There’s also this offering by a Muppet (the term used by some at Goldman to describe clients who they were “ripping off”) and it includes the following joke that begs the question of whether bankers have finally surpassed lawyers in the jokes department:

What’s the difference between a dead cat on the road and a dead banker on the road?

There are skid marks around the cat.

Didn’t that used to be a lawyer joke?

He calls the environment at the firm “toxic and destructive” and lays the blame at how leadership has changed, noting that “if you make enough money for the firm (and are not currently an ax murderer) you will be promoted into a position of influence”. The conclusion? Get rid of the “morally bankrupt people, no matter how much money they make for the firm”.

FT Alphaville had this interesting take on what may have motivated Mr. Smith to vent:

I wonder how his exit interview went. He must have had a little twinkle in his eye…

From the RJ Matson archive at the St. Louis Post Dispatch.

Under the arrangement, part of the recent $25 billion settlement of alleged foreclosure abuses between government officials and five large lenders, Bank of America will make deeper and broader cuts in balances than other banks

The plan will offer qualifying borrowers a chance to cut their mortgage balances to their home’s current market value. Other banks are required under the national settlement to cut principal to no more than 120% of the home’s value.

Borrowers who qualify are expected to receive principal reductions averaging more than $100,000, a Bank of America spokesman said. The pact’s total value will depend on how many borrowers take up the offer.

Based on the 200,000+ homeowners the article cites as being eligible for this action, a little simple math puts the total principal writedowns by BofA at over $20 billion! Now that seems like an even more unbelievable number than the $100,000 per household.

Of course, per the report, this will allow BofA to avoid $850 million in fines and they’ll save a bundle in taxes by adjusting these mortgage balances down, many of which they’d end up taking back as foreclosures anyway.

I guess homeowners are finally getting their bailout too!

The term “loan shark” comes to mind when listening to this depiction of what Goldman did and, paraphrasing former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, financial innovation that, over the long-run, benefits the economy stopped with the ATM machine.

A ‘deadbeat’ bailout – NY Sun
The Mortgage Deal: A Reality Check – NPR
Mortgage deal: What the critics say – CNN/Money
U.S. banks agree to $25 billion in homeowner help – Reuters
Settlement launches foreclosure reckoning – Washington Post
Why the Foreclosure Deal May Not Be So Hot After All – Taibblog
Why Millions Won’t Get Help From Big Mortgage Settlement – ProPublica
Top Twelve Reasons Why You Should Hate the Mortgage Settlement – Naked Capitalism
Foreclosure Settlement Falls Short, Still Worth the Wait: View – Bloomberg
Is The Foreclosure Settlement A Shadow Bailout For Broke California – Zero Hedge
What the foreclosure settlement means for you – CNN/Money
Mortgage Settlement and Negative Equity – Calculated Risk
Robo-Deal Is All About Lowering Mortgage Principal – CNBC
Banks Not Off Hook With $25B Mortgage Agreement – Bloomberg
Mortgage Plan Gives Billions to Homeowners, but With Exceptions – NY Times
Florida Homeowners Find Little to Cheer in Deal With ‘Gangsters’ – Bloomberg
Mortgage Deal Props Up California House of Cards – Bloomberg
Cramer: This Mortgage Settlement Is Huge – The Street
Foreclosure Deal to Spur U.S. Home Seizures – Bloomberg
The Mortgage Settlement Is Fine – DealBreaker

I’d be lying if I said I’d read all of these (or more than a couple for that matter), but I intend to take a look here this morning. Just based on the headlines, it would appear that the deal is getting a mixed reaction.

Says Stockman:

This is ultimately, at the end of the day, a bailout for JP Morgan and Wells Fargo. They’re the big writers of second mortgages and home equity lines. Those – and there’s two or three or four hundred billion dollars in the top three or four banks – are in great jeopardy in the case of of homeowners who have mortgages, that are primary mortgages, that are way under water on primary mortgages and are likely to default or throw in the keys at some point down the road.

Good point…

New boss, same as the old boss … and the ones before that.

Maybe we’ll get a good third party candidate this year…

On a related note, according to this McClatchy report, BofA and other too-big-to-fail banks have settled on their pick for President this fall – Mitt Romney. Employees at the big banks gave the Romney campaign $600,000 through September of last year, dwarfing the $200,000 sent to the bankers’ second choice – President Barack Obama – virtually ensuring that there will be little change to the status quo, big-bank-wise, until 2017 or later.

One step in that direction originates in this part of the country where, according to this Bloomberg story, farmers are suing MF Global in an attempt to recover their money.

The lawsuit filed today by three farmers and a cattle- raising operation in Montana seeks to represent a nationwide group of commodities futures customers whose money went missing amid the $41 billion bankruptcy of MF Global, parent of the futures brokerage that is being liquidated. A trustee is looking for $1.2 billion or more in money missing from commodity customers’ accounts.

Corzine, the former governor of New Jersey, and other executives at MF Global made “knowingly false statements” to induce the plaintiffs to enter into contracts with the brokerage, according to the complaint filed in federal court in Missoula, Montana.

The executives failed to disclose to customers that their money was used to finance MF Global’s bad bets on European sovereign debt, the farmers said in the complaint.

What’s really disturbing about the whole idea of farmers suing Wall Street futures trading firms is that, more than 100 years ago,  futures markets were originally set up in the MidWest specifically for farmers and that system worked pretty well until the last decade or two when Wall Street began to really throw its money around.

Futures markets had always been a way for buyers (e.g., food manufacturers) and sellers (e.g., farmers) to lock in prices and add some predictability to their business while a relatively few number of speculators would bet on which way prices would go, adding liquidity to these markets in the process.

Now, you’ve got some well connected, ex-Goldman Sachs head who manages to run a futures trading firm into the ground and a billion dollars – some portion of it belonging to farmers all across the country – goes missing.

What a sad commentary on the direction the nation has been heading.