Jp Elite Mortgage: Fill & Download for Free

Contrary to the other answers, there are specific allegations of people breaking actual laws - and not just a general argument that people who did morally bad things should be punished. If you want specific crimes to prosecute, there are several you could choose from. (I'll post this and add to it as time goes on)Mortgage Foreclosure Fraud. Banks have been systematically submitting fraudulent documents in foreclosure cases. Basically, there are two things happening here. The first is that in order to forclose on a property you need to sign an affidavit that you have reviewed all the necessary paperwork to make sure that it is in order. People have been signing these affidavit at rates faster than they could reasonably reviewed the paperwork - meaning that they are lying. (And at least one person who was subcontracted to process foreclosures for various institutions has confessed to tens of thousands of individual instances of foreclosure fraud in court http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/22/AR2010092206650.html) The second is that there are lots of missing paperwork in some cases, which banks are getting around by forging paperwork. There has yet to be a comprehensive investigation into mortgage fraud, but it is large enough that it is not "a few bad apples" and could, if pursued properly, bring down several large banks and mortgage companies (see this series for a good overview of the subject http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/foreclosure-fraud-for-dummies-1-the-chains-and-the-stakes/)Lying to Clients. Goldman Sachs executives were caught selling their clients mortgage backed securities that they (accurately) privately believed would turn out to be worthless without disclosing this to their clients, and without telling their clients that they were betting against the very securities that they were selling them. Private emails which were revealed by a Congressional investigation showed them making fun of their clients for being suckers.Lying to Congress: When brought before congress to explain this, Goldman Sachs executives lied repeatedly in ways that are documented by internal GS documentation and communications.(See http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-people-vs-goldman-sachs-20110511?print=true)Deliberately Creating Investment Vehicles that Would Fail So they Could Bet Against Them, and Not Informing Buyers: JP Morgan Chase designed a mortgage backed investment fund to fail, so that a client, Magnetar, could profit by betting against them. They did not inform buyers of this materially relevant fact. While JP Morgan Chase did pay a $150 million fine, they did not admit guilt. (http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2011/jun/21/jp-morgan-settles-charges-it-misled-buyers-complex-mortgage-related-securities/)And so on... A more important point than specific allegations of criminal wrong doing, is that investigating the mortgage backed securities industry for criminal wrongdoing does not seem to be a priority for the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), or any relevant regulatory or enforcement agency. Perhaps there are people toiling away building cases in quiet, but from what is publicly known its hard to have any confidence. While Venkatesh Rao makes an excellent point about the need for rule of law in his answer, he neglects the fact that failing to prosecute and investigate politically influential elites for violating the law is just as damaging to the legitimacy of the state as are kangaroo courts and other scenarios that he describes.

There are a few differencesOne difference is that generally speaking JPMorgan or ex-JPMorgan people are “louder” than Goldman-Sachs or ex-Goldman-Sachs people. One thing that I find amusing is that I find myself answering questions like “what’s it like to work at Goldman-Sachs?” even though I’ve never worked there, since I suspect that people that are ex-Goldman are quieter.JPMorgan is part of JPMorganChase which means that you are part of the same company as a commercial bank, and the current CEO comes out of the commercial banking part rather than the investment banking part. Since part of the company involved doing things like having bank tellers at windows, selling mortgages to ordinary people, and processing credit cards, there seems to be a little less "elitism" at JPMorganChase than GS, because there was the sense that you are actually working at a Walmart.I've noticed for example that people from GS seem to think of GS as the "best and the brightest" whereas in JPMorgan, there's more of an attitude of "look, at the end of the day we just sell mortgages and credit cards, so don't get too full of yourself."The other big difference is that JPMorgan is a megabank is a mix of different organizations with radically different cultures. When someone gets hired from Goldman-Sachs to JPMorgan, they aren't expected to become part of the JPMorgan culture since there isn't a well defined JPM culture but rather keep whatever culture got them into the bank.

It all started quite a while back. But major landmark was crossed in year 1999 when Government of U.S. decided to renounce the Glass-Steagall Act of 1934. The mentioned legislation explains the four provisions of US banking law which separates Commercial banks from Investment banks. The underlying difference between these two banking systems can be summed up in terms of riskiness of their bets for earning their revenues. Investment banks take significantly higher risk than commercial banks by parking their money in complicated financial products such as Collateralized debt obligation (CDO’s) etc. Since the quintessential wall between investment banks and commercial banks fell, the money of normal citizens was exposed to riskier avenues of financial worlds through the deeds of Investment Banks.After the dot-com crash of year 2000, the investors were wary about equity markets of US. They were in search of such avenues which can quench the nascent thirst of high returns. As the equity markets were derailed, Federal Reserve was keeping the interest rates low in the market to provide a breather to economic growth. Rates were anchored down to 1% level to send the lucid signals about the Fed Reserve’s objective related to economic growth. This sustained low interest rate was pressing fixed income market and made the same a less lucrative option for investors. Along with fixed income, people were also skeptical, with apprehensions, about equity returns. Then came in picture, Alternative investments such as housing sector of the country. House prices started soaring in no time supported by interest rate policy of Federal Reserve.Above figure, intimates the trend of housing prices in United States before and after 2008.At this point of time, the real game began.After the crash of equity markets in 2000, the investors of countries like China, Japan etc. were in their predatory mode for high return investments. Their hunting eyes froze at the housing market of United States. On this preamble, commercial banks started dishing out loans to U.S. citizens at very low rates supported by Federal Reserve rates. Everything was under control until investors became too greedy to see the future of their ill deeds. Approximately after presenting loan to every employed household of U.S., they started exploring the sub-prime borrowers who didn’t have a regular source of income. Their income was intermittent and probability of not servicing the loan was very high. Even then, these people were allowed to carry bag full of money for buying home just on a mere signature. Nothing else.As banks could also act as Investment banks now, their started rolling out Asset backed securities (Collateralized Debt Obligations) primarily endorsed by the housing EMI of prime and sub-prime borrowers. Myriad prime and sub-prime loans were mixed in the commercial-cum-investment banks to mold them into securities to trade in the financial markets. These securities were divided into different tranches. For each security tranche, external rating agencies like Fitch, S&P and Moody’s provided their risk ratings. Some of the securities were given AAA rating. In hindsight, these elite rating agencies acknowledged that the sub-prime mortgages derived Asset Backed securities are as safe as government backed bonds in the market. Due to this fallacy only, by the south of 2005, AAA securities increased manifold in U.S.Moreover the American insurance giant, AIG started giving insurance against these securities (CDO’s) in form of Credit Default Swaps (CDS). This means, in case of default from sub-prime or prime borrower, AIG would pay the claim to Asset Backed security holder.To exacerbate the situation, then Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan came in open and intimated people to use ARM (adjustable rate mortgage). This means, if interest rate in the economy goes further down, the borrowers have to pay lesser EMI what they used to pay. Implicitly, Greenspan indicated that Fed wouldn’t be increasing interest rates anytime soon. This served as the fueling instigator for sub-prime mortgage market.Also Federal Reserve started adopting the “Modern” way of measuring inflation, which excludes house, energy and food prices, the personnel at Reserve were quite complacent with sub 3% inflation mark. This appealing figure of 3% would have been double had they adopted the “Old” way of measuring inflation in 2005.Things became messier as each day passed.Defaults, from sub-prime borrowers, on EMI started to occur but not on a scale to alarm the return hungry investors. Meanwhile, Federal Reserve increased the interest rate in the economy to a level of 5%. As most of the mortgages in the current scenario were tied with adjustable interest rates, a large scale default started occurring with time. Banks started seizing the properties of defaulters to resell. Approximately, the exhaustive list of sub-prime accounts was turned sour ushering U.S. economy to an era where house supply is astronomically higher than its demand. House prices started cracking.Situation kicked in which made AIG liable to pay hundreds of billion dollars to its trading partner. Thus a liquidity crunch struck the economy hard through AIG. The $100 billion wealth from AIG’s account vanished with blink of an eye. The possible situation of AIG default was around the corner. With that, all the Wall Street banking honchos such as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Citi Group etc. were down to their knees as possibility of default from AIG was palpable. No one in the market was ready and gutsy enough to fund the other as exposure to sub-prime mortgages was not known for the other parties. Situations, where a normal citizen can’t withdraw his money from banks, started becoming increasingly conspicuous.After an emergency Federal Reserve meeting in 2008, government had to come forward to rescue AIG from failing. Around $85 billion dollars were spent to recapitalize AIG in order to pay the claims and ensuring the functioning of financial system throughout the world. Millions of jobs lost, world economic growth took a hit, faults in financial system became clearer and the greed of the Wall Street people was in shameful daylight for the whole world to see.Image Source: Google