, to complement with one if its peers, the OCC. The settlement with Capital One and the after-action comments by the Bank, illustrate how effective CFPB is at dealing with Unfair and Deceptive practices by the banking enterprises which constantly use "the small print" or no print to hook consumers as customers, often being charged excessive fees that were never agreed to by the card holder. HAPPY BIRTHDAY CFPB and Good Luck Mr. Cordray Richard Isacoff isacofflaw@msn.com

The market for experienced, long time solo practitioners is no better. It would be interesting to see how many are leaving the practice of law for other better paying jobs like McD's or Wal-Mart. No staff, no overhead at all, no worry about potential malpractice claims, BENEFITS (health, disability etc), and a weekly paycheck!! Richard Isacoff rii@isacofflaw.com

I think that the title of the article, "Student Loan Debtors Are Often College Dropouts" is misleading, giving the impression that those who drop out should not have received the loan in the first place - after all, they were dropouts. The stats and article itself show a point by the author: that many enrolled cannot finish because of the student debt being carried or the increasing debt that the student would bear. Especially now, when jobs are extremely difficult to get on both end of the spectrum - just starting and just laid-off after 30 years and "only" 55 how do you pay loans. Perhaps a 4 year degree should give way to "training" for some but maybe the 4 year degree is fine so long as it provides what is promised: the ability to THINK, solve problems, understand the world around us, analyze, utilize critical thinking, AND OBTAIN PREPARATION FOR A CAREER/EMPLOYMENT. The economy may be halting the career seekers and even the "I just want a job in my field" graduates. If the above are the reasons for dropouts we must change the programs. Studying the "Liberal Arts" need not preclude real life skills, learning, and training. This may be the time to look at the curricula from various institutions to determine if internships, work-study programs, or "hands-on" work in the chosen field should be part of graduation requirements. It appears that the costs of getting a 4 year degree have accelerated to a point that health-care costs have been left in the dust. If we want and need engineers, grammar, middle, and high school teachers, writers, economists (or people who understand economic theory which many economists do not IMHO)and the next generation to have those who can think about space, applied and theoretical physics and chemistry, we MUST REVAMP THE LOAN PROGRAMS AND THE COSTS OF "HIGHER ED". Congress will never allow such a thing to happen - "education? sure, - go read a book." It is not just a monetary issue. It is a state of mind as we, as a society, have become disillusioned with the "value" of education. It is a time for disillusionment; the American Dream has left us for now. The thought circulates: "Even if I finish the last 1½ yrs of college, what's the use? I can't get a job, I can't pay for the past 2½ years, so why bother at this point". If we deal with the issue as a lending problem, or a dropout problem for "over indebted" or "undesirable students", we will never fix the problem. $1Trillion in Student Loans? An annuity for the Country. if we can deal with the distorted view of our structural outlook. Richard Isacoff richard.isacoff@msn.com

THIS WAS MY RESPONSE E-MAIL TO THE PAC I grew up (1973 Age 22) in a community-based commercial bank with a National charter – Third National Bank of Springfield, MA. Ultimately it was the impetus to form Bank of New England. Was BNE a traditional bank? Big for its day but basically credit facilities, deposits, Trust Dept., municipal money mgt. Oh, we did trade Fed Funds, normally closing positions at the end of each day. BNE turned into a disaster because of an errant CEO and complacent board. Is BAC a “traditional bank”? Is Wells Fargo? – As the expression goes “size counts”. There is a point at which there are no more traditions to follow except for the robber barons. If you mean banks that neither engage in nor have subsidiaries that engage in 1. “investment banking”, 2. trading for its/their own account(s), 3. FOREX, 4. sell a range of insurance products and investment services (aside from trust), then we have a starting point: Basically, bringing back Glass-Steagall! I lobbied Congress (part-time) for the Mutual Savings Bank industry in the mid-80s for”Mutual Holding Company” legislation so we could keep “community banking”. That fight is long over. We won but it no longer mattered. Wall Street and the consolidation in the very early ‘90s assured that bigger was perceived as better. One stop financial services. UNFORTUNATELY we have gotten closer to “Call 1-800-THEBANK”. Until non-investment banks rally around the concept of “traditional banking” the cause is hopeless. How much pressure was put on Congress to force BAC et al to divest.? How much of a movement was there for a return the the old days of “debits on the left, credits on the right” or “debits by the windows – credits by the door” Deposits and loans? Today, as the economy has become irrevocably a world economy, my memories will stay just that – a glimpse of the past. However, unless there is a clear movement towards a differentiation among “financial institutions” meaning 1. “traditional banks”, 2. holding companies that have a brand (BAC) that may own a traditional bank but only because it hasn’t been homogenized , AND own brokerages, Hedge Funds, investment banks, loan servicing companies etc. 3. “investment banks” where “bank” may be a misnomer, as you can’t make a deposit or get a loan if you are just an average Joe/Jane rather than a Facebook, we move ever closer to there being only branches. WHERE WERE THE “TRADITIONAL BANKS” IN THE FIGHT FOR THE CFPB? Or for HAMP? Or for a RETURN TO THE BASICS? There is an image problem, at least in my humble opinion, or there is duplicity. Is this really just an attempt to grab a stake in consumer finance and SMB lending? I ran failed S&Ls in MD for the State and with FSLIC. Then I opened an FSB in MD only to have a death in the family and take over BNE-West in the Berkshire region of MA. That lasted 1 year until the $32B holding company failed – well, actually was put out of its misery by FDIC which wanted to send a warning shot across the bows of all other larger banks. I know the game – was victimized by it. My view is that this is just another movement for a group to reinforce its power base, or maybe just its foundation. Set out what it is the PAC wants to accomplish – not generalizations about keeping “traditional banks” because they didn’t cause the crisis – the other guys did. Richard Isacoff isacofflaw@msn.com

It doesn't take much imagination or awareness of the current political environment in this Country to realize that any idea of disturbing the RMBS markets further will not get through Congress. The market makers in RMBS issues have too much money invested to allow any further "hit" to their bottom lines. The idea that the loss would be spread is fine so long as it does not affect the value of the securities that own the mortgage notes. As I wrote 3 years ago, the only way to have dealt with this issue would have been to have Congress state that all of the contracts for RMBS, Pooling Agreements, Trust Agreements, Assignments etc were voidable upon audit and national need. Of course I realized that the one time this has happened was during the Depression years but the Supreme Court supported the legislation. Further, I knew that there was no possibility that anything like that would even be thought about again. Money ruled and continues to do so. The arguments about "they deserve to lose their home because they can't afford it" (ad nauseam) no longer resonates based on the significant jobs losses some very responsible people have suffered. We are in an election cycle, and one that appears to be one of the nastiest yet. We are still in a horrid financial crisis, both within and without the Country. No one will convince the financial community that they should take a loss for the national good. Profit first - that's capitalism, really a corruption of the model but the one that resonates with most people. From the start, none of the programs could work; none had mandates from the central government; everything was a recommendation or guideline. When companies handling the modification process did not do modifications, they were instructed to do better and that their progress would be made available to the public. Accordingly, anything that was sent from Treasury, the Fed, FDIC, OCC, was ignored at will. The President can do very little with a gridlocked Congress. He cannot order principal reductions, he cannot order anything. Look to Congress for leadership - there is none. There is no solution that is acceptable to all and yet viable. There are no easy answers - we are allowing the on-going failure of the economy determine the outcome of the housing debacle rather than the other way around. Richard Isacoff rii@isacofflaw.com

Were it so easy to attribute all of the Congressional misdeeds to the distraction of OWS. The reality is that Congress was doing just fine at protecting its funding sources before the movement started. The Congress & the GOP have become pros at obfuscation. Yes, I am lumping the Dems in with the GOP. How many straight party votes were there is either house? If the Dems had voted as a block, perhaps there would have been better transparency to the public. With mixed votes neither side could claim it was voting to protect us and the U.S. Even the current rhetoric about the financial mess being Pres. Obama's problem is "bending" reality. Einstein would be proud. This is the "VERY Special Theory of Relativity". Sure Obama is now President so he can be blamed, but remember that Lehman failed BEFORE the election - just think of the news footage showing John McCain stopping his campaign to go to D.C. to see if he could help fix the problem (remember the "Keating 5"). It was reported that the auto finance and credit card industries spent more than $50M to get the Bankruptcy laws changed in 2005. How much was it worth the so-called banking industry to scuttle any attempts to bridle it? What's worse, is that there were so many new ideologues, who would have paid their entire salary (first year only) to have the ability to have the business of the Congress come to a screeching halt - Fed Debt Ceiling, Fed spending bills, Healthcare, Banking Reform (at least define what a bank is - Lehman wasn't nor is Goldman Sachs or other such entities), Consumer Protection, and other "For The Public Good" programs. Oh, and they also were the - "well heck, just stop federal spending on everything except keeping those furrin' outsiders outside. After all, this Country is for us Americans - natives to this Country - OOPS!!" Yes, OWS was a distraction but mainly because it and they had no stated or even hinted-at goal. Disrupt stock trading? Make millionaires pay more tax? Stop the War sorry, my age is showing)? Move to full employment? Well, maybe it was to promote the outdoors like camping and littering? As usual Mr. Sovern has hit a sore subject. Unfortunately reality often is just that. Richard Isacoff rii@isacofflaw.com

The SEC is the same agency that brought us the approval of mortgage backed securities in the "age" of George Bush II. It is an agency that is critical to our financial stability but has been all to ready to work for the securities industry and so-called Investment "Banks". Judge Rakoff's position that Citi would have to admit liability is understandable. The SEC takes some money from a company, never more than a blip on the quarterly report to stockholders and lets the company report no pending actions nor liability. And do the injured parties ever see $.05 - NO. More to the point is that the SEC has done little to protect the average private investor. Specifically in this case, the "allegations" if proven, would warrant a far larger penalty than the $285M. That is what has the Judge upset. That's what has me upset (not that anyone cares). It's a sweetheart deal. The same negotiating is going on with the entire mortgage industry. Maybe we will be lucky and Judge Rakoff will get all of the cases. Richard Isacoff rii@isacofflaw.com

Your analysis is "spot-on". GOP senators want control of everything. The phrase "Doesn't play well with others" comes to mind. There is a single-minded determination to stop this Administration from achieving any of the programs, policies, changes it seeks. Unfortunately, the financial crisis, which "no one" predicted, put the President and the country on the defensive. Congress did not have to follow the rules beause the financial markets made them all secondary to economic survival, nationally and internationally. The fact that the tactics being used by the GOP may lead us to a true double-dip recession or even a world depression is lost on the ideologues. There is no room for compromise; there is only "The Answer" and they have it. Think Palin, Bachmann, Perry, & Hucklebee. The other side, the Dems, are so placid in contrast - it's like they do not know how to stand up for their beliefs anymore. Nothing was gained by not appointing Eliz. Warren to the CFPB, unless she can beat Sen. Scott Brown, here in MA. Recess appointment - so what? The worst the GOP block could have done is voted en banc in one direction. It certainly appears that is where we are now! I firmly believe we are at a true turning point. Ideology aside, we have a massive financial crisis which cannot be managed by consensus. Even in the best of times, the delay in building the agreements can be deadly. Just look at the fiasco over the debt-ceiling and the world-wide reprecussions; further crisis in the EU and a loss of the rest of our credibility in EU, China and Russia. Your words: "Only the Senators know what their motivations are, but when the evidence of pretext is so strong, it is difficult to resist more cynical conclusions." I cannot resist those conclusions. Richard Isacoff rii@isacofflaw.com

Licensing would give a measure of control over the activities of U.S. based Payday lenders. It seems to be working in the mortgage industry, although there it appears the idea was to eliminate all small mortgage brokers and consolidate to banks or their subsidiaries Payday loans can play a "good" role BUT the Lenders MUST submit to tight regulation. And, as with the mortgage brokers etc., Payday lenders must be required to post a bond, based on the size of their portfolio, to cover their transgressions. Further, they should be subject to audit in the same way mtge companies are. Why is all of this needed - because the payday lenders are worse than the "street lenders". There you at least you know the rules, and even they say NO if you cannot afford to borrow.