FedUpUSA

Archive for the ‘JPMorgan Chase’ Category

How would you feel if someone told you that one of the largest banks on Wall Street makes more money whenever the number of Americans on food stamps goes up?  Unfortunately, this is something that is actually true.  In the United States today, one out of every seven Americans is on food stamps.  In fact, the number of Americans on food stamps has increased by a whopping 14 million since Barack Obama entered the White House.  All of this makes JP Morgan very happy, because JP Morgan has been making money by the boatload on food stamps.  Right now, JP Morgan Chase issues food stamp debit cards in 26 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.  The division of JP Morgan Chase that issues these debit cards made an eye-popping 5.47 billion dollars in net revenue during 2010.  JP Morgan is paid per customer, so when the number of Americans on food stamps goes up, they make more money.  But doesn’t this give JP Morgan an incentive to try to keep the number of Americans on food stamps as high as possible?  Of course it does.  JP Morgan is interested in making money as rapidly as possible. If JP Morgan can get more Americans enrolled in the food stamp program and keep them enrolled in it for as long as possible, that is good for business.

And the Obama administration is certainly doing what it can to help out.  Even though a whopping 46 million Americans are now on food stamps, the Obama administration plans to give out large amounts of money to organizations that are able figure out ways to get even more people enrolled in the program….

Despite the historic rise in food stamp use, however, the Obama Administration believes not enough people are receiving food stamps who should be and is offering $75,000 grants to groups who devise “effective strategies” to “increase program participation” among those who have yet to sign up.

In fact, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack says that if we can get even more Americans enrolled in the food stamp program, that will be a great way to “stimulate the economy“.

Of course JP Morgan just loves all of this.  The more people they have in the system the better.

Christopher Paton, the managing director of JP Morgan’s “Treasury Solutions” business, made the following statement about the “food stamp business” that his firm is engaged in during an interview with Bloomberg Television….

“This business is a very important business to JPMorgan. It’s an important business in terms of its size and scale…Right now, volumes have gone through the roof in the past couple of years. The good news, from JPMorgan’s perspective, is the infrastructure that we built has been able to cope with that increase in volume.”

You can see more of the interview with Paton in the video posted below….

As the interview above noted, more than 40 percent of all food stamp recipients in the United States actually have a job.

This is an exciting “growth area” for JP Morgan.  As the middle class continues to decline, the number of “the working poor” in America is exploding.

Back in 1980, less than 30% of all jobs in the United States were low income jobs.  Today, more than 40% of all jobs in the United States are low income jobs.  This trend is perfect for JP Morgan because it means that the number of low income workers that are eligible for food stamps is going to keep increasing.

And what makes all of this even sadder is that JP Morgan has outsourced many of the customer service jobs for its food stamp program to India.

Yes, you read that correctly.

When Americans that can’t find a decent job need help with their food stamps there is a good chance that they will be talking to a customer service representative sitting in India.

Isn’t that crazy?

When ABC News confronted JP Morgan about this, JP Morgan would not tell ABC which states have customer service calls sent to India and which states have them handled inside the United States….

JP Morgan is the only one today still operating public-assistance call centers overseas. The company refused to say which states had calls routed to India and which ones had calls stay domestically. That decision, the company said, was often left up to the individual states.

But JP Morgan doesn’t just handle food stamps.  JP Morgan also issues child support debit cards in 15 states and unemployment insurance debit cards in 7 states.

Of course JP Morgan is not the only big bank involved in this kind of business.  Several others are also making money in massive quantities on the backs of the poor.

The following example comes from a Huffington Post article….

Shawana Busby does not seem like the sort of customer who would be at the center of a major bank’s business plan. Out of work for much of the last three years, she depends upon a $264-a-week unemployment check from the state of South Carolina. But the state has contracted with Bank of America to administer its unemployment benefits, and Busby has frequently found herself incurring bank fees to get her money.

To withdraw her benefits, Busby, 33, uses a Bank of America prepaid debit card on which the state deposits her funds. She could visit a Bank of America ATM free of charge. But this small community in the state’s rural center, her hometown, does not have a Bank of America branch. Neither do the surrounding towns where she drops off her kids at school and attends church.

She could drive north to Columbia, the state capital, and use a Bank of America ATM there. But that entails a 50 mile drive, cutting into her gas budget. So Busby visits the ATMs in her area and begrudgingly accepts the fees, which reach as high as five dollars per transaction. She estimates that she has paid at least $350 in fees to tap her unemployment benefits.

There is something about all of this that just seems very, very wrong.

When we have good jobs, the big banks hit us with outrageous bank fees and they try to get us enslaved to credit card debt.

When we are down on our luck and become dependent on the government, the big banks still find ways of making money at our expense.

Why do the banksters always seem to win and we always seem to lose?

The Economic Collapse

You peasants:  STHU.

Clawback Risk:  Here It Comes!

I hate it when I’m right….. especially about things like this.

MF Global’s burned commodity customers turned their ire from Jon Corzine to Jamie Dimon yesterday after MF’s creditor committee, led by Dimon’s JPMorgan Chase, objected to a plan to distribute $2.1 billion to customers who have seen their accounts frozen since Halloween.

In a Manhattan bankruptcy court filing, the creditors committee, which also includes Bank of America and hedge fund Elliott Management, said they want more assurances that the $2.1 billion is not their money.

Among their requests: They want customers to agree in writing that the money they receive could be clawed back.

Got it?

Even if it turns out that your funds as a customer were stolen through a rank violation of the segregation that is supposed to be in place, JP Morgan and Bank of America, among others, want to be able to claw back your money should their claims against the bankrupt entity prove up.

So much for the alleged “separation” that the entire premise of brokerages rest upon — that your free cash and margin deposits are yours and are not “investments” in the underlying business of the firm you are choosing to trade with.

If you think this risk doesn’t apply to you and you’re in the market in any way, shape or form you’re quite-simply wrong.

This sort of demand by creditors, incidentally, that allegedly-segregated funds be downgraded ex-post-facto to that of a simple creditor is an outrage.

It is my considered opinion that the firms who make such arguments, and their executives, deserve to be dismantled.

“Once you have their money, never give it back.”

Ferengi, First Rule of Acquisition

Here is a white paper that suggests that JP Morgan and Bank of America are trying to subordinate the customers’ claims to their stolen funds and keep them in a pool of money to be distributed to the creditors by the Trustee, without any representation for the customers.  This is said to be the cause of the confusion and delay in the return of the funds.

There are also claims, not substantiated as far as I can tell, that the positions and assets that were taken from customers were liquidated in a manner so as to maximize the gains to other market participants with advantageous knowledge of those positions.  That is a serious charge that I don’t quite understand. I hope the regulators will look into the transfer of customers assets and exactly how they were treated.

I hope that the regulators and the Justice Department can sort this out quickly, and prevent any further loss of confidence in the exchanges and financial system on the part of their customers.

I think it is fair to say that this entire situation has been handled badly.   Some of the early suggestions that customers would have to take haircuts to ‘share’ the loss with each other, that the funds would be frozen for years, and the general secrecy that has blanketed this has contributed greatly to the anxiety felt by the more aware among investing public at large.

This is of concern even to those who have no funds involved in this, and have nothing to gain or lose from it personally. It should give a chill feeling to all customers, as it seems to be a shocking breach of fiduciary responsibility. It is not wise to wait until one’s own funds and assets are confiscated before asking questions and demanding answers.

As someone else has said, if a brokerage can take customer funds and assets at will, and use them for their own undisclosed speculation, and defy all guarantees, and neither they nor their accomplices are held accountable, then nothing is safe.

This white paper is obviously being told from the perspective of the customers and their attorneys.

I would be interested to hear the story or the party who received the customer assets. But as far as I know, they are silent, and their very identity remains a carefully guarded secret.

WHITE PAPER:
Background, Impacts & Solutions to MF Global’s Demise
By John L. Roe & James L. Koutoulas, Esq.
November 10, 2011

The failure of MF Global has wide ranging consequences for the American economy and its bankruptcy is being handled in a manner that is making these consequences much worse than they need to be. The freezing of customer segregated funds is having a chilling effect on global financial markets. It also has a less obvious but significant impact on the day-to-day operations of farmers, mining operators, ranchers, and other commodity consumers and producers…

In fact, the only person served by the current bankruptcy process is the Trustee who has already submitted bills to the MF Global estate at $891/hour for his time and an average of approximately $500/hour for his staff. This is the same Trustee that spent 3 years working on the Lehman bankruptcy and billed the estate over $160 million dollars despite not returning any customer funds.

If this bankruptcy is managed the same way as Lehman’s, it will be the end of the United States as a viable jurisdiction for commodity trading. Congress should use whatever power it has to prevent this from happening…

By subordinating customers with collateral in segregated funds to creditors of MF Global’s estate, the Trustee is essentially making the creditors the beneficiary of a criminal act. If MF Global comingled segregated funds with corporate assets, it was a criminal act. Paying such a creditor’s claim with a portion of those comingled funds would make them a beneficiary of that crime.

Paying JP Morgan with an Iowa farmer’s money is not only morally and legally wrong, it risks the future of the American economic model. Who would want to hold a commodities account in the United States ever again? Considering the MF Global’s clients have no representation on the creditors committee, but the big banks do (like JP Morgan and Bank of America), that is exactly what will happen without intervention.

Industry groups and regulators argue that the commodities trading industry is able to function with lighter regulations than securities trading because customer accounts are segregated from firm assets. However, in the MF Global case, there is $633M in these segregated client funds that are unaccounted for, either due to sloppy accounting or nefarious activity conducted by the firm. This has resulted in a compromise of the integrity of the segregated accounts system, and a complication of the bankruptcy proceeding by involving a number of parties with little to no experience in commodities.

The bankruptcy process has been delegated to SIPC, the securities insurance regulator, after it petitioned the bankruptcy court to begin a liquidation proceeding of MF Global’s broker-dealer. SIPC stands for “Securities Investor Protection Corporation.” It was created by the Securities Investment Protection Act of 1970 and was designed to protect owners of securities in a similar way to how the FDIC protects bank depositors. However, the vast majority of customer assets affected by this bankruptcy are NOT securities, rather they are cash and commodity futures contracts, and SIPC’s attorneys have limited experience with commodity futures contracts. Despite the fact that about 11.6% of the segregated funds have yet to be accounted for, 88.4% have been. There is no reason, whatsoever, that these funds should not be immediately released to their rightful owners.

Read the rest of this White Paper here.

Jesse’s Café Américain

So now that Birmingham and surrounding areas are officially bankrupt, when will we see prosecutions of the banksters involved?

Jefferson County, Alabama, commissioners voted 4-1 to file the largest U.S. municipal bankruptcy after reaching an impasse over concessions with holders of $3.14 billion of bonds.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), which arranged most of the debt to fund a sewer renovation, will likely take the biggest loss in the process, which begins with a hearing 10 a.m. local time tomorrow.

Let’s remember folks that there were actual people jailed over bribery and other improper acts — but let us also remember that not one of the prosecuted individuals was one of the major bankster employees or officers.

The debt deals also were rife with political corruption, leading the cost of the sewer project to soar as it was built during the 1990s. Former commission president and Birmingham Mayor Larry Langford, a Democrat, was convicted of accepting bribes in connection with the financing.

Two former JPMorgan bankers are fighting Securities and Exchange Commission charges that they made $8 million in undisclosed payments to friends of commissioners to secure the bank’s role in the deals. In 2009, JPMorgan agreed to a $722 million settlement with the SEC.

You get convicted of crimes if you take a bribe, but if the person giving the bribe is a bankster, the SEC comes after them and then “settles” the civil charges.

In order to receive a bribe someone must offer a bribe.  Both parties are equally culpable and must be punished equally.

WHERE ARE THE DAMNED HANDCUFFS FOR THE BANKSTERS?

From Jeff Barnes, Esq. over at ForeclosureDefenseNationwide:

THIRTY-TWO PLAINTIFFS FILE RICO ACTION AGAINST JPMORGAN CHASE BANK AND CHASE HOME FINANCE

September 2, 2011

(updated post from this morning, as we have literally received a blizzard of telephone calls since this post was first put up today)

Thirty-two Plaintiffs have filed a multi-count Complaint in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida against JPMorgan Chase Bank and Chase Home Finance, LLC. The Plaintiffs retained Jeff Barnes, Esq., whose Firm, W. J. Barnes, P.A., filed the action last Friday.

The 29-page Complaint alleges several causes of action including violations of the Florida RICO Act, and requests temporary and permanent injunctive relief on a national level to halt all Chase-related foreclosure activity in the eight (8) separate states in which the Plaintiffs reside. The Complaint alleges a pattern of criminal activity on the part of JPMorgan Chase Bank and Chase Home Finance in connection with the institution of both judicial and non-judicial foreclosures, including but not limited to the filing and recording, in the public records, of forged and fraudulent documents; fraudulent collection activities; intentional misuse of the MERS system; and the intentional misrepresentation, in foreclosures across the United States, that Chase is the “successor in interest” to Washington Mutual Bank when in fact Chase itself has affirmatively represented, in multiple Federal court filings in different states, that it is NOT the successor in interest to WaMu, and only purchased certain defined assets and liabilities from the FDIC as Receiver for WaMu.

Since this article was originally posted this morning, we have had almost non-stop telephone calls from other victims of JPM and CHF who have told us the same thing over and over: that in their foreclosure, the same “Chase is the successor to WaMu” representation was made, which was done in an apparent attempt to foist a cloak of legal standing on the Chase entity which instituted the foreclosure. It thus appears, even at this early juncture, that the scope of the illegal and fraudulent conduct set forth in the Complaint is even more widespread than we could have imagined.

The Asset Purchase Agreement between the FIDC and Chase is over 70 pages long, yet the purchase by Chase of the certain assets from the FDIC as Recceiver for WaMu coincidentially took place on exactly the same day that WaMu failed and was taken over by the FDIC.

The Complaint details the common wrongful actions of JPM and CHF utilized in both judicial and non-judicial foreclosures instituted across the United States, characterizing the conduct as a “nationalized fraud”.

The Plaintiffs have also filed a Request for Production of Documents which is being served on JPM and CHF which requests the production of fifty-four (54) separate categories of documents relating to the Plaintiffs’ mortgage loans. This same discovery has previously been compelled, by Court Order, to be produced by foreclosing parties in numerous other cases throughout the United States where Mr. Barnes and his local counsel have propounded this discovery in connection with individual foreclosure challenges.

The Complaint is not a class action and is not a “mass joinder” case. It is a multi-Plaintiff action, which is not subject to the rigors of class actions such as certification of the class, and was never, at any time, advertised or intended to be a “mass joinder” case such as those the subject of the recent “K2″ debacle. The case is also not related or affiliated, in any way, to any other litigation instituted against the Chase entities by any other group or which may be posted on any other websites, which other websites are apparently attempting to link other Chase-related lawsuits with the Florida action the subject of this article.

The action is the second RICO-based Complaint filed by Mr. Barnes’ Firm in recent weeks. The Firm previously filed an action in Arizona against M&I Marshall & Isley Bank which is grounded in part on violations of the Arizona RICO statute. That action is pending in Tuscon.

Jeff Barnes, Esq.

Well, who coulda known you can’t foreclose on something you don’t own?

This is rather stinging indictment….

Once you read the allegations in the cases included in this post, I strongly suspect you will agree that the “ruining lives” in the headline is not an exaggeration. And as important, these two cases, with very similar fact sets, also suggest that these abuses are not mere “mistakes”. These are clearly well established practices that Chase can’t be bothered to clean up, since cleaning them up costs money and letting them continue is more profitable.

Both cases took place in Alabama. In both cases, the borrowers had made every mortgage payment on time. One was a couple with three children, the Barnetts. The second is a widow, Besty Barlow, but her husband was still alive when this ugly saga started.

Read the rest over at Yves blog.  Basically, the allegation is that these two people had homes and were making every payment on their mortgage.  They were not in arrears.  Their homes burned down due to no fault of their own – that is, they didn’t commit arson, they had an ordinary house fire.

And there things went sideways – it is alleged Chase intentionally dickered around with the payment from the insurance company, thereby forcing a default that would not have otherwise happened, and then foreclosed, effectively stealing the insurance proceeds and the property.

Yes, Chase is getting sued, as they should be.

The better question is why the OCC isn’t in there and why the executives of this organization aren’t being led away in irons.

Of course we know the answer, right?  The Obama administration, just like the Bush administration, is perfectly happy to watch banks steal.

Literally.

We live today with a literal criminal government.