How absurd to sue on the grounds of "false foreclosure practices, etc." Hey - if you don't make the mortgage payments, your house is going to be foreclosued on. It doesn't get any simpler than that.
If those that weren't really able to afford homes decided to lie on their applications, etc., it's sure not up to bhe banks to act as their nannies. The applicants thought they could afford the homes as long as the boom lasted but then found themselves underwater when the bust came. It's just ridiculous to blame the banks for that.
People can sue all they want but in the end, they are responsible for their own actions and if they once thought they could afford the mortgage but later couldn't, they have to stand the responsibility for their actions. And if foreclosure was the result, so be it. "False foreclosure practices" indeed.
Hey - if you buy an expensive car, don't make the monthly payments and it gets repossessed, would that be "false repossession?"
If as a renter you can't make the rent and are evicted, is it "false eviction?"
I can't see many judges sympathiing with the plight of those unable to really afford the mortgages that later got foreclosed-upon for nonpayment. Especially when they likely lied on their mortgage applications.
As for BAC going down by 40% since March, my naked puts are such that it could go down by ANOTHER 40% from here in just the next two-and-a-half months and I would STILL walk away a winner.
On average, I have FOUR-strike naked puts and with the stock at %7.25, I don't need any massive recoveries in the stock. In fact, the stock could TANK (but not crash) and I still win. Obviously I wouldn't be in the naked puts if I really needed the stock to do anything good. All that I need is for the stock to avoid absolutely crashing and I certainly don't see that happening anytime soon.
Most of the lawsuits won't even go to trial until next year and it will be many many months after that until verdicts are reached. Verdicts that for the most part should be FAVORABLE to the company.
For years, less credit-worthy borrowers would complain about redlining, bank discrimination and such. So when the banks relaxed their policies at the direct request of the government, these borowers are hardly going to prevail by claiming unsuitability or "false foreclosure practices."
Banks - like landlords - expect to receive their payments and when they don't, they are going to take action. There's nothing "false" or "misleading" about that at all.