The SEC has been asking JP Morgan Chase for more information related to its reserves set aside for bad loans it sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and other investors. With hundreds of billions at stake here, JP Morgan Chase could be asked to buy back much more than its current reserve levels reflect.
Lawsuits | admin June 17, 2010 | 
Comments (0)
As of a few weeks ago:
1. The WaMu bankruptcy Judge denied shareholders request to appoint an investigation into WaMu’s seizure/failure.
2. Said just did though order WaMu (the holding company) to share with shareholders results from its own investigation and told them to talk with shareholders to work this out.
So where are we at now? As this update from Business Week summarizes:
1. Shareholders still have a change to ask for an investigation if they can show the judge that WaMu’s investigation wasn’t good enough
2. Shareholders still have a shot at forcing an annual meeting and forcing out the current directors to get their own crew on board to better direct WaMu’s bankruptcy.
IP in this case being internet protocol. When someone visits a website, the web server typically tracks what page they access and where they are accessing from, or their IP address. It is pretty easy to look up an IP address in the global database and see what organization it is assigned to. Which is where it gets interesting when the IP address is from Chase, on a Chase-sucks blog like chasehomefinancesucks.com. Here are the details from Chase’s recent visit to that site:
16th June 2010 09:46:44
21 hours 24 mins 8 secs
IE 6.0
WinXP
unknown United States Returning Visits:
Location:
New York, United States
Jpmorgan Chase & Co. (159.53.110.140) [Label IP Address]
chasehomefinancesucks.com/my-story/
chasehomefinancesucks.com/tag/modification-efforts/
So someone at Chase apparently spent quite some time browsing that site. What kills me though is that they are accessing with Internet Explorer version 6, which Microsoft recently announced they are no longer supporting. Just for the record, Microsoft currently distributes version 8, and is soon to come out with version 9.
This one from a Criaglist post, soon to be gone, so I am reposting it here.
Here’s a good one:
I rent a room from a friend. We both have Chase accounts.
Last thursday I deposited my unemployment check. The following friday I give my roomie a rent check and told him it was good to go. He takes it to Chase and asks the teller if the funds were available. He was told yes so he deposits my rent check.
The fucking check bounced because Chase held my unemployment check for for five fucking days! In the meantime I get hit with an insufficient funds fee!
CHASE SUCKS!
It sure doesn’t seem like you can trust what Chase employees tell you, it so often turns out to be wrong.
We’ve reported a number of times about Chase’s supposedly helpful text and email alerts that warn customers when their balance goes below a certain threshold. The problem many people have reported is that they texts are only sent at the end of the day, when all deposits and payments are processed together, so there is very little actual hope of avoiding an overdraft with these alerts.
Well, today is the first I heard that Chase actually has the gall to call those alerts “Instant Action,” as we all know they are far from it. They are advertising them with banner ads like this one:
Clicking on the ad takes you to a marketing page for their Instant Action Alerts. At the bottom is their description of how they work:
Alerts on checking and savings accounts will arrive each morning, Tuesday through Saturday, updating you on previous day’s activity. Alerts on credit card accounts will arrive each afternoon, Monday through Friday. Phone delivery time will be based on your area code and time zone.
Phone Alerts are not available for Chase Basic CheckingSM account.
There you have it, from the mouth of Chase itself. If alerts are sent only once a day, and only alert you to the previous days activity, you have very little hope of actually avoiding any insufficient funds events.
Ineptitude | admin June 16, 2010 | Comments (0)
I’m a little confused about who they actually settled with, but a couple recently settled a lawsuit originally filed against Washington Mutual in 2008, before WaMu’s seizure and sale to Chase.
What is interesting though is the description of how they were treated by WaMu:
Lori Pestana contacted Washington Mutual, based on its public statements that the bank was interested in assisting distressed borrowers through its Homeowners Assistance Program. The lawsuit states that a company representative told her that to qualify, the couple had to be 50 days delinquent. So, she said, they didn’t pay.
When the Collections Department contacted her in the first week of September 2007, the agent explained that they would need to fill out a form for the program and return it. Lori Pestana offered to mail partial payments, but she was told that would disqualify her from the program.
Instead, on June 30, 2008, the couple were served with a summons and complaint by the Federal National Mortgage Association seeking to evict them.
Sounds familiar, right? This is exactly the kind of thing that Chase is accused of doing, telling homeowners to stop paying their mortgage and then foreclosing on them. Seems like this behavior isn’t new with Chase after all.
If you are a homeowner with a Chase loan and are pursuing a short sale, there is a trap Chase might set that you should look out for. One conscientious real estate agent writes about this in her blog:
After waiting 5 months for approval, my sellers finally received approval from Chase on both a first and second hard-money loan. However, those approval letters contained verbiage that allowed Chase to pursue the sellers for a deficiency. That was unacceptable to the sellers. So, I went back to Chase and requested revised approvals without the deficiency language.
Looks like Chase will try to slip this past unsuspecting homeowners, who are just glad to finally get a short-sale approval. But, if you press them, looks like they will remove the deficiency language.
Low and behold, I received the revised approval letters from Chase yesterday with the deficiency language removed! The letters say: “The amount paid to Chase is for the release of Chase’s security interest, and we will waive the remaining deficiency balance of $XXX,XXX.”
And, her perspective on Chase as a party to a short sale in general is notable:
Some agents don’t want to work with Chase because Chase can take too long to process its short sales.
Bad bad Chase, Loan modification | admin June 15, 2010 | Comments (1)
Here is a sad story of a 125 year old home beautifully restored by a couple who had an ARM loan with contractual limitations on how often the rate could be raised – once every two years. The loan was sold to Chase shortly after it was taken out, and Chase immediately started raising rates and did so every several months, despite the fact that they were not allowed to according to the letter of the loan.
Does Chase just not have a clue about things like this or do they just assume they can clean things like this up with a little lawyering?
