Author Topic: Suntrust Mortgage Scandal  (Read 5933 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

citizensscience

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1062
  • Karma: +0/-0
« Last Edit: October 07, 2017, 06:32:51 PM by citizensscience »
Citizens Science

citizensscience

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1062
  • Karma: +0/-0
SunTrust - “Message” to “Share-Holders”…
« Reply #49 on: October 03, 2017, 03:23:51 PM »
SunTrust places “Share-Holders” on Notice -

The Shareholder “Cost” for settling SunTrust violations of law -

2007 - “Also, in general, the amounts paid by financial institutions in settlement of proceedings or investigations and the severity of other terms of regulatory settlements have been increasing dramatically and are likely to continue to increase.”

“In some cases, governmental authorities have required criminal pleas, admissions of wrongdoing, or other extraordinary terms as part of such settlements, which could have significant consequences for a financial institution, including loss of customers, restrictions on the ability to access the capital markets, and the inability to operate certain businesses or offer certain products for a period of time."

“These enforcement trends also increase the exposure of financial institutions to civil litigation and reputation damage, leading to potential loss of customers."

“As the primary focus of financial services regulation is the protection of depositors, FDIC funds, consumers, and the banking system as a whole, and not protection of shareholders, this regulation may be adverse to our shareholders' interests."
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 04:20:58 PM by citizensscience »
Citizens Science

citizensscience

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1062
  • Karma: +0/-0
SunTrust “Admits” to Lender Placed Insurance - “Kick-Backs”??
« Reply #48 on: October 03, 2017, 02:10:12 PM »
Hurricane Irma, Assurant, SunTrust Mortgage, Forced Placed Insurance, Lender Placed Insurance

Insurance Scheme “Exposed” by Hurricane Irma…

While hurricane Irma has left a path of destruction many homeowners must now rely on insurance to recover.  Citizens Science has uncovered a cozy relationship between two of the largest players… Assurant and SunTrust Mortgage…

You see, Assurant steps in the shoes of the servicer (SunTrust) by allegedly tracking property insurance and confirming these borrower purchased polices are in place and current. 

Essentially, if a homeowner fails to keep up their insurance premiums, then their loan servicer will step in and buy an insurance policy on their behalf, to ensure the home remains insured. It’s all perfectly sensible in theory. But in practice, it’s ripe for abuse, especially when the servicer owns the insurer (SunTrust owns Twin-Rivers Insurance).

Consider this case. A homeowner had a $4,000 insurance policy, which was paid by the loan servicer, from an escrow account. But the servicer allegedly let that insurance policy lapse, allowing it to replace the policy with a different policy, this one costing more than $33,000. The insurer, a subsidiary of Assurant, then paid the servicer a $7,100 kickback for giving it such a lucrative policy —

$7,100 is an insanely enormous amount of money for a loan servicer to make on a single property: the average loan servicer makes roughly $50 - $75 per loan per year. And of course it’s not the servicer paying that $33,000 insurance premium — that money is ultimately paid by the homeowner and in some cases the investors who purchased the loan.

There are lots of variations on the force-placed insurance scam. For instance, SunTrust Mortgage buys overpriced insurance from a third-party insurer, which then reinsures the property with SunTrust. This is doubly evil: it not only means that investors are paying far too much money for the insurance, but it also means that, as both the servicer and the ultimate insurer of the property, SunTrust has every incentive not to pursue claims on the houses it services. Investors, of course, would love to recoup any losses from the insurer, but they can’t bring such a claim — only the servicer can do that.

Then there’s the practice of back-dating insurance — essentially, buying insurance against an event which you know for a fact hasn’t happened.  Attorney Jeff Golant, who was trying to sort out his mother’s mortgage:

His client was current on her mortgage and claimed the lapse of insurance coverage on her home was the result of her previous insurer’s error. Much of the new policy’s coverage was redundant, Golant said, duplicating flood and wind policies that had remained in place. Moreover, charging her for retroactive hurricane protection, for a year when there had been no significant storms, struck Golant as inherently ridiculous.

“I really thought they’d added an extra digit,” he said.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners says that policies “should not be back-dated to collect premiums for a time period that has already passed,” but the practice seems to be commonplace in the world of force-placed insurance. As is the existence of extremely cozy relationships between insurer and servicer:

The case got stranger when Golant’s client visited the address listed for the insurer in an unsuccessful attempt to sort things out, he said. While the people there claimed to represent the servicer, they were operating out of an office belonging to a force-placed policy insurer since acquired by QBE Insurance Group.

Golant didn’t understand why the insurer would be speaking on behalf of the servicer. But shortly after he began asking questions about the relationship between servicer and insurer, the case settled. Confidentially. At the insurer’s request…

According to both Assurant’s SEC filings and the marketing materials of a subsidiary of rival QBE Insurance Group, the insurers don’t just write policies on request — they also enter into long-term agreements to detect uninsured properties in their clients’ servicing portfolios and perform other back-office functions. It was precisely such an arrangement that Golant’s first client ran into when she tried to visit her servicer, he says — the insurance company employees had taken over the servicer’s role.

Horwitz has found one case where an $80,000 property was being insured for $10,000 a year, and also notes that at Assurant, “the unit handling force-placed insurance has accounted for $811 million of its $879 million in profits during the last two years.”

The CEO of Assurant said it best during a recent 2016 analyst meeting… “We integrate in with large distribution partners and provide custom solutions that solve a risk issue for them or for their consumer or for both.  Were very good at that.  We create significant client entanglement through that, and its something we’re going to continue to do.”


SunTrust admits to its Reinsurance and “Kick-Back” Scheme??

"The Company provides mortgage reinsurance on certain mortgage loans through contracts with several primary mortgage insurance companies. Under these contracts, the Company provides aggregate excess loss coverage in a mezzanine layer in exchange for a portion of the pool’s mortgage insurance premium”. - (Illegal Kickback?)
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 02:15:43 PM by citizensscience »
Citizens Science

citizensscience

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1062
  • Karma: +0/-0
SunTrust Employees Sue over Pension Fees - Judge Orders Case to Proceed -
« Reply #47 on: October 03, 2017, 11:39:56 AM »
Judge certifies massive Class Action Suit against SunTrust, whereas granting hope to now 50,000 current and past employees of SunTrust -


Should North Carolina’s 900,000 Pension holders follow suit?






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 01:25:02 PM by citizensscience »
Citizens Science

citizensscience

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1062
  • Karma: +0/-0
SunTrust Scandal and Pension Fund Fees -
« Reply #46 on: October 03, 2017, 11:19:54 AM »



ALERT - State Pension Holders (900,000) of North Carolina -

Citizens Science “Investigates" SunTrust and "Incurred Pension Fees"...

If you found our ongoing investigation into SunTrust of interest, please consider sharing this link with others - http://forum.citizensscience.org/index.php/topic,613.msg1887.html#msg1887

Be sure to “Bookmark” as our team of volunteers, investigators and researchers continually update our ongoing crowd sourced investigative efforts.

 






http://www.institutionalinvestor.com/Article/2882771/SunTrust-Employees-Sue-Their-Company-Over-Pensions.html#.WdOmTkyZOCQ
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 01:25:49 PM by citizensscience »
Citizens Science

citizensscience

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1062
  • Karma: +0/-0
SunTrust Scandal & NC's 900,000 State Pension Participants?
« Reply #45 on: October 02, 2017, 02:37:03 PM »
ATTENTION: NC Pension Holders -  9/17 - SEC “Enforcement” Order,  SunTrust and Fee's

September 14, 2017 -

SunTrust “Busted”… for delivering  “Self-Serving Investment Recommendations” says SEC Assistant Regional Director of Enforcement Aaron Lewis.

Further, the Federal Order states; SunTrust violated Sections 206(2), 206(4) and 207 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-7.

This perhaps, leaving 900,000 North Carolina State pension holders seeking relief?


WRAL Investigates -

RALEIGH, N.C. — The State Employees Association of North Carolina has accused the State Treasurer's Office of hiding millions of dollars paid to money managers handling the state's $86 billion pension for state employees, teachers and retirees.

The Treasurer's Office says it pays about $416 million a year to outside money managers to handle the pension's stakes in hedge funds and alternative investments. SEANC obtained thousands of pages of documents through a public records request and hired an auditor to crunch the numbers, and the auditor said in a Thursday letter to Treasurer Janet Cowell that "massive hidden fees" haven't been disclosed.

The auditor, Florida-based Benchmark Money Management Intelligence, cites Chapel Hill-based Franklin Street Partners as an example. The Treasurer's Office says it paid the firm $2.6 million in 2013, but Benchmark argues that Franklin Street acts as a middle man and contracts with other money managers, and none of those fees are reported.

Benchmark estimates that Franklin Street is actually paid $16 million a year, and that the unreported fees to the firm since 2002 could top $120 million.

Franklin Street said Benchmark's "claims are terribly inaccurate and misleading."

Schorr Johnson, a spokesman for the Treasurer's Office, said a recent review of North Carolina's pension management fees found they are lower than industry standards.

The uncertainty frustrates state employees.

"There's no way we should be spending millions of taxpayer and member money and not have any idea who's getting paid," said Charles Johnson, who works at Central Prison.

"They're hiring other people to manage it and then everybody gets a cut. Everybody’s getting rich off this except the state employees and retirees," said Ardis Watkins, SEANC's legislative affairs director.

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2017/34-81611.pdf
« Last Edit: October 02, 2017, 03:27:59 PM by citizensscience »
Citizens Science

citizensscience

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1062
  • Karma: +0/-0
SunTrust gets Busted again... September, 2017 -

A Scheme of "Self-Serving Investment Recommendations" says SEC Assistant Regional Director of Enforcement Aaron Lewis.

SunTrust violated Sections 206(2), 206(4) and 207 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-7.

How much longer will SunTrust Shareholders allow the Board of Directors to utilize Shareholder Assets (liquidity) to pay these, now all to common large Federal Fines?

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2017/34-81611.pdf




#suntrustscandal #suntrustmortgagescandal
« Last Edit: September 29, 2017, 05:36:21 PM by citizensscience »
Citizens Science

citizensscience

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1062
  • Karma: +0/-0
Feds - SunTrust may be charged with "Fraud"...
« Reply #43 on: September 11, 2017, 07:22:31 PM »



Fraud charges against SunTrust Banks are being considered by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over allegations that its investment business steered customers into costly mutual funds when cheaper options were available.

The Atlanta bank said in a filing that the SEC’s enforcement division “made a preliminary determination to recommend that the SEC bring an enforcement action” against SunTrust Investment Services, the bank’s broker-dealer and insurance arm.

The federal probe was disclosed last week in SunTrust’s annual report filed with the SEC.

If found guilty, the bank potentially faces not only fines but the potential loss of some of its investment business income and its fast-track status for issuing new bonds and other securities.

In late 2015, J.P. Morgan paid $267 million to settle SEC charges that it failed to disclose conflicts of interest when it steered customers into its own investment products that were more costly than alternative funds.

Last year, the SEC launched a campaign to investigate whether banks and investment firms were making self-serving investment recommendations to customers.

At the center of the SunTrust investigation is whether the bank’s investment arm bought costly mutual funds on the behalf of clients that charged a type of marketing fee, called 12b-1 fees, rather than recommending cheaper mutual funds that don’t charge such fees.

Often, mutual funds that charge the higher fees pay higher commissions to the companies and brokers that sell them.

Such actions could violate the 77-year-old federal Investment Advisers Act. The law requires money managers registered with the SEC, as SunTrust’s investment unit is, to act in their clients’ best interests.

The U.S. Department of Labor rolled out a similar rule, set to take effect next month, that requires brokers, insurance agents and other investment advisers to act in clients’ best interests when selling or recommending investments in retirement accounts, such as 401(k) accounts.

http://www.ajc.com/business/suntrust-federal-agency-may-hit-its-investment-unit-with-fraud-charge/HBnrmN7JoiN8d3pzujzDAJ/
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 01:19:16 PM by citizensscience »
Citizens Science

citizensscience

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1062
  • Karma: +0/-0
Insurance Scheme Exposed By Hurricane Irma
« Reply #42 on: September 11, 2017, 03:23:29 PM »
Hurricane Irma, Assurant, SunTrust Mortgage, Forced Placed Insurance, Lender Placed Insurance

Insurance Scheme “Exposed” by Hurricane Irma…

While hurricane Irma has left a path of destruction many homeowners must now rely on insurance to recover.  Citizens Science has uncovered a cozy relationship between two of the largest players… Assurant and SunTrust Mortgage…

You see, Assurant steps in the shoes of the servicer (SunTrust) by allegedly tracking property insurance and confirming these borrower purchased polices are in place and current. 

Essentially, if a homeowner fails to keep up their insurance premiums, then their loan servicer will step in and buy an insurance policy on their behalf, to ensure the home remains insured. It’s all perfectly sensible in theory. But in practice, it’s ripe for abuse, especially when the servicer owns the insurer (SunTrust owns Twin-Rivers Insurance).

Consider this case. A homeowner had a $4,000 insurance policy, which was paid by the loan servicer, from an escrow account. But the servicer allegedly let that insurance policy lapse, allowing it to replace the policy with a different policy, this one costing more than $33,000. The insurer, a subsidiary of Assurant, then paid the servicer a $7,100 kickback for giving it such a lucrative policy —

$7,100 is an insanely enormous amount of money for a loan servicer to make on a single property: the average loan servicer makes roughly $50 - $75 per loan per year. And of course it’s not the servicer paying that $33,000 insurance premium — that money is ultimately paid by the homeowner and in some cases the investors who purchased the loan.

There are lots of variations on the force-placed insurance scam. For instance, SunTrust Mortgage buys overpriced insurance from a third-party insurer, which then reinsures the property with SunTrust. This is doubly evil: it not only means that investors are paying far too much money for the insurance, but it also means that, as both the servicer and the ultimate insurer of the property, SunTrust has every incentive not to pursue claims on the houses it services. Investors, of course, would love to recoup any losses from the insurer, but they can’t bring such a claim — only the servicer can do that.

Then there’s the practice of back-dating insurance — essentially, buying insurance against an event which you know for a fact hasn’t happened.  Attorney Jeff Golant, who was trying to sort out his mother’s mortgage:

His client was current on her mortgage and claimed the lapse of insurance coverage on her home was the result of her previous insurer’s error. Much of the new policy’s coverage was redundant, Golant said, duplicating flood and wind policies that had remained in place. Moreover, charging her for retroactive hurricane protection, for a year when there had been no significant storms, struck Golant as inherently ridiculous.

“I really thought they’d added an extra digit,” he said.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners says that policies “should not be back-dated to collect premiums for a time period that has already passed,” but the practice seems to be commonplace in the world of force-placed insurance. As is the existence of extremely cozy relationships between insurer and servicer:

The case got stranger when Golant’s client visited the address listed for the insurer in an unsuccessful attempt to sort things out, he said. While the people there claimed to represent the servicer, they were operating out of an office belonging to a force-placed policy insurer since acquired by QBE Insurance Group.

Golant didn’t understand why the insurer would be speaking on behalf of the servicer. But shortly after he began asking questions about the relationship between servicer and insurer, the case settled. Confidentially. At the insurer’s request…

According to both Assurant’s SEC filings and the marketing materials of a subsidiary of rival QBE Insurance Group, the insurers don’t just write policies on request — they also enter into long-term agreements to detect uninsured properties in their clients’ servicing portfolios and perform other back-office functions. It was precisely such an arrangement that Golant’s first client ran into when she tried to visit her servicer, he says — the insurance company employees had taken over the servicer’s role.

Horwitz has found one case where an $80,000 property was being insured for $10,000 a year, and also notes that at Assurant, “the unit handling force-placed insurance has accounted for $811 million of its $879 million in profits during the last two years.”

The CEO of Assurant said it best during a recent 2016 analyst meeting… “We integrate in with large distribution partners and provide custom solutions that solve a risk issue for them or for their consumer or for both.  Were very good at that.  We create significant client entanglement through that, and its something we’re going to continue to do.”
Citizens Science

citizensscience

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1062
  • Karma: +0/-0
SunTrust Forced to "Dump" Coke over Feds Capital Requirements
« Reply #41 on: September 08, 2017, 12:46:56 AM »
SunTrust and Coke - A $1.9 Billion Infusion to sure up the balance sheets and why??


After a long run of benefiting SunTrust via dividends, the Coke holdings will now help the bank firm up its balance sheet. Along with the other actions taken Thursday  — estimating a $375 million provision for mortgage putbacks from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; $250 million write-down for transferring $3 billion in underperforming loans to loans held for sale; and a $100 million pre-tax loss for intending to sell $200 million of affordable housing investments – the sale of the Coke shares will raise third-quarter net income by $750 million and increase Tier 1 Capital to 9.5%, according to BTIG Research’s Mark Palmer.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2012/09/07/suntrust-dumps-93-year-old-stake-in-coca-cola-collects-a-tidy-two-million-percent-return/
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 10:46:32 PM by citizensscience »
Citizens Science