Lisa cook mortgage fraud

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cook is a crook

She also cooked the books.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I haven't read the article but there are a couple of points that you have confused and/or ignored. First, what Trump and Pulte have been talking about is her mortgage agreements, not her applications. We don't know what was actually on her applications. Second, Cook has not yet responded to the allegations. She may well have a valid explanation. In the U.S., you are innocent until proven guilty. Trump and Pulte have appointed themselves both judge and jury. But, they do not have that authority. You seem to be assuming her guilt as well. That may not be a valid assumption.

Next, let's assume that she is guilty. It is not clear that would constitute "cause". The Federal Reserve Act does not define "cause", but other laws define it as activities involving her official duties. Her mortgages were concluded before she was confirmed by the Senate, therefore, before she began her official duties. It's like saying that if she had a speeding ticket while in college it would constitute cause for being fired today. That is not normally how such laws have been applied.

There are also arguments that can be made regarding her being targeted for political reasons and whether Pulte abused his authority. Ultimately, Courts will have to decide whether Cook can be removed or not.

The house value claim is mostly a non-issue, but I think you are also confusing issues.

Criminal guilt is a matter of innocence until proven guilty. But in the position of Fed governor, the mere appearance of impropriety is sufficient to warrant a resignation. There have been similar recent instances of senior Fed officials resigning over conduct that was very legal and permissible, but had the appearance of impropriety.

I didn't say anything about the house value so I am not sure why you are bringing that up. I don't know anything about the value of the properties. Where is this "appearance of impropriety" standard documented? Is that a law, regulation, or norm? If a norm, too bad. As Trump has shown, they don't matter anymore. There has been absolutely no due process provided to Cook. Are you really supporting the U.S. becoming a country in which unsubstantiated politically-motivated accusations are enough to force a resignation that could disrupt only on the U.S. but the world's economy? Surely, you are smarter than that?

Again, this issue is now before the courts. Why are so many unwilling to allow the legal process to continue?

The accusations are substantiated.

I am struck by how unqualified Cook is for the job. Her most well known publication explored the connection between the issuance of patents and lynchings. The work was not submitted to a peer reviewed publication and was later found to be highly flawed because she concluded that patents stopped issuing in 1900, but the database she relied on ceased collating data in 1900. And really, lynchings began in 1900? I think not as even the most casual historian of the Reconstruction era knows. This is what passes for research in an identity politics academic environment. Note this publication is not an economic piece.

My recently deceased twin was an economist of some renown. He began his career in a tenure track position at UVA, and published in the field of econometrics. He moved into the field of investment management, having one of the best small and mid cap funds for nearly 30 years. He also taught adjunct in money and banking at a respected public university. He would have been the first to tell you that he was not qualified for the Fed, although he likely could have held his own. But a resume like Cook’s? With virtually no economic literature? No quant work? Unthinkable. I don’t like Trump and he lacks patience. Cook’s conduct will be her undoing and he should have let matters play out. But while not at issue in her termination, people who really know their stuff in this arena are struck by how identity politics have run amok. Of course after observing Claudine Gay’s flimsy CV who could be surprised? By the way there are qualified minority economists. But economists tend to be conservative or centrists - it is the nature of studying markets and incentives - and practicing academic economists have very deep math skills - my brother was phi beta kappa in math and found himself in the middle of the path math wise - so the typical qualified economist would have had trouble meeting Biden’s political litmus test. We need to get back to competence.


By the way I am at best only conversant in economics. Powell was like me a law review editor at the same school, and I could see how when combined with an investment banking career he could have a firm grip on monetary policy. The school back then had an impressive roster of tax, corporate and finance talent. My brother and I thought Bernanke supremely well qualified because his academic interest was the Depression and avoiding that awful historical situation was an impressive qualification for the job. We ignore the past at our peril.

By the way I am not particularly political. One of the effective things Obama and Geithner did was save the banking system in 2009. Of course it is incredibly difficult for them to take credit because saving Wall Street over Main Street was an odious task. But the European Central Bank dithered for years to their economic detriment- so in contrast I think Obama and Geithner did the right thing for the country. Of course conservatives are loathe to credit Obama for anything and progressives don’t want to discuss protecting too big to fail banks and GSE’s. Again competence is competence, especially under pressure.

One of the things about a 37 trillion debt is that historical assumptions about interest rates and monetary policy may no longer apply, at least in terms of short term impact on the economy. In this vein the Fed has some self inquiry to do. Trump doesn’t help.

You think Trump is going to nominate someone qualified and not a loyal lackey? I guess you proved you aren’t political because you are clueless about Trumps motives.

As for economists being conservative, that’s only a few specific universities, Chicago and George Mason. Sure, maybe the Wall Street economists claim to financially conservative and socially liberal but that’s truly about self interest in getting low taxes on their wealth.

[Anonymous]

I certainly made no claim Trump would nominate someone not political or competent. Why would you say that I did? You likely are not stupid or poorly educated, so why would you imply I made such a claim? Trump really causes people to become emotional.

One could hope Trump would nominate someone with deep economic experience- I think unlikely but if the bar is Lisa Cook it doesn’t take much - but the chances appointing someone not political are near zero.

Commentators have said that the Fed deserves this because of the activist and political role they took in 2008/09, but I don’t agree. The negative externalities of turning Wall Street and indeed the entire global financial system into a casino were enormous and the Fed had to step in lockstep with Treasury to fix matters. No matter the political fallout it was necessary. I recall reading about synthetic CDO’s in 2008 for the first time and thinking what an insane world we entered into. I think it took smarts to do what Obama did - no matter if he couldn’t take full credit for it.

What needs discussion - and this is what I mean by not being political- is the Fed’s role today. Can they think success is obtained by merely adjusting interest rates? Look at last fall. The Fed reduces rates by a half a point despite really significant inflation. One could deem this a political act, and maybe it was in part, but what really matters are consequences. Mortgage rates didn't go down - they stayed the same because 10 year t-bill rates are what really matter for 30 year obligations like mortgages and they stayed the same. A transitory interest rate reduction didn’t help. We have a large debt supply and have to pay to keep borrowers, especially long term ones.,The economic world is different with a 37 trillion dollar debt - begging the question of whether the Fed’s interest rate lever is not historically what it used to be. And the Fed has to address this question - and not just academic economists. The Fed has real skin in the game. It makes a difference.

A corollary to this entire question is that Trump’s political call for lower interest rates may not bring about the economic growth he and his supporters think it will. If I were taking a position in the market I would not be anywhere near as bullish as Trump. Just a thought. It would be more persuasive if I put my own skin in the game.

A name drop - my late father was a friend of Volcker and the Fed was his client. My brother used to remark about those days that with 15-18 percent interest rates in the early 80’s Volcker’s mission was easy to comprehend but difficult to accomplish, especially in an environment then where energy prices zoomed to new heights. Inflation was the mortal enemy and constriction of the money supply was the antidote. While that correlation still exists, this is a much different economy today than back then. Pundits talk about nascent de globalization, but it is still a factor and our huge debt makes us far less nimble. These are the questions of today. And they will be relevant long past Trump.

[Anonymous]

Look at the fraud Trump has committed! The only reason he is targeting Lisa Cook is because she is a black woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I certainly made no claim Trump would nominate someone not political or competent. Why would you say that I did? You likely are not stupid or poorly educated, so why would you imply I made such a claim? Trump really causes people to become emotional.

One could hope Trump would nominate someone with deep economic experience- I think unlikely but if the bar is Lisa Cook it doesn’t take much - but the chances appointing someone not political are near zero.

Commentators have said that the Fed deserves this because of the activist and political role they took in 2008/09, but I don’t agree. The negative externalities of turning Wall Street and indeed the entire global financial system into a casino were enormous and the Fed had to step in lockstep with Treasury to fix matters. No matter the political fallout it was necessary. I recall reading about synthetic CDO’s in 2008 for the first time and thinking what an insane world we entered into. I think it took smarts to do what Obama did - no matter if he couldn’t take full credit for it.

What needs discussion - and this is what I mean by not being political- is the Fed’s role today. Can they think success is obtained by merely adjusting interest rates? Look at last fall. The Fed reduces rates by a half a point despite really significant inflation. One could deem this a political act, and maybe it was in part, but what really matters are consequences. Mortgage rates didn't go down - they stayed the same because 10 year t-bill rates are what really matter for 30 year obligations like mortgages and they stayed the same. A transitory interest rate reduction didn’t help. We have a large debt supply and have to pay to keep borrowers, especially long term ones.,The economic world is different with a 37 trillion dollar debt - begging the question of whether the Fed’s interest rate lever is not historically what it used to be. And the Fed has to address this question - and not just academic economists. The Fed has real skin in the game. It makes a difference.

A corollary to this entire question is that Trump’s political call for lower interest rates may not bring about the economic growth he and his supporters think it will. If I were taking a position in the market I would not be anywhere near as bullish as Trump. Just a thought. It would be more persuasive if I put my own skin in the game.

A name drop - my late father was a friend of Volcker and the Fed was his client. My brother used to remark about those days that with 15-18 percent interest rates in the early 80’s Volcker’s mission was easy to comprehend but difficult to accomplish, especially in an environment then where energy prices zoomed to new heights. Inflation was the mortal enemy and constriction of the money supply was the antidote. While that correlation still exists, this is a much different economy today than back then. Pundits talk about nascent de globalization, but it is still a factor and our huge debt makes us far less nimble. These are the questions of today. And they will be relevant long past Trump.

Now I understand why you seem to only be able to post by treatise.

[Anonymous]

Pulte used this primary residence “fraud” because it’s like speeding, everyone does it

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-cabinet-mortgage-fraud

Banks should just do due diligence and not depend on a checkbox. Pull their next years tax return, and if not the primary, the mortgage automatically adjusts.

[Anonymous]

With these claims of Cook's lack of qualifications--which were pushed by the Manhattan Institute and Reason magazine--were these questions about her research asked during the confirmation hearings? PP's post almost directly quotes one of those sources I found.
It sounds like she did some bad math but just wondering.

Re: academic economists not being conservative--friend of my son's who considered grad school with his econ degree found very few places with anyone who taught new areas of economic theory that, as a progressive, he was interested in. Ended up going into the job market instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:I haven't read the article but there are a couple of points that you have confused and/or ignored. First, what Trump and Pulte have been talking about is her mortgage agreements, not her applications. We don't know what was actually on her applications. Second, Cook has not yet responded to the allegations. She may well have a valid explanation. In the U.S., you are innocent until proven guilty. Trump and Pulte have appointed themselves both judge and jury. But, they do not have that authority. You seem to be assuming her guilt as well. That may not be a valid assumption.

Next, let's assume that she is guilty. It is not clear that would constitute "cause". The Federal Reserve Act does not define "cause", but other laws define it as activities involving her official duties. Her mortgages were concluded before she was confirmed by the Senate, therefore, before she began her official duties. It's like saying that if she had a speeding ticket while in college it would constitute cause for being fired today. That is not normally how such laws have been applied.

There are also arguments that can be made regarding her being targeted for political reasons and whether Pulte abused his authority. Ultimately, Courts will have to decide whether Cook can be removed or not.

The house value claim is mostly a non-issue, but I think you are also confusing issues.

Criminal guilt is a matter of innocence until proven guilty. But in the position of Fed governor, the mere appearance of impropriety is sufficient to warrant a resignation. There have been similar recent instances of senior Fed officials resigning over conduct that was very legal and permissible, but had the appearance of impropriety.

I didn't say anything about the house value so I am not sure why you are bringing that up. I don't know anything about the value of the properties. Where is this "appearance of impropriety" standard documented? Is that a law, regulation, or norm? If a norm, too bad. As Trump has shown, they don't matter anymore. There has been absolutely no due process provided to Cook. Are you really supporting the U.S. becoming a country in which unsubstantiated politically-motivated accusations are enough to force a resignation that could disrupt only on the U.S. but the world's economy? Surely, you are smarter than that?

Again, this issue is now before the courts. Why are so many unwilling to allow the legal process to continue?

The accusations are substantiated.

God you people are dumb ASF. Substantiated? When did a judge or jury substantiate a mere allegation against a political opponent without any evidence and defense. I wish some of you people actually experienced a swatting or false accusation with potential negative consequences to understand that every accusation is not truth.

[Anonymous]

Trump Is Accusing Foes With Multiple Mortgages of Fraud. Records Show 3 of His Cabinet Members Have Them.

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-cabinet-mortgage-fraud

Imagine that

[Anonymous]

[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:With these claims of Cook's lack of qualifications--which were pushed by the Manhattan Institute and Reason magazine--were these questions about her research asked during the confirmation hearings? PP's post almost directly quotes one of those sources I found.
It sounds like she did some bad math but just wondering.

Re: academic economists not being conservative--friend of my son's who considered grad school with his econ degree found very few places with anyone who taught new areas of economic theory that, as a progressive, he was interested in. Ended up going into the job market instead.

So a friend of your son said a few departments he looked into weren’t progressive? That’s hardly a signal that most economists are conservative. I’m a liberal but not progressive. It’s well documented that they lean left, except Chicago and GMU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Trump Is Accusing Foes With Multiple Mortgages of Fraud. Records Show 3 of His Cabinet Members Have Them.

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-cabinet-mortgage-fraud

Imagine that

NP. Here are the relevant quotes for anyone who is too lazy to click on the link. When will these three cabinet members be fired?

Underscoring how common the practice is, ProPublica found that at least three of Trump’s Cabinet members call multiple homes their primary residences on mortgages. We discovered the loans while examining financial disclosure forms, county real estate records and publicly available mortgage data provided by Hunterbrook Media.

Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer entered into two primary-residence mortgages in quick succession, including for a second home near a country club in Arizona, where she’s known to vacation. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has primary-residence mortgages in New Jersey and Washington, D.C. Lee Zeldin, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, has one primary-residence mortgage in Long Island and another in Washington, D.C., according to loan records.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look at the fraud Trump has committed! The only reason he is targeting Lisa Cook is because she is a black woman.

Did she not commit fraud? Nothing to "target" if no fraud committed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pulte used this primary residence “fraud” because it’s like speeding, everyone does it

https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-cabinet-mortgage-fraud

Banks should just do due diligence and not depend on a checkbox. Pull their next years tax return, and if not the primary, the mortgage automatically adjusts.

The banks and nonbank lenders are not going to enforce this because (1) they want to close the loan and generate the fees and (2) all the legal liability is on the borrower.

There's zero incentives for lenders to police this, especially when most lenders sell the loan onward to securitization investors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at the fraud Trump has committed! The only reason he is targeting Lisa Cook is because she is a black woman.

Did she not commit fraud? Nothing to "target" if no fraud committed.

+1 Did she, or did she not do it? It has now risen to a DOJ investigation, with grand juries involved. The statute does not require criminal conviction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look at the fraud Trump has committed! The only reason he is targeting Lisa Cook is because she is a black woman.

It's a yes and no response to your comment. Lisa Cook is being targeted, I agree. And she's being targeted because she is the epitome of the worst of DEI, the continual failing upwards by a mediocre talent in the name of identity politics and representation. I do think it's unfortunate, but it is also unfortunate she was nominated in the first place, a minor economic historian (not economist) whose department did not want to give her tenure (overruled by the university who said they needed more black professors) and whose research is so deeply flawed to effectively be made up (as the other well-written poster on this thread has already covered). She is not among the best and brightest, not by a long shot.

I don't have to be a Trump supporter or MAGA or Republican to know there is a growing problem among Democrats with identity politics and nominating unqualified or lesser qualified people for prominent roles in the name of diversity and representation. This is a particular problem with judicial appointees and I include KJB in this category too, although she's not as bad as Lisa Cook is but it's telling that even other liberal justices on SCOTUS have rebuked her in their rulings, not just the conservative ones.